I have no argument with this at all. If you want the best ship for the job, by all means! If you want to pick something less efficient and give it a go, why not!
To all those moaning about being killed around Jaques bu other players.
- Thread starter SkipRat
- Start date
I have no argument with this at all. If you want the best ship for the job, by all means! If you want to pick something less efficient and give it a go, why not!
I thought OP and I are pretty crystal clear.
Combat ships have to carry weapons, shield boosters, Shields cells, etc... to perform optimally their purpose, i.e. destroying other ships. They have outfitting options, game mechanics to consider.
What does Long range traveling require today?
What outfitting choice for exploration (not surviving in the bubble) exist today?
What specific game mechanics (and significant) exist today to make exploration dangerous (apart from being blown up by another ship)?
I hope it is more clear.
Last edited:
You keep trying to attribute this "god-ship" thing to me, but I never said it. Just look at what you quoted from me. A Corvette will never be a great exploration ship, but it can still be one if you outfit it properly. An Asp will never be a great combat ship, but it can still be one if you outfit it properly.
What is the problem with that?
Is not FD fault, is yours for play in OPEN!
Yes, a ship outfitted for combat needs all of those things, no argument there. So you want what exactly, more explorer equipment to outfit that would be considered a requirement?
Because your not getting the fact that not being as good as, means not being as good as. There has to be limitation in order for it to be not as good as, and the difference between this in the case of exploration is hardly worth mentioning.
That is the problem. Yes you could equip a corvette to exploring, but it should reach it limits far sooner than an explorer. Hence, it can still do exploring but just not as well. And not as well means not being able to make to like of Sag A on it own in a million years.
Basic Corvette - 1500Ly max
Explorer Corvette - 3000Ly max
Basic explorer - 3000Ly max
Having a smaller jump range is not a significant and justifiable difference between explorer and combat classes.
Nothing against making exploring more difficult and interesting but I'm also wondering under what pretense a combat ship should suffer more wear and tear?
Yes, they are designed as combat vessels, but as other have pointed out, why exactly should a ship designed and equipped for combat, be more prone to wear and tear?
I mean, I'm all for more modules like,...I don't know, hull package with increased radiation protection (if radiation was a thing), sensors that work better in nebulas (if sensors would be less efficient in nebulas)... but I don't see a reason why a FDL couldn't fit one or why it would degrade faster on a Cutter.
dynamicbob
Banned
its always a risk, once there are more stations in more systems that will spread the pvp forces out or make safe havens where there is less pvp interaction for those that are leaning away from it. And of course open forces can always form, the colonial militia or mafia cant remember or both are forming up
To me, it just doesn't make any sense. You feel that a short jump-range isn't a big enough negative. Fair enough, I disagree, but fair enough.
But why, physically can one ship go to Sag A, but another can't, as long as its jump-range is sufficient?
Because combat ships need to be lighter and specifically built for combat, more manoeuvrable etc. Were as explorer ships are heavier and more sturdy to with stand the riggers of long trips for longer as that is what they would be designed to do as they would be out deeper and longer on their own.
Exactly. New Game mechanics and corresponding outfitting, which would make:
- Exploration more interesting and require some planning/strategy, thinking through outfitting/route planning, material collection
- Environmental Danger (other than being blown out by a ship) and Wear and Tears rebalance
Today exploration is: a Jump, Scoop, Honk cycle. That's dull.
Maybe Long range traveling should actually be challenging like Combat is, and Ships not specifically fitted for that, should be not only sub par (like it is today) but actually dangerous and risky to use:
An optimized for Combat ship should have a lot of trouble and have to compromise significantly on its load-out, or arrive as a wreck barely flying, in order to travel 5'000+ LY, to come back to the original post by OP
Last edited:
There is a good lore point against it: Ship design in Elite Dangerous is modular. A class 5 FSD is the same in a DBX, Asp Explorer, FDS, FAS and Orca. Same for thrusters, shields - they are all the same modules.
The difference between ships is the hull and the resulting placement of maneuvering thrusters, size and mass.
Last edited:
Would be great to have the equivalent of the same tools used in our space probes, and "rovers" on Mars for a start and more.
Laboratory room, observation deck, containment chambers, camera, telescope, spectrogram, remote probes, a drill etc.
So that we can "feel" like we are doing the analysis on that particular spot in that tiny part of deep space or somewhere down on a planet.
Better equipment for survivability and better long range FSD at the expanse of combat capacity for example.
Oh ! And a shovel, flags, a kitchen, a bar, a sport room, home cinema, for the long, long trip you know (joke inside!).
Last edited:
That's not how ships are designed in Elite Dangerous. What you want is a completely new game mechanic for ships in this game.
Some combat ships are indeed lite. My iCourrier is very lite! However, most combat ships are very heavy, hence the low jump range. All that armour adds a lot of mass.
Exploration ships are generally lite though so they can maximize jumprange.
You're trying propose arbitrary caps on jump distance something which the vast majority of people on here would be against. What if combat ships were needed at jacques, if it became humanity's last bastion. Every ship is built to a high standard, the bigger ships are much more expensive and much more durable and built to a higher quality.
To me, your arguments are either completely illogical, or I just can't make heads or tails out of what you're trying to say. You can call me a troll if you want, but my posting history says otherwise.
Actually no, wear and tear is in it already in a basic form and as ship integrity goes down.
The problem is, the mechanic is not developed enough allowing it bring what it should be bringing to the game.
Would be great to have the equivalent of the same tools used in our space probes, and "rovers" on Mars for a start and more.
Laboratory room, observation deck, containment chambers, camera, telescope, spectrogram, remote probes, a drill etc.
So that we can "feel" like we are doing the analysis on that particular spot in that tiny part of deep space or somewhere down on a planet.
Better equipment for survivability and better long range FSD at the expanse of combat capacity for example.
Oh ! And a shovel, flags, a kitchen, a bar, a sport room, home cinema, for the long, long trip you know (joke inside!).
That all sounds awesome man, I'm all about it! With those kind of additions, I would be back into exploration in a heart-beat!