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

[House0fDerp]

I don't think we talk about nerfed version of our ships as different ships yet they are different.

Depends on your meaning. The type 10 didn't stop being the type 10 when buffed because the buff redefined what a type 10 was. The prior one no longer existed so the "new" ship simply holds the old ones place .

But that in itself is so wholly distict from the creation of a new asset that the argument here seems like your frantically looking for a technicality.

Yes, redefining a ship shouldn't be compared with creating a new one. Those are easily distinguished by how many unique assets you have concurrently after each process.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

They are not different essentially because in ED terms the original does not exist - tweaking of existing ships for balancing reasons between revisions of the game environment is irrelevant to the matter at hand though.

Still, if we got a ship that looks and performs exactly as another one but with a mild difference in lets say jump range, would you really call that a different ship?

 

[M00ka]

Still, if we got a ship that looks and performs exactly as another one but with a mild difference in lets say jump range, would you really call that a different ship?

Well for a start you can't say something is exactly the same as something else, then qualify that by stating differences. Either the two items in question are exactly the same as each other or their not.

You seem to be overlooking the simple fact of personal preferences, it could be as subtle as the view from the cockpit, where the seats are positioned (off-centre or not), where the hardpoints are situated, where the utility mounts are, even how the engine sounds. They might seem minor to you, but to others it could mean the difference between liking a ship or not.

Adding to this is the realisation that someone may not like a ship, but can still recognise it's value to them. For me personally, I don't overly enjoy flying the Python, but it is the best ship (in MY OPINION and that is all that matters to ME) for mission running due to it's cargo capacity and medium pad size. Yes I could use my Krait, but I will always know that I am using a less capable ship instead of one I already own.

 

[lenna]

Still, if we got a ship that looks and performs exactly as another one but with a mild difference in lets say jump range, would you really call that a different ship?

In the case of this hypothetical ship you refer to, yes (but they would not perform exactly the same - you have deviated ship performance with the jump range characteristic). However, there is no two ships in ED that really differs by just one characteristic and often there is normally a minimum of at least 3 differences regardless of how minor those differences may be the differences are still there.

In the cases of the Chieftain and Challenger they may look similar but their models are not identical and from what we have seen of the Crusader the same applies to that too.

We have already covered the Python and Krait to a death; However, calling them similar to the point of being irrelevant would be like calling the Cobra Mk III, Viper Mk III, Viper Mk IV, and Diamondback Scout similar to the point of being irrelevant because of limited differences in a spreadsheet context. It is fundamentally flawed reasoning.

 

[lenna]

For me personally, I don't overly enjoy flying the Python, but it is the best ship (in MY OPINION and that is all that matters to ME) for mission running due to it's cargo capacity and medium pad size. Yes I could use my Krait, but I will always know that I am using a less capable ship instead of one I already own.

I don't think I can disagree with you for trading/logistics/mining type mission running, but for combat/exploration type missions the Krait is arguably better suited (an SLF with a good NPC pilot can be an effective force multiplier).

Last night I took my python out for a run for the first time since 3.0 (and the engineering changes) got released and I have re-affirmed what I already knew - While there may be on-paper similarities between the two ships the numbers can not adequately define the differences. We are not talking about subjective matters here, but rather the overall experience is quite different. Assessment of the experience in both craft is perhaps subjective and personal BUT spend even just 5s in the cockpits of both craft and at least some of the differences stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[M00ka]

I don't think I can disagree with you for trading/logistics/mining type mission running, but for combat/exploration type missions the Krait is arguably better suited (an SLF with a good NPC pilot can be an effective force multiplier).

Last night I took my python out for a run for the first time since 3.0 (and the engineering changes) got released and I have re-affirmed what I already knew - While there may be on-paper similarities between the two ships the numbers can not adequately define the differences. We are not talking about subjective matters here, but rather the overall experience is quite different. Assessment of the experience in both craft is perhaps subjective and personal BUT spend even just 5s in the cockpits of both craft and at least some of the differences stick out like a sore thumb.

Hence why I kept my Python when I purchased the Krait, to me they are very ships that I will be using for very different roles. I am currently using my Krait as a short range Explorer, fitted with both an SLF, SRV, ADS and DSS with enough weaponry to be comfortable enough to not worry too much about naughty NPCs lol

I will admit I enjoy flying the Krait more than I enjoy pushing the Python around, but each have their strengths and weaknesses, just like every other ship in the game.

 

[lenna]

Hence why I kept my Python when I purchased the Krait, to me they are very ships that I will be using for very different roles. I am currently using my Krait as a short range Explorer, fitted with both an SLF, SRV, ADS and DSS with enough weaponry to be comfortable enough to not worry too much about naughty NPCs lol

I will admit I enjoy flying the Krait more than I enjoy pushing the Python around, but each have their strengths and weaknesses, just like every other ship in the game.

My Krait is currently a Guardian/Experimental weapon test platform (currently fitted out with a pair of Medium GSCs, a pair of Large GPCs, and topped off with a Large Long Range Scramble Spectrum Burst Turret), it is also my personal Explorer/Runabout (SRV/SLF/ADS/DSS too) for now - a 34+Ly jump range work horse (16T of Corrosion Resistant Cargo Space is enough for basic running around).

My Python on the other-hand is outfitted as a 96T Miner/Explorer (currently fitted with large Long Range Plasma Slug Plasma Cannon under the nose, a pair of Large Long Range Thermal Shock Burst Turrets on top, a Medium High Capacity Overload Seeker Missile launcher, and a Medium Mining Laser). It also has a 4 bay SRV hangar primarily in anticipation of new SRV types being added in the future, considered switching things around a bit to give me more cargo space but less SRVs and potentially a better collector limpet controller but I think 96T is good enough for now. It has been hardened with Heavy Duty Military Grade Armour but still has a respectable jumprange of 20+ Ly and a boost speed just over 400m/s.Not used it in combat in anger yet, but I do have some engineering aspects to clean up on it before I put it through the wrangler - I don't expect it to be as effective as the Krait but it is not a pure combat build.

After flying the Krait for a few hours, the Python starts to feel a bit claustrophobic by comparison.

 

[Noddie]

The point of the game isn't to collect ships.

I like the marginally different variants optimised for different roles. Realistically this is what would happen, and it gives the opportunity to experiment.

 

[lenna]

The point of the game isn't to collect ships.

It is not an explicit goal of the game, but ED in general is what you make of it. If people enjoy collecting ships (or kitting out different ships for different roles), what is the problem with them doing so? It is not as if it affects anyone else's game in any measurable way.

I like the marginally different variants optimised for different roles. Realistically this is what would happen, and it gives the opportunity to experiment.

In general, agreed - just look at the Harrier, F16, and F35 variants as real world examples of the basic principle being applied.

The Alliance Chieftain, Crusader, and Challenger have an in-game but rank locked precedent set by the FAS, FGS, and FDS.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Well for a start you can't say something is exactly the same as something else, then qualify that by stating differences. Either the two items in question are exactly the same as each other or their not.

That's with I said "but".

You seem to be overlooking the simple fact of personal preferences, it could be as subtle as the view from the cockpit, where the seats are positioned (off-centre or not), where the hardpoints are situated, where the utility mounts are, even how the engine sounds. They might seem minor to you, but to others it could mean the difference between liking a ship or not.

You are right in that I do not pay attetion on the shape or sounds of a ship when buying it.

In the case of this hypothetical ship you refer to, yes (but they would not perform exactly the same - you have deviated ship performance with the jump range characteristic). However, there is no two ships in ED that really differs by just one characteristic and often there is normally a minimum of at least 3 differences regardless of how minor those differences may be the differences are still there.

In the cases of the Chieftain and Challenger they may look similar but their models are not identical and from what we have seen of the Crusader the same applies to that too.

We have already covered the Python and Krait to a death; However, calling them similar to the point of being irrelevant would be like calling the Cobra Mk III, Viper Mk III, Viper Mk IV, and Diamondback Scout similar to the point of being irrelevant because of limited differences in a spreadsheet context. It is fundamentally flawed reasoning.

I think I already admitted the Krait has more to it than the Python.

 

[lenna]

I think I already admitted the Krait has more to it than the Python.

Well the same is pretty much true of all the ships in ED, occasionally FD make a mis-step with the ship balance then either nerf one ship or boost another (c/f the T9 and T10D) but I have yet to see them release two ships that could be considered sufficiently identical to justify the likes of this discussion.

Overall, there is little point to threads like this - they typically amount to FD bashing because the people complaining did not get something they wanted implemented for some reason.

 

[GraXXoR]

Variants are 100% valid IMO.
I want a type 9 explorer variant.
Replace Class 6 FSD for Class 8 and downgrade one class 8 cargo compartment for a class 6.
Make the remaining class 8 compartment limited to fitting a fuel scoop and Boom: instant classic that requires little redesign and doesn’t stamp on anyone’s feet.

For extra fun, split up a class 4 compartment into two class twos for ADS and DSS.

For the pièce de la résistance, remove 100T from Hull weight and 20 from hardness though I suspect jumorsnge with a C8 would be plenty long enough.

Keep the nasty supercruise mobility so as not to completely trounce the Asp and Diamondback and we have IMO a balanced long range exploration craft with enough benefits and drawbacks to make it fun.

God I LOVE the Type 9 and would fly it more if it wasn’t all but made redundant by the T10 with it’s ... ahem... ricer spoiler.


Personally, they could make two variants of a number of ships to make each ship more specialist and thus useful.

Explorer Python. Current general Python, Combat Python (with SLF)
Current (explorer) Asp, hardened variant, hauler variant.
Current (combat) Viper, explorer viper, racer viper.
Current passenger beluga, explorer beluga, Cargo beluga


I don’t think Imperial ships would merit variants, though. They are perfect as they are and retrofitting does suit the Gutamaya ethic.
Except perhaps luxury variants for +xx% the price that CAN fit luxury cabins.

 

[lefty1117]

It doesn't make sense that you would only have 1 ship chassis in a certain price range/role, in a bustling galaxy. We need more variety of ships to choose from within the tiers. Now perhaps some tiers and roles are still to be defined, or "explored" (hint hint), but overall I think it's a good thing to have more than one option in the progression.

 

[Stigbob]

Well, I do know people that enjoy both ships, in fact, some forum users in the thread have expressed this so the point stands.

No their point stands and I respect anyone's fun based subjective decisions it's a video game after all, that's sort of the whole idea.

Yours not so much it seems more of a min-max spreadsheet thing, which is fine if that's what you find fun. Sounds dreadful to me though the exact opposite of my approach.

 

[Guywired]

I think the point was pretty clear.


Sell more paintjobs and Ship kits.

If you see the introduction of these ships as anything else you are mistaken.

 

[Red Anders]

Variants are 100% valid IMO.
I want a type 9 explorer variant.
Replace Class 6 FSD for Class 8 and downgrade one class 8 cargo compartment for a class 6.
Make the remaining class 8 compartment limited to fitting a fuel scoop and Boom: instant classic that requires little redesign and doesn’t stamp on anyone’s feet.

For extra fun, split up a class 4 compartment into two class twos for ADS and DSS.

For the pièce de la résistance, remove 100T from Hull weight and 20 from hardness though I suspect jumorsnge with a C8 would be plenty long enough.

Keep the nasty supercruise mobility so as not to completely trounce the Asp and Diamondback and we have IMO a balanced long range exploration craft with enough benefits and drawbacks to make it fun.

God I LOVE the Type 9 and would fly it more if it wasn’t all but made redundant by the T10 with it’s ... ahem... ricer spoiler.

That sounds fantastic.

I'm the opposite as far as the T-9 is concerned now though, I've never used a T-10 and can't see a situation when I would because the T-9 is a far more efficient cargo hauler due to the pair of class 8 slots and for anything where I might want to move some cargo and fight I use a Corvette as an armoured transport.

 

[House0fDerp]

That sounds fantastic.

I'm the opposite as far as the T-9 is concerned now though, I've never used a T-10 and can't see a situation when I would because the T-9 is a far more efficient cargo hauler due to the pair of class 8 slots and for anything where I might want to move some cargo and fight I use a Corvette as an armoured transport.

I've used my type 10 as a combat miner is res sites. It may not be the best for it depending of preference, but it does the job well enough for me.

 

[GJ51]

Sure - more ships are fun.

But there enough in ED that if you can't find one you like to use,you're probably playing the wrong game.

 

[Azirphaeli]

Because some people play this game for more than just the raw stats of the ship. Sure the Krait is a lot like the python, but it also looks IMO much better, has a great cockpit, good hardpoint placements, different profile when facing down an opponent, and nice character that makes me really enjoy flying it.

Sure, on paper it's like a python, but in game it's a whole different ship.

 

[Stigbob]

I think the point was pretty clear.


Sell more paintjobs and Ship kits.

If you see the introduction of these ships as anything else you are mistaken.

That was always the plan IIRC cosmetics>subscription. It's not exactly shocking news or dirty pool or whatever.

Especially for players like me who never buy any cosmetics but get access to all the new stuff.