Another argument for splitting some of those 2-slot modules so a 1-slot thing can fit in with the other 1-slot thing (i.e., Advanced Discovery Scanner and Detailed Surface Scanner should both be able to be fit in the same 2-slot module).Originally Posted by Mengy(Source)
I think it better to wait to see what becomes of FDevs ideas of Limpet Controller racks and Sensor Suite racksOriginally Posted by Leadfoot
That might go some way to mitigate modules vs slots.
But that said, the more stuff is more mass and the consequences there of.
My Sidey is oft putting size 1s in the size 2s due to that fact.
Can we unlock the two unused utility mounts on both Cobras please?
Only after my Type-7 has its 6th small hardpoint unlocked.Originally Posted by Un1k0rn
5thOriginally Posted by CMDR Corlas
I'd go further than that.Originally Posted by Zeeman
Any ship intended for exploration should ALWAYS have 2 x C1 slots, 1 x C2 slot and 1 x C4 slot in order to be compatible with both types of SRV bay while allowing a CMDR to bung an AFMU in whichever slot they don't put their SRV into.
And then, beyond that, if FDev want us to use limpets while exploring then give the ships slots compatible with limpet controller sizes.
Making limpet controllers in sizes 1, 3, 5 and 7 and then giving us C2, C4 or C6 slots in our ships is just taking the pee.
Gotta say, though, I'm not fussed about fitting an FSDB to my exploration ships.
Fitted one to my 55Ly runabout DBX and gained 9Ly at the expense of losing 16t of cargo capacity.
Meh.
The cargo space is more useful (especially since a C4 cargo rack can be a CR rack) so I binned the FSDB.
The FSDBs are far more useful on stuff like T9s, Cutters and Corvettes.
Firstly the DBx (and other ships) can’t fit the basics for long range travel - that’s the whole point of the thread, saying you don’t need them is a load of rubbish it’s like telling a sailor they don’t need Charts for a solo ocean passage. Of course it’s possible but but it’s also irresponsible and sillyOriginally Posted by space voyager
and even the Maltese Falcon does not have room for a car or submarine, nor the requirement for one you have even contradicted your own argument by stating items fit in larger vessels which are not required for making passages on the ocean, and guess what (interesting fact time) most boats have a SRV mines an inflatable dinghy and lives in the aft locker with its outboard, the Maltese Falcon has a speedboat in a fancy garage but it serves the same purpose as a marina and beach taxi - there’s no SRV police telling us we can’t use inflatables because our boats are too small
fact is we all have keels and need to get to shore sometimes, if anything the large vessels are the ones restricted as they can’t leave the channel nor can they hide in a protected shore during a gale due to their draft.
The point is size of vessel does not limit you from exploring - cutting LY adding modules from small ships ( and using sailing again) is the same as saying small sailboats are not allowed to use gps / navtex / radar - pick one ... any
yes you can’t have a cinema or basketball court but they don’t aid exploration just like that viewing deck on the conda... keep it we don’t want it.
this has veered of somewhat but you must see that your argument is solely based on hand wavium, there’s no logical reason to stop small ships fitting exploration components in ed other than to ruin someone elses day, there is no logical reason it won’t effect you in your leather upholstered dinning room sipping champagne in the orangery on deck 16
so in the respect of better gameplay for all - add slots / ability to split large slots up / remove restrictions / A class scanners with 2 slots
whatever the answer make it so, it’s only going to be an improvement to the fd universe
They aren't the basics though.Originally Posted by Kenneth Mcgrew
You can do it with the Fuel scoop, and ADS as the absolute basics.
Heck if it is long range travel, have fuel scoop will travel.
It isn't the same as telling a Sailer they don't need charts, as no one said go without the Galaxy map or route scanner.
If you want to make a compelling arguments make your arguement for having all the extras rather than asserting you can't do without everything and the kitchen sink.
You want there to be no opportunity cost, explain why even the smallest ships shouldn't have to chose and priorities what they outift.
Oh yeah.Originally Posted by Vasious
I mean... You're thinking too small!
The guardian FSD booster is special module apart with guardian tech. I suspect the lore makes it separate as a module because it's not compatible with the machinery in the regular FSD drive, but is able to affect the hyperjump field. That's why it's a separate module and not a core FSD module itself.
OP post is funny seeing the fox's fistpumps in victory "winning" his campaign to stuff another optional slot, lol. But now, asking for another slot for no 'opportunity cost' as mentioned, no drawback? I don't think it fits with the DBX lore and stretches incredulity to enable an extra 5c slot for the DBX to carry the guardian FSD booster. I mean, it's a smaller, much cheaper ship with very small cost in rebuy. All the other ships have to sacrifice a slot for the fsd booster. The booster helped FSD range across the board but at a cost. I'm glad FD did so with this booster module as I disagreed with threads always wanting a free fsd boost for their particular favorite ship with no drawbacks.
Planetary approach and docking computer shouldn't need a slot (just make 'em built in extra's), all scanning equipment in one slot, two one ton modules fit in a two ton slot - bingo, slots to spare for everyone.
IMHO.
All scanners should be on the OUTSIDE of a ship and take up utility slots. Having internal scanners is just daft.
This is more plausible, and would allow all ships to be exploration ready.
FD keep throwing more types of modules at us. Supposedly, the technology is increasing. Yet the main thing that happens with technology improvements is that it gets smaller for the same or better capability. But this doesn't happen in the game.
So we are left with two choices:
- Ignore most of the gameplay
- Only fly an Anaconda
No thanks.Originally Posted by Jingar00
Explorers might not have much use for utility slots. But most other forms of gameplay do.
i thought the same thing as an asp scout pilot. but i'd gather some ships would run into power problems or really get used to turning things on and off.Originally Posted by taotoo
which i hope explorers are flying with the absolute minimum hardware powered on to save fuel
