New Module Request - Advanced AFMU

CMDR Corlas

CMDR Corlas
I would like to be able to equip an AFMU that comes with a battery backup.

No major specific reason, I just feel safer with an AFMU that can run on it's own power for a bit, that way I could, in theory, power down my entire ship - powerplant included - and have my AFMU repair that as well.

Once it's back at 100% and online, the powerplant can recharge the AFMU's battery for next time it's needed.

I'd assume this'd realistically add a good deal of mass to the AFMU, probably the same as the equivalent class shield generator, make the AFMU be able to repair less overall, and probably make it use consume more power when it's online.

But that's ok, because the extra mass is worth the trade for extra sense-of-safety: If I get stuck somewhere with a nearly-dead powerplant, that'll be a problem I can fix.

A power draw increase to accomplish this is fine, because I can deal with increased power draw on basically any ship: I like power management, that's just more fun. As long as my powerplant can theoretically power it, even if I need to turn everything else off, I'm gonna get it online and useful.

And I can deal with it repairing less overall, because no matter how long it ends up taking me, I can re-stock it by synthesizing AFMU mats so that no matter what, as long as I can keep my ship alive, I can always keep my ship running smooth - thanks AFMU's!

The "repair procees" might just sometimes involve running around in my SRV, scouring planets for rare materials.

I dunno, seems like the technology is all there, in game and out? :) It makes plausible sense for that to be a product someone would sell.

As for recognizing this is a game, it'd be an interesting consideration for explorer builds. Might even make people re-think some "deep space extended-duration" combat builds. Add some RP-flair for scavengers and people who prefer living out in the fringes.

It can be made into something that can't really be abused mid-fight - your powerplant and everything needs to be off, your ship must come to a complete stop in realspace before using, the repair procees takes time to complete, if you're at all shot during a delicate power plant repair, you'll mess up and you'll probably instant-detonate your ship.

This could take the form of a new type of AFMU, or it could even take the form of an AFMU limpet: Really short-range and slow-working, requires a cargohold and specialist AFMU-limpets in it. But that's cool, because it's an AFMU on a limpet, so it can still repair all your internals or someone elses, if they enter those same conditions and accept a chatscreen UI prompt from their own ship's computer, like on a mission update.

Either form of this is cool, but obviously limpets would kind of be cooler, for the new gameplay options it could enable.

So it's entirely a plausible thing to make, in-game and out. :)

So gimmie. I really wanna put one in my Krait Mk II. :D
 

Lestat

Banned
Lestat
So you are asking for an I win feature. See the Power Plant is the only thing that can't be repaired which gives any Risk in Exploration unless you are playing while Drunk or under the influence of drugs or not paying attention to what you are doing. At that case, it falls under it your fault for Power Plant damage.

You can also reboot/repair which will repair part of your Power plant But it will require Air which you can harvest from asteroids and repaired Modules to repair the Power plant.
 

CMDR Corlas

CMDR Corlas
No, running a grossly overpowered powerplant isn't a "solution" to wanting the ability to repair my powerplant. That's not even the same thing.

The complaint that's it's an "i win" feature is simply idiotic. What in the heck could it let me "win" at, where I otherwise would have "lost"? This isn't game you "win", it's just one you play.

It would let me play it differently to you, in a way that has zero effect on you unless you choose to let it. The idea that we're competing for "wins" or "loses" is absurd.
 

CMDR Corlas

CMDR Corlas
nanite2000 said:
Oh jeez, get a grip @Lestat!

What would we win when we press the ‘I win’ button?
Click to expand...

Exactly. What a foolish way for him to look at it.

Also, there is no circumstance that this feature would save my life, when otherwise I might have died. I go out exploring a little and stuff, but I'm a good pilot and I'm safe. I don't die to PvE, and I'm not trying to achieve any fame.

All it means is that there would be a tiny-bit higher chance of me tooling around one system, rather than another.

But it apparently makes him pouty because the thinks his self-worth is based on the amount of self-death scenes he thinks other people's screens see.
 

CMDR Corlas

CMDR Corlas
nanite2000 said:
He uses this lazy argument any time someone suggests something he doesn’t like (which is a lot).

I’ve asked him dozens of times what we would win when we press his mythical ‘I win’ button - he never responds. 😏
Click to expand...

The sort of person who never realized that "I don't have an opinion" isn't voiced by saying "that's bad".
 

Watcher

W
I think the idea that our ships don't have sort of backup/reserve power thing is a bit nuts really, that seems like a standard piece of kit any ship ought to have.. Perhaps it should be part of the power plant module even, or an additional core module even.

Anyway, yes, some sort of reserve power mechanic that would give you a chance to repair the power plant.

If not core or built in to something else perhaps just have a reserve power optional module, available max power delivery and capacity related to size and class. You can fit it if you want, or not, up to you.. If you want to get funky have them be able to pick up the slack if you overdraw on the PP. This would let you do things like have a combat build that has limited guns out duration based on the drawdown from the battery.

I also like the idea of module repair limpets or adding this functionality to existing repair limpets, perhaps via module target selection or something. The 'my ship is broken' scenario thing has your limpets notionally repairing their systems, be nice if they actually could and did!..

Also, since we're on the topic of limpets.. Limpets as an ammo type, all ships have a crummy universal limpet controller with a one limpet capacity and existing limpet modules add a combination of ammo and per useage capability. This doesn't change much from now really but does give everyone the chance to give scenarios or other limpet play a go without making it overpowered while still retaining existing specialisation need and capability.
 

CMDR Corlas

CMDR Corlas
I do think it's good for limpets to remain as cargo-hold items (making sure you need to have a cargo rack, making them have mass, and making them tradeable among players), and I like being able to program limpets on-the-fly, otherwise I am on board.
 

GroG79

G
I also think this option is OP compared to considerations/choices we have to make in the current gameplay.

For instance you can equip this advanced afmu on a class one module and have almost no drawbacks what so ever. It will render the current afmu obsolete. Remember explorers only power their AFMU on when needed. So this extra power requirement changes nothing. Only the mass increase would make a difference; hence why I suggested to equip this on the lowest possible class module.
 

Old Duck

Old Duck
We need to just get rid of the AFMU and replace it with a version of the FSS, where you use a little circle minigame to spot-weld your ship back into shape. ADS, AMFU, and all these other modules that start with A are for noobs :p
 

nazo

nazo
Here's the thing: most of our ship's systems run on capacitors including one main capacitor that is powered from the power plant. Now, it stands to reason that if you shut off the power plant that power shouldn't just suddenly dissipate entirely out into space without being discharged -- that's not how capacitors in any sort of implementation even work. So realistically speaking, yes, an AFMU should be able to run without the power plant. Having its own battery backup I think doesn't make sense because that would add significant bulk and requirements to running one, but just simply running off the system capacitor (I started to say main, but the main is in the power plant which has to be shut down to do this) would make sense. Which would also add some potential balancing limitations to this (for instance, if it needs, let's say, 10MJ worth of energy to fully repair the power plant but you only have, say, 5MJ worth of energy in the system capacitor at the moment it would fully drain the capacitor and only repair about half the damage to the power plant before it would have to stop and wait for the capacitor to be refilled -- meaning you'd have to turn the power plant back on and wait. So no instant repairs there.) Even the main capacitor does have its limitations and if it ran just directly off of that then it may still require turning the power plant back on for a bit if it was low when you began the process (though I think if such a limitation is desirable for balance using the system capacitor makes the most sense.)

Actually, I would argue here that this really should apply to everything. If the power plant is shut off, every module that doesn't explicitly require it (like the power distributor and perhaps life support) should continue to operate but start draining its respective capacitor at its base rate once it no longer has an active power plant to pull from. (Eg shields and thrusters should drain their respective caps FAST. So I suppose you'd have to shut off the shields to use the AFMU on the power plant very successfully. Just to throw out a basic number to give an idea of this, a 6A stock shield generator draws 4.34MW of power and a stock 6A distributor provides 35MW of system power. At that rate, the shields alone would drain the system cap in only eight seconds and that excludes anything else pulling from the system cap -- like this AFMU idea. Plus without a distributor drawing from an active power source there would be no recharge obviously.)

As for the "I win" button idea, let's not forget something rather important here: the AFMU doesn't fix hull damage. Explorers want to fix module problems more to fix issues like malfunctions and such caused more from heat damage more than anything else. This won't really help in PvP or even really much in PvE since the power plant would have to be shut down long enough to do the repairs and then the ship essentially or fully rebooted and the hull damage won't go away (but most explorers only care insofar as getting into that station to turn in exploration data at the end.) In fact, this isn't so different from a ship reboot (which you should be a lot more angry about if you feel this is so bad since that can restore shields.) If you're just a heavy PvPer and this bothers you because you only ever target power plants then this maybe serves as a good reminder that the effectiveness of that is actually perhaps a bit unbalanced on its own...

Personally, I'm in favor of the standard AFMU just simply using the ship's normal capacitors to be able to handle the power plant without a whole new module implementation. And I think that just makes sense really.
 
Last edited:

Trotsky2112

T
So, an AMFU that can repair your deactivated power plant running on its own power?
If your power plant (a shipboard fission reactor*) is that badly damaged, surely you should have been blasted into oblivion anyway?
I'm no expert, but if a fission reactor* is too badly damaged to function, then it seems to me that it should probably have blown up or something.
Also, the AMFU restores some amounts of module integrity, it probably can't fix a nuclear reactor.

* I am making assumptions here about the kind of reactor. In outfitting, the power plant module is subtitled "reactor bay" so I assumed that it would be a fision reactor, given that fusion is probably still beyond our abilities.
 

CMDR Corlas

CMDR Corlas
nazo said:
Personally, I'm in favor of the standard AFMU just simply using the ship's normal capacitors to be able to handle the power plant without a whole new module implementation. And I think that just makes sense really.
Click to expand...

The only issue that I see with this is that the AFMU should have mass. My understanding is the ones we have now were meant to have mass, but didn't as an oversight that FD just left in to appease Explorers.

Rather than change it for everyone, I figure an optional different module type would make things more interesting. :)

I can't argue with your logic though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom