Fer de lance and expected python nerf

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Im against nerfing but if a ship as large as a Python has the same maneuverability as cobra then that needs to be nerfed. No way a ship that large should be able to turn and bank like a cobra.

But why not? Much bigger, heavier hull means you can fit much bigger and powerful power plant and much bigger and powerful engines, keeping power to weight ratio at the same level as smaller ships.
Just like nowadays Main Battle Tanks are much heavier than the medium tanks they originated from, and yet are far more nimble at the battlefield than their lighter predecessor. All thanks to fantastic power-to-weight ratio.
 

IceyJones

Banned
Im against nerfing but if a ship as large as a Python has the same maneuverability as cobra then that needs to be nerfed. No way a ship that large should be able to turn and bank like a cobra.

this is space, you know?! its all about the thrusters and mass! and a light, not laden python should be agile......i agree to reduce speed a BIT (maybe 360 boosted)but not by 17%. thats ridiculous. same with turn rate! this reduction is also totally nuts! and ppl saying the python is as agile as a cobra or viper has no clue what he is talking about! turn rate is NOT = agile!
it takes AGES in the python to make a VEcTOR change.....acceleration is already crap atm! not better than ASP acceleration.........without boost, the python is like a car on ice.......sliding 4ever
 
But why not? Much bigger, heavier hull means you can fit much bigger and powerful power plant and much bigger and powerful engines, keeping power to weight ratio at the same level as smaller ships.
Just like nowadays Main Battle Tanks are much heavier than the medium tanks they originated from, and yet are far more nimble at the battlefield than their lighter predecessor. All thanks to fantastic power-to-weight ratio.

And, if you want to draw the comparison further, MBT's, and not older medium tanks, are what we find in the service of any modern military force.
Making the cheap price the only advantage a Cobra has over a Python is a pretty bad idea, because that makes the Cobra useless to anyone with the capital to have a Python.
 

IceyJones

Banned
And, if you want to draw the comparison further, MBT's, and not older medium tanks, are what we find in the service of any modern military force.
Making the cheap price the only advantage a Cobra has over a Python is a pretty bad idea, because that makes the Cobra useless to anyone with the capital to have a Python.

cobra is much faster.......and in future 1/3 faster than a python! cobra can decide engagement! thats a HUUUUUGE advantage
 
Much bigger, heavier hull means you can fit much bigger and powerful power plant and much bigger and powerful engines, keeping power to weight ratio at the same level as smaller ships.

Totally agree and it's logical. And it should be applied to the clipper too..
 
Totally agree and it's logical. And it should be applied to the clipper too..

Realistically, there's an optimum point, as you can't just build something bigger to get the same out of it, and you have to start thinking about heat dissipation adding more weight and so on. But as you said, if the optimum is at the Python, the Clipper, Dropship and even Type 7 should also reap the benefits.

I believe the actual intended optimum is on a smaller hull size in the E: D level of technology so far though. It probably lies around Viper and Cobra or a bit bigger, considering their manoeuvrability and speeds.
 
Last edited:
Right on. The amusing part is when they talk about "grinding" and "working hard" for video game pixels. Even better when they bust out false equivalence and scream "Just make all the ships the same!"

I've yet to "grind" or "work hard" for a moment in Elite. It's a video game. I work at my job, I play video games for fun. If you aren't having fun playing a video game, you should do something else.

lol this bait is so obvious, right on mister troll !
take some people words out of there context, make some emphasis about "busting" and "screaming" (are we still talking about a forum?) aaaaaaaaaand there you go, bait ready, just out of the oven !
No seriously, just log on elite, take a quick look at how the system is set, and see how it does *really* work.
No need to thank me honey ! ;)
 
Making the cheap price the only advantage a Cobra has over a Python is a pretty bad idea, because that makes the Cobra useless to anyone with the capital to have a Python.


Yes? And as it should be, would you not think?

They are both multi-purpose, one costs 300k, the other 56M. I'm confused at your post.

Would you buy a T9 and then think "well, but now the hauler is useless to me, that's not right"... ?
 
so in future, you will not be able to play offensive in the python......you can only be defensive. thats a 180° turn in how to use the ship.....
and thats why i´m so unhappy about it.....

Actually a pretty reasonable summary of my beef with it, I'm not super unhappy but I do think they probably will have gone overboard. It'd be nice if we got some new missions so that maybe hauling gold was extremely risky and you needed a suitable trader for valuable goods as you got ravaged constantly by pirates.

To discussion in hand the cobra will always have the advantage of a very low insurance in comparison, its also cheaper to max out on outfit, even with armour! Its currently faster and extremely versatile. People would still run rares in it, bounty hunt, mine and pirate it has its own benefits in almost every category other than genuine cargo capacity.
 
Last edited:
small ship guys whined till they got there way great sorry am i the only one that thinks it should take more then 1 small fighter to take down large naval shipping?

imagine a a skiboat attacking a destroyer folks

do damage yes...whiny little@#$#$@
 
I don't think many people understand that these "nerfs" (spits word) are to "BASE" stats, not total, and while I don't know exact numbers couldn't it be like the following example...
Python base Sheild stat = 3
A Class Sheild module adds +3
"Nerfed" Python base Sheild stat = 2 (-33%)
A Class Sheild module adds +3
so
Current A Class Python Shield Strength = 6
Proposed A Class Python Shield Strength = 5
That is most definitely not a 33% across the board and nowhere near as big a "nerf" as the kneeejerkers are crying about.
-
Of course I don't know for sure, but neither does anyone bar the designers themselves, so how about we wait to see how it works out and if it is too much then I'm sure the Devs will be willing to continue to tweak until it feels right....
 
I don't think many people understand that these "nerfs" (spits word) are to "BASE" stats, not total, and while I don't know exact numbers couldn't it be like the following example...
Python base Sheild stat = 3
A Class Sheild module adds +3
"Nerfed" Python base Sheild stat = 2 (-33%)
A Class Sheild module adds +3
so
Current A Class Python Shield Strength = 6
Proposed A Class Python Shield Strength = 5
That is most definitely not a 33% across the board and nowhere near as big a "nerf" as the kneeejerkers are crying about.
-
Of course I don't know for sure, but neither does anyone bar the designers themselves, so how about we wait to see how it works out and if it is too much then I'm sure the Devs will be willing to continue to tweak until it feels right....

I don't think you understand that these nerfs are based off the base stats, which define the increased stats ;) they aren't wrong, base shield nerf of 1/3 = max shield nerf of 1/3 the base is a multiplier on the values.
 
so in future, you will not be able to play offensive in the python......you can only be defensive. thats a 180° turn in how to use the ship.....
and thats why i´m so unhappy about it.....

Making the smaller ships faster than the large ones is a good dynamic IMO - it make PvP mutually consensual since either has a good chance of disengaging (small ship by its speed, larger one using FSD).

The only people who will be upset by this are people who want to "grief" smaller ships in larger ones.
 
I don't think many people understand that these "nerfs" (spits word) are to "BASE" stats, not total, and while I don't know exact numbers couldn't it be like the following example...
Python base Sheild stat = 3
A Class Sheild module adds +3
"Nerfed" Python base Sheild stat = 2 (-33%)
A Class Sheild module adds +3
so
Current A Class Python Shield Strength = 6
Proposed A Class Python Shield Strength = 5
That is most definitely not a 33% across the board and nowhere near as big a "nerf" as the kneeejerkers are crying about.
-
Of course I don't know for sure, but neither does anyone bar the designers themselves, so how about we wait to see how it works out and if it is too much then I'm sure the Devs will be willing to continue to tweak until it feels right....

I think it's you, whom does not understand.

-33% shield strenght will lead to -33% "end shield protection" across the board, no matter the modules, no matter the pips. It will always be -33% from before, in each and every situations (due to the way the equation works).

Also, the -17% manoeuvrability nerf is the most annoying. Sort of. And it's not only "17%", that's the average. It's way more than that in some aspects of it (for instance, top speed, turn rate are nerfed way more than 17%). That's... changing things.

And it's also the fact that they both come at once. 2 significant nerfs, all at once.

And the ship is not exactly easy to buy, nor maintain. It's not exactly cheap.

So yeah, annoying.
 
Yes? And as it should be, would you not think?
They are both multi-purpose, one costs 300k, the other 56M. I'm confused at your post.
Would you buy a T9 and then think "well, but now the hauler is useless to me, that's not right"... ?
I disagree. The T9 and the Hauler are:

1) Both traders, and for a trader, a big cargo hold is VERY crucial. The Hauler is a joke compared to the T9 in those terms.
2) More "far away" from each other in terms of mass and tech, than, say, the Cobra and the Python.

Also, the Hauler can jump further than a T9, but given the fact that the Hauler can haul like what, 50 times less cargo, and 2x longer jump is nothing. So yes, the T9 is superior to the Hauler as a trading ship, in every possible way.

But that's kinda irrelevant, because when we talk about trading ships, we only compare cargo holds and jump distances, because that's what makes you money. What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to COMBAT ships (multi-purpose too, cuz they also can pack a punch), the difference is not so simple - I mean, sure, the Python, being larger than the Cobra, MUST be able to hit much harder and take more damage, but it doesn't mean that it should also have superior speed and maneuverability: it's MASSIVE, unlike the rather small Cobra. Like Poseidal said, you can only make bigger engines to gain power to some extent - at some point, the heat emanations and increased mass will cancel out the positive effects (i.e. the power gained from making it bigger will all be spent on moving its own increased mass).

Also, big ships are more expensive than the cheap ones not so much because they're superior technologically, but because they are much larger - bigger guns, bigger hull, bigger everything, which means more materials required to build that thing, etc.

tl;dr;
IMO, big ships should be able to "kaboom" smaller ones in a few shots and shrug off the fire of a few tiny pew-pew lasers/machineguns entirely (huge guns, tough shields, thick armor), but should also steer like a cow and accelerate slowly (top speed can be high, due to huge thrusters, but acceleration/deceleration must be slow, because of the mass). That's both gameplay balance and common sense (weight is zero in space, mass is not).

P.S. Python's shields should be nerfed - they're ridiculous. I'll find and post a vid where a guy on a Python with zero pips to shields rams and kills an NPC Pyton with 100% health, without even having his own shield fail. It's stupid - you can't ram a 500-ton chunk of steel into another and go through it like butter, even considering the "magic" shields.
Update: here's the vid that I was talking about (the title says "ramming a Python with a Python" in Russian, nevermind that):
[video=youtube;NhD54GwJV0Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NhD54GwJV0Y&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421914688[/video]
 
Last edited:
Yes? And as it should be, would you not think?

They are both multi-purpose, one costs 300k, the other 56M. I'm confused at your post.

Would you buy a T9 and then think "well, but now the hauler is useless to me, that's not right"... ?

Definitively, there should be some circumstances where you would rather have a Hauler than a Lakon 9 (and there is).

If the reason people are being confused by any nerfs is that they think that FD wants to make some kind of ''progression'' where higher price equals universally better performance, then I think that's the problem. They're not doing that. So if that's how anyone is reasoning, then you have a reason for the nerfs now.
 
Definitively, there should be some circumstances where you would rather have a Hauler than a Lakon 9 (and there is).

If the reason people are being confused by any nerfs is that they think that FD wants to make some kind of ''progression'' where higher price equals universally better performance, then I think that's the problem. They're not doing that. So if that's how anyone is reasoning, then you have a reason for the nerfs now.

Mate, ofc. And it's the price.

You were saying the price shouldn't be the sole reason. Well, i think it should. My comment was in context of your post. At any rates, need to jettison myself out of this forum.
 
I don't get this "nerf" mentality. The Python is a 57Mcr ship, WITHOUT upgrades, and topping 130MCr when A-modded.

For 130MCr, I'd expect my ship to be pretty darn good.

There is no need to "balance" everything "in relation to the sidewinder", because the sidewinder (or any other ship for that matter) doesn't cost 130MCr when A-modded. Some cost more, some cost less, and therefore do not need to be balanced to the Python.

So I for one will be very surprised and disappointed if the Python is nerfed.

Who knows on the Fer de lance? Until it comes out, no one.

Ugh, can we please back away from the nerf/buff/OP/imba terminology made popular by MMOs?
This game doesn't need to be "balanced" into irrelevance.

Python is way too good compared to the Anaconda, which is even more expensive. It's shields are as strong (or stronger) but it has all the advantages of being a smaller ship too. The 'heavy' firepower is the same, with the class 1s and class 4 (slow projectile weapons only) being the only thing the 'conda has over it.

Ships shouldn't be balanced based on price, but their size category and capability. Heavier ships should be tougher and have heavier weapons, trading off movement, for example. Currently, the Python is as tough as an Anaconda, can turn like a Cobra and is as fast as an Eagle, with firepower unmatched by anything else apart from the Anaconda, which has problems getting it's extra weapons to bear to take advantage of it over the Python. The ship currently doesn't make *sense*, regardless of 'balance'.

The python is getting a reduction to its agility. It was confirmed by Sandro in another thread, i have read it. And rightly so.

Its not about "pvp" balance, its about not having one ship thats better at everything than all the others. Thats what need balancing, so we can maintain viability for other ships in different roles.

If you want an agile ship, buy a fighter. If you want a less manoeuvrable gunboat, buy a python. Thats the message.

There will be tons more ships coming out. Far too early for either a super ship, or people crying about a slight agility nerf. It will still be a great ship.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom