Ships should be reworked in order to give more incentive to players to use something other than the Python or the Anaconda. (No nerfs involved)

Snowymonk

Snowymonk
I understand why you are posting but I haven’t flown an Anaconda for over a year now and I haven’t flown a Python since the Krait was launched.

I am in the end game now,
I use Krait mkII for Thargoid scout hunting and Cutter for IDA hauling.
They are better suited than the Python and ‘Conda.

IMHO
 

Stealthie

Stealthie
I don't necessarily disagree with the OP's idea but I'm not keen on just arbitrarily twiddling things to create the required "balance".

For me, the way to do it would be to start (and yes, I realise this is all a bit dull) by creating a spreadsheet of all the ships and then calculate each ship's attributes CONSISTENTLY.

Once you've done that, you can look at all the ships, see which ones are out of whack and adjust their stat's in plausible ways (by giving them different modules and adjusting their internal slots etc) rather than just arbitrarily applying hidden "fiddle-factors" to various ships.

For example, consider the iCourier vs the iEagle.

The iCourier is significantly longer than an Eagle and appears to have more "bulk".
The iCourier is, however, lighter than the Eagle... and yet it has more integrity. 😵
The iEagle uses the same thrusters as the iCourier and yet it is faster than the iCourier despite being heavier. o_Oo_O

If we (or, more importantly, FDev) had a spreadsheet that quantified each ship consistently then we might find that the iCourier has a surface area of, say, 100m² while the iEagle has a surface area of 75m².
If we start off assuming that the iCourier and iEagle have hulls built from the same material then the iEagle should be lighter than the iCourier.
If we want the iCourier to be lighter than the iEagle then we have to reduce the thickness of the hull armor to do so... which would mean the iCourier's integrity is reduced as well.
If we adjust the iCourier's physical attributes and then find it's stupidly fast as a result, maybe we need to take away it's C3 thrusters and replace them with C2 thrusters.
Etc.

Point is, this would all be adjusted consistently, using the physical attributes of the ship rather than just by applying hidden fiddle-factors which magically buff some ships and nerf others.

For me, that HAS to be the first step of any kind of ship re-balancing.
Any other tweaks to ships are simply castles built in sand.
The fundamental problem still remains.
 

Starman 1966

S
A simple re-balancing of missions aka game content would make things easy enough. Boom delivery cargo missions are mostly beyond 120 tons, so forget anything smaller than a Krait Mk II. If mission boards would adapt to the individual ship size this would be a non-issue.

Bulk passenger missions definitely need a re-design. You can neither split nor stack them. And there are these odd outpost passenger missions asking for transporting 54 first class passengers. Which ship can haul that amount? You're right, no ship can, not even the mighty Python.

So a bit more common sense regarding mission design would go a long way.
 

Starman 1966

S
Sigh - without doubt you're right about that. And for balance's sake FD should slightly re-design the Clipper's dimensions so it could fit a medium sized landing pad. Simply because its stats spell "medium ship" and for fairness as the Imps don't have a medium sized ship yet.
 

ebbrell

ebbrell
Role specific ships I like the idea of.
As for ships with military slots, I originally thought using a military slot gave an advantage to the item being placed in it.

By giving hull reinforcements etc a boost when in a military slot. It would make a fighter class ship be tougher. Sort of making it role specific

It could boost guardian sheild boosters and anything else which is allowed in a military slot

It's just a thought
 

Kellan Fell

Kellan Fell
I'd just like to see different manufacturer's ships have different cockpit displays. The you could add an aesthetic value to your choice. I get that form follows function, all car dashboards essentially contain the same instruments (speedo, rev counter, guages etc.) but does a Ferrari dashboard look like a Citroen? No., So why should a Saud Kruger look like a ZPG? And why does the official ship builder of the Empire, that prides itself on the beauty of its designs, then put in the same displays as a Sidewinder?
 

Rat Catcher

Rat Catcher
Why should ships be reworked just because?
I don't use the Anaconda - I have bought 3 over my spacefaring career and sold all 3 shortly after... The Python is the Ford Transit of space, boring but functional.
Other ships have their own characteristics, none of which, in particular, need buffing to align with anaconda or python.
...nice of you to field the idea though ;)
 

Bob McBobblehead

Bob McBobblehead
The Krait Mk-II is the the Python competitor.
The Anaconda has no alternative.

While it would be nice to have an extra class 6 or 7 slot for the Clipper, but it would tank to jump range as it only has a class 5 FSD.
I'd rather have the following Clipper changes.
Fuel tank changed from a class 4 to a class 6.
Life support and sensors changed from class 5 to class 7
FSD changed from class 5 to class 6.

The Clipper is currently to sensitive to weight.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom