Why lift the restriction on passenger ships?

[Cmdr Nemo]

I don't own an Orca or any of the ships that were dedicated to ferrying passengers about so I missed this change.

Can anyone point me to the reasoning behind lifting the restriction on passenger-only modules, please?

I'll assume your referring to the slots mandating one only utilizing one of three available items. Which for a noob, could and generally is a good thing. But anyone who's played for a period of time can and often times want to. Bypass the mandate and utilize something other more conducive to their particular loadout. Giving some ships other usefull purpose. Most experience player know when to install military mods and when not to. The new open slots now make that possible.

Personally, FDEV could have illiminated the slot entirely but didn't. Simply lifting the restriction doesn't change the games original intent of chooseing installing military mods, it simply allows one to choose for them selves, if they are nessasary or not to the agenda of the player.

 

[Poseidal]

In theory yes, but in the Elite Dangerous universe a Ferrari would be much better at transporting rice than a pickup truck.

The Mamba doesn't have very much internal space at all though.

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

A Boeing 747 clearly fits more into the multirole slot. Elite should have these types of ship. But a formula 1 racing car is clearly best suited to one job which it does very well. Elite should also have these types of ship.

Though I agree in part that ships should be utilized as designed, having the choice is a good thing. I presently only have five ships. I use an Challenger for combat only purposes which the loadout would show, can't be utilized for passenger nor cargo, strickly pew pew related missions. My Python as stated in the description, is a multi purpose ship, and thus I use it for conventional purposes and have mods in storage which allows me to switch between passenger and cargo or a mixture of both. My three conda's have different loadout for different purpose's. Yes I could simply have all the various mods in storage and switch them as I do with the Python. But I'm wealthy enough where as it is far easier to just switch ships rather than do a complete rebuild every time I deceide that I want to do exploring, mining or fuel ratting.

Why anyone needs more than three ships A fighter, a multi purpose, and a Bus in additonal to various mods in storage unless like myself, just find it easier to switch entire ships when changing from one venue to another. Is beyond me. But for some, collecting and competly engineering many ships is part of their play style, tis'nt mine, but then, one gets to choose how they want to play.

 

[Oss133]

Though I agree in part that ships should be utilized as designed, having the choice is a good thing.....

As I have said before, I want to have meaningful choices. I want to have to make decisions and sacrifices.

I like the multirole ships for when I want to drift about, picking up whatever is available.

But I liked the idea that some ships were going to be more specialised.

But clearly FD are going to do what they think best and I am going to carry on playing because I like the game enough to live with those decisions.

It's just a shame that FD have declined to share their reasoning on this.

 

[Chrystoph]

I don't own an Orca or any of the ships that were dedicated to ferrying passengers about so I missed this change.

Can anyone point me to the reasoning behind lifting the restriction on passenger-only modules, please?

I realize that it is programmatically more difficult, but what should have been done in the first place is to restrict the modules to ship classes, not to restrict Compartments.

That way, the "liners" would just be another ship, but the Luxury cabins would only work in liners. The same should be done with military compartments.

There is no realistic explanation for restricted compartments, but module restrictions actually have real world analogs.