Pretty simple. This would mainly help explorers in smaller ships, to have the option of replacing the SRV in the field if it gets destroyed, assuming they have the materials already. I think it would be OK for this to be fairly expensive in terms of the materials needed. But synthing replacement SRVs seems only natural, since fighter bays already "print" new SLFs anyway.
Add synthesis recipe to "reload" destroyed SRVs
- Thread starter Orvidius
- Start date
While I can see the sense of this in regards to we already do it for SLF, we are not really synthesising SLF's from what I understand, each SLF bay comes with sufficient resources to manufacture a certain number of SLF's, the larger the bay the more fighters, so I assume there is some limitation to the parts we can synthesise. So having a similar arrangement for the SRV bay would seem to be logical, a certain number of SRV's for a given size of SRV bay, although I do note that SLF bays are far larger than SRV bays, so maybe a Sidewinder couldn't fit a bay large enough for spare parts to manufacture an SRV all the way up through the bay sizes to the large ships which could fit the max sized bay, that would cut down the number of large slots available so you would have to compromise in some areas, but that's ok, explorers could manage fine and bubble inhabitants can just pop to the nearest station for a refill. Costs might increase though but that's pretty much irrelevant these days.
It can happen surprisingly quickly; especially in an instance with many (more than 4) people.
I would like to be able to synth/manufacture SRV's as well, but, more importantly, I want the game mechanics to be consistent. So regardless of whether or not we can do any of these things, they should be the same for both SRVs and SLFs:
1. Ability to synth/manufacture (I'd argue against a number of reloads and instead just have synth. Or perhaps a bay comes with a single reload, but you can synth additional ones; feels too much like the SLF is just an Ammo-based weapon)
2. Ability to dismiss mothership (lack of this for SLF's is why I ditched my SLF bay at the last minute before embarking on DW2; it would have been -really- awesome to be able to explore planets with an SLF..)
3. Ability to multi-crew (again, multi-crewing SRVs would allow for proper base assaults with the pilot coordinating the assault after deploying one or two SRVs)
In general I was really hoping Season 4 was going to be an overall pass over the game and its various mechanics; adjusting balance, mechanics, fixing bugs etc. Instead we got more content. For which I am -more- than grateful, please don't get me wrong, but that wasn't really the originally-promised aim of Season 4. So I still live in hope that one day we will get such a pass over the game. SRV/SLF is just one tiny aspect; there are many many more similar examples of jarring and inconsistent game elements. But I'm getting OT....
I think this could be a good addition. The process needs to take a considerable amount of resources, a spike in fuel consumption (and maybe time). As Varonica pointed out, the SLF bay is equipped with spare parts, so it is not entirely the same thing. I guess a new class 3 / class 5 SRV bay with a sufficiently large enough printer would be necessary to make sense.
(How about a class 1 "hamsterball" bay for a really low-tech "vehicle" while we are at it
?)
Only issue I see: The synthesis list is already very long, I guess for voice attack compatibility it needs to show entries that do not make sense at the moment. It takes some time to navigate the panel manually, and new recipes only add to that.
(How about a class 1 "hamsterball" bay for a really low-tech "vehicle" while we are at it
?)Only issue I see: The synthesis list is already very long, I guess for voice attack compatibility it needs to show entries that do not make sense at the moment. It takes some time to navigate the panel manually, and new recipes only add to that.
How about making the synth list nested and/or filterable?
I lost one the other day after being launched over 7km high from a geyser.... tried to control my landing but came down too hard... kaboom! So now I have to be very careful for the rest of dwe2 with my one remaining SRV. So yes... i’d really like the ability to synth a new one
Wanting the game mechanics to be consistent, then wanting the SRV manufacturing to work different to the SLF manufacturing doesn't really make sense. If you are manufacturing from scratch rather than from a preloaded manufacturing bay then I would expect it to consume a huge amount of energy and materials such that you would still need to be cautious with your SRV use. SLF bays are designed the way they are because they are considered disposable items, you can send one out and sacrifice it to let you get out of a tricky situation, having people drop down into holes they can't drive out of in the SRV simply because they know they can easily just make another one would be a bit silly in game terms. The SRV then just becomes an unmanned drone with, for some reason, a drivers seat, controls and life support.
Either a limited reload bay or a difficult and time consuming manufacturing process would be acceptable, but not just popping them out like candy please.
Last edited:
Lestat
Banned
Yes we get it you are having a good time having fun not paying attention to your surroundings and poof your SRV gone. I wish I could say the same thing Riding an ATV/quad In the mountains with a group of 4 of my friends. I don't have that luxury of not paying attention. Because if I did I could get hurt or hurt someone or worse killed or be killed because of my own stupidity.
That kinda ruins having Class 4 to 6 that are 10 to 17 ton Planetary Vehicle Hangar which supports 2 to 4 SRV and you would only need a class 2 6 ton Planetary Vehicle Hanger that only has 1 SRV and just keep synthesis SRV over and over because the player has no reason to pay attention and they can drive stupid, Drunk or under the influence of drugs. We lose that risk of losing SRV.
That could work with the current Planetary vehicle Hanger already. With the Class 4 or 6 Hangers having 2 or 4 SRV so no real change is needed.
I However think Exploration should have more risk. The size of your Planetary Vehicle Hanger and the amount of SRV it can let you drive crazy if you have extra SRVs. As you lose them due to bad play style the Risk becomes greater.
This is what I talk about risk. You learn from your own mistake you already lost one. You went too close to a Geyser and lost an SRV. Now the secondary SRV one is very important and you should be more careful with it. That part of the game play. you might end up losing this one.I lost one the other day after being launched over 7km high from a geyser.... tried to control my landing but came down too hard... kaboom! So now I have to be very careful for the rest of dwe2 with my one remaining SRV. So yes... i’d really like the ability to synth a new one
People please learn from your mistakes instead of asking for something that not needed.
Where did I say that?
I'm open to various different approaches, but whatever approach is chosen SHOULD be the same for both.
To me it makes zero sense that SLF's are "disposable" (*) - yes I know the lore says they are controlled by telepresence, but instead of a sensor array they also have what appears to be a fully-functional cockpit. They shouldn't be "disposable remote-controlled drones" either.
I'd prefer it to be "unlimited" in the sense that one should be able to gather/synth replacements, but I'm rarely an advocate for "quick and simple" either; for example I was well in the camp of needing to synth probes as well. Again; consistency; if we can have unlimited probes generated -almost- instantly, why not limpets? Why not weapon ammo?
Alternatively, get rid of the SLF rebuilds; you have one or two in your bay, that's it. Yes the SLF bay is bigger, but then again, so is the SLF.
(*) From a consistency perspective; from a pew-pew-gameplay perspective it makes perfect sense as it allows the pew-pewers more pew-pew time in-between needing to restock. I just really hate that different aspects of the game drive inconsistent approaches. The SLF has effectively been relegated to one of those drones you used to get in top-down shooters. That sort of thing has no place in a game which is, or at least was supposed to be, more of a sim than a shoot-em-up. Although over the last couple of years it's becoming more and more of the latter as far as gameplay mechanics are concerned.
The only time I have lost an SRV when exploring was when, for a while, we had infinite SRVs during DWE1 and I consciously participated in games like "whack-a-rat".
I was just pointing out that damage is applied inconsistently, and sometimes extremely, especially when in a large multiplayer instance. It's entirely possible to go from 95% hull to 5% hull and then *boom* from hitting a single rock or not landing 100% squarely after a jump. Events which -normally- would lose you maybe 10% of hull.
While I do have a preference -for- being able to synth SRVs, simply because it opens up the game for fun activities such as "whack-a-rat", I don't really care if things stay they way they are either AS LONG AS SLF's are treated the same way. I do agree that some risk while exploring would be good.
But for me, consistency is the holy grail.
It was implied in the quote. The SLF bay has a limited number of replacements, probably for in-game reasons that some components need to be manufactured at a shipyard, say power plants, thrusters, shield generators and you can only carry so many of them, but you want to synthesis SRV's, which means an unlimited amount. SLF's aren't synthesised, they are stored in component form and assembled when needed by the bay, so either we need to synthesise both which means unlimited both, or carry both in component form which means limited both.
If I have taken your meaning incorrectly I apologise, but that's what it appeared to say to me, that we should synthesise SRV's but assemble SLF's, therefore treating the two differently.
Ok, I could probably have been clearer; I was meaning, I don't particularly mind -which- option is chosen (take some amount of fully-assembled vehicles; take some number of vehicle components and magically assemble-in-situ; take a magical vehicle manufactory and refill it with Materials) as long as that option is applied to -both- SRV and SLF bays. I did express a preference for the latter as it opens up certain gameplay options on long expeditions, but I'm quite ok with the current SRV mechanics as well. The sim-fan in me would prefer either of the first two but that would then preclude magical synthing a lot of other stuff too.
What I'm not ok with is that SLF and SRV are treated differently. You -could- head-cannon that the bigger SRV bays don't carry multiple SRV's either, but just 1 SRV and components for more which are assembled when required, but then where's my option of a single ultra-lightweight SLF bay?
Last edited:
+1
I wouldn't use it very often, but I would like the option, be it very expensive, to rebuild an SRV.
Sometimes a poor landing combined with a rock can be enough to take a 50% chunk out of your SRV in one go.
I can tank skimmers for days. But rocks. Nope.
If skimmers threw rocks, they'd be unstoppable! Lol
Back on topic, the SRV rebuild should be expensive in terms of materials.
It should require thinking ahead and making sure you have materials handy should you blow up your last SRV.
I'd even go as far to stay they should require manufactured materials, so preparation is needed before setting out.
I wouldn't use it very often, but I would like the option, be it very expensive, to rebuild an SRV.
Sometimes a poor landing combined with a rock can be enough to take a 50% chunk out of your SRV in one go.
I can tank skimmers for days. But rocks. Nope.
If skimmers threw rocks, they'd be unstoppable! Lol
Back on topic, the SRV rebuild should be expensive in terms of materials.
It should require thinking ahead and making sure you have materials handy should you blow up your last SRV.
I'd even go as far to stay they should require manufactured materials, so preparation is needed before setting out.
-If- synth would be a thing, I'd go with:
- very large amount(s) of mineable Materials (enough to force players to prospect every 1-2 SRV's lost)
- some amount of manufactured Materials (limiting the total number of synthable SRVs out in the Black)
Basically you want people to be somewhat careful with their SRV's (not just committing suicide every time they can't be bothered to return to their ship) while still allowing people to restock, at least a few times, without flying 20,000LY.
+1 from me.
I haven't yet lost an SRV, but it would be nice to have a rebuild option if really necessary!
I haven't yet lost an SRV, but it would be nice to have a rebuild option if really necessary!
Agreed, +1.
I don't want it to be mindlessly cheap, just simply an option. I'm thinking more in terms of smaller ships on long-term exploration voyages, to have a way to mitigate potential loss of the SRV.
Personally, I've never lost an SRV while exploring, and I fly larger ships with spares now anyway. But part of what makes me consider this to be an important addition, is that I'm still maintaining some hope that we will get alternate SRV designs in addition to the Scarab, which in itself will make the larger hangars more interesting, and less about carrying spares.
Lestat
Banned
See you are discribing is a bug. You can participate in Whack-a-rat near a station so you can buy a new SRV when you run out. Note Distance you can jump in DW1 vs DW2 is huge. DW1 30Ly and now players has 70 to 80 LY jump range plus the Neutron stars to enhance the range. Which means stations are pretty close even if you are 65k
Let talk about My ATV and such again. I could have jump off the cliff expect to land on all 4 tires but I would not be here or would not be able to play Elite Dangerous. But my life is worth living and I am not that dumb. It the same thing with SRV or your ship. If you respectful of your vehicles. You will only need one. It quite all right to have 2 or 4 SRV if you are prone to accidents. We have Vehicle hangers now that support 2 or 4 SRV.
Let see what it can open. Longer jump range because you don't need Class 4 or Class 6 Planetary Vehicle Hanger 2 or 4 SRV. You can hold the Class 2 Planetary Vehicle hanger. They just have to resynthesis it. That seems way to easy. Exploration should be about risk not oh I can just make a new one.
You have to look at the two locations. SLF in combat zones or Pirates in the bubble. We could understand why they would want to have extra SLF. With exploration. We are not playing whack-a-rat with our SRV we talking about exploration and having limited resources with 1 or up to 4 SRV and the player being careful. If you want to play Whack-a-Rat do it near a station.
I think the current setup fine. We can have up to 4 SRV Which also add weight to the ship which means a shorter jump range.
Well When you are in DW1 your jump range was short what 20 to 30 LY. My ship right now has 76 LY jump range so Between Colonia and Bubble and Neutron stars I can get to the nearest station in a 200 or so jumps. My old Exploer Anaconda had only 17 LY jump range. It travel 6,000 systems with out losing a SRV and yes I did use it.
Now we get the Truth. You want a small ship that can synthesise a new SRV over and over and over again. See Small ship with one SRV. That part of the risk and reward of losing an SRV that part of the fun. Not the oh well feature to play recklessly I can just synthesis a new one again.
A better idea is to have Different types SRV than synthesising SRV Over and over again. In a small explorer ship that can only support 1 SRV.
Last edited: