Internal slot splitters (with a catch)

43615

43615
I propose optional internal slot splitters (maybe for the 2020 update?..). It's simply a module that you install in any universal slot, which will create two or more new slots (code for that is probably already in place with the SRV/Fighter hangars).
But here's the catch: It will always consume one slot unit. For example, a C5 splitter will only have 4 slot units available, which can then be split up into smaller slots.
The splitters should have a customization interface which lets you choose how the units are split up. I've made a very crude MS Paint sketch of how it could look (hope you can understand it):
146055

This example shows a Class 8 splitter being customized. There are 7 slot units available, of which 5 are currently being used. The visual language is as follows:
Hollow square - Free slot unit
Filled square - Selected slot size indicator
Shaded filled square - Used slot unit indicator, caused by filled squares
Grayed-out square - Unallocatable slot unit, caused by size limit
You can see that each "sub-slot" has two hollow squares. They will become grayed-out if you allocate one. Also, more sub-slot options would appear if you allocated a unit to D, similarly to firegroups.

Now for the balancing stuff:

HRPs and MRPs
You wouldn't be able to split a 5D HRP and get a better armor bonus. However, splitting may increase your resistances and there are obvious issues with the percentage-based system of MRPs. For simplicity's sake, until this system is changed, you could just make it impossible to place those in the custom slots.

…well, that's the only problem I could think of. Splitting cargo racks and fuel tanks would obviously cause a disadvantage.

Prices
I suggest half of a corresponding cargo rack. There isn't that much tech involved in these.


Suggestions are always welcome!
 

Sysmon

Sysmon
Gosh, just the rewiring and power balancing will be a delightful nightmare! Could be a fun thing to tinker with if we were able to manually modify our ships (voiding insurance and warranty, of course).

:D S
 

RamirezKurita

R
Firstly, this sort of thing has been suggested many, many times in the past.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand module sizes. A class 8 isn't "slightly" larger than a class 7, it's twice the size. You can fit two class 6s and a class 7 in the space of a single class 8. The suggestions I have made in the past is for splitters to lose 1/4 of their capacity by creating a slot a size category smaller and a second module that is two sizes smaller (example: a class 8 turns into a class 6 and a class 7).
 

mkizub

M
Without slot splitters all 1/2-size modules quickly become too expensive. No docking computers and cruise assist, no drone controllers, no planet scanners... or if you must have a detailed surface scanner - you use a big slot, making your large ship the same as small ships. Do you think that in real world, if there is a demand from pilots to use many small devices - companies will not sell such ships?

Game designers push us to design highly specialized ships. After you've added everything for mining - there will be no others spare slots. Or you can add everything for exploration, and again there will be no others spare slots. But if you want to mine asteroid 1000 ly away - there will be no enough slots. After all, flying without docking computer makes me filling like flying in stone era. Why can't I have a bit of comfort? Why more specialized, but less adoptable?
 

Masta Squidge

M
I mean, it would be a stiff penalty for sure but it would dramatically imbalance the game if I could put 4 class 6 modules into a single 8 slot, or two into a 7, or whatever.



It would be less of an imbalance if you do something that still only allows a single unit, but then the remaining space is say half of the difference in added cargo room.

A class 8 offers 256 cargo.

Install a module that lets you still drop in a class 7 or smaller but then gives you 64 tons of cargo space as well.
The "adapter" to "move the module away from the utility connections" while "physically supporting the smaller module outside of its intended installation location" takes up the 64 tons of cargo space. You could even make it more of a penalty and drop that to 32 tons.

You still suffer a penalty (as "half" the slot should be 128 tons) but without causing any kind of offensive or defensive imbalance.

It would be nothing more than a buff to cargo space ultimately.
 

Sylow

Sylow
Heater said:
Search the forums..... never going to happen !
Click to expand...

This. And if somebody doesn't like to search around: the cargo space calculation is the harmless part. The real power is when you look at hull reinforcement packages. And consider that the module splitting would allow you to apply full engineering twice in one slot now. So you can stack double the resists, even before considering that smaller MRPs have a much better value per slot size and mass than the big ones. (I mean, it's already in the OP. So you are aware of the issue. You do know why this can't ever happen. )

I also at some time wish i could split slots, as it would give me some freedom in setups which we currently don't have. But when considering what one could do with such a system change and how quickly doing things the new way would be seen as essential, there's nothing to really be gained. It would be just yet another level of power creep.
 
Last edited:

Masta Squidge

M
Sylow said:
This. And if somebody doesn't like to search around: the cargo space calculation is the harmless part. The real power is when you look at hull reinforcement packages. And consider that the module splitting would allow you to apply full engineering twice in one slot now. So you can stack double the resists, even before considering that smaller MRPs have a much better value per slot size and mass than the big ones.

I also at some time wish i could split slots, as it would give me some freedom in setups which we currently don't have. But when considering what one could do with such a system change and how quickly doing things the new way would be seen as essential, there's nothing to really be gained. It would be just yet another level of power creep.
Click to expand...
Hence my suggestion to still only allow one module but get something from the wasted space.
 

MK Regular

M
I would say to search the forums before posting an idea that has been done many times before, but that would be a bit hypocritical of me since one of my earliest posts on the forums was about a way to divide larger module slots into multiple smaller module slots. That said, if you do a search (try some combination of module/slot/compartment and splitter/divider) you will find a whole bunch of threads that contain some good (and not-so-good) ideas on how to divide a module slot (by volume, by total module size, by volume with a % penalty, etc...) and what restrictions or penalties should be applied (increased power draw, additional mass, all sub-modules bound to the same firegroup, etc...).

As for OP's iteration of the idea, I can certainly see how it might be useful, but I can also see how it might be ignored by everyone who doesn't need a dearth of size 1 modules. Preventing the use of HRPs and MRPs (this should include all of the tech broker HRP, MRP and shield booster unlocks) would be a necessity for any kind of compartment splitting system would until those modules get a balance pass (I am of the opinion that module capability should increase linearly or exponentially with size, not the decaying exponential that is present on HRPs and MRPs, but that is a topic for another thread). However, without the HRPs and MRPs there are very few size 1 modules that are useful enough to warrant splitting a size 5 slot into 4 size 1s, let alone splitting a size 8 slot into 7 size 1s. The MS Paint drawing was a nice touch, I don't think I have ever seen a compartment splitting thread with a drawing of the proposed UI before.



Before the exploration rework in 3.3 many of the module splitting threads were dominated by players who wanted to be able to put their DSS and ADS (both size 1) in the same slot instead of having to use a second size 2, 3 or 4 slot. When the update came, I noticed a large decline in the number of the module splitting threads that were popping up. I suspect that most of the module splitting threads are based on a few specific situations, and that it would be much easier for FDev (both in terms of implementation and balancing) to address these situations directly rather than introducing a new system.

Simply put, I think that requests for module splitting are symptoms of other potential issues in the game, and it would be better for FDev to find and correct those issues than to add module splitting.
 
Last edited:

mkizub

M
MK Regular said:
it would be much easier for FDev (both in terms of implementation and balancing) to address these situations directly rather than introducing a new system.
...
it would be better for FDev to find and correct those issues than to add module splitting.
Click to expand...
Basically, the game already have slots for SRVs, this means that implementation of slot splitter will require nearly zero time of programmers.
Well, to minimize impact of the slot splitting to the gameplay, it can be done slowly, step by step, analyzing results of each step before going further.
For example, for the first step, there may be a limitation, that only one slot can be split (with some penalty to space, since devices require power/communication
interface, which also eats some space). There are now slots for military modules only, so there may be special 'splitable' slots as well.

As for alternative ways... small modules (fly assists, drone controllers, scanners, etc) may be placed into a cargo rack, and installed
(swapped) when needed. So one can have fuel drones controller in cargo, and install/activate it only when he will need to send
fuel to another ship, and so on.
 

Raino

Raino
sure, and i would place engineered hull reinforcements there , thats what it would be GREAT for, and dont start cry therefore
 

lenna

lenna
hackingpro said:
I propose optional internal slot splitters (maybe for the 2020 update?..). It's simply a module that you install in any universal slot, which will create two or more new slots (code for that is probably already in place with the SRV/Fighter hangars).

...

Now for the balancing stuff:

HRPs and MRPs
You wouldn't be able to split a 5D HRP and get a better armor bonus. However, splitting may increase your resistances and there are obvious issues with the percentage-based system of MRPs. For simplicity's sake, until this system is changed, you could just make it impossible to place those in the custom slots.

…well, that's the only problem I could think of. Splitting cargo racks and fuel tanks would obviously cause a disadvantage.

Prices
I suggest half of a corresponding cargo rack. There isn't that much tech involved in these.


Suggestions are always welcome!
Click to expand...
Nice idea, but this has been discussed before.

The only way it is likely to happen is if the slot splits into two slots at least 2 grades down there by making the choice of slot splitting carry a capability cost meaning stock ship balancing will always trump end-user module splitting.

You are obviously aware of the balancing concerns and these may need to be addressed as part of any update including module splitting as an option. The military slot concept however does mean there is potential to side step the issue by actively limiting what can be fitted to a split slot.

Overall, I agree with those that claim it may never happen on one hand but would not rule it out completely on the other.
 

Masta Squidge

M
rlsg said:
Nice idea, but this has been discussed before.

The only way it is likely to happen is if the slot splits into two slots at least 2 grades down there by making the choice of slot splitting carry a capability cost meaning stock ship balancing will always trump end-user module splitting.

You are obviously aware of the balancing concerns and these may need to be addressed as part of any update including module splitting as an option. The military slot concept however does mean there is potential to side step the issue by actively limiting what can be fitted to a split slot.

Overall, I agree with those that claim it may never happen on one hand but would not rule it out completely on the other.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address the issue of useful smaller modules stacking to the point of imbalance.

The only thing I can reasonably come up with to prevent that is to use it as a cargo buff and nothing else, as I stated above.
 

lenna

lenna
Masta Squidge said:
That doesn't address the issue of useful smaller modules stacking to the point of imbalance.
Click to expand...
Errmmm... did you actually read the post or just regurgitate the same tired response to an idea you do not like?

The stacking issue could be addressed by a "no military kit" restriction for split slots, which I hinted at with the reference to the "military slot concept".

Further more, the two classes down would mean capability would be sacrificed for versatility. The main benefit would possibly be for miners since they may be able to equip more drone controllers than they would otherwise be able to (at the cost of cargo space).

As for stacking of useful modules...
  1. Where stacking of HRPs are concerned, I think FD should implement either a reduced heat dissipation effect or increased heat build up effect (preference is the former rather than the latter as it makes more logical and immersive sense to me personally - armour reinforcement increasing the heat retention).

  2. Where stacking of MRPs are concerned, I am inclined to say they should act as sequential protective elements rather than additive (not sure how it is now since I personally never stack them). What I mean by that is one MRP unit takes the damage until expended then damage is applied to the next MRP unit - the MRP resistance effect would only apply for the duration it is being used thus no cumulative resistance effect.

  3. Where stacking of SB's are concerned, I think FD should implement a shield damage resistance penalty for each unit used - effectively allowing for absurd shield levels while penalising them in combat at the same time by making them more fragile wrt non-absolute damage.
If the above were done then that should offset the general concerns over module stacking without giving those that engage in it an unfair penalty - at least in theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom