Should the Corvette get a better jump range?
- Thread starter Lord Celestine
- Start date
They were discussed extensively in histories of the Spanish Armada and in Sir Francis Drake's Autobiography (available from all good holo-book sellers around the Sol system).
The Encyclopaedia Imperia even claims that the destruction of the Armada was not to do with English fire ships, but rather a FSD accident caused by a passing Thargoid fleet.
Craith
Volunteer Moderator
I was in Maia in my vette (returned her to combat worthy after prior making room for tea), it was not so bad, about 70 jumps on fastest (tank is big enough and a c6 scoop helps a lot, no time wasted)
Afterwards I flew to the Hind Nebula, then 200 lys up, then back to leesti - economically, about 200-220 jumps.
The vette is a great ship - I wouldn't mind a few lys extra, maybe via engineering, but it is by no means a bad vessel.
It is odd...
Corvettes and Cutters are two of the smallest types of warship that even merit a name (barely). About 1/6 the size of a Frigate and barely a fighter next to a Destroyer or larger.
On the other hand, who decided that is was permitted to launch a Clipper without at least 1t of tea aboard?
If every ship gets s FSD range increase, then it doesn't boost the power any any ship. What FD is doing right now is making everyone use the same ship for certain tasks. There is no decision to be made. If you want to explore is ASP or Conda if you want to bulk trade at outposts its Pythons. If you smuggle its ASP. If you built trade its iCutter and finally combat is FDL or Corvette, etc.
There is no decision making need, and no originality required. What an increase in FSD does is open up options for players. The galaxy is huge, so an increase in FSD range only makes every star system discoverable in 15,000 years not the 25,000 years people predict!!!!
There is no decision making need, and no originality required. What an increase in FSD does is open up options for players. The galaxy is huge, so an increase in FSD range only makes every star system discoverable in 15,000 years not the 25,000 years people predict!!!!
I don't see how an overall increase in FSD changes the way people chose their ships. In fact, if you'd do that you would remove drawbacks from some of the ships, and make the choice even more obvious than it is now.
By the way, I'm a seasoned explorer. My favourite two ships to explore in are the Python and the T-6. I found this out by trying out different types of ships, and not be hampered by merely focussing on the jump range.
Ships have drawbacks, either live with them or chose another ship.
Here is one that is below 12 and not even maxed out
http://coriolis.io/outfit/federal_c...==.CwBhGYzBGW+gTPRSENFEwg==?bn=Heavy Corvette
When you are actually traveling in a ship like this, you will quickly notice that many of your jumps are much less than your 11.9 LY range and are really closer in the range of 6-10 LY. So you have an already bad jump range and cant even utilize it efficiently.
Last edited:
Actually the trip to Maia then Sothis and back to the bubble made me realize that the Python might be nice for longer trips. Sure, it can't match by Asp in range, but you have the luxury of internals to prepare for some unforeseen consequences. I might rig one up when I finally made it and money is not a problem anymore. But as I said on the multicrew thread, if its possible I'll build a Conda so I can accomodate my whole wing in one vessel for some group exploration
I think that the larger ships should have longer jump range - while it makes sense for the Viper and Vulture to be short range, it doesn't for the Corvette or Cutter.
If balance (in bounty hunting since that's the only place jump ranges would "compete") was an issue, then make the larger ships take five seconds longer (15s rather than 10s) to spin up their FSD. Problem solved. If indeed there ever was a problem.
Since longer jumps already use significantly more fuel, these ships would need to do a lot of scooping or take more fuel tanks for repeated jumps, so using them for long range smuggling or exploration would already be an unlikely career path, unless they were wholly dedicated to the task (like an "Anaconda Light" with 40Lyr jump range).
If balance (in bounty hunting since that's the only place jump ranges would "compete") was an issue, then make the larger ships take five seconds longer (15s rather than 10s) to spin up their FSD. Problem solved. If indeed there ever was a problem.
Since longer jumps already use significantly more fuel, these ships would need to do a lot of scooping or take more fuel tanks for repeated jumps, so using them for long range smuggling or exploration would already be an unlikely career path, unless they were wholly dedicated to the task (like an "Anaconda Light" with 40Lyr jump range).
So everyone should be forced into the same ships, because you don't see range as a limitation in the game? Your example of exploring in those two ships is an example of my point. Ships should have pros and cons, but jump range should not be one of them.
While I understand your thoughts, I disagree with them. ED is now, pick ship A because of quality G,F and do missions X,Y with it. This approach lacks imagination and creativity. But, I understand it provides the frame work for later updates. This is one of the reasons I'm hopeful for engineers. Let me design my ship for my needs and not be stuck in your thought process.
Well that's because it's a tank, capable of taking huge punishment. Ships like that get transported to the combat zone, they don't drive themselves there
The A rated life support seems a bit over the top too...The word: "So" usually means you're about to draw a conclusion from what I posted. What you're saying above doesn't even make sense. Range is a limitation in the game. Limitations is what makes games.
The point I made was that an overall increase in FSD does not extend the choice. Or to put that another way:
You're welcome to try again
Your point would be much improved if it had argumentation to support it. Why should jumprange not be a pro or con?
I'll stop you right there because that's non-sense. The anaconda is a great ship, sure. I have one. For the tasks I use it for, it's great. That doesn't make it "the best ship".
You get the Cutter primarily for style. You might've noticed that about Gutamaya vessels.
Also, as a political leader, you don't want your warships to frame-shift half-way through the bubble in twelve hops. You want to display strength, display it to your subjects as much as to your foes. In. Every. Sector. You. Pass. Through.
Only if the FDL and Viper get a proportional increase, too.
That makes absolutely no sense. That's pretending as if everyone flies the same ship once they can afford it. That's no happening. It's simply not occurring. At all. Your perception of reality is so distorted, it's of little surprise that you draw such strange conclusions and nurture such other-worldly expectations.
And the vulture. It should have the jump range of an exploraconda, the speed of a smuggling cobra and the shields of a coriolis station.
After all, it's so lacking in so many ways that make it sub-par (the canopy) that it needs a buff somewhere ... for balance, you know.
Woah, calm down. I was just hinting at the fact that the FDL and Viper suffer from a similarly low jump range and fall into exactly the same niche (pure combat ship). So any justification for a better jump range for the Corvette would equally apply to these two ships.
Of course, it should.
"Sorry sir, you cannot buy this massive house with your wealth, it is a matter of balance, you understand"
"Yes, you can have the fastest car but it is crippled to keep balance, you understand"
"I don't care how much money you have, achievement and effort do not equal better equipment, balance you know"
The answer is not to cripple those of use who play the game well and seek betterment, but to make the victimisation of new, unwilling, explicitly not wanting a fight pilots have serious consequences to deter it. I fully appreciate that players should be allowed to do whatever they so want (within the framework of the game's universe and rules of course) but there should be consquences that are in proportion to your actions. They want a realistic sim but seemingly refuse to address the underlying flaw, realism requires imbalance not balance (just as in the real world --> real --> realistic).
Just my five cents worth of course, feel free to disagree and argue the point (I am sure you will).
"Sorry sir, you cannot buy this massive house with your wealth, it is a matter of balance, you understand"
"Yes, you can have the fastest car but it is crippled to keep balance, you understand"
"I don't care how much money you have, achievement and effort do not equal better equipment, balance you know"
The answer is not to cripple those of use who play the game well and seek betterment, but to make the victimisation of new, unwilling, explicitly not wanting a fight pilots have serious consequences to deter it. I fully appreciate that players should be allowed to do whatever they so want (within the framework of the game's universe and rules of course) but there should be consquences that are in proportion to your actions. They want a realistic sim but seemingly refuse to address the underlying flaw, realism requires imbalance not balance (just as in the real world --> real --> realistic).
Just my five cents worth of course, feel free to disagree and argue the point (I am sure you will).
XD priceless!
For balance!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Somewhat amusing that you bring up "race car" as an example, in a campaign that wants to make the tank drive as fast as the sports car, "Because the tank is more expensive. So it should get around town as fast as the sports car. Because expensive. Expensive! And grind!"
Looks like some people really do want their precious lolships.