Jump Hole Failures?

[Rommie]

This came to me when I saw the infocard on the Chugoku Jump Hole.It's been there since vanilla, so it was worth to give it a thought.
Could Jump Holes be coded to have failures?For example, make it take you to some dead end system in 0.05% of jump cases, to make it reasonable, or just make your ship explode inside of that jump hole tunnel, or make an animation of how your ships leaves the tube, and explodes once it reaches that "cataclysmic vortex" outside the jump hole tunnel(which i don't think would work, since on large ships, like the Juggernaut, you can see outside the tunnel.that would mean making it smaller)
If that's too much, it could be added to early jump holes, like the ones that are newly added to the mod, since they are supposed to have just appeared, and are most likely unstable.
So, what do you guys think?

---

In space, nobody knows I'm a panda

[Nitram]

I always tought it was just propaganda for Agiera to reap in more profits?

Nitram

---

Ageira Recruitment | Ageira Personell | Ageira Rollcall

[Akura]

If your're in formation with someone that jumps, there's always a chance you explode randomly.

There, no need to change anything.

[Rommie]

If your're in formation with someone that jumps, there's always a chance you explode randomly.

There, no need to change anything.

That's a bug.And it only works when in formation.Not so much towards the realism part of the game

---

In space, nobody knows I'm a panda

[Nitram]

Not so much towards the realism part of the game

Two entities in the JH at once de-sabilize it? Seems like a reasonable expenation.


Nitram

---

Ageira Recruitment | Ageira Personell | Ageira Rollcall

[JIVA]

a slight risk of getting the ship damages ( based on the ships mass ) in transit through jumpholes was suggested for 4.85.

but rejected

reason for that:

there are factions that rely too much on jumpholes rather than secured jumpgates - and these factions would feel unfairly treated.


details:

what i had suggested was a tiny risk of getting all equipment / hull damaged in a jump. - for battleships - something like a 5% risk to receive damage from 25 to 50% to all systems ( which would be quite costly ) - since its mass based, fighter class vessels or even gunboats would face something like a 0.000001% risk only. ( battleship mass 25000, fighter mass a lot less )

as someone who is flying a battleship most of the time, i would gladly live with that risk ( even without gaining something for it ) - but then, i don t rely on travelling much.

---

the [JIVA] group

[Bobthemanofsteel]

I think it would be cool if it was more like a 10% chance of just killing you.
Give some truth to the fact that their supposed to be highly unstable.
Hell, why build Gates currently?

[Thexare]

there are factions that rely too much on jumpholes rather than secured jumpgates - and these factions would feel unfairly treated.

Essentially, it's a break from "reality" to preserve fair gameplay.

Hell, why build Gates currently?

I'm sure they profit off them somehow. Which would be why they build them. And why they continue to encourage people not to use jump holes. That's business.

[Bobthemanofsteel]

Oh well of course we profit from making epic inventions, we've been doing that since a few dozen years A.S.:D

But I mean ooRP wise. If there's no downside to using a JG, why have them?
Apart for RP basis.
What about the RP basis that Jumpholes are unstable, though?

EDIT: I just looked at that screen... Has that srsly not been updated? That's some epic fail there.
From both DA/Microsuck AND our own lovely Devs.

Monument and Valhalla, huh?

[Sprolf]

That is actually an error - it's not the standard infocard, as evidenced by the names of the companies. It somehow leaked out of the Freelancer concept stages and wasn't replaced with a more up-to-date infocard.

---