Clipper vs Courier is my case in point: why are large ships as agile, or MORE, than small ships?

I get where the OP is coming from, but it's not a true-ism in navy terms that smaller is faster. In fact, the opposite is true. The longer a ship is, the faster and more efficient it is. That's why WW II aircraft carriers where faster than the destroyers that escorted them.

I can't really see why anybody should be particularly surprised that a small vehicle with a small engine is, erm, slow.
Seems like the potential of a small vehicle is always going to be that you can bung a larger engine in it to improve the power/weight ration and, thus, end up with something fast.
 
This is what the Imperial Clipper looks like after you log off and it can relax.
imperial_clipper_by_vonkickass_db9jm68-pre.jpg
 
Courier:

G3 Dirty Drives WITH Drag Drives
408m/s
554m/s boost
49 degree/s pitch
117 degree/s roll



Just FYI, you had your Clipper build set to 4 pips Eng, but your iCourier build on balanced.

With 4 pips to engines, the iCourier gets 55 degrees pitch, and 131 degrees roll.
 
Last edited:
In space there's very little or no drag, so the bigger size or shape of the ship is irrelevant. If the bigger ship has bigger propulsion (per unit of mass) in any particular direction, then it's going to be faster or more maneuverable in that direction.
 
well the top speed is kinda irrelevant in space as even the smallest engine ship could reach silly speed if given enough time (assuming reactionless drives of course)

For me in ED however is the disparity between the handling and acceleration between the ship sizes. to have similar acceleration means you have the same thrust/mass ratio with would in mean that the bigger the ship gets then the engines would have to increase in proportion. Yet they don't so much. T6/KB for example given the size of the thrusters should be able to pull much better accel than some other similarly sized ships....

But lets face it, ED's magic ship stats are simply a way for the devs to tweak performance because it's a game :)
 
Once upon a time, when ideas where still fresh and bold concepts not yet shouted down by enraged players, FDev tried to counterbalance this by the introduction of significant fuel costs.
Because this does make sense, doesn’t it: Large ships with even larger thrusters (relatively to their size) would consume equally relatively more fuel. So much more, that it could be painfully fellt when refueling for credits while docked (in contrast to fuel scooping). Logic and comprehensible.

Yea, but oh noes! This reduced credits per hour! A rage storm drowned the forum and FDev learned to swim. Fuel costs were reduced into meaninglessness and since then, the “balance” described in the OP was achieved.
Quite unfortunately, in my opinion.
I dont think fuel costs could ever balance out engineer power creep.
 
So I was playing around with builds, as I had been debating on trying out flying the Imperial Courier as a primary ship for a while (I know... it's tiny. But the idea of flying a tiny ship like that seems fun). Out of curiosity, I created 2 builds: a courier that is completely empty, with G3 Dirty Drives + Experimental Drag Drives vs a Clipper that is loaded from top to bottom in Hull Reinforcements AND military grade armor with G3 Dirty Drives and NO experimental

The result? The clipper is faster and more agile than the smaller courier. If I had put Drag Drives on the Clipper, it would completely smoke the courier in every way.

Courier:

G3 Dirty Drives WITH Drag Drives
408m/s
554m/s boost
49 degree/s pitch
117 degree/s roll



Clipper:

G3 Dirty Drives WITHOUT Drag Drives
434m/s
550m/s boost
58 degree/s pitch
116 degree/s roll



What value does flying a smaller ship have if it can be outmaneuvered by a much larger ship? That makes no sense to me at all. This is what I meant by ships having an obvious 'vertical' progression. The only downside to going clipper over courier is that you lose landing on outposts; that's it. Otherwise, you are at least as fast, if not faster; you are more agile as well.

I wish that smaller ships had more of a purpose, more of a niche to fill, than just being the cheap version of the bigger, better ships. It would add so much more diversity to ship choice through the game, other than "I feel like playing an objectively worse ship just because I like flying something other folks aren't".

Put enhanced performance thrusters on the Courier and try again :)
 
I love the courier, for its style and flying. Here is the build I used when the Gnosis was about to jump :) , not knowing what the fate of ships might be! It can still do some battle, and boosts up to 700.

I have to get back to that ship and optimize it, now that more modules can fit in..

 

Deleted member 121570

D
Agility is a lot more than rotationals and forward speed.

This. So much this. Acceleration rates & thrusters (including vert/lats) are what move a ship directionally. Agility is not just spinning around rotationally.
Viper mk4 is a classic example of a ship some people appear to think isn't agile, when its actually very agile indeed - I suspect because of a rotational-focused perspective.

Clipper's a great example of one that's not. Its thrusters are terrible.
As others have said; EPTs transform the Courier into a great multirole fast ship that's very flexible with its weight limit given the module sizes/weights of the kit that fits on it.

Assuming that EPTs are only suited for racers is kinda blinkered. Drag / Distributor effects require careful building, but are fantastic.
Just don't build / fly a small fighter in the same way you'd do with a medium or large ship.
 
I could ask the same thing of turreted weapons. No navy in the real world would ever equip something designed like Elite's turreted weapons. The inventor would go broke and be laughed back to being a potato farmer.

Nobody would ever be afraid of Elite:Dangerous' version of The Bismark.

My only answer is for "game" reasons.
 
What value does flying a smaller ship have if it can be outmaneuvered by a much larger ship? That makes no sense to me at all. This is what I meant by ships having an obvious 'vertical' progression. The only downside to going clipper over courier is that you lose landing on outposts; that's it. Otherwise, you are at least as fast, if not faster; you are more agile as well.

The Courier needs Enhanced Performance Thrusters before you can even start comparing it.

Put those on and engineer them, and now it beats the Clipper....
 
Once upon a time, when ideas where still fresh and bold concepts not yet shouted down by enraged players, FDev tried to counterbalance this by the introduction of significant fuel costs.
Because this does make sense, doesn’t it: Large ships with even larger thrusters (relatively to their size) would consume equally relatively more fuel. So much more, that it could be painfully fellt when refueling for credits while docked (in contrast to fuel scooping). Logic and comprehensible.

Yea, but oh noes! This reduced credits per hour! A rage storm drowned the forum and FDev learned to swim. Fuel costs were reduced into meaninglessness and since then, the “balance” described in the OP was achieved.
Quite unfortunately, in my opinion.
Nice fiction.
The argument was a logical discussion of how a market could exist that pitted the crazy fuel cost vs scooping for next to nothing, and by extension why players couldn't go scoop fuel, and sell to the market.
But I guess your "everyone's a whiny baby, and FD caved" is a better read.
 
Nice fiction.
The argument was a logical discussion of how a market could exist that pitted the crazy fuel cost vs scooping for next to nothing, and by extension why players couldn't go scoop fuel, and sell to the market.
But I guess your "everyone's a whiny baby, and FD caved" is a better read.

Well the answer to that would have been to let players sell fuel to the market.
 
But I guess your "everyone's a whiny baby, and FD caved" is a better read.

Given waht I've seen over the years in here generally that holds more water... I don't know if you remember this saga back in 2016?

Yes, it beggars belief, but as I said earlier, but possibly elsewhere in this forum, it was a change put in to appease crybabies who didn't like encountering NPC's tehy could ROFLstomp. This goes back to the early days of Elite; grab a cup of coffee, this is going to be a relatively long post, but one worth reading :)

Back in the days from elite versions 1.0 to 2.1, the NPC AI routine a bug where they would slow to 0m/s but do a stationary barrel roll, like a hog on a rotissiere, or more like a sitting duck just waiting to get shot to smitherenes. This enabled ANYONE to "farm" NPC's and "grind" combat elite. A year and a bit into the game we had all these "Elite" CMDR's, many of whom couldn't really win a fight against anything more potent than a collector limpet. When a new update, 2.1 the engineers, brought with it a new AI that didnt stationary barrel roll like a hog on a rotissierre for CMDR's to shoot at, which was also capable of decent tactical manouevring, and those NPC's with the new AI also came with upgraded mildly engineered ships. It was carnage, and a lot of fun, but a lot of the CMDR's who'd artificially inflated their combat rank were soon overwhelmed, and the forums flooded with a tsunami of tears from the, erm, cry babies.

As a bit of a red herring there was also a bug where NPC's loadouts were pick and mixing weapons attributes, like there was a video of an NPC shooting a multicannon with plasma accelerator projectiles and damage. There was also a video of a cutter getting shredded from full shields to gone in 7 seconds, with a beam laser, which upon investigation by FDev was discovered that it was firing a rail gun shot with every singe frame of the game. So 60FPS = 60 rail gun shots a second - ouch. Eventually after FDev got to the bottom of this NPC pick'n'mix bug, but still the not really elite guys were getting hosed and crying on the forums. So Frontier made a decision to "address those concerns", or cave to the teers, and put two controls in place. Firstly they altered the games engine to scale the spawning NPC's of the same rank as the player, so noharmless sidewinder would get mullered by a deadly NPC FDL. Scondly they allowed plaers to contact support to have their combat ranks demoted to allow them to cope. Thirdly, but not officially announced, there was a downwards revision to the abilities of the NPC's and also of their ships capabilities.

The sum of those controls means that nowadays with a decent combat rank, and a decent ship, all you are ever going to see is harassing you is elite ranked Condas & FDL's harassing you. And if we are totally honest about it, that is all we are ever likely to see now. Sure, it doesn't make my game unplayable as I can handle myself in game, but it does get a bit tiresome / incredulous that out of 400 billion stars, 100,000+ of whcih are colonised, of which there are trillions of occupants, and only the elite of which want to come after little old me. Personally, were I designing those changes back in 2.X, I'd have not directly linked, or matched the scale of NPC to player, but capped it at player's ability + ships performance + a percentage. I'd have skewed the spawn algorithm so that higher rank NPC's were rarer, and in that same algorithm, I'd also have given them access to higher grade midified modules and weapons, and kept the higher ranks AI sharp, and elite would be as sharp as Sarah Jane Avery (Mistress of Minions) could make. The result would be a humdrum galaxy where even the weepiest of crybabies could safely play space trucker, but even seasoned veterans would fear higher ranked, especially elite, NPC's. And if I were on the design team, at the same point I were tweaking the NPC spawn algorithm with thsoe adjustments I just outlined, I'd also have fixed this infernal bug where NPC's have miracle recoveries every time they spool up their FSD.

TLDR of that quote is NPC's Got Good, Forum Cried, FDev Caved, NPC's got nerfed.
 
I think we can all agree Elite needs a ship balance pass in general.

Most games balance their basic assets, oh, every six months to a year?

Elite has been out...for awhile...and has never balanced its ships.
Heavens knows why.

This has been a major issue for me sticking with the game since they introduced Engineering. The issue is that too many players like large ships and don’t like being unable to bring front weapon arcs to bear on small ships, even though that’s exactly how it should work.

Ideally they would gut the ability of larger ships to maneuver and force them to rely on turrets to defend against smaller ships that close distance, which would mean that outfitting now becomes a choice in which you need to equip based on what your expected role will be.

Good luck ever making it happen though, the cries from the forums would be deafening.
 
This has been a major issue for me sticking with the game since they introduced Engineering. The issue is that too many players like large ships and don’t like being unable to bring front weapon arcs to bear on small ships, even though that’s exactly how it should work.

The game actively penalizes this by having chaff be so effective and turrets having abysmal DPS and kinetic turrets not engaging past a fraction of their full range.

Ideally they would gut the ability of larger ships to maneuver and force them to rely on turrets to defend against smaller ships that close distance, which would mean that outfitting now becomes a choice in which you need to equip based on what your expected role will be.

Good luck ever making it happen though, the cries from the forums would be deafening.

The outcry would be justified by the fact that a number of ships would go to being useless when engaged regardless of fit.

Now if you're talking a more holistic restructuring in which a conda isn't just wholly impotent when something is on it's rear and a vette's signature benefit only works on a small fraction of ships in the game, and those ships becoming more rare in an actual fight, that might be a different outcome.
 
Back
Top Bottom