How do jump range limitations make the game better? Anaconda's unrealistic hull mass.

[ManRightChea]

@anubis. No I understood the point just fine, I just turned your analogy back on you. You clearly didn't read the rest of my response. The Python is multi-purpose but it is also basically better than the FDL, better armor, more DPS etc. People don't mind things being broken as long as it helps them out.

@crushdepth. You mean the Anaconda? The Anaconda is that ship. It is broken because of it's low mass which gives it incredible range. It has more hull armor, then the Corvette, it has more damage per second from having more large weapons, it out maneuvers the Cutter, it is a bit faster than the Corvette, it is cheaper to outfit, it is cheaper to buy and it does not require naval rank.

So yes the ship is overpowered. I don't see how this is somehow similar to wanting more jump range on a combat ship.

See nobody can actually use any facts to justify why this concept is somehow imbalanced, they can only use their own perception and bias.

 

[n13L5]

...combat it is in the top two or three ships (and better than the Corvette)

Are you talking about PvE or PvP or both?

I can't objectively say if my Conda or my Vette is *better* in PvE, but I only use the Vette, cause it handles so much better, you can fly it with fixed guns - something totally out of the question for an Anaconda...

 

[kofeyh]

The Anaconda is a multipurpose ship.

With a military slot; yep, totally not a military ship (hint: it's a military ship, it has a military slot). It was multipurpose. Frontier decided to draw the line, Anaconda is now a military ship. It's just a military ship that has very high module counts, very high utility counts, very low mass and breaks every combat ship rule, because this is what people want.

There's a pattern, there.

 

[ManRightChea]

Jump range indirectly equates to fun, because it saves your play-time to do what you actually want to do, rather than staring at butt-ugly witch-space 17 times, wasting 45 minutes of your time - while the guy in a Conda, ASP or DBX got there in 10 minutes.

So while you were doing something stoopid, repetitive and annoying for 45 minutes, he's been having fun and profits at the destination for 35 minutes already.

Also, at the end of his casual 1 hour play session, he got a fair amount of bounties collected, credits and engineering materials to show for his time etc, while all you did was jumping, scooping, jumping, scooping!

Your wing or friends, waiting for you all that time will call you stoopid for flying "the wrong ship".


I hate the DBX cause its like a garbage truck, while I'd prefer to fly a Yacht - but the FDL is unusable, if your task includes travel.

So I can NEVER fly the ships I really want to fly in the game, because they have shtt jump range.

Do you think I *want* to fly that poorly designed trash pile they named Anaconda? Have you ever looked at the under-side of it? An intern in his first few hours using 3D Studio?!?
But I have no choice, because I can either go 60LY and be anywhere I need to be in the bubble in 4 jumps and get on with my intended business - or I can spend my time in gross-looking, unrealistic jump animations. No thanks, I'd rather play Assassin's Creed then... Riding long distances on beautifully animated horses in awesome landscapes beats the crap out of witch space.


Going from engineer to engineer in the Corvette takes so long, I frankly wouldn't bother to log into Elite at all.

Why I have 2 Corvettes - they get parked in a system with CZs and HazRez, but I travel with Anaconda, ASP or DBX. There are ONLY those three ships if you got many places to go.


Engineers force you exactly into this heavy moving around, far and wide, with vast quantities of materials to be collected in different locations all over the bubble and even outside of it.
So, suddenly, ships with crappy jump range are yet less fun than they used to be.


So your answer is: "more fun" because you had more time for your intended activity and less time for repetitive tedium of jumping in tiny steps.


Haven't you ever felt sorry for people with short legs who just can't keep up walking or running?

I have a suggestion for FD -
to measure popularity of ships, please don't simplistically count ownership numbers. Count the hours players actually spend in that ship's cockpit.
I bet you Anaconda, ASPx and DBx will win that contest hands down.

Cause I own every ship other than Lakon's T series. But the shtt-jump range ones are all sitting in the hangar most of the time.
If I need an FDL some place, I fly ahead in ANA, ASP or DBX and then pay to transfer the FDL - better to loose the money, log off and wait for the FDL to arrive than wasting hours of my life in witch space - hours you can never get back.

Thank you for perfectly realizing my point. People that love combat ships should not be punished just because of other peoples bias. We all know that the Anaconda is busted, but we swallow that because it is convenient for everything. Yet these people want to argue balance as an excuse to leave the combat ships paralyzed from the waist down. Total nonsense.

@kofeyh. Spot on correct. "It's a multi-purpose!" Yeah a multi-purpose with a fighter hangar and military slots that happens to do everything as well or better than everything else. Totally makes sense. But wanting 15 to 20 more light years of jump range on a combat ship, blasphemous!

 

[Shinji Ikari]

With a military slot; yep, totally not a military ship (hint: it's a military ship, it has a military slot). It was multipurpose. Frontier decided to draw the line, Anaconda is now a military ship. It's just a military ship that has very high module counts, very high utility counts, very low mass and breaks every combat ship rule, because this is what people want.

There's a pattern, there.

