Suggestion for Engineers, ability to split a module to acomodate 2 lower sized modules

[tiga76]

The possibility of an engineer been able to partition a higher class module slot so 2 lower sized modules can be installed. I'd even suggest they be compatible modules so one could have a steller body scanner and a surface scanner in a size 2 slot or module reinforcement and hull reinforcement in the military compartment of the anaconda and vulture.
What do you guys think

 

[Leadfoot]

The possibility of an engineer been able to partition a higher class module slot so 2 lower sized modules can be installed. I'd even suggest they be compatible modules so one could have a steller body scanner and a surface scanner in a size 2 slot or module reinforcement and hull reinforcement in the military compartment of the anaconda and vulture.
What do you guys think

I don't even think an engineer should have to do this. Two 2-slot items should be able to fit into a 4-slot space. Three 2-slot items should be able to fit into a 6-slot space.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Should be a core feature. Not an Engineer thing.

I'm sorry, but it does not take a genius to put two small modules in a big empty space.

 

[Virandar]

Yes. I agree it should be a feature which doesn't require an engineer, but I'd take it in any form.

 

[Rustnsawdust]

Please post any evidence on the size of module classes. As far as I can see, there isn't any. All these discussions - and there have been dozens - simply *assume* that a C2 module is twice the size of a C1. Maybe a C2 is just slightly bigger than a C1, in which case it would obviously be impossible to put two C1s in a C2 slot.

 

[Virandar]

Please post any evidence on the size of module classes. As far as I can see, there isn't any. All these discussions - and there have been dozens - simply *assume* that a C2 module is twice the size of a C1. Maybe a C2 is just slightly bigger than a C1, in which case it would obviously be impossible to put two C1s in a C2 slot.

Cargo racks. If 1E is 2T and 2E is 4T, 3E is 8t and 4E is 16T... Well, it is a giveaway when it comes to measurements of the modules. 2E has to be 2 times bigger than 1E, and require twice the space, there's no way around it. Well, there is, depending on weight / volume of the cargo you're transporting, but Elite doesn't go that level of detail when it comes to cargo.
If you go for, say shields, 1A is 1.3T, 2A is 2.5T then you could say that size 2 is slightly smaller than 2x size 1. The bottom line is: there is no evidence on the size of module classes, however there are some hints that a module is roughly 2x bigger than a module one size smaller. And in general, Frontier has pretty much free reign here.

In any case, I don't care much about keeping the same "total size sum" of the modules I have in a ship. I'm happy to sacrifice some of that in return for being able to adjust the module sizes to closer fit my needs. If I can put only ADS and DSS (both size 1) into a size 4 compartment in my Conda and add nothing else in the same compartment, I'm a happy bunny.

 

[concentric]

Has been asked for countless times.
Is never going to happen.
Hopefully, as it would utterly unbalance things.
Simple example:

A cmdr now equips a 5D Hull Reinforcement Package in a size 5 slot.
Mass: 16t, Hull Reinforcement: 390, Resistances: 2.5%
He engineers it with a G5 Heavy Duty mod.
Maxed out roll without secondaries gives him
Mass: 22.4t, Hull Reinforcement: 624, Resistances: 16.5%

Now, with your suggestion implemented, the cmdr fits 5x 1D Hull Reinforcement Packages in the same size 5 slot.
Mass: 1t, Hull Reinforcement: 110, Resistances: 0.5% per package
All 5 together:
Mass: 5t, Hull Reinforcement: 550, Resistances: 2.47%
He engineers all of them with a G5 Heavy Duty mod.
Maxed out rolls without secondaries give him
Mass: 1.4t, Hull Reinforcement: 176, Resistances: 14.5% per package
All 5 together:
Mass: 7t, Hull Reinforcement: 880, Resistances: 54.3%

In short, a single size 5 slot would give you a whopping 54.3% resistances instead of 16.5% while even reducing the weight from 22.4t to only 7t.

 

[Virandar]

Has been asked for countless times.
Is never going to happen.
Hopefully, as it would utterly unbalance things.
Simple example:

A cmdr now equips a 5D Hull Reinforcement Package in a size 5 slot.
Mass: 16t, Hull Reinforcement: 390, Resistances: 2.5%
He engineers it with a G5 Heavy Duty mod.
Maxed out roll without secondaries gives him
Mass: 22.4t, Hull Reinforcement: 624, Resistances: 16.5%

Now, with your suggestion implemented, the cmdr fits 5x 1D Hull Reinforcement Packages in the same size 5 slot.
Mass: 1t, Hull Reinforcement: 110, Resistances: 0.5% per package
All 5 together:
Mass: 5t, Hull Reinforcement: 550, Resistances: 2.47%
He engineers all of them with a G5 Heavy Duty mod.
Maxed out rolls without secondaries give him
Mass: 1.4t, Hull Reinforcement: 176, Resistances: 14.5% per package
All 5 together:
Mass: 7t, Hull Reinforcement: 880, Resistances: 54.3%

In short, a single size 5 slot would give you a whopping 54.3% resistances instead of 16.5% while even reducing the weight from 22.4t to only 7t.

Which means they would have to balance this. Perhaps exclude things like hull reinforcement or module reinforcement, which makes sense as I expect these are fairly solid and hefty constructs and require that heft to work as they do. I think it would be quite logical to limit what you can fit into divided compartments.
Similarly they limited the number of shield generators to 1 per ship. Not exactly the same thing as you can have multiple HEM or MEM, but what you need is an explanation that they require unmodified compartment due to ship and compartments construction issues.

 

[Teh Smoo]

Has been asked for countless times.
Is never going to happen.
Hopefully, as it would utterly unbalance things.
Simple example:

A cmdr now equips a 5D Hull Reinforcement Package in a size 5 slot.
Mass: 16t, Hull Reinforcement: 390, Resistances: 2.5%
He engineers it with a G5 Heavy Duty mod.
Maxed out roll without secondaries gives him
Mass: 22.4t, Hull Reinforcement: 624, Resistances: 16.5%

Now, with your suggestion implemented, the cmdr fits 5x 1D Hull Reinforcement Packages in the same size 5 slot.
Mass: 1t, Hull Reinforcement: 110, Resistances: 0.5% per package
All 5 together:
Mass: 5t, Hull Reinforcement: 550, Resistances: 2.47%
He engineers all of them with a G5 Heavy Duty mod.
Maxed out rolls without secondaries give him
Mass: 1.4t, Hull Reinforcement: 176, Resistances: 14.5% per package
All 5 together:
Mass: 7t, Hull Reinforcement: 880, Resistances: 54.3%

In short, a single size 5 slot would give you a whopping 54.3% resistances instead of 16.5% while even reducing the weight from 22.4t to only 7t.

EVE Online fixed this AGES ago- diminishing returns. Each module affecting certain ship stats could be less effective when other modules affect that stat as well.

And this would affect PVP as well- stacking shield boosters/hull reinforce/module reinforce would have less effect the more you have. So you would use 2 of each, and then put in other things.

 

[bicarbon8]

Has been asked for countless times.
Is never going to happen.
Hopefully, as it would utterly unbalance things.
Simple example:

A cmdr now equips a 5D Hull Reinforcement Package in a size 5 slot.
Mass: 16t, Hull Reinforcement: 390, Resistances: 2.5%
He engineers it with a G5 Heavy Duty mod.
Maxed out roll without secondaries gives him
Mass: 22.4t, Hull Reinforcement: 624, Resistances: 16.5%

Now, with your suggestion implemented, the cmdr fits 5x 1D Hull Reinforcement Packages in the same size 5 slot.
Mass: 1t, Hull Reinforcement: 110, Resistances: 0.5% per package
All 5 together:
Mass: 5t, Hull Reinforcement: 550, Resistances: 2.47%
He engineers all of them with a G5 Heavy Duty mod.
Maxed out rolls without secondaries give him
Mass: 1.4t, Hull Reinforcement: 176, Resistances: 14.5% per package
All 5 together:
Mass: 7t, Hull Reinforcement: 880, Resistances: 54.3%

In short, a single size 5 slot would give you a whopping 54.3% resistances instead of 16.5% while even reducing the weight from 22.4t to only 7t.

I think it more appropriate if for every additional module added to an existing slot you lose one space due to need for additional wiring or attachments. This would mean that a Size 5 slot could only fit 3 size 1 modules or 2 size 2 modules. a Size 2 slot wouldn't be able to hold a Stellar Body scanner and a Surface scanner because each one is size 1, but you could put both in a size 3 slot.

It would make the existing ships much more configurable which is one of the things I find most fun (trying to come up with optimal configurations based on the components and missions)

 

[concentric]

EVE Online fixed this AGES ago- diminishing returns. Each module affecting certain ship stats could be less effective when other modules affect that stat as well.
And this would affect PVP as well- stacking shield boosters/hull reinforce/module reinforce would have less effect the more you have. So you would use 2 of each, and then put in other things.

I think it more appropriate if for every additional module added to an existing slot you lose one space due to need for additional wiring or attachments. This would mean that a Size 5 slot could only fit 3 size 1 modules or 2 size 2 modules. a Size 2 slot wouldn't be able to hold a Stellar Body scanner and a Surface scanner because each one is size 1, but you could put both in a size 3 slot.
It would make the existing ships much more configurable which is one of the things I find most fun (trying to come up with optimal configurations based on the components and missions)

Diminishing effects have also been discussed independent of splitting modules and it may or may not come (I'm not in 2.4 Beta so bear with me if it already happened).
I'm afraid, even with diminishing effects or by lowering the amount of size 1 modules fitting in a size 5 slot, splitting up module compartments would put things out of balance.
Maybe, for this special case, both together could work but I think that's just not how FDev meant it to be. I don't claim to know their intentions but for me it's pretty obvious that every ship is intended to have a determined amount of compartments to equip with modules up to a certain size. I think you should just abandon the idea of compartments having a certain size and what you expect to fit in there. Is it logical? Well, not really. On the other hand I wouldn't expect a Hull Reinforcement to be put into a compartment within the ship, either, but to be inside or outside the actual hull... Of course, we always want more but I also think it's good we have to make compromises and imho the ships' configurability is already pretty good since the Engineers.

 

[Virandar]

Diminishing effects have also been discussed independent of splitting modules and it may or may not come (I'm not in 2.4 Beta so bear with me if it already happened).
I'm afraid, even with diminishing effects or by lowering the amount of size 1 modules fitting in a size 5 slot, splitting up module compartments would put things out of balance.
Maybe, for this special case, both together could work but I think that's just not how FDev meant it to be. I don't claim to know their intentions but for me it's pretty obvious that every ship is intended to have a determined amount of compartments to equip with modules up to a certain size. I think you should just abandon the idea of compartments having a certain size and what you expect to fit in there. Is it logical? Well, not really. On the other hand I wouldn't expect a Hull Reinforcement to be put into a compartment within the ship, either, but to be inside or outside the actual hull... Of course, we always want more but I also think it's good we have to make compromises and imho the ships' configurability is already pretty good since the Engineers.

Elite is a game in constant development. Which means we really shouldn't give up on any ideas we think might be enjoyable or improve the gameplay. Plus, the purpose of this section of the forum is to suggest things, I'm pretty sure they didn't mean suggesting things that are already in game.

I'm sure Frontier had a reason for designing ships the way they did. It's still a shame they didn't go for more customizable modules from the start (in the vein of what's being asked for here) because not only that was a logical thing to do, but would open more options for them in the future (starting with more options for the engineers already). Sometimes it's worth thinking forward a bit more and allow your vision to be broader. It pays back.

 

[FarrSide]

I think it more appropriate if for every additional module added to an existing slot you lose one space due to need for additional wiring or attachments. This would mean that a Size 5 slot could only fit 3 size 1 modules or 2 size 2 modules. a Size 2 slot wouldn't be able to hold a Stellar Body scanner and a Surface scanner because each one is size 1, but you could put both in a size 3 slot.

It would make the existing ships much more configurable which is one of the things I find most fun (trying to come up with optimal configurations based on the components and missions)

I think that you have a great idea there.

 

[manos70131]

I have been thinking about the same thing these days. In the past I have proposed something similar to the initial comment of this thread myself. Since then I have given it some extra thought and I think that diminishing effects are what is happening right now. I mean that the class 5 component is not 5 times better than the class 1 one so there are diminishing effects. If you add more modules of the same type, you just create the corresponding class, only in a more complex manner. Add price reduction for the class 5 module and what you'll be creating is a more expensive module with the same properties that will also affect your insurance. Very few (if anyone at all) would do it.

I don't agree however that class 3 should be 3 times the size of class one. Cargo racks are not. A class 5 is 32 while class 1 is 2. As I see it, it's essential that this is retained. If the cargo rack is our guide here,
class 1 is 2U,
class 2 is 4U,
class 3 is 8U,
and so on.
As I see it, keeping the module sizes as they are (a class 3 module will still have 8U size), and employing diminishing effects, balance is not disturbed.

If someone sees any reason of imbalance, I'd love to discuss it.

 

[StiTch]

Well this is new. Almost deserves a copypasta response.

This will not work, because ED's module classes are specifically used for balancing. One assumes that if FD wanted divisible internals, you would have gotten a big lump of internal space, and been able to divide it anyway.

But modules are intended to not be equal. Increases are not proportional against class, which would be different if internal splitting were intentional. Cargo racks show us that by going up two classes, the capacity is quadrupled. Go up two SCB classes, about three times the capacity. Go up two limpet classes and you get just double the limpet control.

AFMUs...from C1 to C3 (still two class increases), nearly quadruple the ammo. From C6 to C8: under a 40% increase to ammo.

Classes are part of a very respectable balancing system for internals. It's one of the better parts of ED, just trust me on this one. Otherwise there would be a de facto division to use for each module; for instance, "for all SCBs just use the highest class you can, for HRPs split into multiple slots of the lowest class possible" and so on.

Learn to outfit your ship. It's part of the game.

 

[space voyager]

I think it more appropriate if for every additional module added to an existing slot you lose one space due to need for additional wiring or attachments. This would mean that a Size 5 slot could only fit 3 size 1 modules or 2 size 2 modules. a Size 2 slot wouldn't be able to hold a Stellar Body scanner and a Surface scanner because each one is size 1, but you could put both in a size 3 slot.

It would make the existing ships much more configurable which is one of the things I find most fun (trying to come up with optimal configurations based on the components and missions)

This.

 

[Virandar]

One assumes that if FD wanted divisible internals, you would have gotten a big lump of internal space, and been able to divide it anyway.

Because, of course, Frontier has never changed the ideas they had and never made any changes to Elite.

I understand they might have had reasons for the way things are. Which doesn't mean these reasons will still stand in a month or three or a year or three. Once again (I should start copying and pasting this): this is a suggestions section of the forum. The purpose of it is to suggest the ideas players thing might add to the game and discuss them. "It is this way, get over it" doesn't substitute discussion, sorry.
Whether Frontier follows the suggestions or follows them exactly, that's their business. For sure having playerbase sharing ideas with them is not going to hurt them, right?

 

[manos70131]

Fellow Stitch, I appreciate your analysis but if I understood your comment right, you are thinking of other suggestions made in the past and not mine. In my suggestion, adding multiple modules of the same type will not provide the sum of benefits of the individual module. If you add 4 class 1 HRPs, the result won't be 4xC1 HRP but rather 1xC3 HRP. Adding a financial penalty should help avoid such situations. I wouldn't want that to happen either.

The only thing that my suggestion would differ from what happens today is the number of smaller (compared to the sizes of the slots of the ship) one can add. This needs finetuning. I would not want a ship to be able to fit every module either. I already have some thoughts about that but I'd like to keep my comment short. Maybe if this conversation continues, I'll drop some ideas at later comments.

And some final thoughts:
- just because we have a system that works and it's balanced, it does not mean that it cannot get better.
- if you are implying that several smart people brainstorming for weeks (FDEV), along with hundreds of players that helped finetuning the system over the years can have better ideas than me that thought of it just a couple of times, you are obviously right. But then I don't believe that what we have should be designed from scratch. I do think however that there is room for improvement.
- just because we are suggesting what we think of improvements, it doesn't mean that we don't know how to outfit our ships.

 

[Leadfoot]

I think it more appropriate if for every additional module added to an existing slot you lose one space due to need for additional wiring or attachments.

No, not needed. Just get a few multi-plug extension cords and find a few plugs to put them in. I found a few big thick ones at Ace Hardware on level 5c-555 Whatchewant Street. So what if you have a 50 amp cord in a 60 amp circuit? What could go wrong? Trust me, it'll work. Just don't use it all at once. Might pop the breakers so keep an eye on them.

 

[bicarbon8]

here's an example of how this could look / work and what a difference it could make to allow for true multi-purpose ships

https://ibb.co/dh8jSQ