They literally wants Rise of Flight in space, but why playing futuristic space game in the first place when you clearly want WW1 fully manual planes?
[Feedback] Once again, docking computer should not be module.
- Thread starter Wyrm
- Start date
They literally wants Rise of Flight in space, but why playing futuristic space game in the first place when you clearly want WW1 fully manual planes?
I already answered that a few posts before - one of my ships has a DC, the others don't. I like the fact that it's a compromise, because the having to compromise is one of the aspects that adds to ship load out gameplay.
The mass of the planetary flight module is not "unknown" it's ZERO, you know, like you'd expect from a piece of software. And I ignored it for that very reason plus the fact that every ship in the game has one for free and no sacrifice or tradeoff of any kind is needed to obtain one, kinda like it was a piece of standardized software. Honestly how else would you expect them to model a piece of software in a ship-building system that only uses "modules" and nothing else?
The docking-computer should be no different, just a zero-mass software "module" that you buy, same as the planetary approach module. I actually agree with several people here that there should be some sort of tradeoff in order to have it but I strongly believe that the tradeoff should ALSO make some degree of sense in addition to being good for gameplay. At the moment it makes no sense at all no matter how many credibility-straining mental contortions you go through to force it to. Some tradeoffs that make sense might include...
1/ Increase the cost of the docking computer dramatically, no module slots required, the trade off is the large amount of money you pay for the software.
2/ Have the ship's computer as a core module which starts at 'E' and can be upgraded. The higher rating the computer, the more programs (like the docking program) it can simultaneously run.
3/ Adopt something like Babelfisch's suggestion below.....
I actually quite like this one because it creates a solid framework for future software package installation and incorporation where tradeoffs and decision making are still a necessary factor. Either way I think it should be possible to come up with good, fun gameplay without it ending up being ridiculously stupid or illogical. It just requires a little more careful thought than it has so far received.
Last edited:
[video=youtube;jnzFC0DpfS8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnzFC0DpfS8[/video]
This one does it within speed limit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAHLMabs6i8
Or do it backwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlWR4bqM4j8
Yeah this sums it up really.
I'm pretty sure most small slots end up used for computery type things (I suppose hull reinforcement maybe one exception) but scanners and discovery scanners, limpet controllers, shield boosters. And I'm also pretty sure, if you use docking computer as of right now, the ATC traffic control tells you that 'they' are taking control of your ship .. So maybe it's some special security device, a sub space radio that securely connects you to their docking computer. It's more than just software in any case I think .. positional radar in all three dimensions?
Not saying I don't want more slots. Surely everyone wants every ship in-game to do .. everything .. but if it was available on every ship, everyone would autodock, 100% of the time I think as it's a super-smooth experience. If you're carrying something valuable though, just removing the stress of worrying about it (monitoring obviously!) and if you like, being a specialist caretaker of that particular cargo, DC earns its slot for me.
Last edited:
Nah not 100% of folks. Docking is a major part of my mastery of the game. I yearn for the perfect dock with every one of my ships.
Now, I do use the DC when I'm being lazy and just grinding out some CG or another, but, for the most part it is hands on, all the way.
It's optional.
You have to make a choice of if it is worth it.
Do you like making tea and rolling cigarettes enough to sacrifice an internal slot or not?
If you do, buy one. If not, do not.
Outfitting is about making choices and having options. Removing options and giving people their cake and letting them eat it isn't a positive thing.
You have to make a choice of if it is worth it.
Do you like making tea and rolling cigarettes enough to sacrifice an internal slot or not?
If you do, buy one. If not, do not.
Outfitting is about making choices and having options. Removing options and giving people their cake and letting them eat it isn't a positive thing.
I've got it on a Cobra III using on detailed planet search for geysers. Down to planet, up from planet, next planet, it's all a very organic amorphous sensation with no docks. When I come in, the big metal station gives me a wierd vertigo, like talking to a cop or something .. but doesn't feel like a dead end because the DC makes me feel 'special' (lol. it's true) .. like a mother's loving arms maybe? Maybe (o7 SJA) Frontier's DC developer, is ghost in the machine!? (If you forget her propensity for designing fairly deadly NPC's for a minute that is)
Last edited:
Quite.
Everyone wants more slots.
Just like everyone racing cars wants their car to be lots faster than everyone else's, or every footballer wishes they weren't penalised for being off-side.
That doesn't mean that it's a good thing for the game and should be implemented, though.
Obviously you like the compromise, otherwise you wouldn't be championing it. I DON'T like it because it makes no sense I currently fly a beluga. The smallest slot is class 3. I have to give up a compartment that can take 8 tonnes of cargo to have it. If I also want a discovery scanner I have to give up ANOTHER class 3 slot. So imagining the interior of my ship I have two compartments that are mostly empty. Which begs the obvious question - why wouldn't you fit both in the same compartment.
The answer YOU are offering is... fun. This is the solution that offers the most fun.
To which I reply; hogwash.
It is simplistic and clumsy and imo makes no sense, especially consideting the docking computer is ZERO MASS. Have you SEEN the bridge of a beluga? I could get a snooker table in there. I should be able to find SOMEWHERE to stick the docking computer.
A better compromise would be to require a utility slot - for an omni visual sensor mount or some other handwavium device to force a compromise.
I'm all for compromises but they have to have some degree of internal logic with the game universe - a computer that requires it's own room-sized compartment is silly and poorly thought through I'm afraid.
DC on utility slot is a bad plan: It increases disparity between combat ships and traders even further: traders in large ships will likely carry the DC and sacrifice the +20% shields and resists that they would otherwise have for a shield booster, while combat pilots would never make that compromise.
Exactly, this is what the "gimme fun no matter how stupid it is" crowd dont seem to get. It should be possible to have a good, FUN, balanced game mechanic which ALSO makes sense and is logically consistent. Why not? There's no cosmic law that says you can only have one and not the other.
In many other areas Elite manages to successfully marry both hard realism and fun with its accurate planetary and stellar distances and I'm sure getting movement right with realistic distances took a lot of thought and design effort. They didn't really need to do it but it makes the game far more interesting knowing that stellar distances are accurate and the planets actually orbit and rotate much as they do in RL. So why not invest the same effort to get docking computers and other "software" systems to be both fun and logically consistent? I simply dont accept that its not possible and I have no problem with compromises and trade-offs as long as it at least makes some small degree of sense.
Last edited:
Whilst I don't accept your argument, since I wouldn't have the audacity to claim to know what other people would do
it begs the question: so what? Besides, it was a suggestion based on the logic behind a docking computer that would make more sense than having it sitting away in one corner of a compartment the size of a double bedroom and somehow preventing for using that compartment for anything else.Going back to your point. With further consideration I declare it incorrect. With a compartment freed up I could fit SCB's and REDUCE the disparity without sacrificing cargo space
Last edited:
Lucian667, yup pretty much. The module system is a little. Clunky in places and could use some refinement. The dc being just one example. If we consider computer modules as a separate entity into which the dc plugs there's a whole raft of modules that could be implemented that wouldnt create any game balance issues and still create that need to choose.
Off the top of my head;
Hyperdrive optimisation suite - reduction in fuel consumed per jump.
Scanner software upgrade. Reduces time to resolve stellar contacts.
Fsd enhancement - increases the safe speed/distance drop out point.
Sensor enhancement. Increases the sensor cone.
Etc etc. I could go on but I'm typing on a phone.
Just feels like an easy way to increase depth. Easy being a relative term obviously
Off the top of my head;
Hyperdrive optimisation suite - reduction in fuel consumed per jump.
Scanner software upgrade. Reduces time to resolve stellar contacts.
Fsd enhancement - increases the safe speed/distance drop out point.
Sensor enhancement. Increases the sensor cone.
Etc etc. I could go on but I'm typing on a phone.
Just feels like an easy way to increase depth. Easy being a relative term obviously
OP - if you're making another post on the same subject that didn't go anywhere the first time, do you think things will be different the second time around?
If you are that opposed to them, then don't install one. If you do have one installed and are unhappy about it there's not a lot we can do. It is how it is.
If you are that opposed to them, then don't install one. If you do have one installed and are unhappy about it there's not a lot we can do. It is how it is.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting all mechanics are locked in stone and the OP should keep his opinion of them to himself?
This makes perfect sense to me. A 'utility module' with, say, four slots (that takes up four pips of space) into which any combination of utility components up to four pips can be installed. The problem now, in my opinion, is that we have several 1 pip and 2 pip utility components (sensors, docking computer) that we end up having to install in 4 pip slots if we want to use them.
I don't consider being able to dock a 'price of entry' for owning a ship. Get real, folks: it really isn't that hard to fly through the mail slot, with the possible exception of a Type-9 or Beluga. Even those just take a bit of practice and a practical disregard for preserving your paint finish
But after docking several hundred times, I think a convenience (auto landing in aircraft, including combat aircraft) that exists in 2016 could probably make the jump to the 34th century without hurting realism. Note that, for sticklers, I'm not suggesting making auto dock a default feature i.e.: keep it as something you have to consciously add to your ship. This means newbies will still have to learn how to dock.
I assume that was to me?
Warning, everyone who feel touchy about perfect landing without any scratches, should not watch following video
[video=youtube;Ydu-SnjarLo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydu-SnjarLo[/video]
Normally though i allow for DC to kick in right after i pass mail slot
Last edited:
That is to add. I ma flying vette now for almost a year now, and right now i am not even sure what i would put in free internal slot if docking computer wouldn't a module anymore. Maybe discovery scanner, maybe collector limpet controller, or maybe small passenger cabin, for very occasional passenger missions.
From time to time though i am using my old Asp smuggler. And for that one i can't really afford spending slot for DC.
Is it that bad? No, its not, i still able to land Asp quite easily anywhere. Its just a mater of comfort.
And i keep asking myself, why it have to be a trade off? Its not like: "Hey guys, now that all Asps have docking computer for free, they are so OP! Its totally broken, and gives small ship such a huge advantage!" No, no one have any kind of advantage for installing DC, nor in money making, nor to automate some very tough and dangerous task, nor to avoid any danger. If anything - DC brings higher risks to game... for which we still have to spend internal slot to fit it...
From time to time though i am using my old Asp smuggler. And for that one i can't really afford spending slot for DC.
Is it that bad? No, its not, i still able to land Asp quite easily anywhere. Its just a mater of comfort.
And i keep asking myself, why it have to be a trade off? Its not like: "Hey guys, now that all Asps have docking computer for free, they are so OP! Its totally broken, and gives small ship such a huge advantage!" No, no one have any kind of advantage for installing DC, nor in money making, nor to automate some very tough and dangerous task, nor to avoid any danger. If anything - DC brings higher risks to game... for which we still have to spend internal slot to fit it...
Last edited: