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

[V'larr]

Not going to happen;

You really can be silly somtimes....

There is never any reason to assume a possible change can never happen.

so if we assume it's not going to happen, we have to consider alternatives. Because whilst people blindly demand a nerf (yes to be consistent it needs one)

You just admitted yourself, just now with what's in parantheses, that it's not a "blind demand", it's a justifiable one.

it's not realistic for that to happen.

One could equally argue it's not realistic to continue down this path of inconsistency and wild imbalances that result from it.

So I'd rather the developer leverage customisation, be a bit smarter about module purpose and refactor ships to feature some specialised bays instead.

Which is little different from simply tweaking the base variables of the ships themselves.

Because that? That at least can be done. Anaconda will not be changed. Frontier are not interested in that sh*t fight. So I'd rather they enter fights they can win so we can see some improvement. I think specialised bays, is probably a good middle ground. It's not perfect, but it will do the job pretty well.

They can do whatever they deem necessary. The community will live, the community will adapt. There's long-range jumping ships as alternatives to the Anaconda if that's what people want. There's trading alternatives to the Anaconda if that's what people want. There's combat alternatives to the Anaconda if that's what people want. All that anyone could possibly complain about is not having it in an all-in-one package that breaks all the rules that all the other ships are (at least roughly) made to follow.

It's been five years my dames and dudes; five years. It helps to be a little realistic. Obligatory reference to the most excellent quote in my sig.

Doesn't matter how long it's been. What matters is what is done next.

__

Well I agree there are no easy answers at this relatively late stage in the game's development, but frankly I don't really see why it can't just be left in there as an anomaly. The Conda's mass isn't game breaking, there is no compelling reason for the figures to be consistent, it's just a nice to have.

Well, I flatly disagree. I think it does break the game to not follow your own rules. Consistency is key in preventing that, and being inconsistent is one way to directly cause an imbalanced game.
__

Which has been compounded by engineering. Yah; honestly of all the options on the table (including do nothing and let the rot continue) specialisation is probably a fairly smart way to allow ships to regain some value. Choice is good.

But there's no reason they cannot also do more.

__

At the end of the day, y'all need to remember;

This is a videogame, not a simulator. Which means there's going to be a lot of handwavium, in order for Frontier to present the game in the way they want it.

That needn't apply to consistent values in the variables pertaining to ship characteristics, though, and it's only reasonable to a limited extent anyhow. Things like building the word 'telepresence' into the game goes past that extent.

Elite takes itself pretty seriously in just about every avenue, there's no reason to take it casual when it comes to ship balancing, other than trying to avoid making the effort to begin with.

I'd be agreeing with the OP if E: D was meant to a simulator in the way that Microsoft Flight Sim X is a simulator. But it's not. If OP is wanting the ships to be somehow more realistic, then lets also go the whole hog and get rid of the Frame Shift Drive and Flight Assist in favour of a fully Newtonian flight model, amongst 10's or 100's of other arcade-y handwavium aspects of E: D.

We needn't also swing from one extreme to the other. *That* does tend to impede making change happen.

In other words, asking FDEV to completely change - after 4 years of their videogame being released - the way ships etc. work? Also asking everyone who is used to how their current ships, including the Anaconda, to suck it up when suddenly their Anacondas etc. lose 20-40LY of jump range?
Ain't gonna happen.

It surely won't happen if we cease asking. On the other hand, if we consistently continue to make requests with a reasonable voice, change will happen at some point. Otherwise you're implying Fdev do not care and are the "Wargaming" kind of developer that heedlessly and openly defies its community time and time again. I have my beefs with Fdev, but one reason you still see me here bothering to care is because I can see that they are not that kind of group.

 

[Stealthie]

specialisation is probably a fairly smart way to allow ships to regain some value. Choice is good.

That's about as paradoxical a statement as I've ever read.

Specialisation is the antithesis of choice.

 

[Sylveria]

To further clarify some of the concerns that have been addressed in this thread-

I'm not asking that Frontier completely change how ships work- but rather they follow the same "rules" that Frontier has themselves established. If they were to find in their investigation of all ships that some are to remain "unchanged" because they indeed follow those rules... great. But I'm quite confident there are definitive differences which we all know and see.

I'd also have to agree that "extremism" in perception of this game is and always has been very problematic. Everything ranging from "simulation vs arcade", "PvP vs PvE", "Single vs Multiplayer", etc. This game was created purposely as a "hybrid" meant to address different ranges- arguments that a complete ship balance in some way forces one extreme over another is utterly ridiculous. If anything- the fact that some remain unbalanced actually forces people to extremes. Ships being balanced solely on the premise of multiplayer or PvP gameplay, for example- which lead to imbalance in other areas (single player/PvE) in terms of gameplay... and vice versa. All variables and factors need to be considered, not just one "style" of play over another. There is absolutely no reason why true balance cannot be achieved without vague definition.

Furthermore- in terms of "perfection", it needs not be completely perfect- some outlying issues simply cause it to be mediocre. Again, another dichotomous view of how it has to be ridiculously broken vs completely perfect.

Really, I get it- some prefer certain ships over others and that's great. But do so because the best attempt at balance has been made to achieve such within the confines of the game's rules and it's personally preferred, not because something is unintentionally flawed that it can be utilized to exploit advantage in the game. (see, I can use "charged" language to make a point, too)

Yes, the game has indeed enjoyed many years since its release- which is a good reason for a pause point in terms of ship balancing so that moving forward, it can be enjoyed much further. Defeatist attitudes of "it will never happen" simply don't serve to counter why ship balancing is necessary, the time factor only serves to strengthen it, IMO.

Again, I ask- when's the last time, since introducing 20+ additional ships in the game, they have actually gone back to re-balance all ships instead of just the occasional nerf/buff to individual ships?

 

[Riverside]

That's about as paradoxical a statement as I've ever read.

Specialisation is the antithesis of choice.

Maybe it's enough to be able to choose from one of several ships to do a task rather than literally all of them.

You can explore in pretty well anything, but to do it well you (arguably) need decent base jump range. Adding a dedicated slot to a ship that doesn't have many slots to begin with, that can only take a combined ADS/DSS say, suddenly means you have room for an SRV bay and some cargo space. This, I think would be better than simply adding another slot that will inevitably be filled with an HRP to make what might already be a tough ship even stronger, which is the antithesis of moar module slots.

A ship that is already good at one thing is now better than it was at another without becoming OP at the original thing.

 

[Sylveria]

Maybe it's enough to be able to choose from one of several ships to do a task rather than literally all of them.

You can explore in pretty well anything, but to do it well you (arguably) need decent base jump range. Adding a dedicated slot to a ship that doesn't have many slots to begin with, that can only take a combined ADS/DSS say, suddenly means you have room for an SRV bay and some cargo space. This, I think would be better than simply adding another slot that will inevitably be filled with an HRP to make what might already be a tough ship even stronger, which is the antithesis of moar module slots.

A ship that is already good at one thing is now better than it was at another without becoming OP at the original thing.

And the simple problem with the "all ships as multirole" theory is that all ships are definitely not as capable as others.

DBX is one of my favorite ships, for example- but I clearly cannot outfit it as "capably" as others without being forced to "sacrifice" where others simply don't have to.

Another reason why a complete and total look is necessary... if "sacrifice" must be a rule- then ALL ships must follow it, not just a few.

Quite simply, believing there should be "exceptions" is tantamount to hypocrisy.

 

[House0fDerp]

And the simple problem with the "all ships as multirole" theory is that all ships are definitely not as capable as others.

DBX is one of my favorite ships, for example- but I clearly cannot outfit it as "capably" as others without being forced to "sacrifice" where others simply don't have to.

Another reason why a complete and total look is necessary... if "sacrifice" must be a rule- then ALL ships must follow it, not just a few.

Quite simply, believing there should be "exceptions" is tantamount to hypocrisy.

I'm a bit lost as to why ships being multirole implies any forced equality. We clearly have a performance tiering system at work and that doesn't negate the idea of a specific ship being able to be tooled to a variety of tasks.

 

[Sylveria]

I'm a bit lost as to why ships being multirole implies any forced equality. We clearly have a performance tiering system at work and that doesn't negate the idea of a specific ship being able to be tooled to a variety of tasks.

All ships are definitively not "equal" when applied to role. To assume "multirole" one would first need to assume that such a ship is equally capable of all roles- and not just a particular few. When you apply this to each and every ship- and not just some that particularly stand out in terms of capability, that's where you'll clearly see that it's not the case. Seriously- just take a good solid look at each and every ship- apply that same "rule" to them, and you'll see what I'm referring to.

Moreover, the "principle of sacrifice" doesn't apply, either. Some ships just don't have to. So either they negate the "principle of sacrifice" (purposely gimping ships so that hard choices have to be made) or they re-balance all ships to follow the same principle accordingly.

That's not rocket science, either. Even a child can see when an exception to a rule is being made.

Also, I'd like to add- if "roles" or "specializations" were not meant to exist, we wouldn't have "cargo ships" or "passenger ships" or "military vessels", etc. etc. etc., we'd just have "ships" that were capable of any role. And that's clearly NOT the case. So if some ships are meant to be specialized- then they should not be overshadowed by some that can be equally capable of anything in terms of comparative performance.

 

[Stealthie]

Maybe it's enough to be able to choose from one of several ships to do a task rather than literally all of them....

Well, yeah.

In building a game like ED, the dev's will, presumably deliberately, specify different ships to compete in different roles; 2 or 3 viable starter ships, 2 or 3 viable light traders, 2 or 3 high-end combat ships, 2 or 3 good exploration ships etc...

In that context, the "choice" comes from the number of ships that compete with each other in their given role. Sidey competes with Eagle and Hauler, Adder competes with T6 and Keelback, FdL competes with Challenger and Chieftain, AspX competes with DBX etc.

If you want more choice, you're asking for more ships that are comparable with existing ones; another ship to compete with the Sidey, another ship to compete with the T6, another ship to compete with the FdL etc.

If you want more specialisation, you're asking for a ship that's better then existing ships in a given role.
You're asking for a ship which is a better starter ship than the Sidey, Eagle or Hauler, a better combat ship than the FdL, Challenger or Chieftain or a better explorer than the AspX or DBX.

More choice means there are more ships viable for each specific role and, as a result, there is less specialisation.
More specialisation means you have individual ships that are exceptionally well suited to a given role, thus rendering other ships less desirable for use that role and, as a result, there is less choice.

Seems like some people don't really understand what they're asking for, especially when I read comments such as the one I quoted.

 

[V'larr]

That's about as paradoxical a statement as I've ever read.

Specialisation is the antithesis of choice.

Not necessarily, if specialization is done in well-measured, reasonable amounts and if enough variety of said specialization is provided.

I think there's a middle ground to be found between going too far with specialization, and not doing enough to make ships seem well-suited for an intended role.

'Course, that somewhat relies upon an as-yet-to-be-realized consistency of ship design to begin with, one where formulaic balance is in use and there isn't a means by which you can make any ship exponentially better than its baseline aspects......


Still. The module bay thing and experimenting with specialized internal slots, I think, is a reasonable idea to try out at the least.

 

[Stealthie]

if "sacrifice" must be a rule- then ALL ships must follow it, not just a few.

Absolutely this.

It's kind of like Ferrari building a minivan that does 200mph on any terrain and gets 60mpg and then forcing every other car manufacturer to build either a sportscar, a 4x4, a minivan or an economy vehicle.

The other manufacturers would be forced to build insanely specialised vehicles in order to be sufficiently better than the Ferrari minivan in only one way to offset all the other advantages that the Ferrari van has.
Lamborghini might build a sportscar that does 250mph and people will still say "Well, that's nice but I can get my whole family in the Ferrari, drive it off-road and still get great gas mileage".

In ED terms, people can harp on about "specialisation" and "choice" all they want but as long as there's still a giant Anaconda-shaped fly in the ointment it's never going to happen sufficiently well to please the people who want those things.

Consistency would mean that FDev could leave the Annie as some kind of "aberration" if they wanted to but they'd be forced to concede something in order to provide for either choice or specialisation.

 

[Stealthie]

Not necessarily, if specialization is done in well-measured, reasonable amounts and if enough variety of said specialization is provided.

I think there's a middle ground to be found between going too far with specialization, and not doing enough to make ships seem well-suited for an intended role.

Nope.

It's a "slider" with specialisation at one end and choice at the other.
You increase one and you decrease the other.

Course, that's not to say it wouldn't be a good idea to adjust things one way or the other.
A little more specialisation might present people with interesting decisions to make.
Conversely, a little more choice might do the same too.

 

[House0fDerp]

All ships are definitively not "equal" when applied to role. To assume "multirole" one would first need to assume that such a ship is equally capable of all roles- and not just a particular few. When you apply this to each and every ship- and not just some that particularly stand out in terms of capability, that's where you'll clearly see that it's not the case. Seriously- just take a good solid look at each and every ship- apply that same "rule" to them, and you'll see what I'm referring to.

I wonder if we're mistakenly using the term "multirole" when we mean "omnirole". Being weaker at a subset of tasks doesn't invalidate that there are roles it can fill. And being that we've distilled into a small number of roles to begin with any greater versatility. Besides that, multirole isn't even a universal goal for all ships. Some have been very specifically tailored in one directions with Elite's ship modularity offering other options.

Moreover, the "principle of sacrifice" doesn't apply, either. Some ships just don't have to. So either they negate the "principle of sacrifice" (purposely gimping ships so that hard choices have to be made) or they re-balance all ships to follow the same principle accordingly.

That's not rocket science, either. Even a child can see when an exception to a rule is being made.

This goes back to my original statement. I'm not sure where the need for equality comes from. Elite uses cost and flexibility as balance factors, thus there really shouldn't be expected to be the same "principle of sacrifice" from ship to ship. Some are more or less direct upgrades and some focus on flexibility over role, meaning they will move tasks more effectively than others. But again, we have an entire group of ships designated for that so it seems it's working as intended.

Also, I'd like to add- if "roles" or "specializations" were not meant to exist, we wouldn't have "cargo ships" or "passenger ships" or "military vessels", etc. etc. etc., we'd just have "ships" that were capable of any role. And that's clearly NOT the case. So if some ships are meant to be specialized- then they should not be overshadowed by some that can be equally capable of anything in terms of comparative performance.

I agree here, specializations are intended, but not explicitly mandated to the degree the game can sustain while still allowing ships to perform at their intended level in whatever task or tasks they are aimed at. So this reinforces my confusion, you see the intent of a lack of equality in performance and flexibility but seem to suggest that means the ships need to be further specialized then equalized in power at those specializations? Or am I not understanding?

 

[Vasious]

All ships are definitively not "equal" when applied to role. To assume "multirole" one would first need to assume that such a ship is equally capable of all roles- and not just a particular few. When you apply this to each and every ship- and not just some that particularly stand out in terms of capability, that's where you'll clearly see that it's not the case. Seriously- just take a good solid look at each and every ship- apply that same "rule" to them, and you'll see what I'm referring to.

Moreover, the "principle of sacrifice" doesn't apply, either. Some ships just don't have to. So either they negate the "principle of sacrifice" (purposely gimping ships so that hard choices have to be made) or they re-balance all ships to follow the same principle accordingly.

That's not rocket science, either. Even a child can see when an exception to a rule is being made.

Also, I'd like to add- if "roles" or "specializations" were not meant to exist, we wouldn't have "cargo ships" or "passenger ships" or "military vessels", etc. etc. etc., we'd just have "ships" that were capable of any role. And that's clearly NOT the case. So if some ships are meant to be specialized- then they should not be overshadowed by some that can be equally capable of anything in terms of comparative performance.

As a foot note, back in belter they always used the terminology leaning
So the Hauler was a trade leaning ship
The Eagle Mk.II was a combat leaning ship

So both suggesting ships have intended strong suits but not to the expense of forgoing versatility of capability

And combinations were also present in the Diamond back series being Combat Exploration leaning ships

 

[Brrokk]

There's no point bringing physics concepts like mass, volume, density into ED ship design when we already have... faster-than-light travel, faster-than-light vision, capped maximum speed, limited-range gravity, harmless black holes, stars you can look at, recoilless cannons, heatsinks in vacuum, inertialess acceleration... etc. It's the gameplay which is important, and the present ships support that very well.

I think of ED as a space-fantasy steampunk game rather than a physics game. May I coin the term "spacepunk", or has that been done before?

 

[Darkfyre99]

There's no point bringing physics concepts like mass, volume, density into ED ship design when we already have... faster-than-light travel, faster-than-light vision, capped maximum speed, limited-range gravity, harmless black holes, stars you can look at, recoilless cannons, heatsinks in vacuum, inertialess acceleration... etc. It's the gameplay which is important, and the present ships support that very well.

I think of ED as a space-fantasy steampunk game rather than a physics game. May I coin the term "spacepunk", or has that been done before?

I think the term you're looking for is "space opera."

Personally, I think everything in your list besides "stars you can look at" and "recoilless cannons" can be explained as applications of Witchspace technology, with the former explained by something similar to smart-glass for our canopies and Remloc helmets, while "recoilless" weapons exist in real life.

Up until Horizons, I would've put Elite: Dangerous rather firmly in the "One Big Lie" category on Moh's scale of Sci-Fi hardness. Under Sandro's leadership, I feel that Elite: Dangerous has lacked the same dedication to verisimilitude as it did under Brookes.

 

[kofeyh]

And combinations were also present in the Diamond back series being Combat Exploration leaning ships

There are two variants because Frontier invented one; and it didn't lean in doing either combat or exploration overly well. Then there were two. DBS is a great little combat ship, but DBX is just hamstrung by internals. You are essentially trying to say frontier has preferenced multirole over purpose designed. This is true. And unfortunately the 'choice' presented by 30+ ships doesn't actually eventuate because a large number of people tend to use a fairly narrow range of ships.

Frontier potentially now understand, far better than they did, how important it is for ships to achieve their goals and be a relevant fit. I think that's really an organic process in a way. The entire concept of specialisation is down to recognising if everything requires a multirole to do, only multirole will be used. This ultimately removes choice and anyone using more purpose designed ships are essentially unable to interact with half of what is built.

The massive, positive reaction to Krait, is simply down to it being a multirole, and thus quite good at just about anything. Frontier resisted bestowing a too-small distro or some other such limitation. Challenger has had a lukewarm reception by comparison, because as a dedicated ship, does it achieve as much capability with respect to it's more focused intent? That's arguable.

Frontier are staffed by humans, who will be learning much of this, like anyone else. They will try, and sometimes it will not work out the way expected. That they are, as I say, looking closer at specialisation, suggests they see the value of that. More choice is good. In a game where module proliferation is now a reality? More important than ever to get the mix in a good place, so as many as possible can engage with it all. o7

 

[Vasious]

There are two variants because Frontier invented one; and it didn't lean in doing either combat or exploration overly well. Then there were two. DBS is a great little combat ship, but DBX is just hamstrung by internals. You are essentially trying to say frontier has preferenced multirole over purpose designed. This is true. And unfortunately the 'choice' presented by 30+ ships doesn't actually eventuate because a large number of people tend to use a fairly narrow range of ships.

Frontier potentially now understand, far better than they did, how important it is for ships to achieve their goals and be a relevant fit. I think that's really an organic process in a way. The entire concept of specialisation is down to recognising if everything requires a multirole to do, only multirole will be used. This ultimately removes choice and anyone using more purpose designed ships are essentially unable to interact with half of what is built.

The massive, positive reaction to Krait, is simply down to it being a multirole, and thus quite good at just about anything. Frontier resisted bestowing a too-small distro or some other such limitation. Challenger has had a lukewarm reception by comparison, because as a dedicated ship, does it achieve as much capability with respect to it's more focused intent? That's arguable.

Frontier are staffed by humans, who will be learning much of this, like anyone else. They will try, and sometimes it will not work out the way expected. That they are, as I say, looking closer at specialisation, suggests they see the value of that. More choice is good. In a game where module proliferation is now a reality? More important than ever to get the mix in a good place, so as many as possible can engage with it all. o7

All I was saying is what the language that was used by FDev previously as a foot note to the discussion on "roles" or "specializations"

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Agree with this!

Time to nerf the Python!

(Aka: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it)

 

[Chrystoph]

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.

Yes, each ship should have its own physics, and they shouldn't conform to to universal laws. Oh, wait, that is what happens now.

What really needs to happen here is that we need to stop having ships that are designed around how the model and animation look and start having ships that are a base volume and hardpoint configuration. You fill the volume with the components you want, and anything you don't use becomes your cargo volume. As a final step, the game does a compatibility check to ensure that you have enough life support, that the thrusters can lift the ship, and that you have enough mass devoted to sensors to create a navigation image. It doesn't tell you it is a GOOD design, it just provides an up or down check on basic viability.

I leave hardpoints separate because they are structurally designed points in the ship created to support the stresses of weapons fire and any given design would only be able to support so many. It also is a nod toward the animators. If you choose to use them for something other than weapons, that is fine, but they would still be the only place weapons could be mounted.

 

[Marra Morgan]

As long as there is a system that lets people fit horrendously bad and laughable ships that get exploded in comical and creative ways, I don't really mind what they do.