Okay but you still need to address the point that you can't just snap two size 3s into a size four. That's just not how it would work spatially. Two cubes each with half the volume of a bigger cube are not going to fit together in a slot for the bigger cube. Once again, engineering could potentially fix this.
Flexible Optional Internal compartments.
- Thread starter DarthLuca
- Start date
Never going to happen as it should be.
I suppose you could take a size 5 slot and load it up with class 1 MRPs thus your modules would become near indestructible. I agree with the premise though. I've got some mining ships that I use a higher class refinery only because of I used size 1 I'd be wasting space. I'd like to use that space to cramp an extra collector limpet or two but I understand from a balancing perspective why they dont let us do this
The whole point of the internal compartments is that each is twice as large as the previous. So a 'class 3' rack holds 8 tons of cargo and a 'class 4' holds 16 tons of cargo. i.e. Twice as much. What exactly do YOU think would take up 'extra' space in this situation. In real life you could probably pack even more in the same space (especially at larger capacities) assuming some sort of simple system to hold the cargo in place, but we are not talking about 'real life' are we? The whole thing is 'hand wavium' anyway as I'm pretty sure you or anybody has never actually seen one of these racks in real life, so no one REALLY knows how it could work (apart from maybe Frontier who I'm sure have designed these things already and DO know what they WILL look like - The crash sites often include cargo racks so technically WE do know what they look like). Essentially though it WOULD work in hand-wavium terms AND be pretty straight forward to implement in practice compared to a lot of other things (say more ships). I am still not sure why people are trying to argue against this? Until Frontier actually say "Never gonna happen", I will continue to champion this idea which still seems like a 'no brainer' to me.
Well, they are not hard limited. And people would use them to make them bullet sponges.
As i said, having limited internals it part of the ship balance, along with flight characteristics.
Not at last, More choice is a good thing when there are negatives and there is a balance between the Choices, else the best choice will eliminate any other choice and... well... you get the picture.
No. Most ships are ok as they are
My 2 examples (T10 and Clipper) have what i would call a reasonable case for them to have some optional internals added.
T-10 is the heaviest ship out there, yet i can carry barely more than a Conda - the lightest big ship. Why? because when T9 got an extra size 8 internals, making it a very good hauler, similar to the Cutter, but at a fraction of the Cutter's cost and without being rank locked... T-10 got nothing, and it should have gotten a size 7 internal.
Same for the iClipper - it's a large ship, but with lesser cargo capacity than a Python and with slightly more capacity than a Krait mk2. Another size 5 internal would bring it more utility.
AspX? It's fine as it it.
For game balance, particularly of defensive modules, Elite needs more restrictions not less.
People think that more freedom = more choice, but when the game is full of no-brainer best-in-class module choices all you achieve by opening outfitting up is bloat. Interesting decisions occur when you're making compromises.
People think that more freedom = more choice, but when the game is full of no-brainer best-in-class module choices all you achieve by opening outfitting up is bloat. Interesting decisions occur when you're making compromises.
Im not fully disagreeing with you but the idea that just because you have double the volume you can now fit two of anything half the size is not accurate is all and would need special attention aka engineering to make happen, and not be a standard feature.