1.2 vs 2.2 FDL: A comparison

[DancingShade]

Just give the Python slightly (slightly) more pitch. Speed optional. Then we have a good alternative that doesn't require you to constantly hold down the flight assist off button.

Failing that, how about a Federation version of the Imperial Clipper and an Imperial version of the Assault Ship? That should do the trick.

 

[thirstyfish]

Just give the Python slightly (slightly) more pitch. Speed optional. Then we have a good alternative that doesn't require you to constantly hold down the flight assist off button.

Failing that, how about a Federation version of the Imperial Clipper and an Imperial version of the Assault Ship? That should do the trick.

great, more ships locked behind rank walls. Not to mention that the clipper and the FAS under most circumstances aren't a match against an FDL. The FDL needs ships that are its peers, and the clipper and FAS just aren't it at this point in time. And those peers should be accessible to anyone with the credits.

 

[DancingShade]

great, more ships locked behind rank walls. Not to mention that the clipper and the FAS under most circumstances aren't a match against an FDL. The FDL needs ships that are its peers, and the clipper and FAS just aren't it at this point in time. And those peers should be accessible to anyone with the credits.

So basically a midway in terms of price and performance between the FDL and Vulture? Or just a rebranded FDL by another ship maker?

 

[thirstyfish]

So basically a midway in terms of price and performance between the FDL and Vulture? Or just a rebranded FDL by another ship maker?

Ships with capabilities like the FDL, as in dedicated combat ships with similar (not identical) performance across most categories. Maybe have something that is like an up sized vulture, great agility, but at the cost of firepower. Have something that has a bit more firepower and durability, but at the cost of speed and agility. It needs peers that do certain things better than the FDL does, while sacrificing something else.

 

[DancingShade]

Ships with capabilities like the FDL, as in dedicated combat ships with similar (not identical) performance across most categories. Maybe have something that is like an up sized vulture, great agility, but at the cost of firepower. Have something that has a bit more firepower and durability, but at the cost of speed and agility. It needs peers that do certain things better than the FDL does, while sacrificing something else.

Sounds good to me.

 

[V'larr]

Please note that I do have weapons that require reloading.

That's the point. Railguns are comparatively useless for PvE combat grinding because of the lack of sustainability. So long as the ammo is restricted to such low levels, it is going to remain a purely PvP "gimmick" gun.

Just wanted to chime in to say: The FdL doesn't need nerfs; FDev needs to make some worthy competitors to the FdL in the $50m-$100m space. Why have only one elite-level combat ship? We have 3 big ships that are all more or less equal with pros and cons. FdL is the Anaconda of its weight class. It needs a couple of "different but equal" ships to compete with.

I agree.

I've said it in other threads before, but the problem with the FDL isn't one of balance so much as one of progression.

As far as advancing in the game goes, the FDL is all on its own in a tier between "Python/Type-9/FAS/Imperial Clipper" ships and the 3 "Anaconda-tier" ships, none of which can land on medium pads.

So long as that remains the case, the FDL is going to remain in a 'sore spot' for PvP.

You could nerf it to the levels of other ships, you could buff it to Anaconda levels and jack up the price accordingly...but the best solution, I think, would be to have more ships that are, by design, comparable to the FDL - ships that are 'in between' the "Python" and "Anaconda" tiers.

 

[DancingShade]

If we end up getting a wholly new ship to give us an alternative to the FDL (which I'm all for) then it would also be good to make it an Alliance design.

Apart from that one fighter the Alliance is sorely in need of some iconic designs.

 

[Arguendo]

PVP isn't the "big picture". The game is almost entirely PVE...

You're preaching to the choir

...and variety PVP folks craved was addressed by boosting the jack-of-all-trades ships so they could be masters of combat then the Bigger Picture would make the FDL irrelevant.

Who would fly a short range dedicated fighter when they could fly longer range "do anything" ship that could fight just as well?

The answer you seek lies in having NEW SHIPS that are also dedicated fighters, not in unbalancing the non-PVP aspects of the game by making multi-roles OP again.

I actually think any buff of a multi-role ship is a bad idea. They are supposed to do a lot of things well, but not be on par with dedicated ships in each category. Again, which is why I believe comparing a Python to an FdL is inappropriate.

We already have atleast one ship that is a dedicated fighter, which should be a contender in the FdL range of ships, the FAS. Due to the Engineers, it is not however. I would like to say that the Clipper also fills that role, but I don't see it. It's more akin to the Python in being a multi-role ship, but it's size takes it outside that comparison as well. It's more like a mini-Anaconda unfortunately.
So, we're missing an Imperial version of the dedicated Medium Fighter, and the FAS needs some love imho.

I also believe that you can't really separate PvE and PvP too much, or rather shouldn't be able to, when it comes to combat. I've seen a PvP build shrug off 6 SecFor ships firing at it simoultaneously without using SCBs. That means the Meta PvP builds are also dominating PvE. In a perfect world there would be a few very good medium combat builds that excel regardless of PvE or PvP. Not going to happen though, unless Engineers go away

 

[JerryLove]

Cheaper ships can't be as good because if they were there would be no point spending more.
Multi-role ships can't be as good because if they were there would be no point getting specialized fighters.

As long as ships are differentiated by role and cost the best fighter can (or, at least should be) the most expensive dedicated fighter. (unless the most expensive non-fighter is far more expensive).

If you want variety the, as pointed out, make more fighters at the same price-point.

There are some solutions play-wise: but pretty much all involve being able to build and control groups of ships; which ED has been pretty against.

 

[thirstyfish]

That's the point. Railguns are comparatively useless for PvE combat grinding because of the lack of sustainability. So long as the ammo is restricted to such low levels, it is going to remain a purely PvP "gimmick" gun.



I agree.

I've said it in other threads before, but the problem with the FDL isn't one of balance so much as one of progression.

As far as advancing in the game goes, the FDL is all on its own in a tier between "Python/Type-9/FAS/Imperial Clipper" ships and the 3 "Anaconda-tier" ships, none of which can land on medium pads.

So long as that remains the case, the FDL is going to remain in a 'sore spot' for PvP.

You could nerf it to the levels of other ships, you could buff it to Anaconda levels and jack up the price accordingly...but the best solution, I think, would be to have more ships that are, by design, comparable to the FDL - ships that are 'in between' the "Python" and "Anaconda" tiers.

Oh please. Rail guns are hardly useless in PvE. While they may not be ideal, but if you make your shots count and you don't waste them on ships that don't need it, they can be about a profitable as having MCs. Just last night I got lucky with the wanted ship spawns and got nearly 1.5 million before having to go reload. If I had high capacity rail guns, then I could have stayed out even longer. The longer reload time and higher power draw don't bother me, but I haven't done much with engineers so far.

Almost any weapon can be used in PvP, as long as you are smart about how you use it. The only real exceptions to this are the explosive weapons, Torps, mines and missiles, IMO, are bad for PvE stuff. Torps because of their high cost, how easily PDs shoot them down, and low ammo count. Mines because, well, mines. Missiles are the only one where someone could use them well, but they have the same issues as torps for the most part.

 

[V'larr]

Oh please. Rail guns are hardly useless in PvE.

I said "comparatively". Adverbs are important.

Still, 1.5 million in bounties before porting isn't too bad...but it still would be preferable to just have more ammo. I think a capacity of 50-60 rounds, instead of the current 30, would be ideal.

As for other weapons:

Yeah, torps are in a very strange place, currently. Mike's mentioned that Frontier's aware, though, so it's a matter of time until they figure out what the heck to do with the things.

Mines are actualy doable, just much harder to use effectively without a fast and nimble ship...basically, just for kicks and giggles. I do think how mines work could use improvement, though.

Missiles are limited mostly by ammo capacity, in my experience, and are quite effective and powerful! Point defence can only handle so much if you don't fire them one at a time, and have you ever tried the Li Yong Rui's packhounds...?

 

[thirstyfish]

I said "comparatively". Adverbs are important.

Still, 1.5 million in bounties before porting isn't too bad...but it still would be preferable to just have more ammo. I think a capacity of 50-60 rounds, instead of the current 30, would be ideal.

As for other weapons:

Yeah, torps are in a very strange place, currently. Mike's mentioned that Frontier's aware, though, so it's a matter of time until they figure out what the heck to do with the things.

Mines are actualy doable, just much harder to use effectively without a fast and nimble ship...basically, just for kicks and giggles. I do think how mines work could use improvement, though.

Missiles are limited mostly by ammo capacity, in my experience, and are quite effective and powerful! Point defence can only handle so much if you don't fire them one at a time, and have you ever tried the Li Yong Rui's packhounds...?

I don't do powerplay. Not my thing. It is possible to have more rounds for the rail guns to play with via engineer modifications, I just haven't done anything with engineers yet. With a G5 high capacity mod on rail guns, you can double the ammo capacity. Even with a G1 mod, you can still get a 69% increase in capacity. I just haven't done anything with it yet.

 

[Aris_]

like to mention the speed difference the fdl has with every other rival medium vessel the only ship that can keep up and win in a strafe maneuver is a glass canon courier

Reverse with faoff and dd5 gives you equal speed with the majority of 4pips to engine ships and you have to boost to catch it, even against hull tanking fdl the shielded fdl is in disadvantage if it tries to catch him (has to remove pips from sys to increase speed ) while the other empties its gimbals mc on trg.

Either way I don’t see a change in the horizon because the flight model depends on the weight thrusters relationship .

 

[aardappelianen]

The fdls flavour text says its a luxury bounty hunting ship yet it probably has the worst jump range of any ship in game where is the logic in that? How exactly is the asp x heavier in base hull mass than the the fdl? Because at this hull mass with a size 5 fsd the fdl would out jump the asp x
So i say give the fdl a size 5 fsd but weigh her down till she maxes at 40 ly per jump (engineered)
And the whole shield stacking nerf that was announced but then pulled seemed like a good idea to me

 

[Heater]

Why not make all ships equal... then no one can complain.


Oh Wait


The people would complain that all the ships are equal!

 

[AkimuMC]

Why not make all ships equal... then no one can complain.


Oh Wait


The people would complain that all the ships are equal!

No, people just really want a ship that will fit a medium pad, have 5-8 hardpoints, 6-8 utility slots, a 40-50ly jump range, capable of fighting off an FDL and corvette at the same time, with shields better than a Cutter, but able to haul more cargo than a Python... for like 50-75 million credits... That doesn't seem like too much to ask, at least until folks ask for it to be Alliance designed... that is where it all falls apart

 

[Mohrgan]

I bristle at calling the FdL a medium ship. Certainly it lands on a medium pad but, I see it more as a contender with the big 3. Something along the lines of how the Cutter fits in, but in reverse. I don;t see the Dropship based ships as direct competition for the FdL. The FdL is a/the big ship hunter. There should be more ships in the FdL class. The rest of the medium ships just won;t have the same effective health, nor damage to keep up. Two more fighters with c6 PP and 6 utility mounts is in order here.

 

[Morbad]

http://i.imgur.com/fmAj8iS.png

FDL has gotten a lot stronger since its original inception. Thoughts?

I was fine with it in 1.2, well when I could afford it after the price cut, and I did quite well with it.

I didn't feel it needed any buffs.

 

[Demascus]

So you upset that a pure combat ship, (FDL) out performs in combat..... multi-role non dedicated combat ships?(Clipper and python)

 

[Goose4291]

It doesnt need nerfs. It needs the limitations that made it a ship to master before it recieved numerous buffs (ie high rebuy costs if you ballsed up due to its purchase price, power management to eek what you could out of the hull and a less than perfect turn circle so its owner has to learn to use FA off) returned to it. Just my ten cents (which Ive been saying since the price drop).