Why do combat ships have bad FSD range anyway?

[StiTch]

But why not? What is being balanced by not letting people play the content they want to play, where its made available to them? You're creating a game and then saying "you cant play it unless you pay an arbitrary opportunity cost".

And again, I'm not calling for homogenization. DBE would still have markedly superior jump range, it would still be differentiated. Just talking about bringing up the minimum range from "unsatisfactory" to "adequate".

Aaaah! Again! Man, these forums are toxic.

Please. Do NOT use "...is not letting me play my way" unless something is stopping you play that way.

This is called challenge and balance. We are already being given ship transfer. Just because the game doesn't bend over to you and let you have the jump ranges you want, it's not "stopping you play how you want".

"Playing how you want" is being given challenges and drawbacks, and choosing your way to conquer them.

You already have FSD mods, meaning the majority combat ships can jump well over 20 LY now. You are being given ship transfer. All I can see is a load of whining because you aren't being spoon fed achievements, not because there's a reasonable argument for all combat ships having mega jump ranges.

 

[SheepDip82]

So ship transfer as its now being discussed doesn't actually change anything, because its still going to take as long if not longer.

Whoa there - It's only a poll - we've no official word on the implementation of the transfer yet (as far as I'm concerned, it's still instant unless categorically stated otherwise). Speculating/hypothesising about how it's going to work isn't helpful.

 

[ROSS-128]

My Corvette has a 23LY jump range. What is this "short jump range" you speak of?

(Granted that's when I was doing the 5kLY exploration run, with my armor and HRPs left at home. A full combat loadout is more like 19LY.)

 

[StiTch]

People can already get their combat ships around the bubble with their tiny FSDs. But they don't, because it takes too long. So ship transfer as its now being discussed doesn't actually change anything, because its still going to take as long if not longer.

What are you on about? Fly explorer ship to combat place. Use option. Have a cuppa while ship arrives. Fight.

From what I can gather, you object to ship transfers having any time, and the fact combat ships are allowed to have a relatively low jump range, even though FSD mods mean no combat ships are really locked to low ranges.

There's no thought here, no consideration. Just "I want I want I want" just for the sake of it.

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

My Corvette has a 23LY jump range. What is this "short jump range" you speak of?

(Granted that's when I was doing the 5kLY exploration run, with my armor and HRPs left at home. A full combat loadout is more like 19LY.)

Here you go ^

 

[kdjac]

Module deliveries will make this all a moot point.

I can finally have a Multi Role Conda as long as I buy both sets of modules for it. I care not for ship transfer Module delivery is far more important and useful.

 

[Conch]

No one is stopping you from fighting in an AspX

i dont mind dragging my guns to a sweet spot. but going to multiple engineers in a FDL can be a drag..

 

[Splosives]

Everyone already is flying the lame de lance (I started hating the ship for this reason)
Good thing it doesn't have everything.

 

[droid327]

Please. Do NOT use "...is not letting me play my way" unless something is stopping you play that way.

not because there's a reasonable argument for all combat ships having mega jump ranges.

If something is designed to be so onerous that the grand majority of players will simply not choose to do it, then its functionally the same as if it just stopped you outright. The game exists only inasmuch as its players interact with it.

And again, not "mega" jump ranges. Just enough that you can get where you want to go, fast enough that it doesn't feel like a burden. I'm not asking that everyone gets a Ferrari, just that everyone has a car and doesn't have to ride their bike 20 miles to work. Will a bike get you there? Yes. Will it take longer? Much. Do you just tell someone "leave your house 4 hours before work each morning" simply because its possible? No.

(as far as I'm concerned, it's still instant unless categorically stated otherwise). Speculating/hypothesising about how it's going to work isn't helpful.

I wish I could be that optimistic about it, but I think from the way they're handling the poll - the way they've worded it one-sidedly, and the way they've said that there needs to be a strong mandate for "instant", not just a simple majority, for them to keep it instant - makes me think they're forcing it through one way or another.

What are you on about? Fly explorer ship to combat place. Use option. Have a cuppa while ship arrives. Fight.

I don't drink coffee, and if I'm logged in to play, I want to play...not queue up for half an hour waiting to play. Not go do some other thing I don't want to do while I'm waiting to do the thing I do want to do and logged on to do. And I don't want to have to decide the day before what I'm going to be doing the next day and where, because I don't know what I'm going to feel like doing and in many cases I don't know where the action is going to be.

If it was just a "cuppa" timeframe then maybe. But the poll specifically said it was not going to just be a token delay of a few minutes, which completely changes how you make use of the feature.

 

[JetsonRING]

The Asp has 2 Medium and 4 small slots for weapons. I wouldn't call that 'limited' by any means - it's actually quite a mean mother if it turns on you with all 6 guns! And the Anaconda - 1 Huge, 3 large, 2 Medium, 2 Small = wow nelly! You put some of them on turrets and gooses will be cooked with the minimum of effort.

I don't know, seems to me like combat ships got the short end of the straw here in this comparison of having cake and eating it.

Seems to me it is for the same reason that historically fighters were not fitted with big fuel tanks, giant turbofan engines, etc. because it is not correct for the job.

By definition a fighter vessel is small, light, and VERY maneuverable. It does not need a big FSD or big fuel tanks because it is not going to be spending a lot of time exploring the galaxy in Hyper or Supercruise. It spends most of its time in normal space (where the fighting is), close to home, kicking butt and taking names.
A fighter craft is small, fast and LIGHT. It is a highly maneuverable gun with an engine. A fighter cannot mass [weigh] a lot and remain highly maneuverable so no large FSD, no large Fuel Tanks (fuel is heavy).
Another point to consider is that fighter craft are supposed to be CHEAP and DISPOSABLE because they usually do not have a very long service life (they tend to get blown up a lot) so again, no big FSD.
A good short-range fighter craft will have: Good Delta-V, powerful guns and high turning rate ("rate kills!") in "normal" space (where the fighting is) all of which screams "nothing heavy!" and a big FSD is simply unnecessary and expensive.
In addition, soon large ships will be able to carry fighter ships around in their hulls so in a way, the small fighters will have a large FSD available.

 

[Martian Successor]

Thats not what he said.

When I'm off exploring I leave all the weight I don't need - read, weapons - at home to increase jump range. So by that definition, exploration ships have bad firepower because they are stripped of their guns.

It might be what he meant but he did not specifically say "stripped of their guns". In either case the fact remains that the Asp and the Conda (the two best long range exploration vessels) both have pretty darn good options for weapons. You could actually fully equip them with guns and still have over 19LY of jump range.

So in that sense both the Asp and the Conda can be fully combat fit and still be usable for light exploration. That's more than can be said for combat dedicated ships like the FDL and Corvette who have a tiny jump range when combat fit and are pretty useless for any other task other than combat.

I'm not actually advocating for a buff to combat ships or anything though. I'm just pointing out that the two longest range explorers kind of do have it both ways (in terms of jump range and weapons) whereas combat and trade ships don't have that. Whether that's good or bad is up to FD.

 

[droid327]

Seems to me it is for the same reason that historically, fighters were not fitted with big fuel tanks, giant turbofan engines, etc. because it is not correct for the job. By definition a short-range fighter vessel is just that: short-range and VERY maneuverable. It does not need a big FSD because it is not going to be spending a lot of time exploring the galaxy in Hyper or Supercruise. It spends most of its time in normal space, close to home kicking butt and taking names. A fighter craft is small, fast and LIGHT. It cannot mass a lot and remain highly maneuverable so no large FSD, no large Fuel Tanks (fuel is heavy). Another point to consider is that small, short-range fighter craft are supposed to be CHEAP and DISPOSABLE because they usually do not have a very long service life (they tend to get blown up a lot). So a good short-range fighter craft will have: Good Delta-V, powerful guns and high turning rate in "normal" space all of which screams "nothing heavy!" and a big FSD is simply unnecessary. In addition, soon large ships will be able to carry fighter ships around in their hulls so in reality, the fighters will have a large FSD available.

You're talking about fighters that'd be the equivalent of a Condor, in this case. Short range, disposable, based on some platform.

I think the better analogy for most of our ships, though, are modern sortie craft, not air-superiority. Things like the Eagle or F-22, up to bombers like the B-52. They very definitely take into account range, fuel, speed, and longevity of flight, in addition to more direct combat considerations. Then you have the big ships, which are of course analogous to frigates and destroyers in the Navy...which again, *do* have considerations of speed and range, because that's crucial to your ability to project naval power and respond to threats. Indeed, arguably, the entire raison d'etre for corvettes and cutters in real life IS to be fast-response naval craft, the vanguard ships that can get anywhere they're needed as quickly as possible and respond to whatever the threat is.

 

[Martian Successor]

Everyone already is flying the lame de lance (I started hating the ship for this reason)
Good thing it doesn't have everything.

Not me I fly a FAS. Great multirole with teeth

I think the majority just likes the way the FDL looks and are willing to sacrifice the conveniences of versatility and jump range. I know I like how it looks

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I've complained my fair share about the relatively short ranges of combat-oriented ships, but at the same time, I see the reasoning behind it and, more than that, I appreciate it in a way. I appreciate how frustrated it makes me.

Basically, every ship, by design, has downsides. Range can be one of those. FD could easily make a set of "perfect" ships, each ideal for their price point and role, and each perfectly balanced against other ships. And it would be incredibly boring.

FD's current design though - a very delicate imbalance - is I think far preferable. There is generally no "best" ship, at any level or for any role. It allows for personal flavor and preference to have a much stronger sway in what is "best" for you as an individual pilot. It's a fantastic system. I love the restless feeling it gives, or at least gives me. Every ship I'm in, there's a feeling of "oh, if only this ship had..." It's delightfully frustrating.

 

[droid327]

Basically, every ship, by design, has downsides. Range can be one of those.

There is generally no "best" ship, at any level or for any role. It allows for personal flavor and preference to have a much stronger sway in what is "best" for you as an individual pilot.

Generally I agree with you in principle. However, in this case I don't think its actually being properly applied in practice.

No ship can do every role equally well...I think we can all agree that's proper. However, the tradeoff there should be efficiency in one role for efficiency in another. Combat ships cant haul cargo efficiently, traders cant fight well, and neither can achieve the high jump range of explorers, etc. etc. I think the game accomplishes that already, without needing FSD limitations except to differentiate explorers from non-explorers.

I'd also be fine if jump range was used to differentiate between ships of a similar role - maybe one type of trading ship has more cargo capacity, another has better overall jump range, another has really high boost speed. That's differentiating ships within their own rolespace. And I'd be fine if combat ships were differentiated within the rolespace of combat...offense, defense, maneuverability. But I don't see the point in limiting ships outside their own rolespace. It doesn't take anything away from traders and explorers if combat ships have moderate instead of poor jump range. Explorers will still be better, and that's what matters - relative, not absolute differences.

 

[Paineframe]

Because they decided not to give all ships the same range when they decided on the current travel system, they had no idea how to balance ships, and they've shown a distinct unwillingness to meaningfully change ships despite the fact that ship balance is a garbage fire.

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

How far can a fuel-guzzling F-18 fly with its relatively small fuel tank, versus something like a KC-130 tanker?

I know it's not really a matter of fuel when it comes to the game, but that's how I like to think about it. Might have something to do with the fact I think it would be totally rad to be in a huge ship, supporting a wing small fighters that are so ready for combat, they didn't even bother to fit fuel scoops.

 

[JetsonRING]

You're talking about fighters that'd be the equivalent of a Condor, in this case. Short range, disposable, based on some platform.

I think the better analogy for most of our ships, though, are modern sortie craft, not air-superiority. Things like the Eagle or F-22, up to bombers like the B-52. They very definitely take into account range, fuel, speed, and longevity of flight, in addition to more direct combat considerations. Then you have the big ships, which are of course analogous to frigates and destroyers in the Navy...which again, *do* have considerations of speed and range, because that's crucial to your ability to project naval power and respond to threats. Indeed, arguably, the entire raison d'etre for corvettes and cutters in real life IS to be fast-response naval craft, the vanguard ships that can get anywhere they're needed as quickly as possible and respond to whatever the threat is.

Apples to apples, please. You could probably compare an F-22 Raptor with one of the larger combat ships in-game after all, it is an air-superiority fighter, a special case. But an Eagle would be more comparable to an F-16 Fighting Falcon: Very maneuverable, relatively inexpensive.

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

I've complained my fair share about the relatively short ranges of combat-oriented ships, but at the same time, I see the reasoning behind it and, more than that, I appreciate it in a way. I appreciate how frustrated it makes me.

Basically, every ship, by design, has downsides. Range can be one of those. FD could easily make a set of "perfect" ships, each ideal for their price point and role, and each perfectly balanced against other ships. And it would be incredibly boring.

FD's current design though - a very delicate imbalance - is I think far preferable. There is generally no "best" ship, at any level or for any role. It allows for personal flavor and preference to have a much stronger sway in what is "best" for you as an individual pilot. It's a fantastic system. I love the restless feeling it gives, or at least gives me. Every ship I'm in, there's a feeling of "oh, if only this ship had..." It's delightfully frustrating.

Exactly. Just like almost every car brand has strengths and weaknesses no matter how pretty or smooth running or quiet. One doesn't have drink holders, another has no glove box . . .

 

[Ralph Vargr]

One thing I can think of is giving traders and exploration vessels with longer jump ranges a means to escape. This way you can't endlessly follow their high-wakes.

Does not work that way for the NPC's. They were spawning in shieldless Sidewinders at Beagle Point.

 

[droid327]

Apples to apples, please. You could probably compare an F-22 Raptor with one of the larger combat ships in-game after all, it is an air-superiority fighter, a special case. But an Eagle would be more comparable to an F-16 Fighting Falcon: Very maneuverable, relatively inexpensive. .

F22 is probably a FDL, F35 is a Python When I said Eagle I meant the McDonnell Douglas F15 Eagle, not the Core Dynamics Eagle, sorry if that was confusing...but yeah, I'd actually probably compare the Elite Eagle to a F14 since that's a pure air-superiority platform, with the newer and faster F15 being analogous to a Viper, and the F16 maybe is more like a Cobra inasmuch as its more multirole than strict air superiority.

But in the F14, F15 and F16, you still have considerations of range and speed and power projection in their design. They're not built to be cheap, light, and disposable like the first reply was talking about, not caring about range because they were just designed as point-defense patrol craft. The real-world analogy there might be something like the WWII-era carrier-based Bearcat, which was a slimmed-down Hellcat, but still stands in contrast to contemporary carrier-based fighter-bombers like the Mustang that were built for longer-range sorties. Range and speed are almost always important in fighter craft design, I guess is my point

Now if you wanted to talk about tradeoffs for military ships, maybe we should be looking at *fuel efficiency*, since that's often what you sacrifice to fly a multiton hunk of impenetrable death around at supersonic speeds. I'd be 100% OK if military ships had better jump ranges, but burned fuel so fast (both in SC and realspace) that you could plausibly run out over the course of a combat gaming session if you're not careful. I think that'd be a much better way to "balance" combat ships, especially since fuel is generally an afterthought in most other cases. Plus that might create more utility for fuel tanks (cant scoop in combat zones) and for fuel limpets as part of a combat-ship support role.

 

[Ste1623]

Why do long range explorers have limited firepower?

You can't have it both ways.

Well you can the asp x set up as a fighter x explorer is pretty effective