Dear FDev, please remove the module limit on fighter hangars

zegram33

Z
Having a module limit on fighter hangers doesn't really make sense since your just loading spare parts for reconstruction.
As such, just like we can load multiple SRV hangars, please let us load multiple fighter hangars.

I'm not asking for the ability to LAUNCH multiple fighters, just have 2 or 3 hangars equipped to make a fully focused "carrier" ship. So say a T9, 3 size 7 hangars, and you have a ton of reloads of multiple types/loadouts of fighters, some big repair limpets etc.

it would add another fun combat build, but at the same time it would DEFINITLEY not be overpowered or effect the meta, it makes more sense lore-wise than the current system. should be an easy fix and i'd REALLY appreciate being able to make a full on wing support carrier thing

What does everyone think?
Any real problems with the idea?
Given how many various "carrier" threads there have been over the years I think it would be popular, and should be no difficulty at all (just changing one value).
 

Red_Beard_98

R
While I'm not opposed to this idea I do think it is a bit unnecessary given the current game play. I have never needed more than 2 different fighters and have never run out of rebuilds. That being said, a good start could be to change the size 7 SLF hanger to carry 3 different fighters with less rebuilds per bay (maybe 8 like the size 6) but keep the amount able to deploy at one time the same. I could see this being a concern when/if game play evolves to have larger ships that could really benefit from a small swarm of fighters circling it (although that would also require the ability to deploy more fighters from 1 ship). I could also see this being more necessary if more types of SLF are introduced to fill roles other than pure combat. Until then I personally just don't feel the need for it. A good thought though, maybe I'm alone with this thinking!
 

zegram33

Z
mainly its to do with the rebuild timer, personally.
If you want, say....a fixed beam taipan constantly available you need to have it in both bays, so you can hop in the other one when the first gets shot down.
But that then restricts you to only having one fighter. being able to load several bays would allow more versatility at a steep module penalty.


As an alternative option i'd be fine with a module (size 4-5?) that just removed the construction time of fighters, letting you access you're stocks immediatley
 

lenna

lenna
Providing there is a hard SLF deployment limit of 2 SLFs (1 NPC+1 MC/2 NPC/2 MC) then I do not see a problem with the OP's proposal BUT the SLF hangar does not JUST determine the number of spare parts it determines the number of fighter variants too. However, I do not think it is necessary - in most of my ship builds I could not justify having a second (or more) SLF bay module.

Compromise - add Engineering for SLF bays that for example:-
  1. Tune weight against integrity (module armour)
  2. Tune PP requirements/PD requirements against integrity (module shields?)
  3. Tune weight/integrity against number of rebuilds
  4. Tune PP requirements/PD requirements against Build Times (rebuilds should draw power from System if they do not already - not paid that much attention to power drain during rebuilds)
  5. Combination of two or more of the above
 
Last edited:

Iskariot

Iskariot
zegram33 said:
Having a module limit on fighter hangers doesn't really make sense since your just loading spare parts for reconstruction.
As such, just like we can load multiple SRV hangars, please let us load multiple fighter hangars.

I'm not asking for the ability to LAUNCH multiple fighters, just have 2 or 3 hangars equipped to make a fully focused "carrier" ship. So say a T9, 3 size 7 hangars, and you have a ton of reloads of multiple types/loadouts of fighters, some big repair limpets etc.

it would add another fun combat build, but at the same time it would DEFINITLEY not be overpowered or effect the meta, it makes more sense lore-wise than the current system. should be an easy fix and i'd REALLY appreciate being able to make a full on wing support carrier thing

What does everyone think?
Any real problems with the idea?
Given how many various "carrier" threads there have been over the years I think it would be popular, and should be no difficulty at all (just changing one value).
Click to expand...

In principle I see no reason to deny us the freedom.
I don't think it will break the game.

I do think though that we should be able to launch 2 fighters at a time. Fighters are so easily disposed of. Having two of them 'in the air' might make them a bit more interesting to use for support. I currently very often have my doubts whether it is worth it considering how fast they evaporate, especially when you are confronting elites.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 38366

D
Yeah, launching two at the same time would be neat.

It can be done via MultiCrew already (which even grants magic bonus Pips on top), so why not take 2 NPCs onboard (plenty of empty seats on large Ships) and have both work for their money.
Wouldn't break or change anything but allow to utilize multiple NPC Crews instead of them sipping Lavian Brandy at home and enjoying their full-payroll passive income.
 

zegram33

Z
Fair enough.
I kinda feel like 2 slfs at once might be pretty powerful.
Not for the large sized "big 4" per se, but on the fed gunship and the alliance crusader that's a fairly chunky boost to DPS.
Not like either of them are super overpowered at the moment I guess.
 

RamirezKurita

R
Rather than an ability to stack vast amounts of fighter hangars, what about adding in a C4 supplementary construction bay? The supplementary fighter bay would save space by not having the telepresence suite, which is how it can fit into such a small slot.

Thinking about it, it does make me wonder how the mass and volume are distributed between the fighter storage, construction bays and the telepresence suite. Maybe later on tonight I'll see about running the calculations.

Edit: Okay, analysing the fighter bay components by volume doesn't really work, as it comes out with a fighter ingot occupying 4.57 units of space, the telepresence suite occupying 18.29 units of space while the manufacturing bay itself occupies -13.71 units of space.

Edit Take Two: Analysing them by mass works far better, as it comes out with a fighter ingot weighing in at around 1.43 tonnes, the manufacturing bay at around 5.7 tonnes and the telepresence suite at around 5.72 tonnes. This means that a class 4 "Supplementary Manufacturing Bay" that weighs in at 10 tonnes (half that of the class 5) would be able to store up to 3 fighters. A class 5 SMB would have a much more significant 10 fighters in reserve.

This does also call in the logical question of why the class 7 hangar has only got 3/4s the density of the others, as it is this density disparity that completely screws over the volumetric calculations. Assuming that all the SLF hangar things are actually equal density, it should have 20 tonnes of extra capacity to play with. 20 tonnes, which could quite easily be used to have a 2nd telepresence suite alongside splitting its fighter complement across 4 production lines rather than 2 (and still have space for a couple of extra fighters on top of its 30 reserve).
 
Last edited:

dxm55

Banned
D
zegram33 said:
Having a module limit on fighter hangers doesn't really make sense since your just loading spare parts for reconstruction.
As such, just like we can load multiple SRV hangars, please let us load multiple fighter hangars.

I'm not asking for the ability to LAUNCH multiple fighters, just have 2 or 3 hangars equipped to make a fully focused "carrier" ship. So say a T9, 3 size 7 hangars, and you have a ton of reloads of multiple types/loadouts of fighters, some big repair limpets etc.

it would add another fun combat build, but at the same time it would DEFINITLEY not be overpowered or effect the meta, it makes more sense lore-wise than the current system. should be an easy fix and i'd REALLY appreciate being able to make a full on wing support carrier thing

What does everyone think?
Any real problems with the idea?
Given how many various "carrier" threads there have been over the years I think it would be popular, and should be no difficulty at all (just changing one value).
Click to expand...

Pointless for now.

You can only have one active pilot at a time.
That's why they have a 2-fighter hangar, so your pilot can launch in one. Not sure if you can go out the other while your pilot is active.
Have not tried that.

I'm not sure why they have a 2-SRV hangar though. Maybe it's for the propsed future NPC SRV thingy?
Or maybe it's just a spare car for those explorers who might blow one up accidentally along the way, far out in the boonies.


If you wanna carry say... 3 twin fighter bays, then FDev would first need to allow us all to have more than one active pilot.

Actually this idea would make sense if we could have more active pilots. It would allow slow, large ships like the T9 to defend itself better from smaller combat ships like the FDL or Vulture.

Fit a T9 with up to 3 twin fighter bays for a total of 6 fighters, and allow 6 Active pilots.
Works for me.
 

Misty_Dark

Misty_Dark
I agree, I do not understand why there is limit to max one fighter hangar.... There is no such limit on SRV hangars, and you can only use one SRV at a time anyway....

So having multiple hangars, would allow us to have more SLF variants to choose from. And as already suggested, we would not be able to launch any more SLF than we already can today, the only bonus this would give us is that have more SLF available, or that we do not have to for the next one to be 3D Printed if you die alot...
 

Jonesy42

Jonesy42
I dont know if this has been said before but:

Most ships only have 1 SRV and Hangar launch bay thing.
Having 2 Hangars doesnt make sense, where would it start from?
 

Red_Beard_98

R
Jonesy42 said:
Most ships only have 1 SRV and Hangar launch bay thing.
Having 2 Hangars doesnt make sense, where would it start from?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's really an issue if more SLF bay's are allowed to be installed. SRV's deploy from the cargo hatch which it why all ships can fit SRV's and SLF's bays follow a similar principle; any ship that has the capability to have an SLF bay has a predetermined spot where SLF's launch from and dock to. The SLF bay location is not associated with the internal module you install it in otherwise it would have be a dedicated internal compartment which would be silly.
 

Jonesy42

Jonesy42
Red_Beard_98 said:
I don't think that's really an issue if more SLF bay's are allowed to be installed. SRV's deploy from the cargo hatch which it why all ships can fit SRV's and SLF's bays follow a similar principle; any ship that has the capability to have an SLF bay has a predetermined spot where SLF's launch from and dock to. The SLF bay location is not associated with the internal module you install it in otherwise it would have be a dedicated internal compartment which would be silly.
Click to expand...
So you're telling me that when you dont have a SLF hangar all the space is not being used for other modules?
 

Red_Beard_98

R
Jonesy42 said:
So you're telling me that when you dont have a SLF hangar all the space is not being used for other modules?
Click to expand...


What i'm saying is all ships that are capable of equipping an SLF bay have a predetermined location of where they launch from it does not matter what slot you use for the SLF bay.
 

Jonesy42

Jonesy42
Red_Beard_98 said:
What i'm saying is all ships that are capable of equipping an SLF bay have a predetermined location of where they launch from it does not matter what slot you use for the SLF bay.
Click to expand...
Exactly, they have one location and not two, thus making 2 hangars redunant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom