Raids allowed once shields are down
Author |
Message |
rkngl
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:57 pm Posts: 250 Location: here
|

the torpedoes aren't that rare(they're the common drop from the dark arms carrier), I haven't done a ton of npcing and have 136 just sitting in the cargo bay so i could easily get tm locked two days in a row with full raids plus there is also the chaostic inhibitor which not only drops the shields to almost nil but leaves them at almost nothing when full so unless you are on to cage it all of your raids are gone as quickly as the hacks. I would love to get all those easy yellows but I'd rather not further cripple the game with the number of people tired of being hit to the point of asking for perma-halcs quitting the game over now getting fully raided since the first hit that might set off the halc removing the shields and allowing raids to be emptied.
Also the main reason behind a lot less with hacking medals vs raiding is that the worst you get with a failed raid is the loss of a half a rank point, the worst you can get with a failed hack is someone stealing your best non-invincible planet. I've seen plenty of people say the risk isn't worth the reward for them with hacking.
|
Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:08 am |
|
 |
Namekian
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:02 pm Posts: 278 Location: Earth
|
It seems unrealistic to be able to raid a ship that is still active. Getting your crew to raid a moving target will definitely me a risky move. I think it is safe to say if this idea does get implanted expect a major increase in crew deaths as well as a insane amount of damage to your ship.
-1 to the idea.
|
Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:28 am |
|
 |
FlarePhoenix12
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:18 pm Posts: 12
|
-1 Not really my sought of thing. I myself do need a lot of yellow badges to get where I want to go, but this wouldn't feel right, even if it stops zeroing. It would make krio torps be seen much more, though they are somewhat rare, and it would depreciate the value of having high hull. Sure, being disabled goes onto your stat page, but the whole point of fighting against the disable isn't to protect your stat page (unless you have a huge ego), but to protect your mineral/arti points. All in all, it defeats the purpose of disabling a ship once you have all the reds you want.
|
Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:45 pm |
|
 |
xtendacom
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:50 am Posts: 208
|
I like this idea, Maybe with some extra fine tuning, if you think about it once a ship is disabled then thats more like plunder. A raid suggests something more tactical maybe a rehaul and add something to counter the gemini and add in some level of strategy, like a landing pod with a raid team two or three pods per ship that have a cooldown, they can raid, or infiltrate similar to taking weapons offline with the bypass.
Just makes sense. as far as losing stuff well whats the difference if you are online anyway then sell your cargo, if not you going to be disabled anyway.
_________________ Paratex
A leader of Ghosts -
|
Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:08 pm |
|
 |
Fireblade
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:42 am Posts: 1148
|
I gotta love the people calling Shinar lazy when he is one of the Top Pvpers in the game There are only 5 People who can call him a lazy pvper and it's not any of you guys  In Terms of the suggestion i like the idea and it does make sense when the hull is destroyed then there isn't actually a ship left to raid so the current mechanic lacks a little common sense This would also allow players who are done with red badge items are have plenty of reds a lower cost solution to obtaining yellows it would also allow more yellows collected per run as you wouldn't be using half your tm lock on player kills.
_________________ 
|
Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:49 pm |
|
 |
Shinar
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:37 pm Posts: 114
|

