Internal slot splitters (with a catch)

[Masta Squidge]

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.

And all of that is simply unnecessary if you're simply going to penalize it into the ground. If your goal is to give everyone more shields, just buff existing shields instead of over-complicating it.

If your claim is the main benefit should be for miners to have more drones at the expense of cargo - that's exactly what my suggestion specifically does. You sacrifice a bit of cargo for the ability to load in more drone controllers by splitting the slot between cargo (at a penalty) and ONE reduced size module.

You just argued against my concept while saying the same thing in 10 times as many words.

 

[Lestat]

If your claim is the main benefit should be for miners to have more drones at the expense of cargo - that's exactly what my suggestion specifically does. You sacrifice a bit of cargo for the ability to load in more drone controllers by splitting the slot between cargo (at a penalty) and ONE reduced size module.

You just argued against my concept while saying the same thing in 10 times as many words.

What ship are you flying that you need more controllers? With my Python, I use A3 Controller with Void Opal but the trick is a move to the spot had a group of ores and it only takes 2 minutes to collect all the loose ores. In Void Opal Less is more in this case.

Now the Mining the old way. You have to learn to sacrifice space with mining speed.

 

[Masta Squidge]

What ship are you flying that you need more controllers? With my Python, I use A3 Controller with Void Opal but the trick is a move to the spot had a group of ores and it only takes 2 minutes to collect all the loose ores. In Void Opal Less is more in this case.

Now the Mining the old way. You have to learn to sacrifice space with mining speed.

All of them.

Point is you can have a bit of cargo in the slots which have undersized controllers stuffed in them. Or whatever. I detailed it above.

it doesnt make sense to put a single 5A limpet controller into a size 6 slot and just have an entire size 5 slot worth of empty space in the ship. 1x size 6 = 2x size 5 in volume. It does if you think like an engineer and consider the slot has a single set of utility and cargo access connections however.

But if you extend the "im an engineer" analogy, you should be able to create an adapter module that offsets the module while providing structural support to said module and allowing the cargo rack access to whatever mechanism moves cargo about. The non-cargo module doesn't need to be in that location necessarily.

Said module would naturally take up space, thus instead of putting a class 5 rack into a class 6 slot with another class 5 module it would only leave room for a class 5 module and class 4 cargo rack worth of storage.


At the very least you should be able to use that volume for cargo. At a penalty of course.

It isn't really a matter of having more controllers so much as utilizing the physical volume of the ship more efficiently.

 

[Masta Squidge]

I dont see that as any different than simply manhandling a cargo container into the hallway between the cockpit and bedroom just for the sake of fitting one more ton onboard.

 

[Lestat]

All of them.

Point is you can have a bit of cargo in the slots which have undersized controllers stuffed in them. Or whatever. I detailed it above.

it doesnt make sense to put a single 5A limpet controller into a size 6 slot and just have an entire size 5 slot worth of empty space in the ship. 1x size 6 = 2x size 5 in volume. It does if you think like an engineer and consider the slot has a single set of utility and cargo access connections however.

But if you extend the "im an engineer" analogy, you should be able to create an adapter module that offsets the module while providing structural support to said module and allowing the cargo rack access to whatever mechanism moves cargo about. The non-cargo module doesn't need to be in that location necessarily.

Said module would naturally take up space, thus instead of putting a class 5 rack into a class 6 slot with another class 5 module it would only leave room for a class 5 module and class 4 cargo rack worth of storage.


At the very least you should be able to use that volume for cargo. At a penalty of course.

It isn't really a matter of having more controllers so much as utilizing the physical volume of the ship more efficiently.

I dont see that as any different than simply manhandling a cargo container into the hallway between the cockpit and bedroom just for the sake of fitting one more ton onboard.

So instead of using Common sense when you build a ship and play the game you want Frontier to eliminate player common sense and be able to put whatever they want in a ship.

 

[Masta Squidge]

So instead of using Common sense when you build a ship and play the game you want Frontier to eliminate player common sense and be able to put whatever they want in a ship.

I see you are here for no reason than to attempt to poorly berate people without actual comprehension of the statements made, but I will enlighten you further.


I am looking at my cutter which I use for surface mining painite.

I have exactly one slot left that would benefit from my suggestion. A size 6 slot with a class 5 limpet controller in it.

That slot is essentially 50% empty volume inside the ship. The previously mentioned concept would result in the addition of 16 tons of cargo space. Or I could lose the controller and put a 64 ton rack in.

I literally said it would only allow ONE MODULE plus utilizing the remaining space for cargo ONLY at a stiff penalty. How is this either A: Difficult to comprehend or B: "letting people do whatever they want"?

 

[Masta Squidge]

Also Star Citizen literally lets you pile cargo into a ship wherever the hell you want, including the bathrooms if you so desire.

Because that's the thing about putting X item into Y space. If it fits, it fits. But this isn't SC and I don't expect it to be. I just feel there's literally tons of wasted space that could be used for cargo instead of other modules.

If I want to put 8 foot 2x4s into my VW Golf with a 5 foot cargo area by putting those boards on my dash, I can. Same idea. Not advocating for putting any damn modules you want anywhere you want at all.

 

[Lestat]

I see you are here for no reason than to attempt to poorly berate people without actual comprehension of the statements made, but I will enlighten you further.

I am looking at my cutter which I use for surface mining painite.

I have exactly one slot left that would benefit from my suggestion. A size 6 slot with a class 2 limpet controller in it.

That slot is essentially 50% empty volume inside the ship. The previously mentioned concept would result in the addition of 16 tons of cargo space. Or I could lose the controller and put a 64 ton rack in.

I literally said it would only allow ONE MODULE plus utilizing the remaining space for cargo ONLY at a stiff penalty. How is this either A: Difficult to comprehend or B: "letting people do whatever they want"?

I see to see your cutter build. I think the issue is Your Cutter build and not the game or module issues. Here why I see 2 Class 5 Modules. Which works great on Class 5 Limpet controller which give you 6 limpet running at the same time in it and you are complaining about Collector 5 wasting space on a Module 6 slot. while you have 640 plus cargo already. Seriously.

Also Star Citizen literally lets you pile cargo into a ship wherever the hell you want, including the bathrooms if you so desire.

Because that's the thing about putting X item into Y space. If it fits, it fits. But this isn't SC and I don't expect it to be. I just feel there's literally tons of wasted space that could be used for cargo instead of other modules.

If I want to put 8 foot 2x4s into my VW Golf with a 5 foot cargo area by putting those boards on my dash, I can. Same idea. Not advocating for putting any damn modules you want anywhere you want at all.

Oh so you are comparing a Star Citizen which is 6 years in Alpha. Really terrible idea.

 

[MK Regular]

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.

I previously said that I believe requests for module splitting are symptoms of larger issues rather than the the lack of module splitting being the issue itself. I also said that it would be easier for FDev to address the issues themselves than to add module splitting. While it is true that FDev could add module splitting fairly easily, doing so might not solve the issues that drive the requests for module splitting. If the base issues are not solved, FDev will need to do more work to fix them at a later date and the (admittedly little) work on module splitting would be a wasted effort, hence it being easier to address the issue itself rather than add module splitting and call it a day.

Of course, it is entirely possible the module splitting COULD solve the issues that are driving the demand, although it could just as easily end up being a band-aid to a punctured lung.

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.

You mention limpets and flight assists (there is only one optional internal scanner module, we can leave it alone for the most part). I personally believe that these are the main driving factors behind requests for module splitting, with limpets being the larger of the two. Module splitting could be used to solve these issues, however it is not necessarily the best solution to these problems:

• The flight assists could easily be made standard software in the ships' computers. The fact that they are new additions to the game in their current forms tells me that the current implementation is to encourage players to learn to fly their ships and use the space for other items, hence I would be hard pressed to call it an "issue".
• The limpet controllers could really use a balance pass. There are currently 8 different types of limpet controllers and none of them have a universally logical and consistent system of mass, range, power draw, and maximum number of limpets. Many limpet-heavy activities rely on using 3 or more limpet controllers, and size 7 limpet controllers are borderline useless. A new system for limpet controllers is needed that can support more types of limpets as they are added to the game without resulting in even more module bloat than currently exists.

 

[Masta Squidge]

I see to see your cutter build. I think the issue is Your Cutter build and not the game or module issues. Here why I see 2 Class 5 Modules. Which works great on Class 5 Limpet controller which give you 6 limpet running at the same time in it and you are complaining about Collector 5 wasting space on a Module 6 slot. while you have 640 plus cargo already. Seriously.

Oh so you are comparing a Star Citizen which is 6 years in Alpha. Really terrible idea.

So you want to talk about how I need to learn to be more efficient while you yourself don't even understand what I'm doing or my build? If you think 6 limpets is enough then you aren't qualified to speak on the subject of others being inefficient.

Aight brotato. You're just disagreeing for the sake of it now.


As for the "comparison", again I literally stated that im not comparing it. Im just making an example of using the space.

You're just reading what you want to read and getting triggered. Have a good one.


PS: I said class 5 controller in my class 6 slot.

Not sure why you edited my statement when you quoted to say class 2.

 

[Lestat]

So you want to talk about how I need to learn to be more efficient while you yourself don't even understand what I'm doing or my build? If you think 6 limpets is enough then you aren't qualified to speak on the subject of others being inefficient.

Aight brotato. You're just disagreeing for the sake of it now.


As for the "comparison", again I literally stated that im not comparing it. Im just making an example of using the space.

You're just reading what you want to read and getting triggered. Have a good one.

Well, you are the one Comparing two different games. One still in Alpha after six years. I lost hope for that Game YEARS AGO. Oh and does not play on Most systems.

Stop thinking about it as Cargo space because you are dealing with different shape modules.

The thing with Elite is you have to work around space issue that part of the game. Frontier did not sugar coat it like that game that still in Alpha. It like putting a smaller engine in a car that half the size of the current car Engine. Does that mean you have more cargo space? NO. It is set in the same spot so it can be mounted and connected to the transmission. You are not going to put cargo on an engine, are you? Same with certain Module

We also have to factor in how is the Module space setup and how the Module Item takes in that space which you seem to ignore. Stop thinking that Module 5 Collector take half of a Module 6 slot and you have this 50% of space. Like the Car Engine what if it has to attach at a certain point What if it sits in the centre of that Module because of that where the power is and where it needs to be mounted. Yes, you still have 50% space. But in this case, it is UNUSABLE.

 

[Masta Squidge]

Boy you are mad.

Your engine analogy is bunk because it doesn't inherently need to sit in the center of the engine bay if you specifically engineer a power transmission device to transfer said power to another location at the cost of efficiency.

Like ive said several times now.

 

[Masta Squidge]

You're literally arguing against it for the sole reason that you personally cant comprehend relocation modules which, I may add, are a real thing that really exists in reality. Right now.

They're a very common thing in computer chassis for example.

Baffles me that you just argued a thing I debunked and explained several posts back already.




Lmao.

Pathetic man. Go be mad somewhere else.

 

[Masta Squidge]

Here, I made you a 5 minute MS paint diagram. I could do it in 3D but I don't really care that much about your opinion. This is just mildly entertaining while I am doing other things.

As stated, there would be a requirement for additional hardware for power, utility, and cargo management between the two halves of the module as well as providing an access corridor to the second module.

The idea is the cargo rack is integrated into the unit and cannot be changed due to needing to be "non-standardized in order to provide clearance for necessary utilities" to the standard module bay in the back of the unit. So while you cant get an extra module into this space, you do recover some of the lost volume (at a 50% penalty) in the form of a small bump in cargo.

And only cargo. Not a second module.

And if you really want to argue about it even more, since its an integrated and specially sized rack for this specific module, it could be 10 or 14 tons rather than the full 16 of a class 4 and it would just make more sense.

If you really wanted to be annoying about the module "needing to be in the center" you can just run the utilities and access corridor up the center and put 4-8 cargo rack slots on either side of it, depending on how mad you want to be about your imaginary balance problem created by slightly more cargo.


If the modules are all standardized in shape, dimensions, and power, (and they have to be in order for any size module to work in any size bay) this is a very simple problem that a first year engineering student can solve no problem.

 

[Atol]

You know Masta Squidge. I degree with you. I can see the point For Frontier doing their gameplay this way. You might be Blind or ignorant to it, but other people are not. I can point with parts of the ship being an awkward shape size. Listen stop thinking, the idea of filling the Box halfway with water and deem that the shape of the Module you want and the rest is Free space.

 

[Masta Squidge]

You know Masta Squidge. I degree with you. I can see the point For Frontier doing their gameplay this way. You might be Blind or ignorant to it, but other people are not. I can point with parts of the ship being an awkward shape size. Listen stop thinking, the idea of filling the Box halfway with water and deem that the shape of the Module you want and the rest is Free space.

I have stated multiple times that it's not a matter of "filling the box with water".

I am not arguing against anything fdev has done or demanding this be implemented. I am simply having a hypothetical conversation as a matter of refinement of OP's idea which can cause serious balance problems.

The simple fact is the modules and bays are standardized shapes and sizes, and we don't know what those shapes or sizes are in any unit other than the standard cargo "ton" as a finite unit of volume. The fact is the rest is free space. Whether or not that space is accessible is the debate here. My side of the debate is simply that with a properly engineered unit this space can be made accessible at a penalty.

If yall wanna be mad about it and just scream "no" as loud as you can, that's on you. I for one enjoy thought experiments like this.




In reality Fdev probably never gave one iota of concern for the actual shapes and physical sizes of the modules in question and its very likely neither coded into the game, nor modeled into the ships.
In the abstract universe of computer software none of that exists at all and fdev can do whatever they want and twist the lore or "engineering" description however they want. This is simply one possible way they could very easily go with it.

 

[Atol]

I have stated multiple times that it's not a matter of "filling the box with water".

I am not arguing against anything fdev has done or demanding this be implemented. I am simply having a hypothetical conversation as a matter of refinement of OP's idea which can cause serious balance problems.

The simple fact is the modules and bays are standardized shapes and sizes, and we don't know what those shapes or sizes are in any unit other than the standard cargo "ton". The fact is the rest is free space. Whether or not that space is accessible is the debate here. My side of the debate is simply that with a properly engineered unit this space can be made accessible at a penalty.

If yall wanna be mad about it and just scream "no" as loud as you can, that's on you. I for one enjoy thought experiments like this.

Is that what your picture showing? You just have it on the side. It would be just like you filling it with Water. I think Frontier has it more of a large box and the Module is the shape in the center of a small box in the center. If you want I can do a 3D rendering of it. I think you need to learn some thing might not fit 100% right.

 

[Masta Squidge]

I can 3d model it too. Its just not worth anyone's effort.

And you are clearly ignoring what I am writing.

The cargo rack would not be a standard cargo rack by definition. It can't be a standard rack. It has to be integrated fully into this module to make room for the hardware needed to handle the access to the standard class 5 slot.

The rack would have to be made so the slots for the cargo units are at non-standard places, using non-standard hardware to handle the cargo units around the semi-custom hardware inside. So the single rack is permanent, gives you some of the space back at a 50% penalty, and still allows the class 5 to function.

 

[Masta Squidge]

I think Frontier has it more of a large box and the Module is the shape in the center of a small box in the center. If you want I can do a 3D rendering of it. I think you need to learn some thing might not fit 100% right.

yes. A box with a connector that slots into another box with a connector. Both connectors are "right in the center" or whatever, but they need to mate up.

I get that.
Are you aware that laptops had these nifty hot swappable drives a decade or two ago that had a single standard connector?

You had a hot swap bay that could house an optical drive, or a much smaller floppy drive that fit in the same unit because the case was just empty space.

Or you could get a card reader thats JUST a card reader, and was otherwise empty space.

And then someone said "there's no reason we can't have a floppy drive and a card reader in the same hot swap module" when previously those were their own modules. So they did it. You can still find similar things today, floppy drives with card readers built into them that fit into the standard PC tower expansion bay.

Same standard connector but the module did it's own hardware conversion to let both hook up to the larger standardized bay. The hardware needed to do that took up additional space beyond the first two devices. Much like I am describing here as the penalty on the space efficiency.

 

[lenna]

And all of that is simply unnecessary if you're simply going to penalize it into the ground. If your goal is to give everyone more shields, just buff existing shields instead of over-complicating it.

If your claim is the main benefit should be for miners to have more drones at the expense of cargo - that's exactly what my suggestion specifically does. You sacrifice a bit of cargo for the ability to load in more drone controllers by splitting the slot between cargo (at a penalty) and ONE reduced size module.

You just argued against my concept while saying the same thing in 10 times as many words.

Not really, a true splitter module would provide versatility - it is not about amount of something but rather the variety of something (i.e. diversity of capability).

For example (a generic build with a notionally spare C6 slot):-

1. (Native) C6 Cargo
2. (Native) C6 Passenger
3. (Splitter) C4 Cargo+C4 Passenger
4. (Splitter) C4 Cargo+C4 Collector Limpet Controller
5. (Splitter) C4 Prospector Limpet Controller+C4 Collector Limpet Controller
6. (Splitter) C4 Collector Limpet Controller+C4 Hull Repair Limpet Controller
7. etc

There is also the possibility or being able to fit 2 AFMUs when otherwise only one would be possible (allowing for the repair of the AFMUs providing they both don't go down - useful for explorers). The concept of a generic splitter module has numerous possibilities that has utility outside of the realms of combat, your concerns about HRP module stacking could be mitigated by not allowing them to be fitted.

The downsizing by 2 classes is not an overly punitive restriction and the logic behind it is that it is less efficient to split a single slot via a module (which would carry an overhead in doing so) than it is to pick a comparable ship based on FD's ship balancing strategy - 1 slot gain is typically at the expense of at least 1 drop in class for both slots in the case of truly directly comparable ships.

End user module splitting would be a matter of compromise - sacrificing capability for diversity, which is a legitimate balancing principle. Your concept by comparison is too rigid and inflexible to achieve the end-goal.