Please reduce number of deployables on ships

[surferx]

How you fitting all of that in that tiny ship?

Lore explanation is cargo compression. Has been an established technology in the X universe right from the start. Physical size of a ship is not necessarily a good indicator of how much stuff you can cram inside.

Well, I'm not buying that. If that were possible, what is the justification to have XL and L size ships in the game? Their very reason for existing is to carry more cargo. This whole thread is basically "I want easy even if it defies logic" vs "I want realism even if it's more challenging."

[MKL81]

And diplomacy - if you're friends with Argon & Antigone then you would be automatically enemy for Holy Order and Zyarth. If you have good relations with Vigor then you would be unwanted / hostile with near everyone else.
So you would need balance your faction reputation around 0 if you want be neutral with everyone. If you go up to +5 with other faction then it's enemy faction you would be -5.

I remember Egosoft trying something similar with Farnham's Legacy DLC for X3. Almost everybody hated this mechanics, but not sure if this was because of idea itself or rather the implementation.

[Y-llian]

And diplomacy - if you're friends with Argon & Antigone then you would be automatically enemy for Holy Order and Zyarth. If you have good relations with Vigor then you would be unwanted / hostile with near everyone else.
So you would need balance your faction reputation around 0 if you want be neutral with everyone. If you go up to +5 with other faction then it's enemy faction you would be -5.

I remember Egosoft trying something similar with Farnham's Legacy DLC for X3. Almost everybody hated this mechanics, but not sure if this was because of idea itself or rather the implementation.

The Star Wars Interworlds mod has this and folks seem to like it. If you just want the rep mod alone, I believe it’s called Reactive Factions.

That said, diplomacy is now on Ego’s roadmap and I’m eager to see what they’ll come up with.

[GCU Grey Area]

Lore explanation is cargo compression. Has been an established technology in the X universe right from the start. Physical size of a ship is not necessarily a good indicator of how much stuff you can cram inside.

Well, I'm not buying that. If that were possible, what is the justification to have XL and L size ships in the game? Their very reason for existing is to carry more cargo.

Nevertheless that is the lore reason why cargo capacities often vastly exceed the physical size of the ship. Has been part of the game since XBTF, explicitly referred to as "sub-space compression technology" in the manuals (for those games which came with one). Although X4 does not have a manual it must still be the case. Consider the Callisto, tiny ship with a cargo capacity in excess of 1000m³. That's equivalent to a cube with 10m sides, which is several times larger than the ship itself. L & XL ships exist for when you need to transport 50x as much cargo as you can fit in a Callisto. Presumably they would also use cargo compression to achieve that capacity.

[stooper88]

This whole thread is basically "I want easy even if it defies logic" vs "I want realism even if it's more challenging."

This thread has become quite dismaying to me as it's seemed to create a lot of hostility between players, many of which I've found to be very knowledgeable and well minded. I think another way of framing the issue might be how does either side of the debate suffer by the other side's preferred implementation? I say this because it reminds me of other heated arguments where it wasn't clear to me why the "aggrieved" party could not tolerate other playstyles when there was no clearly articulable harm caused by such. The arguments I'm hearing are that excessive deployables are unrealistic and imbalancing. But that doesn't limit any player in how they choose to play, as far as I know.

In other games, there are difficulty settings which allow players to limit the number of consumables they are allowed to have. Players may elect to have more missiles, more potions, more healthkits, more magic, or any other types of consumables, possibly at the expense of logic and realism but more overtly at the loss of difficulty and inconvenience. This has been a standard practice across endless genres and series of video games and is hardly controversial. So it's sincerely unclear to me why it's such a cause for outrage in X4. No, there's no difficulty slider or knob. But as the game is a sandbox game, such limits are always available to all players to impose on their own games and at their own will. Just as one player being able to choose easy difficulty has no bearing on another player preferring hardcore reality mode in other games, allowing some X4 players to carry 50 satellites on a scout doesn't seem to impose any tangible harm against players who prefer otherwise. Both sides are still able to "have it their way" if they choose. In contrast, reducing the allowed number does impose an unwanted restriction on players who prefer the current design.

To be honest, I find the ridicule and sarcasm hurled at players that like the current status quo to be off-putting. It reminds me of a thread I was reading regarding the Xenon/Existential Crisis when it was first uncovered in 7.0 beta. One player was requesting that the event should be **optional**, so that they could continue to play unmolested, the way they had been playing for years. But for whatever reason, another member could not tolerate allowing such and was adamant that the (at the time) unavoidable event triggers should remain so, and that it was the other player's shortcoming for not being up for the challenge, as if letting other players have a choice somehow diluted the challenge this player would experience. The request for making the crisis event optional clearly would not have impacted anyone else who actively wanted to engage the event. And yet, this somehow could not be made clear.

[Nanook]

How you fitting all of that in that tiny ship?

Lore explanation is cargo compression. Has been an established technology in the X universe right from the start. Physical size of a ship is not necessarily a good indicator of how much stuff you can cram inside.

Well, I'm not buying that. If that were possible, what is the justification to have XL and L size ships in the game? Their very reason for existing is to carry more cargo. This whole thread is basically "I want easy even if it defies logic" vs "I want realism even if it's more challenging."

You just don't get it, do you? The X-Universe is NOT a real world, it's complete fantasy. It doesn't have to be realistic. After all, what's realistic about ships that never need refueling, guns that never need ammo? There are all kinds of things in the game that aren't even close to being realistic, and yet cargo capacities are being singled out? There are many things about the game that can be improved, but I don't think cargo capacities, or ship fuel or weapons ammo, should be included in those fixes.

[BitByte]

Soo.. can we again come back to that idea of adding deathray scouts to X4 ...?

Keep on modding your game! Free to develop such anytime

Lore explanation is cargo compression. Has been an established technology in the X universe right from the start. Physical size of a ship is not necessarily a good indicator of how much stuff you can cram inside.

Well, I'm not buying that. If that were possible, what is the justification to have XL and L size ships in the game? Their very reason for existing is to carry more cargo.

Nevertheless that is the lore reason why cargo capacities often vastly exceed the physical size of the ship. Has been part of the game since XBTF, explicitly referred to as "sub-space compression technology" in the manuals (for those games which came with one). Although X4 does not have a manual it must still be the case. Consider the Callisto, tiny ship with a cargo capacity in excess of 1000m³. That's equivalent to a cube with 10m sides, which is several times larger than the ship itself. L & XL ships exist for when you need to transport 50x as much cargo as you can fit in a Callisto. Presumably they would also use cargo compression to achieve that capacity.

Don't forget compare Vulture Sentinel (Teladi M-size) and Buffalo (Split L-size) 15,1k vs 16k. Teladi freighters got upgraded sub-space compression tech with 6.x when their ships cargo capacity was increased (e.g. Vulture SE 12,2k -> 15k).
Still I don't complain about these. It's decision what devs have made and that's fine for me. Everything does not be too realistic as life itself already is.

[MKL81]

This thread has become quite dismaying to me as it's seemed to create a lot of hostility between players (...)

To be honest, I find the ridicule and sarcasm hurled at players that like the current status quo to be off-putting. It reminds me of a thread I was reading regarding the Xenon/Existential Crisis when it was first uncovered in 7.0 beta. One player was requesting that the event should be **optional**, so that they could continue to play unmolested, the way they had been playing for years. But for whatever reason, another member could not tolerate allowing such and was adamant that the (at the time) unavoidable event triggers should remain so, and that it was the other player's shortcoming for not being up for the challenge, as if letting other players have a choice somehow diluted the challenge this player would experience. The request for making the crisis event optional clearly would not have impacted anyone else who actively wanted to engage the event. And yet, this somehow could not be made clear.

I wholeheartedly agree. I would have never thought that such trivial thing could become a subject of a heated debate. Also, never understood this whole approach of forcing others to play as YOU like, like this is some religious zealotry thing. There are things that I don't like much in X4, but I just figured I could use mods to make the whole experience closer to my personal taste.

[chew-ie]

This bickering is almost always guaranteed once we discuss changes / ideas for changes here - nothing to worry about. At the end all mean well

[Falcrack]

As to the whole cargo compression thing, that would never be a needed explanation if the devs just rebalanced the numbers to make more sense with the current ship sizes. I think it would make sense if each unit of goods took up exactly 1 m3, a box 1m long on each side. It gets confusing having different items with all different sizes per unit.

Then, I would give ships cargo carrying capacity that roughly makes sense given the size of the 3D model.

I get that the game does not need to be 100% realistic. But I like numbers to makes sense and be in the right ballpark range! That's a big reason why I think 50 deployables per fighter bugs me so much, it is because given the size of the wares used to make the satellites, it is so far outside the ballpark of what a ship that size would logically be able to carry.

[surferx]

Lore explanation is cargo compression. Has been an established technology in the X universe right from the start. Physical size of a ship is not necessarily a good indicator of how much stuff you can cram inside.

Well, I'm not buying that. If that were possible, what is the justification to have XL and L size ships in the game? Their very reason for existing is to carry more cargo. This whole thread is basically "I want easy even if it defies logic" vs "I want realism even if it's more challenging."

You just don't get it, do you? The X-Universe is NOT a real world, it's complete fantasy. It doesn't have to be realistic. After all, what's realistic about ships that never need refueling, guns that never need ammo? There are all kinds of things in the game that aren't even close to being realistic, and yet cargo capacities are being singled out? There are many things about the game that can be improved, but I don't think cargo capacities, or ship fuel or weapons ammo, should be included in those fixes.

Well, I hope that after playing the X-games for over 25 years, I would actually "GET IT" ! I know it is fantasy, and doesn't HAVE to be realistic, but what is so wrong with the game providing a sensation of realism? I think it's like stooper88 referred to, a suspension of disbelief. We can rationalize the ammo, in part, because if it's a ray, or pulse energy weapon it relies on the ship's energy reserve. I guess mass drivers and bolt weapons would need reloading, just like missiles and torpedoes. As to refueling I'm up to having a discussion about it, although it would draw much more negative feedback than simply making S ships carry less deployables.

[BitByte]

You already have existing solution when using the mod.
Rest of us whom it does not bother can continue play game same way as before.

[stooper88]

As to the whole cargo compression thing, that would never be a needed explanation if the devs just rebalanced the numbers to make more sense with the current ship sizes. I think it would make sense if each unit of goods took up exactly 1 m3, a box 1m long on each side. It gets confusing having different items with all different sizes per unit.

Then, I would give ships cargo carrying capacity that roughly makes sense given the size of the 3D model.

I get that the game does not need to be 100% realistic. But I like numbers to makes sense and be in the right ballpark range! That's a big reason why I think 50 deployables per fighter bugs me so much, it is because given the size of the wares used to make the satellites, it is so far outside the ballpark of what a ship that size would logically be able to carry.

As much as I appreciate the careful reasoning and logic herein, as others have noted, where should it end? Large container storage modules apparently have capacity for 1 million cubic meters of wares. Should their 3D models be redone and scaled accordingly or capacities be degraded to fall within logical consistency? Then how about the station build storage facilities which apparently have 2 billion m3 of capacity? It's downright absurd that they don't fill up entire station plots in and of themselves. Should cargo drones also be rebalanced so that trader ships either require hours to load/unload or the drones are resized to "realistically" accommodate the volumes of wares carried by L freighters (e.g. 62,000 m3 for Heron E)? I honestly believe that many of us who play the X series of games share a natural affinity and appreciation for logic and scientific reasoning. But to the extent that this is a game that people play for fun, it should be acceptable to allow certain things to be less than perfect, even egregiously wrong. We can all analyze back and forth regarding measurements and compression, and so on, but it's really not necessary.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

I think we should all be reminded of the above quote, just one of many profound quotes actually presented within X4 itself. In many ways, developers should strive for realism, but even reality has been declared to be fluid, much more so within this game. And where everyone has a different point of view and personal preference for how they play, the arguments can go on endlessly without ever reaching consensus. So rather than trying to aggressively convince one another who's perspective is right, I think it would be more sensible to consider not just what we personally want, but how such demands could impact players other than ourselves. After all, we are humans, not Xenon. So it will never be 100% possible to force a conclusion through rationality and logic alone. To borrow from another legendary mathematician/physicist:

The heart has its reasons which reason cannot know.

Perhaps this quote should be added to X4 too.

[Raptor34]

I assume it ends with your first destroyer being confiscated because civilians shouldn't own such hardware. That's realistic too.
Which is why arguments like these ring hollow to me, and also annoys me because I doubt any of you would actually want to limit the player, especially when it comes to empire building. We all know the compromises that needs to be placed on the AI because Egosoft rightfully expects us to build large and tunes things accordingly. Unfortunately this is something I cannot just pretend doesn't exist because there is no smarter AI I can turn on if I limit myself. You otoh can just limit yourself and not suffer from it. So limit number of possessions first, then we can talk about limiting capacity.

[RubyRezal]

Small fighters can carry up to 50 deployables. This seems an unreasonably large number to carry on such small ships. Consider that to manufacture 50 advanced satellites, it requires 15000 m3 of cargo space in terms of wares, which is more than most medium sized freighters can carry.

By the way, the fact that small fighters can carry 50 advanced satellites is one reason the advanced satellite trading (exploit) is so lucrative. You are essentially converting a small fighters into a large freighter, one which can go very fast carrying a huge volume of valuable goods.

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

No, please no. By the sacred geometry of holy three pointe-ness, no.

The space consumed by raw materials has absolutely no bearing on the space the final product consumes. If you want to go all ultra realistic, manufacturing doesn't get to use %100 of the materials sourced for a product. There are leftovers and loss from off cuts, welding, grinding.


Besides, if you want to reduce deployables storage because you think the current limit is "unrealistic" just wait until you look at your effectively infinite personal pocket dimension inventory.

[Jeraal]

You already have existing solution when using the mod.
Rest of us whom it does not bother can continue play game same way as before.

Really wish the forum had thumbs up option. For now, I'll use what we have...

[jlehtone]

I get that the game does not need to be 100% realistic. But I like numbers to makes sense and be in the right ballpark range! That's a big reason why I think 50 deployables per fighter bugs me so much, it is because given the size of the wares used to make the satellites, it is so far outside the ballpark of what a ship that size would logically be able to carry.

Thing is that there are things in the game that can be done. Either by player action or as mod.
Then there are things that cannot be done, not even by modders. At all.

The "far outside the ballpark" is something different. It is something that feels wrong (while some other things feel "right").
Sure, you cannot help but feel that this is wrong, but that is not a technical limitation (in the game).


I'd rather see the devs focus on things that we cannot yet do.

[Falcrack]

Besides, if you want to reduce deployables storage because you think the current limit is "unrealistic" just wait until you look at your effectively infinite personal pocket dimension inventory.

One thing at a time

[jlehtone]

Besides, if you want to reduce deployables storage because you think the current limit is "unrealistic" just wait until you look at your effectively infinite personal pocket dimension inventory.

One thing at a time

Then lets quote a person: "Inventory First!"

[Falcrack]

Besides, if you want to reduce deployables storage because you think the current limit is "unrealistic" just wait until you look at your effectively infinite personal pocket dimension inventory.

One thing at a time

Then lets quote a person: "Inventory First!"

Fine, I'll start a petition to only allow as many personal inventory items as could reasonably be expected to fit in my pocket!