New Fuel Tank Module Option

CharlestonGeek

CharlestonGeek
Compressed Fuel Tank Module. Hold 2x Fuel. Fuel Scoping Max Rate decrease by 33%.

Class Rating Capacity* Value (CR)
1 C 4 2,000
2 C 8 7,500
3 C16 14,126
4 C 3249,468
5 C 64 195,508
6 C 128 683,154
7 C 256 3,561,830
 

Riverside

Riverside
This would increase the range of a ship, presumably in exactly the same way that fitting two equivalent standard fuel tanks would.

It's not clear from your post whether these would go into optional compartments or the actual fuel tank compartment itself, I suppose it doesn't matter.

The net result would be to free up an optional slot compared to an equivalent loadout with the existing modules, reducing the loadout dilemma but increasing utility for (probably) bubble traders that don't want to fit a scoop & maximise on either cargo, passenger cabins or HRP modules. It would provide more ammo for engineered rail guns too, which I think makes it a balancing issue for that mod.

I'm not familiar with the cost of fuel tanks but presumably this one would be more expensive. Credits are cheap now & your proposed modules would immediately make regular tanks obsolete. I suppose if it were an engineering blueprint that doubled the capacity at some cost (add a power requirement maybe) that could be engaging. Call them Guardian fuel tanks ;)

If you are just looking to be able to travel further on a tank of fuel I think making jumps use less fuel as a special effect would be my preference, and I think we already have that so it could just be buffed & save a bit of dev time.

Could you expand on your reasoning for wanting these tanks?
 

CharlestonGeek

CharlestonGeek
I was thinking this would be an alternative type of fuel tank for your core slot but also available as an optional module. I thought this module would be helpful for fuel rats and explorers. I do like the power cost idea. A fuel tank engineer would be interesting alternative to this. I respect that it might make running the smaller version obsolete. I usually run a core tank that allows are 2 jumps and refuel every star (decreased weight) to increase my jump range. So I think there will still be a market for the smaller fuel tank however it would be decreased.
 

Daynen

D
Why destruction of a fuel tank is neither an option nor a catastrophic danger to a ship in the first place is beyond me, but simply doubling tank size doesn't really add meaningful choices to the game unless it comes with significant tradeoffs that create a distinctly different style of play.
 

Riverside

Riverside
Troopi said:
Power cost is not enough. It should have +100% mass, obviously related to the amount of fuel compressed.
Click to expand...
I had assumed that would be the case.

I think being able to target any fuel tank makes sense, to cause the fuel to leak. But it would be the running out of fuel that disabled the ship, and once life support ran out, destroyed (assuming no other reason happens first).
 

CharlestonGeek

CharlestonGeek
Daynen said:
Why destruction of a fuel tank is neither an option nor a catastrophic danger to a ship in the first place is beyond me, but simply doubling tank size doesn't really add meaningful choices to the game unless it comes with significant tradeoffs that create a distinctly different style of play.
Click to expand...
And this one would be compressed... Have you ever compromised the integrity of a Propane tank... This would allow viable use for exploring but not combat.
 

varonica

varonica
Riverside said:
This would increase the range of a ship, presumably in exactly the same way that fitting two equivalent standard fuel tanks would.
Click to expand...

You mean, not at all? In fact fitting two fuel tanks reduces the range of a ship because there are paths you could no longer follow due to decreased jump range, fuel weight is a big factor.

I have circled the galaxy in my phantom with a fuel tank just large enough to do three full range jumps, any more than that and you are just basically cutting down your jump range. Give me a compressed fuel tank I would just take a tank half the size to increase jump range, and as for the 33% reduction in scoop speed? I can fill my tank before rounding the star now at 878 cm p/s, slowing it down by 33% would essentially be unnoticable.

So that would be nice, a free jump range increase is basically all it would add up to for explorers, for people who fit a full stock of compressed fuel tanks and small scoop and/or don't scoop at every star it would be just time spent sitting around a star twiddling thumbs while scooping.

I'm not against the idea due to the small increase in jump range, but the effects of the idea may be different than the OP envisages.
 

varonica

varonica
Troopi said:
Power cost is not enough. It should have +100% mass, obviously related to the amount of fuel compressed.
Click to expand...

All to no point then, no-one would use one because it gives no advantage over a standard fuel tank and lowers fuel scoop rate all while being more dangerous at the same time.
 

Riverside

Riverside
varonica said:
You mean, not at all? In fact fitting two fuel tanks reduces the range of a ship because there are paths you could no longer follow due to decreased jump range, fuel weight is a big factor.

I have circled the galaxy in my phantom with a fuel tank just large enough to do three full range jumps, any more than that and you are just basically cutting down your jump range. Give me a compressed fuel tank I would just take a tank half the size to increase jump range, and as for the 33% reduction in scoop speed? I can fill my tank before rounding the star now at 878 cm p/s, slowing it down by 33% would essentially be unnoticable.

So that would be nice, a free jump range increase is basically all it would add up to for explorers, for people who fit a full stock of compressed fuel tanks and small scoop and/or don't scoop at every star it would be just time spent sitting around a star twiddling thumbs while scooping.

I'm not against the idea due to the small increase in jump range, but the effects of the idea may be different than the OP envisages.
Click to expand...
Increase the distance the ship can travel without scooping before needing to refuel.

By stating that the effect of the proposal would be equivalent to fitting two existing tanks of the same size I had thought that would be clear.

If you re-read my post with that in mind rather than jump range (which would only be affected by any change in total ship mass) hopefully it will make more sense ;)
 

varonica

varonica
Riverside said:
Increase the distance the ship can travel without scooping before needing to refuel.

If you re-read my post with that in mind rather than jump range (which would only be affected by any change in total ship mass) hopefully it will make more sense ;)
Click to expand...

If you don't scoop while rounding the star lining up for your next target you waste a lot of time traveling long distances due to the need to throttle down to fill your tank, specially with the 33% decrease in scoop rate, and it's pretty much irrelevant to most explorers because we slow down to check the system anyway. The only advantage to explorers would be a mass decrease because you can fit the equivelent of 32 tons of fuel, the amount I carry, in a 16 ton fuel tank, thus increasing jump range. The only advantage to people who just want to travel as fast as possible is, well, none really unless you want to travel as far as possible sans fuel scoop of course. People trying to set records by traveling to places like Colonia without fuel scoops is indeed a thing.
 

Troopi

Troopi
varonica said:
If you don't scoop while rounding the star lining up for your next target you waste a lot of time traveling long distances due to the need to throttle down to fill your tank, specially with the 33% decrease in scoop rate, and it's pretty much irrelevant to most explorers because we slow down to check the system anyway. The only advantage to explorers would be a mass decrease because you can fit the equivelent of 32 tons of fuel, the amount I carry, in a 16 ton fuel tank, thus increasing jump range. The only advantage to people who just want to travel as fast as possible is, well, none really unless you want to travel as far as possible sans fuel scoop of course. People trying to set records by traveling to places like Colonia without fuel scoops is indeed a thing.
Click to expand...
Stuffing 32 tons of fuel in a 16 fuel tank will give you more fuel but greater mass. So this kind of tank SHOULD have 2x normal mass as a penalty.
 

Riverside

Riverside
varonica said:
If you don't scoop while rounding the star lining up for your next target you waste a lot of time traveling long distances due to the need to throttle down to fill your tank, specially with the 33% decrease in scoop rate, and it's pretty much irrelevant to most explorers because we slow down to check the system anyway. The only advantage to explorers would be a mass decrease because you can fit the equivelent of 32 tons of fuel, the amount I carry, in a 16 ton fuel tank, thus increasing jump range. The only advantage to people who just want to travel as fast as possible is, well, none really unless you want to travel as far as possible sans fuel scoop of course. People trying to set records by traveling to places like Colonia without fuel scoops is indeed a thing.
Click to expand...

Not all ships are built for exploration ;)
 

varonica

varonica
Troopi said:
Stuffing 32 tons of fuel in a 16 fuel tank will give you more fuel but greater mass. So this kind of tank SHOULD have 2x normal mass as a penalty.
Click to expand...

Then there's zero benefit to having it, while not all ships are built for exploration having a fuel tank that holds compressed fuel but will blow up at the slightest disturbance confers no advantage to any type of user. Combat, not a chance, traders, they need to survive pirates, explorers? I already have empty module slots, if I want more fuel I can add more tanks, but I don't want them because they add mass.

While I am not against the idea I have yet to see a convincing argument for why people would use it.
 

Bloodsign

Bloodsign
CharlestonGeek said:
I was thinking this would be an alternative type of fuel tank for your core slot but also available as an optional module. I thought this module would be helpful for fuel rats and explorers. I do like the power cost idea. A fuel tank engineer would be interesting alternative to this. I respect that it might make running the smaller version obsolete. I usually run a core tank that allows are 2 jumps and refuel every star (decreased weight) to increase my jump range. So I think there will still be a market for the smaller fuel tank however it would be decreased.
Click to expand...
I think a fuel tank engineer is the way to go. Makes the vanilla tanks the standard, with ability to add options. Likely compression tanks requires some power consumption to maintain/monitor fuel contents under pressure.
 

Riverside

Riverside
That might actually be a pretty good balancing downside. All ships have an auxiliary 1t tank which is filled from the main tank when it runs dry. So it wouldn't instantly put the ship into limp-home mode and would allow time for a friend or NPC to refuel you once power priorities are reshuffled. I quite like that :)

It would also allow the wily explorer to dump fuel to extend jump range by disabling the module until the fuel reached the desired level.
 
Last edited:

Troopi

Troopi
I have an explorer ship that is able to jump 56ly with full cargo. If I add one 5c fuel tank to it, the jump range is reduced to 53ly. But I get an extra 32fuel tons to my normal 32t fuel tank. That lets me jump A LOT further away.
So, I don't think the added mass is an excuse. You will have a shorter jump range, yes, but you will be able to travel a lot further before the need of fuel scooping.

Another test: stock Asp Explorer - 5A frame shift drive - 32.58ly laden jump range
Adding one 4c fuel tank - 31,91ly laden jump range
Adding another 4c fuel tank (the same as having one 4c compressed fuel tank) - 31,74ly laden jump range
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom