I always assumed the reason there was no capacitor mechanic in DUST was because there was already a limiting factor built into vehicles. Modules have a recharge time, guns overheat. In EVE, everything can perma-run if you've fit your ship to do so. it's a balancing act of mechanics. In this much faster-paced game, with a much more limited control scheme, cooldowns and overheating might be the best option, IMHO.

I thought tanks ran on tears...

Capacitor management as a function of game play could be a really interesting way to balance vehicles. I"m not sure if players would find it tedious or not, but if 'charging the capacitor' of vehicles required the kind of nuance and differences that rifles on dropsuits do.


Example.

Nuclear Reactors vs. Graviton Reactors

Drawbacks:

Nuclear reactors: Overheat causes a long period of armor damage over time.
Graviton reactors: Overheat causes significant agility loss of vehicle.

Management mechanics:

Rather than just passively recharge capacitors would have to be manually managed to maintain their maximum recharge rate. If unmanaged the recharge rate drops to 25% of maximum. So players would swap between a 'capacitor priming UI' mode, kind of like switching to equipment/sidearm on a dropsuit, and back to their turret. Perhaps secondary turret gunners could also man capacitors UIs.

Nuclear reactors (UI ideas):

Nuclear reactors would be based on getting the reactor core in an ideal heat zone to maintain energy stability. Therefore using R1 and 'square' to 'prime' and 'cool' the core to the right temperature will increase the stability of the core. Capacitor amount and core stability are directly related. Overuse of the capacitor would lead to quick cooling which would quickly reduce it's energy output. Accidentally over-priming the capacitor would overheat causing long term radioactive damage to the vehicle and user. Emergency cooling would take-over cutting core temperature (and energy production) down to minimal levels.

Damage modules are the most efficient users of nuclear reactor energy and hybrid weapons and laser weapons are the least.

Graviton reactors (UI ideas):

Graviton reactors are about space/mass distortion. Graviton cores are more stable and naturally balanced. Graviton cores can be 'primed' by rapidly pushing R1 in order to increase core stability. The higher the current stability, the faster you must press R1 to further increase stability. It's easy to maintain long-term decent power generation, but difficult to maintain the maximum. Overpriming/overheating causes spatial distortions that drastically affect the agility of the vehicle, while a cool core will take a significant amount of time to recharge from nothing.

Hybrid weapons and shield modules are the most efficient users of graviton reactors while armor modules are the least.

Too complicated for an FPS.

Driving a tank is meant to be about blowing stuff up, not spending the entire match micromanaging a half dozen different modules.

Too complicated for an FPS.

Driving a tank is meant to be about blowing stuff up, not spending the entire match micromanaging a half dozen different modules.

There is an ironic notion about how everywhere DUST decides to do a game mechanic differently than EVE, the long-term success is often achieved when DUST finally just does it the way EVE does it.

Capacitor could definitely help in certain situations, particularly if we ever hit the topic of vehicle cloaking devices. Which will eventually come up. (I think a stealthy dropship would be particularly cool.)

I think the biggest problem with vehicles though isn't the mechanics themselves, but the roles. Dropships have a critical strategic role in games. HAVs don't. HAVs are currently oversized nearly indestructible assault suits that go 30/0 in matches. Which is both a disservice to everyone else, for being OP, and a disservice to HAV drivers, for giving them nothing game-critical to do. (Besides pubstomping.)

Vehicles need defined roles. And in some cases, I think the game modes we have may need to be changed to create those roles. And then the vehicles need to be balanced to optimize them for doing those roles. HAVs should have a game-mode-critical purpose that places them as valued members of a strategic plan, a huge target for opposing forces, and a centerpiece of friendly support and movement.

Too complicated for an FPS.

Driving a tank is meant to be about blowing stuff up, not spending the entire match micromanaging a half dozen different modules.

no.

vehicle combat is too fast for a capacitor to be a viable balancing tool, cool thingy/what have you. honestly I question how much time everyone who suggests this has spent in a vehicle(you aren't the first and undoubtedly wont be the last).

being completely honest the module wheel is a sub optimal solution to having a larger number of mods than buttons. anyone who has spent any time in a vehicle has turned off mods accidentally or selected the wrong mod and this typically results in death or best case a severe disadvantage. it also obstructs the screen and inhibits combat.

pulsing a rep is a common practice with a capacitor, for those unaware repairs/shield boosters take up a massive amount of cap per cycle so capsuleers switch them on and off regularly depending on how the fight is going and what other modules need to be on. can you imagine trying to pulse a rep while flying a dropship? or while in the middle of a tank battle? cap management in combat would be a nightmare.

in eve with a couple of mouse clicks you lock onto and fire on a ship automatically you don't need to aim or fire and there is no cover. flying is largely taken out of the pilots hands as well, this frees up time and concentration to focus on cap management. not to mention the TTK in eve is very long so if you make a mistake it's not the end of the world. the module activation system is very simple and fast to use unlike dust's and doesn't interrupt damage output or flight.

TL;DR no.

and here I thought you couldn't make the idea of capacitors any worse an idea. well I'm flabbergasted so good job I guess.



there is why caps don't work, yes it's and Xpost from feedback/requests but I like it and don't have much to add to it.(also I was right he wasn't the last)

now to "rechargeing" the capacitor... why? WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? no. NO. NO.

quick time events are bad mkay? in all forms. manual cap recharge is literally the least fun thing I can think of at the moment.

It seems like neither of you both have heard about macros. All this arguments are stated in order to ease your push-to-kill experience, which is not what I am looking into, I have enough experience in vehicles and I must say that I am ready for new experience.

Narrow-minded players searching for easy ways? Hardcore is what I need and hardcore is what it must become. If you can't handle it then leave. It is progress - advance in complexity.

No mental harm is intended in this commentary.

Just posting here to say I have thought of this idea before and I approve. Plus, it would make me more comfortable piloting a vehicle with a capacitor coming from an EVE standpoint.

I hate your Rail Sica it was invisible to me the other day when I tried to OB you....missed and the armour HAV tanked the whole thing...... I was a sad tanker trying to OB another tanker...

lol This character is by no means a tanker, that Sica was probably just a counter-measure to another tank on your team. My tank alt is named Cyinii Dvah and he runs blaster madrugars.

I always assumed the reason there was no capacitor mechanic in DUST was because there was already a limiting factor built into vehicles. Modules have a recharge time, guns overheat. In EVE, everything can perma-run if you've fit your ship to do so. it's a balancing act of mechanics. In this much faster-paced game, with a much more limited control scheme, cooldowns and overheating might be the best option, IMHO.

I thought tanks ran on tears...

Ideally we should be able to use both the DS3 for direction control and a mappable KB for module control. The selection wheel is a lousy interface for critical systems control. Imagine something like that on your car.

One panic slap on the boost button and you are back up to max shields.

Enemy turning to fire on you? Slap the hardener button and return fire. Coast clear? Shut down the hardener before it drains all your cap with another press.

I agree that the selection wheel is a rather poor interface sometimes. It is always irritating when I go to activate both of my hardeners but instead just turn off the one I just turned on.
However giving free reign of mapping out controls could lead to an imbalance that favors KBM, you simply have more buttons that are easily accessible.
Total number of buttons on a DS3: 14
Total number of buttons within easy reach of a 4 finger placement: 20-27 + 2 on the mouse

On the matter of Capacitors:
I think they just would make ground combat unnecessarily complicated. It would draw too much of a single players attention away from what they are doing to simply managing their vehicle. Having to micro manage how much you are shooting, how much cap draw your defenses are taking, aiming, maneuvering, maintaining situational awareness, watching ammo count, judging how quickly your opponent is losing eHP vs your eHP, and communicating with allies is too much for a single person to handle. You would end up with very boring tank battles: Upon seeing each other they would stop their tanks and it would become a battle of capacitor micromanagement and build setup, which is EVE not Dust.

If you are truly displeased with the current mechanics then I see two possible alternatives:
1) Vehicle "crews". By allows several people control of a tank you reduce the overwhelming amount of micromanaging needed. The driver could manage defensive modules and steer while the gunner manages offensive modules/turrets and keeps situational awareness. Tank matches would be won by teamwork of the crew, capacitor micromanagement, and the build of the vehicle.
This option would also reduce tank spam as it would take at least 2 people to operate a tank and a poor crew that lacks communication would pale compared to an organized one, thus MLT tanks would fall out of favor. Redline rail tanks might still be a problem though, as sitting in the redline and striking at long range allows them to not deal with defenses or mobility.
2) Vehicle modules operate more like stamina than the hard cool down system we have currently. By not using up the full duration of the module then it recovers more quickly. The reduces the amount of micromanagement needed but increases the amount of detailed control the operator has (which is what I assume you capacitor people want).