Huh, I wasn't aware. When did they add it?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

That is blatently OP by being too good at everything. Eploration it is king, combat it is in the top two or three ships (and better than the Corvette), trading it's better than all but 3 ships.

The Anaconda needs a massive nerf bat hit... but the playerbase would bring out the pitchforks were that to happen.

I'd like people to read my posts before replying.

 

[crushdepth]

@crushdepth. You mean the Anaconda? The Anaconda is that ship. It is broken because of it's low mass which gives it incredible range. It has more hull armor, then the Corvette, it has more damage per second from having more large weapons, it out maneuvers the Cutter, it is a bit faster than the Corvette, it is cheaper to outfit, it is cheaper to buy and it does not require naval rank.

...

See nobody can actually use any facts to justify why this concept is somehow imbalanced, they can only use their own perception and bias.

You are cherry picking arguments, you need to look at the Corvette as a package. It has huge armour, the biggest guns (I'm talking about the alpha strike of those two huge top mounted hardpoints), massive stacked defensive capability and far better manoeuvrability than the conda or other large ships, all wrapped up in one tidy package.

The *only* thing it isn't great at is jump range. That's a fairly small trade off for the top combat ship IMHO.

 

[Blackcompany]

It'd eliminate ship specialization. It's just as stupid as asking "Why would the game game if my exploration ship would be as deadly as a PvP FDL?" or "Why don't all ships carry the same armor?"

So...number of loading screens per session is part of shio balance?

Imagine this stupidity in any other genre. pubg: the bigger the gun you carry, the slower you run acrpss the map. Deliverance: the bigger your warhorse, the slow it runs. Fallout: the bigger your weapons, the more loading screens you have to watch enterimg amd leaving areas...

Its patently absurd. But because it was in back in 1984, and because the space sim genre embraces, as opposed to trying to overco e, its technical limitations, it gets a pass here...

Sad. Its really no wonder this genre died for 20 years. Even when playing, its 75% spectating, 15% alt+tabbing for information that should be in the game, 2% messing aboutnin menus, and 3% non-menu interaction...

 

[krylite]

Are you talking about PvE or PvP or both?

I can't objectively say if my Conda or my Vette is *better* in PvE, but I only use the Vette, cause it handles so much better, you can fly it with fixed guns - something totally out of the question for an Anaconda...

Good reminder of these overlooked bonuses of the corvette in combat. FD are already aware imo and so the big three are balanced enough. If the vette got a buff to fsd range whether due to a higher compartment or reduced hull mass, it should have a corresponding drawback such as more drift like the cutter, or less hull points for a smaller hull like the conda. (when the shields are gone, the conda and its pplant cracks the easiest) I'm tired of vette free buff pushers who just think the real gameplay advantages of the corvette in combat can just be veiled, distracted from, and overlooked. And yes, I have the cutter & corvette in my ship garages. Whenever I take the vette out to massacre cz's (and it's best at targets massacred/hour at cz's) , it feels like it flies like a cobra mk3 compared to my cutter.

 

[ManRightChea]

You are cherry picking arguments, you need to look at the Corvette as a package. It has huge armour, the biggest guns (I'm talking about the alpha strike of those two huge top mounted hardpoints), massive stacked defensive capability and far better manoeuvrability than the conda or other large ships, all wrapped up in one tidy package.

The *only* thing it isn't great at is jump range. That's a fairly small trade off for the top combat ship IMHO.

I'm not cherry picking a damn thing, people just don't want to acknowledge the facts. I already know what the Corvette is capable of, it's my favorite ship. However that huge armor, still less than the Anaconda. Those two amazing huge hardpoints, still out damaged by one huge hardpoint and 3 large. Yes it has better maneuverability, but it also has twice the hull mass of the Conda, with very few actual advantages.

The Anaconda can replicate damn near anything the Corvette can do, you can do it cheaper and faster because you don't need Naval rank and it's just cheaper overall. You got one ship that can do trade, mining, combat and exploration because if it's low hull mass allowing otherwise impossible exploration builds. Anaconda is the most overpowered ship in the game, that is just a fact.

Base armor > Corvette.
DPS > Corvette and Cutter.
Maneuverability > Cutter.
Speed > Corvette.
Hull Mass < Corvette and Cutter.
Price< Corvette and Cutter.
Internal storage roughly = Corvette and Cutter.
Jump range > Corvette and Cutter.

Those are the facts, so trying to argue balance using that machine is a waste of time.

@krylite. No you just want to make excuses for your broken ship. If it has less than half of the hull mass, why does it have more armor? Less hit points my . Why does it not take more damage? Why does it have more damage output from more large weapons? Why does it handle better than the Cutter? It does those things because it's broken that's why.

 

[Cageman]

I shouldn't have to taxi my Corvette. I should feel comfortable flying it anywhere. Why should other people have it easier getting around the bubble just because they don't fly a combat ship? Somebody needs to explain how the game will get worse by allowing this.

It is about sacrifice and ballance.

