Forums » Suggestions
RFC: configurable engine profiles
It might add an interesting element to have in-station configurable engine profiles. This isn't a fully-developed idea, and I'm sure it would take some effort to balance. A big part of my intent here is to make runnig away in a combat ship less attractive. The profiles I have in mind are:
Fighter: increased thrust and combat speed, at the expense of turbo speed.
Interceptor: Increased turbo thrust and turbo speed, at the expense of drain and non-turbo thrust.
Runner: Decreased turbo drain, at the expense of thrust and non-turbo speed.
Several ships would need their base stats adjusted for this to make sense - I don't want infiniboost Valks with the runner profile. I'm not sure if the ideal implementation would simply by selectable profiles, or if add-on modules should be required.
Maybe certain configurations should cost grid power so that boosting a Superlight's performance costs the ability to use the Widowmaker and such.
Fighter: increased thrust and combat speed, at the expense of turbo speed.
Interceptor: Increased turbo thrust and turbo speed, at the expense of drain and non-turbo thrust.
Runner: Decreased turbo drain, at the expense of thrust and non-turbo speed.
Several ships would need their base stats adjusted for this to make sense - I don't want infiniboost Valks with the runner profile. I'm not sure if the ideal implementation would simply by selectable profiles, or if add-on modules should be required.
Maybe certain configurations should cost grid power so that boosting a Superlight's performance costs the ability to use the Widowmaker and such.
ImpossibletobalancewithcurrentorforeseeableDevresources fail!
there are some ideas you should just keep to yourself
Would probably consist (given current game dynamic) of introducing a few more variants. I don't think there is another way to do this without stealing all dev time.
I'm all for a few more variants with fighter/interceptor/runner characteristics though. I would say certain configs would very heavily in weight... though certain engines could use grid power due to technobabble. I do like that idea.
on a side-note: peytros... you're 12 so I understand. Lecter... aren't good lawyers supposed to be creative and think outside of the box? Let's not hijack the thread if at all possible though... edit your previous comments if you desire to flame me back :).
I'm all for a few more variants with fighter/interceptor/runner characteristics though. I would say certain configs would very heavily in weight... though certain engines could use grid power due to technobabble. I do like that idea.
on a side-note: peytros... you're 12 so I understand. Lecter... aren't good lawyers supposed to be creative and think outside of the box? Let's not hijack the thread if at all possible though... edit your previous comments if you desire to flame me back :).
whoa lecter pretty much summed up the whole paragraph I was going to write in two words, neat!
Unfortunately, constructs such as Lecter's are not valid in English. German, perhaps.
I understand implementing and balancing this would take some work. It's an RFC and not a "put this in the next release" type suggestion for that reason. If you think it's a bad idea for reasons other than being hard to implement, say so. If you just don't want to distract the devs from implementing something else that you care about, please let them handle their own project management.
I understand implementing and balancing this would take some work. It's an RFC and not a "put this in the next release" type suggestion for that reason. If you think it's a bad idea for reasons other than being hard to implement, say so. If you just don't want to distract the devs from implementing something else that you care about, please let them handle their own project management.
I just like his post...
I think it's a bad idea too, i'm just too tired to specify tonight.
I think it's a bad idea too, i'm just too tired to specify tonight.
Do you geniuses really think this hasn't been proposed and discussed in at least three different threads since VO day one? That everything here hasn't already been hashed out? My above comment was just the most immediate reason this won't happen; it's also a substantively bad idea.
So, as my final commentary on this regurgitated piece of shit, I leave you with this:
So, as my final commentary on this regurgitated piece of shit, I leave you with this:
ahahhahahahaha that happened to my friend
we used to have all those and it was terrible.
Light medium and heavy engines
Imagine turning any ship, even a valk into an infini turbo ship, yea. it sucked hard
Terrible times for anyone trying to not die which is why it was good that it was disposed of
Light medium and heavy engines
Imagine turning any ship, even a valk into an infini turbo ship, yea. it sucked hard
Terrible times for anyone trying to not die which is why it was good that it was disposed of
Well... doesn't need to be implemented precisely as described above... hence my suggestion about using the idea to create a few more variants (with a few more sprint engines, and a few more fight (read corvult-esque) engines... personally I think there are enough infiniturbo engines). I don't think anyone was really suggesting putting a infini-turbo engine on a valk.
Spence, did you miss the part where I said "I don't want infiniboost Valks with the runner profile"? Some adjustments to the base configurations would be required to make this work. The current turbo characteristics of the IDF and X1 Valks should be the runner profile. Getting the current combat characteristics should require taking a turbo speed/drain hit. Yes, it would take some work.