It has been said that ports were meant as places to connect all types of equipment, not just weapons. If losing a port to some utility equipment becomes to much of a problem, consider making very weak weapons with the utility features so its not a total damage loss.

Example: The radar extender is a radar extender plus some weak weapon.

That's . . . a shockingly good idea.

Aye, I like that.

I disagree; unless we're talking utility-only ports (which would also be easier to implement), you make a tradeoff when choosing a utility device rather than a weapon. Sticking a gun on a cargo scanner just doesn't fly; you want an extended storm radar, then you're just going to have one less weapon. You can't have it both ways, even if it is just a weak weapon.

Again, if we're talking utility ports, okay. But this doesn't seem necessary.

You can't have it both ways, even if it is just a weak weapon.


Why not? There's no space in the game for, say, a nerfed Neutron blaster that also scans cargo at some shorter range? No weak, limited ammo prox mines with a cargo spoofer that works until a pirate is within 500m? What's your basis for that argument, the particular mix of gasses rising from what you had for breakfast?

Your unreasoned feelings are useless here. Explain why this could never, under any circumstances, work well or STFU. Moron.

P.S. You have no clue how hard adding ports to a ship model is to implement, much less its relative difficulty to adding items with multiple effects. Don't pretend that you do.

To the model? The models don't even display the ports, or weapons for that matter. The only indication you have is in the outfitting menu. So no, it wouldn't involve a model rework. You don't even see weapons/addons as it is; you're assuming I want that to change as well.

Again, I reasoned my argument; why don't we just putt neuts on mineral scanners then?

And no, I will not STFU. I have a logical argument, that you disagree with. But rather than accept that I don't think this is a necessary idea, you resort directly to personal attacks, which aren't even remotely warranted. Note that I presented a coherent argument with regard to the concept; you immediately went after me for disagreeing.

Again, no model changes. Why should they be any different than they are now? And do you have any idea about the models either? You're a lawyer. C'mon.

True, I am a lawyer, and the thing about lawyers is that we know about looking things up before making assertions. Try searching for Incarnate's description of how ports are built into the ship models. Just because you cannot see the ports doesn't mean their placement isn't complex.

And no, you don't have a reasoned argment: you claimed that this concept should never be implemented in any form, but only supported that with "well, you just have to choose." The problem with that is you've failed to articulate why there could never be a trade-off device that mixes elements of utility and weapon items. How is it any different from balancing sunflares against iceflares? Of course you cannot say, because all you're working from is a reactionary feeling of "gee, I don't want this in game!"

Putting mineral scanners on neutron blasters is exactly what's being suggested. There's no such thing as "cannot" be done, however. Only "would prefer not to do, because . . ." -- any ex post "sci fi" explanation the dweebs want to concoct will work to explain that choice, but there's no reason we cannot do anything. Maybe we should have mineral scanners combined with neutron blasters, but the extra bulk means that they're heavier and require more energy for less damage.

Any time you want to show, rather than mindlessly assert without support, that you have a "coherent argument" . . . feel free to explain how that argument rebuts my suggestion that you can create a properly balanced new item by nerfing the attributes of weapon and utility when creating a hybrid item. Seriously, such a hybrid could never be balanced? Why not? You've yet to provide any kind of a reasoned argument on that point -- "you just have to choose" is a conclusion, not a premise.

I've gotta believe the placement of a port that has no interaction with the outside world isn't important. A weapon, mining beam, etc, sure. It has to have a decent point of origin. But something that has no visible reaction has no reason to be specifically placed anywhere.

Also, on that note, this entire thread is useless; read his comments on "The Utility Port thread". He's already said that he's never supported utility ports, and I know they'll never happen. However:

"I would rather have someone give up a weapon to install a stealth addon. I have always liked the fact that there is no 'perfect' ship config, just a series of debatable options."

While this statement is certainly open to interpretation, I think the whole point was to force you to choose between a weapon or an additional function, not to give you both, regardless of the strength of the weapon. It also encourages teamwork (i.e. the AWACS example).

I find it humorous as well that you destroy any suggestion that doesn't directly benefit you, but when someone questions something that would serve you well, you're willing to pummel them into submission with personal attacks until you get what you want.

Personally? I don't think this suggestion will go anywhere. But feel free to sit here and endorse it.

I've gotta believe the placement of a port that has no interaction with the outside world isn't important.

That statement is sitting on a false premise. Where ports are directly impacts how the mass of the item in them affects the ship's handling. Care to keep making statements about an area in which you're not properly versed?

I find it humorous as well that you destroy any suggestion that doesn't directly benefit you, but when someone questions something that would serve you well, you're willing to pummel them into submission with personal attacks until you get what you want.

Which part of "let's combine prox mines and cargo spoofers" was unclear to you?

I think the whole point was to force you to choose between a weapon or an additional function, not to give you both, regardless of the strength of the weapon

Again, if you want full weapon capability or full extender/spoofer/scanner capability, that makes sense. That's not what's being proposed. And since the idea of a separate add-on port has been nixed, a set of debatable options would make far more sense if there were three possible item types: Do X, Do Y, or do some of both but neither as well as a stand-alone item.

Please, can the person that did attach an advanced cargo scanner to Dr Lecter's large port, replace it immediately with a mega positron blaster!

We want to see the newbies burn!

: )

Lecter: Adding utility ports to the ship models needn't be difficult. If the utility ports don't shoot anything, they can be placed on the ship's center of mass to affect a linear decrease in acceleration and turn rate without changing the distribution of mass on the ship.

It would be much easier to implement hybrid items than a new class of port. We already do some hybrid stuff, in the case of Raptors with integrated extenders and the like.

It would also be easier to add general ports than to create a new class of port and flag them as "utility". The latter would be a.. hassle.

The only major issue with "adding" ports is that their positioning may not be seen as ideal. Every ship in the game has way more ports than it needs, and we just pick some. But re-positioning ports is really annoying. So, it would be kind of a "this is what you get" type situation. Which may or may not be ideal for the given loadout or application.

We also might need to do more drastic alterations of grid power usage of specific items, if a given config on a ship with "more ports" proved grossly (and I know everyone loves this term) imbalancing. In some ways, it might be good for us to look into a fixed per-ship powercell upgrade path before we start adding ports.

But, this is all digressing from the original topic, which is simply, "can we make hybrid items". The answer is yes, we can. I will leave you guys to debate the merits of that idea further.

/me tosses skelbley08 a jar of KY

Wow, Lecter. Sometimes I question your age.

That's fine; since you're so set on this, and since I have other things to do rather than sit here and debate you, go ahead. If you want a neut on a mineral scanner (my original suggestion was in jest), go ahead. I personally think things are fine as they are.

You've proved your point; civil disagreements with you are impossible. Congrats. I have actual things to do that don't involve forum trolling.

I always kind of thought that mining beams should do some damage to a ship, as they do rip ore out of roids.

Or, conversely, that weapons should do some damage to a roid. I think our ships are probably tougher than the average asteroid though, so the latter is probably the direction it should work.

so... AWACS + rep gun? I like combined utilities more than utility + retarded gun.

I might like it better if a retarded gun weren't so retarded, but rather ammo limited. Say, a NII with only 200 (that's a random number, feel free to make it better) rounds. Or even a posi blaster with some round limit. You get the idea.

Not necessarily, it could revive a lot of unused weapon classes like fletchettes and some of the lower-end things like posi 1's or ion/phase blasters.

AWACS + rep gun sounds like a good one indeed.

Skel, if you want to hide behind being butt-hurt, feel free. Neither I nor anyone else with basic reading comprehension has failed to notice that you've avoided supporting your original argument.