[suggestion] Please add a core module for the ship's computer

[NW3]

As described in this forum thread:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?p=4905982&viewfull=1#post4905982

The ship's computer could be "a core module just like thrusters or a power plant. You'd start off with version 'E' which is very limited in which programs it could run so that you'd need to upgrade to an 'A', 'B' or 'C' class computer to run the [docking] program (which would also have to be bought separately). So that would be mission accomplished, sacrifices must still be made, its no longer stupid and sounds vaguely feasible (at least enough to suspend disbelief) and as an added bonus it establishes a credible method for handling ALL current and future ship software, not just the DC. You just rate future software from 'E' to 'A' depending on how powerful the matching computer system needs to be to run it. Win, win."

"You could expand it a bit further with each Computer upgrade allowing for an increase in data capacity (for those Engineer Data items). This could also allow for more efficient Turret control and more detailed information coming from scans."

"Indeed, there could be many uses for the ship's computer as an actual core module, it could really add some much needed depth to the game. It could even be extended to hacking another ship in combat as a form of attack to gain various advantages (for example hacking your opponent's FSD to lengthen warmup time so they have a harder time running away). Maybe some sort of hacking minigame might be involved or it might be as simple as applying 4 pips to systems gives the most hacking power. It would really help to expand combat out beyond simple point and pew-pew."

"Higher grade computers could be more resistant to hacking. We could have hacking limpets that could cause a ship to dump cargo (to enable "real" piracy). Some sort of hacking mini-game would add a new skill to learn and might even be fun.

Higher grade computers could offer undocking assistance, which like auto-docking, could be disabled for purists.

Higher grade computers could even fly your ship, just like an NPC crew member, while you're off flying a SLF. The advantage being that you don't have to give your computer a share of your profits."

"Programs themselves could have upgrades - such as Atmospheric Approach and Landing Suite.

The possibilities are staggering"

The basic 'E' computer wouldn't offer a docking program. The 'D' computer would just be lighter weight, with no additional features. 'C' computers and above would offer automatic docking, which could be disabled, if desired. 'B' computers and above could offer launching as an option. 'A' computers could offer the same features as 'B', but in a lighter weight module, perhaps with additional features like improved hacking ability/resistance.

The upgrade to existing player ships would be straight-forward: If you have a DC, you get a grade 'C' computer and a slot is freed up; otherwise you get an 'E' grade computer. The base weight of a ship would need to have the weight of an 'E' computer subtracted from it. Upgrading to a 'D' computer would increase your jump range a bit and a 'C' computer should weigh the same as an 'E' computer. (This would maintain the current status quo.) Ideally, an 'A' computer would weigh the same as C and E, so there's no loss of jump range at the top end.

 

[Lucian667]

"Higher grade computers could be more resistant to hacking. We could have hacking limpets that could cause a ship to dump cargo (to enable "real" piracy). Some sort of hacking mini-game would add a new skill to learn and might even be fun.

Adding a little more depth to hacking, you might have to run Attack programs on the attacking ship which clash against Firewall programs on the defending ship. All programs would be rated from E to A, must be bought with drastically increasing price and might well be illegal, requiring special missions or reputation to obtain. There would then be 4 interlocking factors to consider when hacking.

1/ The level of the ship's computer (E, D, C, B, or A)
2/ The level of the attack or defense program. (E, D, C, B, or A), But higher level programs would of course require higher level ship's computers to run them.
3/ The number of pips allocated to systems during the hacking run. (0 to 4)
4/ Your personal skill in playing the infowar minigame (if there is a minigame). My personal feeling is that if a hacking minigame is a factor it should be something you can pretty easily do while in the middle of combat without distracting you too badly, so that would limit its complexity somewhat.

Edit: Could make a really interesting addition to combat, something else to worry about other than your shields go down. It could even be something that somebody tries to do to you stealthily outside of combat and if noticed could lead to a reason for combat if you choose that path. For example if you are carrying data as a mission, an NPC / CMNDR might try to steal or delete that data or you might be given a mission to intercept a courier and do the same before they can successfully deliver. If your hacking is good enough they might never know that you succeeded, if not get ready to fight.

 

[Hessfire]

Just adding on here - additional functionality could be like adding blade instances to an existing Server Rack. Each needs the Host instance and its connections to the Ship's infrastructure, but they go further to extend and distribute the wokload across the whole system to create a composite that is definately more powerful than the sum opf the parts. Using this structure not only allows for consolidation of functions (DC, Planetary/Atmospheric Approach, ADS, DDS, BDS) it also allows for Engineers to upgrade either the backbone, the Host, or individual blades as one sees fit.

