So the Anaconda is the ship of choice for exploration. Why? Mass.
This proposal is to make all the larger ships viable for long jump distances, at the cost of durability and a size 7 slot. It only needs to come in size 7, as that requires the largest slots in all the largest ships.
What this would do, is roughly bring the hull and core modules in line with Anaconda-class range, by giving them the effective mass (only for purposes of FSD use) of an exploration-fit Anaconda. I think that's about 600t? Maybe a little different for the Cutter. Perhaps this should allow exploration ships to bring non-gimped modules? At the cost of sacrificing one of the biggest slots, and not being able to slap lightweight on a few underpowered core modules. (Mounting the coil would ignore under-sized Core modules, might as well bring better ones.)
For drawbacks, well, you're losing a big slot. The Cutter doesn't have room for all the necessary modules AND a limpet launcher, even (well, not without my size-3 Discovery+DSS combo module idea, anyway.) Cutter/T9 have more slots, and Anaconda has the most slots.
A second drawback should probably be a hit for serious combat. Like a cap on shield/armor values, so that taking a large shield and a lot of reinforcements would be ineffective. Yet, a more reasonable combat build would be viable. I do not think it needs to affect cargo capacity beyond taking up a large slot.
Third drawback: the mass discount from the module would apply (at least primarily) to only hull and Core modules. All the Utility modules are extra, all the weapons are extra, and all the hardpoints are extra. (And shield booster spam would be nullified completely by the shielding drawback inherent in the module. No massive shields, no massive hull, no huge resists.)
Ideally, an armed build would hit what, 40ly easily? And a fully lightweight build with no weapons and smallest modules should cap at 50ly. This is across-the board for Cutter/Corvette/Type9/Anaconda. Allowing them to take actual weapons, yet still have real jump ranges, yet have inferior combat performance compared to combat-optimal ships with normal jump ranges. And a purpose-built Anaconda is still superior in range, though I would expect people to bring one of these, A-rate an Exploraconda, and it still has the best number of slots, the Cutter/T9 only has 9 non-reserved.
Beluga has no size 7 slot, though. Hm. And the Clipper has a size 7...
Perhaps a size 6 version that requires a medium-pad ship? Exploration Pythons? Same kind of deal. No reason to NOT have exploration Clippers? Exploration Federal Gunship that has to make some hard choices? I guess! Beluga could use a bone here as well, and why not have Orcas with better internals exploring too.
This proposal is to make all the larger ships viable for long jump distances, at the cost of durability and a size 7 slot. It only needs to come in size 7, as that requires the largest slots in all the largest ships.
What this would do, is roughly bring the hull and core modules in line with Anaconda-class range, by giving them the effective mass (only for purposes of FSD use) of an exploration-fit Anaconda. I think that's about 600t? Maybe a little different for the Cutter. Perhaps this should allow exploration ships to bring non-gimped modules? At the cost of sacrificing one of the biggest slots, and not being able to slap lightweight on a few underpowered core modules. (Mounting the coil would ignore under-sized Core modules, might as well bring better ones.)
For drawbacks, well, you're losing a big slot. The Cutter doesn't have room for all the necessary modules AND a limpet launcher, even (well, not without my size-3 Discovery+DSS combo module idea, anyway.) Cutter/T9 have more slots, and Anaconda has the most slots.
A second drawback should probably be a hit for serious combat. Like a cap on shield/armor values, so that taking a large shield and a lot of reinforcements would be ineffective. Yet, a more reasonable combat build would be viable. I do not think it needs to affect cargo capacity beyond taking up a large slot.
Third drawback: the mass discount from the module would apply (at least primarily) to only hull and Core modules. All the Utility modules are extra, all the weapons are extra, and all the hardpoints are extra. (And shield booster spam would be nullified completely by the shielding drawback inherent in the module. No massive shields, no massive hull, no huge resists.)
Ideally, an armed build would hit what, 40ly easily? And a fully lightweight build with no weapons and smallest modules should cap at 50ly. This is across-the board for Cutter/Corvette/Type9/Anaconda. Allowing them to take actual weapons, yet still have real jump ranges, yet have inferior combat performance compared to combat-optimal ships with normal jump ranges. And a purpose-built Anaconda is still superior in range, though I would expect people to bring one of these, A-rate an Exploraconda, and it still has the best number of slots, the Cutter/T9 only has 9 non-reserved.
Beluga has no size 7 slot, though. Hm. And the Clipper has a size 7...
Perhaps a size 6 version that requires a medium-pad ship? Exploration Pythons? Same kind of deal. No reason to NOT have exploration Clippers? Exploration Federal Gunship that has to make some hard choices? I guess! Beluga could use a bone here as well, and why not have Orcas with better internals exploring too.
Last edited:
