Fer de lance and expected python nerf

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Xanador

X
Mike Evans said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't understand the direction you want to go with the python. The hole design reminds me of a mid to bigger sized, mean and powerful combat ship: And it is :). I was very surprised when I recognized that it can carry significantly more cargo than the type 7 and is also able to land on medium pads, the design is simply not bulky enough. The second surprise was not the manouverability but the shield power, which is higher than that of an anaconda. The third surprise were the enourmous running costs - so it is often not worth to run it as a bounty hunter and you have to work as trader again, which works very well - too well in my opinion. So here is my suggestion:

1. Remove all type 6 internal slots and replace them with type 5s.

Two results: You are not able to fit class 6 shields any more (Class 5 is still very strong on a python) and the cargo size is more logical.

2. Lower the running costs significantly

FYI: I got my python yesterday :)
 

Shanaeri

Shanaeri
SuBSynk said:
So they will have the same shields ? The ASP will also have a far smaller power distributor...
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how they calculate the one third shield reduction. I was working from baseline. I.e Python with a 7a power distributer or a 6a one. Class 7 PD's give a huge jump penalty and bump python even further into Anaconda money. I was thinking of Python with 6A which seems IMHO to be the sweet spot between performance and cost.
.
Sorry, I don't have numbers but do own both combat asp and a python. From multiple engagements and constant pilot(for better or worse me) I can say my Python gets to 2 rings quicker than my Asp does to 3. Since it's combat we're talking about there are many more factors ofc but non combat measurements of a stationary target being plinked until it's shields drop isn't really a true test imho.
.
In anycase, still curious to know the official thoughts on where changed Python is supposed to sit on the ship progression curve :)
 
Last edited:

Hekantonkheries

Hekantonkheries
fact is, until they fix turrets as the worst weapon system in the game, all nerfing the maneuverability of the python will do is make it irrelevant in combat, since right now so many ships have huge blindspots it doesnt matter HOW MUCH firepower you can fit, the only thing that matters is your more maneuverable than your target, because if you can stay in the blind spot you win.

if the maneuverability gets nerfed so that it flies like a "big ship", it WILL lose to a viper EVERY TIME, simply because it will be unable to use its weaponry, fixed guns require you to be more maneuverable than your target, gimbals require you to actually be able to get your target in front of you, and turrets are not only short range and unreliable, they underperform universally compared to the gimbal/fixed versions.

so whats going to happen, is to be able to fight in a python, youll have to fit turrets, and youll do less damage than a full-fit cobra/viper because of it, which still wotn matter because theyll be sitting behind you taking no damage.

SO BEFORE ANYTHING IS NERFED (and it doesnt need to be anyways), fix the issue with speed being the only thing that matters, because as it is, in the hands of two equally skilled players, viper > everything else because it has the maneuverability and firepower to take advantage of EVERY ship's blindspot but an eagle (but eagles have no pewpew and die in 2 shots from anything anyways)
 

zuadao

Z
omg i cant get away from a python with my type7 better go rage on the forums so its nerfed.

and in comes the carebears complaining theyre not safe in the universe...
 

Tsunamicom

T
Just because a ship is large doesn't mean it has to be slow and cumbersome. With the appropriate thrusters, even large objects can be nimble.

I'm against modifying the Python in any way at this time. Wait until more ships are introduced, and IF it seems too powerful THEN take a look. As it stands, a fully kitted Python is 100x more expensive than a fully kitted Eagle. It SHOULD perform better.
 

DaveB

DaveB
Mike Evans said:
I don't think I should be professional given the level of hyperbole and ridiculousness that exists in these kinds of threads. But in effect I'm being hypocritical because I am reading and replying to these posts despite what I say. Anyway Sandy told me I should lower the shield strength in the first place so go blame him :p
Click to expand...

Mike, I think it's a real good thing that you can actually pop off and say it like it is once in a while. Carry on making the game you want, and let the whingers go pound sand.
 

Quineloe

Quineloe
Mike Evans said:
Hull mass only roughly relates to size. The total mass after it has an appropriate loadout is better for comparison purposes. The python is like a slim Type 9, definitely a large ship.
Click to expand...

So we can expect Outposts to no longer accommodate pythons in the future?
 

remosito

R
Shanaeri said:
I guess it depends on how they calculate the one third shield reduction. I was working from baseline.
Click to expand...


I would assume so. Which would mean that Python still has 1.7x the shield strenght on 6A of an Asp with 6A. Down from 2.6x, which was identical shielding as the Anaconda. Totally non-sensical!

Python will do just fine against an Asp.
 
Last edited:

RipperJack

RipperJack
Lanatir said:
what i really dont understand is why you start nerfing the good ships instead of buffing up the crap ones. i would like to see a statistic of how many people use the ORCA and the Dropship. I am sure the numbers are below the 1% margin. Why not beef them up first?
Click to expand...

THIS! This times a frikkin million. Dont nerf our goal, improve the steps we take to reach the goal.

Theres only like 15 ships in the game and some, no-one will ever choose past a curiosity and eventual regret. Make those a stepping stone people look forward to and want to invest in. Dont make the long arduous task of reaching the top nothing but meh and this is it? Repped up the butt.
 

remosito

R
RipperJack said:
THIS! This times a frikkin million. Dont nerf our goal, improve the steps we take to reach the goal.

Theres only like 15 ships in the game and some, no-one will ever choose past a curiosity and eventual regret. Make those a stepping stone people look forward to and want to invest in. Dont make the long arduous task of reaching the top nothing but meh and this is it? Repped up the butt.
Click to expand...

Changing 14 ships and keeping one the same instead of just changing the one you want to adjust is stupid.
 

Shanaeri

Shanaeri
remosito said:
Changing 14 ships and keeping one the same instead of just changing the one you want to adjust is stupid.
Click to expand...

I agree. Much better to adjust other things first(like shield cells and turrets) and add new ships and THEN see where you are and make adjustments where needed. Correct a baseline.. Measure, Change one thing.. Measure.. Change another.. Measure.. and so on.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom