There was some fairly reasonable discussion until you came along with the usual "GOD MODE I WIN" hyperbole.
Universal Limpet Controller - Yet Another Redesign Idea
- Thread starter JTFireblaze
- Start date
There was some fairly reasonable discussion until you came along with the usual "GOD MODE I WIN" hyperbole.
Looked more like there was just some pie in the sky wishful thinking circle-j..k.
Last edited:
Just trying to push Ideas that would make sense,
and add something positive to the players side of things.
Considering your contribution has brought nothing to the table, who is the Troll after all ?
At least the others posting, are keeping on topic, without trying to misdirect the thread.
I wonder if you are one person with several accounts, so that you can pat yourself on the head.
Last edited:
Is this the suggestions forum? Is this not the place to suggest ideas and discuss them?
Or should we just never suggest or discuss changing things at all so it doesn't upset anyone.
Who cares if it has been posted a million times. All that means is it an issue that should be looked at.
I was just wondering about this myself. I don't really use limpets. I find them a pain for all the reasons you mentioned.
Good suggestions.
I was just wondering about this myself. I don't really use limpets. I find them a pain for all the reasons you mentioned.
Good suggestions.
It is.. with emphasis on discuss them.
Everyone can suggest anything. And everyone else can shot down that suggestion.
Not looking to offend anyone, but being a game designer is not as easy as it seems.
And the vast majority of suggestions on this section have a quite narrow perspective - aka the perspective of the one making the suggestion, disregarding (most of the time unintentionally) other game mechanics and/or other players and/or the lore etc.
Edit: Irrespective on what we discuss here, FD does peek into the suggestion forums.
They might not offer any feedback, but if there is something that they see worth changing/implementing they will look into it and pass it to the devs.
Last edited:
We are discussing them.
But when people chime in with "Oh they're just asking for an i win button", "pie in the sky circlejerk", "Let's just let every ship have everything hurr durr" it's not constructive.
I encourage anyone to engage in discussion, with reasonable arguments for and against suggestions. But simply going "No your idea is bad" or "I don't like this so NOBODY should bother discussing" doesn't help anyone.
Example in this thread - @GloatingSwine brings up the point that my suggestion would leave miners worse off if their prospectors had to be recalled before they could fire again. Constructive criticism of an idea that helps refine the suggestion. It's a part of the solution I hadn't considered.
I had a similar discussion on reddit and there were arguments around how this solution would affect AX combat, having to deal with a smaller number of overall drones. Again, constructive discussions.
I'm well aware of the difficulties of designing things and getting the balances of gameplay and fun are. That's why designers (should) discuss things with users so they can better understand the problems and find solutions to them.
They did that many years ago.
And while sometimes i would want an easier way with the limpets, easier is not always better.
What benefits will it add to the gameplay and what parts of the gameplay will be altered and what parts will be removed altogether?
For example Building the perfect and universal exploration ship means fitting on it everything that might be needed in exploration on that ship.
And there is only one ships that comes close to that: Anaconda, but it's not perfect since its SC maneuverability sux and the view sux and well... choices.
And since a lot are hating the Conda for reasons, we do have less optimal (utility wise) builds using AspX, Phantom, Orca and many other ships.
an ULC has a chance to partially solve that... but i'm not sure it is wise.
It removes the cost of opportunity and ultimately the pro vs con
Not having the perfect things in the game means we can have balance.
And we get back to one build to rule them all and one ship to bind them all. AKA the i win button.
I am not sure how the "Complexities" of Game Design pertain to a single feature that is blatantly wonky...
Narrow perspective... Yeah, that's what a simple suggestion is inherently.
Also being a game designer is very easy and it is a very fun job. Where do people come up with this stuff. Game design hard...
LMAO!! Coal Mining is hard. Game design is literally the exact opposite of Coal Mining.... What are all Game Designers heroes too!! HAHAHA!!!!
What benefits will it add to the gameplay and what parts of the gameplay?
I'd be able to participate in gameplay as I'm flying around in my spaceship instead of having to dismiss certain scenarios because my ship isn't fitted for it. Or have to go spend however much time it would take to fly back to a station, refit, rearm etc, then fly back to the POI and engage in the couple of minutes at most gameplay.
For exploration ships - ULC wouldn't even affect them. At most you need... a low tier repair limpet in case you do some hull damage?
I'd argue that the pro of being able to experience more content in the game without having to spend more time sat looking at the refitting screen outweighs the "cons" of your ship having a bunch of utility limpets.
one build to rule them all and one ship to bind them all.
You'd still need to specialise for different tasks.
- A mining ship still needs a refinery, a couple of prospectors, as many collectors as you can fit and mining lasers.
- A pirate ship - hatch breakers, Interdictor, weapons. cargo space
- A trade ship - huge cargo hold
- AX combat - repair, decon, research, fully kitted AX weapons, big shields
- Exploration - big jump drive, lightweight everything, whatever utilities you need.
If you can build a ship that can do literally everything in this list at the same level of efficiency as a ship built specifically for each task I'll be impressed.
Saying you'd be able to have an "I Win" ship is demonstrably false.
I will only address this since i also mentioned it...
A competent deep space exploration ship would have all of the following:
- repair limpets - for obvious reasons
- collector limpets - in case you might need to pick up, even if it is materials from mining for jumponium
- research limpets - to sample the thing one might find out there
- recon limpets - if case you might meet a lost megaship/seed ship, to scan it
- hatch breaker - same as above in case it has specific cargo
- slf hangar - for fun, scouting, etc
- fuel limpets - for helping the poor soul that might be in dire help
- cargo storage - for limpet and samples
- shields - obvious
- fuel scoop - obvious
- dss - obvious
- srv - obvious
plus xeno scanner, manifest scanner, wake scanner, heatsinks, shield boosters, pdt
FIt those on a Phantom or AspX
This suggestion simply gives us unlimited limpets. And free-up module space. Period, with no consequences. Obviously making the game tremendously easier. There is no trade-off.
And an exploration ship can add described ULC with profiles allowing repair, refuel, and research limpets all-in-one, no problem! with no trade-off or consequences. Easier ship design, easier game.
I mentioned the idea of re-usable limpets that can be lost, damaged, refueled, & repaired. This seems good logical realistic alternative idea except it sucks. Having to constantly wait for your prospector limpet to return, or running out of collector limpets in battle because they get left behind. Nobody would like this, its a terrible idea. Lots of disposable limpets are a better alternative. (Reusable limpets for repair, fuel, research would be cool, but mixing styles of reusable vs disposable becomes a mess) -> bad idea.
When posting a suggestion it is important to consider the negative ramifications to gameplay and balance, otherwise others will point it out and seem negative.
We can already have virtually unlimited limpets with synthesis though.
Yes, free up (some) module space. Since the game launched there have been several extra modules added for extra gameplay loops. Several limpet controller types as already outlined, Passenger Cabins, Guardian tech, Vehicle Hangars (SRV and SLF). When the exploration changes happened we got what, 1-2 Class 1 slots?
A player shouldn't be able to equip literally everything, of course, but especially with limpets they were added for very small gameplay opportunities. Roll them up so that more people can actually use them adhoc. It doesn't make things "easier", it makes some things more convenient. I still have to actually engage in the gameplay involved with the limpets, I just don't have to refit a ship all the time to do so. Less time in menus and more time actually playing the game.
An exploration ship can already install Repair, Refuel and Research limpets. And in most cases only needs the smallest options available. Having the 3 limpets in a single module doesn't make the game easier. You still need to actually do the exploration bit.
I took on board your feedback that the recalling limpets would slow down mining. Hence the suggestion that maybe under this system prospectors could be done away with and replaced with an alternative fire mode for the Pulse Wave Analyser to target single rocks for their make up.
I admit I had not considered the downside of prospectors, and I didn't consider your feedback negative at all. In fact, it was good feedback that helped refine the suggestion.
Well a Phantom and Asp can't fit a fighter hanger, so that can be removed from the requirements. The usual reasons for a fighter are to counter the manoeuvrability of the anaconda, of which the smaller ships have less of an issue.
Xeno scanners. Research limpets? Do thargoids often appear in deep space and require scanning? Would an explorer risk actively seeking these out anyway.
An explorer would probably avoid shield boosters due to their weight - given that jump range is usually a priority. Although these are not optional internals so wouldn't be affected by ULC changes. Same with scanners and heatsinks.
Aside from those, under a new ULC system you probably could fit all of that into a Phantom or Asp.
Even without the ULC you can get pretty damn close, if you cut out a couple of the limpets (fuel for bumping in to a random explorer is highly unlikely unless they're requesting help on reddit/forums/discords)
This is partly why i suggested grouped controllers by role. It alleviates some of the issue with all the varied limpet controllers while still requiring an (albeit lesser) amount of consideration and planning.
In the end it has little effect on me personally since i'm unlikely to fly anything larger than at most a keelback (and even that would be pushing it for me) and am perfectly happy scooping stuff the 'old fashioned way' if i'm mining.
But i see no problems with discussing the idea as a though experiment.
Well, i have edited my previous post since i forgot 2 important things.
Sure, a Phantom cannot fit a SLF, but a Krait mk2 can and can do that while still getting more than 60ly jump range.
So an ULC will add to the laziness factor, but not to the gameplay.
The same as the suggestion that asked for all weapons be fitted with a switch that turned them from fixed to gimballed to turrets, at will... So they can act as 3-in-1
This is my exploration Conda, designed for exploration and to take part in Explorer's Anchorage CG (it had a bounty hunting CG and a mining CG all taking place near SagA*)
Check the shields, the weapons that also is missing lots of the things i mentioned in the previous post. Some choices had to be made.
It was easily outfitted for mining at Explorer's Achorage station using local outsourced mining gear.
Sure, a Phantom cannot fit a SLF, but a Krait mk2 can and can do that while still getting more than 60ly jump range.
So an ULC will add to the laziness factor, but not to the gameplay.
The same as the suggestion that asked for all weapons be fitted with a switch that turned them from fixed to gimballed to turrets, at will... So they can act as 3-in-1
This is my exploration Conda, designed for exploration and to take part in Explorer's Anchorage CG (it had a bounty hunting CG and a mining CG all taking place near SagA*)
Check the shields, the weapons that also is missing lots of the things i mentioned in the previous post. Some choices had to be made.
It was easily outfitted for mining at Explorer's Achorage station using local outsourced mining gear.
Fitting everything into a perfect ship is not the game design. ED is designed such that the cmdr must make choices.
My current deep exploration ship is an Orca. Its a big ship. And yet I can't fit ANY limpet controllers along with a cargo rack. Not without sacrificing SRV, Shields or bup AFMU (which I find more useful than repair limpets). Its a trade-off. Yes it saddens me that I can't bring a warehouse of stuff with me.
If the game introduced a Universal Limpet Controller with free unlimited limpets that take no cargo space I would certainly use it. But that doesn't mean I agree with it.
Example: I carry/use the Detailed Surface Scanner for mapping planets even though I think its a dumb game concept. But its the tool I'm given.
Last edited:
I see the ULC as giving more choice to more ships, for more game play.
As is, you are locked in a box, that prevents you from doing things that may pop up, while playing.
Example: all set for exploring, but no collector limpets, and you chance upon a wreck,
and none of your repair, fuel, or scanner limpets can help.
As is, you are locked in a box, that prevents you from doing things that may pop up, while playing.
Example: all set for exploring, but no collector limpets, and you chance upon a wreck,
and none of your repair, fuel, or scanner limpets can help.
Requiring different types of limpet controllers was a poor design choice. They should have been consolidated into a single limpet controller with context-dependent effects (See here).
With an eye towards how this could be implemented without reworking the whole limpet system, imagine the Universal Controller Hub (UCH): This module comes in sizes 2-8. By itself, it does nothing (like the fighter Hanger). For each size class of the UCH, you can install one sub-module corresponding to the eight traditional limpet controllers. For performance purposes of the sub modules, the Class and Rating of the sub-modules is treated as one lower than the UCH.
Each sub-module has its own line on the Fire Group tab, so they all work the same way they currently do: assign each (sub)controller to a fire-group.
One consequence of this setup is that you could potentially have A LOT of limpets active. If that’s perceived as a problem, you could limit the total number of active limpets to the UCH class (e.g. maximum of 8 on a class 8 UCH). Doing this would necessitate adding the ability to terminate or recall specific limpets (probably from the contact tab like we detonate seismic charges). I like the idea of having limpet controllers run off AMFU-style ammunition.
i disagree
it's almost like saying having different ship types is a poor design choice, different weapons is a poor design choice and so on... you get the idea