SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Since it's such a bad idea, what makes you think it's in the game?

[Saber Cherry]

Captain Kwok said:
And perhaps some of the language in the poll itself, i.e. suck and hate?

...I'll have to second that...

I wanted an option, "I hadn't really given it any thought, but it seems like a great idea."

Realistically, form-factors do impose limitations. Space that can be used for sensors (external) and space that can be used for life-support are mutually exclusive. Solar panels do not interfere with armor, and armor doesn't interfere with missile pods. A ship using reaction-mass propulsion cannot be filled entirely with engines unless it is many times wider than its length - like pancake flying in the 'wrong' orientation.

I don't know who is in the beta, and it my be 'known' that the implementation is 'bad'. In my abstract view, though, injecting realism is good... and this step is entirely beneficial in a way that could only be subverted by a horrible interface or crippling unbalance for the sake of aesthetics, both of which are possible, but should not be assumed.

Old (or first-attempt) RPGs occasionally lacked 'paper dolls', such that a hero could accumulate the bonuses of wearing 10 sets of dragonscale armor, or employ 3 longswords concurrently... and even modern games often have mystifying conventions, where an earring or lapel pin or enchanted peg-leg cannot be used together, because there are not enough 'special' slots. Examples of the former include 'La Pucelle Tactics' and (IIRC) HOMM II, while the latter includes virtually everything, from World of Warcraft (special slots) to Dominions II (special slots, and ranged weapons competing with melee weapons for space) to Jagged Alliance II (can't put a rod&spring, scope, laser, bipod, extender, silencer, and grenade launcher on the same gun... though I do it all the time in RL).

In all cases, there are unrealistic decisions forced upon the player instead of real decisions, do to incomplete modelling, and arbitrary restrictions employed to prevent exploitation of the incomplete modelling. The solution is obviously to model more completely.

To be prefectly honest, I don't understand your goal with the poll. You seem to preclude that any attempt at better modelling starships (specifically, their component organization) will fail abysmally, and create a discussion under this strict assumption. Is it actually known that the release version of SEV will have a terribly flawed paper-doll model; are you opposed to the concept of limitations on starship components; or are you simply assuming that whatever the possibly advantages of a new system, something will go horribly wrong? I'm not trying to be aggressive, but a lot of people seem to agree with you, and I can't figure out whether these anti-slot opinions are a result of a few 6-month-old screenshots, playing Starfury, leakage from beta testing, or just resistance to limitations. All the reasons I see are expressed as "If x and y, then z might be impossible". But that's like saying, "I see an equation with the term '100' on the left side, so the right side can never be equal to '5' no matter what else you put on the left side", which is clearly wrong. There's no reason, for example, that components couldn't stack in a slot, up to a maximum tonnage (per slot)... or a maximum cubage (cubic meters)... or a maximum outward-facing surface area... or a maximum power draw. So, there's no basis to assume that slot count (above zero) should in any way influence total component count, unless there is some insider information proving that this will not be the case. And as there is no evidence (to my knowledge) that the game bounds-checks slot locations versus the ship's graphical dimensions, there is no reason to assume that shipset design should be in any way relevant to slottage. Just as a 1-pixel SEIV ship could have 600kT of components, why couldn't a 1-pixel / 4-triangle SEV ship have a 4x8 grid of slots, on the far left side of the screen, far away from the optical center of the hull?

Maybe those questions have good answers, but if not, this thread seems to have a lot of Murphy's Law devotees. I've always felt that there will be plenty of time for criticism once a game is released... except in certain cases (like Oblivion) when 'final' bad decisions are publicized beforehand, or when the developer has a history of deception and bone-headed choices. But neither of those really apply here.

[Suicide Junkie]

That sounds like a "No I didn't request it, but yes, it sounds good to me now" vote.

[Fyron]

Let's stop being pedantic about the wording. Its just semantics; the meaning of the options is the same either way.

Saber Cherry and Strategia, you are both covered by option... 4? "No, but I like it."

[narf poit chez BOOM]

How about 'I'll make up my mind when I play the game?'

[Renegade 13]

Since I'm in the beta I can't really comment on the whole slots issue (though I can vote ), but I'll make the following contribution:

Saber Cherry said:
Can't put a rod&spring, scope, laser, bipod, extender, silencer, and grenade launcher on the same gun... though I do it all the time in RL.

Eeep!

[Kamog]

Well,even if different shapes of ships give different advantages or disadvantages because of the number and positions of slots that are available, we could probably use mods to balance things out. A race that has slender ships with few slots could receive extra racial points, for example. But it would be better if every race had the same number and arrangement of slots, regardless of what the ship graphic looks like.

[Fyron]

Saber Cherry:

I can't really speak for current implementation, and probably shouldn't try to address your post at all... I made the poll because I want to see what the (active) community at large thinks of slots.

[se5a]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
How about 'I'll make up my mind when I play the game?'

because by then it will be to late to change?

[Atrocities]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
How about 'I'll make up my mind when I play the game?'

by then it will be either to late, or to late.