[Feedback] Once again, docking computer should not be module.

[NW3]

Given this pops up repeatedly and the answer is always that you should have to make some level of sacrifice to have something fly your ship for you, I would say we need to request a title change to "Once again docking computer should be a module, end of story".

Following that logic, you're saying that FD should add a new computer module to handle flying your ship, while you're in your SRV (and to fill another slot). I'm sure that would be very popular. /sarcasm

FD keeps adding more stuff to fill your cargo slots. There's no good reason that the docking computer should fill a slot at all. It's not a player advantage in any way; it's just a QoL improvement.

How about PHYSICAL INABILITY?!?

So no, I am not lazy, I am playing the game as intended. I recognize that this may not fit into your worldview that DC = LAZY, but there you are. I am not arguing the "I want, give me now" but it would be nice to not be further penalized (in a GAME) for limitations INFLICTED upon me in RL. And to have some self-important hat insinuate that I am "LAZY" is quite frankly beyond insulting.

I wasn't going to bring it up, but I too have a physical issue: Due to an auto-immune issue, my eyes are frequently painful. It's one of the reasons I play ED and not some other game. I can close my eyes (which brings me some relief) while in supercruise, while jumping with the FSD, and while using the DC. It irks me that I have to waste a slot for a DC. I'm fine with trade offs, like it costs money to buy one.

Perhaps it would work if the ship's computer was a core module just like thrusters or a power plant. You'd start off with version 'E' which is very limited in which programs it could run so that you'd need to upgrade to a 'B' or 'A' class computer to run the DC program (which would also have to be bought separately). So that would be mission accomplished, sacrifices must still be made, its no longer stupid and sounds vaguely feasible (at least enough to suspend disbelief) and as an added bonus it establishes a credible method for handling ALL current and future ship software, not just the DC. You just rate future software from 'E' to 'A' depending on how powerful the matching computer system needs to be to run it. Win, win.

^^ This makes a lot of sense. I like it.

 

[Lucian667]

Not a bad idea. In fact you could expand it a bit further with each Computer upgrade allowing for an increase in data capacity (for those Engineer Data items). This could also allow for more efficient Turret control and more detailed information coming from scans.

Just my 2cr...but I think we may be on something here...

Indeed, there could be many uses for the ship's computer as an actual core module, it could really add some much needed depth to the game. It could even be extended to hacking another ship in combat as a form of attack to gain various advantages (for example hacking your opponent's FSD to lengthen warmup time so they have a harder time running away). Maybe some sort of hacking minigame might be involved or it might be as simple as applying 4 pips to systems gives the most hacking power. It would really help to expand combat out beyond simple point and pew-pew. As a relative newcommer to ED I was actually really surprised to find out that the ship's computer was NOT a core module or even a optional module but was just somehow.......... there, identical on every ship and completely indestructible. Very weird and a huge missed opportunity.

Following that logic, you're saying that FD should add a new computer module to handle flying your ship, while you're in your SRV (and to fill another slot). I'm sure that would be very popular. /sarcasm

FD keeps adding more stuff to fill your cargo slots. There's no good reason that the docking computer should fill a slot at all. It's not a player advantage in any way; it's just a QoL improvement.

But that is exactly what they did, except they added the module free to every ship in the game and made it take no mass. Its an extremely awkward and clumsy way of handling ship software and they really need to come up with something better, especially when future software is released. What are they going to do, just keep adding magical zero-mass module slots? That would be incredibly ugly and cumbersome.

 

[NW3]

Indeed, there could be many uses for the ship's computer as an actual core module, it could really add some much needed depth to the game. It could even be extended to hacking another ship in combat as a form of attack to gain various advantages (for example hacking your opponent's FSD to lengthen warmup time so they have a harder time running away). Maybe some sort of hacking minigame might be involved or it might be as simple as applying 4 pips to systems gives the most hacking power. It would really help to expand combat out beyond simple point and pew-pew.

This is a very interesting idea. Higher grade computers could be more resistant to hacking. We could have hacking limpets that could cause a ship to dump cargo (to enable "real" piracy). Some sort of hacking mini-game would add a new skill to learn and might even be fun.

Higher grade computers could offer undocking assistance, which like auto-docking, could be disabled for purists.

Higher grade computers could even fly your ship, just like an NPC crew member, while you're off flying a SLF. The advantage being that you don't have to give your computer a share of your profits.

I've posted this idea on the Suggestions & Feedback forum: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ase-add-a-core-module-for-the-ship-s-computer

 

[caiOHawk]

I'd like to have a system with submodules, let's say the sensors can have up to 4 submodules (or make it based on size) and we can install a docking computer in it. Other modules would be the various scanners.

I prefer this idea than just merge the auto dock on subsystem.

 

[Hessfire]

Also, in the spirit of where this discussion has gone, the Programs themselves could have upgrades - such as Atmospheric Approach and Landing Suite.

The possibilities are staggering

 

[Doolittle]

I'd like to have a system with submodules, let's say the sensors can have up to 4 submodules (or make it based on size) and we can install a docking computer in it. Other modules would be the various scanners.

That's the ticket. Good sound sensible logic. Would also open up the door for more tactical alternatives in other aspects of modules.

What I've seen many devs do that irks me to make a game more difficult is to hamper usability. We can't code AI properly or make missions meaningful or exciting enough to be considered fun or difficult so we must make usability a means of difficulty by limiting function and design. Cheap way to make a game more difficult. Rather than opening up the function and design they close it. That is something a suit or pub exec would think is a good game design, not a dev or gamer. This isn't a limitation of the game engine just a design issue. It Still has its merits when used logically, but when used for pushing difficulty it is always a bad idea.

Good ideas from the many that thought this through a little farther. I'm sure FD is looking into these ideas..... they are doable.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

Yes, making it a new module like Planetary Suite (or whatever it is) would be a nice thing to do. I park manually, always have, but some people new to the game, especially on mouse and keyboards with a million things to learn already, would benefit from ease of use.

 

[Wyrm]

That's some toaster rack. And, no bent hull, with all that inertial moment. And going from 297 m/s to 42/m/s, in one second, puts the lie to "no artificial gravity".

It surely should have artificial gravity/inertia dampeners. Otherwise good luck also surviving negative G, when you pitch up or thrust down (or both, which i actually doing very often) at 500-800m/s speed

 

[Innigo]

Challenge accepted...because I bought a space ship game and not a psychedelic Harry Potter experience-in the same way pac-man wasn't realistic, but when people stood at an arcade machine to play it they didn't expect a game about wizarding exams.

It's always nice when the other person willingly climbs into the box. What you are talking about is CONTEXT. What, in Elite, is the context for a docking computer requiring several metres cubed of volume when similar technology exists NOW (1300 years earlier) that is a tiny fraction of the that size. There's nothing in the lore or history that suggests the human race abandoned the integrated circuit and went back to valve technology. In fact the computers in the universe aren't as powerful as we'd expect them to be but they are more powerful than ours - except the docking computer for... reasons.

The docking computer is OUT OF CONTEXT and therfore out of place. It is, obviously, a contrivance. And I'm OK with contrivances for the sake of gameplay and balance, but since the DC only effects the individuals gameplay experience in a manner that has zero impact on the rest of the game i.e. it offers no advantage, but arguably creates a DISadvantage due to its requirement of a slot. It's presence were it to not require a slot doesn't effect balancing, but at the moment arguably it does create a balance problem and imo that's a problem for something that's little more than a QoL system.

Well that wasn't a challenge after all.

Actually it was a trap. Hook, line, sinker and copy of Angling Times.

If you don't like docking, that's your problem.

Your point? I should keep my opinions to myself?

I don't like the engineers,

Me neither.

but I ain't gonna whine until they get taken out.

I see, so stating you think something is wrong is "whining", eh? Am I demanding anything to be removed from the game? Oh, and are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that FD's customers should keep their mouth's shut about anything they don't like? What a stupid thing to say.

If you need to use one because you choose to fly a large ship and that's difficult to dock with

I don't.

that's balance because you need help handling a ship/loadout you chose

Since there's nothing difficult about docking then your point is moot. Thousands of times dude, THOUSANDS OF TIMES. You don't do the same thing over and over without becomming reasonably competant at it. I;ve stated, quite clearly and using small words that I find is BORING not difficult. See the difference?

If you're just lazy, then that is really not FD's problem.

Why is becoming bored of doing the same thing thousands of times a sign of laziness?

I enjoy the docking process, many others don't have a problem with it, and you cannot write a game that pleases everyone...some will have views that directly oppose others, and based on that some will clearly complain about just about anything.

And here's the beauty YOU STILL GET TO DO IT. It has ZERO impact on YOUR gaming experience. It's not a balancing thing, it's a snobbery thing. You're a docking snob and it's that petty attitude that's driving your opinion. And don't deny it, I've lost count of the attempts at ad hominems, all of which fall flat as they're all based on incorrect assumptions (I've never had a DC and never had a docking related death).

 

[Gully Foyle]

DC is a Bobblehead. Simple.

 

[NW3]

It's always nice when the other person willingly climbs into the box. What you are talking about is CONTEXT. What, in Elite, is the context for a docking computer requiring several metres cubed of volume when similar technology exists NOW (1300 years earlier) that is a tiny fraction of the that size. There's nothing in the lore or history that suggests the human race abandoned the integrated circuit and went back to valve technology. In fact the computers in the universe aren't as powerful as we'd expect them to be but they are more powerful than ours - except the docking computer for... reasons.

The docking computer is OUT OF CONTEXT and therfore out of place. It is, obviously, a contrivance. And I'm OK with contrivances for the sake of gameplay and balance, but since the DC only effects the individuals gameplay experience in a manner that has zero impact on the rest of the game i.e. it offers no advantage, but arguably creates a DISadvantage due to its requirement of a slot. It's presence were it to not require a slot doesn't effect balancing, but at the moment arguably it does create a balance problem and imo that's a problem for something that's little more than a QoL system.

Since there's nothing difficult about docking then your point is moot. Thousands of times dude, THOUSANDS OF TIMES. You don't do the same thing over and over without becomming reasonably competant at it. I;ve stated, quite clearly and using small words that I find is BORING not difficult. See the difference?

And here's the beauty YOU STILL GET TO DO IT. It has ZERO impact on YOUR gaming experience. It's not a balancing thing, it's a snobbery thing. You're a docking snob and it's that petty attitude that's driving your opinion. And don't deny it, I've lost count of the attempts at ad hominems, all of which fall flat as they're all based on incorrect assumptions (I've never had a DC and never had a docking related death).

Well said. The forum won't let me give you more Rep, so Virtual Rep++.

 

[TKensington]

Everything in ED has to be a grind, even docking. I never use one, even in my Beluga, but I can see why people use one. It's a pain in the waiting for the steady stream of ships to go in and out. Just yesterday, a friend hit a beluga and it was spinning out of contol. I had to log into solo to actually land. I'm sure the station finally destroyed it and that's another thing, the station is blowing up a ship full of people. It makes no sense at all.

 

[mp4x]

I'm largely neutral on this. I can see the valid points for and against [apart from the ego based one, that's just odd.] All personal arguments aside, it's simply there because it's a throwback to the original game - whether or not that's a valid reason is up to you and will be discussed for the next 8 years [yesnod]

I don't use one in VR, I did on screen. If I strip a ship down for a build and have a spare slot, I may drop one in there but it's not a priority because it doesn’t advantage me in any way (again, docking in VR is way different Vs on screen, and I accept that)

That said, I can’t help but feel that the debate on this subject itself is also justification for the existence of DC as a module – It’s a trade-off game resource. That some people clearly hate having to spend a module slot(resources) on a DC while others don’t mind, or choose to use that slot for something else and have to go through the docking process manually, kind of validates it as a game trade-off resource irrespective of technology and/or lore

 

[IndigoWyrd]

How about NO?

How about one good reason why, other than you don't use one?

Also excluded are "you should know how to fly/land your ship", "git gud", and "I don't like that."

If it is a ship function that can be turned on or off, like lights or flight assist, then simply having this option does not affect you in any way.

 

[jacozilla]

How about one good reason why, other than you don't use one?

Also excluded are "you should know how to fly/land your ship", "git gud", and "I don't like that."

If it is a ship function that can be turned on or off, like lights or flight assist, then simply having this option does not affect you in any way.

One of the posters above, who many +repped, have an excellent term for it. I've now appropriated his term to use as well - he called it 'docking snobs'.

In short, they don't want to use it (as is their right), but also insist / can't stand for anyone else to dock via DC without giving up a slot.

Because while other integrated functions are ok (FA on, ship recall on planet surface, turrets auto tracking without need for additional 'tracking module', auto startup sequence in dock rather than manual checklist startup, etc, etc), for magical special 'reasons', DC being integrated is a heresy.

Docking snobs.

 

[thirstyfish]

I'm in an Asp Explorer. It has no size 1 slots. That seems very wrong, since it's a ship built for exploring and scanners only need a size 1 slot.

The 2 size 2 slots have a Advanced Discovery Scanner and a Surface Details Scanner installed. That means the Docking Computer goes in a size 3 slot (8 tons). If the Asp had 2 size 1 slots in place of one of the size 2 slots, it wouldn't be as big a deal. I'd like to put in a second AFMU. When I return after months of exploring, having a DC means I have one less thing to worry about. When I'm in the bubble, it would be nice to have the extra cargo space.

I find docking to be tedious and not fun, so I almost always install a DC, but it's stupid that it takes a slot at all, particularly now that there are even more items which compete for that slot, like: SLFs, AFMUs, and SRV hangers.

I'm fine with paying extra for a DC, my beef is the slot it requires.


^ I agree 100%

I think there would be quite an uproar, if SRV ship recall required a special computer and associated slot.

Fair enough on the ship thing. However, its not like docking is hard or complicated. You get 10 minutes to do it. So what you don't find it fun? Does every second of every game you ever play have to be fun? If yes...then you are unreasonable, if no...then you agree with me to a point. I used a DC when I flew a Cobra III as my main ship, but only because I was bad at docking. I watched it, and learned. LEARNED! (see how I haven't said "git gud" except to point that out? ) Now it takes no more than 45 seconds for me to go from toast rack to pad. If I ever buy a ship like the conda, cutter, or corvette, I might buy a DC again. I currently fly an FDL or a Python. Both of those ships are larger than an Asp X, but in neither case have I ever installed a DC. There are plenty of players who do manually dock things like the cutter.

Also, when you are in the bubble, aren't the two scanners wasting some space there? Remove the surface scanner, or both of them, and your cargo space will be increased by a fair bit and you could still have the DC equipped in one of the class 2 slots.


As a note to how this thread has gone, it seems to be the same 4 or 5 people arguing with each other, going nowhere, for 3 full pages. About a single module that doesn't even do anything that exciting.

 

[MikeK73]

About a single module that doesn't even do anything that exciting.

Honestly, I do find it kinda exciting. My ship is flying itself man! I understand what you are saying, but I really do find the whole auto-dock thing pretty immersive. I suppose the appeal is similar to what's going on with self driving cars today.

 

[NW3]

Fair enough on the ship thing. However, its not like docking is hard or complicated. You get 10 minutes to do it. So what you don't find it fun? Does every second of every game you ever play have to be fun? If yes...then you are unreasonable, if no...then you agree with me to a point. I used a DC when I flew a Cobra III as my main ship, but only because I was bad at docking. I watched it, and learned. LEARNED! (see how I haven't said "git gud" except to point that out? ) Now it takes no more than 45 seconds for me to go from toast rack to pad. If I ever buy a ship like the conda, cutter, or corvette, I might buy a DC again. I currently fly an FDL or a Python. Both of those ships are larger than an Asp X, but in neither case have I ever installed a DC. There are plenty of players who do manually dock things like the cutter.

I can dock; I don't need to learn, that's not the point. I find that auto-docking gives me a much needed break (so I can close my eyes), just like supercruise, or jumping between stars. It causes me physical pain (in my eyes) to stare at a computer screen without interruption. It's one reason why I play ED, instead of other games. Of course, "every second" doesn't need to be fun. I'm an explorer at heart and am used to the grind. My other main ship is a Python, which is what I use when I need to haul more cargo. I'm not a fan of the Anaconda, I find the large-landing-pad requirement to be too limiting and the restricted cockpit view to reduce the grandeur of the galaxy.

Also, when you are in the bubble, aren't the two scanners wasting some space there? Remove the surface scanner, or both of them, and your cargo space will be increased by a fair bit and you could still have the DC equipped in one of the class 2 slots.

I collect a lot of scanned data, even in the bubble. It adds up, especially when submitted for a CG. I recently omitted the DDS to make more cargo space, but then I needed arsenic and couldn't scan to see if it was available, before landing with my SRV. What a pain.

As a note to how this thread has gone, it seems to be the same 4 or 5 people arguing with each other, going nowhere, for 3 full pages. About a single module that doesn't even do anything that exciting.

Which is exactly why a DC shouldn't take up a cargo slot.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Like everyone else, I learned to fly my ship, and I learned to land my ship. I've landed in space-balls, I've landed in stations, on planets, on outposts... I got so bored with landing, I started making planetary approaches inverted (actually, it's even easier to track a location that way)... I've run out of ways to approach and land my ship. There's absolutely nothing interesting about landing any more. I'm glad to turn such a simple task over to an automated control.

And I just don't give a [euphemism] about anyone else's feelings on the matter. They don't play my game, I do.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

People actually care this much for such a thing?
I am befuddled and my tentacles are all a flutter.
Learn to fly Humans...

You should try flying with tentacles which are slippier on the inside, then you may have cause to complain.