Ships Module Priorities.

[SergMx]

Doesn't work. I already transferred from 5 and 4 to 3 in the second pic, and putting more in 2 would just mean that when 2 goes down, I lose more than I need to, instead of just some of the modules (in former-named group 3) I'd lose all the 3 ones and the 2 ones as well.

You really don't get this, do you?

You probably don't understand me. Do this for EDSY and I will redo it into 3 groups and show you.

 

[Jack Brolin]

Like you did with my Phantom?

Bro can't set up a decent explorer without asphyxiating the pilot lmao

 

[Blaggerdy]

Bro can't set up a decent explorer without asphyxiating the pilot lmao

You have seen his account avatar, right?
(force choking)

 

[Jack Brolin]

You have seen his account avatar, right?
(force choking)

Ok now it all makes sense

 

[Wily Rites]

Sith Lords only need 3 module states, the force is bent by their will!

 

[Jack Winter]

NVM.

 

[Greasetrap42]

So 5 groups is redundant and there are a few questions on this :
1. There was something in the plans (develop) that was removed and the priority 5 was forgotten to be removed.
2. We really do not know all the mechanics of the game and the EDSU also do not know about it.
3. I do not assume that it was done just like that, because in this case there could be 9 priorities.

4. Someone like me originally designed the interface and was asked to include a bunch of priority groups. To make sure I had enough for any contingency I included five(5). Five seems like more than enough. Its just an integer, so maybe I would make it 1-9.

When I do control programs and UI, I always include more slots than requested. A database needs to hold enough for the selection of 8 items... I make it 20. An array needs to be big enough for 28 options, I make the array size 50. If a bit of extra memory doesn't matter then who cares. If the extra slots don't ever get used... fine. That's okay. As said, in this particular case it is just an integer value.

My Ship Priorities:
1 - Essentials I never want shut down
2 - Pretty important stuff that I would prefer not shut down Generally, items I couldn't fit in priority 1.
3 - Most other modules
4 - Depends on ship build
5 - Modules that get intentionally shut down when I deploy hardpoints. To meet the power requirements of hardpoints.

From this it looks like I could get away with a maximum of 4 priority groups. But...

• On a few of my builds both groups 4 AND 5 shutdown when I deploy hardpoints, unless I turn off a heavy power module in group 4 that I don't often use. Say for example my ship has a Kill Warrant Scanner and a Wake Scanner. As long as one is turned off group 4 stays on. If both were left on group 4 turns off. I certainly don't want these in group 5. This is very situational based on the build.
• There are other examples where 5 was handy, can't think of them immediately. I will need to look them up. I'm sure other cmdrs have practical examples too.

Edit: Priority Group 4 - Modules that need to be powered if I want to use them with hardpoints deployed, but collectively they draw too much power. And I only use these modules for certain reasons. Example: Cargo Hatch & Collector Limpet Controller, Wake Scanner, Kill Warrant Scanner. So I must manually turn some of them off, whichever ones I'm not using. They are in their own priority group because if I turn the wrong combo on I only lose function of Group 4 modules. If I did this in Group 3 and I toggle the modules on/off in the incorrect order I would lose the modules in Group 3 - including shields, shield boosters, and weapons. Bad!!! In this example putting the group 4 modules in Group 3 could be done but is a terrible idea.


Why are there 5 pages of discussion on this?

 

[SergMx]

4. Someone like me originally designed the interface and was asked to include a bunch of priority groups. To make sure I had enough for any contingency I included five(5). Five seems like more than enough. Its just an integer, so maybe I would make it 1-9.

When I do control programs and UI, I always include more slots than requested. A database needs to hold enough for the selection of 8 items... I make it 20. An array needs to be big enough for 28 options, I make the array size 50. If a bit of extra memory doesn't matter then who cares. If the extra slots don't ever get used... fine. That's okay. As said, in this particular case it is just an integer value.

My Ship Priorities:
1 - Essentials I never want shut down
2 - Pretty important stuff that I would prefer not shut down Generally, items I couldn't fit in priority 1.
3 - Most other modules
4 - Depends on ship build
5 - Modules that get intentionally shut down when I deploy hardpoints. To meet the power requirements of hardpoints.

From this it looks like I could get away with a maximum of 4 priority groups. But...

• On a few of my builds both groups 4 AND 5 shutdown when I deploy hardpoints, unless I turn off a heavy power module in group 4 that I don't often use. Say for example my ship has a Kill Warrant Scanner and a Wake Scanner. As long as one is turned off group 4 stays on. If both were left on group 4 turns off. I certainly don't want these in group 5. This is very situational based on the build.
• There are other examples where 5 was handy, can't think of them immediately. I will need to look them up. I'm sure other cmdrs have practical examples too.

Why are there 5 pages of discussion on this?

Lots of pages to help newbies figure it out.

P.S. You don't understand, the groups don't mean what YOU want or not, their switching must correspond to the external influence, and there are only 4 of them. Two: different percentage of POWER damage and two depending on the position of the hardpoints.

 

[Greasetrap42]

P.S. You don't understand, the groups don't mean what YOU want or not, their switching must correspond to the external influence...

No, I am quite certain the priority groups can mean whatever I wish. Their function is dependent on how a cmdr defines them and wishes to use them. As I said above, there could just as easily have been 1-9 priorities. I understand this quite well, and I did not need 5 pages on the forum to explain this to me.

 

[SergMx]

No, I am quite certain the priority groups can mean whatever I wish. Their function is dependent on how a cmdr defines them and wishes to use them. As I said above, there could just as easily have been 1-9 priorities. I understand this quite well, and I did not need 5 pages on the forum to explain this to me.

I don't think so. Groups should contain useful sense, not just put it as you like.

 

[Greasetrap42]

I don't think so. Groups should contain useful sense, not just put it as you like.

The priority groups are numbered. Not labeled. That means the cmdr can do as they like. This feature was clearly designed with flexibility to allow the cmdr to do as they like.

In my post above I gave extremely useful example of using all 5 priority groups. If you don't see the value in this that's okay. Maybe your gameplay style is different from mine. See the edit I added which expands on priority group 4. Just because you don't understand why it is useful for other cmdrs is not a good reason to have this feature changed.

 

[Frankymole]

Edit: Priority Group 4 - Modules that need to be powered if I want to use them with hardpoints deployed, but collectively they draw too much power. And I only use these modules for certain reasons. Example: Cargo Hatch & Collector Limpet Controller, Wake Scanner, Kill Warrant Scanner. So I must manually turn some of them off, whichever ones I'm not using. They are in their own priority group because if I turn the wrong combo on I only lose function of Group 4 modules. If I did this in Group 3 and I toggle the modules on/off in the incorrect order I would lose the modules in Group 3 - including shields, shield boosters, and weapons. Bad!!! In this example putting the group 4 modules in Group 3 could be done but is a terrible idea.

Quicker than turning off one module and turning on another, which requires clicking on the module in panel 4 and then selecting active or inactive, then going back up, and repeating the procedure down to the second menu level again, I just hit the left or right keyboard button to slam something from group 4 into group 5 and its mate in group 5 up to group 4.

Why are there 5 pages of discussion on this?

Because the OP is stubborn that their way is the only way to play.

 

[nemolomen]

I don't think so. Groups should contain useful sense, not just put it as you like.

<waving hand very slowly> These are not the forumites you are looking for...

Elite Dangerous is a sandbox, you can't tell me how I must play in my sandbox...

That said, 5 power priorities seem like a good balance.between too few and too many...and I can assign them any arbitrary usage pattern I so choose...and even ignore my own plan if I wish...