What kind of Chambers to you want?

[Matt_Bradock]

Having your shields drop is good enough. Tech point costs should be constant; you shouldn't have to open your engineering/structure panel to boot your one or two chambers when you drop your cloak :P.

Yea, dropping shields would be a high enough penalty, even if the recharge would start at the out-of-combat rate the moment the cloak is dropped. It would essentially kill cloaking warships as you can't just rely on your armor tank especially since the moment you get shot, even if you WOULD have shields otherwise, they instantly go to combat recharge (Unless you have the tier 3 chamber for that, see my original post)

Having no other functioning chambers though also counts as a downside. It would mean that stealth vessels would still have to be specialised ships, that can cloak but can't really do a whole lot else (just like the current state of the game) and have to rely on their generic stats without any of the defensive or utility boosts their non-cloaking counterparts can afford.

 

[Ithirahad]

At that point, why not just have the cloaking chamber require 80%-90% of a ship's TP?

 

[Panik Attak]

Yea, dropping shields would be a high enough penalty, even if the recharge would start at the out-of-combat rate the moment the cloak is dropped. It would essentially kill cloaking warships as you can't just rely on your armor tank especially since the moment you get shot, even if you WOULD have shields otherwise, they instantly go to combat recharge (Unless you have the tier 3 chamber for that, see my original post)

Having no other functioning chambers though also counts as a downside. It would mean that stealth vessels would still have to be specialised ships, that can cloak but can't really do a whole lot else (just like the current state of the game) and have to rely on their generic stats without any of the defensive or utility boosts their non-cloaking counterparts can afford.

personally, I feel like the current state of cloaks are a bit too restrictive, and it would be silly to maintain that design philosophy. There are better way to balance cloaking then making cloaking the only thing a ship can do. Cloaking could require no shields active, Drain power to a maximum % cap (e.g. while cloak is active your max power is reduced by 70%) so that coming out of cloaking requires a few seconds to recharge the ship before an it can fire/warp/scan/etc, and reduce max thrust ( although that might already be a side effect of reduction in max power).

Cloaking sh0uld be an essential tool for information warfare style ships, making the TP cost too high would simply severly limit its ability to be useful outside of scouting.

 

[Nickizzy]

Shields:
I. Shield damage mitigation (active): same as current the ion effect, up to 60% shield damage reduction
II. Shield charge booster (passive): passive recharge rate boost
III. Combat shield charger (active): retain up to 100% of your shield charge rate in combat regardless of your current shield percentage.

I would rather have shield charge booster as a T1 and CSC as the T2, shield cap boosters as a second T1 and SDM as that T2. Bc some ships would benni from shield regen but not cap, and some cap but not regen. The T2 are extra specialization things to give you an extra boost.

Jump drives:
I. Charge rate boost (already planned)
II. Range boost (already planned)
III. Autocharge (already planned)

Pls make Autocharge either separate or T1, but only if the ship has crew on board so ships don't go flying free.

 

[Ithirahad]

Pls make Autocharge either separate or T1, but only if the ship has crew on board so ships don't go flying free.

Autocharge ≠ autojump. An autocharger would simply top up your drive and let you activate it.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

I would rather have shield charge booster as a T1 and CSC as the T2, shield cap boosters as a second T1 and SDM as that T2. Bc some ships would benni from shield regen but not cap, and some cap but not regen. The T2 are extra specialization things to give you an extra boost.

Pls make Autocharge either separate or T1, but only if the ship has crew on board so ships don't go flying free.

Having your shield at max recharge in combat is huge. There is no way you can get away with it as a T2. If your ship's recharge rate is low, you simply won't use that chamber because it wouldn't matter much.

Same goes for autocharge. It's huge. Not having to hold that mouse button gives you access to the ship's entire armament and all activatable utility tools like the scanner ping. Definitely NOT T1 tech
[doublepost=1495800180,1495799776][/doublepost]

personally, I feel like the current state of cloaks are a bit too restrictive, and it would be silly to maintain that design philosophy. There are better way to balance cloaking then making cloaking the only thing a ship can do. Cloaking could require no shields active, Drain power to a maximum % cap (e.g. while cloak is active your max power is reduced by 70%) so that coming out of cloaking requires a few seconds to recharge the ship before an it can fire/warp/scan/etc, and reduce max thrust ( although that might already be a side effect of reduction in max power).

Cloaking sh0uld be an essential tool for information warfare style ships, making the TP cost too high would simply severly limit its ability to be useful outside of scouting.

Cloaking is restrictive, and it SHOULD BE. Especially if it is going to be part of a linear scaling chamber system which means there will be barely any limit to the size of a cloaking vessel. Consuming 90% of the ship's TP and/or disabling shields while cloaking, are necessary to create a strong enough drawback. Also, remember, from a realistic standpoint, using active sensors while on a stealth run, could easily give away your position. Even currently, scanners drop your cloak and jammer too, not just the hostiles'

 

[Seijuro]

Cloaking is restrictive, and it SHOULD BE. Especially if it is going to be part of a linear scaling chamber system which means there will be barely any limit to the size of a cloaking vessel. Consuming 90% of the ship's TP and/or disabling shields while cloaking, are necessary to create a strong enough drawback. Also, remember, from a realistic standpoint, using active sensors while on a stealth run, could easily give away your position. Even currently, scanners drop your cloak and jammer too, not just the hostiles'

One option could be to restrict the use of cloaking as well. A charge-up chamber that loses its charge when you take a hit, requiring a decently sized chamber that scales with the ship size. You could drop/lower the active power consumption for maintaining it and diverting that to the charge-up cost.

That way it retains its use for scouting, information warfare, and ambush tactics but becomes less useful during a fight. Because it doesn't have as high a maintenance cost, it becomes more accessible to various ships, but because it requires a TP cost and a large chamber size, it becomes less appealing to use for a warship.

 

[Lecic]

Any chamber that modifies weapons is a mistake. Weapons modification should be done exclusively through the primary/secondary/effect system to make balancing easier.
[doublepost=1495834434,1495831432][/doublepost]

Secondary Shield Capacitor (active) - Stores a certain amount of shield HP, and has its own internal shield regeneration. When it is full, you can activate it and inject that shielding into your shield capacity. Cannot be activated until it has filled up completely. Moderately low TP cost.

This is a cool idea, but does it suffer from combat recharge rates as well? How is the amount of shields it holds calculated?

• Shockwave Absorption Module (passive) - While the Shield Reinforcement Module is active, non-Ion missiles and pulses deal 50% damage against your shields. Moderate TP cost.

• Energy Absorption Module (passive) - When the Shield Reinforcement Module is active, non-Ion beams deal 50% damage against your shields. Moderate TP cost.

• Kinetic Absorption Module (passive) - When the Shield Reinforcement Module is active, non-Ion cannons and melee fauna attacks deal 50% damage against your shields. Moderate TP cost.

Why don't these work on ion weapons? It seems like these would be pretty useless considering the majority of weapons used to take on shields are, you know, ion weapons...

Ship Scanner (passive) - Adds basic ship scanning functionality, highlighting areas of ships which contain any type of system block in green. Will attempt to break through basic signature jamming, but does not have enough capability to break through any type of enhanced ECM. Moderate TP cost.

This is cool, but this could use sort of way to transfer the where-systems-are data to friendly vessels. Also, ships that are doing enhanced scanning that reveals systems should have some sort of indicator to enemy ships. This is like how certain kinds of sonar will reveal you to the enemy as well.

Medical Systems Chamber (passive) - Allows Undeathinators to function on your ship or station, with a range of one system. Moderately high TP cost on ships, low TP cost on stations.

• Medical Enhancement Systems (passive) - Increases Undeathinator range to infinite; provides a 200% buff to all medical blocks' healing amount. Moderate TP cost.

So I'm assuming this is combined with a new undeathinator system where you can choose from a list of faction and public permission undeathinators?

Warp Gate Systems (passive) - Allows Warp Gates to function on your ship or station, with a max range of 1.5 systems. Moderately high TP cost on ships, moderate TP cost on stations.

Warp gates should not be allowed on ships. Too easy to abuse. You could make a ship that's just a flying warpgate that sends people into a sun or wormhole to knock them out of the combat zone.

Shield Broadcast Device (toggle) - When active, allied ships/stations in the same sector have 50% extra combat shield regeneration. Does not apply to the structure this chamber is on. Also creates a visible yellow 'aura' effect around the ship when active. High TP cost on ships, moderate TP cost on stations.

• Shield Broadcast Booster (passive) - Increases regen buff to 100% (doubling in-combat shield regeneration of allied ships). Does not apply to the structure this chamber is on. Moderate TP cost.

This sounds extremely overpowered. I can boost the regen of ALL ALLIES with any ship big enough to mount this system? I could even have a dozen AI running the things if I wanted to. Even if they don't stack, another one will kick in whenever one gets destroyed. This is inherently broken and should really not be included.

Remote Armor Polarizer (toggle) - When active, allied ships/stations in the same sector have 25% extra damage absorbed by AHP, and the ships' AHP is given its own 50% 'armor' value, effectively doubling ship AHP pools. Also creates a visible whitish 'aura' effect around the ship when active. Effect does not stack. High TP cost on ships, moderate TP cost on stations.

• Remote Polarization Booster (passive) - Increases damage absorption buff to 40%. Moderate TP cost.

See previous comment.

Remote Power Transmitter (toggle) - When active, allied ships' reactor power output is boosted by 35%. Might be particularly good for carriers, as you can technically create more powerful and compact fighters than would be possible at a given size with only their own onboard power. Moderately high TP cost on ships, moderate TP cost on stations.

• Power Transmission Booster (toggle) - Increases power output boost to 50%. Moderate TP cost.

See previous comment.

 

[Ithirahad]

[@ Secondary Shield Capacitor]
This is a cool idea, but does it suffer from combat recharge rates as well? How is the amount of shields it holds calculated?

It doesn't suffer from combat recharge rates; I was picturing it having its own, flat 'shield regen'/chargeup time. As for amount of shields, I wasn't certain. I was envisioning basing it on chamber blockcount, but in hindsight that would be really inconsistent and kind of a bad mechanic.

[@ shield-enhancing Absorption Modules]
Why don't these work on ion weapons? It seems like these would be pretty useless considering the majority of weapons used to take on shields are, you know, ion weapons...

I was thinking of the idea of specialization countering specialization. IDK if this is a good mechanic, but I was just imagining a fight where my ion alpha beams barely did anything to enemy shields because they decided to mount the Energy Absorption Module, and as I imagine it it'd be incredibly annoying. Remember that the 60% Ion effect from the Reinforcement Module still applies, and that the Shield Polarity Stabilizer exists in my scheme as well.

[@Ship Scanner]
This is cool, but this could use sort of way to transfer the where-systems-are data to friendly vessels.

Ship Scan Broadcaster (passive) - Locations of scanned ship systems will be visible to allied ships in the sector, and cloaked/jammed ships will have their signatures revealed to all ships in the sector as opposed to just the scanning ship. Moderately high TP cost.

Yep. Got that covered, but it would be largely restricted to dedicated intel ships.

[@Ship Scanner]
Also, ships that are doing enhanced scanning that reveals systems should have some sort of indicator to enemy ships. This is like how certain kinds of sonar will reveal you to the enemy as well.

Perhaps a low-TP chamber to detect scanner pings?

So I'm assuming this is combined with a new undeathinator system where you can choose from a list of faction and public permission undeathinators?

Yes, or at the very simplest, if you die outside your undeathinator's range, you end up either back at spawn or at the last infinite-range undeathinator you set.

[@ Warp Gate Systems]
Warp gates should not be allowed on ships. Too easy to abuse. You could make a ship that's just a flying warpgate that sends people into a sun or wormhole to knock them out of the combat zone.

If someone manages to actually sweep across you with a warpgate like that without getting blown up, they deserve that kill honestly. A ship like that would be a giant target, especially considering that it would have to be relatively small to be maneuverable enough to pull something like this off, and it would have specced most of its TP into that warpgate system (and likely mobility) already.

This sounds extremely overpowered. I can boost the regen of ALL ALLIES with any ship big enough to mount this system? I could even have a dozen AI running the things if I wanted to. Even if they don't stack, another one will kick in whenever one gets destroyed. This is inherently broken and should really not be included.

Fair enough; This can be station only, then, I suppose.

 

[Lecic]

It doesn't suffer from combat recharge rates; I was picturing it having its own, flat 'shield regen'/chargeup time. As for amount of shields, I wasn't certain. I was envisioning basing it on chamber blockcount, but in hindsight that would be really inconsistent and kind of a bad mechanic.

Basing it on chamber block count is probably the best way to do it. How else would you do it?

I was thinking of the idea of specialization countering specialization. IDK if this is a good mechanic, but I was just imagining a fight where my ion alpha beams barely did anything to enemy shields because they decided to mount the Energy Absorption Module, and as I imagine it it'd be incredibly annoying. Remember that the 60% Ion effect from the Reinforcement Module still applies, and that the Shield Polarity Stabilizer exists in my scheme as well.

Good point.

Perhaps a low-TP chamber to detect scanner pings?

This could work.

Yes, or at the very simplest, if you die outside your undeathinator's range, you end up either back at spawn or at the last infinite-range undeathinator you set.

Getting put back at spawn because you disabled your reactor for a bit sounds like a real pain in the ass.

If someone manages to actually sweep across you with a warpgate like that without getting blown up, they deserve that kill honestly. A ship like that would be a giant target, especially considering that it would have to be relatively small to be maneuverable enough to pull something like this off, and it would have specced most of its TP into that warpgate system (and likely mobility) already.

It would be extremely easy to make a flying 2km wide warpgate that could easily catch any ship before they could do anything about it.

 

[Ithirahad]

It would be extremely easy to make a flying 2km wide warpgate that could easily catch any ship before they could do anything about it.

Even for stations, a 2km-wide gate should not be possible without a fairly beefy power source. Sounds like warpgates could use a rebalance?

 

[Matt_Bradock]

It would be extremely easy to make a flying 2km wide warpgate that could easily catch any ship before they could do anything about it.

Yea except due to dimensions and the required amounts of power to actually make it work, that 2km wide flying warpgate would move and turn like a 2km ship. F***ing slowly. I have to agree tho, warp gates on ships are not a good idea, and area of effect boosts are way too much on the OP side as well. I don't mind a weapon or utility type beam that gives a single ship a bonus while it's hitting (and effectively stops the ship using it to fire any weapon other than autologic while that beam is online because they have to hold the mouse button) but boosting all friendlies around you without severe drawbacks is far too much.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Teleport linked weapons; blocks destroyed have a % chance to be salvaged into linked inventory.

Shield-bypass-unit; teleporters no longer cause loss of shielding

offensive teleport; target entity from nav, teleport to random open area in hitbox of that entity, and auto-allign.

kidnap module; target astro is recalled to the teleport pad.

 

[Ithirahad]

boosting all friendlies around you without severe drawbacks is far too much.

Well, the drawback is that you'd be at a severe disadvantage vs. people with 'normal' ships due to the chamber in question taking up most of your TP. Basically, you would be a combination of logi+command ship in EvE, providing buffs to your fleet but also being extremely obvious, visible, and not a very good warship on your own. :P

 

[Lecic]

Well, the drawback is that you'd be at a severe disadvantage vs. people with 'normal' ships due to the chamber in question taking up most of your TP. Basically, you would be a combination of logi+command ship in EvE, providing buffs to your fleet but also being extremely obvious, visible, and not a very good warship on your own. :P

But you don't need to be a powerful warship because you just made your entire fleet extremely powerful, and you can have a a dozen minimum size spares with no other systems to bring in as you need them to keep the buffs running.

 

[Ithirahad]

But you don't need to be a powerful warship because you just made your entire fleet extremely powerful, and you can have a a dozen minimum size spares with no other systems to bring in as you need them to keep the buffs running.

...Yeah, that's the issue I hadn't looked at. I kinda forgot about ship spamming here.

 

[Nickizzy]

Teleport linked weapons; blocks destroyed have a % chance to be salvaged into linked inventory.

Shield-bypass-unit; teleporters no longer cause loss of shielding

offensive teleport; target entity from nav, teleport to random open area in hitbox of that entity, and auto-allign.

kidnap module; target astro is recalled to the teleport pad.

TLB: cool, makes combat ecoworthy, so nice. Size of chamber is % chance.
SBU: balance it to size of chamber is % reduction in shield health.
OT: size of chamber is range. Small boarding craft and large long range beam-me-down TPs xD
KM: instead have it be a sphere a certain size that appears and then 2 seconds later it teleports every entity inside. Sphere size is based on range(10 blocks away: radius 10, 50 blocks away, radius 2), max range is based on chamber size.

...Yeah, that's the issue I hadn't looked at. I kinda forgot about ship spamming here.

Maybe a *(1+x), where x is [Chamber block count]/[target mass]. No solid numbers here, but this would make microspammers really weak and mean a dedicated, large target that wouldn't be mass producible cheaply.

Maybe cap it at like *5 or something though, so you couldn't supercharge microbombers. That might be okay though, if it had to stay close....