Well, I'll disagree about things being such a bleak two-dimensional box, but I am *all* about reaching that balanced middle ground. You're quite right that one must be careful of going too far either way!
Frontier, it's time you balanced ALL ships and internals- Size/Mass.
Well, I'll disagree about things being such a bleak two-dimensional box, but I am *all* about reaching that balanced middle ground. You're quite right that one must be careful of going too far either way!
That's how they did it in Frontier.
Presumably they moved away from that model for reasons.
As much as I like games that let you build your own spaceships like Space Engineers or Kerbal Space Program, I’m a realist enough to acknowledge that such things are rather niche, it would be horrible to balance, especially when you throw PvP into the mix.
Yeah, and especially because ist not Progression ist perfectly balanced.
Ive seen it mentioned about the place on different threads, and its always mystified me. What is so dreadfully out of balance about the conda that needs nerfing? And what is so appalling about the overall ship balancing that it needs a redesign so badly that 'needs' gets underlined and highlighted in bold etc.
The Anaconda weighs 400t. It's a large ship. Just go look at the weight of various small and medium ships. That'll tell you all you need to know.
It is not the only ship with a crazy stat anomaly.
I'm all for specialized ships. Even today, a fighter is not a c-130. Ships that are purpose built should be WAY better than those that are not at their given task. As for the Conda... I have no problem with the 400T as long as they adjust the integrity down to like 3. Its obviously made out of canvas right?
Your conclusion is a logical one, but no fix will avoid frustrating some, particularly with the Conda since it's so flexible.
If you increase the mass, it will reduce the jump range of an exploration build. Arguably this is a good move since it's among the best in the game, but will frustrate (and potentially strand) explorers.
If you decrease the integrity it will reduce the hitpoints, frustrating traders & other players that rely on it's defences to save them. Arguably this is a good move too, since it's integrity is well above average.
Leaving it alone frustrates only those that have taken a peek behind the curtain & seen how the magic trick is done. Seems like the path of least resistance to me
Last edited:
Your conclusion is a logical one, but no fix will avoid frustrating some, particularly with the Conda since it's so flexible.
If you increase the mass, it will reduce the jump range of an exploration build. Arguably this is a good move since it's among the best in the game, but will frustrate (and potentially strand) explorers.
If you decrease the integrity it will reduce the hitpoints, frustrating traders & other players that rely on it's defences to save them. Arguably this is a good move too, since it's integrity is well above average.
Leaving it alone frustrates only those that have taken a peek behind the curtain & seen how the magic trick is done. Seems like the path of least resistance to me
I know it will frustrate a large segment of the player base, so maybe your right in just leaving it alone. It does frustrate me that the answer to every question is buy a Conda. Thargoids...Conda, exploration...Conda. Defensible trader...Conda. No rank lock...Conda. It's kind of a Joke.
+Rep.
That's the best analogy I've heard in while about how broken the Anaconda is.
Yes, I'm in my Anaconda right now.
I'd be more up for a complete rebalance including ship strengths, performance and their moduiles too!
It's all got worse and worse with FD's questionable approach at adding more content whcih all too often meant little consideration to the outcome in its eagerness to create "meaning and content" (translated - a reason to grind to upgrade your ship instead of do more involved and interesting things in ED). And yes, this includes the Engineers G1->G5 rampifications, along with their magic side effect spells!
If ships' performance, modules and needless Engineers 2x performance could all be rebalanced/reconsidered? Yes please!
It's all got worse and worse with FD's questionable approach at adding more content whcih all too often meant little consideration to the outcome in its eagerness to create "meaning and content" (translated - a reason to grind to upgrade your ship instead of do more involved and interesting things in ED). And yes, this includes the Engineers G1->G5 rampifications, along with their magic side effect spells!
If ships' performance, modules and needless Engineers 2x performance could all be rebalanced/reconsidered? Yes please!
A balance pass on all ships would be a wonderful thing, and should be a regularly-occurring activity.
That's not to say that ships should be constantly being tweaked, just that Frontier should be (if they're not already) always open to the idea that, in an online game that's having content actively added to it, everything in it needs to be monitored and possibly changed to ensure it's working properly in a continually-evolving world.
That's not to say that ships should be constantly being tweaked, just that Frontier should be (if they're not already) always open to the idea that, in an online game that's having content actively added to it, everything in it needs to be monitored and possibly changed to ensure it's working properly in a continually-evolving world.
If the Anaconda is so fantastic at everything, how come I can't dock one at an Outpost.
Yeah.
In other words - quit blathering about the Anaconda - it does a lot of things very well, it has a fantastic jump range which can be made even better with tinkering - but ask it to dock at Outposts and it'll gibber incoherently.
Yeah.
In other words - quit blathering about the Anaconda - it does a lot of things very well, it has a fantastic jump range which can be made even better with tinkering - but ask it to dock at Outposts and it'll gibber incoherently.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
It'll dock at Hutton Orbital. Honest.
"Space opera" is good, but I do think gatling guns in space is a bit "punk".
Kinetic Energy Weapons are too much a staple of hard science fiction to consider them an anomaly, let alone “punk,” which as a genre is more about examining the social effects of transformative technologies with a heavy emphasis on the negative, dystopian effects, as opposed examining just the technology.
While the Elite Universe has a lot in common, setting wise, with the cyberpunk genre, it’s hard for me to see it that way. In classic cyberpunk, the protagonists are generally anti-heroes resisting the Big Bad of their setting: an oppressive state, corporation, or some form of conspiracy by the Hyperclass. In Elite: Dangerous, the role of Big Bad is filled by the Pilots Federation.
That is not a matter of opinion; what you are talking about, specifically when you say "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." is homogenising - they would not be "similar" or "balanced" they would be the same.
And it'd bore me - I like the variety, and I like that for those that don't like the variety, there are solid all-rounders that can be put to any task so no thanks.
That's not necessarily true.
No matter how you design a game, combat munchkins will optimax for advantage. Your argument is meaningless because balance is meaningless. We already have munchkins.
What my recommendation works for is a realistic approach. You can only fit so much equipment in a given volume, and that will make practical limits to what a design can achieve.
I can't help but agree with this, the Conda is a great ship. I want more great ships like this, not to nerf the good ones.
But that said, one of my other arguments is that of the big three, the Conda is too light/too tough, the Cutter is too fast/has too big a base shield, and that the Vette is the one that's got sensible stats.