Your probably right. It likely won't ever happen but who knows. I do think this would be a good way to rebalance some ships that are considered bad like type 10 or asp scout. They could have really good computer cores to rebalance them but bad in every other aspect.
I'm sure this will somehow strand every explorer out there more then 0.75 ly away from sol.
So I am firmly against this.
Yes, it was changed at some time. It was the same patch, where every ship got at least one C1 optional internal slot added. (Smaller ships got two. )
Of course, most of us rather removed the computers and put actually useful things (e.g. engineered HRPs) in there. If you did not notice the change, check your ships. They might have free C1 slots which urgently want to be filled with something useful.
On the topic itself: i also think it would've been better if these systems were integrated into the ships, instead of adding module slots. It would've been the right move at that time. Removing those slots again by now, so much later, is just problematic. It would create quite a mess. Merely making the assistance systems an integral part of the ships of course still is a possible move. Considering that experienced people rarely use them, it makes no difference in my eyes.
Still, this would mean that all the additional slots we got at some time would officially be there "for more engineered HRPs". In this game i have developed a massive aversion to even more power creep and the proposed change would remove the thin veil of "helps beginners" from the additional slots, pointing out that they were first and foremost additional power creep.
Last edited:
I absolutely love the conversation this has started and reading all the comments. Keep them coming. I agree with what some said here. I think it would be great if these (SCA and AD) were options to turn off or on based on your play style. I don’t think we should get additional slot to put modules in as some suggested as well. I think that adds bulk and a lot of change for developers. For those who said learn to fly, I certainly have. I have had the game for years now. As a community member I put this out there as an opinion/suggestion and a conversation starter. It’s great to see all the opinions and discussions. Fly how you want (dangerously) o7!
Quite agree with this one here, there's so much potential for additional loadout options if they were to add in a "compute rack" module that is available both as a core internal as well as an optional internal for further compute expansion.
I don't think it should be used as a general stat-stick though, the removal of safety limits and optimisation of our modules is already covered by engineering.
Instead, I'd say it should be all about adding/modifying actual functionality to our ships. Several existing functions could quite easily be folded into our ship computer systems or heavily expanded upon, while others could be entirely new.
Parts of route plotting in the galactic map could be turned into compute scripts; ships without the appropriate stellar pathfinding algorithms installed will be limited to direct jumps rather than pathing the full distance, as well as some options like economic route plotting and filtering out certain star types could be locked behind software upgrades. For anyone involved in long-distance travel or exploration they would likely want to invest heavily in the compute scripts for their route plotter and the galaxy map.
Combat ships might choose to invest in turret algorithms, where the the lesser scripts would just allow the existing options (without them, turrets would be limited to just forward firing), but those who invest in their ships computers would gain the ability to resist chaff, for their regen lasers to target allies to support them and to use experimental turrets. They could even add in full smart turret customisation controls with the right script or scripts installed on your ship, allowing players to set appropriate engagement ranges for each of their turrets, set engagment options on a per-turret basis (players might want their heavier turrets to focus on their targets, while lighter turrets can just spam away to tag any targets in range). Some scanner-integration scripts could even allow turrets on "fire at will" to scan targets that they are aiming at (and advanced versions of said script also using KWSs and manifest scanners), reducing the need for players to manually scan each enemy ship.
Scanner scripts could be used to add in existing functionality such as being able to calculate ship integrity (both own and others, with appropriate use of the "structural mechanics simulation suite" and its advanced variant), as well as having scripts to calculate a target's shield integrity like we currently can while advanced versions of said script would also be able to do things like calculate resistances of said shield. Individual module subtargeting could also be moved into a compute script.
This all might seem excessive, but that partially comes down to ships likely having a massive potential range of compute performance as it would range from a starter Sidewinder with a basic class 1 compute rack, up to larger ships that might be using multiple class 5-8 compute racks with literally hundreds of times the potential. I could easily envisage ships having 30+ different software packages installed depending on their application, all of varying compute requirements.
The compute racks could also be used in missions, with data delivery missions requiring spare compute space rather than just being "free" on top of whatever cargo you are running, while exploration data could begin to fill up the unused space on our ship's computers.
I don't think it should be a straight stat increase either but I do think it could be used to augment certain aspects of ships that are currently not looked at. My example of fuel consumption. IRL I can install a modified computer chip into my car that will help increase it's fuel efficiency without adding any actual hardware to the vehicle. That's kind of the premise I'm going on. It could be used to tune the targeting sensors on your hard points so it could increase accuracy or maybe even adding in a "shield modulation" effect that lets you bleed through your opponents shields but unlike the engineering effect it takes time for the computer to find the right frequency and if you loose target lock you have to start over. Likewise there could be a counter chip that would remodulate your shields to stop this effect from happening.
I really really really don't want this to be something that scales with ship sizes. I know that's counter intuitive to everything else in the game but I'm frankly sick and tired of seeing the anaconda being the perfect marry sueof this game. The ship model is 150 years old so it's computer should be basic. Something like the type 10 that's brand new or the "scout" variants of other ships should be very sophisticated.
Yeah, it's nutty and makes zero sense. Same for supercruise control. Just let people choose at landing/launch if they want manual or automatic. AT LEAST have it provided for new players in their sidewinders... I wonder how many people drop this game by being frustrated with the default keybinds + stuff like this.
I think it makes more sense as it is. You have the assists available for new players if they need them, then as they get more proficient they can take the modules out and replace them with something else that will help them progress further. I suppose the analogy would be taking stabilisers off a bike; not everyone needs them to start with, nearly everyone will outgrow them at some point. Ironically it's the opposite of the original Elite where the docking computer actually made it faster to dock; you could even blast towards the slot and engage the docking computer at the last second to shave off even more time.
A single Limpet Controller though would be a huge Quality of Life improvement. How many gameplay/roleplay opportunities have we missed because we didn't have the specific type of limpet controller for that specific task? By all means charge for software/firmware to add additional features (Repair/Prospector/Collector/Research) to the Limpet Controller, but you should only need one per ship.
A single Limpet Controller though would be a huge Quality of Life improvement. How many gameplay/roleplay opportunities have we missed because we didn't have the specific type of limpet controller for that specific task? By all means charge for software/firmware to add additional features (Repair/Prospector/Collector/Research) to the Limpet Controller, but you should only need one per ship.
It's quite possible that not all engineering upgrades are actually hardware mods though; it's quite possible that the low-grade ones are just software mods to unlock existing performance. You want fuel efficiency for your FSD? Better add in the script for economic route plotting if you really want to save fuel. Something like the targeting sensors on guns to increase accuracy wouldn't affect jitter or the spread of frag cannons, but I could definitely see something along the lines of
It only makes sense for the ship's computer to scale with ship sizes though, as bigger ships would logically have more space and power available for computers. I quite agree that it wouldn't necessarily just be down to size itself though, more hi-tech ships would come with larger core compute racks much like how things like the Power Distributor generally get bigger with ship size but there's significant variation even within a given size range A low-tech ship like the Anaconda would likely have to sacrifice some of its optional internals if it wants decent computers on board, while military ships and exploration vessels would be able to get a decent amount of functionality just from their core compute racks. I disagree with the T10 having a good computer on board though, you have to remember that it is a converted freighter so it shouldn't be much better than the T9 (which would obviously have a poor onboard computer, but it has enough internals that it could easily stuff some more into the optional internals). This could even be point of the AspS if they gave it an oversized computer!
The added scaling of ship functionality would probably also help with the new player experience, as it would allow them to unlock more features as they progress through the ships and upgrade them rather than being bombarded with a vast wall of information and mechanics right from the beginning. Lots of features that could be locked behind compute scripts aren't often used by new players in the first place (does anyone use Sidewinders with turrets?) and it would present a very organic way of introducing things like turrets, module targeting and long-distance travel. On the other end of the scale, these compute scripts could be used to streamline and automate the more mundane things; basic things that are enjoyable for new players but just get repetitive and routine after the first couple hundred hours in the game.
I've tried all three just to see what they do. One nice feature I noticed about the departure is the fact that it takes into account those NPC ships that would normally, suddenly decided to make it out the mail slot just as YOU decide to do so. Since you're part of the scenery, the server puts you in the proper queue (as ATC should normally do anyway). I still prefer to take off manually. Didn't care for autopilot either.
I did end up putting a docking computer in some of my ships (the anaconda, cutter and my I-courier. Why the courier? Doing dozens of courier missions, landing at small platforms, looking for Pad 3, you don't have to circle around the thing looking for where this part of the structure is located. It locks on, drops you, you drop off the intel, take off. I actually turn it off for star ports. Anaconda is used because my window is about 3 miles back from the front of the ship. I can still do it manually, it's just easier. Cutter is used because I've found that when trying to land, my tail is, once in a while, over the landing pad behind me and I hate that RED warning saying I'm loitering. I can still do it manually; it's just a slower process.
One thing I don't understand is why there's a slot taken up for planetary landing. THAT should be built-in. But yeah, if you were to automatically include a docking computer, you can still turn it off and land / fly / take-off manually.
Autodock IS standard. Frontier added extra slots to all ships just to make room for the various autopilot modules. What you're essentially asking for, is for Frontier to take away our ability to remove the autodock and replace it with something else.
As I player who started when the basic auto-dock came as standard, played for about a year, bought a HOTAS and within half an hour binned off ALL flights assists because they felt like wasted space, it'll be a firm NO to this.
From my experience of this game, a key part of outfitting ships is all about trade-offs and pros & cons (I've spent the last few days optimising a ship for Painite mining. The first 3-4 runs were all experiments to see what combo of modules work well for me and that's half the fun!).
Flight assists were great at first but as I got better at flying they became more and more useless. And I very much like having the option of swapping them for something I actually need like a fuel scoop, a bit of storage, etc.
From my experience of this game, a key part of outfitting ships is all about trade-offs and pros & cons (I've spent the last few days optimising a ship for Painite mining. The first 3-4 runs were all experiments to see what combo of modules work well for me and that's half the fun!).
Flight assists were great at first but as I got better at flying they became more and more useless. And I very much like having the option of swapping them for something I actually need like a fuel scoop, a bit of storage, etc.
Base Jeep Wranglers don't come with cruise control by default - and not having one has definitely made me a better driver in real life. 
Everything that allows smaller and medium ships to be usefull (having more slots) without having to refuse to have autodock (you can always deactivate it, but for a slow game that anyways you have to be aware of it in case of interdictions), autodock is one of the few moments some people have to alt+tab and do some other stuff knowing that they're not going to be obliterated against a sun after hyperspace, or ganked. (Meaning, Autodock is a good feature to have in some times).
But for the pleasure of having usefull ships, without just resorting of using 20 modules big ships in order to just have everything or refitting medium ships every 2 hours for any different kind of menial task, one or two slot optionals matter. (same as if you could optionally put utility mounts instead on hardpoints instead of weapons in order to make very low armed exploration small/medium ships more capable of doing various things without being completly defenseless.
Anything that improves player customization is a good thing; Autodock using a full internal slot, doesn't do any sense. I wonder if in Odissey will appear a new internal slot "Armor changing room"...Internal level 1 slots are super usefull to be able to play the game with less frustration, unless, again, just always going around with the largest ship possible.
But for the pleasure of having usefull ships, without just resorting of using 20 modules big ships in order to just have everything or refitting medium ships every 2 hours for any different kind of menial task, one or two slot optionals matter. (same as if you could optionally put utility mounts instead on hardpoints instead of weapons in order to make very low armed exploration small/medium ships more capable of doing various things without being completly defenseless.
Anything that improves player customization is a good thing; Autodock using a full internal slot, doesn't do any sense. I wonder if in Odissey will appear a new internal slot "Armor changing room"...Internal level 1 slots are super usefull to be able to play the game with less frustration, unless, again, just always going around with the largest ship possible.