Change FSD boosters from internal to utility

[Mordhar]

While FSD boosters are temporary removed from game for revision/fix I suggest some (relatively easy to implement) changes.
Because when these modules will be released in their final version it will be too late to change anything.

1. Make them utility modules instead of optional-internal.
2. Change fuel consumption from up to +125% to up to +25%.

Reasons for these proposals:
Many players (me included) waited for “exploration specific” utility modules for a very long time. When FSD boosters were revealed almost everyone thought they are utility, not optional internals.
It was actually quite surprising when it turned out they use internal slots.

It also introduces some balancing problems (for example making recently very well balanced Diamondback-X inferior exploration vessel again).

Changing boosters to utility will finally allow using utility slots on pure exploration builds for something other than heatsinks. It will also introduce choice between jump range or shield strength for trading/multipurpose ships.

Fuel consumption is self-explanatory. It feels like leading “1” is a mistake, and values up to +25% originally intended. At least 5%-25% (1/5 incerement) fuel increase for 2-10 (again 1/5 incerement) Ly range looks much more logical than almost identical fuel usage for any booster.

Implementation difficulties:
Current implementation is quite easy to convert to utility slots due to (accidental?) number of different modules. Instead of size 1A-5A it is possible to make them 0E-0A (like shield boosters or KWS). Keep all other stats unchanged (except for fuel penalty as suggested above).

For module visuals (utility modules are visible, unlike internal) it is possible to re-use one of existing models as a placeholder (it was already done before) until unique model will be made.

Problems with small number CMDRs who already unlocked and purchased these modules are solvable with module price refund (allowing them to buy new module instead). No need to reset unlocks.
It even easier because no one able to actually use them due to a bug, thus no builds relying on these modules.

Balance impact:
Most obvious will be effect on exploration ships, especially those with limited internal module slots. It will also give CMDRs a reason to use more than one utility slot on purely-exploration build.

Traders will benefit from this change almost as much as explorers will. Allowing them to increase jump range without sacrificing cargo space. And significant decrease in shield strength or lack of chaff/point defense will be good enough balancing factor.

For specialized combat ships (except “big 3”, the only combat ships capable of sacrificing size 5 internal without crippling their combat capabilities) effect will be minimal.
Both internal slots and utility mounts are very important for combat performance, and most builds probably not sacrifice them for increased jump range.

 

[[VR] Dr Gentech]

Good suggestion. Hopefully the devs see it.

 

[Lestat]

One thing is Exploration is about Exploration, not distance. It better to have a shorter range explorer than a long-range one. If I had a 20ly Jump range hit beagle point and back. I will make twice as much money than a ship that has 40ly jump range.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

If it was a utility then it becomes a no-brainer and everybody uses it.

One of the good things about the current system is that outfitting requires players to make trade-offs.

You may as well just ask for a 10LY range increase for free, and not bother with the utility at all.

 

[WastedAlmond]

Good suggestion +1 rep, would like to see these changes ingame

 

[BinaryFu]

One thing is Exploration is about Exploration, not distance. It better to have a shorter range explorer than a long-range one. If I had a 20ly Jump range hit beagle point and back. I will make twice as much money than a ship that has 40ly jump range.

Actually, you're half right. While hopping from place to place will gain you more data and credits for exploration, a higher jump range is *always* desirable.

If you do Beagle Point and back with a 20ly jump range, you'll hit plenty of spots and make some good bank - but you'll also be scooping as often as possible, because you're doing MAX JUMP RANGE.

Now me, in the other ship you mentioned, with a 40ly jump range, I'm going to do shorter hops, just like you, but with a CONSIDERABLE lower fuel consumption, meaning I'll have to scoop far less than you will.

This means that A) I'll get just as much data as you and B) I'll do it in less time.

You see, unfortunately a lot of people have gotten it stuck in their heads with engineering that you have to go MAXIMUM everything. Overcharged power plant? MAX IT OUT! And actually, just increasing it to the point where you're at around 95% power consumption is livable.
Dirty Drive Tuning? MAX IT OUT! Actually, if you put it up to "unicorn" (perfect weight/thrust ratio) you're not going to get anything better out of it, but you're going to add more heat to your ship, needlessly.

There's tons of others out there, you get the point. Jump range however is one of those that you want to get every last drop of range out of it that you reasonably can (don't sacrifice internals or equipment for 1 extra light year - that's just silly) not because it gives you a much further jump (but that's definitely a plus when you're trying to hop around the different engineers to get things done) but because when you DON'T use max range, you're saving fuel by a LOT. More efficient travel means quicker exploration as you're not having to take time out to scoop until you're full, but instead are able to skim-n-go.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ranek Eisenkralle]

Actually, you're half right. While hopping from place to place will gain you more data and credits for exploration, a higher jump range is *always* desirable.

If you do Beagle Point and back with a 20ly jump range, you'll hit plenty of spots and make some good bank - but you'll also be scooping as often as possible, because you're doing MAX JUMP RANGE.

Now me, in the other ship you mentioned, with a 40ly jump range, I'm going to do shorter hops, just like you, but with a CONSIDERABLE lower fuel consumption, meaning I'll have to scoop far less than you will.

This means that A) I'll get just as much data as you and B) I'll do it in less time.

You see, unfortunately a lot of people have gotten it stuck in their heads with engineering that you have to go MAXIMUM everything. Overcharged power plant? MAX IT OUT! And actually, just increasing it to the point where you're at around 95% power consumption is livable.
Dirty Drive Tuning? MAX IT OUT! Actually, if you put it up to "unicorn" (perfect weight/thrust ratio) you're not going to get anything better out of it, but you're going to add more heat to your ship, needlessly.

There's tons of others out there, you get the point. Jump range however is one of those that you want to get every last drop of range out of it that you reasonably can (don't sacrifice internals or equipment for 1 extra light year - that's just silly) not because it gives you a much further jump (but that's definitely a plus when you're trying to hop around the different engineers to get things done) but because when you DON'T use max range, you're saving fuel by a LOT. More efficient travel means quicker exploration as you're not having to take time out to scoop until you're full, but instead are able to skim-n-go.

Just my two cents.

Actually scooping fuel does consume only a negligible amount of time unless you are scooping with a class1 scoop. Most of the time I put the throttle to 40-50% as I circle the sun. Go in deep enough for max scoop and by the time I have aligned for the next jump I gained enough fuel for 2-3 more jumps. Also I tend to stick to those star types which are likely to have habitable planets - meaning types F, G, and K. All of these are scoopable. so I don't really run out of fuel.

 

[Lestat]

Actually, you're half right. While hopping from place to place will gain you more data and credits for exploration, a higher jump range is *always* desirable.

Not for skilled explorers that want credits.

If you do Beagle Point and back with a 20ly jump range, you'll hit plenty of spots and make some good bank - but you'll also be scooping as often as possible, because you're doing MAX JUMP RANGE.

Now me, in the other ship you mentioned, with a 40ly jump range, I'm going to do shorter hops, just like you, but with a CONSIDERABLE lower fuel consumption, meaning I'll have to scoop far less than you will.

So did you ever think how someone exploration ship is setup? For me, I would refuel every 10 15 jumps. I will let you try to solve that one.

This means that A) I'll get just as much data as you and B) I'll do it in less time.

You forget it depends on ship setup. I had a great fuel scoop and it would only take relining the ship to the next destantion to refuel my ship. I never sat down and waited to refuel.

You see, unfortunately a lot of people have gotten it stuck in their heads with engineering that you have to go MAXIMUM everything. Overcharged power plant? MAX IT OUT! And actually, just increasing it to the point where you're at around 95% power consumption is livable.
Dirty Drive Tuning? MAX IT OUT! Actually, if you put it up to "unicorn" (perfect weight/thrust ratio) you're not going to get anything better out of it, but you're going to add more heat to your ship, needlessly.

I still with the old build after Horizon was released on one account. Been out for a few years. My guess I could have about 2 billion credit of system data.

There's tons of others out there, you get the point. Jump range however is one of those that you want to get every last drop of range out of it that you reasonably can (don't sacrifice internals or equipment for 1 extra light year - that's just silly) not because it gives you a much further jump (but that's definitely a plus when you're trying to hop around the different engineers to get things done) but because when you DON'T use max range, you're saving fuel by a LOT. More efficient travel means quicker exploration as you're not having to take time out to scoop until you're full, but instead are able to skim-n-go.

Just my two cents.

See engineering great to get point A to B fast like passenger missions. But exploration shorter range is still better.

 

[CMDR BOSLEY]

Something that is supposed to supercharge your frameshift drive seems like it would need to be inside and connected to the fsd. I would rework the entire mechanic of the fsd booster to bypass fuel consumption limits entirely and allow you to jump as far as all the fuel in your tank will let you, but with reduced fuel efficiency so you can't go quite as far as if you made all the individual jumps, I'd make it take longer to charge up and wear at the integrity of the fsd with reapted use. Also it would have a longer cool down time which would be fine seeing as you would need to scoop fuel because you would be on reserve if you jumped as far as your fuel supply allowed.

 

[ebbrell]

I would rather these be a sub module of the main FSD... like the SRVs and Fighter are used with a hanger

 

[Rogue_titan]

i would be in favor of giving main modules sub categories. A few different smaller tweaks to your module.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

i would be in favor of giving main modules sub categories. A few different smaller tweaks to your module.

Yeah, the modules could have benefits and penalties.
Then we could collect materials and data to build the sub-modules and take them somewhere to have them fitted by an expert.

Dunno why nobody has thought of this before

 

[Mordhar]

I would rather is be a sub module of the main FSD... like the SRVs and Fighter are used with a hanger

i would be in favor of giving main modules sub categories. A few different smaller tweaks to your module.

One of the main concerns I kept in mind while making this proposal is a chance of in-game implementation.

It is extremely unlikely that any changes more complex than adjusting some values/attributes will be made. Even conversion from internal to utility is unlikely (but still possible with very small probability if someone in FD will be interested).

And if no changes will be made right now, they will not be made at all.

While I wholeheartedly support the idea of more in-depth module customization, I must admit the chances for it to happen are very low (near zero).


Offtopic: There is no need to limit jump range for more scans. Galmap -> economical route.

 

[BinaryFu]

Not for skilled explorers that want credits.

So did you ever think how someone exploration ship is setup? For me, I would refuel every 10 15 jumps. I will let you try to solve that one.

You forget it depends on ship setup. I had a great fuel scoop and it would only take relining the ship to the next destantion to refuel my ship. I never sat down and waited to refuel.

I still with the old build after Horizon was released on one account. Been out for a few years. My guess I could have about 2 billion credit of system data.

See engineering great to get point A to B fast like passenger missions. But exploration shorter range is still better.

You're still missing the point. Greater range = greater efficiency when you're not doing max jumps. Period. So, unless you feel that a more efficient ship is somehow undesirable, then you should agree with me. More efficiency means you can change the outfitting of the ship, don't need as large of a scoop, nor as large of a fuel tank, it basically makes things better.

But apparently you're arguing that if you can do it just fine without engineering, why on earth would you ever bother to improve your ship? And if this is your thinking, then you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this. It's sad, because it's the opinions of the older players that FDEV listens to more and when the lot of you are whining that things were just fine in the good old days and they're making things too easy for the new players - Frontier loses potentially hundreds of thousands of new players who don't want to smash their balls with a hammer repeatedly while smug jerks say, "All you gotta do is get good."

Which ultimately means Frontier bleeds money for this game and eventually, the vein will be tapped dry (note my analogy fits with your handle) and then no more game for anyone. It will either evolve, or it will never get new blood and new money. But hey, at least you'll be perfectly content playing the game while it burns to the ground around you. Kudos.

Peace.

 

[BinaryFu]

Actually scooping fuel does consume only a negligible amount of time unless you are scooping with a class1 scoop. Most of the time I put the throttle to 40-50% as I circle the sun. Go in deep enough for max scoop and by the time I have aligned for the next jump I gained enough fuel for 2-3 more jumps. Also I tend to stick to those star types which are likely to have habitable planets - meaning types F, G, and K. All of these are scoopable. so I don't really run out of fuel.

Absolutely, plotting for scoopable stars and habitable systems is an excellent strategy, but for deep space exploration, shaving even 20 seconds from what you do every five minutes is huge. That means in an hour, you just shaved off 12x20=240 seconds, or 4 minutes of time. Four minutes per hour saved by having a more efficient ship, in a game where a thousand hours isn't unheard of (that's a savings of 4,000 minutes by the way, which would be 66.67 hours saved) is a sizeable amount of time not being wasted doing boring things.

So, long story short - for some of us, time is valuable - very valuable. And we prefer not to waste it doing ridiculously boring things in the middle of an otherwise fun and relaxing game, just because. If I can find a way to make the boring parts take less time, then I do. Efficient FSD (longer range) means getting from point A to point B faster, and then when I do start doing small jumps for exploration in an uncharted section of the galaxy, my fuel efficiency is so high that I can often log out for the night without having scooped at all, save for accidental scooping while aligning with my next jump.

But hey, by all means, play the game how you want to play it, just please don't tell me that my way saves a negligible amount of time when in fact I know it's saved me TENS of HOURS of time by now.

Cheers

 

[Ranek Eisenkralle]

Absolutely, plotting for scoopable stars and habitable systems is an excellent strategy, but for deep space exploration, shaving even 20 seconds from what you do every five minutes is huge. That means in an hour, you just shaved off 12x20=240 seconds, or 4 minutes of time. Four minutes per hour saved by having a more efficient ship, in a game where a thousand hours isn't unheard of (that's a savings of 4,000 minutes by the way, which would be 66.67 hours saved) is a sizeable amount of time not being wasted doing boring things.

So, long story short - for some of us, time is valuable - very valuable. And we prefer not to waste it doing ridiculously boring things in the middle of an otherwise fun and relaxing game, just because. If I can find a way to make the boring parts take less time, then I do. Efficient FSD (longer range) means getting from point A to point B faster, and then when I do start doing small jumps for exploration in an uncharted section of the galaxy, my fuel efficiency is so high that I can often log out for the night without having scooped at all, save for accidental scooping while aligning with my next jump.

But hey, by all means, play the game how you want to play it, just please don't tell me that my way saves a negligible amount of time when in fact I know it's saved me TENS of HOURS of time by now.

Cheers

I have at no point claimed my approach to be better than anyone else's, have I? If you are in such a rush during your exploration flights, then it is perfectly reasonable to want to shorten your fuel stops even more. As you stated yourself, to some, time is more valuable than to others. I personally consider the journey to be what exploration is about - not how quickly I can cover a certain distance. as a result I am scanning pretty much all stellar bodies in a given system (unless they are over 90k Ls out) with the exception of asteroid belts. Yes, this means I am "wasting time" - as some may put it - on scanning lifeless balls of ice orbiting gas giants. Yes, I know, the scan data for those is worth practically nothing. However, my approach is that since I am out here anyway, I might just as well scan all of the system (within reason).
All I said is that to me it does not make much of a difference - nothing more. Would I add such a booster to my ship? Sure. but to me it is really more of a nice-to-have feature, rather than a necessity.

 

[BradHann]

It also introduces some balancing problems (for example making recently very well balanced Diamondback-X inferior exploration vessel again).

DBX is the cheapest explorer ship - it should be worse than the competition.

 

[Exeider]

If it was a utility then it becomes a no-brainer and everybody uses it.

One of the good things about the current system is that outfitting requires players to make trade-offs.

You may as well just ask for a 10LY range increase for free, and not bother with the utility at all.

*sigh*

As an explorer we already made trade offs, between AMFUs, Repair limpet controllers, SRV space, No weapons, cargo bays, lightening up modules at the cost of integrity, etc.

We're already making tradeoffs , trying to cram more and more module types into the Optional Internal spaces is foolish, when we have a multitude of options available for some relief.

A) the Detailed Surface Scanner should be a submodule of the Discovery Scanner
B) The FSD booster should be either a Utility Module or a Sub-Module of the FSD.


FDev have created a fantastic thing when they created the concept of "sub-modules" and they should use it not shy away from it.

 

[Lestat]

*sigh*

As an explorer we already made trade offs, between AMFUs, Repair limpet controllers, SRV space, No weapons, cargo bays, lightening up modules at the cost of integrity, etc.

We're already making tradeoffs , trying to cram more and more module types into the Optional Internal spaces is foolish, when we have a multitude of options available for some relief.

It sounds like your the group that want players to be able to add everything in a sidewinder group. When the game it is about choices. Do I want this or do I want that? It not about a game that you can have everything at the same time. Quite complaining.

A) the Detailed Surface Scanner should be a submodule of the Discovery Scanner

No the game is about ship size and what they can hold. Not wanting a smaller ship to hold everything to suit your needs. This game is about choices. If you have to sacrifice something that part of the game.

B) The FSD booster should be either a Utility Module or a Sub-Module of the FSD.

NO. It should take module space it still about choices. If you have to sacrifice an SRV that a sacrifice you had to make. Distance vs driving around on a planet.

FDev have created a fantastic thing when they created the concept of "sub-modules" and they should use it not shy away from it.

This is not like other lame MMO that you can hold 2 tons of junk on someone back. You know the games. 15 Armors weapons and such. 40 types of food that would require 3 grocery cart to hold in real life, we could not hold on our backs.

Why not start using common sense instead of asking for every ship that could do it all.

 

[Exeider]

It sounds like your the group that want players to be able to add everything in a sidewinder group. When the game it is about choices. Do I want this or do I want that? It not about a game that you can have everything at the same time. Quite complaining.

No the game is about ship size and what they can hold. Not wanting a smaller ship to hold everything to suit your needs. This game is about choices. If you have to sacrifice something that part of the game.
NO. It should take module space it still about choices. If you have to sacrifice an SRV that a sacrifice you had to make. Distance vs driving around on a planet.

This is not like other lame MMO that you can hold 2 tons of junk on someone back. You know the games. 15 Armors weapons and such. 40 types of food that would require 3 grocery cart to hold in real life, we could not hold on our backs.

Why not start using common sense instead of asking for every ship that could do it all.

Sorry man, you're not going to win this argument by misrepresenting and overgeneralizing the issue, you come off sounding like an a**hat. We're not asking for doing it all in one, we're asking to utilize a plethora of module space that, as of this point, BARELY used by explorers. Which is a complete waste.

This is about evolving design of the ship outfitting. As more modules for a particular field come into play, the game needs to adjust to account for them not simply continue to cram into an already overloaded category and hope for the best.

The FSD booster, assuming it even ever comes back should take advantage of this space, either as a utility module or as an FSD submodule. It makes ZERO sense to toss it into the optional spaces, which is already overloaded as it is. Explorers already do make choices and sacrifices when it comes to MASS, the more we tack onto our kit, the heavier the ship and the lower the range. That's ED 101. bringing it back as a Utility Slot would allow explorers to use what is an underutilized group of slots.

The scanner SHOULD have different sub-module slots in it to allow the explorer to gear it towards whatever they want to find, the use of submodules is perfect for this. Want to search for Alien stuff, then use the scanner for it, want general exploration and planet scanning, use the detailed surface scanner submodule, want to find materials, then use a geology scanner submodule. It makes ZERO sense that the detailed surface scanner takes another module slot since it's useless without a Discovery Scanner in the first place and is essentially an Add-On.


But ya know what, just for the sake of your point, let me go the tote on this.

let's say for the sake of argument we do have a ship that lets us kit out all of the exploration doodads, SO WHAT?! The tradeoff there is, having all that kit means higher mass and crap FSD range in the first place.

So even you're own argument falls apart because even ALL IN ONES still would have the trade-off of losing all that range due to higher mass anyway.

Not to mention the fact that this game already is doing the "Tons of loot in your pocket", what do you think material storage is? If we're going for reality, material storage and synthesis should be removed from the game. So I'm sorry to tell you but ED is already borrowing some ideas from those "lame MMOs"

So why not pull your head out of your backside and be constructive instead...