Drivers and Reactors Should be Slotless.

[PM]

No station installed device takes zero slots. This would be the first exception.

NM900 missile pod and patch spiders take zero slots and may be (un)installed by a station, even though doing so is foolish.

If you were playing for the first time, you wouldn't even know what devices exist, let alone the min-maxed loadout for each ship.

Yes, and when I discovered that a reactor upgrade took a slot, and that I will need to upgrade the reactor again to power progressively more powerful items, and that the ship's default reactor did not stack its power with the upgrade, I felt like I was robbed a non-weapon slot.

[PM]

In fact, I just discovered that being ionized with no devices installed causes a fatal error in Transcendence.exe, anyone care to post that to the trac?

Posted ticket #1233.

[TVR]

... NM900 missile pod and patch spiders take zero slots and may be (un)installed by a station, even though doing so is foolish. ...

If one were to bother to read the item description - which I assume is the reason to install the device in the first place - then one would realize that both of them can be installed without a station, and that the patch spider is specifically described as slotless. Since these do not follow the same rules as regular devices, it's reasonable to infer that they shouldn't be considered a regular device.

... I felt like I was robbed a non-weapon slot. ...

Would you have changed your selected ship knowing that there were only 2 slots rather than 3? Would you have even known the importance or uses of non-weapon device slots in the first place?

Posted ticket #1233.

Good call.

[PM]

If one were to bother to read the item description - which I assume is the reason to install the device in the first place - then one would realize that both of them can be installed without a station, and that the patch spider is specifically described as slotless. Since these do not follow the same rules as regular devices, it's reasonable to infer that they shouldn't be considered a regular device.

They are devices nonetheless. The slotless and self-install features displayed in description does not exclude the option of stations' meddling, if the player is crazy enough to employ them.

Would you have changed your selected ship knowing that there were only 2 slots rather than 3?

Maybe. I would have considered the Sapphire instead. I surmised that two weapons on the EI500 is too restrictive for comfort, and saw my suspicions comfirmed very quickly. Two non-weapon slots on the Wolfen hurts a bit less, but it is still painful. I found that out by midgame.

Would you have even known the importance or uses of non-weapon device slots in the first place?

Not exactly, but I am savvy enough to know that they are important. After all, non-weapon category means anything that is not a weapon, which is very broad. I can think of enough useful items that would take a non-weapon slot. One of which is obvious from the ship select, cargo hold expansion. Engines are another possibility.

[TVR]

... They are devices nonetheless. The slotless and self-install features displayed in description does not exclude the option of stations' meddling, if the player is crazy enough to employ them. ...

Reactors can't be slotless like these pre-existing devices, unless installable without the aid of a station.

... I can think of enough useful items that would take a non-weapon slot. ...

Without any grasp of the gameplay of Transcendence, that is hard to believe. Even if one did understand the basics prior to their first playthrough, one would still be speculating whether those specific items exist or not.

... Engines are another possibility. ...

To be honest, nothing on the ship select screen supports that maneuverability stats are changeable.

[FourFire]

Reactors are effectively level ups for equipment support.
They should take a slot, but they should also supply all of their advertised output
perhaps with 5MW of the initial reactor stacked on top of it.

[PM]

Reactors can't be slotless like these pre-existing devices, unless installable without the aid of a station.

Why not? That is half of the point of the title suggestion: slotless reactors.

Without any grasp of the gameplay of Transcendence, that is hard to believe. Even if one did understand the basics prior to their first playthrough, one would still be speculating whether those specific items exist or not.

To be honest, nothing on the ship select screen supports that maneuverability stats are changeable.

Never said I knew what those exact items were before I played the game; just that I can think of several possibilities. The items' exact stats, I would not know. That non-weapon devices would take a non-weapon slot, was obvious. That some items, weapons or not, took zero or two slots instead of one, I did not know until I found them, first one being one of the CLAW cannons.

In case of engines, there are three stats that could conceivably be upgraded just by looking at ship stats: top speed, thrust, and turning. Point is an engine upgrade is highly likely, and would take a non-weapon device slot, because it is not a weapon.

[PM]

They should take a slot, but they should also supply all of their advertised output

Reactor devices supply all of their output. It is that an installed reactor always suppresses the default, regardless of the default's stats.

[Atarlost]

You guys are arguing that newbies will not be confused by reactors taking a slow While arguing with someone who was confused when he was new.

It only takes one counterexample to disprove a negative.

[TVR]

... Why not? That is half of the point of the title suggestion: slotless reactors. ...

Because it would have no precedent, therefore it would add another category of device to the game, which would objectively complicate the game.

... The items' exact stats, I would not know. ...

More importantly, the general gameplay that makes certain items useful would not be known at that point, let alone the items' specific behaviors. For example, how do you know this isn't a game with hitscan beam weapons? Or with invincibility frames after taking damage? Or without collision damage between ships? Or where top speed is more important than acceleration, without being given how fast ships accelerate to top speed on an absolute scale? Or even, where velocity of the ship isn't added to shot velocity?

These major concepts are learned during the course of first playthrough, possible confusion generated by reactor upgrades taking a slot is really trivial in comparison, and insignificant as a factor to consider during first-time ship selection.

... Point is an engine upgrade is highly likely, ...

It's still speculation - there are many space shooters/SHMUPs/space sims without upgradable engines.

You guys are arguing that newbies will not be confused by reactors taking a slow While arguing with someone who was confused when he was new.

It only takes one counterexample to disprove a negative.

No, Atarlost, we aren't arguing whether newbies are confused by reactors taking a slot; we are arguing whether that is more confusing than for reactors to not take a slot, and then offsetting all reactor device slot requires down by one.

All other points, namely the genuine feature of having an extra slot during a no reactor run, and of permitting future expansion of the reactor customization system, have been conceded, therefore we are arguing on the last remaining positive point for slotless reactors - does it really cause less confusion?

[PM]

It's still speculation

Of course it is! As a first time player, I can either hope for the best and get shafted by lack of forethought, or prepare for the worst and minimize the pain.

- there are many space shooters/SHMUPs/space sims without upgradable engines.

And some that do. Shmup example, Gradius. All I need is at least one game. It need not be a space game, if the game can be reskinned into something else, or vice versa.

The deal with reactors is not so much confusion as it is false information, like Diablo II's infamous "lying character screen". If a reactor upgrade is optional, I can see it taking a slot. Since you need a reactor upgrade (unless you play a high difficulty, unofficial no upgrade conduct game), and all upgrades only offer more power (instead of special abilities) to meet power requirements of nearly every other item upgrade, and your ship's default reactor does not stack its power with the upgraded reactor, I think my non-weapon slot limit is really one less than what is shown, because I do not have a choice of not using a reactor upgrade; not if I want to use items found past the first two systems - and I do! I like big guns, strong shields, and more power! Reactors should not be a slot tax.

[TVR]

... As a first time player, I can either hope for the best and get shafted by lack of forethought, or prepare for the worst and minimize the pain. ...

Time spent planning how to play the game could be used to actually play the game. This is especially important on the first playthrough, as attempting to plan without context is futile.

... The deal with reactors is not so much confusion as it is false information, ... I think my non-weapon slot limit is really one less than what is shown, ...

Technically, a reactor device is a device that isn't a weapon... it's reasonable that it would occupy a non-weapon device slot.

... If a reactor upgrade is optional, I can see it taking a slot. Since you need a reactor upgrade (unless you play a high difficulty, unofficial no upgrade conduct game), ...

Think of it this way, each ship starts off with a bonus non-weapon device slot until the first reactor upgrade (which does not have to be Nova-25 or even Nova-50). It does have utility - cargohold, solar panel, shield, and a collimator is a nice way to build credits in a Wolfen.

... Reactors should not be a slot tax. ...

Under the "reactor slot requirements-1 & total slots-1" proposal, there would be no difference (or more accurately, no increase) in free slots, whereas the issues with slotless reactors are more severe than unexpectedly taking up a slot.

[PM]

Time spent planning how to play the game could be used to actually play the game.

Yes, but I am not that impulsive. I prefer to read the manual, or equivalent, before playing a game. If the game features character select, I like to (quickly) analyze my options, then, combined with popular tropes games tend to follow and past experience from other games, make a decision.

Think of it this way, each ship starts off with a bonus non-weapon device slot until the first reactor upgrade (which does not have to be Nova-25 or even Nova-50). It does have utility - cargohold, solar panel, shield, and a collimator is a nice way to build credits in a Wolfen.

Why would I see it as a bonus? When I see Wolfen on ship select, I see three non-weapon slots available for expansion. Soon, once I find out that one of them must be used on a reactor, if I want to use anything more powerful, as I wrote before, I felt robbed. I would prefer the default reactor increase its power, without the reactor forever consuming a slot; but given the way the game is written, I do not think that will happen. The next best thing is make stock reactors slotless, let them stack their power with the ship's default reactor, or whatever it takes to make reactors not a slot tax.

The maximum power requirements of a starter Wolfen is 10.5 MW. They need a Nova-25 or better as soon as they can afford one. It is probably #3 or #4 item on my upgrade list. First is solar panel or armor, so I do not waste money on fuel. Second is targeting program ROM, because no targeting is VERY frustrating! Possible three is cargo expansion because 35 tons is not enough space (but slow speed and two weapons on EI500 hurt more until endgame).

Under the "reactor slot requirements-1 & total slots-1" proposal, there would be no difference (or more accurately, no increase) in free slots, whereas the issues with slotless reactors are more severe than unexpectedly taking up a slot.

The end result is the ship select will say Wolfen has two non-weapon slots available for upgrades instead of three. Provided other game mechanics stay the same, this will tell the player how many slots he really has for upgrades, instead of a "Gotcha!", you really have one less slot than you were told.

[TVR]

Time spent planning how to play the game could be used to actually play the game.

Yes, but I am not that impulsive. I prefer to read the manual, or equivalent, before playing a game. If the game features character select, I like to (quickly) analyze my options, then, combined with popular tropes games tend to follow and past experience from other games, make a decision.

Think of it this way, each ship starts off with a bonus non-weapon device slot until the first reactor upgrade (which does not have to be Nova-25 or even Nova-50). It does have utility - cargohold, solar panel, shield, and a collimator is a nice way to build credits in a Wolfen.

Why would I see it as a bonus? When I see Wolfen on ship select, I see three non-weapon slots available for expansion. Soon, once I find out that one of them must be used on a reactor, if I want to use anything more powerful, as I wrote before, I felt robbed. I would prefer the default reactor increase its power, without the reactor forever consuming a slot; but given the way the game is written, I do not think that will happen. The next best thing is make stock reactors slotless, let them stack their power with the ship's default reactor, or whatever it takes to make reactors not a slot tax.

The maximum power requirements of a starter Wolfen is 10.5 MW. They need a Nova-25 or better as soon as they can afford one. It is probably #3 or #4 item on my upgrade list. First is solar panel or armor, so I do not waste money on fuel. Second is targeting program ROM, because no targeting is VERY frustrating! Possible three is cargo expansion because 35 tons is not enough space (but slow speed and two weapons on EI500 hurt more until endgame).

Under the "reactor slot requirements-1 & total slots-1" proposal, there would be no difference (or more accurately, no increase) in free slots, whereas the issues with slotless reactors are more severe than unexpectedly taking up a slot.

The end result is the ship select will say Wolfen has two non-weapon slots available for upgrades instead of three. Provided other game mechanics stay the same, this will tell the player how many slots he really has for upgrades, instead of a "Gotcha!", you really have one less slot than you were told.

I propose this: At the ship select screen, include the following text:

One non-weapon device slot required for reactor upgrade installation.

Under the heading, "reactor" or "device slots for expansion"

[Atarlost]

I propose this: At the ship select screen, include the following text:

One non-weapon device slot required for reactor upgrade installation.

Under the heading, "reactor" or "device slots for expansion"

That's not really a satisfactory solution. There's already a shortage of space on the ship select screen and I'm not at the smallest supported display size. Remember, mod ships can have more preinstalled than just a weapon, launcher, and shield.

But seriously, who's going to be annoyed at installing a device and finding that it didn't use a slot? No one. Who's going to be annoyed by replacing a device and finding out that the device being replaced wasn't real and therefore didn't free up a slot to put the new one in? At least PM. And anyone else who actually thought about things before playing (and didn't read the old Captain's Primer, I think it was mentioned there, probably because someone else also complained about it back before devices could have different slot requirements.)