Docking Computer and Supercruise Assist - Please don't make these "cost" slots

[GlitchedVision0101]

No. Just no. They should cost slots to keep things balanced. No benefit to game play? It allows people who don't know how to dock the ability to dock without danger. It prevents the loop of shame which can affect profit per minute. So yes, having them take up slots does keep game play balanced. All ships get at least 1 extra slot. So just learn how to dock. That way you can have your SC Assist to prevent the loop of shame and still won't sacrifice any cargo. And docking is not that hard once you learn how. All pilots should know how to dock. Imagine if you were driving a semi and didn't know how to back it up. It's the same principle. That's why truck driving schools spend a lot of time teaching backing. Hauling a load down the road isn't that difficult, but backing into a loading zone at the end of the run can be a real nightmare if you don't know how. Same with docking in ED. So just learn how to dock.

alternatively you can pay attention when in supercruise so you don't miss your stop and have to do that loop of shame and instead use the docking computer no cargo lost, same principal.

 

[NeilF]

Firstly, stop trying to justify YOUR argument by quoting some random who holds they same view. As you should well know, with a little digging one can find a posts complaining about every aspect of the game, including some aspects that are imaginary.

An interesting approach. So I tell you I woudln't fit the DC on most of my builds because of the slot cost. I tell you of my friends that have the game, all but one of those are in the same boat, and I also provide a number of posts from over the year stating the slot cost is perceived by them as too much of a pointless penalty to them.

And you're conclusion? These folks aren't simply talking about a geniune issue to them (ie: They won't fit features like this because of the slot cost). And you can't just do people the justice of accepting they might have different opinions and views to you, so you proceed to dismiss their views as just "complaints" and "imaginary", as if they're unfounded?

Why?

EDIT: Look at post #307 below - Another example of a CMDR seeing the internal slot cost as unjustifiable for a QoL and "fun" feature.

As for your argument that the DC and other (in your words) non-gameplay modules should be part of the standard ship functionality, well yes that would be nice but where is the line drawn? Just the new ADC and SCA, or should FD include all scanner, all limpet controllers as integral parts of the ship?

Well, actually my prefered solution which is clearly mentioned in the OP (& I'll include at the end of this post) and is simply that the modules in question (the DC and SCA) become "Software Modules" fitting in "Software Slots".

And as for suggesting other modules like "limpet controllers" could follow suit, have I suggested that? Or have I been quite specific about what sort of modules could be treated like this? So why raise an obvious strawman?

One of the aspects I like about this game is the choices the player has to make. Do I fit a size 4 or size 6 shield generator to my ship, depends on what I intend doing with the ship doesn't it. If I fit 'X' weapons to my large hardpoint, will it mean I have to fit a different type of weapon to my medium hardpoint due to power usage. The same is for those components you deem rather irrelevant, i.e. not gameplay.

And one aspect I personally enjoy about this game is having fun. The DC would from time to time be fun to use. It offers no gameplay advantage (infact it docks slower than manually). It makes not one bit of difference to any other CMDR in the game if I have one or not. But for some reason, having access to this "fun feature" will cost me a constant slot penalty, which undoubtably makes some CMDRs not fit it.

Some players will want to install the new ADC and SCA, not because it will give them an edge in combat, but because THEY WANT TO.

Quite the contrary. Fitting the DC and SCA will NOT give an edge in combat. Indeed the fact they (needlessly) use in slots gives them a combat disadvantage as they could use those slots for tanking.

Which of course brings us to FD's bandaid of adding more slots to ships simply because the DC and SCA (needlessly) use internal slots... These new slots will simply increase tanking... How is that a productive outcome? Can you?

EDIT: Look at post #304 immediately below this one! See the problem?

And a lot of other Commanders won't install either modules, after all they never bothered is the standard DC, they can't see a need nor requirement for the new one - again that is their choice. They know that by fitting these new modules they might have to give up on that fourth HRP, they are making a conscious choice in the matter. Taking away that choice is forcing everyone to adopt a standardised configuration, which I suspect is the last thing FD wants.

So to conclude, can you explain the problem with my "Software Slot" proposal which means fitting the DC and SCA is still a choice for the CMDRS. There's no "penalty" of internal slots be used. And that not new slots need to be added risking yet more needless ship tanking?:-

Make the Docking Computer and Super Cruise Assistant "Software Modules" which fit into "Software Slots" available on ships. This removes the "slot cost" of them using stand internet slots, and opens up a new mechanic for offering features to ships via "software slots". No new internal slots need be added causing yet more tanking. ​

​

 

[Bortas]

Answering title, not all the following text - how does these new things "cost" slots? We're given the needed slots for free! Granted, larger ships only get the one slot, but it's not like these ships lack for slots.

The point is that most players will find those slots more useful for something else. Personally I'm going to put thermal resistant HRPs into one of the C1 slots on most of my ships and replace the C2/C3 ones I'm currently using with HD ones.

This will result in +259 / +302 HP for ships with one additional C1 slot (replacing either a C2 or C3 HRP), and a whopping +510 HP for ships which get two additional C1 slots.

I would like to have a docking computer and SC assistant on most of my ships... but I'm not going to waste any optional internals for them, even if I get those internals for free.

 

[NeilF]

I enjoy the choice as well. Many people build to a standard meta already so it wouldn't hurt to make them basic internal modules. On the other hand, I support FDev wanting people to learn to dock manually. The manual docking argument is my primary reason for not fully supporting the internalization of these modules. I personally have a tough time with docking because of my extra visual challenges so I make the conscious choice to sacrifice build meta/effectiveness in order to use a tool that makes the game playable and keeps me from being trapped in space, never to land in a habited area.

The suggestion in the OP will change nothing about the DC and SCA other than they would fit into "Software Slots" instead. They would still require the CMDR to make a choice or not of paying the CRs to fit them.

In the other hand, I also see the issues and additional slot creep the OP keeps referring to as a negative of these changes. Many will use these new module slots for HRP or MRP modules, further improving their tank stats. Admittedly, I think the problem can easily be solved by removing c1 mrp and hrp modules entirely. this keeps these c1 slots open for things like the new adc and sca modules and ensures that the slots will not be abused to further alter the balance of the game. Alternatively, add a new module class called assist modules. These would include limpet controllers and the new modules. The planetary surface scanner would also fit in this group, anything that comes in a class 1 size that does not affect combat in any way. The new slots should be restricted to assist modules. This solution keeps c1 hrp and mrp modules in the game but insures they are not used in these slots.

Yes the new slots is counter productive IMHO, and is seemingly only being done to offset the DC and SCA (counter productive) slot cost. Given I suspect most CMDRs simply don't want such modules, or not at the expense of slots, these new slots will simply turn into yet more tanking.

And what you're describing as "Assist Modules" I guess I'm calling "Software Modules", and I suppose it's a similar outcome. A means of offering features to ships via a means that does not use a standard internal slot.

 

[NeilF]

The point is that most players will find those slots more useful for something else. Personally I'm going to put thermal resistant HRPs into one of the C1 slots on most of my ships and replace the C2/C3 ones I'm currently using with HD ones.

This will result in +259 / +302 HP for ships with one additional C1 slot (replacing either a C2 or C3 HRP), and a whopping +510 HP for ships which get two additional C1 slots.

And to me this seems a negative outcome. Not sure if you agree or not?

It's just power creep due to a bandaid being added due to the DC and SCA using internal slots needlessly (and FD adding more slots to offset it).

Make the the DC and SCA "Software Modules" you buy to fit into a number of "Software Slots" all ships have. No new internal slots required.

 

[Bortas]

And to me this seems a negative outcome. Not sure if you agree or not?

Yes, I think it's mostly negative... while I wouldn't mind some extra HP on my ships, I would also like to make use of the new modules... but my klingon mindset doesn't allow me to use any slots for convenience-stuff

Edit: Oh, and I really don't want to engage a hull-tank Cobra MK IV with even more HRPS

 

[NeilF]

Yes, I think it's mostly negative... while I wouldn't mind some extra HP on my ships, I would also like to make use of the new modules... but my klingon mindset doesn't allow me to use any slots for convenience-stuff

And this is the very sentiment that so many posters here seem to deny is real or worth considering - That the internal slot cost of the DC (& most likey the SCA) will mean many CDMRs will simply never fit it, when in truth they'll simply be using it for a bit of convenience and fun once in a while.

And they also seem to be completely ignoring the counter productive power creep these new frees slots are going to create.

Very very confused!

I really do think FD have dropped the ball with this one...

 

[Skizomeuh]

Never fitted Docking Comp, never will because I enjoy too much handling the landings, yet totally agree with OP.
SC assist, I'll probably install it as it'll definetely be a need if/when spacelegs come.

If this is really a need gamedesign-wise, at the very least why not a unique "Computer" component meant for optional internal slot, containing multiple "software" slots (as it was considered by FDEV for things like limpet controllers, etc... when 3.3 was in dev)?

 

[excalibus]

This
To me it seems like it's the other way around. In this thread I haven't seen a single good argument against making the ADC a standard ship functionality (which is well inline with night vision, flight assist, your radar, galnet audio, etc. which don't require additional modules either) apart from 'because Frontier said so'. Which is an invalid argument in a suggestions forum.

Those items you list (with the exception of nightvision as that is a new vision mod not in the previous games), were always part of the previous games and did not take up cargo space, while however the ADC has always taken up cargo space...

GALNET existed in the form of the galactic news paper that was in Elite 3 - Final Frontier. and they have enhanced it further with audio for us in ED.
Scanners have been an intergrated ship function since Elite., flight assist on / off I see that is the switching between newtonian flight model and and the arcade style flight model we have, both flight models existed previously. as newtownian flight was first used in Elite 2 : Frontier. While more arcade style flight was used in the original elite if I am not mistaken.

So to that end, IT is already in keeping with the previous history and style of the game franchise, ergo, its also enshrined in the lore and expectations from players. Therefore, changing it now has zero merit and the fact that frontier have decided to add extra slots to all ships with the inclusion of the release of the new upgraded docking computer and the sc flight assist module, suggesat to me yes they realise there is a need for these things and want to introduce them without 'punishing' anyone so giving the extra slots essentially allows people to use them if they wish to.

As I suggested earlier, why don't we look at it another way, if they were to put these 2 modules as built in devices available on every ship, then would it not actually be equally acceptable to remove one small slot from every ship in the game, refunding those players who have something in that slot the credits they paid for the module... Surely that has to be acceptable to everyone because they are getting these other things without the need to actually choose weather or not to equip them therefore they must not require 1 small slot anymore...

 

[babelfisch]

Those items you list (with the exception of nightvision as that is a new vision mod not in the previous games), were always part of the previous games and did not take up cargo space, while however the ADC has always taken up cargo space...

GALNET existed in the form of the galactic news paper that was in Elite 3 - Final Frontier. and they have enhanced it further with audio for us in ED.
Scanners have been an intergrated ship function since Elite., flight assist on / off I see that is the switching between newtonian flight model and and the arcade style flight model we have, both flight models existed previously. as newtownian flight was first used in Elite 2 : Frontier. While more arcade style flight was used in the original elite if I am not mistaken.

So to that end, IT is already in keeping with the previous history and style of the game franchise, ergo, its also enshrined in the lore and expectations from players. Therefore, changing it now has zero merit and the fact that frontier have decided to add extra slots to all ships with the inclusion of the release of the new upgraded docking computer and the sc flight assist module, suggesat to me yes they realise there is a need for these things and want to introduce them without 'punishing' anyone so giving the extra slots essentially allows people to use them if they wish to.

As I suggested earlier, why don't we look at it another way, if they were to put these 2 modules as built in devices available on every ship, then would it not actually be equally acceptable to remove one small slot from every ship in the game, refunding those players who have something in that slot the credits they paid for the module... Surely that has to be acceptable to everyone because they are getting these other things without the need to actually choose weather or not to equip them therefore they must not require 1 small slot anymore...

I am not sure if it makes sense to compare the module system in ED to Elite.
Anyway, so you think night vision should require an additional module?

 

[NeilF]

So to that end, IT is already in keeping with the previous history and style of the game franchise, ergo, its also enshrined in the lore and expectations from players.

Even if the outcome is demonstrably counter productive?:-

• A slot penalty cleary diswades CMDRs from fitting a module they see at a minor QoL fun item.
• Worse still, FDs bandaid for this needless slot cost of adding more free slot to all ships is going to unbalance the game even more with yet more unproductive ship tanking.

I've not had a single reasoned issue pointed out yet so I'll try again - What is the problem with proposed simple solution in the OP of ships having "Software Slots", and making the DC and SCA software modules you purchase to put in those slots?

No counter productive internal slot costs. No needless new internal slots causing counter productive tanking.

 

[Alwayslate]

I don't understand why you keep repeating that there's no advantage. Auto-piloting is an advantage in Elite and there's no way around.

 

[NeilF]

I don't understand why you keep repeating that there's no advantage. Auto-piloting is an advantage in Elite and there's no way around.

When weighed up, in the scheme of things? Let's consider the DC?

• Can you (as no doubt an average seasoned CMDR) dock quicker manually or via a docking computer? So the DC is actually a disadvnantage in some ways?
• If a players uses does it negatively affect any other CMDR in the game?

Next, what is so all magical about an internal slot as "payment" for the DC? Why isn't just CRs enough?


I tell you what I don't understand, is why no one supporting the current or new proposed mechanic is willing to discuss the elephant in the room of how needlessly counter product these new slots are. More slots being added seemingly just to offset the slot cost of the DC and SCA, and this will obviously just mean yet more slots to tank up ships? And to try an balance NPC ships with etc etc. Is this a good outcome? Just to bandaid the slot usage of the DC ad SCA?

So, as usual, I'll ask again - What is the problem with the proposed simple solution in the OP of ships having "Software Slots", and making the DC and SCA software modules you purchase to put in those slots?

Result = No counter productive internal slot costs. No needless new internal slots causing counter productive tanking. Win! Win!

 

[Marco Santos]

Mate, stop beating on the blind horse.

Lets just wait for the update date and see what we are left with since as said before we arent sure if those slots will actually be able to take other modules than those that are the reason they are being added in the 1st place.

There will be always ppl that dont agree with your views, and other that do, u cant go arguing and trying to get all on the same page as u, u wont ever end this post that way.

 

[NeilF]

Mate, stop beating on the blind horse.

Lets just wait for the update date and see what we are left with since as said before we arent sure if those slots will actually be able to take other modules than those that are the reason they are being added in the 1st place.

There will be always ppl that dont agree with your views, and other that do, u cant go arguing and trying to get all on the same page as u, u wont ever end this post that way.

indeed, my OP says there is hope these slots are "different" and not just more general internal space. And this being the case should prevent both the main problems being discussed over and over. Ie: Its that easy for FD to address the issues!

And given your words of wisdom, are you willing to comment on if however the new free slots are unfortunately just more regular internal slots, and the DC and SCA use regular internal slots, how you'd view that?

Eg: That being the case would you see those new free slots being used yet more tanking an issue?

Ps: You realise the problem is, once FD dish out free regular slots, it would be very hard to undo it?

 

[Misty_Dark]

Thing is it's not JUST my opinion is it - You need only look at the OP for a list of comments by a number of CMDRs over a number of years stating they basically don't use the DC because of what they see as a pointless/unfair/unproductive slot cost.

And given this, when it's then hard to deny the DC is little more than a "fun feature" for any seasoned CMDR, and that some of these CMDRs actively do not fit the DC because they perceive the associated penalty as too much, I'm not sure what the argument is with the suggestion CMDRs are being actively diswarded from simply engaging in fun features in the game due to a needless (slot) penalty? You literally having CMDRs stating just that! What is the point of penalising "fun features" away from (seasoned) CMDRs? Features which offer no gameplay advantage? Features which make not a bit of difference to any other CMDR in the game?


Worse still - And now this "issue" is set to expand to now another module, the SCA. How many CMDRs will not fit that due to them seeing the slot it will require just to allow them to use it for QoL fun every now and then, as too "expensive" given what else it could achieve all the time?

Worse still - And then we have a new issue created of needless powercreep due to FD's issuing of more slot(s) for no other reason than seemingly trying to try bandaid this issue (pointless slot usage) which they could easily solve in another fashion. Can you not see how these new free slots for any combat related outfitting will simply mean yet more HRPs, with more engineered magic spells on? Do we really need even more of that added to the game? Just to offset a DC and/or SCA? Really?

So given all the above, out of interest, can you point out an issue with my proposed alternative solution ("Software Module Slots")? Which still results in a choice for the CMDR (whether to pay CRs or not), results in no "needless" internal slot penalty (so anyone can enjoy the "fun features"), and requires no new "power creep" internal slots being added as a pointless bandaid? Plus opens up a means of offering future features (as software modules) without using internal slots.

But you are still keeping on using negative loaded words to push YOUR AGENDA.

EVERY player can fit these modules to ANY ship they have, it is a PLAYER CHOICE.




And that is the main beef I have against your dishonest argument, you are willfully omitting things in the disguise of module cost. You call this QoL thing, that could be fun to use at times... and NOTHING is stopping you from time to time add these modules in, have some fun, and then change back.... You have that CHOICE.


And that specific powercreep does it not mostly apply to PvP? So all the other players will most likely not really see any huge changes here, that pesky group of PvE players... that avoids PvP most of the time if they can.

 

[NeilF]

But you are still keeping on using negative loaded words to push YOUR AGENDA.

EVERY player can fit these modules to ANY ship they have, it is a PLAYER CHOICE.

And that is the main beef I have against your dishonest argument, you are willfully omitting things in the disguise of module cost.

Sorry, you can accuse me of some "negative agenda" and even being "dishonest", but that doesn't change the fact there is some merit to the points:-

1. There are CMDRs currently, and in the past, that have said the "slot penalty" hits them as too harsh so they do not fit the DC.
2. The SCA is likely to follow suit given [1].
3. The additional new slots risk yet more tanking of ships.

You call this QoL thing, that could be fun to use at times... and NOTHING is stopping you from time to time add these modules in, have some fun, and then change back.... You have that CHOICE.

So, the phone rings as CMDR X arrives near a station, and he want to enjoy be abling to kick off the docking computer, chat to his friend on the phone, and enjoying watching the spectacle of his ship docking? ie: Basically use a QoL feature, that is in truth not giving him a real advantage and not affecting a single other player in the game.

Your suggestion means he would have to dock manually. Fit a DC. Undock. Use the docking computer to dock. Remove the docking computer? Can you see how having the features in question ready to hand when actually wanted/needed once in a while doesn't work, unless they're fitted and available all the time?

And that specific powercreep does it not mostly apply to PvP? So all the other players will most likely not really see any huge changes here, that pesky group of PvE players... that avoids PvP most of the time if they can.

I'd envisage any/all combat related ships (PvP, PvE, Xeno etc etc) being tempted to simply tank up. What is gained by this?

What is the ramification to NPC ships? Will they be adjusted to counter/take advantage of these new slots?

AND MOST SIGNIFICANTLY - The powercreep you're seemingly justifying, and the needless slot cost being questioned, can be totally side stepped by a simple solution. One that's been talked about in one shape or form for years - Simply by putting "Software Slots" on ships, and allowing CMDRs to buy a "Docking Computer Software Module" and/or "Supercruise Assistant Software Module" to put in them. That's it! That straight forward.

^ I've yet to see a single person explain why this isn't a better outcome than needless bandaid slots being added, for needless slot penalties, for basically QoL features? And I've yet to see why the this internal slot cost is so utterly important, to such levels [1], [2] & [3] above are seemed necessary outcomes? Why isn't a CMDRs paying for these modules in CRs enough?

ps: Heck, at least combine the DC and SCA into a single module and don't add these pointless new slots. At least keep the game where it is now in effect balance wise!

 

[CMDR Slee Piboi]

Those items you list (with the exception of nightvision as that is a new vision mod not in the previous games), were always part of the previous games and did not take up cargo space, while however the ADC has always taken up cargo space...

Instead of just sticking to "that's the way it was before", I'd rather see Elite's gameplay mechanics evaluated in light of modern game design principles and lessons learned from decades of trial & error.

would it not actually be equally acceptable to remove one small slot from every ship in the game

That would be healthy. Limit HRPs and MRPs to military slots, too, introduce a limited number of software modules, make NV & FA into such SW modules, as well as limpet controllers.

There are CMDRs currently, and in the past, that have said the "slot penalty" hits them as too harsh so they do not fit the DC.

That would be me. When a player is merely transporting the ship, which is a mindnumbingly boring activity, the new convenience features would be a nice option to have, but not nice enough for me to be sacrificing slots that I can use for must-have stuff.

NOTHING is stopping you from time to time add these modules in, have some fun, and then change back.... You have that CHOICE.

It's an odd community, this. Inconvenience is seen as some kind of virtue. "Can't have too much quality of life, honey, it'll ruin you"

 

[Alwayslate]

When weighed up, in the scheme of things? Let's consider the DC?

• Can you (as no doubt an average seasoned CMDR) dock quicker manually or via a docking computer? So the DC is actually a disadvnantage in some ways?
• If a players uses does it negatively affect any other CMDR in the game?

And for those who are under average? Those who would like to have thier cup of coffee during docking? Docking computers save people time, and that is an advantage because time is the only and most precious RL resource we invest in Elite.

Does it negatively affect other CMDRs? Not if elite is a single player game. But it's not. Even if a CMDR plays exclusively solo, there's still aspects of PVEVP (affecting other CMDRs by interacting with the environment), like the BGS. Plus we have open. If you're doing competitive activities against other CMDRs (in fact anything you do could potentially provide resources for said competitive activities), saving your own resources is a negative effect for them because it means you can spend them elsewhere. DC and SCA don't save average players much time, but they do save them another resource. I call it boredom.

 

[KellyR]

On a slightly different note here, I remember when people were asking for an auto pilot for Super Cruise. That thread got quite heated, from both the ones who wanted it and the ones who didn't (of which I was in the latter category, mainly because it didn't seem to be in FDev's design vision). But people just finally gave up. Now 2 or 3 years later they got what they were asking for. Never hurts to ask. The answer might be no, but that could always mean, No, not right now.