This isn't right
SRV need class 2, 4 or 6 slot
As far as we know fighters would need
Class 5 or 7
So there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE espacially if you have to decide between them. What is a multipurpose ships when it can't hold both?
Hangars: Ship launched fighters are internals...
- Thread starter Julio Montega
- Start date
This isn't right
SRV need class 2, 4 or 6 slot
As far as we know fighters would need
Class 5 or 7
So there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE espacially if you have to decide between them. What is a multipurpose ships when it can't hold both?
I'm all for a special slot for SLF's.
I mean really, whats behind those doors on the federal gunship now? A shield cell booster with an extra large service hatch?
I mean really, whats behind those doors on the federal gunship now? A shield cell booster with an extra large service hatch?
I bet that all who vote for no aren't owners of big ships and just wanna nerf them this way 
Last edited:
Module slots were balanced in 1.0, and not have been touched since. However since then we have a few new toys to play with, some even a must have fit.
Given the nature of SLF, and how it is a primary protective, a bit offensive module from a balance perspective it seems right to sacrifice some cargo space for some more teeth. But only if you see this one single balance without the other things (like, if you only see the tree and not the whole forest).
I'd much more like a planetary-landing-extra-module-type thing for the SLF then a "normal" module in the current state of things.
But this is not the only way to balance things: some modules could be added together (like scanners) or could be made more powerful, so you need "less" of them.
Anyway, adding new and new modules and not actually rebalancing the whole picture is a bad thing.
In my opinion, of course.
Peter
Ps.: the planetary landing extra module actually feels a quick-win-implementation placeholder for me, but we'll see if they have planned anything for that in the longer run.
Given the nature of SLF, and how it is a primary protective, a bit offensive module from a balance perspective it seems right to sacrifice some cargo space for some more teeth. But only if you see this one single balance without the other things (like, if you only see the tree and not the whole forest).
I'd much more like a planetary-landing-extra-module-type thing for the SLF then a "normal" module in the current state of things.
But this is not the only way to balance things: some modules could be added together (like scanners) or could be made more powerful, so you need "less" of them.
Anyway, adding new and new modules and not actually rebalancing the whole picture is a bad thing.
In my opinion, of course.
Peter
Ps.: the planetary landing extra module actually feels a quick-win-implementation placeholder for me, but we'll see if they have planned anything for that in the longer run.
Let us talk tradeoffs:
Internal slot solution:
It is clear that having to sacrifice an internal slot does not impact the overall ship performance,
but the versatility, the FGS as example has 2x c6 1xc5 2xc2 internals totalling with 5 internals.
You have to sacrifice 1/5th or 20% of your internal space for a SLF.
This is impacting ship with low internal count more than ships with a lot of internals (large vessels).
Special or core internal:
You get a special slot for fitting the module,
as the planetary hangar shows we still have mass and energy usage as limiting factors.
This adds up on the current loadout, decreasing the FSD range, speed and maneuvering,
peaking into possible energy management when you got high demanding weaponry on your ship.
Comparing the internal solution to a special/core internal solution,
i think having it as a special slot will be more impacting the ship and loadout respectively.
This will allow the choice to leave the special slot open to maintain current ship performance,
or fitting the module in knowledge of the impact it will have on aforementioned stats.
IMO the core slot is more balanceable, while keeping
the current level of versatility up.
It should be easy for FD to set mass and energy usage on short notice,
to create a drawback suitable to the test results of beta.
Internal slot solution:
It is clear that having to sacrifice an internal slot does not impact the overall ship performance,
but the versatility, the FGS as example has 2x c6 1xc5 2xc2 internals totalling with 5 internals.
You have to sacrifice 1/5th or 20% of your internal space for a SLF.
This is impacting ship with low internal count more than ships with a lot of internals (large vessels).
Special or core internal:
You get a special slot for fitting the module,
as the planetary hangar shows we still have mass and energy usage as limiting factors.
This adds up on the current loadout, decreasing the FSD range, speed and maneuvering,
peaking into possible energy management when you got high demanding weaponry on your ship.
Comparing the internal solution to a special/core internal solution,
i think having it as a special slot will be more impacting the ship and loadout respectively.
This will allow the choice to leave the special slot open to maintain current ship performance,
or fitting the module in knowledge of the impact it will have on aforementioned stats.
IMO the core slot is more balanceable, while keeping
the current level of versatility up.
It should be easy for FD to set mass and energy usage on short notice,
to create a drawback suitable to the test results of beta.
Last edited:
Personally, I think that it should be built-in to every ship that can launch them, and it should match up with their description. IE, the big ships can store the two-ship bay, gunship and keelback are limited to the single-ship bay. Ships like the Cutter, Conda, and Vette are not hurt by the SLFs requiring their own slot, as they have enough slots in them that any pilot who wants to fit the module can shuffle his stuff around without too much trouble. The Gunship and Keelback suffer greatly, and they don't need the extra suffering imo.
However, I am also an advocate of creating "slots" in the sensors module, so that higher grade sensors can "slot in" stuff like the advanced disco scanner and DSS, but that's another topic.
However, I am also an advocate of creating "slots" in the sensors module, so that higher grade sensors can "slot in" stuff like the advanced disco scanner and DSS, but that's another topic.
For the power and mass and performance problems we have the RNGineers
But your idea about the sensors is nice. Make it a own suggestion for some rep. Can't give you here
Last edited:
I'm listening to Lave Radio live right now, and Sandy has confirmed that ship fighters are quite strong, (perhaps much stronger than we ourselves are assuming?) If that's the case, then I can understand the balance decision of making those fighter bays use a high class slot. But again, this depends on how strong those fighters are. Super fragile ships with only two small hardpoints that do regular small hardpoint damage seems so so, but if they hit like trucks, then it would be a decent trade-off ... a class five cargo bay or fuel scoop VS a class five fighter bay with punishing firepower...
Last edited:
What is our alternative to agree on, if the hangars really work like SRV hangars?
I would accept the addition of a c3 slot to the Keelback and FGS to balance,
and happily would take the cut reverting from a c5 to a c3 collector drone controller.
We don't get enough info on whether this is planned or not,
i would highly appreciate some FD staff feedback.
Cutting the usefulness of ships FD plans to add to with fighters
surely can't be a thing they want.
Has the size of the fighter hanger bays actually been confirmed?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The doors are for the Hanger Bay should you fit one, but the internal space above it isn't necessarily used for the Hanger Bay if you don't fit one.
Just like all ships have a cargo hatch even if the don't have cargo racks.
Yet the position of the hangar bay door is fixed, as is the size of the hangar bay door.
Still you could use more than one slot to fit the hangar, which to me is desync
from the idea of a bay at a fixed place in the ship.
Thus i'd say that is an argument towards a special slot.
Last edited:
Cargo bays are one of my biggest annoyances with the game.
1x slot 2 cargo
2x slot 4 cargo
3x slot 8 cargo
4x slot 16 cargo
5x slot 32 cargo
6x slot 64 cargo
7x slot 128 cargo
If each slot has twice the space of the next size smaller why can I not get 2 1x slots in my 2x slot. This would allow me to put a body scanner and discovery scanner in a 2x slot.
Also if a 6x can hold 64 cargo and a 4x can hold 16 cargo and a 2x can hold 4 cargo, then why cannot a
6x hold 16 SRV's and a 4x hold 4 SRV's if a 2x slot can hold 1 SRV.
I would like for a new module (Module splitter) that takes a module and divides it into 2 modules of the next size down. That way a 6 could be two 5's, or a 2 could be two 1's.
1x slot 2 cargo
2x slot 4 cargo
3x slot 8 cargo
4x slot 16 cargo
5x slot 32 cargo
6x slot 64 cargo
7x slot 128 cargo
If each slot has twice the space of the next size smaller why can I not get 2 1x slots in my 2x slot. This would allow me to put a body scanner and discovery scanner in a 2x slot.
Also if a 6x can hold 64 cargo and a 4x can hold 16 cargo and a 2x can hold 4 cargo, then why cannot a
6x hold 16 SRV's and a 4x hold 4 SRV's if a 2x slot can hold 1 SRV.
I would like for a new module (Module splitter) that takes a module and divides it into 2 modules of the next size down. That way a 6 could be two 5's, or a 2 could be two 1's.
It shouldn't be too hard to calculate the size of the module installed in any given internal slot,
substracting the size number from the slot and leaving a subslot, with the rest of the capacity.
Something like this:
Size 6 slot, size 3 module installed, remaining size 3 slot to be filled, etc.
------------------------
I welcome feedback from everyone voting on this poll,
i read through the thread again, yet a lot of people voting for the standard implementation,
don't seem to bother posting an explanation of their choice.
Constructive feedback is always welcome and positive,
come on people.
A multipurpose ship is one that can be outfitted for different purposes, it isn't one that can do everything at the same time.
The Keelback can hold both the fighter, SRV and have the same shield strength as a Cobra MK3 and carry more cargo.
How can anyone think a Fighter bay will take up zero space in a ship is beyond me to be honest, and I only fly the smaller ships.
My main ship now is my modded Cobra MK4 which will become my explorer. I may get a keelback with a fighter bay with an SRV for mission running.
Seems fine to me.
The Keelback can hold both the fighter, SRV and have the same shield strength as a Cobra MK3 and carry more cargo.
How can anyone think a Fighter bay will take up zero space in a ship is beyond me to be honest, and I only fly the smaller ships.
My main ship now is my modded Cobra MK4 which will become my explorer. I may get a keelback with a fighter bay with an SRV for mission running.
Seems fine to me.
Last edited:
I think that is besides the point, we don't argue that the module should not take up any space,
but whether the module should be a standard slot or a special slot.
Both take up space and have an impact on the ship.
I want realism in my game. And I want trade offs in my game. If someone has a ship launched fighter they should give up something in return. I vote for it using an internal component slot
![[VR] Deggial](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/47/47252.jpg?1553527110){kind=avatar}
Was this ever stated officially?
Unfortunately, I missed both Friday streams and my related questions weren't choosen at Saturday. Everytime I read about the mudule size in the forum, some terms of supposition are used. So, did Sandro or Adam or Ed or any other official voice ever comment about the hangar's classes?
I could live with a class 3 hangar for my Keelback. But with a class 5 hangar, there simply wouldn't be enough cargo space left to contain something worth being protected by the fighter ...
Last edited:
