How do jump range limitations make the game better? Anaconda's unrealistic hull mass.

[Cmdr Thrudd]

I dont mind the combat ships having less jump range but I think some of them currently have a bit too little. Basically if a ship cant do a 20-25ly jump(when engineered), I dont use it as it's just too much of a pain to get around. I'm too much of a nomad, rarely staying in one place for more than a few hours or days and using ship transfer just gets too expensive. The other issue is that the ones with poor jump range also tend to have tiny fuel tanks further compounding the annoyance of travelling.
I've found that 20-25ly is the sort of sweet spot. It makes a huge difference in the number of jumps going from say 16ly to 20ly

 

[GG7]

How would big long jump ranges for everyone make the game better? I've yet to hear a convincing argument that would justify sacrificing the little remaining sense of scale.

"Little remaining sense of scale" ? What on earth are you talking about?

I think you need to review the distances we are talking about here. Doubling or even quadrupling the current max jump ranges won't make a dent in the travel times from one side of the galaxy to the other. It will vastly improve the experience for travel within the bubble though, and make the game far more engaging for time constrained players, and those who simply see eternal jumping as an unbearable time sink.

In other words, your precious sense of scale is more than safe. You just need to do a little research into what that scale actually is.

 

[Good Death]

We already have different classes of a few ships in the game. This same design should be applied to all ships and then we could all have some fun. I'm currently already having fun but a 400t Explorvette would be Imo pretty awesome. Edit With limited internals.

 

[57thStIncident]

Basically if a ship cant do a 20-25ly jump(when engineered), I dont use it as it's just too much of a pain to get around. I'm too much of a nomad, rarely staying in one place for more than a few hours or days and using ship transfer just gets too expensive. The other issue is that the ones with poor jump range also tend to have tiny fuel tanks further compounding the annoyance of travelling.
I've found that 20-25ly is the sort of sweet spot. It makes a huge difference in the number of jumps going from say 16ly to 20ly

Agree, it's a similar story with trading ships though their fuel tanks are generally a little better. You need G5 FSD to get your laden Type 9 to 19ly. Similarly for a laden Type 7 to get 23ly. The Type 10 helped because G5 FSD it can get ~26ly, but it's still no Anaconda at 31ly laden.

 

[Brrokk]

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

If combat ships had the same jump-range as other ships, everybody would travel everywhere in combat ships and all the other ships would be redundant.

It's to give us design dilemmas, which is a good thing. Otherwise all ships would be the same and outfitting would be boring. As it is, I have to ask myself "Is it more important that this ship should be a beast in combat, or do I want to be able to deploy it quickly over a long distance?" RL military designers face similar dilemmas.

As for the Anaconda: yes, it can be built for a huge jump range. But if so it won't have "better DPS than the Corvette, more maneuverability than the Cutter" - it'll be made of paper and turn like a tortoise. It's versatile at outfitting, but that doesn't mean a single specimen can do anything those other ships can.

 

[ManRightChea]

I don't care for the mentality that a person is somehow doing something wrong by having a combat oriented ship be their favorite ship in the game. The Corvette was my pride and joy, took me a year and a half of honest gameplay before I was truly ready to purchase it. It embodies everything I love, the aesthetics, the sound etc. Despite the fact that I have the Anaconda and the Cutter, it doesn't change the fact that the Anaconda and ships like it are allowed to be broken.

For all intents and purposes a combat outfitted Anaconda should really not be viable either. If people are going to use the argument that combat ships not having jump range makes the game better, then I would personally argue that multi-purpose ships being compromised in combat makes sense.

The person that posted above is right. With its tiny hull mass, the Anaconda should take more damage. It should not be allowed superior DPS and hull armor than the Vette, as well as superior maneuverability to the Cutter, and better jump range than both.

That is not good game design, I don't care what Sandro says. FD makes flying combat ships an absolute pain. The Anaconda, Python and ships like it should not be allowed to do what they do. They masquerade as multi-purpose yet they are allowed to be just as capable in combat. If they are supposed to be mission runners, then give them tiny power distributors or bare minimum shielding. If you are going to define ship roles, then define them. Don't just have a bias against combat ships for what they are. Thing is though people don't mind a bias when that bias is beneficial to them. Which is why people can have exploration Anacondas, mining Anacondas, trader Anacondas, and even combat Anacondas. Even the heavy combat Anaconda will have better jump range than a Corvette and perhaps even a Cutter. They can suspend their disbelief of their ever so important roleplay as long as it's to their benefit.

Honestly when it comes to Frontier it is not about what people find fun, they are controlling. That is why we find so much of our content nerfed, and why these loose rules that they don't even follow are allowed to compromise so many ships in this game. The Anaconda is why no big ship in the future will truly live up to its capability.

The argument of scale is a non-starter. Having slightly more jump range does not make the galaxy any smaller. If it is about realism then we should not be allowed FTL at all, it defeats the purpose of creating the galaxy only to put a chain or leash on the potential of certain ships to see it. I guess I'm the one at fault for being foolish enough to want to take my Corvette everywhere because it's my favorite, be it in the bubble or all the way to Sagittarius A. FD have determined that some people deserve to have less fun than others.

Seems now with the Chieftain, the Anaconda now has the same hull mass as a medium class ship.

 

[CMDR ANCALAGON]

Whatever the decision is regarding adjustments to the Anaconda's capabilities, I will fully support...


So long as no one comes near my Anacondas.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well page 10 page 1. Typo right?

I have great faith in this community

 

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

I have had this discussion numerous times with my alliance/wing. How does limiting the jump range of combat ships make the game better? Really..

The Anaconda has a hull mass of 400 tons, despite being only slightly smaller than the Corvette and Cutter. It has the same hull mass as a Clipper, despite being the fourth or fifth largest ship in the game. It has a better DPS than the Corvette, more maneuverability than the Cutter and because of its unreasonably low hull mass, can achieve better jump ranges than both. It is the ship that we all pretty much have to purchase.. and owning a couple does not change how I feel about it. People should be able to enjoy their Corvettes and Cutters more, and visit remote locations in the galaxy without having to pull their hair out.

The Anaconda is the one ship allowed to be unbalanced. Which brings me to another point, how does limiting the jump ranges of combat oriented ships specifically make the game better? Where does the combat bias come from? If a person wants to fly a Corvette everywhere because it is their favorite ship, why must the game be more tedious for that person? Really there is no benefit to the stinginess of jump range that combat ships are targeted with. It basically limits fun factor for no real reason.

Especially the likes of the FDL and Vulture. Combat ships are either given unrealistically heavy hull mass, poor fuel tank volume, under-sized FSD or a combination of multiple. I have never understood the bias that allows multi-purpose ships to have superior DPS AND ease of mobility.

I do not feel that stifling jump range makes the game better. I think people should be able to fly any ship they want pretty much anywhere. It should not take somebody that has a favorite ship that happens to be combat oriented hundreds or thousands of more jumps to reach the same areas that some ships can reach far easier.

I know that Frontier has collectively turned a blind eye towards the Anaconda but why not buff others? Every combat ship should be buffed by no less than 10 to 15 light years in my opinion.

This is so short sighted. If combat ships had the same jump range as non-combat ships, why would you ever fly anything other than a combat ship? When's the last time you seen a funny car driving across the country? Are 4x4 trucks as fast a sports cars? no.

 

[ilo]

And if FSD jump range is not going to be buffed for all combat ships at least 10-15Ly, make a mechanic to be able to send the ship to another system!
oh, wait.. ermmm

 

[ManRightChea]

This is so short sighted. If combat ships had the same jump range as non-combat ships, why would you ever fly anything other than a combat ship? When's the last time you seen a funny car driving across the country? Are 4x4 trucks as fast a sports cars? no.

Maybe because they like the ship. Maybe because it has better internal storage. I think your opinion is short-sighted. Why should one or two multi-role ships be capable of doing so much? What other ships do you hear of people having mining, exploration, combat, trader/passenger variations other than these broken multi-purpose ships? Why do the Python and Anaconda need higher DPS potential then their class competitors? They aren't combat ships after all. Why are they allowed to go to Has Res's or conflict zones?

I've never heard anyone say, I guess I'll take my combat type 7, or I think I'll take my trading FDL or mining Vultures.

I think the real issue with people such as yourself, is you expect your interpretation of what's "proper balance"to apply to everyone else. There is no benefit to combat ships being held back in jump range. If that's the case they need to downsize the power distributors, thrusters, shield generators or armor of so-called multi-role ships. Put them at a real disadvantage. Especially the Anaconda which now shares the same hull mass of a much smaller medium class ship.

 

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

Maybe because they like the ship. Maybe because it has better internal storage. I think your opinion is short-sighted. Why should one or two multi-role ships be capable of doing so much? What other ships do you hear of people having mining, exploration, combat, trader/passenger variations other than these broken multi-purpose ships? Why do the Python and Anaconda need higher DPS potential then their class competitors? They aren't combat ships after all.

I've never heard anyone say, I guess I'll take my combat type 7, or I think I'll take my trading FDL.

I think the real issue with people such as yourself, is you expect your interpretation of what's "proper balance"to apply to everyone else. There is no benefit to combat ships being held back in jump range. If that's the case they need to downsize the power distributors, thrusters, shield generators or armor of so-called multi-role ships. Especially the Anaconda which now shares the same hull mass of a much smaller medium class ship.

The real issue is people like you expect every ship to be the same. If everyone has diamonds, then diamonds have no value.

 

[Majic-12]

On a related note...

[video=youtube;SwYN7mTi6HM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwYN7mTi6HM[/video]

 

[ManRightChea]

The real issue is people like you expect every ship to be the same. If everyone has diamonds, then diamonds have no value.

Diamonds actually don't have any value. They are just rocks. They were sold as engagement items because otherwise the diamond market would have gone bust.

https://youtu.be/yplI48hSt2E

These other ships are allowed to perpetrate as to what they are not. Where are the limitations? Since you believe so strongly in roles, explain to me why it's okay for the Python and Anaconda to be capable in combat. You can't say it's okay in one sense for one class of ship but not for the other. If combat ships should not be explorers, these multi-purpose ships should not be combat equivalent/viable.

The Anaconda should honestly gain about 250 tons hull mass, perhaps lose a large hardpoint, and a size on its thruster and shield generator. Maybe then it would be balanced to its supposed role. FD allows it to be broken. Take a large hardpoint off of that Python too, and drop it's thruster down to a 5.

 

[SAB380]

They need to perform a balance pass on all ships across the entire available fleet, crafting positives and negatives against each other.
Many ships would require little to no change, some would need reductions and some would need buffs.
Some would require a proper rethink - looking at you Type-7 and Clipper.

The jump range was initially set when the thinking was that majority of play would take place inside the core bubble, somewhere in a 150ly radius that encompasses the Fed, Empire capitals (and Founders world). That may need to be rethought now.
There are potential problems though. One of the main ways non-combat ships are meant to escape combat ships is to out jump them. If combat ships can match them, anyone without a combat load out is screwed, right?

Also, Engineers have changed what people consider an acceptable jump range. 20 used to be decent for a loaded ship and 30 was great. Now people are complaining because their combat Vette has a 'crappy' jump range of 25, because they're comparing to other ships that people have managed to engineer to 40+.

 

[MajorHavoc]

I understand it that the internally stored hardpoints affect the available internal space for other modules, for example the FdL with it's huge hardpoint on a medium hull leaves limited space for fuel,fsd etc. Anaconda is an odd one i suppose though.

 

[ManRightChea]

@SAB30 No combat outfitted Vette will ever do 25 light years. Even after engineering even an empty Vette with no heavy modules can only do about 23. Though I tend to agree with a lot of what you are saying. Combat Vettes have under 15 or sometimes under 10. Trading ships should be fast to outrun combat ships, but the problem is that trading and combat are the only two roles that are held to standards. So-called multi-purpose ships are allowed to be good at everything, Anaconda being allowed to be broken.

If the Anaconda and Python are supposed to be seen as more helpless then the FDL, Vette and Cutter then they need to be downgraded. Anaconda has no right having so much firepower, same can be said for the Python in comparison to the FDL. They both also have superior hull armor to their combat classmates, and better jump range. They don't have any weaknesses. They have comparable shielding and power distributors. Prismatic shields and class 4 hardpoints should be combat exclusive.

Yet nobody cares about that. Balance only matters if the ship is a combat ship. People never care about balance when imbalance benefits them.

 

[SAB380]

@SAB30 No combat outfitted Vette will ever do 25 light years. Even after engineering even an empty Vette with no heavy modules can only do about 23. Though I tend to agree with a lot of what you are saying. Combat Vettes have under 15 or sometimes under 10. Trading ships should be fast to outrun combat ships, but the problem is that trading and combat are the only two roles that are held to standards. So-called multi-purpose ships are allowed to be good at everything, Anaconda being allowed to be broken.

If the Anaconda and Python are supposed to be seen as more helpless then the FDL, Vette and Cutter then they need to be downgraded. Anaconda has no right having so much firepower, same can be said for the Python in comparison to the FDL. They both also have superior hull armor to their combat classmates, and better jump range. They don't have any weaknesses. They have comparable shielding and power distributors. Prismatic shields and class 4 hardpoints should be combat exclusive.

Yet nobody cares about that. Balance only matters if the ship is a combat ship. People never care about balance when imbalance benefits them.

Ah ok, happy to take your word for it on the Vette jump range. Was obviously confusing posts I've seen between stripped out explorer Vettes and combat ones.

I agree with you on the Anaconda and the Python. Just like jump range seems to be a hold over from early game design thinking, so do those two ships.
They were two early ship designs and I'd bet they were spec'd before many other ships from initial launch. The Python was obviously designed to be the mid size god ship and the Anaconda the end game large god ship.
As other ships were designed around them and newer ships added over the years, they are obviously way out of balance with the rest of the game.
Remember in the early days when the Python was so out of balance it could also move like a light fighter .... and the howls of rage from people when the devs reduced it to only the best ship in the game by a smaller margin lol

 

[Gun Star]

It's to give us design dilemmas, which is a good thing. Otherwise all ships would be the same and outfitting would be boring. As it is, I have to ask myself "Is it more important that this ship should be a beast in combat, or do I want to be able to deploy it quickly over a long distance?" RL military designers face similar dilemmas.

As for the Anaconda: yes, it can be built for a huge jump range. But if so it won't have "better DPS than the Corvette, more maneuverability than the Cutter" - it'll be made of paper and turn like a tortoise. It's versatile at outfitting, but that doesn't mean a single specimen can do anything those other ships can.

So much this. If someone tells you they have a combat conda that jumps 60LY they are flat out lying. In order to get those jump ranges you have to downsize modules, lightweight anything you can and then some more. Took me a while to get my Exploraconda jumping 62 LY. I only run 3 weapons on it. The shields are so low that they are there mainly for bumping into things and landing. I get into a fight they drop very quickly. The distributor is so under rated for the ship I had to engineer it for engine capacity to even boost.

 

[CMDR ANCALAGON]

So much this. If someone tells you they have a combat conda that jumps 60LY they are flat out lying. In order to get those jump ranges you have to downsize modules, lightweight anything you can and then some more. Took me a while to get my Exploraconda jumping 62 LY. I only run 3 weapons on it. The shields are so low that they are there mainly for bumping into things and landing. I get into a fight they drop very quickly. The distributor is so under rated for the ship I had to engineer it for engine capacity to even boost.

Agreed. This is why I now have two Anacondas. Once I had two of nearly all modules with one engineered for exploration and the other sized/engineered for combat, and once I had the coin, swapping modules became a pain.

I have a 64ly range if I leave the slf at home, but that is with no weapons, no capacity to boost, and smallest shields possible. My combat tank only has a 25 year range with the same FSD.