Frontier, it's time you balanced ALL ships and internals- Size/Mass.
Unfortunately, this will never happen for several reasons. First, the flight model requires that all ships can "dogfight" with primarily forward-mounted weapons. This means that they have to have generally similar flight models and if you are applying size/mass limits correctly a Corvette should never be able to "dogfight" with smaller ships this is what we see happening in the game all the time. Second, this would make some ships ridiculously powerful. For example, a Type-10 or Anaconda should be able to carry dozens of class-2 hardpoints and easily power them, but having 20+ medium hardpoints would be dramatically OP. There should be more than enough size/mass to carry them all and power them all but FD can't allow that type of realistic design approach simply due to game balance reasons.
It's not just the ship sizes and masses that are off. It's also weapon sizes and masses. You have roughly double effectiveness (slightly less even) for an increase in hardpoint size, and double the mass increase, but the size increase is visually far out of proportion. You don't notice this as much going from a class 1 to a class 2 hardpoint, or even up to class 3, but if you compare a class 4 hardpoint it is absolutely massive compared to the smaller hardpoints. It should have dramatically higher damage and AP values and yet a larger number of those smaller hardpoints usually provide more effective overall dps. We see the same problem with power plant sizes where you have dramatically larger power plants that somehow become far less efficient at proving power than it would be to use several much smaller power plants instead.
Effectively you just have to think of Elite ships as using some sort of a "artistic licence" in terms of effectiveness relative to their size/mass. The large ships are far less powerful than they should be in terms of total size/mass, but on the flip side they can also maneuver and dogfight as if they are much smaller ships so it sort of balances out.
Last edited:
You are correct and what I said is speculation at best. Other speculation I have is the internal structures are known, just not by us. It is conceivable the devs have already or in the process of fleshing out the internals in preparation for expanded game play (i refuse to call it space legs) but that is what I am more or less referring to. The point I wanted to make and I get the idea you understood it, is we may be focusing too much on what we can see and applying only those outside dimensions to making sense of how we can organize slots. I just saw a commercial for the Disney cruise ship and chuckled as it applied to this conversation. I look at this enormous boat of "happy" people and I could say purely from outside dimensions it could hold a hell of a lot of cargo....if it werent for all those decks, cabins, casinos, pools, water slides and what have you. For all we know, that huge glass roof on the Beluga is concealing a water park. And while a water park is a terrible waste of good cargo space....they are a lot of fun. =)
The problem here is that Elite ships are designed with weapons and modules that use an exponential progression of mass/cost (doubling every hardpoint/module increment) but often a linear increase in performance (i.e., power plants) and in some cases a massive increase in apparent volume (i.e., class 4 hardpoint weapons sizes). It's not really possible to turn this system into a coherent model for developing ship internals. At best such a system would need to be abstract and simply show a "power plant" area and a "thruster" area and a generic "living quarters/cargo" area for all ships that would not change in any way depending on what internals you had equipped. That is assuming we even get to see the ship interior at all other than the cockpit which I don't think FD has planned at all. If you look at the existing in-game ships they are currently implemented as empty space other than the cockpit and SRV bay. It simply isn't possible to fit the internals into some ships consistently given the massive volume/surface area differences in ships that have otherwise similar internals.
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
A fairly decent post, but im not sure i agree..
Basically... Touch my Viper 4's stats and I'll hunt you across every inch of the black until your smouldering corpse adorns my hull.
o7
Basically... Touch my Viper 4's stats and I'll hunt you across every inch of the black until your smouldering corpse adorns my hull.
o7
I also don't think "balance" means reducing all the ships to similar behaviour, graded by size. They're all different shapes and can be expected to have very different internal spaces available. Medium or large pad access is determined by linear dimensions, not volume. I think the important kind of "balance" is that everyone has equal access to them. (OK, most of them, I leave out the Cobra IV).
Yes, they should, but no, they won't, because Frontier will not go into a massive sh*t fight that is every commander having some feels about the changes across all the ships. Anaconda remains as it is, as it's just "too hard" to change.
Even small tweaks causes outrage now and any interest I have in the relative merit of rebalancing ships (or modules, or really anything) has rapidly diminished to some sort of remainder value, after reading a multi-page thread where it's the end of the world that Frontier are even daring to ad specialised module bays -- because module proliferation is mostly out of control at this point and they really have sod all choice -- but this is all bad and wrong.
Forums: "Fix it, Frontier!"
Frontier: "Okay, how about we--"
Forums: "--HOW DARE YOU!"
Every time. It's just ludicrous. Any actual value in folks offering constructive feedback is eaten alive by very very angry people on the internet. I know people generally mean well? But it's a wonder Frontier get anything done.
Frontier could absolutely create a lot of value across the board refactoring some modules and ship stats to better reflect the design intent and the increase in things we can engage with; stuff like the nonsense with limpet controllers and so on. I can't even imagine them doing a module wide review, let alone ships.
How much pain do they want to go through? Will they get anything out of it? Will it shock the player base "too much". Does it mean a rebuild of ship or module assets. I am sure this is the internal struggle they have just all the time.
Even small tweaks causes outrage now and any interest I have in the relative merit of rebalancing ships (or modules, or really anything) has rapidly diminished to some sort of remainder value, after reading a multi-page thread where it's the end of the world that Frontier are even daring to ad specialised module bays -- because module proliferation is mostly out of control at this point and they really have sod all choice -- but this is all bad and wrong.
Forums: "Fix it, Frontier!"
Frontier: "Okay, how about we--"
Forums: "--HOW DARE YOU!"
Every time. It's just ludicrous. Any actual value in folks offering constructive feedback is eaten alive by very very angry people on the internet. I know people generally mean well? But it's a wonder Frontier get anything done.
Frontier could absolutely create a lot of value across the board refactoring some modules and ship stats to better reflect the design intent and the increase in things we can engage with; stuff like the nonsense with limpet controllers and so on. I can't even imagine them doing a module wide review, let alone ships.
How much pain do they want to go through? Will they get anything out of it? Will it shock the player base "too much". Does it mean a rebuild of ship or module assets. I am sure this is the internal struggle they have just all the time.
Last edited:
Agree with OP.
Actually, what I'd like to see is a ship "inventory slot" system. You have your ship outline filled with grid squares. Compulsory items are fixed in the layout. You can then choose to drop in your chosen optionals, such as L2 cargo, or scanners as you see fit. Heck, you can even keep designated sections as military slots (eg hull or shield slots would follow the ship hull outline).
A bit more spice. You can still "force" specialisation by enforcing where the engine goes, life support, sensors etc
That's one idea anyway. As it stands now though I have an asp, python, corvette and chieftain. Why bother with any other?
Actually, what I'd like to see is a ship "inventory slot" system. You have your ship outline filled with grid squares. Compulsory items are fixed in the layout. You can then choose to drop in your chosen optionals, such as L2 cargo, or scanners as you see fit. Heck, you can even keep designated sections as military slots (eg hull or shield slots would follow the ship hull outline).
A bit more spice. You can still "force" specialisation by enforcing where the engine goes, life support, sensors etc
That's one idea anyway. As it stands now though I have an asp, python, corvette and chieftain. Why bother with any other?
NERF THE ANACONDA
that is all
that is all
Would people stop this "rebalancing" nonsense?
People already have ships they like, they don't want to constantly reengineer them time and again. Which also destroys immersions and provides for poor gameplay.
If you don't like a ship, don't use it. There are 35 of them in the game, more than enough for everybody.
People already have ships they like, they don't want to constantly reengineer them time and again. Which also destroys immersions and provides for poor gameplay.
If you don't like a ship, don't use it. There are 35 of them in the game, more than enough for everybody.
If FDEV decide to do this then I'd rather ships like the Clipper etc were made to have less mass than the Conda rather than increase the mass of the Conda.
A gamewide ship balance pass?
