Undersize module fitting -> cargo, eliminate cargo racks

denisbloodnok

D
My apologies if this is a bit of a hardy perennial.

Discussion here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-Ship-should-have-a-quot-Flight-Computer-quot led me to notice the main reason docking computers, disco scanners, and surface scanners are a pain to fit is that many ships lack size-1 compartments. Of course, just splitting compartments has balance implications - two size-1 HRPs are better than a size-2 HRP, and it would increase the total functionality available in ships that are short of compartments. Hence, I suggest that for a selected subset of modules, if they are fitted in an oversize compartment the rest is available as cargo space.

That leads one to ask why you don't have to fit a cargo rack for the leftover space. Well, let's get rid of them altogether, and just make all unused compartment space on a ship implicitly cargo. Fitting cargo racks is just a pointless speedbump - they don't weigh anything so there's no tradeoff there, all but the largest are available everywhere so there's no real prospect of not being able to find one, their cost is trivial (yes, a class 8 costs 3 million but you need a 76 million hull to put it in). There aren't any decisions to make here - you will never think "actually, it would be better to leave this compartment empty than to fit a cargo rack".
 
Last edited:

Hooplah

Hooplah
Given that cargo racks are equipment that can be bought, sold and stored it seems reasonable that they have a cost value and the CMDR has the option to install or not. Just always having them in the background doesn't fit with the other purchasable items.
 

denisbloodnok

D
Hooplah said:
Given that cargo racks are equipment that can be bought, sold and stored it seems reasonable that they have a cost value and the CMDR has the option to install or not.
Click to expand...
That's kind of circular; my proposal is that they not be equipment that is bought, sold, or stored. The option serves no purpose because it is a complete no-brainer given the zero mass and trivial cost of all but the largest cargo racks.
 

Tryst

Tryst
Easy way would be the ability to combine modules of a certain type. Disco scanners, DC and surface scanners could be combined into one size 3 unit at a cost, similarly two of the three combined into a single size 2 unit. These are the ONLY modules available to do it with, (lets say heat generation makes others too dangerous to put in close proximity to each other like that, they need more air circulation).

Make the cost significant since it would cause the fitters a lot of work.
 
Last edited:

denisbloodnok

D
Tryst said:
Easy way would be the ability to combine modules of a certain type. Disco scanners, DC and surface scanners could be combined into one size 3 unit at a cost, similarly two of the three combined into a single size 2 unit. These are the ONLY modules available to do it with, (lets say heat generation makes others too dangerous to put in close proximity to each other like that, they need more air circulation).
Click to expand...
That's one of the other common proposals. I didn't make that both because it's been made before and also because at the moment the number of internal slots a ship has restricts the number of functions it can perform, giving an additional way to distinguish a multirole ship which might have many small slots from a combat ship or hauler with the same volume in fewer slots. If more than one function can be combined in one module slot, that distinction is eroded. (To be fair, my proposal does this a little in that a fit that can do XYZ and carry no cargo might become one that can do XYZ and carry a modest amount of cargo, or a hauler that can carry a lot of cargo and do X might become one that can carry almost as much cargo and do XYZ).
 

JohnnyDangerous

JohnnyDangerous
The whole modular ship design went away from the original game and led to a logical split as well (ie: if every canister is the same in size, why is it also the same in weight if gold weighs more than hydrogen fuel?) The original ELITE allowed you to upgrade your ship, and it just was an upgrade that was permanent. Add a docking computer? It's just software, so there it is. All cargo was flown "loose" as you say, filling up the cargo hold.

The whole "slot" thing is very unrealistic and gamey, for balance or whatever, but not in keeping with the "simulator" style the game used to have. I mean, look at the SIZE of these things in game vs 20th century tech. Life support systems to keep THREE guys alive for over a week were measured in pounds, yet the Elite Dangerous system of tons only lasts a few minutes.
 

metatheurgist

metatheurgist
JohnnyDangerous said:
The whole modular ship design went away from the original game and led to a logical split as well (ie: if every canister is the same in size, why is it also the same in weight if gold weighs more than hydrogen fuel?) The original ELITE allowed you to upgrade your ship, and it just was an upgrade that was permanent. Add a docking computer? It's just software, so there it is. All cargo was flown "loose" as you say, filling up the cargo hold.

The whole "slot" thing is very unrealistic and gamey, for balance or whatever, but not in keeping with the "simulator" style the game used to have. I mean, look at the SIZE of these things in game vs 20th century tech. Life support systems to keep THREE guys alive for over a week were measured in pounds, yet the Elite Dangerous system of tons only lasts a few minutes.
Click to expand...

I think your memory of the original Elite is a bit faulty. Original game also had cargo pods that were universal and came in 1T. The only exception were precious metals which were measured in Kgs and gems which were measured in Grams.
 

GJ51

GJ51
At the current state of the game, with Engineers and all, it's hard to argue that it doesn't make sense to just give every ship 2 Class 1 modules to accommodate the Scanners. It's certainly beyond belief that ED introduced the DBX not so equipped.

The balance factor just doesn't have the impact it did in the early game anymore.

Give every ship 2 Class 1 compartments that if for some reason someone wants to use them for something else, so what?

Should have been done long ago.

Maybe add 3 to accommodate the docking computer if someone wants one. I can't see how this would upset any game balance anymore.

This oversight on FD's part is just another example of how they like to just throw frustration at players for no logical reason.

I really wish they would stop that and try making the game more enjoyable with easily done QOL improvements.
 

denisbloodnok

D
metatheurgist said:
I think your memory of the original Elite is a bit faulty. Original game also had cargo pods that were universal and came in 1T. The only exception were precious metals which were measured in Kgs and gems which were measured in Grams.
Click to expand...
I've heard a suggestion that this was a relic of the Traveller RPG (several Travellerisms are in Elite and it seems likely Braben and Bell were aware of it). There, cargo containers are "displacement tonnes" - but actually it's a purely volumetric measure, volume sufficient to hold a tonne of liquid hydrogen. A container full of steel has a much higher mass. It's hard to tell in Elite because mass of cargo doesn't affect ship performance in any way; the manual sometimes talks about cargo in tonnes and sometimes in "Tonne Canisters" (which could be Traveller-style volumetric). It's only in Frontier that the absurdity of all the containers having the same mass is really made explicit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom