Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Because all assembeled ships are of the same class are identical in dimensions? Think about it.

I would like the range shrunk a little bit, and the volume of ships based on a common hull standardized if they aren't currently, but this is a small potatos change on everything but a machariel.

Yes, there is. Propulsion modules and inertia modifiers.

taking a wicked stab I'd say op has no military logistics ops experience.

If I say Humvee I'd be guessing he is thinking civilian edition that varies by color and bling options. M3 about the same (guess god awful gaudy bling rims could make it wider for more m3).

When I say Humvee I'd be thinking of several versions in use by the military however. Give me about 6.5 feet of space under an overhang and a good ground guide I could park a vanilla mil spec Humvee under it (at least before 2003, if height clearance changed these days not sure). Make it a Humvee with top mount turret....unless really wanting to be fried extra crispy for destruction of government property in an NJP for some sick reason I would not even think about trying this.

OP for your disparity about well packaged can be the same please try this at home if motivated to see how it works. Take several cars. Strip them down to bare frame and see the wonders you can perform.

Bubble wrap bodys panels and they flatten out space wise really. Crate the motors and the trannies and they stack up nicely in a container. YOu can if motivated bubble wrap the frames and stack as wild a way you want. Not like you care about scratches...its all covered when done lol.

This is how say Japan builds cars in the states. they can ship hundreds of cars stripped in containers and have a US plant assemble them. I was reaching with the frame, these are usually made locally.

I have helped a few friends ship cars (yes cars) from japan in pieces lending a hand and a wrench to car strip down parties.. All but the frame went. Frame they sourced locally on a us version if applicable in the states.

Lots of dumb :logic: and uninformed replies. Let me spell it out for you:

Rapier: 85k M³
Falcon: 96k M³
Arazu: 116K M³
Pilgrim: 120K M³

So you can get 4 Rapiers and Falcons into an Orca bay but only 3 Arazus and Pilgrims and trying to mix it up with other ship types creates issues that shouldn't be. This stuff happens with all types of ships: same types, different factions, different volumes. There's no valid reason for this other than "who cares, it's an unused stat so lets give it some lore fluff" which, when introduced, never really caused any problems but now that we have ships with bays (that are actively used for it) creates issues that logically and game play wise shouldn't be there.

I made mention in another post, that SMA should need reworked.
And be more like a dry dock for ships.
Say the Orca gets 5-10 bays but can only fit cruisers and smaller.
The Rorqual could get say upwards of 20 and maintain its bays only for mining/industrial ships
While Carriers and Bowheads could get say 10 and store any sub-cap

Numbers subject to balance.

They are lore fluff and tend to not make much sense. Volume is a balancing factor, it's not a factor for most people (hence the clown troll replies in this thread) but it's still a thing. Unless it's taken into account when balancing the ships (and it wont, nor should, be) then it's an extra variable that should be standardized.

I'm curious to know the answer to why this is, I'm sure there's a good balance reason for it. The only thing that comes to mind at the moment is what you're able to put in each ship once it's assembled. You can do things like put battleship turrets and launchers in the highs, and pack the mids with X-Large Ancillary Shield Boosters (with charges in those).

You can't online them, but they'll still be accepted into the slots, and then those ships can be placed in the ship maintenance array of an Orca, for example, instead of the Cargo hold or Fleet Hangar when it's packaged.

See for yourself, what you can pack into an assembled ship. In EFT, rig them with Medium Cargohold Optimization II rigs and fill the lows with Expanded Cargohold IIs.

Rapier, cargo potential:
1198.709 m3 cargo hold,
+40 m3 drone bay
=1,238.7 m3
+1,082 m3 in modules

= 2,319 m3 total

Falcon, cargo potential:
940.164 m3 cargo hold,
+ 10 m3 drone bay
= 950.164 m3
+ 1,304 m3 modules

= 2,255 m3 total

Arazu, cargo potential:
1198.709 m3 cargo hold,
+ 40 m3 drone bay
= 1,238.7 m3
+ 1,142 m3 modules

= 2,280 m3 total

Pilgrim, cargo potential:
1528.354 m3 cargo hold,
+ 150 m3 drone bay
= 1,678.354 m3
+ 960 m3

= 2,638 m3 total

To fit the same items in Fleet hangar, the volume of packaged ships plus all their mods is somewhere around:

40,000 m3
+ 2,319 m3
+ 2,255 m3
+ 2,280 m3
+ 2,638 m3

= 49,492 m3
+ 120 m3 extra for the rigs expanded cargoholds.

an Orca with full cargo rigs and expanders can handle 101,000 m3 in cargo ( 2 of each T2 cruiser in your example plus all potential mods) or 10 packaged hulls,
4 packaged hulls in Fleet hangar
4 assembled falcons or Rapiers in Ship Maintenance Bay

18 T2 cruisers in an Orca.

I'm sorry, why does this matter, again?

I don't care which they use, but if you have to start thinking what you can fit in an orca, 1 BC/CS, T3, then some recons, how about an AF or 2. Then it all gets a bit silly if you have to go "well, if I bring the pilgrim instead of the falcon I can't bring these 2 AF". It's not balancing, it's arbitrary silliness.

Oops. Correct.