All my pure combat ships are really bad jumpers and this goes for my Mining ships as well, even my Anacondas, Cutters as well as Pythons (combat and/or Mining). There is simply no magic workaround, even when using an Anaconda as a pure combatship. I use a taxi Anaconda to travel around, or a DBX, which actually has even more jumprange compared to my taxi/trade Anaconda. Thing is, I do not only do COMBAT in this game. I do Mining/Trading/Exploration etc, and I have ships built for each of these roles. My exploration and taxi / cargoships are no combat ships at all; they do not have weapons or armour or any of that... that is why I can jump faster / longer with them, because they are much lighter and can be killed very easily by other CMDRs.

I only do CGs that have Trade and, possible, Combat. If there is no Trade, I will simply ignore it. Reason? Well, I go there in my taxi / trade ship, dock, call my combatship over, and while it is in transit I do some trade. And once the combat ship has arrived, I can now jump into BH, if I feel like I want to do it... and then I can alter between the two, because I find both trading and combat quite boring if I'm not altering between the two.

I guess this is what you "see" is going on when "combat Anacondas" has "superior" jumprange.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

So...number of loading screens per session is part of shio balance?

Imagine this stupidity in any other genre. pubg: the bigger the gun you carry, the slower you run acrpss the map. Deliverance: the bigger your warhorse, the slow it runs. Fallout: the bigger your weapons, the more loading screens you have to watch enterimg amd leaving areas...

Its patently absurd. But because it was in back in 1984, and because the space sim genre embraces, as opposed to trying to overco e, its technical limitations, it gets a pass here...

Sad. Its really no wonder this genre died for 20 years. Even when playing, its 75% spectating, 15% alt+tabbing for information that should be in the game, 2% messing aboutnin menus, and 3% non-menu interaction...

Considering the nature of ED and your demands, this is just not the game for you.

 

[krylite]

@krylite. No you just want to make excuses for your broken ship. If it has less than half of the hull mass, why does it have more armor? Less hit points my . Why does it not take more damage? Why does it have more damage output from more large weapons? Why does it handle better than the Cutter? It does those things because it's broken that's why.

I've had the conda. I dropped the conda, because I could barely see out with so much blocking the view. And I currently have the cutter and the vette. It handles better than the cutter? ( i edited above). Migosh, I think we have a different world of experience of the corvette. I prefer the cutter, because I'm an FSX nut and like flying the cutter like a boeing heavy, drift and all, part of my particular fun with it. But if I want to make massacre mission goals in tight deadlines occasionally , the corvette gets it done far more conveniently for me.

 

[Blackcompany]

Considering the nature of ED and your demands, this is just not the game for you.

Quite the contrary. I love the game. When it lets me play.

But its time for the support mechanics in space games to evolve past 1980 era technical limitations.

 

[ManRightChea]

I've had the conda. I dropped the conda, because I could barely see out with so much blocking the view. And I currently have the cutter and the vette. It handles better than the cutter? ( i edited above). Migosh, I think we have a different world of experience of the corvette. I prefer the cutter, because I'm an FSX nut and like flying the cutter like a boeing heavy, drift and all, part of my particular fun with it. But if I want to make massacre mission goals in tight deadlines occasionally , the corvette gets it done far more conveniently for me.

I own all three concurrently, yes the Anaconda out handles the Cutter. We don't have a different world of experience, one of us just has facts and the other doesn't. Nobody can justify that ship, anyone trying to is just bull****ing.

Base armor > Corvette.
DPS > Corvette and Cutter.
Maneuverability > Cutter.
Speed > Corvette.
Hull Mass < Corvette and Cutter.
Price< Corvette and Cutter.
Internal storage roughly = Corvette and Cutter.
Jump range > Corvette and Cutter.

@Cagman. No offense but your definition of fun doesn't decide what other people's definition is. Though I do respect your mindset.The Anaconda is also not balanced so I don't understand the balance argument people are trying to leverage against the Corvette and Cutter nor any combat ship that wants easier navigation.

 

[ManRightChea]

Quite the contrary. I love the game. When it lets me play.

But its time for the support mechanics in space games to evolve past 1980 era technical limitations.

No man it's just not the game for you, it's just not the game for people that aren't willing to b******* and perpetrate lies to support their own bias.

 

[Blackcompany]

No man it's just not the game for you, it's just not the game for people that aren't willing to b******* and perpetrate lies to support their own bias.

Bout sums it up...

 

[Numenor1379]

I'd love for someone to get a question on a LiveStream asking FDev; "Why does the Anaconda have a hull mass smaller than Medium ships like the FDS/FAS/FGS?"

 

[Shinji Ikari]

No man it's just not the game for you, it's just not the game for people that aren't willing to b******* and perpetrate lies to support their own bias.

Bout sums it up...

No point in keeping the discussion, I thought we had at least agreed on something but meh.

 

[ManRightChea]

I'd love for someone to get a question on a LiveStream asking FDev; "Why does the Anaconda have a hull mass smaller than Medium ships like the FDS/FAS/FGS?"

They would do what they do with all criticism on the streams, ignore it. Same thing they do on these forums. At least there are few people willing to be honest like you, Blackcompany, n13l5, kofeyh etc. This forum is dominated by dishonesty.