Pitch, Role, Yaw, Acceleration, Deceleration, and Top Speed can all be quantified and numerically analysed to apply a quantitative measure indicating relative manoeuvrability. That quantitative measure is of questionable practical worth though in assessing how good a ship will be in player hands.
Start the game and test. Alternatively there are 2 popular fitting tools. This is something easily within you efforts to confirm. Put forth some basic effort.
Not sure why I bought it, just I have been making a lot of credits lately so I decided to spend some lol Current plans are to use it as a short range explorer, currently fitted out with both a vehicle and SLF bays, and a Size 6 fuel scoop (damn that thing is impressive, did buy an extra 5C fuel tank but I don't think I will need it and will use the space for something else).It is not about "fits your hands" as you put it, it is about practical application of any given vessel - not everything that is important is covered by the numbers.
Not fully - and that is the point myself and several others have been making.
You still don't get it - there is no metric that can adequately quantify the differences between the ships. This is not something that can be shown.
So you don't actually know how to fit ships and only look at stock stats. Gotcha. No wonder you're having so many issues here.
And ignore that several numbers are not present such as lateral thrust performance, acceleration, agility loss at speed extremes, sense of momentum and inertia, etc. To suggest the visible stats tell a whole picture is to eroneously assume all other aspects of movement are the same if a given stat is similar.
There is a name for that condition you are suffering from - the Osterich manoeuvre. You really need to keep your head out of the proverbial sand (in this case numbers).
There is a name for that condition you are suffering from - the Osterich manoeuvre. You really need to keep your head out of the proverbial sand (in this case numbers).
House of Derp adequately covered my point I think, but even when the numerical values they have indicated are available the numbers still do not serve as indisputable discriminators.
Have you ever seen or flown a Krait in game?
My guess is not in either case otherwise you would know that they are two distinct ships (this is also assuming you have seen or flown a Python too) despite any apparent similarities from purely a spreadsheet perspective.
Let's look at the non-subjective differences:-
Now for some subjective differences:-
- Krait is faster and lighter with a slightly higher jump range
- Krait can accommodate 1 additional crew member over the Python (absence of ability to use more than 1 NPC crew member is still grating but moot in this context)
- Krait has SLF capability while the Python does not
- Krait has a lower hull hardness rating
- Krait has a lesser optional slot configuration on balance - meaning less total potential cargo space and a lower number of slots
- The models and cockpits are different
- Krait handles better than the Python
- Krait is better in combat than the Python
- Krait has better visibility of the environment from the Pilot's chair than the Python does
- Python is better at multirole than the Krait (from a general capability perspective)
Even in the case of subjective comparisons, there can still be consensus. In the case of comparisons on a numerical basis, people can still debate the significance of specific values. In both cases, there is at least a degree of subjective assessment and room for lack of consensus.
You're falling into your own 'use of spreadsheet' to justify? While the Krait is a better medium combat ship, the Python (in my opinion) is way, way better at combat and everything else. As an example, I bought a krait yesterday (2nd one) and engineered it for the HazRez. Shields/Drives/Power/Multis and went to the HazRez. It flies good and has nice firepower and but I never felt safe. Soon as I went up against a Deadly or Elite Wing, I felt very vulnerable. In my combat Python, I never feel this. But... I know my python, I've had for years, so there maybe something in that. The challenger is to me, meh. Not really, just trying to spell out at least some of the quantifiable reasons why the Python and Krait are different vessels for the benefit of Flowey.I think
Personally, I have never really felt safe in the Python but that is possibly in part because I built it for mining rather than combat. If I wanted to engage in mining in relative safety then I would probably err towards the Anaconda and would not even consider the Krait for it.
I have bought a Challenger, kitted it out and trialled it but prefer the Krait on balance. I can still see utility in the Challenger and think it does not truly eclipse the Chieftain. I will reserve judgement on the Crusader but if FD balance it like I believe they will have then it will probably sit in the hangar most of the time.
Agreed - and this is at least part of the point I have been trying to get across but some in these forums seem to keep trying to use pure "numbers" to argue against the addition of any given ship (or ships).
