The mandatory "Buff the Chieftain" / "Nerf the Chieftain" thread

[Ziljan]

I would say maybe change one of the C4 military slots to a normal C4 slot and the ship would be a decent all-rounder. But currently it can't be an adequate explorer because it can't use the Neutron Highway without giving up shields.

Also, unless the Thargoid Scouts will be attacking the bubble directly, it may need an FSD upgrade, or a hull mass reduction. Engineered combat jump range will be about 22 LY. This seems on the short side for an AX interceptor.

 

[Martian Successor]

I would say maybe change one of the C4 military slots to a normal C4 slot and the ship would be a decent all-rounder. But currently it can't be an adequate explorer because it can't use the Neutron Highway without giving up shields.

Also, unless the Thargoid Scouts will be attacking the bubble directly, it may need an FSD upgrade, or a hull mass reduction. Engineered combat jump range will be about 22 LY. This seems on the short side for an AX interceptor.

It had a base jump range of 20LY on the livestream. A decent roll on a G5 FSD mod will get it up to around 29LY. That's not too shabby.

 

[Sole Hunter]

It needs an extra optional slot maybe class 2 or 3 to fit a dictor. Everything else is dank about that ship.

 

[Dutchman141]

I would say maybe change one of the C4 military slots to a normal C4 slot and the ship would be a decent all-rounder.

That would be perfect imho and make the ship much more attractive to a broader audience.

 

[Good Death]

Inbound Chieftain nerf as soon as the salt starts to flow and SDC does an investigation.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

It's looking well balanced for now. The only stats we don't know are masslock, hull hardness and laterals. As is, it almost looks like a carbon copy of the FAS. The differences seem very marginal. Comparing them, the chieftain has;

Firepower:
+ Marginally more raw firepower (2 large 1 medium 3 small vs 2 large 2 medium: 3 small > 1 medium)
+ More flexibility (1 more HP)
+ Better convergence (only medium is on its own)
- Less piercing
Mobility
+ Less hull mass (420t vs 480t)
+ Possibly better laterals? (Evidence inconclusive, seems unlikely to be much different)
+ Faster base speed (267 vs 244)
- Slower boost speed (383 vs 406)
Defences
+ Marginally stronger shields (234 vs 213)
+ Size 4 millitary slot instead of Size 3 generic internal slot
- Bigger hitbox
- Clustered weapons vulnerable to missiles
- Less base hull integrity (504 vs 540)

Aside from this, everything else is virtually identical. The turn rate is the same. The core internals are the same. The optional internal slots are only marginally different. The firepower is roughly the same. The shield strength is virtually the same. The hulltanking ability is virtually the same. The playstyle will be the same.

Although it's probably a well balanced sidegrade, it really seems like they've introduced nothing new. I would have much preferred a ship that did its own thing than simply aping another almost down to the last detail

 

[Vasious]

Needs more Alliance Green?

 

[MK Regular]

Looking at the version of the Chieftain as shown on today's live stream, we seem to be getting a ship that has

• 420T hull mass
• FAS core internals
• FAS optional internals with an extra size 4 mil slot instead of a regular size 3
• Slightly less raw firepower (~72 DPS with fixed pulses) than the FDL (~75), Python (~78), and Gunship (~82) but more than the FAS/Clipper (~60) and FDS (~66)
• Good (if unusual) hard point placement for using fixed weapons, with the larges being very close together
• 4 utility mounts (pretty standard)
• 504 hull (same as beluga) compared to the FDL (405), Python (468), Clipper (486), FDS/FAS (540) and Gunship (630)
• FAS Shields (but better, because lighter hull). Incidentally the Gunship gets similar shields when using a size 5 generator [noob]
• Excellent maneuverability (Max 44.08 pitch, 104.40 roll, 18.56 yaw, unengineered), outperforming the Python (34/104/12), FDS (35/93/16) and FDL (44/104/14), but looses out to the Gunship (29/93/21) and FAS (44/104/22) in yaw, and the Clipper (46/93/21) in both yaw and pitch
• Python speed (267 m/s) with better boost (Max 383 m/s unengineered), better than the Gunship and FDS, but looses out to the FAS in boost and is left choking on the dust from the FDL and Clipper

Overall, I would say that the Chieftain is comparable to the FAS. It has the same core internals (great for swapping between ships) can get the exact same hull with HRPs (unengineered), but has better DPS and hard point placement, better speed (23 m/s while not boosting), and due to the lighter hull has [slightly] better shields and jump range, all without the rank grind. However, it does lose out on yaw speed (~4 deg/s less) and some boost (23 m/s less) which are arguably the FAS's greatest advantages. It is worth noting that a combat fitted FAS is ~70T heavier than a Chieftain with the same build, and will not achieve its maximum performance since it is over 70T above its thruster's minimum mass, while the Chieftain is barely affected.

*Note that the stats I used are the maximum achievable without engineering, and will change based on loadout and engineering, and (in the case of the Chieftain) are subject to change by FDev*

Edit: Ninja'd by Alexander the Grape.

Edit 2: My math for the hull mass was wrong. Corrected to 420T.

 

[Ziljan]

It had a base jump range of 20LY on the livestream. A decent roll on a G5 FSD mod will get it up to around 29LY. That's not too shabby.

It has the same jump range as the FAS (same 5A FSD and similar combat ready mass), but fewer optional internals and the C3 downgraded to a C1. The range shown in game was ~ 18.6 LY. It had a bunch of empty slots too. So fully loaded before engineering, it will be more like 16LY. If you strip it down to explorer with no combat parts, yeah it will get up to 30 LY with engineering. But so will the FDL/Corvette.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Unless you have a long term need for a 725t capacity hauler, save your money regarding the Cutter. It sucks as a combat ship compared to the much superior in every way Corvette. I own both, so I am speaking from experience.

Yeah, my run-on sentence may have given the impression it was meant for combat but it was only ever going to be a bulk hauler. Dbrn47's OP here made me briefly consider a combat fit but big ship combat isn't really my thing. And if it was, I hate the look of the Corvette so that's off the table too. Sorry!

The Cutter is going to be a replacement for my T-9, purely for maxing out trade CGs.

No, the issue is credits. Splurging everything I've got on a Cutter with some basic defences would leave me with a couple of rebuys plus trading seed money, and very little else. It would be a money-making machine and make up the shortfall in next to no time, but it would still feel odd buying myself into a temporary corner.

I'll give the Chieftain a try in the beta, see how it feels. If it's a good fit for my style I'll use the Cutter money to buy one in the main game and give it some decent outfitting, otherwise I'll stick with Plan A.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I thought the Tang had 3 mil slots? The FAS only has 2, so the Chieftan is blending bits of the Gunship in this mix.

 

[PiLhEaD]

20LY jump range on an unengineered FSD aint too shabby, lookin at round-a-bout 30LY on a decent roll. no SLF though, i was hoping for one.

Agreed, I was expecting a SLF bay too. Oh well.

 

[Jack Schitt]

As is, it almost looks like a carbon copy of the FAS.

Overall, I would say that the Chieftain is comparable to the FAS.

Thanks for doing the detective work on mining those stats. +1 each.

I know some will be disappointed, but this is exactly what I was hoping for this ship. The loss of some internal capacity in favour of military slots might be a deal breaker for some, but as half of my FAS internals are HRPs anyway it won't make a jot of difference to my own likely build.

I may have found my new home for a while. I grew to love the FAS, but the Big C is far prettier and I like the idea of not having to pitch the nose up and down like a nodding dog when trying to bring the Class 3s to bear. It might even encourage me to go all-fixed.

A week until I find out for sure.

 

[Julio Montega]

The chieftain looks like a Diamondback and Keelback interbreed.
Not much more to say, until beta.

 

[Mugur]

Well, although we haven't flown in one, I think that most people think that Chieftain needs a buff: either convert one military slot to a normal 4, either increase the jump.

I'd say even go full combat, put a PD 7 (with a PP 6) and replace the medium hardpoint with a large one. 3 large + 3 small seems like an interesting combination (and unique). Maybe add another utility slot?

After all, FDL became the monster it is now after the 1.3 (or was it 1.4?) buff. Also Vulture was not such a great ship until engineers allowed to overcharge the power plant.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Frontier did mention the Chieftan is somewhere between the Fed ships and the Python.

The Fed Funship can fit an SLF hangar. I was hoping the Chieftan would do the same. Official word back from Steve Kirby in another thread states it can't. So I'm a little bit Meh about it. Oh well.

 

[ErichZann]

It's looking well balanced for now. The only stats we don't know are masslock, hull hardness and laterals. As is, it almost looks like a carbon copy of the FAS. The differences seem very marginal. Comparing them, the chieftain has;

Firepower:
+ Marginally more raw firepower (2 large 1 medium 3 small vs 2 large 2 medium: 3 small > 1 medium)
+ More flexibility (1 more HP)
+ Better convergence (only medium is on its own)
- Less piercing
Mobility
+ Less hull mass (420t vs 480t)
+ Possibly better laterals? (Evidence inconclusive, seems unlikely to be much different)
+ Faster base speed (267 vs 244)
- Slower boost speed (383 vs 406)
Defences
+ Marginally stronger shields (234 vs 213)
+ Size 4 millitary slot instead of Size 3 generic internal slot
- Bigger hitbox
- Clustered weapons vulnerable to missiles
- Less base hull integrity (504 vs 540)

Aside from this, everything else is virtually identical. The turn rate is the same. The core internals are the same. The optional internal slots are only marginally different. The firepower is roughly the same. The shield strength is virtually the same. The hulltanking ability is virtually the same. The playstyle will be the same.

Although it's probably a well balanced sidegrade, it really seems like they've introduced nothing new. I would have much preferred a ship that did its own thing than simply aping another almost down to the last detail

Yeah :/ I am (was?) hoping for a combat ship with good jump range and good base shield, so you dont have to fill it with HRPs to ruin the jump range again... We already have the FAS for that.

 

[Toffmeister]

This is the Buff/Nerf Thread?

Well this is a perfect chance to do both at once with the Big C.

Loose a Military slot and make that slot open. That would give the Big C a chance at other roles and still retain the original idea.

 

[ErichZann]

This is the Buff/Nerf Thread?

Well this is a perfect chance to do both at once with the Big C.

Loose a Military slot and make that slot open. That would give the Big C a chance at other roles and still retain the original idea.

Yeah, this certainly wouldnt harm.

 

[Frenotx]

It's looking well balanced for now. The only stats we don't know are masslock, hull hardness and laterals. As is, it almost looks like a carbon copy of the FAS. The differences seem very marginal. Comparing them, the chieftain has;

Firepower:
+ Marginally more raw firepower (2 large 1 medium 3 small vs 2 large 2 medium: 3 small > 1 medium)
+ More flexibility (1 more HP)
+ Better convergence (only medium is on its own)
- Less piercing
Mobility
+ Less hull mass (420t vs 480t)
+ Possibly better laterals? (Evidence inconclusive, seems unlikely to be much different)
+ Faster base speed (267 vs 244)
- Slower boost speed (383 vs 406)
Defences
+ Marginally stronger shields (234 vs 213)
+ Size 4 millitary slot instead of Size 3 generic internal slot
- Bigger hitbox
- Clustered weapons vulnerable to missiles
- Less base hull integrity (504 vs 540)

Aside from this, everything else is virtually identical. The turn rate is the same. The core internals are the same. The optional internal slots are only marginally different. The firepower is roughly the same. The shield strength is virtually the same. The hulltanking ability is virtually the same. The playstyle will be the same.

Although it's probably a well balanced sidegrade, it really seems like they've introduced nothing new. I would have much preferred a ship that did its own thing than simply aping another almost down to the last detail

Honestly, I'm pretty excited. It's shaping up to be one of the better balanced new ships (in a niche sorely in need of more options) FDev has added in a long time. I'm hoping they're getting a better feel for balance now, and didn't just get lucky. That class 6 PD on the T10 still makes me a little dubious.