Reduce the module class of larger Planetary Vehicle Hangar modules (SRV)

[Nitross]

Reducing the Class 4 Planetary Vehicle Hangar to Class 3 and the Class 6 to Class 4 would give more freedom in builds and would follow the same "doubling" logic as other modules.

For instance, a Class 5 Cargo Rack holds 32t and a Class 6 holds 64t.

The Fighter Hangar doubles in mass with each Class increase and, while it only doubles the amount of fighter bays going from Class 5 to Class 6, the Class 7 has comes only 1 rebuild short of having twice the amount of the Class 6.

For SRVs, however, you need to go up 2 Classes to double the amount of vehicles your have. The largest Class 6 Planetary Vehicle Hangar holds only 4 SRVs compared to the 16 total SLFs you can get out of the Class 6.

Not only does the size of the Class 4 and 6 SRV modules seems excessive for the function compared to fighter bays, but it also too often forces you to use an over sized module slot to equip them. You want a spare SRV in your Asp Explorer? You have to use your Class 5 for it.

If the reduction from 6 to 4 for the 4 SRV hangar seems too much, reducing it to 5 and adding a 3 bay Class 4 module would work as well; you would still be able to bring more SRVs without wasting over sized slots.

 

[Lestat]

Or here an idea. Farm for Mats for repairing SRV. Then you can use one SRV in your build.

 

[Nitross]

Or here an idea. Farm for Mats for repairing SRV. Then you can use one SRV in your build.

I guess I just haven't given up on Fdev making SRVs work in multicrew someday. That and a Class 2 Hangar in a Class 3 slot also annoys me as much as the Class 1 sensors eating Class 2 and 3 space.

Since Fdev already said they are working on something for sensors, why not SRV bays as well?

 

[krautbernd]

TBH, your post implies that SLFs should have less rebuys to bring them in line with SLF hangar sizes, not the other way around, seeing how SRVs as stored in full rather than be rebuild once one is destroyed. Then again this video shows how the one-size-up progression would fit SRVs just fine.

Honestly i wouldn't mind bringing them in line with SLFs, and i certainly wouldn't mind those sensor racks (or modular slots) that get brought up every now and then either.

 

[Nitross]

TBH, your post implies that SLFs should have less rebuys to bring them in line with SLF hangar sizes, not the other way around, seeing how SRVs as stored in full rather than be rebuild once one is destroyed.

Oh, I was trying to show that since the Fighter Hangars have such high capacity at Class 6 it should not be an issue to lower the 4 SRV Planetary Hangar to a lower Class. Do you have a suggestion on how I could edit the post to get my intention across correctly?

 

[krautbernd]

My bad - your intentions are perfectly clear, but the argument concerning SLF hangar size is flawed, since it could as well be the other way around.

 

[Nitross]

No problem, I'm glad for constructive criticism; in the end, I'm just trying to get a discussion going on how ship loadouts could be more flexible. So don't feel bad about making a contribution!

In the end, I also know there is more than the numbers involved; I get that there's also game balance to be thought of.

A Fighter Hanger with less rebuilds would hamper its efficiency as a combat module and would be a detriment to the fast paced gameplay combat pilots want. So, that's definitely not where I would want to go.

On the other hand, ressource management is basically the main risk of exploration; so it makes senses in some way to not give as much spare SRVs per module. But, lowering the module size - especially for the C4 - would not change it that much.

But, the goal here is more about module economy. Changing module sizes just seemed easier to implement but, another way to go could be to have a C3 and C5 Planetary Vehicle Hangar that also offers some other advantage; it could be an hybrid with a bit of cargo space or some other functionality.

 

[RamirezKurita]

While it would make very good sense for planetary hangars to scale in this manner, unfortunately FD have seen fit to massively restrict the larger slots in terms of effectiveness. In many regards, the SRV bay actually scales better than half of the available modules. Compare this to limpets, which have 4x the module size for each additional limpet (which leads to a 4-limpet controller being 128x the size of a single controller), or modules like HRPs and most core internals that scale pretty much linearly with module class rather than the exponential increases the size and mass would suggest. To even begin to fix this trend would require some rebalancing of titanic proportions. It's a shame though, with some fixes to netcode to allow for more stuff in an instance (officially the reason why we can't launch multiple SLFs is because of the risk of them causing lag in player-heavy instances) and some more functionality for our NPC crew it could turn base raids into a massive spectacle - imagine a whole squad of 4 SRVs fighting a desperate ground battle while receiving support from their mothership and a couple of SLFs.

It's also one of the reasons why the concept of module bay splitters are so alluring for many players, while also being such a major point of contention for others, as it would let ships optimise to a certain degree down to the most efficient module sizes rather than putting up with the incredibly inefficient larger modules. Module bay splitters, even if they resulted in the loss of 1/4 of the capacity of the module (such as turning a class 4 into a class 2 and a class 3), while giving small ships that much desired extra flexibility it would actually function as a massive buff to larger ships as it would bring their actual in-game performance further in-line with what their size would suggest.