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

[Sylveria]

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.

Exactly what I'm referring to- plausibility and consistency. If one can simply dismiss certain mechanics because "suspension of disbelief" then why do we even bother with details of balancing in the game to begin with? Why not just make ships completely enclosed, with no options for change and say some are just better than others? To hell with ship customization! Let's just dismiss plausibility and consistency altogether, shall we?

Yes, I know it's a controversial subject. And I know some will not agree. I fully expect it.

 

[V'larr]

Yeah. Ship mass, size, and internal slot relations could use a big HEAP of consistency across the board.

 

[Mohrgan]

It is entirely plausible that varied manufacturers making a variety of ships using multiple manufacturing methods would return a myriad of performance characteristics. Even between ships of the same make/model. I would hate to see everything mashed into sameness.

 

[Sylveria]

It is entirely plausible that varied manufacturers making a variety of ships using multiple manufacturing methods would return a myriad of performance characteristics. Even between ships of the same make/model. I would hate to see everything mashed into sameness.

Please, demonstrate how all 30+ ships will become "the same" because internals are finally balanced according to ship size and mass?

Sizes are already clearly different- and they will remain clearly different. It just means those that are deemed a certain size and mass will finally be matched internally to reflect it.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

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

I'm with you 100% percent with this.

FD also need to have another look at the absurdity of the scaling certain modules. In particular limpet controllers. Why a class 7 module that is 64 times large than a class 1 module only controls 4 times the number of limpets is just ridiculous.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

As a contrary old git I quite like the fact that there are lame-duck ships.
I enjoy buying them and trying to find a use for them.

I still think the 'Conda needs a weight nerf though.

 

[Mohrgan]

I'm not impressed by strata of sameness either. What fun is choosing between size and skin? That's not much better than just the skin alone.

 

[Stealthie]

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)

I think there comes a point where you have to rely on constants rather than trying to model things dynamically.

Looking at the issue of ship hulls, for example, it seems pretty likely that ships aren't all built from the same material.
So maybe there are half a dozen different basic material that hulls are built from and they all have benefits and drawbacks.
One material might be heavy and weak but cheap.
Another material might be light and weak, and slightly more expensive.
Another material might be heavy and strong and more expensive.
Another material might be light and strong and very expensive.

Then you take the 3D model, establish it's surface area and decide what you're going to "build" it out of to achieve the weight, armor rating and cost that you want.
Obviously, the more armor (and weight, and cost), the more you eat into the internal space available.

And then, with that done, you apply some kind of constant to "describe" the construction method.
Combat ships would, presumably, be extremely sturdy so they might have a construction constant of 1. Armor strength x 1 = armor rating.
Multirole ships might not be as well built as combat ships and might have a construction constant of 0.75. Armour strength x 0.75 = armor rating.
High quality Trade ships might not be as well built as multiroles and have a construction constant of 0.5.
Low quality trade ships and exploration ships might have a construction constant of 0.25.

So, you set all that up and see what happens.
And, if it turns out that the ships aren't in the "zone" where they're intended to be, you try "building" them with a different material, or making the hulls thicker/thinner until you get results somewhere near what you're looking for.

And, of course, you could deliberately create aberrations.
Pick a ship which is a lame-duck and maybe give it a higher construction constant that might be expected, as if it's a tough old ship that was built to last
Or maybe create a combat ship and give it a low construction constant, as if it's a bit of a deathtrap if you get into trouble in it.

And if that, in turn, means that a ship's price, weight or internal space changes dramatically, so be it.
But then you can still compensate for a lot of that stuff simply by changing the modules fitted to a ship - or changing the characteristics of a module itself - until, again, the ship is in the "zone" where it's supposed to be.

 

[Sylveria]

I think there comes a point where you have to rely on constants rather than trying to model things dynamically.

Looking at the issue of ship hulls, for example, it seems pretty likely that ships aren't all built from the same material.
So maybe there are half a dozen different basic material that hulls are built from and they all have benefits and drawbacks.
One material might be heavy and weak but cheap.
Another material might be light and weak, and slightly more expensive.
Another material might be heavy and strong and more expensive.
Another material might be light and strong and very expensive.

Then you take the 3D model, establish it's surface area and decide what you're going to "build" it out of to achieve the weight, armor rating and cost that you want.
Obviously, the higher the armor rating 9and weight, and cost), the more you eat into the internal space available.

And then, with that done, you apply some kind of constant to "describe" the construction method.
Combat ships would, presumably, be extremely sturdy so they might have a construction constant of 1. Armor strength x 1 = armor rating.
Multirole ships might not be as well built as combat ships and might have a construction constant of 0.75. Armour strength x 0.75 = armor rating.
High quality Trade ships might not be as well built as multiroles and have a construction constant of 0.5.
low quality trade ships and exploration ships might have a construction constant of 0.25.

So, you set all that up and see what happens.
And, if it turns out that the ships aren't in the "zone" where they're intended to be, you try "building" them with a different material, or making the hulls thicker/thinner until you get results somewhere near what you're looking for.

And if that, in turn, means that a ship's price, weight or internal space changes dramatically, so be it.
But then you can still compensate for a lot of that stuff simply by changing the modules fitted to a ship - or changing the characteristics of a module itself - until, again, the ship is in the "zone" where it's supposed to be.

I've definitely thought of material differences as well.

Apparently there's some magically different material that truly defies the laws of physics at play here. Especially when you have a ship with a hull mass HALF of what it should be when directly compared to others- then there's also clear visual design differences- note the Python's "angular" shape.. ever tried to fit a larger square into a smaller triangle?

Material "hardness" and such can definitely be used to explain away armor- but not the internal sizes of a ship.

 

[Lightspeed]

The other thing to consider about the Beluga is that the bulk of its huge size may not be designed to carry cargo at all. In fact, it's passengers. But the Beluga probably has other surprises when we get to see with .... yes the L word

Sylvera is right .... the Anaconda is, no matter how you look at it, inbalanced, to put it mildly. It's this ship above all which causes the cries for rebalancing. But since it is so popular, would the player base want it .... really, and would FD have the courage to fix it ?

 

[Sylveria]

The other thing to consider about the Beluga is that the bulk of its huge size may not be designed to carry cargo at all. In fact, it's passengers. But the Beluga probably has other surprises when we get to see with .... yes the L word

Sylvera is right .... the Anaconda is, no matter how you look at it, inbalanced, to put it mildly. It's this ship above all which causes the cries for rebalancing. But since it is so popular, would the player base want it .... really, and would FD have the courage to fix it ?

My premise is that it doesn't matter what the playerbase wants. If it's imbalanced- it needs to be corrected, just as assuredly as any "exploit" would, regardless of popularity.

Frontier seems to relish the opportunity to jump right on correcting "gold rushes" (AKA Mission Whack-A-Mole) and all other sorts of exploits- so let's gets some consistency in here. Either they believe game balance should exist, or they don't. Frontier has already stated that the mass difference was clearly not intentional- therefore it should be rectified with the same reasoning and logic as any other exploit in this game.

This also isn't just about the Anaconda, either- all ships need a good review to make sure they're inline.

 

[Stealthie]

Sylvera is right .... the Anaconda is, no matter how you look at it, inbalanced, to put it mildly. It's this ship above all which causes the cries for rebalancing. But since it is so popular, would the player base want it .... really, and would FD have the courage to fix it ?

Said it before, the simplest way to sort the Annie would just be to give it's integrity a massive nerf.
Having done that, just twiddle the weights and the strengths of the hull upgrades to restore the integrity while also making the weight sensible.

You want to fly a stock Annie, it has integrity of, say, 300 and weighs 400t - perfect for explorers.
Add a reinforced Alloy hull, it has integrity of 1,200 and adds 250t to the weight - decent for a multirole.
Add a mil-hull, integrity up to 1,800 but you've added 500t to the weight - good for combat.

 

[Sylveria]

Said it before, the simplest way to sort the Annie would just be to give it's integrity a massive nerf.
Having done that, just twiddle the weights and the strengths of the hull upgrades to restore the integrity while also making the weight sensible.

You want to fly a stock Annie, it has integrity of, say, 300 and weighs 400t - perfect for explorers.
Add a reinforced Alloy hull, it has integrity of 1,200 and adds 250t to the weight - decent for a multirole.
Add a mil-hull, integrity up to 1,800 but you've added 500t to the weight - good for combat.

Yet although this would solve the difference between *some* ships, it still doesn't address differences among others. Sure it would make some more viable- yet the internal disparities between similar ships down the line really doesn't get resolved. Aesthetic "choice" is just an illusion of such, they need plausible consistency throughout the entirety of the shipyard. Every ship. Not just 2 or 3. Over the years, they just kept on introducing more ships- and although some were clearly imbalanced compared to others, they ignored it repetitively. Now we have the Pythonconda Syndrome... but it's also pretty evident some ships are just completely ignored in favor of others that have clear advantage.

 

[El_Hefe]

Maybe if the game was a full on sim id worry about this type of stuff,as is if i enjoy a ship i fly it.

I dont worry too much about what stats or whatever make if fun to fly.

People wanting to engross themselves in the game might not see it that way but in the end elite is a game,not a sim.

 

[Stealthie]

My premise is that it doesn't matter what the playerbase wants. If it's imbalanced- it needs to be corrected, just as assuredly as any "exploit" would, regardless of popularity.

Exactly.

You could probably just sort it all out with a spreadsheet.
Get the data about the surface area from the 3D modelling package, transfer it into the spreadsheet and then just see what numbers pop out the other end.
If the numbers are way, way, off what you want, you just have to keep adjusting different factors such as construction material, hull thickness and the construction constant until you get what you want.
And if it's just flat-out impossible to get what you wanted, that's just as good as it can be.

 

[Vasious]

Seems like a very big task

There are some things that make sense to review such as the Hull mass of the Anaconda and Imperial Courier to the size of the ships and things like that, that seem to lack consistency and verisimilitude.

Or why the Lakon Typ 6 is a medium ship and the Type 7 a Large, when they feel they should be the Panama modules for those pads, what is the in universe explanation

Some things might make sense in an in universe sense for verisimilitude, but not from a pure game play mechanics side of things, such as the Beluga not being able to carry as much cargo, as I assume its optional internals don't factor in crew quarters, and facilities for the passengers, restaurants, theaters, etc, and those parts are not modular.

If we had to hire crews and they cared about the difference between the cabins they get on Saud Kruger ships, that feature a real ships galley and Chef cooking with real food and fancy recreation facilities when off duty, to the minimalist facilities offered on Lakon ships that have a "Chef" to print out food cartridges.

If passengers cared about the same things and if different ship designers included or neglected features, so Saud Kruger & Gutamaya focused on comfort and luxuries and the resultant high cost to run with Saud Kruger automating where Gutamaya has a crew member for every role for conspicuous consumption, vs Lakon being utilitarian and cheap to maintain and run, Core Dynamics and their robust designed focusing on ease of repair and modest facilities designed for minimal crew, Falcoun Delacy in the middle of the pack, and Zorgon Petersen being the 'budget comfort' shipyard, Zorgon Petersen Group KS collaboration in the Fer De Lance

Differing crew levels, running costs, on board built in facilities for crew and passengers, maintenance and repair difficulty out of port, and Human crew vs Achillies Robots and how that affects other crew and passengers.

If that was represented in game, then that would go to explaining why some ships carry less cargo that others or had other quirks, but we dont have to hire crew for any ship let alone figure out how to make a mechanic about their comfort, as I have drifted into the Pen and Paper RPG territory.

 

[Stealthie]

Maybe if the game was a full on sim id worry about this type of stuff,as is if i enjoy a ship i fly it.

I dont worry too much about what stats or whatever make if fun to fly.

People wanting to engross themselves in the game might not see it that way but in the end elite is a game,not a sim.

Thing is, if FDev do this now it's going to make life much easier for them in the future.

Whenever they're designing a new ship they'll be able to pump the numbers into their construction spreadsheet and see if the ship is fit for it's intended purpose without just bunging it in the game and then twiddling a bunch of magic fiddle-factors which make it glaringly obvious that it isn't the same as other ships which appear to have similar characteristics.

 

[Leo Sagan]

@OP : you're absolutely right.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure FD won't do it.

 

[Stupid_hippy]

Some good examples of real world differences here :

https://turbofuture.com/industrial/The-Worlds-Largest-Ships-From-the-Aircraft-Carrier-to-the-Yacht

For example :

Bulk ore carrier
Weight 400k tonnes
Can carry 200k

Container ship
Weight 200k
Can carry 175k

Cruise ship
Weight 225k
Can carry 15k

Purpose and structure means a lot. It just doesn't work for me to say that this ship weighs x amount so it must have y internal modules. Sorry.

Please don't read this to mean that I think frontier has everything balanced right, but there isn't some simple formula they can apply across the board either.

 

[El_Hefe]

Thing is, if FDev do this now it's going to make life much easier for them in the future.

Whenever they're designing a new ship they'll be able to pump the numbers into their construction spreadsheet and see if the ship is fit for it's intended purpose without just bunging it in the game and then twiddling a bunch of magic fiddle-factors which make it glaringly obvious that it isn't the same as other ships which appear to have similar characteristics.

Meh,i dont really see the issue currently though,but the OP makes it sound likes its a major problem. YMMV obviously.

Im not against them looking at some ships and changing something if need be,but you would still have ships that are player 'favourites'.

Some ships will always standout for one reason or another.

Weather thats because of realistic stats or because the devs decided a ship needs a bit of love for no other reason than making it more user friendly or more fun to fly so tweak the stats beyond what would be expected,im ok with that.

Were all able to buy the same ships,no one really has an advantage in that sense.