How do jump range limitations make the game better? Anaconda's unrealistic hull mass.
- Thread starter ManRightChea
- Start date
I never said it did, my opinion is not stopping anyone from enjoying their ships in whatever capacity. People just don't have the facts nor logic to defend their own position in a sensible manner. It is the opinions of other people attempting to stop the enjoyment of combat ship pilots; all using the most imbalanced ship in the game as some form of rationalization for their bias. That's not my problem.And neither does yours...
It is clear that other people do feel similarly though, and that others also see the broken nature of the Anaconda. That's all the validation I need to know my point is perfectly valid. I don't need the emotive responses or childish provocations .
Last edited:
Try some fresh air and a new perspective. Yeah, doesn't work all that well for me either.
When in Rome...
Last edited:
The idea that the Dev's ignore criticism is proven wrong by just having a look at the KWS discussions. Basically, except for the aChief, 3.0 has been entirely about reacting to player criticism. When hyperbole takes over a conversation, the argument is lost.
In defense of FD there are many decisions they have to take that will anger someone, look at the 3.0 Engineers conversations. They will change when a compelling argument is made, as we can all see. Just because the don;t agree, or act, doesn't mean they don't pay attention.
In defense of FD there are many decisions they have to take that will anger someone, look at the 3.0 Engineers conversations. They will change when a compelling argument is made, as we can all see. Just because the don;t agree, or act, doesn't mean they don't pay attention.
A long time ago. I don't want Frontier to upend the entire cart, but neither FDL or Corvette jump ranges are overly sane. I'm not too worried if it's just a small mass loss to nudge the FSD up by a few LY, but something that's a reasonable compromise that essentially improves QoL when transiting, without turning both into insane range masters.
Orca lost half it's mass because it had similar range by the way; it was awful at one point. Adding cabins to it was, to be kind, not good. Things change. Because sometimes a design was built based on a set of circumstances that aren't really relevant any more.
I'm not sure starving two ships by about 5-6LY over something comparable, is really solving world hunger or improving the experience overly; it's just making them a trudge to drive and they sit in stark contrast to everything else.
Last edited:
I pretty much agree. I think the Corvette and FDL could use with a tweak to get them into the 23-26ly range with a standard combat load (NOT a super-heavy combat load maxed with HRP/MRP/SCBs etc). That would be for the Corvette a bump of 4-5ly depending on the weapon loadout. Going lightweight would probably get it into the mid-30s.
Perhaps it is only that you see hyperbole where others see fact. Sure Frontier has of very recently begun to acknowledge the concerns of the fan base to a limited extent. However this does not indicate that they actually participate in any active discussion with players and the times that they choose to do so are very limited/premeditated. No natural exchange on their own forums. There is no mutual exchange. It has nothing to do with constructiveness/constructivity either because not all criticism on this board is blind or irate criticism. I have never seen FD acknowledge even articulate yet brutal truth.
This is also after years of inattention or indifference. Years of only showing active participation or effort when it came time to "balance" or otherwise nerf some form of player resource attainment. Years further still of for whatever reason choosing not to pursue highly requested features such as space legs, new SRVs, atmospheric landings etc. This is after 4 years of time passing after what was once a strong plan for content.
Luckily there has been no shortage of yes-men, zealous behavior and active censorship and belittlement of those that present valid criticism. So no I don't agree that any of that deserves praise. Is it nice to finally have some positive outlook for the future? Sure, but I make an effort to see it for what it is, with the right perspective based on the full picture.
Last edited:
If the anaconda was to be nerfed (totally unnecessary in my opinion), I'd rather see it keep the jump range and lose a couple of hardpoints so it would have less gunboat potential. It has always been *the* long range armed trader. It has never been a short range ship nor a soft target.
But buff the corvette...get outta here, you guys are shameless.
But buff the corvette...get outta here, you guys are shameless.
Outside of people's personal biases, there is absolutely no justification for the Corvette not having at least mid 30s jump range, even low twenties fully combat loaded. It is supposed to be a premium warship used by the Federal Navy. I would love to see how the Federation transported it.
The Anaconda alone is the sole reason these big ships cannot find a happy medium. I do not see the point in future big ships when this one unbalanced ship, can simply dictate and ruin the future capability of that ship.
The Anacondas existence has directly hurt the Corvette, the Cutter and the Type 10. The Type 9 was burned by it too. In a lot of ways it does not even deserve to be seen as a big ship, not when it competes with and even surpasses medium class vessels by hull mass.
@crushdepth. Buffing a ship or ships with clear disadvantages to the most broken ship in the game? Absurd! You consider buffing these combat ships outlandish, but you turn a blind eye to the broken nature of the Anaconda itself. Not just a blind eye but outright fear and discouragement to the idea of balancing.
Last edited:
I was being as daft and over the top as I could so it would be clear I was being facetious
Goals for Wednesday.
[v] Use 'facetious' in a sentence.
It's funny this, but as an explorer I hate the Anaconda. It has a long jump range but has to be dragged kicking and screaming around each star and it has impaired vision and I have met moons with better supercruise turning circles.
The Asp is so Oogly it ruins all it's other excellent qualities, the DBX only can fit a fuel sipper, so in my view, the best exploration ships are the Orca or the T-6. One is a passenger ship, the other a transport ship.
Well you've got that back to front. The anaconda predates the corvette by a very large margin, the mere fact that the corvette exists as an option means there are fewer conda pilots out there. The "soft power" cutter was never designed to be a gunboat, if I understand the description correctly, and the type 9 is also a different beast, a pure high capacity trade ship that is not comparable to the rest.
Also worth mentioning, since you have overlooked it, is that the corvette can pack 616 tonnes of cargo on top of a couple of huge military compartments, which is rather a lot of armour and SCBs in my experience, particularly when combined with a class 7 shield (conda is 6) and superior maneuverability, which allows those twin huge hard points to be easily brought to bear.
I don't have a "bias" or a "blind eye", I just think you're wrong.
For the record my anaconda can do about 63 LY. It has: No weapons, no armour, no hull reinforcements, no SCBs and the smallest shield that will fit. I think that's a fair price to pay for a premium jump range.
I was being as daft and over the top as I could so it would be clear I was being facetious
Goals for Wednesday.
[v] Use 'facetious' in a sentence.
It's funny this, but as an explorer I hate the Anaconda. It has a long jump range but has to be dragged kicking and screaming around each star and it has impaired vision and I have met moons with better supercruise turning circles.
The Asp is so Oogly it ruins all it's other excellent qualities, the DBX only can fit a fuel sipper, so in my view, the best exploration ships are the Orca or the T-6. One is a passenger ship, the other a transport ship.
I felt that about the Asp at first but grew to love it. I hate the anaconda. It reminds of an early 80's sierra and can't they add a button to turn that blasted overhead light off. Everytime you look up you are blinded by it!
I'm currently experimenting with a T10 (with a 20ish LY range OP) and am seriously considering taking it know 3.0 has landed.
Anyway, this whole argument boils down to the fact the best ship is also the ugliest so OP doesn't want it but wants all its attributes on a ship they do like. Also that is a multi-role ship so should be not be as good as specialist ships at their specialism. Oh, and fast travel is boring.... I find that I must admit that I agree on all points.
Last edited:
Sorry old bean, it was past my bedtime. I was referring to the similarity of your handle with the infamous covfefe tweet. A similarity that in the cold light of this snow covered morning, is not so apparent.
Not sure about the jump range thing. Hopefully we’ll be getting some military modules later this year to help with that. As for the Anaconda..... it’s a problem in the game at the moment which has become more pronounced since engineering. I know FD don’t want to nerf, but if every big ship handles like the Anaconda then it’ll kill the flight model and dogfights.
SO NERF THE ANACONDA... and restore order to the galaxy.... now.
SO NERF THE ANACONDA... and restore order to the galaxy.... now.
Oh, it's this thread again.
There are basically two issues people have with jump ranges. No matter what the intent of the OP, these threads always boil down to these two factors:
As for the Anaconda's very edge-case specification, it would be nice to remove its outlier status but we really can't touch the huge jump range without stranding hundreds of explorers. I suspect the only solution that would please the majority would be to create two variants. Harmonise the hull mass to be more in line with other ships (certainly much bigger than the silly 400T) then give the Explorer variant a Class 7 FSD to compensate and remove all it's hardpoints except two smalls. Juggle the numbers a bit to make sure that the maximum jump ranges are the same between the Explorer and legacy Anacondas, then offer all Anaconda owners a choice of which one they want (free FSD upgrade / weapon refund where necessary). Combat and multi-purpose players would likely go for the regular build, explorers for the Explorer.
(Edit: because someone's bound to point it out, the Explorer variant would probably need some adjustment to its distributor and possibly the power plant too. And there are lots of custom exploration builds out there with small overcharged power plants, minimal thrusters and variously focused distributors. FD would need to look at the metrics and come up with some best-fit numbers. It's not a quick solution but it may be the only workable one. Leaving things as they are just invites variations of this thread to bubble up every few weeks.)
Err... of course it will. On average it will halve or quarter them.
There are basically two issues people have with jump ranges. No matter what the intent of the OP, these threads always boil down to these two factors:
- Too many "loading screens" when moving combat ships around the bubble.
- Anaconda's range is OP because its hull mass is ridiculously low.
As for the Anaconda's very edge-case specification, it would be nice to remove its outlier status but we really can't touch the huge jump range without stranding hundreds of explorers. I suspect the only solution that would please the majority would be to create two variants. Harmonise the hull mass to be more in line with other ships (certainly much bigger than the silly 400T) then give the Explorer variant a Class 7 FSD to compensate and remove all it's hardpoints except two smalls. Juggle the numbers a bit to make sure that the maximum jump ranges are the same between the Explorer and legacy Anacondas, then offer all Anaconda owners a choice of which one they want (free FSD upgrade / weapon refund where necessary). Combat and multi-purpose players would likely go for the regular build, explorers for the Explorer.
(Edit: because someone's bound to point it out, the Explorer variant would probably need some adjustment to its distributor and possibly the power plant too. And there are lots of custom exploration builds out there with small overcharged power plants, minimal thrusters and variously focused distributors. FD would need to look at the metrics and come up with some best-fit numbers. It's not a quick solution but it may be the only workable one. Leaving things as they are just invites variations of this thread to bubble up every few weeks.)
Last edited:
So what's really behind this? The thread title is actually two titles; what's the connection?
I understand that it's not fun to fly a combat ship with short jump range. I beefed up my FDL all tanky to fight Thargoids and it was painful to get anywhere. At one point I took one hull reinforcement back out to fit an extra fuel tank because I was paranoid about getting stranded. But to most of us it makes sense that a very heavy ship has low jump range. F=ma and all that. That seems to me how it should be with military stuff.
A small buff might not be a bad idea. An FSD supercharge module which only fits a military slot? Lighter hulls? Bigger FSD slot? There are possible ways.
But the thread title and most suggested fixes are telling. "Nerf the Anaconda!" Eh? How would that help Cutter and Corvette pilots exactly? So all this is really about envy: someone who chose a different and less capable ship is better-off than me in one area - this cannot be borne!
The reality:
* If you build an Anaconda for 60ly jumps it won't be any good for combat or for cargo carrying.
* Anaconda isn't better than Corvette for combat.
* Anaconda can't carry as much cargo as Cutter.
* Anaconda's hull lightness is reflected in lower hull hardness than any of the other "big 4".
No nerf is needed, and if one was applied it wouldn't fix the OP problem.
I understand that it's not fun to fly a combat ship with short jump range. I beefed up my FDL all tanky to fight Thargoids and it was painful to get anywhere. At one point I took one hull reinforcement back out to fit an extra fuel tank because I was paranoid about getting stranded. But to most of us it makes sense that a very heavy ship has low jump range. F=ma and all that. That seems to me how it should be with military stuff.
A small buff might not be a bad idea. An FSD supercharge module which only fits a military slot? Lighter hulls? Bigger FSD slot? There are possible ways.
But the thread title and most suggested fixes are telling. "Nerf the Anaconda!" Eh? How would that help Cutter and Corvette pilots exactly? So all this is really about envy: someone who chose a different and less capable ship is better-off than me in one area - this cannot be borne!
The reality:
* If you build an Anaconda for 60ly jumps it won't be any good for combat or for cargo carrying.
* Anaconda isn't better than Corvette for combat.
* Anaconda can't carry as much cargo as Cutter.
* Anaconda's hull lightness is reflected in lower hull hardness than any of the other "big 4".
No nerf is needed, and if one was applied it wouldn't fix the OP problem.
If you could choose any ship for an explorer and make it have the range of the Anaconda what would you choose? Me I would truly like to see a light version of the Dropship. If I could make It jump 40-50 I would be pleased. I'm so stoked when I'm in my Dropship the interior and exterior makes me feel like I'm in a Transformer.
@crushdepth
Basically all I see is people finding excuses to justify an imbalance. There is nothing strange about wanting more jump range for combat ships. Anaconda is a broken ship. It is not balanced and it steps on the feet of many ships. It shares the same hull mass as numerous medium class ships for no good reason. It has superior DPS, higher base armor than the Corvette and it also has military slots and can fit a fighter hangar. How much cargo the Corvette can run empty is irrelevant to the fact that the Anaconda is broken.
There is no justification there. People keep grasping at straws over the Corvette, when the Anaconda is unjustifiable. It is allowed to be broken. Frontier Development allows it, and the community protects it and defends it. These people cannot pretend to care about balance. If they want to say that it is because of definable roles, I still submit that these multi-purpose ships really have no business being in conflict zones or hazardous resource sites because they are not combat ships supposedly. They are not given smaller power distributors, or smaller power supplies or any of the other litany of things that can be done to balance them. The Anaconda and Python are allowed to be outliers.
FD could have done what was right but they chose not to, so every large ship destined to come into the game will be compromised in some way. The Anaconda is the perfect ship to use as an example, because it illustrates the hypocrisy of the community.
The same people saying that there is some extra immersion by making space travel more tedious for combat pilots are the same people vehemently defending a ship that undermines any form of balance or believability.
As I said before, balance only matters to people when it is convenient to their personal bias. Owning the ship does not change this fact. As much as people try to suggest that I am somehow the problem or that my idea is somehow the problem, the truth is that they know that the Anaconda is not balanced at all. They simply allow themselves to look past it because they have been spoiled by its brokenness. ExploraConda builds would not exist if the ship was properly balanced. They only exist because a low hull mass allows the ship to do things that others cannot. The exploration Anaconda is the result of poor balance. The fact that it literally should not exist renders any so-called justification about price of admission meaningless. It is allowed to exist, so it wouldn't matter if it only had 2 hit points of health, it is still a perversion of the status quo.
The Anaconda receives all of the benefits of its large body with none of the drawbacks. It has all of the firepower that it's large body allows via its hard points, it has all of the internal storage of a big ship, yet it has none of the drawbacks. Half of the ship is missing in another dimension so that explains its weight, the same lack of weight which allows it to undermine even bespoke exploration ships like the Asp and DBX. It has higher DPS and handling than the Cutter, a bespoke premium military ship meant for combat by its own description. The Vette and Cutter have reasons to be specialized, the Anaconda does not have any reason. Yet it still has military slots and can fit a fighter bay. Yet it masquerades as a multi-purpose.
Therefore it harms not only the Corvette, but the Cutter, the Type 9 and Type 10, the Beluga and Orca as well. If the Panther Clipper should come to the game, it too will be compromised by the Anaconda as well. The way that people try to defend the broken nature of the Anaconda is similar to watching a drug addict attempt to justify their addiction. At the end of the day no matter what they say, they are still a junkie.
Basically all I see is people finding excuses to justify an imbalance. There is nothing strange about wanting more jump range for combat ships. Anaconda is a broken ship. It is not balanced and it steps on the feet of many ships. It shares the same hull mass as numerous medium class ships for no good reason. It has superior DPS, higher base armor than the Corvette and it also has military slots and can fit a fighter hangar. How much cargo the Corvette can run empty is irrelevant to the fact that the Anaconda is broken.
There is no justification there. People keep grasping at straws over the Corvette, when the Anaconda is unjustifiable. It is allowed to be broken. Frontier Development allows it, and the community protects it and defends it. These people cannot pretend to care about balance. If they want to say that it is because of definable roles, I still submit that these multi-purpose ships really have no business being in conflict zones or hazardous resource sites because they are not combat ships supposedly. They are not given smaller power distributors, or smaller power supplies or any of the other litany of things that can be done to balance them. The Anaconda and Python are allowed to be outliers.
FD could have done what was right but they chose not to, so every large ship destined to come into the game will be compromised in some way. The Anaconda is the perfect ship to use as an example, because it illustrates the hypocrisy of the community.
The same people saying that there is some extra immersion by making space travel more tedious for combat pilots are the same people vehemently defending a ship that undermines any form of balance or believability.
As I said before, balance only matters to people when it is convenient to their personal bias. Owning the ship does not change this fact. As much as people try to suggest that I am somehow the problem or that my idea is somehow the problem, the truth is that they know that the Anaconda is not balanced at all. They simply allow themselves to look past it because they have been spoiled by its brokenness. ExploraConda builds would not exist if the ship was properly balanced. They only exist because a low hull mass allows the ship to do things that others cannot. The exploration Anaconda is the result of poor balance. The fact that it literally should not exist renders any so-called justification about price of admission meaningless. It is allowed to exist, so it wouldn't matter if it only had 2 hit points of health, it is still a perversion of the status quo.
The Anaconda receives all of the benefits of its large body with none of the drawbacks. It has all of the firepower that it's large body allows via its hard points, it has all of the internal storage of a big ship, yet it has none of the drawbacks. Half of the ship is missing in another dimension so that explains its weight, the same lack of weight which allows it to undermine even bespoke exploration ships like the Asp and DBX. It has higher DPS and handling than the Cutter, a bespoke premium military ship meant for combat by its own description. The Vette and Cutter have reasons to be specialized, the Anaconda does not have any reason. Yet it still has military slots and can fit a fighter bay. Yet it masquerades as a multi-purpose.
Therefore it harms not only the Corvette, but the Cutter, the Type 9 and Type 10, the Beluga and Orca as well. If the Panther Clipper should come to the game, it too will be compromised by the Anaconda as well. The way that people try to defend the broken nature of the Anaconda is similar to watching a drug addict attempt to justify their addiction. At the end of the day no matter what they say, they are still a junkie.
Last edited:
That's the problem with this game. It sounds to me as though you've treated that situation as part of the gameplay, albeit one you'd not seek out voluntarily. There was a problem with a loadout choice, so you found an in-game way to mitigate some of the impact. Other players in the exact same situation would have seen nothing but "FD ruining my game using unnecessary blocks" getting in the way of the only thing they see as "real" gameplay, pointing the ship at something and pulling the trigger.
Any opinion on MadDogMurdock's idea of increasing the jump range between systems with nav beacons? It seems to be the best compromise but I didn't see much feedback on it either here or in its original thread, and I worry that I may be missing something obvious that renders it non-viable.
Probably the Cutter. It's big and it looks good (a fine ambassador for humankind's tech should we encounter any NTIs, compared with the other more utilitarian designs). Maybe even the Corvette for similar reasons; as a non-combat focused player it's not a ship I've ever particularly loved, but I could see it being a good exploration flagship.
For something low key, more James Cameron than James Cook, maybe the Cobra Mk IV.
I'll always choose T-6.
Mind you haven't flown any of the rank locked ships, because I don't do rank.