Forums » Suggestions
I know 10 seconds is a long time in combat. Is it realistic to completely dismantle any ship in that time, though? The idea here is to make the payoff for pirating good and also realistic, but to make it realistically difficult enough that it takes practice and skill. Pirating doesn't usually happen in plain sight in the midst of a raging battle. It's a criminal activity, and criminal activity doesn't like witnesses/complications. This would more likely happen to someone trading valuable goods far from the safety of a station.
I also try to make my suggestions promotive of teamwork, since that would make an MMORPG more fun and immersive (my word of the month). A trader worried about pirates taking valuable cargo will hire escorts (hopefully other players, I'd take such a mission). Since escorts make pirating tough, pirates would have to band together. A few fighters to take on any escorts, a ship with a large cargo hold to cut up the ship and take the stuff, another ship to do the disabling and keep the ship down, since it may recover from the EMP.
I prefer your suggestion for the hardening equipment, I just thought more hp would be easier to implement and do a similar job. If it could make the electrics more resistant as in an EMP warhead does 10% less damage to it, that would be better. I'm not clear on what you mean by "no one would remain disabled for longer than until the next time their HP was updated from the auto-repair." A seperate bar showing EMP status (I prefer it be seperate, we're not talking physical damage to the hull, here) that dumps EM radiation at a modifiable rate makes sense to me. Maybe once the bar clears, you have to "reboot" your computer, which would take a bit longer the more items you have equipped (since they all talk to the computer).
I'm glad you like the mining/salvage merging idea, though. :)
I also try to make my suggestions promotive of teamwork, since that would make an MMORPG more fun and immersive (my word of the month). A trader worried about pirates taking valuable cargo will hire escorts (hopefully other players, I'd take such a mission). Since escorts make pirating tough, pirates would have to band together. A few fighters to take on any escorts, a ship with a large cargo hold to cut up the ship and take the stuff, another ship to do the disabling and keep the ship down, since it may recover from the EMP.
I prefer your suggestion for the hardening equipment, I just thought more hp would be easier to implement and do a similar job. If it could make the electrics more resistant as in an EMP warhead does 10% less damage to it, that would be better. I'm not clear on what you mean by "no one would remain disabled for longer than until the next time their HP was updated from the auto-repair." A seperate bar showing EMP status (I prefer it be seperate, we're not talking physical damage to the hull, here) that dumps EM radiation at a modifiable rate makes sense to me. Maybe once the bar clears, you have to "reboot" your computer, which would take a bit longer the more items you have equipped (since they all talk to the computer).
I'm glad you like the mining/salvage merging idea, though. :)
Professor Chaos - "Is it realistic to completely dismantle any ship in that time, though?" and "This would more likely happen to someone trading valuable goods far from the safety of a station."
Heh, as we have run across before, I don't particularly care what is realistic so much as what is fun/interesting. I generally consider waiting to be boring, such as waiting to finish dismantling a completely helpless ship far away from any station.
There is a difference between promoting teamwork and FORCING it. Forced teamwork almost always ends badly in my experience. To promote teamwork without forcing it, you must appropriately reward teamwork without making it necessary.
The reason that traders don't really hire escorts now is because no trade ship has the armor to survive even with an escort and only 1 trade ship has the cargo capacity to afford a single escort and still profit from a run. I hope this will change with the introduction of player cappies.
Also, you cannot require that one group outnumber another for teamwork to be effective; currently 1 pirate can take on a trader and 2 pirates (or 1 good pirate) can take on a trader and an escort. If you have to have a disabling ship and a cutter/transport ship AND a combat ship to take on a trader and an escort, then you are requiring the pirates to outnumber the convoy 3:2.
My idea, Professor Chaos, is that one would have to affect all the currently remaining HP of a ship with EMP damage to disable it; this would also make it easier to disable a heavily damaged ship. I prefer the display to be the same so it doesn't take up any more space in an already heavily populated HUD, especially since I would guess it would not come into play very often.
Either way, with your seperate bar idea, when would a ship become disabled? How long does it stay disabled? If a ship has 1% armor left, how much EMP damage does it take to disable? Also, a ship's HP is more than just its external armor I think - I still like my idea better; I believe it to be clearer and more complete (though as it's mine, of course I think it's clear...).
Heh, as we have run across before, I don't particularly care what is realistic so much as what is fun/interesting. I generally consider waiting to be boring, such as waiting to finish dismantling a completely helpless ship far away from any station.
There is a difference between promoting teamwork and FORCING it. Forced teamwork almost always ends badly in my experience. To promote teamwork without forcing it, you must appropriately reward teamwork without making it necessary.
The reason that traders don't really hire escorts now is because no trade ship has the armor to survive even with an escort and only 1 trade ship has the cargo capacity to afford a single escort and still profit from a run. I hope this will change with the introduction of player cappies.
Also, you cannot require that one group outnumber another for teamwork to be effective; currently 1 pirate can take on a trader and 2 pirates (or 1 good pirate) can take on a trader and an escort. If you have to have a disabling ship and a cutter/transport ship AND a combat ship to take on a trader and an escort, then you are requiring the pirates to outnumber the convoy 3:2.
My idea, Professor Chaos, is that one would have to affect all the currently remaining HP of a ship with EMP damage to disable it; this would also make it easier to disable a heavily damaged ship. I prefer the display to be the same so it doesn't take up any more space in an already heavily populated HUD, especially since I would guess it would not come into play very often.
Either way, with your seperate bar idea, when would a ship become disabled? How long does it stay disabled? If a ship has 1% armor left, how much EMP damage does it take to disable? Also, a ship's HP is more than just its external armor I think - I still like my idea better; I believe it to be clearer and more complete (though as it's mine, of course I think it's clear...).
I like the topic at hand. I strongly support the ideas of disabling, hacking, and tugging, but the concepts oft bring as many questions as anwers to the table. Allow me to through my two credits.
1. Who would want to disable a ship as opposed to simply destroy it, and why?
My answer: Very specialized reason, such as pirating purposes, non-aggressive defense, or recovering personal intact.
As a realistic space pirate, I think that the most efficient method would include electronically disabling my target's engines and weapony (those things tend to explode when simply shot at!) and then hacking the target's computer into ejecting the cargo. If I really felt like it, I could even tug the target ship back for dismantling, again without damaging it more than necessary. An EMP seems a good way to do it, but the idea of hacking has it's allures as well.
As a trader, I'd not be particularly concerned about finishing a kill or no. If the fastest method of getting a pirate off my tail was through electronic disabling, I'd be all for it! An EMP mine would probably do the trick, because it'd be most unfortuanate if my own vessel got caught in the wave while trying to escape. I'd be hesitant to use any form of hacking, because that might open up my own shipboard computer to attacks.
If I found it my mission to recover a person in target ship alive, I would most definately NOT fire at it with my guns. An EMP missle would be my choice of tool. Frankly, I'd hope the ship I was after was much slower and bigger than mine, and I had a couple of allies to boot.
2. If disabling a ship were an option, at what point would a ship be rendered "disabled"?
My answer: Well, we already have plenty of numbers to work with, so I don't see the logic in adding more EMP hit points, or what have you. Seems to me that disabling a vessel has naught to do with how beat up it is, although that is one method of doing it yes... Would it make sense if there were a breed of weapon that damaged it's target's energy level as well as armour? Or even just the energy level? Furthermore, would it be fun, and effective if a ship became disabled when it's energy level was brought a certain amount below 0? It may not be the most realistic method of doing things, but it's clean. To add, I think it'd be best if ships had the options of rebooting, hacking, or self destructing while disabled.
3: How can it be ensured that disabling would not disrupt the balance of PvP combat?
My answer: This is a simple one. I call it, "collateral damage". My understanding of an Electromagnetic Pulse, is that it explodes with a Splash Radius, from the detonation of some sort of projectile, a mine or missle or rocket. Well if the radius (but not the proximity to detenate) were big enough, using such rockets at close quarters would be as devastating to the target as the one firing.
At the same time, a pirate might find it less conveniant to use disabling devices as opposed to plasma, but in the right situations, such as if he has friends to take over should he become disabled hisself through collateral fire, more profitable, because the target is claimed whole.
Traders already use lightning mines to great effect, (atleast I do) and proximty mines would not be much different.
Perhaps a dedicated pilot in a Ragnorak could load enough EMP devices into his ship to make it a real threat in combat, but that might just be an improvement, considering how underused Ragnoraks seem to be in PvP.
4: What ships would be able to be boarded?
My answer: I never understood why a ship must be disabled to engage in boarding, nor do I see why a tube would be necessary to connect the ships. This question I think is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and only brings up more questions, like "What is there to be gained from ship boarding?", or "Why must a ship be disabled to be boarded in the first place?". Perhaps we could launch space marines out of our large ports, and commandeer a capital ship, that'd be cool, even realistic by VO's standards but...
1. Who would want to disable a ship as opposed to simply destroy it, and why?
My answer: Very specialized reason, such as pirating purposes, non-aggressive defense, or recovering personal intact.
As a realistic space pirate, I think that the most efficient method would include electronically disabling my target's engines and weapony (those things tend to explode when simply shot at!) and then hacking the target's computer into ejecting the cargo. If I really felt like it, I could even tug the target ship back for dismantling, again without damaging it more than necessary. An EMP seems a good way to do it, but the idea of hacking has it's allures as well.
As a trader, I'd not be particularly concerned about finishing a kill or no. If the fastest method of getting a pirate off my tail was through electronic disabling, I'd be all for it! An EMP mine would probably do the trick, because it'd be most unfortuanate if my own vessel got caught in the wave while trying to escape. I'd be hesitant to use any form of hacking, because that might open up my own shipboard computer to attacks.
If I found it my mission to recover a person in target ship alive, I would most definately NOT fire at it with my guns. An EMP missle would be my choice of tool. Frankly, I'd hope the ship I was after was much slower and bigger than mine, and I had a couple of allies to boot.
2. If disabling a ship were an option, at what point would a ship be rendered "disabled"?
My answer: Well, we already have plenty of numbers to work with, so I don't see the logic in adding more EMP hit points, or what have you. Seems to me that disabling a vessel has naught to do with how beat up it is, although that is one method of doing it yes... Would it make sense if there were a breed of weapon that damaged it's target's energy level as well as armour? Or even just the energy level? Furthermore, would it be fun, and effective if a ship became disabled when it's energy level was brought a certain amount below 0? It may not be the most realistic method of doing things, but it's clean. To add, I think it'd be best if ships had the options of rebooting, hacking, or self destructing while disabled.
3: How can it be ensured that disabling would not disrupt the balance of PvP combat?
My answer: This is a simple one. I call it, "collateral damage". My understanding of an Electromagnetic Pulse, is that it explodes with a Splash Radius, from the detonation of some sort of projectile, a mine or missle or rocket. Well if the radius (but not the proximity to detenate) were big enough, using such rockets at close quarters would be as devastating to the target as the one firing.
At the same time, a pirate might find it less conveniant to use disabling devices as opposed to plasma, but in the right situations, such as if he has friends to take over should he become disabled hisself through collateral fire, more profitable, because the target is claimed whole.
Traders already use lightning mines to great effect, (atleast I do) and proximty mines would not be much different.
Perhaps a dedicated pilot in a Ragnorak could load enough EMP devices into his ship to make it a real threat in combat, but that might just be an improvement, considering how underused Ragnoraks seem to be in PvP.
4: What ships would be able to be boarded?
My answer: I never understood why a ship must be disabled to engage in boarding, nor do I see why a tube would be necessary to connect the ships. This question I think is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and only brings up more questions, like "What is there to be gained from ship boarding?", or "Why must a ship be disabled to be boarded in the first place?". Perhaps we could launch space marines out of our large ports, and commandeer a capital ship, that'd be cool, even realistic by VO's standards but...
SuperMegaMynt, ships should be disabled before allowing to board, for the simple reason of gameplay balance.
Taking over ships by boarding (Homeworld's assault/infiltrator frigates come to mind) are okay when the ship's one of many. If it's your own, personal baby, it wouldn't do that people can come with your hull being at 99% and yank it from your powerless fingers.
This goes in the same drawer as 'being able to land on planets', 'walking around stations' and similarily nice, but currently unfeasible ideas.
And I wouldn't like EMP to find its way into VO. It'd be a bit difficult to balance out against the other weapons. Possibly like in EVN, where you can simply avoid being hit by EMP weaponry if your ship is fast enough. However, that poses the problem that even less people would fly heavier ships like the ragnarok.
Taking over ships by boarding (Homeworld's assault/infiltrator frigates come to mind) are okay when the ship's one of many. If it's your own, personal baby, it wouldn't do that people can come with your hull being at 99% and yank it from your powerless fingers.
This goes in the same drawer as 'being able to land on planets', 'walking around stations' and similarily nice, but currently unfeasible ideas.
And I wouldn't like EMP to find its way into VO. It'd be a bit difficult to balance out against the other weapons. Possibly like in EVN, where you can simply avoid being hit by EMP weaponry if your ship is fast enough. However, that poses the problem that even less people would fly heavier ships like the ragnarok.
The only reason to fly a rag is if you spam anyway, since nowadays battries cannot hold 5 energy wep barrage for more than a couple of seconds anyway. So that's not a huge problem. Sure being hit by emps is annoying. But 1 hit shouldn't cripple you. (NEVER a 1 Hit kill should be accepted for the rag right?). That would mean that spam figthers will have to be careful enough.
Spam Taur FTW!
Spam Taur FTW!
I've never flown a Ragnarok, but if the big problem is battery power, I see no reason why bigger ships shouldn't have multiple battery slots. There would be interesting strategy, "should I go for capacity with two heavy batteries, should I go for two fast batteries, or should I do a combo?" It makes sense that bigger ships need more power, and so have a bigger power source.
First off, I appreciate your feed back, Toshiro, Prof. Chaos. The concept of multiple batteries is indeed an interesting one.
I agree. I find ship boarding unrealistic in many cases, such as walking aboard a Centaurion, but also potentially disruptive to game balance. If it were held to a vote, I'd say "Nay!".'
Yes, EMP's must never become more powerful than the usual guns. There's no reason to balance them to other weapons, standard blasters and cannons should legitimately wiegh far heavier on the scale. However, there are certain, specialized cases when loading an EMP into your ship would be beneficial. Yet I can't stress how vital it is that none of these cases involve destroying a target.
For balance to stay achieved, EMP's must be...
Less effective at killing than even ion blasters.
Slower, and more difficult to aim than basic weapony.
Less numerous in quantity.
So why use them in the first place? All boarding, hacking, or ship tugging aside, there are numerous times when trading that I wish I had but one weapon to knock 10 energy off that annoying Vulture behind me, because that's often all the difference between a miss or a hit from the Vulture's rocket. And as, I'm sure, many traders can testify, one rocket to knock ya' off course can be the difference between life and death.
Regarding Ragnoraks, just because you have 5 weapons that drain energy, that doesn't mean you have to use them at the same time. Sometimes when I fly a Ragnorak, I use a railgun, gatling turret, gauss cannon, and nuetron blaster, and concussion mines, switching to whichever weapon best meets the task at hand. Not to say I'm the most accomplished combatant... there *is* a reason why I'm a trader. =)
I agree. I find ship boarding unrealistic in many cases, such as walking aboard a Centaurion, but also potentially disruptive to game balance. If it were held to a vote, I'd say "Nay!".'
Yes, EMP's must never become more powerful than the usual guns. There's no reason to balance them to other weapons, standard blasters and cannons should legitimately wiegh far heavier on the scale. However, there are certain, specialized cases when loading an EMP into your ship would be beneficial. Yet I can't stress how vital it is that none of these cases involve destroying a target.
For balance to stay achieved, EMP's must be...
Less effective at killing than even ion blasters.
Slower, and more difficult to aim than basic weapony.
Less numerous in quantity.
So why use them in the first place? All boarding, hacking, or ship tugging aside, there are numerous times when trading that I wish I had but one weapon to knock 10 energy off that annoying Vulture behind me, because that's often all the difference between a miss or a hit from the Vulture's rocket. And as, I'm sure, many traders can testify, one rocket to knock ya' off course can be the difference between life and death.
Regarding Ragnoraks, just because you have 5 weapons that drain energy, that doesn't mean you have to use them at the same time. Sometimes when I fly a Ragnorak, I use a railgun, gatling turret, gauss cannon, and nuetron blaster, and concussion mines, switching to whichever weapon best meets the task at hand. Not to say I'm the most accomplished combatant... there *is* a reason why I'm a trader. =)
I REALLY want to see EMP weapons and disabling in the game. I will work on my idea better, but I have several posts in this thread, some intense battles with LostCommander, and most of my ideas are there. I think a seperate set of hit points should exist, and several weapons (including ion blasters) should deal at least slight EMP damage. Some weapons would deal primarily EMP damage, and I think there should be not only EMP torpedoes but guns and beams, too. Each would have advantages. EM hit points would regenerate at a base rate plus whatever benefits they gain from addons. "Hardening" your electronics, or insulating them should decrease the rate at which EMP weapons add EM damage, and special devices could aid in clearing EMP damage by increasing the rate of hit point regeneration. Maybe an advanced device could even utilize EMP damage by feeding it straight into the battery (at a low efficiency rate, of course).
EMP Blaster- this shots an EMP field in a cone shape from your ship.
Use Drain rate: 10 or 5 a second
energy used to drain oppents battery: 40- 80 a second
weight: to be decided
range: 100-200 meter
radius increase rate:1 meter a meter
Added power regeneration rate: 5-20
The use drain rate is the energy a second used to throw your energy at your opponent.
The energy used to drain an opponets battery is the energy use a second to negate your opponents energy(this is a 1 to 1 ration if your opponent doesn't have any armor against this).
ex. if this rate is 60/second and your oppoent has no armor against this then when your opponent is in this field, they are losing 60 energy (remember, you are also losing the same amount of energy plus the use cost)
Range is the distance this goes.
Radius increase rate is the rate at which your cones radius increases. If its one, then in 200m, the radius of the cone will be 200 m, thus the diameter is 400m. if this rate is 1/2, then at 200 m out, the radius will be 100m and the diameter will be 200m.
The added power regeneration rate is to make if feasible for a ship to hi-jack another ship
Disadvantages- You must hold this on your opponent at all times and if the beam is on but noone is in it, you are still waisting energy. Also since it has a use cost in addition to the energy you are using to negate your opponents energy, you are losing more energy then your opponent. You might hit your allies with this as well.
Advantages- if you are skillful enough to hold this on multiable ships then you are lowering there energy as well at not more cost to you. You also prevent your opponent from leaving the sector since they can't get there battery charged( I am not sure but I think you have to have a full battery for regular sector jumps).
Also, i don't know how the devs developed the game but if it takes energy from the battery to do regular movement then if your opponent has no energy in the battery and you are discharging then faster then they can charge, the ships wouldn't be able to move, but you would have to have your ship positioned so they couldn't fire solid ammo at you. This could be how ships are hi-jacked. The hi-jacker could threaten to shoot missles at the immoble target unless their demands are met.(Ejecting cargo takes no energy and neither does paying them credicts)
To make this balance, the EMP blast should weigh a good amount so that the added power regeneration rate isn't abused. Another way to balance it is to say that that power comes from the ship you are draining, and you would only get the power if you are draining a ship. So off the 40-80 power being taken out of the enemy ship, only 5-20 a second will acutally come to your ship.
There could also be a feature that if you get your opponents energy to zero and if you can drain faster then they can charge, then the energy you through at them drops to the minimum needed. This could also be a feature that more expensive EMP Pulse Blasters have.
So in its stats, if it has Smart Blaster then it will say:
Smart Blaster: Yes
edit: This would be a continuous beam that is turned on and off(like the mining beam).
Use Drain rate: 10 or 5 a second
energy used to drain oppents battery: 40- 80 a second
weight: to be decided
range: 100-200 meter
radius increase rate:1 meter a meter
Added power regeneration rate: 5-20
The use drain rate is the energy a second used to throw your energy at your opponent.
The energy used to drain an opponets battery is the energy use a second to negate your opponents energy(this is a 1 to 1 ration if your opponent doesn't have any armor against this).
ex. if this rate is 60/second and your oppoent has no armor against this then when your opponent is in this field, they are losing 60 energy (remember, you are also losing the same amount of energy plus the use cost)
Range is the distance this goes.
Radius increase rate is the rate at which your cones radius increases. If its one, then in 200m, the radius of the cone will be 200 m, thus the diameter is 400m. if this rate is 1/2, then at 200 m out, the radius will be 100m and the diameter will be 200m.
The added power regeneration rate is to make if feasible for a ship to hi-jack another ship
Disadvantages- You must hold this on your opponent at all times and if the beam is on but noone is in it, you are still waisting energy. Also since it has a use cost in addition to the energy you are using to negate your opponents energy, you are losing more energy then your opponent. You might hit your allies with this as well.
Advantages- if you are skillful enough to hold this on multiable ships then you are lowering there energy as well at not more cost to you. You also prevent your opponent from leaving the sector since they can't get there battery charged( I am not sure but I think you have to have a full battery for regular sector jumps).
Also, i don't know how the devs developed the game but if it takes energy from the battery to do regular movement then if your opponent has no energy in the battery and you are discharging then faster then they can charge, the ships wouldn't be able to move, but you would have to have your ship positioned so they couldn't fire solid ammo at you. This could be how ships are hi-jacked. The hi-jacker could threaten to shoot missles at the immoble target unless their demands are met.(Ejecting cargo takes no energy and neither does paying them credicts)
To make this balance, the EMP blast should weigh a good amount so that the added power regeneration rate isn't abused. Another way to balance it is to say that that power comes from the ship you are draining, and you would only get the power if you are draining a ship. So off the 40-80 power being taken out of the enemy ship, only 5-20 a second will acutally come to your ship.
There could also be a feature that if you get your opponents energy to zero and if you can drain faster then they can charge, then the energy you through at them drops to the minimum needed. This could also be a feature that more expensive EMP Pulse Blasters have.
So in its stats, if it has Smart Blaster then it will say:
Smart Blaster: Yes
edit: This would be a continuous beam that is turned on and off(like the mining beam).
Your idea of EMP sounds nice, SuperMegaMynt.
It would require the wielder to turn the ship around and fire a finicky weapon, which would sufficiently balance the potency of the weapon. I like that.
It would require the wielder to turn the ship around and fire a finicky weapon, which would sufficiently balance the potency of the weapon. I like that.
Yes, it's vital that EMP weapons have some sort of connection with people's batteries. I mean come on... what kind of EMP disregards it's targets energy source? The idea of rechaging your system through your battery would balance out nicely, but there's got to be a more ingenious way of combining structural HP, energy, and disabling all together in a smooth and natural system. Maybe something to do with the different sections on your ship that take damage? I'm at a loss right now...
The point I was making is if you are talented enough to put the person in the lock i explained above, then they won't be able to move and you can say pay me credicts or else. The point of this weapon is to just drain there battery which can prevent them from leaving the sector or moving.
Ok, so this is an interesting idea that I hadn't even considered (which is amazing, considereing how all-knowing, all-considering I am). It would be more realistic to have EMP directly interfere with the operation of systems, but having it drain a target's battery instead is a very interesting idea. Like you guys said, it would prevent your target from being able to turbo or fire weapons.
I think also that the computer should keep track in the background of the target's battery charge into the negative numbers. Say the capacity of your target's battery is 300 and you are able to drain that. Once the target's battery charge is at minus capacity, -300 in this case, the ship is disabled, and can't fire or change course at all. The charge can never go lower than minus capacity, and the disabled player would regain control of his ship when his battery gets back to full charge. I say full charge because this would represent what power would be needed to start the ship back up again.
This wouldn't give the attacking player a lot of time to work with the disabled ship (about 16 seconds assuming my example was a light battery), so the attacker may have to zap the target again from time to time to keep it down. Because of this it would be beneficial to have a trusted friend work with you as a team. While one keeps zapping the target, the other can negotiate terms (wouldn't want to be caught typing as the target powers up and runs away) or hack the ship or board it or whatever. This seems like a much simpler, code-friendly way to handle EMP and disabling.
Another method of delivering EMP could still be missiles or mines. These would not give you the benefit of stealing your enemy's energy. They would, however, work similarly to the beam. You have to carry the launcher and ammo in your ship, which is a disadvantage, but the advantage is that they are guided and likely to hit the target (proximity detonation). Before launching, you "arm" the warhead by charging it directly from your battery. More advanced models can charge faster and/or carry more charge (but be heavier), to the point of almost instantaneously taking the entire charge of your battery. Then, say you have a Medium battery, and fully charge an EMP torpedo. You fire the torpedo, which has a charge of 450, and it detonates next to your target. Also, say the torpedo is high-quality, and has a 30% efficiency rating. Then, when it detonates, it cancels energy from the target's battery equivalent to 30% of the torpedo's charge. Your target's battery now has a charge of 300-135, or a total charge of 165 (assuming it had been full). It would take five hits to disable the ship with these missiles. Mines could have a slightly higher efficiency rating, since they need no guidance system. Also, if you're in a hurry, you don't have to fully charge the warhead, but it won't be as effective then. Also, splash damage would take charge from nearby ships, so be careful.
I think also that the computer should keep track in the background of the target's battery charge into the negative numbers. Say the capacity of your target's battery is 300 and you are able to drain that. Once the target's battery charge is at minus capacity, -300 in this case, the ship is disabled, and can't fire or change course at all. The charge can never go lower than minus capacity, and the disabled player would regain control of his ship when his battery gets back to full charge. I say full charge because this would represent what power would be needed to start the ship back up again.
This wouldn't give the attacking player a lot of time to work with the disabled ship (about 16 seconds assuming my example was a light battery), so the attacker may have to zap the target again from time to time to keep it down. Because of this it would be beneficial to have a trusted friend work with you as a team. While one keeps zapping the target, the other can negotiate terms (wouldn't want to be caught typing as the target powers up and runs away) or hack the ship or board it or whatever. This seems like a much simpler, code-friendly way to handle EMP and disabling.
Another method of delivering EMP could still be missiles or mines. These would not give you the benefit of stealing your enemy's energy. They would, however, work similarly to the beam. You have to carry the launcher and ammo in your ship, which is a disadvantage, but the advantage is that they are guided and likely to hit the target (proximity detonation). Before launching, you "arm" the warhead by charging it directly from your battery. More advanced models can charge faster and/or carry more charge (but be heavier), to the point of almost instantaneously taking the entire charge of your battery. Then, say you have a Medium battery, and fully charge an EMP torpedo. You fire the torpedo, which has a charge of 450, and it detonates next to your target. Also, say the torpedo is high-quality, and has a 30% efficiency rating. Then, when it detonates, it cancels energy from the target's battery equivalent to 30% of the torpedo's charge. Your target's battery now has a charge of 300-135, or a total charge of 165 (assuming it had been full). It would take five hits to disable the ship with these missiles. Mines could have a slightly higher efficiency rating, since they need no guidance system. Also, if you're in a hurry, you don't have to fully charge the warhead, but it won't be as effective then. Also, splash damage would take charge from nearby ships, so be careful.
... And to top it, the lower your structural HP, the more efficient an EMP hits.
A poor soul stuck at 3% structual integrity, would take 97% energy damage from an EMP.
I endorse the concept of a negative charge up to one's maximum capacity. Maybe equipping a medium battery over a heavy one isn't such a bad idea after all.
A poor soul stuck at 3% structual integrity, would take 97% energy damage from an EMP.
I endorse the concept of a negative charge up to one's maximum capacity. Maybe equipping a medium battery over a heavy one isn't such a bad idea after all.
I also endorse my concept of a negative charge up to the maximum capacity. That makes two endorsements for my idea in two posts! I heard a rumor that this will be implemented exactly as I say in Vendetta 1.7.1.
Nice call on the structural integrity thing. You'd have to equip something more than just EMP weapons. You would ideally want to damage your target to the 20-30% armor range. More damage, and (depending on the size of the ship), you might accidentally blow it up, and less damage and you're wasting a lot of energy with your EMP weapons. Maybe the mines and missiles could also do minimal structural damage, since they do explode after all. Or do they? The one in Ocean's 11 didn't, and I really don't know much about these things. I'm more a professor of "Down with The Man!" than a professor of science....
Another thing, higher grade weapons (for the beam version) could have tighter focus and higher efficiency. An entry level EMP beam would spread a lot, have short range (100-150m), and drain 1 point from the target's battery for 2 of your own. Mid range spreads less, has longer range (125-200m), and drains 2 points of your target's battery for 3 of your own. High quality version is tighter, longer range (150-250m), and drains 3 points for 4 of yours. Über professional "Phantom Limb's Killer Hand Thing" version is tight, long-range (200-300m) and drains 4 points for every 5. You see how the drain rate has an oblique asymtote, there's a gain for each level, but the gain is smaller each time. You never reach perfect 1 to 1. The best advantages in upgrading are range and focus, and you trade off by paying a higher price and the thing might be heavier. I would say this is a large port weapon, but I think the entire port system needs to be revamped.
Nice call on the structural integrity thing. You'd have to equip something more than just EMP weapons. You would ideally want to damage your target to the 20-30% armor range. More damage, and (depending on the size of the ship), you might accidentally blow it up, and less damage and you're wasting a lot of energy with your EMP weapons. Maybe the mines and missiles could also do minimal structural damage, since they do explode after all. Or do they? The one in Ocean's 11 didn't, and I really don't know much about these things. I'm more a professor of "Down with The Man!" than a professor of science....
Another thing, higher grade weapons (for the beam version) could have tighter focus and higher efficiency. An entry level EMP beam would spread a lot, have short range (100-150m), and drain 1 point from the target's battery for 2 of your own. Mid range spreads less, has longer range (125-200m), and drains 2 points of your target's battery for 3 of your own. High quality version is tighter, longer range (150-250m), and drains 3 points for 4 of yours. Über professional "Phantom Limb's Killer Hand Thing" version is tight, long-range (200-300m) and drains 4 points for every 5. You see how the drain rate has an oblique asymtote, there's a gain for each level, but the gain is smaller each time. You never reach perfect 1 to 1. The best advantages in upgrading are range and focus, and you trade off by paying a higher price and the thing might be heavier. I would say this is a large port weapon, but I think the entire port system needs to be revamped.
Thanks, Mynt. I'd been meaning to look that up.
For the beam weapon, we could use a couple of real life models:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator
The Explosively Pumped Flux Compression Generator has a technical enough name to be cool. In game, this could be a very powerful EMP weapon and very effective, but the cool thing to limit it is that you would have limited ammo, since the device destroys itself as it fires. You could carry them like missiles, but they don't fire like missiles, they consume themselves to fire a high power EMP beam that drains instantly a large amount of your target's battery power. Different levels of the weapon would weigh significantly more as they get better, and cost more, and do significantly more damage.
Advantages: Instant results (assuming you hit your target), high target battery consumption, you don't need to keep a beam on them for a long time.
Disadvantages: Limited ammo, heavy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-energy_radio-frequency_weapons
HERF would be pretty much the beam we've been talking about. Transmit a focused radio beam at your target, it drains power from your battery, drains your target's battery. See my above post for speculation on how this would work well in-game.
Advantages: Infinite ammo (powered by battery).
Disadvantages: High-grade can be heavy, you need to keep a constant beam on your target, not as powerful as EPFCG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_bomb
Pretty much the EPFCG, but in missile or mine form. Again, see my above post. Here's just a real world example.
Advantages: Powerful, more likely to hit target ('cause it's guided, you know). Don't need to keep a constant beam on target.
Disadvantages: Limited ammo, can be heavy.
For the beam weapon, we could use a couple of real life models:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator
The Explosively Pumped Flux Compression Generator has a technical enough name to be cool. In game, this could be a very powerful EMP weapon and very effective, but the cool thing to limit it is that you would have limited ammo, since the device destroys itself as it fires. You could carry them like missiles, but they don't fire like missiles, they consume themselves to fire a high power EMP beam that drains instantly a large amount of your target's battery power. Different levels of the weapon would weigh significantly more as they get better, and cost more, and do significantly more damage.
Advantages: Instant results (assuming you hit your target), high target battery consumption, you don't need to keep a beam on them for a long time.
Disadvantages: Limited ammo, heavy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-energy_radio-frequency_weapons
HERF would be pretty much the beam we've been talking about. Transmit a focused radio beam at your target, it drains power from your battery, drains your target's battery. See my above post for speculation on how this would work well in-game.
Advantages: Infinite ammo (powered by battery).
Disadvantages: High-grade can be heavy, you need to keep a constant beam on your target, not as powerful as EPFCG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_bomb
Pretty much the EPFCG, but in missile or mine form. Again, see my above post. Here's just a real world example.
Advantages: Powerful, more likely to hit target ('cause it's guided, you know). Don't need to keep a constant beam on target.
Disadvantages: Limited ammo, can be heavy.
Seekers need to be equipped with EMP capabilities. Man, wouldn't that ruin your day?
Not bombs, but the radio frequency weapons would make sense. Of course, to be effective, they'd' use enough power that you wouldn't be able to effectively use the weapons and your turbo together. You'd have to stop, charge, fire, charge, run. Still effective, but I thought I'd point this out before someone cries foul, and say "that's not fair that a fast ship I can't catch can come disable me!"