Not enough ships allow for fighters

CMDR StackOfCups

C
Why don't all large ships and most medium ships launch fighters? Or, better argument, why did they exclude the type-7 and type-6? The keelback gets a fighter... I was really excited for 2.2 and then saw that I can't afford a ship with a fighter for a LONG time. I just earned enough money to jump into a type-7 and was pretty excited to rock that with a fighter as backup... Nope. I'm not using a keelback because it's a downgrade from the type-6 I'm already using.
 
Last edited:

Lightspeed

Lightspeed
Yes, this was pointed out many times in the Beta discussion .... I suspect if enough 2.2 players make the case for other ships, some kind of accomodation might be made for them. The Keelback isn't everyone's cup of tea :)
 

Adhock

A
The T-7 is one of two large ships that can't fit a fighter bay. The other being the Clipper (which is technically a gunship class)

All other Escort Class vessels can. (Anaconda, Beluga, Corvette, Cutter, Type-9)

The Keelback and the Federal Gunship are the two gunship class vessels that can fit a fighter bay.

The rest are ether too small or are fighter class themselves.
 

Frenotx

Frenotx
Lightspeed said:
Yes, this was pointed out many times in the Beta discussion .... I suspect if enough 2.2 players make the case for other ships, some kind of accomodation might be made for them. The Keelback isn't everyone's cup of tea :)
Click to expand...

That's probably because most people politely reply "no, thank you" when offered a nice steaming cup of turd-tea.

The main argument I've seen AGAINST various ships getting a fighter bay is, "Ship X is already good at activity Y! You can't have a ship that's good at everything- gotta have trade offs!" At first, I totally agreed with this statement. Upon seeing how FD implemented fighters though, and upon playing with them myself, I don't agree as much anymore. Having the option to fit a fighter bay doesn't inherently give you any options. If you have and and decide to exercise the option, that's where the comprise comes in. Depending on the ship, that compromise can be quite large. Giving up a class 5, 6, or 7 internal compartment, and paying the pilot's wage, can be a major sacrifice on certain ships.
 

CMDR StackOfCups

C
It's slower, has less maximum cargo, and has a shorter maximum jump range. I'm not seeing anywhere online that has the updated stats, or if none of the updates makes any one of those aspects better. If not then it's still a downgrade from a type 6.
Siranui said:
Keelback has been uprated recently.
Click to expand...
 

GraXXoR

GraXXoR
Keelback is still total kack.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Ziljan said:
Add the Asp and Python to that list and all of the Lakon Type series, done.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the Type 6 and 7. But Python is already best in class, if that gets one then so should the clipper.
 
Last edited:

GraXXoR

GraXXoR
Adhock said:
The T-7 is one of two large ships that can't fit a fighter bay. The other being the Clipper (which is technically a gunship class)

All other Escort Class vessels can. (Anaconda, Beluga, Corvette, Cutter, Type-9)

The Keelback and the Federal Gunship are the two gunship class vessels that can fit a fighter bay.

The rest are ether too small or are fighter class themselves.
Click to expand...

Agreed... Also, the dropship should get one, too... FAS is already powerful enough.
 

Deadspin

Deadspin
Think about the dimensions of the ships though:

Keelback: Designed to fit a fighter bay, designed for patrol actions, designed to be more multi-role capable than the Type 6.
Type-6: Designed to haul goods. Technically you could probably fit a fighter bay in there but then you're going to give up some of that cargo space as well.

Python/FDL: The FDL already has a very limited amount of internal space and that belly mounted C4 hardpoint would probably have to go bye-bye to fit a fighter bay. it's also not a huge ship. If you fit a fighter bay into it you're going to forgo a lot of internal module space.

The Python has the same issue. You're going to give up all of that juicy internal module space that makes it such a great ship to cram a fighter bay into it.

I haven't flown or been around a Clipper in months so I can't really comment there because I'd need to see it next to a fighter to judge the width of the body.
 

CMDR StackOfCups

C
Deadspin said:
Think about the dimensions of the ships though:

Keelback: Designed to fit a fighter bay, designed for patrol actions, designed to be more multi-role capable than the Type 6.
Type-6: Designed to haul goods. Technically you could probably fit a fighter bay in there but then you're going to give up some of that cargo space as well.

Python/FDL: The FDL already has a very limited amount of internal space and that belly mounted C4 hardpoint would probably have to go bye-bye to fit a fighter bay. it's also not a huge ship. If you fit a fighter bay into it you're going to forgo a lot of internal module space.

The Python has the same issue. You're going to give up all of that juicy internal module space that makes it such a great ship to cram a fighter bay into it.

I haven't flown or been around a Clipper in months so I can't really comment there because I'd need to see it next to a fighter to judge the width of the body.
Click to expand...
That's the trade off though. Every ship that gets a fighter trades something to get it. That's why it doesn't REALLY give a straight up advantage. Any ship that can physically fit a fighter should be allowed one, and let the player's decide if using it is worth it.
 

Deadspin

Deadspin
There's something to note though:

The current ships selected to receive fighters (minus the Beluga since it came with the patch) were designed from Day 1 by the Devs to receive fighters. So we've been flying with them since their introduction in the configuration they are currently in. The devs didn't change anything about the ships themselves with this patch drop. They aren't giving up anything except for how the player organizes their pre-existing optional internal module layout based on the addition of the fighter bay.

You guys are asking for the rest of the ships to be altered, for their entire models to be redone, simply because some people want to be able to dump a fighter from their Python/FDL/FAS/FDS/Clipper etc because they don't like or can't afford the ships equipped to do so.

Sounds to me more like the players need to give something up if they want a deployable fighter so bad, either that or save up enough cash/rank to outfit one of the larger ships.
 

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
I love my Keelback.
It made me millions, millions enough to buy a Type-7, fully (re)outfitted, and since the upgrades, has just become better at hauling stuff from one place to another.
I still need to bump up the shields, because the backwater part of the galaxy I've been circling is lucky to have enough fuel to refill me.

I guess it just takes a certain kind of understanding to use a Keelback correctly. It's the armored car of small cargo runs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom