Fuel tank engineering suggestion

4brkfast

4
Forgive anything out of order as I'm on a phone as I write this. A long exploration trip gave me time to think and this is one of the ideas I've been rolling around.

Any adjective or noun is changeable and probably needs as much fine tuning as the suggestion itself.

The first fuel tank type;

'Exotic compound'

An increase in fuel efficiency. Fsd and 3d space efficiency while retaining the same fuel weight. Possibly ideal for smaller ships.

2nd;

'Parallel/geometric stacked tanks'

Same fuel efficiency as normal. Decrease in weight efficiency. Ideal for explorers likely.

3rd;

'Solid state fuel'

Increase in fuel tank range considerably. Fuel scoops inoperable. This would double, triple or more the fuel tank weight and quantity extending the range of a single tank. To emphasize, non scoopable and maybe even much more expensive compared.

Possibly ideal for ships that do not have or don't typically operate with fuel scoops. Short range fighters, medium range traders, pirate ships etc.


As far as some experimental effects;

Custom /extended fuel line

Increase in quantity and weight respectively, a small extra bonus in added fuel, as described, due to an extended custom fuel line.

Boosted fuel line or Afterburner/thruster boost supplement(open for better descriptive or cool names)

Increase in 3d/normal space thruster optimal multiplier. Increase in supercruise fsd burn rate and a significant increase in 3d/normal space thruster fuel burn rate. Increase thermal signature.

And many of the other effects could apply here too. Shielded tanks (although this would only be useful if there were fuel leaks), but an increase in integrity nonetheless.

Thanks for reading, this suggestion isn't complete but I feel it would add another nice bonus to the fleets and further allow players to make their ships more their own in the way they want.
 

4brkfast

4
I don't understand your point.

The engineering is what allows a player to specialize or augment their ship. If you don't like it why are you playing.

You're aware of what this game is about. It has a heavy exploration lean and it's what makes this game a marvel into itself stopping there. It's not a new game.

So why neg something that would add to it? Not everybody feels the same as you fo, whining about a game with this much content and poo pooing a suggestion that would add more and make ships a little cooler.

If you don't have anything of real value to add to.the conversation please just don't bother, this goes to the last person and anybody else grumpy about something.
 

Andovar

Andovar
The more customization options the better, as far as I'm concerned.
Though I'm not so sure about the suggestions above. It would seem to me to be mostly negated by existing upgrades/options.
There's already FSD upgrades that improve fuel efficiency, and we also have the ability to stack fuel tanks.

Again, not saying i don't want the additional engineering options, just not too excited about the ones listed.
 

Sylow

Sylow
Navigare Necesse Est said:
How about landing gear. The headlights. Or maybe the ashtray?

If anything - the game needs less engineering and - especially - material bloat.
Click to expand...

While the way you say it is not my style, i agree with the notion. Engineers already added too much power creep. We don't need even more of that.

And yes, at first glance the suggestion looks harmless enough: it only modifies the fuel tank, what power creep could there be?

It really only shows when you look at what can be done with these modifications. The first two at the start "only" look like yet another step on the race for the longest jump range. The third is more obvious. Most combat ships out there have a rather small fuel tank. This forces the player to either stay local or use one of several possible ways to work around it. That's usually either more fuel tanks or a fuel scoop.

Now look at the solid state fuel idea. Suddenly fuel scoops are out of the picture. You simply get more traveling range, at basically no price at all.

Yes, the suggestion says that fuel would be more expencive. But really, even for a pauper like me (only 9 fully engineered ships of varying sizes, only 600 millions of credits cash on my character) you'd have to make this fuel insanely expensive to matter at all. As long as the special fuel gets only a few orders of magnitude (!) more expensive than regular fuel, it really won't make a difference.

So with that out of the way, there'd really be no disadvantage to the modification. But it would come with the advantages of much longer traveling range, while eliminating the need for a fuel scoop. This means that the very same combat ships, which now still carry a fuel scoop to travel through the bubble, will then instead carry another SCB, HRP, MRP or SRP. And yet one more module to add plenty of survivability is clear and direct power creep.

And that's even before looking at the special effects, where the one with improved optimal modifier just sticks out. It'd immediately be a must-have for any combat oriented pilot. Any even so small agility advantage can turn into a huge advantage when trying to get your guns on a target. So again, direct power creep.

As i think that the gap between non-engineered and engineered ships already is much too big and we don't really need to widen it even more, i really don't think that this idea would be any good.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
4brkfast said:
I don't understand your point.

The engineering is what allows a player to specialize or augment their ship. If you don't like it why are you playing.

You're aware of what this game is about. It has a heavy exploration lean and it's what makes this game a marvel into itself stopping there. It's not a new game.

So why neg something that would add to it? Not everybody feels the same as you fo, whining about a game with this much content and poo pooing a suggestion that would add more and make ships a little cooler.

If you don't have anything of real value to add to.the conversation please just don't bother, this goes to the last person and anybody else grumpy about something.
Click to expand...

You get what you ask for. You might not like it, but it's free for you. So don't complain.
 

Weps

Weps
4brkfast said:
If you don't have anything of real value to add to.the conversation please just don't bother, this goes to the last person and anybody else grumpy about something.
Click to expand...

If you are not able to take criticism (of any nature, even irrational), then just don't bother posting threads. These forums are not just for Happy Tree Elite Friends, and topics are not going to be filled up to 100% "yes we love your suggestion OP" replies.

I think the issue with RNGineering the fuel tank is that it has the potential to generate dull, tedious "improvement-only" mods, like so many already existing. And some of us don't like those.

For example I don't like the first two proposals, they seem like straight up upgrades, with little to no downside. Even if you take module weight as a downside, chances are it's going to end up being insignificant. So why bother including these in the crafting system, just so you could run around gathering mats? Might as well put them up for sale with the broker.

I do like the third one, trading scoop capability for range. That sounds like a sidegrade. But here's rub, FDEV is not exactly known for changing mechanics drastically in such a manner (the coding to block scooping for ships with a particular RNGinnered mod) - what would happen when someone would equip both modules? should the game show a message in outfitting? should it have a verbose message that the scoop is unusable in flight? should it just leave it there at 0T/s? what about player tickets on the matter? bug reports? yadda yadda etc. etc. etc. .. before you know it, the designers decide it's too much work....
 

Kenneth McGrew

Kenneth McGrew
Weps said:
I do like the third one, trading scoop capability for range. That sounds like a sidegrade. But here's rub, FDEV is not exactly known for changing mechanics drastically in such a manner (the coding to block scooping for ships with a particular RNGinnered mod) - what would happen when someone would equip both modules? should the game show a message in outfitting? should it have a verbose message that the scoop is unusable in flight? should it just leave it there at 0T/s? what about player tickets on the matter? bug reports? yadda yadda etc. etc. etc. .. before you know it, the designers decide it's too much work....
Click to expand...

it might also be against someones religion then we're all screwed.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: EUS

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
I like the idea of more engineering, especially of non-combat and secondary systems.

For Example:

Scratch-resistant Conopy
High Intensty Lighting
Extended Height Landing Gear
Cargo Netting (wider cargo hatch for manual catching)

Minor things to add variety.
 

dm06

dm06
I suggest to have a general amount of internal space which is not separated by slots.
For example, let's consider the Eagle, currently it has 3 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 9 units of internal space.
According to my suggestion I can put 8A shield generator on it and even 1d guardian shield reinforcement package.
The approach provides more freedom for ship customization still leaving power/mass/temperature managment to the players.
 

CmdMarty

C
You can already put more fuel tanks on your ship and put smaller tanks in place of the original. Dont really think we need more bloat in a bloated system over the need for more meaningful content for the current bloat!
 

uliando

uliando
Hold your horses! Wait for atmospherics and then we'll probably start seeing more eng stuff. With spacelegs I assume custom built parts and own repairs? Who needs to be stuck in reckt ship when you can walk and hit things with spanner?
 

BL1P

BL1P
uliando said:
Hold your horses! Wait for atmospherics and then we'll probably start seeing more eng stuff. With spacelegs I assume custom built parts and own repairs? Who needs to be stuck in reckt ship when you can walk and hit things with spanner?
Click to expand...
Atmospherics and Space Legs.
Welcome to Elite Dangerous Forums. You must be new !
 

Y nt Zoidberg7

Y nt Zoidberg7
I wouldn't mind these added, but I like engineering. I also would rather have different fuel grades that you could buy (they'd last x amount of hours or something) that could do some of this, but actually make them expensive.
 

jnTracks

jnTracks
To answer a point above about how solid fuel would it lock out the scoop: maybe the scoop actually is the part that gets engineered? Maybe the scoop turns into a converter that turns the solid fuel into a consumable on the fly. So the tank hold solid fuel that can’t be scooped but is super compressed, and the scoop re-manufacturers it for the power plant as needed.

I also dig the scan-shielded tank idea for smuggling compartments at the cost of fuel space.
 

4brkfast

4
I don't have an issue with discussions. Or criticism. I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing blatant dismissal without discussion from some based on... embitterment?

Btw, I shouldn't need to remind the virtual space pilots here, this game isn't fair. It's not supposed to be fair. If it was generic and "fair" it would be ridiculously boring. Is that the fear? Somebody else might be a better pilot and with a better ship?

And i appreciate that you can already change or add fuel tanks. Please read the suggestion again as maybe you missed the point. I'm talking about potentially allowing players to add another 5 ly to a jumper. Adding longer range to domestic or short range fighters, removing the need for fuel scoops in one case or adding needed fuel to a much smaller ship without extra space being used. How are these bad options?

I appreciate the players with imagination! I suspect like them, I too want the ability to truly make my ship as unique as possible. Everything custom everything modified to suit the roles and needs appropriate. There are other games for instant gratification but chances are you won't find a sim pilot game worth anything that's "fair", even the bad ones lend a challenge, if engineering is something you don't like I think you picked the wrong game as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom