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

[WR3ND]

Keep in mind that significant rebalancing means overall power-creep, as ships out in the black, etc., can't be nerfed beyond their current viability without having likewise significant ramifications for players just going about playing the game, regardless of the current meta.

...

I suppose I'd be alright with a free, otherwise non-consequential ride back to outfitting if needed (I understand the game is in ongoing development), but historically this hasn't really been something Frontier have considered, and understandably so.

 

[CambionDaemon]

FD need to do an entire rebalance of the ships period.

The Anaconda needs to gain 400-500 tons in weight, lose the huge or two of the large hardpoints. She is a 300 year old frigate design.

No medium ship should have huge hardpoints, and large ships shouldn't have smalls. Weapons need to be rebalanced across the board. Ship defenses have to be fixed.

As for the Clipper, she is only classed as a large ship because of her width. Shorten the 'wings' going to the nacelles and she would fit on a medium pad. The Clipper' hull segment isn't as big as the Python so it kind of makes sense that she can carry slightly less.

The fact is though is that we will never get the balance that the game requires. I remember Sandro saying that the Anaconda will never be nerfed because to many people have it, but then I also remember one of the developers saying that they messed up when designing the Anaconda and the Python.

Specialised ships is probably the only way that we will see any type of balancing. And if they don't implement it properly it will make it worse.

 

[House0fDerp]

Most people would probably move on to other games. Return when theres decent content updates

Leaving the immersion crowd to complain about decimal points in a game they have 2000hrs in....

/JK

You say JK, but that's how everyone I now plays for the most part.

 

[WR3ND]

You say JK, but that's how everyone I now plays for the most part.

The "immersion crowd" bit is over my head. Why bother even playing the game in the first place if you can't get into it? Sure, that means different things to different people, but if this were only a matter of numbers and the theoretical meta, I don't think this game would be what it is.

On that note, look up games like Overload by the people that did Descent, or maybe even Eve in the other extreme, but within the context of a gamer's game.

 

[kofeyh]

I would think the specialised modules approach is probably the path of least resistance. Frontier will simply have to resist adding one of every type to Anaconda. These can be used to provide a better value proposition for each ship. As they are additive, it will not impact ships directly, on patch day (ie it won't suddenly break jump range or shift modules causing issues for commanders).

I think Frontier were exceedingly foolish to not have hit Anaconda with the same bat the Python was; but what's done is done. At best they can redress via value proposition, specialised bays is probably a good way to achieve that without also removing existing value.

They will never address Anaconda; but that choice does not mean then cannot go on to narrow the gap. It's power creep, but really that's the only choice the developer has been left with. I am sure Challenger and Krait being launched without the usual 'compromised' mentality that otherwise pervaded design over the last couple of years shows that that is not lost on the developer. There is no point having highly compromised designs when there are existing aberrations. It just makes that worse.

Exploration and Mining are two pursuits where specialised bays and some smarter consideration around module proliferation could provide a considerable improvement in the QoL for a great many.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I would think the specialised modules approach is probably the path of least resistance. Frontier will simply have to resist adding one of every type to Anaconda. These can be used to provide a better value proposition for each ship. As they are additive, it will not affect ships directly, on patch day.

I think Frontier were exceedingly foolish to not have hit Anaconda with the same bat the Python was; but what's done is done. At best they can redress via value proposition, specialised bays is probably a good way to achieve that without also removing existing value.

They will never address Anaconda; but that choice does not mean then cannot go on to narrow the gap.

Yep, and the choices you have to pick for survivability and utility is all there.

If people would look at each ship like a unique character and all of its slots as a talent tree. It should make more sense in the long run.

But there I go comparing Elite to other games. We cant do that around here =P

 

[CambionDaemon]

I agree with specialised ships, but I also think that they should bite the bullet and nerf the Anaconda (they nerfed the Python twice).

 

[kofeyh]

I agree with specialised ships, but I also think that they should bite the bullet and nerf the Anaconda (they nerfed the Python twice).

Not going to 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) it's not realistic for that to happen. So I'd rather the developer leverage customisation, be a bit smarter about module purpose and refactor ships to feature some specialised bays instead.

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.

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.

 

[Riverside]

I would think the specialised modules approach is probably the path of least resistance. Frontier will simply have to resist adding one of every type to Anaconda. These can be used to provide a better value proposition for each ship. As they are additive, it will not impact ships directly, on patch day (ie it won't suddenly break jump range or shift modules causing issues for commanders).

I think Frontier were exceedingly foolish to not have hit Anaconda with the same bat the Python was; but what's done is done. At best they can redress via value proposition, specialised bays is probably a good way to achieve that without also removing existing value.

They will never address Anaconda; but that choice does not mean then cannot go on to narrow the gap. It's power creep, but really that's the only choice the developer has been left with. I am sure Challenger and Krait being launched without the usual 'compromised' mentality that otherwise pervaded design over the last couple of years shows that that is not lost on the developer. There is no point having highly compromised designs when there are existing aberrations. It just makes that worse.

Exploration and Mining are two pursuits where specialised bays and some smarter consideration around module proliferation could provide a considerable improvement in the QoL for a great many.

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.

 

[kofeyh]

Yep, and the choices you have to pick for survivability and utility is all there.

Honestly it's probably the most workable solution. Refactoring all ships would mean another engineering round; and as much as a closer alignment between ships would make a lot of mechanics (be it PVE or PVP my shooty friend) more consistent, I just can't see it happen. It's just too much change and folks just honestly don't like change.

Specialised modules allow Frontier to in a way, get some rebalance done, without fundamentally impacting existing designs. Yes - they could be considered much like a 'trait' tree. Allowing for specialisation, without impacting the core mechanics. This actually seems a fairly good way to go.

I know some are pretty concerned this reduces "blaze your own trail" but to me it's more "customise your own trail". Something, if we stop to think about it, is actually missing. I reckon there's a lot of scope there.

 

[kofeyh]

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.

Anaconda was built at a different time; before Frontier was egged on to make everything a chore and a compromise (ignoring that this would only make exceptions worse) which they did because of course they did - they want to make the players happy. It's still the most commonly worked-towards ship by newer players, because it exists as a "do everything" design that really very little else can achieve. And it does that with quite some extreme. It can out passenger beluga, out jump explorers and so on.

But this is, what it is. Frontier are considering specialisation as a way to better balance the experience I think that's probably the most constructive option. People will complain anyway because it's change. But I think that actually has huge potential. If they can get a handle on some of the module duplication as well, we may end up with a list of ships with a lot of possibilities; not just the half-dozen go-to because they offer the least impacted outcomes.

Had Anaconda been thumped back in the day? I think we'd probably be mostly in the same place still anyway; because what Frontier does, is ultimately based on how they roll; not what individual ships can do.

 

[GJ51]

As much as I agree with OP, I'm confident that that ship has sailed a long time ago. There were extensive discussions during Premium Beta on this very topic pleading for a rational approach to ship design and performance characteristics. The anomalies in the various ships were dissected and discussed without comment from FD at a time when it would have been pretty easy to rethink how ships would perform in relation to their size, mass, and what modules were installed.

Unfortunately, FD chose to stick with handwavium, which has only compounded the problems that ignoring any relation of design to basic physics could have imposed on ship characteristics. Handwavium designs have a "loose" correlation to any commonality with physics/engineering designs sort of like poetic license.

Too many players have too much time invested in the ships they own to undertake a paradigm shift of this magnitude.

Unfortunate

 

[kofeyh]

Too many players have too much time invested in the ships they own to undertake a paradigm shift of this magnitude.

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.

 

[Captain Willard]

I'll have 6 of whatever the OP is drinking. The annie is the only ship in the game that needs balance. 750 tons to light, to many internal slots, to many weapon points. NEVER going to happen. All other ships have ups and downs. It was the end game ship for noobs when the game came out. I've played enough to have 20 ships. each one custom for the job appointed.
They already are specialized.

 

[Darty]

You want to talk about disparities, the t-9 displaces approximately 449k cubic meters of volume, which is about 448k tons of water. The t-9, which is made of much denser materials than water, will weigh at most 2k tons. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the cargo capacity of the t-9 should be in the hundreds of thousands of tons, not 700 something.

 

[jonesskill]

The humor is definitely strong in this one.

Although, I'm sure some truly do feel that's what the entirety of this game is about.

Problem with that theory- is that once we've progressed to flying Death Stars, what's next?

TBH i'ts not hummor, i really think that ship progression should be a thing. (That is NOT the case right now);
You see how sucessfull franchises survive, specially warframe ( that i see a video right now);
The key to survive is add new content(Good content), Rebalance things, make things progress and NEVER let the player stagnated on the same place for too much time - ALSO PVP - this is the more important to a game survive.

I love this game much more than anyone in here i thing, you guys only thing about your own benefic, i want more people, i want that this game become more attractive, more players online - more competition.

What you guys want is less people, only a few "astro maniacs" that will play the game only to press J and jump.

Elite i'ts already a complicated game, making it more complicated and more dificult will only keep more people away.

 

[Morbad]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the cargo capacity of the t-9 should be in the hundreds of thousands of tons, not 700 something.

Not with a mere ~30MW powering it and thrusters only meant to handle ~2k tons.

 

[Devari]

You want to talk about disparities, the t-9 displaces approximately 449k cubic meters of volume, which is about 448k tons of water. The t-9, which is made of much denser materials than water, will weigh at most 2k tons. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the cargo capacity of the t-9 should be in the hundreds of thousands of tons, not 700 something.

Not quite, much of an Anaconda or Type-9 will consist of empty space pressurized at 1 atm and the rest will be lightweight structural materials that are likely considerably more advanced than what we can currently manufacture. If you compare an Anaconda or Type-9 to a modern naval ship you need to take into account that Elite construction materials are likely around 5-10X stronger on a per-weight basis and this would allow Elite ships to have dramatically lower total weights. Otherwise if they were built out of standard modern metal alloys they would not be able to handle the massive g-forces that Elite ships routinely experience so the materials must be dramatically stronger for their volume than what we currently use.

Incidentally I made similar calculations for Elite multicannons and cannons in this thread, and these designs only worked properly if you applied a 5X weight reduction for the weapons: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...tigun-cannon?p=5814738&viewfull=1#post5814738

I suspect that we would also need to apply a similar 5X weight reduction for the structural materials used in Elite ships as well, which means a 1000 ton Anaconda would be closer to 5000 tons if it were constructed out of modern materials and a 2000 ton Corvette would be closer to 10k tons if constructed out of modern materials. Those tonnage values are much closer to what we would expect from a modern naval cruiser such as the Ticonderoga which is 170 m and displaces around 10k tons. In that sense if you simply assume that Elite structural materials are 5X lighter than what we can use today the low tonnage values for Elite ships are actually much more understandable. The cargo capacities for Elite ships would be a consequence of the total ship tonnage, although there would be enough internal volume for an Anaconda or Type-9 to carry more cargo weight the ships would be reduced to only a fraction of the boost and maneuvering speeds and that is likely why the actual cargo capacities are much smaller than you would otherwise expect.

 

[Morbad]

Not quite, much of an Anaconda or Type-9 will consist of empty space pressurized at 1 atm

At one atmosphere a box the size of a T-9 has more than 500 tons of air in it. Seems kinda silly to waste all that mass budget on carrying around more life support than necessary.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

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.

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.

I mean, it took me a long, long time to come to terms with the fact that E: D isn't supposed to be a full-on space flight simulator, and that E: D is not the game you are looking for if you're wanting more realism. Rather, E: D is a somewhat dystopian space fantasy videogame set in some weird parallel universe similar to ours but not the same - I'm also sure that some of the laws of physics in this E: D universe are subtly different - and certainly when it comes to tehcnology, engineering, and design, the humans in the E: D universe seem to be - how can I put this delicately? - rather "special" compared to engineers and designers in our universe

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.