No, you did not; it's 33% per tier, acts as a debuff only and maxes out at 66%, according to FD. Gotta love forum Chinese Whispers.
Hardpoint and ship size
- Thread starter Ichijo
- Start date
No, you did not; it's 33% per tier, acts as a debuff only and maxes out at 66%, according to FD. Gotta love forum Chinese Whispers.
The is the one big combat thing that, in my opinion, needs to go away completely.
There is no reason for this penalty to exist and all it does is drive a linear progression in a place that a person simply doesn't need it.
Weapon damage growing by weapon size is all that is needed to delineate the hardpoint sizes, this penalty is an unnecessary addition that does nothing but outclass smaller ships before their time comes up.
In my opinion, the best examples of this are the three earliest fighter ships and the Asp.
The eagle is a fun, fragile little ship with three well placed hardpoints, but it obsoletes itself for "real" play very quickly solely based on this penalty. Without the penalty, this could be a ship preferred by those who really want the fast and nimble feel of this little fighter, and could make up for its lesser damage(3 small hardpoints) by using the ships other strengths to avoid being hit.
The Viper/Vulture would suddenly become a bit of a debate, as the Viper would come with the potential flexibility of having four hardpoints and greater speed, whereas the Vulture would have the advantage in raw firepower and its notable lack of flexibility in armament would suddenly become an actual issue worth considering. The way it is right now, the Vulture is a no brainer if you want to even consider making timely work of any large craft for bounty hunting based almost exclusively on this penalty(you can avoid most damage with either craft by piloting to the areas weapons cannot hit you).
The Asp would hardly be overpowered, but its six guns would be quite formidable without this penalty and would be as favored in its "weight class" as the cobra is in the small class if this where the case(it's still heavily favored for its other qualities, referring to combat here). By the time you're fitting and flying an Asp, being able to take down big game is a real consideration and as is, four of those guns are borderline useless against any craft larger than itself.
Removing this penalty would breed diversity that's good for the game at large, and really it'd be good for the bottom line dollars, too. For example, the Viper has more paint schemes available for it than any other model out there, and really I'd love to snag a few. I won't though, because I'd have to take a purposeful step backward in overall ship quality in order to actually use those skins. Unless a person chooses to accept a far slower rate of income and a more or less self imposed hard limit on the content they can handle, progression it an outright necessity and in my opinion this detracts from the game.
There is no reason for this penalty to exist and all it does is drive a linear progression in a place that a person simply doesn't need it.
Weapon damage growing by weapon size is all that is needed to delineate the hardpoint sizes, this penalty is an unnecessary addition that does nothing but outclass smaller ships before their time comes up.
In my opinion, the best examples of this are the three earliest fighter ships and the Asp.
The eagle is a fun, fragile little ship with three well placed hardpoints, but it obsoletes itself for "real" play very quickly solely based on this penalty. Without the penalty, this could be a ship preferred by those who really want the fast and nimble feel of this little fighter, and could make up for its lesser damage(3 small hardpoints) by using the ships other strengths to avoid being hit.
The Viper/Vulture would suddenly become a bit of a debate, as the Viper would come with the potential flexibility of having four hardpoints and greater speed, whereas the Vulture would have the advantage in raw firepower and its notable lack of flexibility in armament would suddenly become an actual issue worth considering. The way it is right now, the Vulture is a no brainer if you want to even consider making timely work of any large craft for bounty hunting based almost exclusively on this penalty(you can avoid most damage with either craft by piloting to the areas weapons cannot hit you).
The Asp would hardly be overpowered, but its six guns would be quite formidable without this penalty and would be as favored in its "weight class" as the cobra is in the small class if this where the case(it's still heavily favored for its other qualities, referring to combat here). By the time you're fitting and flying an Asp, being able to take down big game is a real consideration and as is, four of those guns are borderline useless against any craft larger than itself.
Removing this penalty would breed diversity that's good for the game at large, and really it'd be good for the bottom line dollars, too. For example, the Viper has more paint schemes available for it than any other model out there, and really I'd love to snag a few. I won't though, because I'd have to take a purposeful step backward in overall ship quality in order to actually use those skins. Unless a person chooses to accept a far slower rate of income and a more or less self imposed hard limit on the content they can handle, progression it an outright necessity and in my opinion this detracts from the game.
So the FDL and Python are large ships because they have large ship class hulls and the FDL is also a small ship because it handles dmg like a small ship but they are both medium ships because they fit on medium pads?
Last edited:
As far as I'm concerned, FDL handles just the same as Python when your speed is within the blue zone. I flew both with A-rated parts and the time for them to do a 360 degree pitch is nearly the same. They have less than 10% difference (according to my crude test which is prone error but ±1 is nothing). The only difference the the speed at which you pitch.
For the FDL you will draw a big circle, for the Python a smaller circle. I must also say that I'm very disappointed with the FDL.
For the FDL you will draw a big circle, for the Python a smaller circle. I must also say that I'm very disappointed with the FDL.
Last edited:
His name is CMDR Persephonius, been here since the beta at least.
- - - Updated - - -
Gotta love people that read an entire post and still make snide comments. May be I need to make the caveat that I was going off the top of my head from conversations in game at 5 in the morning. I tried to convey it as accurately as I could remember it. Instead of being a jerk, just politely correct me and move on.
"I don't know if that's 100% accurate or I explained it 100% accurately as they gave it to me"
Last edited:
So the FDL and Python are large ships because they have large ship class hulls and the FDL is also a small ship because it handles dmg like a small ship but they are both medium ships because they fit on medium pads?
The FdL handles nothing like a small ship, except maybe for the strong thrusters.
I was asking a question to point out what I see as the confusion of cross labelling different aspects of a ship by size and how illogical that has already become, not making a statement.
As far as I am concerned a ship's size is determined by what pads it can dock at not what kind of hull, weapons or agility it has.
As even the current ships already differ regardless of their size trying to put them into a different size category because of their abilities is unhelpful and confusing at best and we don't even have the full range of ships yet.
A ship's size is determined by what size pad it docks at. It is simple and consistent across all ships.
Last edited:
If that's the case, certain ships should be barred or relegated to different pads:
From a design perspective, the ship is the Large category. Cobra is a Medium ship, as there's another quote somewhere saying that it has damage reduction from small HP against its hull.
From a design perspective, the ship is the Large category. Cobra is a Medium ship, as there's another quote somewhere saying that it has damage reduction from small HP against its hull.
Stop thinking of it as a "dmg penalty" to large ships. That isn't really what it is. Think of it this way... a small weapon does the same damage to EVERYthing it hits. But medium ship's armor is tougher than smaller ships armor, and large ships have tougher armor than medium ships...so the small weapon will seemingly do less damage. That is exactly what you would expect it to do.
Real life example:
Take your Ak47 rifle, and shoot up a car (small ship) with it... how much DMG does it do? Quite a bit
Take your same AK47 rifle, and shoot up a Hum-v (large ship) with it... how much DMG does it do? much less
Take your same AK47 rifle, and shoot up an Abrams A1 tank with it... how much DMG does it do? none
It isn't that the bullet got weaker... it's that the target is natually more resistant to it.
Last edited:
That's the problem, the python fits on a medium pad. The cobra fits on a small. The clipper fits on a large. This is a first (that I can remember since launch) but I disagree with Mike on this one.
If a ship's size determined that it would only have certain other aspects, fair enough, but outside what pads the ships use, you have to examine the specs carefully - this makes the size classification pointless and confusing (especially for newcomers) for anything other than pad size.
You could make a python dock at a large pad but it fits on a medium (which makes it far more versitile). You can't fit a Clipper on a medium which is why it's on a large.
Giving hull types their own classes would be more useful.
Last edited:
Apparently, the FDL handles damage like a large ship, with even better than large resistance to small weapons.
That's one metric, but not the only one, and not always the most relevant one.
That would be silly. Ships should be able to land on whatever pad they fit on.
Cobra certainly absorbs more damage from small weapons than it's hull strength would indicate.