Have they? I missed that! Was it on a live stream or something?
Explorer Class Compartments
- Thread starter BostromNZ
- Start date
It also doesn't make it wrong either. You just don't want to compromise to make it work. And like I keep pointing out, every ship has to compromise somewhere to make it work.
And you used it as a supporting point, cargo. Considering the versatility of the Type 6, AspX, and Anaconda given the intnernals available, why is this idea even a consideration again?
I mean, this is really an argument for one ship to have specialized internals when other ships that are used for the same purpose do just fine. So this doesn't make much sense when it's just for one particular ship. Other than I want my ship to do it all line of thinking.
Scouts are also light combat units. That seems the niche of the Asp Scout and DBS, light combat craft that can jump far at the cost of internal space. I'm pretty certainly that kitted out that they're not going to match the DBX in jump range.
- - - Updated - - -
Scout ships are really light combat craft, and should be treated as such. It's amusing that people see scout and associate exploration with it.
I will say it again, there is exactly one specialized exploration ship: the DBX. The multipurpose ships continue that idea after that. The multipurpose ships afford what you're looking for, but since they're not specialized you don't want to use them I guess.
I'll also say this again, until there are specialized exploration ships at the same level of capabilities as the Asp and Anaconda, more slots aren't needed since there is already mobility/utility provided by ships currently available.
Last edited:
I can already tell you what will happen if they add exploration slots. People will complain that the Anaconda doesn't get one, since it's such a common exploration choice, but not listed as an exploration vessel (sorta like how the FdL got left out of the military slot list). Or, if the Anaconda DOES get one, then every Cutter and Corvette pilot in the land will complain that the Anaconda is now OP.
Exploration is too vague to get special slots, plus one can only really say there are two exploration modules (DSS and ADS), so what's the need?
Exploration is too vague to get special slots, plus one can only really say there are two exploration modules (DSS and ADS), so what's the need?
AFMUs and fuel scoops could work. Plus any other new exploration specific modules FDev have up their sleeve. Everyone wants exploration mechanics to be fleshed out and if these means new modules then IMO exploration slots will be needed. FDev have already shown that role specific slots is something they like.
New Explorer modules would be interesting.
I see no need for Explorer compartments. My exploration ships are 2/3's empty anyway.
I see no need for Explorer compartments. My exploration ships are 2/3's empty anyway.
I believe we need to push for more interesting and interactive scan tools and mechanics. Sense military modules have already have been done it seems like that would be easy to implement in the mean time though.
It's pretty apparent you haven't thought this through that well.
AFMU's would be a huge boon for Anaconda which is still a popular choice for combat as they could throw in another SCB. You're going to have to do better to make a case for this since the multipurpose ships do exactly why you're looking for without additional internals.
And by exploration fleshed out, people want there to be more to do than just scanning systems. They want more locations to explore and more scientific stuff. I think you've pretty much missed the point of fleshing out the mechanics of exploring with tools used for exploring.
Last edited:
I've got ships that don't have to compromise anything and work: Python, Anaconda, Viper 3, Viper 4, Cobra 3, Cobra 4, Sidewinder. Each ship does exactly what I want it to without having to compromise anything. They all have the right amount of internal slots for the job I've chosen for them.
The problem with the Diamondbacks is that FD don't know how to make an explorer ship. Improve the internals so the DBE can explore, and it simply becomes a multirole. Hopefully the upcoming patches with the new slots will help concrete the profile of an exploring ship a little better. I'd be in favour of nerfing the jumprange of the Asp and Anaconda to help with that as well.
I see you missed the point. Smaller ships can do the job, but the larger ships like the type 6 to type 7 or the DBX to the AspX allow you to do the same job more efficiently with less compromise.
And FDEV designed the DBX pretty deliberately to be what it is, worse than the AspX. The mass of the ship is an indicator of this, since if the DBX had less mass it would have the furthest jump range in the game.
If you're going to nerf the Annie and Asp, the you will have to provide new specific exploration ships to compensate in the line up. Which would make adding special internals for the DBX irrelevant.
Last edited:
This change has been lobbied and rejected. Frontier could change their minds, but since they are already issuing extra special purpose module slots like passenger/cargo and military, it is far more likely they will accede to the request for more specialized slots.
Also with lightweight mods, a ADS and DSS would potentially only weigh 0.3T in total. That's a much better deal for the small scout ships than a single heavier module.
You're going on the assumption that this situation is intended rather than just a situation that has festered due to design laziness.
Yes I'm in favour of specific exploration ships, and don't see a reason why the DBE and ASPlorer wouldn't get jiggered around to fit them into that line. Multiroles being better explorers than exploration ships is a problem as far as I see it. It would be a problem if they made better combat ships than combat ships, and it'd be a problem if they made better traders than trading ships. I'm sure you could point out a few ships and outfittings where that is the case, but that'd just reinforce my point.
Last edited:
I'm working under the apparent direction that FDEV has presented. The DBS came out first, then the DBX. It all gives the impression that the design and implementation was deliberate. More than a few of us inquired about the Asp Scout and DBX speed and maneuverability, and reported different things as bugs. So unless it was an accident that wasn't fixed in numerous live or beta builds, it is very much intentional. The Asp Scout being slower than the AspX specifically comes to mind.
And multipurpose ships being better explorers would be an actual valid problem if there were actual exploration ships in the game beyond the one (DBX). News flash, there aren't.
But the DBX can explore, it's just that it isn't as good as the Asps or the Anaconda at it, much like how the Hauler isn't as good at moving cargo around as the T-6 or T-9, or how an Eagle isn't as good at blowing stuff up as a FDL or Corvette.
For the other ships you mentioned, I'm pretty sure that if they had additional hardpoints, utility slots or internals you would quickly find a use for them. Even the mighty Anaconda generally has to compromise between things like shield strength, fuel scoop efficiency and cargo capacity when mining or trading (mining also has limpet controllers as part of the equation to worry about); meanwhile combat Anacondas still have to try to juggle their various hardpoints to make the most of each and every weapon (even adding a single extra small hardpoint would relieve some players' woes as they would finally have the spare hardpoint to mount things like a much needed vent beam or emissive pulse turret) while balancing their power capacity and heat output carefully. Pretty much the only slots that an Anaconda doesn't really have to compromise on are the utility slots, which has partially lead to the shield booster stacking issues as there's basically nothing else to put in them. If you aren't having to compromise with other ships, then you clearly aren't trying to do much with them.
Going by the current trend for explorer ships, they currently need a large number of internals rather than large internals (I use the term "large number" quite relatively, as they currently only need two size 1 slots for the scanners). Decent multirole ships rely on their great number large internals for shield cells and cargo capacity, but a ship with loads of size 1 and 2 internal slots would be terrible for cargo hauling yet would be capable of mounting many different types of scanner. If we had another half-dozen scanners of sizes 1-2, then suddenly giving the DBs and Asps a couple more size 1-2 slots would help with their exploration profits while also keeping a reason to upgrade from them, meanwhile the Anaconda would remain a good explorer by virtue of it's sheer capacity and jump range. However, there's no point in adding in the extra slots without anything new to put in them as it would simply remove the reason to upgrade - modules first, then see if we need to increase the slot count on the ships (it may be that the extra modules are just about right to encourage players to upgrade their ships and let exploration scale properly).
It's a problem, but your reasoning for it not being a problem is that FD haven't fixed it yet. It's just a matter of having no opinion of your own, which I can't fault you for since that's a really common stance on the forums.
Stuff about compromises: with those ships, and with combat and trading you compromise on efficiency and credits per hour, not on accessible gameplay. Any combat ship can do combat, any trading ship can trade, the only difference between them is how many credits per hour you make. But exploring is the odd one out since the DBE has to sacrifice gameplay. I mean, sure you can go to Colonia in a DBE, it'd just be incredibly dull because you wouldn't be able to DO anything while travelling, so it's basically a space taxi rather than a low tier exploration ship. You can get the same dull exploration gameplay by using any of the low tier combat ships or traders, there's nothing to differentiate the DBE from those.
I like your analysis of the situation with ship internals, to it I'd like to add that ship's optional slots definitely need a recheck now and then. As the game is expanded, more stuff needing your optional slots is added to the game. The DBE predates the SRV, so when that was added, the DBE immediately became less viable for exploration, the already viable multiroles became more viable. FD have to be aware of ship viability changing behind their backs while they're busy focusing on shiny new gameplay being added.
I'm really hopeful about the explorer class slots, but if those are added to multirole ships then RIP the entire explorer line of ships that hasn't even been made yet.
My explorer is a Cobra 4, because I'm a hipster that doesn't want to be forced into the Asp or Anaconda. The Cobra 4 is another multirole with bafflingly high jump range, so basically exactly like the two aforementioned ships. So it makes a great exploration ship. Only problem is, it's a multirole ship, so it's supposed to be able to explore, just not as good as an exploration ship (which doesn't exist)
Last edited:
Explorer ships just need size 1 slots for the scanners, you can use the existing slots for fuel scoop and AFMU. I don't think it would break balance. Would like to see additional cargo slots for traders as well (if it fits).
The DBX is not a basic introductory ship. It's a specialised multi million credit ship that just fails to be what it should be. It's worse than the Cobra.
I think giving the Explorer vessels a distinct bonus to well, exploring would be a nice thing.
How about this.
- Explorer Core Module
Can fit:
- SRV Vehicle Hangar
- Detailed Surface Scanner
- Advanced Discovery Scanner
- Wake Scanner
The reason for the SRV module is so that ships with a limited amount of S2-S3 slots can still have an SRV and still use scanners for exploration.
The ability to install scanners is useful for those ships with few optional module slots or few utility slots.
Exploration type vessels:
- Adder
- Cobra MkIV (Slow and lumbering in comparison with others but plenty of internal slots for a nice exploration vessel since most people also agree it's poor combat ability)
- Asp X and S
- Diamondback S and X
How about this.
- Explorer Core Module
Can fit:
- SRV Vehicle Hangar
- Detailed Surface Scanner
- Advanced Discovery Scanner
- Wake Scanner
The reason for the SRV module is so that ships with a limited amount of S2-S3 slots can still have an SRV and still use scanners for exploration.
The ability to install scanners is useful for those ships with few optional module slots or few utility slots.
Exploration type vessels:
- Adder
- Cobra MkIV (Slow and lumbering in comparison with others but plenty of internal slots for a nice exploration vessel since most people also agree it's poor combat ability)
- Asp X and S
- Diamondback S and X
A good thing for the explorer-class ships would be a built-in SRV bay (fitted as stock as part of the stock hull mass, doesn't take a module slot away from their current configs and non-removable) - maybe a one-slot bay for the "scout" classes and a two-slot bay for the "explorers".
The SRV(s) loaded into them would still count as extra mass of course.
The SRV(s) loaded into them would still count as extra mass of course.