Challenger = Chieftain = Crusader, Krait = Python... What's the point?

[Shinji Ikari]

fwiw, I ignored Flowey a while ago and my forums experience is a lot less full of garbage posts.

I'm Kurama 1100 for you.

That was kind of my point - when you kit out a Cobra Mk III and a Viper Mk IV as true multi-role vessels they have the same effective cargo capacity 16T without compromising features. Of course they are not the same either but the same reasoning the OP and perhaps some others are using is equally applicable. Similarly the Anaconda and the Corvette have identical Core internals yet other differences make them sufficiently distinct from each other.

With the FDS/FAS, they also have identical internals - the FGS has beefed up PD and Sensors (compared with the FAS/FDS) but also is somewhat more expensive.

In the case of the Cobra MkIII & the Viper MkIV, they aren't aesthetically similar by any means.

The Federal Corvette has much more optional internal space than the Anaconda, also, they aren't aesthetically similar either.

 

[House0fDerp]

Indeed I'm aware of that, the deal here is that the hull weight varies by 100 Tons.

I mean, that's 25% of the Chieftains total hull mass

For PDs they aren't dependant on hull, each ship seems to have an associated boost capacity number, I realized this when engineering my AspX.

I was more referring to hardpoint counts and configs determining weapons draw, but yes, the boost is static per hull.

 

[lenna]

Pay close attention to what I said, they have the same cargo space.

And as that has been pointed out it is totally irrelevant for craft such as this... cargo space is not the be all and end all of ship design, number of slots is probably more important overall (providing there are enough of the right class to fit the kit you need for a specific job).

If you fit the chieftain and crusader out for their obviously intended roles, cargo space does not really come into it (except perhaps in a very minor way).

The Challenger on the other hand, that is a ship where cargo space could be considered part of the intended design.

Your argument in general is so fundamentally flawed it is not even really worth wasting time explaining why it is so flawed - the points should be obvious to anyone with even an iota of common sense.

 

[LuxAeterna]

Fdev's design philosophy:

• Copy & paste existing asset, code, mechanic
• Scale, rename and slightly modify "new" asset, code, mechanic
• Make store items for said items (where applicable)
• Job done! Let's call it a day team! Job well done!

[wacko]

 

[Shinji Ikari]

And as that has been pointed out it is totally irrelevant for craft such as this... cargo space is not the be all and end all of ship design, number of slots is probably more important overall (providing there are enough of the right class to fit the kit you need for a specific job).

If you fit the chieftain and crusader out for their obviously intended roles, cargo space does not really come into it (except perhaps in a very minor way).

The Challenger on the other hand, that is a ship where cargo space could be considered part of the intended design.

Your argument in general is so fundamentally flawed it is not even really worth wasting time explaining why it is so flawed - the points should be obvious to anyone with even an iota of common sense.

Apparently, common sense is so common that there's a 26 page thread debating this "common sense" you talk about

The point is, we've got a pair of ships that are more similar than any other pair I know of both in stats & aesthetical look.

 

[Aashenfox]

Apparently, common sense is so common that there's a 26 page thread debating this "common sense" you talk about

The point is, we've got a pair of ships that are more similar than any other pair I know of both in stats & aesthetical look.

Hard to argue with that. FAS and FDS have quite different optionals, and VM4 and CM3 while having almost identical internals (only one optional is a 3 on the VM4 instead of the 4 on the cobra), and the same hardpoint configuration (but not layout), they don't look at all alike.

So, I think we can agree, that now FD have done...

Similar internals, different looks
Different internals, different looks
Different Internals and similar looks
Similar Internals, similar looks

So, unsurprisingly, in 34 or whatever number of ships it is now, they've gone through every possible variation of copy paste.

What are we talking about again?

edit: Oh, yeh, moar ships!!

 

[lenna]

Apparently, common sense is so common that there's a 26 page thread debating this "common sense" you talk about

The point is, we've got a pair of ships that are more similar than any other pair I know of both in stats & aesthetical look.

Eagle and iEagle?
Anaconda and Corvette?
If you limit your scope to specific stats you could go even further... nope - your reasoning is inherently flawed.

 

[House0fDerp]

Eagle and iEagle?
Anaconda and Corvette?

Module wise:
Krait and Python
FDS and FAS
Cobra III and IV

This is something I never really looked at before but makes sense with 36 ships and only 8 module sizes.

