Forums » Suggestions
weapons ports
I was thinking maybe we could have a upgrade that saccrificed such&such amount of cargo for a new weapons port or something like that.
No, this is not realistically implementable. As it turns out, ports are hard written into each ship model. VO's devs were either not thinking ahead or unable to handle the necessary coding to accomplish what you and many others desire.
That's just the way it is.
That's just the way it is.
but there are sevral ship with varient having difrent amount of ports, so are those the ship remade? I mean duplication of data with minor changes?
Lecter, if I remember correctly there are tons more weapons ports on ships than are enabled. All that would need to be done is just to enable more. However, even if they were just hardcoded into the model, I know for a fact that they have tools to add new ports easily enough(They're objects they can attach in 3DSMax).
Ship upgrades in general would be nice(and an upgrade/utility slot to shove them into).
Ship upgrades in general would be nice(and an upgrade/utility slot to shove them into).
What Steve said.
I can't obviously see this coming anytime soon(tm), but while digging around in some of the old pages for this game I found this.
Aside from the changes in appearance caused by the modular configuration of the ship's hardware (engines, weapons, etc)
Which seems to imply not only visual, but physical changes to ships. If you want more weapon ports you could just attach something like an extension plug into your ship, and there you have it. The downside of course would be the price, and sheer bulkiness of your new ship. Imagine a hornet with four attachments on each side which turned its small ports into large ports, creating a monster of an attack ship. But if each "port extender" weighed say 1840kg each, you'd then have a ship that handled slightly better than a 'moth, and probably with a much larger profile. Even an EC-89 would stand a fair chance in one on one combat.
Since each extender would have to be individually tailored to fit the ship in question, they could also be balanced to keep a modified ship from becoming more powerful than an original. For example, no matter how much armour plating, engine upgrades, weapon additions, or whatever you put on a Valkerye, it could never be better than a plain Ragnarok or Prometheus.
Then, if different sections of a ship could be targeted and knocked out, having a big ol' turret sticking out of your vulture might not always be the best idea. So depending on the situation you have in mind it might be smart to attach cargo pods, additional armour, bigger engines, or just keep your ships standard. Plus, it'd make a big whole list of ship parts to be crafted, once that becomes a big deal. Another downside is all the different models for every combination possible, and what not... but eh. It'd look cool.
Aside from the changes in appearance caused by the modular configuration of the ship's hardware (engines, weapons, etc)
Which seems to imply not only visual, but physical changes to ships. If you want more weapon ports you could just attach something like an extension plug into your ship, and there you have it. The downside of course would be the price, and sheer bulkiness of your new ship. Imagine a hornet with four attachments on each side which turned its small ports into large ports, creating a monster of an attack ship. But if each "port extender" weighed say 1840kg each, you'd then have a ship that handled slightly better than a 'moth, and probably with a much larger profile. Even an EC-89 would stand a fair chance in one on one combat.
Since each extender would have to be individually tailored to fit the ship in question, they could also be balanced to keep a modified ship from becoming more powerful than an original. For example, no matter how much armour plating, engine upgrades, weapon additions, or whatever you put on a Valkerye, it could never be better than a plain Ragnarok or Prometheus.
Then, if different sections of a ship could be targeted and knocked out, having a big ol' turret sticking out of your vulture might not always be the best idea. So depending on the situation you have in mind it might be smart to attach cargo pods, additional armour, bigger engines, or just keep your ships standard. Plus, it'd make a big whole list of ship parts to be crafted, once that becomes a big deal. Another downside is all the different models for every combination possible, and what not... but eh. It'd look cool.
/me worships Mynt for a moment, and returns to individual thought.
That kind of idea would be awesome... Got me thinking of a ship that jumps in where everyone screams, then missiles start flying out of everywhere.... Would be really expensive prolly tho.
Although, I have always vied for a cargo expander... Even the XCs are small for what I try to do with ore :P
That kind of idea would be awesome... Got me thinking of a ship that jumps in where everyone screams, then missiles start flying out of everywhere.... Would be really expensive prolly tho.
Although, I have always vied for a cargo expander... Even the XCs are small for what I try to do with ore :P
Penalizing additional ports overly much with mass is not really smart, because then nearly noone will use them, making them obsolete to begin with.
Yes, as our resident expert pointed out, doing things too much or too little is bad. (The ideal goal being to do it 'just right', in case you were wondering.) Here's the quote, you little logic nazi.
For example, no matter how much armour plating, engine upgrades, weapon additions, or whatever you put on a Valkerye, it could never be better than a plain Ragnarok or Prometheus.
Notice how I said 'never be better', as opposed to 'always be worse'. In my dream VO, attaching a "make small port into large port" device onto a Valkerye, and the added armour plates, thrust, cargo expanders and spin torque multipliers would necessitate lengthening the hull to a nice square 21 meters. Bam, Itani Prom. But that takes away from nation identity and what not. A nice end all limit to customizing then, would be the Power Grid. Assuming that each level of customization required atleast one port, then the ships that need all the power grid they can get, would coincidentally be the ones with the most potential for customizing. And, it would make Power-Gridding more interesting, methinks.
For example, no matter how much armour plating, engine upgrades, weapon additions, or whatever you put on a Valkerye, it could never be better than a plain Ragnarok or Prometheus.
Notice how I said 'never be better', as opposed to 'always be worse'. In my dream VO, attaching a "make small port into large port" device onto a Valkerye, and the added armour plates, thrust, cargo expanders and spin torque multipliers would necessitate lengthening the hull to a nice square 21 meters. Bam, Itani Prom. But that takes away from nation identity and what not. A nice end all limit to customizing then, would be the Power Grid. Assuming that each level of customization required atleast one port, then the ships that need all the power grid they can get, would coincidentally be the ones with the most potential for customizing. And, it would make Power-Gridding more interesting, methinks.
Hmm, I really resent being called a nazi. But let's leave that aside.
I quote, Imagine a hornet with four attachments on each side which turned its small ports into large ports, creating a monster of an attack ship. But if each "port extender" weighed say 1840kg each, you'd then have a ship that handled slightly better than a 'moth, and probably with a much larger profile. Even an EC-89 would stand a fair chance in one on one combat.
I was responding to that, I'm sorry if I did not make it clear enough. I'm fully aware that you meant for it to be done 'just right', but exactly there lies the problem.
Personally, I would not favour a 'port converter' as much as a 'port-mux', i.e. something that allows the removing of two (or possibly more, i.e. 3, to keep certain ships from getting L-port weapons) small ports in exchange for one large port. This has been suggested various times, and for some time now. I'm just waiting and hoping.
To get back to the point of my post (yes, there is one), I'm against penalisation of powerful features so that everything is immediately balanced again. I am not saying that this has been happening constantly, just that I am against it.
I quote, Imagine a hornet with four attachments on each side which turned its small ports into large ports, creating a monster of an attack ship. But if each "port extender" weighed say 1840kg each, you'd then have a ship that handled slightly better than a 'moth, and probably with a much larger profile. Even an EC-89 would stand a fair chance in one on one combat.
I was responding to that, I'm sorry if I did not make it clear enough. I'm fully aware that you meant for it to be done 'just right', but exactly there lies the problem.
Personally, I would not favour a 'port converter' as much as a 'port-mux', i.e. something that allows the removing of two (or possibly more, i.e. 3, to keep certain ships from getting L-port weapons) small ports in exchange for one large port. This has been suggested various times, and for some time now. I'm just waiting and hoping.
To get back to the point of my post (yes, there is one), I'm against penalisation of powerful features so that everything is immediately balanced again. I am not saying that this has been happening constantly, just that I am against it.