Frontier, the absence of a Universal Limpet Controller undermines your own good work

[askavir]

Counterpoint.

Limpet controllers are currently a good way for one to determine the roll of a ship, i.e. "Hey, that guy has a hatchbreaker, he must be up to no good."

How does that shift if limpet controllers are suddenly universal?

(I am not saying that I disagree with the OP. I too have been in situations where I didn't have the right limpet controller to exploit an opportunity. But it would behoove us to think of all angles here...)

That is a valid point. However, I still think that having universal limpet controllers would benefit everyone and make gameplay more diverse, even if at some expense of cases like the one you point out.

When I saw that stranded ship out of fuel scenario in one of the reveal streams I though "that's cool, very star trekky". But also thought "who, except for the fuel rats, ever sacrifices a slot to carry around fuel transfer limpet controller just because?"...

Number of modules have grown quite a lot over the years, yet ship's slots have not, for the most cases. I'd hate to be pushed to have to fly large ships just to avoid being locked out of what should be "regular" content, like helping out a stranded ship.

 

[ithinkiam]

That is a valid point. However, I still think that having universal limpet controllers would benefit everyone and make gameplay more diverse, even if at some expense of cases like the one you point out.

The point of elite is that you have to make choices. Especially with small/medium ships. Having a universal controller defeats the purpose and would not make gameplay more diverse - you'd simply be able to take the same ship to all scenarios.

Having to make decisions to suit your needs is what makes elite challenging and engaging.

There may be an argument for a little consolidation, but not a universal limpets/controller.

 

[PuffyEichhorst]

A gameplay anecdote: yesterday I was flying around with my all-purpose Asp, which is equipped with a Collector Limpet controller, to snag the materials I find in USSs and various places. During my travels, I see a new contact, one of the many new kinds of installations and megaships you've put in the Bubble. I decide to stop and take a look. The asset itself is impressive. I scan it with the Datalink Scanner. It highlights the cargo hatches and the data points I could break/hack. Except, I cannot, because I lack the two different kinds of limpet controllers required (Hatch Breaker and Recon). Oh well, I leave without interacting with the megaship. About half hour later, I find a new distress signal. I drop in, and there's a stranded ship needing fuel. I'd like to help it, but I cannot, because i lack the Fuel Limpet controller.

I suppose the same could happen with someone meeting a Thargoid (which can be interacted with by means of Research Limpets) or a damaged ship in needs to repair (Repair Limpet).

The moral of the story is: you've worked hard to introduce new assets and new scenarios for us to interact with. But more often than not we will not interact with them, because we don't have the tools for it. Could I have flown over to the nearest station and bought the three kinds of limpet controllers I needed? Sure. But (even assuming that the station had them in stock) that would've taken me quite a bit of extra time, between going there, outfitting it, and then coming back to put back in my Asp the modules I regularly want.

Now, before someone says "well, but I do". Good for you. There's also people who go to Beagle point in a Sidewinder. But I think it is a pretty uncontroversial opinion that the game should, on average, help you perform the actions you want without extra and unnecessary hoops to jump into, especially for new or inexperienced players who aren't even aware of the 8 different kinds of limpet controllers they might need to equip. They are just too many.

We need a Universal Limpet Controller.

+1

The Slots we can use for the limpet controller doens‘t fit into the system aswell in my opinion. I don‘t need a module 5 limpet controller for resource drone, that i mainly fire in a single shot to check the resources.

 

[TheSynopticVision]

The point of elite is that you have to make choices. Especially with small/medium ships. Having a universal controller defeats the purpose and would not make gameplay more diverse - you'd simply be able to take the same ship to all scenarios.

Having to make decisions to suit your needs is what makes elite challenging and engaging.

There may be an argument for a little consolidation, but not a universal limpets/controller.

I politely disagree. There are still many decisions we have to take. And it seems to me that most people here agree that the status quo is not workable. A "little consolidation" would already be very good (something like three kinds of limpet controllers). But on the other hand: to create a ULC would give Frontier a lot of new creative freedom, to introduce in the future yet other kinds of limpets to allow us to do more with the stuff we encounter.

 

[askavir]

The point of elite is that you have to make choices. Especially with small/medium ships. Having a universal controller defeats the purpose and would not make gameplay more diverse - you'd simply be able to take the same ship to all scenarios.

Having to make decisions to suit your needs is what makes elite challenging and engaging.

There may be an argument for a little consolidation, but not a universal limpets/controller.

That is true when taking a ship to do a specialized task. We should not be able to effectively take a miner build to a war zone, or do trading with a specialized fighter. But having universal limpets would still not make a miner build good at a war zone, not a combat ship good at trading or mining.

Limpets aren't, for the most part, used for specialized tasks (or at least aren't decisive factors in specialized tasks). Collector limpets are useful for mining, but also for scavengers and even fighters (to collect the mats dropped from destroyed ships). I don't think that, for instance, a combat ship being able to use repair limpets AND collection limpets to scoop mats is something that would throw off balance, or a player in a combat ship being able to scoop the mats with limpets feel his gameplay diminished.

Then there's the example I gave about the brand new stranded ship scenario... Who, currently, will sacrifice a slot to carry around a fuel tansfer limpet controller just on the off-chance they might stumble upon some ship requiring assistance?

Wouldn't be opposed to some kind of middle ground consolidation, but then how would we group the limpet controller types? We currently have:

Collector limpet controller
Decontamination limpet controller
Fuel Transfer limpet controller
Hatch Breaker limpet controller
Prospector limpet controller
Recon limpet controller
Repair limpet controller
Research limpet controller

 

[jacozilla]

The point of elite is that you have to make choices. Especially with small/medium ships. Having a universal controller defeats the purpose and would not make gameplay more diverse - you'd simply be able to take the same ship to all scenarios.

Having to make decisions to suit your needs is what makes elite challenging and engaging.

There may be an argument for a little consolidation, but not a universal limpets/controller.

You're ok with a universal weapon controller though? Because all the disparate weapons and fire solutions are obviously controlled somehow - there's no 'plasma weapons controller' and a 'ballistic weapons controller'....but we somehow need the logic of making trade offs for mining controllers yet not for weapons?

note - I'm not calling for separate weapon controllers, but it's fair to ask why does mining need to make 'trade offs' for different mining solutions when it's pretty clear weapons of significantly different tracking, firing, etc dont?

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

A gameplay anecdote: yesterday I was flying around with my all-purpose Asp, which is equipped with a Collector Limpet controller, to snag the materials I find in USSs and various places. During my travels, I see a new contact, one of the many new kinds of installations and megaships you've put in the Bubble. I decide to stop and take a look. The asset itself is impressive. I scan it with the Datalink Scanner. It highlights the cargo hatches and the data points I could break/hack. Except, I cannot, because I lack the two different kinds of limpet controllers required (Hatch Breaker and Recon). Oh well, I leave without interacting with the megaship. About half hour later, I find a new distress signal. I drop in, and there's a stranded ship needing fuel. I'd like to help it, but I cannot, because i lack the Fuel Limpet controller.

I suppose the same could happen with someone meeting a Thargoid (which can be interacted with by means of Research Limpets) or a damaged ship in needs to repair (Repair Limpet).

The moral of the story is: you've worked hard to introduce new assets and new scenarios for us to interact with. But more often than not we will not interact with them, because we don't have the tools for it. Could I have flown over to the nearest station and bought the three kinds of limpet controllers I needed? Sure. But (even assuming that the station had them in stock) that would've taken me quite a bit of extra time, between going there, outfitting it, and then coming back to put back in my Asp the modules I regularly want.

Now, before someone says "well, but I do". Good for you. There's also people who go to Beagle point in a Sidewinder. But I think it is a pretty uncontroversial opinion that the game should, on average, help you perform the actions you want without extra and unnecessary hoops to jump into, especially for new or inexperienced players who aren't even aware of the 8 different kinds of limpet controllers they might need to equip. They are just too many.

We need a Universal Limpet Controller.

Limpets are universal and are all stored in one cargo bin; The various controler's, which all need their own separate individual slots program them, if and when needed.

Your talking about haveing a universal controler, which would only take one slot verses numerious; I get that. But then all the various limpets would have to be preprogramed and require separate cargo bins, which all require separate slots; Which is basically the same as it is now.

 

[askavir]

But then all the various limpets would have to be preprogramed and require separate cargo bins, which all require separate slots; Which is basically the same as it is now.

Why would they require separate cargo bins, if limpets are programmed at the moment of launching (even the ship voice confirms that)?

 

[Florenus]

We need a Universal Limpet Controller.

Generally I agree.
It's up to the dev's to decide - there might be design/balancing issues we're not taking into account, but you make a good point, so I hope they'll consider it.

 

[Anubite]

It's been mentioned, but I'll note once more.

You could have a load-time for switching limpet function. This time-delay would add to still-considerable incentive to take 2+ controllers.

Could even have a fun script appear in the upper-right panel, like during ship reboot, describing the programming conversion process.

 

[ithinkiam]

That is true when taking a ship to do a specialized task. We should not be able to effectively take a miner build to a war zone, or do trading with a specialized fighter. But having universal limpets would still not make a miner build good at a war zone, not a combat ship good at trading or mining.

There are plenty of examples of combat transporters so the game shouldn't restrict you for arbitrary reasons (within reason). I can't have all possible internal modules either. Does that mean we should have universal modules as well? No, it doesn't.

You're ok with a universal weapon controller though? Because all the disparate weapons and fire solutions are obviously controlled somehow - there's no 'plasma weapons controller' and a 'ballistic weapons controller'....but we somehow need the logic of making trade offs for mining controllers yet not for weapons?

note - I'm not calling for separate weapon controllers, but it's fair to ask why does mining need to make 'trade offs' for different mining solutions when it's pretty clear weapons of significantly different tracking, firing, etc dont?

Except we have different slots for different weapon sizes - in effect a "controller". The main complaint is that the OP can't have all the limpet controllers at the same time, nor can we have all weapons at the same time either. It's no different. That is why we have different ship types and can buy multiple ships to configure for our needs.

Want to go pirating? Get some juicy hardpoints, an interdictor, hatch breaker limpet controller and optionally collector limpet controller and a cargo scanner.

Want to go mining? Get mining hardpoints, refinery, prospector and collector limpet controllers.

Want to do both? Comprise on some of the above or get a bigger ship.

The biggest problem with a universal controller is that then you need a new mechanic for defining how your limpets should behave? Do you buy specialised limpets? Then how do control them? Does every ship then need inbuilt hardpoints for each limpet class by default? 7 new hardpoints, no thanks!!

 

[Sterling MH]

Why does software need to make it bigger and heavier?

It doesn't. But hardware does. So to program and construct different limpets requires hardware to reconfigure the material to the required formation.

But thanks for proving my point: FD won't do it not because they don't care but because people will LOATHE it unless it entirely vacates the previous work on limpet controllers.

It has to be bigger and heavier to BALANCE against the simpler single use controllers. But if it isn't just full on better you just don't want it. Therefore either FD have to ruin their product for the feels of one person or ignore that one person.

 

[galahad2069]

The biggest problem with a universal controller is that then you need a new mechanic for defining how your limpets should behave?

It's none of my business as I only have combat ships, but actually it would be very easy. You already have buttons for things like "Gun sight mode" (or whatever it's called).
Just add another button called "Limpet controller mode" for it in the right panel, through which you could select values like ("collector", "fuel transfer", "prospector" etc.). Then the next launched limpet could behave according to that setting. They could even add a keybind to cycle through the values (which should also be displayed in the firegroup and the HUD to avoid confusion).

Even better, it wouldn't even be necessary to add yet another button, because there already is at least one utterly redundant button there, namely the one called "Beacon" (the wing beacon should be enabled by default all the time anyway), so they could just use its place.

Oh, and limpets shouldn't take up cargo space at all, they could just be stored within the limpet controller module as ammo. The size of the controller module could determine the capacity.

 

[jacozilla]

It doesn't. But hardware does. So to program and construct different limpets requires hardware to reconfigure the material to the required formation.

But thanks for proving my point: FD won't do it not because they don't care but because people will LOATHE it unless it entirely vacates the previous work on limpet controllers.

It has to be bigger and heavier to BALANCE against the simpler single use controllers. But if it isn't just full on better you just don't want it. Therefore either FD have to ruin their product for the feels of one person or ignore that one person.

You're only fulfilling your self-defined prophecy - to be fair I understand your logic, but don't agree with it. You're saying adding the additional software functions for multiple limpet controllers into a universal controller would mandate heavier/bigger controller - I presume because somehow it either wouldn't fit (storage capacity) or can't be processed computationally on a smaller/lighter device.

My question remains the same though - why do you see this increase as automatic necessity? Forgot 34th century, we can fit a huge range of disparate programming onto the same mass/size computer. Price goes up, sure. I get that and agree - which is why I only commented re: size/mass and not price.

I don't see how adding the software to control a prospector type limpet, or half dozen limpet types, into a single controller would equate to larger size/mass. Not unless you're talking an incredibly exponential or logarithmic increase to the computational power needed such that by whatever standards the 'avg' computer or controller in ED-verse is, that increase requires much larger platform to house that computational power.

Re: balance - well those are game reasons. I'm not talking about or debating whether FD would or wouldn't see the merits of it. As a player though, it makes zero game or logical sense to equate adding a few additional software functions = must demand bigger/heavier platform to house it. Does my smartphone need to be larger/heavier to run half dozen more apps? No - because those apps are computationally similar in execution requirements to others already running on it.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

It's been mentioned, but I'll note once more.

You could have a load-time for switching limpet function. This time-delay would add to still-considerable incentive to take 2+ controllers.

Could even have a fun script appear in the upper-right panel, like during ship reboot, describing the programming conversion process.

Have you ever tried to pirate another CMDR, or even an NPC?

A delay in switching between collectors and hatchbreakers would be unacceptable. Same goes for mining in some situations.

You continue to think about the topic myopically. Don't go proposing redesigns of equipment and modules that you haven't used extensively.

(And you're wrong about the "station killing you instantly" thing. I said waiting outside for you to leave. I didn't say anything about hatchbreaking you in front of the station.)

 

[Blackcompany]

A single, universal limpet controller needs to happen. Even better, do away with controllers and make controlling limpets something a ship's computer can simply do natively. Like the FSS is, and the DSS SHOULD BE.

Either way, I get so tired of passing up scenarios that offer some game play variety because I cant fit every single limpet controller type and still have a useful, functional ship.

 

[Sterling MH]

Have you ever tried to pirate another CMDR, or even an NPC?

A delay in switching between collectors and hatchbreakers would be unacceptable. Same goes for mining in some situations.

Hence you'd use two of the old controllers, NOT the universal one.

You continue to think about the topic myopically.

Now where is that picture of a black kettle....

NOTE: I don't think it necessarily a good idea. But here's a tip: before claiming someone hasn't thought it through, consider the idea as if you had made it, not someone else. Then you'll be more willing to see how it MIGHT work.

YOUR point prior to that was why the universal controller should not be the only limpet controller, but the original types need to be there too. Something nobody has explicitly laid out as being needed, though I thought it would be patent with the idea of balancing the universal one with the original versions being needed. But was not explicit.

The not thinking things through was an assertion, an ad hom, and a projection of your failure to think it through yourself. Kinda spikes your argument and deflates any future argument you might place up here: you may not have thought it through again.

 

[Sterling MH]

You're only fulfilling your self-defined prophecy /QUOTE]

Yes. I made the claim based on my thoughts: that the original versions needed balance or they are obsoleted. You, however, had no logic and no thoughts other than "This is a pain, I don't like it".

And my "fulfilling" was purely to your demand that I explain how YOUR incorrect assertion about my idea is right. Which when it was pointed out that it was YOU claiming that it's just a software change was YOUR claim, not MINE, and that if the thing has to materially configure a limpet (how else would they be the same base product yet do such disparate things if all that changed was software?), then it's got naff all to do with software changing, you then complained I was retconning.

Nope, I never said it was software. YOU did.

 

[Sterling MH]

"My question remains the same though - why do you see this increase as automatic necessity? "
Balance.

Said so before your post, so read it next time.

 

[jacozilla]

Let’s recap your nonsense and evasion shall we? Below is your original post, where YOU state that an integrated controller must be “bigger and heavier”.

I asked you why it must be bigger and heavier - because after all software had no weight, and it sure as heck doesn’t require an exponential increase to computational power to add what is essentially another app to the same device.

Yes - I brought up software because that is all an integrated controller is. You’ve still not answered in what possible sense does storing and running a few more software packages demand a bigger and heavier device than whatever currently runs one type of control?

Have fun trying to explain your hand wavium ‘because....reasons!’ lack of logic and common sense.

Also, you falsely fabricated a quote I never said - you state below in original source below claiming that:

“You, however, had no logic and no thoughts other than "This is a pain, I don't like it". “

Please link my original source where I ever used the word pain or even mentioned like or dislike. You can’t, because never said it. My only opinion was I’d prefer an integrated controller and asked you why you foolishly believe software needs a heavier and bigger controller?

When you lack common sense, make up illogical reasons - when that fails just outright invent quotes and lie?

AT LEAST 3x the cost, probably better 4x the cost, arguably more than the cost of all the other controllers together.

It should also be bigger and heavier.

So if, pulling figures out of the aether, it were 4x the price of a "standard" controller, one class higher (so 1E becomes 2E, 1A becomes 2A) with the normal delta in weight for needing that bigger class, would THIS be acceptable?

Remember, the controller needs to be balanced to other options, so we need "reason" for someone to pinch out merely the fuel limpets for playing as a fuel rat rather than going for the bells-and-whistles approach.

This would be the MINIMUM necessary to keep it balanced.

So if you were given a universal controller one class higher and three times the mass to do the same as the current controllers, just you get to swap modes to a different controller, would ANYONE complain about its cost or drawbacks? FD likely would be put off by that. See what happens every time something is "rebalanced" in ED...


Secondly remember how many people are passed off with how many extra buttons they need to run all the new stuff. Even the NV toggle. So given that, how would you expect the reception of a button to toggle each mode of the universal controller? Remember too that you've not said how to mechanise it *to other people*, only promoted your own hypothesis for it (and everyone's ideas smell of roses to the one dealing it out, it just stinks to others).

So FD have two reasons not to want to bother with the effort.

So how about throwing each idea out and then argue about the best option until there's only one left standing, then offer that to FD with the fait accompli of "everyone who cares has complained about all the others, this one has passed the baptism of fire".

Even if it doesn't work, after that effort, nobody wanting a change can be blamed for FD not doing it, everyone then proposing the idea is blameless if it doesn't go in.

Yes. I made the claim based on my thoughts: that the original versions needed balance or they are obsoleted. You, however, had no logic and no thoughts other than "This is a pain, I don't like it".

And my "fulfilling" was purely to your demand that I explain how YOUR incorrect assertion about my idea is right. Which when it was pointed out that it was YOU claiming that it's just a software change was YOUR claim, not MINE, and that if the thing has to materially configure a limpet (how else would they be the same base product yet do such disparate things if all that changed was software?), then it's got naff all to do with software changing, you then complained I was retconning.

Nope, I never said it was software. YOU did.