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

[m0rl0ck]

The krait is missing a size 6 slot in comparision to the python and adds nothing to the medium sized ship category except its ability to carry an slf.
The much better choice on FDs part would have been to allow the python an slf.

I bought a krait and have yet to find a use for it, so i have to agree with you there. Thinking about why i dont fly it, i dont like the cockpit view and it doesnt have enough cargo space to compete with the python.

Last time i flew one of the new alliance ships the canopy kept popping and it was too drifty, gave it up after a couple of hours.
Imo the FDL is the last word in medium sized fighters.

The problem is that some of the original designs were so good its hard to beat them. The new ships seem calculated and uninspired compared to the originals.

 

[Aashenfox]

I think the most relevant comparison is to compare the RANGE of Alliakon vessels with the core Dynamics Fed trio.

FAS = Chieftain (faster than others, largest hardpoints, but not highest total damage)
FDS = Challenger (slightly slower than above, one extra large optional slot, more overall damage but smaller hardpoints)
FGS = Crusader (slightly slower again, carries fighter)

The mould breaker is the FGS of course, it's not just a bit slower than the others, it's a LOT slower, but then it has the most hardpoints of any medium ship to make up for that.

When you look at it like that, they make perfect sense. Sure, the models could have had more differences (I love the Core Dynamics ships, they are exactly the right amount of different and in exactly the right ways), so it's fair to say that the aesthetics team was a bit lazy this time around.

As I've said though, I support them doing as much copy paste as they want, as long as there is either a functional difference or a visual difference. I really don't mind if they created three more Challengers with the same layouts and hardpoints, just a different body. In fact, I would welcome this, because then we could change the bodies of our ships without reengineering anything.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

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.

It is relevant as a ship that doesn't shine in a particular role has no practical value, if that were to be the case then the only other reason for it to exist is mere aesthetical value which I don't see in this ships as they are extremely similar on that regard.

Also, there are roles that are not possible (don't confuse with plausible) to do with some ships if you stretch a bit the definition of role but I'll leave it to you as a mental exercise.

 

[Aashenfox]

The krait is missing a size 6 slot in comparision to the python and adds nothing to the medium sized ship category except its ability to carry an slf.
The much better choice on FDs part would have been to allow the python an slf.

I bought a krait and have yet to find a use for it, so i have to agree with you there. Thinking about why i dont fly it, i dont like the cockpit view and it doesnt have enough cargo space to compete with the python.

Last time i flew one of the new alliance ships the canopy kept popping and it was too drifty, gave it up after a couple of hours.
Imo the FDL is the last word in medium sized fighters.

The problem is that some of the original designs were so good its hard to beat them. The new ships seem calculated and uninspired compared to the originals.

The canopy problems have been fixed, the rest of your post is spot on, well said.

 

[House0fDerp]

The krait is missing a size 6 slot in comparision to the python and adds nothing to the medium sized ship category except its ability to carry an slf.
The much better choice on FDs part would have been to allow the python an slf.

Disagreed fully, the difference in flight profile between the 2 makes it a quite different ship to fly, something adding an SLF to the Python would never achieve on top of power creeping the Python. Right now there is a choice created by the dynamic between the 2 for various purposes. Using your solution the answer is always Python.

This is the worst case for most of the pilots who's actually bothered to try using the Krait.

The canopy problems have been fixed, the rest of your post is spot on, well said.

How is it spot on to say a superior handling profile, superior speed, an SLF and a marginal increase in jump potential make for a ship with no potential uses?

It is relevant as a ship that doesn't shine in a particular role has no practical value, if that were to be the case then the only other reason for it to exist is mere aesthetical value which I don't see in this ships as they are extremely similar on that regard.

Fortunately both the Chieftain and Challenger shine at their price points, offering options one might even find lacking in the top end combat ship of the medium size, the FDL, which itself is arguably somewhat infringed by the Krait for PvE at least. Therefore aesthetics remain irrelevant as we don't need to search for non-functional reasons for them to exist.

Also, there are roles that are not possible (don't confuse with plausible) to do with some ships if you stretch a bit the definition of role but I'll leave it to you as a mental exercise.

Considering I'm talking about practical exercises related to these hulls and the roles they can fill rather than whether you can shoehorn things into clearly opposing roles, I'll pass on this.

 

[KellyR]

The krait is missing a size 6 slot in comparision to the python and adds nothing to the medium sized ship category except its ability to carry an slf.
The much better choice on FDs part would have been to allow the python an slf.

I bought a krait and have yet to find a use for it, so i have to agree with you there. Thinking about why i dont fly it, i dont like the cockpit view and it doesnt have enough cargo space to compete with the python.

Last time i flew one of the new alliance ships the canopy kept popping and it was too drifty, gave it up after a couple of hours.
Imo the FDL is the last word in medium sized fighters.

The problem is that some of the original designs were so good its hard to beat them. The new ships seem calculated and uninspired compared to the originals.

The Krait MKII beats the Python all hollow in maneuverability. No, it can't carry as much as a Python. It's not a dedicated freighter. It's a smuggler/fighter. I've flown the FdL. Not enough firepower for my taste. But then maybe it's just opinion. Both are good ships. And I can rip some serious pirate butt in RES in my Krait. Made a lot of money that way.

 

[lenna]

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.

I have highlighted a number of examples, the point is you are too focused on specific aspects which are irrelevant where their intended roles are concerned.

Aesthetics are irrelevant, cargo potential is irrelevant, where core internals are concerned there are other ships that are equally comparable on that score. The crusader, chieftain, and crusader differ significantly in terms of the areas that do matter - equal core internals does not mean equal performance, nor does potential cargo capacity.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I have highlighted a number of examples, the point is you are too focused on specific aspects which are irrelevant where their intended roles are concerned.

Yes they are relevant, stating otherwise is fooling yourself.

Aesthetics are relevant to some people, cargo potential tells you what can you fit in the ship.

Once more, the examples you provided aren't as similar as the ships we've got.

 

[House0fDerp]

...cargo potential tells you what can you fit in the ship...

Lets take 2 theoretical ships:
Ship A has 2 class 1 optional internal slots
Ship B has 1 class 2 optional internal slot

Ships A and B have the same cargo potential yet:
Ship A can fit twice as many modules as ship B
Ship B can fit a higher class optional mod than ship A

Likewise the Crusader:
Can fit an additional module over the Chieftain
However it's 3rd largest slot s a class 3 rather than a class 4
And the slot gain is cancelled out by one of the larger slots being used for an SLF
(and if you're not using an SLF, why are you not in a Chieftain or Challenger)
Which the Chieftain cannot fit

TL;DR Cargo potential alone cannot detail what you can fit as there are multiple possible combinations that could achieve any specific triple digit total capacity.

 

[lenna]

Yes they are relevant, stating otherwise is fooling yourself.

Aesthetics are relevant to some people, cargo potential tells you what can you fit in the ship.

Once more, the examples you provided aren't as similar as the ships we've got.

You are stretching too far... and if you can not see a comparable degree of similarities where other ships are concerned (not necessarily in the exact same areas though) then you need to remove your blinkers.

Aesthetics are irrelevant when considering ship relative performance and capabilities, it does not affect it, and despite your cries to the contrary the three Alliance ships may be similar hull designs (justified by lore) but they are far from being identical to each other. There are other ships that are based on the same basic hull design as each other: FSD/FAS/FGS, T9/T10D, T6/Keelback, Diamondback-range, Asp-range, Eagle-range, Cobra-range, Viper-range. The situation is far from being unprecedented, unrealistic nor unreasonable.

HouseOfDerp has adequately debunked your potential cargo space assertion IMO.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Lets take 2 theoretical ships:
Ship A has 2 class 1 optional internal slots
Ship B has 1 class 2 optional internal slot

Ships A and B have the same cargo potential yet:
Ship A can fit twice as many modules as ship B
Ship B can fit a higher class optional mod than ship A

Likewise the Crusader:
Can fit an additional module over the Chieftain
However it's 3rd largest slot s a class 3 rather than a class 4
And the slot gain is cancelled out by one of the larger slots being used for an SLF
(and if you're not using an SLF, why are you not in a Chieftain or Challenger)
Which the Chieftain cannot fit

TL;DR Cargo potential alone cannot detail what you can fit as there are multiple possible combinations that could achieve any specific triple digit total capacity.

I understand though in this particular case it's only a split down class 4 module & with increasingly large ships, the extra-module slots give diminishing results especially considering that in combat most of the times you end up filling 1/4 of your slots with HRPs/MRPs or at least that's what I found myself doing when building my PvP Python.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

You are stretching too far... and if you can not see a comparable degree of similarities where other ships are concerned (not necessarily in the exact same areas though) then you need to remove your blinkers.

Aesthetics are irrelevant when considering ship relative performance and capabilities, it does not affect it, and despite your cries to the contrary the three Alliance ships may be similar hull designs (justified by lore) but they are far from being identical to each other. There are other ships that are based on the same basic hull design as each other: FSD/FAS/FGS, T9/T10D, T6/Keelback, Diamondback-range, Asp-range, Eagle-range, Cobra-range, Viper-range. The situation is far from being unprecedented, unrealistic nor unreasonable.

HouseOfDerp has adequately debunked your potential cargo space assertion IMO.

Did you really think I said that aesthetics affect performance? Tough luck, I didn't.

Once more, they do have differences but they are so few that they are the most similar ships mixing aesthetics & performance.

Bonus line, none of the mentioned pairs look so similar that you'd have a hard time noticing between them.

 

[lenna]

Bonus line, none of the mentioned pairs look so similar that you'd have a hard time noticing between them.

If you have difficulty distinguishing between the Chieftain, Challenger, and Crusader then you should have gone to Specsavers.

Their aesthetic and other similarities are not as close as you make them out to be.

So what if they have the same internal core modules, that does not equate to the same performance.

Your argument has been shown to be inherently flawed and biased towards a particular line of thinking without taking into consideration ALL the aspects of a given ship designs.

As for me saying you claimed aesthetics affect performance, I suggest you try again - at no time have I claimed that, what I have said is you are too focused on irrelevant similarities and disregarding the far more relevant differences. I have pointed out that if you take various other ships, you can find a comparable degree of similarities if you factor ALL the characteristics in.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

Lets take 2 theoretical ships:
Ship A has 2 class 1 optional internal slots
Ship B has 1 class 2 optional internal slot

Ships A and B have the same cargo potential yet:
Ship A can fit twice as many modules as ship B
Ship B can fit a higher class optional mod than ship A

Likewise the Crusader:
Can fit an additional module over the Chieftain
However it's 3rd largest slot s a class 3 rather than a class 4
And the slot gain is cancelled out by one of the larger slots being used for an SLF
(and if you're not using an SLF, why are you not in a Chieftain or Challenger)
Which the Chieftain cannot fit

TL;DR Cargo potential alone cannot detail what you can fit as there are multiple possible combinations that could achieve any specific triple digit total capacity.

Good said!
These three ships ARE indeed different. The Chieftain is usable for me because he can fit at least a class 4 fuelscoop.
For the Challenger and the Crusader i haven't yet found any purpose. I just can't outfit them in a way, where they would fill ANY role. Fighter? I have a Gunship for that! Thargoid Scouts? Meh! Any ship can do that! CZ or HazRes? How should i reach them with a class 3 fuelscoop or without one?

In my opinion(!) the Chieftain is one of the greatest medium combat ships that we have ever seen. The Crusader and Challenger are just crap.

To the point of Python/Krait......they are VERY different in my opinion even when fitting into similar roles.
I have 3 Pythons and now also 3 Kraits. They are different enough for me to own multiple ones. Speed, cargo capacity, module capacity, jumprange, hardpoint convergence, aestethics......in my opinion(!) they are far away from being the same, despite being similar.

It's just like saying Cobra MK.III = Viper MK.III

 

[lenna]

The Crusader and Challenger are just crap.

I do not necessarily agree with this but +Rep for the rest.

What do you not like about the Crusader and Challenger?

 

[Gabbatek]

they need to release a combat ship that is on par with the fdl.

Sick of seeing that meta everywhere

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

I do not necessarily agree with this but +Rep for the rest.

What do you not like about the Crusader and Challenger?

It's the lack of a third bigger internal slot. The third biggest on them is always a class 3 so i have lesser hull or lesser mobility on them. I like to be fast on the action, so my gunship for example has a class 5 fuelscoop and when reaching my destination i buy the best MRP at the local store for beefing up my modules.
I haven't found yet any purpose for challenger and crusader which the chieftain doesn't do better. Crusader doesn't need a fighter IMO since he's so maneuvarable....it's pretty pointless for me.

they need to release a combat ship that is on par with the fdl.

Sick of seeing that meta everywhere

I think, the advantage of 6 utilitys isn't that big anymore since the guardian shield reinforcements go introduced. His lesser optional capacity and long reload/recharge times on shields getting more and more into the focus when comparing to other ships.
But yes, he is still at a unique point with his huge hardpoint and 6 utilitys. I think he is still Meta only because many players need much time to adapt to other ships or are afraid of relying on hull. My hull-pvp-chieftain eats meta fdl's for breakfast but has a hard time against another chief, yet many people still don't make the step.

 

[Gabbatek]

It's the lack of a third bigger internal slot. The third biggest on them is always a class 3 so i have lesser hull or lesser mobility on them. I like to be fast on the action, so my gunship for example has a class 5 fuelscoop and when reaching my destination i buy the best MRP at the local store for beefing up my modules.
I haven't found yet any purpose for challenger and crusader which the chieftain doesn't do better. Crusader doesn't need a fighter IMO since he's so maneuvarable....it's pretty pointless for me.



I think, the advantage of 6 utilitys isn't that big anymore since the guardian shield reinforcements go introduced. His lesser optional capacity and long reload/recharge times on shields getting more and more into the focus when comparing to other ships.
But yes, he is still at a unique point with his huge hardpoint and 6 utilitys. I think he is still Meta only because many players need much time to adapt to other ships or are afraid of relying on hull. My hull-pvp-chieftain eats meta fdl's for breakfast but has a hard time against another chief, yet many people still don't make the step.

It's that and the fact it's extremely maneuverable and fast. Krait is the only medium that can just about match it's speed and the chieftain is the medium with the closest maneuverability.

 

[Duc_Mallard]

I flew a challenger since it came out. It's good. Especially in 1vs1.
But fdl is king

 

[lenna]

It's the lack of a third bigger internal slot. The third biggest on them is always a class 3 so i have lesser hull or lesser mobility on them. I like to be fast on the action, so my gunship for example has a class 5 fuelscoop and when reaching my destination i buy the best MRP at the local store for beefing up my modules.

Not 100% sure what you are getting at here - it sounds to me like you like to HRP/MRP tank, if that is an accurate assessment then I do not buy into any of the min-max metas and disagree with balancing adjustments that would favour such metas.

I haven't found yet any purpose for challenger and crusader which the chieftain doesn't do better. Crusader doesn't need a fighter IMO since he's so maneuvarable....it's pretty pointless for me.

Well it depends on what you try to do in-game, the Chieftain is your classic high-end combat focused craft - once you fit shields, a fuel scoop, SRV, and ADS/DSS there is no room for cargo or anything else (at least in the universal slots).

The Challenger trades some combat effectiveness so it can carry cargo (or some other secondary kit). I think of it as a more combat centric Asp Explorer in many ways - albeit without the jump range or fuel capacity. The Challenger is ok, but not perfect and I do not believe it should be adjusted to be either.

The Crusader is a similar compromise to a Challenger - but for the gain of an SLF. Personally, I find SLFs indispensable as assets, even in cases where a craft is fast and manoeuvrable - c/f the Krait Mk II. Where the crusader is concerned, it is hobbled somewhat by the Fuel Scoop options after fitting a decent shield and an SLF bay; However, as a cheap force multiplier (essentially a better Keelback) I can see it's utility. Could it be better? Perhaps, but the required changes would likely make it OP given the target price point of the ship.

For anyone that is truly combat focused, then I can see the Challenger as not really adding much for them - but then I do not believe FD were necessarily targeting that audience either. Where the Crusader is concerned, a lot will depend on your personal preferred combat tactics but for the dog-fighting addicts the Chieftain was always going to be the preferred option. The Challenger was probably released to satisfy those that wanted the Chieftain to have cargo space, and the Crusader was probably released to satisfy those asking for either ship to have an SLF capability.