Jump-Drive

[Beagle23]

If you don't have restrictions on it, people will abuse it by continuing to jump over and over, even with a long cool down. That bit of risk tied to it will keep them from using it to jump the max distance, one system won't cause any damage, but going further will put more stress on the ship.

The technology, if added to the server RP, would be EXTREMELY experimental, and would cost as much, or more than a CAU8 upgrade because of the rarity of the tech, either that or given out similar to a terrorist, or AI ID by the admins in a SRP request because of the rarity of the technology.

~Leo

Yes, the fact that it needs to be balanced is obvious. Making it a one-trick situational pony tied to a good deal of risk is not the only way to balance it. To spell myself out and cut down on further confusion, what I'm saying is that I don't agree that it is the best way to balance this, let's keep thinking of different options.

As for defining 'continuing to jump over and over even with a long cooldown' as abuse - if you want this in game but you're expecting the people who get it to not use it, I'd say you've got unrealistic expectations.

The problem with such stuff and similar in our little reality is that it would ALWAYS have to be "balanced" by giving the solution so many drawbacks that they'd summarily almost outweigh the advantage of instantaneous travel.

Been thinking about how it would work though...

1st, cooldown time of several minutes depending on ship size
2nd, the stuff being availible as an expensive equipment piece
3rd, cost in cargo every time used. You use energy for jumps means you use fuel.
5th, not for all ship types. Traders still gotta do it the hard way so that the painstakingly-calculated trade routes remained used as intended. While small stuffs are too small to have an FTL drive fit in.
6th, Maybe disable cruise?

A required charge up and cooldown time of several minutes seems very fair - it makes sense, stops the tech from being abused and overused in combat, without being overly restrictive.
Expensive makes sense but keep in mind that's just a barrier to entry, not balancing.
Cost in cargo - see above for expensive, makes sense in that respect. Covering the mechanic itself, putting a definite fuel tank on the mechanism does seem like a good way to limit it without being overly restrictive, though it depends how freely available the fuel would be.
Not for all ship types - again, think we're all in agreement on that one. If using the above cargo-requirement method, you also cut down on the ability for carriers or whatever caps get this tech to try and jump-trade.

The last suggestion is very interesting - having cruise and jump being two different engines which can't both be installed at once. I like the sound of it, really, and I'd like to develop it more.

All in all, a lot of good stuff, Panz.