Hangars: Ship launched fighters are internals...

[[VR] Deggial]

Yes, this is known. But how much space exactly?

Does a single fighter really need 8 times the space of a SRV? (class 5 vs. class 2 module)?
I would guess, a class 3 module for a single fighter should be enough.

 

[trollson]

Umm... As far as I am aware fighter bays have already been implemented as internal modules for 2.2 - so its not like FD are going to change that now.

FD has previously described some specific, larger vessels as being capable of carrying a smaller ship. Its possible that this is a different capability to the fighter bay module (which presumably can be fitted to any ship with the available space) - and may be that "special core slot" offered in the poll.

 

[Vasious]

Given the lack of response to the question of "do we have an official statement on the hanger bay sizes?" I am guessing we are just working on the assumption of size 5 and 7

Would there be as much an issue if it was 3 and 5?

 

[Bobbydylan]

It has to be an internal slot. If the ships have been designed as FD says they are (Ie, with ambulation intended down the line), then everything inside the ship has to be "inside the ship". Hand-waving away the addition to a vehicle hanger goes against this.

 

[[VR] Deggial]

Would there be as much an issue if it was 3 and 5?

For me, personally? Oh yes, it would definitely make a difference!

A Class 5 hangar (for one fighter) would simply render the Keelback useless, as it would (almost) completely eliminate cargo space and hence its usefulness as mission-runner. I wouldn't like to downgrade shields to class 3 (currently class 5), as leaving such a weakly protected ship in AI hands might be too much of a hazard.

I would be willing to sacrifice a class 3 compartment, though, which is currently outfitted with a useful, but admittably luxorious shield cell bank.

One thing should be kept in mind:
Fighter bays are limited to certain ship types anyway. So there is no danger of "misuse" by other ships. Class restrictions don't need to be as limiting as for other equipment (e.g. the effectiveness of shild cells over all classes).

It has to be an internal slot. If the ships have been designed as FD says they are (Ie, with ambulation intended down the line), then everything inside the ship has to be "inside the ship". Hand-waving away the addition to a vehicle hanger goes against this.

I am accepting the design decision, even if I don't have to like it.

On the other hand: Hangar bays could have been built-in already, but simply not accesible until 2.2. So, at least under this point of view, FD wouldn't have to alter their ship design philosophy.

 

[crushdepth]

No way. If you want to carry a small ship you need to give up some space and make some compromises.

 

[Muetdhiver]

I think having the fighters as internal is fine.

However, I think the keelback could do with an extra C4 or C5 internal to have it work as an self-escorted trader.

The other larger ships with fighters will be just fine. We'll just have to think about what we fit in a bit more.

As an aside, if the keelback can fit a fighter, it means that the smallest bay will be C5. If so, an anaconda trader could
do the same. After all, for a trade run, you should not need more than one fighter. (but that would means traders sacrificing some cargo capacity... heresy for some XD)

 

[Mc80]

Apparently ships have pre-planned interiors for when we get space legs. If that is true, they cannot just add slots as requested.

 

[Magic Man]

Drones, not fighters. Drones...

 

[Julio Montega]

Apparently ships have pre-planned interiors for when we get space legs. If that is true, they cannot just add slots as requested.

Nonetheless FD decided to up the size of the FDL powerplant?
How does that fit your argument?

I do not see any problem.
It changes nothing if the slot required is size 3/5 or 5/7 for the FGS,
starving on internals is not cured by adding more options fore internals,
without upping the number of internals at hand.

 

[Bobbydylan]

I am accepting the design decision, even if I don't have to like it.

On the other hand: Hangar bays could have been built-in already, but simply not accesible until 2.2. So, at least under this point of view, FD wouldn't have to alter their ship design philosophy.

If that's the case, then I'm fine for simply giving all fighter capable ships a free size 5 slot for the hangar. However I really doubt this is the case. I suspect Fighter bays were always intended to work like SRV vehicle hangars, and Cargo bays, and be install-able in the same manor.

 

[Julio Montega]

I want realism in my game. And I want trade offs in my game. If someone has a ship launched fighter they should give up something in return. I vote for it using an internal component slot

I wish for realism in this game aswell,
but to stay realistic, the current implementation of hangars
as another internal, benefits certain loadouts more than others.

You need more diverse internal modules for piracy and exploration than for pure combat and trade.
While adding the hangars the way FD plans to suits them to combat and trade with some tradeoffs,
other builds and playstyles would be hampered enough to skip the whole module in the first place.

I like diversity, but where is diversity without a suitable slot to fit the module in.
Don't get me wrong, i have nothing against implementing the hangar as a standard internal,
but that leads to some conflicts:

The ships ready for hangars have more than one large internal,
the FGS has 2x class 6 and 1x class 5 internals, the Keelback has 2x class 5 internals.
The location of the ship-bay hatch is fixed, if people arguing the internal layout is fixed to
for space legs, it leads to a desync in realism, as the hangar itself would require
to be fitted into the slot right above the hatch, right?

If it is implemented as a standard module, the pilot still can fit it anywhere,
as long as the slot is large enough, or larger.
That hampers realism, also the advertised addition of combat prowess
to less defensive/offensive ships is hampered by the lack of internals
due to fitting a ship for a purpose other than trade and combat.

The ships really needing the firepower would be these careers imo:
- Trade (cut in trading capacity, but o.k. in a way (not Keelback))
- Piracy (not talking about combat fit ship PvP piracy, but PvE piracy requiring limpets etc.)
- Exploration (a lot of module diversity needed for exploration, 2 scanners, fuel scoop, optional afmu)

I think we can agree on having ships benefit of the addition of SLFs,
that already are geared towards dishing out damage and having high defenses is shortsighted,
as it simply furthers the split of fighting chances in combat scenarios for non combat fit ships.

 

[Julio Montega]

Any more feedback?

Can one of the devs please elaborate on the way hanagrs will be implemented,
and how the choice comes together?

 

[Eymerich]

A multipurpose ship is one that can be outfitted for different purposes, it isn't one that can do everything at the same time.
The Keelback can hold both the fighter, SRV and have the same shield strength as a Cobra MK3 and carry more cargo.

How can anyone think a Fighter bay will take up zero space in a ship is beyond me to be honest, and I only fly the smaller ships.
My main ship now is my modded Cobra MK4 which will become my explorer. I may get a keelback with a fighter bay with an SRV for mission running.

Seems fine to me.

It cost 10 times a coBra....

 

[Arindor]

Basically, it wouldn't be a problem for hangars to take up internal slots if discovery and detailed surface scanners were changed from internal to utility mounts.

 

[Kastor]

"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?

Well this is an easy fix, replace your hatch breakers with the fighter bay. If I can reliably pull of cargo hatch breaks in my viper using c1 pulse laser I'm sure a pro pirate like you will be able to do it in a super maneuverable fighter.

 

[Kastor]

Was this ever stated officially?

Unfortunately, I missed both Friday streams and my related questions weren't choosen at Saturday. Everytime I read about the mudule size in the forum, some terms of supposition are used. So, did Sandro or Adam or Ed or any other official voice ever comment about the hangar's classes?
I could live with a class 3 hangar for my Keelback. But with a class 5 hangar, there simply wouldn't be enough cargo space left to contain something worth being protected by the fighter ...

So you'd be sacrificing the majority of your cargo to become a powerful (for the price) combat ship that looks like a trader... so a Q-Ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

As such you're role isn't to protect your cargo, it's the protect the cargo of your wingmates.

 

[V'larr]

So you'd be sacrificing the majority of your cargo to become a powerful (for the price) combat ship that looks like a trader... so a Q-Ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

As such you're role isn't to protect your cargo, it's the protect the cargo of your wingmates.

Except for the whole thing where you won't ever show up as "Type 6" to enemy scanners. You will show up as "Keelback". And they willl snicker.

Still, on the flipside, the Keelback will be able to multiply its firepower far more than any other ship by being able to bring a fighter with it!

 

[Kastor]

Except for the whole thing where you won't ever show up as "Type 6" to enemy scanners. You will show up as "Keelback". And they willl snicker.

Still, on the flipside, the Keelback will be able to multiply its firepower far more than any other ship by being able to bring a fighter with it!

Indeed, if they do make fighters truly powerful like they then a keelback be a solid early-mid game contender for Combat Zones and bounty hunting.

It's a shame that keelbacks don't come with FSD scanner masking to make them look like T-6s in super cruise, then they would be hella cool.

 

[Julio Montega]

Well this is an easy fix, replace your hatch breakers with the fighter bay. If I can reliably pull of cargo hatch breaks in my viper using c1 pulse laser I'm sure a pro pirate like you will be able to do it in a super maneuverable fighter.

I can tell you, that the method of using a weapon to break the hatch is one used for "fishing" in anarchy,
but the money to be made is in med to high sec, where security spawns in quickly.
With the hatch be destroyed no more cargo drops, except when applying the hatch breakers.
Weapons of those fighters will shred the hatch in no time,
thus profit lost.

For real pro piracy it ashames me to say, but you need collectors, hatch breakers,
cargo hold and an interdictor.

Dear devs, any word on these hangars?