open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked What if... and get this: Volatile Ammo in Cargo Holds (reactor breach)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Posted - 2011.02.19 06:24:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Gogela on 21/02/2011 02:06:24
...ships weapons in their turrets, launchers, AND cargo hold ROLLED A CHANCE of going off and aiding to the size of the explosion?

I'm for serious.

YARRRR!!

Donnovich Vacano
Posted - 2011.02.19 07:53:00 - [2]
 

By the power invested in me by god himself, I crown you king of the trolls.

Amaroq Dricaldari
Amarr
Vengeance Industrial Militia
Posted - 2011.02.19 08:46:00 - [3]
 

How is he trolling? He is just trying to come up with an idea like pretty much anybody else on these forums.

Wurzel Gummidge
Posted - 2011.02.19 10:35:00 - [4]
 

Since ship explosions do little but create a pretty light show it wouldn't add as much as it would if other ships incurred damage when a ship went pop. Damaging surrounding ships would be a bad idea though, but it might add to the fireworks.

Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Posted - 2011.02.19 20:04:00 - [5]
 

Not a troll. I was thinking about how to keep blobs from forming... instead have more defined rolls for ships and different tactics for all... you own't see a blob of drakes if 2 of them exploding at once take out another 3...

Donnovich Vacano
Posted - 2011.02.20 04:41:00 - [6]
 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, you ment...

I thought that you meant firing your weapons should give you a chance to randomly explode for no reason. you know rolling a one critical failure kinda thing.

Actually i'm still not very clear on what you are suggesting.

Misanthra
Posted - 2011.02.20 06:35:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Gogela
Not a troll. I was thinking about how to keep blobs from forming... instead have more defined rolls for ships and different tactics for all... you own't see a blob of drakes if 2 of them exploding at once take out another 3...



sooo....you just want everyone to roll amarr from now on. Crystals wouldn't explode. LAser amarr pvp only for everyone not looking to have their ship blow up is what you are proposing. Especially for pos bashing bs and dread...loaded to tbe brim with ammo for a bash since you eat up lots of the stuff. Every pot shot from a smaller pos gun could wipe out your dreads and bs fleet. No thanks....ccp gives us too much fun with mommie fighter bombers and a siege mechanic that has the dread sitting out their say please...beat me, beat me hard...a whopping 1 m/s all you need to speed tank me.


They gave amarr the best of every ship class or a very close second. Didn't even give them ammo that takes up lods of room...saves space in cargo. They don't need another reason to be run in pvp more exclusively. Really, they don't.

Cellia Dacella
Posted - 2011.02.20 10:33:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Cellia Dacella on 20/02/2011 10:34:20
I would settle for chance of critical core failure. i.e. %chance of ship exploding and doing dmg to other ships around when it dies. If it doesn't go critical, then it just becomes a drifting hulk. call it 5% chance and dmg is based on ships power output. idk the exact amount but some reasonable multiplier against the power output that would make people cringe when a ship goes critical next to them. 360 distance should be determined by hullsize. 3k for frigs, 5k cruisers, 10k battleships, 15k caps, 20k supercaps. something like that.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.20 11:27:00 - [9]
 

Your ship dieing no matter what you do is simply stupid. Destroys any reason in game.

You went to shoot some NPC frigs in your Drake or whatever, bam bam there is no Drake. Funny.

Fyrgen Hith
Posted - 2011.02.20 13:48:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Di Mulle
Your ship dieing no matter what you do is simply stupid. Destroys any reason in game.

You went to shoot some NPC frigs in your Drake or whatever, bam bam there is no Drake. Funny.


He is saying that when you die DUE TO OTHER REASONS your ship does or at least has a chance of causing actual harm to nearby ships, think the mission with the pleasure hubs that do damage when you blow them up.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.20 14:22:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Fyrgen Hith
Originally by: Di Mulle
Your ship dieing no matter what you do is simply stupid. Destroys any reason in game.

You went to shoot some NPC frigs in your Drake or whatever, bam bam there is no Drake. Funny.


He is saying that when you die DUE TO OTHER REASONS your ship does or at least has a chance of causing actual harm to nearby ships, think the mission with the pleasure hubs that do damage when you blow them up.


Welp, my bad then. May have some merit then... IMHO not much.

Arrakis Shai
Caldari
Deja Vu Holding
Posted - 2011.02.21 01:46:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Gogela
Not a troll. I was thinking about how to keep blobs from forming... instead have more defined rolls for ships and different tactics for all... you own't see a blob of drakes if 2 of them exploding at once take out another 3...


I think he may be onto something here, Id even like to suggest a little eleboration on the point. If you think about it, the larger a ship is the more power it will be generating, and its reactors will be running hotter than on a smaller ship. The likelyhood of them going critical would be higher.

This might help curb the super cap blobs everyone seems to complain about, if you had a 10 - 15% chance of doing 50% damage to all other carriers around you and a chance to partially wipe out your fleet. you might think twice about taking more than a coupe supercaps into a fight.

Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Posted - 2011.02.21 02:05:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Cellia Dacella
I would settle for chance of critical core failure. i.e. %chance of ship exploding and doing dmg to other ships around when it dies. If it doesn't go critical, then it just becomes a drifting hulk. call it 5% chance and dmg is based on ships power output. idk the exact amount but some reasonable multiplier against the power output that would make people cringe when a ship goes critical next to them. 360 distance should be determined by hullsize. 3k for frigs, 5k cruisers, 10k battleships, 15k caps, 20k supercaps. something like that.


This is the best response imho. I don't know what those numbers would look like either... but blast radius based on ships power output sounds great. Still, let's say you are a pirate gatecamping and a badger comes through the gate... wouldn't it be hilarious if, should said badger be filled to the brim with bombs, those bombs all went off when the ship blew up, and took out EVERYONE on the gate. Tactics would change everywhere. You might see the odd 0.0 fleet with a few badgers packed with mutations JUST to fly them into an opposing blob.

...just a thought, but not to distract. The power core breach idea is a good one, and seems a lot more likely to be implemented than my ammo idea. (Amarr guy, you're right on those crystals I didn't even think of that.)

Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:01:00 - [14]
 

Well, i do like the idea. but it would have to be balanced VERY carefully too little boom and there would be no point having it, too much and you get problems. Lone stealth bombers could wipe out whole fleets. One bomb gets dropped and takes out a couple of ships and almost kills a few others. The explosions from the destroyed ships would finish off the wounded, which would set off more explosions which would pop more ships. It would be a nightmare.

I definitely like the idea of cargo contributing. Then players would have to make careful decisions in order to have enough missiles to carry on the fight but not pose a risk to their own fleet. You might see the emergence of orcas being used as highly armored mobile supply trains. Regrouping in between skirmishes would become much more important, as maintaining supply lines during fleet actions would become critical.

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.02.23 01:07:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Jaik7 on 23/02/2011 01:08:22
this would usher in the long overdue era of the kamikazi.

a: fill a (insured) wreathe with industrial explosives.
b: fly into enemy fleet
c: have your buddies shoot you
d: really big explosion

edit: i thought that you wanted to introduce backfires into the game at first too. then you clarified. you should edit your post so that you don't get more 'you fail at trolling's

Ice Pirateer
Posted - 2011.03.04 18:16:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Jaik7
Edited by: Jaik7 on 23/02/2011 01:08:22
this would usher in the long overdue era of the kamikazi.


That sounds really awesome... it could make suicide ganking noble.... YARRRR!!

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:15:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Gogela
Not a troll. I was thinking about how to keep blobs from forming... instead have more defined rolls for ships and different tactics for all... you own't see a blob of drakes if 2 of them exploding at once take out another 3...


And instead you have proposed for the 1.00th time the "great idea to kill hundred of ships at the undock point of Jita 4-4".


Marchocias
Posted - 2011.03.04 21:28:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Marchocias on 04/03/2011 21:33:24
I think he's talking about having an area-of-effect damage applied when your ship dies?

Then, in addition, he's suggesting that any volatile ammo, cap boosters, fuel, on board the ship that dies detonating along with the ship thereby increasing damage and radius?


If balanced it could be a reasonable way of countering blobs (imagine a tightly packed drake fail cascade). I think it might be technically a bit challenging though... area of effect weapons require a fair number of calculations to determine who gets hit, and for how much.

Also, in hisec, is it really reasonable for a passing shuttle to get blown to bits by someone elses petty squabble, as amusing as that would be?

kerradeph
Gallente
CATO.nss
Posted - 2011.03.05 07:15:00 - [19]
 

ya, this wouldn't permanently remove gal from PVP at all... need to get damn close for guns and when a ship went up, all your drones would be obliterated thus, a large number of the gal ships would be worthless after the first kill.

Commander Funyoun
Posted - 2011.03.05 07:21:00 - [20]
 

Yeah I have seen this and several similar threads like this before. Most of them have been shot down eventually.

Ship explosion damaging other ships: Denied.
Cargo Hold Ammo Explosion: Denied.
Cargo Container Ammo Explosion: Denied.

All these cool ideas were shot down by other Forums trolls many times before. Not to be rude but your idea is old hat now... sorry.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.05 09:12:00 - [21]
 

Somewhat like Battletech.

Can we have a CASE rig that enables the ammo to blow out harmlessly from the ship?

Its a nice idea not sure the game engine could handle it though. Love to see ships destroyed with remaining cap do damage in a radius too but again not sure the game can handle it.


 

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