Frontier, can we PLEASE have a new Exploration ship now?

[XW_Ziggy]

IMO an explorer-specific ship is something with a massively oversized FSD. Until FDev add some gameplay that isn't mind-numbing to the scoop-jump cycle, the sheer number of jumps and wasted time is the biggest barrier to most people leaving the bubble in any meaningful way.

7A frame shift drives exist in the game and have a mass of 104T at maximum engineered range, yet the only ships we can fit them too come in at vastly more than 1000T. If all the combat ships sacrifice jump range for firepower, why can't we have an explorer ship that sacrifices firepower for jump range? There's no need for FDev to force ridiculously heavy C7 power distributors (80T), life support (80T) or sensors (80T) on a ship that will not be used for combat. Give it rubbish hardpoints, utility mounts, a combat-unsuitable power distributor, and limit cargo bays because explorers aren't cargo haulers and needless hull mass to support unused cargo bays hurts jump range.

 

[kofeyh]

If there was a ship with a better jump range than the 'Conda that was cheaper and had better SC handling, that table would be even more skewed.

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or simply haven't bothered to read my post where I made it fairly clear why the disparity exists. Anaconda is a good 10 LY ahead of anything else. And it does that whilst retaining 11 optional module bays, and 8 utility mounts and 8 hardpoint mounts. In a game with rampant module proliferation.

So why are you assuming starving people of capability, solves anything? Hint: it doesn't. And in fact misses the entire point.

It would be less skewed if there were more ships with similar capabilities. This is called choice. Replacing Anaconda is the same mistake as Anaconda. If you cannot solve the outlier; you reduce the gap so it ceases to be one.

Frontier has elected to not resolve the outlier; ergo the logical next step is to bridge the gap. Frontier has always been able to solve this; I wish them to try.

 

[Friedenreich Xante]

IMO an explorer-specific ship is something with a massively oversized FSD. Until FDev add some gameplay that isn't mind-numbing to the scoop-jump cycle, the sheer number of jumps and wasted time is the biggest barrier to most people leaving the bubble in any meaningful way.

7A frame shift drives exist in the game and have a mass of 104T at maximum engineered range, yet the only ships we can fit them too come in at vastly more than 1000T. If all the combat ships sacrifice jump range for firepower, why can't we have an explorer ship that sacrifices firepower for jump range? There's no need for FDev to force ridiculously heavy C7 power distributors (80T), life support (80T) or sensors (80T) on a ship that will not be used for combat. Give it rubbish hardpoints, utility mounts, a combat-unsuitable power distributor, and limit cargo bays because explorers aren't cargo haulers and needless hull mass to support unused cargo bays hurts jump range.

Repped. Nothing hinders the shipyard engineers to make a ship with size 2 PP, size 1 Distri, size 4 thruster and size 7 FSD with a 180° canopy on the nose of the ship and only 2 medium hardpoints and 2 utilities, and 8/5/5/4/4/3/1/1/1/1 optionals. Give it a 600 tons hull and it still jump almost 43 ly, 70 when engineered, just as much as the conda.

Why do Explorers Need to make choices between ships initially made for other occupations? There are 3 elite ranks: Trade, Combat and Exploration, yet the latter has only 2 dedicated ships, None in the catergory "large". The Conda is a creep 50% of Explorers feel forced to use because of jump range and optional slots. So either give us a new dedicated large Explorer ship, or at least Access to the front canopy of the conda, in the meantime.

So why doesn't (almost) everybody fly one?
Is it so hard for you to understand that the Anaconda is not the uber-ship in all regards, even though it's widely appreciated?

Never said that. And not everybody can afford it, and for others the canopy and/or SC-handling is to much of a downer to bear - which I can understand. Still it is the most used ship for that purpose, disregard all its drawbacks.

 

[Vorxian]

It's clear. 41% of players use 8% of the ships in 12% of the tasks that 90% of the time are 6% used.

I mean, if you don't get it, then, I'll eat my desk with sesame oil & balsamic vinegar dippers.

 

[Friedenreich Xante]

It's clear. 41% of players use 8% of the ships in 12% of the tasks that 90% of the time are 6% used.

I mean, if you don't get it, then, I'll eat my desk with sesame oil & balsamic vinegar dippers.

With the percentage of matematicians around here, I wish you a good Appetite

 

[The Replicated Man]

Hello Frontier,

I think this has been brought up a few times, but it has indeed gotten to the point of extreme frustration for so so many people.

Every single new ship released in the last year or more has been combat focused. Even the multi-role Krait is a basically a more combat friendly version of the Python. And before that, we got the Beluga (still in a bad spot, still needs buffs) and the Dolphin.

You know what's missing here?

The last time we got an exploration focused ship was THREE YEARS AGO (Diamondback Explorer). Since then, nothing. There are a grand total of three deep space exploration friendly ships currently available: Diamondback Explorer, Asp Explorer, Anaconda. And when I say deep space exploration, I mean ships with a pre-engi/pre-guardian tech jump range of over 30LY when fitted with D-rated gear.

Now obviously, any ship can go exploring in the deep ... but when you're travelling FAR, range matters a great great deal as space sickness is a thing and sometimes you need to get back to the nearest base ASAP.

The biggest problem with the current lineup is that there's no decent mid-range explorer. There's this big gap between the Asp and the Anaconda where a huge number of low jump range ships lie. The community *absolutely* needs a dedicated explorer in the 30-50 million credit range stock. And certainly something much more agile in supercruise than the Anaconda (I HATE exploring in that thing), as well as having a better cockpit view. As it stands, you either take DBX or AspX for an agile and comfortable explorer with limited internals, or you grab an Anaconda that can fit limpets and a fighter bay, but feels like you're piloting a coma patient.

Those of us who like travelling far are more than happy to have a ship with very limited weaponry a la cargo ship or passenger liner. Give us an 8 or 9 optional slot ship with a great cockpit view, good supercruise agility, and great range, and we'll be happy and stop complaining.

Anything in the works? Maybe a pair of explorers that arrive with the exploration update?

The Krait has Great jump range. See what I did there?

Ill get my hat.......

 

[Vorxian]

With the percentage of matematicians around here, I wish you a good Appetite

there's a 90% chance I'll eat 2% of my desk, with an understanding that 50% of my promise may only amount to a 30% chance of of 1% consumption.

om nom nom!

 

[kofeyh]

It's clear. 41% of players use 8% of the ships in 12% of the tasks that 90% of the time are 6% used.

I mean, if you don't get it, then, I'll eat my desk with sesame oil & balsamic vinegar dippers.

Bon Appétit:

Spoiler

 

[Old Duck]

Why do Explorers Need to make choices between ships initially made for other occupations? There are 3 elite ranks: Trade, Combat and Exploration, yet the latter has only 2 dedicated ships, None in the catergory "large". The Conda is a creep 50% of Explorers feel forced to use because of jump range and optional slots. So either give us a new dedicated large Explorer ship, or at least Access to the front canopy of the conda, in the meantime.

The Force is strong with this argument. [up]

 

[Zelos1983]

Why do Explorers Need to make choices between ships initially made for other occupations? There are 3 elite ranks: Trade, Combat and Exploration, yet the latter has only 2 dedicated ships, None in the catergory "large".

The best Trader is the Cutter. I'm not a fan of tying ships to "occupations". They should be highly modifyable.

The Conda is a creep 50% of Explorers feel forced to use because of jump range and optional slots. So either give us a new dedicated large Explorer ship, or at least Access to the front canopy of the conda, in the meantime.

So you want a large ship (sacrificing outpost landing capability) that's better suited for exploration than the Anaconda. Because you think the SC handling is too much of a downside and people shouldn't compromise on the relatively humongous (compared to before engineers) jump range of alternatives like the T7 or Krait?

Never said that. And not everybody can afford it, and for others the canopy and/or SC-handling is to much of a downer to bear - which I can understand. Still it is the most used ship for that purpose, disregard all its drawbacks.

You defended the notion that there is an uber-exploration ship that should be the obvious choice for everyone, even though less than half of the explorers actually choose it.

 

[Morbad]

Krait is my new explorer of choice.

 

[MrFailfactory]

I've traveled nearly 1 million LYs and never fitted an AFMU.
Exploration is completely viable without them - just fit Heat Sink launchers and you won't get cooked. Not that I fit those either and I STILL don't get cooked - lightly toasted at most.

I think claiming that combat pilots get special treatment is slightly misleading - there's a lot of them, but they all have drawbacks and optimizing them takes sacrifices.

Finally, you claim there's a lack of choice involved in exploration ships - but unless you're obsessed with jump range there are plenty of ships that are perfectly viable for exploration, including the NEW Krait II.
If FDev create a new 6-slot explorer with a jump range exceeding the 'Conda then the choice of exploration ships actually goes DOWN because the AspX and the DBX become redundant.

Normally, I don't do this, but I stopped reading the thread right here to respond - I tried and tried to explain this to Mengy, and failed. The ship that people like Mengy (and the OP) want does exactly this, and they can't see or understand that. It removes choice, rather than adding it. If Frontier added a ship with comparable jump range to the AspX and DBX, but has more internals, those ships have indeed been outclassed. The only thing they might have left is an aesthetic preference, but that's about it. The Krait has achieved this for a number of Commanders (perhaps a large number of Commanders), and that's without the jump range. It's close enough to compete, but doesn't outclass.

The Travelers are indeed still waiting on their new ship, but Explorers have gotten a *really* solid new choice in the Krait. It even has FSD+1 capability, you might think Frontier was listening when they designed this one...

I am still reading the thread, and hope to find out that you have had more luck with Kaybe than I did with Mengy.

Riôt

 

[Stealthie]

Normally, I don't do this, but I stopped reading the thread right here to respond - I tried and tried to explain this to Mengy, and failed. The ship that people like Mengy (and the OP) want does exactly this, and they can't see or understand that. It removes choice, rather than adding it. If Frontier added a ship with comparable jump range to the AspX and DBX, but has more internals, those ships have indeed been outclassed. The only thing they might have left is an aesthetic preference, but that's about it. The Krait has achieved this for a number of Commanders (perhaps a large number of Commanders), and that's without the jump range. It's close enough to compete, but doesn't outclass.

The Travelers are indeed still waiting on their new ship, but Explorers have gotten a *really* solid new choice in the Krait. It even has FSD+1 capability, you might think Frontier was listening when they designed this one...

I am still reading the thread, and hope to find out that you have had more luck with Kaybe than I did with Mengy.

Riôt

I think the argument is that we already have an "ultimate exploration ship" in the Anaconda - which renders everything else inferior - and people would like a proper exploration ship that isn't just a big, daft, multirole sprinkled with pixie-dust.

I do agree, though, that providing such a ship would simply shift the focus to the new ship rather than to the potential of a variety of ships.

That's why I'd rather FDev came up with some way for us to modify the fundamental attributes of our ships.
That way, you could take a Cobra, Krait, AspX, Clipper or whatever and make it into a decent exploration ship.
What you wouldn't be able to do would be to then convert it into a combat ship or, trade ship or anything else.
So, you'd have to buy another one for a different role.
Which'd probably be a good thing.

 

[kofeyh]

The best Trader is the Cutter. I'm not a fan of tying ships to "occupations". They should be highly modifyable.

Technically the best is type-9, as it's specifically a trade ship. Cutter, like Anaconda isn't a dedicated ship regardless, so I have no idea what your point even is.

So you want a large ship (sacrificing outpost landing capability) that's better suited for exploration than the Anaconda.

I'm fine with a medium ship that is within ~2 LY of Anaconda with an equivalent build. Good internals, say 10 internal bays of varying sizes. But the point of an exploration class ship, is Exploration. Much like a combat ship, for combat; or trade for trade.

Because you think the SC handling is too much of a downside and people shouldn't compromise on the relatively humongous (compared to before engineers) jump range of alternatives like the T7 or Krait?

Define "humongous"; they are still well below Anaconda, and that only distorts further with engineering. Anaconda is 400T hull mass with 10 internal bays (11 counting the military slot).. there is nothing else, period. Everything else is a compromise. And a bad one.

You defended the notion that there is an uber-exploration ship that should be the obvious choice for everyone, even though less than half of the explorers actually choose it.

The single biggest percentage is Anaconda. Everything else is second. That, well, being the point of the thing; ignoring that Anaconda is not an exploration ship, but rather a military transport. I'm not sure how more choice is a problem here.

We do not even have a large exploration class ship for that matter. Just a medium (Asp Explorer) and a small (Diamondback Explorer). And neither are even close to Anaconda.

 

[Friedenreich Xante]

You defended the notion that there is an uber-exploration ship that should be the obvious choice for everyone, even though less than half of the explorers actually choose it.

Oh I did that? If you could please Quote that Statement of me so I know I Need my medication against schizophreny. (hint: I certainly didn't say that)

I'm certainly not forcing the Conda on anyone. People make their own choices. When I'm in the black where there is no Station at all 99% of all time I don't care about outpost landing capability. And yes, I don't want to sacrifice jump range. Like apparently almost 50% of all Explorers. Saying jump range isn't necessary for Exploration is neither right nor wrong. It's a choice, mainly tied to the Exploration style. Without any Long-jump alternative in the large vessel category, the Anaconda is naturally the most used, whereas there are plenty fast Exploration ships in the medium and small category.



Must... spread... rep... kofeyh...

 

[Zelos1983]

Technically the best is type-9, as it's specifically a trade ship.

Only after the last update that nerfed the cutter compared to the T9. And it still has a higher jump range.

so I have no idea what your point even is.

Well, I explained it already. Don't know why it's hard to understand fo you.

Define "humongous"; they are still well below Anaconda, and that only distorts further with engineering. Anaconda is 400T hull mass with 10 internal bays (11 counting the military slot).. there is nothing else, period. Everything else is a compromise. And a bad one.

The original Conda had around 40LY max jump range. That used to be enough for an exploration ship. Now people complain that a 40 or 50LY Krait or T7 isn't enough and they don't want to do the compromise of flying a Conda.

The single biggest percentage is Anaconda. Everything else is second. That, well, being the point of the thing; ignoring that Anaconda is not an exploration ship, but rather a military transport. I'm not sure how more choice is a problem here.

We already have 35 ships. We need other stuff, like SRVs.

We do not even have a large exploration class ship for that matter. Just a medium (Asp Explorer) and a small (Diamondback Explorer). And neither are even close to Anaconda.

The Anaconda is an exploration vessel.

 

[kofeyh]

That's why I'd rather FDev came up with some way for us to modify the fundamental attributes of our ships.

They already tried this. Guardian modules. And Anaconda can use 'em all too. So the outlier, continues to be an outlier. The solution has never been to replace Anaconda; it's to narrow the gap. Your suggestion misses that Anaconda would necessarily gain the same attribute adjustment and so it would retain the status quo.

Frontier has previously trying to have their cake (leave the Anaconda as is) and eat it (pretend it doesn't exist and create excessive compromise). It's been counter productive, and indeed when you look at the stats of Challenger and Krait, Frontier have perhaps returned to pre-2.0 building of ships that are actually fit for purpose.

I would very much like to see that trend continue. Perhaps with the exploration ships gaining a much needed boost in internals, utility and range and Frontier adding a large exploration class vessel that is also fit for purpose.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Krait is my new explorer of choice.

If the Kra2t had been named 'Krait Explorer' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

Given some of the stuff I've been flying lately, I'm not overly picky.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;OzwDAioQE00]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzwDAioQE00[/video]

 

[Stealthie]

They already tried this. Guardian modules. And Anaconda can use 'em all too. So the outlier, continues to be an outlier. The solution has never been to replace Anaconda; it's to narrow the gap. Your suggestion misses that Anaconda would necessarily gain the same attribute adjustment and so it would retain the status quo.

Nooo, you're misunderstanding.

As I said earlier, I'd like to see something which allowed you to take a ship to a "main dealership" and you could pick from a selection of pre-defined templates which would modify various aspects of a ship (PP, PDist, Sensors, Life-support and optional slot configuration) to suit a specific role in the game.

You'd prevent the Anaconda retaining it's dominance by, to be blunt, giving it mediocre modification choices so that modifying various other ships would make them as good as an Annie for specific things whereas the mod's for the Annie, itself, would only yield small improvements.