Heh, did not know this thread was resurrected (not that it has been that long). Enough interesting response have come up, so... rkngl wrote: the torpedoes aren't that rare(they're the common drop from the dark arms carrier), I haven't done a ton of npcing and have 136 just sitting in the cargo bay so i could easily get tm locked two days in a row with full raids plus there is also the chaostic inhibitor which not only drops the shields to almost nil but leaves them at almost nothing when full so unless you are on to cage it all of your raids are gone as quickly as the hacks. I would love to get all those easy yellows but I'd rather not further cripple the game with the number of people tired of being hit to the point of asking for perma-halcs quitting the game over now getting fully raided since the first hit that might set off the halc removing the shields and allowing raids to be emptied. I am not sure anyone argued that torpedoes are "that rare," but I do argue they are rarer than the artifacts that allow you to hack easily. On the other hand, I was concerned that a suggestion like this could alienate non-PvPers more. I made the suggestion in hopes easier PvP might get non-PvPers more involved, so if enough non-PvPers would say this would do the opposite, I would not want it implemented. FlarePhoenix12 wrote: -1 Not really my sought of thing. It would make krio torps be seen much more, though they are somewhat rare, and it would depreciate the value of having high hull. Sure, being disabled goes onto your stat page, but the whole point of fighting against the disable isn't to protect your stat page (unless you have a huge ego), but to protect your mineral/arti points. All in all, it defeats the purpose of disabling a ship once you have all the reds you want. These are the sort of responses I am looking for. Yes, the change would depreciate the value of hull in favor of shields, which actually sounds like a selling point to several other commentators. Actually, I find a lot of people have a large enough ego where they do not like getting disabled, and simultaneously, I find a lot of people barely care about the loss of resources due to how little we lose from raids and hacks. Finally, I imagine a lot of us disable ships for fun, and unless your legion gets fed bases, I also imagine that most need the reds anyway. My hope was the change would provide additional options, which would translate into strategy. xtendacom wrote: I like this idea, Maybe with some extra fine tuning.... A raid suggests something more tactical maybe a rehaul and add something to counter the gemini and add in some level of strategy, like a landing pod with a raid team two or three pods per ship that have a cooldown, they can raid, or infiltrate similar to taking weapons offline with the bypass. Another good response. Yes, the proposed change was more "idea" than "suggestion," and the thread is to gauge interest and to improve the idea if it were to be actually suggested. I am under the impression that nearly nothing we discuss in this particular forum ever really makes it to Dan's "I will think about it" folder and the ones that even have a chance have to be relatively concise. In any case, I am still noticing more disinterest in the change than not, but if you have any specific, simple recommendations that could be fleshed out a bit, I would love to hear them. Thank you, by the way, for being aware that raids happen to non-disabled ships all the time in fiction (let alone in actual history) with landing/boarding pods (transporters, etc.), since we have had too many uneducated folk comment up to this point. Fireblade225 wrote: I gotta love the people calling Shinar lazy when he is one of the Top Pvpers in the game There are only 5 People who can call him a lazy pvper and it's not any of you guys  They could be this guy  Fireblade225 wrote: In Terms of the suggestion i like the idea and it does make sense when the hull is destroyed then there isn't actually a ship left to raid so the current mechanic lacks a little common sense This would also allow players who are done with red badge items are have plenty of reds a lower cost solution to obtaining yellows it would also allow more yellows collected per run as you wouldn't be using half your tm lock on player kills. Well, Darth appropriately corrected Playret that we technically are disabled and not destroyed, although I assume Pleyret had a slip of tongue so to speak. You comment reminds me that fluff can be twisted in too many ways to be taken too seriously, so anyone trying to create a serious argument primarily out of fluff have really added nothing to the conversation. Anyway, yeah, a significant motivation behind this idea is to provide options, including how to more efficiently use TMs. Anyway, thanks again to all of you constructive commentators both for and against.
_________________
|
Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:52 pm |
|
 |
SpaceCaseAce
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:36 pm Posts: 379
|

im kind of torn on this. On 1 hand, I like the way it is now, that you have to score the disable before getting a chance to raid and not sure its necessary to change it. On the other hand it is an interesting idea. Anyone who watches star trek knows that once you take the enemies shields down, you can beam over a team to raid. I think it would give much more value to shields as well which I think is good for the game.
+ .5 to the idea. it is interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the following is just a thought to throw out there.
Maybe you should have a choice:
1) Attempt a raid once enemy shields are down. -- Raid attempts would be more difficult but the payout for succeeding higher than raiding a disabled ship. ---- Because you only took shields out, there was much less damage done to the ship. Therefore the defending crew took less injury, have a higher morale and are still fresh to defend their ship. Therefore their raid defense would have a 5% bonus. (or whatever # is fair). ---- Because there was less damage done to the defending ship, there would be more "undamaged" loot to steal (MP/AP) so you would have potential for larger payouts. (im thinking double the norm but again, whatever is fair) Drawbacks: ---Once you attempt a raid before the ship is disabled you can no longer attack the ship and the ship will bump after leaving the ship screen. (this will eliminate the ability to attempt 1 of each raid type on a single ship. Attempting the raid before disabling the ship is a gamble for higher payout, if you fail you shouldn't get another shot). ---Once you attempt a raid before the ship is disabled, you can no longer attempt another raid even after using a TM and the ship will bump after leaving the ship screen. You get 1 shot only to succeed.
2) Attempt a raid after the enemy ship has been disabled. --This is nothing new and would work exactly how it does now. ---- No raid defense bonus for the defending ship. (because the ship took heavy damage, the crew took injury and a hit to their morale so no defense bonus is given) ---- No payout bonus for a successful raid. (because the ship took heavy damage, much of the ships cargo was damaged or destroyed so no payout bonus). ---- Multiple raid attempts can still be made.
1 yellow badge is gained for succeeding a raid attempt of either kind.
Just thinking out loud.
|
Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:13 am |
|
 |
senatorhung
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am Posts: 3473
|

