Why don't we get rid of all specialised compartments?

[Mugur]

Since the passenger ships change (great move, by the way, IMHO), I'm thinking, why don't we get rid of the military compartments too? It should bring more variety in builds and nobody will have anything to complain, because they can keep their HRPs if the still want them. I love ships with many optional slots.

What do you think?

 

[GunnerBill]

Since the passenger ships change (great move, by the way, IMHO), I'm thinking, why don't we get rid of the military compartments too? It should bring more variety in builds and nobody will have anything to complain, because they can keep their HRPs if the still want them. I love ships with many optional slots.

What do you think?

OOhhhh my Cutter gets an extra 64 tonnes of cargo space!

Honestly I can't think of a good reason not too. But I'm sure there are... :S

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Since the passenger ships change (great move, by the way, IMHO), I'm thinking, why don't we get rid of the military compartments too? It should bring more variety in builds and nobody will have anything to complain, because they can keep their HRPs if the still want them. I love ships with many optional slots.

What do you think?

Bad idea. The reason why they were given this slots was because multirole ships were better at combat, because they could fill their optional with HRPs, MRPs and shield cell banks with all those optional compartments.

If you remove those restrictions, the combat ships now become better multirole ships then the multirole ships.

It is an unfortunate by product of HRPs, MRPs, and shield cell banks. If we remove all of those, then the combat ships can just have those slots removed entirely.

 

[Vasious]

OOhhhh my Cutter gets an extra 64 tonnes of cargo space!

Honestly I can't think of a good reason not too. But I'm sure there are... :S

Surely it would be removing the Military compartments rather than making them optional internals, as they were added in in addition to exisiting internals

 

[Watcher]

Ship role balancing.

I'm not entirely against dedicated slots but I do wonder whether something more interesting could be done with them - perhaps give them dedciated variants of the module types that are better than the standard fit anywhere versions (a bit like we have with the luxury passanger cabins).

Or make them preferential so that they confer a bonus to the module types they are designed for and maybe the reverse for modules not of type (where applicable, be odd for cargo modules).

This would give you more flexibility and give ships a prefered role but strictly enforce things.

 

[Mugur]

Bad idea. The reason why they were given this slots was because multirole ships were better at combat, because they could fill their optional with HRPs, MRPs and shield cell banks with all those optional compartments.

If you remove those restrictions, the combat ships now become better multirole ships then the multirole ships.

It is an unfortunate by product of HRPs, MRPs, and shield cell banks. If we remove all of those, then the combat ships can just have those slots removed entirely.

So there are a few ships, like Challenger for example that will get 3 more slots... In the grand scheme of things, would this be so bad? Will this make Cutter or a Corvette much better than they already are?

With the inflation of new limpets and modules, I think that this will still be a good move, far outweighting the potential downsides. It will still gives more options, not less. And more options are always good.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So there are a few ships, like Challenger for example that will get 3 more slots... In the grand scheme of things, would this be so bad? Will this make Cutter or a Corvette much better than they already are?

With the inflation of new limpets and modules, I think that this will still be a good move, far outweighting the potential downsides. It will still gives more options, not less. And more options are always good.

If the problem is the number of limpet controllers, we should first fix that directly.

Personally, I think there should be more specialization of compartments. Some modules clearly require some kind of internal volume - cargo racks, fighter bays, refineries. It makes some kind of sense that these would be somewhat interchangeable. But Hull Reinforcement Packages? Makes little sense to me that they could just work in the same space as a cargo rack. And I would consider another kind of rank, for "Sensors and Electronics", were we could put our limpet controllers, docking computers, additional scanners etc.

And I would add a new core module "Ships Computer", which would provide computing power to these kinds of modules, and let us manage this much like we manage power to other modules. You need more limpet controllers? Better upgrade your ships computer to be able to run them all.

 

[askavir]

If you remove those restrictions, the combat ships now become better multirole ships then the multirole ships.

While I do agree with you out of principle, on the other hand seeing than most ships in the roster are "just combat" ships, unlocking their internals would immediately result in a vast number of new, far more usable ships to the game. So I'm gonna have to disagree with my principles and "vote" for the OP.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
What do you think?

I think a better way to deal with module inflation would be to restrict defensive modules to one per type, change the way the defensive modules work and adjust a lot of the engineering modifications and special effects.

Module reinforcement packages shouldn't exist at all. Instead there should be reinforced versions of core internals (other than B class).

Guardian Shield Boosters should add a percentage of the base ship shield value to the shields instead of a fixed boost.

Only 2 shield boosters installable at once.

Hull reinforcement should get removed and replaced by more bulkhead choices - some of the higher grade ones might even downgrade the size of all internal slots (it makes no sense that an internal component can affect the external armor of a ship).

Change the way small weapons work against larger ships (back to what it was before), turning them back into weapons from their current status of "special effect application devices that are otherwise completely useless".

Stop the limpet inflation - those things get programmed, the limpet controller should be able to program all types of limpets.

Adjust ship speed so that small ships are the fastest ships and not some of the larger medium sized ships. Same with agility - all small ships should be more agile than larger ships.

…

In short: we need a complete rebalance

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Surely it would be removing the Military compartments rather than making them optional internals, as they were added in in addition to exisiting internals

this

older ships where given those additionally. unlike passenger ships that came out with them.

IMHO the removal of said module restrictions on passenger ships was good,
but IMHO they should have made passenger ships get a BONUS for fitting cabins.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Wow this forum took a remarkable 180 on restricted module slots... Wasn't long ago that most people were calling for more ships to have them to further define their roles.

Mining slots for the miners
Scanner slots for the explorers

Etc...

I personally liked the idea of restricted module slots. I think it was done poorly in the passenger ships, but done right in the combat ships. I think the passenger ships only needed a bit of tweaking, not unlocking altogether.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

this

older ships where given those additionally. unlike passenger ships that came out with them.

IMHO the removal of said module restrictions on passenger ships was good,
but IMHO they should have made passenger ships get a BONUS for fitting cabins.

The problem with passenger ships is the way VIP missions work.
The missions require one cabin module per VIP mission. Making the large size of cabins in passenger ships often crippling compared to ships with more smaller sized cabins.

Changing the way passenger missions work could make passenger ships more useful without requiring changes to the ships themselves.

 

[Dommarraa]

I still think specialist slots are the way to keep ships different, but instead of being a hard lockout, a specialist slot should be able to take any other module, but a size down.
Fs slots, shield slots, hanger slots. There are lore excuses you could come up with for them easily.
Then 2 ships with almost identical base stats could be better for different roles due to their slot types.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

I still think specialist slots are the way to keep ships different, but instead of being a hard lockout, a specialist slot should be able to take any other module, but a size down.
Fs slots, shield slots, hanger slots. There are lore excuses you could come up with for them easily.
Then 2 ships with almost identical base stats could be better for different roles due to their slot types.

Modules other than cargo or cabins would simply require a specialized frame that reduces the size of the module installed.

An other restricting aspect of the current state of modules is that there are not enough sizes. Instead of class 1-8 a system with class 1-20 would allow much preciser ship balance and more variations.

For example for every module class there is a + version (class2 and class2+ for example). The +version would be in the middle between two classes.
Specialized module slots could take the + version of a specialized module while having to use the standard version for non specialized modules.

 

[kpmop]

Wow this forum took a remarkable 180 on restricted module slots... Wasn't long ago that most people were calling for more ships to have them to further define their roles.

Mining slots for the miners
Scanner slots for the explorers

Etc...

I personally liked the idea of restricted module slots. I think it was done poorly in the passenger ships, but done right in the combat ships. I think the passenger ships only needed a bit of tweaking, not unlocking altogether.

I think essentially we just wanted more slots, and making them "restricted" was a proposed trade-off (in line with the military slots). There's been so much module creep recently that space is starting to get a bit tight...

The restricted slots in passenger ships could have been OK, but the missions were borked, and you could make just as much money in a multi-role ship so there was no good reason for having them.

 

[aardappelianen]

I always like to think the military slot on ship are hull features and therefore not suitable for stuffing large components in, however fuel, reduced cargo space and small sensors should definitely fit and i think every ship should have at least one of these slots but they should be renamed to hull slots or something and I would like benefits and drawbacks to mounting stuff in or on the hull
Like stuffing your hull with fuel weakens you against collisions but increase your ships heat dissipation since your hull is filled with a liquid (i guess its liquid fuell
And sensors get better performances but are more susceptible to wear and tear

 

[metatheurgist]

It is an unfortunate by product of HRPs, MRPs, and shield cell banks. If we remove all of those, then the combat ships can just have those slots removed entirely.

My preferred solution would be to restrict HRPs, SCBs, MRPs to military slots. Then get rid of SBs.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

While I do agree with you out of principle, on the other hand seeing than most ships in the roster are "just combat" ships, unlocking their internals would immediately result in a vast number of new, far more usable ships to the game. So I'm gonna have to disagree with my principles and "vote" for the OP.

They are still perfectly useable for the role they excel at which is combat. If we go down that route we can start going why can't we put large weapons on a t7 and t6. Make them faster and more meanouverable so we can use them for anything. Then ships begin to loose there characters and what made them special as they all end up being the same. Lots of compartments and lots of weapons. The only distinguishing factor would be their looks.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

My preferred solution would be to restrict HRPs, SCBs, MRPs to military slots. Then get rid of SBs.

What I would have done is given sub slots ro bulkheads where you can add your MRPs and HRPs. You could have a certain amount of subslots depending on type of ship.

I would do the same for shields, they would have sub slots where you either put SCBs or SBs. Again a certain amount depending ship type.

And then I would put sub slots in the sensors which you then add all you scanners and comms equipment such as docking computer, limpet controllers etc.

Much easier to balance the combat effectiveness of each ship like that too.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

So there are a few ships, like Challenger for example that will get 3 more slots... In the grand scheme of things, would this be so bad? Will this make Cutter or a Corvette much better than they already are?

With the inflation of new limpets and modules, I think that this will still be a good move, far outweighting the potential downsides. It will still gives more options, not less. And more options are always good.

Yes. As I said, they would out multirole the multirole ships.
So you give the chieftain three more slots, that's eight slots the same as the python, but much cheaper then the python, more manouverable, faster, better hard point placement, more hardpoints. Who would bother with a python. The same goes for the fed ships. They would be well overpowered. You would have to doable the prices of them at least.