All big(ger) ships maneuver too well....

[Katkon]

Believe it or not, this isn't intended to be a nerf thread. But I did want to share my opinion re: ship maneuverability. Something that's bugged me since the very beginning.

Personally, I believe there should be leaps and bounds differences in ship agility between small and big ships. A stock Sidewinder or Eagle should, IMHO, be able to run circles around an Anaconda or Python (even fully upgraded ones) - literally! Have you ever seen a Type 9 wedding or funeral barge accompanied by Type 6s swirling about like they're Sidewinders? These are big ships, and I think they should move as such.

To me, this is not so much about balance as it is about achieving a bit more realism and ensuring there remains an incentive to continue to fly smaller ships in-game. Currently, very few choose to continue to fly Eagles or Sidewinders once they have amassed enough credits for a bigger ship. Frankly, I'm concerned that in several months time, all we'll see are Pythons and Anacondas flying around. That'd be boring.

And yes, I fully understand that flying a Python or Anaconda that can't turn like an Eagle (or close to it) wouldn't be as much fun, but the big ships obviously still have the upper hand in combat: strength of shields and hull, not to mention firepower. I do know that some of these ships are having their maneuverability reduced a bit shortly, but I don't think it'll be nearly enough to achieve what I outline above - more realism.

To me, an Anaconda should move a bit like a sea-faring destroyer or battleship vs. a Sidewinder should move like a patrol boat. In a fight it's obvious who's going to win - so this isn't about achieving balance - but it's simply not "realistic" that the big ships turn and maneuver like they do. Most importantly, they negate the use of smaller ships - which is a real pity.

Just my 2c!

 

[kelticfury]

Oh boy, here we go!

*gets popcorn*

 

[OnePercent]

yes they are quite maneuverable but they are NOTHING compared to the fighters and combat craft, so why bother?

 

[DimGook]

IMO Anacondas are more like Frigates than Battleships (hell it's smaller than some Frigates in that other internet spaceship game, EVE). Real capital ships seen in warzones are many times over larger than Anacondas.

I fully welcome the day where there are player controlled, multicrewed capital ships that move like whales and soak insane amounts of damage.


PS Whether you intend to or not any thread about ships inevitably becomes about Python Nerf.

 

[OnePercent]

IMO Anacondas are more like Frigates than Battleships (hell it's smaller than some Frigates in that other internet spaceship game, EVE). Real capital ships seen in warzones are many times over larger than Anacondas.

I fully welcome the day where there are player controlled, multicrewed capital ships that move like whales and soak insane amounts of damage.


PS Whether you intend to or not any thread about ships inevitably becomes about Python Nerf.

FD should procedurally generate internals for very large ships to save time and workload.

 

[Lethargus]

It's amazing to think that in the vast emptiness of space aerodynamics mean absolutely nothing in how well a ship handles and that larger ships should be able to support larger thrusters to handle the greater moments of inertia. If anything, the larger ships should be able to dedicate internal slots to respond even faster than smaller ships. Imagine taking a size 6 cargo and replacing it with that many tons of say... a 3 axis flywheel mechanism. Now you have a significant percentage of a ship's hull mass that can apply inertia in any direction at any time for every ship in game except perhaps the Type 9.

 

[HeavyGroovez]

The Anaconda is a proper handful.

Even with 51 million quids worth of A rated thrusters and an empty hold she requires smooth control to get the best out of her.

Big ship handling is where it needs to be. Python was an anomaly that is being addressed.

 

[Mister5150]

Why is power to weight ratio not understood here? additionally the game is based in the future, who says bigger ships should move like refrigerators? Your paying a higher price for higher performance.

 

[DimGook]

It's amazing to think that in the vast emptiness of space aerodynamics mean absolutely nothing in how well a ship handles and that larger ships should be able to support larger thrusters to handle the greater moments of inertia. If anything, the larger ships should be able to dedicate internal slots to respond even faster than smaller ships. Imagine taking a size 6 cargo and replacing it with that many tons of say... a 3 axis flywheel mechanism. Now you have a significant percentage of a ship's hull mass that can apply inertia in any direction at any time for every ship in game except perhaps the Type 9.

Square cube law applies just as much in space as it does on earth.

 

[777Driver]

I do agree with the OP, only ships that handle like big ships are the Clipper and Type-9. Still you get plenty of people complaining about the T9. It really is down to people wanting Arcade style quick maneuvering ships, so we have to live with it.

The Type-7 was a big disappointment for me, the Orca is just ridiculous, it rolls like an Eagle yet is supposed to be a Cruise liner. That's why I stick to my Type-9, and jump into the Eagle/Viper when I want the fighter Jet experience.

 

[vjek]

I would agree if they didn't cost so much.

As they do cost so much, the Type9 is a terrible ship. It's horrific to fly. It's not fun, it's a tedious annoying boring chore. The Python and Anaconda are fun to fly, and very very very very expensive to outfit properly.

If FDEV is willing to adjust price based on combat performance alone, making the big ships the cheapest, I'd be the first to jump on that bandwagon.

 

[777Driver]

The Anaconda is a proper handful.

Even with 51 million quids worth of A rated thrusters and an empty hold she requires smooth control to get the best out of her.

Big ship handling is where it needs to be. Python was an anomaly that is being addressed.

Good to hear, I was put of buying the Anaconda because I imagined it to be another large fighter. Glad to see it has some weight and inertia behind it.

 

[Lethargus]

Square cube law applies just as much in space as it does on earth.

Not quite... square cube law is talking about surface area pressure from acceleration, ie as the object is pushed through a medium. In space there's little to no resistance in that regard. The only thing going is structural strain, which is dominated by the torque applied to any rigid member in the structure. If anything the larger ships would be far worse at dissipating heat without relying on giant vanes or fins of some kind, which in turn would go back to structural strain. But they don't seem to have those...

But hey, ships in supercruise are moving faster than the speed of light, yet we can see other ships with relative accuracy both in front and behind us. So physics need not apply.

 

[Eagle Eye]

Here we go. nrf every ships!!!

Oh, even with currently "too manouverable" design, Sidewinders has been killing Anacondas.

 

[Hekantonkheries]

Believe it or not, this isn't intended to be a nerf thread. But I did want to share my opinion re: ship maneuverability. Something that's bugged me since the very beginning.

Personally, I believe there should be leaps and bounds differences in ship agility between small and big ships. A stock Sidewinder or Eagle should, IMHO, be able to run circles around an Anaconda or Python (even fully upgraded ones) - literally! Have you ever seen a Type 9 wedding or funeral barge accompanied by Type 6s swirling about like they're Sidewinders? These are big ships, and I think they should move as such.

To me, this is not so much about balance as it is about achieving a bit more realism and ensuring there remains an incentive to continue to fly smaller ships in-game. Currently, very few choose to continue to fly Eagles or Sidewinders once they have amassed enough credits for a bigger ship. Frankly, I'm concerned that in several months time, all we'll see are Pythons and Anacondas flying around. That'd be boring.

And yes, I fully understand that flying a Python or Anaconda that can't turn like an Eagle (or close to it) wouldn't be as much fun, but the big ships obviously still have the upper hand in combat: strength of shields and hull, not to mention firepower. I do know that some of these ships are having their maneuverability reduced a bit shortly, but I don't think it'll be nearly enough to achieve what I outline above - more realism.

To me, an Anaconda should move a bit like a sea-faring destroyer or battleship vs. a Sidewinder should move like a patrol boat. In a fight it's obvious who's going to win - so this isn't about achieving balance - but it's simply not "realistic" that the big ships turn and maneuver like they do. Most importantly, they negate the use of smaller ships - which is a real pity.

Just my 2c!

the problem with all that, is that in this game, at this point, the ONLY stat that matter snad determines a fight 90% of the time in maneuverability, as it is its fine and easy for vipers to take out pythons and anacondas without a scratch, why?

because they ar emaneuverable enough just to sit in their blind spot and wail on their reactor without repercussion

so until you find a way for these large ships to have even a chance against anything smaller than themselves, you can take this suggestion and shove it

*edit* to clarify, 2 equal pilots, one in anaconda, one in anything smaller than it, the one in the smaller ship will ALWAYS win unless theyre in a freighter. After the nerf, the python will just be the stepping stone hauler before a T9 or Anaconda (again as a hauler) because ships with low maneuverability serve no purpose for combat in ED because theya re riddled with blindspots and cant keep enemy ships in their sights, and turrets are an anemic abysmal unreliable weapon system that usually ends with you STILL dishing out less DPS than your opponent can because they have 5 fixed guns pointed right at you from outside your turrets "optimal"

so how about instead of just nerfing everything, we do what you REALLY want, and just go ahead and delete everything bigger than your "perfect" but still "always totally the underdog brah look how pro i am" viper

 

[Drunk Si]

I fully welcome the day where there are player controlled, multicrewed capital ships that move like whales and soak insane amounts of damage.

I say thee, nay! A capital ship must be worth billions and the idea that it should turn at a slower rate than a paper thin 40k eagle is an affront to my dignity and my honour!

 

[malicious1]

Believe it or not, this isn't intended to be a nerf thread. But I did want to share my opinion re: ship maneuverability. Something that's bugged me since the very beginning.

Personally, I believe there should be leaps and bounds differences in ship agility between small and big ships. A stock Sidewinder or Eagle should, IMHO, be able to run circles around an Anaconda or Python (even fully upgraded ones) - literally! Have you ever seen a Type 9 wedding or funeral barge accompanied by Type 6s swirling about like they're Sidewinders? These are big ships, and I think they should move as such.

To me, this is not so much about balance as it is about achieving a bit more realism and ensuring there remains an incentive to continue to fly smaller ships in-game. Currently, very few choose to continue to fly Eagles or Sidewinders once they have amassed enough credits for a bigger ship. Frankly, I'm concerned that in several months time, all we'll see are Pythons and Anacondas flying around. That'd be boring.

And yes, I fully understand that flying a Python or Anaconda that can't turn like an Eagle (or close to it) wouldn't be as much fun, but the big ships obviously still have the upper hand in combat: strength of shields and hull, not to mention firepower. I do know that some of these ships are having their maneuverability reduced a bit shortly, but I don't think it'll be nearly enough to achieve what I outline above - more realism.

To me, an Anaconda should move a bit like a sea-faring destroyer or battleship vs. a Sidewinder should move like a patrol boat. In a fight it's obvious who's going to win - so this isn't about achieving balance - but it's simply not "realistic" that the big ships turn and maneuver like they do. Most importantly, they negate the use of smaller ships - which is a real pity.

Just my 2c!

i kinda of agree if there werent small ships with huge damage

 

[Lethargus]

The clear solution is make every ship a Cobra Mk III. You don't purchase different hard points or stats or internal structures. The different "ships" will just be reskins of the Cobra. Problem solved. Of course, I wouldn't play this game then... but balance for everyone!

 

[DimGook]

Not quite... square cube law is talking about surface area pressure from acceleration, ie as the object is pushed through a medium. In space there's little to no resistance in that regard. The only thing going is structural strain, which is dominated by the torque applied to any rigid member in the structure. If anything the larger ships would be far worse at dissipating heat without relying on giant vanes or fins of some kind, which in turn would go back to structural strain. But they don't seem to have those...

But hey, ships in supercruise are moving faster than the speed of light, yet we can see other ships with relative accuracy both in front and behind us. So physics need not apply.

It also applies to material strength vs mass moments, or heat generation vs surface area, or power generation vs mass...

But hey like you said physics need not apply so big ships should be able to spin around so fast they literally spin apart.

 

[777Driver]

It also applies to material strength vs mass moments, or heat generation vs surface area, or power generation vs mass...

But hey like you said physics need not apply so big ships should be able to spin around so fast they literally spin apart.

Well Physics don't apply to the commander in a machine governed by flight control laws. Just like modern FBW aircraft, you fly the computer, the computer fly's the machine. Structural or physical limits do not come into play for the person in command.