They were designed and wedged into the lore as combat ships. *shrug* I'm not sure why you made arguments I already put into my own post. They even call the Cutter a Warship, but I left that omitted for argument sake. You can do anything in any ship, that point is a bit moot.
Will there be more than 2 New Ships?
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
They were designed and wedged into the lore as combat ships. *shrug* I'm not sure why you made arguments I already put into my own post. They even call the Cutter a Warship, but I left that omitted for argument sake. You can do anything in any ship, that point is a bit moot.
That's your opinion. The objective fact is what the game states. The subjective view differs between people, so if Nutter believe all those ships are combat ships, it's his right as much as it is your right to believe they're not. Either we compare things from an objective view, which can be shared, or a subjective view which is by definition not shared.
You realize you're taking fluff descriptions as "fact" over the actual facts, being the measurable properties of the ship right?
With that said, how is the ship with the word "warship" in the description not on your list if descriptions are the only metric for consideration here?
Edit: Also "How many ships in the game are actually tilted heavily towards a Combat role?" != "How many ships in the game are actually described in flavor text as having a Combat role?"
The question was subjective to begin with as per your qualification of role evaluations.
Last edited:
Hmm...
Which one has "warship" in the description? That means that I missed one. So then we just add whichever ship that is to the list of combat specific ships. I'm not putting ships up for consideration. I'm just stating the fact of what ships are declared and defined as combat ships by Frontier and the game. No opinions here. Just what it says.
Oh, found it. Yes, Federal Corvette is warship. So let's add that to the list.
Eagle - Fighter
Imperial Eagle - Multi-role fighter
Viper MkIV - Heavy Fighter
Vulture - Heavy fighter
Alliance Chieftan - combat profile
Federal Assault Ship - combat intensive role
Alliance Crusader - suited to combat situations
Alliance Challenger - frontline combat vessel
Federal Gunship - fire support
Type-10 Defender - xeno-war, weapons platform
Federal Corvette - warship
And the Viper MkIII (which was originally billed as a "heavy fighter" too).
Exactly. Most ships in the game are multi-purpose ships really... if we are honest there are very few aspects which make a ship a dedicated one for a certain role, and it's usually not an outstanding ability in one area but the lack thereof in others... i.e. "true" combat ships like the FdL are combat ships not because they are exceptionally good at combat, but because they can't be used for much else, because of a lack of internal compartments and crappy jumprange.
Other so-called combat ships are often better multi-purpose ships than their true multi-purpose counterparts... the Viper Mk IV i.e. surpasses the Cobra Mk 3 in basically every regard. The Corvette is another example... it's the third-best trading ship in the game right behind Cutter and T-9.... or a great miner.
Personally I think this is a good thing, because it enables us to use the ships we like the most (design-wise and handling-wise) for our preferred gameplay style instead of forcing us into a select few suitable ships.
So you are saying a free season is a rip off because it contains only 3 new ship designs?
Right. That's the "issue" with ED approach to ship design at large. Barring fluff and looks (which remain quite important in my book, nonetheless), the role of a ship is mainly defined more in a negative manner (what it can't really do well enough) than a positive one. The Alliance ships are effectively pushed toward a combat role because at their respective price tags there are way better (and even cheaper) options already available for any other activity in the game. It doesn't prevent anyone to use these in any role they like. It's just that you'll be far, far from the Meta if you do.
In the end, ED has only two kinds of ships, and what set these two kinds apart only really is the number of internal slots. Too few internals, and you got a ship that's only really useful at combat, by default. Give it one or two more and the exact same ship becomes a multirole already.
As such, I'm afraid dedicated explorer/miner ships will probably never see the light of day. The best explorers will remain the long-range multiroles. And the best traders (big cargo multiroles) will always double-up as the best miners. I know it sounds a bit dull, in a way, but that's how ED has always worked.
And with the removal of dedicated passenger slots in beta 3.3, I suppose it is safe to assume that Frontier does not intend to modify their ship design policy any time soon. And every ship yet to come will probably follow a similar mindset of "multi-role with a twist".
I suppose one thing that I have not mentioned, regarding the Anaconda, is the fact that although I have to use it to get the jump range that I NEED to play my style of exploration. The Anaconda makes a terrible explorer! Slow turn rate, long nose, really poor view, difficult to land in rocky areas it's royal pain in the rear as an explorer! Second to that we have the ASPX which is a better exploration ship due to better view, easier to land, fast turn rate, it just does not have the range. Now if the Anaconda and ASPX had equal jump range, then I would probably be flying that. - Both ships were released over 4 years ago and no ships have been released since with Exploration range.
Also well done on the ever growing Combat ship list - Just proves our point of the complete lack of choice for playstyles outside of combat and Pew PEw
Also well done on the ever growing Combat ship list - Just proves our point of the complete lack of choice for playstyles outside of combat and Pew PEw
Genuinely open question, Nutter: What is the minimum jump range you need for your style of exploration?
just thinking a year ago they showed 2 ships on their presentation and said there will be a lot more comming in beyound. And 2 + 1 aint many for me.
Starting at 16.30
[video=youtube_share;5MYuX9vrP_o]https://youtu.be/5MYuX9vrP_o?t=975[/video]
But if all that size 8 stuff showing up latle will come to a use. I just say i don`t mind my stupid talk yesterday.
Last edited:
Wow. Great vid. She really is a beauty. I'm curious how the cockpit view is.
The thing is, while the anaconda is pretty poor for exploring (SC handling and canopy view are terrible), there are places where when exploring,
range trumps everything. Going in the outer rim, far above/below the galactic plane or to reach certain star clusters, there is no other way.
And frankly, it's disapointing that there are only 3 "dedicated" explorations ships, one of which is compromised by the lack of internals.
range trumps everything. Going in the outer rim, far above/below the galactic plane or to reach certain star clusters, there is no other way.
And frankly, it's disapointing that there are only 3 "dedicated" explorations ships, one of which is compromised by the lack of internals.
3 dedicated exploration ships? AspX, DBX & ? Which is the 3rd as I can't think which - not a criticism (particularly as my favourite explorer is the Orca
) but just a question?
I'll just have to hope that the Krait Phantom has the jump range of an Anaconda, supercruise agility of an ASPx, runs cool and at least 8 or 9 optional module slots.
That's easy to answer:
A ship with range equal to the Anaconda.
It's less about a definitive number and more about giving explorers ship options when they want the best range possible. For four years that has been one ship: the Conda, followed by second choice, the Asp X. Many of us would simply like to have a few ships up there in range to choose from.