The Logic of Internals
- Thread starter shadragon
- Start date
Exactly. I'm willing to test my skill against a certain level of advantage for my opponent. Nine times the armor is not a level I'm willing to accept though, so I just decline the engagement.
I understand, but giving less choice of outfitting will only increase oatmeal builds. (I use oatmeal instead of min-max/meta, etc.)I asked for opinions so we're bound to get people who agree/disagree and that will form a decent debate.
Last edited:
The argument that realism demands that a combat configuration/ship should always beat a trade configuration/ship is valid. In the real world, if you let an airliner and a fighter jet have a fight, well, you know who is going to make it home and who isn't.
However, in the real world, we still use airliners and cargo planes. Why? Because people who aren't idiots don't send passenger airliners into active war zones. Occasionally, because of incompetence or technical failures, one does stray into a hot zone, which can easily end up being fatal for that plane. But most passenger and cargo flights go well, because they avoid the hot zones.
In Elite, the whole galaxy is a hot zone. Hell, some folks even think it's fun to take a combat build to Sag A to blow up explorers. The Elite galaxy is so damn dangerous that the existence of cargo ships simply doesn't make sense, they are unfit for this universe, unless they're so cheap they're almost disposable. And lack of cargo transports also means it makes no sense that so many planets got colonised. How do they keep getting supplies to and from those colonies, when traders can get blow up all the time no matter where they are? At this level of danger, you might as well think of it as every system being blockaded permanently.
Sure, it's called Elite: Dangerous. But it's just a bit too dangerous now to make sense, which makes the universe (well, the human component of it) very unrealistic.
However, in the real world, we still use airliners and cargo planes. Why? Because people who aren't idiots don't send passenger airliners into active war zones. Occasionally, because of incompetence or technical failures, one does stray into a hot zone, which can easily end up being fatal for that plane. But most passenger and cargo flights go well, because they avoid the hot zones.
In Elite, the whole galaxy is a hot zone. Hell, some folks even think it's fun to take a combat build to Sag A to blow up explorers. The Elite galaxy is so damn dangerous that the existence of cargo ships simply doesn't make sense, they are unfit for this universe, unless they're so cheap they're almost disposable. And lack of cargo transports also means it makes no sense that so many planets got colonised. How do they keep getting supplies to and from those colonies, when traders can get blow up all the time no matter where they are? At this level of danger, you might as well think of it as every system being blockaded permanently.
Sure, it's called Elite: Dangerous. But it's just a bit too dangerous now to make sense, which makes the universe (well, the human component of it) very unrealistic.
I disagree. If you limit the degree to which you're able to min/max a ship, you're actually opening up greater effective choice in outfitting, by dramatically increasing the viability of other builds.
The difference I see here is that you're looking at it in terms of absolute choice; the range of what is theoretically possible, whereas I am looking it in terms of effective choice; what is realistically going to be done, given a competitive environment.
You are correct in saying that the current game has greater absolute choice than the proposed changes. But you're ignoring that the realistic competitive choices for loadout is basically two items per slot: HRP or SCB. If you limit where those items can go, you'll see a far greater diversity of effective loadouts.
I'd be ok with limiting modules to one per type. That would, of course, apply to cargo modules. All ships, regardless of size should only be able to carry one cargo module, one SCB, one heat sink, etc. One of each type of weapon would be good too. That way, you won't have the exploit of being able to carry something like two pulse lasers. One fuel tank too. If we're going to limit it, it should be fair.
I'll clarify, that even know I like the idea of limiting the number of SCB's and HRP's on a per-ship basis (so combat focused ships could have more mil-spec slots), I do still think combat optimization should be possible beyond that.
For example, in an ideal world, things like cargo racks and fuel scoops would carry a small weight penalty. A combat-focused ship could seal off those bulkheads, save the weight, and gain an advantage in terms of agility and speed, and gain a multiplier to their life support systems, since the same system is now supporting less space.
The problem I see isn't optimization, if it's degree to which optimization advances you over an opponent.
The sarcastic comments about limiting weapons and utility modules actually prove this point perfectly: those slots already ARE limited to specific types of upgrades. That's exactly why they are not an issue at all. The small limitation in terms of what you can equip there actually allows for greater flexibility in the end.
For example, in an ideal world, things like cargo racks and fuel scoops would carry a small weight penalty. A combat-focused ship could seal off those bulkheads, save the weight, and gain an advantage in terms of agility and speed, and gain a multiplier to their life support systems, since the same system is now supporting less space.
The problem I see isn't optimization, if it's degree to which optimization advances you over an opponent.
The sarcastic comments about limiting weapons and utility modules actually prove this point perfectly: those slots already ARE limited to specific types of upgrades. That's exactly why they are not an issue at all. The small limitation in terms of what you can equip there actually allows for greater flexibility in the end.
Last edited:
I don't want balanced ships. But I want to feel like the best ship for a specific task is the ship reportedly designed for that role. Right now, you go from your Sidewinder to a Cobra Mk3, then an Asp E, then a Python, Then an Anaconda. Picking a different profession does not change the ship list.
If you rep grind and you want to do combat, you may go from an Asp E to a Viper, then to a Python, then to an FDL. If you trade you go from an Anaconda to an Imp. Cutter.
Smuggling, Trading, Mining, etc, the other ships are simply not very good. Out of 29 ships only about 5 seem useful. When the trade ships are not on the "Pick this ship up to trade goods" tree, you have a design problem.
When no one will fight, combat ships are pointless (outside of PvE or CQC)
If you rep grind and you want to do combat, you may go from an Asp E to a Viper, then to a Python, then to an FDL. If you trade you go from an Anaconda to an Imp. Cutter.
Smuggling, Trading, Mining, etc, the other ships are simply not very good. Out of 29 ships only about 5 seem useful. When the trade ships are not on the "Pick this ship up to trade goods" tree, you have a design problem.
When no one will fight, combat ships are pointless (outside of PvE or CQC)
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
I'm sorry, but this argument seems to come down to the following:
Your ship is better than mine.
You should be limited so that it isn't.
Play the way you want to play, but don't expect anyone else to change the way they play to suit you.
Your ship is better than mine.
You should be limited so that it isn't.
Play the way you want to play, but don't expect anyone else to change the way they play to suit you.
That's not the argument at all.
Our ships are the same. Why can't they be limited so that they're still the same, but we can both run fuel scoops?
I removed my post, because Alexander managed it more politely.
Last edited:
As long as chaff time can be kept at 100% up-time, I don't mind. I refuse to embrace a meta of gimbals/turrets where aiming skill becomes irrelevant.
About sums it up. I love the cutter and have few complaints. The issues I do have are reasonable given the type of ship I CHOSE.
Fact is, ships all have strengths and weaknesses.... And don't forget, cost is a part of that equation.
Funny thing, the uber combat ships are the ones I find to be the most boring to fly AND have the most severe limitations regarding this game.
Last edited:
To me, the argument is this:
Your ship is better than mine. You want to pew pew with me, and I want to pew pew with you.
But you're the only one having fun, so I take me ship and pew pew with myself. You pew pew with yourself.
Are you having fun?
This isn't a conversation about combat ships vs non-combat
this is a conversation about how you have to fill up with combat internals to be competitive
Personally, I wanna be able to keep the same ship loadout and not reoutfit every 15 mins every time I want to travel/pickup cargo/scoot about in a buggy
Last edited:
Understood, but it parallels the same point. If you want to trade or do non combat activities, you are not going to be optimized for combat or pirating or .... Murdering. This is true in real life. Think of highwaymen in the old days or the 16 and 1700's in East and West Indies.
I tend to feel that the problem is that in reality there aren't really many options in combat outfitting. If I don't want cargo racks, what else am I going to put in those slots? 1 fuel scoop, 1 fsd interdictor, and advanced scanner in the smallest slot. What else am I going to fit for combat ship? Maybe a hatchbreaker for a pirate ship, but as a bounty hunter/assassin there's no real point to not fitting as much defensive tech as I can.
In my opinion Frontier need to add more things to fit in those slots to create real choice, such as offensive alternatives to the defensive ones. eg. where are the damage overcharge capacitors, the auxiliary power plants, the fsd range extenders, the supercoolant systems etc.. Add things that force me to make a choice i.e. do I buff my shields or my guns? Would having more power be useful, or do I create the ultimate tank? and so on.
In my opinion Frontier need to add more things to fit in those slots to create real choice, such as offensive alternatives to the defensive ones. eg. where are the damage overcharge capacitors, the auxiliary power plants, the fsd range extenders, the supercoolant systems etc.. Add things that force me to make a choice i.e. do I buff my shields or my guns? Would having more power be useful, or do I create the ultimate tank? and so on.
I don't really like the idea of stacking SCBs as it leads to a silly game of escalation. You have one so I need to have one. You have two, so now I need to have two. I fill my ship with SCBs, but you have an additional slot in your ship model so you still have an advantage. So people end up with similar configs just to keep the playing field level.
The real problem (IMO) is this:
You can outfit your ship for improved defence (SCB/HRP) and it makes a massive difference. Fine. Great. Choice is good!
So, what if I want to outfit my ship for improved offence (i.e. weapons boosters)? Bzzzt! Frontier says no. I can fill my hardpoints... and that's about it.
So, what if I want to outfit my ship for improved speed/agilty (i.e. drive/thrust boosters)? Bzzzzt! Frontier says no. I can max out my thrusters, reduce weight a bit, but that's about it.
In combat terms - you can optimise your ship quite significantly for defence, but not for offence or speed or agility. So your options seem a bit like:
a) outfit for defence
b) avoid combat
If they can't add offensive/performance boosters, I'd rather they at least limited the SCB stacking. That said, let's have a ship-full of scoops!
The real problem (IMO) is this:
You can outfit your ship for improved defence (SCB/HRP) and it makes a massive difference. Fine. Great. Choice is good!
So, what if I want to outfit my ship for improved offence (i.e. weapons boosters)? Bzzzt! Frontier says no. I can fill my hardpoints... and that's about it.
So, what if I want to outfit my ship for improved speed/agilty (i.e. drive/thrust boosters)? Bzzzzt! Frontier says no. I can max out my thrusters, reduce weight a bit, but that's about it.
In combat terms - you can optimise your ship quite significantly for defence, but not for offence or speed or agility. So your options seem a bit like:
a) outfit for defence
b) avoid combat
If they can't add offensive/performance boosters, I'd rather they at least limited the SCB stacking. That said, let's have a ship-full of scoops!
Last edited:
I will choose a build based on my needs. Whether it's a shield and/or hull tank, or partial tank to gain some speed, or jump distance,, or no armor and/or shields that's up to me, not an arbitrary limit on that decision.