SpaceCaseAce wrote: Maybe you should have a choice:
1) Attempt a raid once enemy shields are down. -- Raid attempts would be more difficult but the payout for succeeding higher than raiding a disabled ship. ---- Because you only took shields out, there was much less damage done to the ship. Therefore the defending crew took less injury, have a higher morale and are still fresh to defend their ship. Therefore their raid defense would have a 5% bonus. (or whatever # is fair). ---- Because there was less damage done to the defending ship, there would be more "undamaged" loot to steal (MP/AP) so you would have potential for larger payouts. (im thinking double the norm but again, whatever is fair) Drawbacks: ---Once you attempt a raid before the ship is disabled you can no longer attack the ship and the ship will bump after leaving the ship screen. (this will eliminate the ability to attempt 1 of each raid type on a single ship. Attempting the raid before disabling the ship is a gamble for higher payout, if you fail you shouldn't get another shot). ---Once you attempt a raid before the ship is disabled, you can no longer attempt another raid even after using a TM and the ship will bump after leaving the ship screen. You get 1 shot only to succeed.
2) Attempt a raid after the enemy ship has been disabled. --This is nothing new and would work exactly how it does now.
1 yellow badge is gained for succeeding a raid attempt of either kind.
Just thinking out loud. for the first option, the TM.efficiency alone would make it way over.powered as failed raids do not count against your TM count. a larger payout is not required. plus, what happens if you try this on an alerted player or one who is on your battle log already ? i do like the idea of a choice tho ... so running with that thought, how about an additional pvp action called 'INFILTRATION' that can be done when shields are down. INFILTRATION acts as an attempted raid AND hack. counts as a single pvp action for TM action, but rewards both yellow and blue badges and resources if successful. raid and hack calculations are done as usual, but if EITHER fails, then the infiltration action fails. so, your worst scenario is that you critically fail both the raid AND the hack  after resolution of the infiltration action, regardless of success, the target gets a 'yellow alert' effect that last for 2 hours, during which the target can not be infiltrated, hacked, or raided (but can still be disabled). add medals and a leaderboard for infiltration ... and i would consider aiming for it 
_________________Rank 3950 Litheor Governor 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26 _____________ PvP leaderboards: 70212 raids: #1; 40852 kills: #1; 96377 hacks: #3;
|
Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:09 am |
|
 |
rkngl
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:57 pm Posts: 250 Location: here
|

senatorhung wrote: i do like the idea of a choice tho ... so running with that thought, how about an additional pvp action called 'INFILTRATION' that can be done when shields are down. INFILTRATION acts as an attempted raid AND hack. counts as a single pvp action for TM action, but rewards both yellow and blue badges and resources if successful. raid and hack calculations are done as usual, but if EITHER fails, then the infiltration action fails. so, your worst scenario is that you critically fail both the raid AND the hack  after resolution of the infiltration action, regardless of success, the target gets a 'yellow alert' effect that last for 2 hours, during which the target can not be infiltrated, hacked, or raided (but can still be disabled). add medals and a leaderboard for infiltration ... and i would consider aiming for it  its and interesting idea though the yellow alert goes a bit too far as its a halc lite for someone pulling off a raid and hack. a slight alteration for it would be prevents for 2 hours OR until disabled whichever comes first, if they are wearing a halc it would most likely go off before the infiltraion could be attempted and woulding have an option of abuse as def for planet theft or other legetimate legion alert.
|
Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:23 am |
|
 |
senatorhung
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am Posts: 3473
|

rkngl wrote: senatorhung wrote: i do like the idea of a choice tho ... so running with that thought, how about an additional pvp action called 'INFILTRATION' that can be done when shields are down. INFILTRATION acts as an attempted raid AND hack. counts as a single pvp action for TM action, but rewards both yellow and blue badges and resources if successful. raid and hack calculations are done as usual, but if EITHER fails, then the infiltration action fails. so, your worst scenario is that you critically fail both the raid AND the hack  after resolution of the infiltration action, regardless of success, the target gets a 'yellow alert' effect that last for 2 hours, during which the target can not be infiltrated, hacked, or raided (but can still be disabled). add medals and a leaderboard for infiltration ... and i would consider aiming for it  its and interesting idea though the yellow alert goes a bit too far as its a halc lite for someone pulling off a raid and hack. a slight alteration for it would be prevents for 2 hours OR until disabled whichever comes first, if they are wearing a halc it would most likely go off before the infiltraion could be attempted and woulding have an option of abuse as def for planet theft or other legetimate legion alert. the intent of the yellow alert is to prevent someone from infiltrating, disabling, and then hacking and raiding the same target again. you can still infiltrate and disable a planetary guard. if it is a legion alert ... make sure folks do NOT infiltrate. adds a tiny bit of strategy.
_________________Rank 3950 Litheor Governor 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26 _____________ PvP leaderboards: 70212 raids: #1; 40852 kills: #1; 96377 hacks: #3;
|
Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:10 am |
|
 |
rkngl
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:57 pm Posts: 250 Location: here
|

senatorhung wrote: rkngl wrote: senatorhung wrote: i do like the idea of a choice tho ... so running with that thought, how about an additional pvp action called 'INFILTRATION' that can be done when shields are down. INFILTRATION acts as an attempted raid AND hack. counts as a single pvp action for TM action, but rewards both yellow and blue badges and resources if successful. raid and hack calculations are done as usual, but if EITHER fails, then the infiltration action fails. so, your worst scenario is that you critically fail both the raid AND the hack  after resolution of the infiltration action, regardless of success, the target gets a 'yellow alert' effect that last for 2 hours, during which the target can not be infiltrated, hacked, or raided (but can still be disabled). add medals and a leaderboard for infiltration ... and i would consider aiming for it  its and interesting idea though the yellow alert goes a bit too far as its a halc lite for someone pulling off a raid and hack. a slight alteration for it would be prevents for 2 hours OR until disabled whichever comes first, if they are wearing a halc it would most likely go off before the infiltraion could be attempted and woulding have an option of abuse as def for planet theft or other legetimate legion alert. the intent of the yellow alert is to prevent someone from infiltrating, disabling, and then hacking and raiding the same target again. you can still infiltrate and disable a planetary guard. if it is a legion alert ... make sure folks do NOT infiltrate. adds a tiny bit of strategy. okay maybe it was the wording but it looked like an effect that would be on the one hit which would affect others as well, that is why i was suggesting the other option.
|
Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:29 pm |
|
 |
FlarePhoenix12
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:18 pm Posts: 12
|

Shinar wrote: FlarePhoenix12 wrote: -1 Not really my sought of thing. It would make krio torps be seen much more, though they are somewhat rare, and it would depreciate the value of having high hull. Sure, being disabled goes onto your stat page, but the whole point of fighting against the disable isn't to protect your stat page (unless you have a huge ego), but to protect your mineral/arti points. All in all, it defeats the purpose of disabling a ship once you have all the reds you want. These are the sort of responses I am looking for. Yes, the change would depreciate the value of hull in favor of shields, which actually sounds like a selling point to several other commentators. Actually, I find a lot of people have a large enough ego where they do not like getting disabled, and simultaneously, I find a lot of people barely care about the loss of resources due to how little we lose from raids and hacks. Finally, I imagine a lot of us disable ships for fun, and unless your legion gets fed bases, I also imagine that most need the reds anyway. My hope was the change would provide additional options, which would translate into strategy. Touché, but what I meant by protecting production points is more directed at preventing yourself from being zeroed, which is a terrible feeling (not for the guy doing it of course. For that guy, he would probably be feeling like top stuff). Anyways, for the more passive players who have a hard enough time as it is, is this really what they need (i.e. an easier way of getting zeroed)?
|
Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:22 pm |
|
 |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|