Suggestion: Greater freedom to configure ships as we please.

[Cmdr Thermion]

OK, a given ship has a certain amount of space available for modules of varying sizes. You can fit modules into a given space up to the size of that space, but not beyond that. A 5 series module won't fit in a 4 series slot. That's obvious.

But it doesn't have to be that way, and in my opinion, shouldn't. All space for optional modules should be totally configurable. So rather than, for example, have three class 6, three class 5, and three class 4 slots in a ship that you can do what you want with, why just not treat that as 45 units of space and you can fill it up in any configuration you want (within certain limits) as long as the module size limits don't exceed 45 space units?

Certain restrictions could still apply. For example, no class 7 or 8 modules in medium sized or smaller ships. But if you really just want to stuff your ship full of 4A hull reinforcement modules, throw 10 in there and use the one leftover space for a scanner.


Maybe make this available as an engineerable upgrade? Add "structural modification and redesign" to an engineer's list of capabilities, and every progressive level of engineering gives you more flexibility in your module slot allocations.

I would also suggest that a person's excess equipment currently in storage should be something that you can put in your own ship's cargo hold and haul it with you, if you have the space. You would not be able to use it while in cargo storage, of course. Assign a cargo storage space value to every module that can be placed into storage.

 

[Morbad]

There are a lot of balance issues with this, as few modules scale linearly. The whole ship configuration system is based around fixed internal module sizes and changing that would require massive reworking and rebalancing. There is no way Frontier could manage this on a remotely reasonable schedule.

 

[Daynen]

I think some version of this may actually be welcome. I feel the module options are severely constricting in ED, even if you're very conservative with the size, shape, power requirements and physical dimensions of each module relative to the desired ship. Perhaps the OP's example is opening it up a little TOO far, but I believe there's a compromise to be had somewhere, as the current system can be quite chafing at times.

 

[Chrystoph]

+1 to the OP.

There are a lot of balance issues with this, as few modules scale linearly. The whole ship configuration system is based around fixed internal module sizes and changing that would require massive reworking and rebalancing. There is no way Frontier could manage this on a remotely reasonable schedule.

That is a short sighted mindset. Sure, there is a possibility for munkinism, but there is already munchkinism in the game.

The limitation that you want is in the hardpoints. The idea should be that a frame of a given weight can only support so many weapons mounts because of the reinforcing required to counter the stresses of firing. As a side effect, that also forces compliance with the animation of deploying the guns.

What this really does is allow the player to repurpose space that is otherwise unused. Right now, if you aren't mounting weapons, you are leaving gaping holes in the volume of the ship because you cannot repurpose the hardpoints. The same is true of utility mounts and military/cabin compartments.

Volume based design, with certain check points to ensure life support, thrusters, etc, would allow the player to build the ship they want within the limits provided by specific hulls.

 

[Robert Maynard]

3x Class 6 + 3x Class 5 + 3x Class 4 = 168x Class 1, in terms of volume - that's a whole load of Class 1D HRPs at 110 Armour each....

 

[metatheurgist]

3x Class 6 + 3x Class 5 + 3x Class 4 = 168x Class 1, in terms of volume - that's a whole load of Class 1D HRPs at 110 Armour each....

Ultimate munchkinism.

 

[Rolled_Steel]

I do somewhat agree - in relation to hardpoints, I don't carry weapons on my DBX, however I might be tempted to put util items in those slots if they would fit - for example a point defence on the lower mount.

 

[Cmdr Thermion]

I'm not suggesting that this flexible configuration should apply to anything but the optional internal spaces. The core internals, and hardpoints, would remain as they are, unchangeable in the range of things that can be installed in them.

And, just as there are already existing limitations, for example while theoretically there's space to install two or three dual fighter bays in an Anaconda, you're only allowed to install one, that same limitation could apply to certain module types.

I can just imagine someone deciding to fill their entire optional storage space up with the best shield battery systems the game has to offer, and he spams the "deploy a battery" button every time the outer shield ring even begins to change color. He'd be unstoppable even against capital ships, for a good long while.


Any added flexibility in hardpoints and core internals, etc. might be something to look at in the future, as something offered only through engineering.

 

[Madrax573]

Extra ship modification to the level would just end up being the ultimate in troll builds. As pointed out above imagine all those HRPs!!!!

Then you can just throw any form of balance out the window.

TBH if you want that level of modification go play space engineers and build your ship from scratch.

 

[Chrystoph]

Balance is a fiction in any case because the way it plays out right now only serves to make everyone equally dis-satisfied with not being able to build to specification.

 

[Magic Man]

Just over gameifys things. Ships have set spaces that can take modules, think of them having all the needed wiring harnesses, plumbing etc. for those module spaces so you can't just configure things however you want.
Similarly with hardpoints, they are wired for weapons so you can't just stick a utility device in there. At least accept some semblance of simulation here.

All makes sense from a logical 'realistic' point of view and, as already explained, allows balancing

 

[CMDR IPL Victim]

I would offer the suggestion that internal optional modules only and this would require an actual engineer, not a rngineer, to work on it. Also, limit it to one step in either direction. Combine two class 1 into one class 2 slot. Split a class 4 into two class 3, but no further. etc.

 

[Chrystoph]

Just over gameifys things. Ships have set spaces that can take modules, think of them having all the needed wiring harnesses, plumbing etc. for those module spaces so you can't just configure things however you want.
Similarly with hardpoints, they are wired for weapons so you can't just stick a utility device in there. At least accept some semblance of simulation here.

All makes sense from a logical 'realistic' point of view and, as already explained, allows balancing

Having been through two yard visits while in the Navy and stationed on a carrier for 13 months, I have to say that this is... wrong from the get go.

No two ships in a class are the same, and the logic used about restricting categories of equipment doesn't even make sense in current reality, much less 1,300 years in the future.

The only way this argument makes sense is from a balancing perspective, and balance as applied to Elite is nonsensical unless you are only looking at combat. Balance for Trade and Exploration is non-existent.