Frontier, it's time you balanced ALL ships and internals- Size/Mass.

[kofeyh]

Do they need that though? Just asking, can ships that make more sense not still be diverse and compelling?

They already have a bunch of hand waving. Anaconda is purely hand waving. People are arguing against a thing (that already exists) because of an assumption things aren't already an inconsistent mess of mixed intent. The biggest hurdle is just getting Frontier to recognise and accept that a game with some extreme leaders, and a vast remainder of also-ran is not "diverse and compelling" no matter how one might want to frame that.

We have a large number of ships, of which the minority are used the majority of the time. Krait (being a multirole) shows Frontier have no problem adding a "diverse and compelling" ship that's not saddled with the silliness quite a few prior ships had; that does look incredibly arbitrary from a decision perspective.

I don't care if suspension of disbelief is required to accept some changes; I care more that ships are relative and consistent with each other. As long as they are all following the same basic premise and design cues, it doesn't actually matter how potentially odd the underlying stats end up. This allows for considerable iteration, on the same premise.

We can't solve Anaconda for example; so make everything else more consistent with it is likely a more constructive and actually achievable outcome.

Essentially "If the mountain will not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain". Consistency and the delivery of is arguably one of the most important parts of ship design and Frontier have persisted for a very long time in not considering this in the slightest and gone with highly bespoke inconsistent delivery of ships with cross-purpose design goals that seem to indicate the teams working on different aspects are just not working to the same goal.

People building ships simply appear to not be engaging with people who design the uses for those ships. There's been a disconnect between design and purpose. Krait might be a sign of a more unified approach and even Challenger seems to have avoided some of the more esoteric design choices - I for one, bloody hope so.

 

[El_Hefe]

Do they need that though? Just asking, can ships that make more sense not still be diverse and compelling?

If that were true,would they not have stuck to the model they started with?

 

[Brrokk]

A significant rework of ship statistics would mean negation of many hours some of us have put in designing and optimising our ships. It would feel a bit like the dreaded "galaxy reset" where you just get to keep your credits; the answer would be to sell your ships and buy and re-engineer again.

I think dev time should be spent on less painful things!

 

[Darkfyre99]

I'm not confusing anything. I see it rather clearly- and as you pointed out, the Clipper should indeed be classified as a "medium" ship if it wasn't simply for the wingspan alone that hampers it. What would really change if Frontier were to shorten the wingspan, after all? Ships aren't based on aerodynamic qualities- if they were most of the ships in this game wouldn't be able to fly.

It would change the character of Clipper, which is a classic example of Imperial culture choosing form over function. This breathes life into the Elite Universe, and is one of the many things that establishes the superiority of Imperial culture over that of the rest of Humanity.

I also get the quite niche game play it's suitable for- what I'm suggesting is that all ships simply conform to the same standards. Not too difficult to comprehend that logic.

I understand it. I just don't agree with it. I like that some ships are designed with the message, "We don't care about practicality. We just care that it looks good." I like that other ships are designed with the message, "Eh, it ain't perfect, but at least it's cheap." And I like that some ship's are simply what you buy "When you can afford to buy the very best." It gives ships character, and makes the Elite Universe that much more interesting.

If Frontier were to do away with giving ships character, they might as well remove about 70% of the ships in the game, if every ship was identical except for interior volume, there would be no reason ships of a similar size to exist. Might as well make them all boxy as well, given how modular interior modules are. No need to waste interior volume by adding exterior curves, after all.

The Python, while being of the same contentious debate as the Anaconda, isn't the reason why everything else is imbalanced- it's the lack of standardization being followed when ships are introduced, which have unintended consequences on the roles of other ships. The Python and Anaconda only stand out clearly because they're at the extreme ends of the spectrum for highlighting this flaw, IMO. Buffing other ships in some way to make them "viable" again is my sole intention here. Down with the "Big 3" (as well as Pythonconda Syndrome) and up with the 27+ other ships that exist in this game.

