Well, I'm going to give it a go
AFAIK (having skim-read numerous threads) not all of these problems have been directly addressed before and many of the possible solutions are new.
My ideas are posted here rather than in 'suggestions' as they are examples of what could be done by seeing each problem in a particular way - they're inspired by the problems but not meant to be definitive answers. In other words: food for thought, not a campaign for inclusion.
Problem: Player centric
If the player has it, then theoretically so should some of the other ships. Adding the Q-bomb means that there is already an alternative.
Solution: Treat it like other player-centric equipment - attach it to a mission
Although it's a one charge item like a missile/Q-Bomb/Gal-drive, it needn't be...
- What if it were a 'Q-Bomb Shield', signature specific so that it was only proof against your own Q-bomb? Then you'd have reason to delay launching after priming. Result: a more expensive energy bomb (costs you a Q-bomb for each use) that has a short delay associated with it's firing but then instant detonation.
Problem: Get out of jail free card
It's not just dodging gameplay, it's dodging the most thrilling gameplay.
Solution: Make it cost to use, not just to purchase
If we compare it to the escape pod then functionality is surprisingly similar - one charge item granting escape from a troublesome combat. If it wern't for the fact that it cost you your cargo then the escape pod would even be the more powerful item (avoids all subsequent combats en route to main station).
So what could the energy bomb cost to use?
- Maybe its use damages other equipment? Despite shielding the player from the worst of the blast if it actually knocked out the players shields and prevented their recharging until serviced, then it really would be a last resort weapon...
- Or have it require and damage/destroy the extra energy unit - the EEU is fairly cheap and might be a necessary sacrifice to provide the 'eye of the storm' type immunity from the energy bomb's blast.
- Maybe it's automatic full-fugitive status should you use it? Debatable morality or not, the legality at least could be clear. Or perhaps the safer the system, the worse the penalty. As for the detection of the crime, the detonation signature could be detectable from quite some distance.
Problem: Too cheap/readily availble
Although superficially easy to fix, if it becomes too difficult to acquire then just how useful is it? I would suggest that the relatively low price and tech level in Elite was not by accident.
Solution: Like a loan, it could be easier to acquire than to pay off
- I've already oxp'd this in Weapon Laws by making it available only in dangerous systems but another way might be to make it add service damage to your ship. Use it too regularly and it therefore delays profit (beyond the cost of the bomb) rather than always promoting it.
- Or, to make a player really think twice, allow it to be subject to damage. Get your energy bomb damaged in combat and it's a PSC event * Chance of it happening could (and perhaps should) be low but then the consequences would be severe.
Problem: Mission killer
A carefully crafted combat mission could potentially be neutered to become easy and unsatisfying by a solitary use of an energy bomb.
Solution: Provide a reason that it couldn't be used
- Recognise that a mission is in progress and (where appropriate) restrict the use of energy bombs. Preventing their sale wouldn't be enough if the player already had one but mission related reasons for not using one could exist.
- subterfuge
- sensitive cargo
- escape pod capture
- nearby innocents and the like
Problem: Adds nothing, only removes difficulty
Debatable this one as the same could be said of military lasers for example (and they're neither expendable nor subject to damage!) Lasers however are essential to the nature of the game, much moreso than the energy bomb especially after the inclusion of the cascade mine.
Solution: all of the ideas above address this in some way
Each one of the following may not be enough to convince in isolation but combining even two of them makes a much stronger case I think.
- mission reward
- strategy (pros and cons of use)
- risk
- not suitable for all scenarios
(Early) Conclusion:
Beyond the fact that there are numerous potential solutions ranging from the somewhat convoluted (e.g. 'Q-Bomb Shield') to the starkly simple (risk of detonation if damaged) the enegy bomb makes an interesting item to centre a mission around; missions being the usual excuse for some of the more powerful items of equipment.
For example...
A 'mad scientist' has built a new kind of bomb that's going to destroy an important facility and all nearby.
Can the player prevent it from detonating in time?
Should they succeed then does the player choose to...
- hand it over to GalCop and risk their reverse engineering other such devices? (becomes available later as an exclusive purchasable item to the player; subject to clean standing with GalCop)
- destroy it themselves so that no one can have it? (removed from the game)
- keep it for their own use? (single use but the most powerful variant)
- sell to the highest bidder? (potentialy leading to other missions)
Even if one were to ignore missions, in a game where
Code: Select all
#define PIRATES_PREFER_PLAYER YES
And OXP may be the right/best/most appropriate way to offer that.
* Press Space Commander