Please reduce number of deployables on ships

[Falcrack]

Another reason I would want to reduce number of deployables is that it is another example of the copy paste stats which have plagued X4 since release, where every small ship gets exactly 50 deployables. There ought to be more variety in terms of ship stats. Some should for example have more deployable capacity than others, at the expense of reduced regular cargo space for example.

Also, having the ability for a small fighter to quickly deploy 50 Mk1 laser towers feels cheap and overpowered. If a small fighter were limited to maybe 10 deployables for example, it would feel far more balanced and reasonable.

[Slashman]

First of all, while a destroyer can carry 40 fighters, they can't really "field" them in any kind of timely manner like a real carrier can. You can picture it as all those extra fighters being in crates and reassembled as needed. That's about the speed at which they can be deployed (similar to how fast fighters can be constructed at a wharf). Add to that the fact that destroyers don't have the necessary carrier software to operate efficiently. Limiting them to 4 or less severley impacts some forms of gameplay.

That is irrelevant to me talking about them being physically able to carry 40 fighters plus have the space to support all those turrets plus main guns. I just don't see it. And also why would you make a ship that is mean to bring raw firepower to bear against a large target have that capability when they cannot effective use it? There are many other ways you could do it. The 40 fighters is just plain lazy design. That does break my immersion. Bernd didn't even have good answer as to why this was setup this way. Likely just a matter of copy paste design where time limited them being able to balance the system to make some sense. There are a LOT of examples in x4 of this happening and I get it. Its a relatively small team making a huge game with a lot to consider. Just don't pretend like it makes perfect sense.

For example, in some of my games I enjoy working my way up to capturing an SCA destroyer, and then using that as a mobile HQ, carrying many ships for different purposes (combat missions, transport missions, mining, cargo carrying, secondary cargo for my destroyer, etc.) as I fly around the universe. That's impossible to do with a mere 4 ship capacity. And don't tell me to get a carrier because those are simply unavailable in this playstyle, especially if I'm playing as a pirate and nobody likes me very much. The nerf bat will totally ruin this style of gameplay after Egosoft likely 'upgrades' the remaining destroyers (and L-miners) in the game.

Having the ability to carry 40 fighters doesn't really hurt anyone's gameplay. Not having it does. Sorry if all the 'realists' out there think it does.

I appreciate that you have found a use for the oddly balanced gameplay element. That doesn't mean that it is a good idea to leave it in. It does personally make me cringe when I see a destroyer with all this cargo capacity plus being able to hold a full compliment of fighters that should be the province of carriers. Plus it is annoying that EVERY race had the same idea of wasteful ship design. I don't know why it couldn't have been 10 fighters and racial variance making it go up and down.

[taztaz502]

...

As long as Egosoft is looking at ship rebalancing for the beta, I think this is something that needs to be carefully looked at.

I totally disagree. If you don't like the number of deployables in your ships, don't let them carry them. I really wish players would stop trying to regulate the way others play the game and just use a little personal self control. Just finished reading the thread on lasertowers that's proposing another nerf. I sure hope neither of these are being considered by the devs, since they really aren't necessary. A number of previous nerfs have led to me enjoying the game a little bit less - first the crystal nerf, then the capital ship small ship capacities. There really was no need for either, but some vocal players complained load enough that Egosoft apparently decided most players felt the same (which I highly doubt). So please, enough nerfs already!!

I'm all for choice this is a sandbox after all, that shouldn't however get in the way of balancing the game.

I agree with the OP even though i often use the satellite exploit a few times at the start of a new game things like this do need to be addressed.

That said ton of other things egosoft need to prioritise first, ventures for example. Either remove it or use it. The various items you loot throughout missions that do absolutely nothing, remove them or use them. Far too many things make the game look unfinished.

[GCU Grey Area]

I agree with the OP even though i often use the satellite exploit a few times at the start of a new game things like this do need to be addressed.

You may consider satellites to be an exploit. I do not, I like to see what's going on. This is the current extent of my surveillance network, every single one of them deployed personally so I can ensure precise placement without gaps. It's a bit tedious & takes quite a while to setup, but has proved immensely useful. Would vastly increase the time it takes (& the tedium) if my scout ship couldn't carry sufficient satellites to cover even a single sector & I had to keep flying back & forth to wharves etc to restock just to complete individual sectors.

[Raptor34]

This is an interesting discussion… Both camps make good points - I’m as yet undecided which way I’m leaning….

But since we’re thinking about “realism” - is there any logical reason for an advanced society, that has faster-than-light video communication to need satellites to keep prices up to date? I mean, I can contact a station or ship on the other side of the galaxy, talk to them, get directions etc. And yet, they cannot give me live trade order information unless I’ve been near them within five hours? Head scratcher that one…

Personally, I feel that satelites should be an intelligence tool only I.e. to give ship position detail to plan military ops or spy on enemies.

It makes more sense to me that factions would want to give customers/suppliers up to date trade info… After all, they want you to buy stuff they sell or may need what you have… I’d advocate that factions should give up to date trade offers once your rep is 10+ automatically and for free (or perhaps a smaller fee than we do now.) There should be no need to spam your allies / trade partners’ space with satelites… Use them in enemy space instead.

This way, the amount of satelites we may need will be reduced and perhaps then, the overall deployment counts can also be rebalanced accordingly? Just a thought…

Funnily enough, saying intelligence tool is that logical reason. Because you are literally stealing that price data. Consider at high rank you can pay 10 mil for a trade subscription where they hand over the data, your satellites are literally commiting piracy.

[taztaz502]

I agree with the OP even though i often use the satellite exploit a few times at the start of a new game things like this do need to be addressed.

You may consider satellites to be an exploit. I do not, I like to see what's going on. This is the current extent of my surveillance network, every single one of them deployed personally so I can ensure precise placement without gaps. It's a bit tedious & takes quite a while to setup, but has proved immensely useful. Would vastly increase the time it takes (& the tedium) if my scout ship couldn't carry sufficient satellites to cover even a single sector & I had to keep flying back & forth to wharves etc to restock just to complete individual sectors.

Huh? I don't consider satellites to be an exploit, i consider buying them en-masse from equipment docks and selling them to wharfs to be an exploit.

If i had my way i would allow scout ships to set up satellites automatically in the same way you get them when you start a custom game with the sector discovered.

[Raptor34]

I agree with the OP even though i often use the satellite exploit a few times at the start of a new game things like this do need to be addressed.

You may consider satellites to be an exploit. I do not, I like to see what's going on. This is the current extent of my surveillance network, every single one of them deployed personally so I can ensure precise placement without gaps. It's a bit tedious & takes quite a while to setup, but has proved immensely useful. Would vastly increase the time it takes (& the tedium) if my scout ship couldn't carry sufficient satellites to cover even a single sector & I had to keep flying back & forth to wharves etc to restock just to complete individual sectors.

Huh? I don't consider satellites to be an exploit, i consider buying them en-masse from equipment docks and selling them to wharfs to be an exploit.

If i had my way i would allow scout ships to set up satellites automatically in the same way you get them when you start a custom game with the sector discovered.

Then don't do it? Or are online leaderboards that important to you?

[taztaz502]

You may consider satellites to be an exploit. I do not, I like to see what's going on. This is the current extent of my surveillance network, every single one of them deployed personally so I can ensure precise placement without gaps. It's a bit tedious & takes quite a while to setup, but has proved immensely useful. Would vastly increase the time it takes (& the tedium) if my scout ship couldn't carry sufficient satellites to cover even a single sector & I had to keep flying back & forth to wharves etc to restock just to complete individual sectors.

Huh? I don't consider satellites to be an exploit, i consider buying them en-masse from equipment docks and selling them to wharfs to be an exploit.

If i had my way i would allow scout ships to set up satellites automatically in the same way you get them when you start a custom game with the sector discovered.

Then don't do it? Or are online leaderboards that important to you?

or exploits can be fixed and we can have a balanced game, go download a mod if you want an exploit ridden game and what online leaderboards?

Why you crying about the game being fixed?

[Raptor34]

Huh? I don't consider satellites to be an exploit, i consider buying them en-masse from equipment docks and selling them to wharfs to be an exploit.

If i had my way i would allow scout ships to set up satellites automatically in the same way you get them when you start a custom game with the sector discovered.

Then don't do it? Or are online leaderboards that important to you?

or exploits can be fixed and we can have a balanced game, go download a mod if you want an exploit ridden game and what online leaderboards?

Why you crying about the game being fixed?

Why are you crying about people using exploits in a SINGLEPLAYER game. And clearly there are more issues here than a simple just fix it. Just use a mod as you said.

[jlehtone]

I like more of a challenge. I like more constraints and limitations. Boundaries and limits are what make games fun to me. Without them, the game becomes boring because it is too easy. Telling players they should use self restraint ... doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer to me.

It is true that those are two different challenges.

• One has you cope with strict limit enforced by the game
• In the other you challenge yourself to stay within a limit chosen by you

Naturally, in the latter case one has to face the challenge of self restraint to not load too many deployables and then face the challenge of coping with that amount. Yes, that is "more".

I can, technically, load less than max to a ship. If I fail, then that is my problem.
If game changes the limit to 1 deployable, then most of us may have a problem.

In a recent discussion a limit enforced by the game -- boost consuming shield -- was felt too strict by some players ...

[GCU Grey Area]

Huh? I don't consider satellites to be an exploit, i consider buying them en-masse from equipment docks and selling them to wharfs to be an exploit.

I reckon it's just the wrong way to fix it, with substantial negative implications for those of us who use satellites for their clearly intended purpose. Nerfing scout ships ability to deploy satellites would also do nothing to fix the underlying issue of satellite trading (other ships also exist). Far better way to fix satellite trading would be economically, e.g. maybe second-hand equipment sells for considerably less, to the extent that it becomes effectively impossible ever to make a profit by buying sats at one station & selling them to another.

Not that I'd particularly want the devs to do even that - it would use valuable dev time in a manner that would make absolutely no difference to my game (it's not an exploit I use), thus all their hard work would be wasted on me. Would very much prefer them to use that time working on stuff that would improve my enjoyment of the game instead.

[taztaz502]

Huh? I don't consider satellites to be an exploit, i consider buying them en-masse from equipment docks and selling them to wharfs to be an exploit.

I reckon it's just the wrong way to fix it, with substantial negative implications for those of us who use satellites for their clearly intended purpose. Nerfing scout ships ability to deploy satellites would also do nothing to fix the underlying issue of satellite trading (other ships also exist). Far better way to fix satellite trading would be economically, e.g. maybe second-hand equipment sells for considerably less, to the extent that it becomes effectively impossible ever to make a profit by buying sats at one station & selling them to another.

Not that I'd particularly want the devs to do even that - it would use valuable dev time in a manner that would make absolutely no difference to my game (it's not an exploit I use), thus all their hard work would be wasted on me. Would very much prefer them to use that time working on stuff that would improve my enjoyment of the game instead.

I wouldn't mind as long as we could automate the placement of satellites and the AI actually resupplied themselves, always fancied the idea of small ships flying around repairing/replacing sats.

That's the problem with X4 everyone wants something different so it hinders progress, i just want a believable universe i can create an empire in with all the difficulties that comes with it, others just want a themepark.

That could all be fixed with toggle options to be honest, it doesn't have to be i want it my way and forget about what anyone else wants, the same arguments come up whenever maintenance or employee wages etc comes up.

Egosoft just give us an Arcade mode and a realism mode at this point to satisfy everyone.

[Nanook]

...

That could all be fixed with toggle options to be honest...

Yeah, in a player's brain. It doesn't need to be hardwired into the game.

[Slashman]

Huh? I don't consider satellites to be an exploit, i consider buying them en-masse from equipment docks and selling them to wharfs to be an exploit.

I reckon it's just the wrong way to fix it, with substantial negative implications for those of us who use satellites for their clearly intended purpose. Nerfing scout ships ability to deploy satellites would also do nothing to fix the underlying issue of satellite trading (other ships also exist). Far better way to fix satellite trading would be economically, e.g. maybe second-hand equipment sells for considerably less, to the extent that it becomes effectively impossible ever to make a profit by buying sats at one station & selling them to another.

Not that I'd particularly want the devs to do even that - it would use valuable dev time in a manner that would make absolutely no difference to my game (it's not an exploit I use), thus all their hard work would be wasted on me. Would very much prefer them to use that time working on stuff that would improve my enjoyment of the game instead.

I understand that. I just think it is a messy way to get information. I would likely just remove standard sats altogether and make the advanced sats have way more coverage. Then I would look at applying any economy fix. I would say make satellites a one time saleable item. So if you buy it from an equipment dock or station that manufactures them, then you cannot resell them. So only buy what you are going to use. Not sure how feasible that is with the current game. It would kill the exploit problem and also the other fix would make deploying a sat network go much faster.

