Making small ships relevant - Carriers

[Chaffers]

The investment issue I feel is a big one for small ships vs large ships. The small ship brigade sees it as ships should all be balanced against each other without factoring in their relative costs, while the rest of us see credit investment as being a relevant variable for balance similar to how players expect a piece of A-grade equipment to perform better than an E-grade. It is true that there have been issues with regards to credit income (and still are) but that's no reason to disregard them as a currency as that would cause more issues further down the line, but instead is a good reason for why FD need to clamp down on out of control earnings, balance income and add in some gradual credit sinks so that they can once again become an actual consideration.

Even without Smeaton specials the idea that credit balance represents worthiness or a relevant variable is nonsense.

Running an Annaconda rather than a Viper allows more tonnage for trading, in a more surviveable platform, without any significant increase in time required per trip. What takes more skill or dedication, 100 million in a Python or 100 million in a Hauler? Which are you more likely to survive an interdiction in? The credits rewards are almost logarithmic as you progress through the ship tiers, should you wish to. Big ships are simply better and you rightly point out that there is a very low limit on what one can spend on a small tub. Maybe 50 million or so on a Vulture would likely be the max, which is probably 5% of most players assets. And represents half an hours gameplay for the numerous gold rushes of various forms which tended to be advertised at 100+ million an hour. Some chap got an A rated Annaconda in 72 hours from scratch, which would likely be a tiny fraction of the average players play time. I ran Smeaton after the nerf just see what everyone else had been doing. I really don't see watching youtube for 20 minutes as being any sign of worthiness.

If credits were not functionally worthless we would be paying the engineers rather than grinding an alternative currecy in mats to pay them with. How many players routinely accept credit only rewards for missions rather than mats plus some worthless credits? Even when it comes to mats, the real currency, an all G5 sidewinder would be far more difficult than an all G5 Corvette to collect in given it's survivability. And thus would take longer, with far more risk, require more skill. And incidentally would be more fun to do. But would still be crap in comparison.

Incidentally I don't personally think this is by design. I suspect they've merely cocked up. They didn't see reverski coming and probably planned silent running and hull tanks as a counter to slow gimbled and turreted types.

 

[RamirezKurita]

I would love to see some credit sinks for small ships that would allow them to be competitive with larger ships, especially if the credit sink increases their value to similar levels as said larger ships. I would love to be able to kit out a Cobra to have similar overall cost to a good FDL build if spending the extra cash would allow the Cobra to be able to reliably take on the FDL.

EPTs already do this, to an extent. A decent Viper build will set you back anywhere up to around 4M CR, but adding EPTs into the mix can quite easily double, triple, or even quadruple the cost of your ship. That said, EPTs don't really fill the role of a "hundred million credit+" money sink, and while they do provide a good performance increase, the improved speed maneuverability alone is not enough to make small ships truly competitive. I would say that EPTs are really only the start for the multi-million credit sink you have in mind for small ships. A new set of enhanced modules could be introduced some of the smaller class sizes (say sizes 1 through 4), things like military FSDs, enhanced shields, etc. However, if you want the credit sink to only apply to small ships (no medium/large ships), you will be quite limited in what you can introduce since many of the smaller medium ships can use modules from small ships. For example, a few medium ships (AspS, Type 6, Keelback, FDL) use size 4 FSDs, and many other ships (including the conda) can make use of size 3 shield generators.

I'll try to think of a few ideas for credit sinks and come back later.

Yeah, there's a few things I have thought of over time that could feasibly work, but they would require quite a lot of balance work and I don't know if they would actually work in practice.

One of them is for a class of alternative A-class modules that are only available in smaller sizes (probably up to class 6 or so, depending on module) that offer performance a class higher but are priced as two classes higher; for example, a class 5 compact PD in a Vulture would have the performance of a 6A but the price of a 7A. This would overall get a Vulture up to the desired hundreds of millions of credits price, but would have some serious unintended consequences on ships like the FDL that have comparatively undersized internals.

Another is for ships to have locked internal slots or have their internals limited in size, but have the capability to unlock them for a substantial credit fee. For example, our dear Vulture might be able to raise it's maximum thruster class to a class 6 for improved maneuverability but the cost of unlocking that slot is 100ish million credits (including rebuy costs and repair costs). Such an approach would be very complicated from a player perspective as it would bring dozens of additional variables for ship outfitting as they won't simply have a basic set of core internals but instead a whole range of different potential sizes for each internal, but it would allow for large amounts of balance fine tuning and it could easily be expanded to make every single ship in the game viable for more activities.

A simpler to approach alternative to the above is to simply have premade hull packages for each ship type that can be installed to effectively change the ship into a different one. These could be basically a switching of internals and enabling/disabling external utilities/hardpoints or could even go into changing core ship stats (I'd personally prefer the former, as the latter could potentially ruin all player aptitude for a certain ship if it handles differently). The current crop of ships would just be the stock versions to buy while the top-end variants would all offer similar performance and costs.

Either way, it's a huge amount of work on FD's part as it would require a truly comprehensive balance pass across all ships and modules, so I wouldn't hold out for anything like this.

 

[Chaparral]

A small ship can get by unnoticed...

I could imagine a scenario where a small ship has to silent run through a gauntlet of defenders to scan a port or pick up a passenger. Larger ships would be noticed, and viciously attacked.

 

[Guest 161958]

nice idea, maybe make carriers able to accommodate many small docks and just a few mediums and one large one.

like 15 small, 5 medium and 1 or 2 larges.

 

[MK Regular]

....

Thinking back to the military hyperdrives from FE2 and FFE, I would suggest a military FSD that runs along the same lines as its older counterpart:

• Only available in smaller sizes (2-4)
• Offers increased performance
• More expensive to buy and maintain
• Uses a special fuel that is more expensive to buy
• The specialized fuel is not scoopable (?)
• Lower mass (?)

Assuming that the new military FSDs are engineerable, I would propose that they have a base optimal mass that is 25% higher than their standard counterparts, while also requiring 40% more power and coming with a price tag comparable to that of an A-rated FSD 2 class sizes larger. The stat changes between military and A-rated FSDs would be (roughly) as follows:

	2A	2A (Mil)	3A	3A (Mil)	4A	4A (Mil)
Price (CR)	160,220	1,610,080	507,910	5,103,950	1,610,080	16,179,530
Optimal Mass (T)	90	112.5	150	187.5	525	656.25
Power Draw (MW)	0.30	0.42	0.45	0.63	0.45	0.63

Note that a 25% increase to optimal mass corresponds to a 25% increase to jump range​

While the specifications are an overall improvement, the real difference between military and A-rated FSDs is the type of fuel that is used. Instead of the standard hydrogen fuel used by regular FSDs, military FSDs use an enriched mixture that is more expensive to produce and cannot be directly scooped from main-sequence stars (O, B, A, F, G, K, and M). As such, military FSDs are not particularly well-suited for long distance journeys, despite the additional range they offer.



Of course, it is theorized that the ingredients required for the enriched fuel mixture could potentially be scooped from the various classes of brown dwarf stars (L, T, and Y) using an extremely specialized fuel scoop. Such a fuel scoop would likely have a price tag around 10 times that of a normal A-rated fuel scoop of the same size and may have a slightly lower scoop rate due to the additional mixing processes required. In the event that scooping enriched fuel from brown dwarfs is indeed possible, the projected specifications of the scoops are as follows:

	1A	1A (Mil)	2A	2A (Mil)	3A	3A (Mil)	4A	4A (Mil)	5A	5A (Mil)
Price (CR)	82,270	902,950	248,840	2,862,360	902,950	9,073,690	2,862,360	28,763,610	9,073,690	91,180,640
Scoop Rate (kg/s)	42	36	75	65	176	151	342	294	577	494

It should be noted that size 5 military fuel scoops may not be produced due to their extremely high projected price​

Addendum: Sorry for the long post. I kinda got carried away and started writing in-universe flavour text around halfway through. I just need to get this idea out of my head.

Edit: I probably should have started a new thread with this and linked it instead of going so off-topic.

 

[Chaffers]

Thinking back to the military hyperdrives from FE2 and FFE, I would suggest a military FSD that runs along the same lines as its older counterpart:

• Only available in smaller sizes (2-4)
• Offers increased performance
• More expensive to buy and maintain
• Uses a special fuel that is more expensive to buy
• The specialized fuel is not scoopable (?)
• Lower mass (?)

Assuming that the new military FSDs are engineerable, I would propose that they have a base optimal mass that is 25% higher than their standard counterparts, while also requiring 40% more power and coming with a price tag comparable to that of an A-rated FSD 2 class sizes larger. The stat changes between military and A-rated FSDs would be (roughly) as follows:

	2A	2A (Mil)	3A	3A (Mil)	4A	4A (Mil)
Price (CR)	160,220	1,610,080	507,910	5,103,950	1,610,080	16,179,530
Optimal Mass (T)	90	112.5	150	187.5	525	656.25
Power Draw (MW)	0.30	0.42	0.45	0.63	0.45	0.63

Note that a 25% increase to optimal mass corresponds to a 25% increase to jump range​

While the specifications are an overall improvement, the real difference between military and A-rated FSDs is the type of fuel that is used. Instead of the standard hydrogen fuel used by regular FSDs, military FSDs use an enriched mixture that is more expensive to produce and cannot be directly scooped from main-sequence stars (O, B, A, F, G, K, and M). As such, military FSDs are not particularly well-suited for long distance journeys, despite the additional range they offer.



Of course, it is theorized that the ingredients required for the enriched fuel mixture could potentially be scooped from the various classes of brown dwarf stars (L, T, and Y) using an extremely specialized fuel scoop. Such a fuel scoop would likely have a price tag around 10 times that of a normal A-rated fuel scoop of the same size and may have a slightly lower scoop rate due to the additional mixing processes required. In the event that scooping enriched fuel from brown dwarfs is indeed possible, the projected specifications of the scoops are as follows:

	1A	1A (Mil)	2A	2A (Mil)	3A	3A (Mil)	4A	4A (Mil)	5A	5A (Mil)
Price (CR)	82,270	902,950	248,840	2,862,360	902,950	9,073,690	2,862,360	28,763,610	9,073,690	91,180,640
Scoop Rate (kg/s)	42	36	75	65	176	151	342	294	577	494

It should be noted that size 5 military fuel scoops may not be produced due to their extremely high projected price​

Addendum: Sorry for the long post. I kinda got carried away and started writing in-universe flavour text around halfway through. I just need to get this idea out of my head.

Edit: I probably should have started a new thread with this and linked it instead of going so off-topic.

It isn't really jump range that small ships suffer from, and frankly the jump ranges have gone through quite a bit of power creep anyway.

The main limiting factor to the various small ships has been FDevs inability to understand compound interest surrounding utility slots.

Taking an extreme example an 8A prismatic shield costs a quarter of a billion ( more than the ship it goes into) and gives you an 1123MJ shield for 320 tonnes of weight.

The eighth shield booster you add to this costs 280,000 and gives you 829MJ alone with engineering for all of 14 tonnes of weight!

73% of the shielding for 0.1% of the cost and 4% of the weight! This is then amplified further by the resistances which are also compounded.

Which frankly is barmy, they've cocked up but don't have the balls to fix it. And the players happily put up with things that handle like barges so long as they get access to lots of utility slots to take advantage.

Now if they allowed smaller ships to purchase extra utility slots, for massively increasing fees depending upon the current number, then things might get interesting.

How much would you pay for an extra couple of utility slots on a Cobra? They are external, so internal space or floor plans isn't the issue. Smaller ships have more, in fact the Courier is titchy.

Probably worthy of it's own thread...

 

[Killnine]

A small ship can get by unnoticed...

I could imagine a scenario where a small ship has to silent run through a gauntlet of defenders to scan a port or pick up a passenger. Larger ships would be noticed, and viciously attacked.

Well, if it only was true. I haven't noticed any difference in detecting ships, I think it's purely based on the heat signature and a lot of small/medium ships run just as hot as the big ones. It would be awesome, if there was more stealth and smuggling related mechanics in the game. Smuggling is the one criminal career path I'd find interesting and early on I actually tried blazing my trail as a heroic rogue type smuggling liquor and tobacco to the poor oppressed masses robbed of the possibility to enjoy them. Turns out smuggling is trivially easy and doesn't offer much of a reward, so I became an explorer instead. Smuggling should have the risks and rewards boosted considerably.

There's a whole thread dedicated to silent running, here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...d-Improvements-to-the-Silent-Running-Mechanic
And another about freeports, smuggling and such: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/460709-Free-ports-for-fun-and-profit!

 

[Daynen]

The powercreep of big ships vs small ships has always been inevitable. More hardpoints and module slots means a geometric increase in firepower and versatility, period. That's never going to change no matter what harebrained new modules or engineering shenanigans we cook up. The real problem isn't the ships; it's the universe where we fly them.

Instead, what we need are situations and scenarios where a small ship is CALLED FOR for some reason. As it stands, the universe doesn't treat a small ship any different than a big one unless you're trying to land at an outpost. Small ships aren't inherently harder to detect because of their smaller signature, they're not inherently cooler running (diamondbacks notwithstanding) and their small size is meaningless out in open space because, asteroids notwithstanding, there's basically never any terrain, obstacles or other objects to lose people in or squeeze between. Remember the Millenium Falcon? Squeezing between narrow walls, diving between stalagmites, making tight turns in the tunnels, dodging turbolasers from star destroyers and hiding on the underbelly?

Yeah, we don't get to do any of that. That's the problem: there's no REASON to use a small ship when a big one will do just as well. Even credits and material farming haven't changed that. Give us planets with huge subterranean cavern networks big enough to fly an eagle into. Give us more diverse asteroid fields with varying sizes of rocks that have holes in them and stuff. Give us more capital ships with trenches, hangars and shuttle bays to dash through to evade that Annie on our tail! Give us missions with logical reasons to choose a small ship over a bigger one! tie a ship's heat generation to its size in some slight way so sneaking around in a viper is more effective than a F R E A K I N G Cutter!

There are solutions to this problem; they just take some lateral thinking.

Also: Seriously? the overzealous auto-censorship of this board continues to amaze me.

 

[moorison]

The powercreep of big ships vs small ships has always been inevitable. More hardpoints and module slots means a geometric increase in firepower and versatility, period. That's never going to change no matter what harebrained new modules or engineering shenanigans we cook up. The real problem isn't the ships; it's the universe where we fly them.

Instead, what we need are situations and scenarios where a small ship is CALLED FOR for some reason. As it stands, the universe doesn't treat a small ship any different than a big one unless you're trying to land at an outpost. Small ships aren't inherently harder to detect because of their smaller signature, they're not inherently cooler running (diamondbacks notwithstanding) and their small size is meaningless out in open space because, asteroids notwithstanding, there's basically never any terrain, obstacles or other objects to lose people in or squeeze between. Remember the Millenium Falcon? Squeezing between narrow walls, diving between stalagmites, making tight turns in the tunnels, dodging turbolasers from star destroyers and hiding on the underbelly?

Yeah, we don't get to do any of that. That's the problem: there's no REASON to use a small ship when a big one will do just as well. Even credits and material farming haven't changed that. Give us planets with huge subterranean cavern networks big enough to fly an eagle into. Give us more diverse asteroid fields with varying sizes of rocks that have holes in them and stuff. Give us more capital ships with trenches, hangars and shuttle bays to dash through to evade that Annie on our tail! Give us missions with logical reasons to choose a small ship over a bigger one! tie a ship's heat generation to its size in some slight way so sneaking around in a viper is more effective than a F R E A K I N G Cutter!

There are solutions to this problem; they just take some lateral thinking.

Also: Seriously? the overzealous auto-censorship of this board continues to amaze me.

There are tunnels in many of the undockable space structures, there could be some hidden data points only reachable by small ships. Computer access points in those capital ship trenches that control the heat management or power to the large weapons. Small ships could be even harder to track with gimbals/turrets.
Satisfyingly complex cave systems are not supported by the engine at the moment, even the Thargoid structures are comparatively small and probably placed by hand.

 

[Sylow]

Yeah, we don't get to do any of that. That's the problem: there's no REASON to use a small ship when a big one will do just as well. Even credits and material farming haven't changed that. Give us planets with huge subterranean cavern networks big enough to fly an eagle into. Give us more diverse asteroid fields with varying sizes of rocks that have holes in them and stuff. Give us more capital ships with trenches, hangars and shuttle bays to dash through to evade that Annie on our tail! Give us missions with logical reasons to choose a small ship over a bigger one! tie a ship's heat generation to its size in some slight way so sneaking around in a viper is more effective than a F R E A K I N G Cutter!

.
You are right in your analysis. I've written something similar above. But your solution is not working. Two years ago it would've done the job. But by now, we have SLFs. About anything which you could design for a small ship to squeeze into, you can also just bring your huge ship with plenty of shield boosters, launch your SLF and squeeze that one into the tight spot.
.
I wish it would be as easy to fix as you say, but unfortunately it isn't. The only viable fix in my eyes is to boost small ships enough to make them worth using. Unfortunately I also see that there's a very thin line between them becoming competitive and making them dominant. It's not easy to hit the spot there.
.
And yes, for those who really think that the player does not matter, only grind and credits should be the deciding factor: I really wouldn't mind if we'd have insanely expensive modules for small ships only. I would be all fine if my Courier would cost more than a fully equipped FDL, if this means that it also is able to deliver an equivalent punch. But again, it's really, really hard to balance that.
.

 

[Chaparral]

I really like this concept of making small ships relevant. I've been doing the most recent BH CG in the haz res with an ieagle, courier and pa vulture. Not that it is a legit challenge, but it is more fun than with a farm ship (mid and up). Actually have to think twice about wings.

It would be cool if there were a multiplying factor based on ship capacity differentials but that's a bit to gamey I suppose.

 

[Chaffers]

A few other suggestions that might help with the small ship issue..

Make em entirely out of meta alloys... Just copy the Thargoids and get angry on Thursdays! Which no doubt you'd have to collect yourself.. Because Fdev. The wiki states that they revert to normal alloy if exposed to high heat so a good excuse to run cool running ships else lose whatever magic spells exist on them. 14 tonne Hauler for the win!

4A enhanced performance thrusters might finally make an entrance.. Not that speed helps all that much without decent shields.

You'd think at least one of the engineers might have figured out there is a market for extra utility mounts on tubs. Hell why not an engineer who happens to live on a small pad only sort of a place. A hermit hole in an asteroid or somesuch? Backstory something to do with his entire family and dog being killed when a medium / large ship blah blah.

Could also increase the effectiveness of fixed weapons, and a small plasma accelerator wouldn't be a hardship.

We already have contrails for.. reasons.. so why not smoke? Not even a magic spell as obviously difracts laser light and obscures sensors so that turreted smeaton specials get weepy. Would give small tubs something to fight around, to duck in an out of, maybe at the cost of fuel or boost. In fact I think this would be blinding ( geddit?). Wouldn't affect fixed projectile weapons of course. Though would allow numerous more tips videos. Great fun with mines and would require some skill and situational awareness. And sky writing of course, you'd be able to draw a huge... oh wait.

 

[Killnine]

I haven't really been looking carefully, but seems to me engineering mat costs are fixed or have a very slow progression. I haven't noticed a difference in the costs in small vs big modules and guns. Does someone have actual data on this? Having small ships be considerably cheaper to engineer would perhaps be one of the easiest means of making them more attractive? (not that this alone would be enough, though)

 

[Chaffers]

There isn't any difference dude. And far too late to make it different.

Though frankly if a big module cost more mats to engineer it would entrench the idea that they should be better. Yes logically they should cost more even for the same benefit but... Fdev. A 320 tonne shield generator costs the same as a 1300kg one to engineer. Go figure.

As far as I can tell, as in what David Braben has said in the past, small ships are not meant to be crap by design. It's an accident, poor design and a steadfast unwillingness to face reality which is the issue.

And frankly they have shown zero indication in any patch of remedying or even understanding the situation. Quite the opposite as the much improved mining either requires a large tub or a willingness to completely neglect self defence in a smaller ship. Even notional advantages such as jump range don't really hold true with some extreme outliers.

Hence as per my suggestion carriers really are probably the last gasp chance for small ships to have any relevance whatsoever... I personally don't see them as merely stepping stones but FDev thus far appears to disagree.

 

[Killnine]

Though frankly if a big module cost more mats to engineer it would entrench the idea that they should be better. Yes logically they should cost more even for the same benefit but... Fdev.

The benefits aren't even the same, at least not for guns. They're mostly percentage bonuses, so the bigger the damage, the bigger the absolute gain.

But yes, I agree it's a bit late to fix that, since the most active player base has already engineered their big ships. Unless they introduce a lot of new mods at the same time as changing the costs. IMO, they should lower the costs for small modules instead of upping the big ones, since there's plenty of grind already.

 

[Daynen]

.
You are right in your analysis. I've written something similar above. But your solution is not working. Two years ago it would've done the job. But by now, we have SLFs. About anything which you could design for a small ship to squeeze into, you can also just bring your huge ship with plenty of shield boosters, launch your SLF and squeeze that one into the tight spot.
.
I wish it would be as easy to fix as you say, but unfortunately it isn't. The only viable fix in my eyes is to boost small ships enough to make them worth using. Unfortunately I also see that there's a very thin line between them becoming competitive and making them dominant. It's not easy to hit the spot there.
.
And yes, for those who really think that the player does not matter, only grind and credits should be the deciding factor: I really wouldn't mind if we'd have insanely expensive modules for small ships only. I would be all fine if my Courier would cost more than a fully equipped FDL, if this means that it also is able to deliver an equivalent punch. But again, it's really, really hard to balance that.
.

Well, pole vaulting over the mistake that I think SLF's were to begin with...

SLF's should be just that: fighters and absolutely nothing more. Enough sensors to detect enemies, enough firepower to shoot down snub targets and maneuverability to evade stuff and THAT'S IT. If they're letting SLF's scan stuff and perform the job of small class ships then they've already 'ed it.

I disagree that small ships should be able to "deliver an equivalent punch" though...then that would defeat the point of the big ships instead. If an eagle can hit as hard as an annie we have a serious problem. Therein lies part of the "lateral thinking" I'm talking about though: people almost instinctively compare ships in terms of dogfighting ability and firepower. THAT'S what we need to correct. Pure ship to ship combat is fun and all, but it CANNOT be the only thing a ship is designed for (with the notable exception of SLF's, which should be designed for EXACTLY that and NOTHING else.)

To reiterate: the game needs to support ACTIVITIES that only small ships are suitable for. There need to be unique, inherent advantages that simply come from flying a smaller ship, stats, hardpoints and modules be damned. The devs need to engineer game mechanics and create scenarios where an SLF won't do, but where flying a big ship is inherently a bad idea. Until we get a lot more of that, small ships will always and ever be just a stepping stone to bigger ships; at best they will be our "fun" ships that we only fly because we purposely want to defy convention and don't like going slow, not because there's any real call for it.

 

[Sylow]

Well, pole vaulting over the mistake that I think SLF's were to begin with...

SLF's should be just that: fighters and absolutely nothing more. Enough sensors to detect enemies, enough firepower to shoot down snub targets and maneuverability to evade stuff and THAT'S IT. If they're letting SLF's scan stuff and perform the job of small class ships then they've already 'ed it.

.
I know what you mean. But also consider what we'd get on the whole "small ships go in there" idea: Go there, shoot something. And that's just what SLFs really do well. Also, I actually have to say, I like a lot of aspects of the SLFs. Mostly, they are a quick way to get together when some of my very casual playing friends (I am speaking of once every three months) quickly can join up and we can do stuff. Which would be completely impossible if we'd first have to meet up and they only have 60 to 90 minutes at hand.
.
That being said, I also see the problem there. Especially since some SLFs pack more firepower than some small ships. So they come cheap, need no engineering, eliminate the problem of meeting up and still pack more firepower.
.

I disagree that small ships should be able to "deliver an equivalent punch" though...then that would defeat the point of the big ships instead. If an eagle can hit as hard as an annie we have a serious problem. Therein lies part of the "lateral thinking" I'm talking about though: people almost instinctively compare ships in terms of dogfighting ability and firepower. THAT'S what we need to correct. Pure ship to ship combat is fun and all, but it CANNOT be the only thing a ship is designed for (with the notable exception of SLF's, which should be designed for EXACTLY that and NOTHING else.)

.
Small ships would still have less shields and hull. And they'd still have few and small internals, which means there's many roles they just can't fill. I mean, the Anaconda can be set up as a fierce combat ship or can be built to transport hundreds of tons of cargo. Currently the small ship can't compete in either role. If small ships would bring more firepower, we'd be looking at just two styles of flying: big ships are brawlers. They hit hard and can also survive incoming fire. Small ships would be knife fighters, they also can deal plenty of damage, but they'd have to stay agile to survive. Get hit and you die.
.
And yes, I know that I boil them down to combat capabilities. But look at the small ships, most of them are fighters, with a few multi-role mixed in between. In terms of cargo there's only the Hauler, which for most people is merely a cheap taxi ship and nothing else. In terms of exploration, only the DBX can be considered, although most go for the AspX or Anaconda instead. The additional internals just make a difference.
.

To reiterate: the game needs to support ACTIVITIES that only small ships are suitable for. There need to be unique, inherent advantages that simply come from flying a smaller ship, stats, hardpoints and modules be damned. The devs need to engineer game mechanics and create scenarios where an SLF won't do, but where flying a big ship is inherently a bad idea. Until we get a lot more of that, small ships will always and ever be just a stepping stone to bigger ships; at best they will be our "fun" ships that we only fly because we purposely want to defy convention and don't like going slow, not because there's any real call for it.

.
I fully agree with the idea that small ships should have a purpose on their own. I also want them to be more than stepping stones. But please, what option do you see outside of combat?
.
We had the "small landing pad only outpost" idea going around at some time. Which would really do nothing. Many people already now just ignore outposts. They rather stick to their big ships. Those people also would not go for small ships, merely to be able to dock at a new type of outpost. Only if the outpost would actually provide some actual new content, that would happen. But I never saw any content which could logically only be offered at outposts which only have small pads.
.
This is the "small ship only" carrier thread. Which for me boils down to the same problem: yea, you can dock there. But what actual content would it offer, which you can only do in a small ship? The thread really contains no real substance here. There are a few vague ideas, but if they'd be implemented, they wouldn't even be life yet and people would demand that the content would be released to all ships. After all, none of them really contains a logical reason, why they'd be restricted to small ships. I think that FD in very short time would give in.
.
So yes, new content: awesome. I'd be all for that. But the goal of helping small ships would have been completely missed.
.
And there's the "small ships go inside some place and do stuff there" idea. Which I also loved a lot at some time. It would've provided excellent content. It's be very "Return of the Jedi" like. First small ship enters structure X to destroy the shield generator. Second small ship hurries into the internals of station Y to blow up its reactor. Big ships in the meanwhile duke it out between those stations, keeping other ships busy, so the small ones can do their job.
.
It would've been glorious. But by now, SLFs just can also do that. And honestly: even if FD then implemented some "and only small ships can switch this trigger, while SLFs can not" mechanic, the community would just run rampant till FD changed that.
.
So perhaps there's better ideas out there, which I am not aware of. I'd be eager to see them. But as long as I haven't read anything like that, where I don't immediately see how it'll be defeated in very short time, I believe that the only hope for small ships is in improving them directly. And due to their size and limited internals, I really only see combat as where they can be improved. The 500 ton cargo Viper, able to dock on a small pad, just isn't really what I envision.
.

 

[Bortas]

So making them a squadron asset but one that can only directly support small tubs would bring an interesting aspect to PvP, exploration, mining and even trading or community goals. Which isn't to say that small tubs can't rat or repair larger ones..

Don't think so... if a carrier can't carry my preferred ships, I would just fly to my destination myself instead of docking at the carrier.

 

[Chaffers]

.

.
This is the "small ship only" carrier thread. Which for me boils down to the same problem: yea, you can dock there. But what actual content would it offer, which you can only do in a small ship? The thread really contains no real substance here. There are a few vague ideas, but if they'd be implemented, they wouldn't even be life yet and people would demand that the content would be released to all ships. After all, none of them really contains a logical reason, why they'd be restricted to small ships. I think that FD in very short time would give in.
.
.

As there is no small ship content in game this seems like a tautology.

Rather than content think style. And whilst it depends upon actual implementation, of which I'm agnostic, here's some scenarios..

Squadron carrier sods off into the black and posts it's location on the forum so anyone can join. Anyone interested joins the squadron and can help map and explore large swathes with help and assistance, refuel, repair and exploration dump facilities whilst coordinating with other squadrom members. The gameplay isn't different, merely the style. And you wouldn't necessarily need a high end ship.

Xeno squadron patiently waits for angry Thargoid Thursday then hops with carrier into whichever system they have infested. Sets up carrier in close proximity to CZ and squadron then tackle the CZ as a team. Yes the small tubs aren't as capable but they have a much shorter distance to bug out to rearm and repair. And can support the squadron's larger ships which have a longer commute.

BGS or Powerplay focussed squadron invades an enemy faction system and shuttles cargo or powerplay between the carrier and the stations, kills stuff, fights in CZs and generally does the same things that larger ships do just with smaller hops and cooperative gameplay. Very dependant upon how they implement things but could be cool. Especially if you saw fleet actions in contested systems etc. Imagine if a PMF or powerplay faction could have 1 carrier per extra 10 systems controlled..

Mining squadron sets up close to some pristine rings containing unobtainium and does some rock bothering. Smaller quantities per trip but a much shorter trip.

Pirate squadron sets up in CG system and griefs / roleplays hitting the transports while white knighters and doogooders spew salt and try to take their carrier out... Big ships versus small with the carrier as a prestige target. And the small ships able to use their only advantage to bug out, repair, and get back into the fight. A landing pad where they will never be wanted

It all depends upon how they do it. Key questions are who will own the carrier asset, will they be destroyable / damageable, will they carry cargo / powerplay , will they free flyable or merely navigate via stellar body orbit...

Now you might say that we can do most of this already. Which in many cases isn't entirely untrue. It would however be a different style of play and would add something. Whilst not disturbing the precious dominance of the larger ships. Carrier optimised variants might trade smaller FSD slots and fuel tanks for enhanced speed and agility. as ever the possibilities are endless.

On the other hand they could allow large landing pads which doesn't make sense as even megaships only have one. And I doubt they'll be giving us megaships.

 

[sandkid]

I'm all for the 'let's make small ships great again' push...but...some major considerations are in order:

1) Small Ships are limited in capability just by virtue of module slots. Except for FSD range, all small ships are instantly inferior to medium or large ships in the vast majority of tasks...though there are exceptions! These exceptions are where small ship gameplay can be increased without detracting from ownership of larger vessels:

-Small Ships have smaller sensor footprints and generally lower heat signatures as well, with the DBE a prime smuggler
-Small Ships are cheap to outfit and replace, though just as expensive to engineer as any larger vessel as all ships have identical internals that only vary in size (I pet peeve of mine)
-Small Ships are usually more agile and fast, though the fastest ship is now supposedly the Mamba


2) The principal reason folks fly small ships falls into just two categories: 'They Have To (New/Poor Players)' and 'I want to'...rarely, if ever, does economics have anything to do with this choice. Just as most folks today could bicycle to work, they don't - cars are much more practical and economical in terms of time.

-Small Ships are designed to introduce modules in digestible pieces for new players - the multi-function of a cobra pales in comparison to an Anaconda...but it also helps the player understand the value of said Anaconda.
-Small Ships 'truly lack' only in two areas: Combat and Bulk Trading (Passengers included). Small Ships are more than capable of luxury VIP missions, deep space passengers, rare goods trading (most stations carry so few anyways), and ALL planetary missions (as these are SRV focused, another 'balanced across all ships' category).
-The 'appeal' of small ships to veteran players are their simplicity, lack of cost (and risk), and their handling. Racing is largely enjoyed by smaller ships rather than larger ones.


With these two major points in mind, 'Small Ship Specific Features' should probably target:
-Community Activities like Planned Races or Race Courses in the world with Leaderboards
-'Single-Task' Missions that only require a basic set of modules but are very high risk (Such as Spy Missions, akin to Installations)
-'Fighter Pilot' Skirmishes where the enemy is quantity based but largely novice or less in AI...'frantic fights' that are less about ship preservation and more about damage dealing
-Missions that rely on heavy engineering, creating a buffer between new players and veteran players. In Eve Online, high level missions were designed for small ships only (frigates) but required extensive skills and pricey fits to succeed. These are 'high-roller' small ship missions that could be combat rank locked.


Food for thought. Notice none of these involve 'exclusive stations'. While a small ship only station sounds neat...and would probably look neat, too...it doesn't really serve a purpose without missions or content unique to it. I'm not opposed to it, mind you, I just think it's pointless at this stage of development.