More optional options allowed in "military" compartments. Please.
- Thread starter Saint Ajora
- Start date
- Status
Still more examples than I've seen on your side, but OK.
Giving the Viper 4 a cargo option in the MIL slot makes it basically the same as a Cobra 3. It has a size 2 LS rather than 3, but 2 size 3 internals rather than a 4 and a 2 arguably makes it more flexible. So you're making the Viper a bit better, yes, but it's a change that makes no sense because we already have the CM3.
Yes that they'd not be improved significantly by your proposed changes. Anything with MIL slots that you're using in combat won't change and the other uses for theses ships are sub-optimal at best. The only outlier I can think of is the Exploraconda - although that has plenty of slots anyway.
Challenger.
Is now marginally more useful as something other than a combat build, but still laughably terrible compared to the Python, Krait2, Type7, Orca, etc... as such no-one will use it for cargo, exploration, passenger missions, mining, unless it's a meme build. That's 52 builds no-one will ever use.
"Half decent" is a massive stretch.
Most people in the top 10% of any trade CG, OpIda...
Oh no. Anyway.
I did not say to unrestrict them. The very title of the post is "more options" not "unlock everything" for a reason.
I'm proving that their decision was incorrect and could and should be rectified (as a lot of suggestions tend to be in every stage). They can still keep the lore and balance of the game sound if they did this all the while encouraging a VAST amount of potential effective builds allowing for a more diverse experience.
It's because the shield generator is a single massive piece that wouldn't work if separated. These slots don't represent large box shaped rooms, they are much smaller and oddly shaped. It really boils down to a lore reason.The only module that doesn’t currently but feels like it should fit in a Military slot? Shield Generator.
Both SCBs and Guardian SRMs can go in a military slot yet the generator that they both “feed” cannot. That doesn’t make much sense.
Wow! It's very rare that i agree to 100% with something you post. So i find it worth mentioning here.
Next weeks thread: Multi-role ships are not worth using any more. Give them more internals!
Maybe it would have been better overall to have versions of certain modules be limited to different ships, in the same way that only luxury cabins can be placed in the Dolphin, Orca & Beluga? This would allow for advanced military spec versions of hull reinforcement etc which would afford the buff needed to keep the military ships ahead of the multirole ships. Then there would have been no need to add special slots in the first place. However, this could be fixed now by making all the current slots general and then introducing the restricted modules. There would be some unavoidable power creep but from then on it would be a matter of balancing these modules rather than trying to shoehorn more slots.
Here's another idea. Restrict military modules to military compartments. The epic nerf hammer of doom!
I like your idea, it would have been a good way to deal with the issue that the introduction of military slots addressed.
I think most of the negative responses and resistance to change in this thread are a quite reasonable desire to avoid or delay that inevitable power creep.
As I said, "even if only for certain options."
At minimum HRPs - it makes no sense that a blob of armor in a random cargo bay magically protects the entire ship! Civilian ships should be limited to installing upgraded hull plating. Ideally, military grade hulls would then provide slots where you could add additional HRPs.
By the same logic, MRPs should probably be attached somehow to particular compartments or otherwise restricted to military slots. SCBs are probably okay though, FDev seems to imagine them as big batteries that could be tucked in anywhere and wired in to the shields.
It is funny isn't it? "Here we go guys, just pour this cargo bay full of concrete. That ought to do the trick!" Armor comes in 80 pound sacks of quik-crete that you just add water to and pour into the belly of your ship.
This is a problem of presentation.
When Frontier first introduced military slots they were listed under Core Internals, but people weren't used to scrolling down so they went unnoticed by many.
They were moved to optional internals in an attempt to make them more visible, but this had the side effect of making people see them as restrictions rather than additional armour for military ships. No slots were ever closed off, they were pure bonuses, but the UI makes it 'feel' restrictive.
People don't complain about not being able to put cargo racks in utility or core slots because those are clearly demarcated. IMO it would be much better for game balance if defences were more tightly controlled per ship and if slots / stacking was more restrictive not less; the power spectrum is already insanely wide as it is... but it should be done with thoughtful presentation so people don't get confused as to what's allowed where and why.
When Frontier first introduced military slots they were listed under Core Internals, but people weren't used to scrolling down so they went unnoticed by many.
They were moved to optional internals in an attempt to make them more visible, but this had the side effect of making people see them as restrictions rather than additional armour for military ships. No slots were ever closed off, they were pure bonuses, but the UI makes it 'feel' restrictive.
People don't complain about not being able to put cargo racks in utility or core slots because those are clearly demarcated. IMO it would be much better for game balance if defences were more tightly controlled per ship and if slots / stacking was more restrictive not less; the power spectrum is already insanely wide as it is... but it should be done with thoughtful presentation so people don't get confused as to what's allowed where and why.
Invalid argument. Again, just because it was implemented poorly and incorrectly the first time doesn't mean it shouldn't be adjusted now. The attitude of "this is how it is so deal with it" literally gets nobody anywhere. If this were the case we would all be playing V1.0.
And as Trollymctrollerson pointed out, So then why can we put these "specialized military" parts in other areas? Are these armor upgrades so special that they need their own slot or are they generic enough to fit anywhere? If you were correct, it would be the former but it appears to be the latter as FDEV has made it available to put them in any optional slot. Just a giant room full of magical pourable armor plating that somehow protects the outside of the hull while being completely contained within the bowels of the ship. So which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Right? They have no qualms about putting these "specialized military parts" in the non-designated slots and having them accomplish the exact same thing in the exact same manner. So what is it I wonder? Literally none of the counter arguments have come with a decent point and a few of them have even directly contradicted themselves within the same comment just proving that their points against me are nul and void.
At the end of the day it is still a video game and being such my proposal opens up a lot of ships to other areas overall improving the game greatly while maintain immersion and being logical. Should some things be rebalanced afterward? IDK we would have to see.
Last edited:
Again, ALL ships are multi role ships. You need to understand that if we are to have a reasonable discussion.Next weeks thread: Multi-role ships are not worth using any more. Give them more internals!
How about the fact they have blatantly contradicted themselves? How is that reasonable? Again, what power creep? Oh, no the military ships get moderately better at doing non military things. Oh, no, the Cutter (requiring hours of grinding and at 3 times the cost) can carry 10% more cargo than the T-9 as opposed to .5% more.
I think you are using a broader definition of the description than Sylow (and the game designers). Any ship can be made to do any task. Some will be better at those tasks than others. Some are more evenly balanced.
Will it really do that? can you give 5 examples of that? I mean, you have been going on and on about how this will open up ships for other things... so what ship and what areas are we open them up to, that they cant really do today..
Because as far as I am aware, you can already do just anything with any ship today. But the absolute majority of players will choose one of the better suited ships for task, and I have yet to see anything from this suggestion that would change that..
If anything, lets move back the military options to the core internals...
You seem to have misunderstood my post as defending the status quo. I was pointing out that this is an example of Fdev having dropped the ball, just not in the way you initially implied. I don't believe opening military slots would be good for game balance, nor do I believe they're currently implemented as well as they could be.
If you read my post again you'll see that I'm actually in favour of restricting defensive module stacking. The health spectrum in Elite is absurdly wide and is not conducive to a healthy ecosystem.
For example:
Source: https://i.imgur.com/PZdy3ol.png
This kind of power gulf should be reined in; this will not be achieved by increasing modular freedom, rather by restricting it further.
You've assumed I want to have and eat cake when actually I want a muffin. Please don't conflate my post with the arguments others have made.
You have provided 0 evidence as to how it would be a bad thing and only shown blind fear to change.
If you want a more restrictive game where you are shoehorned into a role based on what ship you buy, go play Star Citizen. Elite dangerous is a canvas where any ship can do anything and that is what attracted me and many other to it. I've even gotten to stop playing SC simply because of that fact.
That chart shows a "issue" because of the engineering and not because they don't restrict compartments enough. Invalid argument.
What is a muffin but a savory cake? If you don't want me to conflate your arguments, then maybe you should make the same bad arguments others are making.
Based on how multiple people are freaking out on how this would destroy the entire balance of the game you'd think I wouldn't have to. Simply applying some critical thinking and a tad bit of logic it is easy to see that by making ships less restrictive, they get better at a variety of other things.
That is just my point, these ships can already do these things so precedence is there. They just do them incredibly poorly forcing players hands to pick from 2 or 3 ships as opposed to a dozen or more. More different ships to do more things better in while still keeping the whole thing logical.
Well, according to someone, people just can't figure out how to scroll down so talk to them about that.
Definition of Multirole :: Pertaining to, or serving in, many roles.
It doesn't say anything about needing specific requirements in every aspect to be a multirole. It doesn't have to be good at everything, just functionable which all ships do that. You stop to think that maybe theirs is too restrictive? Not to mention that those ships that are already at the top of their specializations will most likely stay there or at least very near the top.
- Status