That would be the worst experience imo. Even worse than opponents auto-leveling. Hopefully devs never implement anything like that.
General New module suggestion (introducing PvP consent trigger mechanic)
it not dealing with it the problem, they oblivious still got there sunglasses on.has some seem to flip right in front of your ship: 
and you ended up scraping each other shields off.
and you ended up scraping each other shields off.well my suggestion wasn't to make it impossible to be ganked, but more to even the playfield if you did, so you may still need to at least make your ship some what protectedYou still need to equip quite decent shield. Otherwise there is nothing to regenerate if your shield and hull are destroyed in one shot
But I don't have much experience with regeneration lasers using them myself. Maybe if NPC have 2 turreted ones covering 360 degrees sphere and starts regeneration before enemy opens fire, it could work.
This. The suggestion of this thread sure is a nice idea at first thought, but i also easily see more than one way to abuse it. Which means, it right out of the box would not fullfill its goal. We got enough of such "fixes" already in the past, FD doesn't need our help to come up with flawed and exploitable concepts.
At the same time, a properly supported counterpart to Mobius would be extremely valuable. Mind you, i very much appreciate what the people operating those PGs are doing and i mostly fly in those. (And sometimes in smaller PGs, but really almost never in open. ) But despite all their effort, Mobius suffers from a number of flaws. The most striking ones being that due to limitations set by the game it is not none group but many. A single one could not hold all players interested, but being several of them segregates them. (Making sure that open will always be "bigger".) Another important thing is that people have to come to the forums, find the info about Mobius, go to their web site, apply there and be accepted to get into it.
That's several hoops to jump through to many for the average casual player. A fix for that is many years overdue, but quite obviously nobody at FD of sufficient rank cares enough for that (and the sarcastic voice also says: or the game itself at all, as long as money comes in), for it ever to be adressed.
Last edited:
Very elaborated feedback! Thank you! Unfortunately it doesn't bring anything new, but +1 to the quoted comment. Could you please reveal the essense of your comment? Which particular flaws do you see?
Not being part of any PvP group, from perspective of outside observer, all these PGs are just fragmenting playerbase, while the intention behind my suggestion is to reduce fragmentation in a soft and non-abusive way.
Reducing "Playerbase Fragmentation" through the introduction of modules to manipulate/augment game modes in the light of "Game Version", "Platform Played On", "Time Zone", "Server Architecture", "Size of Play Area" and finally "Player Choice" would be like trying to reattach a severed digit with nothing but tomato ketchup and some kitchen roll.
I mean it might start to work, but I don't know how you would be able to tell.
I can give examples. Let's just look at this:
The first one is extremely easy to avoid: "while being targeted at your ship". So i don't select a target but fire the railguns visually... i actually wanted to shoot at the star in the distance, to deliver a message in 3000 years... but the poor person with this module got in between and was shot down.
The second and third: who is the aggressor when two ships collide? This is already kind of exploitable in the current status, but at least the "attacker", who usually merely flies through the mail slot at a faster speed than the speed limit (while the poor "victim" makes sure to be just below that speed before provoking the collision) by now only gets a fine... unless the "poor victim" then somehow manages to get destroyed. With the given suggestion, this would be done even easier than ever before.
But this at least is limited to stations, where you know that you have to pay attention. With the given suggestion, there's no condition that a station would be nearby and there'd be a speed limit in place. So the system merely is "two ships collide, the one without the module is the aggressor and needs to be punished". Would this be implemented, it would take merely minutes before the first wing forms, where one "poor victim" carries this module and starts crashing into "evil aggressors". And while the "evil aggressors" still wonder what happened, why their shields and weapons malfunction and possibly even why their power plant fails as the "poor victim" just crashed into him a second time, his "dutiful protectors" in his wing will finnish the "bad guy" off.
Mind you, all the quoted part is how the system would see it. As it would not be smart enough to distinguish, if the ship carrying the new module would actually be the victim, or if the extremely powerful effects of the module would be abused to be used in an offensive role.
I very much know what you mean. I meet a lot less people in Mobius since squadrons were formed. Even the most hardcore PvP-squadrons by now have their own PG, usually created merely minutes after forming the squadron. And i do believe that a properly supported "not-everybody-is-a-rabbid-murderhobo" mode would help a lot. But as FD since launch rejects this idea, i by now also am at a loss on how to make them understand that this helps... or at least would have helped years ago, when they rather were busy putting their thumbs in places they don't belong. I personally know several people who left the game due to their experiences in open and some more, who refused to ever try this game. They reject it due to the bad reputation, which part of our community and FD themselves spent a lot of effort to build up.
A lot of damage could have been prevented at the right time. I am not sure if i could persuade any of my friends, either those who left or those who refused to ever try ED, thanks to the reputation of a toxic community, to still give it a try. Yet despite a lot of damage being done over the years, i would so very much welcome this to finally be addressed. It might at least be a chance to get some of my friends to give ED a try again. [After also fixing more stuff from Odyssey, though... things are not as catastrophic as they were half a year ago, but still far from perfect...]
So really, i would appreciate some steps and measurements to provide a more welcoming environment for the casual player. Perhaps even a game mode where the people you can encounter know other means of communication than the fire button. (Yes, some people claim that there are other people in open. But i tried it several times, and in open communication seems to only, if ever, happen when people are docked. Else they seem to be too scared to have any non-weapon-based interaction with other players. ) I just don't believe that the suggested module would do the job. I have given some easy examples on how it could be abused. And that's from a simple mind like me, who is not into destroying other players. If i manage to quickly come up with that, i am very certain that more sinister minds, which we unfortunately seem to have plenty of, will find several more ways of using the module in a purpose directly against its intention.
Agreed. Just add some host options to PG and it’s good to go.
First and foremost - this type of feedback is what I would like to see. And I very much appreciate your effort and time spend to think through and formulate the concerns!
Maybe (just maybe) this module usage should be limited to the pilots:
It is a lot of questions and I agree with you there is with high probability no easy solution. I am sure developers (and even community managers) know the problem. And by actively discussing the topic I believe we contribute to this problem to be addressed sooner than later.
I agree that this "feature" involving targeting system is exploitable. My thought was that even in case of railguns most common use case is to target specific module, like shield generator, to kill quick. So proposed way could be just enough to prevent attack in first hand (before first shot), instead of limiting ability to shoot at all. Maybe (also very questionable) in case of "untargeted" attack it could cause malfunction after first landed shot. But it gets more complicated, which I also don't like.
The module was supposed to be used to support pilots trying to avoid combat (PvP), while flying mostly alone. I very much like the idea of hiring a wing to protect yourself in this case, but it has it own flaws.
Maybe (just maybe) this module usage should be limited to the pilots:
- not being part of a wing
- or not equipping ship weapons
- or use timeouts for deactivation (to avoid weapons to be deployed)
- or deactivate engines instead of powerplant in case of collision
- or deactivate module (with cooldown timeout) after dropping at other commander wake signal
- etc
- attacker uses the module against normal ship
- attacker uses the module against ship also equipped the module
- attacker with module supported by "wing" (not necessary formed in the game)
It is a lot of questions and I agree with you there is with high probability no easy solution. I am sure developers (and even community managers) know the problem. And by actively discussing the topic I believe we contribute to this problem to be addressed sooner than later.
I think i was not clear enough and used a bit too much sarcasm. The cases of abuse were not that somebody who needs defense would use the module -and- bring friends to protect him. What i wanted to show were examples where a gank wing would have one or two dedicated ships with this new module and use it in an offensive role.
I mean, just paint the scenario that a gank wing consists of:
- Ship A & B, something fast (Imperial Eagle or Imperial Courier), with boosted shields and this module, nothing else.
- Ship C & D, FLD or Mamba, set up for a quick kill.
They lurk around a station at a CG or in the airspace over an engineers base. (The second is the more vile thing, actually. ) Player X arrives in ship Y. So ships A & B accelerate towards ship Y. Ship A impacts, killing its shields. (According to your suggestion, the one without the module would be the aggressor. The one with the module wants to protect himself, right, so he can't be the bad guy... ) Right after ship A impacts on ship Y, so does ship B. As Y already has no shields any more (punishment for him "ramming" ship A), now its PP goes into malfunction. Or even worse, according to the changes you now suggested, the thrusters go into malfunction.
In one case, it might barely have a chance to escape IFship C & D are far enough away and IF the ramming happened far enough away from the station so it's still outside of its mass lock and IF the power setup is made the correct way, that FDS and thrusters stay operational even during a PP malfunction. (40% power. ) This already several IFs. And that's on the PP malfunction suggestion. In case of the even tougher suggestion of a thruster malfunction, ship Y requires an excellent pilot to have any chance to escape. An experienced pilot can FSD with malfunctioning thrusters, compensate for the spin and boost into the wakes vector... but many pilots will be helpless prey. And while ship Y struggles with his malfunctioning thrusters and his ship handing in a way he is not used to at all, ships C & D can close in and destroy it. (Also, in this scenario C & D can be slower ships with more firepower even... as ships A & B would just ram again when ship Y recovers its thrusters and thus keep it locked down. )
Bonus points: when done over an engineers base, you don't actually need more than one ship: you ram somebody lifting off to drop his shields, then turn around and ram again to kill the thrusters. And just watch him drop to the planets surface, crash and burn. The perfect ganking tool.
In this case: fly in solo and be done for.
So you can't fend off NPCs and are limited to a very limited number of activities. No good.
Needs more explanation. I don't see the exact idea on this point.
Is just as exploitable as before. Probably even more, for a PP malfunction anybody can plan ahead and set priorities accordingly. For a thruster malfunction, you need to be an experienced pilot to handle it well. Most pilots are not of such high skill level. (If we all were, the mere idea of the module would be pointless. )
There is a number of legitimate reasons for dropping out at a players wake signal. E.g. playing together with him, doing some RES hunting, doing CZs, being a fuel rat and bringing him fuel, etc.
This is very much what i was aiming at with what i wrote above: you can use the module as a weapon, and an extremely powerful one. Considering how strong shields currently are with all the engineering, merely a tool to quickly kill shields is huge. And that's before looking at the potential of the second collision, which according to your suggestions would either kill the PP or the thrusters, which is disastrous for anybody.
This might be the only "harmless" case here. Neither would be the aggressor, we'd be back to where we started from: it's seen as an accidental collision, unless one ship explodes, which makes the other one a criminal.
That's very much the scenario I immediately saw when i read the suggestion. The module would be an extremely powerful offensive tool. If they form a wing or if they "by pure chance, after 15 times waking in and out" are in the same instance does not matter.
Currently, as far as i know: As long as shields don't break, no result at all. When ones shields break, it's a fine and when one ship explodes, the other one is wanted and gets notoriety.
Last edited:
I got your idea first time
But thanks anyway!Goal is sort of to get mix of solo with ability to meet others while performing peaceful activity. So imo playing Solo Mode doesn't serve this.
Imagine you use module, and cannot deploy weapons unless module is deactivated. Deactivating is happening not immediately (if out of SC), but takes e.g. 30 seconds. So if used for ramming by solo ganker, he cannot use weapons instantly after that, but has to wait cooldown.
The idea came from the case if 2 ships hit each other, both equipped with the module - they will just drift away of each other with disabled thrusters unless effect is gone. Meanwhile crimes could be reported (assuming in high sec unsafe flying is sort of crime) and police could drop just for investigation. Just showing why I thought of thrusters instead of PP.
Yeah I agree. Not sure, but what is the majority of scenarios when players are getting ganked? Maybe not bounty hunting, but more trading and other peaceful activities (scanning planets, courier missions, search and rescue etc). I was ganked twice for all time and both times in Deciat delivering meta-alloys (first time being noob didn't expect this at all, second time thought I got some experience and can manage to high wake, but didn't).
One more crazy idea, if the module could somehow interfere with FSD to drop other ships (the attacker) at larger distance (and maybe also "harmless" pilot, e.g. when drops at nav. beacon - just larger "safer" distance). Would it be unfair/exploitable? Which would probably require to equip heavier long range sensors.
Last edited:
Hmm. That sounds saver at least. It would not right away see how to weaponize it. I might come up with an idea in a while and even if i can't, there's some vile minds in our community which might. But at first glance, i don't see a too big impact there, except that it would potentially also mess up cooperative gameplay. Which could be worked around by disabling the module at the right time.
But one thing would still remain: the fact that it takes up a module slot. If you use it, you always know that you sacrifice something else for it... this might or might not be fair, but beginners often use builds and advise of more experienced pilots. Which will be without that module. So exactly those who'd really need this module are the most likely ones to remove it. Which is a second line of thought to pursue on this suggestion, where i don't have a definite answer on yet, but just ponder if it really would be that helpful.
Which again makes me believe that a better C&P system (although it won't ever be completely without flaw) or even better, proper support for the Mobius group would be preferable. (Along the line of proper tools to manage it, giving it sufficient size so have it all in one group, etc. )