Title says it all.
Enough of the "handwavium reasons", if a ship is of appropriate size/mass, you should be able to slot the appropriate amount of internals- or equip modules that fit into those internal slots.
There are ridiculous disparities between a lot of the ships because "reasons", and it's time to balance them all so there's appropriate reasons to utilize the internal space available. The fact that the Beluga is larger than the "Big 3" ships yet a Cutter can hold up to 792 tons of cargo is absolute proof of this. The Imperial Clipper is one of the larger ships in the game- yet the Python as a "medium" ship can hold more cargo?
Then we have that absolutely laughable 400T mass on the Anaconda... yet when compared in size to a similar ships- they simply don't hold a candle to the ability it gives the Anaconda in terms of Jump Range and being able to equip modules based on mass. Anaconda needs to be 800T, plain and simple.
There are many other examples - even down to the medium/smaller ships- Python being able to hold more cargo than a Type-7 (which is classified as a cargo ship- where the Python is not) and Keelback being able to field SLF with a Class 5 slot while a ship of comparative size even with a larger class slot is not able to equip one. Why? If you're paying someone to customize your ship- there shouldn't be a reason for why they cannot retrofit it with whatever module you please. You want to limit module sizes in ships of appropriate size for "balance" reasons- I get it, but why then further restrict what ships can do with those size internals even further? You have a cardboard box of "X" size, and you can put "Y" amount of mass inside that box. It's really not rocket science. Want to relegate it to "structural integrity"? Then the Anaconda is a clear example of how that fails- brittle internal integrity yet it can fit a godly amount of modules and hold up to the stresses of extreme range hyperspace jumps? Sorry, not buying it.
I could go on and on and on, but it's pointlessly obvious- and I'd just be parroting the same concerns that have been voiced for years now.
It's time for a complete ship balance based on current implementation and the way it affects the game as a whole. You already know some players are going to kick, scream, cry and salt mine the forums in response but it needs to happen. There is no "gentle" way to approach it. Adjust prices accordingly as needed. If credit differences are the "reason" then we should have the option of customizing internals based on credits, too. Credit prices shouldn't be the reason why we cannot have ship balancing when it affects game play.
Either buff other ships so that they're in line with the same standards- or nerf the ones that are above standards. No more "Big 3 Go-To ships", every ship in this game should have purpose and meaning... not just exist as a stepping stone for the "biggest" available. Moving forward, future ship balance also needs to take into account this game is not (and never has been) solely a multiplayer experience- but a hybrid where both single and multiplayer experiences are available as a choice.
IMO ship size should not be a "progression standard" in Elite Dangerous- it's about experiencing the galaxy in its true form and scale.
Enough of the "handwavium reasons", if a ship is of appropriate size/mass, you should be able to slot the appropriate amount of internals- or equip modules that fit into those internal slots.
There are ridiculous disparities between a lot of the ships because "reasons", and it's time to balance them all so there's appropriate reasons to utilize the internal space available. The fact that the Beluga is larger than the "Big 3" ships yet a Cutter can hold up to 792 tons of cargo is absolute proof of this. The Imperial Clipper is one of the larger ships in the game- yet the Python as a "medium" ship can hold more cargo?
Then we have that absolutely laughable 400T mass on the Anaconda... yet when compared in size to a similar ships- they simply don't hold a candle to the ability it gives the Anaconda in terms of Jump Range and being able to equip modules based on mass. Anaconda needs to be 800T, plain and simple.
There are many other examples - even down to the medium/smaller ships- Python being able to hold more cargo than a Type-7 (which is classified as a cargo ship- where the Python is not) and Keelback being able to field SLF with a Class 5 slot while a ship of comparative size even with a larger class slot is not able to equip one. Why? If you're paying someone to customize your ship- there shouldn't be a reason for why they cannot retrofit it with whatever module you please. You want to limit module sizes in ships of appropriate size for "balance" reasons- I get it, but why then further restrict what ships can do with those size internals even further? You have a cardboard box of "X" size, and you can put "Y" amount of mass inside that box. It's really not rocket science. Want to relegate it to "structural integrity"? Then the Anaconda is a clear example of how that fails- brittle internal integrity yet it can fit a godly amount of modules and hold up to the stresses of extreme range hyperspace jumps? Sorry, not buying it.
I could go on and on and on, but it's pointlessly obvious- and I'd just be parroting the same concerns that have been voiced for years now.
It's time for a complete ship balance based on current implementation and the way it affects the game as a whole. You already know some players are going to kick, scream, cry and salt mine the forums in response but it needs to happen. There is no "gentle" way to approach it. Adjust prices accordingly as needed. If credit differences are the "reason" then we should have the option of customizing internals based on credits, too. Credit prices shouldn't be the reason why we cannot have ship balancing when it affects game play.
Either buff other ships so that they're in line with the same standards- or nerf the ones that are above standards. No more "Big 3 Go-To ships", every ship in this game should have purpose and meaning... not just exist as a stepping stone for the "biggest" available. Moving forward, future ship balance also needs to take into account this game is not (and never has been) solely a multiplayer experience- but a hybrid where both single and multiplayer experiences are available as a choice.
IMO ship size should not be a "progression standard" in Elite Dangerous- it's about experiencing the galaxy in its true form and scale.
Last edited: