Optional Internal Flexability

[dtdionne]

I’m sure this has been mentioned before, but I’m gonna mention it anyway.

I think it would be cool if there were some way to earn the ability to optimize optional internal capacity. For example, in my dbx - and as in most likely just about everyone’s dbx configured for exploration - aggregately, I’m wasting 5 class capacity between my bottom 3 slots...if we could earn, say, slot partitioning I could run:

Docking Computer
Discovery Scanner
Surface Scanner
SRV
3d Shield

Instead of, and in the same aggregate capacity as just:

Docking Computer
Discovery Scanner
Surface Scanner

NOTE - I said earn, not gimme -and- I prefer the DBX over all other exploration vessels.

I think it would be a fun and productive addition for class 3 (or maybe class 4, but I could see that beginning to have problematic structural implications) or smaller slots.

 

[dtdionne]

I goofed, I’m wasting 4, not 5 so an srv and a 2e cargo rack. Plus it could help make the smaller ships much more viable and relevant for some veteran players.

 

[MK Regular]

This idea has been done many, many times before (a new thread pops up at least once a week).

There seem to be 2 common ideas on how to implement this:

• Using additional modules as 'frames' or 'dividers' for smaller modules
• Using different hull variations of the same ship, either through outfitting or engineering

Between these 2 methods, there seem to be 2 ways the module space could be divided up:

• Limiting the total class of modules to the slot size (or less for balance purposes)
• Limiting the total volume of the modules to the slot volume

Of these 2 methods, the class approach is much more common, since it makes more sense and would not be absolutely broken (a single class 8 module takes up the same volume as 128 class 1 modules).

The one thing that you mentioned was 'earning' your module space optimizers. I'm not sure what you mean by this, and would like to hear more on what exactly you have in mind for that.



As for your DBX build, I noticed that you have a cargo rack, but aren't using an AFM. Is there a reason for this? There usually isn't much to collect once you get more than a few thousand LY away from inhabited space.

 

[dtdionne]

Yeah, it seems pretty logical. It could be implemented through or similar to engineering. It could also be something new, like a certification program that involved doing things to learn about space frame construction, material acquisition, taking a multifaceted test to become a class x certified space frame fabricator, etc. but I’m sure there are plenty of superior ideas.

 

[LuxAeterna]

Why do you need a docking computer on an exploration ship?!
Do you dock at stations while exploring that much to require one?!
Get rid of that you've gained one slot...

 

[CainEyebright]

Could just implement as a set of 'adapter modules' with subslots similar to how the planetary vehicle bay has subslot(s)...but I think it would only be 'fair' if you give up some space for the 'adapter wiring'...so a size 3 slot becomes a pair of 1's, maybe a size 4 becomea a 1+2 or 1+1+1, and so on up

Of course, some items could just have a combination unit...like a size to discovery scanner with built-in detailed surface scanner.