Bring SLFs in line with SRVs regards autonomy / mechanics for better multicrew

[Rubbernuke]

Currently SRVs can work independently (to a point) from ships- we get a set distance / dismiss the ship. This contrasts with SLFs which are almost Swingball like and tethered to a mothership. To me having two systems seems a bit redundant, especially with a more multiplayer focused game with Odyssey.

Now, I get one its 'you' driving about, and the other is represented. But....why? Why are both these vehicles treated so differently? Death in an SRV takes you back to the ship, so why not get rid of the telepresence on SLFs and treat them the same? This will simplify things for Odyssey and allow more dynamic uses.

For example: all SLFs have a landing animation and most landing gear (for evidence see the livery screen for SLFs). Why can't SLFs land, and pilots get out and fight etc? There is a niggle with SLF motherships in that they can't land if an SLF is deployed (which ruins aspects of combined surface ops). If an SLF can land this could be used to avoid that- the launch bay only used when the SLF requests docking. Fuel might be the same, with a fixed amount that could be synthed, scooped (with suitable SLF) or act as a more logical time constraint than using distance.

SLFs would become more independent with no distance restriction, like scooters (similar to this idea I had https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...scooter-fsd-capable-slfs.557035/#post-8760344 ) where a mothership can deploy them in orbit, the scooter could go one way with a team member while the mothership another. A solo player might dismiss the mothership like an SRV even.

It would make SLFs into fast (but cargoless) SRVs in a way too, because people can cover vast distances quickly and get out / run etc.

And- how far can you really push this? For example, could a player in an SLF land in a station, take more missions and come back? Land and refuel indpendently of a mothership?

 

[LKx]

I'm pretty sure they already considered this for Odyssey but they didn't have time to design/develop it for "release" (like a lot of other unfinished designs)

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm pretty sure they already considered this for Odyssey but they didn't have time to design/develop it for "release" (like a lot of other unfinished designs)

I mean, they have the systems in game now so really its seeing how far the netcode can be pushed

If FD want physical multicrew to be seen as 'a thing' (and not a buzzword and collection of disparate concepts from several years past) FD need to simplify and streamline as much as possible, so that there are very few barriers to players working as a team across various vehicles, SLFs, SRVs or on foot.

I mean potentially you could have a guy piloting a Keelback, player 2 in an SLF, player 3 in an SRV and one guy either on foot stealthing it up or manning turrets, the SLF guy lands and gives him a hand.....its full on A Team goodness just waiting to be poured out:

Or how about having air defence turrets in Update Seven have a harder time with SLFs, or that SLFs are 'stealthier' and can land closer to bases because they are smaller creating a niche for themselves?

 

[Snowymonk]

And- how far can you really push this? For example, could a player in an SLF land in a station, take more missions and come back? Land and refuel indpendently of a mothership?

They could make use of small pads.
It could be the way that the larger ships interact with the stations that only have small / medium pads.

I would guess that the reason it differs is more as a result of being coded at different times, by different people, for different purposes and no single strategy to align functionality in the way you described.
Other more pressing problems mean that it's not high on the to-do list.

 

[LKx]

I would guess that the reason it differs is more as a result of being coded at different times, but different people, for different purposes and no single strategy to align functionality in the way you described.

This is probably the case for a lot of features ED had over time (including Odyssey)

 

[Rubbernuke]

Other more pressing problems mean that it's not high on the to-do list.

Indeed- its just that......they have just launched a multiplayer focused update and it seems quite the oversight to keep this mish-mash of rules- if they want physical multicrew to be taken seriously and used seriously its these sorts of things that need looking at.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Last time I looked, SLF don't use fuel at all - which would give them unlimited autonomy from the mother ship.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Last time I looked, SLF don't use fuel at all - which would give them unlimited autonomy from the mother ship.

I kind of addressed this in the OP, but these 'new' SLFs would have a fuel use like SRVs. It might be that SLF types might have a fuel scoop as the included module (as opposed to chaff etc).

 

[Snowymonk]

Indeed- its just that......they have just launched a multiplayer focused update and it seems quite the oversight to keep this mish-mash of rules- if they want physical multicrew to be taken seriously and used seriously its these sorts of things that need looking at.

If the existing logic can't just be re-skinned with the new 'x' then any retro-fitting of the code onto legacy implementation will be additional work. If it was ever deemed in scope it'll be the bit that gets sacrificed if under time pressure.

 

[Northpin]

Currently SRVs can work independently (to a point) from ships- we get a set distance / dismiss the ship. This contrasts with SLFs which are almost Swingball like and tethered to a mothership. To me having two systems seems a bit redundant, especially with a more multiplayer focused game with Odyssey.

Now, I get one its 'you' driving about, and the other is represented. But....why? Why are both these vehicles treated so differently? Death in an SRV takes you back to the ship, so why not get rid of the telepresence on SLFs and treat them the same? This will simplify things for Odyssey and allow more dynamic uses.

For example: all SLFs have a landing animation and most landing gear (for evidence see the livery screen for SLFs). Why can't SLFs land, and pilots get out and fight etc? There is a niggle with SLF motherships in that they can't land if an SLF is deployed (which ruins aspects of combined surface ops). If an SLF can land this could be used to avoid that- the launch bay only used when the SLF requests docking. Fuel might be the same, with a fixed amount that could be synthed, scooped (with suitable SLF) or act as a more logical time constraint than using distance.

SLFs would become more independent with no distance restriction, like scooters (similar to this idea I had https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...scooter-fsd-capable-slfs.557035/#post-8760344 ) where a mothership can deploy them in orbit, the scooter could go one way with a team member while the mothership another. A solo player might dismiss the mothership like an SRV even.

It would make SLFs into fast (but cargoless) SRVs in a way too, because people can cover vast distances quickly and get out / run etc.

And- how far can you really push this? For example, could a player in an SLF land in a station, take more missions and come back? Land and refuel indpendently of a mothership?

Several reasons, i guess:

- The SRV does not have the fire power a SLF has. A single SLF can destroy a ship, a SRV cannot really.
So if they make the SLF un-tethered and give them full independence, they should give the same death penalty as we get in our ships too

- No FSD on-board SLF, so that would make them tied to a normal space instance.
Which could may be acceptable in a planetary environment (as is the case for a SRV), but not so much in space.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If the existing logic can't just be re-skinned with the new 'x' then any retro-fitting of the code onto legacy implementation will be additional work. If it was ever deemed in scope it'll be the bit that gets sacrificed if under time pressure.

I know, I just find it frustrating that physical multicrew is tantalizingly close to being real and good

 

[Robert Maynard]

I kind of addressed this in the OP, but these 'new' SLFs would have a fuel use like SRVs. It might be that SLF types might have a fuel scoop as the included module (as opposed to chaff etc).

A fuel scoop would imply that neoSLF were capable of SuperCruise - in which case it's basically a new ship..

 

[Rubbernuke]

Several reasons, i guess:

- The SRV does not have the fire power a SLF has. A single SLF can destroy a ship, a SRV cannot really.
So if they make the SLF un-tethered and give them full independence, they should give the same death penalty as we get in our ships too

- No FSD on-board SLF, so that would make them tied to a normal space instance.
Which could may be acceptable in a planetary environment (as is the case for a SRV), but not so much in space.

But the SLF can't carry cargo though. Death would be back to the ship, just like it is on foot or in an SRV making a ship a 'hub' of sorts.

FSD wise you could fit (as opposed to chaff / module) an FSD or make all SLFs have a class 1 FSD like they all had previously. Then you could have a fuel scoop as a fixed module choice.

 

[Northpin]

A fuel scoop would imply that neoSLF were capable of SuperCruise - in which case it's basically a new ship..

Indeed, and i guess it would be simpler for FD to allow Sidewinders to dock in Size 7 SLF hangars.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, and i guess it would be simpler for FD to allow Sidewinders to dock in Size 7 SLF hangars.

... on an Anaconda!

(apart from them being too big to fit, from memory)

 

[Northpin]

But the SLF can't carry cargo though. Death would be back to the ship, just like it is on foot or in an SRV making a ship a 'hub' of sorts.

It's not about cargo. A murderboat has no cargo either.
It's about destructive power. Which a SLF has plenty

 

[Rubbernuke]

A fuel scoop would imply that neoSLF were capable of SuperCruise - in which case it's basically a new ship..

True, but making them space scooters would make for an interesting and self empowering niche between APEX and owning a 'big ship', even more so if that scooter is sat in your launch hangar.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's not about cargo. A murderboat has no cargo either.
It's about destructive power. Which a SLF has plenty

And its bendy as hell. They are aptly described as 'glass cannons'.

 

[Northpin]

And its bendy as hell. They are aptly described as 'glass cannons'.

SRV is even more bendy(*). And it still does not have enough power to kill a ship.
So the only fair approach is: if you un-tether the SLF, it gets the same treatment a ship does. That is Full death penalty while flying one.


* (A G5 L6 rocket fired at a fully shielded SRV will leave the said srv unshielded and with less than 25% hull)

 

[Rubbernuke]

SRV is even more bendy(*). And it still does not have enough power to kill a ship.
So the only fair approach is: if you un-tether the SLF, it gets the same treatment a ship does. That is Full death penalty while flying one.


* (A G5 L6 rocket fired at a fully shielded SRV will leave the said srv unshielded and with less than 25% hull)

The other is to make SRV turrets more potent to ward of ships in general, which would benefit the 'Sphere of Combat'.

But 'death' in ships is well, pointless these days since an SLF rebuy would be cheap (and handled by the hangar, depending on grade), the only loss being anything personally carried such as data (which I can live with and seems fair, if SRVs are treated the same as well).