Honestly, making statistical modifications to existing ships is just as easy as doing the same thing with modules. Or at least, it certainly should be, absent spaghetti code.
What about Modified Ships for CG rewards?
- Thread starter DemiserofD
- Start date
Honestly, making statistical modifications to existing ships is just as easy as doing the same thing with modules. Or at least, it certainly should be, absent spaghetti code.
Well, I did think about that, but it seems like it would just add unneeded complexity. Why bother reducing the life support system or whatever when you can just handwave it using mass effect fields and element zero?
Cough I mean, uh, Meta Alloys and Guardian Technology?
As long as the modified versions only happen to the bottom to middle tier of ships, it really shouldn't even be a problem from a balance perspective.
Prove it. Lol.
They've got greater mass, but nowhere does anything say they're physically larger.
Except that already exists; we already have modules that are statistically superior to the ones accessible to other players. What difference does it make if it's a module or a ship?
Are you serious?
So if 6A is same size of 5A just because of better materials - why we can't use 8A on our pretty Sidewinder?
If 2A is just better of 1A but same size, then 3A is just better of 2A but same size,..... then 8A is just better of 7A but same size, so we can tell 8A is just better of 1A but same size.
MetaAlloys are not suitable to create ship hull from it.
For further discussion go here^. You've participated in it and got logical reasons why MetaAlloys are not acceptable.
Guardian tech is definitely heavier than human tech. Compare Power generators of same size but different tech. For 8A - 93,6 tons of guardian tech vs 80 tons of human tech
Because the mass is too high, of course. The size might be the same, but you'd need stronger/better mounting brackets/etc to make sure it doesn't tear the ship apart when you boost. Not to mention being able to channel in enough fuel, etc.
Actually, no; the examples he used in that topic were completely wrong, as I explained near the end. There's a reason most current airplanes still use rivets rather than welds.
As far as guardian tech being heavier in the past, so what? That was experimental first-gen technology, of course it was bulky and heavy. No reason we can't improve it in the future.
Because, as has already been stated, many people dislike it in module form and ships are pillars of the game, the one unique time-gated ship that already exists regularly provokes threads asking for its release to the entire playerbase. That ship was based on an IRL financial transaction, as well.
I genuinely can't believe I'm in a multiplayer videogame forum in 2021 having to explain why arbitrarily time-gating unique performance enhancing content is frowned upon in the industry.
It's a bad idea, OP.
So what if they dislike it? It works. It gets players in the door and playing.
That's all that really matters.
Besides, from what I've seen the only people who don't like it are the ones who miss out. But that's just more incentive to participate and play the game! Both of which are good things!
It isn't 'all that matters' in those ridiculously narrow terms, you absolute clown prince, what happens when people increasingly see the game as unbalanced and manipulative and there are more and more public outcries about unfair and inconsistent presentation of content, something which is already happening.
'So what if people dislike an unpleasant and manipulative practice', you really are a peach
Uh...nothing? Because FOMO modules have been coming out for ages now, and I've yet to see any significant complaints about anything like that.
Based on past and present experience, I'm going to go with nothing. As long as they continue to make the modules only minimally more powerful or useful than standard modules, this trend should continue indefinitely.
And that's exactly what I'm proposing. I'm not saying buff the anaconda to jump 100ly, I'm just saying to make make ships like the Dropship, Asp Scout, or Clipper on par(or slightly worse) than the ships which are normally superior to them.
'For ages' is not that long and believe me complaints have been forthcoming whether you've been reading them or not.
I'm done with this conversation, I sincerely hope frontier do not take your suggestion on board and I'm not being hyperbolic when I say your take on this matter genuinely disgusts me.
Have a good evening.
I'm done with this conversation, I sincerely hope frontier do not take your suggestion on board and I'm not being hyperbolic when I say your take on this matter genuinely disgusts me.
Have a good evening.
..... what?
Here's the special word for you - material density.
All power generators made of same tech, that means, same mats.
Each size is twice heavy of previous size.
So volume of module should be twice bigger than previous module size.
OR - should use material with doubled denisity. If 1A PG use iron(steel) and uranium, so 2A of same dimensions should use Californium and Meitnerium
Are you mad?
I declare this subdicussion closed.
What makes you say that? If I make an engine out of aluminum, it'll be significantly lighter than one made of steel, but it'll also be significantly less durable, and therefore less able to put out power, even though both are the exact same size and built using the same technology.
We already have direct evidence that it's possible to adjust the mass of modules up and down using engineering; by your arguments, reducing the mass of the module with Lightweight should also reduce the size, and thereby leave more space for other things, but that obviously doesn't happen.
Mass does not have any guaranteed correlation with volume.
If 3A power generator made of aluminum, so why 4A and 2A not to be made of this?
Read, caaa re fully....
3(size)A(class)
4(size)A(class)
Same class, different sizes.
Same tech and mats, and DIFFERENT SIZES!
What are you talking about is difference BETWEEN CLASSES of same module SIZE(READ THAT WORD!)
Cheaper mats, worse power generation - is all about Class.
Size is the word with concrete meaning.
Btw, rivets in space ship which fly in extreme thermal conditions and with huge burden of high speed. Ok, good luck with that.
Closed.
Last edited:
Of course. Do you really think large engines are made out of the same materials as smaller engines? That a sports car uses the same parts as a SUV?
The engine on a Ferrari has 10x the power of the engine on a hatchback; by your logic, the sportscar would need to be something like 128x the volume, but that's obviously not true.
Here's the FACT: Core modules use MASS, not VOLUME. That's it.
Absolutely. They do it with aircraft even in the modern day, what makes you think that things would somehow change in the future? Physics keeps working the same.
That said, the only restriction on Meta Alloys is that they can't be hot welded. There's nothing to say it can't be cold or vacuum welded.
Arguing technical limits on a fantasy metal is doomed to failure, lol.
Looks like you're trollin.
Size, definition.
Cargo racks have doubled capacity (and volume) every size.
(took it to make the Size word of modules clear, because racks have no quality, class)
SIZE is a universal word for Ship's modules.
It means Size - dimensions, volume.
Materials and so on can be united in one word QUALITY.
CLASS is about QUALITY. You can see it lookin at stats and compare them.
That just mean Ferrary have A-class engine in comparison with Z-class.
Only if rivets made of adamantium.
And you used right word.
Because space ship definitely not a aircraft.
Modern (our, real) spacecrafts used welding.
Bruh, smh.
Last edited: