Support Larger Fighter bays to hold Sidewinders/Eagles as fighters for the 'Conda Cutter Corvette
- Thread starter Titan1978
- Start date
Medium ships would still have an advantage at outposts though, because they would be able to carry larger cargo loads than a fighter-sized shuttle or a sidewinder launched from a big ship, and because they're protected from pirates and space crazies when inside the hangar. They can access services like outfitting and repair too...though maybe there could be repair drones that could work on a big ship that's outside the outpost. Drones could transfer cargo too, which would bypass the cargo limit of a shuttle, but would cost money and take a lot longer than transferring cargo from a ship docked inside the outpost.
Last edited:
Sidewinder is bigger vertically. That said, this really requires pilots can move between ships, and not use telepresence. Because eagles and sidewinder still can't dismiss ships, because we're always in the parent ship.
Time wise to load and unload, yes the medium ships would still have an advantage. If you have to fly the Sidey back and forth.
If you have drones or NPC crew doing all that stuff for you then you can basically AFK and come back when done. At that point if you are running cr/hr why bother with outposts at all.
If you are running one of the big three and use the Sidey to just access Starport services to send out drones, I personally think you would have more than enough cr to pay for their services to the point that the cost is inconsequential.
If you feel unsafe at an outpost cause you can't dock that's fine. But then why go to an outpost with the big 3.
Sorry if I seem to be going all over the place. At the moment a bit tired.
To me Elite is a way different game than what I (and I dare say most people) are used to. We are used to levelling our characters to be the most powerful they can be in a game with the best equipment possible in game. This usually means hitting level 80 and being decked out in all legendary/epic/raid tier armour. Mid level equipment is something we use and then trash as we level higher. Our uber gear at lvl 80 allows us to do everything much better than the gear we had at lvl 40.
Elite is slightly different. If you consider the big 3 as Epic end game gear then they can't do all the things that mid level gear can do. I believe this was a design choice by DB and after playing the game for more than a year I fully support this as it is so refreshing from all the other cookie cutter MMOs. It is mainly PvE based but does not require you to fly the biggest, baddest ship in game to experience all the content, unlike other PvE based games I've come across.
Disclaimer:
I have an A-rated Corvette and Cutter. Both fully engineered. I have a Conda which is specifically geared for exploration.
Last edited:
Not sure what video you are referring to. Condor is slightly less than half the width and height of the Sidewinder, although it's length (bow to stern/front to back) is fairly close.
Sidewinder: 14.9L - 21.3W - 5.4H
Condor: 13.5L - 10.5W - 2.5H
Imperial Fighter: 6.5L - 11.25W - 2.5H
Taipan: 13.9L - 16.9W - 2.6H
Last edited:
Where did you get those numbers?
Wiki and youtube.com/watch?v=t2uaRHFmBT4
Seems there are slight discrepancies between the two, all but one of which are only 0.1m difference. The major one being the length of the Imperial Fighter which I believe has to do with where they took the measurement.
Last edited:
The moving between ships is not actually a big deal... SRVs anyone?... The real gain I can see from being able to carry a sidewinder is a self-service Fuel rat type situation, cargo collection/drop off, landing an SRV on a high G planet perhaps, or when multi-player-crew is added such ships could act as wingman carriers.
The anaconda official description states can be upgraded with 2 docking bays for upto sidewinder class ships thus lore wise it would not be unprecedented. Balance wise, the disposable fighters are probably more of a boon. If it were added then Class 7 slot for 2 bays and Class 5 for 1 bay and no repair/maintenance facilities on board either (can repair docked ship when mothership is docked though). There could be a single bay Class 7 upgrade that takes slightly larger small ships but that may be too much of a stretch.
Either way, I am currently content with the disposable telepresence solution, adding the proposed docking solution would be a bonus.
Thanks for missing my point. This is true - but.. SRV isn't telepresence; we actually shift to the vehicle. SLF? Remote control. The hilarious thing is, we are actually in the fighter, because that's how the flight model works. So it's faking one thing to pretend we aren't actually doing the other thing.
Regardless, that telepresence model means we can't technically can't dismiss, because that'd break the link so the SLF would cease being controlled. Never mind the concept means mother cannot leave the instance, for lore/ immersion reasons. Queue random explosion. Ahh, that moment when immersion or lore, fundimentally breaks logic into tiny little pieces of regret and sadness. Oh well.
Frontier probably should have made it so we physically transition into the fighter (this would mean it'd have to dock to swap between AI/ human from a lore/ immersion perspective, even though the game can swap us between ships like magic) but for reasons of gameplay and more seamless 'transfer' invented telepresence, since there's some lore loophole that apparently allows it. This is far more dynamic in battle, and removes the need to dock endlessly to swap between pilot modes, but there's a pretty heavy cost.
I think, personally, there would be more options for different types of ship-launched vehicles if we actually relocated to them, rather than remote control; even if that meant it was a little less fluid. Means we could launch a small shuttle to visit bases, etc. Be able to land on planets. Dismiss mother, and so on. There's more fluidity in telepresence, but more potential in direct control.
It also means Frontier could unify hangers, so have various sizes that can carry SRV, or SRV + 1 fighter, or 2 fighters no SRV and so on. Imagine an explorer who could carry 1x SRV and 1x fighter?
Leave mother in orbit and head on down in a nimble, fast ship that can scout areas; call mother in, re-dock, land mother, then launch SRV. So many options!
SLF is an interesting approach that is fundimentally constrained by using lore. Rather than logic. Logic (we get in the thing because that's how SRV works so let's shoot for logic and consistency; same thing for fighters) has more value over lore, imho, simply because it's indeed consistent in application; you can make lore fit logic, the reverse isn't true. It's a hard thing to grasp, that.
Which is why I tend to bang on about logic and consistency.
Last edited:
its not garabage - it also has a cargo - letting you "reach" those pesky places you can't with the Big Three
I have not actually missed anything (but thanks for missing mineThanks for missing my point. This is true - but.. SRV isn't telepresence; we actually shift to the vehicle. SLF? Remote control. The hilarious thing is, we are actually in the fighter, because that's how the flight model works. So it's faking one thing to pretend we aren't actually doing the other thing.
), my point was that we would not be using telepresence between the sidewinder and the mothership... and as for the being in the fighter, there is ZERO distinction in the SLF telepresence case from a flight model perspective. Whether you are in the fighter virtually via telepresence or physically in the seat from a flight mechanics basis it is exactly the same thing (afterall we are not actually physically in any ship ourselves but rather sitting in front of a computer device of some description in the real world ). The only real difference between telepresence and physical transfer is how death is handled but if they use the SRV approach then there is little difference to the current SLF/SRV solution in that when you die you would return to your last docked location (in all likelihood the mothership) and lose the ship you were in (your escape pod would return you to the mothership rather than a station).The current SLF/Telepresence solution could have employed similar mechanics to the SRV instead but I understand the reasoning behind it... the SLF is basically a disposable but retrievable/reusable URV/Drone concept (c/f X-Rebirth and even current state of the art military kit) rather than a true docked ship concept. I think many of us where hoping for Guardians to introduce a true docked ship concept but the SLF/URV concept has probably just as much (if not more) potential just in different ways. With the telepresence solution we can switch between the SLF and the mothership at will with our Crew member taking control of the other, such a capability would not be possible from a logical sense if we were talking about docked ships.
Unifying hangars makes little or no sense from either a consistency or lore perspective. As for logic, that is totally irrelevant as such arguments are based on perspective. From a lore and consistency perspective, what they have done can be considered logical (thus it is also from a logic and consistency perspective too... after a fashion).
If a proper ship docking bay were added as a follow on from Guardians at some point then the Crew persons introduced with Guardians could theoretically take control of our ship while we are away (as they seem to currently do while we are in control of an SLF). Our ship would then have to be recalled (c/f the SRV) mechanic if we strayed too far from the mothership.
Last edited: