A Question About Module Bays

[Old Duck]

This is a question for the veterans who have been here since the early days of Elite Dangerous. Why are module bays limited to single modules? Why can't a size 2 module bay hold two size 1 modules, for example? Or why can't a size 5 module bay hold a size 3 and a size 2 module? I know I can't be the first to ask this, in fact I suspect it was brought up during the Kickstarter. Why not, oh wise veterans, why not? I would really like this ability!



If it can be done, then consider this a feature request!

[Stealthie]

The main "issue" is that module categories increase linearly whereas module sizes/capacities increase exponentially.

It's not an insurmountable issue but it's one that would probably require quite a bit of thinking about to ensure it doesn't create game-breaking imbalances.

For example...

A C2 cargo rack can hold 4t of stuff.
A C5 cargo rack can hold 32t of stuff.
Ergo, a C5 slot can accommodate 8x as much stuff as a C2.

A C5 HRP adds 390 integrity.
A C2 HRP adds 190 integrity.

With this idea implemented, I'd be able to stick 8x C2 HRPs into a C5 slot for a gain of 1520 integrity.

[Old Duck]

The main "issue" is that module categories increase linearly whereas module sizes/capacities increase exponentially.

It's not an insurmountable issue but it's one that would probably require quite a bit of thinking about to ensure it doesn't create game-breaking imbalances.

For example...

A C2 cargo rack can hold 4t of stuff.
A C5 cargo rack can hold 32t of stuff.
Ergo, a C5 slot can accommodate 8x as much stuff as a C2.

A C5 HRP adds 390 integrity.
A C2 HRP adds 190 integrity.

With this idea implemented, I'd be able to stick 8x C2 HRPs into a C5 slot for a gain of 1520 integrity.

That makes sense. Perhaps ED could force identical small modules to merge into their larger equivalent. They could also perhaps limit the "dividers" to one per module bay - so a size 5 slot could be divided into a 4/1 or 3/2 for example.

The obvious use I'm thinking of is combining a DSS and ADS in a single size 2 bay, or a size 1 collector limpet controller and a size 4 cargo rack in a size 5 bay. As an explorer, I'm a bit frustrated to have all this wasted space in my small and medium ships and not be able to use it for what I want.

The other option is for Frontier to create pre-combined modules that normally go together, like DSS + ADS, "gathering" limpet controllers (collector + prospector + research), "rescue" limpet controllers (fuel + repair + decon), etc.

[Stealthie]

That makes sense. Perhaps ED could force identical small modules to merge into their larger equivalent. They could also perhaps limit the "dividers" to one per module bay - so a size 5 slot could be divided into a 4/1 or 3/2 for example.

The obvious use I'm thinking of is combining a DSS and ADS in a single size 2 bay, or a size 1 collector limpet controller and a size 4 cargo rack in a size 5 bay. As an explorer, I'm a bit frustrated to have all this wasted space in my small and medium ships and not be able to use it for what I want.

The other option is for Frontier to create pre-combined modules that normally go together, like DSS + ADS, "gathering" limpet controllers (collector + prospector + research), "rescue" limpet controllers (fuel + repair + decon), etc.

Uhuh,

Let's face it, if we assume the game is going to keep going then more and more modules are going to be added and more and more slots are going to be required.

Seems like, sooner or later, FDev are going to have to deal with this one way or another.

As I've said before, ideally I'd like to see "slots" got rid of completely and then limit what we bung in our ships via secondary characteristics such as power-consumption and distributor-draw.

This would certainly be a fairly convoluted process, though.
It's one of those things, though, which is only going to get worse the longer you leave it and once it IS sorted out, it'll be sorted forever.

[torbach]

if they add more modules
feature creep can happen...


sure it could be converted to # rather than discrete slots,,modules are all given a # -- ship can only only equip so much #.. I think changes like this complicate the system in an un-fun way // shocks the system we are familiar with

[RamirezKurita]

As far as I can see, the modules are limited in that way due to the availability of internal power counduits, data cabling and conveyor systems. Splitting a module wouldn't simply be a matter of putting two smaller modules into the same space, as you would also need to introduce the extra power distribution systems, network bridges and conveyor splitters necessary to keep both modules fully integrated into the ship systems.

The main "issue" is that module categories increase linearly whereas module sizes/capacities increase exponentially.

It's not an insurmountable issue but it's one that would probably require quite a bit of thinking about to ensure it doesn't create game-breaking imbalances.

For example...

A C2 cargo rack can hold 4t of stuff.
A C5 cargo rack can hold 32t of stuff.
Ergo, a C5 slot can accommodate 8x as much stuff as a C2.

A C5 HRP adds 390 integrity.
A C2 HRP adds 190 integrity.

With this idea implemented, I'd be able to stick 8x C2 HRPs into a C5 slot for a gain of 1520 integrity.

While that is a good point, it's also worth bearing in mind that hull tanking tends to be pretty strong on smaller ships but pretty useless on larger ones, perhaps this is what is needed to bring hull tanking on the big three into line with the current SCB stacking? Similarly, trading scales pretty hard with increased ship sizes, yet other activities such as mining are limited by the exponential increase in controller sizes for a linear increase in performance. In fact, the borked scaling on many internal modules are what severely limits their potential as a solid endgame profession, as it's impossible to balance both beginning and endgame loadouts if some things scale exponentially while others scale linearly (balance them for small ships and they'll be useless for late-game earning, balance them for endgame loadouts and they'll be horrifically broken on a sidewinder or cobra). I'd say that, splitters or no splitters, FD do need to take a good look at the relative scalings of their modules.

[Flimley]

It’s also a matter of balancing the ships. If modules could be split, imagine how much more deadly some ships could become. HRP’s is an example.

Flimley

[DrewCarnegie]

This will just serve to make the Python even more OP than it already is.

[Teh Smoo]

The main "issue" is that module categories increase linearly whereas module sizes/capacities increase exponentially.

It's not an insurmountable issue but it's one that would probably require quite a bit of thinking about to ensure it doesn't create game-breaking imbalances.

For example...

A C2 cargo rack can hold 4t of stuff.
A C5 cargo rack can hold 32t of stuff.
Ergo, a C5 slot can accommodate 8x as much stuff as a C2.

A C5 HRP adds 390 integrity.
A C2 HRP adds 190 integrity.

With this idea implemented, I'd be able to stick 8x C2 HRPs into a C5 slot for a gain of 1520 integrity.

I'm just gonna throw this out there: maybe FD isn't totally retarded, and could compensate for these things. In about three years when they finally get around to doing it.

For instance, no reinforcements in splitters, first off.

Cargo racks are fine- a size 8 rack holds 256. If a splitter divided a size 8 bay into a size 7 and a size 1, you get 130 cargo. If you split into 8 size 1 modules, you get a whopping 16 cargo.

Hull/module reinforcements are the culprits, they scale in a way that makes them less effective per size as they get bigger.

But I would absolutely LOVE to replace the ADS in my size 3 bay with ADS/DSS/docking computer. I've said that before, many times.

[Max Factor]

I would have it that you can get a splinter that takes up one space. So a size 8 would have a size 3 and 4 compartment. I think that would be fine.

A size 3 for instance would have 2 size ones.

[Nimitz68]

It's definitely partly a balancing thing - the larger ships would be able to be more or less permanently configured to do a whole host of things, which quite honestly is not very realistic (e.g. if you're configured to do mining, passengers would be unlikely to want to travel with you). But the power/conduit/placement consideration is also very true from a 'realism' perspective.

I have advocated that it would be great if a ship owner could select ONE bay to (more or less) PERMANENTLY alter into a subset of smaller bays for a small price. For example, I could convert a size 4 bay into a 3/2 config, paying the price of a size 2 bay to subdivide (additional power routing, inefficient placement in the ship, etc.). One could also do 5 -> 4/3 OR 5 -> 4/2/1 where I pay an add'l price to further breakdown the 'nested' 3 bay to a 2/1.

This could be really good for explorers, or anyone who wants to include some of those smaller items more or less permanently without using a sz5 bay to hold a sz1 module.

If you could select ONE bay to do this with, it would help reduce frequent module switching but perhaps not break balancing too much.

I would have it that you can get a splinter that takes up one space. So a size 8 would have a size 3 and 4 compartment. I think that would be fine.

A size 3 for instance would have 2 size ones.

That's not quite how the math works - an 8 splits into two 7s, so a 'price' might be 8 -> 7/6 config.

[metatheurgist]

That's how it worked in Frontier, and it was accurately recognised as a balancing nightmare. Fine for a single player game where any bizarre outcomes affects no-one but yourself, not viable in a MP game.