Implemented "Unstable" Ship Building Blocks

[Paddywacko]

I was just in chat talking about explosives when we stumbled on an idea that seemed to strike a few fancies.

Some blocks, like blocks that provide power, would be more interesting if they exploded, dealing area damage when they were destroyed.

As a player, it naturally seems a little counter-intuitive to ask for volatile blocks that are required to be on a ship. However, our little chat group agreed that this sort of implementation would add a lot to the game, both in ship building strategies, and in combat.

First, it gives ships a weak spot, especially since power blocks tend to be placed in clumps, especially so on large ships. This would give builders a lot to think about in terms of their layout and ship design, as no one wants one good shot to blow their ship in twain.

Second, the opposite side of the same coin is the inherent objective that comes with weak spots. Suddenly, pinpoint weapons have something to shoot for, and boarding parties will find themselves ducking through hallways looking for just the right spot to place their explosives.

Personally, I think this could be a relatively simple change that could potentially have drastic positive results.

 

[MgnfcntBstrd]

This could certainly be a cool addition to the game. However, with the current mechanics of how power reactors and capacitors must be designed, making them chain-reactive would require massive redesigns.

How about instead of the blocks being inherently unstable, certain arrangements of blocks (or a new block type) could be added which would provide an added bonus, along with the inherent instability.

This way builders are accepting the associated risk in using this type of reactor when they build it, and existing designs would typically not be susceptible to it. You could even implement it into game lore as a new type of drive or reactor.

Perhaps it would create more power with less blocks, or have a higher soft-cap than the current reactors.

 

[UK_IN_US]

I like the idea of accepting volatility in return for more power. This is a much better idea than simply "blocks should explode"

 

[nightwalker_007]

I could see this as being a good thing... but, only if there was a second tier for these blocks that were more powerful. Such as, sure, you could have a reactor and capacitor block that generates 20% more power per tick, but, once when it, it goes up with 1/2 the power of TNT after a few seconds.... would be even more fun if every connected block in that bank would be able to send a logic signal so a docked reactor cold be automatically jettisoned when hit.

But yeah, I like this, so long as the current power blocks don't explode.

 

[jayman38]

I like the idea of explosive systems, but I like it better if they only get explosive once the ship's HP drops to 75% or less. That way, massive explosions don't rock a mostly-intact ship, but as a ship gets more and more "gone", the systems get more and more volatile. That's generally what I see in SciFi media. Ships intact don't react much, but as they get in worse shape, they tend to start getting explodey. It shortens the final phase of a battle and makes coming back from a near-defeat all the more triumphant.

 

[nightwalker_007]

I like the idea of explosive systems, but I like it better if they only get explosive once the ship's HP drops to 75% or less. That way, massive explosions don't rock a mostly-intact ship, but as a ship gets more and more "gone", the systems get more and more volatile. That's generally what I see in SciFi media. Ships intact don't react much, but as they get in worse shape, they tend to start getting explodey. It shortens the final phase of a battle and makes coming back from a near-defeat all the more triumphant.

I can see where you're going with this, but it kind of defeats the whole point of having a soft spot on a ship. Personally, I like the idea of having low power stable versions of system blocks, and then high-powered unstable versions that will explode when destroyed, potentially triggering a chain reaction of explosions throughout connected systems. A small bonus of 10-20% would be fine IMO, especially since power block bonuses are multiplied. No so for engines though, so maybe thrusters need a higher boost.

Hey people wanted those higher power reactor blocks, so lets give it to 'em :D

 

[wanzer]

what about having volatile reactors with a higher soft cap ?

 

[Ixalite]

I have in the past suggested that "volatility" be a variable, accessible in the block config. basically, how big a block explodes when shot.

 

[StarWars1981]

Missile modules should also explode----missiles, in case you didn't know, EXPLODE. Therefore, whatever they're stored in must also explode.

 

[ToasterBorst]

Good discussion! Keep it up! Love the idea of a volatile power reactor! I've personally been thinking a lot about the idea of being able to slave an overdrive system to more than just weapon systems.. boosting their output but also making them volatile.

 

[Criss]

This idea has come up before. It will only work if it is supplemental to the already existing systems we use on our ships. We should not focus too much on punishing ourselves with this. Now, docked reactors has become a concern of the council lately. They have talked with us about possible replacement mechanics including risky blocks such as this. We are open to the idea but it's not a complete idea yet and not a priority.

 

[Lecic]

Jesus christ, no. Chain reaction destructions of ships are a horrible idea. It removes all semblance of system damage balance.

Suddenly, pinpoint weapons have something to shoot for, and boarding parties will find themselves ducking through hallways looking for just the right spot to place their explosives.

You mean like turret docks and computers? Boarding parties and pinpoint weapons are supposed to break key components while leaving the ship mostly intact, not make the ship self destruct itself.