 

[fu9ar]

But doesn't it make logical sense that ship manufacturers would use standard patterns with different options rather than redesigning the wheel every time?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Eagle and iEagle?
Anaconda and Corvette?
If you limit your scope to specific stats you could go even further... nope - your reasoning is inherently flawed.

The Anaconda & Corvette have very different looks while the Eagle & IEagle are similar aesthetically & technically though not as much as the pair I mentioned.

Keep trying.

Module wise:
Krait and Python
FDS and FAS
Cobra III and IV

This is something I never really looked at before but makes sense with 36 ships and only 8 module sizes.

Check their differences both aesthetically & technically & you'll see why I said what I said.

 

[House0fDerp]

Check their differences both aesthetically & technically & you'll see why I said what I said.

Aesthetic differences are irrelevant to performance. They're superficial and have no performance effect. Technically, the 3 ships at the core of your argument are different as well, so I'm not sure your argument there.

Hard to argue with that. FAS and FDS have quite different optionals

FAS + 1xC6 and turn 1C2 into a C3 = FDS. Their actually relatively close.

 

[lenna]

Aesthetic differences are irrelevant to performance. They're superficial and have no performance effect. Technically, the 3 ships at the core of your argument are different as well, so I'm not sure your argument there.

They don't actually have a valid argument... like I have pointed out several times you can find a comparable degree of similarity between numerous ships if you actually consider everything.

It seems the main beef about the Challenger/Chieftain/Crusader is that for those complaining none of them add anything of value for them personally, the similarity debate is a sideshow and a weak excuse to criticise them.

 

[CmdMarty]

Challenger/Chieftain/Crusader lol such original names too is this wot!

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Aesthetic differences are irrelevant to performance. They're superficial and have no performance effect. Technically, the 3 ships at the core of your argument are different as well, so I'm not sure your argument there.

Technically hardpoint placement affects performance & is part of the aesthetics but I'll reiterate, the idea of having a pair of ships that are that similar though not identical is rather moot & shows not much practical or subjective value.

They don't actually have a valid argument... like I have pointed out several times you can find a comparable degree of similarity between numerous ships if you actually consider everything.

It seems the main beef about the Challenger/Chieftain/Crusader is that for those complaining none of them add anything of value for them personally, the similarity debate is a sideshow and a weak excuse to criticise them.

I digress, you haven't shown a pair of ships as similar as the Crusader-Chieftain but keep having fun at mocking the argument you haven't disproved.

 

[House0fDerp]

Technically hardpoint placement affects performance & is part of the aesthetics but I'll reiterate, the idea of having a pair of ships that are that similar though not identical is rather moot & shows not much practical or subjective value.

I think we're just fundamentally disagreeing on the concept of things being moot. Given that I have 2 different combat purposes and builds for the Chieftain and Challenger based on their respective differences and have the Crusader mothballed in part for how it differs from those 2 I'd say the differences are enough to distinguish their respective strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I think we're just fundamentally disagreeing on the concept of things being moot. Given that I have 2 different combat purposes and builds for the Chieftain and Challenger based on their respective differences and have the Crusader mothballed in part for how it differs from those 2 I'd say the differences are enough to distinguish their respective strengths and weaknesses.

And how different are such roles & more importantly, have these roles not being able to be fullfilled by other existing ships?

 

[House0fDerp]

And how different are such roles & more importantly, have these roles not being able to be fullfilled by other existing ships?

The roles having other potential entrants is irrelevant unless you're trying to argue no new ships should ever be created. There is no role (as in tasks to be performed) in game without capable applicants. As for the roles themselves: different enough to require distinct optional loadouts, which prefer different tank styles.

 

[True Phoenix]

Krait and Python are not clones. Krait is quite different:

Krait - faster
-slf
-less cargo
slightly differing shield requirements
flies better, better turn, yaw and roll rate
-less hull options
- runs hotter
-can be set up as a very cold smuggler

s'bout it.

 

[TigerTen]

Python forget the rest...

 

[Aashenfox]

Aesthetic differences are irrelevant to performance. They're superficial and have no performance effect. Technically, the 3 ships at the core of your argument are different as well, so I'm not sure your argument there.

FAS + 1xC6 and turn 1C2 into a C3 = FDS. Their actually relatively close.

Depends on your definition of relative I suppose. An entire extra slot of the largest size is a radical difference if you ask me. If not for that, then they would be relatively similar.