... or straight into somebody's eye!
Courier and combat! A very good analogy indeed!
Shouldn't dedicated ships make more money on average in comparison to multitasking ships?
- Thread starter FPCGlLeviathaN
- Start date
Courier and combat! A very good analogy indeed!
.
Last edited:
I would say engineer your thrusters.
For me on size alone the clipper loses. Python has the cargo, hull size, maneuverability all better for cores. I use the clipper to beat on Tharg Scouts when I bother.
Here's a little somethin' for your cockpit ambiance...
Engineering effects both ships equally, lol. The Clipper remains substantially more maneuverable after engineering. It takes a python 3.8 seconds to flip 180 degrees; the clipper can do it in 2.7 seconds.
The Python carries 17% more cargo, but goes 32% slower, and that means dramatically slower core discovery.
I disagree, one has to see where one is going. Python has more cargo, more hardpoints and they are centerline. No need to align a wing weapon.
I'm never flipping a 180 in core mining, just sliding arround a Centerpoint.
I would say the advantage in time on scan, rather than blowing past stuff and having more roop for cargo and tools makes the python better, however even if it were just the hardpoint centering and cargo I will be more efficient with the python. To add to the pythons merit though it's physically smaller and can get inside the chunks. No wracking the winglets on stuff, no being too long.
Better is a personal judgment for a goal by a person. You may prefer the clipper but I'm keep the python.
Whilst it would completely destroy my “shield crutch” builds, part of me thinks that Guardian Shield Reinforcement, Hull / Module Reinforcements, Shield Cell Banks, etc should only be able to be mounted in Military Slots. Now … they might need tweaking / balancing since the military slots are smaller on most ships so they’d need to be more effective (and larger sizes could just be removed from the game) but I feel like that could be used to give a genuine advantage to using combat-specific ships for combat as opposed to just filling a Python or Anaconda with combat modules.
I also think passengers - certainly “sightseeing” or “business / first class” passengers - should pay you a premium if you’re taking them in a “posh” ship like a Dolphin, FdL, Cutter vs sticking them in the hold of a T9 alongside your cargo racks full of bio waste.
I also think passengers - certainly “sightseeing” or “business / first class” passengers - should pay you a premium if you’re taking them in a “posh” ship like a Dolphin, FdL, Cutter vs sticking them in the hold of a T9 alongside your cargo racks full of bio waste.
Shield boosters (especially engineered) are much worse for balance than GSRPs. And hull is in a bad place anyways, no need to enrf it even more.
Base hull sh/could be increased to compensate … Corvette should have TWICE the HPs of the Anaconda, for example yet inexplicably has less despite being more heavily reinforced.
Oh, the magic fairy unicorn Anaconda.
Plz no nerf!!
Does no one ever think of the explorers?
(game needs a complete balance pass, which will never happen, at least not without riot.
)The time flipping 180 degrees is just a way of measuring maneuverability; the clipper is about 50% more maneuverable than the python, which dramatically shortens them time it takes to mine a core asteroid.
If you're 'blowing past stuff', it's a case of pilot error. You wouldn't say the Chieftain is a worse combat ship than the Crusader because the chieftain is faster.
And additional hardpoints are irrelevant for core mining. You need a core charge launcher and an abrasion blaster; all else is extra.
Superiority is an objective measurement, not subjective. You can prefer the python for core mining, but you cannot say it's better, because in any competition, the clipper will do significantly better every time.
By any objective standard, the clipper is the best core miner in the game.
Which isn't to say I would complain about buffing the clipper in some ways, but only in a very moderate, measured way. Adding an additional utility slot, for example.
Not sure why missions should pay more if a "specialised" ship is used.
If I offer to pay somebody £100 to dig a hole for me, I don't care whether they use a shovel or a JCB.
As long as the hole gets dug, it's up to the hole digger to decide what resources they commit to the task.
The only aspect of this that DOES need changing, IMO, is the way payments for wing-missions are allocated.
A wing Assassination mission, for example, should pay, say, Cr40m.
If I do it by myself, I should get Cr40m.
If I do it with a buddy we should get Cr20m each and if I do it in a wing of 4 we should get Cr10m each.
Ideally, FDev could come up with a way for a wing leader to manually allocate payments but, failing that, an even split based on the number of players in the wing would be much, MUCH better than what we currently have... whereby soloing a wing-mission results in you only receiving 25% of what the client was offering to pay.
If I offer to pay somebody £100 to dig a hole for me, I don't care whether they use a shovel or a JCB.
As long as the hole gets dug, it's up to the hole digger to decide what resources they commit to the task.
The only aspect of this that DOES need changing, IMO, is the way payments for wing-missions are allocated.
A wing Assassination mission, for example, should pay, say, Cr40m.
If I do it by myself, I should get Cr40m.
If I do it with a buddy we should get Cr20m each and if I do it in a wing of 4 we should get Cr10m each.
Ideally, FDev could come up with a way for a wing leader to manually allocate payments but, failing that, an even split based on the number of players in the wing would be much, MUCH better than what we currently have... whereby soloing a wing-mission results in you only receiving 25% of what the client was offering to pay.
While I wholly agree with that sentiment, IIRC the whole point of the current system put in by FD was to incentivise doing these missions as wings... ergo, having bigger (total) rewards if you do them as a group.
Which, frankly, is pretty trash, and it should function the way you've put (reward figures may vary, but not relevant here)
Been thinking about this too...
And you have missed a few other things with the current wing mission system that is good.
- There is no incentive whatsoever for the Wing mission holder to kick/leave the wing to turn the mission in solo for much better rewards.
- It encourages players to seek out other players to share wing mission payouts. even if you did do them solo, but finding other players and sharing the mission with them when turning it increases all of the involved payout. All it takes is some time and coordination.
And we know that there are still players that are pretty selfish, it is all about their fun, their enjoyment etc. so if they get to con other players, to share their wing missions with them, and then they leave the wing without sharing their, then, some would do that, because if they would make 4 times the profit from their own missions, why not? So now the best play, would be to avoid sharing wing missions with others, and now most players would only do this with trusted friends. There would still be
And if we try to fix that issue with giving some bonus to wing up, like you get a bonus payout per member of the wing, you will still make less credits sharing the wing mission than if you turned it in solo, and if the bonus would mean that for a full wing 4, the total payout per member would be like if you turned it in solo, the we would be back where we started...
I think we have very different definitions of "good" here.
What's old is new again.
They did that for a while. Then turned it off. Used to be that only classed ships could do luxury cabins. They added military slots to ships classed as military ships. That one didn't get turned off, though. The luxury cabins only in passenger ships was, I think. I may be misremembering.
Dammit, I've been rumbled!