[taztaz502]

...

That could all be fixed with toggle options to be honest...

Yeah, in a player's brain. It doesn't need to be hardwired into the game.

You can just sit and imagine X4 stays a broken game while the rest of us enjoys a polished one?

[GCU Grey Area]

I understand that. I just think it is a messy way to get information. I would likely just remove standard sats altogether and make the advanced sats have way more coverage. Then I would look at applying any economy fix. I would say make satellites a one time saleable item. So if you buy it from an equipment dock or station that manufactures them, then you cannot resell them. So only buy what you are going to use. Not sure how feasible that is with the current game. It would kill the exploit problem and also the other fix would make deploying a sat network go much faster.

Think it's good to have 2 types of satellite - cheap, crappy, short range sats for the early game that often only provide coverage of individual stations & expensive, long range sats for when I'm richer. I'm also fine with the current range of advanced sats. Not sure about making them a one time saleable item - what happens if you take a mission to deploy something else & have to get rid of some sats to make space? There can be legitimate reasons for wanting to sell them.

I wouldn't mind as long as we could automate the placement of satellites and the AI actually resupplied themselves, always fancied the idea of small ships flying around repairing/replacing sats.

Not too keen on that idea either. Too much automation in a game ends up with me feeling that the game's playing itself & my interaction isn't really required. There are also occasions where I thoroughly enjoy sat deployments. Particularly so when flying a fast but flimsy little scout armed with a peashooter through a hostile sector; fully aware that it's really only speed that is keeping me alive, while also knowing that every now & then I'll have to come to a complete stop if I want a precise satellite placement...
May not be to everyone's taste but I find those sort of evenings thrilling.

[taztaz502]

I understand that. I just think it is a messy way to get information. I would likely just remove standard sats altogether and make the advanced sats have way more coverage. Then I would look at applying any economy fix. I would say make satellites a one time saleable item. So if you buy it from an equipment dock or station that manufactures them, then you cannot resell them. So only buy what you are going to use. Not sure how feasible that is with the current game. It would kill the exploit problem and also the other fix would make deploying a sat network go much faster.

Think it's good to have 2 types of satellite - cheap, crappy, short range sats for the early game that often only provide coverage of individual stations & expensive, long range sats for when I'm richer. I'm also fine with the current range of advanced sats. Not sure about making them a one time saleable item - what happens if you take a mission to deploy something else & have to get rid of some sats to make space? There can be legitimate reasons for wanting to sell them.

I wouldn't mind as long as we could automate the placement of satellites and the AI actually resupplied themselves, always fancied the idea of small ships flying around repairing/replacing sats.

Not too keen on that idea either. Too much automation in a game ends up with me feeling that the game's playing itself & my interaction isn't really required. There are also occasions where I thoroughly enjoy sat deployments. Particularly so when flying a fast but flimsy little scout armed with a peashooter through a hostile sector; fully aware that it's really only speed that is keeping me alive, while also knowing that every now & then I'll have to come to a complete stop if I want a precise satellite placement...
May not be to everyone's taste but I find those sort of evenings thrilling.

None of what i mentioned removes any of that for you.

edit: Granted the quantity of deployables, but again that could be a set option. Would make frigates more useful though.

[Nanook]

...

That could all be fixed with toggle options to be honest...

Yeah, in a player's brain. It doesn't need to be hardwired into the game.

You can just sit and imagine X4 stays a broken game while the rest of us enjoys a polished one?

Oh, I see. It's "broken" because it's not the way you want it. I guess there's no counter argument to that.

[taztaz502]

Yeah, in a player's brain. It doesn't need to be hardwired into the game.

You can just sit and imagine X4 stays a broken game while the rest of us enjoys a polished one?

Oh, I see. It's "broken" because it's not the way you want it. I guess there's no counter argument to that.

No it's broken and unbalanced because it's broken and unbalanced.

[Nanook]

You can just sit and imagine X4 stays a broken game while the rest of us enjoys a polished one?

Oh, I see. It's "broken" because it's not the way you want it. I guess there's no counter argument to that.

No it's broken and unbalanced because it's broken and unbalanced.

Nonsense argument.

But we can go back and forth like this all day. Pointless. I've had my say. Good luck with getting Egosoft to 'fix' their 'broken' game.