Frontier, can we PLEASE have a new Exploration ship now?

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

1. Shield
2. Fuel Scoop
3. Cargo
4. Fuel Limpet
5. AFMU 1
6. AFMU 2
7. Repair Limpet
8. ADS
9. DSS
10. SRV bay
11. Guardian FSD booster
12. Fighter (for multicrew derping, or exploration miniship maybe)
13. (optional) Collector limpet
14. (very optional) Extra tank!
15. (SUPER optional) Docking computer
16. (would be nice) Hull reinforcement
17. (would be nice) Module reinforcement

And that's not counting running into something neat, and being unequipped with recon or research limpets, which would be a neat thing to add as well, scattered around. Put in a dozen things scattered 20k-50k ly away from Sol in random places, see if people hit any of them.

1. Strictly speaking it's optional, but I count it in my 5
2. Mandatory
3. Optional
4. Optional. Fuel-ratting is not exploration
5. Optional. Don't crash into anything and you don't need it. Neutron star hoppjng is optional
6. Optional. How often do you crash into things?
7. Optional. Again with the crashing into stuff
8. Mandatory
9. Mandatory
10. Optional
11. Optional
12. Optional
13. Optional
14. Optional
15. Optional. You're crashing into stuff again, aren't you?
16. Mandatory. Kidding, crashing is optional.
17. You forgot the SRV. Optional, but I always carry one.

Honestly, how anyone expects to put >10 module slots into a ship and for it NOT to become multi-role is beyond me.

 

[Stealthie]

1. Shield
2. Fuel Scoop
3. Cargo
4. Fuel Limpet
5. AFMU 1
6. AFMU 2
7. Repair Limpet
8. ADS
9. DSS
10. SRV bay
11. Guardian FSD booster
12. Fighter (for multicrew derping, or exploration miniship maybe)
13. (optional) Collector limpet
14. (very optional) Extra tank!
15. (SUPER optional) Docking computer
16. (would be nice) Hull reinforcement
17. (would be nice) Module reinforcement

And that's not counting running into something neat, and being unequipped with recon or research limpets, which would be a neat thing to add as well, scattered around. Put in a dozen things scattered 20k-50k ly away from Sol in random places, see if people hit any of them.

This is clearly a list for the ED exploration version of "Glamping".

I went to Sag A in a sidey.
Nobody died.

Honestly, how anyone expects to put >10 module slots into a ship and for it NOT to become multi-role is beyond me.

Make most of 'em C1/C2 slots and then give the ship a crappy PP and PDist?

It is possible to make ships suitable for something specific in subtle ways that (probably) can't be exploited.
Just takes a bit of thought.

 

[Sylveria]

I remember seeing a suggestion thread a while back that touched on module partitioning. In essence, the idea was much like Hard Drive partitioning.

If FD simply took this approach with optional slotting- simple allowing CMDRs to customize the internal layout, it would make all ships TRULY multipurpose, instead of simply an illusion of choice (which is what we have now) and everyone would be able to customize slotting according to their own tastes/purposes for a ship. No more having to use a size 3 slot for an ADS/DSS or Docking computer, etc. You'd be able to split that size 3 into 3 size 1's instead, and so forth. Makes a bit more sense than the "you can't fit the triangular sized object inside rectangular one without wasting space" issue we have now. It wouldn't matter if you need that many or not- what matters is you've got the choice available to begin with.

The "hard choices/sacrifice" argument is rhetorical at best when you have ships in the game that sacrifice little to nothing in comparison. If Frontier is not willing to address those ships and nerf them accordingly, then other ships must be allowed to have the same handwavium applied. Introduce specialized slotting for all ships, or remove it completely. The Anaconda's mass is one problem- but additional milspec slotting on top of it complicates it immensely. Of course this would also mean FD needs to take a stance one way or another if ships will be specialized or multipurpose- because the introduction of things like PAX ships threw the "everything multipurpose" out the window.

As I said before, consistency is key. Inconsistency is why imbalance exists.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

This is clearly a list for the ED exploration version of "Glamping".

I went to Sag A in a sidey.
Nobody died.



Make most of 'em C1/C2 slots and then give the ship a crappy PP and PDist?

It is possible to make ships suitable for something specific in subtle ways that (probably) can't be exploited.
Just takes a bit of thought.

MRPs and HRPs in 10 C1 slots would make a decent hull tank

Also, going to Sag A* is not true exploring. It's sightseeing [/sarcasm]

 

[Stealthie]

MRPs and HRPs in 10 C1 slots would make a decent hull tank

Oops, I forgot to mention that in my "fixed" version of ED (the one that exists in my head), stuff like HRPs and MRPs would need power, thus meaning their usefulness could be limited via the PP/PDist of a ship.

 

[Nadreck]

How to stop an explanation ship with many modules from eclipsing existing ships:

1. Weak in combat (hull, shields, weapons)

2. Most slots too small to be useful for other purposes

3. Some slots restricted

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I remember seeing a suggestion thread a while back that touched on module partitioning. In essence, the idea was much like Hard Drive partitioning.

If FD simply took this approach with optional slotting- simple allowing CMDRs to customize the internal layout, it would make all ships TRULY multipurpose, instead of simply an illusion of choice (which is what we have now) and everyone would be able to customize slotting according to their own tastes/purposes for a ship. No more having to use a size 3 slot for an ADS/DSS or Docking computer, etc. You'd be able to split that size 3 into 3 size 1's instead, and so forth. Makes a bit more sense than the "you can't fit the triangular sized object inside rectangular one without wasting space" issue we have now. It wouldn't matter if you need that many or not- what matters is you've got the choice available to begin with.

The "hard choices/sacrifice" argument is rhetorical at best when you have ships in the game that sacrifice little to nothing in comparison. If Frontier is not willing to address those ships and nerf them accordingly, then other ships must be allowed to have the same handwavium applied. Introduce specialized slotting for all ships, or remove it completely. The Anaconda's mass is one problem- but additional milspec slotting on top of it complicates it immensely. Of course this would also mean FD needs to take a stance one way or another if ships will be specialized or multipurpose- because the introduction of things like PAX ships threw the "everything multipurpose" out the window.

As I said before, consistency is key. Inconsistency is why imbalance exists.

This wouldn't address the issue of the 'Conda having the best jump range, so the '41% of explorers' who use it would just carry on using it.

I'm also against fundamentally reworking the outfitting system just so AspX owners can carry more unnecessary modules.
Sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

Oops, I forgot to mention that in my "fixed" version of ED (the one that exists in my head), stuff like HRPs and MRPs would need power, thus meaning their usefulness could be limited via the PP/PDist of a ship.

Ahhh.
The 'fixed' version of ED is always much better than the real one.
My fixed version doesn't have a forum

 

[MrFailfactory]

This is clearly a list for the ED exploration version of "Glamping".

I went to Sag A in a sidey.
Nobody died.



Make most of 'em C1/C2 slots and then give the ship a crappy PP and PDist?

It is possible to make ships suitable for something specific in subtle ways that (probably) can't be exploited.
Just takes a bit of thought.

I would not call that subtle.

I would be ok with your ship variant idea, though the purposeful gimping of the Anaconda's options would be a gross eyesore on an otherwise ok system.

In Exploration terms, the Anaconda is already gimped in a couple of ways, which is why you don't see an 80%+ representation for something like DW2 despite its (objectively significant) advantages. Ships like what are being proposed in this (and like) threads would change that distribution from what it is in Mengy's post, to something more like:

What they want: 75%
Anaconda: 15%
The Rest: 10%

That's bad, and why what they want, should never be in the game's current form.

Also, I feel compelled to add that what they want already does exist in the game, and has for some time. The subjective dislike of the canopy view/placement and the handling aside, of course. The purported "most important things" are already covered. What would they be willing to sacrifice (as in, Python vs. Krait) to have a viable competitor? Said competitor would presumably have a better canopy placement/view, would handle better, and likely have a faster flight speed, so - they claim to want more choice, so where is the give with the take?

Riôt

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

How to stop an explanation ship with many modules from eclipsing existing ships:

1. Weak in combat (hull, shields, weapons)

2. Most slots too small to be useful for other purposes

3. Some slots restricted

So a completely unrealistic ship design, created simply to appease vocal explorers?

"Let's fill the interior space with bulkheads (made of tracing paper to keep the weight down) except for one huge space that can't be used for anything other than a fuel scoop"

Said no ship designer ever.

Edit:
Actually, I take that back. That philosophy perfectly matches Thargoid ship contruction - one big module in the middle and a little one in each of the 8 arms.

 

[Simon Templar]

I would like a "pretty" exploration ship. Something like the Orca or Beluga with exploration in mind - cool running, high jump range, slots optimized for all the scanners and limpet controllers we'll need, etc. It would also be nice if said exploration ship came with a "ship launched shuttle" instead of SLF, something with exploration tools built in. I'd also like it to come with more resilient paint. I breaks my heart to see my beautiful yacht (cough, I mean "science vessel") look like it's taken a bath in paint stripper.

In the meantime, I'm thinking grabbing one of those Guardian boosters for my Orca.

Ooh, I like ‘ship launched shuttle’, hadn’t thought of that! I use a T-7 as for exploration. The jump range isn’t as good as I’d like, but the slots/view combo is my favourite for exploration in the game, currently. Can’t go wrong at the price. I’m all in on a specialist explorer which is bigger than the DB-X, though. Sounds lovely.

 

[Sylveria]

This wouldn't address the issue of the 'Conda having the best jump range, so the '41% of explorers' who use it would just carry on using it.

