Here's the formula for Elite Dangerous Ships:
N (2)
That's it.
_________________________
Got an Adder as good as it can be? Get N (2) credits and you have a new ship, twice as good as you're old one, and always better.
_______________________________________
Better Idea:
---------------- Let me upgrade the base module of my ship. If it can only install an Alphabet 2 then let me upgrade it to Alphabet 4.
Why:
---------------- Because this game is a wasteland of ships we should never use because you gave us better ones.
What this does is give some room for Adders to be nearly in the same range as a Type-7 and a Type-7 nearly in range of Type-9.
Whatever space magic lets the Federal Corvette turns so darn good... let me put that in my Type-9. Or how about about this? Let me first have to buy the Federal Corvette... gut it for its space magic, and add THAT to my Type-9 THAT way. Similarly, if I want to do exploration with my Type-9 I could first have to buy an Anaconda... gut it for its engine and get the jump range it has by shoving that into my Type-9... there's room.
These are all things that we do all the time with everything in real life. It can thoroughly shut people off from your game. Just look at EVE. It has a gazillion ships and most are never used because of this problem.
{Update 2016 - 5 - 10)
One other thing that ought to be able to happen with ships is that ALL of the ships should be able to be converted into perfectly viable long range exploration ships IF you go to an ENGINEER using this.
Some inspiration ~
I feel like I didn't do a good job explaining all of this before:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThX5wWq5Uaw
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyqwafcnZc
But the overarching point is this is just something that Engineers should be able to do the things that Engineers do. This happens in real life all the time.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM
The RD-180 Rocket Engine is essentially the same engine we were using since forever except that it overcame a critical challenge which NASA could never do. Simultaneously it demonstrated production flaws which NASA has used and held sacred for decades. This is how Engineering works: someone gets dogmatic and technology grinds to a halt. Hence NASA verses the EM Drive. Your Engineers seem to be Rogues. They're not part of the Dogma. They'll have done things that others said were impossible. The RD-180 accomplished something exceedingly dangerous, 40 year ahead of its time, and 25% more efficient than all other rockets even today. That's why today everyone is trying to figure out who's going to be making them. The reason I point out EM Drive vs RD-180 is that Em Drive (if it can be scaled up) is a revolutionary change. The RD-180 was a generational step forward that went unrealized for 30 years because the Cold War cut off.
Here's a way to judge the effect of the difference on a community between the RD-180 vs. the EM Drive
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hS6k0FiSto
You can see the EM Drive is fundamentally a "game changer" which is not what I'm arguing for.
Whereas with the video above the IGN video you can see that the RD-180 (while improving rocket engines by 25% didn't actually change the world).
Similarly, changing modules to have a bit more range and liberating any number of ships to be Deep Space Exploration viable isn't a game changer. However, it would make the game a hell of a lot more fun.
N (2)
That's it.
_________________________
Got an Adder as good as it can be? Get N (2) credits and you have a new ship, twice as good as you're old one, and always better.
_______________________________________
Better Idea:
---------------- Let me upgrade the base module of my ship. If it can only install an Alphabet 2 then let me upgrade it to Alphabet 4.
Why:
---------------- Because this game is a wasteland of ships we should never use because you gave us better ones.
What this does is give some room for Adders to be nearly in the same range as a Type-7 and a Type-7 nearly in range of Type-9.
Whatever space magic lets the Federal Corvette turns so darn good... let me put that in my Type-9. Or how about about this? Let me first have to buy the Federal Corvette... gut it for its space magic, and add THAT to my Type-9 THAT way. Similarly, if I want to do exploration with my Type-9 I could first have to buy an Anaconda... gut it for its engine and get the jump range it has by shoving that into my Type-9... there's room.
These are all things that we do all the time with everything in real life. It can thoroughly shut people off from your game. Just look at EVE. It has a gazillion ships and most are never used because of this problem.
{Update 2016 - 5 - 10)
One other thing that ought to be able to happen with ships is that ALL of the ships should be able to be converted into perfectly viable long range exploration ships IF you go to an ENGINEER using this.
Some inspiration ~
I feel like I didn't do a good job explaining all of this before:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThX5wWq5Uaw
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyqwafcnZc
But the overarching point is this is just something that Engineers should be able to do the things that Engineers do. This happens in real life all the time.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM
The RD-180 Rocket Engine is essentially the same engine we were using since forever except that it overcame a critical challenge which NASA could never do. Simultaneously it demonstrated production flaws which NASA has used and held sacred for decades. This is how Engineering works: someone gets dogmatic and technology grinds to a halt. Hence NASA verses the EM Drive. Your Engineers seem to be Rogues. They're not part of the Dogma. They'll have done things that others said were impossible. The RD-180 accomplished something exceedingly dangerous, 40 year ahead of its time, and 25% more efficient than all other rockets even today. That's why today everyone is trying to figure out who's going to be making them. The reason I point out EM Drive vs RD-180 is that Em Drive (if it can be scaled up) is a revolutionary change. The RD-180 was a generational step forward that went unrealized for 30 years because the Cold War cut off.
Here's a way to judge the effect of the difference on a community between the RD-180 vs. the EM Drive
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hS6k0FiSto
You can see the EM Drive is fundamentally a "game changer" which is not what I'm arguing for.
Whereas with the video above the IGN video you can see that the RD-180 (while improving rocket engines by 25% didn't actually change the world).
Similarly, changing modules to have a bit more range and liberating any number of ships to be Deep Space Exploration viable isn't a game changer. However, it would make the game a hell of a lot more fun.
Last edited: