Frontier, it's time you balanced ALL ships and internals- Size/Mass.

Title says it all.

Enough of the "handwavium reasons", if a ship is of appropriate size/mass, you should be able to slot the appropriate amount of internals- or equip modules that fit into those internal slots.

There are ridiculous disparities between a lot of the ships because "reasons", and it's time to balance them all so there's appropriate reasons to utilize the internal space available. The fact that the Beluga is larger than the "Big 3" ships yet a Cutter can hold up to 792 tons of cargo is absolute proof of this. The Imperial Clipper is one of the larger ships in the game- yet the Python as a "medium" ship can hold more cargo?

Then we have that absolutely laughable 400T mass on the Anaconda... yet when compared in size to a similar ships- they simply don't hold a candle to the ability it gives the Anaconda in terms of Jump Range and being able to equip modules based on mass. Anaconda needs to be 800T, plain and simple.

There are many other examples - even down to the medium/smaller ships- Python being able to hold more cargo than a Type-7 (which is classified as a cargo ship- where the Python is not) and Keelback being able to field SLF with a Class 5 slot while a ship of comparative size even with a larger class slot is not able to equip one. Why? If you're paying someone to customize your ship- there shouldn't be a reason for why they cannot retrofit it with whatever module you please. You want to limit module sizes in ships of appropriate size for "balance" reasons- I get it, but why then further restrict what ships can do with those size internals even further? You have a cardboard box of "X" size, and you can put "Y" amount of mass inside that box. It's really not rocket science. Want to relegate it to "structural integrity"? Then the Anaconda is a clear example of how that fails- brittle internal integrity yet it can fit a godly amount of modules and hold up to the stresses of extreme range hyperspace jumps? Sorry, not buying it.

I could go on and on and on, but it's pointlessly obvious- and I'd just be parroting the same concerns that have been voiced for years now.

It's time for a complete ship balance based on current implementation and the way it affects the game as a whole. You already know some players are going to kick, scream, cry and salt mine the forums in response but it needs to happen. There is no "gentle" way to approach it. Adjust prices accordingly as needed. If credit differences are the "reason" then we should have the option of customizing internals based on credits, too. Credit prices shouldn't be the reason why we cannot have ship balancing when it affects game play.

Either buff other ships so that they're in line with the same standards- or nerf the ones that are above standards. No more "Big 3 Go-To ships", every ship in this game should have purpose and meaning... not just exist as a stepping stone for the "biggest" available. Moving forward, future ship balance also needs to take into account this game is not (and never has been) solely a multiplayer experience- but a hybrid where both single and multiplayer experiences are available as a choice.

IMO ship size should not be a "progression standard" in Elite Dangerous- it's about experiencing the galaxy in its true form and scale.
 
Last edited:
If what you proposed happened, prices would have to be adjusted as well. Your T-7 Python example for instance - The Python is a lot more cash hull wise for a reason. If you spend more you should get quality.
 
If what you proposed happened, prices would have to be adjusted as well. Your T-7 Python example for instance - The Python is a lot more cash hull wise for a reason. If you spend more you should get quality.
Agreed completely. Adjust prices as needed- credit differences shouldn't be the reason why absurdity exists.

Edited the OP to reflect- good call, thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
I can't get behind this. Each ship has it's own personality and quirks. I like it that way. Homogenizing all of the ships into All-'rounders is not my idea of balance. All of these restrictions and limitations are there to make us as players make choices. I just can't agree with an idea where choice comes down to what space barbie skin you want to wear. There is nothing wrong with us players having to consider and make allowances for ship design. Sorry, this is just an attempt to beigificate our ships.
 
I can't get behind this. Each ship has it's own personality and quirks. I like it that way. Homogenizing all of the ships into All-'rounders is not my idea of balance. All of these restrictions and limitations are there to make us as players make choices. I just can't agree with an idea where choice comes down to what space barbie skin you want to wear. There is nothing wrong with us players having to consider and make allowances for ship design. Sorry, this is just an attempt to beigificate our ships.
Not at all, though I respect your opinion for wanting ships to be different. It's an attempt to truly balance ships according to the mechanics introduced by Frontier to begin with. They made the restrictions dependent on such mechanics, therefore all ships should obey the same- not some ships should clearly stand out arbitrarily because they need to be "different".

If such ships should be "different" then they need to base such on different game mechanics- not simple handwavium. That's the entire point of why disparity exists.
 
Last edited:
The T-7 can carry more than a Python now can't it? It got a buff a while back.

I think there are a few tweaks that could benefit the game at little cost (give the diamondbacks an extra class 1 slot for example), I don't think a major rework is necessarily required.

FDev have stats available to tell them which ships are the least used (for any reason), look at those ships & maybe buff those in some way to boost their popularity.
 
The T-7 can carry more than a Python now can't it? It got a buff a while back.

I think there are a few tweaks that could benefit the game at little cost (give the diamondbacks an extra class 1 slot for example), I don't think a major rework is necessarily required.

FDev have stats available to tell them which ships are the least used (for any reason), look at those ships & maybe buff those in some way to boost their popularity.
Good points, but it still doesn't solve why the Python is even remotely comparable when there's a clear size difference. It shouldn't even come relatively close to a larger vessel by the same mechanical standards- which is what this thread is about. If they're going to introduce "size" differences (which they clearly have)- then they need to be standardized across the board, and not make some ships magically comparable with handwavium. "Adding a slot or two to certain ships" in order to bring them up to the same standards is exactly what I'm referring to here- but it still doesn't solve all the other module disparities (why SLF's can be equipped in some ships as opposed to others, even if they have enough room/space to incorporate them as one example) or the mass difference in the Anaconda, for another. Also- think about the Imperial Clipper vs Python, etc. How much cargo space can you put in a Python vs a Clipper?

At a glance- based on "cargo space" alone...

Python (MEDIUM) = 284T cargo space
Type-7 (LARGE) = 300T cargo space
Clipper (LARGE) = 240T cargo space

This isn't about buffing one or two ships. A complete and comprehensive review is needed.

Note: It's also not JUST about "cargo space" either. It's about the difference with internal module sizes in comparison to the ship size, as well as many other factors. (let's not even get into the flight model/handling mechanics... ugh)
 
Last edited:
I think you are over looking the module loading and unloading unions on the spaceport docks and the shipbuilders controlling specs for their own nefarious reasons while lining the pockets of government leaders. =)
 
I don't see any handwhatever. I see ships designed to have individuality. Military slots help combat ships fight better. The FAS was largely discounted as a combat ship prior to the introduction of military slots, and MRPs. Passenger ships having dedicated slots for passenger cabins makes perfect sense. Of course some ships are going to stand out. Especially for their intended design and role.

Homogenizing has no benefit. We have over thirty ships to choose from. I'd hate for the choice to come down to what it looks like, alone.

I have to say, that FD use their mechanics as they were intended. I mean that goes without saying, they design the mechanics.....
 
Inb4 500 post of don't touch my ship...
As I also stated in the OP- they already know that some are going to kick, scream, cry and salt mine.

Enough is enough, and ships need to be truly balanced instead of this irrational fear that their suddenly OP ship becomes "worthless" to them just because others are brought up to the same mechanical standards.
 
I don't see any handwhatever. I see ships designed to have individuality. Military slots help combat ships fight better. The FAS was largely discounted as a combat ship prior to the introduction of military slots, and MRPs. Passenger ships having dedicated slots for passenger cabins makes perfect sense. Of course some ships are going to stand out. Especially for their intended design and role.

Homogenizing has no benefit. We have over thirty ships to choose from. I'd hate for the choice to come down to what it looks like, alone.

I have to say, that FD use their mechanics as they were intended. I mean that goes without saying, they design the mechanics.....
What you see as "homogenizing" I see as "balance". If balance wasn't needed- then you'd have a point. They could arbitrarily change ships into whatever they want them to be without justification.

But balance is indeed necessary.
 
Good points, but it still doesn't solve why the Python is even remotely comparable when there's a clear size difference. It shouldn't even come relatively close to a larger vessel by the same mechanical standards- which is what this thread is about. If they're going to introduce "size" differences (which they clearly have)- then they need to be standardized across the board, and not make some ships magically comparable with handwavium. "Adding a slot or two to certain ships" in order to bring them up to the same standards is exactly what I'm referring to here- but it still doesn't solve all the other module disparities (why SLF's can be equipped in some ships as opposed to others, even if they have enough room/space to incorporate them as one example) or the mass difference in the Anaconda, for another. Also- think about the Imperial Clipper vs Python, etc. How much cargo space can you put in a Python vs a Clipper?

This isn't about buffing one or two ships. A complete and comprehensive review is needed.
I may be wrong on this, but my personal ship stats say these ships have the following max cargo capacity (filling all optional slots with cargo racks):

T-7 - 308t
Clipper - 248t
Python - 292t

The T-7 & Clipper are both (relatively) cheap to buy but are limited to large pads. The clipper is very cool, fast & safe, the T-7 is an overheating coffin. So the T-7 does not compare well to the Clipper, but the Clipper is rank locked and it's not unusual for players to already have a Python by the time the Clipper becomes available.

The Python is an expensive ship, it's also cool (one of the 'classic' range from the original game), pretty tough and well armed. I own a few Pythons, they are expensive but worth it & I use them regularly. I own a T-7 too, mostly for testing & variety, I have passed the point in the game where it was useful. I own a Clipper that again I rarely use, mostly because I neither pirate nor mine very much. It is nice to fly though.

So the T-7 comes out worst of this comparison, but it is a cheap van. If it had class leading economy or excellent jump range I might have a use for it, if it could fit on a medium pad I might consider it for BGS work but realistically the Python is the better multi-role despite it's extra cost & lower capacity.

I do think it's important that the ships have costs as well as benefits, and I'd be interested to read some gameplay justifications for each ship's stats in turn (which would probably highlight inconsistencies for review). In general there are enough ships that every role can be filled by at least two I think, with differing pros & cons.
 
Serious reply (strange I know), it is no small feat to do this right and I have yet to see an MMO "balance" classes with obvious, albeit nonsensical, advantages without breaking more than they sought to correct. The variety of ships is one of the best parts and while I agree specific specs on some specific ships are out of whack, I also firmly believe ship internal layout and design cannot be ignored. You cannot look at a Beluga's dimensions and see a warehouse since it was intended for passenger cabins. The internal design would better dictate the use of space. A python may actually be a lot of open space more suited for more cargo modules. The Cutter as well, although perhaps its internal geometries makes it suitable for a lot of variety. I don't have words for the Annie and despite my great love for her its mass does in fact make no sense. I am a former sailor and currently work on naval ships and have been on board many differesnt classes. The mass and external dimensions of a carrier verses a supply ship does not mean one is more suited to carry more cargo or more aircraft than the other based on that solely....it is how she is built internally.
 
There is no balance, there are just ships. Just how do you propose to achieve balance between the Eagle, Vulture, FAS, aChief, and FdL? Give them all the same stats? That's just five ships, all with the same focus. The closest thing to balance we can expect is equal access, and we have that.
 
What you see as "homogenizing" I see as "balance". If balance wasn't needed- then you'd have a point. They could arbitrarily change ships into whatever they want them to be without justification.

But balance is indeed necessary.
But you are balancing family sedans, sports cars and cargo vans, they where all built with specific purposes. For the record I do agree with you to a degree, we could use some tweaks.
 
I may be wrong on this, but my personal ship stats say these ships have the following max cargo capacity (filling all optional slots with cargo racks):

T-7 - 308t
Clipper - 248t
Python - 292t

The T-7 & Clipper are both (relatively) cheap to buy but are limited to large pads. The clipper is very cool, fast & safe, the T-7 is an overheating coffin. So the T-7 does not compare well to the Clipper, but the Clipper is rank locked and it's not unusual for players to already have a Python by the time the Clipper becomes available.

The Python is an expensive ship, it's also cool (one of the 'classic' range from the original game), pretty tough and well armed. I own a few Pythons, they are expensive but worth it & I use them regularly. I own a T-7 too, mostly for testing & variety, I have passed the point in the game where it was useful. I own a Clipper that again I rarely use, mostly because I neither pirate nor mine very much. It is nice to fly though.

So the T-7 comes out worst of this comparison, but it is a cheap van. If it had class leading economy or excellent jump range I might have a use for it, if it could fit on a medium pad I might consider it for BGS work but realistically the Python is the better multi-role despite it's extra cost & lower capacity.

