open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked If capsules became indestructable...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.03.11 03:26:00 - [1]
 

How would it affect things? Carebear bonanza? Tactical loss (no pilot in local getting intel)? Griefer tears washing upon the shores of Iceland?

I could imagine that a rebalancing could occur with capsules, making podding a thing of the past but spreading even more grief and pain for all in a way that neither carebear nor pirate could claim a win.

When someone brought this up some time ago, the thought was churning in my head whenever I drank too much and didn't care to think about what really matters.

I think indestructible capsules would work in such a way that could benefit 0.0 space without taking away all of the advantages to destroying capsules, and also making ship loss actually mean a little more for everybody whether they are in 0.0 or high sec.

1. Capsules only show gates and stations on overview, nothing else.
2. Capsules cannot "see" local and cannot be seen in local - much like the crew escape pods mentioned in fiction and background stories.
3. Capsules have no directional scanner.
4. They can warp, but travel slowly and have no autopilot.
5. Instead of having to be podded to lose implants, losing a ship will cause power surges in the capsule that can cause a loss of some percentage of implants. This means that losing a ship causes losing *some* implants like losing a T3 causes loss of skill points.
6. Self destruct is still possible.
7. Player ships do not appear to capsules as capsules are equally invisible.


These might be good mechanical changes, or might not, depending on opinion. The low and 0.0 crowd to have a point about "risk free" gaming in high sec but people do lose ships everywhere for all kinds of reasons. But the only way to lose implants is to go into hard space and get podded. This is somewhat of a deterrent at least for those who don't want to risk all of a 1BIL ISK implant set but might be more enticed if there was a chance they could only lose half or less or gamble against more. This would encourage more people to use more expensive implants that could have positive effects on the market. I read a lot of posts from low and 0.0 dwellers about not having a lot invested in implants. Losing a ship anywhere for any reason causing a loss of implants is a level playing field for all - more risk in high, and reduced risk in low/0.0. Many have said, when this is suggested, that the implant market will die, but I think that it would flourish as it's not a "all or none" proposition resulting from PVP, so more PVPers will have them and be looking to replace them and those who would otherwise never lose any would start to lose them from time to time.

Note that a pod that cannot autopilot is also beneficial to create a cost against AFK piloting.

Another significant thing about a pod that cannot pop is that there is no fast way back to the clone vat either unless you chose to SD and lose all implants if you have any.

A tactical edge to podding is to remove enemies from local so they cannot D-scan and gather intel. A pod that cannot be destroyed but retains D-scan and local would be the perfect spy, so those capabilities could be removed to make destroying the ship as effective as destroying the pod. A pod is useless for gathering intel.

Finally, more people would be encouraged to slowboat out to 0.0 and null in their pods in order to set up jump clones. Naturally this does not reduce the risk that occurs when trying to supply yourself in these regions, but this would lend to a higher population outside of high sec as more players might prefer to chance building up from nothing out there. This means more markets out there as there are more customers, and of course for those who like more targets, more people to shoot at too.

The only downside I can think of is that NPC space might fill up with players and therefore the bots and RMT ops will have scripts docking and hitting the SS/Cloak more often. This could cause a reduction in the number of Titans in the game.




Goose99
Posted - 2011.03.11 03:53:00 - [2]
 

Carebears would pvp in large blobs of rifters.Laughing

Yxalitis
Posted - 2011.03.11 05:35:00 - [3]
 

I agree, but, yes, Pirate tears will flood the world, it won't happen...

Belfelmalak
Posted - 2011.03.11 06:12:00 - [4]
 

You don't even need to make the capsule indestructable. You just need to make more of the implants affordable. Right now a full set of +4's cost alot more than a Battle Cruiser.

The real loss threat is not in the ship, it is in the implants.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.11 06:14:00 - [5]
 

Honestly, this would be a buff to pvp. Now hear me out:

As it stands when you pod someone, you are sending them to a cozy station with a load of warm fuzzy starships ready to roll out and jump right back into the fight you just booted them out of. If people had to deal with the logistics of navigating back where they came from, losing a fight, especially as the aggressive force, would be far more impactful.

People wouldn't worry about their pods, but they would want a means to rescue stranded pods. Let's get all Ms Scenario about it:

Blob A has 56 ships and Blob B has 98. Without knowing anything else about composition, player skill, or any unpredictable external factors, Blob A is doomed. So Blob A by the terminus of the fleet action has 56 pods floating in space, 8 of which are likely to know the way back home. Now Blob B is of course not going to help Blob A with its problem, they have 19 of their own guys stranded in space. So Blob A brings in the ship it had waiting with a Black Ops in a nearby, but unconnected system.

Medical Barge (roughly akin to an Orca in skill reqs and stats and a BO range Jump Drive)

It has one purpose and one only: To fit the Evacuation Recovery Bay.

The MB has to lock up and tractor each individual pod. Once those pods are recovered, the people in the pods can see as if the Medical Barge is their own ship (camera controls only). An ERB can hold 50 pods per skill level. So for fleets larger than 250, you would need more than one. Though more than one is a good idea anyway to expedite recovery operations.

The MB is like any other ship in that it can be freely engaged like any other ship. If destroyed, all the recovered pods (plus the owners) are ejected and those players have the same problem. So a escorting the MB is a good idea and MBs might even be under gentleman rules (not a valid target if engaged on a recovery mission, but it would be a tacit agreement only between the two battling parties).

Mikalya
Amarr
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.03.11 07:15:00 - [6]
 

When you are 60-70 jumps from home sometimes its easier to just find a camp and get podded. Rather than dorking around for a couple of hours you are home instantly Laughing

Belfelmalak
Posted - 2011.03.11 07:58:00 - [7]
 

I do believe that should they make pods industructable, you should still be able to open the hatch and step into the cold embrace of space.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2011.03.11 08:26:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: King Rothgar on 11/03/2011 08:30:27
You didn't think this through did you? I say that because attaching implant loss to ship loss is actually a huge nerf to pvping with any sort of decent implants. I pvp with about 2.5B isk in implants in low sec any day I bother to log in and I get podded maybe once a year doing so (lag/glitch/smartbomb). Your proposal would make doing this impossible as although I don't lose many pods, I do lose many ships.

Imagine even pvping with +4 implants and losing say 1 ship a week, that could get terribly expensive even if you're just running around in ruptures. The implants you'd lose from any lost fight would be far more expensive than the ship itself. I know you don't mean you'd lose all implants, it might just be a 1 in 5 chance, but if I have a full set of +4 implants and a full set of 3% hardwirings (20-25M isk each), that's a 50M isk implant loss for every 15M isk t2 fit rupture. Now let's say I have a 2.5B isk slave set with 5% hardwirings, same 15M isk rupture loss costs me anywhere from 250M to 1.2B, depending on exactly which implants are lost.

Edit: additionally, removing implant loss completely would render all implants completely worthless as a commodity. No one would lose them and thus the market almost instantly becomes saturated with even the high end implants. An awful lot of mission runners make a large portion of their income off those storyline reward implants and cashing in LP for implants too.

Camdelma
Gallente
In Bacon We Trust
Posted - 2011.03.11 12:06:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Camdelma on 11/03/2011 12:07:54
Chance based mechanics suck. Skill determines whether I keep my implants and I would be pretty unhappy if I started losing them at random whenever I lost a ship.

Edit: not to mention that it would penalize high risk ships the most, fast tackle springing immediately to mind. Not to mention suicide gankers.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only