General Fighter hangar fix

[Killerskullmk]

There are some things that are still incompatible today when it comes to fihgters.

See some problems:

1- Fighter bays incompatible with the crew.

-We have the capacity for 3 crew members, but can we only use 2 fighters in the 7D Fighter Hangar?

- Why is the 6D Hunting Hangar so similar to the 7D Hunting Hangar?

To resolve this my suggestion would be:

-7D Hunting Hangar
3 Fighter bays instead of 2.
12 fighters for each bay, totaling 34 fighters in total.

-6D Hunting Hangar
Maintain 2 fighter bays.
Maintain 8 fighters for each bay, totaling 16 fighters in total.

-5D Hangar
Maintain 1 fighter bays.
Maintain 6 fighters for each bay, totaling 12 fighters in total

If there were more crew members in the future, an 8D fighter hangar would have to be created with this crew capacity.

Or also even better and preferable as suggested by @metatheurgist:

Nah. Needs a total overhaul. SLFs were made that way because dying in them meant actual dying; this was a big risk for such a vulnerable ship. So the concept of them being remote piloted and printable came in, which is kind of silly. But now we have the concept of NPC recovery and commanders being rescued by the rangers we change the paradigm.

1 SLFs are actually piloted
2 No more printing SLFs. One ship only per hangar, make them tougher, return to hangar to repair and rearm (uses up some kind of resource that has to be restocked).
3 NPC death leaves a escape pod you have to rescue. If you fail then you can pay for their recovery later; take too long and you lose them
4 PC dying in one returns to the ship, but docked at last port (as per ranger rescue)
5 Lost SLFs are permanently lost until you rebuy them

With only one ship per hangar engineering and different loadouts are now more sensible.

2- Use of hired crew.

To this day, it is still possible to hire more than one crew member, but in practice only one can be used.

Ideally, it would be possible to hire crew that could be used depending on the number of crew available on the ship.

If there are already more crew members than the ship can support, it would only be possible to activate a limited number of NPCs depending on the ship's crew capacity.

Crew members receive a physical chair, with their body and soul seated next to the commanders and other player crew members.
(There are countless old requests about this here on the forum)

Therefore, it is also necessary to give separate orders to each independently and jointly hired crew member.

Contracted Crew Members must not interfere in the acquisition of combat experience, having their own experience, separate from the commander.

3-Use of player crew.

I already created a topic a while ago talking about ideas about this specific issue.
In short, it is necessary to give more freedom to the player crew to use the ship and help the commander, most of the time the only thing we do is sit around without doing much, so in this Topic I gave my ideas to correct this issue.
Up to a certain point it would also be interesting for other players in the crew to control the commander's ship, anyway to continue this topic visit this post that talks about the subject.

General - Multicrew suggestions

Multicrew has great potential in the game, but has much to be polished and improved. I would like to list here my main suggestions. To all FDEV team all my respect and admiration for the excellent work in the game that we believe and dream, the whole community of Elite Dangerous passionate and...

forums.frontier.co.uk

]

4- Customization of fighters.

Just like in CQC or ships, it may also be possible to adjust fighter modules, as well as apply engineering to them. why not ?

This also opens up the opportunity to create a new niche of engineers specializing in fighters.

Add modules already existing on the ships as well as on the CQC to the fighters.

Enable the engineering of modules and weapons.

The modules and weapons have a size set to 1, with variations depending on the types existing on the ship (A, B, C, D, E, F...)

-Weapons and modules have readjusted and reduced values to fit the specifications of the fighters.

-New skins for hunting.


5- new fighters

Why not add new fighters with different parameters and new weapons?

An Alliance fighter? a Thargoid reverse-engineered fighter? or just a new stylish fighter with the name of one of the brands we already know, different parameters from existing fighters.

6- New Fighting Modules

-A new type of fighter, with FSD.
Imagine aboard a small fighter designed moving in super cruise, limited to within the system to be able to support the wing member on a ground mission or even simultaneously assist on another mission.

- Fighters with landing gear.
This would greatly improve the ground combat and air support experience, enabling new builds that would benefit from maneuverability in exploration.
As well as versatility for missions on foot.

- Why not add mining laizer.
This way, players and hired teams can also help with mining.

7- Fighters Are considered lower ships in the game
The pilot of the player fighter needs to be independent of the commander of the mother ship, as is the case with the station/ship relationship, perhaps it is a good way to fill a fighter and mother ship.

Maybe this doesn't make much sense, but what I mean is that something needs to be done on the server regarding the instantiation of fighters, to make its use viable.

8- fighters have their range extended to the same system as the mother ship.

9- Fighters can dock at stations, for repair and customization of modules if they are in the same system as the mother ship, and access missions.

 

[aRJay]

How would adding landing gear to our remotely piloted drones known as SLFs help?

Especially as non of our ships can launch them while landed.

 

[metatheurgist]

Nah. Needs a total overhaul. SLFs were made that way because dying in them meant actual dying; this was a big risk for such a vulnerable ship. So the concept of them being remote piloted and printable came in, which is kind of silly. But now we have the concept of NPC recovery and commanders being rescued by the rangers we change the paradigm.

1 SLFs are actually piloted
2 No more printing SLFs. One ship only per hangar, make them tougher, return to hangar to repair and rearm (uses up some kind of resource that has to be restocked).
3 NPC death leaves a escape pod you have to rescue. If you fail then you can pay for their recovery later; take too long and you lose them
4 PC dying in one returns to the ship, but docked at last port (as per ranger rescue)
5 Lost SLFs are permanently lost until you rebuy them

With only one ship per hangar engineering and different loadouts are now more sensible.

 

[Shurimal]

Needs a total overhaul

Basically, make them work like SRV-s are working currently. I'm all for it. When we're at it, can we have hired NPC-s as gunners in Scorpions? And actually sitting on the bridge with us not hiding in a storage closet somewhere?

NPC death leaves a escape pod you have to rescue.

This can get interesting in RES-s where pirates will pick up escape pods whenever they see them and harass you when you have some in your cargo

BTW, what happened to the SAR npc-s that used to show up in RES-s cleaning up escape pods from the carnage after update 14 or so? They really added to the atmosphere.

 

[Killerskullmk]

How would adding landing gear to our remotely piloted drones known as SLFs help?

Especially as non of our ships can launch them while landed.

When a fighter lands, the idea is that the ship stays in the air, just like when you leave your ship's fighter alone.

Or if there is a player crew member on the ship, or a hired one, he can control the ship while you control the fighter.

 

[Killerskullmk]

Multicrew is not played as much due to the limitations of possibilities, connections with servers and low pay.

But for me it's Elite's most promising mode, but it needs to be very polished to still bring that pleasant feeling.

 

[aRJay]

When a fighter lands, the idea is that the ship stays in the air, just like when you leave your ship's fighter alone.

Or if there is a player crew member on the ship, or a hired one, he can control the ship while you control the fighter.

But why land the fighter, once it was down on the ground it is just a target that can’t do anything.

 

[Killerskullmk]

Nah. Needs a total overhaul. SLFs were made that way because dying in them meant actual dying; this was a big risk for such a vulnerable ship. So the concept of them being remote piloted and printable came in, which is kind of silly. But now we have the concept of NPC recovery and commanders being rescued by the rangers we change the paradigm.

1 SLFs are actually piloted
2 No more printing SLFs. One ship only per hangar, make them tougher, return to hangar to repair and rearm (uses up some kind of resource that has to be restocked).
3 NPC death leaves a escape pod you have to rescue. If you fail then you can pay for their recovery later; take too long and you lose them
4 PC dying in one returns to the ship, but docked at last port (as per ranger rescue)
5 Lost SLFs are permanently lost until you rebuy them

With only one ship per hangar engineering and different loadouts are now more sensible.

Your suggestions are assertive and I complement them even more.
The issue of having a single fighter per bay seems much better to me.

Making fighters more resilient could perhaps be the role of fighter engineering itself.

Removing telepresence would leave this entire concept of an immersive escape capsule.

If the fighter has a synthesis to repair certain aspects, it could eliminate the need to return to the ship for repair, but there could also be other approaches, something like a pit's stop, where the fighter approaches the hangar entrance, is locked in and fixes the ship there , and repair animations begin around the fighter and then at any moment you push forward and get out of there.

Removing telepresence should also change the issue of player deaths when inside fighters, perhaps it is something to be discussed.

My initial idea in this case would be that if the player dies in control of the fighter following the parameters you gave, he will be reborn on the ship, and the fighter will begin to be rebuilt, if there are other hunting bays they could be available.

 

[Killerskullmk]

But why land the fighter, once it was down on the ground it is just a target that can’t do anything.

In fact he becomes an easy target.

However, the idea of fighter jets being able to land could, for example, have applications in the exploration of exobiology, it would be cool to collect samples with the speed of fighter jets.

It would be applicable for doing missions on foot, where a friend would hunt for the settlement while you provide air support.

Or imagine that while a friend in the fighter takes care of part of a mission on one planet, you take care of another planet with the main ship in the same system.

 

[Killerskullmk]

Basically, make them work like SRV-s are working currently. I'm all for it. When we're at it, can we have hired NPC-s as gunners in Scorpions? And actually sitting on the bridge with us not hiding in a storage closet somewhere?

This can get interesting in RES-s where pirates will pick up escape pods whenever they see them and harass you when you have some in your cargo

BTW, what happened to the SAR npc-s that used to show up in RES-s cleaning up escape pods from the carnage after update 14 or so? They really added to the atmosphere.

Yes, these ideas are really cool too, regarding SRV'S.

 

[Killerskullmk]

I will edit the topic according to additional or better suggestions.

 

[aRJay]

Your suggestions are assertive and I complement them even more.
The issue of having a single fighter per bay seems much better to me.

Making fighters more resilient could perhaps be the role of fighter engineering itself.

Removing telepresence would leave this entire concept of an immersive escape capsule.

If the fighter has a synthesis to repair certain aspects, it could eliminate the need to return to the ship for repair, but there could also be other approaches, something like a pit's stop, where the fighter approaches the hangar entrance, is locked in and fixes the ship there , and repair animations begin around the fighter and then at any moment you push forward and get out of there.

Removing telepresence should also change the issue of player deaths when inside fighters, perhaps it is something to be discussed.

My initial idea in this case would be that if the player dies in control of the fighter following the parameters you gave, he will be reborn on the ship, and the fighter will begin to be rebuilt, if there are other hunting bays they could be available.

If your manned fighters are going to be like SRVs then once they have been destroyed they are gone, we can’t print manned vehicles just drones.

In fact he becomes an easy target.

However, the idea of fighter jets being able to land could, for example, have applications in the exploration of exobiology, it would be cool to collect samples with the speed of fighter jets.

It would be applicable for doing missions on foot, where a friend would hunt for the settlement while you provide air support.

Or imagine that while a friend in the fighter takes care of part of a mission on one planet, you take care of another planet with the main ship in the same system.

I collect my exo samples with the speed of a Starship so this would be no advantage unless you are suggesting removing an on foot activity by fitting the 2 metre range bio sampler onto a fighter.

Making the fighters manned gets rid of the 20km? range limit of telepresence but they can’t supercruise so you would have to traipse back to the other planet to recover them.

 

[Killerskullmk]

If your manned fighters are going to be like SRVs then once they have been destroyed they are gone, we can’t print manned vehicles just drones.

Not that it can't be done by ship too, but it is but an alternative for you to be able to run the ship on the surface, find a sample, collect it on foot and return to the fighter.

I collect my exo samples with the speed of a Starship so this would be no advantage unless you are suggesting removing an on foot activity by fitting the 2 metre range bio sampler onto a fighter.

Making the fighters manned gets rid of the 20km? range limit of telepresence but they can’t supercruise so you would have to traipse back to the other planet to recover them.

The issue of fighter range of 20 km must also be rethought if many of these ideas are implemented.

Perhaps the fighter should be thought of as a type of ship itself, not being dependent on the same instance as the mother ship, a ship that would dock on the mother ship, something like the instance relationship between station and ship.

Depending on how the fighter is considered in the instance, it can help or not in the instance of other fighters and players, this should be discussed as well.

 

[aRJay]

Not that it can't be done by ship too, but it is but an alternative for you to be able to run the ship on the surface, find a sample, collect it on foot and return to the fighter.



The issue of fighter range of 20 km must also be rethought if many of these ideas are implemented.

Perhaps the fighter should be thought of as a type of ship itself, not being dependent on the same instance as the mother ship, a ship that would dock on the mother ship, something like the instance relationship between station and ship.

Depending on how the fighter is considered in the instance, it can help or not in the instance of other fighters and players, this should be discussed as well.

You are now approaching an idea which I think was dropped by FDev before or during the Alpha for the whole game, which was the Anaconda could carry a Sidewinder (possibly a stripped down version without FSD) our ability to carry and launch fighters was added some years later by which time I had started playing.

 

[Killerskullmk]

The idea of an anaconda carrying a sidewinder has already been discussed among friends a few times lol... it's physically possible.

 

[Killerskullmk]

In cqc Sidewinder is a fighter, why not be included as a new type of fighter?

 

[Killerskullmk]

But in any case, the biggest issue to be resolved among them all is the instance of fighters, resolving this makes a lot of things possible.

The idea of making fighters independent of the mothership instance, treating them as ships could partially solve this, but of course this is just a theoretical vision and based on the game's vision of the ship/station hangar operation, we don't know. the complexity when it comes to lines of code or implementing this on the server...

But in any case, rethinking the way this happens could greatly improve the quality of use of fihters, I myself could be hired by one of you for certain "jobs" involving fighters. lol

 

[Northpin]

The idea of an anaconda carrying a sidewinder has already been discussed among friends a few times lol... it's physically possible.

Physically (as in size/dimensions) is possible
However, FDev dropped the idea of Ship in Ship - either for tech reasons or for gameplay reasons or for both.

To resolve this my suggestion would be:

Honestly, you are seeing an issue where there is none
This is how they wanted the SLF to behave - for reasons that we can only guess to be related to balance, gameplay, technology costs/limitations etc.

The only change they did to SLF/Crews is allowing us to rebuy the SLF Crews instead of losing them with the ship as it sued to happen sometime ago (think it was a late 2019 or an early 2020 change)
Which was cheered back then, but not by everyone - IMO we lost more than we gained when they caved in and added the so called "qol" feature.

 

[Killerskullmk]

The idea of the topic is not to conclude why Frontier, or why, didn't do or didn't do something. The idea is to show improvements based on our experiences and ideas from the game.
As I explained above, we all know that there are N reasons why things are done the way they are done, that there are technological limitation factors, implementation, engine, cost...

But the idea here is not to think about it, who will know how to evaluate the implementability of the suggestions is the frontier, it's up to us to bring the ideas. It won't be me or you who will say that something is possible or not to be implemented other than the frontier itself. When I said "problem" you need to understand the context. I referred to the problem regarding the issue of hangars 6 and 7 being practically the same, the fact that an entire crew cannot use the fighter because it only has 2 bays.

There is no problem with the fighter or what has been done so far, I even love using friend fighters. But the issue here are ideas for improvements.

 

[Killerskullmk]

If anyone has new suggestions regarding fighters, feel free to contribute as well.