Ships The Cutter really takes the wind out of my sails
- Thread starter Troa Barton
- Start date
Thing is they can't buff turrets. At least not as much is needed on ships like the Cutter. Due to their sheer size the struggle to bring them to bear (often averaging about half). Even in situations where gimbaled weapons could be brought to bear. Never mind the issue of kentic turrets having effectively less ammo (due to less DPShot), kentics also waste precious ammo on atrocious sway/chaff. So to compensate for large ship size blocking turret LoS, they would need to be better than gimbaled (In either DPE/max ammo, DPS, or some combination of the two). However they would just become super weapons in smaller ships. Now one commander (I forgot the name, my apologies) suggested linking turret effectiveness (accuracy) to sensor class/rank, and (presumably) rebalancing some ships like the FD/GS to be able to equip better sensors. And that's a good Band-Aid solution for now, but there is still one major underlying issue: All ships use the same items. As long as that is the case, dogfighting is the name of the game. And the most important thing in a dogfight will always be agility (maneuverability + speed).
Last edited:
But we needed more side grades to starter ships! If not people may stop using the Vulture/Clipper/FAS/FDL/Pthyon/Conda. Think about it. More than 6 common "endgame" combat/multirole ships? Are you mad?!
Last edited:
Oh, they could... in fact turrets were almost good enough, before they got nerfed. Damage was the same as now, but they were immune to chaff and had faster tracking. I have successfully used them even in some PvP duels. Just a slight buff would have made them useful but instead they were nerfed to uselessness, like missiles.
I have never seen anyone complain about turrets being overpowered... in fact I've seen a lot of people complain about them being to weak. Really no idea, why FD decied to make them even worse instead of improving them
Last edited:
Using gimbaled pulse vs turreted pulse as an example a fully turreted Cutter would do ~40DPS. A twin gimbaled pulse vulture would do ~36DPS. Beams are a bit better, but they generate so much heat you can forget about boosting. Not to mention ~30% less DPE.Oh, they could... in fact turrets were almost good enough, before they got nerfed. Damage was the same as now, but they were immune to chaff and had faster tracking. I have successfully used them even in some PvP duels. Just a slight buff would have made them useful but instead they were nerfed to uselessness, like missiles.
I have never seen anyone complain about turrets being overpowered... in fact I've seen a lot of people complain about them being to weak. Really no idea, why FD decied to make them even worse instead of improving them
.
I got my first Conda after months of playing (I only did BHing, and only made ~ 400-600k/hr, and exploration but that didn't pay in credits). I wanted to be a tank type ship. A big, slow support ship with good DPS (not great) and trash SS sniping ability. So I used turrets. Now back then the only damage number I had said they were ~ 20% weaker than gimbaled. I gave them an honest go. I really did. But honestly all it did was hurt me. I couldn't avoid fire like the smaller ships, shields still recharged at 1mj/s, and now the targets live longer to damage me more. Then they made turrets weak to chaff and less accurate (though you did have to break lock a lot back then to keep accuracy). I kinda get why they nerfed them (Though weak, a beam turret still melts small ships like an eagle) so I can kinda see how PvPers as well as PvEers could get annoyed, but they were garbage long before that mostly redundant nerf.
.
Shortly after they fixed the going into super cruise bug to instantly regenerate your shields. I thought "Awesome, now with turrets being nerfed surely people will finally care and they will get a buff, and that idiotic 1mj/s thing can be addressed!"
But people just chugged SCBs and used more agile ships. So
me I guess. .
But then PvPers started to complain about SCB spamming more and more, and the Cutter came out. So not all bad, at least people are talking about it more now.
.
Anyway that got away from me. Kinda tired. So to give you a tl;dr: Even if they made turrets work vs chaff and had better tracking they would still be garbage, and it would truly render small ships obsolete.
Last edited:
The Cutter kicked the Type 9 in the gut, stole it's lunch money, and ganked it's flight model too.
The Corvette, while it's probably very lovely in combat, wont ever see any combat because the fight will be over by the time it's finished making all of those little 10LY jumps.
Falcon Delacy decided to force feed a Cobra and a Viper some pure lard with cake and pie, and thus the mkIV versions of both ships were born fat and useless.
The Type 6 watched too many action movies and decided that strapping some guns and huge engines onto itself was a good idea. It was not. Oh yeah and something something ASP.
I am not happy at all with the design decisions of these ships, though I will still buy a Cutter cuz I'm tired of that Tycoon rank looking at me funny.
Military warship? Yeah, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...
The Corvette, while it's probably very lovely in combat, wont ever see any combat because the fight will be over by the time it's finished making all of those little 10LY jumps.
Falcon Delacy decided to force feed a Cobra and a Viper some pure lard with cake and pie, and thus the mkIV versions of both ships were born fat and useless.
The Type 6 watched too many action movies and decided that strapping some guns and huge engines onto itself was a good idea. It was not. Oh yeah and something something ASP.
I am not happy at all with the design decisions of these ships, though I will still buy a Cutter cuz I'm tired of that Tycoon rank looking at me funny.
Military warship? Yeah, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...
Hey Troa, out of curiosity, why are flying it like an Eagle? Here's a tip (if you don't fly FA-OFF full time in combat), start your attack run at high speed, roll slightly into the turn (important bit) FA-OFF and then decelerate the ship using reverse thrust and swing the nose around using yaw and pitch (the roll into the turn gives you some pitch authority)
Using that method the ship rapidly swings it's nose into the target line. It's not a big Eagle! forget pure pitching battles, you're using a strange flying method like many of the other Cutter combat vids I see out there.
The Clippers pitch rate is ridiculous for a ship that long.. Let's not turn the Cutter into an even bigger arcade game. Adapt your flying style.
This is a freighter build with low end weapons and dist, D8 thrusters.
[video=youtube;X6HXBNymRzg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6HXBNymRzg[/video]
Last edited:
I have to say you are a lot better Cutter pilot than all of the other complainers. Besides some minor mistakes in your flight style we all do, you were still able to get your target in your line of fire and your loadout makes way more sense than all of the other wanna-be imperial warship commanders. (Don't wanna point out that I will listen more because of that but ... well I do listen more to ones who actually know what they are talking about
)That said, let's quickly conclude the problems of the Cutter:
- Low agility
- Low Power Distributor
- Apparently low Power Plant
- Low effectiveness of manouvering thrusters
Okey, now that we got the problems, we also need to conclude its strenghts!
- Highest boost speed of all bigger ships
- Highest shield HP
- Highest armor HP
- Highest cargo capacity (temporary until the Panther Clipper arrives)
So we see it has approximately as many strenghts as it has weaknesses. But this doesn't justify how the Cutter is introduced.
For example, due to its low agility, two of its strenghts are compensated (highest armor and shield HP), so we trade one weakness for two strenghts ... which is bad.
However, its uber high boost speed trades the low manouvering and/or agility stats. Ofcourse this isn't accurate what I am saying and I am not a game designer but I what I want to point out is that an object in a game has to be balanced by trading enough strenghts for weaknesses ad vice versa. Otherwise it would be OP or UP.
IMHO the Vette and the Cutter are both powerful, yet UP in their current state compared to the Anaconda. Reasons are for example the low agility of the Cutter and the terrible hardpoint loadout of the Vette.
The Anaconda is tanky, agile, cheap, packs a good punch (firepower) and has the best jump range ingame.
Anyways, that's another topic. The question is how we can balance the Cutter or change it without it becoming OP/UP?
My personal suggestion of changes would be the following (keep in mind that I try to trade here which means that I take a little of its strenghts to compensate its weakness. The aim is to keep the Cutter unique, yet useful):
Look at the option below and choose one you'd like or dislike and argue about it you could also take a combination and discuss the result of multiple options.
Option 1:
- Decrease the Cutter's top boost speed to 280 m/s +/- 20
- Increase the Cutter's agility somewhere near the Anaconda/Vette
It would trade top speed for agility, easy.
Option 2:
- Decrease the Cutter's max shield capacity (get rid of the C8 internal slots).
- Slightly decrease its base amor value (~ -80 HP +/- 10)
- Give it a C8 PD
This would result in trading defensives for offensives. It has more firepower but for less defensive capabilities. In combination with option 1 it would become more of a copy of the other two big ships and lose its uniqueness.
Option 3:
- Reduce its hull mass (and so improving its manouvering ability. Note: Not the agility!)
- Reduce its armor (~ -120 HP +/- 30)
- Indirect buff: increased jump range (due to lower hull mass)
The manouvering problem would be somewhat solved depending on the values at the cost of armor platings. This also would lower the effectiveness of the uber expensive bulkheads.
Option 4:
- (Further) decrease its internal space. Remove atleast two C6s to prevent SCB stacking.
- Give it a C8 PD
This would effectively decrease its defensive ability for the benefit of more firepower. Can not be combined with Option 2
you could also take a combination and discuss the result of multiple options.Option 1:
- Decrease the Cutter's top boost speed to 280 m/s +/- 20
- Increase the Cutter's agility somewhere near the Anaconda/Vette
It would trade top speed for agility, easy.
Option 2:
- Decrease the Cutter's max shield capacity (get rid of the C8 internal slots).
- Slightly decrease its base amor value (~ -80 HP +/- 10)
- Give it a C8 PD
This would result in trading defensives for offensives. It has more firepower but for less defensive capabilities. In combination with option 1 it would become more of a copy of the other two big ships and lose its uniqueness.
Option 3:
- Reduce its hull mass (and so improving its manouvering ability. Note: Not the agility!)
- Reduce its armor (~ -120 HP +/- 30)
- Indirect buff: increased jump range (due to lower hull mass)
The manouvering problem would be somewhat solved depending on the values at the cost of armor platings. This also would lower the effectiveness of the uber expensive bulkheads.
Option 4:
- (Further) decrease its internal space. Remove atleast two C6s to prevent SCB stacking.
- Give it a C8 PD
This would effectively decrease its defensive ability for the benefit of more firepower. Can not be combined with Option 2
We can not give (well, theoretically we can but ...) the Cutter a C9 PP. That would be approximately 450 million credits for an A rated PP for just +6 MW of power. So a 300m credit increase for just 6 MW and this would be way out of 'the line'.
With the options stated, we can now choose one or more to change the Cutter. However, there is one thing we don't want to archieve: A big ship with strong firepower and good manouverbility that is capable of sustained a huge amount of damage while still being able to chase down most of the ships ingame.
Then the question comes up: "Where are the tradeoffs?"
Every buff or nerf should usually come with other benefits/disadvantages to "trade" rather than to buff or nerf directly. Sometimes this is neccessary though for example in the case of the Python-nerf but for example in the case of the FDL, it should have atleast get an even small fuel tank to justify these beast-buff.
So choose your options and tell me what you'd like to see the Cutter.
Last edited:
If by "flying like an eagle" you mean to say "fly like a dogfighter", but in a really hyperbolic (baiting) way, than I would guess because that is the way combat in this game is designed. And FA off 100% hardly brings it in line with the other ships. Honestly sometimes it hurts it with how drifty it is. FA off is supposed to make good ships great, not make bad ships still (comparatively)bad.
.
Also most people would have a very different definition of "rapidly". If you were talking about the clipper then it would make sense. But a Cutter's best FA off turn still falls short of an Anaconda's/Corvette's FA on turn. Hardly "rapid".
.
Not to brag or be a , but even though I consider myself a mediocre pilot I handled the Cutter much better than Troa. I know how to use FA off to get what I want, and I use dual sticks so I have access to every axis (throttle, pitch, roll, yaw, horizontal thrusters, and vertical thrusters), and I make good use of them. But even with all that the Cutter was still mediocre at best. For a billion credits it shouldn't take a pilot who can get the most out of a ship just to put it on par with a novice pilot in a <100 million credit ship.
.
Oh, and "hit and run" is still useless (at least when NPCs actually fight back). You take damage as you leave, and as you approach. You deal it only when you approach. And if a ship can match your speed but pitch better, you also take damage as you turn. "Hit and run" is good for planetary assaults, but that's it. Oh and another key component in "hit and run"? Burst DPS. Guess what a C7 PD doesn't do well vs a C8 PD?
Last edited:
And that is why my Cutter will replace my Conda as trader and my Vette will be kitted as miner. The Conda will be refitted for war.
I have to say you are a lot better Cutter pilot than all of the other complainers. Besides some minor mistakes in your flight style we all do, you were still able to get your target in your line of fire and your loadout makes way more sense than all of the other wanna-be imperial warship commanders. (Don't wanna point out that I will listen more because of that but ... well I do listen more to ones who actually know what they are talking about
That said, let's quickly conclude the problems of the Cutter:
- Low agility
- Low Power Distributor
- Apparently low Power Plant
- Low effectiveness of manouvering thrusters
Okey, now that we got the problems, we also need to conclude its strenghts!
- Highest boost speed of all bigger ships
- Highest shield HP
- Highest armor HP
- Highest cargo capacity (temporary until the Panther Clipper arrives)
So we see it has approximately as many strenghts as it has weaknesses. But this doesn't justify how the Cutter is introduced.
For example, due to its low agility, two of its strenghts are compensated (highest armor and shield HP), so we trade one weakness for two strenghts ... which is bad.
However, its uber high boost speed trades the low manouvering and/or agility stats. Ofcourse this isn't accurate what I am saying and I am not a game designer but I what I want to point out is that an object in a game has to be balanced by trading enough strenghts for weaknesses ad vice versa. Otherwise it would be OP or UP.
IMHO the Vette and the Cutter are both powerful, yet UP in their current state compared to the Anaconda. Reasons are for example the low agility of the Cutter and the terrible hardpoint loadout of the Vette.
The Anaconda is tanky, agile, cheap, packs a good punch (firepower) and has the best jump range ingame.
Anyways, that's another topic. The question is how we can balance the Cutter or change it without it becoming OP/UP?
My personal suggestion of changes would be the following (keep in mind that I try to trade here which means that I take a little of its strenghts to compensate its weakness. The aim is to keep the Cutter unique, yet useful):
Look at the option below and choose one you'd like or dislike and argue about it
Option 1:
- Decrease the Cutter's top boost speed to 280 m/s +/- 20
- Increase the Cutter's agility somewhere near the Anaconda/Vette
It would trade top speed for agility, easy.
Option 2:
- Decrease the Cutter's max shield capacity (get rid of the C8 internal slots).
- Slightly decrease its base amor value (~ -80 HP +/- 10)
- Give it a C8 PD
This would result in trading defensives for offensives. It has more firepower but for less defensive capabilities. In combination with option 1 it would become more of a copy of the other two big ships and lose its uniqueness.
Option 3:
- Reduce its hull mass (and so improving its manouvering ability. Note: Not the agility!)
- Reduce its armor (~ -120 HP +/- 30)
- Indirect buff: increased jump range (due to lower hull mass)
The manouvering problem would be somewhat solved depending on the values at the cost of armor platings. This also would lower the effectiveness of the uber expensive bulkheads.
Option 4:
- (Further) decrease its internal space. Remove atleast two C6s to prevent SCB stacking.
- Give it a C8 PD
This would effectively decrease its defensive ability for the benefit of more firepower. Can not be combined with Option 2
We can not give (well, theoretically we can but ...) the CUtter a C9 PP. That would be approximately 450 million credits for an A rated PP for just +6 MW of power. So a 300m credit increase for just 6 MW and this would be way out of 'the line'.
With the options stated, we can now choose one or more to change the Cutter. However, there is one thign we don't want to archieve: A big ship with strong firepower and good manouverbility that is capable of sustained a huge amount of damage while still being able to chase down most of the ships ingame.
Then the question comes up: "Where are the tradeoffs?"
Every buff or nerf should usually come with other benefits/disadvantages to "trade" rather than to buff or nerf directly. Sometimes this is neccessary though for example in the case of the Python-nerf but for example in the case of the FDL, it should have atleast get an even small fuel tank to justify these beast-buff.
So choose your options and tell me what you'd like to see the Cutter.
You forgot some things:
Cons-
Insanely expensive (risky to fly)
(of the 3) least amount of internals
Very drifty (making its boost a double edged sword)
Pros -
Much sexier cockpit
.
Option "1" would see it loose its only real advantage, since once you take into account internal slots and power issues the hull and shields aren't that different (and lets face it the Corvette needs and armor buff, at least from a lore perspective).
Option "2" still makes it nigh useless as pitch is the most important combat stat, 80 hull is nothing, the 2 C8s are the only real non combat advantage to its much, much higher price tag, and a C8 PD would only put it on par with the other two in the one category.
Option "3" still doesn't address the pitch much (at least not enough to bring it to Conda levels, the current "low bar" for combat/multirole ships)
Option "4" It already has the lowest amount of internals, to sacrifice even more just to match the other ships PD seems silly.
.
But to tweak option 1 a bit, -~50m/s boost, + ~20m/s top speed, and Conda tier pitch (not other stats like roll, drift, thruster's, etc.) That way it could still fill its niche role of being "fast"
And option 2, but also tweaked. Rather than get rid of the C8s (again, their existence is a trade-off for the price, if not then why pay hundreds of millions of credits more for a side-grade in all respects?) just modify the base shield to achieve the same thing. Though it should still have better shields than the Conda or Corvette, it is an empire ship after all.
.
That should put it on par with the Corvette (assuming C4 weapons aren't godlike). Though I think the Corvette should get a buff as its a side/down grade in a combat role to an Anaconda, but that is another thread.
.
.
The issue with the Cutter is it already came with many hefty downsides, with little to back it up. The main ones being:
Slightly stronger shields and hull (when internals/power are taken into account), and much better boost; in exchange for an inability to realistically fight (do to something like 30-40% worse pitch), 20% worse sustained and burst DPS, and insane drift.
.
All "pros" and "Cons" are not the same. Some are weighted quite heavily, and others quite lightly.
.
EDIT:
So for my basic PvE builds, each using 2 SCBs, 2 heatsinks, a KWS, and HRPs the Corvette would have 3,905 hull and 1,148 shields. The Cutter would have 3,608 hull and 1,531 shields. Decently balanced already.
Last edited:
That cmdr you forgot his name could very well be me 'cos that is exactly what i am thinking and bringing up when there is a discussion about turrets
I know it can be hard to think of elite combat differently, hell it is even getting harder for me playing the game for a year now, but let me share my perspective with you. There are already solid mechanics implemented in game to make it work. There is this old thread where a dev posted explaining how turrets work and do what they do months ago. We are all familiar with gimballed/turret wobble with turrets having an additional confusion factor in. Let me give the example by using the Anaconda here, now for the sake of consistency in the year soon to be 3302 i would expect a 160 tonne weighting sensor package would include a state of the art fire-control system which can give me near perfect firing solutions. Now as for how this translates in game is chaff dropping from being the hard counter we all know and hate for. This is how it works... Lower class/grade sensors are more susceptible to countermeasures while being less accurate and wobbly. As the class and grade gets bigger the wobble and confusion gets less and less pronounced so there will be no super weapon like effect in small ships while still being useful vs the same class. Turret class effecting tracking speed is already a mechanic ( eg. tracking speed of point defense vs c3 laser turret ), so does small class weapons doing less damage against bigger class ships also turrets as we know are the lowest damage per second weapons in game ( excluding the broken explosive class weaponry ) but they are also the most heat efficient so you can fire them over longer periods of time while having great firing arcs. As for compensating the ships size blocking the line of sight/fire well... in the case of cutter i think every side is covered and besides you can't expect to just sit there and expect your ship do all the work you have to pilot the damned thing
That cmdr you forgot his name could very well be me 'cos that is exactly what i am thinking and bringing up when there is a discussion about turrets
There are already solid mechanics implemented in game to make it work. There is this old thread where a dev posted explaining how turrets work and do what they do months ago. We are all familiar with gimballed/turret wobble with turrets having an additional confusion factor in. Let me give the example by using the Anaconda here, now for the sake of consistency in the year soon to be 3302 i would expect a 160 tonne weighting sensor package would include a state of the art fire-control system which can give me near perfect firing solutions. Now as for how this translates in game is chaff dropping from being the hard counter we all know and hate for. This is how it works... Lower class/grade sensors are more susceptible to countermeasures while being less accurate and wobbly. As the class and grade gets bigger the wobble and confusion gets less and less pronounced so there will be no super weapon like effect in small ships while still being useful vs the same class. Turret class effecting tracking speed is already a mechanic ( eg. tracking speed of point defense vs c3 laser turret ), so does small class weapons doing less damage against bigger class ships also turrets as we know are the lowest damage per second weapons in game ( excluding the broken explosive class weaponry ) but they are also the most heat efficient so you can fire them over longer periods of time while having great firing arcs. As for compensating the ships size blocking the line of sight/fire well... in the case of cutter i think every side is covered and besides you can't expect to just sit there and expect your ship do all the work you have to pilot the damned thing
Not to nitpick, but small weapons use less energy. Their energy efficiency is the same across all classes (DPE).
Also I know all sides are covered, but they are covered poorly. Lets say I get 2 C3 pule and 2 C2 pulse to go off. Well I just sacrificed more energy and 4 valuable hard points to do a hair more damage than a single C3 fixed pulse weapon. Why would I do that when I can just hop in almost any other combat/multirole ship in the game and get not only vastly superior DPS (more hard points = more kentics = more DPS for example) , but better DPE as well?
.
Imo turrets should do ~ 20% less DPS than gimbaled (rather than the ~50-60 less they do now), but they should have at least 50% better DPE(or ammo in the case of kinetics) to compensate. That way you can choose: Burst or sustained DPS. And since you can't bring all the turrets to bear vs. one target you end up doing much less than 20% less DPS vs the gimbaled counterpart. Tying them to sensor rank would also help prevent some ships from abusing this, as the ~20% less DPS was to account for large ship size and limited firing arcs. And in most large/un-agile ships you still need to bring a side to bear. A Conda for example does much better if the target is in front directly, and suffers the more it moves to the side/back. Imho, chaff should still mess with turrets, but the turrets should stop firing when chaff is deployed.
Last edited:
A big, fat, pretty cow.
I have another problem with this ship though. As a non-native speaker I find the name "cutter" a bit uncool.
Somehow, the first thing that comes to mind after hearing the word "cutter" is...
But even if we look for a naval ship type, that is called "cutter"...
Wikipedia said:A cutter is typically a small, but in some cases a medium-sized, watercraft designed for speed rather than for capacity.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_%28boat%29#cite_note-rigs-1"][1][/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_%28boat%29#cite_note-brit-2"][2][/URL] Traditionally a cutter sailing vessel is a small single-masted boat,
Cutters can also be a small boat serving a larger one to ferry passengers or light stores between larger boats and the shore. This type of cutter may be powered by oars, sails or a motor.
What's next, Frontier?
A huge capital ship called "Imperial Dinghy"?
Last edited:
It is basically the same I suggested apart from the option 2 tweak. Ofcourse you can archieve changed values by changing other stats that influence the result (in this case, max shields) and I wouldn't mind this tweak as long as it has lower shields than it has now.
Option 1 isn't really tweaked as it is still in the +/- 20 m/s tolerance
So you would take (the somewhat modified) version of option 1 + 2, aye?
EDIT: Also it doesn't have the lowest amount of internals. Ofcourse if you just count the actual slots but add the ratings together with each rating being twice as effective than its one step lower rating. C8 for example has ALOT better shield gens than a C7.
Last edited:
thanks for the complimentI have to say you are a lot better Cutter pilot than all of the other complainers. Besides some minor mistakes in your flight style we all do, you were still able to get your target in your line of fire and your loadout makes way more sense than all of the other wanna-be imperial warship commanders. (Don't wanna point out that I will listen more because of that but ... well I do listen more to ones who actually know what they are talking about
That said, let's quickly conclude the problems of the Cutter:
- Low agility
- Low Power Distributor
- Apparently low Power Plant
- Low effectiveness of manouvering thrusters
Okey, now that we got the problems, we also need to conclude its strenghts!
- Highest boost speed of all bigger ships
- Highest shield HP
- Highest armor HP
- Highest cargo capacity (temporary until the Panther Clipper arrives)
So we see it has approximately as many strenghts as it has weaknesses. But this doesn't justify how the Cutter is introduced.
For example, due to its low agility, two of its strenghts are compensated (highest armor and shield HP), so we trade one weakness for two strenghts ... which is bad.
However, its uber high boost speed trades the low manouvering and/or agility stats. Ofcourse this isn't accurate what I am saying and I am not a game designer but I what I want to point out is that an object in a game has to be balanced by trading enough strenghts for weaknesses ad vice versa. Otherwise it would be OP or UP.
IMHO the Vette and the Cutter are both powerful, yet UP in their current state compared to the Anaconda. Reasons are for example the low agility of the Cutter and the terrible hardpoint loadout of the Vette.
The Anaconda is tanky, agile, cheap, packs a good punch (firepower) and has the best jump range ingame.
Anyways, that's another topic. The question is how we can balance the Cutter or change it without it becoming OP/UP?
My personal suggestion of changes would be the following (keep in mind that I try to trade here which means that I take a little of its strenghts to compensate its weakness. The aim is to keep the Cutter unique, yet useful):
Look at the option below and choose one you'd like or dislike and argue about it
Option 1:
- Decrease the Cutter's top boost speed to 280 m/s +/- 20
- Increase the Cutter's agility somewhere near the Anaconda/Vette
It would trade top speed for agility, easy.
Option 2:
- Decrease the Cutter's max shield capacity (get rid of the C8 internal slots).
- Slightly decrease its base amor value (~ -80 HP +/- 10)
- Give it a C8 PD
This would result in trading defensives for offensives. It has more firepower but for less defensive capabilities. In combination with option 1 it would become more of a copy of the other two big ships and lose its uniqueness.
Option 3:
- Reduce its hull mass (and so improving its manouvering ability. Note: Not the agility!)
- Reduce its armor (~ -120 HP +/- 30)
- Indirect buff: increased jump range (due to lower hull mass)
The manouvering problem would be somewhat solved depending on the values at the cost of armor platings. This also would lower the effectiveness of the uber expensive bulkheads.
Option 4:
- (Further) decrease its internal space. Remove atleast two C6s to prevent SCB stacking.
- Give it a C8 PD
This would effectively decrease its defensive ability for the benefit of more firepower. Can not be combined with Option 2
We can not give (well, theoretically we can but ...) the Cutter a C9 PP. That would be approximately 450 million credits for an A rated PP for just +6 MW of power. So a 300m credit increase for just 6 MW and this would be way out of 'the line'.
With the options stated, we can now choose one or more to change the Cutter. However, there is one thing we don't want to archieve: A big ship with strong firepower and good manouverbility that is capable of sustained a huge amount of damage while still being able to chase down most of the ships ingame.
Then the question comes up: "Where are the tradeoffs?"
Every buff or nerf should usually come with other benefits/disadvantages to "trade" rather than to buff or nerf directly. Sometimes this is neccessary though for example in the case of the Python-nerf but for example in the case of the FDL, it should have atleast get an even small fuel tank to justify these beast-buff.
So choose your options and tell me what you'd like to see the Cutter.
but I have to counter offer, my stance on the "big three" is isn't limited to one ship, the conda is the yardstick to which the others are measured. The corvette needs imo a larger FSD, that would be a large buff to that ship in terms of profitability in trade and usability. I want to give that ship mediums instead of smalls but it would really risk turning that thing into a monster told about in stories of the Python of old. But this time with two huge weapons (with more on the way) and a very high mass lock value. That ship is borderline OP giving it mediums imo would cross the line where an FSD increase would make it worth the extra money and rank but still be second to the anaconda in terms of jump range and raw DPS.
The Cutter however has two things really going for it
cargo capacity and speed
the jump range is nice but again figure in I want to increase the jump range of the corvette too.
sure it has better shields and more armor than the corvette but thats in its current configuration.
increasing the size of the distributor and powerplant come at a hefty cost on top of an already exorbitantly expensive ship. I would drop the base armor a little but there's a huge risk flying a ship that expensive in combat. I think that is really more than enough of a drawback to compensate. That's where that cargo capacity is needed, to pay for its vast expense and vast rebuy.
Buffing the cutter will hurt it by bringing it in line, that extra cost and rebuy. The added pitch rate and increase to retro thruster strength under boost brings it to the table still with less manuverabillity, less DPS, and a price tag to make anyone blush. The trade off would be included in the buff itself, if a nerf to something has to be offered up as sacrifice on top of that giant price tag increase it would be a hit to the defenses. But I feel the cutter is playing catch up rather than needing balance with a give and take approach. It's not on par or really remotely close, that's the problem.
I am aware of smalls using less energy and turrets (lasers) doing their damage over extended periods of time hence the low dps.
I think the answer might just be the coming weapon variants/crafting and balance pass. For example having access to overcharged turreted beam or burst lasers on a cutter would make an incredible difference. FDEV should make the tools available so you can choose between burst or sustained dps. Now i won't lie, i have not used turreted kinetics enough to make a solid statement. While them having lower damage per second is 'currently' understandable, not the same per hit damage is downright stupid if that is the case. Same caliber same class weapons regardless of their mount fixed/gimballed/turret should do the same damage PER HIT. I still think the ship is fine and the game just not having the weapons and tools to make it a warship at the moment. I really hope this issue gets rectified as soon as possible.
Thank you for the tip, truth is Ive been waiting for you to say to adapt.
I wasn't flying it like an eagle, I was flying it like a "warship" clipper the size of a planet. (That's no moon, but I can see why you'd think that)
if I was trying to fly it like an eagle I would have never left it's 6'.
this is supposed to be a successor to the clipper, a zoom and boom ship and I was trying desperately to fly it as such.
strapping turrets to it and flying in an elliptical orbit maintaining distance means flying the ship like well a fast freighter. While it might have the cargo space to justify that statement why then does the clipper not fly like a faster type 7?
the cutter does not pitch too well for a ship of its size, the corvette is not much smaller and turns considerably faster but moderately slower.
I want big tanky slow to turn ships bristling with turrets too but those ships are frankly going to have to be much larger. Battle cruiser class warships should turn like the cutter currently does if not worse. And I hope they are added and fly as such making us adapt to such a truly large and lumbering war machine. The corvette and cutter aren't those class of ships, the Panther clipper and hopefully battle cruisers are what we both want there.
Deleted member 38366
D
My take on it, if I was "Autocorrecting" you
The pride of the Imperial Transport Association, an Imperial Transporter, successor to the Clipper, to serve a similar role to the Faulcon DeLacy Anaconda yet faster and more elegant but not quite able to match it in firepower.
Thanks to its massive Engines, still flies like an Anaconda - despite being double its mass.
Last edited by a moderator: