The engineering abilities for Fighter bays are as follows:
Lighter fighters. 1 level gets light fighters, which are lighter, and therefore faster and more maneuverable. They have lower shields and less hull and their weapons are lower yield. They also can get more in storage. 2 levels gets very light fighters. Same concepts to a greater degree.
Heavier fighters. 1 level gets heavy fighters, which are not as maneuverable or fast. They have higher shields and more hull and their weapons pack more of a punch. They get less in storage. 2 levels gets ultra heavy fighters. Same concepts to a greater degree.
I think these are mutually exclusive, but maybe not. If not, there has to be some benefit to using both. Not sure what that would be.
Compact Storage. Allows one to have more in storage. Should be up to 5 levels.
Rapid assembly. Replacement fighters are put together faster. Should be up to 5 levels.
Experimental effects:
Tight storage. Adds a couple of spare fighters at the expense of assembly time.
Staging area. Allows a second fighter to be available for immediate deployment when one is destroyed. Costs a couple of spare fighters in storage. When that one is deployed, building another begins immediately in the staging area.
I want the clear issues with conservation of mass with fighter hangars to be addressed first.
A fixed beam Taipan is ~28.5T, if I recall correctly (the mass used to be visible in the livery screen). However, we have 60T modules that are capable of producing thirty 28T ships...this is pretty outrageous.
If fighters worked more like SRVs--e.g. one fighter per bay, no rebuilds--then I wouldn't have any issues with customizable fighters. They could also be made a bit more durable, though perhaps with weaker weapons (ones that were more equivalent to small hardpoints, not somehow large hardpoint damage and huge hardpoint penetration in tiny weapons).
While my answer is: eyen more engineering? Man... by now i am waiting for engineering the game launcher. You can either engineer it to start a bit faster, remember your account or make the game use less space on the harddisc...
I want the clear issues with conservation of mass with fighter hangars to be addressed first.
A fixed beam Taipan is ~28.5T, if I recall correctly (the mass used to be visible in the livery screen). However, we have 60T modules that are capable of producing thirty 28T ships...this is pretty outrageous.
If fighters worked more like SRVs--e.g. one fighter per bay, no rebuilds--then I wouldn't have any issues with customizable fighters. They could also be made a bit more durable, though perhaps with weaker weapons (ones that were more equivalent to small hardpoints, not somehow large hardpoint damage and huge hardpoint penetration in tiny weapons).
Yeah, the whole SLF thing really went off the rails right from the start. In the original lore ships like Sidewinders and Eagles flew out of Anacondas, which had crews of around 1,000 people. The scales of the ships are a mess (look at the cockpits of the Vulture and Clipper for example), the mass is just insane, as you say... but the whole game is a mess around that. The cargo is in cannisters, each is a ton of mass, whether it's full of leather or gold. The fighters are drones, but they have cockpits, and holographic pilots for no reason... best change would be drop the drone pretense, update the AI so you can launch all/some/one of them, have NPC crews (one pilot per ship) and if they get blown up they eject an escape pod which you can either recover, saving the NPC or lose. The NPCs could be super simple, postage stamp characters.
Just a sidenote on this: this makes perfect sense. For example a RL shipping container may weight a maximum of 30 tons. (Actually a few KG more, as its original specification comes from some weird outdated system which by now is used almost exclusively in third world countries. ) No matter if you use the container to plush bunnies or gold bars (if you transport the later, send one to me!), the total mass of the container is not allowed to go over the limit. In space a tonnage limit being the deciding factor makes even more sense than in shipping. If anything, you could merely ridicule the game for working in lots of one ton.
And back to the topic: i still believe that we already have way too much and way too powerful engineering. We don't need even more of that. What the game would really benefit from would be a massiv nerf of many of the existing engineering effects. Unfortunately a small but very vocal minority of the community even managed to cry away rather soft nerfs. So even in the unlikely case that FD ever finds the guts again to try another nerf, it's basically impossible that they'll actually go through with it.
I want the clear issues with conservation of mass with fighter hangars to be addressed first.
A fixed beam Taipan is ~28.5T, if I recall correctly (the mass used to be visible in the livery screen). However, we have 60T modules that are capable of producing thirty 28T ships...this is pretty outrageous.
If fighters worked more like SRVs--e.g. one fighter per bay, no rebuilds--then I wouldn't have any issues with customizable fighters. They could also be made a bit more durable, though perhaps with weaker weapons (ones that were more equivalent to small hardpoints, not somehow large hardpoint damage and huge hardpoint penetration in tiny weapons).
They would have to MASSIVELY BUFF fighters if you were limited to 1, or 2 for the double hangar. I'd seriously say no to this, I like hauling around 16 fighters for people to use.
I want the clear issues with conservation of mass with fighter hangars to be addressed first.
A fixed beam Taipan is ~28.5T, if I recall correctly (the mass used to be visible in the livery screen). However, we have 60T modules that are capable of producing thirty 28T ships...this is pretty outrageous.
If fighters worked more like SRVs--e.g. one fighter per bay, no rebuilds--then I wouldn't have any issues with customizable fighters. They could also be made a bit more durable, though perhaps with weaker weapons (ones that were more equivalent to small hardpoints, not somehow large hardpoint damage and huge hardpoint penetration in tiny weapons).
Definitely agree with this, the current in-game mechanics seem to think that SLFs clock in at literally a few tonnes each. They really should calculate the relevant masses then implement the module limitations.
For example, if they say that they have double the density of a normal module, so a class 5 hangar clocks in at 64 tonnes: We could say that each fighter is 32 tonnes (enough to standardise fighter weights to include all of them) and each fighter assembly line and telepresence suite is 16 tonnes each. So a class 5 has 1 fighter, one production line and 1 telepresence suite. A class 7 would clock in at 256 tonnes, potentially with 2 production lines each with 3 fighters and 2 telepresence suites (yes, this would allow 2 fighters to be deployed at once, which is a separate but often requested feature, and by limiting it to the class 7 hangars it wouldn't cause unwanted buffing of some of the medium ships), while the class 6 could be 128 tonnes with 1 production line with 3 fighters and 1 telepresence suite. Simple, logical, and with clear progression between the different size classes.
With a bit of an upgrade to SLF durability so that each one doesn't die the moment an enemy ship looks at it, possibly with an increase in manufacture time so it is still worth destroying them, they could even retain the same rough power level they currently do.
In terms of engineering hangar bays, I'd rather if the upgrades were more targeted and more like the regular ships. I can understand the limitations of not wanting full outfitting for fighters, but just having two mod slots, one for a weapon mod and another for a defensive mod (which a player could choose between modding the shield and modding the armour) would go a long way. Potentially, the utility could also be modded as a 3rd slot.
While I understand the whole Mass question, one must assume that we are talking about displacement versus true mass. In displacement, a ton of grain is the same as a ton of gold, if we are talking about volume being what we are calling mass. In true mass, they are not. The same displacement (volume) of gold is obviously going to be much higher in true mass than the same displacement (volume) of grain. That brings up the point of modules and everything else in the same context. Obviously, modules must be based upon displacement (volume) versus true mass, otherwise you could cram more into the slots. And then you have thruster interaction with mass. The game does slow you down based upon the amount of cargo you are carrying. The same holds true for jump distance. More cargo means you cannot jump as great a distance with normal ships. But with Fleet Carriers, that idea is discarded. Why? That would indicate that such calculations are based upon pseudo mass (not true mass and not displacement mass) in one context but for Fleet Carriers, it is not. And yet, the cargo hold cannot hold more tons of gold than grain, even though the real limiting factor should appear to be volume (displacement mass) and so it goes.
There is definitely something to be said about true adherence to science. Sadly, in this game, it is not always so. Another example would be "Tritium" as fuel. The half life of tritium is extremely short. So, how do we keep it? Such would suggest that there must be some stasis effect that we cannot otherwise use to save perishable goods. Although, the fruits and vegetables on my Fleet Carrier have been there for a looooong time, and they still have not rotted. Why do we not have artificial gravity? How do people live on high gravity worlds, where you and I can land at a port on a planetary body with a gravity three times what we have on Earth? Why are not the buildings on such planets more stout and strongly built? Do we have anti-gravity devices? Why can those not be used to make landing on high gravity worlds so much easier?
Point is: I am talking purely game mechanics. I have given up on strict adherence to scientific concepts, as FDev obviously did long ago. This game relies on suspension of disbelief. If you examine many things in this game too closely, it just does not clock in with truth.
