Ok, I understand now how this came about. Back around 3.3 or 3.4 a fix was initiated to solve the problem of people towing others into a sector during an invasion. The problem was that you could tow someone in, then when you were killed by the defenses in that sector the person (or ship) you towed in would be released into the sector.

As I recall, JP fixed this by making it so that you aren't shown as actually in the sector until you survive whatever defenses might be there, which at first seemed like a great solution, however, there was an unexpected diminishment of defenses as a result, and a dichotomy was created at the same time.

Since you're not actually in the sector, the way it's written, therefore any ship in that sector which possesses an interdictor cannot hold you there until you overcome the sector fighters. Here's the problem though, planets hold you, despite the sector fighters so why wouldn't ship interdictors? Furthermore, the person is free to attack your defenses but you can't lock him with your ship interdictor! Thus the game is saying "no you can't lock him, he's not in the sector yet," but he's attacking the fighters in the sector! How can you attack fighters if you aren't in the sector? It's illogical.

The minute anyone launches an attack on your defenses, your interdictor on your ship should be able to lock and hold them!

Therefore, I conclude, and quite logically so, that the failure of the ship IC to hold an intruder if defensive fighters are deployed is an unexpected and overlooked glitch, created when the other problem was repaired (the problem of people towing into a sector and leaving it, even though they die in the sector).

Smasher

Logical or not, I personally I think it's better for game play the way it is. The thing is, for a planet to hold you, it takes ore, so eventually you can run it dry and retreat. For a ship to hold you, there is no penalty. With that lack of penalty comes a reduced effectiveness.

is it considered bug use to ping someone into a sector with a cannon in it in order to avoid the qgun blast?

If it makes you feel better Smasher, imagine they enemy is launching fighters from just outside the sector...just outside your reach. And I think it would be considered bug use Did...I didn't know that was even possible.

It's only possible if there are no sector fighters over the cannon, which is rare. It's a tricky situation, because if someone being pinged does get hit by the cannon, it can be a way to kill an enemy without having to use any but 1 fighter. If they don't, it can be a way to bypass a sector cannon and get to the sectors behind it. In general though, it isn't an issue because people don't set an active cannon in a sector without fighters.

quote:Originally posted by Harley Nuss (teamEIS)

Logical or not, I personally I think it's better for game play the way it is. The thing is, for a planet to hold you, it takes ore, so eventually you can run it dry and retreat. For a ship to hold you, there is no penalty. With that lack of penalty comes a reduced effectiveness.
]
I for one think ship IG should work .. with or without the figs
to retreat off of.
And planets should use 0 ore just like the ships [}:)]

One more thing ..Alien planets L6 ..don't have PIG on automaticly.
Nor are they able to be toggled on in Tedit.


Why make it easy for elite with macro's or scripts.

Since we're discussing this fictional game in a non-fictional manner, I would say if anything a ship would have to use ore and expend more energy than a planet would to hold someone. And I also think fighters would want to finish the job when they are attacking regardless of enemy odds. But going back to the game world, I like it the way it is.

I'll throw in my unsolicited $.02 here as well.... in my opinion, a Ship IG should hold someone who is at the fig prompt... and a planet IG should not use ore.

I'd LIKE to use an IG to stop someone gridding my sectors, but as the game is currently, I have to have the quasar turned on as well or else they can drain a ton of my ore with no delay moving against the IG. I'd prefer to trap them in the sector without using all of my ore, and without having the quasar turned on, so that I can surround them and kill them (and their pod) in ship to ship combat.

It doesn't really make a lot of sense that a planet would use ore and a ship would not.

Well it seems to me that a planet beam would need more power than a ship beam. We are lucky that the ship IC does not use ore. Maybe it should, like the twarp drive does?

The planet IC uses ore, and when it runs out the player can escape. If it did not use ore, some players who stumble over a L6 alien planet early in the game are going to get trapped if the qcannon does not get them first.

Just drop a planet in their path, and set the qcannon up high enough to pod them. Unless you want to do it yourself for some reason? In that case, find a tunnel out of the grid area and wait and then attack them in a ship with a IC generator. You can tell by the fig hits in which direction they are going, just twarp next to the figs they are taking out and turn on the IC. Then laugh as they cannot warp out and you capture their ship.

I can think of at least one good reason why a planet should expend ore to hold someone. If it did not, a player could set something like a single maxed H in a doorway to a bubble without the sector cannons on. In order to get by the planet, a player would have to eat most of the ore at atmostpheric levels and kill off most of the shields before they could progress. The odds are already in favor of the defender, just in terms of the damage cannons can do and the planetary figs/shields odds. If an IG didn't use ore, it would just put it more in their favor.

Great point, but I think the IG on the ship should still act like the IG on a planet, using ore, holding a player regardless of fighters in sector. Its a lot less of a threat than a planet is, comparatively speaking so make them act the same.

I think were a ship modified to use ore to hold someone, it doing it regardless of sector figs would be good. I mentioned the IG situation in general to JP a few days back, and he said he would look into it.

I don't think that continued attempts to escape the PIG should deplete Fuel. Either it should be a one time Fuel expenditure, or subsequent attempts to escape the sector should draw the ship closer and closer to the planet, eventually resulting in an Atmospheric blast, knocking the ship back out to the edge of the sector if it isn't destroyed. This seems reasonable to me: 3 attempts to escape, each depleting Fuel; 4th attempt results in an Atmospheric blast; repeat.

Concerning ICs, it's stands to reason that there should be a one-time Fuel expenditure to hold a ship. This causes the ship to be "secured" or disabled, and further escape attempts are impossible, or at the very least ineffective and of no cost in Fuel.

Final thought: The fuel expenditure should not be momentary. If a ship attempts to escape a PIG, the Fuel spent to hold the ship should last for a duration, say an hour. And perhaps the most logical method of establishing IG costs is to set them to burn Fuel at a specific rate/time. Planets burn 500 Fuel / hour when IG is turned on... no more, no less. Ship-based IGs burn 10 Fuel / hour. Any IG operates by creating a "large gravity well". Such a thing would take time to start and stop, and would realistically burn Fuel over time, not instantly or several times per second, as now.

+EP+

If you really want to hold a ship, hit it with a ptorp. It will stay put for a while, until turns reset and the player gets X turns back.

My problem with ship IG's is there "should" be a way out of them, ie using up all the fuel in their holds. The part that makes them a pain is when the player is afk for long periods of time and your stuck there till you can kill him, cby, or get other assistance, or he comes back and kills you or lets you go. If it used fuel in his holds and he is afk then it sucks to be him, he should have been there.