Modules that should/could really be a CORE module perhaps?

[Snarfbuckle]

Certain changes to the outfitting of ships could really use an update.

Some musings on how things can be tweaked and remodeled.

- Reduce all Utility slots to Ship size class 1-3 (do not worry, I have alternatives)

Shields
Ships are generally designed to have a shield so it should really be a core module.

- Add shields as a core module equal to +1 of the installed shield (usually shields are fitted at one point below the largest optional module)
- Add +1 to Shield support slots per shield rating (Shield boosters and Shield cell banks)
- Shield cell banks are changed to always have the same rating as the shield they are supporting
- Not utilizing said shield module for a shield replaces it with a cargo section of standard size OR an equivalent amount of Defensive Utilities
- Optional module it normally occupies is removed
- Shield defensive slots share maximum available modules with Defensive utilities
- Total Shield Boosters limited to 8 or maximum installed shield

Defensive Utilities
- Defensive utilities includes Chaff/ECM/PDS/Heat Sinks
- Ships gain 1-3 defensive utility depending on ship size rating and +1 per military slot.
- Total maximum defensive utilities are limited to 8+Ship Size class & military module slot [Total of 12]

Sensors
Sensors include sensor packages that can be upgraded with additional sensors like surface/cargo/wanted/xeno/discovery etc

- Add a dedicated utility sensor slot for each core sensor rating (that 160 tonnes S8 sensor should be good for something that reaching 8 kilometers...)

This means that all scanners and sensors are plugged into the regular sensor package as extensions.
- Surface scanner
- Xeno scanner
- Discovery scanner
- Manifest scanner
- Kill warrant scanner
- Wake scanner

Reduced sensor system load
For each unused sensor slot sensors gain a +10% sensor range and scan speed (so a S8 sensor with all installed sensors gain a +20% sensor range and scan speed.)

Dedicated Ship Types [all, if not most ships have a primary use and are not merely an empty cocoon to fill with stuff]
- Explorers gain +1 dedicated sensor slot
- Combat ships have Military slots [Bulkhead / Module / Booster / SCB]
- Cargo ships gain +1 rating to ONE cargo module they install [installing a 4E cargo slot becomes a 5E cargo slot for cargo calculations]
- Multi-Role ships gain a Military or Sensor slot [Installing one will cancel out the other]
- Couriers count nearby Mass Lock Factors by half their rating [we brake for nobody]
- Scouts gain their sensor rating X10% to their sensor range and unresolved contact detection [i spy with my little eye]
- Passenger ships gain +1 size to ONE installed passenger modules similar to cargo ships

 

[Kaocraft]

I would be onboard with this kind of balancing if Elite ever became a collectible card game. Otherwise no thank you because it's a giant tangle of special cases, weird exceptions, and arbitrary bonuses/penalties with very little in the way of underlying logic or anything that would allow you to make intelligent intuitions about outfitting your ship.

The game already has some confusing and counterintuitive special cases when it comes to outfitting, and ship characteristics, such as diminishing returns on shield boosters and now the 4 AX module limit, but your approach seems to be that you want an outfitting system *full* of stuff like that. I for sure do not want that.

 

[Arkku]

I think most of the stuff proposed adds complexity with little benefit in return. However, I agree that the various scanners should be part of the sensors, not separate optional modules or utilities.

 

[Shadowdancer]

I agree that the various scanners should be part of the sensors, not separate optional modules or utilities.

SRV and fighter bays have "sub-modules", the various scanners could become subs of the core scanners that way… better scanners get more slots, something like that. I like the idea.

In a similar vein I'd really like to see the fuel scoop become core, maybe associated to the FSD (something something Bussard collectors).

 

[Arkku]

SRV and fighter bays have "sub-modules", the various scanners could become subs of the core scanners that way… better scanners get more slots, something like that. I like the idea.

Yes, and having more scanner slots would help justify the outrageous cost and weight of the sensors on the larger ships.

 

[Stealthie]

Sorry but, nope.

Anything that provides flexibility is always going to be preferable to things that reduces it for me.

Even military slots are a step in the wrong direction IMO.
If HRPs/MRPs?SCBs can go in any slot, it's just up to the player if they wish to use them.
Once you provide Mil slots, people think "Well, I've got the slots and I can't fit anything else in them so I'll bung in HRPs" etc.

I don't have anything against re-working the ship internals, even pretty dramatically (adding new slots for avionics etc), but I'd always want to go with a system that provided maximum flexibility.

 

[GJ51]

I've been advocating for the DSS and ADS to just become upgrades to the basic scanner and not require a lot. Early on it made a bit of sense for overall balance, but since engineering has matured there's really no rationale for taking up a slot as just making them internal upgrades would not really affect balance any more.

The other issue I have that I think would really be helpful would be to mandate a dedicated key assignment to anything mounted on a utility slot.

As much as I appreciate everything in the OP, I'd love to see FD implement the above changes first and then see how it affects things going forward.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I would be onboard with this kind of balancing if Elite ever became a collectible card game. Otherwise no thank you because it's a giant tangle of special cases, weird exceptions, and arbitrary bonuses/penalties with very little in the way of underlying logic or anything that would allow you to make intelligent intuitions about outfitting your ship.

The game already has some confusing and counterintuitive special cases when it comes to outfitting, and ship characteristics, such as diminishing returns on shield boosters and now the 4 AX module limit, but your approach seems to be that you want an outfitting system *full* of stuff like that. I for sure do not want that.

I actually tried to keep a semblance of balance to not have MORE of what we already have.

- Imagine an Anaconda with X8 shield boosters AND space for 8 sensors AND SCB's...

So the limits were more to curb excessive use.

And the game is already full of weird exceptions and arbitrary bonuses which I would rather abolish and use a set of core rules where the hull have no "core" minimum stats of jump range and shields.

- Shield ONLY based on a core value from the shield module modified by hull mass and armour values
- Jump range based wholly on core value from FSD module and it's optimal mass VS ship mass
- Ship speed based wholly on thruster module size & rating vs hull mass

They could easily double the amount of modules from S1 to S16 to have more granular stats between some ships if the divide becomes too great with only 8 sizes if they went with actual values from the modules modified by the ships mass.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I like the core of the scanner idea, but everything else seems needlessly complex and convoluted.

A good basis for ship loadouts would be something along the logical lines of "IF a, THEN b" - so for example, "IF you have a size 4 slot, THEN you can install modules up to class 4". Get too far away from that, and things get unintuitive fast, and you lose most of your audience.

Your logic there is more like "IF a and IF b and IF c >= d, THEN e, ELSE IF c < d, THEN f".

Ehhhh, no.

However, bake the core Disco Scanner functionality into Ship Sensors (E & D = Basic, C = Intermeditate, B & A = Advanced, or something like that), and put varying numbers of sub-slots on there? That's something I could get behind.

 

[Arkku]

Anything that provides flexibility is always going to be preferable to things that reduces it for me.

Even military slots are a step in the wrong direction IMO.
If HRPs/MRPs?SCBs can go in any slot, it's just up to the player if they wish to use them.

I would argue that the choices were not between military slot vs general-purpose slot, but between military slot vs nothing (i.e., how the ships were before the military slots were added), and therefore the military slots do add flexibility rather than reduce it. Sure, you can say that adding a general-purpose slot would have increased flexibility even more than the military slot, but that would essentially turn the supposedly military ship into yet another trader/multirole ship.

I personally think the military slots are a good solution given the premise that the ships are designed for specific roles. An alternative way to rebalance the military ships against multiroles would have been to just boost the basic hull or shield stats of the ship, which would have been less flexible.


(That being said, I would kind of enjoy the idea of being able to totally redesign a ship by opening up all of the slots to arbitrary modules, including core, but that would almost certainly lead to even less balance than there is currently, when someone would inevitably come up with a crazy build that could not be foreseen and nerfing it other than as a special case would make "normal" builds less enjoyable…)

 

[h347h]

More forced core modules? Nope but more special modules like military and passenger slots are the right way to go about it.

Sensors should always have to be a choice for non exploration ships but I feel like on exploration ships they should have the computer slots for them like military slots on combat ships.

 

[Jethzk]

No thank you. I like being able to change the rating of my shields. Every ship doesn't need a scanner. It's wasted on traders.Deciding if I should fit chaff, heat sinks, scanners, or shield boosters is a decision I get to make. That's better than being forced into it.

 

[Shadowdancer]

A good basis for ship loadouts would be something along the logical lines of "IF a, THEN b" - so for example, "IF you have a size 4 slot, THEN you can install modules up to class 4". Get too far away from that, and things get unintuitive fast, and you lose most of your audience.

Your logic there is more like "IF a and IF b and IF c >= d, THEN e, ELSE IF c < d, THEN f".

I'll subscribe to that philosophy. Artificial complexity just to make things look weird until someone figures out the single BiS configuration has never been worth it.

 

[ROSS-128]

I think it would be interesting if ships got various "special slots" that push them toward different roles, it would give the ships character in a way. Explorers having extra room for scanners, miners having a built-in refinery or extra spots for limpet controllers, etc. You would still be able to put those things in general slots, but ships that get them "free" space-wise would be particularly suited for those roles.

 

[Teh Smoo]

I actually tried to keep a semblance of balance to not have MORE of what we already have.

- Imagine an Anaconda with X8 shield boosters AND space for 8 sensors AND SCB's...

So the limits were more to curb excessive use.

And the game is already full of weird exceptions and arbitrary bonuses which I would rather abolish and use a set of core rules where the hull have no "core" minimum stats of jump range and shields.

- Shield ONLY based on a core value from the shield module modified by hull mass and armour values
- Jump range based wholly on core value from FSD module and it's optimal mass VS ship mass
- Ship speed based wholly on thruster module size & rating vs hull mass

They could easily double the amount of modules from S1 to S16 to have more granular stats between some ships if the divide becomes too great with only 8 sizes if they went with actual values from the modules modified by the ships mass.

I've thought this a lot as well. Multiple reinforcements make no sense from a gameplay perspective- what are you even doing, plating the hull over and over? What is a module reinforcement as well, just layer after layer of bubble wrap on the modules?

IMO, they need to do a COMPLETE refactor of the entire system, and remove RNG from engineers entirely. This completely devalues the time people have spend doing HUNDREDS of rolls, but that kind of thing is silly anyway.

 

[Gun Star]

I've thought this a lot as well. Multiple reinforcements make no sense from a gameplay perspective- what are you even doing, plating the hull over and over? What is a module reinforcement as well, just layer after layer of bubble wrap on the modules?

IMO, they need to do a COMPLETE refactor of the entire system, and remove RNG from engineers entirely. This completely devalues the time people have spend doing HUNDREDS of rolls, but that kind of thing is silly anyway.

I know. How dare experiments have multiple solutions with positive or negative outcomes being perform on something that has a set rating that was never considered to be modified. What could happen?

 

[Teh Smoo]

I know. How dare experiments have multiple solutions with positive or negative outcomes being perform on something that has a set rating that was never considered to be modified. What could happen?

With the current system, people have STATED that they do session of 100 rolls at a time. Some, perhaps more. Gating things entirely by free time does not make a game accessible, or balance the mechanics reliably- you just get a few elites who play ED all day while sitting home on disability (or whatever), and everyone else is at the mercy of the antisocial ones of that group. Then, things happen, like new players wander out, get one-shotted by high-powered ships with no possible way to defend themselves. They have NO recourse, except switching to solo and hammering away at engineers for a few hundred hours. This is not a good way to try and grow a playerbase.

And/or, FDev balances Thargoids around engineered ships, and unmodded ships get stomped. Or, they instead balance around unmodded ships, and the modded ships complain that the scary aliens are too easy.

Better to make things ACTUALLY balanced. Something like, allow control of one slider at a time. Boost damage, fire rate and others go down. Boost fire rate, damage and others go down. Like moving pips around in the distributor. Over a few rolls, you can wiggle it back and forth into the desired configuration. Or some other system that either balances things properly, or limits the modifications in a way that makes sense.

The overall issue is that so many things are cumulative, and are used to cascade into super-ships that are far more powerful than intended. "Efficient" weapons literally have no downside, and heavy duty basic plating is weightless. Does that REALLY sound well thought-out to you?