Suggestion for Engineers, ability to split a module to acomodate 2 lower sized modules

[CmdrKafka]

Kind of late comment to this thread, but I support the idea as follows;

1. To address balance issues, only certain types of modules should be allowed in split spaces. For example you should be allowed to combine a limpet controller with a docking computer, or two kinds of limpet controllers maybe, but not modules that would provide combat advantage and obviously no weapons. This should be more of a practical thing for multi-role ships than anything. It should be good for exploration, traders, mining but give no advantage to PvP (if the right restrictions are in place).

2. You should lose some space when you split an internal slot. So a size 5 would become two size 2's for example , you lose one for the divider bulkhead.

3. I'm in favour of it being an engineered thing, but it shouldn't be a grind... just level one, if you have access to the engineer and some salvaged alloys you should be able to get it done. This would make people at least do some planning and thinking about how best to reconfigure their space optimally.

 

[StiTch]

I understand they might have had reasons for the way things are. Which doesn't mean these reasons will still stand in a month or three or a year or three. Once again (I should start copying and pasting this): this is a suggestions section of the forum.

Ah, so because it's the suggestions section, you're not allowed to raise objections or obstacles? Ideas that are not tempered, filtered or ironed out is just fluff.

I appreciate they could rewrite this. But why would they? The entire foundation of ship building is built around this, as is most balancing. They would have to completely redesign, from the ground up, the entire outfitting system...a system I am very sure was deeply considered, ironed out at many stages, and lovingly implemented.

And why would we be redesigning it? To cater to a small group of players that, for the most part, cannot be bothered to outfit properly and just want to mindlessly whack what they want in.

Fellow Stitch, I appreciate your analysis but if I understood your comment right, you are thinking of other suggestions made in the past and not mine. In my suggestion, adding multiple modules of the same type will not provide the sum of benefits of the individual module. If you add 4 class 1 HRPs, the result won't be 4xC1 HRP but rather 1xC3 HRP.

I am not sure what you're getting at with the example...all you have done is reduce the class of an internal slot by one. Where's the additional gain for the CMDR?

Either way, it's still abusable; the reason I mentioned that modules don't scale either proportionally by class, or in similar levels to other modules, is because the kind of rules you are trying to construct only work well when designed for a single ruleset. What you have might work well when proposed for HRPs; when you talk about applying it to C4 slots and, say, limpet collectors...will you decrease the efficiency the same? Or can you still split it off for immense efficiency gain? Are you sure this still applies when someone is splitting a C8 slot?

No bad feelings intended - there's just no reason I have seen yet to reinvent the wheel, and fewer motivations for it that fall outside of sheer entitlement. Of all things in this game balance related, the last thing we need to revisit is the base outfitting. It works perfectly well.

 

[concentric]

Of all things in this game balance related, the last thing we need to revisit is the base outfitting. It works perfectly well.

Spot-on!

 

[Virandar]

Ah, so because it's the suggestions section, you're not allowed to raise objections or obstacles? Ideas that are not tempered, filtered or ironed out is just fluff.

I appreciate they could rewrite this. But why would they? The entire foundation of ship building is built around this, as is most balancing. They would have to completely redesign, from the ground up, the entire outfitting system...a system I am very sure was deeply considered, ironed out at many stages, and lovingly implemented.

And why would we be redesigning it? To cater to a small group of players that, for the most part, cannot be bothered to outfit properly and just want to mindlessly whack what they want in.



I am not sure what you're getting at with the example...all you have done is reduce the class of an internal slot by one. Where's the additional gain for the CMDR?

Either way, it's still abusable; the reason I mentioned that modules don't scale either proportionally by class, or in similar levels to other modules, is because the kind of rules you are trying to construct only work well when designed for a single ruleset. What you have might work well when proposed for HRPs; when you talk about applying it to C4 slots and, say, limpet collectors...will you decrease the efficiency the same? Or can you still split it off for immense efficiency gain? Are you sure this still applies when someone is splitting a C8 slot?

No bad feelings intended - there's just no reason I have seen yet to reinvent the wheel, and fewer motivations for it that fall outside of sheer entitlement. Of all things in this game balance related, the last thing we need to revisit is the base outfitting. It works perfectly well.

Of course you can raise objections or obstacles. Saying "If FD wanted divisible internals, you would have gotten a big lump of internal space, and been able to divide it anyway" doesn't comment on the suggestion though, but on hypothetical approach of FD towards the suggestion. I mean if you have some internal knowledge about what FD wanted or might want, I'm sure forum users will be happy to hear it. If you are employed by FD to filter ides for them, also let us know.

Also, we don't know if the current system is a result of careful planning or an accident or simply of what FD was able to create at that time. As to why would they redesign it? They don't have to. The idea behind this thread is built on premises of offering players more freedom in choosing their own path. To allow them to utilise the internal space of their ships in a more logical way. To extend the number of ships which could be considered multipurpose. To have an option of some sort of fix to ship design problems before FD officially addresses them (like was the case with DBX). Yes, the current system works, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

 

[concentric]

Of course you can raise objections or obstacles. Saying "If FD wanted divisible internals, you would have gotten a big lump of internal space, and been able to divide it anyway" doesn't comment on the suggestion though, but on hypothetical approach of FD towards the suggestion. I mean if you have some internal knowledge about what FD wanted or might want, I'm sure forum users will be happy to hear it. If you are employed by FD to filter ides for them, also let us know.

Also, we don't know if the current system is a result of careful planning or an accident or simply of what FD was able to create at that time. As to why would they redesign it? They don't have to. The idea behind this thread is built on premises of offering players more freedom in choosing their own path. To allow them to utilise the internal space of their ships in a more logical way. To extend the number of ships which could be considered multipurpose. To have an option of some sort of fix to ship design problems before FD officially addresses them (like was the case with DBX). Yes, the current system works, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Well, as I share StiTch's opinion on this, I feel addressed here, too. I can only speak for myself, of course, and surely I don't work for FD (wrong country anyway) nor do I have any internal knowledge about their intentions.
However, I think that what you're suggesting would entail more consequences than apparent at first glance. It's like going one step forward and two steps backwards.
Sure it could be improved, like next to everything can be improved to a certain degree, but I can think of countless things for the developers to better spend their effort than on this part. It's just my personal impression that you get stuck into compartment size numbers too much, instead of making the best of what's there.
I might be in the minority here but I actually have fun (and put considerable effort) in finetuning almost every module until my ships really feel polished (up to the point where the Power Plant gives me just enough energy to run my loadout while giving the best heat efficiency possible ). I've done so with quite a few ships so far and I, PERSONALLY, wouldn't want to reinvent my ship designs with every upgrade (involving the material grind and engineer visits), unless really necessary, and I, PERSONALLY, don't see this necessity here (I hope I sufficiently pointed out that this is an individual motive but I'd feel the same if I had only one ship...).
You're absolutely right that this forum is for suggestions and feedback and this is my feedback
I guess we can agree that we don't agree

 

[Virandar]

Well, as I share StiTch's opinion on this, I feel addressed here, too. I can only speak for myself, of course, and surely I don't work for FD (wrong country anyway) nor do I have any internal knowledge about their intentions.
However, I think that what you're suggesting would entail more consequences than apparent at first glance. It's like going one step forward and two steps backwards.
Sure it could be improved, like next to everything can be improved to a certain degree, but I can think of countless things for the developers to better spend their effort than on this part. It's just my personal impression that you get stuck into compartment size numbers too much, instead of making the best of what's there.
I might be in the minority here but I actually have fun (and put considerable effort) in finetuning almost every module until my ships really feel polished (up to the point where the Power Plant gives me just enough energy to run my loadout while giving the best heat efficiency possible ). I've done so with quite a few ships so far and I, PERSONALLY, wouldn't want to reinvent my ship designs with every upgrade (involving the material grind and engineer visits), unless really necessary, and I, PERSONALLY, don't see this necessity here (I hope I sufficiently pointed out that this is an individual motive but I'd feel the same if I had only one ship...).
You're absolutely right that this forum is for suggestions and feedback and this is my feedback
I guess we can agree that we don't agree

I don't have major issues with the current system. I can use it and use it and my ships do what I want them to do. So we do agree that the current system works. But at the same time, as a player, I value bigger degree of freedom and believe it could me beneficial for Elite through making the game more tailored to individual needs, which I see as a beneficial thing.

 

[manos70131]

Ah, so because it's the suggestions section, you're not allowed to raise objections or obstacles? Ideas that are not tempered, filtered or ironed out is just fluff.


This is a discussion thread. We are discussing ideas. We are not trying to provide the code ready to plug into the game. Every implementation starts with an idea. Brainstorming polishes the idea and some of these ideas prove to be functional and go for implementation. In earlier posts I asked for objections on specific points of my idea. For sure I was not the one that tried to close the discussion even before it started.

I think that the initial comment had some specific example in mind. And this request is one I have seen before. Class 1 only modules do not feel right for some. Two examples:
ADS and DSS. I cannot think of any reason wanting the one and not the other except if there aren't enough slots.
Docking computer: it's becoming a standard in the present (even for a car) but in the year of the game may is optional? And does it add to the game experience? The same thing over and over with no real difficulty once you learn the tricks? It's actually a penalty when you have it and it gets damaged in battle. Why force people to not having it, just to save one (big) slot?

As it happened with military compartments that were added only a few months ago, this system has room for improvements. I can't argue that there are more important things to work on now. But the needs should be recorded and I think that eventually the issue of the class 1 only modules should be addressed so that we don't waste class 3 slots to add them.

 

[Hadarmil]

What I suggested in a previous thread was a divider for multiples of 3:

3 size to 2*1 and 1 unusable, taken by divider.
6 size to 2*2 and 2 unusable.

You can use in a 1+ compartement but you lose an extra single space.

More places to stick the itsy bitsy bits while still keeping the balace of the different sized ships - smallers ships will be more versatile but so will bigger ships. Will mainly benefit explorers and maybe miners - any usage of defense modules in the divided areas will just be better in a full compartement. You still have compromises but a little less pain.