General Disable ships to prevent total destruction

[zikolach]

Currently any ship can be blown up by reducing its hull to 0% or critically damage working power plant, leading straight to rebuy screen.

It works well, but limits interaction to certain level. E.g quite often ships blow up before their thrusters are disabled, making sometimes piracy unnecessary challenging.

The proposal is to introduce an option given to the player (and NPC) to shut down all ship systems (keeping life support) to make ship practically indestructible until oxygen runs out (indestructible in terms of ability to completely blow it up sending player to rebuy screen, why would ship blow up if preventive powerplant shutdown is performed?).

It would still be possible to interact with disabled ship:

• stealing its cargo
• hacking its board computer (e.g. attempting to steal exploration data)
• some more opportunities like stealing/cutting off high-rated/engineered external modules

The pilot of disabled ship would still have an option to self destruct to get back to rebuy screen game loop.

Potential benefits:

• for non-combat players such a timeout would give a chance (in high security systems) for police to drop and attempt to rescue disabled ship (if it had report crimes on and clean security status)
• for criminals (who lost the encounter) it would be still risky as police would make an attempt to scan and arrest a criminal (and send it to detention center, via message request similar to mission proposals), destroying it otherwise (when oxygen runs out)
• for PvP making a scan of board computer could count as a win (as only allowed when the enemy made such a "consent" by disabling the ship)
• it would then make more sense to install higher rated life support modules to non-military (cargo and possibly exploration) ships
• potentially that would allow piracy without need to disable target drives if target himself disabled the ship being afraid of total destruction

Reactivating powerplant would require first to restore ship hull to some positive value, possibly calling rescue ships with repair limpets or having other modules not damaged enough to fix ship via reboot (if allowed to sacrifice module integrity to restore hull). There could be some emergency communication system (similar to searching multicrew) to find other player who can help withing specific radius from current system.

Disabled ship would disappear from the radars at relatively small distances (e.g. larger than 200-300m). It could lead to inability to target individual (internal?) modules (as they are disabled, only external ones like cargo hatch, drives, deployed hardpoints etc) from distances larger than that. It would be still possible to damage internal modules by firing certain part of the ship.

Pilots federation would immediately post find and rescue missions at nearest systems mission boards with information about pilot, ship and the attacker (maybe partially scrambled, missing letters etc). That could open up some opportunities for PvP.

For ships being disabled while approaching the planet surface there could be additional gameplay loop - commander can disembark from the ship crushed into the surface and run out of place potentially calling Apex taxi or fighting back on foot (especially being supported by settlement security if crash happened nearby the settlement).

What do you think?

 

[Ethaidan]

That would not make your ship indestructible. Your attacker could simply keep hammering away at your Hull while you sit motionless.

It may make your ship temporarily a bit harder to find, but you'd be better off boosting FA off, hitting silent running, dropping a heat sink... then at least you'll be moving while not appearing on radar.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

OP, you could just accept that you need to become more skilled, not at fighting, but at survival.

What you're asking for is a get out of jail free card.

I'm sorry, but cargo loss is so inconsequential in this game I don't understand why people fear it like it's the second coming of the black death.

In those situations, your ship getting blown up is the only real intimidating consequence for failure that the game has left. And yes, if you fail, you should expect to lose stuff. That is the entire premise for Elite.

 

[zikolach]

That would not make your ship indestructible. Your attacker could simply keep hammering away at your Hull while you sit motionless.

It may make your ship temporarily a bit harder to find, but you'd be better off boosting FA off, hitting silent running, dropping a heat sink... then at least you'll be moving while not appearing on radar.

The idea is not making ship totally indestructible, but provide some more opportunities for gameplay in situations when under current circumstances there are none.

E.g. currently there is no reason in game to equip non D-class life support module. Implementing this idea would give an incentive to consider higher grade veriants.

Using silent running with boost is good example, but not in the case of bulky slow cargo ships, which can be overrun by almost any of combat ships.

In those situations, your ship getting blown up is the only real intimidating consequence for failure that the game has left. And yes, if you fail, you should expect to lose stuff. That is the entire premise for Elite.

What is the failure in delivering cargo via high security systems and then being destroyed in just few seconds without any alternative?

Proposed game mechanic would give a distinction for high and low security, where in first case one would expect a police responce and have a chance to survive, while in the second - to expect logical consequence of taking the risk.

Balancing of the gains and losses from piracy is another story. Stolen cargo could potentially have higher price to be paid by opposing faction as well as "compromised" powerplay materials.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

The idea is not making ship totally indestructible, but provide some more opportunities for gameplay in situations when under current circumstances there are none.

E.g. currently there is no reason in game to equip non D-class life support module. Implementing this idea would give an incentive to consider higher grade veriants.

Using silent running with boost is good example, but not in the case of bulky slow cargo ships, which can be overrun by almost any of combat ships.


What is the failure in delivering cargo via high security systems and then being destroyed in just few seconds without any alternative?

Proposed game mechanic would give a distinction for high and low security, where in first case one would expect a police responce and have a chance to survive, while in the second - to expect logical consequence of taking the risk.

Balancing of the gains and losses from piracy is another story. Stolen cargo could potentially have higher price to be paid by opposing faction as well as "compromised" powerplay materials.

Or you could have ships just get blown up if the pilot is bad.

It works, and is already in the game.

Not to mention, it makes sense.

What, so turning off my ships systems means my hull can't be torn in half?

It's a dumb idea and you know it. You just wish to have a means to "not lose."

There is a means to this.

Git gud

 

[Nightflyer]

An option to vent the reactor core to prevent direct destruction in a quick time event making you just a dead hull in space would be cool.
You give yourself in the Hand of the attacker but a normal griefer would just continue fire until you're dead.
Any other interaction would be cool like previous described but unlikely.

The idea to disable the the immediate explosion at 0% hull when the reactor is offline can work if the attacker has to hit your cockpit directly to kill you finally.
When the dead ship is spinning in several directions this could be a very hard task.
And the sensors didn't get you from more than 500 meters.

 

[Nightflyer]

But if you're Ship is disabled like that you have to relay on other people or NPC to get going again and it should cost an like 8% of your ships worth to replace the core..

 

[Misty_Dark]

Or you could have ships just get blown up if the pilot is bad.

It works, and is already in the game.

Not to mention, it makes sense.

What, so turning off my ships systems means my hull can't be torn in half?

It's a dumb idea and you know it. You just wish to have a means to "not lose."

There is a means to this.

Git gud

Or people just share blocklists and eject you out of their games, and telling you to "gid nice" if you are to be playing with them again...

This is the exact sentiment that gives open a bad rep.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Or people just share blocklists and eject you out of their games, and telling you to "gid nice" if you are to be playing with them again...

This is the exact sentiment that gives open a bad rep.

Yep.

And exactly why the block system as it is, is so broken.

Seriously, it needs to be comms block only. The current iteration is blatantly short-sighted, like most moves made by FD have been, and a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to a loud screaming match here on the forum.

If you can't handle PvP, you should not go into the mode where you can meet anyone and everyone. You only have yourself to blame at that point.

You want to make friends? You are literally on the website that was made precisely for that purpose.

You (The proverbial you) are not special, nobody cares if you get mad, and if someone feels like blowing you up, guess what? Every ship has guns for a reasons, and has shields for a reason.

Fly smart or lose.

Yes, there is a place for getting more skilled and if you don't, you really shouldn't be able to skip consequences so easily.

This is why I have uninstalled. Because I am sick of folk like you describe who have decided to take moderation in their own hands against people who have done nothing wrong. (And yes, ganking is legitimate play, like it or not. Nobody has gotten bad for basic ganking. And they never will)

 

[Misty_Dark]

Yep.

And exactly why the block system as it is, is so broken.

Seriously, it needs to be comms block only. The current iteration is blatantly short-sighted, like most moves made by FD have been, and a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to a loud screaming match here on the forum.

If you can't handle PvP, you should not go into the mode where you can meet anyone and everyone. You only have yourself to blame at that point.

You want to make friends? You are literally on the website that was made precisely for that purpose.

You (The proverbial you) are not special, nobody cares if you get mad, and if someone feels like blowing you up, guess what? Every ship has guns for a reasons, and has shields for a reason.

Fly smart or lose.

Yes, there is a place for getting more skilled and if you don't, you really shouldn't be able to skip consequences so easily.

This is why I have uninstalled. Because I am sick of folk like you describe who have decided to take moderation in their own hands against people who have done nothing wrong. (And yes, ganking is legitimate play, like it or not. Nobody has gotten bad for basic ganking. And they never will)

yet another total lack of understanding about player motives to play a game. Not everyone wants to play how you play the game.

So players are playing it smart, and block unwanted players from their game. and I totally get that you hate it, and need to call it broken, when it is in fact working as intended. Because players can actively choose NOT to play with you. and you cannot FORCE them to play withy you.


and you talk about skipping conesquencies, you are reaping the same reward for being a ganker, players can block you for killing them, which is fine, you can attack anyone at anytime, but they can also at anytime for any reason decide to block you. that is their option, just as you have the option to not to gank players. youface the consequencies of your own playstule and do not like it, and it cannot be your fault? So it must be a broken system that allows players to remove you from their game, so that tehy can enjoy the game in a way they like to play it. They can enjoy the game without having to shoot at every other player. Many can enjoy the game without other players present, but gankers need other player, and that is their problem, when other players do not want to play with ganker. And of course, a ganker is going to cry foul when that happens. Because they need other players to have fun, but other players do not need a ganker to have fun.

 

[varonica]

Yes lets just sit here not able to do anything for X amount of time, that's just why I came to play the game, so I could sit and do nothing. Seriously people complain it takes 60 seconds to download data from a terminal in game, and you want to be able to make them sit there and do nothing? Lol.

 

[zikolach]

Or you could have ships just get blown up if the pilot is bad.

It works, and is already in the game.

Not to mention, it makes sense.

What, so turning off my ships systems means my hull can't be torn in half?

It's a dumb idea and you know it. You just wish to have a means to "not lose."

There is a means to this.

Git gud

I guess not everybody wish to blow everything up in the game. I don't see much reasoning to shoot into metal piece to split it up into halves. If game Would allow me to disable pirates to hand them in to police - I would use this option.

For killing another player there should be gameplay reason - being piracy, powerplay, competition etc.

Yes lets just sit here not able to do anything for X amount of time, that's just why I came to play the game, so I could sit and do nothing. Seriously people complain it takes 60 seconds to download data from a terminal in game, and you want to be able to make them sit there and do nothing? Lol.

You may still use your option by default to self-destruct your ship. People maybe complained not being able self-destruct themselves riding Apex and as of now dropships.

 

[varonica]

You may still use your option by default to self-destruct your ship

That wasn't implied in the original post.

What if there would be an option given to the player to shut down all systems except life support to make the ship practically undestructable until oxygen runs out?

This implies no self destruct function. In fact my go to response to being pirated and having stuff stolen from under me is to hit the self destruct, no filthy pirate will ever get anything worthwhile from me! It would be much better if it took out the attacking ship at the same time of course but that's my response to any suggestion like these, self destruct is always there, except in this case it was sepcifically not there!

 

[zikolach]

That wasn't implied in the original post.



This implies no self destruct function. In fact my go to response to being pirated and having stuff stolen from under me is to hit the self destruct, no filthy pirate will ever get anything worthwhile from me! It would be much better if it took out the attacking ship at the same time of course but that's my response to any suggestion like these, self destruct is always there, except in this case it was sepcifically not there!

I will try to explain a bit more what I originally meant.

Currently there is no option for target to "survive" if he didn't manage to run in time. Like we have an option to "report crimes against me" there could be an ootion "disable systems on critical hull damage". This would enable players to "unwrap" their path to rebuy screen, e.g. to let see agressor incentives or under certain circumstances (high sec system) avoid rebuy. It would even allow more coop gameplay in systems with more players (e.g. CG/engineers).

As said it is still default - blow ship reaching 0% hull.

But even after disabling - there could be more options: like eject escape pod, or reactivate powerplant when enemy approaches etc.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

I guess not everybody wish to blow everything up in the game. I don't see much reasoning to shoot into metal piece to split it up into halves. If game Would allow me to disable pirates to hand them in to police - I would use this option.

For killing another player there should be gameplay reason - being piracy, powerplay, competition etc.



You may still use your option by default to self-destruct your ship. People maybe complained not being able self-destruct themselves riding Apex and as of now dropships.

People may not want to blow things up.

That doesn't mean they should not be expected to use the current tools to avoid that happening.

The whole point of getting PvP'd/Pirated is that you didn't ask for it.

So seriously, this is a learn-to-play issue on your part.

Also, if you can't disable a ship already, you need to build your skill set.

Seriously, what you are saying is nothing more than begging for an "I win" button because you don't want to put in effort.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

yet another total lack of understanding about player motives to play a game. Not everyone wants to play how you play the game.

So players are playing it smart, and block unwanted players from their game. and I totally get that you hate it, and need to call it broken, when it is in fact working as intended. Because players can actively choose NOT to play with you. and you cannot FORCE them to play withy you.


and you talk about skipping conesquencies, you are reaping the same reward for being a ganker, players can block you for killing them, which is fine, you can attack anyone at anytime, but they can also at anytime for any reason decide to block you. that is their option, just as you have the option to not to gank players. youface the consequencies of your own playstule and do not like it, and it cannot be your fault? So it must be a broken system that allows players to remove you from their game, so that tehy can enjoy the game in a way they like to play it. They can enjoy the game without having to shoot at every other player. Many can enjoy the game without other players present, but gankers need other player, and that is their problem, when other players do not want to play with ganker. And of course, a ganker is going to cry foul when that happens. Because they need other players to have fun, but other players do not need a ganker to have fun.

Self-declared moderation is not a gameplay consequence. It's just spiteful, selfish players unwilling to accept the full terms of how the game works at a basic level.

If you seriously consider blocking to be gameplay, do me a favour and block me on this forum right now. Because you are now #23.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Self-declared moderation is not a gameplay consequence. It's just spiteful, selfish players unwilling to accept the full terms of how the game works at a basic level.

If you seriously consider blocking to be gameplay, do me a favour and block me on this forum right now. Because you are now #23.

That is rich, you are talking about spiteful and selfish player, but all that you talk about is you and how you want to play the game, you want to ENFORCE your way of playing on everyone else, that do not share your way of playing the game.

You have still not grasped the concept that nobody, not you, not me, can force anybody else to play with you. We can only invite other players to play with us, but every player have their option to opt out of playing with any other player.

So who is the one here refusing to acknowledge how the game works at a basic level? Because following how FDev have strengthen the block function several times and also making it easier to use, that tells the story that the block functions works as intended, so that makes your desire thgat it is broken and needs fixing, the spiteful and selfish thing here. Yopu are the one that wants to force your way of playing onto other players and deny them their fully valid ingame options to remove you from their game. And most likely they will do this AFTER you had your way of preferred gameplay with them, and you are the one that is upset about players using the basic options offered by the game to play how they like.