Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Final reminder that all participants should address and discuss the topic, which is not other participants.
More optional options allowed in "military" compartments. Please.
- Thread starter Saint Ajora
- Start date
- Status
The issue is that an AFMU can still repair them so it NEEDS to have access to them even when they are occupied. Those modules HAVE to be on the interior as the ships dimensions don't change. Cargo racks and fuel tanks can both be easily configured in a virtually infinite number of ways.
Oh my. What a hilarious misunderstanding...
OK. In what will be the first part in my final comments on the matter:
1. Realism is a silly argument. This is not a lifelike sim. It's not real life. Its a game. Game balance decisions trump realism.
Does filling up a compartment with a "Hull Reinforcement Pack" strengthen the armour all over my ship? Yes.
Does filling my car boot with steel make my car impervious to physical damage? No.
Therefore, I'm sorry but: "In modern day conflicts, vehicles/planes/soldiers do X,Y,Z" or "AFMUs have zero mass and have access to all areas of the ship so should be able to X,Y,Z" should be taken to the Lore and RP forum where such hypothetical discussions are welcomed. There we can discuss what we think a "Hull Reinforcement Pack" or AFMU is and how it works to your heart's content.
Now game balance? We can have a discussion about that too....
1. Realism is a silly argument. This is not a lifelike sim. It's not real life. Its a game. Game balance decisions trump realism.
Does filling up a compartment with a "Hull Reinforcement Pack" strengthen the armour all over my ship? Yes.
Does filling my car boot with steel make my car impervious to physical damage? No.
Therefore, I'm sorry but: "In modern day conflicts, vehicles/planes/soldiers do X,Y,Z" or "AFMUs have zero mass and have access to all areas of the ship so should be able to X,Y,Z" should be taken to the Lore and RP forum where such hypothetical discussions are welcomed. There we can discuss what we think a "Hull Reinforcement Pack" or AFMU is and how it works to your heart's content.
Now game balance? We can have a discussion about that too....
2. Game balance is the main issue here. Would making MIL slots take AFMUs, Cargo Racks and Fuel Tanks make any ships excessively powerful (and thus make other ships redundant)? In at least one case I can think of: yes.
The Cutter gets a lot better. It gets 64 units extra on top of the 794 max it can have. Alternatively, you can now fit a size 6 shield, keep 794 units of cargo and be impossible to stop rather than just really, really difficult. The T-9 already needed a buff in 2018 to make it even close to the Cutter:
Also, the Type-10 gets an additional 64 cargo space too - leaving the poor T-9 looking even worse.
As we've agreed on before - any ship can do anything already if you really, really want it to. Plan to explore in a Gunship or run cargo in a Challenger? You'd just be turning a terrible choice into a marginally less terrible one, really.
So: why make this change and potentially introduce a new range of bugs while you're at it? Which ships would benefit without making other ships redundant?
The Cutter gets a lot better. It gets 64 units extra on top of the 794 max it can have. Alternatively, you can now fit a size 6 shield, keep 794 units of cargo and be impossible to stop rather than just really, really difficult. The T-9 already needed a buff in 2018 to make it even close to the Cutter:
Also, the Type-10 gets an additional 64 cargo space too - leaving the poor T-9 looking even worse.
As we've agreed on before - any ship can do anything already if you really, really want it to. Plan to explore in a Gunship or run cargo in a Challenger? You'd just be turning a terrible choice into a marginally less terrible one, really.
So: why make this change and potentially introduce a new range of bugs while you're at it? Which ships would benefit without making other ships redundant?
AFMUs are not strictly for military use. Ask any explorer.
This thread's suggestion will tip a well preserved balance in ships' worthiness. I wouldh't do that to the game, and hopefully, FDev will have the same reaction.
Also, it's risky to think that one's own opinion is logical. We have a saying, "if enough people tell you you're blind, you'd better visit an optician".
This thread's suggestion will tip a well preserved balance in ships' worthiness. I wouldh't do that to the game, and hopefully, FDev will have the same reaction.
Also, it's risky to think that one's own opinion is logical. We have a saying, "if enough people tell you you're blind, you'd better visit an optician".
Ah, but in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. But ... not in this case
When have you ever been low on fuel in combat? Thats not a good use of military compartments. I have a Gunship with 4 C2 fuel rails and can last at least 90 minutes before needing to get more fuel (it only has a 16T tank) . Tell me why again you wouod need extra fuel tanks in military compartments instead of using a small optional lol.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't happen, that's not my point.
Not at all. I just outplayed you at your own game.Oh my. What a hilarious misunderstanding...
Again, when someone says "realistically" they are referring to the current context not realistically in regards to real life. As I have stated before what they really mean is immersion. What I am talking about is LOGICAL, not realistic. It is only LOGICAL that if you can fit very large, thick, solid armor plating somewhere, you can fit a hollow tank in that same place. That is logical, immersive, and realistic; go figure.
A single example, you give a single example of something that MIGHT need to be rebalanced if they allowed cargo racks. what about the other dozen or more ships that will be used more often with better results? Do you have anything to say about those? Not to mention you only noted 1 of 3 potential options in this T-9 doomsday event. So what about AFMUs or fuel tanks? Will allowing those in combat slots wrack havoc on game balance? We call that cherry picking and therefore it is an invalid argument.
Here's my counter example :: [pick a combat ship name] is now marginally more useful in [pick a non-combat situation] and you will see more variances in play as opposed to the 8 different ships you see people flying around in now making the game more enjoyable for everyone. 13 combat ships x 4 roles (mining, exploration, everyday, hauling) brings us to 52 builds that improve. Let's save that for later.
Now, lets take your point of view on the T-9 being utterly destroyed and useless in this instance. Remember that 52 builds from earlier? You want to sacrifice 52 different half decent builds because of the single T-9 build? Do you see the problem here? The T-9 still remains very near the top anyway and not rock bottom like you are implying.
The T-9 is broken anyway (in my opinion) 75 million (67.5 if the buyer is smart) for a ship that requires no rank grind and has the 2nd highest cargo capacity in the entire game by 4? Are you kidding me? Who doesn't want to use this ship or actively use it when hauling? It is THE trade ship to use. I know people who have access to the Cutter but still use the T-9 because of it's price point. An extra almost 150 million for 4 cargo slots is not worth it. Then there is the rebuy cost. You know as well as I do that dumb things happen and all it takes is 1 dumb thing in a Cargo Cutter and you are paying WAY more than a T-9 which will take many MANY more successful runs to negate that loss.
Not to mention both the Cutter and the T-10 cost SIGNIFICANTLY more than the T-9 so it is okay if they are better. Even if FDEV did what I said and everyone stopped using the T-9 effectively sacrificing it (even though it would still probably be used because of its price). Again, this opens up so many more doors for others to use more ships more effectively and it makes LOGICAL sense and keeps IMMERSION.
Given your continued conduct in this thread I will not be responding to you anymore. Have a good one.
Last edited:
There is nothing military in those. Not in my opinion (and not in devs opinion)
My exploration ships used to pack AFMU and Repair limpets and usually no weapons.
Some people do not pack shields on exploration ships.
Basically, the game devs defined as military only: hrp, mrp and scb
And i pretty much agree with this and i see no reason why it should change.
I use AFMUs and repair/decontamination limpets much. They are mainly combat modules that you can use in an exploration build. I use AFMUs to repair heat damage from shield cell banking (2x 7A and a 6A at once breaks 500% heat) and repair/decontamination limpets when fighting thargoids.There is nothing military in those. Not in my opinion (and not in devs opinion)
My exploration ships used to pack AFMU and Repair limpets and usually no weapons.
Some people do not pack shields on exploration ships.
Basically, the game devs defined as military only: hrp, mrp and scb
And i pretty much agree with this and i see no reason why it should change.
Repairing your armor and weapons is just as important to fighting as having armor and weapons.There is nothing military in those. Not in my opinion (and not in devs opinion)
My exploration ships used to pack AFMU and Repair limpets and usually no weapons.
Some people do not pack shields on exploration ships.
Basically, the game devs defined as military only: hrp, mrp and scb
And i pretty much agree with this and i see no reason why it should change.
It should change because it should have been done like this in the first place. Simply siding with "that's how it is" is an invalid argument. If that feeling had any merit at all, the entirety of the suggestions forum would be 100% moot.
You do know that with a single heatsink you can stagger 2 SCB - with no need to fry your modules
With perfect timing and rapid charge on those SCB, you maybe could squeeze in the third SCB, maybe
Anyway, what i'm trying to say is, i can dual bank 2x Size 7B SCB with 0 heat damage. (I'm using 7B instead of 7A because while the single charge is slightly smaller, the overall shield recharge is better for 7B since it has 6 banks instead of 5)
And you may argue as much as you want that AFMU (or any type of limpets) is a military module because you are using it in combat.
Following the same logic i could argue it's an exploration module because i'm using an AFMU on each and every Exploration ship i have.
So they are mainly exploration modules, that can be used in combat
But as i said, by the current rules (which i'm very ok with) AFMU it's not a module that can fit in a Military slot.
No it's not moot at all.
Someone thinks they had a great idea and they feel the need to share it in the suggestion forums.
But usually that great idea is not that great for someone else. Or it is plain wrong.
And the someone else will voice their opinion so the devs can see the OP's idea doesn't sit well with other players.
When you say "fit" how does it fit in a regular slot but not mil slot. You act like these are all modeled with dimensions. They are not as we have no ship interiors this "a shield generator wont fit in a Class 5 military slot because its hefty" stuff is pulled out of nowhere. You have no idea how big or small a shield gen is because there is no dimensions or model.You do know that with a single heatsink you can stagger 2 SCB - with no need to fry your modules
With perfect timing and rapid charge on those SCB, you maybe could squeeze in the third SCB, maybe
Anyway, what i'm trying to say is, i can dual bank 2x Size 7B SCB with 0 heat damage. (I'm using 7B instead of 7A because while the single charge is slightly smaller, the overall shield recharge is better for 7B since it has 6 banks instead of 5)
And you may argue as much as you want that AFMU (or any type of limpets) is a military module because you are using it in combat.
Following the same logic i could argue it's an exploration module because i'm using an AFMU on each and every Exploration ship i have.
So they are mainly exploration modules, that can be used in combat
But as i said, by the current rules (which i'm very ok with) AFMU it's not a module that can fit in a Military slot.
What about shield cells then. They need a way to mount. Unlike hull plating or module reinforcement.
Exactly. The currently allowed modules aren't "exclusively military" in nature as they are preventing ANY type of damage that interacts with them. Thank you for proving My suggestion not only SHOULD work, that it is immersive as well.And you may argue as much as you want that AFMU (or any type of limpets) is a military module because you are using it in combat.
Following the same logic i could argue it's an exploration module because i'm using an AFMU on each and every Exploration ship i have.
So they are mainly exploration modules, that can be used in combat
Honestly, that puzzles me too. Mostly it seems like a quarantine zone for the never-ending debate between different visions for the game that I mentioned earlier. It seems pretty clear that the vast majority of these threads will never be seen by the developers, much less considered for action. And when FDev does want player feedback on a feature, they can and do create special threads for that. And feedback they certainly do get! Indeed, perhaps the biggest problem for them in those threads is that the long-running adversarial patterns of the Suggestions section tend to spill over into those threads and overwhelm the useful posts. But perhaps that would happen anyway, with or without a special section for it.
The objective of any change is not to just make the game easier, but to make the game deeper. Choosing to use an undersized module instead of a larger military module creates an interesting and deep choice for the player, whereas just unrestricting the slots entirely(even if only for certain options) does not.
You argue that many other modules could be considered military in nature, but fundamentally, ANY module could be considered 'military' in the right context. Ultimately, it's just a matter of semantics, and they've decided that some modules are military and others are not. You need more than just semantics to change that; you need solid reasons for why the change would make the game better, and as far as I can see, it would only make it easier.
- Status