I can understand where you are coming from. However, I would be remiss if I didn't remind/inform you of the fact that DCs do fail at docking sometimes. I once had it mess up on me on 3 consecutive docking attempts. I also never said that you needed to learn, I just mentioned what I used a DC for. My point, if there really is one point and not a bunch of them, is that a huge deal is being made out of one, small, and relatively inconsequential thing. This game is based on trade-offs. You want your ship to dock itself (most of the time)? Then you have to sacrifice an internal slot for it. You want to fly a big ship with lots of slots and weapons? You get to sacrifice a lot of credits and time for it. You want to be able to recharge your shields really fast? You get to deal with a massive amount of heat for it. It's a part of the balancing act that is at the heart of this game. Sure you could fly a sidewinder forever, and pay diddly squat for insurance, but you would also be very limited on what you can and cannot do. Having your ship clearly is something you want to have. Well, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Got to pay for it somehow (and not just in credits).
[Feedback] Once again, docking computer should not be module.
- Thread starter Wyrm
- Start date
I can understand where you are coming from. However, I would be remiss if I didn't remind/inform you of the fact that DCs do fail at docking sometimes. I once had it mess up on me on 3 consecutive docking attempts. I also never said that you needed to learn, I just mentioned what I used a DC for. My point, if there really is one point and not a bunch of them, is that a huge deal is being made out of one, small, and relatively inconsequential thing. This game is based on trade-offs. You want your ship to dock itself (most of the time)? Then you have to sacrifice an internal slot for it. You want to fly a big ship with lots of slots and weapons? You get to sacrifice a lot of credits and time for it. You want to be able to recharge your shields really fast? You get to deal with a massive amount of heat for it. It's a part of the balancing act that is at the heart of this game. Sure you could fly a sidewinder forever, and pay diddly squat for insurance, but you would also be very limited on what you can and cannot do. Having your ship clearly is something you want to have. Well, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Got to pay for it somehow (and not just in credits).
Yep this is the way to go.
Each ship having a customisable System Core , freeing up module slots.
&
Quite happy to have a docking computer as default equipment, as I know I can dock faster when required (scan avoidance).
[video=youtube;QTwMNwx7iqM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTwMNwx7iqM&index=10&list=LLYj2BJ59wF678WHnQCbfiCQ[/video]
Like that.
Actually, it's pretty funny, and I think it's been fixed. Hasn't happened to me a very long time.
If it has been fixed, then that is news to me. I haven't used a DC since 1.4 or 1.5. If they have fixed it...cool. If not...cool.
Yes, since I almost always use a DC, it's failed on me a few times (not lately). I know how to land, so it wasn't a big issue.
I don't mind paying for it, but the current situation just seems stupid, especially after SRVs and automatic ship recall was added.
Last edited:
Where does it say that the trade-offs have to be so stupid and poorly implemented that they insult our intelligence (by having software that takes up tons of space)? By all means give us trade-offs, make us sacrifice to use the DC but ALSO give us at least some token nod to basic logic and reason. It can be done.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ase-add-a-core-module-for-the-ship-s-computer
Last edited:
Or they could add slots to the sensors so you could put the scanners and docking computer in there, number of slots depending on size and quality of the sensor.
The tradeoff would be pretty significant for a ship like the Anaconda when it comes to exploration. Let's say you needed at least a 8C to unlock 2 slots which you want, compared to 8D with the scanners in the optional internals as it is currently, the difference would be 48LY with scanners as part of the sensors and 55LY with scanners in the optional internals.
A DBX would barely see the difference going from 3D to 3C/A and open up slots for AFMU.
Last edited:
I actually quite like that idea too although it doesn't really solve the future problem of what to do when you have say 20 modifications (docking, autopilot, planetary approach, atmospheric flight, turret tracking...... etc) that are all essentially just software upgrades. ED badly, badly needs a way of handling current and future ship software other than to treat each individual one as a separate, multi-ton ship component.
But the sensor slots idea does at least make sense while still requiring some sacrifice and I'm all for anything that forces this game to at least make a little more sense.
Last edited:
That would work fine. However, something like this hasn't been brought up in this thread. It seems to me that several people simply wanted to have a DC no matter what, with no downside, no cost. That is what I take issue with. Everything has a cost, everything has some sort of downside. A lot of posts on this thread want DC functionality built into every ship with no associated cost. While this is a minor instance of this peeve of mine, it is still and instance of this peeve of mine. What is seen in that thread would be fine. Not so sure about the whole hacking thing, but everything else is cool.
Also, it doesn't take tons of space. It is classified as a 1 E module that draws .39 MW of power (a 2E powerplant, the weakest in the game, produced 6.4 MW of power) and weighs 0 tons. While your ship setup may force you to put it in a class 2 or a class 3 slot, technically, the slot is not being used at capacity. Ergo, not filled.
Yeah. It is quite funny. Lets rebalance all ships, modules, whatever, to satisfy the few.
The intent is to help make ED a better, more intelligent game. There are huge gameplay possibilities being ignored, along with a reasonable way to allow for future growth.
Don't be so focused on the DC. It's only a symptom of a much larger problem: There are no reasonable upgrade paths for various kinds of computing modules/programs, which will need to be added in the future. FD has already hit the limit and magically added a new planetary landing suite to all our ships. Currently, they'll have to keep doing stuff like that over and over as they add new stuff to the game.
It's better to implement something like a Core Computer Module which allows for intelligent additions, instead of the add hoc way they are currently doing it.
Don't be so focused on the DC. It's only a symptom of a much larger problem: There are no reasonable upgrade paths for various kinds of computing modules/programs, which will need to be added in the future. FD has already hit the limit and magically added a new planetary landing suite to all our ships. Currently, they'll have to keep doing stuff like that over and over as they add new stuff to the game.
It's better to implement something like a Core Computer Module which allows for intelligent additions, instead of the add hoc way they are currently doing it.
Last edited:
So you should be fine with removing FA On/Off as an integrated function yes? Make it require a separate, trade-off slot module like DC correct?
Same for ship recall module needed for planet/SRV? Use your mental gymnastics and rationalize why these integrated functions that automate routine tasks for the player similar to DC are zero-slot modules, and yet the mere suggesting to make DC the same is heresy?
Boils down to you are a 'docking snob'. You don't like it, fine. You don't want anyone else in the playground to use it. Grow up.
I do like watching my vette dock itself and it is a great time to actually get a drink in the game without having to log out. The thing I find galling is needing to use a size 3 slot just to fit the software, it really shouldnt require a slot or if it does every ship should have a type 1 available.
Several people seem to be saying that it needs a trade off, but it does its way slower. Docking is not a hard thing to do in this game, lets not pretend that its the old elite, but it is very nice to have the DC to watch it happen and hear the old music.
Several people seem to be saying that it needs a trade off, but it does its way slower. Docking is not a hard thing to do in this game, lets not pretend that its the old elite, but it is very nice to have the DC to watch it happen and hear the old music.
I'd still wouldn't use DC at 3G+ worlds. It can easily kill you.
All modules takes internal slot, and tend to give ship an advantage. Discovery scanners, limpet controllers, surface scanner, fuel scoop, planetary vehicle hangar, AFMU, fuel tank and so on. All those modules give a clear usage and advantage. Docking computer have no more functionality than external lights, wing beacon or orbit lines. Any player that played game for more than one day will be able to finish docking faster manually. And docking computer itself is just for a lazy gameplay, where you arrived to station, and engaged docking computer, while finishing your dinner or something
So, remove docking computer from modules list, and put it as optional function in system menu. That is, make all ship having docking computers, without spending internal slot on it, and let players decide whenever they want to use it or not.
I'd say all scanner upgrades and the docking computer
should be "addon cartridges" that can be placed into the sensors.
Sensor should have slots corresponding to their rating:
E 0
D 0
C 1
B 2
A 3
Deleted member 115407
D
I like that idea. I would also add surface combat scanners, that allow us to target POIs and surface targets more easily. It would be a different module than the scientific surface scanner.
Absolutely, though this whole idea has been suggested even way before horizons
it still has not been picked up (regarding slots).
Why FD focus so much on internal slots i cannot fathom.
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
I recall some mention of FD drastically reducing surface targeting capabilities because people were doing ground missions from the air, and they didn't want that. I think that's horse manure. People should be free to complete the missions as they see fit. Performing airstrikes is fun.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly, and regarding that higher sec settlements have plenty of
anti-ordinance weaponry now, they are at a point where they can reconsider
and fix that idiocy.
Anyways, scanners, make 'em slots not mods
Have a look at the Suggestions Forum https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...hip-s-computer.
In there , NW3,Lucian667,. and I present the idea that the Ship Computer could be made a Core Internal and Upgradeable module. Further, that it is treated as a sort of Blade Host where modules get added the same way that one adds balde servers to a host cabinet. The modules extend and enhance the abilities of the ship (DC, Planetary Landing, Turret/Gimbal Tracking, ADS, DSS, etc.). Obviously different grades of Computer yeild different internal space.
Give it a look, post up some comments...maybe the dev's will take notice
In there , NW3,Lucian667,. and I present the idea that the Ship Computer could be made a Core Internal and Upgradeable module. Further, that it is treated as a sort of Blade Host where modules get added the same way that one adds balde servers to a host cabinet. The modules extend and enhance the abilities of the ship (DC, Planetary Landing, Turret/Gimbal Tracking, ADS, DSS, etc.). Obviously different grades of Computer yeild different internal space.
Give it a look, post up some comments...maybe the dev's will take notice