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

[Misty_Dark]

Only illogical to those who cannot see reason or think logically. And if you REALLY want to talk about who is being pedantic who was the one who got upset because they were SLIGHLY misquoted then went on to actually misquote themselves just now? The phrase you are referring to meant the same exact same thing and yet you accuse me of being pedantic.



Yeah, it's almost like I see a problem that needs to be addressed and not only speak up because it effects me negatively. I have given plenty of good reasons you just refuse to understand them and/or simply want to be combative. You asked for 5 examples, not 5 NOTABLE examples.

Which I did and you simply proved me right by saying they weren't game breaking at all. I even said they were off the top of my head. So thank you for proving me correct again.

Care to continue this fight or are you going to concede like the others who I got to contradict themselves in this post?

Have you looked up the definition of what a quote is? it is not it means that same thing, then you are not QUOTING another person or text. so now all of a sudden using the dictionary do not apply to you? I mean how many posts did you make about what multirole means? citing the dictionary definition, and now you have twice refused to cite the dictionary on what the verb quote means...



What problem really? you gave 5 suggestions that was rubbish, because who would try any of those build realistically? how useful would any of those builds be? you have provided NO such arguments, and yet you say it proves that you are right and we are wrong about what exactly?

You wrote this "Such a simple alteration to make so many more ships more viable in so many more applications", and we are still waiting for you to explain how this would make any of those ships more viable due to this? you certainly have not provided any arguments on it, you managed to present 5 builds, that show what? how does any of those builds show that any of those ships now are vialable?

You made another claim "Not to mention, more people flying more varied types of ships means more people buying Arx which means more money for the Devs", so the change is supposed to make these ships more useful in other roles for players, and the 5 builds you provided, how are they better? why would anyone use any of those builds instead of using any of the other ships available that can do the same task even better? you made the build you could pick and choose the 5 best situations to show off why this would make a change...


So if players are not using these ships more, then why would they spend any extra Arx on them? which is another claim you made...




The burden lies on you, you made the suggestions, you made the claims, we just highlighted why it is a bad suggestion. you have now by your own words, shown that your own claims is nto true. you made the 5 builds, failed to show how these would make these ships viable in more situations, and thus contradicting your original claim. you are now trying to use your own failed builds as a proof that it is a good suggestion.

 

[Saint Ajora]

The biggest issue you face, I believe, is the fact that many ships that have military slots are already quite powerful, and on the whole well balanced. You're basically arguing to buff these ships, which isn't ever going to be accepted.

If you had focused on the ships that really NEEDED it, you may have seen a a bit less opposition, but probably less attention, too, as most people don't really care if the dropship or beluga is underpowered.

So which is it? Because I already proved that they wouldn't be. According to Misty_Dark here, the builds are completely useless. So again, which is it? Are they useless or would they be buffed to the point of being game breaking? You have to pick one.

 

[Misty_Dark]

So which is it? Because I already proved that they wouldn't be. According to Misty_Dark here, the builds are completely useless. So again, which is it? Are they useless or would they be buffed to the point of being game breaking? You have to pick one.

Well, you claimed them would be better at other stuff, and bve used more, and then you failed miserably at it... so what is it?

 

[tolm]

I’m not really fussed one way or another but I can think of a very specific example where a change here would open up gameplay without - I think - making anything game-breaking.

I recently starting playing Odyssey and whilst I had a Krait MkII “ready to go” I wound up building a Vulture so I can land directly at the settlements where needed. It also helps get a little closer to crash sites, etc if (landable!) ground space it limited.

Currently I have it configured with:

• 5A Fuel Scoop
• 5D Shield Reinforcement (MIL)
• 4C BiWeave Shields
• 2H Guardian FSD Booster
• A bunch of 1E Fuel Tanks

Now, this is a great little ship but it would be better if I could squeeze a bit more jump range and, ideally, I’d have an SRV on it.

So … assume Shield Gens were allowed in MIL slots … that would allow me to do:

• 5A Fuel Scoop
• 5C BiWeave Shield (MIL)
• 4H Guardian FSD Booster
• 2H Planetary Vehicle Hanger w/SRV
• A bunch of 1E Fuel Tanks

Shields would drop slightly but I’d get ~3.5Ly extra jump range and an SRV. That would be significantly more useful for Odyssey - plus I could always add standard Shield Boosters in some Utility slots if I really wanted.

Again, not saying this should happen but it’s a specific example where I can see an advantage to make a ship more flexible without it becoming “god class” all of a sudden.

Arguably a “better” solution would be a non-military variant of the Vulture where the MIL slot is instead a standard one but it has smaller weapon hardpoints since it’s no longer a military ship. They could call it the Vulture Scout …

 

[Ian Doncaster]

You directly contradicted yourself earlier, sorry you lost.

If your "opponents" have already lost, why continue arguing?

Frontier, not posters on these forums, determine what features are added to the game. If you are convinced that your arguments are unassailably self-evident and no reasonable person may have any objection to their implementation, then just sit back and relax. Update 11 will reveal one of two things:
1) the unlocking of military slots as per your proposal
2) that Frontier the company also refuses to see the truth of your words and as an unreasonable illogical provider of services deserves no further support or engagement from you
Either way your victory is assured.

 

[Taifu]

* looks up the dictionary definition of the word "Engineer"... looks at Elite's Engineers *

* looks up the dictionary definition of "Bodger" *

Yeah... about FDev and dictionary definitions... lots of wiggle room.

 

[DemiserofD]

You have to pick one.

Not really.

I can suggest a useless buff to the FDL and it won't be a good idea for BOTH reasons. Because it's already a powerful ship, and doesn't need anything more, AND because it's a pointless buff that doesn't matter, and would be a waste of dev time.

 

[CMDR Serra]

If your "opponents" have already lost, why continue arguing?
...

I wouldn't bother. The reason most people gave up on this thread is not because they "lost" but because @OP seems to have some very strange ideas about what's fun, balanced, feasible or a constructive use of dev time and it's pointless trying to reason with that mindset.

It's easier just to leave them be.

 

[varonica]

I wouldn't bother. The reason most people gave up on this thread is not because they "lost" but because @OP seems to have some very strange ideas about what's fun, balanced, feasible or a constructive use of dev time and it's pointless trying to reason with that mindset.

It's easier just to leave them be.

A classic example of how to win arguments and lose friends.

 

[Saint Ajora]

If your "opponents" have already lost, why continue arguing?

Frontier, not posters on these forums, determine what features are added to the game. If you are convinced that your arguments are unassailably self-evident and no reasonable person may have any objection to their implementation, then just sit back and relax. Update 11 will reveal one of two things:
1) the unlocking of military slots as per your proposal
2) that Frontier the company also refuses to see the truth of your words and as an unreasonable illogical provider of services deserves no further support or engagement from you
Either way your victory is assured.

Didn't say to unlock them. Please read the post before commenting.

 

[Saint Ajora]

Well, you claimed them would be better at other stuff, and bve used more, and then you failed miserably at it... so what is it?

Again, plainly incorrect.

What is what? You didn't even ask a full question.

 

[Saint Ajora]

Not really.

I can suggest a useless buff to the FDL and it won't be a good idea for BOTH reasons. Because it's already a powerful ship, and doesn't need anything more, AND because it's a pointless buff that doesn't matter, and would be a waste of dev time.

Yes you do. Sorry to tell you that. According to my "opponents" the change either makes combat ships OP or unusable, you can't have both as they are saying.

This change would take maybe a day to implement. Ether whitelist the proper modules or add the compartment to the approved list on each module. One of those things is all that is needed. If even 3 % of people buy the smallest arx package because of this that is net profit.

 

[DemiserofD]

Yes you do. Sorry to tell you that. According to my "opponents" the change either makes combat ships OP or unusable, you can't have both as they are saying.

This change would take maybe a day to implement. Ether whitelist the proper modules or add the compartment to the approved list on each module. One of those things is all that is needed. If even 3 % of people buy the smallest arx package because of this that is net profit.

Neither of us have any idea what even the seemingly tiniest change could do, but I've seen enough bizarre ripple-effect bugs to know that it's never as simple as it seems like it should be.

It's enough that I feel comfortable arguing against any change I feel would be pointless or non-beneficial, since the potential downsides are guaranteed to outweigh the upsides.

 

[Saint Ajora]

If your "opponents" have already lost, why continue arguing?

Frontier, not posters on these forums, determine what features are added to the game. If you are convinced that your arguments are unassailably self-evident and no reasonable person may have any objection to their implementation, then just sit back and relax. Update 11 will reveal one of two things:
1) the unlocking of military slots as per your proposal
2) that Frontier the company also refuses to see the truth of your words and as an unreasonable illogical provider of services deserves no further support or engagement from you
Either way your victory is assured.

Because it's kinda fun at this point TBH. Watching them prove themselves wrong time and time again.

I didn't say to completely unlock them. That is a gross exaggeration of what I said. Just reiterating.

They haven't really seen it so I'm not even expecting it in update 11. I don't NEED things to happen today. I am patient.

 

[Saint Ajora]

...I feel comfortable arguing against any change...

This sums up all of my opposition. Thank you.

 

[Saint Ajora]

Neither of us have any idea what even the seemingly tiniest change could do, but I've seen enough bizarre ripple-effect bugs to know that it's never as simple as it seems like it should be.

It's enough that I feel comfortable arguing against any change I feel would be pointless or non-beneficial, since the potential downsides are guaranteed to outweigh the upsides.

Again, what is it. Because your allies here seem to think that it would COMPLETELY break the game. SO is it tiny and insignificant or is it game breaking?

The main upside is more people spending more money making ships they like cooler. For what boils down to about a days worth of work for 1 person.

 

[Saint Ajora]

Neither of us have any idea what even the seemingly tiniest change could do, but I've seen enough bizarre ripple-effect bugs to know that it's never as simple as it seems like it should be.

Again, FEAR is your main driver. Unwarranted fear of nothing. If this is truly how you feel, you should go back to playing 1.0 and how the game was at launch.

 

[DemiserofD]

Again, FEAR is your main driver. Unwarranted fear of nothing. If this is truly how you feel, you should go back to playing 1.0 and how the game was at launch.

No, that's called being rational. FDev have a proven history of introducing bugs that are not fixed for months or years when they change things. Why would I take that risk for something I don't want in the first place?

 

[Saint Ajora]

No, that's called being rational. FDev have a proven history of introducing bugs that are not fixed for months or years when they change things. Why would I take that risk for something I don't want in the first place?

Anyone scared of something (that isn't life threating) feels it is rational; otherwise they wouldn't be scared of it. You are just giving excuses to be combative.

You have not given a given a single counter-example of how/why this would be a bad thing; only your fears and feelings neither of which hold any merit here. I and others have given specific examples of how this change would be good while still maintaining the game balance. Completely contrary to your side saying both extremes of being broken.

 

[DemiserofD]

Anyone scared of something (that isn't life threating) feels it is rational; otherwise they wouldn't be scared of it. You are just giving excuses to be combative.

You have not given a given a single counter-example of how/why this would be a bad thing; only your fears and feelings neither of which hold any merit here. I and others have given specific examples of how this change would be good while still maintaining the game balance. Completely contrary to your side saying both extremes of being broken.

I don't need to give any arguments, lol. They would only be needed if you had any good points, but you haven't posted any.

But the concern over bugs being introduced by new content is 100% rational. You don't go running downrange in a gun range, you don't walk through traffic, and you don't make unnecessary changes in a game with a proven history of adding game-breaking bugs.