Jump Range as a Balancing Factor

[Cmdr Aeries Hunter]

Ship balance isn't just about one thing (number of load screens). It is about the entire ship and ALL the possible things that ship could possibly do. Jump range is just one part of ther entire balance. If we seperate everything into seperate compartments we could say that from a passenger point of view, the Beluga needs a buff as it needs more internals as the Anaconda is a better passenger ship than the Beluga (which may well be true). Or if we just use trade as a balance, then the Anaconda needs a buff as it only hauls roughly half of what a Cutter can do. Or if we use combat only as a balance factor, then the Python and Cutter needs a buff as it is no where near as manouverable as say a Corvette or an FDL. If we just use the jump range then maybe its not combat ships need a buff, but maybe the Anaconda needs a major nerf, as it is the one that sticks out with its massive jump range. If we use only speed as a balancing factor then the Cutter would need to be nerfed as it has the highest speed out of the big ships. Hope you can what I am trying to say. That most ships have advantages in some areas but disadvantages in others (balance). You can't balance on just jump range because you have to look at more load screens. That is the trade off for having other aspects better in that ship than a comparible ship.

Balance is about every aspect that a ship could possibly do. Some will be great at some things while others great at another thing. I am sure Fdev are always looking at figure, usage and so on and will do minor adjustments as needed. However over all I think the ships are pretty well balanced (not perfect, but good over all). The only ships I feel is a little left out are the Type7 and Type-9. Both are not fully utilised as a great trade ship, the very thing they where supposed to be specifically designed to do. There are other ships in their class that do a better job.

 

[metatheurgist]

Here's what I find odd, and the reasoning behind my argument;

Here's a quick list of the big 3, plus the T9, and Beluga.
(Too tired to do anymore. Lol)
All ships are empty, and basically designed for maximum range, and no modifications. All serve no purpose, other than travel.

Anaconda: 39.38ly (6A FSD)
Beluga Liner: 29.84ly (6A FSD)
Imperial Cutter: 26.28ly (7A FSD)
Federal Corvette: 20.76ly (6A FSD)
Type-9 Heavy: 20.06ly (6A FSD)

So, 5 large ships. Nothing combat or anything about them, bare minimum to fly.
Essentially balanced perfectly (to do nothing), but the difference in range is just so different..! 100% different in some cases, for ships that are doing the exact same thing (nothing, lol).
Why should the Corvette and T9 owners take nearly twice as long to get anywhere, and have twice as many loading screens as the Anaconda?
Surely, as all empty ships of the same class, they should be roughly the same, within a couple of light-years...?
(Not exactly the same range, that would be weird)

What's even more odd, is the Cutter, at just 100t more than the T9 (6A FSD), can only jump 6ly further, on a Class 7A FSD.

It's very odd. Lol

And now I'm too tired to brain anymore.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

Making comparisons to the Anaconda is invalid because we all know that ship is build from magic fairy dust.

 

[Chrystoph]

Anaconda: 39.38ly (6A FSD)
Beluga Liner: 29.84ly (6A FSD)
Imperial Cutter: 26.28ly (7A FSD)
Federal Corvette: 20.76ly (6A FSD)
Type-9 Heavy: 20.06ly (6A FSD)

This list makes no sense at all, and here is why:

Anaconda: 39.38ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 400

Beluga Liner: 29.84ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 950

Imperial Cutter: 26.28ly (7A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 1,100

Federal Corvette: 20.76ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 900

Type-9 Heavy: 20.06ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 1,000

There is NO way to make sense of those statistics that has any foundation in mathematics and physics.

"Game balance" is a meaningless term since it has no values associated to it, so there is no logic here, only a vague sense of penalization for adherence to a nonexistent performance metric.

 

[Tentacle Love]

I think it's perfectly fine to take ship jump range into account for making sure one ship can't do everything (except the python, I know).

It's not that the jump range is a FAIR balancing act, just that it's a noteworthy sacrifice that you make.
There may be some point in the future when you're bounty hunting, and that one person makes a jump you can't follow because you're 0.32 ly jump range short, and then it will be relevant. It doesn't have to always be relevant, and the opportunity cost can be that you miss out on some low value bounties every once in a while, but that's fine.

I didn't mind in the slightest that my trip to Colonia was probably 4 times as long as it needed to be because I went there in a combat corvette, but hey man, if your ship is good at combat, jump range is an understandable cost to pay.

 

[Cmdr Aeries Hunter]

This list makes no sense at all, and here is why:

Anaconda: 39.38ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 400

Beluga Liner: 29.84ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 950

Imperial Cutter: 26.28ly (7A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 1,100

Federal Corvette: 20.76ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 900

Type-9 Heavy: 20.06ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 1,000

There is NO way to make sense of those statistics that has any foundation in mathematics and physics.

"Game balance" is a meaningless term since it has no values associated to it, so there is no logic here, only a vague sense of penalization for adherence to a nonexistent performance metric.

It sort of does make sense. If you also take into account the size of the FSD with the hull mass. The only exception is the Beluga. The Anaconda is just far too light for a ship that size, which is the part that truly doesn't make any sense. But if you compare the Corvette, Type-9 and the Cutter, they fit together. The Type-9 and Corvette both weigh similar weight, and both use same size FSD so the jump range is very similar. The Cutter is a slightly heavier, bit still in the same ball park as the other two, because it uses a larger 7A FSD.

 

[Mengy]

This list makes no sense at all, and here is why:

Anaconda: 39.38ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 400

Beluga Liner: 29.84ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 950

Imperial Cutter: 26.28ly (7A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 1,100

Federal Corvette: 20.76ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 900

Type-9 Heavy: 20.06ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 1,000

There is NO way to make sense of those statistics that has any foundation in mathematics and physics.

"Game balance" is a meaningless term since it has no values associated to it, so there is no logic here, only a vague sense of penalization for adherence to a nonexistent performance metric.

This isn't entirely accurate, for two reasons:

1. The Beluga has a size 7 FSD, not a size 6
2. You can't compare their empty hull masses, you need to compare their module mass too

So, if we fit all five large ships for planetary exploration and light weight, meaning D rated and minimal shields, with one SRV each and all fitted with 32T fuel tanks, and no utilities, this is how they then compare (with Coriolis links to the builds):

Anaconda: 39.38ly (6A FSD, 585T mass) https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/ana...QxEA==.Aw18ZVA=..EweloBhBGA2EoFMCGBzANokMK6A=
Beluga Liner: 29.84ly (7A FSD, 1178T mass) https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/bel...Q61eg=.Aw18ZJA=..EweloBhBmSQUwIYHMA28QgIwV0A=
Imperial Cutter: 26.28ly (7A FSD, 1336T mass) https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/imp...S1ltRA.Aw18ZFA=..EweloBhBmSQUwIYHMA28QgIwV0A=
Federal Corvette: 20.76ly (6A FSD, 1100T mass) https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/fed...S5dbpA.Aw18ZlA=..EweloBhBGA2EoFMCGBzANokMK6A=
Type-9 Heavy: 20.06ly (6A FSD, 1128T mass) https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/typ...RZZuRA.Aw18eQ==..EweloBhBmSQUwIYHMA28QgIwV0A=

You can see a very clear mathematical pattern here with regards to mass and FSD size versus jump range. Both ships with the 7 FSD's jump further than the ships with the 6 FSD's, given moderately comparable mass values. The Cutter is 158T heavier than the Beluga so it jumps a bit less than the Beluga (also with a 7 FSD), and the T9 outweighs the Corvette just barely by 28T, thus it jumps just a bit less too even though they both have size 6 FSD's. If a T9 could fit a 7A FSD then it would jump a tad better than a Beluga. And yes, the Anaconda with it's magically low 585T hull mass outjumps everything in the game, as it literally weighs less than half as much as any of the other large ships, even with the same equipment outfitted. Heck it weighs less than a medium sized Federal Assault Ship even with the same outfit for exploration.

The problem isn't the way which Frontier gets their jump ranges, the problem is ship design gimping some ships versus others. The Corvette and T9 have purposefully been designed to jump less than a Beluga and a Cutter. Now the Cutter can hold much more cargo and is much faster than a T9, and it has a plethora of more hardpoints, so the fact that it can also jump much farther than a T9 is kinda odd. I'm guessing Frontier justifies it due to the Cutter's price tag.

And yes, the Anaconda is outright broken IMHO.

 

[Vasious]

This list makes no sense at all, and here is why:

Anaconda: 39.38ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 400

Beluga Liner: 29.84ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 950

Imperial Cutter: 26.28ly (7A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 1,100

Federal Corvette: 20.76ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 900

Type-9 Heavy: 20.06ly (6A FSD)
Base Hull Mass: 1,000

There is NO way to make sense of those statistics that has any foundation in mathematics and physics.

"Game balance" is a meaningless term since it has no values associated to it, so there is no logic here, only a vague sense of penalization for adherence to a nonexistent performance metric.

There is a mathematical formula for jumps range though

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=112129&d=1475986346

http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Frame_Shift_Drive

The mistakes you a making is base hull mass is just the hull and not the internals, yes even a ship has nothing still has the minimum internals based on the core internals, so you need the total mass not just hull mass

Second those are different sized FSD for some of those ships.

Given them all size 6 grade A Frame ships drives and be jumps ranges will consistent to the mass of the ship in total, not the hull mass alone.

The only outlier there is the low hull mass of the Anaconda to its size.

Type 9 with 6A FSD, 32 tons fuel, Massing 1276 Tons and 16.78 jump range unladen


Anaconda with 6A FSD, 32 tons fuel, Massing 1276 tons and a 16.78 jump range unladen

As you can see if a ship has the same FSD size and Class and carries the same mass it has the same jump range

 

[galahad2069]

I don't think that balancing through fuel tank size could work particularly well. On a combat ship sometimes you need to change your fuel tank to a smaller one in order to reduce mass.

I think it would be sufficient to give all ships an extra jump range of, for instance, 10 Lys.
That way even FDLs would be able to jump approximately 25-28 Lys with engineered FSDs, which is more than enough to get to anywhere in the bubble within a reasonable time. True, it would narrow the gap between a combat build and a dedicated explorer ship in terms of jump range, but I don't think that it would make explorers particularly unhappy with their jump range going up to 60ish figures from the current 50ish ones.

 

[kpmop]

Kind of agree with the OP - there's the element of having to make a decision regarding loadout, but mostly you're being forced to monkey around for the sake of it (remove stuff to reduce your mass, fly to destination, refit etc). However, there are now a number of ways round the limited jump ranges: engineering, jumponium, white dwarves/neutron star boost. So...

Jmanis mentioned the military drives from FE2, FFE - possibly all ED would need would be a second fuel tank type: a "military" tank which would give you a jump range boost (2x etc.) at the expense of not being able to fuel scoop and being forced to re-fuel at a station. You could could also restrict re-fuelling based on reputation too... but that's getting off topic.

 

[Mengy]

Jmanis mentioned the military drives from FE2, FFE - possibly all ED would need would be a second fuel tank type: a "military" tank which would give you a jump range boost (2x etc.) at the expense of not being able to fuel scoop and being forced to re-fuel at a station.

That's actually a pretty great idea: military FSD drives that use a lot more power and can't work with scooped fuel but grant extended range. The problem is that current high range ships could use them too while in the bubble, imagine an Asp Explorer jumping around for 70+ lys in the bubble! Maybe it's not really a problem, but it would also serve to yet again make those combat ships with low range still seem gimped in comparison.

I don't honestly have much of a problem with armored combat ships toting huge arrays of weapons jumping low ranges, or even trade ships full up on cargo, they are carrying a lot of mass so there needs to be a range cost for that. I do however really wish a lot of ships when empty and running at low mass could jump farther than they do. A ship the size of a T9 running empty with everything D rated should IMHO be a tad better at jumping than it is. I also wish Frontier was a bit more consistent with it's hull mass numbers. The large Anaconda is much larger and much more capable than the medium FAS/FDS/FGS, yet it's hull weighs 140T less any of them, that just seems like bad game development to me. Also the fact that the Beluga outweighs a Federal Corvette just seems super odd.

 

[TheNut]

My personal preference is to only fly ships that meet the engineered, unladen 30 LY jump range mark with my standard multirole loadout. 30 LY is my sweet spot for acceptable jump distance. About 50% of the ships meet this target, and interestingly on Coriolis if you sort by jump range the Cobra Mk III is at the 50% line (ahh, the Cobra Mk III is there anything you can't do With that said, I think all Core Dynamics ships could use a boost. The primary reason I won't go anywhere near those ships is due to their lackluster jump range. I call them the loading screen simulator ships, to hone and tone your patience as your mind and body ages and withers away in front of your monitor

 

[Achibot]

This thread has literally gone full circle since yesterday. Anyone reading pages 2&3 has already read pages 4&5. As has been clearly proven multiple times now, jump range is linked entirely to total mass and the premise of this thread is wrong.

If people want to discuss why the Hull Mass of the Anaconda is terribly unbalanced that's fair enough. To my mind, the solution is to make the Anaconda weight realistic except you would reap vast oceans of salt from Explorers who use them. Which is almost all explorers. Only way around that is to release a dedicated large explorer/science vessel and indicate to people that an Anaconda re-balance is coming 3 months later. You'd be down to a mere Red Sea of salt then.

 

[Xae]

This thread has literally gone full circle since yesterday. Anyone reading pages 2&3 has already read pages 4&5. As has been clearly proven multiple times now, jump range is linked entirely to total mass and the premise of this thread is wrong.

If people want to discuss why the Hull Mass of the Anaconda is terribly unbalanced that's fair enough. To my mind, the solution is to make the Anaconda weight realistic except you would reap vast oceans of salt from Explorers who use them. Which is almost all explorers. Only way around that is to release a dedicated large explorer/science vessel and indicate to people that an Anaconda re-balance is coming 3 months later. You'd be down to a mere Red Sea of salt then.

Uh.
You seem to be missing the points.

1. Jump Distance is a bad way to balance ships because it relies solely on loading time. This means people with faster loading computers, or even using the non-Horizons client are impacting the balance of the ships.

2. Hull mass is simply a FSD Range multiplier magic number because hull mass is completely nonsensical.

So maybe the issue isn't that pages are repeating, the issue is that you aren't listening.

 

[Schmack]

Well if we start playing with balance in one area then other areas would need to be visited too like the pitch rate of the cutter. Do we do a total overhaul when things seem reasonably balanced as is and the game really needs love in other areas?

I wish you could swing the corvette around fast enough to use it as a baseball bat against eagles and sideys.

 

[Cmdr Lucca1985]

Whats the need for a nerf of jump range. Doesn't inhibit any other player if we can move 100 or 1000 lyrs at a time

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

In regards to the Military FSDs, maybe only certain ships can use them?

For example, all rank lock ships, and dedicated combat could use them, exploration and multirole can not.

That unfortunately leaves out the T9, which has a painfully low jump range. IMHO, the T9 simply needs a mass reduction, unladen, it's effectively hollow. Lol


M.FSDs could have different characteristics to balance them in other ways Vs standard FSDs
~50% increased range,
Increased MLF,
Longer boot time,
Longer charge time,
Increased upercruise acceleration and deceleration.
Plus rely entirely on station fuel, and using fuel tanks to extend range.
Plus many other options.

Seems like a good way to balance things out.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Notwyn]

Meh. Balance is fine as it is... if you're bored with it find something else to play.

 

[Jack Schitt]

I wish you could swing the corvette around fast enough to use it as a baseball bat against eagles and sideys.

For that you need a Farragut class capital ship...

Spoiler

[video=youtube;u8IPqgXo_y8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8IPqgXo_y8[/video]

 

[Achibot]

Uh.
You seem to be missing the points.

1. Jump Distance is a bad way to balance ships because it relies solely on loading time. This means people with faster loading computers, or even using the non-Horizons client are impacting the balance of the ships.

2. Hull mass is simply a FSD Range multiplier magic number because hull mass is completely nonsensical.

So maybe the issue isn't that pages are repeating, the issue is that you aren't listening.

1) Completely ignores the fact that you have no need to fly a ship anywhere you don't want to. You can take a faster ship and pay to have the closer one nearby. Role-dependency. Most PvP ship builds I've seen jump less than 1ly, purely as an example.

2) Name one ship, other than the Anaconda, where you can honestly claim the Hull Mass makes no sense? I've yet to see anyone in this thread use a different example. Care to be the first?

 

[Mengy]

In regards to the Military FSDs, maybe only certain ships can use them?

For example, all rank lock ships, and dedicated combat could use them, exploration and multirole can not.

That unfortunately leaves out the T9, which has a painfully low jump range. IMHO, the T9 simply needs a mass reduction, unladen, it's effectively hollow. Lol

M.FSDs could have different characteristics to balance them in other ways Vs standard FSDs
~50% increased range,
Increased MLF,
Longer boot time,
Longer charge time,
Increased upercruise acceleration and deceleration.
Plus rely entirely on station fuel, and using fuel tanks to extend range.
Plus many other options.

Seems like a good way to balance things out.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

No, it's the opposite of balance. How is that fair in any way? Combat ships already have specialized military slots that other ships don't get, now you want them to get specialized FSD's too that other ships also can't use?

Combat ships fly around with heavy armor and a full complement of weapons, they pay a convenience cost in jump range for flying armed to the teeth. If they could jump super far with all of that combat stuff too then why would anyone ever fly a non-combat ship again?

It's one thing to implement military FSD's with greater range but not scoop compatible, but it's another thing entirely to limit them to combat ships only.