Change Disruptors?

[Sinbad]

Agreed Radikal. I can imagine how both the mine and torpedo version could make for some clever strategic planning in MP. A small group of allied players could plan a very effective attack on an enemy group. One attacking player could engage the enemy forces with the intention of setting off a Disruptor. Meanwhile the other pilots hang back out of EMP range, ready to jump in as soon as they receive the signal, and attack the disabled enemy forces. With the 10 second arming delay and warning, I think it would be quite difficult to coordinate such an attack with enough element of surprise, but what a thrill it would be if you successfully pull it off!

[Marvin]

With the 10 second arming delay and warning, I think it would be quite difficult to coordinate such an attack with enough element of surprise, but what a thrill it would be if you successfully pull it off!

Maybe it would work the first time. But it's a sure candidate for, "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me."

[Sinbad]

LOL Marvin! But I can see possible variations of this attack strategy: For example send in 3 pilots for the initial assault... two will engage the enemy to keep them distracted while the third launches the Disruptor. Ok, so those 3 will all get short-circuited, but then the rest of the squadron jumps in for the final attack on the disabled ships.

[Radikal]

Agreed Radikal. I can imagine how both the mine and torpedo version could make for some clever strategic planning in MP. A small group of allied players could plan a very effective attack on an enemy group. One attacking player could engage the enemy forces with the intention of setting off a Disruptor. Meanwhile the other pilots hang back out of EMP range, ready to jump in as soon as they receive the signal, and attack the disabled enemy forces.

Didn't I just throw that out there?

With the 10 second arming delay and warning, I think it would be quite difficult to coordinate such an attack with enough element of surprise, but what a thrill it would be if you successfully pull it off!

That's why you use mines, no warnings. :evil grin:

[Sinbad]

Would Disruptor mines have exactly the same effect as the missile version? If they give no warning, would there even be any reason to use missile Disruptors?

[DeathTech]

The thing I don't like about it, is the advantage is to the player shooting it, and it can't be avoided.
You also basicly remove from play: Missiles, shields, beams, jump drives, automated targeting. This means there are 5 game aspects removed with one action.

On top of that, only a skilled veteran player who is good at inertia combat manoeuvres would be able to turn around and take advantage of this weapon being used against them.

The AI are not bad at aiming either making you and instant bacon burger if nearby AI are in the fight.
This is an insta-kill weapon. It will become everyone first choice for engagement. And everyone's last.

It stops you from running. It stops you from defending. It stops you from attacking.

On the other hand. (Since I have been playing devils advocate in this matter.)
It gives significant value to the words "Shield Booster Consumable".

But again, only skilled players can truely use this weapon to their advantage, unless the point is to grief. And I can never stop to express just how hard it will be used to grief and inevitably be used to grief.
On top of that. I don't like having to cram a bunch of (pardon my vocabulary) shitty consumables, for the event someone including possible AI. Decide it is funny to hit me with this.

I know, personally if I get hit by this, it will be an insta-kill. I am a pretty poor fighter pilot.
IMO this weapon will just make newbies no longer be interested in the game in a same way players get pestered out of other games with similar things.

Fact is that this weapon as described puts the whole game in which at least a newbie stands a chance to fight back and takes it away saying. If your aggressor is not a newbie, you are dead, with zero chance of defending yourself.

Now here is another scenario I want you to think of. It disrupts missile lock yes?
What if I decide to fire it. Then before it explodes fire a regular good old high yield tracking missile on the same target.
What happens then?
Death. Thats what.
.
..
...
....
.....
GOD I LOVE PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE.
So much fun to look at the badside.

[Vice]

You also basicly remove from play: Missiles, shields, beams, jump drives, automated targeting. This means there are 5 game aspects removed with one action.

Hopefully, you caught my post. That's exactly what some players are asking for. However, it is temporary and more of a pause before the storm of activity rather than permanently wiping them out.

On top of that, only a skilled veteran player who is good at inertia combat manoeuvres would be able to turn around and take advantage of this weapon being used against them.

Please explain. It takes very little skill to punch the afterburner away from it with the 10 second warning and/or engage the jump drive. So more information on what you're referring to would be helpful.

The AI are not bad at aiming either making you and instant bacon burger if nearby AI are in the fight.
This is an insta-kill weapon. It will become everyone first choice for engagement. And everyone's last.

How so? If the AI are anywhere in range (even out of range by up to about 3K), they get hit by it also and are likewise disabled.

It stops you from running. It stops you from defending. It stops you from attacking.

That's the stated goal. And it's already the case with disruptors now in terms of escape by jump drive.

On the other hand. (Since I have been playing devils advocate in this matter.)
It gives significant value to the words "Shield Booster Consumable".

Yes it would, quite a dramatic increase in its value considering a player could restore their shields much faster after such a weapon, if they are willing to dedicated a hardpoint or two to those boosters.

I know, personally if I get hit by this, it will be an insta-kill. I am a pretty poor fighter pilot.

You still have the option of beginning an afterburner escape or jumping away before detonation if you do not want to be involved in a post disruptor combat situation.

