![[VR] Goooost](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/111/111637.jpg?1589354934){kind=avatar}
I think a nice compromise would be to expand on what is considered "military" for those slots. Seems like I should be able to put in an interdictor, a fighter bay (can sheild boosters go in? I doubt it) repair/recon/breaker limpets, shield generator... you know, military type stuff.
Suggestion: Remove Military Slots
- Thread starter sandkid
- Start date
Um, half the stuff on your list I use for non-military purposes. You might as well just stick with the OP's request and ask that the slot be normalized.
I'm of the opposite extreme - I think military slots should stay and that HRPs and MRPs should be limited to them exclusively (as in, no HRPs allowed in standard slots). I picture military slots being like the slots on a IRL tank that allow extra armor to be strapped on. If you want a tough civilian ship, you'll just have to invest in an armored hull and B-rated modules.
I also think SCBs should be removed from the game, or at least limited to one per ship, but that's a different topic
Um, half the stuff on your list I use for non-military purposes. You might as well just stick with the OP's request and ask that the slot be normalized.
I'm of the opposite extreme - I think military slots should stay and that HRPs and MRPs should be limited to them exclusively (as in, no HRPs allowed in standard slots). I picture military slots being like the slots on a IRL tank that allow extra armor to be strapped on. If you want a tough civilian ship, you'll just have to invest in an armored hull and B-rated modules.
I also think SCBs should be removed from the game, or at least limited to one per ship, but that's a different topic
It is interesting that FDev went the route of restricting slots rather than restricting modules...
If you were to do that, though, a great many ships that are decently viable for combat would suddenly be anything but. It would require a rebalance across the whole lineup. Not that that is a bad thing, mind you.
It's an interesting proposal - restricting modules instead of slots - but it had massive ramifications compared to my OP on just dropping restrictions altogether. Although if you did drop restricted slots entirely, rebalancing modules might be a little easier to sort out from that point than where we are now. Food for thought.
Out of curiosity, what specific ships would become overpowered in the event of de-limiting the slots? Which demilitarised ship would overshadow comparable multi-roles or freighters?
If you remove the restriction then combat ships become better multirole ships. The reason why they got them was because multirole ships were better combat ships.
I'd debate that...name a combat ship that would be a better multi-role than the existing multi-role market if you removed the restrictions?
In the large market, the Anaconda isn't going to be superceded by any other large ship? The vette has too poor a jump range (it makes a great multi-role if you build it a certain way, but it is still inferior to the Conda). The Cutter won't excel anymore at being a multi-role for similar reasons - it already has huge cargo space and the area it most lacks is combat.
In the medium market all of your combat ships would still be inferior to the Python or Krait Mk. II as multi-roles? The FDL lacks internal slots, the Federal lineup is too heavy when compared to other ships, and most of the combat ships have slots that are too small still even with unlocked restrictions.
In the small market you maybe have an issue...except the DBX is the king multirole there. A Vulture lacks hardpoints for true utility. The Vipers? Poor jump range. If anything, the small market benefits the most because we have more comparable ships across the board where you're picking a ship based on flight profile instead of role. Not like the game is balanced across ship class, either, so a small ship isn't going to suddenly become an OP vessel.
challenger
gunship
Edit: so no, military slots should stay
and military stuff should go only in military slots - then combat ships will actually have an advantage over multipurpose ones.
BTW OP, IIRC the military slots were added to the military ships to balance the game, not converted from regular slots. So technically Frontier would need to REMOVE the slots (per your title), not convert them over to "I can now carry 100 tons of cargo in my Vulture" slots like you're asking Frontier to do.
I support restricting military modules as you suggest. As I said earlier, I feel like FDev can't make up their mind on which way to lean. Personally, I like no restrictions because then a ship is what you make it - min-maxxers will argue till the cows come home either way.
Challenger: Still only a class 5 FSD and heavier on armor, good for combat. Two class sixes (not currently restricted) - excellent for lots of uses. Then class fours and smaller. You can have good refinery, but need to sacrifice shielding to compete on cargo capacity for mining. Lots of hardpoints helps with multi-role. It'd make a strong multi-role, yes. Definitely competes with Krait Mk. II (which lacks slot count, but has better slot sizes - not necessarily an advantage in multi-role). Python has three class 6 and two class 5, though...so it still womps Challenger on cargo capacity. Same number of slots, Python has better slot sizes. Python still wins.
Consolation Prize: Challenger hardpoint quantity and sizes make it much easier to have a 'do it all' build (mining, Combat, AX) if you really wanted to.
Federal Gunship: yeah...no. It's got a worse layout than the Challenger. SLF capable, though. Two 6's and one 5. Less internals overall. LOTS of hardpoints, though. But hardpoint count doesn't do you any good if you don't have the internal space to make use of it. Even the Krait performs better than this - and with an SLF, too.
Consolation Prize: None. At least the Challenger has the slot count to make all those hardpoints work.
Last edited:
I agree somewhat, although I do not want specialized slots removed! I want more specialized slots, but a more flexible implementation.
Specialized slots should either:
a) give certain ships a boost in the role they were intended for, or
b) they might have gone the other way and given a disadvantage if you put modules in them they were not intended for.
Just as an example:
A size 2 specialized slot in a military vessel might count for a size 3 if you put shieldcells, or hull armor modules in them, but it counts as a size 2 if you put something in it it was not intended to support.
Same goes for passengerships. If you put passenger cabins in a size 2 specialized slot it will count as a size 3, but if you use it for something different it will count as a size 2.
The advantage of this is that people can still use the ships in other roles, but if they use the ship for the intended role it will perform better.
That way if you buy a FAS it will still feel like a true combat hull because it will have advantages if you use it for its intended role. However if you want to use it for transporting tea, you can still use all the slots it has available.
Last edited:
Interesting, I did not know that - although as already stated, I've only been here since PS4 launch.
A Vulture hauling 100 tons is rather interesting...lemme look into that.
Bam - you found a problem. Nice!
Those two 5's are indeed a bit unbalanced without the one restricted. An extra 32 tons isn't something to shake a finger at...just one small (pun intended) problem:
The Vulture is already the best cargo hauling ship in that category, if you build it that way.
You see, the only other ship that competes on cargo capacity in the small class is the DBX - but it has 4's. Drop in cargo across the board, you end up exactly the same as a Vulture using its 5: 32 + 16 or 16+16+8+8
So...removing the restriction does cause it to be a superior hauling ship but it gives up shields to do so.
It does not make it a good multi-role.
This implies a lack of a 'large' small transport - unless the DBX is meant to be that, which I suppose it could be. It's Lakon after all.
I think this is maybe how military slots ought to feel - as others have said already, restricting modules to these slots would bring that about. As an example, if hull modules could only be equipped to military slots - bam - combat-oriented ships can be built for multi-role if you so desire, but they shine as combat ships because of the inherent advantage of access to these modules.
Think Luxury Cabins (if there were more missions - that's a separate issue) for Saud Kruger. That is a restricted module (the only one currently) and it makes a lot of sense.
So what you end up with is a reverse-version of slot restrictions. Slots are still 'restricted', but you view this from the module side not the slot side. If a ship has a military slot, you can stick whatever you like in there that has no restrictions - economy cabin, limpet controller, whatever - but a military slot can "also" equip military-designated modules like hull plating.
You can't really compare military slots to Saud Kruger passenger slots though.
Military slots, historically, were add-ons to warships that previously didn't have many slots. With the introduction of combat-related internal modules, it became necessary to provide a way to fit them to warships. I imagine they're like the bilges of seagoing ships: oddly-shaped areas sandwiched between layers of hull or whatever. You can't do much with them except stuff some sort of reinforcement in there, you can't even wedge an accessible cargo rack in there.
Whereas the passenger slot restrictions never made any sense. These are big, boxy, easily-accessible compartments. They're in the main body of the ship, and could already be used to store cargo. Hard to explain why they couldn't house other stuff.
Though I think you ought to be able to stick a few more things into a military slot. A fuel tank, for instance.
Military slots, historically, were add-ons to warships that previously didn't have many slots. With the introduction of combat-related internal modules, it became necessary to provide a way to fit them to warships. I imagine they're like the bilges of seagoing ships: oddly-shaped areas sandwiched between layers of hull or whatever. You can't do much with them except stuff some sort of reinforcement in there, you can't even wedge an accessible cargo rack in there.
Whereas the passenger slot restrictions never made any sense. These are big, boxy, easily-accessible compartments. They're in the main body of the ship, and could already be used to store cargo. Hard to explain why they couldn't house other stuff.
Though I think you ought to be able to stick a few more things into a military slot. A fuel tank, for instance.
The Challenger would only have 4 more tonnes of capacity than a Krait Phantom (including fitting the shield generator in one of the unlocked C4 slots), while suffering from a much shorter jump range. Overall, the Krait Phantom has 32% better jump range than a stripped down Challenger, costs about 18% more if both are outfitted as traders and has 2% less cargo capacity. The cost difference is relatively minor, the cargo difference is practically negligible but that 30% better jump range is pretty damn good under a wide variety of circumstances. I would call that competitive, not overpowering.
It's a similar story with the FGS. Yes, it would have a bigger cargo hold (202 tonnes, or about 10% bigger than the Krait Phantom), is very similarly priced depending on loadout as it requires a larger distributor to boost and a bigger shield generator but suffers from a much reduced jump range (the Krait Phantom has 60% higher jump range). Which is better, 10% more capacity or 60% better jump range for trading?
Sure, those two might be better if you can find very good trade routes that are <20 light years that happen to be nearby, but the moment you start moving 40+ light years on a route or have to travel anywhere several hundred light years away, that Krait Phantom starts looking very attractive.
And all three options above are only slightly cheaper than the Krait MkII that happens to offer greater cargo capacity than the military ships while having jump range not far off the Phantom.
That's a fair point, and given that we know FDev designs ships with ship models for space-legs in mind - even if that is years away - military slots inherently have to be oriented towards non-voluminous modules. That has very little to do with balance, but I have to concede that point because it's basically never talked about:
If you open up the military slots - essentially shoed-in for a balance purpose - you run into the very real problem (some day) that volumetrically the ship no longer makes sense in a space-legs scenario. The scale is all wrong. Now, keep in mind the Anaconda weighs less than the Corvette and Cutter yet has more armor...so FDev aren't exactly known for thinking these things through to begin with.
Still, the point stands: opening up military restrictions jeopardizes space-legs.
Shut y'er mouth! LOL. I recently switched to the Vulture as my multirole ship of choice (in terms of running multiple types of missions). It's not perfect, but it's not bad. I feel safer flying a shieldless Vulture than I do some of the other small ships with shields! The ability to haul 48 tons in a small, armored ship with teeth makes it a good MR ship IMO, assuming I'm only making one or two trips to complete a hauling / sourcing mission. Best of all, it's got EBL immunity!
The Dolphin is the 'large' small transport of the game at 88 tons max, at least for us on PS4. What the Dolphin lacks in hull it makes up for in speed if built right. Still, it's no multirole ship.
Having spent some time using the Vulture for MR, I actually think it might be the best small RM ship in the game, as long as you don't mind swapping a few modules. Not only can I do all types of missions, I can also easily beat Thargoid Scouts in it using my default weapon loadout!
But shhhhh, this is our secret. I don't want everyone else copying me!
Actually, the best small transports are the Dolphin (80 tonnes of cargo) and the Cobra IV (84 tonnes of cargo), both of which are better than an unrestricted Vulture's potential 76 tonnes of cargo while shielded.
They are also both a fraction of the price and jump a good deal further. In terms of price, the Vulture would be better compared to the Asps, rather than the other small ships.
Of course it makes it a good multirole. It would be good at combat, trading and mission running when it should be just good at combat but can be used for the others roles if called upon. Other ships will be and should be better at those roles.