This is a great idea and is quite overdue now. This is a good time to do it too, as we have just received two more new ships again.
Using the volume of the ship like in Elite 2 was asked for before so I don't think we would get that. But a rebalance of available module space and how it can be used is good, with no restricted slots either.
Balancing out the ship weights, hard points and overall pricing would be great too.
I just don't think FD will ever do it.
This is a great idea and is quite overdue now. This is a good time to do it too, as we have just received two more new ships again.
Using the volume of the ship like in Elite 2 was asked for before so I don't think we would get that. But a rebalance of available module space and how it can be used is good, with no restricted slots either.
Balancing out the ship weights, hard points and overall pricing would be great too.
I just don't think FD will ever do it.
I don't disagree with the OP, but realistically I think some buffs to ships like the Clipper and Beluga (the Annie is a better for passengers!?!?) would probably be the way to go. AIUI FD are supposedly looking at rationalising the limpets and scanners, as there's definitely too few slots in the smaller ships these days (given all the modules that have been added), so maybe that will level things out a little.
Except that a cruise ship does have a heap of internal modules.
They're just mostly "Passenger Cabins".
Last edited:
Anaconda mass is far from being mere "individuality". It's broken.
It's not broken. I enjoy flying my Anacondas for the different purposes I've built them. I also like using other ships in different roles. I wouldn't like a "balance" pass which just reduced the flexibility of my ships and constrained my designs. Gameplay is more important than imaginary shipbuilding constraints.
Volume isn't the limiting factor. Mass is.
No ship is anywhere near it's volume limits when it comes to room for canisters, most especially not the big ones. A cutter could fit many thousands of canisters in a reasonable fraction of it's internal volume.
All ship masses, outside the very smallest ships, are fairly comical and doubling the Anaconda's hull mass would still result in a vessel with the density of cotton candy.
Even when this was the case, volume wasn't a limiting factor for either ship (in cargo capacity), so it would have to come down to a stronger structure better able to handle the mass of the cargo.
Keelback has a door to access the hangar, most other ships do not.
The mechanical standard you have been using is volume.
A Python has a volume of roughly thirty thousand cubic meters. If one third of that could possibly be devoted to cargo, that's still 10000m^3. A cannister is about 2m*1m. You could reasonably fit five thousand cannisters in the cargo hold of a Python.
Why not?
Stonger ships and planes can move more than cheaper, less advanced designs, made with inferior materials.
None of which are particularly implausible, in and of themselves.
The same engine across a wide variety of vehicles will often produce extremely different top speeds. The same amount of armor enclosing a different volume, different shape, or laid out different, will result in wildly different levels of protection. Shield bubbles are a bit harder to find real analogs, but it's not at all hard to imagine that the same generator, having to power a shield through different emitters, or maintain a different size and shape shield bubble would have different strengths; a decent analog might be radio transmitters...you can use the same transmitter/amplifier, but if you pair it with the incorrect antenna for the task you'll need vastly higher power to cover the same area.
Your suggestions do not enhance plausibility or consistency.
Last edited:
I think this is needed more than we realize. People are complaining they don't want arbitrary imaginary numbers to constrain their current builds, but it already is arbitrary and imaginary numbers that are enabling those current builds.
Many other online games move the goalposts constantly, forcing their players to continually advance to reach the new maximum power. Elite does not. Nor will it even if this were to happen. It would be a one-time revitalizing of what makes ships perform as they do. I don't see how this would affect engineering much anyway. Frontier would be more likely to alter the performance and stats of ships and add slots to them rather than nerfing anything. They never want to do the hard things that might anger some people.
Many other online games move the goalposts constantly, forcing their players to continually advance to reach the new maximum power. Elite does not. Nor will it even if this were to happen. It would be a one-time revitalizing of what makes ships perform as they do. I don't see how this would affect engineering much anyway. Frontier would be more likely to alter the performance and stats of ships and add slots to them rather than nerfing anything. They never want to do the hard things that might anger some people.