Fulcrum Torpedoes - Upcoming arming sequence change and possible limitation poll...

[Vice]

I'm in the process of implementing another round of changes to the FT's. Note two facts that will not be changed for this 2.X version of the game:

- FT's will not be removed. Such a change would only be considered for an entirely new game or another expansion, if one were to be developed at some point. Too many players enjoy them and want them, so there won't be a forced removal of them.

- Further core structural changes to their loading or deployment functionality won't take place in this version. Examples would be requiring more hardpoints (doesn't solve the primary concern of most players requesting changes anyway) or impact requirements (eliminates their fighter suppression intention).

So any future discussion on changes/requests (if it is to be considered) will need to be done within the context of these conditions.

Reviewing the feedback so far indicates the arming sequence is generally either a) too long or b) solves one of the problems (multiple firing) but not the other (suicide reloading). To address 'a', the arming sequence will be greatly reduced in length, reducing its overall functional impact on FT's. I'm going to try both 5 and 10 second intervals, then apply one for the next update to test with. If you have a preference on one interval or the other, please let me know.

To address the second issue, I am considering a signficant change to the 'survival' of FT's in an explosion and respawn. The original stored spawn point would still be preserved, but the weapons themselves would not be. We could make a special exception to these devices specifically that they do not survive a respawn. That is, after firing one, either the one that is fired or any that are loaded would not return should the player self-destruct or be destroyed in the FT explosion themself. This condition could apply only in multiplayer or both to SP and MP, depending on what the majority would want to see. This condition could apply -only- to self-destructing or exploding in a FT blast, or it could apply any time the player is destroyed (preventing the exploit if a player just jumped into a planet atmosphere to respawn with FT's). But consider carefully the potential ramifications implementing this option would have, in either form.

So if this sounds like a feasible way to address the problem to you, please vote and let me know of any comments you might have in this thread or directly via e-mail.

Finally, a word about changes/additions in general. I have tried to be stricter on feature and change requests, but it appears that in this example, I may have still been too easy to push around. I've taken it as another learning experience and will continue to work toward being more 'difficult' to move when it comes to such dramatic gameplay changes and additions.

In summary, you have the ear of the developer over this matter, but it is becoming increasingly deaf over some of the loudly opposing views. The type of feedback is also important, if you want me to consider it. Declaring something with an objective assertion using subjective criteria means little to nothing without qualifying specifics and won't be weighed in the decision making process. I'll need clear, concise, objective feedback if it is to be considered.

[Edited on 1-2-2013 by Vice]

[SeeJay]

Thank you so much for always listening to us
players, even if we can be a pain in the but for you.
It's very appreciated.

I voted for losing FT's in MP only since that's the place
where all the "conflicts" appear.

[Munshine]

Same here, I voted as Seejay

[Rubber Chicken]

I voted for option two.

However, if there was a way to not regain the single FT you fired that killed you, but kept the other FT's on your hardpoints, I'd rather see that.

I don't like the idea of self-destruct penalties or penalties for crashing into an object.

I know I've squawked alot about this subject. I'm going to step out of the conversation now -(to the joy of many:P), but my following statement will be my final one... -

As long as the anti-exploit isn't found to take from the fun of using the FT or become exploitable in itself, I'm O.K. with whatever gets decided.

[Viper]

As long as the anti-exploit isn't found to take from the fun of using the FT or become exploitable in itself, I'm O.K. with whatever gets decided.

I think that's basically what everybody wants in the end, so I'm with that.

[Marvin]

Same here, I voted as Seejay

Me too, for the same reason. The only other option I'd consider as fair is splitting the FT into two parts: torpedo and warhead.

[zex]

I would like to see all expendable secondary hardpoint weapons be removed on death. It makes no sense to me that the victor in a combat situation is the only person who needs to buy new missiles. The argument for realism aside, it makes self destructing to fill your hardpoints back up a better option than refilling your missiles as intended.

Back on topic, in lieu of an arming sequence, has a range increase ever been considered? Nobody is going to fire a tactical nuke from close range. This would have the consequence of allowing a longer time to escape. In addition, it would require that the person firing the weapon be in more of a tactical position for deployment, no easy task with hostiles about.

[Marvin]

Nobody is going to fire a tactical nuke from close range.

Close enough for the pilot to need an eye patch. One eye covered during delivery ... then, after the blast, discard and continue flying using the protected eye. No joke.

[Busch]

I voted not to loose the FT's on a re-spawn, without regard to mode-of-play. "We've" got Miner/Traders out there who love the FT's, and use them for their economic/trade value alone. And since some of us are a bit prone to the itinerant asteroid-kiss and/or the planetary face-plant, loosing one's hard-won commodities to accident or slip of the fingers would be just a touch on the insufferable side. As in it's more "punishment" than the error necessitates.

Every game environment that I've witnessed is populated by those without apparent ethos, scruple, or conscience. Always has been and unfortunately, always will be. Vice has drawn a line in the sand with this one, and he's right on the mark. He continually and consistantly does his very best to make this environments' game-play fair and balanced - so that ALL may fly on a level'd field.

I'll always vote for that.

[DaveK]

I voted for option two.

However, if there was a way to not regain the single FT you fired that killed you, but kept the other FT's on your hardpoints, I'd rather see that.

I suppose that there could be an auto save immediately after launch, like there is when you use a station detonator.

However, there will always be a (slower) exploit because we have 100 save slots - someone who wants to "cheat" can just multi-clone a profile with a full rack of FT's and alternate

If FT's continue to be commonly available and in relatively large numbers (ie at least 8 at a time), it doesn't really matter - it would simply make one be a little more thoughtful about their use because you would have to fly off to ~~~~~ to reload!

Please leave SP alone though, - the only use there is to tidy up if you create a station in the wrong place or create too many or change your mind - no-one else if affected in SP ( I hate other people's lack of self control being inflicted on the whole community, especially if it is applied in SP)

[Marvin]

"We've" got Miner/Traders out there who love the FT's, and use them for their economic/trade value alone. And since some of us are a bit prone to the itinerant asteroid-kiss and/or the planetary face-plant, loosing one's hard-won commodities to accident or slip of the fingers would be just a touch on the insufferable side. As in it's more "punishment" than the error necessitates.

True. But any time you don't save after acquiring something of value (for example, 5 cargo bays full of high-priced minerals), you can suffer the same ending.

[Vice]

I voted not to loose the FT's on a re-spawn, without regard to mode-of-play. "We've" got Miner/Traders out there who love the FT's, and use them for their economic/trade value alone. And since some of us are a bit prone to the itinerant asteroid-kiss and/or the planetary face-plant, loosing one's hard-won commodities to accident or slip of the fingers would be just a touch on the insufferable side. As in it's more "punishment" than the error necessitates.

For additional consideration, this won't impact traders who ship them. The loss of the weapon would -only- apply to FT's that are -fired-. It would not impact FT's that remain loaded and are not used. So again, only FT's that are fired and used would be subject to not being regained at the next respawn.

I suppose that there could be an auto save immediately after launch, like there is when you use a station detonator.

Functionally, it would work like an auto-save, but not subject to the additional exploit you describe (while in an existing session). This system would operate outside of the save/load profile system and directly effect FT's that are fired, regardless of which profile is in use.

[Star King]

Thank you for listening!!!!

[zex]

This system would operate outside of the save/load profile system and directly effect FT's that are fired, regardless of which profile is in use.

PLEASE apply a similar system for station detonators, if possible!

[Austin]

Many thanks Vice! Personally, the auto-save on firing seems to me to be a good solution.

[Busch]

Thanks for the clarification, Sir. It's very comforting to know - that when I load up on a bakers' dozens' brace of FT's, that (upon my honor) should I have an NI (negligent impact) with a rather stationary object, my serendipitous fortunes will not feel the lack.

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

[DaveK]

I voted not to loose the FT's on a re-spawn, without regard to mode-of-play. "We've" got Miner/Traders out there who love the FT's, and use them for their economic/trade value alone. And since some of us are a bit prone to the itinerant asteroid-kiss and/or the planetary face-plant, loosing one's hard-won commodities to accident or slip of the fingers would be just a touch on the insufferable side. As in it's more "punishment" than the error necessitates.

For additional consideration, this won't impact traders who ship them. The loss of the weapon would -only- apply to FT's that are -fired-. It would not impact FT's that remain loaded and are not used. So again, only FT's that are fired and used would be subject to not being regained at the next respawn.

I suppose that there could be an auto save immediately after launch, like there is when you use a station detonator.

Functionally, it would work like an auto-save, but not subject to the additional exploit you describe (while in an existing session). This system would operate outside of the save/load profile system and directly effect FT's that are fired, regardless of which profile is in use.

Excellent idea! It feels fair to "lose" the ones you've fired but not the ones still on board. Are you going to apply this in SP as well? I guess that depending on how you are able to implement it, there may not be a choice. On balance, sorting out MP niggles is more important than SP convenience.

And I agree with zex - it would be good to apply the idea to station dets as well since respawning them can also be a sore point in the (rare) clan wars we have! We need clan vs clan with guns and missiles in space, not clan vs clan quoting the Haig Convention on the Forum!

[Vivicector]

Love the idea, Vice!

[Viper]

Just wanted to give those players that started the whole FT suiciding issue a BIG HUGE THANKS! You guys did absolutely amazing work, and we owe each one of you big time! Without you, Vice would probably be picking his nose, and we would be playing the game instead of arguing on the forum! Who would want that, this is so much better!

Cheers.

[Edited on 1-3-2013 by Viper]

[Frost N7]

The penalty for crashing could be some kind of insurance , optional of course. But losing the fulcrum you launched should happen regardless in multiplayer (and single).

[Maarschalk]

Considering everything said about this topic I voted for #2. If #2 is implemented I do see a need for a shorter time or no timer at all for the Firing sequence since the Torpedo from launch already is timed when it reaches its distance of detonation and gives the player enough time to escape upon launch detection as was in the past. And the already implemented exit timer also is already a good exploit prevention!.....

[Vice]

Excellent idea! It feels fair to "lose" the ones you've fired but not the ones still on board. Are you going to apply this in SP as well? I guess that depending on how you are able to implement it, there may not be a choice. On balance, sorting out MP niggles is more important than SP convenience.

The current plan is for it to apply in multiplayer only, as a specific way to address the PvP issue. The main reason being that when you deploy a FT in single player, its effects aren't permanent unless you save. If you want to use that FT to finish off a contract quickly and keep the reward for finishing the contract, you must save your profile which automatically removes that FT anyway. So if you're willing to give up the multi-millions of credits to fire the FT to get some mission credit and pay (that is likely less than the value of the FT), you can do that in SP and save the profile to keep the results.

In multiplayer however, the effect of using a FT against other players can have a different effect (as noted by players asking for changes) and respawning to do it repeatedly is what's been at the top of the list to limit/prevent. So in MP, if you fire the FT, it won't be available if you try to respawn until you return to SP or go into a different MP session. And if you save your profile at some point after firing it, it will lock the changes in to the profile permanently.

And I agree with zex - it would be good to apply the idea to station dets as well since respawning them can also be a sore point in the (rare) clan wars we have! We need clan vs clan with guns and missiles in space, not clan vs clan quoting the Haig Convention on the Forum!

The changes have been applied to station detonators as well.

[Marvin]

Just wanted to give those players that started the whole FT suiciding issue a BIG HUGE THANKS! You guys did absolutely amazing work, and we owe each one of you big time! Without you, Vice would probably be picking his nose, and we would be playing the game instead of arguing on the forum! Who would want that, this is so much better!

I really think the forum could use a "sarcasm" emoticon.

[Schmidtrock]

Thank you Vice. I haven't experienced either of these weapons yet, but have been following the discussion intently.

[zex]

Vice, I appreciate you taking the time to re-address this concern. My only wish is that the original parties would have came up with something better to ask for instead of a fulcrum change, like player-deployable billboards