[SUGGESTION] Solution for wasting slot space on size one scanners

[Iskariot]

I know I have brought this problem up before, but it makes me crazy having to use a slot 3, 4 or even 5 for a size one scanner.
I consider it to be a big problem for certain ships who have little to no small size one slots.
For example in my recently bought Corvette I waste at least the equivalent of a slot 5 if I use two scanners.
There has to be a better way to do this.

What about this solution:

We have to buy a separate Scanner Adapter Suite (SAS) for the slot we choose to put our scanners in and then we can put as many scanners in that slot as it's size will allow.
So if we buy a SAS for a slot three we can put three scanners in that slot.

This solution would save us a lot of useful space.
It would also allow for the easier introduction of more scanner types in the future, because the accommodation of these scanner would be less problematic.

 

[trollson]

I agree that it seems wasteful to use an large slot to hold a size 1 scanner - so I presume that these vessels were not intended as explorers or scouts? Only expected to work in "known space" or with escorts.

Perhaps, keeping to the module system, a combined ADS and SS for a price? Rather than require new ship management interface.

What is more galling is that these larger ships are the ones for which a docking computer really makes sense - but have no previson for this size 1 module either!

My preference, if we are redesigning ship management, is to have a separate computer module with a ca9acity for programs. The buy and run programs which use other ship systems to achieve results. For example, docking program would use sensors and thrusters, while scanners would process sensor data. Etc etc. Lots of fun options.

 

[Allchemyst]

Good idea. Frontier could link the amount of small (class 1-4) sensor slots to the quality of the scanner, while greater size scanners would naturally be able to hold both a discovery scanner and a DSS.

Me likey.

 

[Cypher2139]

Agreed! I imagine this would be easy to implement, as we already have modules that contain other modules (fighters and SRV bays) so we're already half way there!

 

[Iskariot]

Agreed! I imagine this would be easy to implement, as we already have modules that contain other modules (fighters and SRV bays) so we're already half way there!

Exactly why I came up with this.
It is a mechanic FD already knows.
So there would be little in the way of implementing this... if they do not have other objections we don't know about.
It would be such a neat solution to be able to fit multiple scanners into one slot.
I like neat ships

 

[Allchemyst]

Exactly why I came up with this.
It is a mechanic FD already knows.
So there would be little in the way of implementing this... if they do not have other objections we don't know about.
It would be such a neat solution to be able to fit multiple scanners into one slot.
I like neat ships

Well the one issue FD's always stated is that it forces players to make "choices". Like, to choose between a DSS and an repair module, etc. etc.

I guess they see it as a means of balance, so that dedicated explorers have to commit internals to their trade like any other player with any other type of trade needs to. It also gives relevance to bigger potential explorer ships that have more numerous internal slots.

(a.k.a the 'Conda is not a dedicated explorer but remains the best xplorer ship in the galaxy)

wether it's a meaningful choice, or a frustrating one, is another issue entirely...

 

[Marc_Hicks]

This is why I feel we need fo abandon the current Discovery Scanner system and replace it with one which more closely resembles all other modules on our ships-with a class 1-5 and E to A rating.

Its possible that class C to A scanners might *only* ever fit into a size 2 module slot.....but that the B & A scanners would have the Detailed Surface Scanner ability built in.

 

[Chrystoph]

I agree that it seems wasteful to use an large slot to hold a size 1 scanner - so I presume that these vessels were not intended as explorers or scouts? Only expected to work in "known space" or with escorts.

Perhaps, keeping to the module system, a combined ADS and SS for a price? Rather than require new ship management interface.

What is more galling is that these larger ships are the ones for which a docking computer really makes sense - but have no previson for this size 1 module either!

My preference, if we are redesigning ship management, is to have a separate computer module with a ca9acity for programs. The buy and run programs which use other ship systems to achieve results. For example, docking program would use sensors and thrusters, while scanners would process sensor data. Etc etc. Lots of fun options.

Repped, this is an excellent notion.

 

[Lestat]

I wish people would read Complaints on the Diamondback Explorer when horizon was released . Just on this one issue. The ship could not do it all. The devs. Pointed out they did not want ships to do it all.

Besides when you are Exploring. Do you need everything in that ship? No. Lighter is better.

 

[Chrystoph]

And yet, the Anaconda is the go to ship in long range exploration. More distance, more slots, more fire power than any of the explorers.

Just give up and admit it, Frontier built a classic price based advancement scheme for the ships. It is not really about choices so much as it is about how much cash or prestige (Super power ranking) you have.

The perfect example of this is a comparison of the Asp Scout v the Asp Explorer. The only reason to fly the Scout is superior handling. Fit them both for combat, and the Explorer is superior in every other way. Even the NPCs think so; just try and recall the last time you saw an NPC flying a Scout.