Frontier, it's time you balanced ALL ships and internals- Size/Mass.

[Vorxian]

I think i worked out that 750 tons of expanded polystyrene is almost exactly 1.5km cubed.

Since the cutter can carry 750+ tons of cargo, in ED it will carry 750 tons of polystyrene. BUT therefore how does something the size of a cathedral, carry something the effective size of the the City of London without destroying or damaging it.

Funny imagining it

 

[Morbad]

I have an ongoing beef with the system of weight being used in ED to categorise space in the cargo hold.

Mass is the limiting factor though, and this is perfectly reasonable.

Outside of the most diffuse cargo, raw volume is largely irrelevant when determining aircraft or rocket payload capacity.

If we use the weight of water as a benchmark (cos it's simple), we can see that, for example, a 3E cargo rack holds 8t or 8m³ of water.
Assuming bulkhead heights of 2m (again, for the sake of simplicity) a 3E cargo rack would be, say, 2m tall x 1m wide x 4m long or, perhaps, 2m x 2m x 2m.

A 3E cargo rack, must, at it's bare minimum, support eight canisters. You cannot fit eight canisters into a volume of less than ~16m^3 and I would include some more margin for retention and manipulation mechanisms.

 

[Kzak]

I think i worked out that 750 tons of expanded polystyrene is almost exactly 1.5km cubed.

Since the cutter can carry 750+ tons of cargo, in ED it will carry 750 tons of polystyrene. BUT therefore how does something the size of a cathedral, carry something the effective size of the the City of London without destroying or damaging it.

Funny imagining it

I believe the only cutters capable of carrying 752 tons of cargo are those with grandfathered shield generators with the +10% Optimal Mass secondary effect or more. This was removed as a possibility with 3.0, so the cutters that don't have such a grandfathered shield generator will have to sacrifice their shields if they are aiming for 752 tons or more.

 

[Cmdr Eratosthenes]

Won't happen. You're maybe two years two late with this...

 

[Stealthie]

A 3E cargo rack, must, at it's bare minimum, support eight canisters. You cannot fit eight canisters into a volume of less than ~16m^3 and I would include some more margin for retention and manipulation mechanisms.

Presumably you mean 8t of cargo should fit into 8m³?

Sure, that's a bare minimum but, then again, every module is going to require some extra volume to accommodate things like walls, conduits, utilities, electrical supply etc, and it's not like the ships are short of internal space, AFAIK.

Almost any way you slice it, passenger compartments will define the physical size of modules, rather than anything else that might be fitted in the same sized slot.

 

[XW_Ziggy]

Ship mass, pad size, speed, MLF, shield multiplier, sensor size - these are all arbitrary values that FDev make up for their own reasons and there's not seemingly any logic to it.

I'd love to see an overhaul of the ships but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

 

[Morbad]

Presumably you mean 8t of cargo should fit into 8m³?

I mean a 2*1m canister cannot fit into less than 2m^3 and every ton of cargo is in one of those canisters.

it's not like the ships are short of internal space, AFAIK.

Indeed, there is an order of magnitude or more of surplus volume on most ships, except the smallest ones.

Almost any way you slice it, passenger compartments will define the physical size of modules, rather than anything else that might be fitted in the same sized slot.

And they would be very roomy compartments!

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I support this.

And while we're at it, could we revamp the ridiculous mass lock system too please ? +1 MLF per 100t mass please. And yep, that will mean that same ships can have different MLF based on build and empty or full cargo hold and tank.

 

[Morbad]

I support this.

And while we're at it, could we revamp the ridiculous mass lock system too please ? +1 MLF per 100t mass please. And yep, that will mean that same ships can have different MLF based on build and empty or full cargo hold and tank.

I think it would make much more sense if MLF was replaced and based on some property of the FSD, not the meager collection of mass that is a ship.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

The original Elite had an answer for the volume/mass problem. You could buy an extension for the Cobra that extended the cargo capacity by using a technology called special compression. It's possible they had been watching Doctor Who... The canisters are simply bigger on the inside.

In simple terms, we can compress most thing by taking the energy away from them. It reduces the space between atoms. But there is a lot of space inside of atoms... A... Lot... of... Space... So much so that changing certain universal constants in a localised fashion can cause that space to be compressed. Of course, changing universal constants is not something you can comprehend right now... Well, you say that, it's quite a trivial thing to change the speed of light. All you need is the right medium. It's not witchcraft... it's science. A science that is so far advanced it looks like handwavium… or as we like to call it at children's parties: Magic!!!

 

[krylite]

I can't get behind this. Each ship has it's own personality and quirks. I like it that way. Homogenizing all of the ships into All-'rounders is not my idea of balance. All of these restrictions and limitations are there to make us as players make choices. I just can't agree with an idea where choice comes down to what space barbie skin you want to wear. There is nothing wrong with us players having to consider and make allowances for ship design. Sorry, this is just an attempt to beigificate our ships.

Agreed, the ships often have a uniqueness in design as well as different manufacturers. Even if FD attempted to "rebalance" all the ships, there's always going to be some disagreement between what is considered handwavium sci-fi reasons and good gameplay balance. In a year or two after a supposed rebalance, there's just going to be another call for 'balancing' again from differing opinions.

For example, the Beluga could have more square volume, sure, than the cutter, but how do we know there aren't big observation lounge areas in those belugas just like tourist boats today. When spacelegs arrive, there could be big lounge observation decks where you can gamble or a restaurant and coffee shops in those areas behind those big tinted window sections. And maybe there are more corridors and service areas between the passenger sections etc.

The original Elite had an answer for the volume/mass problem. You could buy an extension for the Cobra that extended the cargo capacity by using a technology called special compression. It's possible they had been watching Doctor Who... The canisters are simply bigger on the inside.

In simple terms, we can compress most thing by taking the energy away from them. It reduces the space between atoms. But there is a lot of space inside of atoms... A... Lot... of... Space... So much so that changing certain universal constants in a localised fashion can cause that space to be compressed. Of course, changing universal constants is not something you can comprehend right now... Well, you say that, it's quite a trivial thing to change the speed of light. All you need is the right medium. It's not witchcraft... it's science. A science that is so far advanced it looks like handwavium… or as we like to call it at children's parties: Magic!!!

Interestingly, Elite2:FE and FFE didn't have spatial compression because you could choose from a lot more ships. The first X-game used spatial compression mainly because you could only fly the X-prototype ship throughout the game. Although they did carry on and continue to use it for any ship up to a point in subsequent X-games. Personally, I prefer the Frontier worldset where spatial compression doesn't exist as a tech and you need bigger or freighter ships to carry more cargo.

 

[Sylveria]

I support this.

And while we're at it, could we revamp the ridiculous mass lock system too please ? +1 MLF per 100t mass please. And yep, that will mean that same ships can have different MLF based on build and empty or full cargo hold and tank.

Ugh, yeah this is another "sticky" part of the mechanics that doesn't quite sit well, either. That some ships can simply bypass MLF range mechanics opposed to others of comparable size/mass is beyond me. Yet another reason why consistency is necessary. It affects more than just jumping from station ranges.

On another note, I find the comments from some regarding homogenization and trying to assert that a re-balance would make everything "same-ish" quite amusing.

Re-balance doesn't mean everything becomes a carbon copy of everything else- it means ships will actually perform within the mechanics restraints of the game as opposed to some being "special" and simply ignoring the game mechanics. (and arguably logic and reason in itself)

Aside from the occasional balance pass of particular ships- when's the last time Frontier has done an all encompassing balance pass on all ships that exist in this game? Anyone?

 

[Majic-12]

I like the idea of ship internals being consistent with their structures, but really I'm just here for the handwavium.

Don't blame me, blame the mission.

 

[V'larr]

Even if FD attempted to "rebalance" all the ships, there's always going to be some disagreement between what is considered handwavium sci-fi reasons and good gameplay balance. In a year or two after a supposed rebalance, there's just going to be another call for 'balancing' again from differing opinions.

Fear of not getting it just right is not a good excuse for doing nothing at all about something that clearly is in need of fixing.

 

[jonesskill]

IMO experiencing the galaxy should not be a "progression standard" in Elite Dangerous- it's should be about ship progression.

 

[Sylveria]

IMO experiencing the galaxy should not be a "progression standard" in Elite Dangerous- it's should be about ship progression.

The humor is definitely strong in this one.

Although, I'm sure some truly do feel that's what the entirety of this game is about.

Problem with that theory- is that once we've progressed to flying Death Stars, what's next?

 

[El_Hefe]

The humor is definitely strong in this one.

Although, I'm sure some truly do feel that's what the entirety of this game is about.

Problem with that theory- is that once we've progressed to flying Death Stars, what's next?

Most people would probably move on to other games. Return when theres decent content updates

Leaving the immersion crowd to complain about decimal points in a game they have 2000hrs in....

/JK

 

[Bacalao]

I can't get behind this. Each ship has it's own personality and quirks. I like it that way. Homogenizing all of the ships into All-'rounders is not my idea of balance. All of these restrictions and limitations are there to make us as players make choices. I just can't agree with an idea where choice comes down to what space barbie skin you want to wear. There is nothing wrong with us players having to consider and make allowances for ship design. Sorry, this is just an attempt to beigificate our ships.

I don't see what this has to do with the OP.

I don't see any handwhatever. I see ships designed to have individuality. Military slots help combat ships fight better. The FAS was largely discounted as a combat ship prior to the introduction of military slots, and MRPs. Passenger ships having dedicated slots for passenger cabins makes perfect sense. Of course some ships are going to stand out. Especially for their intended design and role.

Homogenizing has no benefit. We have over thirty ships to choose from. I'd hate for the choice to come down to what it looks like, alone.

I have to say, that FD use their mechanics as they were intended. I mean that goes without saying, they design the mechanics.....

Handwhatever eh? How about mass lock factors? I mean, that would imply that they are actually based on mass....or something...or fsd...or something, but nope, just "balance". FDev don't have any internal consistency to the mechanics they use.

I agree completely with the OP. A class 5 thruster should produce X amount of thrust and it should be able to move Y amount of mass so fast. But for some reason a class 5 thrusters on heavy ship A pushes it faster than lighter ship B primarily because of some invisible handwaved number rather than design. The only true relationship between a module and the variable is FSD and mass. I can't decide if FDev lacked competence, ambition or interest to balance the rest of the game the same way. It makes the game un-intuitive and sometimes frustrating, what you see on the tin is not what you get.

 

[Gryphorim]

My thoughts: Ship baseline masses need a balance pass to get rid of the really serious outliers like the Anaconda. If jump range is to be the 'Conda's trump card, then up it's base FSD module class to compensate. As for some ships being able to take an SLF in a class 5 slot and others not, that can be explained by ships like a keelback having a cube shaped volume for that class 5, and others, like a python, having a flatter, wider or longer volume for the internal spaces, thus not being suitable in this case.
I actually support different ships having spaces dedicated to military, passenger and other module types, as the space set out internally for these modules would have different power and life-support feeds built into the base ship to support these.
I do think we should have ships with exploration/science, and mining centric module space, though. And some ships, like a T7, should probably be able to carry vastly more cargo, but in cargo-only module spaces, with no extensive power feeds or life support in the bay space.
Separate to that, I think we should be able to get bay splitters, that can halve a larger bay down into 2 smaller bays, for efficient carriage of scanners, limpet controllers and other size-limited hardware.

 

[Surprised Brony]

Fear of not getting it just right is not a good excuse for doing nothing at all about something that clearly is in need of fixing.

This. Too many times the exact argument on here is "what if it's slightly off" or some such. Not good enough to ignore "what if it's nearly perfect?"