[Idea/concept] Distress Module

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Before posting anything I’d like to clarify some context about this post, it has nothing to do with Distress calls or Distress Beacons or making signatures in space, i’ll do my best to explain below.

the idea is to expand on some level the existing modules in game to create a module which will help make fights longer.

i call it the “Distress Module” (a new name with a snazzy acronym will be surely welcome here)

we have obviously things like the ADC, DCU & PANIC Modules already, these things either make ships invulnerable or increase damage resistance for a short period of time.

i was watching one of Ashterothi’s streams the other day and he commented about how with structures they have changed the damage cap to higher than the shield recharge rate.

given ships have no damage cap as far as I’m aware i thought what would be nice is a solid substantial repair bonus, my thinking is that this module used some kind of ice component, there for working as a fuel and in terms of the lore, this fuel allows the module to simply work more efficiently.

I see this aspect as similar to cooling a CPU in liquid nitrogen or how a dog sled team or runners in general can operate better in colder environments.

so if for example if each “Distress Module” could hold a maximum of 5 Strontium and each cycle used 1 unit and each cycle lasted 2 minutes. you’d have a solid 10 minute battle scene, cool down time for using it would be i guess probably 10 - 15 minutes or something.

not only is this good for singular pilots but also good for large fleet battles and making things in general harder to kill.

the very point of this module is to keep players simply alive just for a short while, this is good for being caught on gate camps and just in general longer fleet fights in my humble opinion, the very point of this would be to exploit it.

if for some reason if its not applicable to individual pilots perhaps it could be considered as a command burst of some kind where everyone’s reppers are boosted and the nanite repair paste cost is slashed epicly.

2

I was excited until that part.

1 Like
3

Another Drogon suggestion and another very long post that, after I read it, I still don’t have an idea what the suggestion is meant to be and what problem it is meant to fix.

4

I get it, add a TLDR

5

So basically you want a “get out of a gank free” module, because that’s what it would be used for…

2 Likes
6

While a TLDR or summary for longer suggestions is always a good idea, I also kind of miss the ‘why’ and ‘what’ of your post, and an explanation of what the purpose of the suggestion is.

As I read it, we get a lot of details but no overall explanation of the purpose, limits, application…

the suggestion, if I understand correctly seems to be some kind of ADC, but with big repairs instead of resists and it uses stront.

What kinds of ships is it meant for? All ship types, or just certain sizes or types?
What kinds of situations do you think it should be used in?
What kind of negative ways could your suggestion impact the game? For example, a temporary massive defence boost would be overpowered in high sec space if it could be used on ships there to survive until CONCORD arrives.

So many questions that go unanswered, while we do get a lot of details that to me seem irrelevant at this point, like ‘how much stront should it use per cycle’.

7

its not what i want but i do understand it would be used like that.

could make the technology “criminal” and thus illegal to use in empire space, sort of like how some car modifications (and modules in game) can’t be used in empire space, such as bomb launchers.

naturally it would have to have some other kind of draw back, but what it would be i don’t know. i could see it being a way of opening up for warclones boarding the ship. “if you use this, you’re allowed to be boarded”

then disallow self destruct, jettison, etc just for having it fit.

oh so you did read my post and understand it then.

well you do know this is a concept, instead of expecting everything to be presented out in front of you and grilling me over the quality of my posts, considering your above statement shows you clearly understand it, have you discussed weather or not you like this idea, discussed fleshing out the concept further before even discussing a proposal for hard stats, what contribution have you actually made?

8

I have not made any suggestion contributions to this topic, except voicing some feedback about how you present your suggestion, as your way to present suggestions (lots of text, lots of irrelevant details, very little body and no further ideas of how to implent it and what the consequences of implenentation would be) make me want to skip reading your suggestions as it is usually feels like a waste of time (even compared to the time I waste reading all sorts of other nonsense on the forums).

I may not have been nice with the feedback, but do with that feedback what you like.

9

you do see that the title does say “concept” right?
not all concepts are fleshed out and detailed ideas, this you are also aware of?

my intention of labeling things as idea/concept and with the way its worded should naturally imply that the floor is more open to discussion rather than jumping in with an idea saying it does exactly X amount of repair or damage, how about we bat the concept around a bit first see if we can get somewhere with it as a community to a point where we at least like the concept if it works a certain way.

then stats can develop.

if my writing style is too complicated for you (despite the fact you’ve clearly read and understood the concept) you don’t have to read or post on my threads. that’s my feedback to you, it may not be nice, but do with that what you like.

10

Yes, but do you really need 379 words to describe the concept of ‘New ADC’ without further fleshing it out?

Yes, your writing style where you never use capitalization and don’t have any structure in the logic are indeed hard to read through for me.

Sometimes I give it a try, but usually when I see your posts I roll my eyes and close it again. Thought I’d give you that feedback - you might now be aware and be able to improve upon it if you wish to do so.

11

its not an ADC

I’ve already posted on several of my posts about why this is an issue. honestly man if you can’t just roll with concept without demanding hard stats, or complaining about my writing structure or style, maybe rolling your eyes and closing the post is best for you.

12

I agree with Gerard…

1.) what is this thing?
2.) what is its exact purpose/useage?
3.) what ship category? T1/T2/T3? what ship types in the category?
4.) Why is this needed? what problem is it solving? or Content is it trying to create?

I read your OP…to me it says nothing, cause I have no freaking clue what you are prattling on about!

13

this is actually in the post

you won’t know this because its not specified as what is posted is a concept and not a proposal as i mentioned to Gerad

this too is in the post.

well it sucks to be you then.

14

This is the problem we’re trying to address: the way you’ve written your post means that we don’t have a clue by reading it.

Not really.

I guess so.

But I don’t mind not having a clue about one post on the forums. But for you it might be inconvenient when people do not understand your posts.

15

looks like i put it in the post…

16

“Module which will help make fights longer” says very little.

Fights longer how? Fights longer why? When? What for?

One could also suggest to add a module to make fights last shorter. Or make ships warp faster. Make stations bigger.

But what is the point? What do you want to accomplish with it and why?

17

???

18

Yes, I have read those parts before.

I do not see how that answers the questions I gave.

For example: Why should things be harder to kill in general or in large fleet battles? Why does the existing situation need a change? Or why shouldn’t things be faster to kill?

And why should nanite repair paste cost be slashed? Why should we be happy about that? (I both use large amounts of nanite repair paste, but also produce nanite repair paste, try convince me.)

And what would nanite repair paste have to do with a module that drags on fights? It’s meant to be a defensive option right? Cutting nanite repair cost would be an economic option. Again, illogical leaps between your ideas that make it hard to follow what you’re suggesting.

19

how:
given that you’ve read my post within it is the context of using a fuel based module to tempoarily grant massive boots to repair modules while slashing the cost, either as a mod or burst.

when:

well… if you play eve do you really have to ask when to use modules?

what for?

longer why?
because CCP is looking for ways to increase fights on grid.

this post isn’t designed to “fix” a problem in game, it is however a concept to help CCP achieve their goals.

as mentioned structures were changed so that their damage cap exceeded their repair rate.

so this was my inspiration on basically proposing the concept of a module which gives crazy repairs for a duration. intended to use primarily in fleet fights, but as mentioned

now you’re actually starting to ask questions like you read the post in depth instead of skimming it and saying you read it

as mentioned to you before, this is a concept
your comments regarding the concept are valid, however instead of picking it apart, could you, i dunno take the concept and perhaps build upon it in some capacity like we’re suppose to on here.

considering you’re only NOW asking these questions, don’t you think yourself have also been unclear when posting responses which actually have none of those questions and instead attack writing structure?

20

Like a bastion, industrial core, siege module and triage module then?

But what about those other similar modules, is this an alternative just for those ships or is this module available for all ships? Should all ships gain access to that type of active repairs?

Those kinds of details are pretty important for an initial draft of the idea, not the ‘how much stront is used each cycle’

No, I meant ‘when’ as in ‘what kinds of situations’; is this meant as a temporary survivability boost when you’re under high pressure in PvE situations? Is this something to survive while you call for backup in PvP situations? Is this something you activate when you are primaried in a fleet fight? Intended for small gang fights?

Without those design choices for your idea we cannot help talk further about the idea as we have no clue what the thing is meant for.

What goal is that? To make fights take longer? CCP already did a lot of changes recently in that direction (reversal of resist nerf, battleship EHP buffs from extenders, plates and bulkheads).

I have not seen any indication that they want to make fights last even longer.

I think you misunderstood what changed about structures because what you say makes no sense.

The damage cap of structures always exceeded the repair rate as you wouldn’t be able to damage anything if it repaired faster than you are able to damage it, don’t you think?

What happened is that the shield damage cap has been completely removed. And that has nothing to do with repairs.

(Not that you cannot let talk about repairs inspire you to come up with a repair-boosting module, but it has little to do with recent structure changes.)

I enjoy reading new ideas of others and occasionally building upon it if I can think of an improvement. However, I like building upon a solid foundation. Yours is quicksand.

So, instead of building upon it, I’d rather point out that the foundation is missing.