Merging multiple "smaller" modules in one "bigger" slot

[madbilly]

I think the module splitter and the combined modules are both good ideas. I disagree that it would make the ships less different, I actually think it could increase variety - it's a bit like modding cars, because you can make a Ford Focus go as far as an Aston Martin, or have as much leather as a Rolls Royce. It would be unique, but it would probably cost more and in the end you'd still have a Ford Focus!

 

[Bacalao]

It would require a heavy rework of internal modules "sizes" but having internal "space" would make much more sense. Looking at cargo you can see that each slot doubles, as has been said, so a class 3 has the space of four class 1 modules. So in my opinion a ship with a class 3, class 2 and class 1 internal compartments should just have 7 spaces, each space can hold 2 tons of cargo, a discovery scanner takes up 2 spaces, a class 4 shield generator takes up 8 spaces. But it would require a huge rework of all the internal modules sizes and how many "spaces" each ship has. A simpler solution would be a module bay splitter, but wouldn't allow the same kind of customization and freedom simply having space would.

I'm in favor of any system that allows for more ship customizations and options. PvP balance be damned.

 

[Tahvohck]

To preface: I know I'm necroing this thread, but it also matches most closely to what I want to say. I did a moderately deep search, couldn't find any threads between today and March 1st that worked as well.
Also, caveats:
> I don't PVP, but I have been researching to get an idea of what it's like, and my current impression is that if you're flying for PVP there's a relatively flat option-set for what you fly.
> I haven't flown any of the truly "large" ships, so my thoughts may not hold up on those. I think they do though.
> I would like to see some instances that prove me wrong. I'm still learning, so I know I don't know everything there is to know.

I feel like this should at very least be seriously considered. The most common arguments I saw against it is that it'd make fitting easier or that it'd make multirole ships pointless. The first is basically an argument against a QoL improvement, and I'm not sure what it's arguing for, exactly. In what I can find on PVP, I'm seeing three or four "top" ships and no hint of a desire to undersize a module: it's always "go biggest" with the possible exception of Hull Packages and SCBs because supposedly certain sizes have better cost/effect ratios. There's a current meta, and you either use it or you don't. If someone wants to underclass SCBs in order to fit more but less powerful charges, why not let them? Trading: what, you're going to split down cargo space when each class up doubles your available space? Multirole: yeah your life is gonna get easier but you're gonna get diminishing returns, as smaller modules are pretty much always less efficient in some way. The people I see being most affected by this are explorers, but the standard refrain I hear is "Explorers need more love" so... give them some.

For the second, I'm pretty firmly of the idea that all it would do is broaden out the multirole options you have. Instead of "this ship is specialized" vs "this ship is multirole" you'd start seeing a better spectrum of multirole: this ship does a lot of things but not very well, this one a few okay, and this one only one thing, but excels at it. Or: different variants of what exactly it does well. I see a lot of comments that you basically have to specialize if you want to do a thing, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't have X ship that I do everything in, I have X ship currently fitted for Y task. I cannot imagine fitting a combat (not PVP, which I expect will always be specialized) ship with a cargo rack, but I could see fitting in a joint cargo-HRP/SCP so I have even a minor bit of cargo space. Or hell, some extra fuel... or a dang scanner. But also, isn't "Blaze your own trail" pushed a lot? Why shouldn't we have a lot of multirole ships?

If I were going to implement this, it'd probably be something like this:
> Add weight to ALL modules. No more for-free fuel scoops, AFMUs, etc.
> You have to install "splitters" for each slot you want to have multiple things in. These splitters:
>> have weight
>> are at least as expensive as utility mounts
>> add a small amount of hull (since they're basically micro bulkheads)
>> take one "class size" pip, maybe two on class 7 and 8.
>> can't stack.
> Splitters only make two slots from 1, but come in different balances OR
> Don't have different sizes at all, they just let you install two (but only two) things up to a total size of slot -1 (or 2) (and thus are always a class-1/2 item)

I thought I had more than that, but apparently not. Even with only those aspects though, here's what I think you'd see: class 1 and 2 are pointless to install into. Class 3 lets you install two micro items and will probably only see one use per ship. Class 4, 5 and 6 will micro items paired with the remaining space. With the exception of the Clipper, the only ships with Class 7 and 8 slots are the four most expensive ships in the game, and I can only see the two most expensive (Corvette and Cutter) ever considering splitting either of those to any good use. So most of the play we'd see would be classes 4-6, with some forays into class 3 (i.e. any explorer would use this for scanners effectively meaning most ships in the game can explore profitably). You'd rarely see any more than two splitter modules, especially on combat ships that are already scraping power limits. More explorers would be able to take at least one SRV with them, or they could more easily fit a redundant AFMU. Weight and power would start becoming the limiting factors more strongly than slots. Drone boats would become more common since you could jam two controllers into one slot.


...I... just wrote an essay for a necro. As my first post on the forum. I'm not sure how I should feel about that, but hell if I'm going to just delete this now.

 

[Lestat]

It would unbalance the game so No.

 

[madbilly]

...(i.e. any explorer would use this for scanners effectively meaning most ships in the game can explore profitably).... More explorers would be able to take at least one SRV with them, or they could more easily fit a redundant AFMU. Weight and power would start becoming the limiting factors more strongly than slots. Drone boats would become more common since you could jam two controllers into one slot.

You're right, it would benefit explorers a lot. Most obviously, the Diamondback Explorer could actually be properly kitted out for exploring! Mining would also benefit, since it's now clear that most of the bigger controllers are pointless.

It would unbalance the game so No.

No it wouldn't unbalance the game, it would change the balance, and the balance gets changed every patch. Powerplay weapons changed the balance. So did Synthesis. So did Engineers. So will ship-lauched fighters. etc ad infinitum.

 

[Tahvohck]

You're right, it would benefit explorers a lot. Most obviously, the Diamondback Explorer could actually be properly kitted out for exploring! Mining would also benefit, since it's now clear that most of the bigger controllers are pointless.

Yeah, having just started running the DBE (and enjoying it), being able to relegate my scanners to the C3 slot and a scoop to the C2 (I don't mind long scoop times really) in order to push another decent sized tank or have actual room for a redundant AFMU would be pretty nice.

It would unbalance the game so No.

I have to agree with madbilly here. It would change the balance, but the balance already changes pretty rapidly. It's not like this would change the balance in a bad way either, unless you can come up with some specific builds that would get suddenly OP and not just incrementally better?

 

[Lestat]

Do your research on Diamondback Explorer. Right now it can't hold everything for exploration. The Devs want the ships to have strength and weakness to them. Not be able to fit it all in them.

 

[madbilly]

Do your research on Diamondback Explorer. Right now it can't hold everything for exploration. The Devs want the ships to have strength and weakness to them. Not be able to fit it all in them.

I did research it, I have played with it, hence why I made the statement. I didn't take it on distant worlds because of this, but someone did take a federal corvette, which is most definitely not intended as a dedicated exploration ship. I know ships should have +s and -s, and this module splitter wouldn't change that - the fdl would still have a terrible jump range, for example.

 

[Lestat]

I think you need to look at some of the newer topics to view on why your idea not a good idea. They all bring up the same idea as you and people are bringing up the same problems. The same thing keep coming up. Unbalance ships. The Devs pointed out why they will be unbalanced. The topic below just show how it would unbalance ship.

highlight module splitter This one start talking about Armor and such.

 

[madbilly]

I think you need to look at some of the newer topics to view on why your idea not a good idea. They all bring up the same idea as you and people are bringing up the same problems. The same thing keep coming up. Unbalance ships. The Devs pointed out why they will be unbalanced. The topic below just show how it would unbalance ship.

highlight module splitter This one start talking about Armor and such.

I can see how with HRPs it wouldn't work. Probably the same with SCBs. Other modules it would be different. The OP says it should be expensive, so this addresses some balance issues. Someone else says that the splitter itself should take up some room, so this would limit the benefit of the HRPs and SCBs approach, and would also (unfortunately, from my POV) mean it wasn't possible to put an ADS and DSS in a class 2 slot.

Now we've got engineers I think this would be suitable for them to provide, make it some effort to obtain, not just available to anyone straight off the bat.

Have you actually got a link to a post/statement/interview/something by someone from FD saying they've considered and rejected it? If they's actually confirmed it was not happening then that would put an end to the discussion.

 

[Lestat]

I can see how with HRPs it wouldn't work. Probably the same with SCBs. Other modules it would be different. The OP says it should be expensive, so this addresses some balance issues. Someone else says that the splitter itself should take up some room, so this would limit the benefit of the HRPs and SCBs approach, and would also (unfortunately, from my POV) mean it wasn't possible to put an ADS and DSS in a class 2 slot.

Now we've got engineers I think this would be suitable for them to provide, make it some effort to obtain, not just available to anyone straight off the bat.

Have you actually got a link to a post/statement/interview/something by someone from FD saying they've considered and rejected it? If they's actually confirmed it was not happening then that would put an end to the discussion.

Cost issue LOL. There players on here that can buy 50 plus anacondas and have money to spare. The only ones that would affect is New players.

Now if you learn to use the search feature you could save a lot of trouble for me doing it for you.

 

[madbilly]

Cost issue LOL. There players on here that can buy 50 plus anacondas and have money to spare. The only ones that would affect is New players.

Fair point. But making them accessible only from engineers, thereby requiring the same effort from everyone, would level the playing field and make them equally accessible to all.

Now if you learn to use the search feature you could save a lot of trouble for me doing it for you.

I'm surprised that you're stooping to schoolyard tactics, i.e. "if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you". You said this:

<snip> The Devs pointed out why they will be unbalanced. <snip>

So please give us the link and then we'll know it's definitely been considered and discounted - right now nothing would make me happier than a quote from Michael/Sandro/Mark/Mike/anyone with a brown background to their posts, which said "we considered it, and discounted it, for xyz reasons". I would love that

Or you can explain how a module splitter/combined modules (both suggestions are made in the posts above) would make some ships really unbalanced, e.g. make some edited ship configs in coriolis.io or edshipyard, get creative, fill your boots. In fact I might have a go myself [big grin]

 

[Tahvohck]

I think you need to look at some of the newer topics to view on why your idea not a good idea. They all bring up the same idea as you and people are bringing up the same problems. The same thing keep coming up. Unbalance ships. The Devs pointed out why they will be unbalanced. The topic below just show how it would unbalance ship.

highlight module splitter This one start talking about Armor and such.

Well, that one suggests the mechanic in a way that would massively imbalance things, due to how many extra slots it gives (and no word about not allowing stacking). So on that one I agree with you, but that's due to some good assumptions on Keithson's part that are taken to a poor implementation. For comparison by my suggestion, a class 5 module can add either 390, 370, or 380 armor, and for 32, 10, or 8 tons. Now, I do think that means that the HRPs would need a weight rebalance... but that's not hard to do, and even if it doesn't happen it's not throwing anything hugely out of whack. Again, not like the SRB + HS nerf did for HRPs.

Fair point. But making them accessible only from engineers, thereby requiring the same effort from everyone, would level the playing field and make them equally accessible to all.

Oh, that's a neat idea that I hadn't considered. People would complain about locking content behind paid expansions, of course, but FDev kind of already showed they don't mind that.

Or you can explain how a module splitter/combined modules (both suggestions are made in the posts above) would make some ships really unbalanced, e.g. make some edited ship configs in coriolis.io or edshipyard, get creative, fill your boots. In fact I might have a go myself [big grin]

Wait. I knew you could "hack" the URL to change slots to things they shouldn't allow, but you can cram more modules in too?

 

[madbilly]

Wait. I knew you could "hack" the URL to change slots to things they shouldn't allow, but you can cram more modules in too?

Actually I didn't know that was possible, nice tip! If one is so inclined, one can download the source from gitbub, modify the ship data file and basically create anything. Could lead to contributing something back into the coriolis.io project too which would be nice.

 

[D10N_CB3]

1E Advanced Docking Computer + 1E Supercruise Assist = 2E Pilot Assistance Package

 

[Winterwalker]

1E Advanced Docking Computer + 1E Supercruise Assist = 2E Pilot Assistance Package

Impressive necro.

The fact you suggested class 2 slot means I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand however flight assists are most useful on bigger ships, where there's already less pressure on slottage. Gut reaction, this would/should probably only go in a dedicated slot, like a military slot, in certain ships.

 

[D10N_CB3]

Impressive necro.

The fact you suggested class 2 slot means I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand however flight assists are most useful on bigger ships, where there's already less pressure on slottage. Gut reaction, this would/should probably only go in a dedicated slot, like a military slot, in certain ships.

True... Although if you have poor hand-eye co-ordination flight assists are massively useful even when you're just starting out. (My coordination is terrible!)

The Type 6, for example... You have to choose between planetary suite, auto docking, supercruise assist, fuel generator, and scarab for your 2x1 and 2x2 slots. Auto Docking and Supercruise Assist would fix that problem.

 

[Winterwalker]

The Type 6, for example... You have to choose between planetary suite, auto docking, supercruise assist, fuel generator, and scarab for your 2x1 and 2x2 slots. Auto Docking and Supercruise Assist would fix that problem.

Understood.

I fly a Chieftain a lot - in various roles - and since it has 3 miliary slots, I run into exacly the same problem all the time. The answer I think is not to fix your loadout in stone. If you find spinning (coriolis) stations hard to dock with I suggest choosing either a planet port or megaship (possibly an outpost) with outfitting, to use as a base. Because they don't rotate these are much easier to dock with, so you can drop your docking computer to fit SRV. But keep the docking computer stored, so if you need to take exploration data or cargo to a coriolis, you can store your SRV and switch for docking computer without losing any cargo space, shields, fuel scoop or anything else. Or there are other ways, I often drop my fuel scoop in populated areas and run with no shields in deep space when I need to fuel scoop. (Watch your fuel if you do it!)

We've had similar kind of debate about merging limpet controllers into one slot before but I think slot limits create a strategy challenge. How do you make the best of limited slot space, which is part of the game challenge. Not saying yours is a terrible idea (class 2 slot is definitely a good idea) but Frontier I think have to be careful about adding things like you suggest or soon all ships can do everything.

 

[Cohen the Worrior]

I suggest the opposite: split a slot in smaller slots, losing 1 point.
So a lvl 3 slot would become 2 lvl 1 slots
A lvl 4 slot would become a lvl 1 and a lvl 2 slots, or 3 lvl 1 slots, and so on.

 

[MickyG1982]

A+ for effort, this necro is smellier than the dead horse it throttles.