I'm also against fundamentally reworking the outfitting system just so AspX owners can carry more unnecessary modules.
Sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

Do you have a counterproposal then?

I'd love to see the Anaconda's mass fixed to 800T as it should be. And I'd love to see consistency in design decisions, too.

I'm just offering alternatives to the "do nothing" approach we have now.

 

[Nadreck]

Why do we have ships (and rather too many of them) for combat?

Why do we have ships with passenger or military restricted slots?

A fuelscoop slot, in particular, could easily be restricted. It's a big hole in your hull, not much else you could do with that.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

1. Strictly speaking it's optional, but I count it in my 5
2. Mandatory
3. Optional
4. Optional. Fuel-ratting is not exploration
5. Optional. Don't crash into anything and you don't need it. Neutron star hoppjng is optional
6. Optional. How often do you crash into things?
7. Optional. Again with the crashing into stuff
8. Mandatory
9. Mandatory
10. Optional
11. Optional
12. Optional
13. Optional
14. Optional
15. Optional. You're crashing into stuff again, aren't you?
16. Mandatory. Kidding, crashing is optional.
17. You forgot the SRV. Optional, but I always carry one.

Honestly, how anyone expects to put >10 module slots into a ship and for it NOT to become multi-role is beyond me.

I'd argue that 10 is mandatory for Horizon owners, as well as those circumnavigating the galaxy who eventually run out of FSD boosts and need to farm some more.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Do you have a counterproposal then?

I'd love to see the Anaconda's mass fixed to 800T as it should be. And I'd love to see consistency in design decisions, too.

I'm just offering alternatives to the "do nothing" approach we have now.

Assuming that nerfing the 'Conda isn't an option, I'd be looking at what FDev already did with the Python. Previously the Python was the undisputed queen of medium ships - but then came the Kra2t which manages to be both better and worse and therefore a viable competitor.

I think FDev should bring out a new large multi-role ship which has better handling and visibility than the 'Conda, at the expense of some flexibility and/or jump range. I'm not an expert on the mechanics of ship balance, but I'd be aiming for around 5LY less jump, and probably smaller internals but more of them.

I'd argue that 10 is mandatory for Horizon owners, as well as those circumnavigating the galaxy who eventually run out of FSD boosts and need to farm some more.

To which my counter is that FSD boosts aren't a mandatory part of exploration.
Also, the list was edited after I started answering - see my 17.

 

[Friedenreich Xante]

1. Strictly speaking it's optional, but I count it in my 5
2. Mandatory
3. Optional
4. Optional. Fuel-ratting is not exploration
5. Optional. Don't crash into anything and you don't need it. Neutron star hoppjng is optional
6. Optional. How often do you crash into things?
7. Optional. Again with the crashing into stuff
8. Mandatory
9. Mandatory
10. Optional
11. Optional
12. Optional
13. Optional
14. Optional
15. Optional. You're crashing into stuff again, aren't you?
16. Mandatory. Kidding, crashing is optional.
17. You forgot the SRV. Optional, but I always carry one.

Honestly, how anyone expects to put >10 module slots into a ship and for it NOT to become multi-role is beyond me.

With all you are stating optional, you'd probably also say shields are optional for combat, just dodge the shots, right?

Some people just want to explore in total autonomy. If Admundsen had the opportunity to bring AFMU's with him, he'd done it, and wouldn't have said "just don't crash into icebergs", silly.

 

[Morbad]

2. Most slots too small to be useful for other purposes

As noted small HRPs have the best protection vs. mass ratio.

"can't be used for anything other than a fuel scoop"

Or an awesomely fast charging bi-weave shield.

I keep reading these exploration ship proposals and can't help but think how they'd make killer stealth gank/pursuit vessels.

With all you are stating optional, you'd probably also say shields are optional for combat, just dodge the shots, right?

Shieldless combat vessels are a thing, and can be very effective.

 

[Nadreck]

I'm not sure how important shields are for explorers really. I've seen claims that minor damage from rough landings can accumulate, but I've never damaged my shieldless DBX when landing. Is it more of a problem with heavier ships?

 

[Morbad]

Is it more of a problem with heavier ships?

It's more a problem with lazy or reckless players.

I do put a shield on my explorers, but that's so I can afford to be lazy.

 

[Vithigar]

Explore the Imperial way.

https://i.imgur.com/DIqV7MM.png

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

With all you are stating optional, you'd probably also say shields are optional for combat, just dodge the shots, right?

Some people just want to explore in total autonomy. If Admundsen had the opportunity to bring AFMU's with him, he'd done it, and wouldn't have said "just don't crash into icebergs", silly.

And Ranulph Fiennes went to the North Polo alone and unsupported.

Mandatory means you HAVE to have it, not just that it'll make your life easier.