EVE Search - Undocking with an overloaded power core?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Undocking with an overloaded power core?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.06.21 22:45:00 - [1] I just tried to undock on Sisi with a ship with one of the guns deactivated (due to not having enough powergrid) but still fitted and it informed me that I wouldn't be able to undock with modules with greater powergrid than my ship can supply, whether they're active or not. There is no reason for this, it's a completely unfair enforced rule that has no in-game basis. And if it has no in-game basis, it has no place in-game. Everything has to have at least some in-game excuse. I hope this doesn't make the patch. Also, I just docked at a station after shooting at its sentry guns in 0.2. No agression timer?
Amrotis	Posted - 2005.06.22 01:35:00 - [2] Hmm, maybe this is done to prevent you transporting modules mounted on your ship? Seems a bit unneccessary tbh. I guess no more laughing at my claw flying round with 1400mm ;(
Elfaen Ethenwe	Posted - 2005.06.22 11:51:00 - [3] thats just nasty. some dev doesnt liek the idea of BIG guns on small ships even if its only for looks remembers fondly his destroyer with lots of big guns.... <->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<-> Together we Gank, Divided we Pop. <->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.06.22 12:11:00 - [4] It totally kills shipsetups that rely on turning their MWD on and a gun or two off for travelling, then turning MWD off and guns back on when you arrive. Which isn't good. What needs to happen is guns that use more powergrid then the ship itself has in total can't be undocked with. You avoid BS guns on frigs, but still leave room for actual setups. /Elve
The Cosmopolite	Posted - 2005.06.22 13:43:00 - [5] Edited by: The Cosmopolite on 22/06/2005 13:42:59 Originally by: Elve Sorrow It totally kills shipsetups that rely on turning their MWD on and a gun or two off for travelling, then turning MWD off and guns back on when you arrive. Which isn't good. What needs to happen is guns that use more powergrid then the ship itself has in total can't be undocked with. You avoid BS guns on frigs, but still leave room for actual setups. Yeah that sounds about right. Otherwise can we have an explanation as to why half of the point of onlining/offlining functionality even existing is being thrown out of the window? (All we need now is a dev to think of why this should apply to CPU and there's no point to online/offline anymore...) Cosmo Jericho Fraction - CEO: Jade Constantine
Akaviri	Posted - 2005.06.22 13:47:00 - [6] I don't understand this change either. It doesn't make sense. If a module is offline it doesn't put any drain on the powercore. Why should a ship not be able to undock because of powercore problems due to a module that's not even using any power? I think this change is stupid. I really see no good role play or balancing justification for it. If this is done to prevent transporting modules on your ship, this really makes no sense since large modules don't take up that much cargo space to begin with. I remember you used to not be able to fit modules that had powergrid requirements greater than the ships powercore. Then they got rid of it. I'd rather they go back to that restriction than this stupid change. At least that restriction had some sort of role play justification, "blowing your power core when you connect it." ````````````` _ \|\_ ````````````` \` oo\ ````````_____/ =__Y= `````` /` `````` ) `_``` / ` , ``` \/\_.(\_/) ((____\| `` )_--\ \_-`(x.x) `------'`------` `--` (> <) Kitty pwns Bunny!
lickspittle	Posted - 2005.06.22 14:20:00 - [7] Originally by: Akaviri I remember you used to not be able to fit modules that had powergrid requirements greater than the ships powercore. Then they got rid of it. We got rid of the original restruction because people were not able to get sets of ship fittings together that they should have been able to. The problem in question was that attributes of modules (like power requirements) only get modified when the module is actually fitted to the ship and we don't have the ability at this time to say, calculate what the modified power requirement if this module was fitted should be. However, the reason it has returned in another form is that it is our only constraint that prevents oversized modules from being fitted. And there are modules that we do not want fitted if your ship should not allow it. If the time should come available to write some new code that can predict the power usage reduction a module would get when fitted, before it is fitted, then that will be the final solution. -- Richard CCP Programmer. Anything said above is not the official line, but my own take or opinion.
The Cosmopolite	Posted - 2005.06.22 14:42:00 - [8] Edited by: The Cosmopolite on 22/06/2005 14:43:08 Originally by: lickspittle However, the reason it has returned in another form is that it is our only constraint that prevents oversized modules from being fitted. And there are modules that we do not want fitted if your ship should not allow it. Ah! So you wish to allow cruise missiles on stealth bombers... and other such modules as a ship bonus makes available to a ship that ordinarily couldn't fit it... but not Dreadnought guns on frigates and cruisers... (which is presumably why this has become pressing - imagines a claw with XL projectile cannons...) Thanks for the comments - I suspect the pressure for delivering that code will be high when this change goes live and the rest of EVE realise what this means for many setups that use offlining to switch setup functions in space... Cosmo Jericho Fraction - CEO: Jade Constantine
Akaviri	Posted - 2005.06.22 14:52:00 - [9] Edited by: Akaviri on 22/06/2005 14:54:25 Thanks for the reply. Now I understand why that original restriction was removed. But I still wonder if this is really such a big deal. If a frigate fits an oversized module like a mega neutron blaster, it won't be able to use it. On the other hand you hurt ships that active/deactivate modules depending on the situation. There's less tactics involved and fewer setups people can use. There's already restrictions on what you can bring online, and the heavy cap usage requirement to bring a module online. Personally, this won't affect me much since I don't usually use such setups. I still don't like this change though, and I would prefer a better coded workaround. Is it the aim to specifically stop setups like an Armageddon with an offline remote armor rep on it? Or is it to simply stop ppl from putting big guns they can't fire on a frigate? Edit: Hmm... Cosmopolite, I think you are right. This is just to stop someone from fitting XLarge turrets on their frigs. I'm sure that would look ridiculous. ````````````` _ \|\_ ````````````` \` oo\ ````````_____/ =__Y= `````` /` `````` ) `_``` / ` , ``` \/\_.(\_/) ((____\| `` )_--\ \_-`(x.x) `------'`------` `--` (> <) Kitty pwns Bunny!
Joshua Foiritain	Posted - 2005.06.22 14:52:00 - [10] Hmm this is going to ruin my Helios setup [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.06.22 14:56:00 - [11] Isn't there any way to have the client check if a module uses more powergrid then the ship has in total, instead of has available upon undocking? It would still serve the same purpose, and solve the problems with certain setups that do not use oversized modules but still rely on onlining and offlining of modules in space. /Elve
Kunming	Posted - 2005.06.22 16:57:00 - [12] Originally by: Elve Sorrow It totally kills shipsetups that rely on turning their MWD on and a gun or two off for travelling, then turning MWD off and guns back on when you arrive. Which isn't good. What needs to happen is guns that use more powergrid then the ship itself has in total can't be undocked with. You avoid BS guns on frigs, but still leave room for actual setups. This is exactly what I thought in the first place. What about the setups with offline modules that are used part time? Originally by: lickspittle Originally by: Akaviri I remember you used to not be able to fit modules that had powergrid requirements greater than the ships powercore. Then they got rid of it. We got rid of the original restruction because people were not able to get sets of ship fittings together that they should have been able to. The problem in question was that attributes of modules (like power requirements) only get modified when the module is actually fitted to the ship and we don't have the ability at this time to say, calculate what the modified power requirement if this module was fitted should be. However, the reason it has returned in another form is that it is our only constraint that prevents oversized modules from being fitted. And there are modules that we do not want fitted if your ship should not allow it. If the time should come available to write some new code that can predict the power usage reduction a module would get when fitted, before it is fitted, then that will be the final solution. Sorry but I dont get your point. You don't want large guns on small ships, which is nothing more than an aesthetic annoyance. You don't really have the time to code this. You restrict total module PG fitted not to exceed total PG on ship, AND thus nerf some setups to extinction. Conclusion: You wanted to fix the aesthetic, you broke the functionality. Your solution is: We'll fix it sometime in the future. Intercepting since BETA
Laendra	Posted - 2005.06.22 19:28:00 - [13] This is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Please put some emphasis on restoring the ability to fit modules offline that you would normally be able to use (Turrets) if another module is placed offline (e.g. Microwarpdrive). You will get a LOT of flack from the EVE community if you do not. As a matter of fact, I think I will post a link to this on General Discussion to spark it off. -------------------
Aalekzander Sevvari	Posted - 2005.06.22 19:59:00 - [14] But fitting a Mega pulse beam on a velator and leaving it off the PG while flying around in space always felt so good
Meridius	Posted - 2005.06.22 20:02:00 - [15] Originally by: lickspittle Originally by: Akaviri I remember you used to not be able to fit modules that had powergrid requirements greater than the ships powercore. Then they got rid of it. We got rid of the original restruction because people were not able to get sets of ship fittings together that they should have been able to. The problem in question was that attributes of modules (like power requirements) only get modified when the module is actually fitted to the ship and we don't have the ability at this time to say, calculate what the modified power requirement if this module was fitted should be. However, the reason it has returned in another form is that it is our only constraint that prevents oversized modules from being fitted. And there are modules that we do not want fitted if your ship should not allow it. If the time should come available to write some new code that can predict the power usage reduction a module would get when fitted, before it is fitted, then that will be the final solution. Great, less flexibilty and variety. No more 400mm plate inties or 1600mm plate cruisers? ________________________________________________________
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.06.22 20:26:00 - [16] Originally by: Meridius Great, less flexibilty and variety. No more 400mm plate inties or 1600mm plate cruisers? Actually, that's fine. You CAN fit them in base PG, after all. Say NO to target painters
Meridius	Posted - 2005.06.22 20:37:00 - [17] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Meridius Great, less flexibilty and variety. No more 400mm plate inties or 1600mm plate cruisers? Actually, that's fine. You CAN fit them in base PG, after all. Ahh, nm then. It's still stupid tho, waste of coding time imo ________________________________________________________
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.06.22 20:53:00 - [18] Edited by: Nyphur on 22/06/2005 21:09:57 Originally by: lickspittle However, the reason it has returned in another form is that it is our only constraint that prevents oversized modules from being fitted. And there are modules that we do not want fitted if your ship should not allow it. Excuse me for but aren't the powergrid and CPU requirements for fitting oversized modules already the balance for fitting them? I really don't see the problem here. If you manage to fit a large gun on your cruiser, it's absolutely rubbish and will require your low slots to be full of reactor control units. It's already pointless to use oversized modules since the oversized AB/MWD nerf. If you can give me a valid setup on tranq that includes an oversized module that you don't want happening and which isn't already rubbish by virtue of gimping the hell out of its powergrid/CPU for a single module that isn't even that much more effective and probably tears through the capacitor, I will eat my hat. I will go out and buy a hat and then eat that hat. This restriction has no place in Eve. It has no reasonable purpose except perhaps if XL guns and such come into the game and fitting them on a frigate (inactive, of course) would look really silly since the gun would have a huge model. If that's what you're worried about, don't go nerfing the entire setup system to potentially invalidate the entire purpose of switching modules on and off during flight just for that. It would be much saner and simpler to take the modules designed for ships larger than battleships and when fitting them on anything other than a titan/dreadnought, to have a message appear saying you can't fit this as it would blow the ship's power core. In any case, why can I fit it and then somehow not undock? That is, in my opinion, the worst artificial restrction in the game to date. If you don't want me fitting oversized modules, don't let me fit them. Don't have it let me add them to my ship inactive and then not be able to undock. That has absolutely no in-game reason and thus has no place in Eve. It's just an artificial restriction. If your setup doesn't follow a set of new rules, you can't undock? That's a joke.. What, are concord enforcing ship setup designs now? If you don't want someone fitting oversized modules, have it check the module before fitting it, not after trying to undock. The short end of the stick is that if I can fit a ship out a certain way legitimately, I expect to be able to undock with it. And have you considered people using ship maintenance arrays on POS and then logging off rather than undocking to activate their setups? I don't think you have considered this fully. It's going to destroy some completely legitimate setups and relegate the ability to switch modules on and off in space to the realms of pointlessness. And for what? What are you hoping to achieve in this? Besides titan guns, for which the obvious solution is to check the grid and CPU requirements before fitting and disallow fitting rather than the current system in which you can fit it but not activate it, I don't see a legitimate reason to destroy perfectly working areas of the game.
Tul 'Kas	Posted - 2005.06.22 20:55:00 - [19] Originally by: lickspittle However, the reason it has returned in another form is that it is our only constraint that prevents oversized modules from being fitted. And there are modules that we do not want fitted if your ship should not allow it. This answer seems deliberately vague. What modules? Is there an oversized module that you can fit, leave offline, and still gain a gameplay advantage from? If so it's a bug and a possible exploit, so I guess I can understand the desire to be vague, but at the same time I'd expect you'd be throwing a little more coding effort at trying to correct it. If the real reason is simply the aesthetics of having oversized guns on small ships, as many ppl are suggesting, then this change is sloppy and incredibly short-sighted. If you can code this, you can just as easily code the suggestion Elve made - just change the comparison to look at ship's total powergrid, not however much grid it still has free. That way you'd only be stopped from undocking with things that you couldn't ever possibly make use of anyways.
Joshua Foiritain	Posted - 2005.06.22 21:04:00 - [20] Originally by: Tul 'Kas If the real reason is simply the aesthetics of having oversized guns on small ships, as many ppl are suggesting If this is the reason why theyre changing this then i once again wonder why so many bugs and annoying "features" are left untouched to change/nerf something that doesnt need changing in the first place... [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Aphonic	Posted - 2005.06.22 22:37:00 - [21] Short of training 25 days for Covert Ops Level 5, I'm interested in how you make use of a Helios's Scan Drone bonus without having offline modules. This quick fix != good.
Raindrop	Posted - 2005.06.22 22:38:00 - [22] Bad bad bad move. Raindrop Trader of low end stuff and NPC goods. Recycler of junk.
Altai Saker	Posted - 2005.06.22 23:44:00 - [23] BAD CALL
Ibobah'k Chisaraj	Posted - 2005.06.23 03:29:00 - [24] Originally by: lickspittle If the time should come available to write some new code that can predict the power usage reduction a module would get when fitted, before it is fitted, then that will be the final solution. The time is now! I couldnt care less about a frig with an oversized module graphics in space, useless to its pilot, but me on/off mod setup I bloody well care about! Feckin sheesh! :/
Kythoma	Posted - 2005.06.23 05:59:00 - [25] 1.try to fit a mod u havn't yet the skill for, doesn't work. u CAN'T fit it. 2.try to fit a mod u havn't PG for but has the right size , works, but u CAN'T activate it and undock is allowed. 3.try to fit a mod, that has the wrong size (> ship sized mod), u CAN'T fit it ! the necessery coding for case 3 may be the same as case 1. (no additional coding expenditure) other restrictions may be a joke
Lig Lira	Posted - 2005.06.23 07:58:00 - [26] This idea is as good as the new voice. ****.
Chade Malloy	Posted - 2005.06.23 10:04:00 - [27] Edited by: Chade Malloy on 23/06/2005 10:05:36 Omg, dear NO! Module swapping in space was perfectly fine and everyone was used to it; it was a very nice feature and very tactical in certain situations... Has ANYONE complained like "hey, i actually dont have enough pgrid for this weapon to be functional in space, i shouldnt be able to undock..." Without the ability to put a bit more into a ship than its pgrid allowes, for the occasional use of a armor rep in tight setups for example, the whole module-onlining in space becomes utterly pointless. (except for pos fittings; haHA, ever tried to outfit a whole BS at a pos? takes about an hour at least...) Congrats, you NERFED another good feature of the game for no real reason. Patience wins.
Stepping Razor	Posted - 2005.06.23 12:13:00 - [28] This is not the fix we need. As other have said, it screws covert ops massively. No useful covert ops loadout lacks either empty slots (wasteful) or offline modules. It also screws ppl who operate in deep space, who may be many jumps from refitting they can use and keep some online and some offline at all times, depending on their needs. Razor Originally by: Bonaventure Phaidon CCP is the best at at least three things: 1. Really, really fun gameplay 2. Good forum presence 3. Inventing new and exciting ways to bring about in-game catacly
Kunming	Posted - 2005.06.23 15:53:00 - [29] Hey I got a conspiracy theory: CCP put this in so we dont have time to whine about the new voice and chat crap Intercepting since BETA
Mike Flounders	Posted - 2005.06.23 19:23:00 - [30] Edited by: Mike Flounders on 23/06/2005 19:24:20 Originally by: Stepping Razor This is not the fix we need. As other have said, it screws covert ops massively. No useful covert ops loadout lacks either empty slots (wasteful) or offline modules. It also screws ppl who operate in deep space, who may be many jumps from refitting they can use and keep some online and some offline at all times, depending on their needs. In the dev blog they have mentioned outposts this may be a move to make them neccesary and not something discarded by most alliances it might also drive pirates into the .1-.4 areas where stations aren't far from reach. BulletsR'Us

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.