Option to save ship build?

If you already have all the modules to switch each time you want you change the build, buy a new ship is not so " hard ". You already have done the big part of the building cost.
You won't have multiples of the modules, which is why you'd want to save loadouts for easy one-click switching. That way for example, you won't need to buy or engineer 10 A-rated FSDs so you can have multiple ships fitted out and ready to go. Some of the modules and engineering choices are quite often used across different builds, and it would save a lot of credits and engineering time to be able to have just one that you switch in and out as required, as you can only pilot one ship at a time.
 
Last edited:
Seems like one of those ideas that wouldn't bother anyone not using it, but be super handy for those who do. Personally I prefer working on each ship independently. The only time I swapped guts wholesale was when I raided my Python to get my K2 out of the bay as early as possible. But that's just me.

Having a hot-swap for a full predetermined or saved refit seems like decent QoL, especially for one-ship playstyles. Lots of people out there rocking a single vessel even well into their veteranhood.

Definitely support better module sorting, quite apart from the main thread topic (which is fine to bring up since I rarely see this one amid a sea of other topics that show up in batches every week with the exact same stuff in them).
 
It may not be as simple as some people seem to always assume the things they want are.

This may be a useful idea for newer players, but eventually, what Lestat suggested is a better solution and in no way ridiculous. Personally, I'm more a fan of using different types of ships for different roles, but have finally found a ship that (for me) is the best option for a few different roles, and having more than one is a far better option than storing loads of engineered modules and swapping them out - with or without a quick profile system. There are only two modules that are duplicates between my combat and mining builds - thrusters and FSD. Every other core module, optional internal, utility, weapon and even armour is either a different module or engineered differently. Once you get to that horrible place where you have 50-80 different engineered weapons (stupid PP Weapons!) there simply isn't enough storage space to accommodate multiple ship loadouts, so a different ship does become a better option.
You've made a reasonable case as to why you personally wouldn't really need such an option with the way you currently play, though at the same time, it still would have been cheaper and less work for you to do the same thing with saved loadout profiles. In any case, that doesn't preclude other people sharing more modules and hardpoints across their builds, as well as having more builds than you, and thereby benefiting more from saved loadout profiles. Obviously, module storage capacity would have to be increased along with this feature, as well as improving module sorting and grouping.

If I have just two Anaconda builds which both use 6A G5 FSD, 5D G5 (Lightweight) Life support, 8D G5 (Lightweight) Sensors, 7A G5 Thrusters, 6A G5 Shields, and 2x 0A G5 Shield boosters, all of which would be fairly common across builds, then to have to purchase and engineer each one twice, as well as purchase another Anaconda, when I could just click once to switch loadouts, is indeed a ridiculous prospect. And that's just two builds.

As for how simple it would be, as feature implementations go, this would be one of the simpler ones. It requires no new assets, and basically amounts to some logic to check inventory and replace location values. I could do that in a day or two on my own, including preliminary testing.
 
Last edited:
You've made a reasonable case as to why you personally wouldn't really need such an option with the way you currently play, though at the same time, it still would have been cheaper and less work for you to do the same thing with saved loadout profiles. In any case, that doesn't preclude other people sharing more modules and hardpoints across their builds, as well as having more builds than you, and thereby benefiting more from saved loadout profiles. Obviously, module storage capacity would have to be increased along with this feature, as well as improving module sorting and grouping.
I wish people could see that its a very simple/useful feature for all types of players, whether they use the feature or they don't, they've got to admit, its much cheaper and a lot faster. And if they don't find it useful, they wont use it - just ignore it. Im not sure why it seems like such a bad idea to some players. Whats wrong with adding features and making the game much less of a headache when it comes to things like outfitting and ship builds? I don't understand :/

Thank you for your consideration to this feature though, I do hope FD have a lil lookie at this potential feature, I know I would use it a lot and I know many other players would too.
 
TBH, I have a sneaking suspicion that this is a deliberate design choice by FDev.

To take module storage, in general, as an example; it'd be the easiest thing in the world for them to re-use the Outfitting UI to display stored modules.
You click on "Thrusters" and it shows you all the thrusters you have in stock, you click on "FSDs" and it shows you all the FSDs you have in stock, etc.
Instead, they just throw ALL our stored modules together, in a heap, an leave us to scroll through a list of 100-odd items to try and find what we're looking for.

Even my dog understands this is poor design.
It's impossible that a bunch of game-developers (people who will have folders full of APIs, tools and subroutines all neatly divided) won't be aware this is poor design.
The only possible conclusion is that they KNOW it's poor design and they want it that way, presumably to make finding desired items "challenging".

That being the case, I doubt they'll be inclined to implement anything that makes outfitting easier.
They seem to want to make it as clumsy and irksome as possible.
 
TBH, I have a sneaking suspicion that this is a deliberate design choice by FDev.

To take module storage, in general, as an example; it'd be the easiest thing in the world for them to re-use the Outfitting UI to display stored modules.
You click on "Thrusters" and it shows you all the thrusters you have in stock, you click on "FSDs" and it shows you all the FSDs you have in stock, etc.
Instead, they just throw ALL our stored modules together, in a heap, an leave us to scroll through a list of 100-odd items to try and find what we're looking for.

Even my dog understands this is poor design.
It's impossible that a bunch of game-developers (people who will have folders full of APIs, tools and subroutines all neatly divided) won't be aware this is poor design.
The only possible conclusion is that they KNOW it's poor design and they want it that way, presumably to make finding desired items "challenging".

That being the case, I doubt they'll be inclined to implement anything that makes outfitting easier.
They seem to want to make it as clumsy and irksome as possible.
That could be the case, but I also think it’s possible that they know it’s poor design, but so far they haven’t considered it important enough to prioritise over other planned developments.
 
That could be the case, but I also think it’s possible that they know it’s poor design, but so far they haven’t considered it important enough to prioritise over other planned developments.
I dunno.

Designing a storage system without any kind of sorting facility is kind of like designing a map without a scale or designing a room without a door.
It's such an intrinsic part of the thing that it's hard to believe that anybody, even the most junior programmer, would start to develop a storage system that didn't include any sort of sorting facility unless they were specifically told not to include one.

Course, there's the old saying which goes "Never ascribe to malice what might reasonably be explained by incompetence" but we should remember that module storage was a product of the loach-botherer era, which was hallmarked by vindictive and spiteful "pranks" at the expense of the player.
 
I dunno.

Designing a storage system without any kind of sorting facility is kind of like designing a map without a scale or designing a room without a door.
It's such an intrinsic part of the thing that it's hard to believe that anybody, even the most junior programmer, would start to develop a storage system that didn't include any sort of sorting facility unless they were specifically told not to include one.

Course, there's the old saying which goes "Never ascribe to malice what might reasonably be explained by incompetence" but we should remember that module storage was a product of the loach-botherer era, which was hallmarked by vindictive and spiteful "pranks" at the expense of the player.
Sometimes in development, you begin with a basic version of a feature which can be fleshed out or expanded on later, given the resources. What can also happen is that it’s intended to be a more fleshed out feature at the time, but resources were pulled from it to focus on something else, so the expanded features were scrapped and it was deliberately made basic so that something at least usable could be released. Both have happened to me.

We can only speculate, but with something so obvious, it’s difficult to believe it was an oversight, or that they meant deliberately from the outset to release something so lacking, so resources seems to me the more likely explanation.

We’ll probably never know.
 
Top Bottom