General Dual Supercruise Assist and Advanced Docking Computer

[JTFireblaze]

Why would the module slots need removing?

People use the slots for things other than the scanners, so it would seem that's not what people wanted the slots for anyway...

 

[Ydiss]

Just a general observation... I see a lot of people talking about their ADCs crashing. I've used one for a while now (lazy, bored of docking and helps when running 3 accounts at once) and it's never crashed. Not even bumped. Never failed at all.

In my experience, it works every time. I wonder why it fails for some and never for me?

 

[CMDR Rabbit]

Why would the module slots need removing?

People use the slots for things other than the scanners, so it would seem that's not what people wanted the slots for anyway...

My understanding, and someone who's been around longer correct me if i'm wrong, is that SCA slot at least was an expansion to ships' original internal configurations and only introduced when the module was added to the game.

Essentially asking for the modules to become ship standard equipment is the same as asking them to be fixed, like the planetary approach suite, but to add new class 1 slots.

 

[JTFireblaze]

My understanding, and someone who's been around longer correct me if i'm wrong, is that SCA slot at least was an expansion to ships' original internal configurations and only introduced when the module was added to the game.

Essentially asking for the modules to become ship standard equipment is the same as asking them to be fixed, like the planetary approach suite, but to add new class 1 slots.

Yeah that's pretty much it. When we got SCA and ADC small ships got +2 Class 1s, medium/large got +1 Class 1s.

But when they rolled Discovery scanner into core features we didn't lose a Class 1... It used to be 3 variations - Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.

I wasn't particularly active on the forums around that time but I wonder, was there as much resistance to rolling Disco scanner into core features as there is to adding cruise control and auto dock?

 

[Ameeleean]

Just a general observation... I see a lot of people talking about their ADCs crashing. I've used one for a while now (lazy, bored of docking and helps when running 3 accounts at once) and it's never crashed. Not even bumped. Never failed at all.

In my experience, it works every time. I wonder why it fails for some and never for me?

Try larger ships, bumping into other ships and "mailslot" happens for me quite often- if I do not react in time that ends up in ship being destroyed, I've lost cargo full of gold, tritium several times that way.
Lack of autopilot is a flaw, a serious flaw for me but it can be easily explained if ED universe had AI rebellion in the past...
I would also gladly pay a cut of my profits to NPC crew member in ships which have multicrew option but all I can do now is to hire NPC pilot ... for combat, and that is only ONE aspect of this game. Where is co-pilot, engineer, logistics officer, etc?

 

[CMDR Rabbit]

Yeah that's pretty much it. When we got SCA and ADC small ships got +2 Class 1s, medium/large got +1 Class 1s.

But when they rolled Discovery scanner into core features we didn't lose a Class 1... It used to be 3 variations - Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.

I wasn't particularly active on the forums around that time but I wonder, was there as much resistance to rolling Disco scanner into core features as there is to adding cruise control and auto dock?

I cant comment on the discovery scanner, that was all before my time, but the way i see it like "we've added slots so having these modules don't cost you, but if you can actually fly and land your ship without them, you can take advantage of the extra space"

I mean if it was up to me, they wouldn't even exist and it would all be manual, hands on operation.

 

[Ydiss]

Try larger ships

I do, repeatedly. Never had an issue. I even use a cutter to mass haul tritium to my carrier, fully loaded.

I'm not doubting you, it just strikes me as odd. There must be a reason.

 

[Bigmaec]

I do, repeatedly. Never had an issue. I even use a cutter to mass haul tritium to my carrier, fully loaded.

I'm not doubting you, it just strikes me as odd. There must be a reason.

It's mostly - but not always and/or limited to - asteroid bases where the Cutter, T9 & T10 graze the right side of the mailslot with an ADC on entry and exit.

Also some ships - I noticed on the above, plus Pythons - have problems with the structural element in asteroid bases again, mostly while undocking.

 

[Lone_star]

SCA, Docking Computer, etc either need to be better than doing it manually since they already make you give up a slot.... or they should simply be built in (which is IMO by far the better option). Leave the additional slots as is, they aren't exactly game breaking and it's cool to make ships (esp Small ones) a bit more flexible. People who don't want to use them can turn them off (I actually wouldn't even be opposed to having a minor power draw for people like me who choose to use them... so manual players could have a minor advantage).

 

[CMDR Rabbit]

SCA, Docking Computer, etc either need to be better than doing it manually since they already make you give up a slot.... or they should simply be built in (which is IMO by far the better option). Leave the additional slots as is, they aren't exactly game breaking and it's cool to make ships (esp Small ones) a bit more flexible. People who don't want to use them can turn them off (I actually wouldn't even be opposed to having a minor power draw for people like me who choose to use them... so manual players could have a minor advantage).

But they don't make you 'give up a slot' that slot ONLY exists because of the introduction of the SCA.

Slice it anyway you like, what you're asking for is the functionality of the SCA and ADC, and two extra size 1 slots.

As far as making small ships more flexible, dump the modules, free up the space.

 

[Greasetrap42]

The OP's idea is to provide a 2-slot combo module. Not incorporating the function into the ship.

Ships that have only one 1-slot space, but you want SCA, ADC, and DSS. You use two 2-slot spaces for 1-slot modules. The idea would free up a 2-slot space.

I think that's what the OP is getting at. A desire to fully utilize the available slots.

 

[Lone_star]

But they don't make you 'give up a slot' that slot ONLY exists because of the introduction of the SCA.

Slice it anyway you like, what you're asking for is the functionality of the SCA and ADC, and two extra size 1 slots.

As far as making small ships more flexible, dump the modules, free up the space.

The "functionality" does nothing more than reduce tedium and boring gameplay. Forcing a player to accept negative consequences for purely QoL features is terrible game design. The SCA and ADC should either have actual gameplay advantages or they should built in and not force negative consequences.

Penalizing players who simply want to avoid tedium is something most designers figured out was a bad idea 20 years ago.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Penalizing players who simply want to avoid tedium is something most designers figured out was a bad idea 20 years ago.

Spaceship flying game. Player fly spaceships. Flying assists provided for those who want less flying.
Ships with modules allowing players to choose what they like.
Ships don't come equipped with everything. Game design. Player builds ship, compromises must be made with every build.
Game offers choices. I like choices.

 

[Bigmaec]

Spaceship flying game. Player fly spaceships. Flying assists provided for those who want less flying.
Ships with modules allowing players to choose what they like.
Ships don't come equipped with everything. Game design. Player builds ship, compromises must be made with every build.
Game offers choices. I like choices.

I like this summary.

 

[JTFireblaze]

The "functionality" does nothing more than reduce tedium and boring gameplay. Forcing a player to accept negative consequences for purely QoL features is terrible game design. The SCA and ADC should either have actual gameplay advantages or they should built in and not force negative consequences.

Penalizing players who simply want to avoid tedium is something most designers figured out was a bad idea 20 years ago.

Definitely agree on the QoL side of things. People are obsessed with "balance" in this game, but the SCA and ADC don't "balance" anything. You have barely an advantage over anyone, beside being able to AFK for longer. And if you consider being able to AFK a little bit an advantage...

I've been playing a bit of X4 recently, and in that game you're forced to install an autopilot/assist module in all your ships. I think there are a couple of tiers of it, something like a basic one that signposts you to the landing pad and does the finishing touch for you, or an advanced one that you just get near a landing pad and it finishes the job.

I think a happy medium/compromise that could please most people would be make an Assist module that's core. Every ship has the (player choice and agency-wise) useless Planetary Approach suite. Make that a Core module and remake it to be a Pilot Assist Module. A quick example:

• E - the basics
• D - with supercruise assist
• C - basic docking
• B - advanced docking
• A - All of the above

You still have to do the whole player choice thing to install it, you can opt to have just the E class if you want. Do the power differences or whatever for the higher rank modules to preserve the so called balance people worry themselves over.

Then the forum can continue to argue over if we should get rid of those Class 1 slots that people use for other things anyway...

 

[Tarl72]

New Optional Internal module, a 2E Pilot Assistance Computer, effectively comprised of an Advanced Docking Computer and Supercruise Assist module put into one. It allows pilots to get both functionalities in a single slot, fully utilising that slot.

I think this is a great idea!!

 

[Spacegamejunkie]

Definitely agree on the QoL side of things. People are obsessed with "balance" in this game, but the SCA and ADC don't "balance" anything. You have barely an advantage over anyone, beside being able to AFK for longer. And if you consider being able to AFK a little bit an advantage...

I've been playing a bit of X4 recently, and in that game you're forced to install an autopilot/assist module in all your ships. I think there are a couple of tiers of it, something like a basic one that signposts you to the landing pad and does the finishing touch for you, or an advanced one that you just get near a landing pad and it finishes the job.

I think a happy medium/compromise that could please most people would be make an Assist module that's core. Every ship has the (player choice and agency-wise) useless Planetary Approach suite. Make that a Core module and remake it to be a Pilot Assist Module. A quick example:

• E - the basics
• D - with supercruise assist
• C - basic docking
• B - advanced docking
• A - All of the above

You still have to do the whole player choice thing to install it, you can opt to have just the E class if you want. Do the power differences or whatever for the higher rank modules to preserve the so called balance people worry themselves over.

Then the forum can continue to argue over if we should get rid of those Class 1 slots that people use for other things anyway...

Choice is one thing, choose to Fiddle or Not, is another.
I think a lot of these modules should be regarded as Software, installed on one Ship Computer Module.
As should scanners, and Limpet Controllers.
Hey I carry a computer around in my pocket, and it's only 2021.

 

[Lone_star]

Some choices are good - some are bad.

Example of a good choice. Gimbaled vs fixed weapons offer an interesting trade-off. Fixed weapons are harder to hit with and require more skill to use, but do more damage.

Supercruise assist does nothing but make the game less tedious. My choice is between making my ship a bit less capable or enduring more tedium. Not to mention features like SCA are often a must for players who have a family and a career. For better or worse I can't always just pause the game (which is why this is pretty much the only non single player game I play at all). If SCA actually made you arrive sooner/faster then we might have some sort of semi-interesting tradeoff (although I still think any gating/negative consequences for using the automation itself is terrible game design)

 

[Spacegamejunkie]

Some choices are good - some are bad.

Example of a good choice. Gimbaled vs fixed weapons offer an interesting trade-off. Fixed weapons are harder to hit with and require more skill to use, but do more damage.

Supercruise assist does nothing but make the game less tedious. My choice is between making my ship a bit less capable or enduring more tedium. Not to mention features like SCA are often a must for players who have a family and a career. For better or worse I can't always just pause the game (which is why this is pretty much the only non single player game I play at all). If SCA actually made you arrive sooner/faster then we might have some sort of semi-interesting tradeoff (although I still think any gating/negative consequences for using the automation itself is terrible game design)

Actually it's all the needless Babysitting you have to do to travel.
Either make it faster or make it Automated.

 

[Chevy67]

New Optional Internal module, a 2E Pilot Assistance Computer, effectively comprised of an Advanced Docking Computer and Supercruise Assist module put into one. It allows pilots to get both functionalities in a single slot, fully utilising that slot.

Why not have them as standard components on the ship from new, or make it an engineered option to combine the features of both and use a class 1 slot?