Please re-introduce the ability to punch through the last half of structure. It was fun!7

Likely many, if not most, will not remember this mechanic. Iirc CCP Fozzy had it patched out, not understanding the emotional connection it created through the excitement of it happening. Just like he wanted to patch out cool names like the old gas microwarpdrive, or the Y-S8 afterburner.

If you never experienced it, you never experienced the thrill and surprise of it happening, and you never experienced the desperate hopes of it actually happening. It was fun! And satisfying!

Basically, what happened on the surface, was that when your Alpha/Volley was strong enough to reach through less than 25% armor, and through half structure + some numbers, the ship instapopped despite actually having some structure left.

That happened with NPCs as well, of course. It made using Artillery exceptionally fun to use and it never has been a guaranteed win-button, based on lack of any complaints about it. It was not just the lucky roll with a wrecking shot! It was a distinct mechanic in the game!

It’s really just for fun. It creates surprising, unexpected instapops, which … which … are fun and seriously satisfying ! As a long term Artillery user regardless of size, I hereby ask you, CCP, to reintroduce this.

Thanks! :blush:

Edit: Corrected the title to more accurately reflect what this is about.


Why do I always end up in the wrong subforum, despite specifically going to the right one beforehand ??

Please move it to the appropriate forum section…

Thank you!

I don’t know if I support it or not, but I DO support weapons having distinct mechanics. IMO, current weapons are too similar. For instance, make missiles do area of effect/splash damage in line with their explosion radius. And here - sure, add punch through.


As much as I would love this (imagine it in highsec, it would be madness!), the amount of necessary calculations to have this is quite impressive.

Even with caching structure, the server would need to check every missile explosion, check which ship is at that location, then check if one of the collision boxes is within the explosion radiu. And it can not just be in a single moment of time. It would have to be checked every tick, for every explosion, as long as it lasts (- some small cut-off value).

You should make your own thread!

Thank you! : )

At least those we kept after lengthy debates, and now CCP uses the unique bits when the eventually tiericide something or introduce new modules (although the ADC naming scheme is really terrible regardless).

Posting in a nerf tanks thread.

There is a reason it was removed, lag in large battles. So ain’t going to happen, seriously…

Rants about nullbears incoming in 3 2 1 …


Thank you!

So you want to reintroduce a bug…

Source your claim.

If it was one, then it was a damn fine one, and it was there for quite a while.

I get the fun part, but when you try to balance this out and not just put it in as a “hidden damage bonus to Artillery”, then you will have to reduce the overall DPS of weapons, which means every time you do not punch through it’ll be a little more tedious and less satisfying. Not to mention it would also be a hidden boost to Gallente ships due to their strong hulls as well as to larger ships (vs. smaller ones) in general.

It’s a small effect you’re asking for, but with far reaching consequences for balancing, and every time the devs rebalance something will it have to be taken into account.

I do like the idea of weapon systems having more distinctive features though.

I don’t know why this would introduce more lag in large fleet fights. Missiles have their own distinctive mechanic and CCP didn’t take those out of the game either…

When 0 = > 1 it is always a bug. Otherwise all the numbers in the game are meaningless.

So … you have no source … and you just think it is? : - )

Actually it is another calculation that works back the damage taking into account a random factor, then think about multiple arty ships firing on the same target while the target is being repped and it adds to the lag.

Missiles were different and you could intercept them with smart bombs, but they changed them to act like rounds from guns to reduce lag so you can no longer block them with smart bombs. Again to reduce lag.

Did that help.

The OP has no idea about this type of thing.

1 Like

Now that Dracvlad is here, hating on it …
… we can be sure that it’s a good idea.


Thanks, doggy! : - )


My dear boy, nothing about hating on it, merely pointing out that it has no chance because of the lag issue. But if you are unable to work that out then what can I say, it is above your level of understanding of course.


Going to be honest here Dracvlad, you have no idea what you are talking about.

1 Like

Yeah right, you do know that the passive resists for the Invulns were removed for this very reason, because the system had to check whether they had cap or not before applying the damage and it created a lag fest. If you are going to tell me I have no idea then prove it.

Missiles were individual objects in space, then they grouped them as one object and now they are not objects in space, invulns had passive resists but no longer have them, Arty guns were changed to remove this chance based impact. The reason was to reduce server lag in big fights. Prove me wrong…

First of all, adding slight increase in CPU usage does not affect Latency, second of all, adding a probability check tree is not going to add THAT much more over head, hell eve already does millions of probability check. You are trying to drum up resistance claiming that adding an additional check tree means that we are all going to sudden suffer massive amounts of lag. This is known as the slippery slope fallacy. And it nothing more than a fallacy, you don’t know if it possible or not code wise. And unless a dev comes in here and confirms or denies it, we don’t know if it possible or not.

Now you are also comparing Missiles to this chance, this is also known as a false equivalency. First of all, the changes you speak of affected missiles because they were an actual entity, This doesn’t even change the shells, it doesn’t make them into an entity that the server has to remember and keep track of, instead it simply adds another check to the hit. A rather minor check at that.

So good sir, you are wrong, you can’t relate the two subjects to one another, because the changes in question that are being propose are completely unrelated to the reason that you say it won’t happen.

In basics, You don’t know what you are talking about.

1 Like

Rubbish, you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of big fights, seriously that is wrong. Latency is what exactly? We are talking about server load in big fights. Not that much of an over head, wow…

Why did they remove those items of complexity, well it was when they did the war against lag in big fights. In fact I hated all of these changes…

Wrong, I was also a SQL programmer…

The missiles were changed because of the lag issue, wrong…

You are so wrong mate it is laughable.

You just exposed yourself with this:

I will leave it there, are you related to Sol by any chance?

And I’m a Computer information systems specialist, understanding programming languages, how they interact with computers, as well as how information in general is handled is my stick, which included programmed languages, how to prevent unwanted leaks and ectra, and every experience I have, says you are wrong. Mr, I say I’m an SQL programmer.

You are still fascinated with these false equivalencies. All I hear is you attempting to defend yourself that is based on nothing more than half truths as well as well as bring up irrelevancies. SQL programmer is not a C++ programmer, As a programmer you should know that the two different languages act completely different from one another. SQL was design purely for database control, and it was never intended to be used for video games. Thus the module used to do combat calculations is not SQL. Again, as a programmer, you should know this.

However lets do the reasonable adult thing. Do you have proofs, and sources of the developers saying what you claimed? Links? Books? Anything? Or are you just spouting off non-sense.

1 Like