[Feedback] Once again, docking computer should not be module.
- Thread starter Wyrm
- Start date
A - The ship itself at no time exceeds the speed of light, it is the space around the ship that is moving. This is actually a correct thing and you can look it up - se Aburcrombie Fame Shift Drive - the math is accurate.
B- Shooting a passenger liner for a fine is stated in the rules, and every station states clearly that criminal infractions will have fatal repricussions.
C - Session Swapping for a board refresh is being altered as it is an exploit which IMHO should be closed.
Hope this clears things up for you.
...or the logic that an advanced inter-stellar space ship is incapable of applying basic thrust at anything over a slow taxiing speed..
Sorry carry on, don't mind me..
Yeah this is probably one of the biggest crimes against logic and reality that ED commits. But I'm ok with it because it results in pretty cool and fun combat and I really cant think of any way they could have retained the fun by using full Newtonian motion. Elite Frontier did use full Newtonian motion and ended up a complete mess with respect to combat. Fun and gameplay should always have priority IMO, but if you can ALSO make the mechanics logical and reasonable I think it should be done, especially for a game that bills itself as a semi-simulator like ED.
In the case of the DC there's absolutely no reason at all why it cant make sense while also being fun and requiring challenging sacrifices. Frankly the current implementation is just lazy and broken. There are many other options that would work fine in achieving those goals, one of them being the following suggestion that would easily handle ALL ship software, both now and in the future, not just the DC.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ase-add-a-core-module-for-the-ship-s-computer
Last edited:
Several people, including yourself I think, have agreed on the benefit that having to sacrifice a slot gives to the gameplay, so what is the alternative sacrifice in the suggestion? From that link it would only seem to be a positive thing to upgrade the computer, so I doubt anyone would bother not doing so. Otherwise, it's a nice suggestion, I like the feel to it (I fondly remember privateer having an upgradable ship radar - adding things like colours to friend/foe distinction and so on).
Last edited:
Great question, yes I'm definitely in favor of some sort of sacrifice to use the DC, just not a silly sacrifice. The current situation is that we sacrifice an optional module slot which - if configured for cargo - could hold (at minimum) 2 tons and we make that sacrifice to run 1 rather simple computer program. For many people including myself this makes zero sense.
The suggestion I linked above requires the following alternate sacrifices that IMO make far more sense and can apply to any present or future computer program, not just the DC.
1/ The ships computer is now listed as a core module (rated from E to A like any other module) and an A class computer would cost far more than an E class computer. Sacrifice = money and lots of it.
2/ Higher level ships computers would take up more mass as per the current standard, D would be the lightest, B the heaviest..... etc. Sacrifice = ship's mass and therefore jump range.
3/ Higher level ships computers would have a higher power draw. Sacrifice = Another power sink that you might have to make compromises to install.
4/ Each separate program must also be bought separately, are rated from E to A and require at least a matching computer level to run them. 'A' class programs are very expensive and/or hard to obtain, requiring difficult missions, high rep or illegal activity. The DC is just another computer program that you buy (rated say C for arguments sake). You might have dozens of such programs already running on your system including the planetary approach suite which - lets face it - is just another (currently very awkwardly implemented) program, it would be rated 'E' which means that any ship's computer could run it. Sacrifice = Time, money, rep grinding and illegal risks to get hold of that high level software.
So basically our suggestion splits the type of tradeoff from a single completely nonsensical sacrifice into 4 different types of sacrifice which together make considerably more sense and still result in real tradeoffs in order to gain benefits. Hope that helped answer your question.
Last edited:
This...when doing the utter horrible grind that is Engineers or some trade CG it gets stupid tedious to do the ....launch, maneuver, jump, maneuver, dock, blah blah blah...15x in a row. Sometimes its nice to just be able to let the computer do it for you.
Besides...(I know Gameplay) to my earlier point, today....2016 MOST commercial aircraft at large airports are landed via Auto Pilot....1000yrs and what? It takes up 3tons of space?
Thank you! Ad yeah I would just put the DC under "turn off lights/orbit lines" tab and be done with it.
Me too. But I accept differing opinion when it is honest enough to just say 'just because' or 'that's my personal preference that DC not be integrated as standard'
What has me chime in vocally is when people make some bizarre attempt at rationalizing why DC being a module vs all other integrated functions, or why DC is special enough to warrant non-integration and must require sacrifice when literally the exact same thing exists as precedent in planetary ship recall.
If you don't prefer, like, or wish DC would not be integrated as a purely personal opinion or preference - fair enough. Agree to disagree and call it a day. Try to show how or why DC is so different or special it shouldn't be integrated when so many other automated convenience options are, is a factually provable weak argument.
That's definitely one way to handle it but how would future ship's software be handled? Adding free, zero-mass module slots like they did for the planetary approach program is incredibly awkward and ugly.
ED badly needs some unified way to smoothly handle incorporating ships software and the problem just going to get worse as the game ages and more software-like upgrades are introduced.
They would do it I presume like FA on/off. Or running lights for that matter. It's just a toggle.
Why they felt they needed to add a planetary approach suite as free zero mass module, I can only presume it was because they are supporting both horizons and non-horizons owners, so needed a horizons only ship component. Although arguably they could have just done it via dynamic UI in the ship panel I suppose.
To smoothly handle incorporating ships software, I'm not sure why the right ship function pane can't do that? Or add a new left-right select screen to it. All the other software toggles are there, why not add new ones to it?
Why not just tie the DC to sensor grade... Hey, they were going to do it with gimbaled... sooo.
A and B sensors get a DC... The cmdr will have to balance power and weight issues along with expense for DC ability.
I personally don't care either way because I'll never use a DC... It's just a waste of slot.
A and B sensors get a DC... The cmdr will have to balance power and weight issues along with expense for DC ability.
I personally don't care either way because I'll never use a DC... It's just a waste of slot.
Ok but so far you're just talking about software which just adds pretty inconsequential quality of life stuff like the docking computer or planetary approach program. What if you were the designer and wanted to add say "Turret tracking software" that the player could purchase which improved their turret's accuracy. In other words adding software that actually does something important. How would you do it?
As it currently stands there's really only one way, the module system, which I think most of us can agree is a pretty horrible way of incorporating software. It makes absolutely no sense at all to sacrifice 2 tons of space (or more) to run one program. ED needs a future system for handling software which is NOT inconsequential and has an important effect. At the moment no such way exists except to awkwardly shoehorn it into the module system, and that's a problem.
Last edited:
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.
At least try to make a good argument for module creep.
Software could be implemented by having computer modules, that each have various submodules depending on their size and grade, similar to SLF hangars and SRV bays. A class 1A computer would have a single software slot, while a class 2A would have two slots, meanwhile a class 3A computer module would have 4 software slots. Could easily be interpreted as a supercomputer module having so many server racks, with each notable piece of computing software requiring it's own rack for processing. This means that for a small ship that sacrifices a single class 1 slot, there's almost no difference, but a bigger ship that sacrifices a class 3 slot would suddenly have processing power left over for other things. If some things such as "chaff resistant tracking software" became a thing, ship owners might be willing to sacrifice even larger internals to give their ship even greater flexibility through the use of the computing racks. Traders would obviously love the QoL stuff such as docking computers, but combat ships would have their own set of potential benefits; the system could easily be expanded to give extra benefits for mining, exploration or any other potential task/role.
Discovery scanners give you data for sale, and giving your progression towards explorer rank. Is that not advantage to you?
Would stations pay me for using docking computer, then sure, it also would be an advantage...
It's not, just a consistency / lore thing. If the ship is shown to have an autopilot capable of taking off, orbiting, supercruising, and landing why is it that it can't dock at a starport or fly around anywhere else (approach a station and drop out of SC, jump point to point along a nav route, etc?) If there was no "send ship to orbit" capability added when Horizons launched, it would be logical. But, it's a patchwork game in continual Beta. Why do I lose my scan data and cargo, but keep my material data and rocks/components (which have no mass)?
Computer SHOULD be a core module but it should have a sub module or slot like SLF or buggy slots. They should not be cheap. Maybe 40-70% of the hull cost.
E should have no slot
D should be light weight and one slot
C should be heavy and have two slots
B should be light and have two
A should be light and have three slots
Then there should be computer modules that slot into the main computer - much like A graphic card slots into a mother board.
Docking Computer module
Basic Trade Computer module
Trade Computer module- V expensive (100s of millions or more) - can get unto date market data for xLy when docked.
Basic Nav computer module
Bounty hunter nav module- can track a limpet tracker
Explorer Nav Computer module (10s of millions) - Long range jump plotting
Auto pilot different Grades
Gunnery computer module- Enhances the sensor feed for turrets
Just a flavour of what could be done with a separate ships computer core slot.
E should have no slot
D should be light weight and one slot
C should be heavy and have two slots
B should be light and have two
A should be light and have three slots
Then there should be computer modules that slot into the main computer - much like A graphic card slots into a mother board.
Docking Computer module
Basic Trade Computer module
Trade Computer module- V expensive (100s of millions or more) - can get unto date market data for xLy when docked.
Basic Nav computer module
Bounty hunter nav module- can track a limpet tracker
Explorer Nav Computer module (10s of millions) - Long range jump plotting
Auto pilot different Grades
Gunnery computer module- Enhances the sensor feed for turrets
Just a flavour of what could be done with a separate ships computer core slot.
Personally I'd like to see the docking computer removed entirely.
I look at it as a "You must be this tall to get on the ride" sign. If you can't/won't dock your own ship, why are you playing?
I look at it as a "You must be this tall to get on the ride" sign. If you can't/won't dock your own ship, why are you playing?
Awfully self-centered of you, don't you think?
I have stated several times that I personally always have and will continue to use a DC in any ship I fly. It has nothing to do with "git gud" as you so flippantly suggest. Moreover it is a matter of necessity as the fine motor control needed for docking is not now - and never will be - physically possible for me. Additionally, the few minutes transitioning into a station and docking are the only moments where I can be even remotely pain-free, if only for a short while. I play because this is one of the few enjoyable and engaging pursuits that I can have from the solitude of my home. Some days it even helps me escape this prison of flesh that I am trapped in and allows me to experience some freedom of movement.
Hope this clears it up for you a bit.