More optional options allowed in "military" compartments. Please.

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Misty_Dark

Misty_Dark
Saint Ajora said:
The way I see it there is no reason to not allow AFMUs, cargo racks, fuel tanks, FSD boosters, and really anything else that has 0 weight/mass. Such a simple alteration to make so many more ships more viable in so many more applications. One could even make an argument for allowing economy cabins. Just the visual of shoving people on top of one another in multi bunk hammocks or just taping them to the walls makes me giggle.

This literally takes nothing away from anyone and only gives more options to those who want to do something not combat orientated.
Click to expand...
these slots where restricted for the very same reason you now want to remove that restriction.

they where added to give a boost to ships that was meant to be combat focused ships, that is why not all ship has them... and general purpose ships outperformed these ships, because they had more internal slots, and thus could fit more defensive modules compared the combat focused ships, making the combat focused ships a a worse choice for their intended role.

These ships can still be used todo just about anything, but they are by design combat focused ships, so they are not going to be as efficient in serving other roles as those other ships are.
 

Badmiker

Badmiker
Military slots are quite different to normal cargo slots: a military 'slot' is the potential for a ship to accommodate additional armour or the additional shield reinforcements/cells. I imagine that these are distributed around the hull, unlike the outfitted slots which are serviced spaces within the hull which can be fitted with other modules. This is why shield modules, despite being 'military' are incompatible with military slots.

We'll be able to see all of this once we have ship interiors.
 

Nadreck

N
IIRC, the slots were added when defensive modules were introduced. This created a problem: multirole ships (which had more internal slots than warships did) became tougher than dedicated warships when fitted-out for combat.

Adding these slots to warships was needed to balance that. It's easiest to imagine them as cavities in the hull (like the bilges of a seafaring ship), or brackets for mounting external armour.

Opening them up to all modules would turn warships into multirole ships - but with more hardpoints etc.

(edit: ninjaed)
 

varonica

varonica
Cmdr. Numa said:
Yet still we have military slots notably absent from FdL and Mamba, which still manage to be excellent combat ships despite their minimal internals.
Click to expand...

Your point being?

Hang on, just realised it, we just take away all the military slots and everything will be dandy.
 

MickyG1982

M
Saint Ajora said:
The way I see it there is no reason to not allow AFMUs, cargo racks, fuel tanks, FSD boosters, and really anything else that has 0 weight/mass. Such a simple alteration to make so many more ships more viable in so many more applications. One could even make an argument for allowing economy cabins. Just the visual of shoving people on top of one another in multi bunk hammocks or just taping them to the walls makes me giggle.

This literally takes nothing away from anyone and only gives more options to those who want to do something not combat orientated.
Click to expand...

Then why bother with specialization at all...

You would have done better if you asked for something more like a mag (for projectile weapons) or energy storage for energy weapons. Perhaps an internal bomb or missile bay or marine drop pods to add your own friendly NPC's (or friends) on a surface raid.

Literally anything that makes sense to actually put in a military compartment.
 

Cmdr. Numa

Cmdr. Numa
varonica said:
Your point being?

Hang on, just realised it, we just take away all the military slots and everything will be dandy.
Click to expand...
Nah, more along the line of good ships need no military slots, and extra military slots don't necessarily make a mediocre ship good. Last I checked, the FdL was still meta.
 

Riverside

Riverside
I don't think military slots should be opened up for general use (as passenger module slots were for the Orca, Beluga & Dolphin with positive results) for reasons several others have already covered - they were added to solve a specific balancing issue (FDL and some multi-role ships being OP compared to ostensibly military or combat focused ships).

However I'm not against adding or enlarging optional slots provided it is done in a believable way (ie it looks like there would be room inside that hull, like when the T-9 gained and extra optional internal slot).

Occasionally while building an explorer ship I wish I could fit an AFMU or a fuel tank into the military slot of an eagle say, but in general I accept that there should still be some degree of dilemma when outfitting any given hull, and that no one ship should really be capable of being good at everything.

otoh I wouldn't be surprised if one day those military slots do get converted into regular slots, it may well seem like easy, low hanging fruit to someone not familiar with the reason why they were added.
 

Darth Ender

D
how about military compartments allow you to equip special module variants but they are not insurable. these variants are better than what you can get even engineered but only acquired thru completing certain missions and limited to one at a time.

these special modules can only be used in military compartments.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
Want more stuff like that in your ship? Fly a multipurpose of equivalent class.

That's literally why military slots exist; they were otherwise outclassed by comparable multirole ships with all combat fits... so they needed to be more powerful at combat without usurping the strengths of comparable multirole ships.

If you want these extra non- combat supplementary fittings, use the existing all- purpose slots, or fly a multiclass. Doing this would just make comparable multiclass ships redundant.
 

Saint Ajora

S
Nadreck said:
IIRC, the slots were added when defensive modules were introduced. This created a problem: multirole ships (which had more internal slots than warships did) became tougher than dedicated warships when fitted-out for combat.

Adding these slots to warships was needed to balance that. It's easiest to imagine them as cavities in the hull (like the bilges of a seafaring ship), or brackets for mounting external armour.

Opening them up to all modules would turn warships into multirole ships - but with more hardpoints etc.

(edit: ninjaed)
Click to expand...
I didn't not say ALL modules, simply modules that make sense. Such as AFMUs who would need access to those slots anyway to repair them.

Turning war vessels is not an alien concept; just google it and see for yourself. And being able to turn war ships into multirole ships hurts who exactly?
 

Saint Ajora

S
Jmanis said:
Want more stuff like that in your ship? Fly a multipurpose of equivalent class.

That's literally why military slots exist; they were otherwise outclassed by comparable multirole ships with all combat fits... so they needed to be more powerful at combat without usurping the strengths of comparable multirole ships.

If you want these extra non- combat supplementary fittings, use the existing all- purpose slots, or fly a multiclass. Doing this would just make comparable multiclass ships redundant.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that it would make more ships do more things better? Not really sure how that's a bad thing.
 

Saint Ajora

S
Riverside said:
I don't think military slots should be opened up for general use (as passenger module slots were for the Orca, Beluga & Dolphin with positive results) for reasons several others have already covered - they were added to solve a specific balancing issue (FDL and some multi-role ships being OP compared to ostensibly military or combat focused ships).

However I'm not against adding or enlarging optional slots provided it is done in a believable way (ie it looks like there would be room inside that hull, like when the T-9 gained and extra optional internal slot).

Occasionally while building an explorer ship I wish I could fit an AFMU or a fuel tank into the military slot of an eagle say, but in general I accept that there should still be some degree of dilemma when outfitting any given hull, and that no one ship should really be capable of being good at everything.

otoh I wouldn't be surprised if one day those military slots do get converted into regular slots, it may well seem like easy, low hanging fruit to someone not familiar with the reason why they were added.
Click to expand...
I didn't say general use. I gave specific examples for a reason. At the very least AFMUs should be able to be fitted as most (if not all soldiers) have a med bag on them when operating in the field.
 

Saint Ajora

S
Misty_Dark said:
these slots where restricted for the very same reason you now want to remove that restriction.

they where added to give a boost to ships that was meant to be combat focused ships, that is why not all ship has them... and general purpose ships outperformed these ships, because they had more internal slots, and thus could fit more defensive modules compared the combat focused ships, making the combat focused ships a a worse choice for their intended role.

These ships can still be used todo just about anything, but they are by design combat focused ships, so they are not going to be as efficient in serving other roles as those other ships are.
Click to expand...
Just because it was done originally, that doesn't make it a good idea/decision. They still wont be as efficient, this would just allow for more flexibility across non-combat orientated tasks. Hurting literally nobody.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom