Hangars: Ship launched fighters are internals...

[Julio Montega]

Ahoy lads,
here it is, we have some quotes on how the hangars will be fitted:
46:00
[video=youtube;9S6vyhrUNB0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S6vyhrUNB0&t=2760s[/video]

The smaller ships allowing for a hangar to be fitted (Keelback/FGS) really get the stick.
They lack internals to fulfill useful roles if you want to fit the fighter bay,
and still do piracy or exploration.
Also you have to sacrifice internals, that otherwise could be used as defensive options.

As i see it, i'd like the addition of 1x class 3 internal to both smaller craft,
in order to achieve versatility they promise but lack up to date.
On a further notice, other smaller craft with hangars might be introduced.

An alternative would be to award those ships suitable special hangar only slots,
to fit the bay(s), being balanced by adding a huge amount of dead mass to the ship,
impacting the performance.

Here is a link to the FGS discussion:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/241625-Reiterate-the-Federal-Gunship

What do you guys think?
Are you as medium-craft pilots happy with this decision?

I for sure am not.

 

[zimms]

Every time new modules get introduced people cry for extra compartments.

New activities get added, yet pilots still want to be able to do everything with one ship/build.

Stacking HRPs and SCBs isn't necessary for multi-purpose ships either.

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

New activities get added, yet pilots still want to be able to do everything with one ship/build.

.

But with instant ship transfer ..... .. .oh wait

 

[Kaybe]

I'm not too fussy about it either given that both the Keelback and Federal Gunship already have fewer internal compartments compared to their less expensive versions (Type-6 and Federal Dropship), but my guess if they are doing this thinking long term where different bays fit different numbers of vehicles. That being said, the smallest fighter bay hangar better not be bigger than a 2-slot or it'll significantly mess with the Gunship.

 

[Kicks]

I don't think adding extra compartments is as simple as some might suggest.

If first-person is truly going to be realised - then the internals of the ships need to be fixed. Those compartments need to take up realistic space.

Saying "Just add another compartment" to a ship that's been released is not a trivial task if we're going to be walking about in them at some point.

 

[Cynaqq]

I believe the SLF bays will be C5 (single fighter) and C7 (double fighter). This makes sense if you look at the internals of the available ships.

Also, I don't think keelback and FGS will be too disadvantaged, of course depending on how effective the fighters actually will be.

I think of it this way,

You have to make a decision on your approach to combat. Will you rely on your SLF and engage accordingly or you want your ship more durable but alone.

This mechanic is effectively bringing in an entirely new tactical choice and it should be a balanced addition to the game, not a straight up upgrade. It should also not be a side-grade but I digress...

All in all, I think dedicated ship bays without sacrificing internals for them would take out the tactical decision out of the picture because why the hell wouldn't you get fighters if you could otherwise?

The same thing happened with the DBX and the SRV and I still get one in my DBX (although I have an exploraconda and an Asp). I like having options and I like having to think about them.

 

[Julio Montega]

Every time new modules get introduced people cry for extra compartments.

New activities get added, yet pilots still want to be able to do everything with one ship/build.

Stacking HRPs and SCBs isn't necessary for multi-purpose ships either.

"Do a bit of everything?"
Surely not, piracy modules:
Utility:
Cargo scanner
Wake scanner
Internal:
FSD interdictor class 2
Cargo space class 6
hatch breaker drone controller class 5
collector drone controller class 2
shield class 6

uuups gunship is fulll...
Versatility?
http://coriolis.io/outfit/federal_gunship/06E6E5E5E7E5E4C-1717--------B105746q6b.Iw18aQ==.Aw18aQ==

I don't think adding extra compartments is as simple as some might suggest.

If first-person is truly going to be realised - then the internals of the ships need to be fixed. Those compartments need to take up realistic space.

Saying "Just add another compartment" to a ship that's been released is not a trivial task if we're going to be walking about in them at some point.

If you check out the FGS thread, an alternative suggestion was splitting up
a larger slot into two smaller slots.
It might not be trivial, but ships with allready cut internals
really hurt a playstyle.

 

[Frenotx]

The gunship's internals are currently 6-6-5-2-2. If you take a shield and a fighter bay, you are now left with 6-2-2. Unless you intend to not change systems much, the gunship's poor jump range and small number of jumps-per-full-tank means you kinda need a fuel scoop. You can put it in the class 2, but that means waiting for about a full minute to scoop per jump. The more sensible option is to put it in the class 6. That means the gunship, a truly massive thing, effectively has two class 2 compartments to work with. 8 whole cargo canisters worth of space. You could literally fit 8 cargo canisters in the cockpit area! Where is all the space going? Absurd. Maybe if FDEV split one of the class 6 compartments into two class 5's?

 

[Julio Montega]

The gunship's internals are currently 6-6-5-2-2. If you take a shield and a fighter bay, you are now left with 6-2-2. Unless you intend to not change systems much, the gunship's poor jump range and small number of jumps-per-full-tank means you kinda need a fuel scoop. You can put it in the class 2, but that means waiting for about a full minute to scoop per jump. The more sensible option is to put it in the class 6. That means the gunship, a truly massive thing, effectively has two class 2 compartments to work with. 8 whole cargo canisters worth of space. Absurd. Maybe if FDEV split one of the class 6 compartments into two class 5's?

I wouldn't even mind to have the c5 broken into 2x c3s.
But the advertised versatility of the ship as a support ship with
utility loadouts hasn't been delivered so far.
I'd like Core dynamics to recall their ship variant and create something more suitable.

 

[Frenotx]

I wouldn't even mind to have the c5 broken into 2x c3s.
But the advertised versatility of the ship as a support ship with
utility loadouts hasn't been delivered so far.
I'd like Core dynamics to recall their ship variant and create something more suitable.

Remember that a class 6 cargo rack can hold twice as much as a class 5. The volume is there.

But yeah, the versatility of the gunship is astonishingly lacking. I love the visual design and hardpoint placement, but the absurdly limited internal space just kills it for me. With the shields and maneuverability being what they are (relatively weak), it's clear the gunship is supposed to get most of its durability from armour. It can't even effectively do that though, due to a lack of space for the requisite HRPs and AFMUs. And now to reach its full potential, the gunship has to make even more sacrifice? Ridiculous.

The gunship and the keelback are both extremely poorly balanced / designed. They already need to make substantial sacrifices just to be used. They were both in need of love before, but people just wrote it off by saying the ships would be good when they got their fighters. Here we are now, realizing that these ships don't actually just get improved by the fighters, no, they need to make sacrifices.

 

[Drezden]

I will use Keelback as a general mission ship with a fighter bay smuggling/trade missions
you might also consider winging up so you can specialize ships

 

[Bertrand Du Guesclin]

I completely agree with the OP and the other participants of this thread.

The Gunship is very well armed, but very lacking in internal slots.
When I tried to "upgrade" from the Dropship to the Gunship, I just couldn't fit the modules I wanted for combat, and as a result the Gunship performed poorly, even worse than the Dropship, despite it's superior firepower and higher price tag.

Being the only Federal medium ship able to carry a fighter, the ship is needing a rethink of the number of internal slots, to get at least 7 slots, like the Dropship.
That way, you can have a fighter bay, shields, and a decent amount of armor (getting close to the max armor on the Dropshipt would be nice, and make sense given the higher price of the Gunship).

The same could be said of the Keelback. With the way internal slots are working currently, a higher number of slots often matters more than the size of the slots, which is a bit contradictory.

 

[KR4K40]

would be cool if player to player trading was a thing

imagine a conflict zone where the big guys are dishing it out with corvettes and fighters. Two keelbacks drop in and offer repair services for the other players' fighters. They make a lot of money in the process and everyone is happy!

ah, imagination. You need that to keep playing ED

 

[Dimensions]

I think these ships should have built in hangers, FD keep introducing more and more things into the game that require internal slots. You can't mix up your gameplay unless you want to keep landing to swap out your load out.

 

[Sylow]

There is one ship which needs more internals in this concept: the Keelback.
.
The ship was introduces with limited internal space and the information, that the ship has so little internals as the hangar takes up all that space. Now the hangar would be a separate module, eating up more of this limited internal space. To bring the Keelback in line with other ships of this price range and align it with the promises given at its introduction, it should get one more internal module slot, which might indeed even be locked to only be able to hold a fighter hangar and nothing else.
.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

I will just quote myself:

I found this hilarious.

Ship companies: "Hey, you can now launch your own, remote controlled fighter drone!"
Pilot: "This is awesome! I already got a couple of ships with a hangar bay!"
Ship companies: "Excellent. You can purchase a hangar bay module -"
Pilot: "Wait, what? Like this SRV thing that requires internal space?"
Ship companies: "Well, what did you expect? The fighters need to be stored somewhere ..."
Pilot: "Yes, in the hangar bay only selected ships come with. It would have explained the incredibly small interior space of the Gunship and the Keelback for example ... but please keep going."
Ship companies: "You can then choose wheather you want your crew to control it or do it by yourself while your ship can be controlled by other pilots you can hire around the galaxy."
Pilot: "Hm-mh."
Ship companies: "Due to our decision to use peer-to-peer, the boardcomputer is overloaded if controlling two ships at the same time so we have limited the total amount of controlled ships at the same time to one."
Pilot: "Screw it. Core Dynamics! Give me a heavy duty hull reinforcement package!"

Ship companies: "But-"
Pilot: "No, your product is a joke. The value is obviously far less than a simple hull pack for my Corvette. Once these untalented crew piltos managed to break my shields as they'll never pop a shield cell at the right time against pirates I'd rather prefare that extra hull strength over your tiny little fighter that will be nuked with a single plasma or two railguns anyways."
Ship companies: "But these fighters pack a punch!"
Pilot: "Yes they do what does this punch make much of a use if either your main ship is a sitting duck or your untalented crew pilots can't even hit a thing because they either try to evade fire all the time or go kamikaze or can't handle more than one hostile ship at a time because their brain overloads when calculating the best manouvers against more than one ship at the same time which results in a self destruct so they are limited to only considering one hostile ship at a time which results in their low value."

...

"Ah, a cheap C4D hull pack. See, this is quality. No power consumption, no crew pilots required and can consider more than one hostile at a time plus we can use more than one hull packs at a time. I prefare the rock over 'high'-tech drones."

 

[Drelthar]

I think it would be niceto make the fighter bays like they made the planetary landing suite.

Specialised module fitted to all ships that can launch fighters.

 

[Kaybe]

Honestly, as long as the fighter bay doesn't take more than a 2-slot, it should be fine. More than that is unacceptable given how these two ships are currently balanced.

 

[Vasious]

The gunship's internals are currently 6-6-5-2-2. If you take a shield and a fighter bay, you are now left with 6-2-2. Unless you intend to not change systems much, the gunship's poor jump range and small number of jumps-per-full-tank means you kinda need a fuel scoop. You can put it in the class 2, but that means waiting for about a full minute to scoop per jump. The more sensible option is to put it in the class 6. That means the gunship, a truly massive thing, effectively has two class 2 compartments to work with. 8 whole cargo canisters worth of space. You could literally fit 8 cargo canisters in the cockpit area! Where is all the space going? Absurd. Maybe if FDEV split one of the class 6 compartments into two class 5's?

Will you need the class 6 fuel scoop with ship transfers?

 

[Kaybe]

Some of us would actually like to be able to fly this thing for other duties than just RES hunting. A minimum class 5 scoop is a necessity.