I think this might be OP's point. That if you have to "go pro" for a fully dedicated and efficient exploration vessel. And OP wishes for something that is "pro" relevant to exploration only and not fully pro.
We need a compact optimized small exploration ship
- Thread starter duckofdeath
- Start date
I think this might be OP's point. That if you have to "go pro" for a fully dedicated and efficient exploration vessel. And OP wishes for something that is "pro" relevant to exploration only and not fully pro.
I don't disagree, but even an Asp is cheap. Just D rate everything except the FSD and the Scoop. it doesn't need to be a massive expense.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Actually, I'll just link this here...
OP is asking for a ship spec.
FDev have given us 30 ships and not one of then ticks your boxes? That sounds like unrealistic expectations to me.
Of those 30 ships, the Asp is the go-to ship for exploration on a budget. Anaconda for those with cash to splash. These are ships we have available to us now. ALL ships are capable of being explorers. Some need more compromise than others.
FDev have given us 30 ships and not one of then ticks your boxes? That sounds like unrealistic expectations to me.
Of those 30 ships, the Asp is the go-to ship for exploration on a budget. Anaconda for those with cash to splash. These are ships we have available to us now. ALL ships are capable of being explorers. Some need more compromise than others.
My point is still not the price, nor is it the need for yet another multi-purpose ship. My point is, getting a ship 100% designed as an exploration ship.
Let me try to explain it, for the umpteenth time.
A ship with near zero hull protection. With an outfitting design so compact it can only fit the necessities and a frame shift drive designed for a ship normally seen in a ship several times its size. Add FSD boost and you'll have a ship capable of jumps maybe up towards 150 LYs, if not more. This will let the adventurous explorer reach even further out in the outer rims of the galaxy.
Let me try to explain it, for the umpteenth time.
A ship with near zero hull protection. With an outfitting design so compact it can only fit the necessities and a frame shift drive designed for a ship normally seen in a ship several times its size. Add FSD boost and you'll have a ship capable of jumps maybe up towards 150 LYs, if not more. This will let the adventurous explorer reach even further out in the outer rims of the galaxy.
Unrealistic expectation. The game is all about tradeoffs and compromises, even within its own field of expertise. You get the firepower of an FGS or the speed and maneuverability of the FDL, but not both.My point is still not the price, nor is it the need for yet another multi-purpose ship. My point is, getting a ship 100% designed as an exploration ship.
OP wants wants wants.
Or the jump range of a dedicated explorer, but not the two above.
I want want want, too.
No, a true exploration ship should be able to carry a bit of everything into the void. You need SRVs and scanners and all sorts of stuff. Exploration is not just traveling 65K LY and looking at some pretty stars. Or it should not be.
An exploration ship should even carry some weapons because there is no telling who you will meet out there.
The Anaconda does this well, but it is a lumbering beast when it comes to exploration.
There is also the issue of cost so something that costs more than $6 Million and less than $147 Million would be very appropriate. There are already 20 small cheap ships for the new players who do not have a lot of credits.
A good exploration vessel would be something that has limited weapons (2 large hardpoints at most), a similar number of internals to the Anaconda, and 4 utility slots. Same Class 6 FSD. In return the ship is smaller, lighter, faster, more nimble, and has less armor.
The game is not all about trade-offs. There are combat ships in every size and price class. There are trade ships ranging from a million credits up to the Type 9 and soon the Panther Clipper. There is already a designated luxury liner despite the fact that passenger missions never happened. The Explorer ship choices today are all multi purpose ships with a slightly better jump range than a non multi-purpose ship.
Last edited:
DragoonKnight. Look at my OP. Did I not make room for the necessities? The bare necessities. You do not need 5 AFM's, 10 SRV's, 200 tons of limpets on an exploration ship.
It is a choice to carry weapons on an exploration ship, not a need. If you're scared you do, if you're not you don't. Same as with trading or smuggling. If you want to carry everything, get a multi-purpose ship. You don't bring a Type 9 to a fight just because it can carry more stuff, do you?
Why on earth would you want 400 tons of unused internals in an exploration ship, like the Anaconda? Seriously? The stripped down hull of the Anaconda weighs 400 tons. Have you ever flown one in Super cruise? It just doesn't turn because weight has such a massive effect on super cruise manoeuvrability. Explorers stay permanently in super cruise until they eventually find a planet to have a closer look at.
Your last sentence literally makes no sense as a counter argument. You start agreeing with me after starting of with "no".
It is a choice to carry weapons on an exploration ship, not a need. If you're scared you do, if you're not you don't. Same as with trading or smuggling. If you want to carry everything, get a multi-purpose ship. You don't bring a Type 9 to a fight just because it can carry more stuff, do you?
Why on earth would you want 400 tons of unused internals in an exploration ship, like the Anaconda? Seriously? The stripped down hull of the Anaconda weighs 400 tons. Have you ever flown one in Super cruise? It just doesn't turn because weight has such a massive effect on super cruise manoeuvrability. Explorers stay permanently in super cruise until they eventually find a planet to have a closer look at.
Your last sentence literally makes no sense as a counter argument. You start agreeing with me after starting of with "no".
"Silly" how? Do you mean "I don't want it, so nobody should get it!" silly?
The Adder has very limited visibility from the cockpit, which is far from ideal when the goal is sight-seeing (particularly in contrast with the Asp's excellent bubble canopy) And the jump range is nowhere near sufficient. Explorers typically want to get to the hard-to-reach systems on the Galactic fringes, even with jumponium the Adder barely beats an exploration Conda without any.
I'd love to see an alternative explorer ship to the Asp, with equivalent jump range and scoop; perhaps giving up the size of internal compartments, and some hardpoints for improved agility and/or speed. I'd take it at any price!
Once you get away from the bubble, around 50%+ of all the craft you see are Asp Explorers, and it's not hard to see why. I'd be great to have some variety.
And they all have tradeoffs. Is there a point somewhere in this post?
The thread's silly because the OP expects a ship that does the job perfectly, and that's a silly thing to ask for.
Last edited:
The problem here is that the GAME is designed along a classic money sink curve. The ships are not properly specialized for role differentiation.
Exploration ships require the following things:
Considered valuable, but not required:
Of all of that list, nowhere do you find a huge cargo bay, lots of guns, etc. I can make a Cobra Mk IV that has almost as much cargo capability as a Type-6 with reasonably similar jump capability. There are similar sorts of comparisons all through the game.
The warships should not be better than cargo haulers in their specialties. We should have dedicated, and obvious, niche ships, not a financial upgrade path that gives more of everything.
All of that said, you can either go with more specialized slots so that Internal Compartments doesn't cover everything, or move things like the ADS and DSS into the Utility Mounts.
Exploration ships require the following things:
- High Jump value (I have been told you really need at least 30 LY single jump, and had 35 LY recommended for "serious" exploration)
- Refueling
- Advanced Discovery Scanner (ADS) (yes, you could do it with less, but you would have to fly the system to do it)
- Detailed Surface Scanner (DSS)
Considered valuable, but not required:
- Planetary Hangar
- Auto Field Maintenance Unit
Of all of that list, nowhere do you find a huge cargo bay, lots of guns, etc. I can make a Cobra Mk IV that has almost as much cargo capability as a Type-6 with reasonably similar jump capability. There are similar sorts of comparisons all through the game.
The warships should not be better than cargo haulers in their specialties. We should have dedicated, and obvious, niche ships, not a financial upgrade path that gives more of everything.
All of that said, you can either go with more specialized slots so that Internal Compartments doesn't cover everything, or move things like the ADS and DSS into the Utility Mounts.
Last edited:
The CIV is a war ship? Is that what you just said?
Can you say that very clearly, so I can quote it and spam it in the CIV threads?
"The CIV is a warship."
DragoonKnight. Look at my OP. Did I not make room for the necessities? The bare necessities. You do not need 5 AFM's, 10 SRV's, 200 tons of limpets on an exploration ship.
It is a choice to carry weapons on an exploration ship, not a need. If you're scared you do, if you're not you don't. Same as with trading or smuggling. If you want to carry everything, get a multi-purpose ship. You don't bring a Type 9 to a fight just because it can carry more stuff, do you?
Why on earth would you want 400 tons of unused internals in an exploration ship, like the Anaconda? Seriously? The stripped down hull of the Anaconda weighs 400 tons. Have you ever flown one in Super cruise? It just doesn't turn because weight has such a massive effect on super cruise manoeuvrability. Explorers stay permanently in super cruise until they eventually find a planet to have a closer look at.
Your last sentence literally makes no sense as a counter argument. You start agreeing with me after starting of with "no".
If you look at my signature, you can see all the ships that I own. So yes, I know how badly the anaconda turns in SC. I only brought it up as a template for internal slots.
What you describe sounds like the ship that many people wish the DBE was. Six internal slots for the essentials and you ignore the fact that the ASP already has 7 slots and is a better exploration ship. Your OP reads to me not much different than all those threads that ask for an additional slot for the DBE.
What I am asking for is a high end, high priced, "luxury" exploration ship. It would be nice to have 2 AFMs, 2 SRVs, a class 4 cargo bay for any unknown artifacts or meta-alloys you may come across, a class 6 fuel scoop, and a FSD good enough where taking on another 20T of weapons will not kill your jump range.
Where did you get this rule that an exploration ship has to be this stripped down and defenseless bucket of bolts? Look at the exploration ships in Star Trek if you want another take on the concept. The Enterprise literally does carry everything and Voyager is equipped to be able to do almost anything imaginable.
In fact here is a template for a high end exploration ship that does not have to be terrible.
Ignore the fact that it is an Anaconda and just pretend any empty slots do not exist. 9 Internal slots with reasonably sized sensors, 2 large weapon hardpoints, and 4 utility mounts.
Give it a better flight model than the Anaconda so that it is not a pain to fly in SC and you have a good exploration ship. Top boost speed can be around 325-350.
And do not forget to give it some really good engine sounds.
http://coriolis.io/outfit/anaconda/...GW9gTA4sTFAs5tREA===?bn=Exploration Prototype
P.S. The flight model in SC depends on a lot of hidden variables, not just weight. Check out the FAS with its 480 T hull and see how agile it is in SC.
I don't understand the objections to why a ship can't be built for purpose?
A dedicated exploration ship could have an extra "fixed" slot or two (like power plant/thrusters currently are) these could be occupied by only fuel scoop/hangers, etc. Limiting the internal compartments to a few class 2 or 3 as the advanced & discovery scanners don't require much and one big enough for a hanger. this would limit the possible cargo held but you'd have a 50-60ly jump. I'd limit the fuel tank size too, forcing the explorer to plot the route when required or get a bigger fuel tank instead of the hanger, etc.
A big difference to exploration is it's a limited style of play, as in dedicating the play-time to it. You don't need a multi-purpose ship like a few of the current ships are, they typically are used for multiple purposes, exploration has no desire for it.
Although... i do see another issue arising if this was to happen and may be the reason it isn't, summed up with the good ole saying "you can please some of the people, some of the time, but not... etc, etc. What i see happening is either complaints of why isn't there a ship for X, Y or Z, explorers have one. we'll no doubt also get comments that the exploration ship really needs a, b and c, why haven't they done that!
Over all, i'm in favour of a dedicated "exploration" explorer ship, locking the internal compartments could solve this.
A dedicated exploration ship could have an extra "fixed" slot or two (like power plant/thrusters currently are) these could be occupied by only fuel scoop/hangers, etc. Limiting the internal compartments to a few class 2 or 3 as the advanced & discovery scanners don't require much and one big enough for a hanger. this would limit the possible cargo held but you'd have a 50-60ly jump. I'd limit the fuel tank size too, forcing the explorer to plot the route when required or get a bigger fuel tank instead of the hanger, etc.
A big difference to exploration is it's a limited style of play, as in dedicating the play-time to it. You don't need a multi-purpose ship like a few of the current ships are, they typically are used for multiple purposes, exploration has no desire for it.
Although... i do see another issue arising if this was to happen and may be the reason it isn't, summed up with the good ole saying "you can please some of the people, some of the time, but not... etc, etc. What i see happening is either complaints of why isn't there a ship for X, Y or Z, explorers have one. we'll no doubt also get comments that the exploration ship really needs a, b and c, why haven't they done that!
Over all, i'm in favour of a dedicated "exploration" explorer ship, locking the internal compartments could solve this.
Because it'd be broken. Not even the lakons are perfect traders.
The real problem is that, in an effort to reduce complexity, ships are not built realistically using volume instead of mass.
As an example of this, a long ton, modern shipping's unit of measure, is approximately one cubic meter of sea water. My current ship has 24 tonnes of cargo capacity. That equates to 24 cubic meters, or a cube 24 meters on a side. If you turn that into a more reasonable 3 meters tall, you get 67.88 square meters. Please note, this is only Cargo. For reference, the average single family box shaped house is roughly 375 square meters. The ship in question is a Viper Mk IV, which is in the upper end of the Small class of ships.
When you add in fuel storage, Frame Shift Drive (FSD), etc, you have a huge vessel, but the game is not designed so that a piece of equipment has volume, only mass. I realize that a Class X compartment is supposed to address this, but, really, do we honestly believe that a Type E and a D device take up the exact amount of space and only have different weights?
Properly done, a "ship" should be the finished result of a hull into which you have put components. You should be able to buy the standard, broken, designs or buy a hull and build it to your own specifications. For this discussion, a hull defines a volume of total available space and the framing required to support it.
Jump should be affected by volume, thrust should be affected by mass. This would result in combatants being trim to maximize thrust, and travelers, of whatever nature, purchasing larger FSDs which would require more volume in the ship. Combine this with cargo requirements, and weaponry would be minimized.
In any case, I stand by my original statement that the current model is a variation of the gaming industry's money sink mindset, not a properly laid out set of decisions about what you intend to use the ship for. Of the top five default designs for cargo capacity, four of them are also the heaviest gunned ships in the game. The longest jump is also in that group, and it is not the cargo ship.
As an example of this, a long ton, modern shipping's unit of measure, is approximately one cubic meter of sea water. My current ship has 24 tonnes of cargo capacity. That equates to 24 cubic meters, or a cube 24 meters on a side. If you turn that into a more reasonable 3 meters tall, you get 67.88 square meters. Please note, this is only Cargo. For reference, the average single family box shaped house is roughly 375 square meters. The ship in question is a Viper Mk IV, which is in the upper end of the Small class of ships.
When you add in fuel storage, Frame Shift Drive (FSD), etc, you have a huge vessel, but the game is not designed so that a piece of equipment has volume, only mass. I realize that a Class X compartment is supposed to address this, but, really, do we honestly believe that a Type E and a D device take up the exact amount of space and only have different weights?
Properly done, a "ship" should be the finished result of a hull into which you have put components. You should be able to buy the standard, broken, designs or buy a hull and build it to your own specifications. For this discussion, a hull defines a volume of total available space and the framing required to support it.
Jump should be affected by volume, thrust should be affected by mass. This would result in combatants being trim to maximize thrust, and travelers, of whatever nature, purchasing larger FSDs which would require more volume in the ship. Combine this with cargo requirements, and weaponry would be minimized.
In any case, I stand by my original statement that the current model is a variation of the gaming industry's money sink mindset, not a properly laid out set of decisions about what you intend to use the ship for. Of the top five default designs for cargo capacity, four of them are also the heaviest gunned ships in the game. The longest jump is also in that group, and it is not the cargo ship.
Last edited:
I watched an Anaconda review and realized that the most powerful ship, with best defenses is also the ship with the highest jump range. You can't have all this at once, but if you buy a ship, you buy a platform and if you buy it for the jumping range only, you buy an overkill platform of which you intend to use only 20% of it's features. In the real world, that would be very poor business.
In the game it's a poor business, because you have to grind to afford it. Now I am someone who stays away from MMO's as far as possible, because to me grind = unfun (and waste of time). To enjoy the game you have to sink in hours of grind-play first.
It doesn't matter how many ships are available to you now, if all you want is the most long range jumper and there are only few of them, which are expensive platforms and you have to grind and pay for more than 50% features you're never going to use. Bad business, but I assume the grind is a deliberate feature.
In the game it's a poor business, because you have to grind to afford it. Now I am someone who stays away from MMO's as far as possible, because to me grind = unfun (and waste of time). To enjoy the game you have to sink in hours of grind-play first.
It doesn't matter how many ships are available to you now, if all you want is the most long range jumper and there are only few of them, which are expensive platforms and you have to grind and pay for more than 50% features you're never going to use. Bad business, but I assume the grind is a deliberate feature.
Last edited:
So, what would you use the Type 9 for other than hauling huge amount of cargo? Would you really use the Viper Mk III or Vulture for anything non-combat related?
There are ships with humongous amount of built in armour, like the Federal Dropship. It would make sense a manufacturer would also make a ship with ridiculously thin hull, optimised for long jump range. There are ships sacrificing so much jump range to accommodate more slots for military upgrades they're borderline single system ships, like the Federal Corvette and Fer-de-lance. There should logically be a ship doing the complete opposite, sacrifice as much internal upgrade-ability as possible to accommodate a massive FSD.
There are a lot of specialised ships, but, the exploration ships are simply the multi-purpose ship which you end up with flying with hundreds of tons worth of internal space you're not using for anything at all or simply cram full of borderline pointless field-maintenance units. Simply because there's nothing else to put in there.
There are ships with humongous amount of built in armour, like the Federal Dropship. It would make sense a manufacturer would also make a ship with ridiculously thin hull, optimised for long jump range. There are ships sacrificing so much jump range to accommodate more slots for military upgrades they're borderline single system ships, like the Federal Corvette and Fer-de-lance. There should logically be a ship doing the complete opposite, sacrifice as much internal upgrade-ability as possible to accommodate a massive FSD.
There are a lot of specialised ships, but, the exploration ships are simply the multi-purpose ship which you end up with flying with hundreds of tons worth of internal space you're not using for anything at all or simply cram full of borderline pointless field-maintenance units. Simply because there's nothing else to put in there.
In this context, I see your point much more clearly.
However, be aware that like the vulture, this ship will have its own limitations even within its field. Your dedicated explorer will have the combat ship's equivalent of power problems. For example, no space for AFMU. Or a sub-optimal scoop time. Or crappy heat management.