Now here is another scenario I want you to think of. It disrupts missile lock yes?
What if I decide to fire it. Then before it explodes fire a regular good old high yield tracking missile on the same target.
What happens then?
Death. Thats what.

As indicated, it is possible to have the EMP disrupt the missile system and force it to detonate also.

I appreciate your counter-point input, thanks for providing your feedback. Other thoughts on what I posted about on page 2?

[DeathTech]

Hopefully, you caught my post. That's exactly what some players are asking for. However, it is temporary and more of a pause before the storm of activity rather than permanently wiping them out.

I didn't at first. But I saw it now.

Lets see here.

Post Page 2:

Answer to first statement:
I made a gif for you to see what I mean.
It may be a bit small but I hope it comes across.


Statement 2:
Good stations should be immune, no point throwing away all the tweaking you just did to make them balanced.

Statement 3:
Good, stealth should remain unaffected.
HOWEVER. I do strongly feel if this would become a thing that it should prevent re-entering stealth for a limited time.

As such it prevents chicken hit and run stealth attacks.

Statement 4:
10 Seconds in a combat sense, yes plenty of time.
In a "I wish to jump somewhere not blindly and stupidly killing myself or just simply have it reject the jump because I can't open nav and click without panicing too quickly thus jumping somewhere totaly stupid and then being stranded for way longer than i'd like."
No, it should be longer than 10 seconds.

Hence its not fair on attempting to escape FORCING people to waste fuel to an OP weapon either by wastefull burn or jump.

And on the other side its not fair on the person shooting to have more than 10 seconds because you'll never catch them off guard quickly enough.

What you have there is you have to choose who to screw over.
Either way, someone is going to be mad at you at the end of the day. And curse the game stating the prefer to go play a "balanced" game. And that makes it bad for everyone who likes the game.

Statement 5:
This ties in with a statement on page 3.
Only a skilled player can do this:


Statement 6:
Disrupt:
"interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem."

Disable:
"limit (someone) in their movements, senses, or activities"
&
"put out of action"

This is a disabler.
It prevents you from running away. Puts your shields, mdts and targeting systems out of action.
It disables missiles and flat out destroys impending missiles from other hostiles & allies alike.

Before it disrupted the jumpdrive and temporarily disabled it.

Depending on the beholder and how you see it, you could consider it a disruptor of combat.
You could use it to disrupt a battle and flee.
But oh wait.
Thats a funny thing actualy. Nope, that is also disable.
"(of an action or circumstance) prevent or discourage (someone) from doing something."

I guess my point is, disruptor is a silly name.
I guess I can call dota stuns disrupts if I fancy, in the end its still classified a disable.
And my original point is mute as if I believe it probably didn't add anything useful to the conversation other than, it should have been called a disabler from the start.

(Because even in its original form it disabled the jumpdrive)
Just saying.

NOW TO THE THREAD ON PAGE 3!!!!
Statement 1:


Doesn't look like there was much suspending of combat.
Just someone dying in either or.

There won't be time to regen shields or other systems mid-combat.

If there is anything I have learned in my combat session with sinbad and delta99 is that I never stood a chance the second my shields died I was dead. Every, single, time.

Statement 2:
I was referring to this manoeuvre:


Turn and take advantage while maintaining a steady pace backwards at increasing velocity, shooting up the opponent still trying to get over the ridiculously flashy explosion explained to be the desired visual effect.

I was not referencing jumping or thrusting away.

Statement 3:
This depends on how you are going to deal with AI getting hit by it.

If you straight up disable them. Its OP. Because it disables AI shooting.
If you allow them to still shoot. Its OP. Because AI as far as I have seen have pretty perfect aim.
If you make them all get hit. Its OP. Because all your teammates get hit and agro to you.
If you only hit enemies. Its OP. Because it only hits enemies.

So really it depends on how you will treat the weapon as the developer.
AI get angry when you hit them. Are you going to cheat the mechanics and alter them not to get angry for getting hit by this missile? Well then its abusable against friendly AI.

But don't just tell us "yeah its okay to hit everyone with it". Because really it is definitely not okay to hit everyone with it.

On top of that.
You said sector. If so, does that mean if we use this near a station will it make the station permanently angry with us?
Be more specific on what it does, who it angers, ...
Because lets face it. This is up to you to decide. We can't make you choose how things work. We pitch suggestions and you make them a reality (sometimes).

This sounds like a really easy way to make no one like you. And I prefer not to have it in my game. If so, atleast allow a player to choose to have to live with OP weapons. Instead of forcing it upon potentially loads of people who don't monitor forums and absolutely hate these kinds of things.

This is your game, you are making it, and people regardless of what they like shouldn't always get what they want. Consider this, if you start adding op unbalanced things that are not thought through fully to your game. Will people still want it?

Perhaps the 15 people who do like the idea of OP weapons to ruin each others day might still play it. But people who don't desire such things will not want it in the game. So far all of the items in the game seem and look and feel balanced to a degree. This is unbalanced. And despite the idea in everyone head that it "levels the playing field". The gif I made is a 90% case of all dogfighting between small groups. One of the two died. Dependant on skill with inertia flight and manual aim.

It favours skilled players. And leaves new player to be repeatedly brutalised.

Statement 4:
At least the current version only disrupts the event of escape by jump. Leaving plenty of possibility to FLY away and try to out manoeuvre the enemy.

This new version will kill anyone trying to out manoeuvre leaving you with, run or die (or be a skilled manual fire inertia pilot).

Statement 5:

Yep, booster packs. Good thing.
Not good thing to force players to keep them handy or risk setting back several hours of gameplay (in some cases).
Thats no fun, and genuinely will make people want to stop playing permanently. No one wants to be forced to take shield packs with them and lose precious space for not being insta-killed.

I never have secondary hardpoints because I need the cargo space for playing the "Trade sim".
This impedes my progress for doing the thing I like because I am forced to drop one or two slots.
And for new players literally unaffordable.

Statement 6:

The one getting blown up will be me in every case.
I do not like that scenario. It is the reason I hate Elite Dangerous.
And the way talk is going, it will also be the reason I will hate Evochron.
(If I am forced to put up with it.)

Statement 7:
It better explode other missiles.
But on the same note.
It will make everyone reliant on missiles no longer want to play because their weapons are literally countered in a single shot not ever directed or blockable by them.

for example anyone reliant on regenerative missiles.
They will not be able to participate because most likely their strategies all revolve around regenerative missiles.

Lets make a checklist who gets ruined by this:
-New players
-Bad combat pilots
-Anyone not good at inertia
-Anyone reliant on missiles
-Anyone desiring to use their points for trading
-Anyone in the vicinity not participant in the battle.
-Depending on how you set things up, any AI.
-Depending on how you set things up, the shooting player.
-Depending on how you set things up, the team getting hit.
-Everyone present at the fight.
-Anyone hoping to survive a fight near a station (go go auto turret insta-kill)
-Everyone who on principal hates these kind of op weapons. (That would apparently be me and about 5 others.)

Thats a pretty big list. It makes me cringe. And want to go play something cute and non violent. Like --redacted--.

[matchbox2022]

With this setup I would use the mine instead of the "torpedo" version.
Especially useful in MP with wingmen; one pilot sacrifices by diving into a mass of opposition ships and drops a mine, the wingmen who stayed outside blast radius then come in and attack effected ships. Sounds like a great plan for those players that like to be aggressive or engage in pirate-like activities.

This could be a wonderful weapon that requires strategy to be truly effective, making it a good device to bring MP players together.

Yes. As far as this convo is going though, we're looking at just the torpedo

I'm also thinking about single player alot with this idea...a mine wouldn't be very useful if you needed to disable enemies from afar....
But I suppose the mine could be altered like this too, but that's probably for another conversation / we should see how this works out torpedo wise first.

And I agree, if it doesn't have an exhaust plume, like a mine, there shouldn't be a warning

[Marvin]

If this is implemented, I can't wait to test out what should be very effective counter-tactics. The kind that turn the attacker into the target.

[matchbox2022]

Hopefully, you caught my post. That's exactly what some players are asking for. However, it is temporary and more of a pause before the storm of activity rather than permanently wiping them out.

I didn't at first. But I saw it now.

Lets see here.

It's a post, not a guide.

People won't follow what you're trying to get across.

I think if enough people are voting that kinda gets across what's going through people's heads.
At that point it should at least be "tried"

Then it will either be good and need tweaking, bad or need tweaking.., or need tweaking... it won't be perfect, just attempting to get them re-focused into playability.
Any tweaks would be done via updates anyways.

Worst case scenario....if someone REALLY REALLY REALLY hates ANYTHING changed.....then they likely play singleplayer ANYWAYS (given the fact that server rules are changing alot, untraceable players now and what not)...and can just NOT update / keep their original .exe.


It isn't rocket science...I'd even be willing to host an old install file "pre-any changes" if people are so against it...which...polls seem to totally not be pointing that direction!

IN FACT I WILL DO THAT
Here's an older (recent) version all zipped up pre-changes if they happen.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/v9jcy ... 1.0218.rar



It's about getting better, and in multiplayer it will be hard to attempt to spam this with an announcement....add to that the cost alone.
Singleplayer......why would you care?

PS. Right now it's about 85% voting for SOME change at least.
So. just sayin.....my country that gets people elected........

that does start to say something "around" 20 players.

Although I admit, a larger amount of steam players voting would be nice, a better sample would be around 50, I keep bumping the post.



[Edited on 3-5-2016 by matchbox2022]

[Edited on 3-5-2016 by matchbox2022]

[Edited on 3-5-2016 by Marvin]

[Sinbad]

At the time of writing this post, 19 in favor and 3 against... that's sounds significant enough to at least try it. As Matchbox says, some tweaks will surely be needed.

I personally would love to see this addition... it would create the opportunity for some new kinds of strategies and add a little more excitement to MP.

If it's true that it turns out to be nothing more than a griefing toy, then it can just be removed from the game... much like the old FTs.

[DeathTech]

It's a post, not a guide, man you need to learn cliffnotes.

People won't follow what you're trying to get across.

I think if enough people are voting that kinda gets across what's going through people's heads.
At that point it should at least be "tried"

Then it will either be good and need tweaking, bad or need tweaking.., or need tweaking... it won't be perfect, just attempting to get them re-focused into playability.
Any tweaks would be done via updates anyway.

I wrote it without quotes because else it would take up the whole page.
It was already going to get too big. So I tried something different.

And I expect people to be able to figure out who I'm responding to from the one quote I did do. And where the originals can be found from the yellow titles stating what page its on.


Just because people vote that there is something they would like to see, does not diminish the turn off factor of such a thing for new players, or people looking at the game to see if its worth buying.

I agree that ideas are worth conceptualising and possibly adding if community interest and balance are good enough.
But here is the thing.

For other people who don't like it. And don't want it.
They are having their game copy that they paid money for, for the "completed release" that will not change majorly, changed. In a bad way they do not like. To the point some people won't want to play it. Meaning their money, was wasted.

This is why such content is usually expansion pack, or dlc. And not "just added because people like the idea".
Like I have said before, in this thread I'm having to be the one playing devils advocate.

And my primary point being, "just adding temporarily or permanently" something like this to games of people who don't want it without an option to opt out of the content not originally sold, makes some people put the game down, and bin it. Regardless of it later being removed for griefy reasons or not.

I would be one of those people, if I play SP or MP and get hit by this I will sadly more than likely ragequit and never play again. Its the reason I no longer play counter-strike, its the reason I no longer play Team-Fortress, call of duty, battlefield (recent), I could make a very long list here but I am not going to.

Hopefully you will have noticed all these games are primarily to do with combat to point out that all of them in one way or another are unbalanced (regardless of what devs say, Yes I am looking at you Counter-Strike with your stupid AWP).

I predominantly play the trading game. I do not want changes to balanced things to OP status to AI or players can completely and utterly destroy me at every turn.
Sure, currently that is very much possibly anyway. But this change suggested and the support for it is predominantly MP players who would like something special to ruin others with. I do not wish to be included.

EDIT:
Me rage quitting the game permanently will not affect me finishing my tutorial. Just thought I should put that out there.

[Edited on 3-9-2016 by DeathTech]

[DeathTech]

Worst case scenario....if someone REALLY REALLY REALLY hates ANYTHING changed.....then they likely play singleplayer ANYWAYS (given the fact that server rules are changing alot, untraceable players now and what not)...and can just NOT update / keep their original .exe.


It isn't rocket science...I'd even be willing to host an old install file "pre-any changes" if people are so against it...which...polls seem to totally not be pointing that direction!

I decided this deserved a separate response for personal reasons.

1. I find that statement belittling and a little mean as it insinuates:

1.1 I am dumb
1.2 Single player players are not entitled to have a say on things because they are single player.

That is insulting.

2. So you are suggesting because I don't like a major item overhaul that has no place in the game for me that I am no longer entitled to:

2.1 Updates and changes, fixes to bugs and tweaks to other things.
2.2 Multi-player, once the difference in versions is too great and I am no longer allowed to connect with other players until I update.

3. Even if I wanted to I purchased the game on steam. One of its primary features being automated update installation.
A feature I could turn off. But eventually I have to for multiplayer to work.

And I can not generally play any steam version of a game without the steam platform being active so your "quick fix for not rocket scientists" doesn't work since I can't use a copy of the game that is not steam.

Just had to get that out of my system. I do not mind playing devils advocate. But there is no need to go and belittle people.

I am just participating in the conversation to point out the unpopular view to the topic, so people think more about the topic than just piling on more stuff. Since you know, 50% of game populations never visit the forums of the games they play.
Lets not forget those who just can't be bothered to read a topic that from the topic list actually doesn't look like it will modify the game too much.

At the time of writing this post, 19 in favor and 3 against... that's sounds significant enough to at least try it. As Matchbox says, some tweaks will surely be needed.

I personally would love to see this addition... it would create the opportunity for some new kinds of strategies and add a little more excitement to MP.

If it's true that it turns out to be nothing more than a griefing toy, then it can just be removed from the game... much like the old FTs.

At current count of people who care enough to vote.
Lets do some maths:

At current count 694 views on this topic.
Only 22 of those bothered voting.
And 3/4 options are considered "Go for it.".
And funnily enough most people do not vote they let their silence do the talking.

Lets see here.
(19 / 694) * 100 = 2.7%

2.7% Decided to vote for
that leaves 97.3% who looked at the topic and decided one of the following.:
TL:DR
Lol nope. (click away)
Can't be bothered to vote but I don't like this.
Indifferent to the change.
Misclick.
I like it but CBA to vote

And lets assume here that those are all split equally because we don't know why they did not vote:
16,21666666666667
16.22

Lol nope.(click away) -> 16.22 -> 112 silent votes
Can't be bothered to vote but I don't like this. -> 16.22 -> 112 silent votes
I like it but CBA to vote -> 16.22 -> 112 silent votes

Tally in my opinion:
Nope: 3 + 112 + 112 = 227
Yup: 2 + 14 + 3 + 112 = 131
And that is only 358 / 694 just slightly over 50% opinions visitors of the thread may have had.
In favor of the positive votes, I even gave the positive 75% of the vote options. Of which the highest bulk of votes were added.

Lets not forget. In order to vote or post, people have to go through the bother. To actually register.
That would be most likely rest of the views. Silent spectators unwilling to bother registering for a right to vote.

The vote only shows most people who participate on the forum actively are positive.
Remember that about 90% of people visiting the topic decided they could not bother to vote about an item that can change up combat majorly.

I just wanted to put that out there before people get any ideas thinking because a poll is popular that people in general may not actually agree with it.
Perfect example, look at USA presidents. Despite people being ahead in polls. Those are just the votes of those who felts strongly enough to go out and voice their opinion before the proper votes come in, and oh look, the poll was wrong.

Most people take polls with a grain of salt.
Just saying.
And I sure hope this post invites enough mildly angry passionate disruptor change fans to set up an account and give me a piece of their mind.

But at least it will get them to vote.

[matchbox2022]

I decided this deserved a separate response for personal reasons.

1. I find that statement belittling and a little mean as it insinuates:

1.1 I am dumb
1.2 Single player players are not entitled to have a say on things because they are single player.

That is insulting.

I am sorry if that came off as such. You are ABSOLUTELY right, I should have been more tactful in my response.

And do apologize for making you sound anything other than a contributing member which is a valuable thing.

Many players won't take their time to read a page or mod, much less contribute even. So it really is appreciated.

Tweaking is gonna be needed, think of the station upgrades to shields?

I'm sure MANY people aren't fans of the fact they can't just blow up stations any longer.

But hey! Now the game "seems" better for the masses, and yes there's always going to be a minority who aren't impressed, but could back track versions if they REALLY wanted, is what I meant.

There are a LOT of people who do single player, and indeed for EM that's almost all you can do now, so having a specific version before any changes that you like most should be totally accessible for oneself.

Sorry, That whole post was just trying to duct tape a response late at night, and was

NOT meant to be insulting in any way. I've seen you on the forums, and it seems you have contributed a fair bit / are a valuable member and we do need to have theories poked holes in for better balance and to see what needs fixing in a pro-creative fashion of speech and physical testing in-game.

We need guys like you, so thank you for actually making me think / reflect a bit. Even if I ultimately would disagree, it is still important.









In reply to what you posted.

I don't think people not views means much ironically.

A Lot of people if they cared would register. I personally registered for only 4 major website things.

Unregistered views are still tallied, BUT, voting cannot be done unless one is a member, nor could they see any results.

I'm mostly going on votes, not views, so I put up a thread on steam....which is likely the only reason it's as high as it is.



As far as multiplayer, you're absolutely right, if someone can't play now in multiplayer with an older version, that'd suck, ESPECIALLY if we get more of a playerbase.

And there really isn't a fix....save tweaking the system...which alot of people as well as me feels tweaked from EM in an un-ideal and not proportionate way to the items ingame cost.

The ultimate problem with that is the fact there aren't as many consequences to actions in this game due to how saving works.
If suddenly you could only save via certain game versions and saves occurred when you fired off ordinance, it'd be a totally different story by far...and you wouldn't be hit by these pretty much ever. People would save them for SP missions, which is kinda my hope anyways, to make some SP missions easier, and to add an element to MP without being an instant death weapon.



But implementing that would be very hard, especially the fact that people like free-roaming with little consequence, and it's an item for perhaps another poll in the future.

Currently changing disruptors not into WMDs, but GAME CHANGE UP MISSILES basically, would make Single player a better experience in hard missions as well as add a nice effect once and a while to have;

It adds value to game areas that AREN'T being used;- to being able to lead shoot without computer assistance, -without shields it adds actual COMBAT value to having "armor points" on your craft instead of just "maxing out" shielding / energy points.

I know we tried to fix it as a community with Vice for station building so new players wouldn't be grieved.
And there will always be people unimpressed with changes, I play TF2 as well, and man oh man could it use improvements, but I still manage to have fun.

As far as rage quits, excaliburs would make me do that , but, it's something I am learning to adapt against...and honestly if I were more careful Id never be hit.
These, especially with a Launch warning, would be extremely similar in, just having some situational awareness.

IF any change goes through (BIG IF), then we can see, and no matter what it will likely need tweaks as well as other game elements.
Ultimately, it's up to Vice. Even if there were 5000 votes and a million views, he might say. Nope! Things stay as is.



[Edited on 3-6-2016 by matchbox2022]

[Marvin]

Normally I'd dismiss complaints about suggested changes which might be made to the game ... especially if the person who makes the complaint has insisted on changes of his own. But, in DeathTech's defense, he has been exceptionally supportive of the game as it was originally released. His only suggestion concerned mining probes ... which might've been added to the game or not (I prefer to do my own mining, so I can't be sure). And he never insisted.

So, at this juncture, I have only one suggestion. Keep any further comments short. 'Cause I gotta read them all and, at this rate, I'll never get to actually play the game.

[Vice]

Another question, directed primarily at those who would not want to see such changes to disruptor weapons:

- Would the addition of a defense device as an equipment item be sufficient to relieve concerns you have regarding such disruptor changes? Or would the sacrifice of having to give up the equipment slot still not be worth it overall to you?

The defense device would operate in such a way to negate the EMP and shield depletion effects of disruptors, leaving only the jump drive disruption effect that applies now. If player interest would prefer, the EMP and jump drive effects could be left in place, but shield arrays remain unaffected (it could be a shield protection device specifically).

[SamKillitson]

Another question, directed primarily at those who would not want to see such changes to disruptor weapons:

- Would the addition of a defense device as an equipment item be sufficient to relieve concerns you have regarding such disruptor changes? Or would the sacrifice of having to give up the equipment slot still not be worth it overall to you?

The defense device would operate in such a way to negate the EMP and shield depletion effects of disruptors, leaving only the jump drive disruption effect that applies now. If player interest would prefer, the EMP and jump drive effects could be left in place, but shield arrays remain unaffected (it could be a shield protection device specifically).

If it costs an equipment slot to partially defend would it also cost an equipment slot to the aggressor using the disruptor?

My thinking would be a frame config to grant full immunity to either the intended victim or aggressor and
the aggressor should lose an equipment slot to utilize the disruptor. I'm not sure thats enough of a cost though really. I think it should be a huge gamble to the aggressor as to whether they use this weapon in the field.

So I'm thinking, to defend from all effect, a frame component.
To use the device, an equipment slot and a negative effect to energy for a certain amount of time, maybe half of all energy goes toward charging the device and must be in a certain proximity for the weapon to detonate.
This would create a gamble scenario to the aggressor in game play.
Do I really want to start charging this thing?

[matchbox2022]

Basically a grounding unit.

As far as negating the impact of the EMP...maybe.

But the whole point I had originally made for this, wasn't as a weapon of mass destruction, it is a method to change up the game combat tactics, make armor points actually worth while, dogfighting not about missles and actual gunnery / dumbfire particle shooting skill, with no escape for 3 minutes.

If only for a little while...other things that practically don't matter in the game for your ship, including your abilities, suddenly do.

Personally......for gameplay reasons, I don't think so...especially considering how rare it will occur.

If it was supported by others enough though, and it's really wanted, then perhaps not TOTAL immunity, maybe your shields drop to yellow instead, or you can still escape via warp jump whilst others could not.
Like the way resistors work, dissipate it, not make you invincible.

Course, now you have the problem of a ship launching a disruptor right next to a guy, being hit by the explosion, and he isn't effected even though he fired it in the first place. I think it'd cause those people with that defense to REALLY exploit it.

[Edited on 3-8-2016 by matchbox2022]

[matchbox2022]

Another question, directed primarily at those who would not want to see such changes to disruptor weapons:

- Would the addition of a defense device as an equipment item be sufficient to relieve concerns you have regarding such disruptor changes? Or would the sacrifice of having to give up the equipment slot still not be worth it overall to you?

The defense device would operate in such a way to negate the EMP and shield depletion effects of disruptors, leaving only the jump drive disruption effect that applies now. If player interest would prefer, the EMP and jump drive effects could be left in place, but shield arrays remain unaffected (it could be a shield protection device specifically).

If it costs an equipment slot to partially defend would it also cost an equipment slot to the aggressor using the disruptor?

My thinking would be a frame config to grant full immunity to either the intended victim or aggressor and
the aggressor should lose an equipment slot to utilize the disruptor. I'm not sure thats enough of a cost though really. I think it should be a huge gamble to the aggressor as to whether they use this weapon in the field.

So I'm thinking, to defend from all effect, a frame component.
To use the device, an equipment slot and a negative effect to energy for a certain amount of time, maybe half of all energy goes toward charging the device and must be in a certain proximity for the weapon to detonate.
This would create a gamble scenario to the aggressor in game play.
Do I really want to start charging this thing?

If so, I think that's a great idea actually.
It should have a separate launcher unit for the disruptor.
If you wanna be able to change up the game rules, then you should have to buy equipment...you're pretty committed to it...and making it a gamble, make it as pricy as AMS too.

And honestly, stealth gen works like that too, its not magic invincibility, you unstealth at the wrong time, and with NO SHIELDS, I've been blown away plenty.

Personally love that change the game up, you're gambling idea bud.

[Edited on 3-8-2016 by matchbox2022]

[SamKillitson]

I think it would be great for game play to start looking at all of the weaponry, frames and equipment this way.
As it is now, the frames get "bigger" and "better" but overall there really isn't a lot of ways to specialize frames and equipment.
I'm getting off of your topic so one more point and I'll leave it. Should a Talon frame be able to load and fire Exodus missiles?

When I start making posts like this I am reminded to go and read again, "What is Evochron?" if for nothing more than to remind me of my place in this universe.
I defer to the power and for good reason.

[Edited on 3-8-2016 by SamKillitson]

[Rubber Chicken]

Sorry a bit late to the party here (as usual), so I didn't get to read a lot of this.
One thing I will say is that I am ok with disruptors being changed in some meaningful way, but absolutely AGAINST disruptors being changed in such a way that (new)counter-equipment eating up precious equip slots is necessary. And good God, please no AI firing these things.
I don't want to be forced to expect that almost every PvE and PvP combat encounter is going to include disruptor fire.
Since it seems that station attacks with disruptors having some sort of offensive effect is not a popular idea, I won't go there.

IMO at most, disruptors should do the following - varying on how close the zero-point of the explosion is in relation to the affected ship. For clarification: If you are 100m away from the blast radius, then full damage. If you are farther away - not so much.

1: Disrupt jumping - as it already does.

2: Deal a maximum of 90% damage the subsystems - Engine, Weapon, and Nav. Repair Systems are accepted by most players as default equipment. There's your counter-equipment right there...

2a: Besides, once the engine is damaged enough, afterburner does not engage until the subsystem is repaired to a sufficient level. Running from an attack with no afterburner is quite the challenge in it's own right. I see no reason why jump disruption time (point 1.) can't be linked to engine subsystem damage as well.

Weapon subsystem damage could included inability (for a time) to lock missiles until it's sufficiently repaired coupled with the HUD having moments of 'blinking-out' until the system is 100% operational again. In other words, even if the subsystem is good enough to regain missile lock ability, if the HUD still stutters, then the lock is broken.

Nav subsystem damage could include (based on severity): Radar scrambling - as it already does, Navigation Marker scrambling - can't jump to what the drive can't 'focus on', and *Nav Map 'scrambling'.

Emergency jump attempts would still be permitted after the jump-disruption timed out, but results would be 100% randomized within the max distance of the equipped jumpdrive.
In a system full of planets and collide-able objects? Need to escape? Considering an E-jump? Roll the dice and see if it's open space, the planet(s') core, or a nearby star you jump to.

*Nav Map scrambling wouldn't have to actually scramble the 3D part of the map. When the system is damaged, the 6 numerical entry fields simply cannot be accessed and cycle random numbers until the system is repaired. Once the system is repaired, then each randomized entry field defaults to '0'.

3: Possibly deal a 'Leech' effect - where the HUD and dash panel readouts completely shut off for a time - to the attacked ship if within 60% (from center) of the blast radius.


As far as I can currently see, creating more variation in the subsystem damage model, coupled with the ability to:
a). potentially deal massive damage via a well-placed Disruptor or,
b). potentially deal more modest damage to the same systems via 'conventional' weapons and,
c). counter damage effects with the Repair System equipment item (already in-game)
seems like a much more balanced, realistic and not-so-complicated solution.

---
Seriously, if Evochron returns to having a love-hate relationship with a new form of Fulcrum Torpedo, I'm out for good as I will be reloading the last version of the game I find acceptable and sticking with it.

[matchbox2022]

Reading over what you wrote I can see what you're saying and might try to find a balance between your opinion and others.

You make a lot of goood points. But Thinking about Vice too, doesn't it sound a little complicated what you're implying? Mostly in #2, I think the leech effect, is sufficient.

It's already in the game, does a lot of what we would want in terms of limiting options.

the other things are quite great, and itd be a lot of interesting fun to have it throw off warp jumps, cause intermittent locking, etc

, but as far as coding that goes, I think it would drive Vice bat**** to try to do that. Compared to leech, which, does a similar effect, is already in the game, so likely easier to apply as an area wide effect.

Perhaps instead of a dedicated equipment slot to negate some disruptor effects or as a launcher....., it would make more sense that it just causes an energy drain like after a jump.
Would that be an ok compromise?

Also, it seems in demand to a disruptor, being a very high energy device, be detected and announced over PA or text to everyone and to AI, giving people a chance before it explodes to jump and escape. That is, if they have the power to.

It's ultimately up to Vice, votes are looking like people are cool with whats written. Any comments about the writing in white and blue? Red is pretty much not happening / impressed with those

Adding more stuff maybe but it would be harder and we wouldn't get to play test anytime soon

[Misunderstood Wookie]

Okay, I am not the spreadsheet guru around here in terms of balance and effects I don't nut this stuff out. So I will just give some input here and there.

So far I like the main ideas behind this. However I also agree that a well constructed station should be immune to these things, there is no way a ship missile like this should be powerful enough to take out the kind of generators a station would have, look at the ship's sizes, look a the station size.

Likewise Capitals should remain unaffected to most extent. shields should be lowered but not completely disabled and jump drives would be affected everything else immune.

Stealth, now this is tricky, Some agree to be taken out some don't personally for balance reasons only close proximity should wipe stealth.. so within 1km or within 2km.. outside that range stealth uneffected.

My two cents on the visuals would be no explosions.. explosions don't really happen in space anyway its more like matter being ripped apart so I would use more of a shock wave ion blast inner colour purple radiating out to a blue tint. I will have to read all this stuff more as there is almost two essays worth of stuff here and I just don't have the time tonight to take it all in.


[edit]
I am just going to throw this out there and say I feel STRONGLY for warp disable or a percentile based on engine class that your warp will be affected. Something like 60-70% chance if youre caught within a 2km radius outer radius 20-40% chance.. Depending on your engine class take away 8-20% chance of warp disable from the above.


[Edited on 3/9/2016 by Misunderstood Wookie]

[DeathTech]

I am sorry if that came off as such. You are ABSOLUTELY right, I should have been more tactful in my response.

And do apologize for making you sound anything other than a contributing member which is a valuable thing.

I am glad that wasn't meant as an insult I just wanted to point out that it very easily could be taken as one.
In a 'reading between lines" kind of way.

We have to just make sure that any changes that are made aren't excluding players in such a fashion.
Preferably by making heavy content changes some sort of optional thing. Which could be done with I guess DLC or perhaps an options toggle.

I don't think people not views means much ironically.

A Lot of people if they cared would register. I personally registered for only 4 major website things.

Unregistered views are still tallied, BUT, voting cannot be done unless one is a member, nor could they see any results.

I'm mostly going on votes, not views, so I put up a thread on steam....which is likely the only reason it's as high as it is.

I hate to think of people as numbers. Just as I'm sure many others do.
However I felt the need to express the numbers and point out that most people don't like to vote unless the feel very strongly about a subject.

In gaming and traditionally on forums only people who spend a lot of time there tend to be engaged enough to vote.
And generally people on steam don't take too much time to look through steam forum posts. But I am glad some do.

There will always be those who dislike changes but that is why its important to find balance in changes and to not force changes upon the players who want no part of it.

As far as multiplayer, you're absolutely right, if someone can't play now in multiplayer with an older version, that'd suck, ESPECIALLY if we get more of a playerbase.

And there really isn't a fix....save tweaking the system...which alot of people as well as me feels tweaked from EM in an un-ideal and not proportionate way to the items ingame cost.

The ultimate problem with that is the fact there aren't as many consequences to actions in this game due to how saving works.
If suddenly you could only save via certain game versions and saves occurred when you fired off ordinance, it'd be a totally different story by far...and you wouldn't be hit by these pretty much ever. People would save them for SP missions, which is kinda my hope anyways, to make some SP missions easier, and to add an element to MP without being an instant death weapon.

My point as well exactly. This is an item change that looks good on paper as long as it doesn't get too used and abused. Its good for some cases.
But if you want to have the multiplayer grow and thrive there should be reasons added to make multiplayer more fun.
Insta-death weapons are a sure fire way to encourage single player over multiplayer. And a multiplayer with very few players is a quick death for the multiplayer aspect of the game.

Take it for someone who spend more than two years combined playing multiplayer in almost constantly empty servers. Its no fun. And then when its two players it feels a bit forced to try and keep their attention and fun long enough for others to join, this is why I stopped trying to host public servers for games like garrysmod and counter-strike.

In the end, you just get bored yourself and stop playing the game "temporarily" or at least that's what one sais to themselves before realising the sentance was really permanently.

It adds value to game areas that AREN'T being used;- to being able to lead shoot without computer assistance, -without shields it adds actual COMBAT value to having "armor points" on your craft instead of just "maxing out" shielding / energy points.

Unfortunately I do not agree with that though.
Armour points defend against the damage your ship incurs reducing damage to hull.

When the shield is gone, its not just your hull at risk.
But all subsystems can be shot. And equipment can literally be destroyed.

It can tell now, no one wants to have to fly back limping to a station because their FC drive was destroyed.
And people get mighty upset when their repair systems module gets wrecked in the first 13 seconds of a battle.

Stripping all the armour makes those systems vulnerable.

Correct me if I am wrong. It may have been a different space game but if I remember correctly. Losing shields means you can lose equipment from your ship. Due to damage.
As far as I'm aware, armour points keep you alive longer but don't protect your sub-systems from taking some damage if directly hit by shots.

So, at this juncture, I have only one suggestion. Keep any further comments short. 'Cause I gotta read them all and, at this rate, I'll never get to actually play the game.

I am happy with how the game is, minus the couple glitches here and there its a pretty damn good game in my book.
And I'm okay with changes being made as long as there aren't people getting somewhat excluded.

And I deeply apologise to Marvin for keeping him away from the game with our lengthy posts.
I shal try to keep things more brief. I do as everyone probably noticed. Enjoy a good lengthy rant.

If player interest would prefer, the EMP and jump drive effects could be left in place, but shield arrays remain unaffected (it could be a shield protection device specifically).

Honestly I don't want to see its creation come to be. But if it were. I think there may be in general a desire to allow some sort of point allocation to weaken the effectiveness of emp, beam and this missile by some sort of "shield mitigation" allocation allowing players to become more well protected against such weapons rather than adding more shield which this missile just ignores.
Just pitching the idea.

EDIT: Stripped out some stuff out of quotes to reduce size for marvin's sake.

[Edited on 3-9-2016 by DeathTech]