Auxiliary Cargo Hold (All Ships Have a Minimal Cargo Capacity)

[sandkid]

Particularly in the smaller ships, cargo holds often feel like wasted space - but necessary due to mission structures. Combat ships need at least 4 tons of space to accept mission rewards (unless they want to outfit everytime they dock and undock). Exploration ships carry them for fear of finding something really special and not being able to bring it back...when that slot could have housed a small afmu or hull repair limpet.

I propose that all ships, regardless of size, possess a built-in auxiliary cargo-hold of 4 tons in size.

This allows any ship to handle cargo of any kind (including the damaging sort like unknown probes, with of course damage being taken) and accept or turn-in cargo missions at the very least one at a time.

Obviously, ships that are built to run cargo-type missions (salvage, smuggling, trade) will have more cargo racks installed because, duh, that makes sense. This proposal is more for combat ships as well as small and medium deep-space explorer ships that don't need a cargo rack to perform their critical functions, but are often forced to carry one due to mission structure or the ever-present possibility of a rare and incredible find.

 

[MK Regular]

Interesting idea, I could see some use for this.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Yeah I wouldn't mind this.

 

[NascentChemist]

I was just thinking of this! I'm on an exploration jaunt in my DBX, and I was struck (again) by the severe limitations of hull repair limpets. Even if I ditched shields, I couldn't carry a hull repair controller and a cargo rack. Which makes the former rather useless.

It would be better if the size of the auxiliary cargo rack scaled with ship size, and cargo mission rewards became optional. 4 tons is a lot of cargo for an Eagle or Hauler. I think that smaller ships should get a Size 1 auxiliary rack, medium get Size 3, and large ships get Size 5.

 

[nanite2000]

Alternatively, don't make it a requirement to accept the mission if you lack sufficient cargo for the reward. But given the current trend towards doing so for missions, a minimum of 4 seems appropriate.

On a related note, every intact SRV in your vehicle hangar should award you an additional 2 tons of cargo space per SRV.

 

[Velixar]

I think it would be better if the mission would tell you you need the space for the mission. Then you have to adjust your ship before you compete the mission.

 

[metatheurgist]

Nope. If you want to do missions in your combat ship put in a cargo rack like everyone else.

 

[MBaldelli]

Nope. If you want to do missions in your combat ship put in a cargo rack like everyone else.

I agree... A better suggestion I've seen was to choose whether or not to accept the rewards for the items. Sometimes, I prefer to get the credits for the work done, not the crap and often useless cargo.

 

[Nitross]

I suggest you read up on this thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...pace-by-default-(no-racks-needed)-Here-is-why

It contains a lot of pros and cons about this idea.

Personally, I'm not so much against the idea; I'm just against most of the reasons.

Cargo mission rewards?
You should have the choice to take a credit equivalent.

Limpets?
Controllers shouldn't be limited to one type and work like SRV/SLF bays. The fact they use cargo instead of ammo should be reconsidered, but maybe not before we have something like Ammunition Racks modules. Or maybe they should be reusable/rebuildable like SLFs.

The point is: inflating the cargo of every ship seems like a bandaid solution to other game elements that have problems.

It's risky because, if you don't fix the real issue, people will just come back here and say: "4t base cargo is not enough, we need more!"

 

[sandkid]

I suggest you read up on this thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...pace-by-default-(no-racks-needed)-Here-is-why

It contains a lot of pros and cons about this idea.

Personally, I'm not so much against the idea; I'm just against most of the reasons.

Cargo mission rewards?
You should have the choice to take a credit equivalent.

Limpets?
Controllers shouldn't be limited to one type and work like SRV/SLF bays. The fact they use cargo instead of ammo should be reconsidered, but maybe not before we have something like Ammunition Racks modules. Or maybe they should be reusable/rebuildable like SLFs.

The point is: inflating the cargo of every ship seems like a bandaid solution to other game elements that have problems.

It's risky because, if you don't fix the real issue, people will just come back here and say: "4t base cargo is not enough, we need more!"

Fair enough and all good points. I can appreciate why there would be no-votes on auxiliary cargo. Is there a (semi-current) thread for altering mission acceptance on commodities? The way I see it, the auxiliary cargo boils down to two 'problems' (with neither being actual problems necessarily so much as potential QoL infractions):

1) Missions that award commodities can't be completed without equipping a cargo rack.
2) Explorers in some medium and most small ships could potentially benefit a great deal from a spare slot, even size 2.

For #1 - it's a technical issue. FD's thought may be, "You can see what it awards before you accept it - so don't take it if you can't finish it". In other words, you agreed to that price - so deal with it. It's not the softest approach to mission design, but they would be right. At the end of the day, like I said, it's a QoL issue more than anything. It begs the question, "Does having such a rigid mission structure really benefit gameplay beyond forcing cargo racks to be used?"

For #2 - it's more a build diversity issue (which is, consequently, also technical). Part of flying small ships or medium ships with less internals is the fact that they...you know...have less internals. It's part of the base design of what makes each ship unique. So the question becomes, "Does the fear of 'missing out on 'a big find' justify forcing these ships to sacrifice utility for a module that, the vast majority of the time, is empty space?"


I agree with the point made that if you 'give them an inch they take a foot' - someone has already said 'scale it to ship size'. I'm patently against that idea. 4t max for any ship with this specific idea. BUT...I like the idea that the SRV carries cargo even when boarded.

That could potentially solve the issue for explorers (not combat though, in most cases anyways, though my combat ships all have an SRV). Especially if future SRV loadouts or builds have higher cargo capacity.