open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Thruster Module
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Expendable Crewman
Posted - 2009.04.14 09:00:00 - [1]
 

I would like a ship module that would improve ship agility.

The "Thruster" module would most likely be a mid-slot propulsion upgrade. It would be an active module trading capacitor for improved agility. (i.e. this would improve turning speed and acceleration, but not top speed.) It should come in Large, Medium, Small and Civilian size, and the effects should mass dependent similar to Afterburners.

I would envision this being used primarily for industrials and transports, to improve aligning times, but the Civilian version would find use in ship set-ups where there remains an unused mid-slot but insufficient cap or power for anything else.

Jin Labarre
Posted - 2009.04.14 10:00:00 - [2]
 

Sounds like it would be pretty limited and redundant. The job is already done by nano modules.

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2009.04.14 11:43:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Expendable Crewman
I would like a ship module that would improve ship agility.


Go search the market for Inertia Stabilizers.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.14 12:09:00 - [4]
 

A previous thread on thrusters.

You are not alone. Wink

An alternative idea of mine is to have a Navigation Computer, which improves speed and agility, and can be configured with a script to maximize either speed or agility. This will likely find the most love.

Expendable Crewman
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:41:00 - [5]
 

Yes there are Inertial stabilizers (as well as Rigs) that affect agility, but on a hauler, would you really want to sacrifice a low slot for better agiliy? I'd rather have Expanded Cargohold 2s in my low slots. What I'm asking for is something analogous to the Afterburner for agility bonuses. Something that can give you 50% bonus or more on agility, for a short time, at the sacrifice of capacitor usage. Inertial Stabilizers are like Overdrive Injectors. They are passive and come with fixed penalties.

Yes, these would be of limited usage, but so what? Not everything we ask for has to be Eve shattering or game changing. Little things can add a bit of realism and fun to game play. But I think Haulers would bless CCP for a simple module that would quicken align time, when they need to make a 20 or 30 jump trip, or are hauling during a 4 hour mining OP.

James Malice
Gallente
Legion Of Mad Cats
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:42:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Expendable Crewman
Yes there are Inertial stabilizers (as well as Rigs) that affect agility, but on a hauler, would you really want to sacrifice a low slot for better agiliy? I'd rather have Expanded Cargohold 2s in my low slots. What I'm asking for is something analogous to the Afterburner for agility bonuses. Something that can give you 50% bonus or more on agility, for a short time, at the sacrifice of capacitor usage. Inertial Stabilizers are like Overdrive Injectors. They are passive and come with fixed penalties.

Yes, these would be of limited usage, but so what? Not everything we ask for has to be Eve shattering or game changing. Little things can add a bit of realism and fun to game play. But I think Haulers would bless CCP for a simple module that would quicken align time, when they need to make a 20 or 30 jump trip, or are hauling during a 4 hour mining OP.


We dont care what you would rather have. There's already several moduals and rigs that do what you want. either use them or STFU. :D

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:29:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 14/04/2009 19:30:31
Originally by: James Malice
We dont care what you would rather have.

Laughing Hilarious ...

And who is going to care about what you think? Did such a thought ever occur to you?

Go back under your bridge!!


Mayobe
Minmatar
Trauma Ward
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:33:00 - [8]
 

The reason agility modules fit in lowslots is exactly so that this cannot be done.

Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Federal Defense Operations
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:35:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 14/04/2009 19:30:31
Originally by: James Malice
We dont care what you would rather have.

Laughing Hilarious ...

And who is going to care about what you think? Did such a thought ever occur to you?

Go back under your bridge!!




Actually... it's a very true statement.

We've already established that there are certain ways things are done in EVE. And yet there are players who want the entire gaming community, and in fact the programmers themselves, to bend to a select few.

Rather than fit the proper modules (i-stabs) or rigs (low friction nozzles), they'd rather the programmers make it easier for them to have all the cargo capacity they can muster, AND still be maneuverable.


Some players fail to realize that there are trade-offs in the game, and you have to deal with that. If you want to carry as much as possible, then you're going to be slow and bulky. If you want to be light and nimble, then you can't carry as much.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:46:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 14/04/2009 20:02:15
Originally by: Mayobe
The reason agility modules fit in lowslots is exactly so that this cannot be done.

That is not true. You have tracking enhancers for the low-slots as well as tracking computers for the mid-slot, for example.

Nothing forbids to have such a module.

The only reason why it does not exist yet is because most movements take place along the main axis of a ship - forward. Just because some people do not have a use for an increased agility does not mean that others do not have.

Have some respect for the ideas of others and come with good reason if you think it is wrong. Do not talk like a child and just dump your opinion into a thread. This is not the kids corner of a WoW forum.

Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Federal Defense Operations
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:47:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Mayobe
The reason agility modules fit in lowslots is exactly so that this cannot be done.

That is not true. You have tracking enhancers for the low-slots as well as tracking computers for the mid-slot, for example.

Nothing forbids to have such a module.

The only reason why it does not exists yet is because most movements take place along the main axis of a ship - forward. Just because some people do not have a use for an increased agility does not mean that others do not have.

Have some respect for the ideas of others and come with good reason if you think it is wrong. Do not talk like a child and just dump your opinion into a thread. This is not the kids corner of a WoW forum.

Actually... you fail yet again.

The reason agility and cargo modules take up the same sockets... is because CCP wants to ensure that players have to prioritize whether they want more space, or quicker ships.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:55:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 14/04/2009 19:58:25
Originally by: Marcus Gideon
We've already established that there are certain ways things are done in EVE. And yet there are players who want the entire gaming community, and in fact the programmers themselves, to bend to a select few.

That is a stupid comment. Who has said to bend the developers? That is all just in your head, Marcus. It is a childish image of how you see others and nothing more. Keep this out of the forum, please.

Quote:
Some players fail to realize that there are trade-offs in the game, and you have to deal with that. If you want to carry as much as possible, then you're going to be slow and bulky. If you want to be light and nimble, then you can't carry as much.

And with this opinion one can counter all ideas ever made and being made in this forum ... or maybe not.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:57:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
The reason agility and cargo modules take up the same sockets... is because CCP wants to ensure that players have to prioritize whether they want more space, or quicker ships.

Actually, you fail. Speed is not the same as agility. And one can install cargo expanders in the low-slot as well as an afterburner in the mid-slot. It works out beautifully.

Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Federal Defense Operations
Posted - 2009.04.14 20:16:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Marcus Gideon
The reason agility and cargo modules take up the same sockets... is because CCP wants to ensure that players have to prioritize whether they want more space, or quicker ships.

Actually, you fail. Speed is not the same as agility. And one can install cargo expanders in the low-slot as well as an afterburner in the mid-slot. It works out beautifully.

Who said anything about speed. We know there are AB/MWD... and we know they penalize agility when active. So going faster doesn't make you turn better, it makes you turn worse.

But whatever dude...

You're 40 years old, and your momma said you're shiny... I mean bright.

So whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

There is no conclusive proof... other than every single module in the game.

Certain slots are used for certain purposes. The slot layout is a control and balancing mechanic instituted by CCP to make sure ships are only capable of so much.

So haulers are limited to;

A) Carrying the maximum they can manage, by way of skills, Expanders (low slot), and Optimizers (rig)

B) Being the most agile they can be, by way of skills, I-stabs (low slot), and Low Friction Nozzles (rig)

C) Attempting to find a happy medium, by way of both skills, as well as mixing your slots and rigs.


Whether or not you choose to acknowledge how the game works, that's fine.

You obviously have selective reading (a text based affliction similar to selective hearing). You choose to accept posts which support your opinion, and you tell anyone who doesn't support your ideas that they're lazy.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.14 20:26:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
Who said anything about speed.

You did. Cargo expanders reduce a ship's speed not a ship's agility. That is where you go wrong. The rest of your comment is for those who care about it.

ACE81
Caldari
Posted - 2009.04.14 20:28:00 - [16]
 

awsome Idea but perhaps make it for your high slots instead making it appealing to hauler's mostly?

Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Federal Defense Operations
Posted - 2009.04.14 20:30:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 14/04/2009 20:46:08
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Marcus Gideon
Who said anything about speed.

You did. Cargo expanders reduce a ship's speed not a ship's agility. That is where you go wrong. The rest of your comment is for those who care about it.

Stop being a douchbag?

I totally forgot, you only read the first sentence of replies. Hope that one works for ya.


Cargo Expanders, and Inertia Stabilizers, both fill Low Slots. THAT'S what I was referring to, in the fact that you have to accept trade-offs in what you fit to your ship.


*goes back to planning his massive Hulk mining op, and looks for a Locator Agent*

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:00:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
Stop being a douchbag?

I totally forgot, you only read the first sentence of replies. Hope that one works for ya.


Cargo Expanders, and Inertia Stabilizers, both fill Low Slots. THAT'S what I was referring to, in the fact that you have to accept trade-offs in what you fit to your ship.


*goes back to planning his massive Hulk mining op, and looks for a Locator Agent*

Is this another insult? Are they working for you?!?

The rest of your comment still does not give sense and fails at being an excuse.

Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Federal Defense Operations
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:04:00 - [19]
 

The Game Developers Have Established Certain Mechanisms In The Game To Ensure Proper Balance.

That Includes Having Certain Types Of Modules Use The Same Slots.

Then Players Need To Make Their Own Decision As To Whether They Want More Cargo Space Aboard Their Ship... Or Whether They Want Their Ship To Be More Nimble.

Making A Mid Slot Module That Allows Them To Be More Nimble, While Allowing Them To Maximize Cargo Space With The Low Slots, Is Asking To Bypass A Control Mechanism The Company Put In Place.


It's "Having Your Cake, And Eating It Too".

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:57:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 14/04/2009 21:58:41
Originally by: Marcus Gideon
The Game Developers Have Established Certain Mechanisms In The Game To Ensure Proper Balance.

No, they have not. There are no "certain mechanisms" in the game to do this. It is what you don't understand. The developers add game element after game element, then they test their ideas, and only when things get out of balance do they add more (or remove something) to create a balance. The developers will often know ahead of testing what will get the game out of balance and how to keep it in balance, but it is not a mechanism in the game. It is part of the developers' job. Or, for you, it is part of the mechanism called "Game Developer".

Are you making attempts at BS-ing people because you just don't get the OPs idea?

James Malice
Gallente
Legion Of Mad Cats
Posted - 2009.04.14 22:09:00 - [21]
 

you have no support, and we all know CCP wont do it anyway, so stfu. :D

Expendable Crewman
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:10:00 - [22]
 

Sheesh! I ask for a tiny little module, and I get dumped on. Thank God I didn't ask for battleships that could mount Strip miners, or Highsec capable cyno generators.

Anyway, what's the point of this ENTIRE sub-forum, if you can make suggestions to CCP?

There is no reason that thruster modules couldn't have downsides. First off, they would be mass dependent like Afterburners. The more massive the ship (like industrials) the less effective they become. They could be cap intensive. If you don't turn them off after a cycle or 2 they could completely wipe out your cap. They would probably need high CPU and Power requirements.

The thing is, there is no ACTIVE method for improving ship agility. Rigs, Mods and Skills are all passive. I Think it would be nice to have some active control over another aspect of the ships we fly.

stevev45
Posted - 2009.04.16 00:19:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: stevev45 on 16/04/2009 00:20:02
I think it's a good idea. I'm in favor of semi redundant modules because they make the game more complex. In my opinion complexity is what makes this game so interesting and fun.

p.s. not sure where all the hate is coming from in this thread.

Aidan Drake
Posted - 2009.04.16 00:27:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: stevev45
p.s. not sure where all the hate is coming from in this thread.


F&I has a few trolls that seem to have nothing better to do than take a dump in every thread posted, which is clearly against forum rules, but they never get moderated so there's no reason for them to stop. ugh

Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Federal Defense Operations
Posted - 2009.04.16 03:03:00 - [25]
 

I get the sneaking suspicion I'm being called a troll?
Confused

I'll have you know, I do try and enter each idea with a neutral attitude. I understand that a great many ideas have been discussed to death. But there are folks out there who may not know that such topics are raised weekly.

I also know that some players may have a new idea, or a new way of looking at a situation.

However, in this particular instance, I see someone asking to have the best of both worlds.

The fact that Agility modules, and Cargo modules, are in the same slot category... shows that CCP intends players need to choose which they want more.

And when someone asks for a way around such limitations, they are trying to get both benefits simultaneously.


Of course you can argue either way. But honestly, this particular idea... of a Mid slot agility booster, will only be used by Haulers of every shape and size.

What else do they need Mid slots for? Shields? If someone wants your Hauler dead, it's going to die. They don't have enough inherent tank to survive a dedicated assault.

So the only thing they have to waste slots and capacitor on, would be an active Agility booster.

Thus... all the Expanders and Optimizers they can fit, carrying the most they can (which equates to earning the most ISK they can), as well as added Agility (which equates to earning ISK the fastest they can).


I don't think I'm a troll, and I don't think I crap on every thread that comes along. But I do think my every post is being interpreted as "blah blah I don't like it blah blah you're dumb blah blah".

If you can't handle criticism, then don't post in public forums. Not everyone is going to congratulate you on being such a super genius. Sometimes, you're going to hear why you're wrong.

Aidan Drake
Posted - 2009.04.16 03:43:00 - [26]
 

Ok, I don't want to derail another thread, but there's a lot to reply to here...

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
I get the sneaking suspicion I'm being called a troll?

I don't mean to single you out. There seem to be a group of people that consider F&I to be the perfect place to vent their hostility, usually by saying "no." or something equally useless. From what I've seen of your posts you are constructive about 50% of the time but when you get frustrated you're dismissive and derisive.

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
I'll have you know, I do try and enter each idea with a neutral attitude. I understand that a great many ideas have been discussed to death. But there are folks out there who may not know that such topics are raised weekly.

Fair enough, and that's frustrating, but that's a good opportunity to link them to the sticky of frequently suggested ideas or to the relevant thread.

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
However, in this particular instance, I see someone asking to have the best of both worlds.
The fact that Agility modules, and Cargo modules, are in the same slot category... shows that CCP intends players need to choose which they want more.

I agree, and I don't think ships need a mid slot agility booster either. But you're wrong in just shooting him down on the basis that CCP didn't make it that way to begin with. What kind of argument is that? What then is the point of brainstorming, of coming up with new ideas? The answer to a bad idea thread is never "that's not how it is currently implemented", or "working as intended", but instead some reason why it would be detrimental to the game.

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
And when someone asks for a way around such limitations, they are trying to get both benefits simultaneously.

In this case, I'd say yeah. It seems that way. But is that any reason to be derisive? Can't you just say "This sort of module would really be overpowered because X." That's basically /thread without being nasty.

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
But I do think my every post is being interpreted as "blah blah I don't like it blah blah you're dumb blah blah".

It's all in your approach. You can say the exact same thing as "blah blah I don't like it, because X, here's an alternative blah blah" instead of "you're dumb". You even know which part is being fixated on negatively. So leave it out Smile

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
If you can't handle criticism, then don't post in public forums. Not everyone is going to congratulate you on being such a super genius. Sometimes, you're going to hear why you're wrong.

Indeed. I don't think anyone is looking for congratulation, though. We're all looking for criticism. You missed the key word, which is constructive criticism. If you help people understand why a suggestion can't be developed in a reasonable time frame, why it would be ridiculously OP, or link to the sticky, or even maybe help them change or flesh the idea out, you are helping. If you come in and say, no, you're dumb, L2Play, GB2WoW, you're trolling whether you mean to or not.

Speaking of constructive criticism, I honestly hope this has been helpful in some way. I've definitely been accused of coming off as arrogant and dismissive - especially when I was a bit younger - and it really takes some time and perspective to see that, yeah, I am being nasty, there's a better way to approach this. I can tell that you want to and I wish you luck.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2009.04.16 08:49:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 16/04/2009 09:13:56
Idea: I wish for an improved version of Marcus Gideon. Please add more wisdom and remove the trolling. This shall make a nicely balanced and open-minded person.

Originally by: Marcus Gideon
Of course you can argue either way. But honestly, this particular idea... of a Mid slot agility booster, will only be used by Haulers of every shape and size.

You are being arrogant! Who else do you think is going to have a use for them?

Or, are you saying battle ships and battle cruisers have a big use for mining laser upgrades and therefore we have them in the game?

Do you want to get rid of mining laser upgrades because battle ships have little to no use for them?

Do you want to remove ABs and MWDs because they make slow ships faster?

Why do you not want a powerful thruster module?!?

Quote:
I don't think I'm a troll, ...

Yes, you are trolling.

You bring the same argument over and over again, and it is based on the idea that all CCP does is somehow cast in stone and not meant to be ever changed or only questioned. If so, then how come they have given us a forum to discuss ideas in? This forum is not meant to be a place for trolls ...

When a topic gets raised several times then it shows how much people wish for an improvement. If you get tired of reading these threads then it is time for you to get out of here! It sure does not mean that others have to stop posting their ideas.

Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Federal Defense Operations
Posted - 2009.04.16 18:19:00 - [28]
 

Aidan - I completely see where you're coming from. And I know I have a tendency to get frustrated with forums. It's usually then, that I should back away from the keys and go kill belt rats or something.

Originally by: Whitehound
Idea: I wish for an improved version of Marcus Gideon. Please add more wisdom and remove the trolling. This shall make a nicely balanced and open-minded person.

Aww... now that's an awesome first sentence, White.

And just like you, I'm ignoring the rest.

Cool


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only