Read by Council Ship Manuverability

[Forsyth]

While the newtonian thrust system is good, there are some people who maybe don't feel like placing thrusters all over their flagships to increase manuverability. I think that a block, called "manuverability enhancer", could be implemented to enhance the thrusters onboard, almost like an overdrive defensive system, but without the power usage and having to create the system. The number of enhancers would be relative to the number of thrusters onboard, to prevent players from only using 1.

 

[nightrune]

That's bypassing the trade offs of a large ship vs small ships.

Big ships should not be manuverale.

Is this just a comment on the number of blocks needed?

 

[Groovrider]

There presently is no need what so ever to place thrusters in any particular location.

 

[MeRobo]

without the power usage

This sounds pretty unballanced to me. Something to get rid of a disadvantage of big ships should be a tradeoff, therefor come with a new/ increase an already existing disadvantage (for example power cost).

 

[sayerulz]

So... wait....

You want a magic block to make your titan move like a fighter, with no power cost? Is this a troll post?

 

[Forsyth]

This sounds pretty unballanced to me. Something to get rid of a disadvantage of big ships should be a tradeoff, therefor come with a new/ increase an already existing disadvantage (for example power cost).

True, I just thought about that
[DOUBLEPOST=1456106093,1456106058][/DOUBLEPOST]

So... wait....

You want a magic block to make your titan move like a fighter, with no power cost? Is this a troll post?

No, the larger the ship, the less effect it has on manuverability

 

[sayerulz]

In that case, isn't it just a thruster?

 

[Forsyth]

In that case, isn't it just a thruster?

More correctly, a thruster enhancer, like a rail mass enhancer or docking enhancer.
[DOUBLEPOST=1456279631,1456279574][/DOUBLEPOST]

This sounds pretty unballanced to me. Something to get rid of a disadvantage of big ships should be a tradeoff, therefor come with a new/ increase an already existing disadvantage (for example power cost).

Good, point, there no doubt would be restrictions, like power usage, or shield usage.
[DOUBLEPOST=1456279771][/DOUBLEPOST]

That's bypassing the trade offs of a large ship vs small ships.

Big ships should not be manuverale.

Is this just a comment on the number of blocks needed?

There may be some people that have a good-looking design, but because of weapons, power, or shielding, they may not be able to get the maneuverability out of the cruiser or frigate that they originally had envisioned. The block would slightly increase thruster power, the increase relative to the mass of the ship.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

If they can't get the thrust they want due to power, shielding weaponry etc taking up too much space they should probably look into putting less of those in to make room.

 

[NTIMESc]

How is a "thruster enhancer" different from the Thruster Panel, that let's you tune thruster power for both direction and rotation?
Perhaps you're wanting another Overdrive system that works for acceleration instead of top speed. A Supercharger Computer might be an apt name, but I would imagine it would come with a hefty energy drain.

To reiterate what Grooverider said, where you place thrusters doesn't matter, but you do need enough to move the ship to your liking.

Also, to make sure we are on the same page, Newtonian flight just means the ship keeps floating in the direction it's going unless it's acted upon by an outside force (e.g. hitting something, or thrusting in a different direction). The game has always had this flight system, but before the thruster update, inertial dampening was on by default in most servers. Now it's off by default and you can turn in on in the Thruster Panel.

 

[Lord_Greyscale]

Hmm, maybe instead have a different type of thruster? One that isn't hit quite as harshly by the diminishing returns, but uses significantly more power. (and, naturally, would be an OR choice, you can use the normal thrusters, OR the spiffy new ones.)

The one and only "issue" I foresee with this plan, is the inevitable "why can't I use inherit thrust?" and that would be easily solved with an error message on the thrust panel, stating exactly why.