It's silly for ships to be able to only mount addons limited to the number of ports they have.

The grid limit and the extra weight are sufficient enough tradeoffs.

Modern planes have multitudes of mounting options; modern games have a much wider variety of weapons available to the player. The addon limitation is a remarkably un-futuristic feature of a game that takes place far into the future.

Ports, instead, should determine what can be fired/used at any given time. Give each port multiple layers, which we could toggle through as we select the addon we prefer to use.

This would:

-Elevate combat
-make gameplay more efficient

Tweaks would need to be made to prevent certain insane use cases, such as mounting 700 firecracker turrets, etc.

So, the example about "modern planes" is actually inaccurate. Most military aircraft have pretty limited hardpoints, and a limited selection of what can be equipped onto them. That gets even more-so when you're looking at truly modern planes with stealth technology, like the F-35, where everything has to be stored inside an internal weapons bay, for stealth reasons.

I don't care what other games are doing. Other games are not VO.

But, I'm not throwing out the idea, I'm just saying let's drop the faux-justification rationale, and if it's genuinely better for gameplay, then explain why that is?

As you say, it would definitely lead to some balance challenges. It would also be somewhat mitigated by mass. As far as I can tell, the biggest advantages would be:

1) Loadout flexibility: "I'm a miner trader heavy-bomber!"
2) Substantial ammo: "I have 300 sunflare rockets!"

The #1 idea seems to basically undercut the whole idea of having to commit to a particular type of ship and loadout to achieve a specific activity, and handle the risk the comes with that activity. Like, if you want to be a lightly-defended mining ship, then that's a tradeoff, and you will be looking over your shoulder.

The #2 seems to largely make ammo deployment less risky, allowing one to really spam out some massive mine-fields more quickly, or whatever else.

I'm not really sure why this would be "good"? The game is supposed to be about making trade-offs. Like, running greater risk while delivering stuff in a Behemoth XC with no defensive cover. Or, my above mining example.

I'm not really sure what "Elevate combat" and "make gameplay more efficient" actually mean. It sounds more like "create crazy weapon-loadout options, and I don't want to have to fly back to get more ammo".. but I'm not really sure that actually makes things "better" for the greater game as a whole?

Anyway, I'm open to a more extensive explanation..

The F35 has a LOT more flexibility than the Valk, you mischaracterize it's capabilities. Imagine a top tier fighter in the real world that could only mount two small narrow-use weapons with no counter measures or environmental awareness technology?

Yes, I understand real world does not equal VO. And I also understand this suggest is very unlikely to amount to anything, but I wanted to offer it for discussion and appreciate your engagement.

Heavily leaning on the "trade off" idea is one of the more aggravating things about VO, likely because it's exacerbated by the vastness of space and the resulting lengthy times it takes to go and "retool" for a different play style or combat engagement.

This trade off idea makes a lot of sense for early gameplay when options are few and far between for ships and addons. But as one progresses, the simplistic restriction of addons remains constant as you get more upgraded ships. I think it's totally acceptable for *some* top tier ships to have 1 or 2 or 3 single-addon ports for very specific reasons, but all of them?

If someone wanted to weigh down their valk or their centurion with a variety of weapons, they would quickly see a degradation in maneuverability over someone who had a similar ship with less weapons. That in itself is trade off enough. The additional forced tradeoff of a hard limit on addons is just needlessly restrictive and makes gameplay cost more to the user.

I'm not sure why it's hard to imagine multiple addons being availble in flight as a benefit. If you are an advanced miner you can have multiple beams mounted for a variety of roids rather then finding the roids you want and then flying back to mount the beams you need. If you are an elite fighter you can be better prepared for what random events you encounter in space, rather have to fly back to a station and retool with the risk of missing out on the opportunity of engagement. If you are a trader you can mount radar and a wider variety of counter measures to better defend yourself against aggressors... etc.

As I said, tweaks would be needed to prevent things like 300 sun flares. Such as:

-Limit 1 weapon type per addon layer (so you could only have sunflares or prox mines in one layer, not multiple or unlimited)
-Limit addon layers to elite ships
-Limit turret layers to capships and behemoths
-Limit addon layers to specific types per ship (behemoths could only have non-offensive extra layers, combat ships couldn't mount mining beams, etc).

And so on...

With capships it's even more aggravating given how slow they move. Imagine flying your Trident from greyspace all the way to Deneb to find the turrets or main weapon you selected weren't he best options, and your replacements are stored down in Latos.

*edit to add*:

Note that the grid would prevent the "300" sunflare situation as well in non-capital ships...

And yes to this: The #1 idea seems to basically undercut the whole idea of having to commit to a particular type of ship and loadout to achieve a specific activity. Or rather, not to undercut it completely, but recognize that the game could be better without this arbitrary and often redundant limit.

The F35 has a LOT more flexibility than the Valk, you mischaracterize it's capabilities. Imagine a top tier fighter in the real world that could only mount two small narrow-use weapons with no counter measures or environmental awareness technology?

I'm not aware of any counter-measure or environmental-awareness modules available for the internal weapons bay of an F-35. The entire package is limited to what is built into the aircraft (just like a Valkyrie), which is why the Isrealis required their version to be built with locally-sourced sensors and countermeasures, so they could more-rapidly upgrade them in-house, as the battlefield requirements evolve ("rapidly" being on the order of a year or two, and not a decade of waiting for Lockheed to build something).

The F35 internal weapons bay can basically hold JDAMs and AMRAAMs, at least without seriously compromising stealth and strapping stuff to the ouside. Even with that, it adds greater capacity, but only about half a dozen additional weapon types. The point is that 5th generation fighters are actually getting more restrictive with payloads, not the other way around. The days of the F15 strapped with the kitchen-sink are on the decline.

Heavily leaning on the "trade off" idea is one of the more aggravating things about VO, likely because it's exacerbated by the vastness of space and the resulting lengthy times it takes to go and "retool" for a different play style or combat engagement.

The expectation, long-term, is that this fighter-reconfiguration is one of the benefits of Capital Ship ownership. So, as you venture further from home, you do so with the ability to re-configure. Or, you choose some kind of vessel that maximizes flexibility, but within the existing limitaitons. Or, you group with others, whose capabilities balance out your own.

With capships it's even more aggravating given how slow they move. Imagine flying your Trident from greyspace all the way to Deneb to find the turrets or main weapon you selected weren't he best options, and your replacements are stored down in Latos.

I don't have any particular problem with Capital Ships being able to reconfigure their own turrets and main weapons, without having to return to a station. There might be some other factor of limitation, like some kind of "countdown timer" required for the re-config period, during which the turret or main-weapon(s) are non-operational. Plus the need to actually carry the addons in cargo. But, fundamentally, this can be solved without having the gut the existing "tradeoff" mechanic.

I think this falls under a worthwhile discussion to have about the underlying problems, but perhaps the OP may not represent the best solution. The game isn't intended to allow solo people to fly around with "maximum flexibility" all the time, and doing so loses something, including inherent benefits of teaming up with others.

I'd continue debating the F-35, but what's the point.

The game isn't intended to allow solo people to fly around with "maximum flexibility" all the time, and doing so loses something, including inherent benefits of teaming up with others.

You are exaggerating my suggestion. I'd offer that the only thing lost is something you identify and cling to as a core feature of your game, but which doesn't serve the game well. Your dream is that people will team up with different add-ons to fulfill some task that couldn't otherwise be done. In practice that kind of situation is VERY rare. People do team up with each other, but only rarely because they need/want someone with different add-ons than them.

Obviously I don't know what you have planned for the future, I'm just reflecting on how the game has been and is now.

Capship reconfiguration while flying would be very cool, but I think cooldowns for switching is excessive.

"The expectation, long-term, is that this fighter-reconfiguration is one of the benefits of Capital Ship ownership. So, as you venture further from home, you do so with the ability to re-configure. Or, you choose some kind of vessel that maximizes flexibility, but within the existing limitaitons. Or, you group with others, whose capabilities balance out your own."

This really needs to be implemented. I dunno how much work it'd be. I'd still like to see an internal weapons store on capships, discreet from the normal cargo hold somehow. The main reason for this is I could see it getting annoying to go to dump junk cargo off the side (common for me, as I do use my capship for pirating convoys) only to have to scroll through all my fighter weapons and extra turrets I have onboard.

"I don't have any particular problem with Capital Ships being able to reconfigure their own turrets and main weapons, without having to return to a station. There might be some other factor of limitation, like some kind of "countdown timer" required for the re-config period, during which the turret or main-weapon(s) are non-operational. Plus the need to actually carry the addons in cargo. But, fundamentally, this can be solved without having the gut the existing "tradeoff" mechanic"

This is a great idea. I disagree with greenwall about A cooldown being excessive, I'd say it depends on the length of the cooldown. I'd guess 5 minutes would be reasonable. You can't expect a crew to do a refit of the weaponry, pulling them from storage, while underway as fast as they could be done in a proper shipyard.

This is a great idea. I disagree with greenwall about A cooldown being excessive, I'd say it depends on the length of the cooldown. I'd guess 5 minutes would be reasonable. You can't expect a crew to do a refit of the weaponry, pulling them from storage, while underway as fast as they could be done in a proper shipyard.

Much like the F-35 discussion, how it might work in the real world isn't really applicable (even if I disagree with your reasoning).

Gameplay-wise -- what's the point of a 5 minute cooldown for switching weapons? If we started from a place of zero cooldowns (which I would support and think would best serve the game), what are the arguments for adding cooldowns? How does being able to switch quickly between turret types make the game worse? As long as the cooldowns on the individual turrets remain (i.e. not letting the cooldown reset when you switch away and back, with swarms, for example), what purpose does an additional "turret selection" cool down serve, other than to annoy the living hell out of capship owners?

I think the tactical flexibility offered by fast-switching turret types is something capship owners should be rewarded with and will make engaging them with during PVP more interesting for all involved.

I think fast switching turret types would be, at present, OP. In the future that may not be the case.

I could quite easily load up 4 caprails, and 4 capswarms, and switch stuff around so as to effectively have two trident's worth of firepower. Hell, I could pile a couple dozen of capswarm turrets in my hold, and probably figure out a method of switching them around to just have a continuous stream of them pouring out of my dent. Might 5 minutes be too long, possibly. It was just an off the cuff number, I'm not particularly tied to that specific time.

The more I think about it, I think the time should be the lifespan of the longest lived turret shots. I think off hand that's the capswarm, at 120 seconds or so.

Implemented as you suggest this would be a horrible idea. You must have skimmed the thread because I offered several caveats to avoid exactly what you are describing.

So, assuming that you can't load multiples of the same addon type in each turret, and assuming Incarnate doesn't change the grid of current capital class turrets or of the Trident powercell (which greatly limits things, if you do the math), what purpose would a turret-type switching cooldown serve?

(other than to annoy the living hell out of capship owners...)

Ok, now I've lost track, are you still on the stacking idea or refitting underway? I was specifically talking about refitting underway.

I think having the ability to do a refit underway loading weapons from the ships stores is the better approach. It would just have to actually stop you from equipping weapons you do not have the grid for.

As for exceeding the intended rate of fire limitation, my worry is that you could have say 12 cap swarms on your dent, 3 equipped, and 9 in your hold. I'll letter the launchers A through L for the sake of the example.

You start out with the following load out, turret1=A, turret2=B, turret3=C. rip through firing them all, then switch to launchers D, E, and F. Repeat as needed. That could be mitigated by tying the reload time to the Turret location, rather then the launcher.

Even with a switch between cap swarms and cap rails, you could (with the help of a plugin no doubt) end up with WAY more firepower. I'd say limit the refire by checking to see if any shots from the previous weapon are still in flight.

Well in my mind they are the same concept. I used the term "stack" in the sense that you could put multiple addons on a single port in selectable "layers". So if a ship had two small ports, for instance, you could only use 2 addons at any give time (as opposed to being able to fire all the stacked/layered addons at the same time).

I don't see how it makes sense for a capship to have to manually refit its turrets. It's a bit of realism that is unnecessary, AND it's a capital class spaceship for gods sake, surely its turrets could be re-imagined as an automated system. Think of it as though the turret has one firing point into which a rotating mount assembly moves the various turrets into "active" mode. This way all the mounted (/selectable) turrets have to actively use grid, which would only allow for a maximum of three capswarms total. But the selectable turret could also have, say, geminis, firecrackers, or neutron turrets to switch to after the swarms were fired off.

Your dream is that people will team up with different add-ons to fulfill some task that couldn't otherwise be done. In practice that kind of situation is VERY rare. People do team up with each other, but only rarely because they need/want someone with different add-ons than them.

Well, a lot of the game being developed is based around the concept of what people are likely to do, once there is a greater motivation, population and aggregation of users (like more group missions, for instance). Not around "what they're doing now". So, this isn't much more relevant than the "real-world" argument.

If I drop some desirable content that requires people to group up with varied addon loadouts, I guarantee it will suddenly start happening. The fact that I haven't, thus far, does not mean that we can't plan for future benefits of players getting together. Nor does it mean that I should undercut one of the systems that was built with this in mind.

So if a ship had two small ports, for instance, you could only use 2 addons at any give time (as opposed to being able to fire all the stacked/layered addons at the same time).

Part of the challenge here, is that you're trying to expand a system well beyond the needs of solving the underlying problem(s).

There's a difference between reducing a real frustrating pain-point, versus drastically expanding a capability. For instance, your good pain-point example of the capship owner who flies off into the middle of nowhere and realizes they have the wrong addons equipped. There are reasonable solutions to mitigate that kind of issue, like the ones I proposed, without gutting any other gameplay mechanics.

I really don't have any issue with, conceptually, people being able to swap out addons, even in-flight. But definitely with a cooldown, because that's what keeps the trade-off inherent.

You may not like the trade-off, but the practice of game design is literally one of defining trade-offs. The Rook does not move like the Knight. You don't get to have both at once, it's an either/or thing.

Without trade-offs, you negate a lot of the value of player experience, foresight, preparation and play-style that are inherent factors in succeeding at games.

I think you don't see much potential harm to your idea, because in your mind, it's basically limited to the selection of addons and concepts currently available. Does it really matter if someone "also" has a mining beam attached to a port, in addition to a laser? Ehh.. it will. It'll definitely make my life a lot more complicated, with future content. There's a lot of possibility for increased tactical advantage, and external automation, outside of weapons being on ports.

Similarly, it's a complicated idea to convey from a User Experience perspective. You end up saying things like "well, this is also a small port, but now it's a layered port, instead of the regular ports which are just port-ports and.." (ugh). How about ports are just ports. You can put one thingie on them at a time. End of story.

Going back to what I said earlier, I think there's a lot of merit to talking about the underlying problems that inspired this Suggestion, but I'm not sure this specific solution is best way to solve those problems.

+1 for swapping addons on the fly.

The cooldown could be ~10s, I don't think that is an exploitable amount as most weapons rearm much quicker.

Going back to what I said earlier, I think there's a lot of merit to talking about the underlying problems that inspired this Suggestion, but I'm not sure this specific solution is best way to solve those problems.

Alright I'll oblige your request. The problems that played a role in inspiring this suggestion are:

-with PVP it's annoying when you encounter someone with a weapons loadout against which your weapons loadout is less effective. Our choices in those situations are 1) engage with a known lower probability of success or 2) fly back to the station and reconfigure in the hopes that upon you return your opponent is still there in the same ship.

-as an early-to-midgame player, it's annoying to have to repeatedly fly back and forth from botting sectors to equip different weapons in search of what's most effective against the bots.

-swapping out trident configurations

This then led me to think of other games I've played where you have a multitude of weapons to cycle through, and the exciting/dynamic flexibility this offered..."wouldn't it be cool if we had that in VO".... then I started thinking..."wait, why don't we have that in vo?".

You haven't really answered why the port limitation "trade off" is justifiable when there are other trade offs in place. We have layers upon layers of trade offs, and I think there is some redundancy.

Trade Off 1: Ship (shape/cost/speed/availability/cargo space)
Trade Off 2: Weight of addons
Trade Off 3: Grid use of addons
Trade Off 4: Addon port limitation

My argument is that changing #4 offers pilots a lot more flexibility across all gameplay styles and cuts down annoying time-sucks in a game that already has too much annoying grind (kids these days and their attention spans!).

Similarly, it's a complicated idea to convey from a User Experience perspective.

It's no more complicated than the existing weapons grouping system. And if it were limited in implementation to higher tier ships, newbs wouldn't even have to worry about it. If anything it would serve as further incentive for newbs to stick around and level up to get the further increased flexibility.

I think you don't see much potential harm to your idea, because in your mind, it's basically limited to the selection of addons and concepts currently available. Does it really matter if someone "also" has a mining beam attached to a port, in addition to a laser?

You are both right and wrong. Right in that my suggestion is based on the game as I see it, which is a given. Wrong in that you like to keep oversimplifying my suggestion to not included proposed tweaks to address situations like you mentioned above.

So toss out the idea that it applies to all ships/addons everywhere. Instead, what if the concept was only added surgically in elite ships (perhaps in new variants), limited by addon type in some fashion to prevent whatever mixtures of addons you envision being super amazingly fun to have necessarily and exclusively wielded separately by two more more players?

In some ways you would just be codifying behaviors players have exhibited for the life of the game: Nobody puts mining beams on vultures, centurions, valks, SkyProms or superlights. Nobody puts lasers or rockets on behemoths. Nobody wants to sacrifice an addon port for a cargo scanner or spoofer. Nobody is going to put a mining beam as their main large port addon on a Trident. Or, at least we haven't had a good reason to yet other than "oops" or "lulz"...