Why only primary and secondary fire???

Why only primary and secondary fire?

  • Yes, tertiary, quaternary and quinary fire would be useful.

    Votes: 197 69.6%

  • No, this would imbalance the game, don't make this happen!

    Votes: 86 30.4%
  • Total voters
    283
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

geoffrey.hdt

geoffrey.hdt
Hi commanders,


Sure, when you start playing Elite you may set laser on primary fire and multi-cannon on secondary...
Then when you add more stuff to your loadout such as scanners, limpets, torpedos, you must switch between fire groups.

I know that some players will say it is fine the way it is, but some like me find this cumbersome.
Switching between fire groups composed of a mix of beams, railguns, cargo scanner, hatch breakers, collectors, torpedos is the best way to mess up things.
This could be easily solved by implementing tertiary, quaterny, quinary fire.


My question is: why hasn't this been implemented so far? This should not be difficult to achieve and I doubt it would imbalance the game.
Any constructive comments would be greatly appreciated.

EDIT: This poll is about firebuttons, currently limited to 2 at the moment. I have created another poll about dedicated keys to scanners, limpets and ECM:

>>> Dedicated keys for scanners, limpets, ECM...yes or no? <<<
 
Last edited:

Forlorn

Forlorn
The reason given was that the primary/secondary of each fire group is integrated into the HUD... and that they want you to switch firing groups, IIRC.
 

Vyzeerg

Vyzeerg
The devs don't want to rework their UI which have been built for a 2 buttons use only.

Other than that, you know, flawless logic.
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
It means you have more planning to do. Giving a 3rd (or more) fire functions will make some things really silly. For example, if I dont have to sacrifice a fire button to ECM, why bother with it and not just go for PDT? Missiles will be buffed, so we're going to need to use soem defences. One of the great things about PDT is that they are passive, even though they are more prone to fail and can only track one target at a time. ECM sacrifices a button, or demands rapid switching, but works against all missiles and is 100% failsafe.
 
Last edited:

The_Quasar

T
I voted no, not because of balance, but because the current way works well. If we needed to cycle through more groups, it would take time, and would be awkward. Also, lag would sometimes mean a key depression would not work, so hitting the key 4 times may or may not go to the correct group. That's enough fiddling time to lose a combat situation. Keep it simple and stay alive.
 

geoffrey.hdt

geoffrey.hdt
sleutelbos said:
It means you have more planning to do. Giving a 3rd (or more) fire functions will make some things really silly. For example, if I dont have to sacrifice a fire button to ECM, why bother with it and not just go for PDT? [...] ECM sacrifices a button, or demands rapid switching, but works against all missiles and is 100% failsafe.
Click to expand...
Wow, I'm pretty surprised to read that some people like you believe and are fine with that...
To me, it's one more reason why ECM will not be used on most loadouts, and it's a pity.

Maybe I should create another poll to see how many players would like to remove the keys dedicated to chaffs, heatsinks and shield cells, so that they can be only fired via primary and secondary fire..? :0)
 
Last edited:

geoffrey.hdt

geoffrey.hdt
The_Quasar said:
I voted no, not because of balance, but because the current way works well. If we needed to cycle through more groups, it would take time, and would be awkward. Also, lag would sometimes mean a key depression would not work, so hitting the key 4 times may or may not go to the correct group. That's enough fiddling time to lose a combat situation. Keep it simple and stay alive.
Click to expand...
I think you got confused...it is not about getting more fire groups, but more fire buttons.
More fire buttons = less need to cycle between groups.
 

The_Quasar

T
geoffrey.hdt said:
I think you got confused...it is not about getting more fire groups, but more fire buttons.
More fire buttons = less need to cycle between groups.
Click to expand...

I'm still happy the way it is... too many fire buttons would get confusing. We now can use 4... with 5 per group, we'd have 10... why? How could you possibly need 10?
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
geoffrey.hdt said:
Wow, I'm pretty surprise to read that some people like you believe and are fine with that...
To me, it's one more reason why ECM will not be used on most loadout, and it's a pity.

Maybe I should create another poll to see how many players would like to remove the keys dedicated to chaffs, heatsinks and shield cells, so that they can be only fired via primary and secondary fire..? :0)
Click to expand...

Chaff, sinks and SCB dont have a passive equivalent. Btw, ever tried an Asp with 2 c2 rails and 4 c1 torps? Its fun versus people with only one measly PDT. One measly ECM would have removed all my torps instantly.
 

Hajile

Hajile
So honestly this is really the DUMBEST thing in this whole game. I LOVE ELITE I'm very nearly a Fanboy... however I have six trillion buttons on my joystick and I can't have a button for KWS-ECM-Cargo scanner - this is the reason I don't fit anything on my ship except for two types of weapons and Passive modules... im a bounty hunter without a KWS, I Hull Tank in my FAS without ECM for shields.

lets talk about how this breaks immersion: do you mean to tell me that my Avatar can bind one of those buttons on his HOTAS to an ECM ----- I need a smiley of a smiley banging his head into wall.
 

Vyzeerg

Vyzeerg
The_Quasar said:
I'm still happy the way it is... too many fire buttons would get confusing. We now can use 4... with 5 per group, we'd have 10... why? How could you possibly need 10?
Click to expand...

Not really. Just something you would need to get used to. And no one would stop you from using a two triggers system.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom