'tis a marmite/vegimite ship
Never again the T-9
- Thread starter Snarfbuckle
- Start date
I would not mind if all ships were rebalanced according to core stats and Small/Medium/Large classification was made from MASS as well as volume.
I cross referenced ship measurements against the Coriolis EDCD tool and an interesting tidbit is that ship pad size makes no g sense either.
http://www.janichsan.de/ED_Ship_Chart_White_V2_3.png
- The python is physically larger (length/width) than the Type-7 and the latter is classified as LARGE. And while the T-7 is indeed heavier that is no indication that it should be classified as large since other ships that are lighter than the Python are also classified as Large (The Orca for example).
Then i looked at fully laden tonnage of E fitted factory ships and found the following that the amount of module mass each hull in comparison to it's base hull mass is somewhat bizarre.
- The Hauler and Anaconda sits at 32-33% of it's total tonnage as hull weight and a full 67-68% of the total mass as modules
- The Diamondback Scout and Viper MkIV has 72-68% of their total tonnage as hull mass and a mere 32-34% tonnage as modules
Said it before but I'd like to see somebody create a spreadsheet which shows the performance of all the ships, according to their statistics, without any of the hidden fiddle-factors applied.
Seems, to me, that ultimately there needs to be consistency in the way ship-stat's are applied and then FDev need to work a bit harder to find plausible ways to differentiate between ships.
One simple suggestion being, for example, if the Anaconda is supposed to be a "super-explorer" then fit it with a hokey PDist so it can't run powerful weapons and A-rated thrusters at the same time.
And of course, the modules, themselves, could certainly benefit from similar scrutiny.
Quite why a shield-booster fitted to an Eagle requires the same amount of power as a booster fitted to a Cutter, for example, is beyond me.
Surely the power requirements of the SB should be a function of the power required by the shield they're boosting rather than a fixed value?
And why does the Sensor package on a Cutter weigh hundreds of tonnes when the sensor package on an Eagle can do exactly the same job and only weighs 2.5t?
Is there some reason why the same box of electronics wouldn't be fitted to both ships?
Again, I get that it's done for "balance" but I would have thought the way forward should be to standardise stuff like this and then find more plausible ways to "balance" the ships overall.
Last edited:
Stop trying to nerf my Conda people. 
Gettin' real tired of my favourite ships getting nerfed. lol
Python. Nerfed.
FDL. Nerfed (ok, that was fixed, but still).
Anaconda. Talk of nerfs. Please no!
While my exploration Anaconda has a really good range, my PvE one does not. 25~ly, which is comfortable for bubble travel, but any lower and it'll become the FDL of my fleet, and I just transfer everywhere. Lol
Using the T9 for mining is extremely dangerous, IMHO.
It's poor speed, poor defences, poor hull and shields, all make it a death trap when you're within a mass lock area.
Last time I mined in a T9, I spent more timing jumping in and out avoiding pirates, than mining.
Lol
Gettin' real tired of my favourite ships getting nerfed. lol
Python. Nerfed.
FDL. Nerfed (ok, that was fixed, but still).
Anaconda. Talk of nerfs. Please no!
While my exploration Anaconda has a really good range, my PvE one does not. 25~ly, which is comfortable for bubble travel, but any lower and it'll become the FDL of my fleet, and I just transfer everywhere. Lol
Using the T9 for mining is extremely dangerous, IMHO.
It's poor speed, poor defences, poor hull and shields, all make it a death trap when you're within a mass lock area.
Last time I mined in a T9, I spent more timing jumping in and out avoiding pirates, than mining.
Lol
The only way is to move even more towards hidden figures.
Realism and balancing are in effect mutually exclusive here. Either the figures appear realistic, and hidden numbers tweak the results to achieve game balance, or the game balance defines the figures we see.
I'm happy with the system we got. I couldn't care less whether a ship shows a 400T or 4,000,000T hull mass in outfitting, as long as it does its job in the field and behind closed doors we can calculate why.
Tbh there are very few hidden figures, and even less you can't look up. I worry more about whether the game balance is correct (so again...why the C8 distributor? -_-)
The funniest example for crap balance is the iCourier vs Adder.
3E shield on the Adder and 78 base shield
2E shield on the iCourier and 230 shield
Both ships weight 35 tonnes and with the Adder having slightly more hardness and armour and the Courier more speed and overall larger hardpoints.
There is no reason for these ships to be so different in shields.
- The greater speed of the Courier can be explained by the lower hardness and armour value (a little handwaveium)
- The total mass is higher on the courier but it has two larger hardpoints and a larger powerplant so there is that
But shields? It's an entire TIER of lower shield generator from a 3E to a 2E the iCourier has but manages to have 3 times the adders shield...with WHAT?
Yes it's expensive in comparison but tiering ships like this makes a lot of ships pure stepping stones which is the wrong way to go IMHO.
T9 excels at short range trading and mining. Use it for what its good for. Use other ships for what they are good for.
Now, if only FD would change the MLF on it to be somehing reasonable...
Now, if only FD would change the MLF on it to be somehing reasonable...
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
MLF? Other than something rude
I am not sure what that is... Unless you meant SLF? (A mining support SLF would be very cool)Nah,
I get that it might appear to be (mostly) working on the surface but it just creates constant headaches for the dev's and confusion for players.
Going forward, it'd be far better to eliminate all the fiddle-factors and rely on consistent calculations.
That way, whenever you design a new ship you've got a bunch of pre-defined tools which calculate it's stat's and then you can tweak things to obtain the desires results.
I suspect that the big problem is that they can't actually "nerf" anything in a meaningful way as long as somebody's flying it.
It'd be a bit of a downer if you were exploring Beagle Point in your Anaconda, logged off for the night and then, when you logged back in, you found that your ship no longer had sufficient jump-range to get to another system or that the slot which you had your SRV or AFMU in had vanished, taking a module with it.
Nah,
I get that it might appear to be (mostly) working on the surface but it just creates constant headaches for the dev's and confusion for players.
Going forward, it'd be far better to eliminate all the fiddle-factors and rely on consistent calculations.
That way, whenever you design a new ship you've got a bunch of pre-defined tools which calculate it's stat's and then you can tweak things to obtain the desires results.
I suspect that the big problem is that they can't actually "nerf" anything in a meaningful way as long as somebody's flying it.
It'd be a bit of a downer if you were exploring Beagle Point in your Anaconda, logged off for the night and then, when you logged back in, you found that your ship no longer had sufficient jump-range to get to another system or that the slot which you had your SRV or AFMU in had vanished, taking a module with it.
I think it would have to be "serviced" on docking
Nah,
I get that it might appear to be (mostly) working on the surface but it just creates constant headaches for the dev's and confusion for players.
Going forward, it'd be far better to eliminate all the fiddle-factors and rely on consistent calculations.
That way, whenever you design a new ship you've got a bunch of pre-defined tools which calculate it's stat's and then you can tweak things to obtain the desires results.
I suspect that the big problem is that they can't actually "nerf" anything in a meaningful way as long as somebody's flying it.
It'd be a bit of a downer if you were exploring Beagle Point in your Anaconda, logged off for the night and then, when you logged back in, you found that your ship no longer had sufficient jump-range to get to another system or that the slot which you had your SRV or AFMU in had vanished, taking a module with it.
Eh?
Hidden figures are needed. Otherwise FD cannot achieve any level of intended balance. If you want to propose to FD that we remove all existing combat balance because it upsets you to see a big ship with a 400T hull, be my guest, but that's the only "headache" it causes
Last edited:
Yes but while you're travelling to Flic' in your T-9 you could probably have gotten to Elite in Trading using only a stock Hauler right?
Sorry being a bit Salty there
Or ... you could have grinded to get a Cutter and become elite trader in one weekend.
Eh?
Hidden figures are needed. Otherwise FD cannot achieve any level of intended balance. If you want to propose to FD that we remove all existing combat balance because it upsets you to see a big ship with a 400T hull, be my guest, but that's the only "headache" it causes
Intended balance?
The only balance they have is basically Ship Better = More Expensive
Certain ships are simply illogical and imbalanced. The iCourier is a prime example with a bloated shield value while using a smaller shield than the Adder and simply being more expensive.
- Shield generators should give X base MJ
- Shield generator size gives Y MJ recharge rate
- Modified by MIN/OPT/MAX hull VS actual hull mass
There should be no hidden minimum values pulled out from the air.
I'll admit I can't see much use for my T-9 now I have a Cutter but prior to that I used the T-9 for every trade CG since I bought it, despite having owned an Anaconda for about 6 months before that. For short-haul trading the low jump range doesn't matter.
Funny image. Here are my ten
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
Pretty much the opposite reaction from me. I owned a Beluga. Did many a passenger mission in it. Steered like a heard of cats. Overheated if you looked at it funny. I had heard a lot of not so great things about the T9 so never bothered with one, but I just started hauling stuff for a CG and as I didn't have to go far to get the supplies I needed so I decided to bite the bullet and try a T9. I was pleasantly surprised. Doesn't drift like the Beluga. Handles the heat well. I find it easier to dock (and take off). Even seems a bit quicker (top end and acceleration).
I think I might keep it. Sold the Beluga.
(A rated power plant, power distributer, thrusters and FSD. Bi-weave shields. D rated everything else. Gets me out of most situations I would rather not be in)
Last edited:
Really? Still crusading against the iCourier?
Your word against FDs.
It sounds like you are after a different game mate. If you want something where all the figures are nice and realistic, it's called a "simulator", and there's a whole less lot shooting in it than you'd like.
Without the shield value, ships don't even have a shield rating. If they all had a constant figure, then most of the ship shields would make no sense.
Put the indignation banner down, because this is bordering on the most asinine complaint I've heard about ED. Next up: World of Warcraft is a travesty because expensive gear is better and spells use a value that doesn't make RL sense.