I've come to the conclusion that some folks just want a TARDIS.
Ship Balance - why do you care?
- Thread starter JohnRoberts
- Start date
Notwithstanding "within reason", I for one do not expect skill and experience to always make up for a difference in ship strengths and find this obsession with "balance" a bit silly. In real life if I'm in a Ferrari and my opponent is in an old Chevy Chevette his driving skills have little chance of overcoming my speed ability even if I'm a new or mediocre driver. I like it this way. Its REAL. You want a Federal Corvette to own hazres? Go earn one! You want mega cargo? Earn your Python or Conda!
I think it should be near impossible for a sidewinder piloted by a veteran ED player to defeat a newer player in a corvette. Not impossible, but nearly.
If all ships are "balanced" too much it leaves little reason to own different ones.
Look guys, the Anaconda is available to anyone with the credits to buy one. If you think that it's the best ship in the game, as op as a main battle tank at the Battle of Meggido, you're free to fly one. If you refuse because it's too op, then that's fine as well. There are loads of other ships to chose. Let's not nerf all the things just because you don't agree with some design choices. There'll always be a 'best' ship, try not to get hung up on it.
I want to fly the Anaconda, and I also want it to be nerfed heavily. Tell me why I should care enough about your opinion to stay silent and not ask Frontier to make the changes I would like to see them make?
You're entirely free to say you don't want the Anacona to get nerfed of course.
Edit: it's nothing against you Bill, just that when the arguments boil down to "I want" and "I don't want", I think it's best we're honest and don't make ourselves look like there's really much to discuss.
Last edited:
Those are hardly fair comparisons due to massive cost differences and often significant differences in technology. Nobody would ever say that an E-rated ship should be equal to a similar but A-rated one. Rather than comparing a modern AR-15 to an old AK, what about an L85, G36, FAMAS or SG 550? They have differences, sure, but you could easily write multiple theses on which one, if any, was better. What about comparing the L85 and the L86? Very similar, but they both have their advantages and disadvantages, so it's quite difficult to outright say that one is better than the other. If comparing tanks, you would never compare a Cromwell to an Abrahams, instead you would be comparing the M1A1 Abrahams to a Challenger 2, or to a Leopard 2, or any other similarly priced tank from the same generation.
The first real question that needs to be asked here is: "Balanced in what way?" or "Balanced against what standard?"
There a lot of ways a ship's "balance" can be determined. Combat is one factor. Capabilities and capacity are others.
The folks behind the curtain work pretty hard to ensure there is no "best ship" in the game, despite all the very mistaken beliefs around here that a "best ship" exists.
There are ships that are better than others at different tasks. An Imperial Eagle would make a poor choice for a Freighter, a Fer de Lance would make a poor choice as a miner, and a hauler makes a poor choice for a combat ship. There are clearly ships much better suited for these tasks.
The equating "biggest" and "most expensive" with "best" however, is just a mental failing caused by too many video games.
Maintaining the "No Best Ship" model is, in all likelihood, at the center of what Frontier folks call "balancing", but only someone on the inside can actually confirm or deny this.
We need only look at the potential outrage when, for a very short time, in the beta, the Type-7 was allowed to be competitive in jump range with the Anaconda. I mean, how DARE they challenge this large multi-role ship's unbalanced jump range capacity with a mere freighter? The forums nearly boiled over, and this was scuttled very quickly.
Personally I've love to see some more options for ships with extreme range capabilities, especially lower-cost options to perhaps finally stymie the urge for people to find the most repetitive tasks possible and do them for days on end, to wrack up as many credits as possible to buy an Anaconda, outfit it with the smallest modules possible and jump it 80 Ly at a time and call themselves "explorers".
I own every ship available, multiples of most of them, including the Corvette, Cutter, and Chieftain (first time using those three ships in the same sentence). For me, all of my various ships have a purpose, a function, and none are just for storage of overflow modules. Some have just a single function - I have an Adder in one system with the sole purpose of visiting 2 planets in that system, to gather resources. Some serve a wider array of functions (Exploration-built Beluga that just happens to really shine in a fight), and I'll confess, I'm still having a bit of trouble discovering the hidden "purpose" of the Chieftain. So far I haven't found anything I can use it for that I can't use another ship for just as well or better.
There a lot of ways a ship's "balance" can be determined. Combat is one factor. Capabilities and capacity are others.
The folks behind the curtain work pretty hard to ensure there is no "best ship" in the game, despite all the very mistaken beliefs around here that a "best ship" exists.
There are ships that are better than others at different tasks. An Imperial Eagle would make a poor choice for a Freighter, a Fer de Lance would make a poor choice as a miner, and a hauler makes a poor choice for a combat ship. There are clearly ships much better suited for these tasks.
The equating "biggest" and "most expensive" with "best" however, is just a mental failing caused by too many video games.
Maintaining the "No Best Ship" model is, in all likelihood, at the center of what Frontier folks call "balancing", but only someone on the inside can actually confirm or deny this.
We need only look at the potential outrage when, for a very short time, in the beta, the Type-7 was allowed to be competitive in jump range with the Anaconda. I mean, how DARE they challenge this large multi-role ship's unbalanced jump range capacity with a mere freighter? The forums nearly boiled over, and this was scuttled very quickly.
Personally I've love to see some more options for ships with extreme range capabilities, especially lower-cost options to perhaps finally stymie the urge for people to find the most repetitive tasks possible and do them for days on end, to wrack up as many credits as possible to buy an Anaconda, outfit it with the smallest modules possible and jump it 80 Ly at a time and call themselves "explorers".
I own every ship available, multiples of most of them, including the Corvette, Cutter, and Chieftain (first time using those three ships in the same sentence). For me, all of my various ships have a purpose, a function, and none are just for storage of overflow modules. Some have just a single function - I have an Adder in one system with the sole purpose of visiting 2 planets in that system, to gather resources. Some serve a wider array of functions (Exploration-built Beluga that just happens to really shine in a fight), and I'll confess, I'm still having a bit of trouble discovering the hidden "purpose" of the Chieftain. So far I haven't found anything I can use it for that I can't use another ship for just as well or better.
Sigh.
As I see in all threads discussing ship balance... similar circular arguments regarding "combat" focus.
This is why we have imbalance to begin with- because people always come back around to combat, rather than every other activity available in the game.
We already have "combat" balance. FD has spent the majority of their time and resources on this for the last 4+ years, and very little on other aspects. It needs to stop.
This game isn't all about pew-pew.
As I see in all threads discussing ship balance... similar circular arguments regarding "combat" focus.
This is why we have imbalance to begin with- because people always come back around to combat, rather than every other activity available in the game.
We already have "combat" balance. FD has spent the majority of their time and resources on this for the last 4+ years, and very little on other aspects. It needs to stop.
This game isn't all about pew-pew.
For me, "balance" shouldn't be a goal. It should simply be a function of plausible design.
I mean, let's say the only 2 ships in the game were the iCourier and the T10.
Balancing the game, based solely on those 2 ships, would mean radically altering the stat's of one or both ships - to the point where those stat's became completely implausible.
"Balance" shouldn't be about creating a "rock/paper/scissors" mechanic, where every ship has strengths and weaknesses vs every other ship.
It should be about implementing consistently applied parameters which dictate individual ship's capabilities.
Said it before but I'd love to see an Excel spreadsheet of all the ship stat's, created using the data from a site like Coriolis.io, and then remove all the various "fiddle factors" to see what each ship should really be capable of.
I'd also like to work out the surface areas of all the ships, in comparison to their weights, in order to find out whether there was much consistency in the "material" used in their construction.
It'd be nice if it turned out it was possible to replicate (roughly) the current stat's without having to apply fiddle-factors and, instead, just have a limited variety of "materials" used to construct ships.
I mean, let's say the only 2 ships in the game were the iCourier and the T10.
Balancing the game, based solely on those 2 ships, would mean radically altering the stat's of one or both ships - to the point where those stat's became completely implausible.
"Balance" shouldn't be about creating a "rock/paper/scissors" mechanic, where every ship has strengths and weaknesses vs every other ship.
It should be about implementing consistently applied parameters which dictate individual ship's capabilities.
Said it before but I'd love to see an Excel spreadsheet of all the ship stat's, created using the data from a site like Coriolis.io, and then remove all the various "fiddle factors" to see what each ship should really be capable of.
I'd also like to work out the surface areas of all the ships, in comparison to their weights, in order to find out whether there was much consistency in the "material" used in their construction.
It'd be nice if it turned out it was possible to replicate (roughly) the current stat's without having to apply fiddle-factors and, instead, just have a limited variety of "materials" used to construct ships.
I think we are thinking along the same lines, but defining the skill gap in a different way. In motorsport you wouldn't usually put a ferrari in the same class as a junker, they would compete in different classes so I'm not sold on your analogy. In ED we have a single class, all compete on the same playing field.
However there are certain interactions (between significantly differing loadouts) where this concept of 'balance' is important (imo).
Pirate vs Trader is balanced - both must compromise ultimate defence for the sake of utility.
Bounty Hunter vs Pirate - the Pirate is at a disadvantage, the bounty hunter requires only a KWS & can load up on defence but the Pirate can run & hide so the imbalance is reasonable.
Explorer vs anything is balanced, because the exploring player can choose to equip for defence or jump range. Choose jump range & you may not survive to sell your data.
The only real issue comes up with loadouts specifically intended for PKing, there is no compromise required beyond any requirements of the new C&P system (a step in the right direction).
When the ships are more closely 'balanced' than they currently are, the reason for choosing a different ship is variety & personal choice - I think this is the same as your final comment, just looked at a different way.
As the owner of several of both... The Armalite owes it's lightness to its construction - Forged Aluminum uppers and lowers vs. the Kalashnikov's steel. Accuracy due to differences in machining. HOWEVER... Leave an Armalite sit outside for six months in the weather. Do the same with the Kalashnikov and see which one still works. AR's are great light-weight, precision riles. AK's are built, in classic Russian style: Tough, like brick outhouse. Pretty, like brick outhouse. Difference in range due to difference in ammunition caliber - .223 (5.56 NATO) for the AR, 7.62x39 (.30 +/-.003) (WARSAW) for the AK. The AR round is smaller, but pushed by more powder than the larger, heavier AK round - basically a .22 caliber round compared to a .30 caliber round.
Sorry... firearms are kind of my thing. But they are a great basis for comparisons here - firearms, like ships, are tools. Use the right tool for the right job, and life is good.
You wouldn't want to hunt a cape buffalo with a .22. You wouldn't want to hunt a squirrel with .600 Nitro Express.
It isn't, you are right but it is the area where the issue is most prominent. For most PvE activities factors like cost & jump range are pretty self-balancing already. Could be tweaked here & there, but basically okay. I explore in a heavily armed & armoured ship, and sacrifice jump range. It's a choice (or a dilemma) that other players can make differently, and there are benefits & downsides to both.
But in PvP conflict the PKer hasn't got an outfitting dilemma, a reason to pack less hitpoints. There should be one imo.
Not everyone wants to own an SUV because it's versatile and "utilitarian" for everything. If every ship is designed to be "multirole" instead of making them exceptional in one way compared to another we might as well have "X-Rebirth in ED", where you can only fly ONE ship rather than having a wide range of choices available.
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
Do you seriously want to be relegated to only one ship the entire game? Hell- why don't we just ask FD to take everything but the Cobra, Python and Anaconda out then?
I mean, if it's all about having "the best ship" at the end of the day, hmm?
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
Do you seriously want to be relegated to only one ship the entire game? Hell- why don't we just ask FD to take everything but the Cobra, Python and Anaconda out then?
I mean, if it's all about having "the best ship" at the end of the day, hmm?
There is no definition of how much better the 'best' ship must be though. It can still be the 'best' if it's only slightly better, right now there are gaps that are too large imo.
See, that's the trouble with using pew-pew as the benchmark for "balance".
You do end up trying to create a "rock/paper/scissors" version of "balance" rather than actually attempting to make all the ships plausible and consistent.
If, say, a Corvette should be able to crush a Vulture like an insect, so be it.
Don't go monkeying around, applying fiddle-factors to the Vultures agility, integrity or shields, just so that people who want to be able to fight Corvettes in their Vulture have a chance.
I'd much rather have it so that a ship which weighs X and has Y thrusters is capable of Z velocity - regardless of whether it's a passenger ship, cargo ship or combat ship.
Oh, I love this.. ok, let's clear the air here...
Assumptions:
1. You know how to drive a manual transmission (Elite: Flight Assist On vs. Flight Assist Off)
2. Your opponent is a professional race driver
3. You have only the experience of having pressed down hard on your everyday vehicle's accelerator on a public street (and didn't get pulled over)
Instinctively I would say Advantage: Ferrari until we challenge those assumptions.
If you're clueless how to operate a manual transmission, it is more likely you will stall at the line and be left behind.
Even if your opponent is not a professional race driver, with less to know and less to concern himself (herself/whateverself) with than you will have to contend with, they have an advantage.
You have run a couple closed-road races, perhaps with friends, and maybe even won one or two. Maybe this puts you a step ahead.
But there are still a huge array of considerations and variables that could swing this "race" in either direction. Perhaps you do have some experience with a manual transmission, but aren't that skilled with it, redline most of your shifts, or mis-shift - this could turn the advantage to your opponent. Perhaps you've never driven such a vehicle, and discover how easy it is to over-steer and hit the wall, go off the road or lose control.
Perhaps you're not running a straight-line drag race, but a 50 lap race around a complex, non-oval track. You run out of fuel 10 laps into the race.
Now, I'm by no means saying, at least as far as Elite is concerned, that an Anaconda vs. Sidewinder fight is even a close match, pilot skills aside. There is a clear advantage in terms of firepower, hull and shield strengths. But this is also somewhere where skill and experience can and do become a factor. The Anaconda has a few blind spots a skilled and experienced pilot can take advantage of that an unskilled, inexperienced pilot may not even know about. In terms of sheer maneuverability, the advantage is pure Sidewinder.
Choice of loadouts is also a factor - are you talking about a shieldless, anaconda freighter with undersized modules and minimal weapons vs. an engineered Sidewinder? Then skill and experience are a much bigger factor.
The end of this is - there are far too many factors to make a clean, cut-and-dried comparison. Sure, in terms of raw numbers, advantage Anaconda on paper, all day.
But theory and practice often align like Classroom and Real World.
You seem to be confusing balanced and identical. Making things identical is an easy way to achieve balance, but is also the worst possible way as it strips out depth and player interaction.
Balance doesn't mean that every trader has the exact same cargo hold, balance for traders means that equivalent ships should all have similar cargo/hour under reasonable running conditions. This might mean some have larger holds but shorter jump ranges. Others might be extremely maneuverable in SC but fly like a brick, slowing down docking. Others might have great general cargo capacity, but suffer greatly from pirates (assuming FD ever make pirates intelligent and competent). The methods behind each trader's performance might vary, but the performance itself shouldn't very to a significant degree outside of certain extreme conditions.
Balance is when someone asks "what is the best X" and, rather than simply getting a direct response back, the question leads into a 100 page discussion about half of the ships in the game and their relative merits and demerits.
No, "I'm" not confusing anything- I'm speaking of overall game balance rather than "combat focus" balance. I don't believe all ships need to be identical, either- but having extreme ends of the spectrum and nothing in between is imbalance in itself.
And even after all the changes, they keep coming back and again to the same "BUFF MY SHIP NOW"..
Sorry to disagree, but the Anaconda does not excel at anything! For sure it is good at a lot of things, but certainly does not excel.
If you think it is OP in your fleet... Don't buy it!! Do you want an entire ship rebalance just because you're unhappy? Maybe while they at it, they could change some other ships that wrinkle your underpants?
Maybe, and i may be spiff-balling here, the reason so many fly it is because; 1. It was the first 'big ship' and 2, the other big ships are locked behind a Grind Fest ??
More people fly it than other ship? Have you got one modicum of data analysis to back that up or did you just pull it from your bottom?
Frankly, I don’t give a crap about balance. I fly whatever I’m in the mood for. My Adder has no measurable advantage over my Cobra when it comes to planetary scan missions, but I often pick it anyway.
As far as I’m concerned, “balance” is just another buzzword that forum users mindlessly insert into their posts in an attempt to validate their arguments. It’s no different than when people start talking about “immersion”.
As far as I’m concerned, “balance” is just another buzzword that forum users mindlessly insert into their posts in an attempt to validate their arguments. It’s no different than when people start talking about “immersion”.