As I stated on the prior thread, it makes me excited just envisioning the possibilities.

 

[Panticus]

Doh - you want to give Elite some 24th century functionality? Remove the grind?

The die-hard fanboys here will have none of this - they want to keep playing this destructively boring game until they realise everyone is playing something else.

Autopilot: yes
Reduce tedium: yes
Make the game fun: er, now I know this is impossible FD, but you managed it with that roller coaster thing.

 

[NW3]

Just adding on here - additional functionality could be like adding blade instances to an existing Server Rack. Each needs the Host instance and its connections to the Ship's infrastructure, but they go further to extend and distribute the wokload across the whole system to create a composite that is definately more powerful than the sum opf the parts. Using this structure not only allows for consolidation of functions (DC, Planetary/Atmospheric Approach, ADS, DDS, BDS) it also allows for Engineers to upgrade either the backbone, the Host, or individual blades as one sees fit.

As I stated on the prior thread, it makes me excited just envisioning the possibilities.

This sounds like it has a lot of good gameplay possibilities. I like it.

I'd give you Rep, but the forum won't let me. Virtual Rep++

 

[Hessfire]

Doh - you want to give Elite some 24th century functionality? Remove the grind?

The die-hard fanboys here will have none of this - they want to keep playing this destructively boring game until they realise everyone is playing something else.

Autopilot: yes
Reduce tedium: yes
Make the game fun: er, now I know this is impossible FD, but you managed it with that roller coaster thing.

Let me be POSITIVELY ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR - I/we are NOT ADVOCATING Autopilot - Just enhancement to the existing DC/Scanners and Software based functionality of the ship. DC and Terrestrial Landing System are Assistance programs that are IN NO WAY designed to "Fly my ship for me". Why would we be advocating for a computer to do all the work for us? I have spoken up quite vocally against Autopilot in the past and will continue to do so here. If that is what is born of this idea then COUNT ME OUT!

Hope I have made my position Clear to any who would attempt to subvert it because they cannot be bothered to FLY THEIR SHIP IN A SMEGGING SPACESHIP SIMULATION.

 

[Panticus]

Let me be POSITIVELY ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR - I/we are NOT ADVOCATING Autopilot - Just enhancement to the existing DC/Scanners and Software based functionality of the ship. DC and Terrestrial Landing System are Assistance programs that are IN NO WAY designed to "Fly my ship for me". Why would we be advocating for a computer to do all the work for us? I have spoken up quite vocally against Autopilot in the past and will continue to do so here. If that is what is born of this idea then COUNT ME OUT!

Hope I have made my position Clear to any who would attempt to subvert it because they cannot be bothered to FLY THEIR SHIP IN A SMEGGING SPACESHIP SIMULATION.

Sorry. I didn't mean to divert the thread. I was just extrapolating and thinking back to my days towards the end of the last millennium when I was a Royal Navy watch officer, on a good old British warship, using an autopilot.

I would hate to break your sense of realism, by introducing some realism.

 

[taslehoff999]

Let me be POSITIVELY ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR - I/we are NOT ADVOCATING Autopilot - Just enhancement to the existing DC/Scanners and Software based functionality of the ship. DC and Terrestrial Landing System are Assistance programs that are IN NO WAY designed to "Fly my ship for me". Why would we be advocating for a computer to do all the work for us? I have spoken up quite vocally against Autopilot in the past and will continue to do so here. If that is what is born of this idea then COUNT ME OUT!

Hope I have made my position Clear to any who would attempt to subvert it because they cannot be bothered to FLY THEIR SHIP IN A SMEGGING SPACESHIP SIMULATION.

Your position is clear. (you are only one voice), what about the rest of the player base .

I believe its a cracking idea with almost endless possibility's.

If that is what is born of this idea then COUNT ME IN!

God bless ya op

 

[Hessfire]

Sorry. I didn't mean to divert the thread. I was just extrapolating and thinking back to my days towards the end of the last millennium when I was a Royal Navy watch officer, on old British warship, using an autopilot.

I would hate to break your sense of realism, by introducing some realism.

Bottom line (as I have stated on SEVERAL of the "Gimmie Autopilot for everything" Threads) - If you don't like flying your ship WHY DID YOU BY A SPACESHIP FLIGHT GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?

PLEASE, do not try to derail this thread again - it is neither productive nor wanted and is incredibly rude.

 

[Panticus]

Your position is clear.

Is it? It just looks like a load of capitalisation to me. See my post above.

- - - Updated - - -

Bottom line (as I have stated on SEVERAL of the "Gimmie Autopilot for everything" Threads) - If you don't like flying your ship WHY DID YOU BY A SPACESHIP FLIGHT GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE?

PLEASE, do not try to derail this thread again - it is neither productive nor wanted and is incredibly rude.

Derail again - have I before?

I bought Elite as a founder and backer. Get that blu-tac from under yours caps lock chap.

 

[Hessfire]

It is rude to try and co-opt a discussion away from its original intent. The question of Autopilot has been asked, answered, put to bed, woken back up, beaten, waterboarded and released several times on the forums. This suggestion was one that came out of a thread having only to do with the DC as a module. I/We (the three involved in the suggestion) did not intend for this to become another thread discussing an AutoPilot. This was a way to solve several existing problems (ie DC/Scanners taking up a module slot) as well as to present new interactive dynamics (Hacking/Firewalls).

Personally, I am 100% dead set against there being a "Fly My Ship because its boring" module. Since I was unsuccessful in my prior attempt, I shall attempt again to ask that you take discussion of an AutoPilot (which is IMHO a complete subversion of a core mechanic of the game) to either a new suggestion thread, or one of the several prior threads that have been created on the subject.

Thanks you for your time and cooperation.

 

[Panticus]

So what is your opinion - given that you want more automation - and that the most obvious case is automation of pilot, i.e., dare I write it?

Dohhh

AUTOPILOT

 

[Hessfire]

OK... Here is a suggestion for you - Please quit trolling this thread and go start your own. This thread is to discuss a set of changes that Myself, Lucian667, and NW3 hashed out on a seperate thread. Since we thought the solution we came up with had merit we started a new Suggestion Thread (which is where you are now). This was not a discussion of how to get our ship to fly itself - nor was it ever intended to be. Unfortunately, someone has put forth a concerted effort to drag this thread in a direction that is sure to lead to a quick death, as it has been beaten beyond death on these forums. As we started this thread to talk through a given proposal that is NOT an Autopilot, you commentary here is both off-topic and unwanted.

I have asked repeatedly that you take your discussion of Autopilot to another thread - there are several to choose from. If you don't want to use any of those, then I would kindly ask that you start your own thread. I will not intefere in yours, and ask that you show me the same courtsey as well.

Good day to you Sir.

 

[Tentacle Love]

So I'm wondering, could there be different types of firewalls?

perhaps one is more based on security through obscurity and revolves around a system of passkeys and such, and thus an algorithmic hacking unit would have a harder time but a keyring hacking unit would have an easier time?
and the other could be a cycling password/keyfob based unit, and the algorithmic unit is at an advantage but the keyring hacking unit would be slower. Hmm, interesting.

 

[NW3]

So I'm wondering, could there be different types of firewalls?

Certainly, why not? (And thanks for bringing the discussion back on topic!)

Perhaps we could have grade A-E firewalls, priced according. Or maybe allow a Computer Engineer mod you something special.

I think a separate computer module adds a lot of gameplay possibilities: Following existing game mechanics, a computer could have memory slots or a fixed amount of memory (size based on grade), which limits the number of programs you can have installed. Different programs could use differing amounts of memory (just like real life). Many of these programs would already exist, but would now be exposed, like Recall My Ship when in an SRV. Better, more complicated programs would take up more space. Battle damage might disable some of that memory and we might need to set priorities as to which programs get to run (similar to module power priority), when power or memory is limited. For example, if you never use an SRV, you could disable Recall and have a better Firewall instead. Heck, by year 10 (in FD's long range plans) we might be able to write our own custom programs.

For the record, I'm only advocating the existing auto-dock functionality and possibly the corresponding (and obviously missing) launching ability. I do not want a fly-my-ship-for-me function. Flying amongst the stars is what I enjoy best about ED.

That being said, I don't really have a problem with more automated flight options. I can understand why some might want them, but FD has been clear: That's not something they intend to add. I'm OK with that too. (No need to bring on the flames.)

 

[Lucian667]

Actually I originally intended this idea (ship's computer as a core module) as a way of handling any ship's software in ED. It might be fairly obvious that as it currently stands ED has NO WAY to handle software other than to treat it as just another module, either forcing you to use an existing module or awkwardly giving you free, zero mass ones like the planetary approach suite. This is an incredibly clumsy way to handle software and the problem will only grow worse as future software is introduced and inelegantly crammed into the module system. We badly need something better.

The idea is that The ship's computer will actually exist as a standard core module just like thrusters or power plant, starting from E but you can buy upgrades all the way to A and it can only run programs that match its rating. For example the auto docking program would be bought separately, rated say B and require at least a B grade computer to run it. You have to pay much more for a B grade computer, it is larger and has a greater power draw. The same goes for any other computer programs, the rating of any program must at least match your ship's computer rating.

THERE'S YOUR TRADEOFF!! It isn't stupid (like taking tons of space for a module is), it makes some degree of sense and it works for all computer programs no matter how many they decide to introduce in the future. So we now have gameplay, sacrifice AND it makes perfect sense, all at the same time, problem solved.

Hessfire's hypothetical autopilot program would be just another one of those software packages that you could buy (for whatever price seems balanced) it might be rated say C so that you'd need at least a C rated computer to run it. There would be many many such programs available, all doing different things from hacking to defense to system improvement. The possibilities are almost endless.

So this idea is far from being just about an autopilot or a docking program, its a method of easily and smoothly handling ANY ship software in a game that has absolutely no clue how to handle software except to treat it as a multi-ton physical ship component.

So I'm wondering, could there be different types of firewalls?

perhaps one is more based on security through obscurity and revolves around a system of passkeys and such, and thus an algorithmic hacking unit would have a harder time but a keyring hacking unit would have an easier time?
and the other could be a cycling password/keyfob based unit, and the algorithmic unit is at an advantage but the keyring hacking unit would be slower. Hmm, interesting.

I think this is a great idea, there could be all sorts of offensive and defensive programs, some of them legal, some of them illegal and requiring special missions, reputation or illegal activities to obtain and each of them acting in different ways and giving different bonuses and limitations. From a dev point of view I can see it being a great money and time sink.

 

[NW3]

Well said. I agree completely. And if you get your software from a dodgy source, it might be infected with malware, which could only be removed with the help of an engineer (or maybe a technician at a high technology station).

Example malware: Your heads-up display starts displaying Lakon ads, FD paintjob ads, or Federal propaganda, until you reboot your computer (and after a while, the ads reappear). Your various IO panels start glitching. Galmap or the system map start glitching. Your ship refuses to go to certain systems. Your mailbox fills up with spam. You can no longer land on planets, or when you do, there's only a 20% chance that your ship will be recalled (so you have to keep recalling it, until it arrives). Your ship computer reboots at inconvenient times and you have to wait for it to come back online. Comms malfunction. Landing gear, fuel scoop, or cargo hatch malfunction. (In many respects it acts like Unknown Artifacts, so some game code might be similar or shared.)

One solution: Buy an antivirus program, which eats into the space you have for other programs.

The gameplay possibilities of a true Computer Module are nearly endless and it adds some much-needed depth to ED.

 

[Lucian667]

Ha ha, yeah I love the idea of malware embedded in software stolen or obtained from dodgy sources. I love the idea that you might hate that dumb ad for Li Yong-Rui that wont stop playing in the corner of your hud but you stick with it nonetheless because the program does such an awesome job and is better than anything "legal". And then you finally snap and spend time hunting down a suitably powerful (and expensive) anti-malware program to snip out the malware while still maintaining the software's functionality. Do you succeed or do you end up crippling or destroying your beloved A-rated Gimbal-tracking program in the process?

As you say the possibilities with this system are extremely diverse and would really help add depth to a game system that so very, very desperately needs depth. I tried to +rep you but the stupid forum wont let me.

 

[Panticus]

So you want automation, but not something that will hit 75% at 7 seconds at the end of superbore, sorry, supercruise?

(a line of code in a starship's AI)

Just wondering.

 

[Lucian667]

So you want automation, but not something that will hit 75% at 7 seconds at the end of superbore, sorry, supercruise?

(a line of code in a starship's AI)

Just wondering.

Its not a matter of wanting automation, we already have automation in the form of the docking computer and planetary landings, its just extremely poorly and clumsily implemented as a multi-ton module (for the DC) and then - rather schizophrenically - as a free, zero mass module for the planetary approach suite. Are they going to keep adding new free zero-mass modules for every single new software addition? That would be incredibly ugly and unintuitive.

Having the ship's computer as a real core module and the various programs as zero-mass software you have to run on that computer would provide a single, unified method of easily and logically handling ANY amount of ship's software both now and in the future. And you'd still have to make sacrifices and tradeoffs only this time they'd make sense.