Suggestion: Remove Military Slots

[Morbad]

I don't have any problem with military slots. I think they can be explained in a credible enough way, and are a sensible balance compromise.

I think a nice compromise would be to expand on what is considered "military" for those slots. Seems like I should be able to put in an interdictor, a fighter bay (can sheild boosters go in? I doubt it) repair/recon/breaker limpets, shield generator... you know, military type stuff.

I see 'military' slots as holding modules that are either decentralized, or that have functions that do not need the standard access corridors/conduits...space that a hallway or canister transfer mechanism couldn't reach...which would rule out things like fighter hangars.

About the only other thing I'd allow to be placed in military slots that isn't already covered would be fuel tanks and shield generators...maybe AFMUs, depending on how one thinks they are supposed to work.

 

[Old Duck]

They are also both a fraction of the price and jump a good deal further. In terms of price, the Vulture would be better compared to the Asps, rather than the other small ships.

Wait, people still worry about the price of small ships? I just completed a single mission that would pay for a new A-rated Vulture, LOL.

But FWIW, I miss the days when I did have to worry about the price of a ship like the Vulture...

 

[RamirezKurita]

Wait, people still worry about the price of small ships? I just completed a single mission that would pay for a new A-rated Vulture, LOL.

The way I see it, rampant income inflation is a completely separate problem to ship design. If/when the economy gets fixed, credits will once again become a relevant factor. You shouldn't use a completely unrelated balance issue to justify balance issues elsewhere.

Also, if you don't include credits in the balance discussion, the only trade ships worth ever considering are the Python (for outposts), the T9 and the Cutter and so this whole discussion basically becomes meaningless other than discussing the Cutter. Without credits, we might as well buff all small and medium ships up to Python/KraitII/FDL standards and all large ships up to Cutter standards.

 

[Tunstan]

I don't have any problem with military slots. I think they can be explained in a credible enough way, and are a sensible balance compromise.



I see 'military' slots as holding modules that are either decentralized, or that have functions that do not need the standard access corridors/conduits...space that a hallway or canister transfer mechanism couldn't reach...which would rule out things like fighter hangars.

About the only other thing I'd allow to be placed in military slots that isn't already covered would be fuel tanks and shield generators...maybe AFMUs, depending on how one thinks they are supposed to work.

I've always thought it seemed like military slots should be able to take shield generators, but I didn't think about the "decentralized" aspect. Not sure how that factors into the consideration.

Also, regarding...

the only trade ships worth ever considering are the Python (for outposts), the T9 and the Cutter and so this whole discussion basically becomes meaningless other than discussing the Cutter.

Some people choose ships for reasons other than maximum potential for the role; maybe they like its asthetics or like its handling and just think it's fun to fly or whatever, but still want the best options from said ship. Especially without understanding the origins of military slots, they may feel like these are unecessary game restrictions.

 

[RamirezKurita]

Some people choose ships for reasons other than maximum potential for the role; maybe they like its asthetics or like its handling and just think it's fun to fly or whatever, but still want the best options from said ship. Especially without understanding the origins of military slots, they may feel like these are unecessary game restrictions.

It's true that some people choose things for meta reasons like aesthetics, lore or because other people use them, but that shouldn't be used as a reason to justify imbalance; there will always be players that place effectiveness as an incredibly low priority. Unless a player is trying to do something truly ridiculous, they shouldn't have to choose between an effective solution and a cool, creative one.

This is how Elite also falls flat on balance. Ship balance is all over the place to the point that there's only a few ships mechanically worth their time, there's only a few activities that are worth considering mechanically, most modules only have a single engineering mod that gives decent benefits and there's only 1 grade of each module worth considering in 99% of cases. The only reason why players find wiggle room for creativity in ship builds and applications is because the game is overall very easy once you master the basics - there aren't enough challenges that require top-end optimised ships flown by a skilled pilot to provide a reasonable baseline for what actually works.