Assign Unused Module Space As Cargo Space

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Just a random idea I had that might sort out the issues with commodity rewards.

Basically, any module slots that are not made full use of, has the remaining space converted to a cargo hold.

For example, if you have a class 3 Internal slot, but only fit a discovery scanner (C1), then you get a Class 2 cargo rack built-in.
Or something like that.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[MK Regular]

So, in other words, allowing players to split module slots between a (free?) cargo rack and any other module? I'm okay with this. Still forces limited loadout options for all those people who insist on them, while offering a (little) bit more utility. The only thing I'm not too sure about is whether or not the additional cargo rack should be free (or if all unused slots should automatically be used for cargo, and the cargo rack modules removed from the game). Something to discuss, I guess.

I can already say that my exploration Asp would have enough room to mount scanners, an SRV, AFMU, fuel scoop, shields, a repair limpet controller, and still have 12t of cargo space for limpets.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

That would require all the module slots having access to the cargo hatch.
You'd probably need a spherical ship to make this viable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That would require all the module slots having access to the cargo hatch.

Arguably they all do - as we can fit cargo racks in any non-military / passenger locked optional module bay.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Arguably they all do - as we can fit cargo racks in any non-military / passenger locked optional module bay.

True.
I think I was confusing myself thinking about core modules, rather than just optional ones

 

[Art3m1s]

Honestly that would defeat the purpose of buying cargo holds. If there was a coupling component that could split a bay into portions it would make more sense. lets just say you have a size 8 slot. A size 8 coupling component could split that into any two slots that add up to the 8. To make things more difficult, the coupler could use up some space leaving a size 8 slot to equal a (4x3) or a (5x2) combination. This would give more flexibilty to people who just need more slots rather than really big ones.

 

[rootsrat]

I think this is overcomplicating things a bit. Personally I'd find this unnecessary.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

100% agree!

This sounds like a fair compromise between the pro-module slot splitting crowd, myself included, and those who would keep as is for balance reasons.

I don't think a ship having an extra couple tonnes of cargo is going to have an adverse effect on "competitors".

 

[xondk]

Just a random idea I had that might sort out the issues with commodity rewards.

Basically, any module slots that are not made full use of, has the remaining space converted to a cargo hold.

For example, if you have a class 3 Internal slot, but only fit a discovery scanner (C1), then you get a Class 2 cargo rack built-in.
Or something like that.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

This has been suggested before, and opinions have been mixed, best suggestion i've seen is something along the lines of available - module size - (modifier).
So say it doesn't give you a direct handover you don't get 2 slots left by putting a class 1 in a class 3 slot, because this is not how modules are generally designed and more of a rigged up way.

There's also been the idea that you get a module, which would work similar to srv and fighter bay, but would be able to contain other modules instead, this would mean you wouldn't need to worry about a modifier that could be based on something random.
But simply say depending on how the compartments are made for modules, say you could place a level 3 'splitter' module and get 2x class 1 modules. The general idea is that it would never be perfectly split. But balance wise it especially big vs little ship it might be difficult, but if a ship never could place something 'more' useful inside it might work, as in space improvement would never give more bonus then whatever bonus you could get from using full? dunno, tricky, but cargo only might also work, maybe change modules slightly so it would allow 1 active and one passive module? or two passives? but never two active, such as shield boosters and such?

In this case cargo would be passive?

 

[MK Regular]

This has been suggested before, and opinions have been mixed, best suggestion i've seen is something along the lines of available - module size - (modifier).
So say it doesn't give you a direct handover you don't get 2 slots left by putting a class 1 in a class 3 slot, because this is not how modules are generally designed and more of a rigged up way.

There's also been the idea that you get a module, which would work similar to srv and fighter bay, but would be able to contain other modules instead, this would mean you wouldn't need to worry about a modifier that could be based on something random.
But simply say depending on how the compartments are made for modules, say you could place a level 3 'splitter' module and get 2x class 1 modules. The general idea is that it would never be perfectly split. But balance wise it especially big vs little ship it might be difficult, but if a ship never could place something 'more' useful inside it might work, as in space improvement would never give more bonus then whatever bonus you could get from using full? dunno, tricky, but cargo only might also work, maybe change modules slightly so it would allow 1 active and one passive module? or two passives? but never two active, such as shield boosters and such?

In this case cargo would be passive?

I think the whole passive/active thing could work for this. Of course, this raises the question of 'What is defined as a passive module?' A good starting point for this would be to say a passive module does not require any power, meaning that cargo racks, fuel tanks, passenger cabins, HRPs, MRPs, and scanners would all be passive modules. Scanners don't really make a lot of sense being a passive module, since they actively do something. It is also worth noting that a combination of smaller HRPs will perform better than a larger one (i.e. pair of 2D HRPs have a total of 380 health and 4T mass, compared to the 4Ds 330 health and 8T with identical resistances), and allowing a pair of smaller HRPs to be put in the same slot would result in lighter and tankier ships (i.e. an unengineered dropship, if fitted with a size 6 bi-weave and filled with HRPs would gain 380 integrity and lose 34T). As such, I don't think HRPs in their current form should be classified as passive modules. However, if the integrity gains from HRPs were changed to make the larger classes perfrom better than a combination of smaller classes (in the way MRPs scale with size), I would have no problem with HRPs being passive modules.

So in summary, I think the following modules should be considered to be passive modules:

• Cargo Racks
• Fuel Tanks
• Passenger Cabins
• MRPs
• HRPs (if, and only if, they are reworked to scale in size similar to MRPs)

 

[Schembri]

Last two posts should interesting, space loss and the HRP and MRP numbers and not look like unfair advantage. I always regret fitting a size 1 or 2 in larger slots.
The above options great as basic starter ideas. To build on them, may i suggest some tweaks:
1) outfitting item to split a slot each time used you loose a size. E.g.:
Size 3 slot + splitter results in 2x S1;
Size 4 + splitter results in 1x S1 and 1x S2;
Size 5 + splitter results in 1x S1 and 1x S3 or
Size 5 + splitter results in 3x S1

With a a loss of space (I mean from S3 you get 2x S1 not 3x S1) this could be justified for the additional structure for the second slot and the power and control routing cables)


2) another option could be an engineer effect to permanently split a slot. In which case there is no loss. Since slot splitting is not rocket science like Eng. Mods. It could cost a sum of money and a loss of eng rep say 2 levels.