Vote for Imperial Cutter 8 Class Power Distributor

InDigital

InDigital
What can i say.
Today i returnet to Anaconda as combat ship because it feels for me more powerfull than Corvette and Cutter.
I put 2 gimballed large pulses and others gimballed multi-cannons. Just a B8 powerplant, maxed out shields + all boosters, D engines and A6 shield cell banks.
I can fire infinite on just 2 pips so i can put 4 on shields because A8 power distributor.
That's why i want 8 class distributor on CUTTER. Then i could do 4 pips to shields or engines.
 
Last edited:

James Razor

James Razor
I think the current balance of the ships is okish.

Yes, the Cutter could use a better Power Distributor, yes the Corvette could need a better FSD and all ships including the Anaconda could use a bigger Powerplant (36 MW is awefully low tbh.). But tbh. i'd rather wait and see how the new weapons change the balance of power and what impact the addition of the fighters will have.
Currently there is too much in the flow to be truely able to make a final decision on what to do. And yes, i agree with the people that say that the new ships are more of a side grade to the Anaconda than an upgrade. They are just more specialised in certain departments while loosing versatility. And i think this is perfectly ok.

If/when the other ships like the Panther Clipper come out, than we might need to look again at the trinitiv of 'Conda/Conda/Cutter. But currently every ship has its role and i am fine with it.

And my personal opinion is atm: just double the jumprange of all ships through the bank, This would solve a lot of hazzle in my eyes, especialy with the Combat Ships.
 

tawittle

tawittle
people buy a cutter expecting it to be the best ship in the game for trading and bounty hunting. Then they realize that the cutter is really only good at trading and extremely situational in combat.

The balance is a give and take. You can't expect the Cutter to be faster than the corvette with stronger shields, to have better hardpoints, AND the same power distributor. The fact the cutter has a bad distributor makes up for the fact it has 4 mediums while the corvette has 2 medium/2 small. The fact the cutter has so much stronger shields and a class 8 SCB makes up for the fact it turns slow...

The cutter power distributor is not getting changed.

/thread
 
Last edited:

EUS

EUS
A battle cutter is a formidable foe, even when flown by a NPC.
In a CZ I've had to cut and run in my FAS more than once.
 

Princess Nia

Princess Nia
Why are we buffing multipurpose ships to be full purpose combat ships?

this isn't the way to go

the way to go is to exchange 2 mediums on the cutter for 2 smalls so it's PD can handle it better, and put those 2 mediums on the smalls on the corvette
 

Iori

Iori
Crusina Luachra said:
It does not need it. It's already the most armored and shieleded ship in the entire game. It doesn't have a class 8 for balancing reasons.

It's the same reason the Corvette has small hardpoints instead of all large, huge, and medium.
Click to expand...

8 Distro > 8 Shield

This is what 8 shields mean:

-Very energy hungry, limits your ability to equip proper weapons or shield boosts.
-The lower DPS and stupid maneuverability ensures that you WILL be using all those shields, and your disadvantage only grows larger the more enemies you fight without the ability to finish them off.
-Astronomical price.
That is why Distro is much better.

I'll gladly trade one Class 8 compartment for a Class 8 Distro
and another Class 8 compartment for the ability to actually control the ship like a Corvette

It is not even better armored, because the other ships have more compartments that can be use for armor modules, this one only have a 2 huge compartments, which is a waste, as the armor plates only go up to 5.

The Cutter is terrible for anything but trading, and I'd gladly have a reskinned Anaconda that can actually do everything well, than this stupid T9 disguised as a warship that is only worth for moving cargo from A to B. Every single activity on this thing due to its drifting and slow turn rate is a test to the patience, and its place is not be the "counterpart to the Corvette" as the description says. They made two rivaling factions, but they didn't match the capabilities of their ships in Combat, and meanwhile, the cheaper and grindless Anaconda, is even better than both.

One thing is to give one ship more of this, and another ship more of that to make it distinctive, and another thing is making it this stupidly useless.
 
Last edited:

Kurdran

Kurdran
Princess Nia said:
Why are we buffing multipurpose ships to be full purpose combat ships?
Click to expand...

Firstly, no one is buffing anything yet. The OP was merely making a request.
Secondly, a bigger power distributor is not what defines a fighter ship. What sets them apart is a combination of features, including but not limited to: hardpoing count/size, pitch/yaw/roll rate, a big enough power plant, a big enough power distributor and sensible hardpoint placement to allow the use of fixed weapons.

Princess Nia said:
the way to go is to exchange 2 mediums on the cutter for 2 smalls so it's PD can handle it better, and put those 2 mediums on the smalls on the corvette
Click to expand...

Good idea. I totally agree that those small hardpoints drag the Corvette down, particularly since it's classified as a "Superheavy Fighter".

Downgrading two hardpoints on the Cutter is not a bad idea either, but the ship still runs out of capacitor charge in just a few seconds of sustained fire, which is the main issue IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Henri

Henri
ships with only advantages and no drawbacks is already more or less what we have now.
We need more drawbacks, more distinctiveness more usefulness for modules other than the biggest A-rated.
Stop buffing everything into sameness
 

Abil Midena

Abil Midena
EUS said:
A battle cutter is a formidable foe, even when flown by a NPC.
In a CZ I've had to cut and run in my FAS more than once.
Click to expand...
This has not been my experience (how AI trutters behave in cz), although I fly a vette. All I see them do is boost away and drift forever, constantly. There is no boom, it's just zoom away. You end up chasing them 20 km from the center of the cz no matter how fast you are. Not worth the time. Wait for them to get surrounded, then they seem to get confused and don't boost/hide/drift into oblivion.

Commander Dave said:
Of what use is this in a trading ship?
Click to expand...
This is true, and I'd rather have them get rid of the awful drift these things have. The pitch/yaw rate is fine, the cap is fine for balance, but then the drift is just stupid.
 

Kurdran

Kurdran
Henri said:
ships with only advantages and no drawbacks is already more or less what we have now.
We need more drawbacks, more distinctiveness more usefulness for modules other than the biggest A-rated.
Stop buffing everything into sameness
Click to expand...

Would a bigger power distributor would make the Cutter's pitch/yaw/roll rate faster? No, it would still remain sucktacular.

Would it make its hardpoints grow one size larger? Doubt that very much.

Would it relocate hardpoints into a tight grouping for fixed weapons awesomeness? Not at all, no.

Would it make it possible to boost indefinitely? No, it can already do that with four pips to engines.

Would it make it possible to fire pulse lasers indefinitely? No, at best it would increase sustained fire rate by a few seconds (probably most likely, single digits).

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Abil Midena said:
This is true, and I'd rather have them get rid of the awful drift these things have. The pitch/yaw rate is fine, the cap is fine for balance, but then the drift is just stupid.
Click to expand...

If the Cutter had the "Superheavy Freighter" classification, I'd completely agree with you. However, it is not: it's supposed to be a "Superheavy Multipurpose".
 
Last edited:

tamanaitori

T
I'd vote for Class-9 life support with brass, gold, and marble. And a pool. Although I think that's more Saud Kruger's line of luxury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom