EXACTLY THIS, what are we 'balancing' against, because if its 1v1 PvP this is not the game I thought it was, nor is it as advertised. Again if its a design model, please let us know so we can all say "ahh.. yeah that makes sense".
Can we get an explanation of the concept behind ship design?
- Thread starter StuPer
- Start date
EXACTLY THIS, what are we 'balancing' against, because if its 1v1 PvP this is not the game I thought it was, nor is it as advertised. Again if its a design model, please let us know so we can all say "ahh.. yeah that makes sense".
vonvonbraun
Banned
Good points on balance and nerf concepts
It depends what you mean by "better". We will probably see a better fighter in that class. We might see a better trader in that class. I'm sure we'll eventually see a better passenger liner in that class. What we probably won't see is a ship that is better in every way. Having a "best in every way" ship is bad for the game because it makes the game homogenous and makes the progression boring.
So the reason for balancing is that forcing the users to make tradeoffs and decisions makes for a better game. Right now the Python is better than any other ship between the Asp (arguably even the Cobra or Viper) and the Type 9 at everything. It's a better trader than the Type 7 despite it's lower jump range because it has access to outposts. It's a better fighter due to it's maneuverability, firepower, and defense. It's not at all unreasonable to reduce the advantages it has in some areas.
They're balancing against having a single best ship.
I'm not sure what you mean about "as advertised", they certainly never promised the game would be unbalanced for PvP in any advertising I saw.
Well the idea was that you could do anything in game, the sandbox thing. But if you look at the ships on release there is a clear implication of progression, simply because as you climb the cost there is an increasing ability in all things, however it now seems that combat is not one of those things, you cannot have one ship that is better at combat than others regardless of cost, size etc, which I find ridiculous. It is not reflected in real life military combat vehicles at all, the bigger you are and costlier you are, you sure as hell have greater capability than the cheaper alternatives. What is wrong with cost/size = greater capability, the only crowd who benefit from a level playing field are 1 - 1 PvPers, and that makes a mockery of the whole concept of costlier ships. Yes I know that the Python has greater firepower than most, but its useless if it cannot be brought to bear (Imperial Clipper I'm looking at you), I accept even that the Python needed toning down somewhat, but I am worried about where this will end.
The purpose of this thread was to get a response from FD to give some guidance/direction about their design philosophy with ships so I can put nerfs and buffs in context and not get irritated, and worried that this game is already starting the slide into WoW PvP hell.
The purpose of this thread was to get a response from FD to give some guidance/direction about their design philosophy with ships so I can put nerfs and buffs in context and not get irritated, and worried that this game is already starting the slide into WoW PvP hell.
Maybe you should see what actually happens after they adjust the python before crying about it being the end of the world.
I have to dispute this. In real life a particular vehicle's utility is heavily situational. Which is "better", a tank or a fighter jet? Or if you insist on aircraft to aircraft comparison...fighter vs bomber vs stealth vs attack helicopter vs etc...
Mike Evans <Designer> says PYTHON is getting a nerf in a upcoming update as it's currently over performing.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=102717&p=1592391&viewfull=1#post1592391
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=102717&p=1592391&viewfull=1#post1592391
Agreed. And even IF the Python is better gear wise you still come down to skill, which is good. You can have the dough to buy the Python for the large amount of cash, and you get a superior ship for that money, but you can still be a crap fighter and be taken down by a smaller ship. Thats how it should be. I see no issues. Balancing for the sake of PvP seem only to cater to "that crowd".
A lot of the fighting ships are not yet implemented. I think the Fer de Lance is a medium fighter, the Vulture is a heavy fighter, and the Imperial Hunter is a long-range heavy interceptor. Not to mention the Federal Corvette. I'd like to know if anyone has other information on these. I recall hearing murmurs about a Diamondback, too.
I understand there is a lot yet to be brought into the game, and maybe in the future this issue around the Python will seem almost trivial. However I would still like to hear the design direction and philosophy behind the ships, this will help place the ships you mention in a design tree, and as I have said it will help me to understand any changes in performance in the context of that philosophy. I guess I am seeking reassurance that the PvP crowd are not going to get to dictate terms for the performance of current and future ships. At the moment I am struggling to see the reason to continue to grind credits when there is little point except to have new shapes and skins to admire, but a very proportionally small performance increase.
Elite is not a sandbox, its a playground. And even if the slide (Python) is the best single experience in the playground, you still find kids on all the other features/attractions...we will have renowned CMDRs who never leave a Sidey, and others who will never fly anything but the Python...and everyone in-between and beyond. Who cares? Enjoy. Now, if one faction of the player base finds that all those in that faction have all gotten on the slide...well, that's their choice, the playground is more than that.
The adjustments should improve PvE as well, so I'm not sure why you're singling out PvP.
Your premise is faulty. The ships do not have a clear progression for anything other than trading. There is nothing better for exploring than an Asp and in fact the Type 6, Hauler, and even Cobra are just about as good. The bigger ships are useless for mining because scooping is slower and harder. Being able to do anything in the game implies not having to grind for weeks to get a particular ship to be effective, and that is in fact the way the game is. It's understandable that people see the most expensive ships as some sort of goal but that is their own choice: you don't need them to become elite, which is the nominal goal of the game (expect for trading, obviously).
There is nothing particularly wrong with saying larger ships should be more capable. But if you're relying on that argument then you must accept that the Python needs balancing because right now it is too good compared to the Anaconda which, by your own reasoning, should be much better. Besides, "should be better" doesn't mean it should be all powerful. The Python right now is a better trading ship than a Type 7 and a better fighter than just about everything. It's not just offensively more powerful than anything other than an Anaconda, it's also defensively stronger than anything, and way too maneuverable for its size. You could argue that maybe they should have nerfed its cargo space rather than its combat ability, but we don't know what ships are planned so we can't really make that determination. Perhaps they want to put in a similar level ship that is specialised for combat. Even with a nerf the Python will be better than the Viper against larger ships.
As far as real life militaries go, there are roles for many different vehicles of many different sizes and often attempts to make a one-size-fits-all all-powerful weapon has resulted in a compromised design (ahem, F-35). And if you're going to draw parallels with real life military vehicles then again you must admit the Python needs balancing. A destroyer should not be as nimble as a fast attack craft. A tank should not be as nimble as a gun truck.
Last edited:
The design philosophy statement you're asking for would just be used to criticize decisions FD make ("you said the Python was for role X, this change doesn't fit with that"). I think it's unreasonable to expect FD to commit themselves in that way. But I think what you really want is for there to be one all-powerful goal ship and I don't think that's what FD want. They want players to have to make compromises and choices at all levels. Really, it's not the end of the world if the Python gets nerfed a bit. We had the exact same sort of angst when they reduced the internal space on the Asp and how often do you hear about it now?
If this balancing of the Python has put you off grinding then you can always do something else in the game. What was it you planned to do with the Python? Another question: what is so wrong with the Anaconda that you don't want to grind for that?
I dont agree.
I think that a fully tricked out Anaconda should be able to swat away any lower level ship with ease. (ie Cobra/Viper and smaller)
Hopefully, with wings update, it would then take 2 pilots in the smaller ships to be able to have a chance to take one down.
DON"T worry every ship will be soooo balanced that it will not matter what ship you are in, be it an python or sidewinder. You will have the same chance in a one on one battle. this ship has best shields but this ship has best armor sooo which is better? Neither; exactly the same ship just call it a different name. That's how they balance right? LOL. They really do need some logic in it and just step back and stop listening to the screamers out there. Really look at it logically and make real world connections with them. If something is over powered, Maybe it should be. Now just make a defensive weapon for it and make that defensive weapon usable in a way that makes it challenging for the user.
On the contrary, it's poor balancing that ruins games.
Game balance is fundamental to whether a game is fun to play and can remain fun in the long term.
Gameplay is, essentially, all about making choices. In order to be fun and enjoyable, those choices have to be significant - they have to actually have some impact on the player's game state, and they have to have consequences.
Game balance is all about ensuring that choices exist and are significant. Without balance, a game just isn't any fun to play.