Agreed.
Challenger = Chieftain = Crusader, Krait = Python... What's the point?
- Thread starter Winegums
- Start date
-
- Tags
- lessshipsplease necro
Agreed.
Good isn't it. I'd far rather other people paid for cosmetics than I paid a subscription.
Exactly, although I think of it more like BMW’s or Mercs, you have the 3,5,7 series, Various A class, B class etc. unique engine note, variations in performance, handling and onboard toys etc. Always worked for me.
Not that I would object to more ship manufactures in ED. Not going to b’tch about it tho. Bigger things in life to worry about..
Last edited:
This is probably the most accurate reason and answer. This game is totally about cosmetic microtransactions these days - frankly, ever since Horizons launched. The selling of naming one's ship and the backlash for a promised feature really kicked things off, and I still expect we'll see things like planet textures being shop items one day. Anything that doesn't affect combat will likely go up for sale and even combat additions will likely be for sale one day.
They should have just given the python an SLF.
I don't understand why they didn't just put a SLF in the Challenger. Two ships would have been enough IMO.
Yeah let’s not even get into aircraft variants, the amount of variants of the same type is usually huge. Be it commercial all military.
This, and how about some more competition. I want to see an Imperial Explorer and an Alliance Explorer. Identical layout to the ASP is fine. A bit faster but less manoverable maybe. Imperials can just enlarge the Courier a bit and it's fine. The Alliance can just use the same frame but adapt internals and layout for exploration. In-game ship builder competition and player choice is good.
Edit: An Alliance Explorer makes less sense though, since Lakon makes both Alliance ships and the Asp. But you get the idea.
Last edited:
Regarding the cash shop accusations, isn't that just win-win in action? FDev can sell more skins/kits, we get more tools to play with but no obligation to spend. What's the downside here?
But how many "variants" can you get on say an Asp Explorer hull?
This is why we have modular ship design where modules can be swapped out as required.
^ What he said
Which works great in the instance where the modules can create the same performance as a different ship. That isn't the case here though so hull variants still trump modularity.
Well in a computer game folk want cool ships. Not rehashes of rehashes with out of place bits stuck on purely as an attempt to differentiate visually.
This probably isn't an issue with something like an F16 where all that matters is how it performs and there would be no "pressure" to stick on a spoiler which does nothing.
Never really that keen on the appeal to real life as an argument.
Downside is. The whole thing is now cash shop orientated.
I mean even stickers for the side of your ship are mostly cosmetic cash grabs.
Cashshop is lazy game design. The store gets more updates than the game itself does. No it doesn't fund ED. People are naïve to think so. It funds shareholders dividends. I dont begrudge FD a living, they deserve to make a profit yes but seriously it's gone blatantly obvious. The development is all about the micro transactions.
Depends. If your game sells itself on having simulation elements then comparisons to reality are not only appropriate but effectively requested by the developers.
Also some of us think the ships are cool so even there we're covered.
I get where you're coming from but the idea that a "series" of ship hulls should be universally rejected as a design concept doesn't seem to play out here.
I'd be more inclined to agree if they weren't hitting holes like the massive gap for unranked combat ships that extended from the Vulture to the FDL and filling out the midrange with genuinely good options.
And most importantly doing so for free. Cosmetics are wholly optional.
