Shutdown Field as ultimate self defense system

Sad to see how people lack of imagination.
There are always good chances to take someone's idea and add a contribution to correct it/improve it, highlighting weak points and propose some stronger alternative instead.
That's what discussions and brainstorming is all about.
My fail here is not the bad suggestion, but believing that people of this community could be proactive.
Instead I see people complaining for ganking, complaining for bugs, rejecting anyone's ideas... it's all a big whining here... grow up gents!

Hey, your suggestion got 1 rep (at the time of posting) - don't feel too bad :D

Seriously though, the universal panning of your idea doesn't point to a lack of imagination on anyone's part - it's simply a bad idea.

It's no problem, we all come up with imaginative ideas that just aren't realistic or practical. Just shrug and let it go, like a grown-up would do.
 
Last edited:
it's all a big whining here... grow up gents!

Ironic.

I suggest you look at some of the reasons folks listed why it was not a tenable idea, try to re-work your idea, and come back with something that won't be met with near unanimous disagreement. In particular how to avoid it's use as a ramming tool by hulltanks, or avoid abuse by non winged but still cooperative gankers.
 
Sad to see how people lack of imagination.

We've imagined all sorts of ways to use your proposed module!

There are always good chances to take someone's idea and add a contribution to correct it/improve it, highlighting weak points and propose some stronger alternative instead.
That's what discussions and brainstorming is all about.

We did that too, pointing out that superior alternatives already exist.

My fail here is not the bad suggestion, but believing that people of this community could be proactive.

Proactive is putting a few tons of extant defensive equipment on your ship and spending a few minute practicing escape and evasion.

Suggesting a module no one needs to solve a problem that does not exist, because one repeatedly neglected to do the former, is quite reactive.

Instead I see people complaining for ganking, complaining for bugs, rejecting anyone's ideas... it's all a big whining here... grow up gents!

I'm not entirely sure if this is sarcastic or delusional.
 
Let me change the direction a bit then...

World bosses. Wouldn't it be cool if there were occasional named NPCs they could be power play generals or something, and have special weapons, including an EMP (shutdown field if you like), which of you didn't outrange when you saw it warming up would leave you dead in space until you reboot.

Yeh, world bosses.
 
Let me change the direction a bit then...

World bosses. Wouldn't it be cool if there were occasional named NPCs they could be power play generals or something, and have special weapons, including an EMP (shutdown field if you like), which of you didn't outrange when you saw it warming up would leave you dead in space until you reboot.

Yeh, world bosses.

Lol 7 pages in and Aash is the first person (I think) to even consider the suggestion in the context of PvE.

You're really the best white hat. Don't ever change. Send some GARD to PS4 to try to kill me please.
 
Ironic.

I suggest you look at some of the reasons folks listed why it was not a tenable idea, try to re-work your idea, and come back with something that won't be met with near unanimous disagreement. In particular how to avoid it's use as a ramming tool by hulltanks, or avoid abuse by non winged but still cooperative gankers.

We've imagined all sorts of ways to use your proposed module!
We did that too, pointing out that superior alternatives already exist.
Proactive is putting a few tons of extant defensive equipment on your ship and spending a few minute practicing escape and evasion.
Suggesting a module no one needs to solve a problem that does not exist, because one repeatedly neglected to do the former, is quite reactive.
I'm not entirely sure if this is sarcastic or delusional.

I've found your points interesting actually, I'm not reffering to all of you, I should've clarified that better
 
The solution to ganking is not to add OP weapons

This one.

The only real defence against a halfway-cluey commander[1] is ability to tank, outmanouver and subsequently flee. In any situation that isn't pure combat ship vs pure combat ship, the advantage is constantly to the aggressor. People complain about combat loggers[2] and high-waking, but these are literally the only responses beyond surrender available to any pilot flying a non-combat vessel looking to escape a fight. What's the point of having effective fittings for defence, when those same fittings can be used in anger in response?

What's missing, and has been for ages, are hardpoint fittings which help protect *the equipped* ship in some way, but neuter it's effectiveness as a combat vessel. Emphasis on the *equipped ship*, because then that also rules out the "neutral, unwinged helper" situation. Of course, optional internals can be used for defences... I'm split as to whether there's enough variety or not yet though.

A not-applicable example is something like Warp Core Stabilisers in EVE... which offers some protection against warp jamming (a way to "lock down" a target), but trashes your target lock speed (you, generally, can't fight without a target lock)[3]

[1] Yes, there's plenty of videos out there of people in Type 7's and the like taking out so-called pirates with mines and defensive manouvering. While novel and interesting, I'd claim the victim pirates to be relatively incompetent.
[2] Not condoning it, just saying it's a thing.
[3] Just an example, not meant to be an actual suggestion.
 
Last edited:
and high-waking, [...]

Who's complaining about non PvP ships high-waking? I've complained that their wakes disappear if I can't get into their target system within moments of their arrival (e.g. same instance before they cut thrusters to drop from SC) but not that they hi-waked away in the first place.

I'm not trying to be snarky. Some folks have recently mentioned as part of PvP etiquette low wakes are preferred, but that's not at all the situation in your post. Maybe I'm missing some posts.
 
Last edited:
I've found your points interesting actually, I'm not reffering to all of you, I should've clarified that better

Theory crafting and thought experiments are all well and good, but I think most people's criticism stem from a sense of practicality, not an unwillingness to do these thing.

Most in-game problems have clear in-game mitigations. About the least likely thing to occur is for Frontier to introduce ultra-specialized equipment that would require significant balancing to achieve what can already be done.

What's missing, and has been for ages, are fittings which help protect *the equipped* ship in some way, but neuter it's effectiveness as a combat vessel. Emphasis on the *equipped ship*, because then that also rules out the "neutral, unwinged helper" situation.

I'm skeptical that there is any protection that cannot be adapted to offense, and even more doubtful that such a module would have any logical context in the setting.

Even if such a thing were possible, how would it be any different than the "ability to tank, outmaneuver and subsequently flee", in practice? If it ultimately just means you can 'tank' longer, then it's little different from existing defenses, unless it inexplicably uses weapon slots, resulting in fewer of the balancing trade-offs (which are, IMO, both necessary and an intrinsic part of the game) of other protections?
 
You know gankers are going to build a silent running Orca and use this to disable and then ram people to death. Or just unwing before firing so their wingmates can kill you

The solution to ganking is not to add OP weapons

I'd use it as such. It always works both ways unless you have a shield generator. That only blocks incoming damage but not outgoing damage. The jammer described above can be used offensively, just imagine the cou tless threads how OP it was and people would only have a chance to log.
The logic these days. Wait...
 
Solution to ganking is make it just as risky of pure loss as the ones on the other side face. AKA make it discouraged by in-game mechanics, though at the same time worth it enough so you can always go do it when you feel up for the challenge

There is simple game mechanic, you carry enough power to kill them instead them killing you.

Without defense inflation ganker ships would be closer to health of normal ships. The weapons add much to no weight and don't take useful slots, but defensive modules add weight and take slots. If Fdev limited the amount of defensive modules ships can have, to survive and wing against attacker player would need to carry just weapons to have fair change and not carry half of the ships weight of defensive modules to increase TTK.
 
There is simple game mechanic, you carry enough power to kill them instead them killing you.

Without defense inflation ganker ships would be closer to health of normal ships. The weapons add much to no weight and don't take useful slots, but defensive modules add weight and take slots. If Fdev limited the amount of defensive modules ships can have, to survive and wing against attacker player would need to carry just weapons to have fair change and not carry half of the ships weight of defensive modules to increase TTK.

Your idea is valid, but for once I agree with Haavk, at least in high level idea.

I would enjoy a threat of being a marked target for punishment by "lawful" cmdrs. However, I would only consider such a change fair if it came with equally potent mechanics for "legit" piracy (longer persistent wakes not dependent on instance luck, stations tell "rumors" of recently departed CMDR destinations, etc.) Both sides would have to be carefully balanced lest they just become more tools for gank-a-thons. A smaller parallel network of pirate haven stations (Tortuga if you will) to offset being outcast from Pilot Federation could be considered as well.
 
Who's complaining about non PvP ships high-waking? I've complained that their wakes disappear if I can't get into their target system within moments of their arrival (e.g. same instance before they cut thrusters to drop from SC) but not that they hi-waked away in the first place.

I'm not trying to be snarky. Some folks have recently mentioned as part of PvP etiquette low wakes are preferred, but that's not at all the situation in your post. Maybe I'm missing some posts.

It might not be the forums current "hot-topic", but I've certainly seen posts in the past. They're usually citing things like:
- High waking is OP, no way to counter!
- Make mass-lock affect high wake, targets escape too quickly
- Give me some module that makes high-waking impossible/puts a player in stasis for two minutes
etc.

Happy to go google-hunting if you like? They definitely exist.


I'm skeptical that there is any protection that cannot be adapted to offense, and even more doubtful that such a module would have any logical context in the setting.

One for starters which I've suggested in the past is an FSD "shunt". Plain language, it is a slow->medium refire weapon with limited (=~ 20 charges, at a spitball figure), and it just transfers a "block" to the interdictee.

In "lore" terms, as the FSDI establishes a "tether" (whatever that means) to the target ship, this is essentially putting disruptive feedback back down to the interdictor... whether that's kinetic feedback, electrical/energy feedback or space pixie dust, I'm sure something could be imagined, given "telepresence" is your lower-bar for canon. It could be balanced however you like; do nothing, charge use causes hull/systems damage, needs a full SYS bar per use, can only fit one, whatever.

No offensive use, is a defensive aid, best appropriated to larger, lower-agility ships which struggle in a PvP interdiction situation.

For something more tactical, how about an FSD energy bypass. Activation causes significant heat generation like SCBs to reduce the effects of mass-lock, and drains energy from SYS or WEP to give a boost to low-wake spool when affected by mass-lock, since the logic (correct me if I'm wrong) is that a nearby large-mass needs more energy to overcome the "gravity" of a ship for low-wake, as it's a slower, more controlled build-up, as opposed to the high-wake which uses energy levels which are orders of magnitude higher and result in nearby ships being "meaningless" in the calculation of a high-wake spool up. I guess that isn't a hardpoint though, and more an optional internal.

Again, no combat use (overheating your own ship and... trying to low wake away?).

Maybe a self-applied healies for feelies beam instead? Sucks more power than a beam laser variant? Works by generating a different harmonic which makes it impact the ship's own shield^, impacting it instead and causing the effect? Of course, healy beams are pretty broken anyway, but again, would only be effective while power is in WEP. Most defender's power is in SYS or ENG, so would be one of those "I have spare hardpoints/rainy day" situations, but it's still eschewing a damage dealer for a self-repair mechanism (^ how *do* our own weapons pass through our own shields?). But that's an example of "tanking better" too... not that simply tanking better *isn't* a defensive option... just that it's the only one.

How about a magneto turret? Burns WEP like a beam laser, disrupts kinetic munitions like flak, but regardless of fixed/gimbal/turret mount? Useless against beams/plasma. Only works against a ship if that ship is firing at the ship using the turret?

WEP Neutraliser (OK, I'm stealing that one from EVE...). Burns WEP, neutralises target WEP. Has some offensive capabilities sure, but has minimal/no use against someone trying to run... again they're probably jammed up with SYS/ENG, unless they're slow in which case SYS is all they care about... might as well put those two pips in WEP and do something that isn't inconsequential damage.

That's just off the top of my head. Of course, you may hate all these ideas, but nonetheless, I'm not claiming to be a font of fantastic ideas, only that there's bountiful amounts of ones which could function and be easily explained with in-game lore.
 
Last edited:
It might not be the forums current "hot-topic", but I've certainly seen posts in the past. They're usually citing things like:
- High waking is OP, no way to counter!
- Make mass-lock affect high wake, targets escape too quickly
- Give me some module that makes high-waking impossible/puts a player in stasis for two minutes
etc.

OK, I believe you. I have just been hearing a lot more advice to non combat pilots to have preselected high wake target (a la rinzer video), etc. but it sounds quite plausible some would complain. I don't. I have my FSD reset dumbfires and if I miss, well that's on me and I should git-gud ;-)

Would you mind editing your post, as it appears I am the author of the second quote, but I am not? I know it was probably accidental.
 
Last edited:
All I ever wanted was my own Thargoid Interceptor with shutdown pulse wave. None of that Aegis stuff, but the real thing. That would be so cool.
 
Lol 7 pages in and Aash is the first person (I think) to even consider the suggestion in the context of PvE.

You're really the best white hat. Don't ever change. Send some GARD to PS4 to try to kill me please.

No pvpers on ps4 currently. :( If you ever feel like joining the master race you won't have any trouble finding us, and despite being white hat, you might be surprised what we can do (everyone we've run into so far, was ;)).
 
Inflation from engineering. Balance pass on modules weren't that drastic.

Reasons? Pretty obvious.
Strong incentive for the players to get the DLC and grind stupid amount of times.
A total lack of interest to achieve balance for PVP in the sandbox.

Again, and I already asked you. In which universe can I convince a lucid friend of mine to grind for 200 hours just for his exploration ship to resist alpha strike from a combat ship?

And what type of ing skills will he hone while doing it? Submit to interdiction and HiWake? Switch to solo?

Pvp right now in Elite is so fitting for the bonkers mentality vets and their sense of achievement seemed to have developped. It's a freeform, unwelcoming, incredibly segregated decaying pile of rot without matchmaking nor balance.

My 2 c.

I think you're overstating the case. I never ground for anything. Sure it took me two years to become competitive at pvp, but when I wanted to I had already done most of the work just by playin the game.

For the record, the insane defense inflation in comparison to damage was so that explorers and traders didn't need to be victims any more, with the side effect that real pvpers have messed up 20 minute duels with modules failing all over the place. It's more a game of who runs out of ammo first. Never forget this was done for those who can't defend themselves properly. So many duels ending 'I'm out of ammo'...'yeh, me too.' 'Call it a draw?' 'sure'. THAT's why it's rubbish, cos explorers and traders can't learn to use the tools given to them and we pay for that.

As for the people saying engineering is the problem and it should go and then they'd be able to survive, I can't imagine a more incorrect statement in the context.
 
Last edited:
I mean, the OPs idea is petty bad, but if you want to stick with the theme for a counter proposal, how about this?..

EMP. Charges and fires much like this ECM, but the blast causes roid-cracking style sensor disruption to everyone in range including the user.
No radar, No target locks, no gimballed or turret tracking, and contact panel is garbled.
HUD is also glitchy and distorted, so fixed aiming is sorta difficult.
It effects everyone in range, and lasts 5-10 seconds.
Once fired, your sensors "adapt" and are immune from EMP for some time. (Needed to prevent spamming from multiple users)
1 per ship. 60 second cooldown.

Done!

Fire one off and jump during the confusion.
Or gankers or PvPers can cause massive sensor disruption during a fight.


Or, like I said before, just fit better shields and jump. Lol

Sad to see how people lack of imagination.
There are always good chances to take someone's idea and add a contribution to correct it/improve it, highlighting weak points and propose some stronger alternative instead.
That's what discussions and brainstorming is all about.
My fail here is not the bad suggestion, but believing that people of this community could be proactive.
Instead I see people complaining for ganking, complaining for bugs, rejecting anyone's ideas... it's all a big whining here... grow up gents!

Am I invisible? :p
 
Have I struck you as the unobservant type? ;-)

I don't overestimate my own skills either.

Besides, I doubt I could grind engineering again :-/ Maybe if one day I have a VR rig.

No, you haven't. ;)

I said that to one of the squadron members the other day who has something like 4 accounts and regularly resets THEM ALL! I don't know how he does it. He does the engineers grind (all of them) a couple of times a year. I definitely couldn't do that..no way...! :O
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom