Make the new "free" slots "NON-MILITARY" only to help prevent yet more power creep/tanking.

A slimmed down even easier to implement version of my other request - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ist-please-dont-make-these-cost-slots.508347/

Make the new slots being handed out "NON-MILITARY SLOTS" so only non-military related modules can be fitted in them. This will prevent these new slots from simply being used to tank up combat ships even more.

ps1: I'd suggest a very limited list of only non-military modules would be permitted in them. eg: (A)DC | SCA | Cargo | Passenger Cabins | Refinery | Fuel Tank

ps2: Paige suggested I posted the suggestion, so here it is!

ps3: Why isn't there one combined module "Flight Assistant" which is the ADC and SCA in one?
 
Last edited:
problem with your suggestion is it doesnt solve the issue, a size 1 slot isnt going to be used for increasing the tank, it will be used to move a smaller module DOWN thus freeing up a larger slot that will be used to increase the tank OR, used to add functionality to a ship that couldnt otherwise. for example, I move my limpet controller down to give me a larger FSD interdictor, or a larger SCB, what have you.

also, I believe Fdev is moving away from the Restricted Slot design motiff. Dont know what they thinking to replace it or even IF they are going to replace it. But I know they are moving away from that design path.
 
Absolutely. One of the biggest disparities when it comes to PvP/sealclubbing/ganking in this game is that to fit any PvE/utility modules at all a player has to directly take a bite out of their survivability. I've heard the PvPers complain about hitpoint inflation in their matches over and over too.

(I'd suggest massively diminishing returns on the bonuses from HRPs and boosters too, so stacking an entirely specialised load wouldn't give you quite such a massive bonus as it does now, but that's something that might get people screaming about their godships no longer being able to solo tank the entire hazres any more :p )
 
problem with your suggestion is it doesnt solve the issue, a size 1 slot isnt going to be used for increasing the tank, it will be used to move a smaller module DOWN thus freeing up a larger slot that will be used to increase the tank OR, used to add functionality to a ship that couldnt otherwise. for example, I move my limpet controller down to give me a larger FSD interdictor, or a larger SCB, what have you.

also, I believe Fdev is moving away from the Restricted Slot design motiff. Dont know what they thinking to replace it or even IF they are going to replace it. But I know they are moving away from that design path.
And if we looked at it from a different angle?

Let's say these new Non-Military Slots (or called "Utility Slots" or something) only allowed say:-
  • Docking Computer
  • Supercruise Assistant
  • Cargo
  • ?anything else?

So it really is very limited to very non-offensive purposes only...?
 
And if we looked at it from a different angle?

Let's say these new Non-Military Slots (or called "Utility Slots" or something) only allowed say:-
  • Docking Computer
  • Supercruise Assistant
  • Cargo
  • ?anything else?
So it really is very limited to very non-offensive purposes only...?

As I said, Fdev is moving away from Restricted slots, which is why "Exploration" Slots weren't implemented, and why the Saud Kruger ships has their restrictions removed.
 
Just because they're "moving away from" them doesn't mean it isn't up for discussion, that's literally the point of a suggestions forum.
Aside from the way that the argument boils down to "it's like that because that's the way it is".
 
A slimmed down even easier to implement version of my other request - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ist-please-dont-make-these-cost-slots.508347/

Make the new slots being handed out "NON-MILITARY SLOTS" so only non-military related modules can be fitted in them. This will prevent these new slots from simply being used to tank up combat ships even more.

ps1: I'd suggest no cargo either in these slots, only non-military modules.

ps2: Paige suggested I posted the suggestion, so here it is!
How about those "computer slots" suggestions? Have a base computer system, A-E.
  • E: Stock. 2 slots. Free.
  • D: Low power cost, 3 slots
  • C: "Standard" with 4 slots.
  • B: Slightly higher power cost, 5 slots
  • A: 6 slots
These slots take limpet programs, supercruise, docking, making lots of sense. Which means that ANYONE with a cargo bay could deploy limpets, but has to choose what types they want to carry programs for. Also possibly targeting stuff, KWS enhancement (like a module that gives you a xx% chance of receiving an extra bounty on a WANTED target?). That kind of thing- utility that does not affect raw ship stats.

A new Sidewinder would simply have both slots filled with SC enhancer and autodock. Then, you can upgrade or switch as you desire.

Combine that with common sense lack of module stacking- fitting all 8 hull reinforcements gives you loads of hull health. If only the biggest hull and module reinforcement did anything, that would definitely combat the power creep. Same with shield modules- all 8 boosters is effective, but should not be, have it be something like TWO boosters, so you have to pick whether you want resists or straight HP. Thermal resist, or global resist or heavy duty...

Of course, then you have more people running chaff and heatsinks and scanners. Chaff would be potentially irritating, but having people sporting other things, and xeno anti-shutdown would make sense.
 
How about those "computer slots" suggestions? Have a base computer system, A-E.
  • E: Stock. 2 slots. Free.
  • D: Low power cost, 3 slots
  • C: "Standard" with 4 slots.
  • B: Slightly higher power cost, 5 slots
  • A: 6 slots
These slots take limpet programs, supercruise, docking, making lots of sense. Which means that ANYONE with a cargo bay could deploy limpets, but has to choose what types they want to carry programs for. Also possibly targeting stuff, KWS enhancement (like a module that gives you a xx% chance of receiving an extra bounty on a WANTED target?). That kind of thing- utility that does not affect raw ship stats.

A new Sidewinder would simply have both slots filled with SC enhancer and autodock. Then, you can upgrade or switch as you desire.

Combine that with common sense lack of module stacking- fitting all 8 hull reinforcements gives you loads of hull health. If only the biggest hull and module reinforcement did anything, that would definitely combat the power creep. Same with shield modules- all 8 boosters is effective, but should not be, have it be something like TWO boosters, so you have to pick whether you want resists or straight HP. Thermal resist, or global resist or heavy duty...
I'm all up for considering stuff like that but at the moment, given FD are just about to release these free general slots, I'm literally considering/proposing for the simplest easiest "win" possible to mean these free slots don't just = more tanking.

So make these new free slots a type of "Utility Slot" or the like, which can only house a really reduced set of modules, and definately nothing military. That to me seems fairly straight forwards and prevents more military tanking?
 
I'm all up for considering stuff like that but at the moment, given FD are just about to release these free general slots, I'm literally considering/proposing for the simplest easiest "win" possible to mean these free slots don't just = more tanking.

So make these new free slots a type of "Utility Slot" or the like, which can only house a really reduced set of modules, and definately nothing military. That to me seems fairly straight forwards and prevents more military tanking?
That probably is one of the the most simple options. It's just always bothered me that it takes a significant amount of tonnage to dump a program into a limpet. And that tonnage doesn't even fly the limpet around garbage in space, they just go splat.

Without utility slots, everyone is always better off for combat slapping something else into the "extra" slot. With stacking, you are apparently wrapping your hull and modules in layer after layer of armor, with minimal downsides.
 
Combine that with common sense lack of module stacking- fitting all 8 hull reinforcements gives you loads of hull health. If only the biggest hull and module reinforcement did anything, that would definitely combat the power creep. Same with shield modules- all 8 boosters is effective, but should not be, have it be something like TWO boosters, so you have to pick whether you want resists or straight HP. Thermal resist, or global resist or heavy duty...

See, I'd be all over diminishing returns on stacking boosters/reinforcements. You get your biggest one at full power, and after that extra ones get increasingly marginal - this already happens with resistances. Maybe exempt those in military slots specifically from any reductions - that way someone can still run an "armoured trader" build without loosing too much utility as a cargo ship, and a pure combat build would still be tougher, just not.. yanno. "literally four times as many hitpoints" tougher like we see now.
 
I just watched the live stream and...... I mean, the level of stupidity has just reached astounding new levels.

I swear, Fdev is like allergic to adding anything into the function panel to make it..... well functional.

No "everything has to be a module"... Just go watch the live stream and you'll see what Im talking about.
 
Won't help.

My free class 1 will be used for interdictor or decontamination limpet (+cargo somewhere), and the larger slot is used for HRPs.

Not to hijack the thread but the super cruise assist module is absolutely stupid, Hyperspace dethrottle toggle, auto orbit? ARE YOU KIDDING ME FDEV?!! This SHOULD be CORE functionality in the ship, you already have a flight assistance page, just ditch the module ideas, put the code in the panel and take back the free slots if you need a pound of flesh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to hijack the thread but the super cruise assist module is absolutely stupid, Hyperspace dethrottle toggle, auto orbit? ARE YOU KIDDING ME FDEV?!! This SHOULD be CORE functionality in the ship, you already have a flight assistance page, just ditch the module ideas, put the code in the panel and take back the free slots if you need a pound of flesh.
This obviously makes more sense.

But you know FD, can't be having logic now... Lol

It should be an option in the functions panel, as autopilot toggles.
Docking, undocking, orbit, supercruise, etc.

Although, not so secretly, I do want more small slots. Lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This obviously makes more sense.

But you know FD, can't be having logic now... Lol

It should be an option in the functions panel, as autopilot toggles.
Docking, undocking, orbit, supercruise, etc.

Although, not so secretly, I do want more small slots. Lol

Oh it is, if you take a look at the live stream they have a whole tab in the functions panel called "Flight Assistance" with a picture of a processor in the back ground, of course none of these functions will work without the three modules you need to make them work. Yeah you heard me right, THREE, you need BOTH the Docking Computer AND the Advanced Docking Computer, SuperCruise Assist to enable ALL functions.

THREE MODULES, THREE SLOTS, Absolutely insane.

A dedicated slot, much like the planetary approach suite, would really make the most sense here.

Not really, the dedicated slot was so that they, Fdev, could prevent non horizons owners from playing horizons content but keep both horizons owners and non horizons owners in the same universe.

The PAS slot is literally there as a gatekeeper and workaround for an issue and HAD to be done that way.

This ^^^^^^ as I describe above is just stupid, absolutely stupid.
 
to me a simply solution requiring no slot restrictions would be to set HRP MRP modules as a minimum size 2, that removes this power creep you claim is ruining the game although I have not seen any evidence to suppoort that for PVE players
 
Because it literally doesn’t matter for PvE. Average shields/armor are all you’ll need 90% of the time, even with a ship full of all the different types of gear.

The problem lies in PvP, where people tend to squeeze the most out of their ship’s defenses. Some fights can last well over 20 minutes, and it isn’t uncommon for people to actually run out of ammunition before a single battle has finished.

Overinflated health pools are one of the biggest balance issues regarding PvP, and a big concern for most, if not all of the dedicated PvP crowd. Even more defenses won’t help to alleviate this at all.

If Fdev is dead set on giving us more internals, they really should be restricted to certian modules. Add a slot for cruise control, I don’t care. Just know that if I can put armor in that slot, I’m totally doing it lol.
 
well if everyone has overinflated health pools then they are all on an equal footing - ergo there is no power creep then... running out of bullets, well... i've never run out of beams :) just sayin... So it's a pvp issue... And if you want to add a HRP to that slot that's a choice you as a commander make, another pvper might decide to add something else, if that gives you or them an advantage over the other player that is enough to turn the tide of the battle then kudos to the winner... if you both run out of bullets on each other then perhaps you need to re-assess your weapons choices or weapons usage...

Given the main arguement for restricting the slots NeilF has been making is this perceived power creep should I take it he is only interesting in PVP interests??? If everyone has the option of adding the same item(s) to that size 1 slot(s) please explain to me how that creates a problem?... Does it mean you then are 'forced' to further endure the humiliation of engineering your weapons further? Perhaps 'forcing' you to travel to Coloina for G5 Upgrades???? That whole 'forced' arguement is just bullcrap by the way...
 
Back
Top Bottom