Please reduce number of deployables on ships

[Falcrack]

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.

[Nanook]

...

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 loud enough that Egosoft apparently decided most players felt the same (which I highly doubt). So please, enough nerfs already!!

[stooper88]

I honestly have no vested interest in laser tower defense clouds or advanced satellite arbitrage. Haven't used them and don't see myself doing so anytime soon, so I guess I fall into the "self-policing" category. But even so, I definitely do not want any change to the carrying capacity. I personally prefer placing small satellites near stations to help me distinguish between ones I've already discovered versus new stations that were created since my previous visits. I also like to deploy nav beacons and resource probes all about as I see fit. So it's very useful to not have to constantly restock on deployables.

Granted, it IS unrealistic to fit so many deployables on every ship. But I think it's okay to not always strive for ultra-realism. This reminds me of DCS vs Ace Combat, two very different but equally valid styles of flight combat sim. But for one to criticize the other for unrealism misses the main point of why both exist -- to entertain their players.

[Falcrack]

...

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!!

Okay. You disagree. That's fine. Personally, having played both Star Wars Interworlds mod and VRO, which both greatly reduce the number of deployables like I suggest, the game is more fun for it. For me. Because 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 and not use blatantly overpowered stuff available to them in the game so that others can use their borderline cheaty game mechanic doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer to me.

[LameFox]

The capacities for all things feel a bit oversimplified to me. Why can a ship carry 50 laser towers but only 20 missiles? Why can it carry the same number of light missiles as torpedoes? Why do these even use specific storage space anyway? I think I'd much prefer a more interactive system where the ship has X space that I can then allocate depending on what I want to use it for, be that deployables, missiles, cargo or some mix thereof.

[GCU Grey Area]

Terrible idea. Would not in any way make the game more fun for me. Prefer to fly a fast S ship when deploying my satellite grids. Need that ship to be able to carry sufficient satellites to fully cover at least one sector, along with any other kit I might need while I'm there; nav beacons to mark points of interest, resource probes to survey asteroid fields, laser towers in case I end up in a dogfight, etc. Current capacity is adequate for this. Less would be annoying, requiring far more frequent trips to wharves or equipment docks to restock.

[Raptor34]

...

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!!

Okay. You disagree. That's fine. Personally, having played both Star Wars Interworlds mod and VRO, which both greatly reduce the number of deployables like I suggest, the game is more fun for it. For me. Because 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 and not use blatantly overpowered stuff available to them in the game so that others can use their borderline cheaty game mechanic doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer to me.

And yet it is. Otherwise I would be shouting from the rooftops that Egosoft should limit the number of ships the player can own because that makes the game more fun by improving performance.

[gbjbaanb]

perhasp Egosoft should increase the numbers of eevrything to infinite. Then you can store a billion satellites in your tiny scout ship. And why not increase cargo space while we're at it, after all, if you don't want to transport the entire stock of goods at your PHQ in your discovery, then you just don't have to load up that much.

Absurdium argument, sure, but it should highlight there's a reason we have limits and stats for ships in game. An answer of "no, just play differently" isn't really a constructive or helpful one to people who expect a game to have reasonable limits and design choices for such things.

[Rei Ayanami]

I think it's rather weird how many ships can hold dozens or hundreds of deployables, yet can barely hold 5 flares and not many missiles. Imagine if real military airplanes could only carry 5 countermeasures with them. Most missiles are rather weak in general and, compared to guns, have finite ammo yet take up a gun slot, so not sure why missiles are so limited. I think deployables and missiles should share the same space, and increase the amount of flares on any ship by a factor of x5 ~ x10.

On that note, ship modifications for missile/deployable/countermeasure amounts are a joke:
A ship modification chassis slot just to store 1~4 more? In my opinion, it should be +50%~+200% more (aka a percentage modifier based on the ships base value) to make it worth it.

[stooper88]

I don't think the arguments about unrealism are wrong. It's overtly ridiculous for ships to be able to carry huge quantities of certain wares while also being severely limited for others. However, realism probably was not the only (or even a primary) factor under consideration when the loadout system was designed. Rather, playability was more likely the driving force. Which items are players mostly frequently utilizing and in what quantities? Too limited a capacity and gameplay becomes hindered. This forces a delicate "balance" to be maintained between realism and playability.

Referring again to the DCS vs Ace Combat debate, all players can probably agree that no plane can realistically field dozens, much less hundreds, of missiles. However, there's clearly a massive player base that is willing to suspend their disbelief while they enjoy games that grant them exactly that -- combat vessels that are ludicrously unrealistic. The same goes for every other type of video game, even the fabled Arma series has to make compromises.

Consider after all that realism can be a double-edged sword. It could be argued that the X universe is completely nonsensical at every level. Constructing entire stations in minutes and with only a single builder ship? Building not just interplanetary but interstellar vessels for mere millions of credits? Seizing control of entire galactic sectors with mere hundreds or even just dozens of ships? Clearly, the game must draw some boundaries when it comes to realism.

I guess the issue is how immersion breaking or intolerable it is varies wildly with every player.

[Nanook]

...
Absurdium argument, sure, but it should highlight there's a reason we have limits and stats for ships in game. An answer of "no, just play differently" isn't really a constructive or helpful one to people who expect a game to have reasonable limits and design choices for such things.

Just let me point out that there is absolutely nothing realistic about the X Universe, not the speed limits, not the sector sizes, the lack of fuel needed for ships or stations, etc. And yet some players want little bits here and there to be "realistic". That's what I would call an "Absurdium argument". The game is an open world style game where players are free to do almost anything, including making up their own rules. Egosoft gives us an upper limit on a number of game features so we can decide how we want to play. I believe the reasons we have "limits and stats ..." in the game is to distinguish one ship from another, not to impose a single play style on the players. And yes, I believe "just play differently" is very reasonable and constructive advice on how to play open world games. After all, we're only playing against ourselves in these games. The game itself doesn't care whether or how we 'win or lose'.

[Raptor34]

...
Absurdium argument, sure, but it should highlight there's a reason we have limits and stats for ships in game. An answer of "no, just play differently" isn't really a constructive or helpful one to people who expect a game to have reasonable limits and design choices for such things.

Just let me point out that there is absolutely nothing realistic about the X Universe, not the speed limits, not the sector sizes, the lack of fuel needed for ships or stations, etc. And yet some players want little bits here and there to be "realistic". That's what I would call an "Absurdium argument". The game is an open world style game where players are free to do almost anything, including making up their own rules. Egosoft gives us an upper limit on a number of game features so we can decide how we want to play. I believe the reasons we have "limits and stats ..." in the game is to distinguish one ship from another, not to impose a single play style on the players. And yes, I believe "just play differently" is very reasonable and constructive advice on how to play open world games. After all, we're only playing against ourselves in these games. The game itself doesn't care whether or how we 'win or lose'.

And to add on to that. Look at how many or lack thereof the number of jobs a faction has. Yet somehow you never see people clamoring for the same limits to be placed on the player, despite the clear performance and AI benefits the game would have from limiting the number of entities available.
And I feel that I actually have more of a foot to stand on from that compared to limiting the number of deployables, because Egosoft optimizing the AI for thousands of entities is clearly detrimental in a way to me that self-policing doesn't help. There is no better AI I can turn on, well there are mods I guess, just because I limit the number of ships I run.

[MKL81]

Okay. You disagree. That's fine. Personally, having played both Star Wars Interworlds mod and VRO, which both greatly reduce the number of deployables like I suggest, the game is more fun for it. For me. Because 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 and not use blatantly overpowered stuff available to them in the game so that others can use their borderline cheaty game mechanic doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer to me.

Then play VRO or Interworlds, what is the problem? Should now every player demand that Egosoft is now bound to incorporate changes from their favorite mods into the game? Because I have some ideas...

[gbjbaanb]

...
Absurdium argument, sure, but it should highlight there's a reason we have limits and stats for ships in game. An answer of "no, just play differently" isn't really a constructive or helpful one to people who expect a game to have reasonable limits and design choices for such things.

Just let me point out that there is absolutely nothing realistic about the X Universe, not the speed limits, not the sector sizes, the lack of fuel needed for ships or stations, etc. And yet some players want little bits here and there to be "realistic". That's what I would call an "Absurdium argument". The game is an open world style game where players are free to do almost anything, including making up their own rules. Egosoft gives us an upper limit on a number of game features so we can decide how we want to play. I believe the reasons we have "limits and stats ..." in the game is to distinguish one ship from another, not to impose a single play style on the players. And yes, I believe "just play differently" is very reasonable and constructive advice on how to play open world games. After all, we're only playing against ourselves in these games. The game itself doesn't care whether or how we 'win or lose'.

Rubbish. There is plenty that is realistic. Whilst there are many aspects that are unrealistic or changed for gameplay reasons, the vast majority is decidely realistic. That's why your battleship goes slower than your scout, but also why you cannot fit a massive number of things inside a tiny ship. We accept much of the suspension of disbelief with regard to the parts that make send for gameplay reasons, we find the other parts that are absurd (eg fitting way too much into a ship that you can see yourself simply will not fit) as a step too far.

Reducing the deployables would, in fact, distinguish one ship from another. A scout is not designedc to carry cargo, even satellites. In that case of seeding sats you'd choose something that had a good compromise between speed, size and cargo capacity. Maybe you'd have fewer guns in suich a ship, maybe it'd be slow, but you would not expect it to be cargo-capable, fast and armed all at the same time. Which is where this is getting silly, the "play style" requires exactly that state

Yuo could, however, make an argument that satellite seeding is a broken mechanic in the first place, and that setting up price networks should be handled differently. I'd agree with such a position. I'd also say that setting up laser towers should be a little more involved than chucking a thing out your cargo hold. I'd say that deployables could be better handled by making them take up cargo space. There are plenty of arguments to be made for change in this regard. Small ships with huge carry capacity is simply a OP oversight that should be fixed.

[surferx]

I don't think the arguments about unrealism are wrong. It's overtly ridiculous for ships to be able to carry huge quantities of certain wares while also being severely limited for others. However, realism probably was not the only (or even a primary) factor under consideration when the loadout system was designed. Rather, playability was more likely the driving force. Which items are players mostly frequently utilizing and in what quantities? Too limited a capacity and gameplay becomes hindered. This forces a delicate "balance" to be maintained between realism and playability.

Referring again to the DCS vs Ace Combat debate, all players can probably agree that no plane can realistically field dozens, much less hundreds, of missiles. However, there's clearly a massive player base that is willing to suspend their disbelief while they enjoy games that grant them exactly that -- combat vessels that are ludicrously unrealistic. The same goes for every other type of video game, even the fabled Arma series has to make compromises.

Consider after all that realism can be a double-edged sword. It could be argued that the X universe is completely nonsensical at every level. Constructing entire stations in minutes and with only a single builder ship? Building not just interplanetary but interstellar vessels for mere millions of credits? Seizing control of entire galactic sectors with mere hundreds or even just dozens of ships? Clearly, the game must draw some boundaries when it comes to realism.

I guess the issue is how immersion breaking or intolerable it is varies wildly with every player.

Very good points. I do agree totally about realism being a double-edged sword. However each gamer has their own level for suspension of disbelief. Making a player wait for literally days of game time for a station to be built, just to satisfy the realism aspect is not viable. Many players would just stop building stations. It could be a fine example of how SOD works for most players, but looking at a S class ship carrying a ridiculous number of deployables makes it harder to rationalize and thus restricts the suspension. The new 7.5 flight model update is primarily to increase realism in ship handling and while piloting L and XL ships won't be quite as easy as before, it lessens the requirement for SOD. The same reasoning can apply to the number of deployables.

[Raptor34]

I don't think the arguments about unrealism are wrong. It's overtly ridiculous for ships to be able to carry huge quantities of certain wares while also being severely limited for others. However, realism probably was not the only (or even a primary) factor under consideration when the loadout system was designed. Rather, playability was more likely the driving force. Which items are players mostly frequently utilizing and in what quantities? Too limited a capacity and gameplay becomes hindered. This forces a delicate "balance" to be maintained between realism and playability.

Referring again to the DCS vs Ace Combat debate, all players can probably agree that no plane can realistically field dozens, much less hundreds, of missiles. However, there's clearly a massive player base that is willing to suspend their disbelief while they enjoy games that grant them exactly that -- combat vessels that are ludicrously unrealistic. The same goes for every other type of video game, even the fabled Arma series has to make compromises.

Consider after all that realism can be a double-edged sword. It could be argued that the X universe is completely nonsensical at every level. Constructing entire stations in minutes and with only a single builder ship? Building not just interplanetary but interstellar vessels for mere millions of credits? Seizing control of entire galactic sectors with mere hundreds or even just dozens of ships? Clearly, the game must draw some boundaries when it comes to realism.

I guess the issue is how immersion breaking or intolerable it is varies wildly with every player.

Very good points. I do agree totally about realism being a double-edged sword. However each gamer has their own level for suspension of disbelief. Making a player wait for literally days of game time for a station to be built, just to satisfy the realism aspect is not viable. Many players would just stop building stations. It could be a fine example of how SOD works for most players, but looking at a S class ship carrying a ridiculous number of deployables makes it harder to rationalize and thus restricts the suspension. The new 7.5 flight model update is primarily to increase realism in ship handling and while piloting L and XL ships won't be quite as easy as before, it lessens the requirement for SOD. The same reasoning can apply to the number of deployables.

And as mentioned players would also get annoyed by needing to constantly go back and reloading more satellites and resource probes. Clearly players already don't care. So not an issue and no need to change.

