In my mining ship I currently have my DSS in a 2 slot no other slot available. It bothers me that half of the slot is unused and unusable so I'd like to see an outfitting option to convert in my example a current say size 2 slot into 2 size 1's
Module slot conversions
- Thread starter Greybeard Seawolf
- Start date
People argued that it would ruin the game because of module and hull reinforcements, and a few other things. Personally I am not against the idea, but I don't really care about the combat side of the game.
Lestat
Banned
What type of ship are you using?
Krait Mk II The Rock Hopper FSD engineered to tier 4 awaiting tier 5 unlock, power plant and distributor currently engineered to tier 2 modules specced to minimise weight, she'll carry 128 tons of Opals or LTD's + 10 in the refinery and will jump just over 40.8ly if you ask her nicely
Sounds like you found your miner. So far I only have a python currently, had a krait phantom, then annie, now the python. Not sure if it's the kind of ship ill use for mining. Its a decent ship though, with the cargo it can hold
Nice man I was looking at the Python its very similar to the Krait just a bit heavier and with slightly stronger base armour and shields. How far have you engineered it? I just switched to PC at the beginning of the month having played on Xbox and yesterday I switched from Xbox controller/Keyboard to a Hotas X throttle and stick. Its gonna take me a while to adjust, got jammed in a letterbox and blown up the first time i tried to dock but flying, planetary landings and particularly core mining is an absolute joy
Sweet, I'd definitely go for an additional collector controller if i had a spare slot
The issue here is that two size 1 HRPs and better then a size 2 HRP. The same goes for other optional internals.
What I would do is to give us optional internals that can change a size three to two size ones. A size five can be changed to two size twos. And so on.
To be pedantic, that'd still only be slightly worse than the bigger size, while being substantially lighter.
Gotta love how messed-up HRPs are.
Personally, I think the way forward would be to do it with specific "Rack Units" and then turn the related modules into "sub assemblies", kind of like how the SRV bay works.
You buy, for example, a C2 "Rack Unit" and it's got one slot which you can bung a DSS in.
You buy a C4 "Rack Unit" and it's got 2 slots, which you might bung a DSS and a repair controller in.
You buy a C6 "Rack Unit" and it's got 4 slots which you could bung a DSS, prospector and collector controllers into.
Stuff that FDev doesn't want us to be able to stack, such as HRPs, would remain regular modules so you couldn't bung 'em into the racks.
Nice idea. And I also hate HRPs, MRPs, shield boosters and shield cell banks. They could have been implemented in a much better way.To be pedantic, that'd still only be slightly worse than the bigger size, while being substantially lighter.
Gotta love how messed-up HRPs are.
Personally, I think the way forward would be to do it with specific "Rack Units" and then turn the related modules into "sub assemblies", kind of like how the SRV bay works.
You buy, for example, a C2 "Rack Unit" and it's got one slot which you can bung a DSS in.
You buy a C4 "Rack Unit" and it's got 2 slots, which you might bung a DSS and a repair controller in.
You buy a C6 "Rack Unit" and it's got 4 slots which you could bung a DSS, prospector and collector controllers into.
Stuff that FDev doesn't want us to be able to stack, such as HRPs, would remain regular modules so you couldn't bung 'em into the racks.
Even the last suggestion would only be "balanced" without engineers around. For unmodified base modules, you'd indeed get less out of two size two HRPs than one size five. But then you look at engineers and resist stacking and the split still comes out on top.
As long as engineering blueprints are as overpowered as they currently are, there's no real solution here. It's either overpowered with engineering, or utterly worthless for anybody who's not engineering his ship to the limit. No common ground in between, as long as the buffs are as massive as they are. And while i continue to argue against them, i don't think that FD will ever dare to just so slightly nerf them any more. It would just once again result in parts of the community crying like little kids having their candies taken away. FD won't have that yet again.
So unfortunately the crazy power creep of engineers is here to stay and we have to judge suggestions based on that.
That is so very frustrating. I would have much preferred if engineered modules only added the special effect and not have the 1-5 grades. It would be much better in my view.
Kind of OT but maybe worth mentioning (again)...
I have a Krait Mk2 fitted with light-alloy armor, G5 HD & DP.
I usually fit MGC armor to my multirole ships and then G5 LW it.
I was going to buy MGC armor for my Krait but then I realised that, with the addition of the extra C1 slot, I could buy a 1D HRP for Cr15,000 and it'd be a bigger improvement than the Cr50m MGC armor.
How messed-up is that?
Since it seems to mainly be the DSS that gets this sort of complaint, why not instead produce a size 2 DSS launcher with a slightly larger clip (5 probes rather than 3, perhaps?)
Then you can fit it in a size 2 slot without being worried that it might shake loose during flight.
Then you can fit it in a size 2 slot without being worried that it might shake loose during flight.
That's one way to have it. I also think that a number of special effects are too binary and thus too strong. But it would still be a potential step in the right direction.
I personally would have preferred bigger drawbacks for the blueprints. They thus would be sidegrades and specialisation instead of direct upgrades.
Just a random example: while an overcharged weapon can do up to +70% damage, why does it still have to have its regular firing speed? Wouldn't it make sense if bigger shots / more energy used per shot takes a longer time to reload/charge the weapon? So the +70% advantage of damage could also come with a ROF reduction of -40%. That would -still- leave the weapon with a gain of 2% damage over time and with +70% of the punch, while requiring less ammo.
Do this to all blueprints. Then one player may a ship with extremely high resists to shields and hull, but low base values. The ship would be very resistant to weapons damage, but very vulnerable to collision damage. The other may go the other way, end up with extremely high base health, but at the price low resists and thus effectively very long recharge rates for the shields.
Neither of them would be like the current +700% of health pool. But either of them would perform better, as long as the pilot would use it correctly.
Unfortunately that'll remain a pipe dream for me. It won't happen any more in this game.
It is. And it's just one of a number of similar examples.
All ships now have two size one slots, the DSS fits in a one. If both of your's are full, then it boils down to it's your decision to install it into a two or larger. Either forgo whatever you've installed or live with the results you have.