Does the Viper Mk III need a buff?

[Ziljan]

The DBX is reviled because it flat-out fails at the job it is supposed to do.

Apart from room for error, the DBX is just as good at exploration as the Asp. It takes some serious skill to fly the DBX as quickly and effectively as an Asp, but it can be done. In fact, I would argue that the DBX is a much better explorer than the Viper III is at combat.

See, I am not a typical complainer. First, I love a good challenge, so flying with the Viper with fixed weapons is my idea of "fun". Second, I am someone who has spent over 1500 hours playing, and am a qualified pilot on almost every ship in the game. Each ship has little secrets which can help you win or survive. I know many tricks, skills, and secrets that people who have been playing since Alpha don't even know. And combat tips are just one small subset of my knowledge of ED.

Don't be fooled. This game is deep, and I honestly feel my breadth of experience leaves me qualified to say that the Viper III is unnecessarily weak in key areas related to combat. Namely turn rate and boost speed. It doesn't even need a huge boost to be more balanced with other small ships. It just needs a 1s shorter 360 turning rate, and maybe 10-15 m/s more on boost. Not quite DBS agility or Cobra speed, but close enough.

@ Corlas, yes I am not quite a billionaire yet, but I have more than enough money to A rate an Anaconda and still have a fleet of other ships and ~130M for snack money in the bank. I typically fly an Asp or an FDL. So yes I am slumming it with the Viper.

 

[DragoonKnight]

It's the abysmal pitch rate. It allegedly has the same agility as a Fer de Lance, but that's never been the case.

The agility rating in Elite has never represented pitch rate. It is more about the maneuvering thrusters that allow you to strafe left/right/up/down

 

[CMDR Corlas]

It works with aircraft, too;

While your logic is flawless, the nerd in me has to point out that an F-5 is more agile than an F-15 and, being underpowered, isn't that great in a climb.

/technically correct; the best kind of correct

[edited to add a comma to make it more clear I wasn't claiming an F-15 is bad at climbing]

 

[the100thmonkey]

The agility rating in Elite has never represented pitch rate. It is more about the maneuvering thrusters that allow you to strafe left/right/up/down

Which is exactly why the FdL makes a mockery of the Viper's agility rating. It's no slouch in the translational thrust department either, although I take the point.

 

[Ziljan]

The agility rating in Elite has never represented pitch rate. It is more about the maneuvering thrusters that allow you to strafe left/right/up/down

The odd thing about side thrusters. Even when they are good, the degree to which they are helpful in combat varies ship by ship and situation by situation. On the Viper they vary from mediocre to OK depending on your total ship mass.

I was about to launch into a lecture on Viper specific FA-off sliding and side thrusters, but I realized that info was hard won, and I need to keep some secrets for PVP...

 

[Monk]

Doesn't the Viper have superior lateral thrust acceleration?

It can slide around a Diamondback, perhaps overcoming the pitch rate difference.

EDIT: ninja'd by OP

 

[Ziljan]

Doesn't the Viper have superior lateral thrust acceleration?

It can slide around a Diamondback, perhaps overcoming the pitch rate difference.

EDIT: ninja'd by OP

The DBS has a vastly superior later thrust. But it also has more momentum, which means that it's a bit swimmy in the (FA) clutch. All ships can slide, but sliding on a wake requires speed. On some ships it's just a fun FA trick, and other ships (like the Viper) it's an absolute necessary skill with all fixed weapons.

The FdL has decent lateral thrusters. I think they are comparable to the glass-cannon Viper. Maybe less mass dependent? Meanwhile, a massive Viper build has pretty terrible lateral thrusters. Useless for dodging turrets and pretty bad a dodging fixed snipers.

 

[Zeta Legion]

Apart from room for error, the DBX is just as good at exploration as the Asp. It takes some serious skill to fly the DBX as quickly and effectively as an Asp, but it can be done. In fact, I would argue that the DBX is a much better explorer than the Viper III is at combat.

See, I am not a typical complainer. First, I love a good challenge, so flying with the Viper with fixed weapons is my idea of "fun". Second, I am someone who has spent over 1500 hours playing, and am a qualified pilot on almost every ship in the game. Each ship has little secrets which can help you win or survive. I know many tricks, skills, and secrets that people who have been playing since Alpha don't even know. And combat tips are just one small subset of my knowledge of ED.

Don't be fooled. This game is deep, and I honestly feel my breadth of experience leaves me qualified to say that the Viper III is unnecessarily weak in key areas related to combat. Namely turn rate and boost speed. It doesn't even need a huge boost to be more balanced with other small ships. It just needs a 1s shorter 360 turning rate, and maybe 10-15 m/s more on boost. Not quite DBS agility or Cobra speed, but close enough.

@ Corlas, yes I am not quite a billionaire yet, but I have more than enough money to A rate an Anaconda and still have a fleet of other ships and ~130M for snack money in the bank. I typically fly an Asp or an FDL. So yes I am slumming it with the Viper.

As far as ships that need help go, the Viper 3 is pretty far down my list. The Viper 4, AspS, Cobra 4, DBX, and FGS are more in need of a balance pass in my opinion because they are either aimless, overpriced, underpowered, or some combination thereof. Cutter and Corvette need help too.

The Viper 3 at least isn't so handicapped it can't compete with its' peers. Maybe it needs a small boost to pitch/yaw, but I would hesitate to go any further than that.

 

[Ziljan]

As far as ships that need help go, the Viper 3 is pretty far down my list. The Viper 4, AspS, Cobra 4, DBX, and FGS are more in need of a balance pass in my opinion because they are either aimless, overpriced, underpowered, or some combination thereof. Cutter and Corvette need help too.

The Viper 3 at least isn't so handicapped it can't compete with its' peers. Maybe it needs a small boost to pitch/yaw, but I would hesitate to go any further than that.

The AspS, Viper 4, Cobra 4, DBX, and FGS are all multi-role ships. Each has a use.

The only thing a Viper 3 is meant for is short range Combat. So I would argue that it's general weakness in this area is more of a concern.

 

[Fendalton]

At the end of the day you can't really balance ships. There is always going to be ships better than others. Ship Manufactures make the ships the way they want, otherwise every ship would be the same.

You don't HAVE to fly the ships that are bad, at most they're a stepping stone to another ship.

Come to think of it, the released ships have been:
reskinned Eagle
reskined Type 6 with pods on the side (which is useless because anyone who is trading isn't going to be attacking people or need the hardpoints because solo is an option)
x2 reskinned Dropships,
The DiamondBack Explorer which actually was a new ship
The Imperial Courier which was actually a new ship
Diamondback Explorer shrunk
ASP that's cut in half
Swollen Clipper
Shrunk down Farragut Battle Cruiser
A reskinned Viper
A reskinned Cobra

That's it off the top of my head. No doubt the next ship will be the Zorgon Peterson variant of the Fer De Lance (or whatever company bought the rights to it) and maybe the infamous Panther Clipper which will probably not have as much cargo space as a Cutter so anyone who is trading (which is it's main design) won't buy it anyway.

Hard to believe that in the year 3300 there is only 30 spaceship designs and 2 main station designs excluding modular outposts.

 

[Ziljan]

At the end of the day you can't really balance ships. There is always going to be ships better than others. Ship Manufactures make the ships the way they want, otherwise every ship would be the same.

You don't HAVE to fly the ships that are bad, at most they're a stepping stone to another ship.

Here is the in game description of the Viper:

The Viper MkIII is the most recent development of the most successful fighter classes ever built. The original Viper Defence Craft was designed by Faulcon Manspace in 2762 in the Reorte shipyards. The basic model was beefed up with the Viper II by Faulcon deLacy. The new Viper III is a revitalised model with a new more armoured look. It is a top class fighter found in many well-equipped police and naval forces.

A "top class fighter" should not be among the most mediocre small ships at combat. No one is asking to make it competitive with an FDL or any much more expensive ship. But it should be able to compete with ships in it's own cateogory in terms of speed and agility.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Oh man, I had forgotten how much the Viper rewards good FA off and thruster use in turns. Difference between face-tanking a Dropship and not letting him get a single shot off.

/having a blast over here.

 

[Bill Clement]

While your logic is flawless, the nerd in me has to point out that an F-5 is more agile than an F-15 and, being underpowered, isn't that great in a climb.

/technically correct; the best kind of correct

[edited to add a comma to make it more clear I wasn't claiming an F-15 is bad at climbing]

Yeah, the F-5 can get a wiggle on with the best of them! But it does kinda depend how you define agile- the F-15 has better corner, sustained turn, lower stall, better pitch, better zoom. The F-5 has better roll. The F-15 can pull 9G, the F-5 7G. Basically, the bigger bird can out climb, dive and turn the smaller aircraft and do it safely with a greater margin for error. The smaller plane might get into a turn quicker, but it's a small advantage against many large disadvantages. It comes down to the F-15 having huge wings and enormous engines, while the F-5 relies on light weight to maximise it's performance. Same thing with the Mig 21 and Su 27. The F-5 is no slouch in a climb (@34k ft/min), the Mig 21 is better (@44k ft/min) but you're quite right, the big boys stomp all over them (50-60k ft/min, depending on loadout and model). The F-5 wasn't originally considered underpowered and it's gotten better with subsequent models. The problem is F-16s and Mig 29s turned up, making the wee bestie (and every similar aircraft) look distinctly second class. Think those would count as our Vulture?

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I see the Vulture as an Su-27. Big for a fighter, craptons of firepower, and does maneuvers that defy physics.

 

[Fendalton]

Here is the in game description of the Viper:






A "top class fighter" should not be among the most mediocre small ships at combat. No one is asking to make it competitive with an FDL or any much more expensive ship. But it should be able to compete with ships in it's own cateogory in terms of speed and agility.

What ships are in it's 'own category' ?

It's all dependent on who is flying the ship. I've seen PvP Vipers beat Anacondas and Pythons.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

Apart from room for error, the DBX is just as good at exploration as the Asp.

No, it really isn't. It isn't a viable long range explorer in horizons, due to the fact you can't carry both an afmu and hangar. It loses in internal space and a terrible scoop. If they gave it an extra slot, it would be viable.

 

[MarcusKross]

Buff my Viper threads are so last year Gaius.. don't do it.

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

I support this, but honestly I think combat ships should always be faster than their multipurpose counterparts, for balance reasons, considering the Cobra would still be a far better combat ship than the Viper even after the proposed buffs.

It's internals allow it to pack in armor like mad, it's ridiculously fast, and it has arguably better hardpoint placement (For gimballed weapons, not fixed, which is more common).

 

[Zeeman]

Apart from room for error, the DBX is just as good at exploration as the Asp. It takes some serious skill to fly the DBX as quickly and effectively as an Asp, but it can be done. In fact, I would argue that the DBX is a much better explorer than the Viper III is at combat.

See, I am not a typical complainer. First, I love a good challenge, so flying with the Viper with fixed weapons is my idea of "fun". Second, I am someone who has spent over 1500 hours playing, and am a qualified pilot on almost every ship in the game. Each ship has little secrets which can help you win or survive. I know many tricks, skills, and secrets that people who have been playing since Alpha don't even know. And combat tips are just one small subset of my knowledge of ED.

Don't be fooled. This game is deep, and I honestly feel my breadth of experience leaves me qualified to say that the Viper III is unnecessarily weak in key areas related to combat. Namely turn rate and boost speed. It doesn't even need a huge boost to be more balanced with other small ships. It just needs a 1s shorter 360 turning rate, and maybe 10-15 m/s more on boost. Not quite DBS agility or Cobra speed, but close enough.

@ Corlas, yes I am not quite a billionaire yet, but I have more than enough money to A rate an Anaconda and still have a fleet of other ships and ~130M for snack money in the bank. I typically fly an Asp or an FDL. So yes I am slumming it with the Viper.

This is the problem with exploring for long periods - you get *very* familiar with a ship in SC, but that's about it... I dare anyone to outfly me in SC in my Asp. But that's all I got...

Mor eon topic - I've always wished speed, acceleration, roll and pitch were directly related to mass and thruster class.

To the point, where I think Yaw thrusters and pitch/roll thrusters should actually have their own slots. These would each produce "x" amount of power, which basically determined how fast your ship behaves based on the thruster variant you have in each slot. I just feel the current system, where FD just seem to slide random sliders in the background, which results in 60T Vipers performing like 200T traders, and Pythons performing like Eagles (I'm thinking pre-nerf Python, clearly) just isn't right. It really should be a more direct "thrust to mass" ratio type setup.

Of course, it's probably already far too late, but anyway, I still feel such should have been how it was done. And if a ship were a bit too good, the could have downgraded the thruster class, and then given the size drop back in the from of utility slots or expansion slots.

EG - with the Python, it should have been knocked down to a C5 thruster class, then an additional C5 utility slot thrown in (ok, maybe that would have been excessive, but at least a couple of C1's to make up for it).

I support this, but honestly I think combat ships should always be faster than their multipurpose counterparts, for balance reasons, considering the Cobra would still be a far better combat ship than the Viper even after the proposed buffs.

It's internals allow it to pack in armor like mad, it's ridiculously fast, and it has arguably better hardpoint placement (For gimballed weapons, not fixed, which is more common).

I think this points to a flaw in the way armour and shield boosters work. It's too easy to build a tank (not sure if any of you have seen the super-tank Keelback video - where someone in a Corvette is hammering a Keelback with everything, and doing pretty much 0 damage, the Keelback was just so heavily armoured..

Z..

 

[Grumpy181155]

In general I am against buff requests, but your point about it being a police ship is a convincing one.

What if the police had special, faster versions of the Mark 3, a Police Special so to speak?
In general I would like the Police ships to have a meaner bite.

I could agree with this. Also I think it is important when comparing ships to also look at the cost of the ship. For example a stock Viper is 95,900 while the DBS is 461,000.