So, in strictly terms of game mechanics and game balance, does this concept wash? The benefits need not be that high, mind you, for some to think them worthwhile. Too much benefit, and I will agree with gusto that such is extremely risky, as it could be unbalancing.
They would have to MASSIVELY BUFF fighters if you were limited to 1, or 2 for the double hangar. I'd seriously say no to this, I like hauling around 16 fighters for people to use.
That assumes that you adhere to the concept that "mass" is not already screwed up royally in this game and the reduction in the number of fighters is mandated. By that same logic, such a reduction is already called for to bring the mechanics in line with true science, and you will get shafted anyways when they make such a necessary adjustment.
I sure hope that FDev does not take that route. I would hate being reduced to only one or a few fighters per hanger. I would sincerely hope they would not go there. That would screw the game up badly for many...
Yeah... I wouldn't go for mods that affect the fighters themselves. There is enough power creep already. A some sort of sidegrade-y thing that gives you a couple more fighters in expense of assembly time, or vice versa, could be fine. Maybe a third fighter option too.
Yeah... I wouldn't go for mods that affect the fighters themselves. There is enough power creep already. A some sort of sidegrade-y thing that gives you a couple more fighters in expense of assembly time, or vice versa, could be fine. Maybe a third fighter option too.
Well, I do understand the concept of game creep. It happens in most games. They come out with bigger, and better, but you have to pay to get the benefits. It is inevitable, I fear. The problem is not will creep happen, it is how much. In moderation, it is good for the game designers, and not horrible for the players. Taken too far, it kills the game by alienating the established player base. With the recent ease of making credits, there are already some veterans complaining. I am not, but I could. Newer players are getting to my level much more quickly than I did. Still, as long as I am ok, I am ok. I prefer the most variety of options. It makes the quick and easy "I can kill anyone" designs from being as effective, since they cannot account for every variation that they might encounter, and they can get slammed as well. Back to the ease of making credits, that is a two edged sword. It makes it easier to replace a ship you lost. It also makes it easier for those dedicated to killing other players to deal with consequences in the game. I wish there was some way to make those who make it a habit of killing other players (who don't have bounties that make them legit targets) some sort of permanent "outlaw" that denies them the ability to collect bounties or pay off bounties upon themselves. One of the loopholes they commonly use is to have another like minded individual "kill" them and collect the bounty, but if they also could not collect the bounties, the loss would become real. And if they were otherwise clean, but functioned as such, they could also be named as "outlaw" and strike down another ganker account.
That's because they are filled based on mass, not volume. They have plenty of volume to hold a ton of any commodity in the game, with the possible exception of hydrogen fuel, and only if one thinks hydrogen fuel is liquid hydrogen (personally, I think it's a hydrocarbon or metal hydride as that would be easier to transport via standardized canisters, due to it's greater density).
The telepresence stuff seems to have been added late in their development. They used to have life support systems one could disable in their modules pane to reduce heat output. I think they were originally intended to be physically pilotable ships.
Definitely agree with this, the current in-game mechanics seem to think that SLFs clock in at literally a few tonnes each. They really should calculate the relevant masses then implement the module limitations.
I have a feeling that they were originally intended to work like SRVs, but proved too fragile for a good gameplay experience, so they just jacked up the number and added the 3d printing handwavium...without doing anything about the mass problem they created.
The true mass of a Taipan is ~28 tons. The true mass of the module that can make 30 of them, without any mass input from anywhere, is 60 tons. There is a major discrepancy here.
Fixing this would be a prerequisite to almost anything having to do with them.
Frankly, the hangar modules should have been disabled/pulled after the issue was identified in 3.4 and not enabled again until they were doubly sure they had resolved it...which still hasn't happened.
I have a feeling that they were originally intended to work like SRVs, but proved too fragile for a good gameplay experience, so they just jacked up the number and added the 3d printing handwavium...without doing anything about the mass problem they created.
They could have fixed that issue by simply buffing up their durability though. They are comically fragile at the moment; even the "tank" amongst them, the Taipan, only clocks in at 30 MJ of shield compared to an E-rated Sidewinder's 52 MJ of shielding. They could literally double the effective HP they have and they would still be more fragile than an unengineered A-rated Sidewinder. Comparing them to an engineered sidewinder, they would need another 3x the effective hp on top of that doubling in order to compete.
