Formula for fuel usage on laden FSDs absolutely needs changing

[Oshirigami]

Comparison with the Anaconda is basically saying "I want all ships to jump as well as the ship with the best jump range in the game".

Or comparing to the Conda because it's literally the only ship that can travel around the bubble with a full combat load? Lmao.

Also, since you didn't seem to figure out: 27LY range per jump is significantly more than 17LY.

Yet again, you aren't making an argument. You aren't refuting anything I've said. You're doing the opposite, providing more that further reinforces my argument.
Yes I'm comparing to the total jump range of a combat conda as that is the only ship that can reasonably get around most of the bubble with a combat build instead of needing to be transferred around.
It is the exact example of how it should more-so be the other combat ships when it comes to total range, while still having a lower per-jump range which means they still wouldn't match the taxing performance of the current Conda.

But really that combat conda's true range is higher than that because it can use an economical route. Ships with <20LY jump range can't because the economical route is generally the same as their fastest route and already less than their usual total range. You don't really understand the power of a long jump range and how it impacts economical routes, and how having a total range that better matches that of far jumping ships doesn't bring them remotely up to parity with those other ships you're comparing to because a far range per jump has its own great benefits.
It's about making it so you don't want to simply quit the game trying to play a combat ship because of how annoying being forced to transfer around instead of flying the damn ship you want is. It's far from being on par to how easy it is to travel around in an actual exploration ship or taxi.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yet again, you aren't making an argument. You aren't refuting anything I've said. You're doing the opposite, providing more that further reinforces my argument.

The argument against is made by the features offered in the game already, i.e. fuel scoops and extra fuel tanks - but they are being ignored as the obvious solution to the problem with an insistence that the game should be changed instead.

I don't agree that the game should be changed in this regard as compromise is at the heart of configuring a ship for any role.

.... and with that, I'm out too.

 

[Oshirigami]

Those "features", as they are, compromise the way the game is played and make it worse.
Those features are part of a poor design.

Like a few weeks ago I was doing RES with a friend in his Cutter and he's wanted. A Conda comes up hovering around him waiting for him to leave a station to try to jump him.
He's in a well outfitted cutter, with Prismatics, PAs, fighters, and so on.
Instead of fighting he runs because he has a fuel tank and scoop instead of 2 extra SCBs, giving him a combat disadvantage in PvP.
This design by the devs, where you can't actually PvP except with a ship you've transferred in, creates these situations that makes the game more passive and less fun. It should be changed.

I've given plenty examples of why this is bad and how it can be improved when all you've said is "This is how the game is. This is how FDev made it. They shouldn't change anything because changing it would be admission that they didn't go with a more optimal design from the start and would be a smudge against my favorite game."
Instead of wanting the game improved, you are taking an attack on its design that would/could/should lead to improving it as an attack on you.

There are lots of ways to fix or alleviate these issues.
-Fuel scoops could be an internal component so it's not a drawback to combat ships to fit one, save for the power usage of a large one.
-Dedicate a slot to fuel tank or scoop on combat ships so you're not at a disadvantage taking one over an SCB/
-A lot of ships could get a larger fuel tank. Still bad jump range, but at least give them decent total range.
-Change the formula as described in the OP so that less fuel is used when heavier and closer to the optimal mass for the same given jump range.
-Someone else I saw actually gave an interesting idea, which is to remove fuel usage for FSD entirely. At this point in the game, no one cares about fuel except when they do. No one in an exploration/taxi/transport cares. Only combat ships care, and care to the point that they're unusable in the way you want to use them. Instead, make fuel scoops instead gather mats for jumponium.
-Add a distress call to hopefully attract pirates that you can kill the salvage fuel. Most every similar game I've played has this... But this alone isn't enough. Some ships just plain need to be able to fit larger fuel tanks as a core component in addition.

And really, are you going to quit the game because suddenly people who want their ships outfitted for top tier combat don't have to transfer them around as much anymore? Does that really affect the game negatively for you?
Meanwhile lots of people quit because either:
a. they only want to fly a vulture or some other combat ship, and have grown tired of only being able to get 50-70LY on a tank and getting stuck somewhere in the bubble with no station to refuel at.
b. they grow tired spending tens of hours each month just waiting for their ship to be transferred to the various places they've had something to do with it.

Even a good deal of the moderators of the largest E Discord have quit the game and it predominantly seems to be over this issue. They say there's many, and that the game has great potential that it hasn't realized, but it seems to them that this issue (how they have to transfer their ships around instead of just flying them) is one of the biggest ones.
It was the last straw for me as well. Tons of issues in the game's design, and to be clear it's not the core design but the little details like this, bothered me up until this point my first few hundred hours. But when it came to this point that I realized I was going to be spending tens of hours each month simply waiting for my ship to arrive before I can do what I want with it, that was just the last straw and beyond what I can take.

I like punishing games, but this isn't simply punishing. It's just stupid like those facebook mom games where you have to wait 3 hours for your farm to build.

 

[Adjuster666]

Those "features", as they are, compromise the way the game is played and make it worse.
Those features are part of a poor design.

No

What you are really saying is "Those "features", as they are, compromise the way the game is played by me and make it worse than I want it to be.
Those features are part of a poor design because I want it my way.

 

[Vasious]

So if I understand correctly it is effectively the Endurance that is the issue

That Combat ships cannot make many jumps before their small tanks are exhausted.

So the the aim is to have a differential

Combat ships still have a low jump range, but a long endurance so they can travel without stopping to refuel and need not carry a fuel scoop
Vs
Ships with massive jump ranges but are fuel hungry thus need to stop for fuel, with with the long jump range travel with less jumps.

And Economic will not be the solution, as the fuel usage is tied to jump vs maximum range, to the ship with the huge jump range will use much less fuel to jump the same distance, exacerbating the OPs problem.

And Filter by Settled System, whilst avoids one being stranded only for Medium and Small ships

So either rejig the formula so smaller drives use less fuel for the maximum jump, and combine with either larger tanks for the combat leaning ships or add the ability to fit Fuel tanks (not scoops) in the Military internals ?

 

[LuxAeterna]

It's fine, I guess, that one max engineered ship can only get 19LY jump range like the FGS while the Conda can hit 71LY.
What's not fine is that that Conda roughly gets a 275 jump range on its 32 tons of fuel while the FGS only gets a measely 50-62lY on its 16 tons.

Where the heck does 50LY of total travel get you? There's lots of places where it's an extreme pain to plot jumps where you can refuel (especially without having to travel many additional minutes to reach the station to refuel each time) and make it there.
It's understandable that you'll need to transfer a 1.2ton ship around with a 2D FSD. But I have a 5A FSD with near perfect g5 jump on it and it's still a huge pain to jump it anywhere even within the bubble. It's obnoxious.

The 17-19LY jump range is okay, I guess. Not great, but whatever. But how far it can jump in total is absurd and absolutely needs to change.
Whereas a Conda can do economical jumps and go an insane distance, choosing economical routes with only a 17-19LY jump range usually changes literally nothing. The economical route ends up still being roughly the same and saves no fuel, or nearly no fuel.
Low jump ranges should work like economical by using less fuel. Laden FSDs shouldn't only have lower jump ranges, they should also use less fuel. Something like half the fuel used at their optimal mass. So as jump range goes down, so should the "max fuel".
So say a Conda can go 70LY on 5.2 tons of fuel, fine whatever, a maxed out FGS should at least be going its 19LY on 3 tons used or so and not the same 5.2 tons used.
Same with ships carrying a lot of cargo. Their max fuel usage should go down half as much as their jump range goes down, so their total range isn't as affected as the range of each jump.
One of the FSD drives like B rated could further be more economical than usual. So while the range of each jump is lower and it's heavier, the same size fuel tank can take you much further.

That, or you need to be able to hop into any ship you own at another station like "holo-me" multi-crew does. Really both things should be changed, but I'd settle for either.

This sounds like another "I want it my way and I'll argue with anyone until I get my way" thread (hint: you won't).