I think realistically it's more or less exactly where Frontier wants it to be. Considerable, but not excessive for capacity. It's an expensive ship to buy, outfit and operate, just like Cutter.
Latest CG, the clearest example of P2W in ED to date?
- Thread starter Agony_Aunt
- Start date
I think realistically it's more or less exactly where Frontier wants it to be. Considerable, but not excessive for capacity. It's an expensive ship to buy, outfit and operate, just like Cutter.
Balance isn't just about the capacity, there's a dozen variables that can be tweaked. Yes, maybe its where Frontier want it to be, that doesn't mean it should be there - as i mentioned earlier, there is a trend among newer ships to be better than older ships - whether this is good or bad for ED depends on your point of view.
That's really a different debate. I don't particularly see the point of repeating mistakes of the past, purely based on dogged adherence to design ideals from a much older version of the game. The newer ships essentially expose the legacy to sunlight. And they don't look so good as a result. That isn't a fault of the new ships.
Frontier has learned a lot since then. Some changes in the team. Fresh ideas. All of this is good for the health of the game. Important to learn from the past, certainly, but developing new ships now, using 10 year old thinking, is no way to progress and improve the game. The whole point is to learn and improve; not rinse and repeat.
I'd like to see Frontier offer improvement options for the older ships (indeed this CG actually does that buy having universally usable cargo racks that'll benefit legacy ships in some ways more than new) as this has far more potential for positive improvements and opportunities.
More CGs and the like unlocking pre-engineered modules that help lift up legacy ships, so they get some love too, to me seems like a great way to go (if they then go to one of the vendors for those sorts of modules for anyone to unlock, that's hot). A CG to supply one or other of the in-lore manufacturers to bring super-cruise optimisation to legacy ships, I reckon that'd be an absolute banger. Definitely potential there, imo.
Anyway, this is offtopic for this thread, so I'll bounce out again. o/
Last edited:
Aaaahhh, "Balance", the destoyer of fun, the other tribal chant, predating even P2W as a stick to beat the enjoyment out of playing.
(just don't mention the FDL!)
(just don't mention the FDL!)
Absolutely necessary in a multiplayer game though. In a single player game it's indeed optional, and most single player games allow modding to adjust the game how ever the player wants, as it affects no one else. I enjoy my untouchable M class behemoth ships in Starfield that blow up entire fleets with their turrets while carrying 5-6 digit figures of cargo, but I wouldn't think one second about introducing something like that to ED.
True, it can do everything that matters far better than an Adder...
but not where 'old skool' players want it to be.
Evolution is a bad thing, I guess...
So nothing should be added that does anything better than a sidewinder?
So the game should have stopped at a single ship, so that it is perfectly balanced and nothing is better than enything else?
The great dichotomy of Elite Dangerous. The community vociferously hates change and will debate it at great length, but wants endless features (which requires change) and will debate it at great length.
And so here we are. xD
And I promised myself I would punch out of the discussion as it's moved away from the OP's post, to an extent. So I must away. o/
Last edited:
Indeed, so much excess power available, even on a modest outfitting...
We shouldn't be able to have both shields and guns, because...
Hyperbole. Fact is that the Panther has so much power available that it needs to be packed with 6 overcharged plasmas, 4 railguns, a reinforced class 8 prismatic shield, 6 shield boosters and a size 7 shield cell bank to finally run out of power. That's a bit excessive for a ship that's primarily meant to be a hauler.
I'm not really taking a side in this question, but here's my build...
I've got everything that's nice-to-have in there; some weaponry, a good shield, I'll maybe consider swapping a SB from resistance to heavy, to boost defence a bit. Heat is also an issue: I couldn't use low-emission PP as there wasn't enough power but I've achieved a good balance with armoured. This seems about right to me and it's a nice ship. I don't see any reason to want it to have been pre-nerfed; that would have just reduced its popularity and FD's revenue from it.
I haven't taken a side in the "P2W" debate really. OK, I didn't pay; the PC took only about a third of the ARX I already had from playing. I don't think it lets me "win". If I look at the current CG, I think anyone who really wants double cargo racks can get them using Cutter, T9, T8 or Anaconda, or Panther. But Panther is an advantage, simply by being a nice ship and making play more enjoyable. I don't have any ideological concerns about P2W though. It's just a computer game; if I like it I play it, otherwise I play something else.
You take that back a cutter is a nice ship the panther clipper is a monstrosity and a blight on the galaxyI'm not really taking a side in this question, but here's my build...
I've got everything that's nice-to-have in there; some weaponry, a good shield, I'll maybe consider swapping a SB from resistance to heavy, to boost defence a bit. Heat is also an issue: I couldn't use low-emission PP as there wasn't enough power but I've achieved a good balance with armoured. This seems about right to me and it's a nice ship. I don't see any reason to want it to have been pre-nerfed; that would have just reduced its popularity and FD's revenue from it.
I haven't taken a side in the "P2W" debate really. OK, I didn't pay; the PC took only about a third of the ARX I already had from playing. I don't think it lets me "win". If I look at the current CG, I think anyone who really wants double cargo racks can get them using Cutter, T9, T8 or Anaconda, or Panther. But Panther is an advantage, simply by being a nice ship and making play more enjoyable. I don't have any ideological concerns about P2W though. It's just a computer game; if I like it I play it, otherwise I play something else.
Which would be fine if we play it as a multiplayer game. This is a single player game that other players happen to be present in.
What's been the main topic? - the individual rewards at 75%. The wider narrative and what it means for other players isn't something I've seen anyone mention on here with regards to what a Panther does. Probably because it doesn't actually matter. The CG is already won, we're just pushing for higher individual rewards which is essentially just credits (137 million at 75%, which for the time involved to get to that level is already very generous).
So the only difference I can currently make in the game is to myself. Currently, I could start hauling now in my Corsair and have a nice relaxed time doing the 11 trips to get above the 2700t value to get to 75% that has been almost static for a week now. Or I could do it in 4 in my Cutter.
If buying a Panther to now do it in 3 trips upsets gameplay balance, it was already broken to begin with.
Balance can destroy or enhance fun. Lack of balance can destroy or enhance fun - it all depends on how its handled.
One thing i don't find "fun" though is older ships being left behind by new ships and if FD start ramping up the HP on NPCs to counter the DPS inflation we are getting with some new ships, I will not be amused.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
FD kind of bring it on themselves however.............. for instance FD categorically stated when bringing in ARX that it was for cosmetics only and there would be nothing other than cosmetics in the ARX store....They also completely gutted the value of the ARX in peoples accounts, rather than simply increasing the price of the ARX in the ARX store which was also a proper phallus move imo.
FD have their reasons and I am not even necessarily arguing against it... however it is just that FD continually either speak in vague easily miss understood terms, failing to correct or dial back expectations when the user base goes wild on the over expectation or just outright backtrack on lines they said they would not cross (again i say this as someone only mildly bothered about the time limited cash ships)
Sean Murray (not the NCIS actor), Peter Moleneux and Chris Roberts get dragged over the coals for doing this - especially the latter on these forums........ but FD it seems to some can do no wrong. (I accept in some peoples eyes they can do no right either which is equally unfair)
(For the record Peter Moleneux (populus, powermonger, black &white, fable) and Chris Roberts (wing commander, privateer, strike commander, starlancer - i wont include freelancer as that was a bit of a mess before he was bailed out
) have made some of my all time favourite games (after Elite, stuntcar racer and Kick off 2) so I am not hating on them btw........ and Sean Murray its fair to say has delivered what was promised and then some........ eventually.......... so all should now be forgiven there too imo.
Last edited:
Can also be necessary in a single player game as well.
Take something like Diablo (which can be played single player - if someone wants to quibble because its also MP, then think of a different similar situation with a 100% single player game) - you've spent hundreds of hours levelling up your Necromancer, then Blizzard come along and introduce a new class that is way more powerful. You might be quite annoyed, because you love you Necromancer, but you know if you switch and invest time in the new class it will make progression easier.
Just to nitpick: Diablo is actually multiplayer. You can play D1 in a party of 4 and D2 in a party of 8
Not very good arguments there I'm afraid.
There is progression in ships - the issue is with lack of balance between similar ships. The Python Mk2 is now better than any other medium ship at combat, with no real dowsides. The PC is a way better hauler than the Type 9 or Cutter, with no downsides. The CM5 is now the best small combat ship by far, with no real downsides.
Evolution isn't a bad thing, that isn't under discussion - evolution can be balanced.
The comment about nothing better than a Sidewinder is just asinine and unworthy of you.
Strawman argument. Since we are talking about new ships, the community as a whole seems to strongly favour new ships based on forum posts over the years.
Plus i'm sure nobody would object if some older ships got a balance pass - eg: the Asp Scout getting a bit of a boost.
FD kind of bring it on themselves however.............. for instance FD categorically stated when bringing in ARX that it was for cosmetics only and there would be nothing other than cosmetics in the ARX store....They also completely gutted the value of the ARX in peoples accounts, rather than simply increasing the price of the ARX in the ARX store which was also a proper phallus move imo.
FD have their reasons and I am not even necessarily arguing against it... however it is just that FD continually either speak in vague terms, failing to correct or dial back expectations when the user base goes wild on the over expectation or just outright backtrack on lines they said they would not cross (again i say this as someone only mildly bothered about the time limited cash ships)
Sean Murray (not the NCIS actor), Peter Moleneux and Chris Roberts get dragged over the coals for doing this - especially the latter on these forums........ but FD it seems to some can do no wrong. (I accept in some peoples eyes they can do no right either which is equally unfair)
(For the record Peter Moleneux (populus, powermonger, black &white, fable) and Chris Roberts (wing commander, privateer, strike commander, starlancer - i wont include freelancer as that was a bit of a mess before he was bailed out
Well, at least FD stuck to their guns with regards to the CM4!