QOL Enhancement Proposal: Reverse Cycle EFS

[Ras Talon]

Proposal:

Along with the current CYCLE LASER POWER SETTING and CYCLE SHIELD POWER SETTING input functions that there also be a REVERSE CYCLE POWER SETTING where it does the opposite.

So if say you're at 50% LASER POWER SETTING and you want to go to 25% to boost engine power, instead of cycling 50% -> 75% -> 100% -> 0% -> 25%

you could just press REVERSE CYCLE LASER POWER SETTING and it would go 50% -> 25% and another push would decrease it further to 0%.

The default keybinding for it could be left blank and only assigned if desired, or maybe SHIFT F9 and SHIFT F10.

This of course would also apply to beam weapon energy down the line for T/F.

[J. King]

FYI shift-F9 and shift-F10 perform power transfers, so some other key bindings (like with ctrl) would be needed.

[Keiranhalcyon31]

; and ' perform the same power transfers, so I don't think anything is lost by making shift-F9/10 do reverse cycling. Anyway, with the fully-configurable key bindings, it's just user options.

[Keiranhalcyon31]

Related request/proposal: a binding for reverse cycling the shield direction setting.

[Ras Talon]

Question regarding the reverse cycle proposal.

One of the X-wing mechanics is shields redistribution.

Say your front shield is at 50% and your aft shield is at 150%. You tap S once, now your front shield is at 200%. Now, suppose you tap your proposed reverse cycle, say, SHIFT+S. Do your shields go back to the position they were at? 50/150? Or are they redistributed - 100/100?

[Keiranhalcyon31]

It would not be an "undo" like that. Arriving at one of the three settings would redistribute energy according to that setting, regardless of the prior state.

In your example, tapping s once and getting 200% front means that we were at setting <rear>, and are now at setting <front> (because the "forward" cycle sequence is <balanced>, <rear>, <front>, <balanced>). So a reverse-cycle puts us back at setting <rear> with 200% rear shields, 0% front.

[Ras Talon]

Follow up question regarding the reverse cycle proposal:

If we have two shield buttons anyway, why use a cycle method at all?

Maybe it would be more intuitive for the two buttons to be 'divert shield power forward' and 'divert shield power backward.'

That way there's no confusion over where the shield is going. if you want to redistribute just tap the two buttons in quick succession. You always know if the shields go forward or back.

The downside is that it's a bit of a departure from the original mechanic.

[Keiranhalcyon31]

So... remove the setting wrap-around, then?

[Ras Talon]

In essence. If you have a dedicated forward and back, you don't need it.

[Tad Hashimoto]

Late to the party, but here’s my take:

All for the reverse cycle ELS settings. They don’t change anything except adding new binds, and the added convenience would be very nice to have.

‌

Regarding the shield distribution, I agree with Ras Talon in that full forward/back distribution functions would be nice, but only as an addition to the existing cycle mechanic. Many users will want to keep the original cycle bind due to familiarity, limited buttons on their controls, etc.