Fer de lance and expected python nerf

[Poseidal]

@poseidal. Python is not big ship.

I do not know where you people have problem. Almost everybody can safety flee from fire of A6 drive python.
You want to beat player in python? for what? He have firepower and shield but he is slow, so leave him alone and safe flee. He cant pursue you.

I tell you something. Clipper has similar firepower and you cant run from it Maybe it should be nerfed too?
Mayve everything should be nerfed? Or maybe you have not skill in game.

If it's not a big ship, it should not have the firepower of a big ship. Reduce it's large hardpoints to 1 and the shields to be more similar to an Asp and we're talking.

Mike has stated it is a 'big' ship concept wise though.

Clipper has other problems, meaning it isn't quite the same. It has ok firepower and goes fast in a straight line, but everything else seems at least somewhat more in-line with what a larger ship should be (and has an even larger profile). That's before mentioning the hardpoint placement issues.

I'm also not sure why it shouldn't be considered a strict upgrade. Why not? I don't care really, since I don't fly it. However, I don't see why a person who trades for ages to afford one should feel on equal footing with someone who didn't. Else, I'm not sure why someone would bother. Of course it should be an upgrade, and it should be noted that several aspects of it are already merely on par or worse than the ship which is 40 times cheaper.

Like I said, I don't really care, and I don't know how I got drawn into this. I do know that it would take me a while of trading to get a Python like I want it. If I had just done that and found that it was going to be nerfed, it would be quite frustrating regardless whether the nerf was warranted.

I don't like 'strictly' better because it doesn't make sense in-universe (e.g. ingame physics) or gameplay-wise. It feels kind of like a 'munchkin' in an RPG or some kind of 'numbers' progression which I feel has no place in a 'simulator' type game, regardless of 'PvP balance' (which is really a red herring). It doesn't feel 'real'.

 

[Puppie]

The 'class' is an arbitrary value.

And even so, if it were the case the Clipper and Dropship uses the same thrusters and with the total mass (not just hull mass) is taken into account they should be similar in mass, yet they do not perform in the same way.

The Python seems literally bugged compared with other, similar sized ships.

Class is the value, better the class, better the performance.

Total mass is not taken into account, so is irrelevant, its the hull mass that counts.

federal dropship is 580t, clipper is 400t, python is 350t. That means the same thrusters in all 3 would perform best in the python, makes perfect sense.

 

[cherny_prapor]

Acceleration AFAIK is linear force in the long axis, turn is vector force applied in different direction. Can we keep to something similar?

Look at the Python vector thrusters, they are numerous and very well placed. Shearing would be a problem if vector applied on only one side and not in opposite directions. This turns a fulcrum into an axis... If proper physics are invoked, please go all the way.

It all depends on the thrust of those "vector thrusters" - if they accelerate the ship slow and easy, it can reach any turn speed in time, theoretically (because of no drag), and with no stress on the carcass. That's how a big massive ship SHOULD behave.

However, if a vector thruster was somehow able to apply enough force to the ship to turn it by 180 degrees in 1 second, the thruster would simply tear off the hull and go through it like a missile, because the applied force would be too much for the carcass materials to hold it in place.

A simple analogy: if you shoot a tin can with a gun, the can will not fly 10 kilometers away, despite the huge applied force, because the bullet will go through. On the other hand, if you apply the same amount of force slowly (continuously), the can will fly far-far away. The thrusters are the "bullets", and the tin can is the ship. Apply too much force too fast and you break something.

 

[Trickle]

1. Insanely expensive (fully kitted for combat you'll in the 300million range)
2. short jump range
3. extreme running costs

None of this is true.

1. In D class kit you will still roffle stomp anything cheaper than another Python 1v1 in a fight to the death. As everyone now has access to a 10% discount, thats about 55M.

2. Its got the exact same jump range as 3/4+ of the other ships in the game. 27 light years, still including more shields* than anything cheaper than a Clipper.
17ly with full 270+ cargo, about 95% of the jump range of a Clipper and Type 7 fully laden.

3. Repair costs are perfectly manageable if you can afford one in the first place. FWIW I think its repair costs should be slashed to 1/3 and its shields reduced to 2/3.

With fuel, its the only thing stopping it being a monster trader. Because it can stop at outposts Reddit traders** think it can manage >90% of the profit per hour of a type 9. Thats right. A multi purpose vessel is 90% as good as a much more expensive dedicated trading vessel.

Having to stop to scoop fuel is the only thing that slows that trading monster down. [FWIW again, I don't think outposts can sustain those Reddit figures for long]


* http://i.imgur.com/omzijnI.png
** http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteTraders/comments/2suai0/ship_progression_calculation/

 

[Poseidal]

Class is the value, better the class, better the performance.

Total mass is not taken into account, so is irrelevant, its the hull mass that counts.

federal dropship is 580t, clipper is 400t, python is 350t. That means the same thrusters in all 3 would perform best in the python, makes perfect sense.

That doesn't make any sense though, as the contents and mass will affect the inertia (which was your original statement).

If it's just a 'game' thing, then Class is just arbitrary. The Anaconda has yet higher class thrusters than all three of those ships, but you don't see it doing 360 backflips.

 

[Derath]

I don't like 'strictly' better because it doesn't make sense in-universe (e.g. ingame physics) or gameplay-wise. It feels kind of like a 'munchkin' in an RPG or some kind of 'numbers' progression which I feel has no place in a 'simulator' type game, regardless of 'PvP balance' (which is really a red herring). It doesn't feel 'real'.

Makes perfect sense with in-game physics, bigger thrusters = more output in the required direction, want to know what doesn't make sense? That it isn't 200m/s faster straight line as well. Its base mass is 2x a cobras, yet its engines put out 4x a cobras. It would be faster than a cobra, it would maneuver better than a cobra.

Edit: As the physics buffs here have mentioned would be limited by material resistance, just like the viper would and the cobra.

 

[BigBadB]

actually...ships must not be balanced. If a ship is x times more expensive (take a cobra vs python it is approx 150times more expensive than a cobra), there MUST be a clear difference.

That's what balance means.

Game balance doesn't mean 'everything must be the same', and anyone who thinks it does is simply displaying their complete lack of understanding of basic principles of game design.

 

[Tequila]

More ships - less nerfs!!!!

Let the ships balance themselves!

 

[Puppie]

That doesn't make any sense though, as the contents and mass will affect the inertia (which was your original statement).

If it's just a 'game' thing, then Class is just arbitrary. The Anaconda has yet higher class thrusters than all three of those ships, but you don't see it doing 360 backflips.

I agree, however the game mechanics only use the hull mass, so its only the hull mass that counts.

The anaconda weighs more, but only one class up, i haven't flown one, so cannot comment on its manoeuvrability compared to the python, but i would assume it would be worse, as the python has been designed to be manoeuvrable

 

[Andargor]

A python really shouldn't die in seconds to a viper, or why buy it?
This is problem for the bigger ships NOW, I know pdt's don't hit dumb-fires atm, but even after you fixed them will they stop a continuous volley @ 30m?

I can see several explanations for that:

- Bad fit
- Letting the guy approach really close, since he's packing 4x fragment cannons
- Not realizing quickly enough that he's made more than one mistake

gg

 

[cherny_prapor]

Edit: As the physics buffs here have mentioned would be limited by material resistance, just like the viper would and the cobra.

Smaller ships have a smaller mass, so they can handle more force without breaking apart. Take an airplane IRL - small fighter jets can do all kinds of crazy stunts, and heavy bombers cannot, though they have larger, more powerful engines. And it's not only related to drag

BTW, maximum speed is only present in this game because otherwise it would be difficult/impossible to implement multiplayer. It's nonsense if we talk about real-life physics.

 

[Eagle Eye]

NPC pythons and anacondas are very easy to beat on cobra and viper.

Is there really somebody who has problem with that?

That is a problem, because realistically... REALLY? A wing of at least 2 Cobra/Viper working together? Sure!

But atm even a half competent CMDR can beat Python/Anaconda in an Eagle (definitely me) and a kinda compentent one will also be able to do the same in Sidewinder (hopefully me lol).



I agree with the nerf on these expensive ships only if Shield Cell Banks and chaff are also given a MAJOR overhaul. SCB being OP are self explanatory, chaff effect on turrets need rework. It does not matter if ppl say "so use turrets in big ships" if turrets are totally useless the moment someone pops a chaff.

 

[Trickle]

....clipper is 400t, python is 350t. That means the same thrusters in all 3 would perform best in the python, makes perfect sense.

Size 6 sensors are madatory in a Python. Clipper can choose smaller (but better - ie. 4A) ones. This makes the default weight difference with otherwise equal kit only about 20tons. 5%.

5%. And the Clipper side thrusting is like watching an arthritic old age pensioner, whilst the Python is like watching Beth Tweddle do cartwheels.

But you know what? I'd take the Clipper's straight line speed. Thats balance.

Whats not balanced is the Python's Tardis like cargo bay size. 270+. Its bleeding obvious from looking at one next to a type 7 that in no way shape or form should it be able to carry more than about 1/2 of that.

I boosted past a type 7 CMDR slowly easing through the letter box scraping his noggin on the ceiling at the same time as being as wide as me in my Python. Whilst carrying far more cargo as him... and having twice the shield power with my size 3 shield. And having the choice of going to an outpost.


Python = year 3300 Tardis.

 

[Slacker]

Generally I dislike it when devs reduce abilities rather than upping the abilities of other things to make sense. If the Python is better than the Anaconda, improve the Anaconda, for example.

That said, the way my mind works, no ship that costs less than a million should be able to destroy one that costs several tens of millions, or more. It should literally be unable to get through the shields even if it shoots at it all day. It should take a swarm of those little ships to put a dent in the bigger ship.

Yes there should be room for skill - a well flown Viper/Cobra should be able to take out a Type 6 or an Asp - but any game where they could take out a Python or Anaconda (unless the pilot is a halfwit who turns his shields off) is deeply imbalanced.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

I can see several explanations for that:

- Bad fit
- Letting the guy approach really close, since he's packing 4x fragment cannons
- Not realizing quickly enough that he's made more than one mistake

gg

I Just don't think anything should be insta-kill weaponry, that's how we end up with jokers @ stations popping large ships for lols in fighters, and ambushes become the pvp-meta elsewhere.
Yes I am probably over cooking the point and I will leave FD to sort out what THEY think is right /my contribution.

 

[Poseidal]

Makes perfect sense with in-game physics, bigger thrusters = more output in the required direction, want to know what doesn't make sense? That it isn't 200m/s faster straight line as well. Its base mass is 2x a cobras, yet its engines put out 4x a cobras. It would be faster than a cobra, it would maneuver better than a cobra.

Edit: As the physics buffs here have mentioned would be limited by material resistance, just like the viper would and the cobra.

If that's where the optimum is, then the other big ships should have the same benefit.

To turn though, it would need more big thrusters as you need 14 thrusters on the ships at a time, and you will never have more than half of them on at the same time.

Count the whole mass, not the base mass. The larger mass needs much more force (booster power) to move at the same acceleration.

The force required is nominally linear (F=ma) but remember the larger powerplants and engines need a lot more power and they may not linearly scale up, there is an optimum. Not only that, but you need to direct or have different thrusters in 14 directions so they add mass themselves.

Do the engines really put out 4x the power of Cobras? The class is larger, so it is more powerful, but is it that much more powerful? Also, remember to include equipment as it doesn't magically disappear and not actually have mass.

 

[cherny_prapor]

It does not matter if ppl say "so use turrets in big ships" if turrets are totally useless the moment someone pops a chaff.

Remove SCBs from the game, buff turret damage, problem solved. BTW, chaffs are only effective as long as you stay in the "cloud" that they produce, so if you pop a chaff while the enemy is IN FRONT of you, the cloud will stay behind you and won't have any effect.

 

[Esvandiary]

Details from Mike about the Python changes in another thread...

They'll be in the same update probably. The changes to the python is something like -17% to speeds, turn rates and accelerations, -33% to base shield strength roughly. This puts the flight model in a better place for a large fighting based ship and also leaves room for the other fighting ships to come so they can be more manoeuvrable than it. The python still has one of the best hard point placements when it can get its guns to bare on a target.

 

[Trader Pat]

It all depends on the thrust of those "vector thrusters" - if they accelerate the ship slow and easy, it can reach any turn speed in time, theoretically (because of no drag), and with no stress on the carcass. That's how a big massive ship SHOULD behave.

However, if a vector thruster was somehow able to apply enough force to the ship to turn it by 180 degrees in 1 second, the thruster would simply tear off the hull and go through it like a missile, because the applied force would be too much for the carcass materials to hold it in place.

1 second for a 180 is not what the python can achieve, FYI. Do you own one and flew it a bit? If not, please get one first.

Secondly, when real world physics are thrown in the discussion, it should be so in a realistic way. Inertia exist in vacuum as it is related to mass. The python would be designed, if "real", to withstand its directional thrusters. Or the design team would not do their job correctly.

Thirdly, materials capable of resisting that kind of force are already designed now at the JPL/CalTech. I don't think it is so far fetched to have them applied to the ships of ED.

 

[Hexcaliber]

Maybe viper should be nerfed! Go and nerf them! He cannot be better than my stock cobra!!! i want want want win!!!



Devs should stop listening that crying and nerfing guys.
They playing poor and everything is OP for them and everything should be nerfed.
If you guys cant win, go and make some training, you will play better, buy better ships and you start winning. Or do not engage pvp if you are scare.

No developer changes game balance based on a few complaints in a forum. Where you read a large number of complains and something is changed it is because there was an identifiable problem.

The players complaining were objective enough that they could see an issue and posted about it, at the same time, the data the devs have access to allowed them to see the problem for themselves and the problem is fixed. Both events are driven by a problem with game balance; the complaints do not drive the game change. Because it takes longer to affect change in a game than to write a post, the posts appear first, then the change happens, and the not so smart members of a games community and the tinfoil hat brigade automatically assume the complaints were the reason for change.