Combat/Analysis modes --> Combat/Exploration/Mining modes?

[NeilF]

So spitballing, wouldn't it make some sense to be able to switch between views with dedicated assets (& firegroups) for combat, exploration and mining?

ie: If we take mining, there's certain stuff tucked away on targeting side panels (eg: prospector details) which could easily be incorporated into the main (front) HUD in a mining mode/view?

Note: As you switch between modes, each has its own firegroup definitions. There could be an option to define if you want a single firegoup mapping behaviour as currently, or unique per mode.

 

[DNA-Decay]

Please no.

 

[DNA-Decay]

Please no.

and spitballing is way gross, have you even looked at the state of the ceiling at the back of the class here?
I swear one fell down the back of my shirt during Factabulous’s lesson on geological surface features.

 

[Andovar]

Considering the current hate on the 2 modes, I'm not sure you'll get much traction with this.

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

So spitballing, wouldn't it make some sense to be able to switch between views with dedicated assets (& firegroups) for combat, exploration and mining?

ie: If we take mining, there's certain stuff tucked away on targeting side panels (eg: prospector details) which could easily be incorporated into the main (front) HUD in a mining mode/view?

Totally agree and to be honest I'm surprised it was not done that way in the first place.

 

[Vedmo]

Don't forget limpet mode.

 

[Myou]

Yeah we definitively need even more clunk in our management of modules. Firegroups werent enough, lets introduce a bunch of modes that dont do anything but restrict modules from other modes, but yet still we use the same firegroups all the same.

Cmon, lets add another button press before literally doing anything.



Mining mode... really i can see miners crying if that'd be actually a thing. Switch to analys to scan the asteriod, then switch to limplet mode to fire prospectors, then switch to mining mode to mine and then switch a few times till you find the combat mode to fight back. Oh but dont forget still juggling the 6+ firegroups from before we added all this nonsense.

 

[NeilF]

Considering the current hate on the 2 modes, I'm not sure you'll get much traction with this.

I understand, but if the HUD was more fully utilised for the mode(s)? ie: More exploration information was integrated into the HUD, and the firegroup only offered "exploration tools"? And likewise in "mining mode" the HUD was more utilised for mining information (instead of having to duck into side panels) and the fire groups were dedicated to mining tools.

 

[NeilF]

Don't forget limpet mode.

Surely limpets, except for clear exception like the prospector are generally across the board?

But what you could assign to each modes fire group is up to you. It's more flexible, not less

Yeah we definitively need even more clunk in our management of modules. Firegroups werent enough, lets introduce a bunch of modes that dont do anything but restrict modules from other modes, but yet still we use the same firegroups all the same.

Cmon, lets add another button press before literally doing anything.



Mining mode... really i can see miners crying if that'd be actually a thing. Switch to analys to scan the asteriod, then switch to limplet mode to fire prospectors, then switch to mining mode to mine and then switch a few times till you find the combat mode to fight back. Oh but dont forget still juggling the 6+ firegroups from before we added all this nonsense.

Why would there be a limpet mode?

If you were mining, you'd sit 100% in mining mode with the HUD being tailored for the purpose, and firegroups would be defined unique for each mode, so you'd assign what you need?

You could assign the abrasion blaster to a button in exploration mode if you wished? But each mode would have its own firegroup config.

You've gone down a bit of a strawman scenario there surely?

 

[Andovar]

I understand, but if the HUD was more fully utilised for the mode(s)? ie: More exploration information was integrated into the HUD, and the firegroup only offered "exploration tools"? And likewise in "mining mode" the HUD was more utilised for mining information (instead of having to duck into side panels) and the fire groups were dedicated to mining tools.

I think that's the key, the dedicated firegroups. (just don't call it more modes )

Also, I would be nice to be able to disable some of the modes.
If I'm out exploring or mining, I should be able to disable the combat 'mode' so it's one less option to scroll through.
Though if it was tightly integrated with the firegroups, this should happen by default. If i don't have any combat hardpoints in any group, then there's no combat mode.

 

[Sylow]

We currently sure don't need another mode. What we need are some changes to make good use of the new mode we just got.

I still like those ideas most, where each mode has an own page of fire groups and can be set up individually. It would be the most tidy solution.

 

[Riverside]

So spitballing, wouldn't it make some sense to be able to switch between views with dedicated assets (& firegroups) for combat, exploration and mining?

ie: If we take mining, there's certain stuff tucked away on targeting side panels (eg: prospector details) which could easily be incorporated into the main (front) HUD in a mining mode/view?

I have no first hand experience with the new mining mechanisms but I'm prepared to accept it benefits from having two modes to act as a firegroup doubler.

However for exploration/discovery there seems no benefit to having the mode switch at all, with how I have been using it at least.
I Honk on a firegroup button as before, the button is shared with a KWS, wake scanner, manifest scanner and the two other built in data scanners. Depending on what I have targeted or am pointing at the appropriate scanner does it's thing & sometimes I get a honk with no downside. I do not need to be able to disable any of them. If I have an interdictor on board that goes onto the same button.

I must enter & exit the FSS in supercruise so I use the same button for landing gear, which can only work in real space. Cargo hatch would work too. No separate mode required.

I can only fire probes in supercruise and cannot fire weapons, so my DSS probe is on the trigger. No mode switch required. I only need to see the splash effect of the probes while in the probe firing screen, again no mode switch required.

So for exploration just get rid of the analysis mode & use it for switching on & off the visual effects in mining. It could then potentially replace the separate night vision function so that analysis mode simply becomes night vision mode and all visual effects (like seeing mining hotspots in rings) become a feature of night vision.

 

[Myou]

Surely limpets, except for clear exception like the prospector are generally across the board?

But what you could assign to each modes fire group is up to you. It's more flexible, not less




Why would there be a limpet mode?

If you were mining, you'd sit 100% in mining mode with the HUD being tailored for the purpose, and firegroups would be defined unique for each mode, so you'd assign what you need?

You could assign the abrasion blaster to a button in exploration mode if you wished? But each mode would have its own firegroup config.

You've gone down a bit of a strawman scenario there surely?

Limplet mode was in reference of the user before. And you've made no mention of firegroups being unique to each mode (with no module restrictions), so i assumed you want to go with the current horrendous impledementation. Which, obviously, is a big no thank you.
I still dont see the point of having an extra mode even if the modes had their unique firegroups, if analys mode simply acted as extra set of firegroups that would suffice for mining and pretty much anything. Any more and you're risking bloat and clunk again...

 

[Brrokk]

How about user-definable modes? Choose how many modes you want, give them names and assign modules to them. (Or leave all modules in the "Default HUD" mode).

I mildly dislike my unarmed exploration ship having a "Combat mode".

 

[NeilF]

We currently sure don't need another mode. What we need are some changes to make good use of the new mode we just got.

I still like those ideas most, where each mode has an own page of fire groups and can be set up individually. It would be the most tidy solution.

So if we have a miner who also has weapons, how would they set their, at best, current two fire groups with what would be in effect three distinct uses?

But if we have the modes of, "Combat", "Exploration" (Analysis) and "Mining", then clearly as you flick through those modes, you have a fire group attached to each which you can put any of your modules against as you wish, but most likely which you'd only put the logical things against. Thus in mining mode, your firegroups would be 100% dedicated to mining, thus cropping all exploration and combat modules from your firegroup mappings.

AND, the current HUD specialisation (as takes place with Analysis) can be continued on to Mining to give better more specific mining related information too.


Note: Simple things could be done such as "Mining" mode cannot be entered in SC etc.

 

[NeilF]

How about user-definable modes? Choose how many modes you want, give them names and assign modules to them. (Or leave all modules in the "Default HUD" mode).

I mildly dislike my unarmed exploration ship having a "Combat mode".

There's some merit to this except of course for the HUD specilisation for Analysis (Exploration) and the proposed Mining modes give you specific HUD behaviour/features specific to those activities.

 

[Kissamies]

I'm not against it, but it seems that the exploration mode would be a bit light and flicking through 3 modes is more clunky than 2. The gap between 2 and 3 modes is far bigger than the gap between 3 and 4 or more. The specialized HUD might make it worth it.

Spitballing some more, what if there was multiple potential modes and the players could enable and put them in his rotation according what's he's needing with his specialized loadouts? For example, if you have no mining tools, you have no need for the mining mode, so you disable it. That might be too much for Elite's console friendly simplicity, however.

 

[Sylow]

So if we have a miner who also has weapons, how would they set their, at best, current two fire groups with what would be in effect three distinct uses?

.
Two fire groups: not at all. Not in any reasonable suggestion. For me it boils down to this:
- Group A for "searching": prospector limpets plus pulse wave scanner.
- Group B for "mining". For surface mining, you have mining lasers and the abrasion blaster there. For core mining, it's still the abrasion blaster, but now combined with the seismic charge launcher.
- Group C for collector limpets. You switch there once a while, if you have to restart them. Then you return to the first two groups.
.
Separate from that, you have your weapons on the same groups, but in combat mode. (I actually think that at some time I have to test the mining lance. That one might be an oddball here. But who actually uses that one? )
Having both methods of mining at hand is inefficient. And yes, I skipped the subsurface tool. It currently is not really worth it. But if you have the hardpoint and want to carry it, there's still one fire button free in group C.
.
So based on that, what would another mode bring to the table? Group A would instead be on the other mode. So instead of "toggle previous group, trigger, toggle next group" you would go "toggle previous mode, trigger, toggle next mode". It's the same number of inputs. It wouldn't save time. But instead of one button "toggle mode" we currently have, we need two buttons for previous and next mode. If there's only one "switch through modes" button, then it'll be one extra key press in there. Or if the order is unfortunate for your current need, two extra.
.
I can imagine a number of additional things to do, then this suggestion would actually turn into a useful tool. I am not arguing against that. Perhaps you even assume that these things should also be done. But currently I just see that some more basic things, e.g. a clear firegroup separation based on the modes, is not in place yet. We still have those warning messages and all that nonsense. So in my eyes, this needs to be sorted out first. Only once these things are in order, yet another mode can really be considered.
.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Please no.

This^ made me laugh out loud.

 

[NeilF]

This^ made me laugh out loud.

Because it's so typical of knee jerk internet responses, without a single attempt to explain why?

Yeh, it is funny!