Too much equipment?

[Kaks]

We've got a lot of new & exciting things to add to our ships, and personally I'm tempted to get absolutely everything....

With a lot of equipment installed, I seem to run out of screen space, and that got me thinking, perhaps got me thinking too much:

Should we limit the amount of equipment we can install on any given ship? - If we do that we'd have to integrate selling equipment into the core game, instead of having that functionality in an oxp.

Or should we change the way the installed equipment is displayed on screen? And if so, how?


And...

Should the installed equipment raise the base ship temperature by a few degrees, depending on how much we have?

Shouldn't a lot of installed equipment (20+?) influence the recharge rate?

What do you guys think?

[Lestradae]

I don't think that generally limiting the amount of equipment "slots" per ship is a good idea. It makes absolutely no sense in-game (as such), as doesn't the "higher temperature".

A restriction option that imho would make sense would be to give tonnage to equipment - and I frankly don't care if it was like that in Frontier/FFE or not either way. If this is changed, you need a bigger ship for more equipment, which does make ingame sense.

Beyond that, a scroll-bar or switch to second and x-th screen would be good anyways, and not only for the equipment screen. Having too many missions, deliveries etc. going on at the same time would otherwise have the same (problematic) effect.

That's my take on things equipment

L

[another_commander]

I think that probably the easiest way would be to have an indicator like >> at lower right corner when the status screen is at maximum capacity. Then, hitting right arrow on the F5 screen would clear the equipment list only (not the rest of the info) and display the items that remain in a second "page". That page could have the indicator << on the lower left hand side, so that hitting left arrow would bring back the first page of the equipment list. This would enable another 24 or so items to be displayed.

Hope this made some sense and that it is actually doable. It's just a first idea, haven't given thought to the details yet.

[_ds_]

Or should we change the way the installed equipment is displayed on screen? And if so, how?

Scrollable list. (This can then be re-used for the ships list.)

Should the installed equipment raise the base ship temperature by a few degrees, depending on how much we have?

Probably.

Shouldn't a lot of installed equipment (20+?) influence the recharge rate?

Well… I don't think that this should be for lots of equipment so much as usage per item. Also, damaged equipment need not use no energy; it could be shorting out (and the core system could isolate it after a few minutes).

[Gimi]

We've got a lot of new & exciting things to add to our ships, and personally I'm tempted to get absolutely everything....

With a lot of equipment installed, I seem to run out of screen space, and that got me thinking, perhaps got me thinking too much:

Should we limit the amount of equipment we can install on any given ship? - If we do that we'd have to integrate selling equipment into the core game, instead of having that functionality in an oxp.

Or should we change the way the installed equipment is displayed on screen? And if so, how?


And...

Should the installed equipment raise the base ship temperature by a few degrees, depending on how much we have?

Shouldn't a lot of installed equipment (20+?) influence the recharge rate?

What do you guys think?

To quote myself from another thread (And also answering your reply in that thread as this subject fits better):

Good point and I agree, however what I really would like to see are internal equipment slots added to core. Adding all this equipment to missile positions is not realistic.
If we could have X number (or unlimited) of internal equipment bays with a way of selecting that equipment or even assigning keys to the equipment it would be great. I know assigning keys is bound to cause conflicts, but there must be a way around that by using the forums or a table on the Wiki. There could even be a set key to activate a given slot and thus if a cobra has 6 equipment slots, 6 predefined keys activate them. People who want to can edit the keyconfig.plist to throw everything around anyway.

In my view this would achieve much the same as adding stuff to core, but with the added flexibility of using OXP's.

Now, the problem here is that some types of equipment would fit nicely here, while other types of equipment are just enhancements that really don't need an assigned key (energy banks, military shields) as they work by their presence and no in-game activation is required.

I like the solution where 6 slots are assigned to keys, while current functionality to assign equipment is still available. In an ideal world, the user should be able to chose what key (of the 6) that an OXP uses. (That is probably to much to ask at this stage)

[overmage]

I think that probably the easiest way would be to have an indicator like >> at lower right corner when the status screen is at maximum capacity. Then, hitting right arrow on the F5 screen would clear the equipment list only (not the rest of the info) and display the items that remain in a second "page". That page could have the indicator << on the lower left hand side, so that hitting left arrow would bring back the first page of the equipment list. This would enable another 24 or so items to be displayed.

Hope this made some sense and that it is actually doable. It's just a first idea, haven't given thought to the details yet.

something exactly like what I had in mind. Multiple screens for equipment basically.

I think temperature is a bad idea, not sure why but doesn't sit well with me. Making them take up cargo space (IMO, cloaking devices should take up a hell of tonnage) is a good idea.

Limiting the amount of equipment installable doesn't make sense since very large ships should, in theory, not suffer from the same limits smaller ships suffer from. While it would be easy to make limits that depend on the size of the ship, it would be far easier to restrict by cargo availability.

IN summary, having multiple pages for equipment =

[DaddyHoggy]

Big no to tonnage rating for (most) equipment - that's crazy - when I chipped my old 200SX to make it go faster I didn't use up any boot space, nor did the car get any heavier, nor did it draw any more power from the battery.

Let's be logical - we already know the Cobra III is a huge ship compared to it's cargo capacity - so it's a ship that's designed to be upgraded - so why should new equipment take up TC?

Some equipment already (sensibly) takes up Cargo space (Ore Processor), some equipment when fitted and operational also draws power from the energy banks (ECM, Cloak, and in fact lasers!)

Why would the targeting enhancements, or nav based stuff take up space (or even draw enough power to heat the ship up)? At best they're a bit of electronic wizardry probably no bigger than a coffee cup and a bit of extra wiring and a bit of externals bolted on to the hull.

To be honest what I'd prefer is for each new oxp equipment to simply include a yes/no to different ships - although this would require constant updates as new ships are released.

Scrolly list gets my thumbs up as a way of displaying additional equipment.

[Cmdr James]

We wouldnt have to list all ships, it could be done by category (although that would mean a complete rewrite of the way ships are handled to be categorised in some way) -- perhaps the roles trhe ships are allowed or something.

[Thargoid]

As the guilty party for creating a number of the miscreants, I'd add that if this is going to be seen as a serious issue, how about we have a little more trunk-included code available also to do something about it?

Some of the new JS and worldscript events are nice (equipment purchased, damaged and destroyed) but maybe extend it to give us the option in equipment.plist as to whether it's name appears on the list or not. At the moment we can bodge around it with JS and mission variables (as Eric pioneered and I've tried to follow where appropriate) but a little flag such as "Display = true" (default value) but that if set false would suppress it appearing in the list (but still showing up on hasEquipment).

Here I'm thinking applications like the escorts I just wrote, or Eric's target reticle sensitive that need to be installed but have no need to appear on the list. Maybe have them only list if they get damaged so as to get around that issue, or even another option to say if they can be damaged or not?

But I would also agree that some overall reconsideration about equipment usage and appearance is due, and a scrolling list gets my vote too. My main game commander's list is currently in danger of ending up around my feet...

[pagroove]

I like to see a energy core and dependent on the core you can install a certain amount of equipment. A bit like in Freelancer.

[Screet]

I think temperature is a bad idea, not sure why but doesn't sit well with me. Making them take up cargo space (IMO, cloaking devices should take up a hell of tonnage) is a good idea.

I'm not too sure about that thing with the cloak taking up cargo space: After all, a cloak would most probably be done by materials applied to the outer side of the ship and just a tiny regulation unit. So maybe the cloak container contained nanobots which would create that coat...? At least nowadays scientists are building cloaks in the way of applying material to the outside of the object they want to become invisible.

Concerning the energy usage, I believe that a few parts of equipment could be revievewed.

For example, I'd instantly think that the ore processor would need quite some energy while doing it's business!

However, I do consider energy consumption of the docking computer (as it was at least some time ago) a bug: Even a tiny old 8-bit computer was able to calculate the flight path and ships engines settings to allow docking, so why would we now, so far in the future, require some super-computer for that simple task?

Equipment like the MASC should in my eyes consume energy...but then it would also require an activation key. I've seen code for energy consumption with enabled Jammer in the code, however I failed to find anything on how to activate it *GRRR*

The Filter, which counters the MASC, should in my eyes not use energy, as that's some simple computer program running to sort out the false-detections the MASC causes...

Much equipment that could be considered large would really not add to the cargo space anyway, as that's clearly stuff that would be attached to the outside of the hull (landing gear, heat protection, fuel scoops).

Fuel scoops...well, I guess they SHOULD use quite some energy for that tractor beam.

Much equipment is also just a tiny addition to the ships software, just like the scanner filter. Navigational Array, Targeting Enhancement, Rock Hermit Locator, Advanced Space Compass...

Screet

[Eric Walch]

I'm not too sure about that thing with the cloak taking up cargo space: After all, a cloak would most probably be done by materials applied to the outer side of the ship and just a tiny regulation unit.

Oolites cloaking technique uses vast amounts of energy. It is not just painting. Therefor the cloak is integrated with an energy unit of its own. When not cloaked this energy flows to the normal energy banks. You probably already noticed this!

Concerning the energy usage, I believe that a few parts of equipment could be reviewed.

For example, I'd instantly think that the ore processor would need quite some energy while doing it's business!

Would be an easy adjustment. I gave my private version a js script for scooping. Its just one line extra to drain a certain amount of energy.

However, I do consider energy consumption of the docking computer (as it was at least some time ago) a bug:

Never noticed any consumption.

Equipment like the MASC should in my eyes consume energy...but then it would also require an activation key. I've seen code for energy consumption with enabled Jammer in the code, however I failed to find anything on how to activate it *GRRR*

It auto activates when energy is above a certain level and shuts down when below that level. You see it better with NPC ships equipped with that equipment: They become visible on the scanner when the energy is very low.

Much equipment that could be considered large would really not add to the cargo space anyway, as that's clearly stuff that would be attached to the outside of the hull (landing gear, heat protection, fuel scoops).

Realistically seen, most equipment will not take space. Probably only energy generating units. However, game-wise it would be better when the count of equipment is maximised because it forces the player to make some decisions on what to buy. (And not just buy everything). Like the missile pylons maximises the number of missiles.

[overmage]

Hmm... I stand corrected.

I still feel that it may be unrealistic if, for example, a Viper could have a maximum of, say, 8 equipment ugprades, and an Imperial Courier, also 8, and a Dredger Traderm also 8. O.o

Perhaps it could be scalable / definable? like <key>Max_Upgrades</key> <real>15</real>

[another_commander]

To all those wanting equipment taking up cargo space: Have you considered that any equipment you buy would occupy cargo space permanently, unless equipment selling gets implemented? It is an interesting idea, but actual implementation is a) quite complicated (trust me, I tried it) and b) would require simultaneous creation of additional features.

For me, this belongs in the post-MNSR era.

[Gimi]

To all those wanting equipment taking up cargo space: Have you considered that any equipment you buy would occupy cargo space permanently, unless equipment selling gets implemented? It is an interesting idea, but actual implementation is a) quite complicated (trust me, I tried it) and b) would require simultaneous creation of additional features.

For me, this belongs in the post-MNSR era.

If it is as you say (and I am in no way contesting it, as your experience here is infinitely superior to mine), then post-MNSR gets my vote.
Working on how we can get OXP equipment to interface better with key assignments and access to the HUD seems to be a better way forward at this stage.
Right now I think this is one of the main weaknesses of how Oolite handles OXP.