Horizons A thread about making another thread - I would like your opinions plz

[HalloweenWeed]

Hello I am seriously considering making a poll thread as a "petition" to FD, but I want to finalize the wording first.

Petition to FD to get more small cargo bays in most ships


Poll: 2 choices
I Agree and sign petition
I do not want to sign petition




The purpose of this petition is not to add more internal (cargo) space to ships, but to convert some of the cargo space they already have, so you don't need to waste 6 or even 14 tons of cargo space (or more) in some cases in order to install a Discovery scanner with Surface scanner, which take up only a class 1 bay (2 tons) per scanner. For instance, with the Federal Corvette, or the Imperial Cutter, you would have to use your only class 3 bay, and one of your class 4 bays; using 24 tons of bays to hold 4 tons of equipment, wasting 20 tons of space. If FD wants to make us use cargo option bays for this, we should have the appropriate bays to do so - if on the other hand they were using utility slots we would request they increase the utility slots by two per ship. What's more, if we want an SRV (class 2) as well that's now going to occupy a class 5 bay in the Imperial Cutter, meaning now we have 50 tons of wasted space! Also, I think we should still have a cargo option bay of class 3 or smaller available for a fuel scoop, adding this to the Imperial Cutter now takes up another class 5 bay, and if you use class 3 that's another 24 tons of wasted space, with a total of 74 tons of wasted space, just because some dev or group of devs decided to design it that way - before Horizons dropped.


Hey devs, please fix these internal bay issues. Here's the exact proposal, which does not change the cargo maximum tonnage at all:
Diamondback Scout: Sacrifice a class 3 bay for another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Cobra Mk.III: Sacrifice a class 2 bay for two class 1 bays.
Cobra Mk.IV: Sacrifice a class 3 bay for another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Diamondback Explorer: Sacrifice a class 3 bay for another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Imperial Courier: Sacrifice a class 2 bay for two more class 1 bays.
Type-6 Transporter: Sacrifice a class 2 bay for two class 1 bays.
Asp Scout: Sacrifice a class 3 bay for another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Keelback: Sacrifice a class 2 bay for two class 1 bays.
Asp Explorer: Sacrifice a class 2 bay for two class 1 bays.
Federal Assault ship: Sacrifice a class 2 bay for two class 1 bays.
Federal Dropship: Sacrifice a class 3 bay for another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Type-7 Transporter: Sacrifice a class 4 bay for a class 3, another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Federal Gunship: Sacrifice a class 2 bay for two class 1 bays.
Imperial Clipper: Sacrifice a class 3 bay for another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Orca: Sacrifice the only class 4 bay for another class 3, a class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Python: Sacrifice a class 3 bay for another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Type-9 Heavy: Sacrifice a class 3 bay for another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Anaconda: Sacrifice a class 4 bay for a class 3, another class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Federal Corvette: Sacrifice a class 4 bay for another class 3, a class 2, and two class 1 bays.
Imperial Cutter: Sacrifice the only class 4 bay for another class 3, a class 2, and two class 1 bays.



Please post your opinions, esp. on the exact wording/changes to the ships. Thank you.

 

[HalloweenWeed]

OK is no one answering this because of lack of interest, or bad thread name (not looking)?

 

[xGundam]

Actually I don't like this Idea because it would change my fits too much
For istance: "Anaconda: Sacrifice a class 4 bay for a class 3, another class 2, and two class 1 bays." <--- Thanks but no, I use that slot for a class 4 FSD Interdictor
And that is just an example.. but, if you're asking to manage it (like a switch) then ok. Not a hard coded switch but something that you can decide when you start fitting your ship... but it could be too op anyway

 

[kpmop]

To be fair this is mostly an issue with the ADS and DDS (size 1) using up two size 2 slots (or worse). It's an issue with the DBE which could really do with another internal slot!

Ideally I suppose (given xGundam's point) it should be an engineerable thing so it's optional - maybe also with limitations on the modules you can install...

 

[HalloweenWeed]

I have decided, after methodically scanning about 70 systems, that surface scanning, and exploring systems in general, is a real drag on fun, and therefore not worth it (except to give to Farseer, Inc.). I have now sold my surface scanner.

Before you ask, I will anticipate your question: yes, I did stop to look at them. After a while it gets old, the same looking earthtone gas giants, even the rings.

The impact on my plan, is it doesn't seem nearly as important now. TB surface scanning is such a drag, not to mention has inconvenience of available bays. Perhaps if you could scan moons from 50KLs it wouldn't be such a drag, but then you would not be even near close enough to look at them, so I understand FD's decision on that. Now I also understand FD's recent desire to black out the surfaces of planetary bodies on the system map when they haven't been scanned - otherwise there is little motivation to do so - but it's not honestly fun.

 

[xGundam]

I have decided, after methodically scanning about 70 systems, that surface scanning, and exploring systems in general, is a real drag on fun, and therefore not worth it (except to give to Farseer, Inc.). I have now sold my surface scanner.

Before you ask, I will anticipate your question: yes, I did stop to look at them. After a while it gets old, the same looking earthtone gas giants, even the rings.

The impact on my plan, is it doesn't seem nearly as important now. TB surface scanning is such a drag, not to mention has inconvenience of available bays. Perhaps if you could scan moons from 50KLs it wouldn't be such a drag, but then you would not be even near close enough to look at them, so I understand FD's decision on that. Now I also understand FD's recent desire to black out the surfaces of planetary bodies on the system map when they haven't been scanned - otherwise there is little motivation to do so - but it's not honestly fun.

Honestly I'm fine as it is right now. The only thing I could ask is: "moar random events"

Seriously.. I know it's repetitive, and I like it, but I would also like a surprise, sometimes

 

[Dan Dare]

I sold both my scanners for a while when I needed some quick extra cargo space for some mission rewards. I ende up buying them back, and putting them into my class 2 slots, when I needed to scan an unexplored system to discover the planetary base I was delivering another mission to.
Maybe there could be a new option in outfitting, a combined discovery and surface scanner?
It would cost a premium but only use one class 2 slot.

 

[HalloweenWeed]

I sold both my scanners for a while when I needed some quick extra cargo space for some mission rewards. I ende up buying them back, and putting them into my class 2 slots, when I needed to scan an unexplored system to discover the planetary base I was delivering another mission to.
Maybe there could be a new option in outfitting, a combined discovery and surface scanner?
It would cost a premium but only use one class 2 slot.

That's a great idea. Now, if the devs are looking that would be great.

Also, alternatively, putting multiple lower class items in a single slot, until the slot tonnage is filled! That would solve other problems too.
As a matter of fact, why not just eliminate the slots altogether, and just let us fill up the option/cargo bay with whatever until the tonnage is full? The present system seem like a poor choice as a game system.