New Engineer ability

in real world real Engineering hackers would be able to squeeze two size 2 Modules into an Size 4 spot and really good ones might even manage to get them squeezed into a size 3...

Why should one not be able to find an engineer that can modify an 1C Planetary Scanner and an 1D Detailed Surface scanner into ONE Size 2 compartment? they even rely on each other (1D does not work without 1C/B/A installed )

Loosing a Size 2 and / or Size 3 Compartment on so may ships for this really is a pain! And technical nonsense!
 
in real world real Engineering hackers would be able to squeeze two size 2 Modules into an Size 4 spot and really good ones might even manage to get them squeezed into a size 3...

Why should one not be able to find an engineer that can modify an 1C Planetary Scanner and an 1D Detailed Surface scanner into ONE Size 2 compartment? they even rely on each other (1D does not work without 1C/B/A installed )

Loosing a Size 2 and / or Size 3 Compartment on so may ships for this really is a pain! And technical nonsense!

Ah, this poor deceased equine being.

To address: this won't happen because it's not how the game you bought was designed. Modules are not proportional against class. If it were supposed to work like this they may well have given ships a several hundred ton slot and let you divide it how you want from the start.

Ship outfitting is very clearly designed with a particular kind of sacrifice/compromise in balance though. To clarify what I mean by them not being proportional against class, take the cargo rack. From C1 to C2, it gets twice as big. So does it when going from C3 to C4. So far, all is good. Now - look at HRPs. From C1 to C2, it goes from 110 to 190 HP. From C3 to C4, from 260 to 330. Oh dear. That's not the same increase. What about SCBs? From C1 to C2, about 3 times the charge. From C3 to C4...less than twice.

Modules just aren't meant to be neatly cut up and redistributed or the other way around. Ships were intended to have a static internal layout and modules must be applied in a sensible way according to what you have. Even if it were stupidly put in place, the number of cheeses this would give us...
 
Ah, this poor deceased equine being.

To address: this won't happen because it's not how the game you bought was designed. Modules are not proportional against class. If it were supposed to work like this they may well have given ships a several hundred ton slot and let you divide it how you want from the start.

Ship outfitting is very clearly designed with a particular kind of sacrifice/compromise in balance though. To clarify what I mean by them not being proportional against class, take the cargo rack. From C1 to C2, it gets twice as big. So does it when going from C3 to C4. So far, all is good. Now - look at HRPs. From C1 to C2, it goes from 110 to 190 HP. From C3 to C4, from 260 to 330. Oh dear. That's not the same increase. What about SCBs? From C1 to C2, about 3 times the charge. From C3 to C4...less than twice.

Modules just aren't meant to be neatly cut up and redistributed or the other way around. Ships were intended to have a static internal layout and modules must be applied in a sensible way according to what you have. Even if it were stupidly put in place, the number of cheeses this would give us...

Clearly, to have a separate disco scanner and DSS is fundamental to the very core balance of the game...

Because, the designers of the Asp Explorer, a ship designed for exploration, did not think to place 2 x C1 slots in it, rather waste a couple of C3's...

Z...
 
Last edited:
Clearly, to have a separate disco scanner and DSS is fundamental to the very core balance of the game...

Because, the designers of the Asp Explorer, a ship designed for exploration, did not think to place 2 x C1 slots in it, rather waste a couple of C3's...

Z...

Well actually, do you remember how long it took for the poor old DBX to gain an additional slot so it could carry the equipment needed, on the basis it was touted as a cheap/less than perfect explorer? Month over month for a single exploration slot. Any player that believes combat ships are the cause of ships being subject to balance are deluded...FD clearly have it on the mind.

Now I also never said that it was sensible for exploration ships to have no C1 slots. In fact I previously argued it was about as sensible as eating dung to me, though it might be that FD gave them slightly larger slots to add slight flexibility for other uses/MR builds. I have also argued for the development of ship specialisation, by giving ships slots related to their role type, in the same way combat ships got military slots.

Does that mean we should suddenly advocate the magic combining and splitting of all modules, and the deconstruction of the careful class balancing?

Nah mate. You're gonna have to try harder than that.
 
Sooner than later all this balancing might get the game down... live is not balanced...

The basic and most realistic balancing is already done by the core modules that clearly limit of what you can do with an certain ship.

Fitting a Class 7 Power plant is similar impossible then mounting an Laborgini V12 engine in an Honda civic ( but still I'm sure there are Freaks on this planet that would )

That´s why it would have to be an engineering ability and also should not bee viable for all Internal Modules. Basically to have different Compartment sizes primarily reflects the internal shape of an Spaceship given by its outer shape. So simply defining 120Tons would not reflect the ships abilities. The Weapons, core modules and utlitiy moduls can be engineered so why not the internal ones?
 
Sooner than later all this balancing might get the game down... live is not balanced...

The basic and most realistic balancing is already done by the core modules that clearly limit of what you can do with an certain ship.

This shows a distinct lack of understanding in how the outfitting/balancing works.

I'll repeat:

Ship outfitting is very clearly designed with a particular kind of sacrifice/compromise in balance though. To clarify what I mean by them not being proportional against class, take the cargo rack. From C1 to C2, it gets twice as big. So does it when going from C3 to C4. So far, all is good. Now - look at HRPs. From C1 to C2, it goes from 110 to 190 HP. From C3 to C4, from 260 to 330. Oh dear. That's not the same increase. What about SCBs? From C1 to C2, about 3 times the charge. From C3 to C4...less than twice.

Modules just aren't meant to be neatly cut up and redistributed or the other way around. Ships were intended to have a static internal layout and modules must be applied in a sensible way according to what you have. Even if it were stupidly put in place, the number of cheeses this would give us...

You may not like it, or be willing to understand it...but modules classes ARE part of the balancing, it IS a fundamental enough aspect that binning it would completely uproot the game (I can assure you now it wouldn't magically improve the balance) and actually, the ship outfitting itself is very well done.

Engineers - nah, they need revisiting. Ship outfitting itself is well done apart from a few ships needing a tweak.

If you want to make the change to address a specific issue, address the issue directly, as I have by advocating role-specific slots outside military slots. If this is just senseless "I want" then leave it at home.
 
Last edited:
This shows a distinct lack of understanding in how the outfitting/balancing works.

I'll repeat:



You may not like it, or be willing to understand it...but modules classes ARE part of the balancing, it IS a fundamental enough aspect that binning it would completely uproot the game (I can assure you now it wouldn't magically improve the balance) and actually, the ship outfitting itself is very well done.

Engineers - nah, they need revisiting. Ship outfitting itself is well done apart from a few ships needing a tweak.

If you want to make the change to address a specific issue, address the issue directly, as I have by advocating role-specific slots outside military slots. If this is just senseless "I want" then leave it at home.

Didn´t get the idea of these military slot´s as well, seems to be half thought true, let´s see how much cleanup and fixing this will undergo during 2.4 :) there a so many thing where you wonder "serious FDev this is how you envision 330x to be? we did better in 1999...."

But that´s always been the Problems with "games" and "simulations", Games need Balancing, Simulations need realism the hard line to follow is to keep the simulation believable will not risking all the fun.

Elite has come a long way since '84 taking several detours along the way. Take "Newtonian Flight Model" e.g. sure it is the most realistic but it kills the fun and, on the other hand, would a 1300 years advanced society that managed faster than light travel be forced to still handle the hurdles of Newtonian Flight? I believe they got it right on ED eventually, a computer that can handle a Hyperspace jump surely can compensate the flight path for you but you can switch it of ( or it can fail if damaged ) If all other Modules can bee engineered why not the Optional Internals? If I can alter the capabilities of an Hyperdrive then why not of an discovery scanner if I can raise the capacity of an missile launcher why not the capacity of a economy class cabin? or the Wight or... whatever?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom