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

[Robert Maynard]

Reminder to all participants: please discuss the topic. Other participants are not the topic. Failure to comply will result in advisories, warnings, reply bans, and / or thread closure.

 

[Northpin]

I can only try to repeat, hoping OP will try o understand.
It doesn't matter what this or other ship is supposed to do. You can try to do whatever you wish with any ship and use their internals as you like.
It only matters that some ships have added potential to be better protected. Unfortunately it's done by adding "military slots", which confuses some people.

Important thing is this:
There's no additional space in those ships.
They have their dimensions and amount of internal space is calculated around that.
Additional "military slots" do not add more space to those ships. It's just a way to make them more armored (if player so chooses). Nothing more.
Just like slot for planetary landing module - It doesn't add more space - it is just a way to add this option, using internal "slots" mechanic.

Yeap, pretty much this

 

[Riverside]

Well thought out and stated, thank you.

I do happen to agree, being interested in exploration. Even allowing a ship that is normally combat specific to have AFM's in the military compartment, would allow people to experiment with new builds. These new builds don't have to be great, but having them available increases the options. With a game like this, having options only makes things better.

Sure, but then there's the reason why military slots were added, as plenty of people have already mentioned. They were not added to be extra room in the ship, they were added for a specific reason (because the FDL & multi-roles were OP in comparison to dedicated combat ships).

Arguably the Conda shouldn't have gained them, and building an explorer eagle or viper is already viable. Enough choice is already available imo.

 

[Northpin]

Well thought out and stated, thank you.

I do happen to agree, being interested in exploration. Even allowing a ship that is normally combat specific to have AFM's in the military compartment, would allow people to experiment with new builds. These new builds don't have to be great, but having them available increases the options. With a game like this, having options only makes things better.

My Exploration Conda is using a size 2 HRP with G5 Heavy Duty / Deep plating in the military slot. for 2.8t it increases the hull by 25%
It's a lot of gain for only 2.8t
Chieftain makes a cool explorer, rather cramped internals but without missing essentials and a damn good looking ship and solid enough to take a crashlanding.
And exploring in a Chief has it's charm

So you should not assume that the people that do not find this idea a good idea are not exploring.
People are exploring in various ships since the beginning.
People made it to Beagle point in Sidewinders and Vultures and Chieftains. Even in Gunships.

 

[varonica]

My Exploration Conda is using a size 2 HRP with G5 Heavy Duty / Deep plating in the military slot. for 2.8t it increases the hull by 25%
It's a lot of gain for only 2.8t
Chieftain makes a cool explorer, rather cramped internals but without missing essentials and a damn good looking ship and solid enough to take a crashlanding.
And exploring in a Chief has it's charm

So you should not assume that the people that do not find this idea a good idea are not exploring.
People are exploring in various ships since the beginning.
People made it to Beagle point in Sidewinders and Vultures and Chieftains. Even in Gunships.

Yeah I never used any of the "normal" exploration oriented ships until the Phantom was released. Sure a huge jump range is nice, but I can tell you that you get a whole lot more exploration data going to Colonia in a 17ly Python!

 

[St0rmFury]

This has been a very enlightening thread with regards to the history of military slots.

 

[Riverside]

This has been a very enlightening thread with regards to the history of military slots.

They were added in 2.2.03:

Patch Notes - Update - Elite Dangerous 2.2.03 - Update incoming.

Greetings Commanders, I’m just posting up to confirm that we have an update making its way to you this morning. The servers will be going down at 10:45 AM GMT and will be down for approximately 2 - 4 hours. We’ll let you know if there are any unexpected delays on this thread. I’d like to...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Discussion about the reasoning behind adding them will be around then if you're interested in looking into it.

 

[CMDR Serra]

But it still does it. That is my counter point (which you just proved) to the "this ship only does this, and this ship only does that; and that's the way it is" argument.

Can any ship do anything? Yes.
If that's the point you're trying to get across then you're going about it all wrong.

All ships can demonstrably do anything. You CAN take on a Thargoid interceptor in a Sidewinder. You CAN visit Beagle point in a Mamba. It's been done. No-one can argue with this.

Your point about military slots doesn't make sense in this context, though.

 

[Saint Ajora]

Why are you so hung up on applying some real life logic to a system that's completely abstract?
What I'm trying to explain to you is: forget that it is an internal slot.
It is a slot, because that was the easiest way to apply this change.

Why are you so hung up on arguing against a point that would make the game better and more diverse?

"What I'm trying to explain to you is: forget that it is an internal slot.
It is a slot, because that was the easiest way to apply this change."
....Forget that it is an internal slot. It is a slot...

Do I really need to explain the ridiculousness of this?

I fully understand what you have been saying. However, that has no bearing on whether or not it should be adjusted or not. Why can you not understand that? I see your point; it is wrong. Those slots are not giant boxes that you can simply place anything into; HOWEVER other things that are MASSLESS or realistically be configured in a way to accommodate an odd shape (such as fuel or cargo cannisters) that directly relate to military operations should be allowed.

 

[Saint Ajora]

Can any ship do anything? Yes.
If that's the point you're trying to get across then you're going about it all wrong.

All ships can demonstrably do anything. You CAN take on a Thargoid interceptor in a Sidewinder. You CAN visit Beagle point in a Mamba. It's been done. No-one can argue with this.

Your point about military slots doesn't make sense in this context, though.

This was a COUNTERPOINT to the argument I stated before, not my main point nor reason for this change.

 

[varonica]

I see your point; it is wrong.

And i raise your point with a double wrong! It's a game, realism and other such niceties always come second to whether the game is fun and whether it is working the way the game makers wants it to work, in both cases you are wrong.

 

[CMDR Serra]

This was a COUNTERPOINT to the argument I stated before, not my main point nor reason for this change.

Well that was an interesting - if pointless - diversion.

 

[Florenus]

Why are you so hung up on arguing against a point that would make the game better and more diverse?

"What I'm trying to explain to you is: forget that it is an internal slot.
It is a slot, because that was the easiest way to apply this change."
....Forget that it is an internal slot. It is a slot...

Do I really need to explain the ridiculousness of this?

I fully understand what you have been saying. However, that has no bearing on whether or not it should be adjusted or not. Why can you not understand that? I see your point; it is wrong. Those slots are not giant boxes that you can simply place anything into; HOWEVER other things that are MASSLESS or realistically be configured in a way to accommodate an odd shape (such as fuel or cargo cannisters) that directly relate to military operations should be allowed.

You really don't understand.
If you want to add more space to certain ships, then make this a case. I'm not arguing that - that's completely separate issue for me - one i'm not really interested in exploring.
I'm trying to explain to you how military slots don't have anything to do with internal space and are arbitrary way to use (I'll repeat again) this abstract outfitting system, but you keep banging the same drum.
Bang on.

 

[tolm]

Have you ever built a Mine-de-lance, Explor-de-lance or a Cargo-de-lance? I have. They're terrible. Hillarious but terrible.

The reason it doesn't need restrictions is because using an FDL for anything other than combat is lunacy.

The only other role the FDL should be good at would be a luxury passenger craft but I suspect the poor jump range and lack of internals would mean it would suck at that, too.

 

[CMDR Serra]

The only other role the FDL should be good at would be a luxury passenger craft but I suspect the poor jump range and lack of internals would mean it would suck at that, too.

Yes. And then the SK ships should be much better at that anyway.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Fun 100% subjective. Allowing more people to use more ships to do more things will allow more people to have more fun. Objectively making the game more fun. Pleases tell me how that takes fun away from you? Those current "multi-role" aces will still continue to be the aces so your min-maxing efforst will not have been in vain. But again , please tell me how more options makes the game less fun for you.

So what is stopping people from using these ship today? you have already stated that all ships are "multirole"...

 

[Misty_Dark]

From what I see, those who are arguing against the change haven't given anything aside from "That's different than it is now! How dare you change something that might make it different! Don't you dare have fun by it being different!"

I have seen no arguments from them about what items may or may not be reasonable to put in that slot as to not severely change the way a military ship is a military ship. Just massive amounts of "HOW DARE YOU!" It's almost like they lack imagination.

They must HATE the way people can mod things like Skyrim...

So what have you given to the discussion then? except attacking people not agree with OP ...

 

[LeoBartlet]

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.

TL;DR

Make military slots normal slots.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

TL;DR

Make military slots normal slots.

Which probably wouldn't be the worst idea. I doubt combat builds of the affected ships would change much, while it would open them up for non-combat roles.

 

[Misty_Dark]

And i raise your point with a double wrong! It's a game, realism and other such niceties always come second to whether the game is fun and whether it is working the way the game makers wants it to work, in both cases you are wrong.

Do not forget, the obvious elephants in the room... how logical is that we flying in space ships, can travel faster than light, have instant teleportation of yourself thousands if not million LY when you die. the fact that we have unlimited amount of "lifes" when our ships is destroyed. We can ha near instant remote control in the form of multicrew, where a CMDR on one end of the galaxy that visit the ship of a CMDR at the OTHER END of the galaxy, and have real time control of certain functions of the other CMDR's ship or SLF.

Things that if we went after realism would not be a thing.. but are there to make the game more fun, just like you said, fun > realism in most games, even in games like flight simulators there is plenty of realisms that is skipped for the sake of making it fun.