Disruptors and building jump gates...

[matchbox2022]

I would love peoples thoughts on this, and Vice's input if available on if it would be possible to add two features to this wonderful game.





1)
As far as I've been able to tell, Leech's are quite a fun little EMP grenade, what isn't so fun is firing a disruptor, having an incredible flash and boom along with its price......is very climatic, only to realize it does little more than act as peanut butter in your jump drive. It makes it little more than a very expensive dazzle weapon.

Far from the fulcrum torpedos / instant death warheads of old, I wish to ask the public here how they would feel if, instead of acting as instant death weapons, that disruptors indeed disrupted everything.
All ships and stations in it's vicinity would on detonation have;

- Shields lowered to red levels, or even disabled for a given amount of time akin to the jump drive disable time.

- All systems would be affected by the Leech-like effect for twice as long if not longer

- Jump drives would still not function for the given time.

- And a 10 exodus missiles level of damage applied to ONLY the immediate (100 meters) area where the distruptor struck.

This would give the impression that it is indeed a mini-nuclear EMP weapon, designed to knock out electrical based systems, and well worth the price in a station assault with all the shield stacking going on. The price still makes it prohibitive to repeatively use, and the lack of damage to a 4 km area impeeds its use as an instant win weapon.

2)
The ability to build JUMP gates.
It could take a very large amount of time, and specific...very expensive / rare materials and items.
But I know through charting unknown space with human players....it's been a lot of fun at 4am.
To truly keep "building up" the universe that way....just wow.

Hell if it took co-operative teamwork as a requirement to build a GATE that'd be fantastic as well.

But the ability to go through uncharted space on a server, set up a base, and BUILD a jump gate (perhaps only one pair per player, so as to limit their use and make it more practical to implement) would be an incredibly awesome thing to do, indeed building on the already known universe...and it could be server dependent of course (so the default universe isn't changed, much like the current setup for stations).


Please let me know what you think or would tweak in these categories....and if you wouldn't mind Vice letting me / us know what you think....or if it's even possible in the near future to implement. I'm pretty sure a lot of us have thought about these topics, just no one has said anything as of yet.

[Janus]

Don't know about the rest, but you couldn't build just one jump gate. You'd have to build 2. Well, you could just build one, but it's going to sit there and do nothing without a partner to receive travelers passing through it. This means building a gate and then noting the coordinates, traveling to the place you want it to connect to and then building one there and linking it to the first. Not sure how you would link them. And if they are buildable, then they most likely will be destoyable. By the time you get to the destination and get the 2nd built, you might get a null signal when you attempted to complete the link (cause the gate at the link coordinates no longer exists. i.e. it's been destroyed by someone).

[matchbox2022]

That is true. One gate would be inactive....or it could just send you to a completely random location being an unbound gate.
I figured that having one player being able to build one pair, such as jump 1 jump 2 as buildabless would be the only practical way.

Either that or you do it like bluetooth, have the gates have a name to type in in order to link them, with a password. That way, two separate players in distant corners of the galaxy could "pair" their gates.


In programming hell somewhere...
It'd be pretty cool to have a strange effect occur if you could bind one gate to two, then effectively make an NPC copy of yourself.
Star trek moment gasp!

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by matchbox2022]

[sundalo]

The disruptor missile acting as an emp sounds good, would probably become another missile since the current disruptor disables the jump drive. I wouldn't mind crafting this sort of missile for station assault etc.

[Janus]

I don't think Vice would allow gates to connect to non-contiguous systems. For example, Sapphire to Pearl directly. Or worse yet, Pearl to Sierra.

[matchbox2022]

Good point there.
Unless SUPER gates could be built!

But yes, I think having a coded sector "range" should be something that's part of that build / pair process... like 50 sectors.

[Vice]

We've had some past discussions on building jump gate pairs, generally negative responses to it due to reduction of universe scope/size/challenge/risk (making things much easier to get to quickly, especially a few of the more high end systems that were originally designed to be difficult to get to). Other suggested making such an option extremely expensive, but still never got much interest or support.

One question comes to mind with the second option. If the disruptor was modified to behave more like an EMP weapon, would you be willing to accept the same affects applied to your ship that is has on the other ships in the blast range, as it does now?

[Rubber Chicken]

Since it seems Rage missiles do not work on Station module EMP blasts, that's one effect I'd like to see added to a disruptor.

I'm ok with the 100m 10 exodus blast radius and EMP effect suggestions. I really wouldn't mind seeing some sort of heavy-damage anti-capital ship / station module weapon.

If the disruptor was improperly used, and the launching pilot gets caught in the area-of-effect, then yes, they should eat the same damage they attempted to deal out.

IMO if disruptors got any of these added 'buffs' they should cost at least 5-10 times more credits than they currently do in-game.
----

I am not for DIY gates, and I'm definitely not for anything that requires mandatory MP co-op to build or destroy. I like that the single player game-mechanics are as identical to the multiplayer as possible, and I'm sure there are strictly-SP players that appreciate it as well.
----

Another thought...

What if disruptors could also temporarily disable jump gates?
If a jump gate is disabled, the incoming and out going traffic would be stopped for, let's say 20 seconds. Any ships that are in transit when the gate is hit would be randomly sent to another commonly-known gate in the charted systems.

That's something I'd like to play with.



[Edited on 2-17-2016 by Rubber Chicken]

[Marvin]

If the disruptor was modified to behave more like an EMP weapon, would you be willing to accept the same affects applied to your ship that is has on the other ships in the blast range, as it does now?

That would only make sense. Because, if you could protect your ship from the EMP (with its limited energy output), then a station would have an even greater ability to do likewise.


P.S. I'd be for a template which allowed you to build a jumpgate. And I know the perfect one-off location where that template could be found.

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by Marvin]

[Rubber Chicken]

P.S. I'd be for a template which allowed you to build a jumpgate. And I know the perfect one-off location where that template could be found.

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by Marvin]

No offense meant Marv, you are a valued community member, and sometimes it's nice for those of that status to have 'one-off' things built into the game, but...

If there was a one-off gate template, and anybody (besides Vice) knew where it was on day one of it's implementation, then I would want it even less than I already do.

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by Rubber Chicken]

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by Rubber Chicken]

[matchbox2022]

We've had some past discussions on building jump gate pairs, generally negative responses to it due to reduction of universe scope/size/challenge/risk (making things much easier to get to quickly, especially a few of the more high end systems that were originally designed to be difficult to get to). Other suggested making such an option extremely expensive, but still never got much interest or support.

One question comes to mind with the second option. If the disruptor was modified to behave more like an EMP weapon, would you be willing to accept the same affects applied to your ship that is has on the other ships in the blast range, as it does now?

Unless I was out of range, YES of course, it'd make for a good reason to get out.
I figured jump gates would be difficult but an interesting avenue. There's a new system called eureka on darkstar, just one of the colonized places that would've built a jumpgate if they could've daisychained some together.

[SeeJay]

I still vote no to Building Jump-gates. The universe would shrink to about one sector with that technology.

[matchbox2022]

I still vote no to Building Jump-gates. The universe would shrink to about one sector with that technology.

Even with sector limits? Making it so you must daisy chain just like in charted space?

[SeeJay]

I still vote no to Building Jump-gates. The universe would shrink to about one sector with that technology.

Even with sector limits? Making it so you must daisy chain just like in charted space?

I don't really understand what you mean with Daisy Chained?
They are paired as they are now, otherwise they won't work!

I just see new gates popping up everywhere if it was possible to build. Just don't see the
point with that.

[matchbox2022]

I mean, if I want to go to pearl from saphire, I need to go from system to system. The gates are chained together.
You'd have to make a similar system.
Except in the case of riftspace of course.

It's all good regardless, just trying to get a feel for the two topics. I care a lot more about the EMP / disruptor topic honestly.

Felt like topic two was more of a "would be nice"

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by matchbox2022]

[SeeJay]

I mean, if I want to go to pearl from saphire, I need to go from system to system. The gates are chained together.
You'd have to make a similar system.
Except in the case of riftspace of course.

It's all good regardless, just trying to get a feel for the two topics. I care a lot more about the EMP / disruptor topic honestly.

Felt like topic two was more of a "would be nice"

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by matchbox2022]

How would that work in deep space?

If I have found system X far out from Cerulean, but no systems in between,
"the chain" would be a direct link out there, even if there are systems in between?

Either way, I still vote no since the universe would shrink way too much.

[Janus]

I mean, if I want to go to pearl from saphire, I need to go from system to system. The gates are chained together.
You'd have to make a similar system.
Except in the case of riftspace of course.

It's all good regardless, just trying to get a feel for the two topics. I care a lot more about the EMP / disruptor topic honestly.

Felt like topic two was more of a "would be nice"

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by matchbox2022]

How would that work in deep space?

If I have found system X far out from Cerulean, but no systems in between,
"the chain" would be a direct link out there, even if there are systems in between?

Either way, I still vote no since the universe would shrink way too much.

You'd build your first gate in inhabited space. Then fly to where you want it's mate. Build that and link them. Then a short distance away, build another gate. Fly to the next waypoint, build the fourth gate which would be the mate of the third. Then build a fifth gate then fly to the next waypoint, build a gate and repeat until you got to your destination.

But I do agree that it would make the universe too small.

[Edited on 2-17-2016 by Janus]

[SeeJay]

So, as I said: There would be a direct link to wherever you want to go. No need for any chains!

No thank you!

[Marvin]

No offense meant Marv, you are a valued community member, and sometimes it's nice for those of that status to have 'one-off' things built into the game, but...

If there was a one-off gate template, and anybody (besides Vice) knew where it was on day one of it's implementation, then I would want it even less than I already do.

I don't remember the location. But, if you want to see the place I'm talking about, it can be viewed starting at stage 53 of either of the second two quests.

[Janus]

So, as I said: There would be a direct link to wherever you want to go. No need for any chains!

No thank you!

Not quite a direct link, but close. You would still have to traverse several gates so it's not totally direct, but they could be built in such a way so you'd exit one gate and enter the next within a second or two. This assumes your heading is correct when entering the 1st gate. If gates going one way are all built with the next gate north and you enter the 1st one going south, you'd have to turn around.

But I do get your point.

[Marvin]

If gates going one way are all built with the next gate north and you enter the 1st one going south, you'd have to turn around.

Try entering a gate while heading south. Then check which way you're heading after exiting the gate.

If you could build your own gates, the jump distance would need to be limited in order to keep from shrinking the galaxy. For example, say the maximum distance between gates is set to one hundred sectors. Which would be the same as having a super jump drive ... except, with a super jump drive, nobody else could make use of the advanced technology.

[Vice]

One shot solutions to potential module destruction will likely be something I'll want to avoid. I'd much rather it involve a rather slow attack process requiring multiple passes and lots of shots. The idea does bring up a broader issue that I recently discussed with another player via e-mail in relation to hiding/masking sector locations.

Feature creep on such issues will likely need to be watched and considered carefully. In relation to sector locations, if history is any guide, I suspect the lack of location data will result in players wanting to back track the effort (you'll notice some indications of this already). They may start to ask for new sensor options, countered by new cloaking options, countered by new detection options... repeating etc, etc. And then in the end, it'll get back to pretty close to where it started (going back to an earlier 2007 era pattern in a previous Evochron game).

The same could happen with new weapon options to counter new armor/defense levels of modules. If there is to be a chronic give and take, it will likely follow the same pattern, eventually being largely reversed back to closer to what it started as.

And if such patterns begin again, it will mean I’ll spend a lot of development time on such things that could be invested in other things. So it’s just something to keep an eye on.


As it currently stands, command modules now have much greater armor levels. Shield modules stack their regeneration, but not damage reduction. Shield module placement has been changed to require another module type to limit how many can be built in one localized area. Shield modules must still be destroyed before it becomes practical to destroy a command module. The challenge of destroyed stacked/linked shield modules is likely pretty high if there are more than about 4 or 5 in one area. So if additional changes are desired, one that might be effective could involve reducing the regeneration capability with each added shield module. For example, if two shield modules are nearby full regeneration credit is applied from both. If more shield modules are added, they begin to lose their regeneration benefit so perhaps beyond 4 or 5, no additional benefit is available other than raw redundancy when they start to be destroyed. So without an added regeneration benefit, it's more practical to destroy those individual modules.

To me, rather than one shot shield knockouts, shield benefit limiting might be a more appropriate approach to trying to balance out module destruction for solo attacks while keeping a fairly challenging level of time and attack.

[Marvin]

Reminds me of that episode of Star Trek where Kirk was made up like a Romulan so he could steal a stealth device. At the end of it all, Spock remarked that military secrets were the most fleeting of them all ... for every device there will be a counter device ... then a counter-counter device. On and on. But what I don't want to see is that, if chess is too difficult for some players, we end up getting checkers instead.

[Delta99]

I like the idea of building gates (as long as possible in SP too) but having them with minimal range and other potential properties so that they are not "over powered". And they need to be destroyable by players and AI. They should be expensive enough that it isn't going to be easy to just build a bunch of them. And if they are destroyable then you need to build defences too.

Most of the negatives brought up here I think can be handled by a proper implementation.

[matchbox2022]

I'd much rather have in needed disruptor which perhaps help a station assault but not conclude itas in not a one shot deal. Against capital ships and fleets of ffighters it'd be fantastic to have a shield knockout emp leech wide area effect.
Gate building.....I figured it more a Pipedreamthan a reality. It would make the galaxy smaller this is true.

Hey marvin or anyone,
How would one implement that via a quest mission?
I've still yet to learn how to do that.

[Edited on 2-18-2016 by matchbox2022]