I do think it's important that the ships have costs as well as benefits, and I'd be interested to read some gameplay justifications for each ship's stats in turn (which would probably highlight inconsistencies for review). In general there are enough ships that every role can be filled by at least two I think, with differing pros & cons.
Credit difference in price shouldn't determine the viability of a ships internal module capacity.

If credit disparities exist- it must be determined on other non-mechanical factors that don't affect gameplay- similarly to how "Pay to Win" mechanics affect gameplay- there's a reason why balance exists.

Price differences alone are not enough to justify an imbalance when it comes to how you can fit "X" amount of mass inside of "Y" amount of space. There's no magical "bag of holding" when it comes to Physics. If you're going to base game play mechanics on physics- you need to make sure you're not cherry-picking which laws you want to follow.

Adjust prices to reflect changes. It should not stop us from achieving true balance.
 
I can't get behind this. Each ship has it's own personality and quirks. I like it that way. Homogenizing all of the ships into All-'rounders is not my idea of balance. All of these restrictions and limitations are there to make us as players make choices. I just can't agree with an idea where choice comes down to what space barbie skin you want to wear. There is nothing wrong with us players having to consider and make allowances for ship design. Sorry, this is just an attempt to beigificate our ships.
I dunno why people seem to leap to this conclusion whenever somebody tries to discuss consistency and plausibility.
We live in a world that's consistent and plausible and yet we still manage to build a hugely diverse range of cars, boats planes etc.

I've got no idea how far into this FDev get but I'd certainly like to see it all figured out.

There are way too many cases of ships which, say, use the same thrusters and weigh roughly the same and yet which have notably difference top speeds or have roughly the same mass and use the same shield generator but have totally different shield strengths or are similar sizes and weights but have different armor ratings etc.

Thing is, if you sorted all this stuff out so it was all being modeled consistently, you probably would end up with a lot of ships with very similar characteristics.
But, that's okay.
Once you'd set everything up so the ships were being modeled consistently, rather than just relying on "fiddle factors" to nerf/buff different ships, you could simply twiddle the builds to create the required amount of diversity.
And, if that means that a ship needs to be fitted with bigger thrusters, or a bigger FSD, or whatever to get it into the "zone" where it's supposed to be, fair enough.


I'd love to see all this done properly in order to create a plausible, diverse, range of ships in the game.... rather than just adding restricted slots to please people. ;)
 
Last edited:
Serious reply (strange I know), it is no small feat to do this right and I have yet to see an MMO "balance" classes with obvious, albeit nonsensical, advantages without breaking more than they sought to correct. The variety of ships is one of the best parts and while I agree specific specs on some specific ships are out of whack, I also firmly believe ship internal layout and design cannot be ignored. You cannot look at a Beluga's dimensions and see a warehouse since it was intended for passenger cabins. The internal design would better dictate the use of space. A python may actually be a lot of open space more suited for more cargo modules. The Cutter as well, although perhaps its internal geometries makes it suitable for a lot of variety. I don't have words for the Annie and despite my great love for her its mass does in fact make no sense. I am a former sailor and currently work on naval ships and have been on board many differesnt classes. The mass and external dimensions of a carrier verses a supply ship does not mean one is more suited to carry more cargo or more aircraft than the other based on that solely....it is how she is built internally.
Also very good points- internal structural design does indeed affect a great many things about how you may/can place objects internally. Do we currently have any reference to follow about the internals of any ship, though? Has anyone actually seen the inside of any of them? All we've seen is the inside of the cockpits. I don't think any of us can demonstrate the "reasons" for why the internals are different- let alone justify the reason disparity exists, on either side of this fence. (for or against)

IMO that's also where the "handwavium" comes into play- because as long as Frontier can just say "because internal structure" it simply dismisses any disparity that exists in terms of balance. I'm not satisfied with it- for the same example I gave of the Anaconda- which clearly has a "brittle" internal structure yet it succeeds many other ships in terms of performance- especially under stresses of jump capability, being able to internally hold MUCH more than comparably sized ships, etc.

If Frontier is going to base decisions of game play mechanics on such details- then we clearly need more detail. If not, they may as well do away with all numbers and just say "some ships are just better because we want them to be."
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom