Fer de lance and expected python nerf

[wolfiewuff]

Hello, I own a python atm and agree it feels a little too good. I facetanked an elite conda with plasma cannons earlier, just used 3 shieldcells before he popped.

As a fed lover, just wondered though if any theres any dev that had commented on the fed drop ship being tweaked? Will it become a better ship or should we just avoid till the transport content is added.

 

[Ari Ben Zayn]

When I first left the starport with my python and after a week still thought "I love this ship." I should've become suspicious that this wouldn't last. x)
Oh well, two shield rings instead of three now, I'll just have to kill stuff faster, right?

 

[Mike Evans]

I dont even fly a Python, so i dont know if what you say is true or not. what ticks me off is that instead of fixing the broken stuff (turrets not useable cause they friendly fire the whole star system once you shoot them for example, or the orca and the dropship, that are not even worth one tenth of what they sell for) you decide to start nerfing stuff. I mean...if you say it is just a minor thing, then why isnt it minor enough to LEAVE it the way it is? Oh, and i know you are a developer and all, but what Wolf Starslayer said is perfectly right. Your way of reacting to a perfectly legitimate, but harshly worded, concern was not really professional at all. We WERE told, in fact, that the only thing that would be changed about the Python would be a MINOR nerf to its maneuverability, and holding you people for your word is our good right as customers.

You've obviously not been on this forum for long but you're both right and I shouldn't write posts with that tone (even if in my head it seemed perfectly in jest and typical of a Mike Evans post).

First of all I am not the whole of frontier, what I can and cannot fix is not known to you so don't demand I fix something I have no place in fixing. Secondly who says we aren't fixing the turret problem? There are many people with many areas of expertise and mine just happens to relate to balancing stats across the game and not programming AI behaviour and exceptions. Lots of fixes for super minor problems will happen way before what you guys consider serious gets fixed because it makes no sense for us to either twiddle our thumbs waiting for that fix or trying to fix something we have no chance of fixing ourselves. Artist will continue to create content, designers will continue to design new features and balance old and programmers will implement new features whilst the real problems get fixed by the right people in time.

The orca and dropships rely on passenger game play to justify their downsides that hasn't been implemented yet unfortunately. For a start I wouldn't have even let the orca be a player flyable ship but that decision wasn't mine to make.

Finally I had no idea what you're being told by others on the forum but you need to understand that things can and will change after the fact. Manoeuvrability wasn't enough of a change to get the python where we wanted it in the end. Would you have preferred a harder manoeuvrability loss in place of a combination of shields and manoeuvrability instead?

 

[wolfiewuff]

"The orca and dropships rely on passenger game play to justify their downsides that hasn't been implemented yet unfortunately. For a start I wouldn't have even let the orca be a player flyable ship but that decision wasn't mine to make."

Thank you for that information will look forward to using it when the content comes then.

 

[Tequila]

Bring me the head of Sandy 'Python nerfer'!!!

Silliness aside, small steps in nerfing is a good way to achieve balance.

Will the devs be using a test server, of which to allow the community to give feedback for balance passes such as this 'Python Nerf' before they go live....???

Kthnx.

 

[Listeri69]

Here Mike have a snickers pizza..... your not yourself when your hungry you've turned into A character from Dockers and your going around hitting everyone with mugs, and whilst extremely funny and entertaining its not you.......

 

[Shanaeri]

I think what people says is that we would rather some game mechanics that are considered not working properly (be it bugs or easily abused) to be fixed first, see how it affects the "metagame" (or whatever its called), and then balance the ships.

This, and introduce more ships to the game so it gives people more options as to where to go. Fix inherent mechanics first, then adjust ship balance. That way you have a firm foundation on which to judge the changes. Unless you get the foundations and philosophy right you'll be forever chasing and changing stuff, which in the end will cost more time, more money and will reduce player goodwill.
.
WTS Python. One careful owner, only 400ly on the clock, never ran without shields and has remainder of Manufacturers warranty

 

[tough boy]

The whole design is borked.

If a ship costs 57M and a further 70M to upgrade, there is no reason to balance it against a 10s of thousand ship or the like.

I think the problem is that the Python essentially outclassed even the Anaconda which costs twice as much, and only has more cargo room for it. Personally I'd rather have buffed the Anaconda, but then again maybe it's a wider problem that currently the multi role ships are masters of everything more than jack of all trades. However a better time to do balancing passes would be when new ships are introduced.
Also I have to agree that a bit more clarity about how stuff work in the game as well as Frontier's roadmap on fixes and new content would go a long way to calm down the most "passionate" contributors.

 

[Eagle Eye]

You've obviously not been on this forum for long but you're both right and I shouldn't write posts with that tone (even if in my head it seemed perfectly in jest and typical of a Mike Evans post).

First of all I am not the whole of frontier, what I can and cannot fix is not known to you so don't demand I fix something I have no place in fixing. Secondly who says we aren't fixing the turret problem? There are many people with many areas of expertise and mine just happens to relate to balancing stats across the game and not programming AI behaviour and exceptions. Lots of fixes for super minor problems will happen way before what you guys consider serious gets fixed because it makes no sense for us to either twiddle our thumbs waiting for that fix or trying to fix something we have no chance of fixing ourselves. Artist will continue to create content, designers will continue to design new features and balance old and programmers will implement new features whilst the real problems get fixed by the right people in time.

The orca and dropships rely on passenger game play to justify their downsides that hasn't been implemented yet unfortunately. For a start I wouldn't have even let the orca be a player flyable ship but that decision wasn't mine to make.

Finally I had no idea what you're being told by others on the forum but you need to understand that things can and will change after the fact. Manoeuvrability wasn't enough of a change to get the python where we wanted it in the end. Would you have preferred a harder manoeuvrability loss in place of a combination of shields and manoeuvrability instead?

Not a Python owner but I'd rather a tougher shield, at least If I can't outmanouvre it, I got a tough shield protecting me as I charge FSD

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Thanks Mike for fresh honesty. I know it maybe doesn't sound so professional, but sometimes complains about nerfs - even when you have clearly explained *why* you nerf it - are getting me too. I understand investments, but if you really wanted to play game to be totally invincible in your ship - not sure this is right game for this.

As for nerfs - I personally expect them to continue till six months after release. Testing yeah, but Python landed too close for release to be fully tested. If I had to choose Python now and nerfed a bit later - heck yeah, give me Pyton now. Same goes with Orca and Dropship - yeah, having no passengers yet is a bummer, but I still love to see those ships around.

 

[Raz0rking]

Finally I had no idea what you're being told by others on the forum but you need to understand that things can and will change after the fact. Manoeuvrability wasn't enough of a change to get the python where we wanted it in the end. Would you have preferred a harder manoeuvrability loss in place of a combination of shields and manoeuvrability instead?

Hello Commander Johnny Spaceboots!



The python is by most reckonings, a beast of a ship (a little too beastly, we will be dropping it's manoeuvrability a tad). Interestingly, if the Cobra had had weapons other than missile racks on the wing mounts, the python's shields would have probably broken a few times (missiles are utterly terrible versus shields, though they are hungry for hull).

So..you should be communicating with colleagues WHAT you actually say to the public.

 

[Lanatir]

You've obviously not been on this forum for long but you're both right and I shouldn't write posts with that tone (even if in my head it seemed perfectly in jest and typical of a Mike Evans post).

First of all I am not the whole of frontier, what I can and cannot fix is not known to you so don't demand I fix something I have no place in fixing. Secondly who says we aren't fixing the turret problem? There are many people with many area of expertise and mine just happens to relate to balancing stats across the game and not programming AI behaviour and exceptions. Lots of fixes for super minor problems will happen way before what you guys consider serious gets fixed because it makes no sense for us to either twiddle our thumbs waiting for that fix or trying to fix something we have no chance of fixing ourselves. Artist will continue to create content, designers will continue to design new features and balance old and programmers will implement new features whilst the real problems get fixed by the right people in time.

The orca and dropships rely on passenger game play to justify their downsides that hasn't been implemented yet unfortunately. For a start I wouldn't have even let the orca be a player flyable ship but that decision wasn't mine to make.

Finally I had no idea what you're being told by others on the forum but you need to understand that things can and will change after the fact. Manoeuvrability wasn't enough of a change to get the python where we wanted it in the end. Would you have preferred a harder manoeuvrability loss in place of a combination of shields and manoeuvrability instead?

Well, in case of the Python, working turrets would make a loss of maneuverability not as bad. A big ship is not supposed to have to rely on maneuvering against llittle mosquitos like sidewinders, eagles and Vipers. It should sit there and oneshot those tiny buggers with massive turrets. A Viper Pilot should NEVER be able to outgun a Python. And yes, i also think that orca and dropship should have been scrapped for now.

And personally i dont mind how you say things. Oh, and i wasnt demanding. I am in no position to do so. I was suggesting. Loudly.

I guess it is also a point of how informations are transported here. If we hear that one ship will be nerfed but on the other hand dont hear anything about how you are planning to tweak stuff that needs tweaking, then of course we assume that you are only nerfing, not tweaking.

 

[Vincent Starson]

You've obviously not been on this forum for long but you're both right and I shouldn't write posts with that tone (even if in my head it seemed perfectly in jest and typical of a Mike Evans post).

First of all I am not the whole of frontier, what I can and cannot fix is not known to you so don't demand I fix something I have no place in fixing. Secondly who says we aren't fixing the turret problem? There are many people with many area of expertise and mine just happens to relate to balancing stats across the game and not programming AI behaviour and exceptions. Lots of fixes for super minor problems will happen way before what you guys consider serious gets fixed because it makes no sense for us to either twiddle our thumbs waiting for that fix or trying to fix something we have no chance of fixing ourselves. Artist will continue to create content, designers will continue to design new features and balance old and programmers will implement new features whilst the real problems get fixed by the right people in time.

The orca and dropships rely on passenger game play to justify their downsides that hasn't been implemented yet unfortunately. For a start I wouldn't have even let the orca be a player flyable ship but that decision wasn't mine to make.

Finally I had no idea what you're being told by others on the forum but you need to understand that things can and will change after the fact. Manoeuvrability wasn't enough of a change to get the python where we wanted it in the end. Would you have preferred a harder manoeuvrability loss in place of a combination of shields and manoeuvrability instead?

As the one who caused the metnioned post, I must say I didn't take offense. I think he's within his right to respond that way. I was upset and lost my cool, it happens.

No big deal. I still love this game and trust FD to continue making it better.

You could just give the dropship another internal slot so it passes the clipper in cargo size. But if you're adding passenger gameplay then removing it later would be hard to justify.

In regards to the python changes, I'd rather you leave it alone! But if you must nerf it I'd rather have a more maneuverable ship than a less maneuverable more shielded ship.

 

[Eagle Eye]

I think the problem is that the Python essentially outclassed even the Anaconda which costs twice as much, and only has more cargo room for it. Personally I'd rather have buffed the Anaconda, but then again maybe it's a wider problem that currently the multi role ships are masters of everything more than jack of all trades. However a better time to do balancing passes would be when new ships are introduced.

I would rather this too tbqh, buff Anaconda instead of nerfing Python.

 

[Shadowdancer]

You've obviously not been on this forum for long but you're both right and I shouldn't write posts with that tone (even if in my head it seemed perfectly in jest and typical of a Mike Evans post).

I love "that post", and I may well print it and hug it every now and then.

 

[SuBSynk]

So..you should be communicating with colleagues WHAT you actually say to the public.

Where in that quote did it say Pythons were only getting a hit to manoeuvrability...?

 

[Tettric]

If the Fer De Lance ends up better than the Python you can just sell your Python.

If you sell all modules first You'll only loose a fraction of the credits from the trade in.

 

[Toscaner]

So..you should be communicating with colleagues WHAT you actually say to the public.

you're just overcomplicating everything for everybody until the point where no dev wants to post anything anymore on the forums and all we get is PR talk sanctioned by a DB or MB.

i'm pretty sure Sandro didn't say that it's definitely the only adjustment they are making to the python (or any other ship)
and guess what - more ships and modules will be nerfed (and buffed) - OMG. relax.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

So..you should be communicating with colleagues WHAT you actually say to the public.

In fact Sandro always use a bit of artistic language to describe hings. Taking them as matter of fact and measure how big nerf will be is a bit absurd. Sandro said Python will be nerfed - and that in fact happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Derath]

Sigh.. So after all that they've turned it into yet another trade vessel on the curve ending in the conda, whats next ship Panther? So we can have another trade vessel after the conda?