Module splitting
- Thread starter Gaiseric
- Start date
Yes I support this too.
If Fdev did that, then they just as well could skip the module size in the ship. Instead of having 2x3+4x4, they can just simply have 22 slots. But it won't happen, because the idea of locked sizes is part of the challenge of outfitting.
If it however was that a 3 could have a split module that gives you 2, so there's a "penalty" for using it to split, then it could add a bit of min/max challenge.
If it however was that a 3 could have a split module that gives you 2, so there's a "penalty" for using it to split, then it could add a bit of min/max challenge.
People are still suggesting this? However inconvenient it may seem in the short term, the game has to make players make hard decisions and choices. If there was too much freedom, then it would be too easy for optimal solutions to arise, after which the game becomes a same-y mush of players flying a handful of optimal configurations. Or, more usually, simply not playing and moving on. I've seen this in other games - such as LOTRO - which kept short-cutting what players had to do to make their lifes easier, till it lost any sense of the environment that had been there at the start, and stopped being worth playing. I'm pretty sure that the first players to move on are the ones who where most vocal for streamlining!
Last edited:
Well my main gripe is that if you carry a disco scanner and a surface scanner that is two size 1 modules - AspX has two size 2 bays, Anaconda has one and then it is 4's - cutter has one size 3 as it's smallest then one 4, even Orca has only two size 2 slots -
So basically if you go outside your own charted space you need to use up a huge chunk of "internal possibilities" just for those two modules.
If they gave us a combined ADS and DSS (as a size 2 module) then that would be just dandy.
BTW - That is precisely what engineers should be able to do.
So basically if you go outside your own charted space you need to use up a huge chunk of "internal possibilities" just for those two modules.
If they gave us a combined ADS and DSS (as a size 2 module) then that would be just dandy.
BTW - That is precisely what engineers should be able to do.
Last edited:
Well my main gripe is that if you carry a disco scanner and a surface scanner that is two size 1 modules - AspX has two size 2 bays, Anaconda has one and then it is 4's - cutter has one size 3 as it's smallest then one 4, even Orca has only two size 2 slots -
So basically if you go outside your own charted space you need to use up a huge chunk of "internal possibilities" just for those two modules.
If they gave us a combined ADS and DSS (as a size 2 module) then that would be just dandy.
BTW - That is precisely what engineers should be able to do.
I would agree that it could be an engineered special kit. What price and component requirements do you think it should cost?
Well my main gripe is that if you carry a disco scanner and a surface scanner that is two size 1 modules - AspX has two size 2 bays, Anaconda has one and then it is 4's - cutter has one size 3 as it's smallest then one 4, even Orca has only two size 2 slots -
So basically if you go outside your own charted space you need to use up a huge chunk of "internal possibilities" just for those two modules.
If they gave us a combined ADS and DSS (as a size 2 module) then that would be just dandy.
BTW - That is precisely what engineers should be able to do.
One way they could do this would be to have it a special module to be purchased at engineer bases. I don't know what implications this would have on gameplay, but I think it would be useful enough to see what people think about it.
If a new system was poorly implemented, yes it absolutely would.
Someone suggests expanding outfitting mechanics like this about one a week, and many of the proposals bring new ideas. The main goal of expanding on outfitting mechanics/modules should be offer a greater number of viable choices. Some proposed changes could very well do this, while others would really only serve to give one viable build for every task; it really depends on how well thought out each proposal is.
If enough people ask for the ability to split module slots, FD might eventually listen and look at implementing an expanded system that wouldn't completely destroy balance while offering players more viable options.
One step at a time. We can always dream.
I oppose this, I don't do engineers so you would have access to an unengineered module that I can't get. In fact I oppose the entire idea, if you take a Beluga exploring you are taking a passenger ship to places it was never meant to go, therefore there should be some sort of penalty involved, and this comes in not having a lot of small module spaces for the required equipment. Ditto for combat ships etc.
An Eagle can be configured for exploration kit easily enough but engineering a few bonuses would give it great legs.
I like Engineers. To me they give an increased playability.
Your mileage may vary,
Respectfully,
Nevian0225
Oh I have no issue with people getting engineered modules, I have simply chosen not to except for the very basic stuff, the mechanic isn't to my liking, however putting non-engineered stuff behind the engineer gates is a definite no! I only have a few engineers unlocked, and then finding I can only get X module, that's not engineered, if I first unlock engineer Y, that would be an unpopular choice.
True, but on the other hand AFMUs and Fuel Scoops are massless.
Explorers already have to make very few outfitting decisions, because the profession either doesn't use or can get away with minimal sizes on most modules, and most of the modules they might use in large sizes don't weigh anything. But I think that's a flaw in the design of exploration as a profession, not a flaw in the optional internals model.
It is true that if Frontier had made the IDS and DSS size 2, and the ADS size 3, we would very rarely see these threads, though. (It would make the Sidewinder even less practical as an explorer, of course)
I think the biggest problem isn't the method which the devs chose to control outfitting, it's the player base seeing one thing and not understanding the other. For example, in essence they get 28 upgrade points, in 10 slots leaving them left over numbers that go unused. And be it Retentiveness, OCD, or simply the shrewdness of the player -- the left over numbers simply annoy them to no end that they can't use them.
And each week, someone new comes along and suggests some method to fixing this deficit. Be a module slot that can be split up to use multiple items in it, or... god, the list goes on and on and on and on.
The fact is, folk... This isn't other games where you have control over those upgrade points based on fitting this that and the other to the maximum upgrade points... No, you have a limited number of slots and you need to learn how to use them to the best of your ability and the role you want to use your ship for.
Perhaps a better suggestion would be that FDev took away the numbers from those slots and put in it's place an arbitrary classification to it. I guarantee there wouldn't be half as much suggestions flooding the forum for something to improve the use of those points.
And each week, someone new comes along and suggests some method to fixing this deficit. Be a module slot that can be split up to use multiple items in it, or... god, the list goes on and on and on and on.
The fact is, folk... This isn't other games where you have control over those upgrade points based on fitting this that and the other to the maximum upgrade points... No, you have a limited number of slots and you need to learn how to use them to the best of your ability and the role you want to use your ship for.
Perhaps a better suggestion would be that FDev took away the numbers from those slots and put in it's place an arbitrary classification to it. I guarantee there wouldn't be half as much suggestions flooding the forum for something to improve the use of those points.
Your supposition is rather invalid due to the fact of the relative masses or capacities of (most of) the alternative modules.
Therefore saying a slot is a size 4 means that you can fit something that has a mass of or capacity to hold 16t. So in my annoyance issue (sorry) case a 2t ADS and a 1.3t DSS have to fit into slots that have a 4t capacity (size 2) in an AspX for example or more in others.
So the numbers (mass and capacity) game means that the "design" of the ship has the space available, you just can't use it - presumably there are only two bolt-holes per slot and each module needs to be held in place by two bolts (or a similar silly excuse).
So the numbers (mass and capacity) game means that the "design" of the ship has the space available, you just can't use it - presumably there are only two bolt-holes per slot and each module needs to be held in place by two bolts (or a similar silly excuse).
So you basically said the same thing I did with different words and a different approach. I'm just trying to stop people from constantly coming into the forum making the same suggestions over and over and over again for a game that doesn't play the way they want it to be.
I know it's a never ending battle, but someone has to try different wording or else we end up living by Einstein's definition of insanity.
And bloody hell, really!?!! This is a psychologically acceptable term and the forum censors the first word? I think someone need to address this madness with Braben tout suite.
Last edited:
On the other hand, folks constantly coming up with the same suggestion does show an influx of new players? < shrug > You'd think that given the demographic to which this game appeals they'd do searches on the forums.. ( looks in the mirror and shakes head ).
Dealing with it as we go along like adults.. oh joy.
Regards,
Nevian0225
I believe a lot of players don't join the forums at all or much later from when they started playing. I didn't join until 7-8 months in.