Potential Problem
When one creates a game of this nature, one can design player vehicles in many ways. One can design it so there are several ships but each is progressively better than the next. Or one can design them such that all ships are just shells, and it's the internal and external customization that makes each ship unique. Or (arguably the best way) one can do a mix of both. The first method results in a system such that — eventually — pretty much once everyone has enough money they will be flying the same set of ships (the "best" of each category: combat, explorer, trading, etc.). Frontier clearly wants to avoid this scenario so they've customization of each ship via internals and externals, which is what the second method is all about.
The problem is that it's not enough. Ship diversity is not that great right now and I see no reason why it won't get worse over time, esp. when 60% of players say they would prefer to only have the best ship in each category (another 10% would just stick to one ship) and currently there is one ship that is the basically the best in everything. I've been looking at traffic reports at peak times for variou CG's and you can see that more than half of ships available to players are used by less than 5% of players. There are countless threads on this forum about xyz ship being underpowered/overpowered... all these issues are solved by the same set of solutions (we'll get to that later).
I understand the need for a range in general power/ability between ships (no way an Eagle should be able to compete with an Anaconda), and I hope that continues. However, at this point there is basically one ship that is the best at everything and that everyone is going for. Sure, the T9 is a better trader in solo but once those people have all the money they need they will switch to that one ship. Are we building a game that will be filled with Anaconda's, Federal Corvettes, and Panthers three years from now? It's clear that with shield boosters and cells, pretty much everyone will just go for the ships that have the most slots for those.
Some people might be skeptical. I've seen them referred to as "fanboys" in a few posts, which is amusingly appropriate from a psychological perspective. They revere their godly developers — "No!" they exclaim. "The developers would never make any bad decisions. This game is perfect!"
Unfortunately, it is not. The developers and designers compose an incredibly small team with little resources and design experience to work with compared to the teams at other companies. This game has so much potential, but poorly executed decisions from a single point of contact could easily determine whether this ship rises or sinks (so to speak) in the long run. The developers say they are building this game with input from the community, but I have not seen a single player poll in my inbox. As far as I can tell, outside of a few small decisions this game is being made in the vision of one or two people, which may or may not bode well for the playerbase at large.
Potential Solution
The good news is that Frontier seems to be aware of this lack of diversity to some extent. Next patch turrets are going to be more easily outrun by small ships, giving them more of a role in combat. This is the first way I think you could greatly increase ship diversity: important roles.
Important Roles
More importance ought to be placed on different roles in the game. The most obvious example is combat: a mixed fleet should be tactically better than a fleet of all anaconda's. Ships of each class type should have weaknesses and strengths. There should be a role for agile strike fighters. There should be a role for bombers. There should be a role for frigates, cruisers, destroyers, etc. People naturally have different preferences with what type of ship they want to fly (as seen in people's preferences in what car they want to drive); exploit this by making each role equally viable in their own way.
Internals and Hardpoints Need a bigger impact
How "good" a ship is should be less impacted by base stats and more dependant on how it is equipped. In real life I could put enough money into a Honda Civic to make it faster than my M3 if I was so inclined. Size is obviously a real factor — it wouldn't make sense to be able to equip an eagle with 5 size 8 internal cargo racks or class 8 power plant. But at the end game it would be ideal if there were several ships of each class (bomber, frigate, strike fighter, long range trader, short range hauler, explorer, etc. etc. etc.) which were more or less equal in terms of how they could be equipped. Don't get me wrong, differences are important and should exist — they add flavour — but too many differences and people just go for the "best". Right now the differences do more than just add a little flavour — they change the whole meal.
Potential Purpose
The purpose of this thread is thus three-fold. The first is to generate discussion, ideas, and potential solutions.
The second is for you to prove me wrong. I really enjoy this game so far, it has a lot of potential, and i want nothing more than for it to succeed. If you disagree with me, prove to me that this won't be a problem, that diversity is not needed or that it won't get that bad in time the way ships are being designed now. If you present reasonable arguments, I would drop my case in a heartbeat. I want to be wrong.
The last reason is to hopefully make the devs aware of what I see to be a growing issue. I'm sure they are aware of it on some level, but it doesn't seem to register as a big deal to them the way they are designing ships in upcoming patches (e.g., the courier and diamondback look to be just another ship on the way to an Anaconda...). I don't want to log in a few years from now and see 50% of players in the same 1 or 2 huge ships clogging station entrances and fighting over Large landing pads. Diversity makes the game feel more real!
On a lighter note, here is a spinning python gif I made for you: non-distracting link
Cheers,
stoicfury
When one creates a game of this nature, one can design player vehicles in many ways. One can design it so there are several ships but each is progressively better than the next. Or one can design them such that all ships are just shells, and it's the internal and external customization that makes each ship unique. Or (arguably the best way) one can do a mix of both. The first method results in a system such that — eventually — pretty much once everyone has enough money they will be flying the same set of ships (the "best" of each category: combat, explorer, trading, etc.). Frontier clearly wants to avoid this scenario so they've customization of each ship via internals and externals, which is what the second method is all about.
The problem is that it's not enough. Ship diversity is not that great right now and I see no reason why it won't get worse over time, esp. when 60% of players say they would prefer to only have the best ship in each category (another 10% would just stick to one ship) and currently there is one ship that is the basically the best in everything. I've been looking at traffic reports at peak times for variou CG's and you can see that more than half of ships available to players are used by less than 5% of players. There are countless threads on this forum about xyz ship being underpowered/overpowered... all these issues are solved by the same set of solutions (we'll get to that later).
I understand the need for a range in general power/ability between ships (no way an Eagle should be able to compete with an Anaconda), and I hope that continues. However, at this point there is basically one ship that is the best at everything and that everyone is going for. Sure, the T9 is a better trader in solo but once those people have all the money they need they will switch to that one ship. Are we building a game that will be filled with Anaconda's, Federal Corvettes, and Panthers three years from now? It's clear that with shield boosters and cells, pretty much everyone will just go for the ships that have the most slots for those.
Some people might be skeptical. I've seen them referred to as "fanboys" in a few posts, which is amusingly appropriate from a psychological perspective. They revere their godly developers — "No!" they exclaim. "The developers would never make any bad decisions. This game is perfect!"
Unfortunately, it is not. The developers and designers compose an incredibly small team with little resources and design experience to work with compared to the teams at other companies. This game has so much potential, but poorly executed decisions from a single point of contact could easily determine whether this ship rises or sinks (so to speak) in the long run. The developers say they are building this game with input from the community, but I have not seen a single player poll in my inbox. As far as I can tell, outside of a few small decisions this game is being made in the vision of one or two people, which may or may not bode well for the playerbase at large.
Potential Solution
The good news is that Frontier seems to be aware of this lack of diversity to some extent. Next patch turrets are going to be more easily outrun by small ships, giving them more of a role in combat. This is the first way I think you could greatly increase ship diversity: important roles.
Important Roles
More importance ought to be placed on different roles in the game. The most obvious example is combat: a mixed fleet should be tactically better than a fleet of all anaconda's. Ships of each class type should have weaknesses and strengths. There should be a role for agile strike fighters. There should be a role for bombers. There should be a role for frigates, cruisers, destroyers, etc. People naturally have different preferences with what type of ship they want to fly (as seen in people's preferences in what car they want to drive); exploit this by making each role equally viable in their own way.
Internals and Hardpoints Need a bigger impact
How "good" a ship is should be less impacted by base stats and more dependant on how it is equipped. In real life I could put enough money into a Honda Civic to make it faster than my M3 if I was so inclined. Size is obviously a real factor — it wouldn't make sense to be able to equip an eagle with 5 size 8 internal cargo racks or class 8 power plant. But at the end game it would be ideal if there were several ships of each class (bomber, frigate, strike fighter, long range trader, short range hauler, explorer, etc. etc. etc.) which were more or less equal in terms of how they could be equipped. Don't get me wrong, differences are important and should exist — they add flavour — but too many differences and people just go for the "best". Right now the differences do more than just add a little flavour — they change the whole meal.
Potential Purpose
The purpose of this thread is thus three-fold. The first is to generate discussion, ideas, and potential solutions.
The second is for you to prove me wrong. I really enjoy this game so far, it has a lot of potential, and i want nothing more than for it to succeed. If you disagree with me, prove to me that this won't be a problem, that diversity is not needed or that it won't get that bad in time the way ships are being designed now. If you present reasonable arguments, I would drop my case in a heartbeat. I want to be wrong.
The last reason is to hopefully make the devs aware of what I see to be a growing issue. I'm sure they are aware of it on some level, but it doesn't seem to register as a big deal to them the way they are designing ships in upcoming patches (e.g., the courier and diamondback look to be just another ship on the way to an Anaconda...). I don't want to log in a few years from now and see 50% of players in the same 1 or 2 huge ships clogging station entrances and fighting over Large landing pads. Diversity makes the game feel more real!
On a lighter note, here is a spinning python gif I made for you: non-distracting link
Cheers,
stoicfury
Last edited:
