[Idea]Cruise Engines have 'hit-points' before losing charge

[Fletcher]

I am unsure if this idea is possible but I'll try to get it out there.

Cruise engines now have an 'invisible hit points' in-game but now in order for them to be disrupted, cruise disrupters now have to reduce the engine hit points to zero for it to lose its charge. The engines will get their hit points back after a certain period of time however. As the charge comes back, the hit points base recharge starts at 20% of the total, then slowly charges back up like shields.

The best comparison for this is a Trade Lane Disruption mechanic being adapted for engines.

This in theory would lead to large trading and military vessels having a good amount of hit points for their engines, making them tougher to stop while making smaller craft being disrupted as it is now, or a little slower.

This will stop NPC's being a total nuisance since they don't spam CD's like we do, and it'll make it a little tougher for lone fighter pirates to stop a large vessel for a quick buck. In-theory.

So, is this mechanic possible for ship engines, if so, is it even wanted?

---

"Oh chuffing blimey, another day, another person being whiney!"
Fletcher's Feedback and Stories Thread

[Ingenious]

If anything, small light vessels should be able to get away more easily.

[Fletcher]

How so? Wouldn't with larger ships, the engine charge require more energy to disrupt it?

---

"Oh chuffing blimey, another day, another person being whiney!"
Fletcher's Feedback and Stories Thread

[Hexx]

I think this would just lead to capspam being allowed to go gung ho, then simply run away when they get too damaged. It seems to me that larger ships should have a more difficult time escaping a furball than smaller ones.

If that BS you and your bomber wing just crippled is gonna go down, it needs to go down. If it can get away easier, it's just gonna be annoying.

---

It's Hexx against the world.

Hexx won.

[Fletcher]

I can see the fear of capspam there, then why about increase train/reinforced disruptors 'engine damage' while the CD's down the chain do less damage?

---

"Oh chuffing blimey, another day, another person being whiney!"
Fletcher's Feedback and Stories Thread

[Hexx]

Maybe I don't understand your question, but isn't that how it already is?

---

It's Hexx against the world.

Hexx won.

[Fletcher]

No, at least to my memory. Larger ships have harder to hit 'engine hitboxes', depending on their location on a ship. E.g. Behemoth is at the rear, while Trains are at the front.

The train TCD has a large blast radius to attempt to combat this, by making sure that it hits the 'engine hitbox'.

This idea could potentially remove the engine hitbox and replace it with an invisible set of numbers instea, if possible. Making disruptors more reliable in a sense, but more numbers required for stopping large vessels.

---

"Oh chuffing blimey, another day, another person being whiney!"
Fletcher's Feedback and Stories Thread

[Hades]

*sighs*

Making it harder to cruise disrupt a capital won't make them more numerous or any worse than they are now, please, thinking like that is just stupid. Not only do capital ships (and larger ships in general, really) take much longer to enter cruise, they're much larger and better armored, so logically they would have better armored engines than a fighter. Don't be morons.

As to Fletcher, this is a pretty neat idea. I have no idea if it's possible, but if it is, I'd love to see it happen.

[Lunaphase]

Its a good idea but its flawed becuase even the smallest powerplant can fire a train CD non-stop. everyone mounts them anyway. Though lets be honest a single LF stopping somthing thats about 1000x its mass IS a little rediculous.

---

[Fletcher]

Alter the re-fire rate? I'm against adding an energy cost to them though.

I am on the thoughts that a small fighter stopping a Battleship of war is a but nuts.

---

"Oh chuffing blimey, another day, another person being whiney!"
Fletcher's Feedback and Stories Thread