Serious proposals on how to reconcile the Anaconda WITHOUT DIRECTLY NERFING IT. (+Jump range)
- Thread starter GraXXoR
- Start date
Please explain for the benefit of someone who has been playing since only last June: What did they nerf the Python down from? Because as grossly over-capable as I personally believe the Python to be, I'm genuinely interested to know what it used to be like.
Grow a pair and fix the Anaconda's weight.
Anything else will be stealth power creep by another name.
It's this habit of playing around with the symptoms instead of addressing the root causes that creates these messes in the first place.
Anything else will be stealth power creep by another name.
It's this habit of playing around with the symptoms instead of addressing the root causes that creates these messes in the first place.
I don't think that other ships need the ability to remove 33% of their hull mass. Some of them would just become ridiculous.
As for the proposed solution, what drawback did the Anaconda suffer for It's hypothetical engineering work? Something needs to be directly nerfed for this solution unless the Anaconda has a crippling weakness I'm unaware of.
As for the proposed solution, what drawback did the Anaconda suffer for It's hypothetical engineering work? Something needs to be directly nerfed for this solution unless the Anaconda has a crippling weakness I'm unaware of.
A stock Federal Dropship is 180 tonnes HEAVIER compared to a stock Anaconda...
I will let that sink in for a second.
So you take an anaconda and duct tape a t-6 on it ( which is a medium ship btw too lol ) and you are still 25 tonnes short of a federal dropship.
Does not compute.
I will let that sink in for a second.
So you take an anaconda and duct tape a t-6 on it ( which is a medium ship btw too lol ) and you are still 25 tonnes short of a federal dropship.
Does not compute.
That's a very one-sided view. The conda steers like a pig (which is why a lot of explorers hate it) and nowhere near as well as a corvette, which is better able to bring its twin huge top mounted hard points to bear. The corvette has substantially larger internal space that supports a gargantuan quantity of SCBs and hull reinforcements (and makes it a better short haul trader), a larger shield that is practically impenetrable if set up properly plus an extra military slot. If there's an OP ship in this game the corvette is it.
The one thing the conda does better than anything else is jump range. You can't kill anything with jump range AFAIK, calling it "op" is rather a stretch. You've got to look at the entire package, not just cherry pick a stat you don't like.
The way I see it, the Corvette is supposed to be the premier combat ship, the Cutter a premier multirole...of the three ranks of the pilot's federation, there's no premiere exploration ship. And no fathomable reason why the warship (Corvettte) should have less armor (666) than a multirole like the Anaconda (a whopping 945.) I'd say swap these numbers (maybe rounding up to 700 for the Anaconda and 950-1000 for the Corvette) and leave the rest alone, including the Anaconda's jump range.
Should arbitrary hull hardness values be dispensed with, while we're at it? Or is that a fudge factor you're ok with?
Because it was truely amazing. It was the medium equivalent of the Anaconda; every bit as broken.
But it was too much of a good thing, it really was. And frontier clobbered it. Probably a bit hard? But rightly so. And just quietly? Frontier know they should have addressed Anaconda then too, but didn't. And it's damed everything else as a consequence. They made a choice. It hasn't aged well.
Frontier fundimentally has two ways to solve an outlier; nerf it (which they are not going to do, they just aren't) or change the median, so it's no-longer the outlier. The latter, which would see across the board changes to virtually every ship, is probably long overdue, and neatly reduces the distortion of the one, and improves the value of the many.
Possibly not the worst thing Frontier could do, by a long shot.
So is the notion there is nothing wrong. They aren't going to nerf the Anaconda. But if they shifted the baseline for every other ship, it wouldn't be as special. Is that your concern? I legit don't know.
No. Frontier won't fix the outlier, but shifting the median and moving everything else to be more relevant, reduces the gap, so it ceases to be one. It means Anaconda isn't really special though. And I am getting the impression maybe that's the problem with shifting everything else.
--
More generally - the irony of people saying Anaconda is fine, but moving everything else to better align with it, is power creep. You don't say?
Last edited:
Used to have a higher top speed, better shields and turn rates.
The devs would never change the Anaconda Hull mass. They could balance it by reducing that Class 8 Dist.
Last edited:
Geez, I dunno why people make this so hard.
All that needs to happen is the following simple 3-step plan:-
1) Nerf the Annie's integrity down to around, say, 250 with the standard hull.
2) Adjust the weight of the Reinforced alloy hull to, say, 200t and the integrity to +1,000.
3) Adjust the weight of the mil/mirrored/reactive hull to 400t and the integrity to +1,500.
That way, the Annie remains the uber-explorer for those who want to use it as such and nobody currently exploring in one gets stranded.
Fit a Reinforced Alloy hull and you get a big ship which is still fairly light but has good armour.
Fit a mil hull and you're back at the current level of integrity but with a sensible weight.
There's no need to over-think it.
All that needs to happen is the following simple 3-step plan:-
1) Nerf the Annie's integrity down to around, say, 250 with the standard hull.
2) Adjust the weight of the Reinforced alloy hull to, say, 200t and the integrity to +1,000.
3) Adjust the weight of the mil/mirrored/reactive hull to 400t and the integrity to +1,500.
That way, the Annie remains the uber-explorer for those who want to use it as such and nobody currently exploring in one gets stranded.
Fit a Reinforced Alloy hull and you get a big ship which is still fairly light but has good armour.
Fit a mil hull and you're back at the current level of integrity but with a sensible weight.
There's no need to over-think it.
It had the fastest pitch rate in the game and the best shields. Combined with the best hard point placement/convergence it was just far and away vastly superior to anything else available. I'd have to do a forum search. but I'm pretty sure it wasn't too long after 1.0 went live that FD swung the bat.
Pretty sure there was also a bug with the thusters where the 6C were actually as good or better than the 6A.
Also there were only half of the ships available back then.
It was fun while it lasted.
Early Gamma video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lXTyQ3xhY4&t=5s
Last edited:
Since when explorers are doing combat with their lightweight engineered d grade modules? Did i miss a memo? or are you really trying to compare supercruise agility to impulse speed combat maneuvering?
Fit the conda for combat and it performs as good as the other large ships, and i know people who argue even better.
I just maxed out a DD5 for the Anaconda. It improves the ship's handling in SC and normal space to the point it's not a barge anymore. I wouldn't fly it before because of the lesser agility, I think this improvement has changed my mind.
Given that this was on a light build, it was topping 390 thrust and quite a few % points higher in agility.
So now to get a second DD5 so both my Corvette and Anaconda can have them.
This makes the Anaconda better than before, so this thread argument just got a little more complicated.
Given that this was on a light build, it was topping 390 thrust and quite a few % points higher in agility.
So now to get a second DD5 so both my Corvette and Anaconda can have them.
This makes the Anaconda better than before, so this thread argument just got a little more complicated.
Last edited:
OP, I was ready to jump in and say "leave my Anaconda alone, I kill you!"
But alas, I actually like this idea.
+1
But alas, I actually like this idea.
+1
Engineered drives have never improved SC handling, are you saying this was added in 3.0?