And as we all know, a Sidewinder is not the ultimate tank in terms of durability. A fighter that is as tough as a Sidewinder will still go down pretty quickly.
They could increase the effective HP 5x (this could be a straight increase, or including some kind of engineering mod) without them feeling overly strong, reduce the numbers of spare craft down to about 1/6th and increase the build time to several times what it currently is, which would basically keep the same overall power and endurance but without breaking the laws of physics and providing a nice QoL improvement as players wouldn't have to launch their fighters quite as often. Increasing the mass of the hangars to accommodate 1/3/3+3 fighters would also have the welcome side effect of affecting a ship's handling, as even a Krait would be somewhat affected by the class 6 hangar going from 40 to 128 tonnes, which would in turn allow a bit more power to be put into the fighters themselves.
It reminds me of how they massively ramped up the damage after the realised the netcode couldn't quite handle having two fighters out under certain circumstances. Rather than working on the netcode or giving them some kind of "telepresence channels too congested, lost connection to fighter" when the instance gets to crowded, they chose to simply limit us to a single fighter and buff their damage to compensate. A technical limitation that magically seemed to be no problem the very next patch when multicrew rolled out and let a ship launch two fighters, but without the rollback on the earlier bodging. I do wish that they would try to keep things consistent and actually follow through fully with changes rather than conveniently forgetting that the rest of the game exists when bolting new content into the game.
Agreed on this, the game is Sci-Fi, it can have breaks from reality as there is tech in use that would be considered basically magical by modern standards. However, some degree of consistency should be employed so that things remain logical, which not only makes further expansion of the game much easier as there's an existing framework to build upon, but also makes the game more accessible as players can use basic logic to deduce things. If the entire game is crazytown without any grounding in logic, then players have to go out of their way to figure out every single ad-hoc deviation in the game rather than just learning a few building blocks and mentally assembling them.
You could almost imagine how the meetings for fighter hangars went:
Designer: "So, you know those fighters we added for CQC, the ones in the 10-30 tonne weight category? Let's add some hangar bays to larger ships so they can launch fighters for support"
Coder: "Sounds like they'll get pretty heavy quite quickly then, those fighters aren't light, even just a single one is the weight of a medium internal"
Designer: "Not really, we are going for a lightweight module that can easily be slotted into combat builds without impacting performance, generally in the region of 20-80 tonnes"
Coder: "Gotcha, so basically a parasite fighter or two that ships can bring along to provide a bit of backup in a pinch; something more about keeping the larger ships as a fighter with an added assistant rather than a miniature carrier"
Designer: "No no no, the plan is for them to have multiple production lines, each with several fighters in reserve. Generally looking at 5-30 fighters in reserve, so they can work even in extremely long engagements."
Coder: "sigh, so we are somehow putting 30-odd fighters, each weighing in at 30-odd tonnes into a hangar bay that has a total loaded mass of 80 or so tonnes, meaning that the fighter assembly lines somehow have a mass of about minus 800 tonnes?"
Designer: "you're the one who does the numbers, so I'll trust you on that calculation. Yes, it means they have a mass of minus 800 tonnes. Is there an issue with that?"
This is much like how a fantasy setting doesn't have to explain how a fire dragon somehow is able to survive being submerged in lava. However, if said fire dragon somehow wasn't actually resistant or immune to fire-based attacks, then the setting will have some explaining to do as to why 1500+ degree lava is fine while a common 300 degree torch inflicts serious injury.
I just want a class 5c hanger that lets me carry a single side winder, or a 5b that lets me carry a eagle. class 6 lets you carry 2 and class 7 can carry 3.
Source on that? Because the anaconda is about the same size of the USS Defiant from Startrek DS9 which only had a crew of 50 and that was tightly packed in.
I could see the conda having a crew of maybe 50 but 1000? I think you are stretching it there.
Right and i get, that, however, ED is a space sim none the less and those sim mechanics are what draw a lot of people to it. So we cant just throw all of it at the window.
Right and i get, that, however, ED is a space sim none the less and those sim mechanics are what draw a lot of people to it. So we cant just throw all of it at the window.
As people have already demonstrated, those things went out the window ages ago and people don't seem to mind.
If you think the mass is wrong, I suggest people go make a thread focusing on that, and don't spam up this thread focusing on something completely different.