The Python and Anaconda stand out because they cost a frelling fortune, relative to similar ships of their class, and as a result "punch above their weight." Yes, they can sometimes do the jobs of specialized ships as well as they can, or sometimes even better, but at three to four times the cost in the case of the Python, or eight times the cost in the case of the Anaconda. There's a reason why my Type-7 was my blockade runner before I got the rank to buy a clipper, as opposed to the "perfect" Python: as a ship running cargo into a dangerous area, it was simply better. Maybe if I had exploited used "get rich quick" schemes, I wouldn't worry about the price, but I haven't, so I do.

As far as I'm concerned, both the Python and the Anaconda have some heavy draw backs, especially as a primarily Open player. That's the quirk that gives them their character, and what leads me to fly other ships than "the best." This game allows me to have multiple ships in my stable, and as a result I have a wide variety of ships to choose from, depending upon what I want them to do. I have ships that are cargo runners, and ships that excel at "whirlwind adventures." I have ships that I take into CGs, and ships I take into combat. I have ships that I use for Powerplay, and ships I use for manipulating BGS.

I have no desire to see that uniqueness of character erased in the name of "balance." Vive la difference!

 

[V'larr]

A significant rework of ship statistics would mean negation of many hours some of us have put in designing and optimising our ships. It would feel a bit like the dreaded "galaxy reset" where you just get to keep your credits; the answer would be to sell your ships and buy and re-engineer again.

I think dev time should be spent on less painful things!

You could just as easily argue that you'd have something new to look forward to doing - getting to try out the Engineer blueprints and effects that you ignored before because there were such glaringly, obviously better alternatives that made the others never worth bothering with.

You'd also get to look forward to (if done right) a better playing field for combat, people being more keen to play in Open as a result, more diversity and experimentation (instead of naturally defaulting to what's most effective), and more.

Any 'painful'-ness would be very short-lived.

 

[kofeyh]

If Frontier were to do away with giving ships character, they might as well remove about 70% of the ships in the game, if every ship was identical except for interior volume, there would be no reason ships of a similar size to exist. Might as well make them all boxy as well, given how modular interior modules are. No need to waste interior volume by adding exterior curves, after all.

Based on ~4 years or so of playing Elite, the one thing I feel confident about, is Frontier will never be accused of having a set of ships that are homogenous and identical. They are barely even consistent at this point. A great many seem to have been designed independently of intended use, or mechanics they are expected to partake in. We have some redundancy; but that's not through identical approaches, so much as inconsistent limitations.

The extreme changes required to make all the ships "the same"; with respect to what we have at present? That's actually laughable (sorry). I absolutely respect your viewpoint but it is quite possible to have a consistent approach to a thing, without making everything identical. The two are not mutually inclusive.

I have no desire to see that uniqueness of character erased in the name of "balance." Vive la difference!

Few do? There is however a vast chasm between iterating off a consistent base, and identical clones. Choice is good. So is consistency in delivery. Both are possible. I'm not sure how one can adequately argue otherwise?

 

[Sylveria]

They already have a bunch of hand waving. Anaconda is purely hand waving. People are arguing against a thing (that already exists) because of an assumption things aren't already an inconsistent mess of mixed intent. The biggest hurdle is just getting Frontier to recognise and accept that a game with some extreme leaders, and a vast remainder of also-ran is not "diverse and compelling" no matter how one might want to frame that.

We have a large number of ships, of which the minority are used the majority of the time. Krait (being a multirole) shows Frontier have no problem adding a "diverse and compelling" ship that's not saddled with the silliness quite a few prior ships had; that does look incredibly arbitrary from a decision perspective.

I don't care if suspension of disbelief is required to accept some changes; I care more that ships are relative and consistent with each other. As long as they are all following the same basic premise and design cues, it doesn't actually matter how potentially odd the underlying stats end up. This allows for considerable iteration, on the same premise.

We can't solve Anaconda for example; so make everything else more consistent with it is likely a more constructive and actually achievable outcome.

Essentially "If the mountain will not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain". Consistency and the delivery of is arguably one of the most important parts of ship design and Frontier have persisted for a very long time in not considering this in the slightest and gone with highly bespoke inconsistent delivery of ships with cross-purpose design goals that seem to indicate the teams working on different aspects are just not working to the same goal.

People building ships simply appear to not be engaging with people who design the uses for those ships. There's been a disconnect between design and purpose. Krait might be a sign of a more unified approach and even Challenger seems to have avoided some of the more esoteric design choices - I for one, bloody hope so.

This actually coins quite a bit of how I view the situation at present. Sure, I can forgo a bit of "reality" or suspend belief- but when it's completely inconsistent when applied to the broad scope of the ship ranges, that's when it becomes a bit impossible to just readily accept. I also agree that it really does appear as if there's not much communication going on between planning teams to ensure consistency in application. (whether or not that's the reality, it's definitely how I'm perceiving it...) I mean, don't get me wrong- the ships they introduce for the most part are exciting to fly, and it's fun to try new things with them, but when you look at everything else in comparison and things don't quite seem right, it's a bit hard to just dismiss it. It starts to become as obvious to you as the bird crap on your window- the more you don't wipe it off, the more it les at you.

Because it's "difficult", or "takes a long time" should never be an excuse to correct a problem. Everything requires effort to resolve issues- and to do things right indeed takes time. I really wish I was one of those people that is able to completely disconnect and just not care. Unfortunately... I can't.

 

[Vasious]

Few do? There is however a vast chasm between iterating off a consistent base, and identical clones. Choice is good. So is consistency in delivery. Both are possible. I'm not sure how one can adequately argue otherwise?

One could almost say consistency in design leads to choice on nuance and organic strengths and weakness rather than choices based on handwaved incentives

 

[Vasious]

Might you then, take a moment to explain how this makes sense

two empty Vulture Spaceframes at 230 tonnes each outweighs one empty Anaconda Spaceframe at 400 tonnes.

Is it because the Anaconda has a fragile hull?

The large HP pool would be fine to explain it being a much larger ship so there is more of it to damage

But the Anacondas has a hardness of 70 vs the Vultures' 55, so despite being so much less hull mass per surface area, it is more resilient to damage


Is the Anaconda more modern?

No, the Anaconda freighter dates back 448 years to the Vulture being no more than 50

Is it military vs civilian?

Well the anaconda is a armed freighter to the Space Superiority fighter of the Vultures description?

How is any of that internally consistent?

Why is it the Anaconda can carry more first class passengers than the much larger Beluga?


Is it because the Beluga has any "Cruise ship" facilities like restaurants and theatres and such not accounted for in the internals that make a first class trip on a Beluga better than on an anaconda?

If so, should there not be an in game mechanic for that, even if just a Happieness, Rep or CR bonus?


Now yuou no doubt will reply "But no one cares"


To which I will refer you to the live stream where they introduced the Alliance Chieftain, where Fdev stated
One consideration what the Aerodynamics of the ship, for landing on planets with Atmospheres, as whilst it is not in game, they want to consider and design ships to be part of the Elite universe as a whole.


Which goes back to my ramblings here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ls-Size-Mass?p=6873092&viewfull=1#post6873092

 

[Darkfyre99]

Might you then, take a moment to explain how this makes sense



two empty Vulture Spaceframes at 230 tonnes each outweighs one empty Anaconda Spaceframe at 400 tonnes.

Is it because the Anaconda has a fragile hull?

The large HP pool would be fine to explain it being a much larger ship so there is more of it to damage

But the Anacondas has a hardness of 70 vs the Vultures' 55, so despite being so much less hull mass per surface area, it is more resilient to damage


Is the Anaconda more modern?

No, the Anaconda freighter dates back 448 years to the Vulture being no more than 50

Is it military vs civilian?

Well the anaconda is a armed freighter to the Space Superiority fighter of the Vultures description?

How is any of that internally consistent?

Why is it the Anaconda can carry more first class passengers than the much larger Beluga?


Is it because the Beluga has any "Cruise ship" facilities like restaurants and theatres and such not accounted for in the internals that make a first class trip on a Beluga better than on an anaconda?

If so, should there not be an in game mechanic for that, even if just a Happieness, Rep or CR bonus?


Now yuou no doubt will reply "But no one cares"


To which I will refer you to the live stream where they introduced the Alliance Chieftain, where Fdev stated
One consideration what the Aerodynamics of the ship, for landing on planets with Atmospheres, as whilst it is not in game, they want to consider and design ships to be part of the Elite universe as a whole.


Which goes back to my ramblings here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ls-Size-Mass?p=6873092&viewfull=1#post6873092

There's two facts you forget to mention above: The Anaconda costs almost 30 times that of the Vulture, and nearly twice that of the Beluga.

 

[zimms]

Seems like that's not really a counter argument, but should go on the list as well.

 

[Naskoni]

Might you then, take a moment to explain how this makes sense



two empty Vulture Spaceframes at 230 tonnes each outweighs one empty Anaconda Spaceframe at 400 tonnes.

Is it because the Anaconda has a fragile hull?

The large HP pool would be fine to explain it being a much larger ship so there is more of it to damage

But the Anacondas has a hardness of 70 vs the Vultures' 55, so despite being so much less hull mass per surface area, it is more resilient to damage


Is the Anaconda more modern?

No, the Anaconda freighter dates back 448 years to the Vulture being no more than 50

Is it military vs civilian?

Well the anaconda is a armed freighter to the Space Superiority fighter of the Vultures description?

How is any of that internally consistent?

Why is it the Anaconda can carry more first class passengers than the much larger Beluga?


Is it because the Beluga has any "Cruise ship" facilities like restaurants and theatres and such not accounted for in the internals that make a first class trip on a Beluga better than on an anaconda?

If so, should there not be an in game mechanic for that, even if just a Happieness, Rep or CR bonus?


Now yuou no doubt will reply "But no one cares"


To which I will refer you to the live stream where they introduced the Alliance Chieftain, where Fdev stated
One consideration what the Aerodynamics of the ship, for landing on planets with Atmospheres, as whilst it is not in game, they want to consider and design ships to be part of the Elite universe as a whole.


Which goes back to my ramblings here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ls-Size-Mass?p=6873092&viewfull=1#post6873092

Problem is - FDev approaches every problem in the game in the same fashion and this is not an exception - they decide what something should be and then adjust the necessary numbers to make it happen, irrespectively of whether the end values would make any sense in the context of the world and lore of Elite. They took the Anaconda at the time and decided that given the chosen component sizes for internals it should be able to jump that far, be that fast, has shields that strong and that simply led tweaking the hull mass to practically magical values as to ensure the initial design document for the ship was implemented accordingly. That such low hull mass makes absolutely no sense and ignores any and all logic didn't bother them in the slightest. You can see that problem with plenty if not all ships in the game. Heck the FGS, in comparison, is made out of depleted uranium mass-wise in order to shoehorn it into its designated role.

The only solution imho is to simply decouple hull mass from certain components and balance ships in some other fashion, i.e. still preserve their roles but not in a way that would make certain aspects of them absurd, i.e. the magical alloys the Anaconda is apparently made of...

 

[Komor88]

For ship reality, by size.
Some ships internal space size. I used downloaded stl files and 3ds max.

Ship	Internal space (m3)
Anaconda	83000
Federal Corvette	56000
Imperial Courier	1700
Python	23000
Type-7	36000
ASP Explorer	17000
Type-9	140000
Beluga Liner	218000

Some fact from the numbers:
The Type-7 could carry at least 50% more cargo, than the Python (or more, because of the smaller core internals), and by the dimensions, it could land on medium size landing pad.
The Beluga Liner could carry at least four times, than the Federal Corvette can.
The Class 1 cargo rack can carry 2 containers. Let the container size 2mx0.5mx0.5m (smaller in the game). Let the Class 1 cargo rack 2m3 (calculated with lots of wasted space), so the Class 8 cargo rack (multiplied by 128) is 256m3. You can put about 540 class 8 cargo rack into the Type-9.
The Class 2 space is 2m3, the full space (unfolded) of the srv is 48m3, how the hell can it fit in?!
If the class 1 space size is 2m3, the model scaled size of the thrusters of the anaconda is class 11 (one of them).
The Class 6 space is 64m3, with 2,4m height its 26m2, 3,3m2 for every luxury passengers.
The Class 4 space is 8m3, with 2,4m height its 3,3m2, 0,41m2 for every economic passengers.
If using this class sizes, the imperial courier all internal occupy only the 15% of the the ship, the other 85% is empty space.

Something wrong with the models and the internals.
If the class 1 space is 15m2 (about 12-16 cargo container). The numbers would go closer to the realism of the models.
In that case, the srv can fit in class 3 easily.
The thusters size of the Anaconda would be class 9 (2 x class 8).

 

[Brrokk]

Problem is - FDev approaches every problem in the game in the same fashion and this is not an exception - they decide what something should be and then adjust the necessary numbers to make it happen, irrespectively of whether the end values would make any sense in the context of the world and lore of Elite. They took the Anaconda at the time and decided that given the chosen component sizes for internals it should be able to jump that far, be that fast, has shields that strong and that simply led tweaking the hull mass to practically magical values as to ensure the initial design document for the ship was implemented accordingly. That such low hull mass makes absolutely no sense and ignores any and all logic didn't bother them in the slightest. You can see that problem with plenty if not all ships in the game. Heck the FGS, in comparison, is made out of depleted uranium mass-wise in order to shoehorn it into its designated role.

The only solution imho is to simply decouple hull mass from certain components and balance ships in some other fashion, i.e. still preserve their roles but not in a way that would make certain aspects of them absurd, i.e. the magical alloys the Anaconda is apparently made of...

Probably right. It doesn't bother me in the slightest either. I travel faster than light just about every time I log into ED, which is apparently good for gameplay reasons, so a little thing like mass isn't going to bother me.

 

[House0fDerp]

If that were true,would they not have stuck to the model they started with?

Considering the Anaconda is an old ship while new ships tend to be more restrained while having personality I'd say the model they started with created this issue but their subsequent work proves it is true they can create uniqueness without breaking their own rules.

 

[Vasious]

There's two facts you forget to mention above: The Anaconda costs almost 30 times that of the Vulture, and nearly twice that of the Beluga.

That doesn't explain how the Anacondas hull is so minimal to the other expensive ships though, whilst having the same hardness.

Surely if "made of expensive light but strong material" was the answer, then that would be the same for other ships just as expensive.

If you say it is a Falcoun Delacy Secret, then why are they not capitalising that tech on all their ships and have them half the hull mass of their competition in every class and size?

 

[Sylveria]

That doesn't explain how the Anacondas hull is so minimal to the other expensive ships though, whilst having the same hardness.

Surely if "made of expensive light but strong material" was the answer, then that would be the same for other ships just as expensive.

If you say it is a Falcoun Delacy Secret, then why are they not capitalising that tech on all their ships and have them half the hull mass of their competition in every class and size?

Good point. Exactly why "cost" (at least alone) shouldn't be the determining factor for justification of a ships capabilities. If there's consistency applied- it would make sense, but as of now, it really doesn't.

As with all things, "you get what you pay for", but there really are "snake oil" salesmen out there who will cheat you for your hard earned credits. Just because you're paying more, doesn't mean you're getting more.

I don't personally believe in "brand names" as determining quality of a product, the actual quality of the product determines quality. Prices can be adjusted either way.

People paid massive moola for first gen VR when it came out- now you can get almost twice the quality at half the price.



As a side note- this may also serve for a point of rebalance... as new ships being introduced certainly haven't caused price differences in terms of quality/value. Perhaps the prices indeed should be adjusted accordingly?

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Everything

I didn't read all that, but repped for sheer volume of words.

 

[GoldenSilver484]

Might you then, take a moment to explain how this makes sense



two empty Vulture Spaceframes at 230 tonnes each outweighs one empty Anaconda Spaceframe at 400 tonnes.

Is it because the Anaconda has a fragile hull?

The large HP pool would be fine to explain it being a much larger ship so there is more of it to damage

But the Anacondas has a hardness of 70 vs the Vultures' 55, so despite being so much less hull mass per surface area, it is more resilient to damage


Is the Anaconda more modern?

No, the Anaconda freighter dates back 448 years to the Vulture being no more than 50

Is it military vs civilian?

Well the anaconda is a armed freighter to the Space Superiority fighter of the Vultures description?

How is any of that internally consistent?

Why is it the Anaconda can carry more first class passengers than the much larger Beluga?


Is it because the Beluga has any "Cruise ship" facilities like restaurants and theatres and such not accounted for in the internals that make a first class trip on a Beluga better than on an anaconda?

If so, should there not be an in game mechanic for that, even if just a Happieness, Rep or CR bonus?


Now yuou no doubt will reply "But no one cares"


To which I will refer you to the live stream where they introduced the Alliance Chieftain, where Fdev stated
One consideration what the Aerodynamics of the ship, for landing on planets with Atmospheres, as whilst it is not in game, they want to consider and design ships to be part of the Elite universe as a whole.


Which goes back to my ramblings here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ls-Size-Mass?p=6873092&viewfull=1#post6873092

It makes sense in the same way that the FDL has a higher base armour with a hardness rating of 70, yet only has 20 additional tons of hull mass when compared to the Vulture, while easily being twice, if not three times it's size.

Or the Orca having a hull mass of 290, only 40 and 10 tons more than the DBX and AspX, despite having more armour and hardness, on top of dwarfing them both in size. Even the DBX is easily under half of the size of the AspX, which again, has more hull hardness and health. All three still have higher hull masses than the FDL and Vulture.

Next up is how the Federal Corvette, with a hull mass of 900 and how it has slightly less than half of the hull mass of the FAS yet has more heath, hardness and is easily three if not four times the FAS's size. Compare the Corvette's hull mass to the FDS or FGS and it gets even worse.

It's almost as if the hull masses of ships is purely a balancing factor because none of the ship's hull masses make sense when you compare them to one another on hull mass alone.

For instance, my T-10 and Anaconda both have jumpranges of 23.20ly and 25.80ly respectively. The main difference between their jumpranges is that the T-10 has heavy duty military bulkheads with a double braced FSD, while the Anaconda has lightweight military bulkheads with a mass manager FSD. They both are outfit for the exact same thing, shooting things, and both do it slightly differently.

The fact that the T-10 has triple the Anaconda's hull mass means next to nothing and only matters when you start stripping them down for exploration builds, something FD clearly thinks the Conda should do well, as long as you ignore it's supercruise turning speeds.

 

[Vasious]

Next up is how the Federal Corvette, with a hull mass of 900 and how it has slightly less than half of the hull mass of the FAS

Do you mean twice? As the FAS is 480 tons

but anyway

It's almost as if the hull masses of ships is purely a balancing factor because none of the ship's hull masses make sense when you compare them to one another on hull mass alone..

Which is part of the reason for suggesting a rebalance so mass does make sense across the board.

Even if it was a rework of the modules and hull masses so they performance was similar, just have the ships internally consistent, as opposed to all the odd comparisons you rightly pointed out.