Hangars: Ship launched fighters are internals...

[Lucius-Darcia]

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

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.

No i am not very happy about this decision. Without a new extra slot only for fighters.....they're simply dead to me before born. No use for them in that case.

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.

Hahahaha did you ever heard about the word "multipurpose"? Why should i spend over 600mil in an Anaconda when she can't do a multirole? Since the enhanced AI met us, at least one SCB is needed for a multipurpose because a multiconda wouldn't use the class 7 internal for a shield for sure!! If you can't do multiple things with her.....she isn't worth the money.

At the moment my Anaconda can nothing more than my Python can do. She can even lesser because of the big hitbox, the lack of speed and agility and because she can't dock at outposts. So why i should fly her? An additional new slot for additional new gameplay would spin up the wheel again because she could do things (launching fighters, maybe dock at outposts with them) what my Python can NOT do. This would be worth the money

 

[Starbreaker]

Extra class 4 slot for the FGS at least, and a class 3 for the Keelback. These ships are too limited on optional internals even now.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

I will just quote myself:

THIS is a great statement

 

[Julio Montega]

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.

That still is demanding a slot of our internals then.

I don't understand the developers praising the idea of SLFs as a means to "boost combat ability" of
traders and less combat specialized ships.
If they really would like to do that, they should introduce it as special compartment,
similar to the planetary landing stuff and have it be balanced by mass,
dragging on the ship.
Explorers and pirates specially never have any internal slot to spare for funky non functional stuff for the career.
Traders, well you can argue that they can keep their cargo safer by reducing the amount they ferry and pick an SLF aboard.

I picked those two examples Keelback and FGS because they have such a limited amount of slots,
you really have to juggle.
I as a pirate, posted even a FGS piracy loadout, which clearly shows, there is no room for SLFs!
When i did my trip to the pleiades and witch's head nebula, i did choose a Keelback,
and as i remember my fitting, i had not a single slot to spare for nonsense, like SLFs.

This general way of throwing internal slot stuff at us has to stop.

 

[Kaybe]

Oh I never said I liked the idea of it requiring a slot. I really dislike it in fact. But I can *tolerate* it using only a class 2 slot. More than that and the FGS is rendered functionally useless.

 

[goemon]

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.

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

I for sure am not.

i actually love it.

i was undecisive which ship i will use as a carrier. I don't like large ships in combat. so i was quite sure i won't outfit my trutter or my explonda for that role.

imagening a keelback with most probably only 8T of cargo, if you fit a hangar (class5?) and want a decent shield (and you want one for that carrier role), i thought: this is really a good joke. that's a true q-ship. it only looks like a cargo ship. sounds like a lot of fun for me.

probably i'm weird.

but i'm really looking forward to outfit a keelback for bountyhunting in my fighter in a RES.

for the gunship - you anyway don't use it as a trader, explorer, etc., do you?

 

[Mephane]

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.

Yes and no. Going up one class doubles the size of a module (see: cargo racks), so I would say that class 5 = 1 fighter, class 6 = 2 fighters, class 7 = 4 fighters.

 

[zimms]

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.

"Unacceptable"...

I'd guess a size 2 slot won't be big enough. The hangar + fighter will probably need more space than 4 cargo canisters.

It's a choice and choices shouldn't be easy. Either you sacrifice something for this additional functionality, or you'll have to pick another ship.

I really love the Viper, but I don't expect it to do everything.

 

[Julio Montega]

Oh I never said I liked the idea of it requiring a slot. I really dislike it in fact. But I can *tolerate* it using only a class 2 slot. More than that and the FGS is rendered functionally useless.

Don't take it personal, i get a bit upset if something rubs my FGS the wrong way

If you were a pirate, pirating in an awesomely profitable system that is policed, wht module would you remove,
if you had chosen the FGS as ship?

C6 shield?
c6 cargo bay?
c5 collector drones for 3 actives?
c2 hatch breaker to get more than 10 tons per ship and be efficient?
c2 FSD interdictor to actually do the job?

--> <sarcasm>Only 5 internal slots is versatile, especially since the FDS has 7!
Customers never were able to choose what to put in there, so we fixed that, for an
even higher price and less defense! Yay FGS Design! </sarcasm>

If you were in a Keelback explorer, what module would you sacrifice?
c5 shields?
c5 scoop?
c3 planetary hangar?
c3 afmu?
c2 detailed surface scanner?
c2 advanced discovery scanner?

Those ships both don't have enough slots to equip a fighter if you go for piracy or exploration.
Given you could fly shieldless in both ships, or ditch the afmu as explorer,
you still are likely to be needing them if the rumors are right, when winter is coming...

What is the reason in FD then advertising this module as an "option" for less combatitive roles,
if less combatative roles already are that specialized they cannot sacrifice a single slot?

 

[goemon]

Yes and no. Going up one class doubles the size of a module (see: cargo racks), so I would say that class 5 = 1 fighter, class 6 = 2 fighters, class 7 = 4 fighters.

but srv bays: class 2: 1 srv, class 4: 2 srv, class 6: 4 srv... limpet controllers: class 1: 1 limpet, class 3: 2 limpets, class 5: 3 limpets ... and there is no ingame ship description of four fighters ;-)

anyway, we will see, but i personally believe class 5: 1 fighter, class 7: to fighters for above reasons.

 

[Dimensions]

Hahahaha did you ever heard about the word "multipurpose"? Why should i spend over 600mil in an Anaconda when she can't do a multirole? Since the enhanced AI met us, at least one SCB is needed for a multipurpose because a multiconda wouldn't use the class 7 internal for a shield for sure!! If you can't do multiple things with her.....she isn't worth the money.

At the moment my Anaconda can nothing more than my Python can do. She can even lesser because of the big hitbox, the lack of speed and agility and because she can't dock at outposts. So why i should fly her? An additional new slot for additional new gameplay would spin up the wheel again because she could do things (launching fighters, maybe dock at outposts with them) what my Python can NOT do. This would be worth the money

A bit of an exaggeration. A python can't transport 400t of cargo. Don't get me wrong though, I agree that fighter hangers should be built into the ship rather than taking up internals, especially since only a handful of ships can actually carry fighters. The Python not being one of them.

 

[Jukelo]

It's a choice and choices shouldn't be easy. Either you sacrifice something for this additional functionality, or you'll have to pick another ship.

I really love the Viper, but I don't expect it to do everything.

Thing is the keelback will stay crap. No matter what role you want it to fit there's another ship doing it better. In that price range there are much better fighters, there are much better traders (regardless of whether you're going for max cargo or survivability), there are much better miners, there are better explorers. Its only redeeming feature was supposed to be the ability to launch fighters. But what good is it be able to launch fighters if that's all you can do? The Fighter bay taking up internal slots will only compound the issues the KB has: with even less cargo you might as well go for a max cargo Cobra which is more likely to survive any encounter than a KB+fighter, and obviously if you're trying to provide escort for another player you're better off with a dedicated, cheaper fighter.

 

[Kastor]

Welcome to using combat class vessels.
It's a GUNSHIP! it's not supposed to have lots of internals. Multi-roles have always made better pirates.

Good thing there's not a module that turns internal space into raw combat power otherwise Multi-roles would always be better. .. Oh wait.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

A bit of an exaggeration. A python can't transport 400t of cargo. Don't get me wrong though, I agree that fighter hangers should be built into the ship rather than taking up internals, especially since only a handful of ships can actually carry fighters. The Python not being one of them.

The python can take 280t of cargo and i have spoken of them as multipurpose ships. Not as traders. There doesn't count the cargo, here it is important which and how many modules you can outfit.

The anaconda has only 2 slots more than the python. 1 goes for collectors because we need them for the rngineers in this fat thing. It's no fun collect this crap manually with an anaconda. And 1 slot used for cargo to get MORE cargo than the python.
And you forgot about all the negatives the anaconda has to the pythons. Read my post again if you are really intrested

 

[Julio Montega]

Welcome to using combat class vessels.
It's a GUNSHIP! it's not supposed to have lots of internals. Multi-roles have always made better pirates.

Good thing there's not a module that turns internal space into raw combat power otherwise Multi-roles would always be better. .. Oh wait.

Good for you i covered the combat variant in the thread i linked to in the OP.
It isn't current mega-MC-spam meta with shield cells to the brim,
but a defensive comparison between the more battle opted FGS to the original FDS,
which actually is the better choice.

Also the FGS is advertised as a "support ship" and "versatile",
clearly larger main internals is no versatility, as the ship has the same jumprange as an FDS,
lower speed and the cap-recharge on the power distributor is unnecessary for MC meta.

Diversity, the art of advertising via diversion....

Also the FGS is suitable to piracy, due to the fitting reaching acceptable 64 tons of cargo,
and having surpreme module protection, where the Python simply is shredded to pieces,
even with 3 HRPs as thickness top/bottom is abyssmal.

 

[GTwannabe]

Fighter bay should be a core module slot on ships that can fit one.

 

[Thetele]

Keelback and FGS aren't meant to be good ships with fighter bay. Those ships purpose is to fill role of cheap ship with fighter bay so new players can get to fly/test and have one quit soon. By far the 2 cheapest options if you want to get fighter. Other ships with fighter bays are much more expensive.

 

[Julio Montega]

Keelback and FGS aren't meant to be good ships with fighter bay. Those ships purpose is to fill role of cheap ship with fighter bay so new players can get to fly/test and have one quit soon. By far the 2 cheapest options if you want to get fighter. Other ships with fighter bays are much more expensive.

Does that justify to imply those ships with a penalty, by having another internal module,
right in the amount of slots, where it hurts them most?
If it is something special, then make it special, like a special non internal-rated slot, right?

So what is special about the ability of launching SLFs?
Loosing versatility... a bad move imo.

And cheap is relative, if you think in the
prejudice of long time players, i can assure you,
i did choose to feel rich with 300 million in assets after 2.5 years,
spread on my FDS/FGS/FAS ships.

In fact it is an incentive to some "careers" to never fly
anything beyond the "medium" ship class, to retain the ability
to dock with outposts and the like.

 

[Mephane]

but srv bays: class 2: 1 srv, class 4: 2 srv, class 6: 4 srv... limpet controllers: class 1: 1 limpet, class 3: 2 limpets, class 5: 3 limpets ... and there is no ingame ship description of four fighters ;-)

anyway, we will see, but i personally believe class 5: 1 fighter, class 7: to fighters for above reasons.

Yeah, you are right. And it's inconsistent, some modules scale with the power of two with every bigger class, others only with every 2nd bigger class (and omit the classes in between). I'd honestly wish these other modules would be changed to stay in line with the cargo rack size equivalent (i.e. class 3 SRV bay = 2 SRVs, class 4 bay = 4 SRVs).

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Thing is the keelback will stay crap. No matter what role you want it to fit there's another ship doing it better. In that price range there are much better fighters, there are much better traders (regardless of whether you're going for max cargo or survivability), there are much better miners, there are better explorers. Its only redeeming feature was supposed to be the ability to launch fighters. But what good is it be able to launch fighters if that's all you can do? The Fighter bay taking up internal slots will only compound the issues the KB has: with even less cargo you might as well go for a max cargo Cobra which is more likely to survive any encounter than a KB+fighter, and obviously if you're trying to provide escort for another player you're better off with a dedicated, cheaper fighter.

For me I will do it for fun. I will upgrade the crap out of the Keelback, fit a fighter and an SRV and go exploring or mission running. It will only matters to people with credits being thier main motivation.
You can get 44t of cargo in the keelback with both bays included. Not too bad. The Cobra will also have 40 units with the same shield strength and the SRV bay included.

No too bad in my eyes. Price though will be virtually double the Cobra.

Keelback
https://coriolis.io/outfit/keelback/0pataFal3d5s8f40t0t2424030300042d4002v601.Iw18UA==.Aw18UA==
Used the Hull Reinforment for the Fighter Bay.

Cobra
https://coriolis.io/outfit/cobra_mk_iii/0pataFaldd5sdf4272710100302030345v60101.Iw1-kA==.Aw1-kA==