arguement: Python vs Viper equal skill python SHOULD win
- Thread starter Hekantonkheries
- Start date
Spot on. The price is the problem. I'd expect that a 142K viper would have no chance vs a 57M python, + 3 times that in modules. Perhaps the Viper is too cheap? IDK, the don't think I'll ever understand the logic behind ship & module prices.
well, for what we need to gain it then?
4 months grind for 1 minute fight and then death ??
Exactly, I go back Viper)
I can't speak for him, but I was planning on doing the same thing in my python, a multirole ship, that I'd did in my cobra, a multirole ship, and in my asp, a multirole ship, only significantly better, because it costs orders of magnitude more, at the moment its not much of an upgrade other than in hauling
I want my T9 (don't actually own one...) to beat a Python, I have spent so many credits for it just to find out it's useless. I wonder how many threads and posts are needed until people realise that the Python is not a Fighter. It just isn't. It says so in it's description: "Whoever buys me, expect me to be slow and sturdy".
But hey, let's just ignore this fact and keep on discussing about a slow and sturdy ship beeing slow and sturdy.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I can beat your Asp in my Cobra. Don't consider your Asp useless though.
Well it doubles your hauling potential and exponentially improves your firing power, that's not a small upgrate in my eyes. I love my Python and wouldn't go back to the Asp or Cobra. Also, mainenance costs are actually lower for me, I never took hull damage in it (even in 1.1) while I exploded multiple times in my Asp.
Last edited:
Would like to see a video of a Python fighting an Anaconda and one with a Viper fighting an Anaconda. I bet the Python gets the job done faster.
Oh Jiminy Crickets not this again.
It's Space Fitan, not Chess. There is no parity and predictability that always applies, that's just silly. This whole Rock/Paper/Scissors/Spock mentality is far too limited for the scope and direction of this game.
The combat zone in this game is not a clearly delineated arena with a strict set of fair and honourable rules. There's always going to be Han Solo moments where a pilot can do something crazy and pull a victory out of his rear thruster assembly, or be a TIE pilot and face-smoke an asteroid. Combine them even, and be the A-Wing on the bridge of the Executor.
Faaaaar too many variables in control schemes, playstyle, talent, situation, weapon loadouts and ships to have any credibility to these ridiculous theorycrafting absolutist statements.
It's Space Fitan, not Chess. There is no parity and predictability that always applies, that's just silly. This whole Rock/Paper/Scissors/Spock mentality is far too limited for the scope and direction of this game.
The combat zone in this game is not a clearly delineated arena with a strict set of fair and honourable rules. There's always going to be Han Solo moments where a pilot can do something crazy and pull a victory out of his rear thruster assembly, or be a TIE pilot and face-smoke an asteroid. Combine them even, and be the A-Wing on the bridge of the Executor.
Faaaaar too many variables in control schemes, playstyle, talent, situation, weapon loadouts and ships to have any credibility to these ridiculous theorycrafting absolutist statements.
You know what'd be really cool? Like, really super cool?
If every ship had a purpose and reason for existing?
Like maybe the super large ships could be big, slow weapons platforms that could be taken out by a suitably small ship? You know, so that ships weren't a linear progression but rather a matter of preference?
If every ship had a purpose and reason for existing?
Like maybe the super large ships could be big, slow weapons platforms that could be taken out by a suitably small ship? You know, so that ships weren't a linear progression but rather a matter of preference?
I have flown neither. But this, IMO, is how it should be.
I can say that NPC Pythons are far more dangerous than NPC Vipers. Again, this is how it should be.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Yeah. Frigate vs. Cruiser would be a more accurate comparison.
Last edited:
Apparently many players seem to have missed a core point of ED when they bought the game. It's a sandbox. The point isn't to "get the biggest ship and win". Every time I see someone cry, "what am I supposed to do now?" it makes me laugh. If your only goal in ED is to grind to anaconda then just sell the game now. The "my ship is bigger/costs more so it should be better/Iwinbutton" mentality is what will drive this game into the ground. The game should be based around SKILL not credits (especially since I know most of the python/conda pilots glitched, or A --> B traded before they fixed trading), and one part of the skill I am talking about is the intelligence to do proper research about the ship you intend to buy for whatever purpose. Want a great fighter? Buy a dedicated fighter. Want to trade/explore/mine and still be able to defend yourself? Buy a multi-role ship. Bigger should not equal better in terms of combat or what's the point of roles?
I'm sure many of the players saying that the python nerf means they can't win 1v1 against a viper aren't even half the pilot they think. If you are so good than you should be able to compensate for the lower maneuverability of your ship. It's defensive and offensive power vastly outweigh the viper and with proper skill and shot placement the viper pilot should turn tail and run from you. (apart from one with skill that outclasses yours)
I bet many of the players crying about the nerfs never bothered to do any proper research about the game before they bought it (watched a 3 min trailer followed by impulse buy)
If you want a "bigger ship = better" mentality then this game is not for you.
FD has a planned direction they intend to take this game in, and we are just along for the ride.(Their words not mine) Now just because you paid 60$ for a game does no entitle you to cry on the forum that this game needs to be what you expected upon purchase (unless you were a kickstart backer, not going to get into that). I did much research and watched numerous videos before buying the game, and nowhere did I see "THE BIGGER YOUR SHIP THE BETTER YOU ARE!" so quit crying like that's how the game is supposed to be.
I'm sure many of the players saying that the python nerf means they can't win 1v1 against a viper aren't even half the pilot they think. If you are so good than you should be able to compensate for the lower maneuverability of your ship. It's defensive and offensive power vastly outweigh the viper and with proper skill and shot placement the viper pilot should turn tail and run from you. (apart from one with skill that outclasses yours)
I bet many of the players crying about the nerfs never bothered to do any proper research about the game before they bought it (watched a 3 min trailer followed by impulse buy)
If you want a "bigger ship = better" mentality then this game is not for you.
FD has a planned direction they intend to take this game in, and we are just along for the ride.(Their words not mine) Now just because you paid 60$ for a game does no entitle you to cry on the forum that this game needs to be what you expected upon purchase (unless you were a kickstart backer, not going to get into that). I did much research and watched numerous videos before buying the game, and nowhere did I see "THE BIGGER YOUR SHIP THE BETTER YOU ARE!" so quit crying like that's how the game is supposed to be.
Last edited:
Kind of curious, admittedly, as to how many people who are bemoaning the inability of the Python to, by their accounts, stand up to a Viper are still trying to treat the Python like a fighter craft. I mean, not just a combat vessel (which I believe the Python and Anaconda still do very well at, based on my admittedly limited experience,) but a fighter craft, pitting agility and speed against agility and speed. Generally, the strength of a Viper in the situation is at least trying not to get within range of the Python's guns, for a pretty simple reason... it doesn't take very long, under a Python's wrath, for a Viper to be reduced to so much floating space dust. A Viper is therefore very good at getting hit the least number of times, but there are ways to at least partially nullify this advantage against all but the most skilled, out-of-box, jaw-dropping-maneuver-pulling fighter pilots.
Anyway, my current strategy with my Anaconda against smaller ships like Eagles or Vipers (still being practiced and tested, and operating under the sub-optimal conditions of only having D-grade thrusters,) is to fly backwards. =D At a reverse thrust that falls within optimal maneuverability, allowing me to turn as quickly as possible while still generally moving away from my target. The reason for this simply is that I've noticed, in close-quarter 'turning battles,' half the time I can't bring weapons to bear because my lumbering ship flies past them before I can complete the turn, putting them from 'ahead of me and upwards' to 'behind me and upwards, damnit.' This way, I get enough space to bring weapons to bear. In the event of a smaller ship using 'hit and run tactics,' (boosting away, turning around, boosting back in,) when I'm pointed at them I crank it up to full reverse, maximizing the time, even if by a small amount, it will take them to catch up with me, and then reducing speed back to optimal maneuvering thrust once they've flown past.
My weapons loadout are four large fixed beam lasers, with the medium and smalls being gimballed multicannons. I generally keep four pips to Sys, and two pips to Wep, which is essentially the opposite power configuration compared to when I was a Viper pilot. The reasoning for it is pretty simple; increasing power to weapons, currently, is a bit pointless as I can only fire my beam lasers for so long without heat becoming a major issue anyway. (Although I might make an exception if a ship is facing away from me.) In the case of facing a Viper with hit and run tactics, I'll usually only get a few seconds before they boost past anyway, so sustained fire is fairly superfluous. Still, even if they're still in firing range after my laser capacitors are expended, I can have my multicannons take up the slack, with the bonus that often pilots will have wastefully deployed chaff during my barrage of fixed beam lasers and still be reloading it by the time I start tearing into them with the multicannons. Finally, the added power to shields ensures it takes them more attack runs to get past my own shields, offering me more opportunities to blow them out of the sky. ^^
Suffice to say, a Viper at this configuration will run circles around me and likely score three times as many hits as me. Which is fine. I don't need as many hits to win. >:3
Then of course there's the fact that (so far?) I seem to be mass disruption immune around most smaller ships, so if things do go completely wrong, I can generally jump to FSD in a flash. =D Not sure if that applies to Pythons, though.
Anyway, my current strategy with my Anaconda against smaller ships like Eagles or Vipers (still being practiced and tested, and operating under the sub-optimal conditions of only having D-grade thrusters,) is to fly backwards. =D At a reverse thrust that falls within optimal maneuverability, allowing me to turn as quickly as possible while still generally moving away from my target. The reason for this simply is that I've noticed, in close-quarter 'turning battles,' half the time I can't bring weapons to bear because my lumbering ship flies past them before I can complete the turn, putting them from 'ahead of me and upwards' to 'behind me and upwards, damnit.' This way, I get enough space to bring weapons to bear. In the event of a smaller ship using 'hit and run tactics,' (boosting away, turning around, boosting back in,) when I'm pointed at them I crank it up to full reverse, maximizing the time, even if by a small amount, it will take them to catch up with me, and then reducing speed back to optimal maneuvering thrust once they've flown past.
My weapons loadout are four large fixed beam lasers, with the medium and smalls being gimballed multicannons. I generally keep four pips to Sys, and two pips to Wep, which is essentially the opposite power configuration compared to when I was a Viper pilot. The reasoning for it is pretty simple; increasing power to weapons, currently, is a bit pointless as I can only fire my beam lasers for so long without heat becoming a major issue anyway. (Although I might make an exception if a ship is facing away from me.) In the case of facing a Viper with hit and run tactics, I'll usually only get a few seconds before they boost past anyway, so sustained fire is fairly superfluous. Still, even if they're still in firing range after my laser capacitors are expended, I can have my multicannons take up the slack, with the bonus that often pilots will have wastefully deployed chaff during my barrage of fixed beam lasers and still be reloading it by the time I start tearing into them with the multicannons. Finally, the added power to shields ensures it takes them more attack runs to get past my own shields, offering me more opportunities to blow them out of the sky. ^^
Suffice to say, a Viper at this configuration will run circles around me and likely score three times as many hits as me. Which is fine. I don't need as many hits to win. >:3
Then of course there's the fact that (so far?) I seem to be mass disruption immune around most smaller ships, so if things do go completely wrong, I can generally jump to FSD in a flash. =D Not sure if that applies to Pythons, though.
If an extremely expensive multi-role ship can't normally defeat a cheap fighter, than what is the point? Just buy a T7 or T9 instead. The Python should be a worse than a dedicated fighter of similar value, but not worse than every dedicated fighter regardless of cost.
These are poor analogies. A 747 is not a multi-purpose craft. It is much more like a T9 in this game, not a python. Ditto for a supertanker.
As I said above, it's very easy to kill an Anaconda in a Python. It is a little bit harder in a Viper and it is really hard in a T7. So for killing Anacondas the Python is definetly the best ship. Just for clarification: The Python is the best ship for killing the most expensive vessel in game.
Also as I said before, the Viper is not some cheap fighter:
The Python is described as slow and sturdy.
I can make these points over and over again.
EDIT:
Another bad real world analogy:
A simple soldier with a RPG can take out a tank.
Last edited:
There's a series of videos in the beta forum showing this. It doesn't take much to get a little distance on a Viper doing this, which forces it to come at you nose to nose. One hit and its shields are gone. Done close enough it gets no time to run. And don't anyone say - fixed cannons. They are great for close up but a reversing at speed ship can thruster out of the way easily.
I like the fact that there's no I Win ship. A Viper can beat a Python and a Python can beat a Viper. Depends on a lot of things especially the skill and intelligence of the pilots involved.
is 3 clicks not easy enough for you? Thats all it takes to shield strip a viper lol... the people on this thread make it seem like the python doesn't have weapons.