Internal slot splitters (with a catch)

[RamirezKurita]

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.

There's a couple of quite easy solutions to the imbalance of the smaller modules compared to the larger ones (and not just combat ones, stacking vast numbers of class 1 limpet controllers would be stronger than single larger ones).

Firstly, they could actually fix the completely borked scaling on many modules. When you are seeing linear performance increases on exponential size increases, there will always be issues. If a 3A limpet controller was actually about 4x as good as a class 1A controller and a class 4D HRP was close to 2x as protective as a class 3D HRP, then there would be no outright performance gain from splitting slots. Even if they don't get equal scaling to their size, they just need to scale as strongly as the split slot capacity would be in order to keep it balanced.

Secondly, they could only include slot splitters for the very large modules. Many module types max out at class 5, so why not only allow splitters for class 6 and above? These splitters would then break down these massive module slots into a number of class 4s and 5s. This could mean that a class 6 splitter would create a class 5 and a class 4 slot, a class 7 splitter would be two class 5s and two class 4s, while the mighty class 8 would yield four class 5s and four class 4s. This would prevent the stacking of tiny modules while also giving a bit more flexibility for the larger slots.

 

[lenna]

... This would prevent the stacking of tiny modules while also giving a bit more flexibility for the larger slots.

Not really, you can fit a smaller module to a larger slot... only a hard slot usage prohibition would mitigate the stacking concerns.

 

[Masta Squidge]

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.

Yes but that would be a balance issue.

 

[RamirezKurita]

Not really, you can fit a smaller module to a larger slot... only a hard slot usage prohibition would mitigate the stacking concerns.

You would be able to fit slightly more into the very largest of ships, but crucially it would prevent a player fitting 96 1D HRPs into a single class 7 slot or a Cutter flying around with 400 1D HRPs loaded.

A Corvette that sacrifices two of its C7s and both its C6s would only be able to mount 8 more HRPs (each of the C7s gives 3 extras, the C6s gain one more each) with the example I gave than they would currently. If the splitters themselves have mass and/or power requirements in addition to the requirements of their contents, this might not always be a viable option for larger ships.

Although, personally I feel the better option would be to rework the scaling on HRPs and other modules. If a 3D HRP plus a 4D HRP offered equivalent performance to a 5D HRP, then there would be barely any reason for a player to split a class 5 slot into a class 3 + a class 4. Stacking smaller modules via splitters would offer the same outright performance, with a touch more flexibility by combining different engineer mods, but overall be much more effort to acquire.

 

[Sylow]

Firstly, they could actually fix the completely borked scaling on many modules. When you are seeing linear performance increases on exponential size increases, there will always be issues. If a 3A limpet controller was actually about 4x as good as a class 1A controller and a class 4D HRP was close to 2x as protective as a class 3D HRP, then there would be no outright performance gain from splitting slots. Even if they don't get equal scaling to their size, they just need to scale as strongly as the split slot capacity would be in order to keep it balanced.

Yet they are like that for very good reasons. The game formerly gravitated badly towards large ships. Due to some changes, by now at least medium ships also see use again. Small ships are still out in the cold. What you suggest would give more of an advantage to big ships again. Which really don't need even more help and support.

I would not appreciate such a fundamental rework. Especially not when it fundamentally reduces options and variety of ship choice.

Although, personally I feel the better option would be to rework the scaling on HRPs and other modules. If a 3D HRP plus a 4D HRP offered equivalent performance to a 5D HRP, then there would be barely any reason for a player to split a class 5 slot into a class 3 + a class 4. Stacking smaller modules via splitters would offer the same outright performance, with a touch more flexibility by combining different engineer mods, but overall be much more effort to acquire.

Would have been true a few years ago. Now we have engineering. The mere fact that there would be two modules instead of one, no matter the size, would allow me to stack double the resists. So even a tradeoff that splitting a C5 slot for two C2 HRPs can still be an advantage on some setups. At the same time imagine the feedback of some other players, if a C5 slot would only give them two C2 slots in return.

 

[lenna]

You would be able to fit slightly more into the very largest of ships, but crucially it would prevent a player fitting 96 1D HRPs into a single class 7 slot or a Cutter flying around with 400 1D HRPs loaded.

Errmm... such circumstances are highly unlikely since nesting of splitters could also be restricted.

Ultimately, it is the smaller ships that would benefit most from the addition of splitters since their slot counts are typically more restricted.

A splitter module with the following characteristics and no rebalancing of module stacking should not break PvP balance like some are fearing:-

1. Prohibited modules: HRP, MRP, Splitter
2. Reduced power efficiency: +5% (for example) additional power draw on fitted modules
3. Only 2 modules per splitter - 2 classes down from the Splitter class

If Splitter nesting was allowed, then the reduced power efficiency would be additive. Using the above mapping

1. +5% for module 1 splitter level down (Splitter Classes 8,7,6,5,4,3 - 1:2 slot:module ratio - Ship slot classes 8,7,6,5,4,3)
2. +10% for a module 2 splitter levels down (Splitter Classes 8-6,7-5,6-4,5-3 - 1:4 slot:module ratio - Ship slot classes 8,7,6,5)
3. +15% for a module 3 splitter levels down (Classes 8-6-4,7-5-3 - 1:8 slot:module ratio - Ship slot classes 8,7)

On that basis the most slots on a Cutter would be 41 C2/C1 slots. Millitary slots of course would not allow splitters and the HRP/MRP units people are bleating about would not be fittable to a splitter. The maximum HRPs/MRPs in the Cutter case with maximum splitting would still be at most 3 HRPs (2xC5, 1x C1).

In practical terms you can probably reduce that by 7 because it would be foolish to run a Cutter without sufficient shields (notionally C8).

 

[RamirezKurita]

Would have been true a few years ago. Now we have engineering. The mere fact that there would be two modules instead of one, no matter the size, would allow me to stack double the resists. So even a tradeoff that splitting a C5 slot for two C2 HRPs can still be an advantage on some setups. At the same time imagine the feedback of some other players, if a C5 slot would only give them two C2 slots in return.

Such a rebalance would also include engineering, not just the base stats. Scale the resistances accordingly while accounting for the multiplicative nature of them, then change the engineer mods to work as a multiplier to these resistances rather than in addition to them. For example, a G5 Heavy Duty HRP gives +15% to all resists at the moment, so this could be changed to simply give +100% to the HRP's base resistance, which would break even with a HRP that gives a base +15% resistance. If it is all balanced properly, a pair of engineered HRPs in a splitter would provide basically the same performance as a single larger one (or possibly less); the only reasons to go for smaller HRPs in a splitter would be the added flexibility or to make use of hand-me-downs from smaller ships.

In terms of small ship vs large ship balance, such a change would make the game more consistent. Currently, large ships offer significantly improved trade performance yet their performance when mining or in combat is only slightly higher. A cutter offers more than 10x the trade performance of a CobraIII, yet a combat fitted cutter offers nowhere near 10x the combat performance or mining effectiveness of a similarly engineered CobraIII. This creates an impossible balance conundrum, where trade scales more strongly than other activities through a player's career; we are left with either balancing trade around end-game scenarios that leaves trade woefully ineffective in early game, or to balance trade around early game and end up with it being brokenly effective in late game.

 

[Captain Willard]

So what you really want is to customize all slots to whatever you want them to be.
Unbalancing every ship in the game.
So no. Bad idea.

 

[lenna]

So what you really want is to customize all slots to whatever you want them to be.
Unbalancing every ship in the game.
So no. Bad idea.

If it were a case of customising ALL slots to whatever without any trade offs or restrictions, then I might agree but I don't think anyone is actually supporting such a thing.

 

[mkizub]

Peoples, writing about broken balance, are missing one thing - everybody will be able to improve their ships.
Ships fitted for exploration already cannot compete in dogfight with military-fitted ships of the same type.
But all pilots will get equal ability to improve their ships, so none will get more advantage then another.

About stacking module/hull protection. I was always wondered the idea, that setting something inside a ship, into a cargo room, may protect another room or hull.
Let's see it geometrically. Different type of devices can be placed into the same slot, so slots must have uniform geometry, and devices must be designed according to that uniform geometry.
For example (approximately):
1-st class slot is a cube 1x1x1
2-nd class slot will be 2x1x1
3-rd class slot will be 2x2x1
4-th class slot will be 2x2x2 (medium ship, since grow in 3-rd dimention)
5-th class slot will be 4x2x2
6-th class slot will be 4x4x2
7-th class slot will be 4x4x4 (large ships, since grow in 3-rd dimention)
...
That's good for cargo racks or generic devices, that need only space/power.
But for module protection one needs a shell, cover over inner space, so it's geometry must be different.
And while ship's volume (cargo space) grow as power of 3 from ship's size (length), she's surface grows as power of 2.
So, protector of size class 1 for small ship will protect from more damage, than the same protector of medium size ship, and even less damage will be absorbed in large ships.
And only special slots, with non-uniform geometry, covering cargo space, not inside it, can be used for hull/module protection.
The non-uniform geometry is addressed by military slots.
And there must be some degradation of protectors with their size grows, and it is in numbers, but not obvious for gamers that see it as inner module, rather than surface/cover form.


In overall.
Merchant ships will get little from splitting - they wil only fill some wasted space (but relatively small for large crago ships).
Navy/pirate ships - will get more drone controllers and others secondary equipment, but (with correct slot's geometry and protection calculation) stacking hull/module protection will not be useful.
Explorers - take more modules for comfort and self-sufficiency on smaller ships.
Miners - more cargo space from half-used slots.
Occasional players will have more balanced builds (not highly specialized, but appropriate for all kinds of activity, be ready for everything).

 

[lenna]

Peoples, writing about broken balance, are missing one thing - everybody will be able to improve their ships.

Exactly - but there are certain module stacking "exploits" that can be bad enough even with the current balance, so I appreciate the balance concerns of some.

Occasional players will have more balanced builds (not highly specialized, but appropriate for all kinds of activity, be ready for everything).

Even when I play regularly, I do not min-max my builds but I do change ships on occassion - I have various ships outfitted in different ways but all of them follow a what I consider a balanced build strategy.

Personally, I think the more specialised min-max builds need more penalties/trade-offs.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

Also I’m not sure you know how module sizing works.

He clearly doesnt have a scooby about how they work. I posted a rather verbose suggestion about partitioning module bays using the correct mechanics, in which I suggested we lose equivalent to a small module slot to accommodate the partitioning structure. In my suggestion I referenced them by their equivalent cargo capacity; so for example a class 4 module slot, 16 tonnes of cargo capacity, could split to 3x class 2, each of which is 4t capacity, so you lose a couple of tonnes, 25%, ouch, or it could be 3 class ones and 2 class 2's equating to 14t equivalent of usable space, and 2t of equivalent space lost to structural parts of the partition. I posted that way back in 3301/3302? - I eventually gave up with it as an idea.

 

[Sylow]

Peoples, writing about broken balance, are missing one thing - everybody will be able to improve their ships.

Of course everybody will be able to do it. And considering the meta, in the end everybody will have to do it or be left behind.

So yea, something new to play around for the numbercrunchers. Although unless equipment and engineering is fundamentally changed, years after the games release, we know most of the essential things. So it's really just a few small parameters you could actually finetune here. Not too much to compensate for from a theorycrafters point of view.

In the end, we'll again have just more of the same problem the game already has: power creep. Experienced players will just once again, for a bit of extra work, squeeze an extra pile of durability out of their ships. Not much variety gained, as there'll be one optimal way to do it. (The exact optimal way will be defined by the small details FD can work about, but almost certainly there once again will be "the one way" to do it, else you are doing it wrong. ) For the beginner (so, those who actually just bought the game and keep things running for us veterans) this will add yet another obscure layer of tooling around.

The experienced players will just once again complain loudly that there's nothing in game challenging their awesome setups. For the beginner it's yet another barrier to hop over, to ever get to a useful setup. So who should FD cater for? The bored veteran, who now is even more bored? Or the challenged beginner, who just brought in money for the base game and might pay more for the expansion, but might very well be turned off by finding yet another layer of power creep?

And all that is being said before considering what this would do for ships profiles: seriously watering them down. Currently some ships shine due to having big internal slots, while others get picked for the number of internal slots. (Yes, while forgotten by many here, other ships than Anaconda, Corvette and Cutter still exist! )

With splitable modules, every ship with big slots will also have many. So yea, i guess it's the big ships, which many people exclusively fly since years, which need all the help?

I'm sorry, but i believe that module splitting really won't be good for the game. We neither need even more power creep nor do we need to reduce different ships profile. I do believe that something improvements to save internal slots would be good for the game. The first one coming to my mind would be an universal limpet module. But i think that slot saving options have to be limited to specific aspects.

Providing such a broad option like mere slot splitting (even at the limitations some of the postings here describe) would not be beneficial for the game.

 

[mkizub]

Experienced players will just once again, for a bit of extra work, .... For the beginner ... this will add yet another obscure layer of tooling around.

Nonsense.
Poor veterans will find something new? Peoples strive for something new, otherwice the game bomecoms too boring and they leave.
Poor newbies will find that more modules will fit into a bigger ship? How unexpected.

 

[Sylow]

Nonsense.
Poor veterans will find something new? Peoples strive for something new, otherwice the game bomecoms too boring and they leave.
Poor newbies will find that more modules will fit into a bigger ship? How unexpected.

And a module slot splitter would be the something new which makes the game all fresh and shiny?

I mean, hey! I am impressed how you singled out a small passage of what i wrote, cut and shredded it, to make something out of it which you then can claim to be nonsense. That's awesome work. But i still am not convinced that module splitting would add anything else than more power creep to the game. I am all for new content. We can use plenty of that.

But i would like actual new content, not more power creep for the mere sake of power creep. Guess that's where we disagree.

 

[Atol]

You know what bad is I look at the Modules size as a box size same size on all sides and the item we use fit in the center mounted by Beams to hold it against one side. We have the rest as wasted space that can't be used kinda like a smaller engine in a car that could accept a large engine.

The people who want Module splitting assume they are dealing with a rectangle and they think oh slide that item to put two of the same size item into the spot side by side.

 

[mkizub]

And a module slot splitter would be the something new which makes the game all fresh and shiny?

It will make it a bit more logical and convenient.

I mean, hey! I am impressed how you singled out a small passage of what i wrote, cut and shredded it, to make something out of it which you then can claim to be nonsense.

Your whole message was just rephrasing this idea, there was no need to cite everything

But i would like actual new content, not more power creep for the mere sake of power creep. Guess that's where we disagree.

I guess, we disagree in what to name "new content".
I'd like to build and own capital ships (we'll have them soon), and peoples like you will say - it will disbalance the game!
I'd like to build and own stations (in space and on ground), depots, mining robots, and peoples like you will say - it will disbalance the game!
You want new alien civilizations or landing on earth-like worlds, right?

Well, I don't care if there is one alien race or multiple. You can only fight or be friends. If you want to fight - there are targoids.
If you want to be frinds - there are humans. All others is just another name and another picture. Not a really new content.
Oh, yes, you may add 10 new civilization in the way that each will require unique weapon to fight with.
Plenty of new content from your point of view. Nothing new from my point of view.
You want to land on planets - but it's just another picture. And I guess - very hard to implement. We'd better start with
walking in ships, stations and moons, then FPS

What I want is already present in the game. It costs virtually nothing to allow peoples to have stations, storages, more configurable ships, etc.
May it disbalance the game? Yes, if done wrong. No, if done right.
When you was young - you had no money to buy an icecream. Now you have money for icecream, but do not have money for a new house
or something like this. Same logic may be in the game. When you start playing - you lack money for a good ship. Then you can buy a
good ship, but need a perfect one. Then you need to make it unique (with engineers, technobrokers). Then you make your
small fleet. Having a fleet you could make a small ground base or a mine. Having enough resources from mines you can build
a colony, populate it with peoples, etc.
What is good with ED - it simulates our galaxy. Which is endless, compared to number of players, even number of humans.
Every player can find a system with multiple earth-like planets to make a far colony, and it will be a small part of our galaxy.

And this requires very little resources to develop, since it's already present in the game. And it will hardly disbalance the
game, since everyone will have equal capabilities and the galaxy is huge. But of cause, such features shell be added
with care.

Adding module splitter or equivalent system (custom-crafted ships) is the smallest of these steps. That's all about it.

 

[Sylow]

It will make it a bit more logical and convenient.

On logical can be discussed. You can convince me on that by a full and in-detail overview how the ship systems actually work.
I mean yes what you talk about is like "i have a truck, i split the cargo hold, put a bed and kitchen in there and it's a camper".
But i look at my computer and see that i can't freely put a random assortment of items in there. Even if i buy several half-size graphics cards, i still could not slot them. So if ED spaceships are more than flying tincans, but also have technology inside, limitations are actually logical.

On convenient: yes, if you randomly throw your ship together, with no clue what you are doing and no definite goal, it will be very convenient. If you have a goal and understand ship optimization, it won't be any convenience any more. It will be just one more necessity.

I guess, we disagree in what to name "new content".
I'd like to build and own capital ships (we'll have them soon), and peoples like you will say - it will disbalance the game!
I'd like to build and own stations (in space and on ground), depots, mining robots, and peoples like you will say - it will disbalance the game!
You want new alien civilizations or landing on earth-like worlds, right?

Indeed. And you also guess wrong. The new capital ships i have no issue with. They are actually a new tool in our toolbox. All we know indicates that they might be mobile bases, but the action itself will still be done in your ship. They can be fun, it done right. (About that we'll see when they are released. ) I see no immediate balancing problems there. Only those who play the BGS to push local powers will have to adjust a bit. But as they all have the same tool at hand, there's no balance problem at all. [Most likely smaller groups will be hit hard. But that's a whole different topic. ]

I also wouldn't see balance problems merely by player owning stations. All of the above for carrier applies, except that the station would not be mobile. But this would be a change of focus of the game, especially if it would do mining and things for you. I wouldn't want the game to switch over to space station tycoon. It would just be a different game, which i wouldn't enjoy as much. So no, i wouldn't like it, but not for balancing reasons, but for fundamentally changing the core of the gameplay, which is not a good idea for a game already launched since years. (It alienates parts of the existing playerbase, while not necessarily attracting new players. )

Well, I don't care if there is one alien race or multiple. You can only fight or be friends. If you want to fight - there are targoids.
If you want to be frinds - there are humans. All others is just another name and another picture. Not a really new content.
Oh, yes, you may add 10 new civilization in the way that each will require unique weapon to fight with.
Plenty of new content from your point of view. Nothing new from my point of view.
You want to land on planets - but it's just another picture. And I guess - very hard to implement. We'd better start with
walking in ships, stations and moons, then FPS

There's much more that could be done there. The current "is hostile and you need special weapons" is by far the most blunt and boring you can do here. Plenty of people here could write many pages of options on what you could do with alien races. SF novels and TV series are full of interesting ideas. There's no real limit short of the developers imagination and abilities to implement things.

But if your gameplay is within the tight limits you just describe and have no other interests, then i guess you are right: within the limitations of your personal scope, adding all of these things won't do any good for you.

So no, neither of what you describe brings any balancing problems in my eyes. And if you actually read what i wrote above, it's not the blanket term "balancing" i am on about with the module splitter, either. It's very specifically power creep. People already pointed out the maths behind that. More than once. I don't need to repeat that here. In the end the calculations just show that you would have to put insane limitations and drawbacks on a module splitter to avoid power creep. Unfortunately these limitations would have to be so severe that the function would be virtually worthless for anybody not optimizing his ship like that. So either it would be an exclusive tool ship optimisation and thus limited power creep, or it would at first glance be more useful, but also come with so insane power creep that using it for anything else but optimizing in "the one" way would just be stupid and incompetent.

Without a complete rework of engineering (and not a limited rework like we already had, but complete re-design of all blueprings) , there'll be nothing in between. Maths is not a religion. It works, no matter if you believe in it or not. And the numbers just speak a clear language here.

Also remember what i already wrote previously: being able to split modules and stack engineering effects would actually push people even more into the same line of ship building. Anything outside of this line of ship building will fall further behind. And some ships, will become even more dominant than they already are now, completely outshadowing other ships which currently still are viable choices.

So perhaps it really boils down to this:

• Are you fine with yet another massive layer of power creep?
• Is it fine for you that people will be shoehorned into even more similar configurations than they are already now?
• Is it fine if the diversity of ships used by players is reduced even more?

If you answer all of that with yes, then indeed module splitters are perfectly fine for you. If you have to answer any of these questions with a no, you should reconsider.

 

[Atol]

It will make it a bit more logical and convenient.


Your whole message was just rephrasing this idea, there was no need to cite everything


I guess, we disagree in what to name "new content".
I'd like to build and own capital ships (we'll have them soon), and peoples like you will say - it will disbalance the game!
I'd like to build and own stations (in space and on ground), depots, mining robots, and peoples like you will say - it will disbalance the game!
You want new alien civilizations or landing on earth-like worlds, right?

Well, I don't care if there is one alien race or multiple. You can only fight or be friends. If you want to fight - there are targoids.
If you want to be frinds - there are humans. All others is just another name and another picture. Not a really new content.
Oh, yes, you may add 10 new civilization in the way that each will require unique weapon to fight with.
Plenty of new content from your point of view. Nothing new from my point of view.
You want to land on planets - but it's just another picture. And I guess - very hard to implement. We'd better start with
walking in ships, stations and moons, then FPS

What I want is already present in the game. It costs virtually nothing to allow peoples to have stations, storages, more configurable ships, etc.
May it disbalance the game? Yes, if done wrong. No, if done right.
When you was young - you had no money to buy an icecream. Now you have money for icecream, but do not have money for a new house
or something like this. Same logic may be in the game. When you start playing - you lack money for a good ship. Then you can buy a
good ship, but need a perfect one. Then you need to make it unique (with engineers, technobrokers). Then you make your
small fleet. Having a fleet you could make a small ground base or a mine. Having enough resources from mines you can build
a colony, populate it with peoples, etc.
What is good with ED - it simulates our galaxy. Which is endless, compared to number of players, even number of humans.
Every player can find a system with multiple earth-like planets to make a far colony, and it will be a small part of our galaxy.

And this requires very little resources to develop, since it's already present in the game. And it will hardly disbalance the
game, since everyone will have equal capabilities and the galaxy is huge. But of cause, such features shell be added
with care.

Adding module splitter or equivalent system (custom-crafted ships) is the smallest of these steps. That's all about it.

Other than the last Sentience How is this reverent to this topic.

What it sounds like is you want another WoW Remake in space. Which has Storage and and unique weapon and you can hold a load of junk.

 

[Guywired]

-snip-

I like it, ship it.