[Slashman]

I don't think the arguments about unrealism are wrong. It's overtly ridiculous for ships to be able to carry huge quantities of certain wares while also being severely limited for others. However, realism probably was not the only (or even a primary) factor under consideration when the loadout system was designed. Rather, playability was more likely the driving force. Which items are players mostly frequently utilizing and in what quantities? Too limited a capacity and gameplay becomes hindered. This forces a delicate "balance" to be maintained between realism and playability.

Referring again to the DCS vs Ace Combat debate, all players can probably agree that no plane can realistically field dozens, much less hundreds, of missiles. However, there's clearly a massive player base that is willing to suspend their disbelief while they enjoy games that grant them exactly that -- combat vessels that are ludicrously unrealistic. The same goes for every other type of video game, even the fabled Arma series has to make compromises.

Consider after all that realism can be a double-edged sword. It could be argued that the X universe is completely nonsensical at every level. Constructing entire stations in minutes and with only a single builder ship? Building not just interplanetary but interstellar vessels for mere millions of credits? Seizing control of entire galactic sectors with mere hundreds or even just dozens of ships? Clearly, the game must draw some boundaries when it comes to realism.

I guess the issue is how immersion breaking or intolerable it is varies wildly with every player.

Very good points. I do agree totally about realism being a double-edged sword. However each gamer has their own level for suspension of disbelief. Making a player wait for literally days of game time for a station to be built, just to satisfy the realism aspect is not viable. Many players would just stop building stations. It could be a fine example of how SOD works for most players, but looking at a S class ship carrying a ridiculous number of deployables makes it harder to rationalize and thus restricts the suspension. The new 7.5 flight model update is primarily to increase realism in ship handling and while piloting L and XL ships won't be quite as easy as before, it lessens the requirement for SOD. The same reasoning can apply to the number of deployables.

And as mentioned players would also get annoyed by needing to constantly go back and reloading more satellites and resource probes. Clearly players already don't care. So not an issue and no need to change.

I would say that some players do care and there are things in X4 which are head-scratching, like having a destroyer be able to field 40 fighters. There is no good reason for it.

The satellite example is one of the weirdest things that likely just didn't get implemented properly due to time constraints.

I personally thought that they would be touching all of that when they talked about re-balancing ships. A small and fast cargo ship or miner could do the satellite network deployment just as well...or make satellites have wider coverage in general. There are a lot of approaches you could take that don't involve having small ships play the role of cargo haulers. Laser tower spamming is also something should IMO be reserved for cargo haulers and miners. That's just my 2 cents though.

[Raptor34]

Very good points. I do agree totally about realism being a double-edged sword. However each gamer has their own level for suspension of disbelief. Making a player wait for literally days of game time for a station to be built, just to satisfy the realism aspect is not viable. Many players would just stop building stations. It could be a fine example of how SOD works for most players, but looking at a S class ship carrying a ridiculous number of deployables makes it harder to rationalize and thus restricts the suspension. The new 7.5 flight model update is primarily to increase realism in ship handling and while piloting L and XL ships won't be quite as easy as before, it lessens the requirement for SOD. The same reasoning can apply to the number of deployables.

And as mentioned players would also get annoyed by needing to constantly go back and reloading more satellites and resource probes. Clearly players already don't care. So not an issue and no need to change.

I would say that some players do care and there are things in X4 which are head-scratching, like having a destroyer be able to field 40 fighters. There is no good reason for it.

The satellite example is one of the weirdest things that likely just didn't get implemented properly due to time constraints.

I personally thought that they would be touching all of that when they talked about re-balancing ships. A small and fast cargo ship or miner could do the satellite network deployment just as well...or make satellites have wider coverage in general. There are a lot of approaches you could take that don't involve having small ships play the role of cargo haulers. Laser tower spamming is also something should IMO be reserved for cargo haulers and miners. That's just my 2 cents though.

You mean "field" 40 fighters. I can already make a destroyer field a 100 fighters just by assigning them to it. It's internal bays are more for cosmetic reasons, like personal garages or something than any real practical use. Except the Behemoth I guess, but it also runs into the little issue that it isn't a carrier.
I get you about the LT spam though, but that is better resolved by making LTs take up more slots than making scouts take less satellites. Because frankly satellite deployment is tedious work, yet necessary. No reason to make it even more tedious.

[Y-llian]

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…

[Nanook]

...

I would say that some players do care and there are things in X4 which are head-scratching, like having a destroyer be able to field 40 fighters. There is no good reason for it.
...

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 severly impacts some forms of gameplay.

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.