Disable Inertial Dampers on purpose?

DevinDevin Common Beta Backer ES1 Posts: 9
During a run in which my inertial dampeners got shot out (actually, I wiped them out ramming a drone to complete the challenge), I noticed that it was pretty fun to fly without them! I liked the preservation of momentum and the challenge of maneuvering in that fashion.

Could we have an option to toggle our inertial dampening system on and off at will?

Comments

  • ROCKFISH_HCKROCKFISH_HCK Moderator Posts: 579
    Maybe. But maybe we will use that for the hardcore mode.
  • DevinDevin Common Beta Backer ES1 Posts: 9
    Cool, either way works. I'd just love an opportunity to fly that way voluntarily.
  • MaheekrMaheekr Common Beta Backer ES1, Customer Posts: 26
    I like the sound of switching on and off systems... even if just for the heck of it.
  • GiraffasaurGiraffasaur Administrator, Moderator, Space Cat Posts: 1,110
    Maheekr said:

    I like the sound of switching on and off systems... even if just for the heck of it.

    "Alright guys, time for my NO BREATHING run!" Turns off Life Support
  • Patrick SwayzePatrick Swayze Customer Posts: 7
    hardcore mode??
  • daytonadaytona Common Beta Backer ES1, Customer Posts: 46
    gaaah! no~ I need my space breaks on if i'm going anywhere near objects lol
    Although.. powering down sub-systems to feed overall energy core might be a complex but interesting idea to toy with.
  • ES_1637ES_1637 Kickstarter Beta Backer ES1, Space Dog Posts: 16
    daytona said:


    Although.. powering down sub-systems to feed overall energy core might be a complex but interesting idea to toy with.

    Very much this. I've already had a few pretty epic-feeling moments of narrowly escaping an overwhelming enemy force, I think it would add to those moments to be able to switch off unnecessary systems for that last bit of power to keep the booster running all the way to the jump gate or to keep the guns firing until the last enemy is defeated.

    My imagination is running away with me on this one, so here's a little elaboration on this as I'd try to go about it, all just food for thought.

    I don't think it would need to be terribly complex, or at least no more than anything else in the game at this point. Just have turning a system off add to the core recharge rate by different amounts depending on how important the system is. Keep the rate increases pretty conservative so that the extra power is enough that it could make a difference in a tight spot but otherwise isn't really worth sacrificing the use of that system. For example, turning off shields doesn't grant so much power that you can then fire weapons indefinitely (since we've already got the daredevil subroutine for that sort of madness), but it might help you recharge quickly while hiding from your pursuers inside an asteroid.

    To avoid adding any boons to having broken systems you could also prevent redirecting power from a broken system ("the system is not responding to commands"). If you were lucky enough to have turned the system off before it was damaged then I suppose you should get to keep the bonus recharge rate until the system has been repaired and reactivated.

    If there's still some way in which this whole idea could be a bit overpowered or exploitable you could try tossing on the added penalty of having a power-up delay when turning a system back on, and make it cumulative; if you shut everything down you might be looking at a 20 second delay before you can get everything back on, maybe with the systems coming back one by one, but if you just switched off your sensors and inertial dampeners you could get those back in just a few seconds.

    The UI implementation is where this idea might have some issues though; that whole "epic moments" thing I was talking about earlier gets a bit ruined if you've got to pause the action and toggle things in the repair menu mid-escape. It would potentially need it's own selection wheel or something like that (speaking from the perspective of a controller-wielding player at least) and I'm guessing that's where implementation might get a bit onerous.
Sign In or Register to comment.