Was FE2's Outfitting Better?

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
This is just a discussion!
I'm not complaining I can't fit everything on my Eagle. Lol (but it would be nice)

FE2's Outfitting, if I recall correctly (it's been a while), was based on overall mass. We didn't have dedicated slots or anything like that. Your ship had a maximum mass, and the rest was up to you.
They still had limited hardpoints however. (Did utilities exist back then?)

Basically near infinite possibilities!

What we have in ED, is well, not. Lol
With all the "odd" sizes of modules, and available slots, we end up wasting space that could otherwise be used for something useful.
And with tiny ships, you quickly find you're out of space.

Basically, most of the "module splitter" requests come from the space wasted by things like having a class 4 slot, when you actually would just like 2/3 smaller slots.

I'm also a big fan of the MechWarrior outfitting system, which is like a cross between FE2 and ED.

So with regards to outfitting, which system do you prefer, and why?

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
 

RidingTheFlow

RidingTheFlow
Yes, I've liked FE2/FFE KISS principles...

Well, I still think FE2/FFE are much better games than ED (at least, with all bugs patched out - yep, FDev made stuff very buggy back in the days...). Basically only thing which much better in ED is graphics (and *some* parts of flight mechanics).
 
Last edited:

Cmdr Eagleboy

Cmdr Eagleboy
RidingTheFlow said:
Yes, I've liked FE2/FFE KISS principles...

Well, I still think FE2/FFE are much better games than ED (at least, with all bugs patched out - yep, FDev made stuff very buggy back in the days...). Basically only thing which much better in ED is graphics (and *some* parts of flight mechanics).
Click to expand...

You will need some good arguments to back up that claim :)
 

Vasious

Vasious
No not really

It offered a lot of potential combinations but separating hard points, utilities, core internals and optional internals with slot make for more balanced and design considered ships.
It gives the player certainty of fitting all the essentials, then a choice in a number of optional to fit a role with different ships offering different numbers of options.
Gives us choices, but also makes it clear trade offs.

In FE2 a ship had x tons of empty hull space and everyone item too away from that with what is left being fuel and cargo space, and again only the largests ships could fit everything and the kitchen sink, without being hobbles, but they had terrible ranges.
Still the same only the largest ships could fit everything and the kitchen sink in E|D

I mean, it is past midnight here so I struggle to think but;

A Lakon Type 7 has
1 small hard point
1 small hard points
1 small hard points
1 small hard points
1 Utility mounts
1Utility mounts
1Utility mounts
5 Power Plant
5 Thrusters
5 Frame shift Drive
4 Life Support
4 Power Distributor
3 Sensors
6 Optional
6 Optional
6 Optional
5 Optional
5 Optional
5 Optional
3 Optional
3 Optional
2 Optional

And you might get more flexibility with a Lakon Type 7 with 74 slots building a ship with
0 to 4 Small Weapons
0 to 3 Utilities
A life support system meeting minimums 4 points
Any combination of anything else
A Thrusters that can push it all

But it is opaque, open to extremes, isn't great to balance all the possibilities and makes the difference in ships less.

Yes you could fit a size one of every module then go from there but does that add to outfitting your ships?

Unless we did go with thinks from FE2 like not all ships being able to fit Cargo Scoops and fuel scoops and the like.


I am for Modules like limpet bays to carry limpet controls, and Exploration suites to carry Exploration Scanners but not universal pick and mix
 
Last edited:

bladebss

bladebss
I used to think that the ffe way was better.. i still kind of do. But the ED way works for the game and makes interesting choices.

The ffe way was fun and alowed lots of crazy builds, and very foolish builds as you had to fit everything.
First thing i did with every ship was buy a

□ combat computer,
□atmospheric shielding,
□targeting computer,
□navigation computer!
□scanner,
and if i had the space and cash an
□ ecm!

Then i would go about fiddling with wepons and energy boosters and shield cells. I liked how everthing could brake as well!

If you lost your atmospheric shielding and then went to land on a planet things got hot and deadly realy fast lol but if you were low on space and wernt going to a planet you could ditch it and buy one after.

Same with thrusters you lost individual ones, if you lost the left thruster you would drag to one side and would have to compensate.. made docking realy fun!! Lol would be nice to have this in ED.

But in ED we have to choose what we are having and in what slot and size witch makes more sence realy as you cant just shove aload of equipment in a warehouse and it will fly, stuff needs to be in the right place and plugged into the right holes.

It adds meaning to ships of similar size buy offering different slots. It also stops people from completely stuffing there ship with cell banks and boosters lol try as they might.

Ps there was no utilities in ffe just gun mounts and turrets and missile pylons. Everything else was just in the ship, (i asume just bolted to the deck with a mess of wires and cabels all over the place lol)
 
Last edited:

Captain N

C
The FE2/FFE system was weird, because it only tracked the mass of modules and ships, not volume.

Especially in a game that assumes most modules will be contained inside an enclosed hull of a fixed size, that's a strange omission. You would think volume would be the more determinant factor on how much "stuff" you can fit in. Mass just affects acceleration.

ED's specialised compartments are a way to differentiate the ships more, as well as provide a means to crudely track volume. (Can't fit a size 3 weapon to a ship that only has the space for size 2)

Of course, both pale in comparison to games like Kerbal Space Program, Children of a Dead Earth and Space Engineers, but those games are more about letting users build entire ships from scratch, rather than just customizing premade templates. That approach tends to end up in dorky looking ships, especially when people min-max rather than build for aesthetics.
 
Last edited:

Han_Zen

Han_Zen
CMDR_Cosmicspacehead said:
This is just a discussion!
I'm not complaining I can't fit everything on my Eagle. Lol (but it would be nice)

FE2's Outfitting, if I recall correctly (it's been a while), was based on overall mass. We didn't have dedicated slots or anything like that. Your ship had a maximum mass, and the rest was up to you.
They still had limited hardpoints however. (Did utilities exist back then?)

Basically near infinite possibilities!

What we have in ED, is well, not. Lol
With all the "odd" sizes of modules, and available slots, we end up wasting space that could otherwise be used for something useful.
And with tiny ships, you quickly find you're out of space.

Basically, most of the "module splitter" requests come from the space wasted by things like having a class 4 slot, when you actually would just like 2/3 smaller slots.

I'm also a big fan of the MechWarrior outfitting system, which is like a cross between FE2 and ED.

So with regards to outfitting, which system do you prefer, and why?

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Click to expand...

Outfitting in FE2/FFE were really bad. At least if you look at it from a game play perspective. As a pure adventure, it was ok.
It took about 2 hours of trading between Sol and Barnard star(100% safe. No flying, just auto pilot clicks) to reach invincibility level. After this you could just use the stardreamer and auto pilot to plow through everything.

The weight limit(it's really volume) outfitting works ok for small small ships, where you have to do some prioritization. For bigger ships it falls apart, because you can 'have it all' in excess.

It would be better to take all the modules that in reality don't require any space, like scanners, controllers and docking computer and make them only require power(not a slot).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom