New internal modules, APU'S and DCB's anyone?

thearmysredneck

T
Ok CMDR’s, how about this idea for new internal modules. I’ve been experimenting with a few ships and some load outs that sounded great, but just didn’t work well. After some thought into how to overcome this without causing balance issues I think that APU’s and Distribution Capacitor Bank modules might just be the solution.
We already have something similar to DCB’s in the form of the much loved, and greatly despised, Shield Cell Banks. So the SCD’s are more or less pre-charged capacitor bank requiring manual triggering, and only dedicated to the shield generator. How about a passive module that adds additional capacitor storage to the power distributor? The power distributor would still have the same charge rate with whatever pips you have to whichever system, but a higher charge capacity.
The Auxiliary Power Unit module is basically an additional, noncritical power supply to boost the overall power available. This could even increase the charge rate of the power distributor and increasing the overall heat efficiency of the ship. And the best part is that both are targetable, and you'll loose all benifits of the module if they malfunction or get taken out!
On the surface I don’t think this would affect balance near as much as it would allow a much more viable ship load out diversity. The APU and DCB would take up internal space, and only one of each could be carried like shield generators or fuel scoops. This could also allow load outs that could operate more power hungry weapons efficiently at the cost of sacrificing internal space available, i.e. SCB’s. I’m curious as to what your thoughts are. Glass cannons anybody?
 

777Driver

777Driver
Not how an APU works in the real world as far as my knowledge goes, still I like your idea. Personally I would just like a standard APU, especially with the new powerplant function coming in 1.4 (damaged power plant reduces available power to modules)

In the real world an APU kicks in during a power failure or if additional hydraulic power is required. So for example - Twin engine and you have a single engine fail, the APU provides power to compensate. Have never heard of one being used to boost available power?
 

thearmysredneck

T
777Driver said:
Not how an APU works in the real world as far as my knowledge goes, still I like your idea. Personally I would just like a standard APU, especially with the new powerplant function coming in 1.4 (damaged power plant reduces available power to modules)
Click to expand...

It's just a concept name, change it to whatever makes it fit. As far as those new power plant changes go, that's great and all but it's going to make the "shield meta" worse. I guess my shield less builds will go bye bye....
 

Morbad

Morbad
777Driver said:
In the real world an APU kicks in during a power failure or if additional hydraulic power is required. So for example - Twin engine and you have a single engine fail, the APU provides power to compensate. Have never heard of one being used to boost available power?
Click to expand...

APU normally refers to either a backup or starters, but it's not difficult to imagine situations where the APU could be activated along with main power.

Using an APU while main power was still active could well be used to provide additional power, assuming the (hydraulic or electrical) system was able to safely handle the extra capacity.
 

thearmysredneck

T
777Driver said:
Can you explain what you mean by that? Honest question!
Click to expand...
Basically refers to the practice of maximizing shield value through carrying the most shield boosters and shield cell banks as you could possibly carry with the most creative power management you could come up with. Some will even choose to run the least power demanding weapons for a few mj worth of shield. Once the shields drop the fsd starts charging. At least that's my interpretation of it. If you start loosing MW of power due to a couple of hits, that practice will be even more widespread. That would also kill the viability of my shield less scout, which, in MY hands, handles pvp way better than my full battle rattle clipper. Even against the large boys.
 

IronGremlin

I
I don't like the idea of expanding available wattage.

Wattage plays a role as a limiter to what a given ship can accomplish, and I think that it plays this role effectively - some ships, like the vulture, are balanced by virtue of PP limitations.

I do like the idea of being able to "supercharge" your capacitor though, I think that would be a very interesting internal slot - I'd like to see it generate a fair bit of heat when used though, so that it's balanced against heavy boosting / weapon drain, and not just a freebie.

Personally, I would see that device as a nearly direct counter to an SCB - pumping an immediately full weapon capacitor twice into a shield would be a brutally effective way of chewing through the extra shield gained by an SCB.
 

thearmysredneck

T
IronGremlin said:
Personally, I would see that device as a nearly direct counter to an SCB - pumping an immediately full weapon capacitor twice into a shield would be a brutally effective way of chewing through the extra shield gained by an SCB.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my thoughts. As far as the vulture as an example, you would still be loosing available internal slots and it only has 2 hard points. I don't think this would be OP. It also doesn't have large bays for internals either so you wouldn't be able to put a massive boost on it anyway. As far as the DCB goes it would only increase the capacity, not the charge rate and normal heat issues would still apply. But heat sinks would be more useful for things other than smuggling.
 

Sire

Sire
I think that the modules we already have in game are enough. It's no use to have modules that increase or boost other ones performance because after a while some other people would come out proposing a module that increase the performance of the module that increase the performance of the module that is boosted by a module with increased performance and there will be no end to the performance increasing.

So, let us be happy with what we have and don't wish more.
 

Schmack

Schmack
What's the desired outcome? Right now no ship is heads and shoulders above the others. Each has a weakness. Even the Vulture is speed limited, and it's power plant isn't part of the limitation to be quite honest. The hard points are just too large. The power plant is about right for that ship size. Someone put weapons on it that a ship that size shouldn't be able to power, so it cannot power them AND do all the other little pew pew things you wish only your ship could do.

I'd like to see SCBs gone actually. I don't see the need for them. Sure I use them too because they are available and I am not a martyr for the cause. If weapons were correct, damage was correct, you could get away with a hull refit and the right maneuvering. Take away turrets and auto tracking gimbals and you're in business.

I get it that ships like the Anaconda and larger, less agile builds would suffer from forced fixed beam or kinetic weapons, but that's what gunners are for. Get more people on one ship. If you don't have a gunner, don't venture out where agile dog fighting is happening.
 
Last edited:

IronGremlin

I
Sire said:
I think that the modules we already have in game are enough. It's no use to have modules that increase or boost other ones performance because after a while some other people would come out proposing a module that increase the performance of the module that increase the performance of the module that is boosted by a module with increased performance and there will be no end to the performance increasing.

So, let us be happy with what we have and don't wish more.
Click to expand...

While I agree that changes to the existing system should come with due consideration, I think there is certainly room for expansion in some areas.

I would tend to favor mechanical modifications of existing systems over introduction of new models, but I don't really feel that we've covered the gamut of sensible modules just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom