New Ships 2024

[DjVortex]

I like to have more to have 2x AFMU

Not to be a contrarian once again, but I honestly don't see a point in having two AFMUs (unless, perhaps, it's for the extra ammo).

If your modules (other than the FSD) are taking damage, you are doing it wrong. And even then, as mentioned by others, the AFMU is likely to be the last one to break, as it tends to have the most integrity.

Hull I can understand. Heaven knows I have sometimes collided with the ground on accident, a few times so badly that the shields weren't enough to protect the ship. (But then, I don't use shield boosters in my explorer... Those could help maybe.)

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I don't really know what the remaining 2 ought to be.

Research limpet for the space phenomena. You can conveniently use the Xeno Controller. Decontamination is useless, but you'll have repair and research in one.

 

[Michael Ryan]

Not to be a contrarian once again, but I honestly don't see a point in having two AFMUs (unless, perhaps, it's for the extra ammo).

As I said, I feel more safe with that even it it isn't important in 99% of my trips.

If your modules (other than the FSD) are taking damage, you are doing it wrong. And even then, as mentioned by others, the AFMU is likely to be the last one to break, as it tends to have the most integrity.

So you want to say that I shouldn't play? Or you would let me play my own way with two AFMUs? I wrote the strong line between 'minium 8 optional' and 'what I want to have'. Even more, I put a Sidewinder build for explo I sometimes use.
And one more... this new ship is a M-pad so we should compare to ships like Phantom (9 slots)... if you have one more slot, you left it free or will install second AFMU?

Hull I can understand. Heaven knows I have sometimes collided with the ground on accident, a few times so badly that the shields weren't enough to protect the ship. (But then, I don't use shield boosters in my explorer... Those could help maybe.)

The same way you can make a mistake and just accidentaly fly into the star watchning netflix the same time. I never did it in fact, but still like to have more than enough...

 

[DjVortex]

Research limpet for the space phenomena. You can conveniently use the Xeno Controller. Decontamination is useless, but you'll have repair and research in one.

Quite a compromise for such a niche use: Only available in class 3 (needlessly so, as you'll never need support for 4 active limpets), 10 tons, can't be engineered for weight...

 

[Michael Ryan]

Quite a compromise for such a niche use: Only available in class 3 (needlessly so, as you'll never need support for 4 active limpets), 10 tons, can't be engineered for weight...

And that's the reason to have more small optionals in exploration ship.

Xeno multi limpet is 15 T

1a repair and 1e research are 2,6 together.

That is why I hope for at least 6,5,4,3,3,2,2,1,1

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

edit... @Michael Ryan (sorry i forgot to quote your post) I get you want to watch netflix... and that is your choice - blaze your own way and all that..... also i myself like to have an audio book playing when out and about.

equally if you want to alt tab in and out and have other things open, or go off and make a brew, then more power to you

BUT......................

imo the difficulty of the game needs to be decided on the assumption that the player is actually playing the game giving it their full concentration, and shouldnt be weighted towards giving get out of jail cards for those asleep at the wheel, because if they do, it will likely make the game paint dry watchingly simplistic for those who want to put all their attention into the game.

obviously all views are valid, and this is just mine, however i would rather FD inject more unexpected events into the game and forced us to make decisions when speccing our ships loadouts including compromises as well as things which will catch us out and hurt us if we are not giving the game its full attention. I want elite to become deeper in complexity not some shallow mobile game i can play whilst watching TV.

imo the Vulture is a great example of how (again just imo) the game took a wrong turn. At launch the vulture was a really interesting ship, precisely because you could not just A rate everything..... if you wanted it to kick like a mule you had to compromise elswhere due to the Power Plant limitations.

a really well balanced ship which kind of got lost post engineers imo.

indeed i have a real dislike at how powerful (in PvE) the anaconda is... which is a shame as it is a unique experience flying it, its like piloting an oil tanker..... but it really should not be as capable an explorer ship as it is, and then they doubled down and gave it military slots as well!.

the issue should not be make explorer ships as good as the anaconda for exploration............ it should be that why the hell is the anaconda such a good explorer ship in the 1st place, with it ludicrously low (paper?) hull mass which can still mass lock weightier ships

 

[Michael Ryan]

edit... @Michael Ryan (sorry i forgot to quote your post) I get you want to watch netflix... and that is your choice - blaze your own way and all that..... also i myself like to have an audio book playing when out and about.

equally if you want to alt tab in and out and have other things open, or go off and make a brew, then more power to you

BUT......................

imo the difficulty of the game needs to be decided on the assumption that the player is actually playing the game giving it their full concentration, and shouldnt be weighted towards giving get out of jail cards for those asleep at the wheel, because if they do, it will likely make the game paint dry watchingly simplistic for those who want to put all their attention into the game.

(...)

At first it was JUST about how many optional should exploration ship has and my opinion, why I LIKE to have it more than 8... there is nothing about how game should be made. I like play relaxing games, and I don't feel that game is boring, becuase a lot of thins can be done without my attention. That's all about what do you like. If we want to create wide open environment, all kind of playes are at the same level. And as Fdevs said: "there is no the best way to play Elite".

And back on the track - the fact that new ship would have 11 optionals doesen't make it worse than 8 optionals... so it isn't anything more than just light discussion about exploration way...

 

[Rat Catcher]

If you are getting damage because of boosting towards a mountain, I don't think the AFMU is the biggest concern at that point.

(If the damage to modules is caused by the ship overheating while fuel-scooping, I repeat the same sentiment: You are doing it wrong. Even with a very heat-inefficient build it's perfectly possible to fuel-scoop at full or almost full rate without overheating. You just have to be careful about your distance to the star.)

Most of the damage I have encountered is by carelessness on planetary bodies, although I did lose my first ship (once I'd got past the mail slot sniper) in my second week of play to a WD, a problem that has never occured again.
Overheating when scooping, nope! Although I do let the alarms start to complain at times.

Half of my sightseeing issues have been due to sheer enjoyment, rather than taking playing a game seriously, maybe my trip in the Mandolay can aim for a 1% arrival... That's a thought!

There isn't a "wrong" way to play the game, apart from playing and not enjoying, is there?

 

[Michael Ryan]

There isn't a "wrong" way to play the game, apart from playing and not enjoying, is there?

That's the point.

and about overheating, sometimes I just too fast turn on FSD, and it is like 1%, but after few months it could be problem

 

[DjVortex]

it should be that why the hell is the anaconda such a good explorer ship in the 1st place, with it ludicrously low (paper?) hull mass which can still mass lock weightier ships

I have sometimes wondered if that was intentional or a mistake.

(A bit like a neutron star supercharge giving you a 400% jump, which AFAIK was originally a typo in the code, the original intent being it giving you much less, but was so universally well-received that they elevated it to an official feature.)

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

i dont think there is a right and wrong way to play a game however i would counter with another question.

is it good game design to introduce a smaller ship which can carry every single module you could possibly ever need (for exploration), and give it a jump range as good as any other ship in the game without giving it a different massive Achilles heel.

its a smaller ship to the anaconda so logically I would be expected to make compromises to what it can carry..... if the idea is it will be able to jump a bit further than other exploration ships such as the asp / diamond back explorer and the phantom as well as use an SCO drive properly then personally i would expect it to be able to carry slightly fewer extras than the asp/phantom not more.

time will tell however.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I have sometimes wondered if that was intentional or a mistake.

(A bit like a neutron star supercharge giving you a 400% jump, which AFAIK was originally a typo in the code, the original intent being it giving you much less, but was so universally well-received that they elevated it to an official feature.)

that has crossed my mind as well, however the ship was introduced in beta way before release. had it of been in error FD had plenty of time to fix but didnt so i can only assume it was deliberate.

which i guess you could argue may make sense it it really was a paper thin hull when on the light weight armour......... but it isnt that bad, not as bad as its mass would indicate anyway.

 

[Rat Catcher]

is it good game design to

According to the experts on this forum, nothing in ED is good game design, so the Mandalay should excel in exploration and carry everything including the kitchen sink with a jump range of 1,000 LY with only 2 tons of fuel used...

(Games designers choose how they design their game, whether others think it is good or bad is another matter altogether - it is easy to criticise work if one isn't doing it, isn't it?)

 

[Michael Ryan]

(...)is it good game design to introduce a smaller ship which can carry every single module you could possibly ever need (for exploration), and give it a jump range as good as any other ship in the game without giving it a different massive Achilles heel.

But there are new generation ships, so, yes it suppose to be way better than older ones.

its a smaller ship to the anaconda so logically I would be expected to make compromises to what it can carry..... if the idea is it will be able to jump a bit further than other exploration ships such as the asp / diamond back explorer and the phantom as well as use an SCO drive properly then personally i would expect it to be able to carry slightly fewer extras than the asp/phantom not more.

time will tell however.

How we have so big ship like anaconda jumping so far if other big ships can't do it, even if they are made for tranposrt like Beluga?
How anaconda can have so high mass factor and litlle core mas... etc.
Anaconda is the best example of unabalnced ship according to what you wrote about Mandalay. So I really don't need to polish my sentences to explain why I should know better than fdev how to create ships. I like what is it even if I would tone it other way. I still have a choice, there is a lot of ships in elite.

And smaller ship means smaller optionals no amount of them. Doesn't the child has ten fingers like an adult?

Anaconda has 12 optional. We are talking about 8-10 optionals. For an example: Python - 10, Dolphin (S-pad!) - 9...
6 of 16 M-pad ships have 8 or more optionals. This isn't anything uncommon especially for ships considered by manu as the best for exploration and exobiology job.

 

[SergMx]

If your modules (other than the FSD) are taking damage, you are doing it wrong. And even then, as mentioned by others, the AFMU is likely to be the last one to break, as it tends to have the most integrity.

So what?
When something breaks, you fix it with AFMU, and if AFMU breaks, what will you use to fix it?

 

[SergMx]

The odds of you having anything like a fixable ship when your AFMU fails you are not good!

When I started the game “the internet” insisted you needs a second AFMU, I’ve never needed a second one

One of two things, you have it but don't need it, or you don't have it but need it.

 

[Michael Ryan]

The odds of you having anything like a fixable ship when your AFMU fails you are not good!
(...)

Yes, my master of infallibility.

 

[Mr Lindsay]

The odds of you having anything like a fixable ship when your AFMU fails you are not good!

When I started the game “the internet” insisted you needs a second AFMU, I’ve never needed a second one

The obvious counter-point would be, what are you putting in the same slot?

From an exploration perspective one of the neatest things about AFMUs is that they have no mass, and only use power when turned on. If you have spare slot in your build it's arguably more ridiculous NOT to bring one along, rather than leaving an empty slot or bringing something else you don't really need with mass that limits your jump range.

It’s a bit like taking weapons out into the black. Some people do, fair play to them, but you will never need them.

Guardian Arrays require weapons fire to activate. Do you want to be the first player to find Raxxla, or something, only to find out you need to shoot your way in?

 

[Michael Ryan]

If I had spare space I would, and I do in my Anaconda but on a DBX I don’t have the room as I need a repair limpet for the time I face plant a planet - limping back to the bubble with 4% hull isn’t fun!

Edit: but the point is you don’t need additional AFMUs.

what is your dbx build, because I forgot about something or it still have space for AFMUx2

 

[Michael Ryan]

These are the fundamental optionals for a long-range exobiology exploration ship:

1. Fuel scoop.
2. Guardian FSD booster.
3. Shield generator.
4. AFMU. (Although this is not 100% mandatory if you don't intend to neutron-hop.)
5. Planetary vehicle hangar. (Also not 100% mandatory, even for exob, but highly convenient.)
6. Detailed surface scanner.

I don't really know what the remaining 2 ought to be.

I have a vehicle hanger. Perhaps a bit unnecessary now we have legs, but it can be useful grabbing mats for synthesis. Plus I still like driving around!

Sir Tim Peake

I counted it too, but I know what I missed Right, DBX with repair limpet has only one AFMU