Small buff to the Keelback

[BackToTheMud]

I suspect Frontier will do this AFTER they add a class 4 internal slot to the Asp Explorer.
This would provide a lot more options like a corrosion resistant cargo rack, 4G hangar,
larger AMFU or refinery, add more collectors etc. I've been waiting 5 years on this so it
is pretty safe to say that it is not going to happen.

You're probably right, but I can hope. Fdew did after all give the fdl a larger power plant for, as I understand it, no sensible reason. So maybe, just maybe they'll do this.

I've been scratching my head for a while why those cargo racks only come in size 1 and 4. As far as I can tell the lore reason is "because".

 

[Koen]

Well, you've already got 1 of those 2 things. The keelie has a 2nd seat for multicrew.

That is good news. It seems I haven't been flying my Keelback for too long.

 

[BackToTheMud]

It very much depend on what I'm setting up the KB for really...

I have 'general duties' kind of build for just mucking about but usually I'll fit for task if I'm doing something specific.

Might be that you enjoy using really specialised more than I do. I'd like to be able so use a fuel scoop when I do search and rescue. I' like to be able to have an SRV in my miner so I can go down and mine on planets, i.e gather materials. And in a general mission and, as you say, mucking about build there are multible little options that would make the ship even more enjoyable. But once again, that's just me.

He beieves he is missing out on optimum build space as he can not put two into one.

Its not about "optimum", dude, it's about enjoyable. There are quite a few things I'd like to put in the "other" size 1 slot that isn't another limpet controller...but I'll admit that in my search and rescue build it would be. And while the slot distribution might not be the, for lack of a better word, best in most ships the Keelback is the only one I really feel it in. It might just be that I like the ship so much I just wish it was perfect.

 

[Madrax573]

The two size 1 into a size 2 argument is just false logic...

i.e. you can't fit two 4 cylinder engines in place of a v8 for example.

When things get made for a purpose, especially in engineering circles, it is very unlikely that you can replace them with multiple smaller options unless very specifically designed for that purpose.
So in ED when something is designed as class size 2 it does not directly equate to two class size 1 'sockets' added together.

 

[Teh Smoo]

In a real world there's absolutely no reason. Bit as it's a game it's about Balance. Let's say you put three 1D hull reinforcements into a size 3 slot. Not only will that give you a higher hull boost, but you can also engineer each and everyone of them them for resistance. I.e, no balance.

That just means that hull reinforcements are broken.

IMO, only the best hull and module reinforcement should count. And... I dunno, maybe have the best 2 shield boosters count.

Also, universal limpet controller.

Then, PRESTO. Optional slots become optional, and splitting them and/or leaving them open becomes a real option! Or just fill every empty ton with cargo rack that you can use or not.

 

[efoo]

I thought if any ship needs a buff first would be the Asp Scout

 

[Frenotx]

I'm generally going to be supportive of the keelback getting love. It's a neat little ship, but always feels like not a wonderful choice for a given role. It can be fun to use though! Here's some classic keelback combat footage, for the keelback lovers out there:

Source: https://youtu.be/zNPiOTgBI54

 

[Frenotx]

That just means that hull reinforcements are broken.

IMO, only the best hull and module reinforcement should count. And... I dunno, maybe have the best 2 shield boosters count.

Also, universal limpet controller.

Then, PRESTO. Optional slots become optional, and splitting them and/or leaving them open becomes a real option! Or just fill every empty ton with cargo rack that you can use or not.

Removing the ability to fit defensive modules in regular "optional" slots, and moving shield boosters from utility mounts to new sub-slots of the shield generator (like how fighter bays have sub slots) would be a massive improvement to ship and combat balance in general across the entire game.

 

[BackToTheMud]

The two size 1 into a size 2 argument is just false logic...

i.e. you can't fit two 4 cylinder engines in place of a v8 for example.

When things get made for a purpose, especially in engineering circles, it is very unlikely that you can replace them with multiple smaller options unless very specifically designed for that purpose.
So in ED when something is designed as class size 2 it does not directly equate to two class size 1 'sockets' added together.

IRL designes you are of course right, but this is after all a game. And it's not like Fdew are that consistent with the amount of space a module would actually take up. I'm fine with small discrepancie like that.

 

[BackToTheMud]

Also, universal limpet controller.

I can see why they initially didn't designed it that way, but I think we can all agree that the the entire community would love that change.

 

[BackToTheMud]

Removing the ability to fit defensive modules in regular "optional" slots, and moving shield boosters from utility mounts to new sub-slots of the shield generator (like how fighter bays have sub slots) would be a massive improvement to ship and combat balance in general across the entire game.

I've been thinking that they should adjust where you can place defensive modules too. Maybe making some slots military optional (not military only). It would require them to make an in depth analyzy of every ship in the game though. It would be fantastic if they did, but the scope of that is...substantionally bigger than just adjusting a module slot on the Keelback.

The sub-slot idea for shield boosters is really good though. It would required some adjustment to the amount of utillity slots on most ships, but that should not be that hard. And you could of course do the same with some other modules. Maybe the DSS could be a sub-slot choice for the sensors. The Good thing with that is that it would, by a small degree, close the gap between pure combat/pirate builds and more general builds. Good idea for a concept, commander. o7

 

[Frenotx]

I've been thinking that they should adjust where you can place defensive modules too. Maybe making some slots military optional (not military only). It would require them to make an in depth analyzy of every ship in the game though. It would be fantastic if they did, but the scope of that is...substantionally bigger than just adjusting a module slot on the Keelback.

The sub-slot idea for shield boosters is really good though. It would required some adjustment to the amount of utillity slots on most ships, but that should not be that hard. And you could of course do the same with some other modules. Maybe the DSS could be a sub-slot choice for the sensors. The Good thing with that is that it would, by a small degree, close the gap between pure combat/pirate builds and more general builds. Good idea for a concept, commander. o7

Limpet controllers are also a good candidate for the sub-slot treatment. It's something I've been advocating for a few years now, but sadly seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

 

[Madrax573]

IRL designes you are of course right, but this is after all a game. And it's not like Fdew are that consistent with the amount of space a module would actually take up. I'm fine with small discrepancie like that.

Well TBF you would need to redo ALL ship optional internals if you could 'add' smaller modules together in large spaces... otherwise you would totally mess up the balance.

 

[BackToTheMud]

Well TBF you would need to redo ALL ship optional internals if you could 'add' smaller modules together in large spaces... otherwise you would totally mess up the balance.

Yes, it would be. But I didn't say that you should be able put multible smaller modules into larger slots, did I? I have literally explained to another commenter that, and why, that would be completely unbalanced.

I argued that one specific ship (Yes, there was a side note to that) should have one specific slot split into two smaller ones while maintain the potential tonnage. I argued that it would make the ship more enjoyable while not making it, even though it wasn't the word I used, overpowered. This wasn't about rebalancing every ship in the game; it was about the Keelback.

 

[aRJay]

I can see why they initially didn't designed it that way, but I think we can all agree that the the entire community would love that change.

The limpet thing is a case of one type of limpet with a variety of dedicated controllers or a universal controller with eight? different types of limpet.
There is no way we will get the fantasy do everything setup.

 

[Pville_Piper]

My first experience in the Keelie was a bust... It was early on and I hadn't flown the T-6 or any full frontal canopy ship and tried to face tank a Cobra... I made it to the station with seconds to spare and promptly sold it. After a while I played around with the T-6, loved the ship, hated it's offensive capabilities. So when SLFs came out I decided to buy, upgrade and engineer the Keelie. A fun ship now, I took it on my Palin run and it did well. It kind of languished a bit until the mining upgrade and I loved it's ability to maneuver precisely around the asteroid chunks and scoop up the goodies. I use it mainly for mining and enjoy it.

 

[BackToTheMud]

@Pville_Piper So what do you think about the suggested tweak?

 

[Teh Smoo]

Well TBF you would need to redo ALL ship optional internals if you could 'add' smaller modules together in large spaces... otherwise you would totally mess up the balance.

This is literally the job of the dev team.

The ROOT problem is the stacking of defense modules, and they have ignored EVERY solution besides limiting total module slots. Here's three off the top of my head:

• They could limit # of active defense modules. They do not.
• They could mess with the math to make stacking defenses pointless. They do not. (Like how EVE makes it impossible to get 100% resistance to damage.)
• They could change the stats of modules so multiple smaller modules aren't clearly better than larger modules. (This would only be partially effective by itself, the previous two work better.) They do not do that either though.

It's all just old systems and design decisions grandfathered in because obsessed space flight sim enthusiasts would hate change. And a little bit because dealing this change to people too far from a refit point would kill immersion at that point.


And, once optional hard points aren't just filled by hull reinforcements by default, they actually become optional. Worlds of possibility open up! A cheap universal limpet controller to save on weight unless you have specific plans- done. All empty space usable as cargo space, cargo racks could provide extra functionality. Done. People might actually leave stuff empty to save on weight.

Too bad they seem completely unable to edit the game other than hacking existing systems. That's what carriers look like to me- a hacked station system that is a little dynamic.

 

[Madrax573]

Theyc

This is literally the job of the dev team.

The ROOT problem is the stacking of defense modules, and they have ignored EVERY solution besides limiting total module slots. Here's three off the top of my head:

• They could limit # of active defense modules. They do not.
• They could mess with the math to make stacking defenses pointless. They do not. (Like how EVE makes it impossible to get 100% resistance to damage.)
• They could change the stats of modules so multiple smaller modules aren't clearly better than larger modules. (This would only be partially effective by itself, the previous two work better.) They do not do that either though.

It's all just old systems and design decisions grandfathered in because obsessed space flight sim enthusiasts would hate change. And a little bit because dealing this change to people too far from a refit point would kill immersion at that point.


And, once optional hard points aren't just filled by hull reinforcements by default, they actually become optional. Worlds of possibility open up! A cheap universal limpet controller to save on weight unless you have specific plans- done. All empty space usable as cargo space, cargo racks could provide extra functionality. Done. People might actually leave stuff empty to save on weight.

Too bad they seem completely unable to edit the game other than hacking existing systems. That's what carriers look like to me- a hacked station system that is a little dynamic.

They could do all of that yes, but it would take years to get even somewhat balanced as you'd be completely overhauling the ship build system.

I'd rather them spend such time fixing bugs and adding new content than altering a workable system just to please some OCD afflicted players.

 

[Tifu]

My first experience in the Keelie was a bust... It was early on and I hadn't flown the T-6 or any full frontal canopy ship and tried to face tank a Cobra... I made it to the station with seconds to spare and promptly sold it. After a while I played around with the T-6, loved the ship, hated it's offensive capabilities. So when SLFs came out I decided to buy, upgrade and engineer the Keelie. A fun ship now, I took it on my Palin run and it did well. It kind of languished a bit until the mining upgrade and I loved it's ability to maneuver precisely around the asteroid chunks and scoop up the goodies. I use it mainly for mining and enjoy it.

Relocated to (way) outside the bubble and am considering transforming my Keelie into a miner. Glad to know it's the right choice