Make the Guardian FSD booster a utility mount instead of an internal slot. The shield booster is a utility mount with a letter size instead of a slot size so making the G FSD booster a utility mount with letter size would really help smaller long range exploration ships by not taking up a valuable internal slot.
Guardian FSD Booster
- Thread starter Mo Ronik
- Start date
Lestat
Banned
There a reason why the smaller ship has limitations. It because they are smaller ships. So you have to use your brain to pick and choose what needed. This is also a Fact. Exploration is not how far you can jump but how many systems you can explore.
Note if it can be used as Exploration it can also Be a Long range combat ship.
Meh, reasons. OP makes a good point. It would also reinforce the difference between ships made for travel and those made for combat. I’m fine with it as is but the ops idea would not be out of place with the way FD has done things so far. You would also have to use your brain to pick what’s needed if the fsd booster were a utility. This is also a fact.
Lestat
Banned
No the Op did not make a good point. Remember this game is not like other lame MMO. When a player could hold 25 of each gun, Armour, Swords and not be affected you have to be superman to hold that much. This game is about choices. Not lack of choices.
I can have a small ship with Guardian FSD Booster. But I also understand I have to deal with that space lost. I had to sacrifice for Guardian FSD Booster. So it comes back to player choices. Which item is right for what you are doing.
Lestat
Banned
Ya, there 5. I just added one to my Anaconda Build.
I would think it could be handled with the letter designation, much the same way sheild boosters and wake scanners work.
True.
Another solution could be to make the slots in the optionals a bit more dynamic. Not so stuck in their sizes. Group some of them into a "fluid" set of slots.
Lol! Utilities are a HUGE sacrifice in a build, especially for small ships. The trade off would in many instances be more severe. Your argument makes no sense.
Lestat
Banned
See we already have huge sacrifice in small ships. They are small and Limited in space. I don't see using utility mount as a Huge sacrifice I see it as players trying to make a Mini Anaconda.
In Larger ships. Losing a few Utility mounts for Guardian FSD Boaster. I also see issues.
You may not see it, but it’s there.
Lestat
Banned
Just like you might not understand ship limitations but it's There.
Been playing since beta Open only. I understand ship limitations quite well.
No, the guardian shield booster is also a module, not a utility mount! So this does not make any sense....
Yes it's designed as a trade off. You can have a smaller GFSD Booster with less boost range and save your larger slots for cargo if you are a trader or go for the full monty if you are an explorer and not worried about cargo capacity, making the GFSD booster a one size fits all removes any sort of trade off mechanics. It was designed this way so that people make choices about loadouts, it works this way for FSD's, shield generators,just about every other module, bigger module bigger advantage, so I am not sure why this sudden request to make a module generic one size fits all and not other modules.
I suspect the problem is the OP has suddenly found he has just got one and has to sacrifice something from his favorite ship to fit an GFSD booster, welcome to the club OP, we all make the same decisions so you are not being unfairly targeted by the GFSD booster.
My thinking here is that shield boosters are E to A size and fit in a utility slot. It's a booster and without a shield it is useless. So why not have a FSD booster set up the same way. It's a booster and without a FSD it is useless. You'd still have an E to A size so it's not a one size fits all. Cost, power usage and heat all play a part. And yes, it would help to free up a smaller ship by one slot maybe making it a more viable ship for exploration. I don't own one but the Asp Scout is a good example. This build: https://s.orbis.zone/1569 One visit to Felicity and you can make it a reasonable exploration ship. If the G FSD booster was in the utility slot it would put the jump range in the upper 50ly range and now you have a ship that many feel is useless is now a pretty good exploration ship due to it's jump range. So a good looking ship thought of as somewhat useless now becomes useful in a more specific role.
*ahem*
...
No
Use the existing guardian modules. they are called optional internals for a reason.
plus engineers would rather have the booster inside the ship where the FSD function operates rather than on the outside of the ship where it makes no sense for it to be.
the only reason shield boosters are outside the ship is because the SHIELD IS OUTSIDE THE SHIP.
Shield may be outside the ship, but the generator sure isn’t.
Lestat
Banned
But having a shield booster as utility mount and on the outside would be ok because it affects the Shields. Kinda like Cellphone Case help protect the Cellphone.
Let take a car. With a Motor (FSD) and Turbo (FSD booster). With a Turbo it required to be near the Motor so it gets either coolant or Oil to keep the turbo cool while using exhaust to power the turbo while forcing fresh air into the Engine. Which give Cars more power. You would not want this mechanic in the Trunk or on the outside, would you? While it would be better in the Engine bay with the motor.
For a small ship that a good build. What I would do is Drop the AFMU and add the FSD Booster if you want longer distance. Avoid doing stupid stuff. Avoid using Neutron superhighway and don't fly under the influence.
Let look at the cellphone case. It on the outside while the cellphone protected by the case. We can also look at bulletproof vests that protect the user from bullets.
Last edited:
I think the question is, if Frontier had at any point switched a module from internal to utility or the other way round. I am pretty sure these decisions are made after long planning phases because they know that a later change is almost impossible without breaking some ships. Effectively removing modules like in the case of ADS to FSS was easier because there was no need for messy temporary module slots until docking or something similar, even if it removed some loadout planning.
Suggestions to change the type of modules from internal to utility or vice versa are probably made since the introduction of them. I think they are useful but arguments have to be really good to even consider some kind of galaxy reset (that happened in NMS due to changing elements and modules etc) to avoid having inconsistencies between Cmdrs.
Suggestions to change the type of modules from internal to utility or vice versa are probably made since the introduction of them. I think they are useful but arguments have to be really good to even consider some kind of galaxy reset (that happened in NMS due to changing elements and modules etc) to avoid having inconsistencies between Cmdrs.