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

[Stealthie]

It's not broken. I enjoy flying my Anacondas for the different purposes I've built them. I also like using other ships in different roles. I wouldn't like a "balance" pass which just reduced the flexibility of my ships and constrained my designs. Gameplay is more important than imaginary shipbuilding constraints.

Gameplay shouldn't need to be contingent on arbitrary fiddle-factors though.

If you're playing, say, a racing game, you don't want the NPCs to be driving cars which have twice the horsepower, half the weight and take half the damage just to be competitive.
You want the game to be coded accurately enough that the AI is skilled enough to present a suitable challenge.

Same thing applies to ED in regard to almost everything from ship design to AI response and NPC ship-builds.
An NPC ship, for example, shouldn't need to be piled-high with SCBs in order to present an appropriate challenge to a player.
If you have consistently "built" ships, it should be possible for the game to accurately evaluate the player's ship and then spawn plausible opponents who, with sufficient AI, can present a challenge.

As I previously said, if FDev want to put in ships which are "aberrations", such as, perhaps, the Anaconda, the iCourier or the Viper 4, they can still do that, either by making the hulls thicker to improve armor, making it thinner to reduce weight or simply by adjusting the class of a given module to create the required level of advantage.

The "only" difference would be that we'd all know that every ship was consistently modeled and didn't rely on pixie-dust hulls or magical shields to provide an advantage.

 

[Sylveria]

The problem with putting more broken ships on top of an already broken system is that it doesn't fix the original problem.

Broken, is broken.

Introducing more ships with "magical" properties is just prolonging the issue. No, this isn't a "stealth nerf Anaconda thread" it's a thread pointing out there's a balance pass needed for all ships, period.

It needs to get done. People can use whatever excuses they want, but eventually it's going to happen- and better if it happens sooner rather than later.

Yeah, I know lots of people hate me for bringing it up. I already knew it wasn't going to be a "popular" idea- but this isn't a popularity contest, and it doesn't mean the idea isn't without merit, either. Shoot the messenger if you will- but it doesn't make the message less valid.

 

[Brrokk]

Well, we'll see. I think that eventually it's not going to happen, and I think the game plays OK with the ships as they are.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

It's not broken. I enjoy flying my Anacondas for the different purposes I've built them. I also like using other ships in different roles. I wouldn't like a "balance" pass which just reduced the flexibility of my ships and constrained my designs. Gameplay is more important than imaginary shipbuilding constraints.

No.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

This topic and thread is pants.

You leave my Anaconda alone you filthy heathen.

Just... no.

 

[h347h]

Nope if they do this it will basically ruin the game.

 

[sollisb]

Balance? FDev?


Surely you jest ?

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Wish I could rep. It's about time they do this. Doesn't kill my enjoyment of the game, but doing this would enrich it.

Well said. A general ship overhaul would greatly benefit the game. Maybe wit hthe Q4 update and the specialized ships approach? Large ships for example need a buff in firepower or speed. They are barely more viable than their medium ship siblings. Maybe prebuilt turrets that have access to special weaponary (fighter weaponary maybe?) and can be exchanged for any kind of utility weaponary. Creates a new gameplay hole for big ships as flag ships. Plasma repeater turrets for the Cutter? Missile launchers for the Corvette? Flak launchers for the Anaconda?
Anything that keeps ships away from coming close to them for example.

Furthermore rework mass lock factor. A Gunship that is almost twice as heavy as the Anaconda should not be masslocked by said Anaconda. Likewise, a Python shouldn't masslock a T9.

Lastly, special ship modules (that are exclusive to these ships) might be another interesting idea to further seperate ships from eachother (some kind of special ability). And give them their power in their roles they deserve.

 

[Taimaru]

Another bad idea. I get the feeling, based on some suggestions I see sometimes, that there are people that are deliberately out to ruin Elite: Dangerous or want to turn the game into something completely different.

I like the ships the way they are, and it creates variety in the way people play.

Elite: Dangerous isn't a competitive combat game when everything needs to be balanced.

 

[Stealthie]

Elite: Dangerous isn't a competitive combat game when everything needs to be balanced.

I'm amazed at how many people don't seem to understand the concept, here.

Making things consistent doesn't mean making them "balanced".
It just means everything abides by a consistent set of physical and engineering characteristics.

Ferraris and Smart cars are created using consistent materials and technologies.
It doesn't mean they're "balanced" with each other.
It just means the Ferrari doesn't rely on a pixie-dust engine to make it go faster and the Smart doesn't rely on TARDIS technology to fit 5 people inside it.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

I'm not sure using the Clipper vs Python cargo capacity argument is very useful. Yes you can fit more mass inside a larger box than a smaller box, but this argument overlooks the design of the ships themselves and how it translates to internal volume.

I would wager that the Clipper, even though it is a "large" ship, has less internal volume than a "medium" Python. Why? Because neither of these ships are boxes. The Python is a big triangle that fills a sizable portion of a medium pad, whereas the Clipper is a basically a long, thin cylinder with engine nacelles that doesn't take up as much room on a large pad. The internal space that makes up the possible swappable module section is very likely smaller than that of the Python. You don't fill a ship wall to wall with stuff, it's not a completely empty shell.

Remember the T7 - the only thing making that a "large" ship is some extraneous part that pushes it slightly over the threshold for a medium pad. Otherwise, it's a medium-sized ship.

 

[Darkfyre99]

This is one of those times where I really wish I could see Frontier's internal ship designs, because I get the feeling that it would explain so much about... shall we say... the quirks of various ships. There was a diagram somewhere, which I really wish I'd saved, where someone had taken the time to map out all the hardpoints, core modules, and optional module locations of a Cobra III. It actually made a lot of sense, location wise. I could see how it worked, which also agreed with Frontier's statement that all the internal spaces of ships were roughed out.

A Python hull has half the volume of a Type-7, weighs the same, has roughly the same carrying capacity, but costs 3.5 times more. Why is this? Is it because it's internal layout simply that much more efficient, with a lot less wasted space between internals, or are its core internal locations actually denser, explaining massive cost of the hull?

 

[Darkfyre99]

The problem here is that Elite ships are designed with weapons and modules that use an exponential progression of mass/cost (doubling every hardpoint/module increment) but often a linear increase in performance (i.e., power plants) and in some cases a massive increase in apparent volume (i.e., class 4 hardpoint weapons sizes). It's not really possible to turn this system into a coherent model for developing ship internals. At best such a system would need to be abstract and simply show a "power plant" area and a "thruster" area and a generic "living quarters/cargo" area for all ships that would not change in any way depending on what internals you had equipped. That is assuming we even get to see the ship interior at all other than the cockpit which I don't think FD has planned at all. If you look at the existing in-game ships they are currently implemented as empty space other than the cockpit and SRV bay. It simply isn't possible to fit the internals into some ships consistently given the massive volume/surface area differences in ships that have otherwise similar internals.

^^^

This 1000%.

I mean, if I were given a free hand to design the Anaconda, with the obvious constraint that I had to keep everything within the hull, I would likely design the ship with four size three Power Plant locations, as opposed to one size eight. You'd get 33% more power for one eighth of the weight, and if one Power Plant were to be damaged, you'd have three more as a backup. Now, imagine if you could do that with all ship systems.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Like i said.

Nerf/fix anything you like my dudes.

But if you touch my Viper 4....

DON'T touch my Viper 4.

 

[evanevery]

TIMO ship size should not be a "progression standard" in Elite Dangerous- it's about experiencing the galaxy in its true form and scale.

In RL you (typically) work to afford new and "better" cars. Most people are not driving the same class of vehicle when they retire as the first car they owned when they were a kid. Earning "Big" ships is part of the game progression. Something to work for. It would be counter productive to have the larger, more capable, ships cost about the same as its smaller brethren. One of the few thing I have left to enjoy in the game is looking forward to working for and buying new ships as they are introduced. Anyone who has played this game for a while knows that its relatively straightforward to earn credits necessary for just about any goal (thats also part of the progression). Credits are not an issue...

Different ships, and all their idiosyncrasies, are what helps make the game interesting. I have a whole fleet of different ships (even 2 Cutters outfitted completely differently for different tasks). I still move around quite a bit between ships as I do different things.

Enjoy the diversity.

 

[Vorxian]

I'm not sure using the Clipper vs Python cargo capacity argument is very useful. Yes you can fit more mass inside a larger box than a smaller box, but this argument overlooks the design of the ships themselves and how it translates to internal volume.

I would wager that the Clipper, even though it is a "large" ship, has less internal volume than a "medium" Python. Why? Because neither of these ships are boxes. The Python is a big triangle that fills a sizable portion of a medium pad, whereas the Clipper is a basically a long, thin cylinder with engine nacelles that doesn't take up as much room on a large pad. The internal space that makes up the possible swappable module section is very likely smaller than that of the Python. You don't fill a ship wall to wall with stuff, it's not a completely empty shell.

I have an ongoing beef with the system of weight being used in ED to categorise space in the cargo hold. Just because something is 750 tons, it really doesn't mean that the ship automatically has the room for it. Vice versa, just because a small cube of osmium weighs 100 tons, does it really take up the entire cargo hold of type 6?

Like I said, a personal beef

 

[Vorxian]

In RL you (typically) work to afford new and "better" cars. Most people are not driving the same class of vehicle when they retire as the first car they owned when they were a kid. Earning "Big" ships is part of the game progression. Something to work for. It would be counter productive to have the larger, more capable, ships cost about the same as its smaller brethren.

If ED was clever it would be more akin to motor racing. Progression in motor racing is optimization, reliability, min / maxing & technology, not size of vehicle. Funny to see Vettel racing in an F1 monster truck just because he's top of his game.

Progression in ED should marry up with the profession. Not just size of the ship. I'd gladly pay 25bn credits for something the size of an ASPX if it was technologically advanced in every aspect compared to it's lowly ASPX sister ship.

I'd classify specialty & dedicated bonuses for ships over actual size. It's a trick EvE online didn't miss. (as much as I dislike EvE).

 

[Stealthie]

I have an ongoing beef with the system of weight being used in ED to categorise space in the cargo hold. Just because something is 750 tons, it really doesn't mean that the ship automatically has the room for it. Vice versa, just because a small cube of osmium weighs 100 tons, does it really take up the entire cargo hold of type 6?

Like I said, a personal beef

Uhuh, that's a huge can of worms.

I've had a bit of a play around with fitting modules into ships (in design terms, rather than in-game ) and I've realised that the limiting factor, by a mile, is whether or not a specific passenger cabin would fit into a given slot, rather than any kind of cargo.

If we use the weight of water as a benchmark (cos it's simple), we can see that, for example, a 3E cargo rack holds 8t or 8m³ of water.
Assuming bulkhead heights of 2m (again, for the sake of simplicity) a 3E cargo rack would be, say, 2m tall x 1m wide x 4m long or, perhaps, 2m x 2m x 2m.

If we then look at a 3E passenger cabin (the one that holds the most people you can get into a C3 slot) we find it needs to be able to hold 4 people.
We can, again, assume that it needs to be 2m tall so they can stand up, 2m wide so they can lie down and that means it's probably going to be at least 2m long so you squeeze 4 people in there, in bunk-beds.

Stepping up to the maximum, we can compare a 6E cargo rack with a 6E passenger cabin.
The cargo rack needs to be able to hold 64t of cargo, or 64m³ of water.
Again, assuming a bulkhead height of 2m, you could have a rack 2m x 4m x 8m.
A 6E passenger cabin holds 32 people.
Again, the cabin needs to be 2m tall so they can stand up and at least 2m wide so they can lie down so, once again, you're probably looking at a module 2m x 4m x 8m to accommodate 2 rows of 8 bunk-beds for a total of 32 beds - in seriously cramped conditions.

In a nutshell, one passenger requires 2m³ of space (as an absolute bare-minimum).
That being the case, it's always going to be passengers, rather than cargo, which dictate the volume of modules so we can probably stop worrying about all the "ton of feathers vs a ton of lead" stuff.
As long as a module/slot is physically big enough to fit it's passenger requirements, it'll fit cargo too.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

I have an ongoing beef with the system of weight being used in ED to categorise space in the cargo hold. Just because something is 750 tons, it really doesn't mean that the ship automatically has the room for it. Vice versa, just because a small cube of osmium weighs 100 tons, does it really take up the entire cargo hold of type 6?

Like I said, a personal beef

Haha, people in the future do not use packaging very efficiently. I imagine most of the "1T" standard sized canisters are only half full, or some of them so tightly packed, there's no way the contents are surviving intact (1T of Imperial Slaves, anyone?) [haha]

 

[EUS]

Python is made from titanium whereas the T7 is made from Lego. T7 requires massive amounts of volume of structural material compared to the python for it to just stay in one piece.