For the most part I don't mind the current balance of the ships, but do think the Corvette should get one size bigger FSD slot soon.
How do jump range limitations make the game better? Anaconda's unrealistic hull mass.
- Thread starter ManRightChea
- Start date
I won't entirely disagree. The fact is, I don't care about balance; I don't even see what "balance" is in this context. When outfitting, I choose the best ship for the job I have in mind. Sometimes (not always) that's an Anaconda or Python. At the moment I'm using an Anaconda as my main combat ship because I haven't yet unlocked the Corvette. (Note: it doesn't have 60ly jump range!) When I can I'll change to Corvette for that purpose.
"Balance" sounds like eyeing someone else's ship and having a nagging doubt that they might have set it up better than I have mine; I can't see how it really matters. They have access to all the same ships I have, but they can make different choices if they like. Yes, sometimes the best ship for a job is obvious, but that also happens when choosing a car or a pizza. It needn't be seen as a problem.
It's all related to that "equality of opportunity" or "equality of outcome" thing in RL politics.
From what I know of the Corvette, I agree.
Last edited:
I don't think its necessarily the distance that makes jumping in a 15~20ish LY ship so painful, but the repetition of jump, scoop, align, wait, rinse and repeat.
I had an idea for a rework of jump ranges that wouldn't strand anyone (very important to consider those folks out in deep deep space before making any universal range changes). Allow jump range to be controlled via fuel slider with the current values.
An example: I have an 18 LY Corvette that uses exactly 25% fuel per jump (for simplicity). The max I could make in a single jump would be 71 LY without completely emptying my tank. Or maybe you only need to go 60 LY, boom, one jump instead of 4 (usually more due to that 18ly not being fully utilized per jump on our current system).
Trade ships and explorers would still have a range advantage on combat ships, travel time is better all round but not instantaneous, and suddenly I'm engaged in my current jump making decisions about distance vs. fuel consumption, scoop time for All-In-One vs. Economic Routing instead of "press button wait on screen". Adds danger too, get sloppy and burn all your fuel to a non KGBFOAM system and your hosed.
But I do see a few problems:
1. Route plotting would have to be 1 jump at a time, unless you could specify fuel tonnage per jump in the plotter maybe?
2. Extra fuel tanks would allow absurd distances (I.E. Beluga). Haven't thought of how to fix that one.
3. With any change to travel time, veterans who have been to distant places feel their work is invalidated if it suddenly becomes faster easier.
Anywho, just my .02 as a CMDR whose lost the "wow" factor of the jump screen.
I had an idea for a rework of jump ranges that wouldn't strand anyone (very important to consider those folks out in deep deep space before making any universal range changes). Allow jump range to be controlled via fuel slider with the current values.
An example: I have an 18 LY Corvette that uses exactly 25% fuel per jump (for simplicity). The max I could make in a single jump would be 71 LY without completely emptying my tank. Or maybe you only need to go 60 LY, boom, one jump instead of 4 (usually more due to that 18ly not being fully utilized per jump on our current system).
Trade ships and explorers would still have a range advantage on combat ships, travel time is better all round but not instantaneous, and suddenly I'm engaged in my current jump making decisions about distance vs. fuel consumption, scoop time for All-In-One vs. Economic Routing instead of "press button wait on screen". Adds danger too, get sloppy and burn all your fuel to a non KGBFOAM system and your hosed.
But I do see a few problems:
1. Route plotting would have to be 1 jump at a time, unless you could specify fuel tonnage per jump in the plotter maybe?
2. Extra fuel tanks would allow absurd distances (I.E. Beluga). Haven't thought of how to fix that one.
3. With any change to travel time, veterans who have been to distant places feel their work is invalidated if it suddenly becomes faster easier.
Anywho, just my .02 as a CMDR whose lost the "wow" factor of the jump screen.
I wonder if the Wright brothers would feel that they're work has been invalidated.[smile]
If what? They're dead, and this is a video game made by Frontier. Was there some point you're trying to make, or do you prefer wasting your time on absurdities for the... Wait. Where are we again?
Alright, never mind.
Balance is not something that a person should have to approach on a case-by-case basis. That mindset only appears when a person is trying to convince themselves or rationalize to themselves why something is balanced; even when the object clearly is not.
A fully automatic DMR on a modified Halo game could easily be seen as the best choice. A sprinter on steroids could be seen as the best choice compared to a clean sprinter. That is if our determination is based on performance and not the impact that things such as ethical or sporting use present. Perhaps the nagging uneasiness/pseudo jealousy you speak of is not actually jealousy, perhaps the runner in the other lane is tired of racing a person using performance-enhancing drugs.
In the case of the Anaconda, it may be the best choice for exploration, but not because of any particular unique strength. It is going to be the best choice because it is the singular ship in the game that is allowed to NOT be balanced. Every person's overcharged grade 4 power plant or downsized low-power shield generator, being the product of imbalance. Such parts cannot be put on a Cutter for instance, it's correct hull mass giving error messages if you try.
The Anaconda is unique in that, even the Python is more balanced. Balance is similar to committing a crime. A person can argue for days with themselves and rationalize their behavior, however when all is said and done, that person still knows the difference between right and wrong. They just choose to ignore that nagging conscience in the back of their mind.
Likewise people know when things are not balanced, however for their ultimate benefit they will ignore such things. It is the kind of mentality that will allow a person to fly a warship that weighs the same as a medium class cruiser and not see anything wrong.
I don't understand why people argue balance with the Anaconda, as it is inherently imbalanced when used to its maximum potential, otherwise impossible. I think more people could understand the benefit of more jump range on the Corvette and combat ships like it, if they had not grown accustomed to a ship with double the jump range it would normally have if it were subject to the same rules as every other other ship.
Like I said before balance is not important to those that don't respect the concept. They will fight to protect this imbalance, seeking to point the finger at the person drawing attention to the imbalance. Just like a criminal will point the finger at others before they will themselves.
A person that has honor or integrity should not see the two situations as different, nor the two ships. A person that respects those concepts should only see the principal, they should only want both ships to follow the same ruleset, rather than feign ignorance as to there being a problem.
This is difficult to attain however, because in this case, each the other users, the law enforcement, and the prosecution are all dirty, they are all in on the "crime". Doesn't change the fact that those people are still aware of the problem.
They simply have to want to accept the balance, most do not. The choice of being crooked or accepting the bribes vs not is no choice to a person that chooses to do the right thing or wants to be honest. One choice is no choice at all. Balance shouldn't be something people appreciate only when it's convenient.
Last edited:
Legendary jump range is the defining characteristic of the anaconda.
The corvette is a demonstrably stronger combat ship than the anaconda. It is also a significantly better trader on short haul routes, due to it massive cargo advantage.
Cherry picking "dps" while ignoring massive internal slot , shield, maneuoverability advantages is ridiculous.
And to follow that by accusing others of being "one eyed" or biased, thats just hypocrisy. It's comical.
"Honor and integrity" eh? Get off your high horse.
The corvette is a demonstrably stronger combat ship than the anaconda. It is also a significantly better trader on short haul routes, due to it massive cargo advantage.
Cherry picking "dps" while ignoring massive internal slot , shield, maneuoverability advantages is ridiculous.
And to follow that by accusing others of being "one eyed" or biased, thats just hypocrisy. It's comical.
"Honor and integrity" eh? Get off your high horse.
Last edited:
No you need to learn to read, I don't know what you're talkin about as far as one eyed. However you all are clearly biased. The vast majority of feedback has been people trying to protect the broken nature of the Anaconda. The legendary jump that you speak of is the result of imbalance. Period. There is no cherry picking, just like I told numerous people earlier. Facts are facts. The only person cherry-picking is yourself, you are more obsessed on trying to apologize for a broken ship than acknowledging it for what it is.
Base armor > Corvette.
Shield = Corvette.
Internal storage roughly = to Corvette and Cutter.
Speed > Corvette.
Manueverability > Cutter.
Price < Corvette and Cutter.
Hull Mass < Corvette and Cutter.
Jump Range > Corvette and Cutter
DPS > Corvette and Cutter.
Same hull mass as medium class ships despite being one of the largest of the large landing pad ships. If bare cargo storage etc justifies the brokenness of the Anaconda to people like you, then it is only fair that it be reduced for the Anaconda. Reduction in internal storage, removal of a couple of hardpoints, 300 tons more hull mass or a combination of multiple. Removal of military slots and fighter hangar capability. Then you might start to make the ship balanced. It ruins the idea of roles. None of you people care about balance at all. The Corvette and Cutter should have advantages, they require more work to unlock and are significantly more expensive.
In truth multi-purpose ships have no business being in conflict zones or hazardous resource sites. However Anaconda pilots would b**** if they didn't have access. You will argue day and night for your broken ship, yet want to tell combat ships that having low jump range is fine. All while depending on what is effectively a bug to outfit your ship for maximum jump range. Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. That is the mantra of the Anaconda pilot. Only thing today's discussion has showed me about Anaconda pilots is that they are low class people with no honor. Literally more people defending imbalance today.
A dishonest ship for dishonest pilots, it honestly should never have been added to the game.
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, it was one of the first ships in the game. Jeesh. When someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they can't read, or are cheaters. You have an opinion just like everyone else. Fortunately, the 'Conda is available to everyone. Join the gravy train. Or not, but please let up a bit on the vitriol.
I presume you are just trolling now.
As for implying that people with different views lack "honour and integrity" and are "dishonest", well, you know what you can do, don't you?
As for implying that people with different views lack "honour and integrity" and are "dishonest", well, you know what you can do, don't you?
The same thing you can do. It's the truth regardless. The majority of every discussion today has been people trying to protect the imbalance of the Anaconda, spreading lies and misinformation, and using this broken nature to discourage combat ship FSD improvements. It tells me a lot, more than I anticipated earlier.
That's exactly what it is. A dishonest ship for dishonest pilots.
So aside from the majority of posters on these forums being zealots that seek to censor criticism, I can add liars and dishonorable to the list of qualities. Aside from maybe 6 or so people.
It’s twice the weight of the Hindenburg. Broken af. Hate that ship. Lol.
All the more reason it should not have been allowed to ruin every future large ship that comes into the game. All the more reason it should have been corrected earlier. I'm simply calling them like I see them. Trying to corral the entire community into one ship is not balanced. Doesn't matter if everyone can buy one, the fact that I even have to explain that says a lot.
Last edited:
Don't forget logic and critical thinking, for good measure.
In general I'm for more engaging and compelling content in the game than ways of more easily and quickly getting to the content that is already there.
Getting across the bubble seems fast enough to me, as it should have some weight to it but likewise not be too inconvenient. I think it's fine as is, and the majority of gameplay in the game is there or around there anyway.
The rest is largely optional and not linked to progression in the game anyway, so only bother with it if you feel compelled to for some reason like me.
Anaconda? Ship doesn't do it for me anyway. But hey, that's just me.
Last edited:
OP I feel I understand what you're trying to say. The game sets certain rules for the ships and your concern is that a few particular ships do not have these rules applied to them. I applaud your sense of fair play. I agree that when rules in a game are set even in a fantastical sci-fi setting, they should be adhered to. Strict adherence and limitations are what make the game more believable. If the game starts breaking its own rules and makes unfair exceptions, then all sorts of problems start to develop and everything starts to break down. The adherence of every design decision falls under question. I get what you're saying, however... I don't think the reaction you're getting is altogether unexpected. The Anaconda was kind of the premiere ship for a long while before alternatives were introduced. As you have mentioned yourself... It would be difficult to walk back from where it is now without causing major upset. It might be the right thing to do but implementing that without drawing too much ire from the players would be very very challenging.
I've seen this argument before about the Anaconda, and I actually do agree with you. Either the ship is brought in line with the rules, or the rules are changed for the other ships that it applies to as well. However I do think some kind of compromise can be found without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'm sure there are far more intelligent people than I at FDev that can provide better solutions to this than what I can think of. Something that perhaps would be amicable for all parties? I hope so anyway. It seems like a very difficult problem that needs to be handled delicately.
I've seen this argument before about the Anaconda, and I actually do agree with you. Either the ship is brought in line with the rules, or the rules are changed for the other ships that it applies to as well. However I do think some kind of compromise can be found without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'm sure there are far more intelligent people than I at FDev that can provide better solutions to this than what I can think of. Something that perhaps would be amicable for all parties? I hope so anyway. It seems like a very difficult problem that needs to be handled delicately.
That's easy: Keelback! If I could get my Keelback to jump like an Anaconda I'd literally never fly any other ship like 95% of the time. It has the great view of a Lakon cockpit, it has great looks, it has an awesome boost sound, it's a medium ship that lands easy anywhere, it can carry an SLF, it has enough internals to carry everything needed for deep space exploration, and oh yeah it's engines rotate!
It's a consequence of 400t hull mass, m8, versus the FSD class. FSD range is a calculated value based on the ratio of FSD class and hull mass. It's one of the few genuinely calculated values. The reason it's a defining mechanic, is because the hull mass of the anaconda is 400t.
It's the only ship that is less than 900t hull mass with a class 6 FSD. The defining characteristic of the Anaconda, is the developer used the incorrect sized FSD drive for the mass. To match ships around the same mass, it should have a class 5, or the hull mass should have been 500-600t.
Frontier goofed. People have been trying to pretend they haven't, even though they have, ever since.
Last edited: