Ships' manoevrability, analysis of the specifications and actual manoeuvrability

[Aleksej]

After reading the Forum about the handling of different ships I found some issues that really disturb me. Mainly this is related to the serious discrepancies of actual ship pitch axis manoeuvrability, which is probably the most important manoeuvrability parameter in the game, with the ship specifications provided in the game. Here is the list of manoeuvrability axis provided in the game for all ships. The data was taken from http://edshipyard.com/. Thanks to taleden.

Sidewinder - 8
Eagle - 10
Hauler - 6
Adder - 8
Viper - 6
Cobra - 6
T6 - 3
Asp - 6
T7 - 2
Imperial Clipper - 2
Federal Dropship - 0
Orca - 2
Python - 6
T9 - 0
Anaconda - 2

The data for ship actual manoeuvrability that I have currently found is definitely incomplete so if everyone can provide the data for other ships or if the values are different you are welcome to post your corrections. I am grateful to Forger (Kornelius Briedis) for making a series of review videos for some of the ships.

Sidewinder - ~9s
The data is based on Beta 2.06 (note that D-rated modules during Beta 2.06 became later A-rated), which means that it was a maxed out Sidewinder used during pitch up test.

Hauler - ~12s
The data is based on Gamma 1.05. A-rated equipment installed.

Adder - ~9s
The data is based on a release version of the game. I could not find the outfitting screen for the Adder but taking into account the fast pitch up manoeuvrability I am going to assume that it is an A-rated Adder.

Asp Explorer - ~11s
The data is based on Beta 2.04. Note that Asp was almost the base module, so upgrading the thruster should decrease the time required for 360 degree pitch up manoeuver.

Imperial Clipper - <10s
The data is based on Beta 3.03. And this was on C6 thrusters.

Federal Dropship 10-11s
The data is based on Beta 3.00. B-rated thrusters.

Python - 11.5-12s
The data is based on 1.1. Before that it was about 10-10.5s with manoeuvrability 6 according to the in-game specifications. Although, the actual manoeuvrability was decreased in 1.1 the in-game specifications were not modified to reflect this change.

Anaconda - 12.5-13s
The data is probably based on 1.1. And this was on A6 thrusters. So probably with A7 thrusters the manoeuvrability should be better.

Conclusions.
- Quite a few ships have significant discrepancies between the stated and actual manoeuvrability.
- Probably the ship that is affected most by this issue is an Imperial Clipper, which according to the stats should be able to perform manoeuvers the same way as Anaconda, however, actually it has about the same manoeuvrability as a Sidewinder or an Adder that hold the second place in manoeuvrability according to the stats with agility of 8.
- Another ship that is too manoeuvrable according to the stats is a Dropship that performs the pitch up manoeuvre faster than a Python, however, according to the stats it has 0 manoeuvrability.
- In-game stats do not reflect the decrease in Python's manoeuvrability made in 1.1.
- Anaconda might still be slightly too manoeuvrable if it can perform pitch up manoeuver in less than 12s with A7 thrusters.

References:
ED shipyard (thanks to taleden):
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95716
http://edshipyard.com/

Ship reviews by Forger:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiA5S05bmX_8p-IDIxY_phXNBfXtFYTGa

P.S. If you find that some data is out-dated or incorrect, you are welcome to provide the corrected values and I will update the post.
P.S.2. If you have values for the ships that I have not mentioned in the actual manoeuvrability part of the post, you are welcome to provide this data and I will update the post.

 

[RipperJack]

good info, confirms exactly what i always thought of the clipper, that thing just turn't on a penny which while i loved it, felt so wrong for such a huge ship (luxery or not, im going by a full cargo load).

 

[Whiterose]

I have just bought a Clipper, and have noticed that while I have the entry grade E level thrusters, the yaw on it is amazing, its definitely not a level 2.

 

[Aleksej]

I think that the something should be done mostly with the manoeuvrability of the large ships taking into account thir hull mass, equipped mass, and installed thrusters as the difference in these parameters is more significant exactly for the large ships.

For instance:
Ship - Hull mass - Equipped mass/with cargo - Max Thrusters
T7 (trader config) - 420 - 505/753 - A5
Imperial Clipper (trader config) - 400 - 592/857 - A6
Imperial Clipper (combat config) - 400 - 783/831 - A6
Federal Drop ship (combat config) - 580 - 930/970 - A6
Python (trader config) - 350 - 620/936 - A6
Python (combat config) - 350 - 794/906 - A6
T9 (trader config) - 1000 - 1249/1812 - A7
Anaconda (trader config) - 400 - 960/1424 - A7
Anaconda (combat config) - 400 - 1221/1429 - A7

Thruster output:
A5 - Opt: 840 T; Max: 1260 T
A6 - Opt: 1440 T; Max: 2160 T
A7 - Opt: 2160 T; Max: 3240 T

Calculated optimal thrust per weight ratio:
T7 (trader config) - 1.66/1.12
Imperial Clipper (trader config) - 2.43/1.68
Imperial Clipper (combat config) - 1.84/1.73
Federal Drop ship (combat config) - 1.55/1.18
Python (trader config) - 2.32/1.54
Python (combat config) - 1.81/1.59
T9 (trader config) - 1.73/1.19
Anaconda (trader config) - 2.25/1.52
Anaconda (combat config) - 1.77/1.51

On a side note.
Firstly, probably the large mass of the Federal Dropship hull can be explained by its better armour protection, however, while engaging them in conflict zones (the ships are equipped for combat there, and hence are much difficult to destroy) - I do not feel their better protection.
Secondly, the light hull mass of Anaconda seem quite misterious to me as it is one of the largest ships in the game and indicuces the larger mass lock with a factor of 24, whereas a much heavier T9 only mass locks with a factor of 18.

 

[Loskene]

On a side note.
Firstly, probably the large mass of the Federal Dropship hull can be explained by its better armour protection, however, while engaging them in conflict zones (the ships are equipped for combat there, and hence are much difficult to destroy) - I do not feel their better protection.
Secondly, the light hull mass of Anaconda seem quite misterious to me as it is one of the largest ships in the game and indicuces the larger mass lock with a factor of 24, whereas a much heavier T9 only mass locks with a factor of 18.

This seems to be because all of the ship values are filled out in a config file instead of being extrapolated by the game to what their actual figures should be, based on hull mass and component efficiency. Until they change this and make the ship performance actually fully dependant on the ship's statistics we're going to get nothing but weird edge cases like that, mostly involving the config file numbers being set wrong to begin with.

 

[Aleksej]

This seems to be because all of the ship values are filled out in a config file instead of being extrapolated by the game to what their actual figures should be, based on hull mass and component efficiency. Until they change this and make the ship performance actually fully dependant on the ship's statistics we're going to get nothing but weird edge cases like that, mostly involving the config file numbers being set wrong to begin with.

That's why I think it is important to raise this issue so that this could be fixed.

 

[Khan]

That's why I think it is important to raise this issue so that this could be fixed.

That would involve a total overhaul of how ship statistics are handled, since everything is set by a config file as it is instead of the game extrapolating the modules in the ship to determine performance.

In other words, its never going to happen. Frontier loves to wave the magic stick around when it comes to setting ship stats.

Unless its just for mass lock mechanics. In that case it would still be a situation where the game seeks out the largest value in range and compares it to your own. It would only skirt around the issue and move the goal post over to another ship that will suffer from the problem.

Finally, please don't suggest to nerf the Conda. Shes a very weak ship outside of defence as it is, and I really don't what the idea catching fire and having it turn into a python scenario. Even if it is a "slight" adjustment, it would end up turning to a 30% decrease or something ridiculous like that.

She poorly benefits from the A7 thrusters as it is.

 

[Devil's Refugee]

This seems to be because all of the ship values are filled out in a config file instead of being extrapolated by the game to what their actual figures should be, based on hull mass and component efficiency. Until they change this and make the ship performance actually fully dependant on the ship's statistics we're going to get nothing but weird edge cases like that, mostly involving the config file numbers being set wrong to begin with.

Exposes a huge flaw in the client-server implementation of this game. Frontier cannot ignore this, no matter if an overhaul would be required. Props to the OP for doing the analysis.

 

[Aleksej]

That would involve a total overhaul of how ship statistics are handled, since everything is set by a config file as it is instead of the game extrapolating the modules in the ship to determine performance.

In other words, its never going to happen. Frontier loves to wave the magic stick around when it comes to setting ship stats.

Unless its just for mass lock mechanics. In that case it would still be a situation where the game seeks out the largest value in range and compares it to your own. It would only skirt around the issue and move the goal post over to another ship that will suffer from the problem.

Finally, please don't suggest to nerf the Conda. Shes a very weak ship outside of defence as it is, and I really don't what the idea catching fire and having it turn into a python scenario. Even it is a "slight" adjustment, it would end up turning to a 30% decrease or something ridiculous like that.

I do not mean that it should be fixed by complete overhaul. It is possible to modify ships performance by editing certain values in absolutely the same way it was done with a Python in 1.1. On the other hand ideally everything should be done the right way. Yes, it may require a lot of time but as the development is continuing I think that at some time it might be possible.

So you are fine with an Imperial Clipper requiring the same time to pitch up as a Sidewinder and at the same time having stated agility of 2? Is it fine that a Dropship with agility 0 outmanoeuvres a Python? If the ship should be tweaked such modifications should be applied. Another option is to update the stats to reflect the ship performance.

Python pitch up manoeuvrability was decreased by about 15%.

Moreover, 1.1 patch notes clearly state:

Also a minor improvement to it's pitch to keep it well above the Anaconda.

I do not feel "well above". The manoeuvrability is very close, but sure Python is slightly more manoeuvrable. In addition if the time required for Anaconda's 360 degree pitch up is decreased by 1s, this is going to be 8% decrease only.

 

[jgm]

Here is the list of manoeuvrability axis provided in the game for all ships. The data was taken from http://edshipyard.com/

Is that data official? Given FD's lack of interest in publishing specs I suspect that these came from some random unconfirmed source and have no relationship on reality.

If someone wants to sit with some ships and do a simple three-axis rotation test for all the ships with the same grade thrusters and same thrust it might give a better basis for comparison.

 

[Khan]

I do not mean that it should be fixed by complete overhaul. It is possible to modify ships performance by editing certain values in absolutely the same way it was done with a Python in 1.1.

So you are fine with an Imperial Clipper requiring the same time to pitch up as a Sidewinder and at the same time having stated agility of 2? Is it fine that a Dropship with agility 0 outmanoeuvres a Python? If the ship should be tweaked such modifications should be applied. Another option is to update the stats to reflect the ship performance.

Heavens no. I have issue with the fact that the outfitting screen is more often than not totally incorrect regarding stats(See the drop ship) and that by and large everything is done by config edit for "base" stats that by and large have nothing to do with what class of module powers the ship, instead of logical progression determining statistics by module alone instead of the "base" currently in use.

As for the Clipper, isn't it hard countered enough by chaff as it is? I feel that any real change to its model would not accomplish much of anything outside of satisfying stat comparisons. Aye it pitches really fast for its size, but it poorly benefits from it. Not to mention the community backlash to nerfing yet another ship.

Sure you could nerf it to be more inline with its size, but again, it really wouldn't change much.

The easy way out of this would be to simply update the stats on the outfitting screen, Less work, less backlash, and faster implementation time.

I do not feel "well above". The manoeuvrability is very close, but sure Python is slightly more manoeuvrable. In addition if the time required for Anaconda's 360 degree pitch up is decreased by 1s, this is going to be 8% decrease only.

This...I am unsure of.
Really it would only affect the ship when docking and doing quick turns, but a second longer would not change much. Frontier would have to go farther with the change in order for people to "feel" the effect. Again, such an effect that only affects general flight instead of serious combat.

If Frontier where to go overboard with the changes (Of which I have no reason to believe that they will not) Then the effects of hitting the Conda would only be reinforcing the reversing tactic that I covered in my analysis of large ships.

 

[Aleksej]

Is that data official? Given FD's lack of interest in publishing specs I suspect that these came from some random unconfirmed source and have no relationship on reality.

If someone wants to sit with some ships and do a simple three-axis rotation test for all the ships with the same grade thrusters and same thrust it might give a better basis for comparison.

The data is a reported by players. There might be minor errors with prices, however, mostly the data is valid. Especially, if we are talking about the mass of the equipment. Moreover, power consumption data is pretty accurate as well. In addition, it is used by most of the players to estimate the ship costs. And of course, you can find more details here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=92900

As for the manoeuvrability data I have provided a link to the corresponding ship reviews made by the same person and this is of course mentioned in my first posts and all the references and acknowledgements are provided within that post.

Heavens no. I have issue with the fact that the outfitting screen is more often than not totally incorrect regarding stats(See the drop ship) and that by and large everything is done by config edit for "base" stats that by and large have nothing to do with what class of module powers the ship, instead of logical progression determining statistics by module alone instead of the "base" currently in use.

As for the Clipper, isn't it hard countered enough by chaff as it is? I feel that any real change to its model would not accomplish much of anything outside of satisfying stat comparisons. Aye it pitches really fast for its size, but it poorly benefits from it. Not to mention the community backlash to it.

Sure you could nerf it to be more inline with its size, but again, it really wouldn't change much.

The easy way out of this would be to simply update the stats on the outfitting screen, Less work, less backlash, and faster implementation time.




This...I am unsure of.
Really it would only affect the ship when docking and doing quick turns, but a second longer would not change much. Frontier would have to go farther with the change in order for people to "feel" the effect. Again, such an effect that only affects general flight instead of serious combat.

If Frontier where to go overboard with the changes (Of which I have no reason to believe that they will not) Then the effects of hitting the Conda would only be reinforcing the reversing tactic that I covered in my analysis of large ships.

It really depends on what the devs meant by those stats. If these were meant to show actual performance of the ships the way devs see those ships then it is the ship actual manoeuvrability that should be modified.

I agree that theoretically it might not change might. On the other hand when choosing a ship I want to see its stats in the outfitting being reflected by actual ship performance. Otherwise, it is buying a cat in a bag.

The simplest solution is not always the best. Moreover, as I have already stated if it was not planned for the Clipper to be as manoeuvrable as Sidewinder than it should not be that manoeuvrable. As for the Dropship - it is very heavy, probably due to its armour protection and this should affect manoeuvrability. On the other hand it armour protection might be also tweaked as IMO it is too weak now.

Python's Beta 1.1 - 1.1 rebalancing have proved that 1s difference can be felt. Sure it is minor but I can't say that it went unnoticed.

 

[Khan]

It really depends on what the devs meant by those stats. If these were meant to show actual performance of the ships the way devs see those ships then it is the ship actual manoeuvrability that should be modified.

I agree that theoretically it might not change might. On the other hand when choosing a ship I want to see its stats in the outfitting being reflected by actual ship performance. Otherwise, it is buying a cat in a bag.

The simplest solution is not always the best. Moreover, as I have already stated if it was not planned for the Clipper to be as manoeuvrable as Sidewinder than it should not be that manoeuvrable.

The Clipper is a odd ship currently, with great maneuvering and top speed but poor weapons capability due to its hard points. Even though it can turn like a Sidewinder, It really can't do much of anything with that ability, unlike the Python that could dominate anything else in the game.

I'm more coming from a goodwill standpoint. I favor changing the shipyard stats rather than ship performance to reflect what's currently available. There was a ton of controversy regarding the Python, the kind of stuff that if I was a company would rather attempt to avoid personally. Changing the displayed stats to be more in line with current performance would net goodwill with the community.

Since this would be such a small change that would not change much of anything, Frontier would have two approaches to implementing the change if they made this hypothetical a reality:

Going public with it, and face backlash for nerfing more ships,
Or silently nerf the ships, and face backlash for not being transparent enough when/if it gets found out.

Either way, tons of backlash for something that really does not need addressing at the moment. The Sidewinder is kind of a useless ship in combat like the Clipper, with too many hard counters to make it viable.

This is currently fine balance wise, not so much "Vision" wise however.

Edit: Keep in mind, tweaking the Clipper pitch is not something I oppose, I am simply questioning whether not it would be worth changing.

Since I am not Frontier, I cannot comment on what the Vision is supposed to be, only how it currently plays out.

As for the Dropship - it is very heavy, probably due to its armour protection and this should affect manoeuvrability. On the other hand it armour protection might be also tweaked as IMO it is too weak now.

Aye the Dropship is really weak at the moment. It has good hardpoint placement, really poor shields, good armor protection currently, and can jump away from anything thats not also a Dropship or an Anaconda. It needs a buff of some kind, however I would not be the one to suggest such changes, since the lines of balance for that ship are extremely murky from a player perspective.

Python's Beta 1.1 - 1.1 rebalancing have proved that 1s difference can be felt. Sure it is minor but I can't say that it went unnoticed.

Didn't they in that situation buff the speed and slightly buffed the pitch? I would imagine that ended up with the ship "slightly" feeling better more so to the speed buff then pitch.

 

[Aleksej]

The Clipper is a odd ship currently, with great maneuvering and top speed but poor weapons capability due to its hard points. Even though it can turn like a Sidewinder, It really can't do much of anything with that ability, unlike the Python that could dominate anything else in the game.

I'm more coming from a goodwill standpoint. I favor changing the shipyard stats rather than ship performance to reflect what's currently available. There was a ton of controversy regarding the Python, the kind of stuff that if I was a company would rather attempt to avoid personally. Changing the displayed stats to be more in line with current performance would net goodwill with the community.

Since this would be such a small change that would not change much of anything, Frontier would have two approaches to implementing the change if they made this hypothetical a reality:

Going public with it, and face backlash for nerfing more ships,
Or silently nerf the ships, and face backlash for not being transparent enough when/if it gets found out.

Either way, tons of backlash for something that really does not need addressing at the moment. The Sidewinder is kind of a useless ship in combat like the Clipper, with too many hard counters to make it viable.

This is currently fine balance wise, not so much "Vision" wise however.

Edit: Keep in mind, tweaking the Clipper pitch is not something I oppose, I am simply questioning whether not it would be worth changing.

Since I am not Frontier, I cannot comment on what the Vision is supposed to be, only how it currently plays out.



Aye the Dropship is really weak at the moment. It has good hardpoint placement, really poor shields, good armor protection currently, and can jump away from anything thats not also a Dropship or an Anaconda. It needs a buff of some kind, however I would not be the one to suggest such changes, since the lines of balance for that ship are extremely murky from a player perspective.


Didn't they in that situation buff the speed and slightly buffed the pitch? I would imagine that ended up with the ship "slightly" feeling better more so to the speed buff then pitch.

While modifying the shipyard stats is the easiest, I would say that it is a workaround to avoid the real issue. Take into account that it was only the Python that has undergone the serious re-balancing, whereas Imperial Clipper and Dropship as far as I can tell it are unchanged since they were released. So if we are up to systematic improvement of the gameplay then these are the actual ship parameters that should be changed and not the stats at the shipyard to reflect the current ship performance.

Note while there were a lot of demand to rebalance the Python as soon as it was introduced I've not heard anything not about the Dropship nor Imperial Clipper.

They have increased both the velocities and the manoeuvrability of the Python from Beta 1.1 to 1.1. It is hard to tell what effect have the higher velocities on the manoeuvrability, may be this can even have a little negative effect.

P.S. I am posting my opinion here as a player to raise some concerns that I have. I have compiled the data that I was able to get and I have made some suggestions. I think that it is worth a discussion as I really want to help improving the game as much as I can.

 

[Khan]

While modifying the shipyard stats is the easiest, I would say that it is a workaround to avoid the real issue. Take into account that it was only the Python that has undergone the serious re-balancing, whereas Imperial Clipper and Dropship as far as I can tell it are unchanged since they were released. So if we are up to systematic improvement of the gameplay then these are the actual ship parameters that should be changed and not the stats at the shipyard to reflect the current ship performance.

Note while there were a lot of demand to rebalance the Python as soon as it was introduced I've not heard anything not about the Dropship nor Imperial Clipper.

They have increased both the velocities and the manoeuvrability of the Python from Beta 1.1 to 1.1. It is hard to tell what effect have the higher velocities on the manoeuvrability, may be this can even have a little negative effect.

P.S. I am posting my opinion here as a player to raise some concerns that I have. I have compiled the data that I was able to get and I have made some suggestions. I think that it is worth a discussion as I really want to help improving the game as much as I can.

Ah, in that case I misunderstood you, thinking you wanted to bring current performance inline with what the shipyard currently displays.

Since not many people have used the dropship or clipper outside of trade, this may be why few people talk about it.

Other then that, I lack much else to say on the matter that I did not already bring up.

 

[Kubicide]

To the OP: do you have enough (or any) facts on what the game maneuverability stats actually mean? It's one number that is likely some sort of figure of merit for a number of variables.

For the Dropship I can certainly confirm that it does not change course in pitch faster than the Python. It does pitch it's nose around fast and maybe faster. But the ship vector and course itself will continue and take a long time to move and is much much slower than the Python. This would be comparing both in the current release build.

Suspect mass and possibly thrusters locations (to affect roll rates maybe) could be factors here. So a ship with "0" may pitch, roll or yaw quicker than a ship with "4" for example. But in motion it may be very slow due to the other variables.

I don't think the conclusions, this topic or comparison of ratings are valid unless more facts/stats are provided by the devs to explain the maneuverability rating.

 

[Aleksej]

To the OP: do you have enough (or any) facts on what the game maneuverability stats actually mean? It's one number that is likely some sort of figure of merit for a number of variables.

For the Dropship I can certainly confirm that it does not change course in pitch faster than the Python. It does pitch it's nose around fast and maybe faster. But the ship vector and course itself will continue and take a long time to move and is much much slower than the Python. This would be comparing both in the current release build.

Suspect mass and possibly thrusters locations (to affect roll rates maybe) could be factors here. So a ship with "0" may pitch, roll or yaw quicker than a ship with "4" for example. But in motion it may be very slow due to the other variables.

I don't think this topic or comparison is valid unless more facts/stats are provided by the devs to explain the maneuverability rating.

There are no other threads discussing the ship performance as of now. My opinion is based on the videos and all the links were provided to you can check them on your own. It is clearly seen that the ships have performed a 360 pitch up degree manoeuver within the time that I have mentioned at constant velocity. Moreover, it is time the time required to perform the 360 degree turn that I am considering here and given that the tests were performed within the same conditions I think my estimates are correct.

 

[Kubicide]

There are no other threads discussing the ship performance as of now. My opinion is based on the videos and all the links were provided to you can check them on your own. It is clearly seen that the ships have performed a 360 pitch up degree manoeuver within the time that I have mentioned at constant velocity. Moreover, it is time the time required to perform the 360 degree turn that I am considering here and given that the tests were performed within the same conditions I think my estimates are correct.

I understand. Point here is that the maneuverability number really can't be considered "right or wrong" when comparing one axis of motion. It's true that the pitch is faster on the "0" rated Dropship compared to some ships with a higher rating. And I find it a unique attribute to use when fighting. But it doesn't imply that the maneuverability numbers are wrong; they feel right as the Dropship itself is very slow to change course same as a T9 which also has a "0" rating.

Note the pitch in the T9 is very slow yet both these ships appear to change course at about the same rate - Dropship advantage here again is that it can point it's guns around while drifting along as the course vector changes. Seems like a logical implementation for the MIL ship to have the ability to turn better than the T9 for battling (but not to change course).

Until the devs release more specs all anyone can do is observe and guess!

 

[Aleksej]

I understand. Point here is that the maneuverability number really can't be considered "right or wrong" when comparing one axis of motion. It's true that the pitch is faster on the "0" rated Dropship compared to some ships with a higher rating. And I find it a unique attribute to use when fighting. But it doesn't imply that the maneuverability numbers are wrong; they feel right as the Dropship itself is very slow to change course same as a T9 which also has a "0" rating.

Note the pitch in the T9 is very slow yet both these ships appear to change course at about the same rate - Dropship advantage here again is that it can point it's guns around while drifting along as the course vector changes. Seems like a logical implementation for the MIL ship to have the ability to turn better than the T9 for battling (but not to change course).

Until the devs release more specs all anyone can do is observe and guess!

I've fought numerous Dropships in the conflict zone on my Python and the Dropship has much better manoeuvrability according to my experience. And by that I mean exactly pitching capabilities.

 

[Aircool]

I'm pretty sure that there's more to test than just pitch speed, my pimped Viper feels superior to my pimped Eagle when it comes to lateral thrust; I can handbrake turn my Viper into a docking port from the backside of a station. However, there's all this optimal mass business that needs factoring as well.