Right Panel - Modules -Details?

[HunterTX]

Hi,
Trying to understand and or find information on how this screen works, what I can do, what the Priority and power usage all mean in detail.

http://imgur.com/LRhY0TY

 

[Mike Evans]

Hi,
Trying to understand and or find information on how this screen works, what I can do, what the Priority and power usage all mean in detail.

Priority is not often needed but it basically sets the order modules will shut off automatically if the required power draw exceeds the available draw. This only happens through malfunction (I think) and possibly if you fit lots of hungry weapons and power them all at once. The higher the priority number the less likely the module will shut off because all modules of lower priority are shut off first. If they're all set to 1 (as they are by default) then all modules will power off if the available power is too little. Bear in mind there is a bug with the priority system not being maintained after travelling.

 

[Oss133]

Priority is not often needed but it basically sets the order modules will shut off automatically if the required power draw exceeds the available draw. This only happens through malfunction (I think) and possibly if you fit lots of hungry weapons and power them all at once. The higher the priority number the less likely the module will shut off because all modules of lower priority are shut off first. If they're all set to 1 (as they are by default) then all modules will power off if the available power is too little. Bear in mind there is a bug with the priority system not being maintained after travelling.

Very little seems to be maintained after travelling. Fire groups is the only thing I can think of that I don't have to reset.

 

[Mike Evans]

Very little seems to be maintained after travelling. Fire groups is the only thing I can think of that I don't have to reset.

It's slowly getting fixed. Power distribution is currently maintained locally for example now.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Priority is not often needed but it basically sets the order modules will shut off automatically if the required power draw exceeds the available draw. This only happens through malfunction (I think) and possibly if you fit lots of hungry weapons and power them all at once. The higher the priority number the less likely the module will shut off because all modules of lower priority are shut off first. If they're all set to 1 (as they are by default) then all modules will power off if the available power is too little. Bear in mind there is a bug with the priority system not being maintained after travelling.

Wait... I thought priorities would be the other way around: the lower the number, the higher the priority:

1 would get power first,
2 would get power second,
3 would get power third,
etc...

 

[Mike Evans]

Wait... I thought priorities would be the other way around: the lower the number, the higher the priority:

1 would get power first,
2 would get power second,
3 would get power third,
etc...

Well when you say higher priority, you're really saying higher number. Nice and consistent. If higher priority meant lower number that would be slight inconsistent and would make it awkward if you wanted some modules to be higher than all the rest all of a sudden as you'd have to lower them to 1 then raise all the others by 1.

 

[Captain Zoe E Summers]

Well when you say higher priority, you're really saying higher number. Nice and consistent. If higher priority meant lower number that would be slight inconsistent and would make it awkward if you wanted some modules to be higher than all the rest all of a sudden as you'd have to lower them to 1 then raise all the others by 1.

Well that nugget is totally missing from the ui/ux design...

It's not like anywhere else in the world where saying "priority 1" is totally obviously lower than saying "priority 2" or "priority 17"

<face palm>

Any others that are counter intuitive we should all know about?

 

[Robert Maynard]

DEFCON 1 is the highest threat level.

 

[Mike Evans]

Well that nugget is totally missing from the ui/ux design...

It's not like anywhere else in the world where saying "priority 1" is totally obviously lower than saying "priority 2" or "priority 17"

<face palm>

Any others that are counter intuitive we should all know about?

If we did the other way you'd all be complaining about having to shuffle everything around as soon as you wanted one system to be of higher priority than what's already there. From a UI point of view it works nicely. Contextually you just need to link the concept of a higher something equal to a higher number.

 

[Vikinger]

Well when you say higher priority, you're really saying higher number. Nice and consistent. If higher priority meant lower number that would be slight inconsistent and would make it awkward if you wanted some modules to be higher than all the rest all of a sudden as you'd have to lower them to 1 then raise all the others by 1.

I actually thought it was:

1 as FIRST priority

2 as SECOND priority

3 as THIRD priority


First always comes before Second and Third.

But good to know that higher the number is the higher the priority is.

so it is

1 =
2 > 1
3 > 2 > 1

 

[Nagual]

Well when you say higher priority, you're really saying higher number. Nice and consistent. If higher priority meant lower number that would be slight inconsistent and would make it awkward if you wanted some modules to be higher than all the rest all of a sudden as you'd have to lower them to 1 then raise all the others by 1.

Hmm. Got to say pfft As far as I can recall, I've not saw a real life example using the system you are describing. I've often heard or even used the expression "what's my first priority, and what's my second" while in that context it's very obvious what is meant, it still carries over to any system that uses priorities. 1 means first and foremost, the top tog, most important everything else follows that.

Various Sci-Fi shows use it as well...
"Priority 1 message captain"
"hmm? I'll get it later"
"but the evil robots are going to kill Earth"
"Priority 1, you said, time for a cup of tea first, no?"

Is something you'll never see. Or Hear.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If we did the other way you'd all be complaining about having to shuffle everything around as soon as you wanted one system to be of higher priority than what's already there. From a UI point of view it works nicely. Contextually you just need to link the concept of a higher something equal to a higher number.

No shuffling required if the default level is the same as the number of modules.

 

[Nagual]

If we did the other way you'd all be complaining about having to shuffle everything around as soon as you wanted one system to be of higher priority than what's already there. From a UI point of view it works nicely. Contextually you just need to link the concept of a higher something equal to a higher number.

This is only true if all are set at the lowest priority as default, which could be altered to be in the middle. This would let players adjust modules to whatever they like too up or down.

 

[Mike Evans]

1 =
2 > 1
3 > 2 > 1

Just how number works, convenient that

 

[Thorn Black]

Well i drive on the right side of the road ... if You know what i mean

 

[jabokai]

Priority numbering is back to front then... I assumed the same as everyone else because that's what it is in every other instance I can think of. KISS, you shouldn't need to explain this!

 

[Mike Evans]

Well it's not like you need to use the system at the moment anyway. It might get changed but I doubt it'll ever be a big enough issue internally compared to all the other stuff that could be done. We'll see.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just how number works, convenient that

.... but not priorities - there it's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

 

[Mandrake]

Just how number works, convenient that

Yes but you're inverting a long-established linguistic convention, I.e. That priority 1 is always highest. No surprise that this is unsettling for players.

IMO this really needs to be reversed, or change the word 'priority' to 'rank'.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well it's not like you need to use the system at the moment anyway. It might get changed but I doubt it'll ever be a big enough issue internally compared to all the other stuff that could be done. We'll see.

Thanks Mike.