Mine can do about 57.3 Ly on fumes but I've seen one or two which managed 60 Ly but I bet you they were so stripped they didn't really serve for exploration, if I remove my SRV I can get up to 58.3 Ly which I once needed.
Would like a new, different exploration ship from FD:
- Thread starter n13L5
- Start date
Mine can do about 57.3 Ly on fumes but I've seen one or two which managed 60 Ly but I bet you they were so stripped they didn't really serve for exploration, if I remove my SRV I can get up to 58.3 Ly which I once needed.
Actually, Saud Cruger is also fairly clean and either way, Lakon ships tend to be simple but clean and I believe the medium federal ships have coffee machines
Last edited:
DeathStroke
Banned
7 of those ships do excel in exploration. If all you care about is reaching places like Semotus Beacon, then you aren't an explorer, you're a tourist.
There are options, you just have to be open to them. There are plenty of exploration ships right now, let them focus on more needed fields. Mining currently has 0 ships, we still have only 1 SRV, freighters are a possibility.
Can you explain why you think exploring the galactic fringes and far above & below the galactic plane makes someone a "tourist"? Because I'm having difficulty comprehending your point of view....:S
I have no issue with players having choices, nowhere have I said an explorer ship should NOT be able to have a long jump range, every single one of my posts has basically said that a long jump range should not be the single defining factor of a dedicated exploration vessel which is not the same thing at all.
Thanks for clarifying. The reason I asked is because your statements seemed to generate argumentative counterpoints- so I thought clarification of your intent would be a nice way to clear it up.
(repped accordingly)I totally agree it should not be the singlemost defining factor... but I don't think inherently gimping a ship because it's Exploration-focused makes any sense, either.
P.S.
As an aside people like to argue the "balance" and "tradeoff" factors but ignore the two most glaringly obvious ships (Anaconda and Python) which remain unbalanced in this regard when they do so.
The players didn't create these "godships", FD did, and it's therefore only responsible that they clean up the mess they introduced if that's the intention of "balance" among ships, IMO.Thanks for clarifying. The reason I asked is because your statements seemed to generate argumentative counterpoints- so I thought clarification of your intent would be a nice way to clear it up.
I totally agree it should not be the singlemost defining factor... but I don't think inherently gimping a ship because it's Exploration-focused makes any sense, either.
P.S.
As an aside people like to argue the "balance" and "tradeoff" factors but ignore the two most glaringly obvious ships (Anaconda and Python) which remain unbalanced in this regard when they do so.
I have a 50+ LY 'Conda and Asp, I built the 'Conda because i wanted to get up to a star that had been specifically put into the game for me and it required a 90ly jump to reach it, it does duty as a cargo ship now and it's very good at that! The asp i built just because I could but generally for exploration i take out ships that can make 30 or so LY jumps and can carry stuff that i can have more fun with, as i said much earlier, there are earthlike worlds in unexplored systems withing 100LY of the bubble, or at least there were a few months ago when i went out looking.
She's been the most spoiled ship I have, pretty much all of its components are modded one way or another so she definetly took months to bring to life but it's been worth it
Can't resist bragging.
The latest incarnation of my AspX Explorer:-
56.7Ly with a dual-SRV bay, mining laser and a rail gun.
62Ly fully stripped and with a pokey little shield.
Took about 3 passes to get all the engineering right cos by the time I'd lightened everything I found I could fit smaller shields and thrusters so then I had to go around again.
It'll blow over if somebody sneezes in it's direction.
On topic, I dunno if there's any point in a new exploration ship.
Either it'll be better than the one's we've got, rendering them redundant, or it won't be, in which case it'll be pointless.
I suppose what they really should have done would be to give the DBX a longer range than the Annie, thus giving players the choice of either range or functionality.
Having done that, they could also have tweaked the AspX slightly so it fits neatly between the other 2.
We are surely getting one in Beyond, no? I'm sure FDEV will stop focusing on pew pew now, after all these years!
I mean just look at that nice T-1... Oh. Well, there is always the Chieft... I mean look at that Krai...
We're not getting one, are we?
Lets wait on the krait. It has potentially the best canopy for exploring with the view underneath. So I am hopeful it will be good for that.
We are surely getting one in Beyond, no? I'm sure FDEV will stop focusing on pew pew now, after all these years!
I mean just look at that nice T-1... Oh. Well, there is always the Chieft... I mean look at that Krai...
We're not getting one, are we?
Most likely not... and although it's been speculated Exploration improvements are coming in Q4, I seriously doubt they're going to make an Exploration-focused ship, given their history of mediocrity with regard to Exploration versus Combat professions in this game.
Well, that has nothing to do with the new krait. The new krait is an XL version and seems to be bigger then a Cobra and possibly the AspX as it can hold a SLF and can have a crew of three. I would not take that description as gospel as it describes the Krait as a fighter which this new version is not.
All the Krait would need to be a great explo ship is a solid jump range and at least 6 optional slots.
If it can take a class 5-6 drive and can fit all the acoutrements of an exploration ship, I for one will give it a look.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
Fair enough, I didn't know that. There's hope then!
