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

[kofeyh]

Balance. To be better exploring ship, you lose on the combat side.

Frontier added a military slot to Anaconda. No offence, but being in denial, doesn't change the facts. You can't ignore an input factor, simply because it's not convenient.

So it's a matter of balancing that you don't end up having combat-exploring ships.

Apart from the Anaconda; it's a combat-exploring ship. With a military slot. You were saying?

Next would be to make all combat-exploring ships with 1000 T cargo space, so they're combat-exploring-trading ships.

*sniff* mm, the smell of a fresh new logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

And then we add mining and passenger transports. And then we only need one ship doing everything.

We already have this; the Anaconda. The great irony in your comment, is that the Anaconda is able to carry more economy passengers than anything else (with the highest jump-range, to boot). Due to the internals, it also makes an excellent long-range mining ship. I'm not sure this is helping your argument.

Your concern for a thing to not happen, ignores that we already have the thing that shouldn't happen. It can be ignored, or it can be considered and other ships adjusted to live in the same universe in some sort of relevant way. You're (naturally) concerned a horse might bolt; this is however compromised by the fact one made a break from the stable a long time ago.

Ignoring that, doesn't solve anything. As the developer has perhaps come to understand, far better than we maybe give them credit. It's no coincidence that every ship added since, has seen stats that are a massive compromise. They've simply swung in the opposite direction, which has only served to make the imbalance worse. Because it's just exacerbated the situation.

 

[Numenor1379]

Fundamentally, the Anaconda is not properly balanced, but we all know that it will never be nerfed, so the only viable approach is to do a proper rebalancing of all the other ships. Here's my take:

• Multi-role ships should be mediocre-to-good at most tasks, but not excel at any. That means that (because of the Anaconda) all of the other ships need some tweaks, so that the best ones are better than an Anaconda in 1 or 2 metrics.
• Explorer ships should have very-good jump ranges and have dedicated slots for exploration tools like scanners and scoops, with enough free slots for SRV hangers, AFMUs, hull repair limpets, etc.
• Trader ships should have good jump ranges when empty and be able to haul a lot of cargo.
• Mining ships should be much like a Trader, but come with a built-in mining laser and a master limpet controller that can program/control several different kinds of limpets. It should also allow multiple limpets to unload at the same time.
• Combat ships should have decent jump ranges, but a fully-armored and weapon-fitted ship should not be able to jump as far as a multi-role ship, because it's HEAVY. It should have a jump range similar to a laden trade ship. Perhaps engineers could offer light-weight mods for armor, shields, and weapons, so you could jump further, but with some sort of a tradeoff.

As for improving jump ranges, one approach would be to have an engineer who can lighten your hull; that would help a lot. It could also explain the Anaconda: Its magical-lightweight hull has already been engineered to the max and cannot be lightened any further, but other ships can be buffed to a similar extent. As for materials, I'd suggest gathering pieces of anacondite from USSes, where an Anaconda was reduced to scrap.

Holy hell I love that suggestion. You could also combine that with a lower hull hardness as a trade-off, which would also bring hulls in line with what the Anaconda currently has.

 

[kofeyh]

Holy hell I love that suggestion. You could also combine that with a lower hull hardness as a trade-off, which would also bring hulls in line with what the Anaconda currently has.

Indeed. It's still a better love story than Twilight.

 

[WR3ND]

Indeed. It's still a better love story than Twilight.

We can't fix Twilight either, but then I didn't bother reading it.

What would you suggest, you know, given viability, et cetera?

 

[Numenor1379]

Indeed. It's still a better love story than Twilight.

I think this is something that we should push to FDev as a solution. Probably would need to make the unlock pretty high up, like need two Elite ranks or something given the effect this could have.

I think it'd need to be based on some sort a percentage reduction. Let's say the Anaconda should be 600T, so that would be a 33% drop. Put that on all other ships and you could have quite an interesting situation. The amount of customization for builds would expand tremendously.

 

[AsukaZ]

So what's really behind this? The thread title is actually two titles; what's the connection?

I understand that it's not fun to fly a combat ship with short jump range. I beefed up my FDL all tanky to fight Thargoids and it was painful to get anywhere. At one point I took one hull reinforcement back out to fit an extra fuel tank because I was paranoid about getting stranded. But to most of us it makes sense that a very heavy ship has low jump range. F=ma and all that. That seems to me how it should be with military stuff.

A small buff might not be a bad idea. An FSD supercharge module which only fits a military slot? Lighter hulls? Bigger FSD slot? There are possible ways.

But the thread title and most suggested fixes are telling. "Nerf the Anaconda!" Eh? How would that help Cutter and Corvette pilots exactly? So all this is really about envy: someone who chose a different and less capable ship is better-off than me in one area - this cannot be borne!

The reality:
* If you build an Anaconda for 60ly jumps it won't be any good for combat or for cargo carrying.
* Anaconda isn't better than Corvette for combat.
* Anaconda can't carry as much cargo as Cutter.
* Anaconda's hull lightness is reflected in lower hull hardness than any of the other "big 4".

No nerf is needed, and if one was applied it wouldn't fix the OP problem.

I agree with this. Nerfing the conda does nothing for jump ranges for battle cruisers.
And I did struggle to see the connection. Envy ? yeah, that would explain it. Could be wrong though.

Increase jump ranges a little for combat vessels, sure I have no issue. I don't really fly anything that can't get at least 20Ly.
But nerf the Anaconda ? Hell no ! it's fine as it is. (IMO)

 

[Lestat]

I think we need to look at it a different way. I know a lot of people mixing total Internal slot vs Internal space. I think we need to look at Internal space overall not internal slots. So which ship should jump the farthest?


Cutter

Hardpoints

8x Utility Mounts
4x Medium Hardpoints
2x Large Hardpoints
1x Huge Hardpoint

Internals
1x Size 3 Compartment
1x Size 4 Compartment
2x Size 5 Compartments
3x Size 6 Compartments
2x Size 8 Compartments
2x Size 5 Military Compartments


Corvette

8x Utility Mounts
2x Small Hardpoints
2x Medium Hardpoints
1x Large Hardpoint
2x Huge Hardpoints

Internal

1x Size 3 Compartment
2x Size 4 Compartments
2x Size 5 Compartments
2x Size 6 Compartments
3x Size 7 Compartments
2x Size 5 Military Compartments

Anaconda

8x Utility Mounts
2x Small Hardpoints
2x Medium Hardpoints
3x Large Hardpoints
1x Huge Hardpoint

Internals

1x Size 2 Compartment
3x Size 4 Compartments
3x Size 5 Compartments
3x Size 6 Compartments
1x Size 7 Compartment
1x Size 5 Military Compartment

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

IMHO, the Anaconda is exactly how ships should be, in terms of jump range.

You can outfit an Anaconda to do anything. Exploration setups can jump huge distances, but have a snowballs chance in hell in combat.
Outfit it for pure combat or cargo, and it's range comes right down.
Or go somewhere in the middle.

Basically you can choose between range and whatever.

All ships should have a good scale like the Anaconda.
So you can enjoy flying those ships to their destination, and at their destination, rather than feel forced to fly something else, and use the transfer feature.

Your actual range (not jump range) can be balanced by the fuel tank, if you want more range, fit more fuel tanks. Self balancing.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Jack Schitt]

Just throwing this out there. According to Sandro back in October, "The Anaconda is a bit of an overpowered ship, but we can't change it now, as it is very popular. Players wouldn't like us changing their favourite ship."

Then one solution, as I mentioned earlier, is to split "an" overpowered ship into at least two variants. One quasi-military brawler in balance with the other big hitters, and one very lightly armed sprinter that maintains the legendary jump range. If it turns out there's a middle ground, maybe an armed trader configuration, that doesn't work from either of those starting configurations, maybe there's even room for a third.

There'd be a lot of work involved on FD's part in terms of module size and parameter tweaks, and no doubt there would be outliers in the community who wouldn't be fully happy with anything other than the original. But it's probably a lot less work than constantly buffing and power-creeping every other ship in the game to match something the developers freely admit is broken, and there'd be no need to design a new model.

At the very least having a combat-focused Anaconda variant would remove the Anaconda from all these arguments about buffing the jump range on combat ships. The two issues are separate; it's only player perceptions that keeps conflating them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't worry guys, I got this.

There's a group of fun hating players in this game. Frontier does everything this fun hating group wants. This group likes nothing more than depriving other people of fun. Including limiting FSD range of combat ships.

You think I'm talking rubbish? Wait till this thread reaches page 10

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. We're not fun hating, Frontier dictating, we're dishonest, dishonorable, zealous, immature, dignity selling bozos.

Well, at least it's a fresh new look at the situation, which is appreciated. I was worried it was going to be same old, same old.

You guys never disappoint [heart]

 

[Brrokk]

Still no-one complaining about Anacondas has explained what "balance" actually is.

Does "balance" mean that if I want to choose a ship for particular purposes it will always be a hard decision as all ships are equally good?
(That would be a boring game. But if it doesn't mean that, what's wrong with one ship being better than another at a role?)

Does "balance" mean that no ship should be the best for every imaginable role?
(I'd agree with that definition. But according to that definition, the Anaconda isn't "unbalanced".)

Does "balance" mean that all ships are equally good in PvP?
(Is anyone saying an Anaconda is as good as a Corvette for PvP? I doubt it.)

If it doesn't mean any of those things, what does it mean?

 

[ilo]

I agree with this. Nerfing the conda does nothing for jump ranges for battle cruisers.
And I did struggle to see the connection. Envy ? yeah, that would explain it. Could be wrong though.

Increase jump ranges a little for combat vessels, sure I have no issue. I don't really fly anything that can't get at least 20Ly.
But nerf the Anaconda ? Hell no ! it's fine as it is. (IMO)

The thing is.. as I'm reading the comments, the more they look like the people complaining about the short jump range of the corvette only brings up the anaconda to claim how unfair the system is, as an excuse for their request. I'm quite sure, if the anaconda gets a nerf in its jump range to make it 'fair play' they will still complain their corvette can't jump and they will bring another comparison and 'unfairness' to the table.

Actually, they never wrote about how OP the anaconda was before, even when they were using it to grind the credits for the corvette.

 

[Brrokk]

The thing is.. as I'm reading the comments, the more they look like the people complaining about the short jump range of the corvette only brings up the anaconda to claim how unfair the system is, as an excuse for their request. I'm quite sure, if the anaconda gets a nerf in its jump range to make it 'fair play' they will still complain their corvette can't jump and they will bring another comparison and 'unfairness' to the table.

Actually, they never wrote about how OP the anaconda was before, even when they were using it to grind the credits for the corvette.

That's precisely it, and you can see it happen even in the thread title before the posting started.

 

[Lestat]

Still no-one complaining about Anacondas has explained what "balance" actually is.

Does "balance" mean that if I want to choose a ship for particular purposes it will always be a hard decision as all ships are equally good?
(That would be a boring game. But if it doesn't mean that, what's wrong with one ship being better than another at a role?)

Does "balance" mean that no ship should be the best for every imaginable role?
(I'd agree with that definition. But according to that definition, the Anaconda isn't "unbalanced".)

Does "balance" mean that all ships are equally good in PvP?
(Is anyone saying an Anaconda is as good as a Corvette for PvP? I doubt it.)

If it doesn't mean any of those things, what does it mean?

I don't think anyone on this topic tried to break down each ship to prove a point. All I see is boo hoo. None of you tried to look at how much space each ship can holds. Even if they are empty they hold something. There a frame and the hull. Well, that weight. There is something being used. Even if it not being used to hold something.

I think the best Idea is Put detail facts in a new topic. Why should the Anaconda have a shorter jump range? Show each ship you believe they should be able to jump at a longer distance.

I have not tried the other 2 ships Cutter or Corvette. I have been out in the deep as long as Horizon been out. With an Anaconda with 17ly jump range. Yes, it was bad.

What I able to look at is Wiki. See the Module space. Even if a compartment 8 which can hold 256 tons of cargo or none but fitted with a class 3 compartment which would hold 16-ton cargo rack. There still more space being used. than 16 cargo. People are forgetting the frame and extra hull space that not being used.

I not saying this is a way out for the Anaconda. But you all need to look at it all.

 

[crushdepth]

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. We're not fun hating, Frontier dictating, we're dishonest, dishonorable, zealous, immature, dignity selling bozos.

Well, at least it's a fresh new look at the situation, which is appreciated. I was worried it was going to be same old, same old.

You guys never disappoint [heart]

Actually I just checked and it seems the integrity of my Anaconda is alarmingly low. And the fuel gauge is lying to me.

 

[Han Zulu]

Frontier added a military slot to Anaconda. No offence, but being in denial, doesn't change the facts. You can't ignore an input factor, simply because it's not convenient.

Apart from the Anaconda; it's a combat-exploring ship. With a military slot. You were saying?

*sniff* mm, the smell of a fresh new logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

We already have this; the Anaconda. The great irony in your comment, is that the Anaconda is able to carry more economy passengers than anything else (with the highest jump-range, to boot). Due to the internals, it also makes an excellent long-range mining ship. I'm not sure this is helping your argument.

Your concern for a thing to not happen, ignores that we already have the thing that shouldn't happen. It can be ignored, or it can be considered and other ships adjusted to live in the same universe in some sort of relevant way. You're (naturally) concerned a horse might bolt; this is however compromised by the fact one made a break from the stable a long time ago.

Ignoring that, doesn't solve anything. As the developer has perhaps come to understand, far better than we maybe give them credit. It's no coincidence that every ship added since, has seen stats that are a massive compromise. They've simply swung in the opposite direction, which has only served to make the imbalance worse. Because it's just exacerbated the situation.

No, you're right. I think I somehow misunderstood the OP after reading some other threads about engineering and that was still stuck in my mind. Don't know. Anyway. Yes, the Anaconda is unbalanced. My reply was really about engineering and jump ranges in general and why military ships in general have smaller jump ranges.

 

[xondk]

I have had this discussion numerous times with my alliance/wing. How does limiting the jump range of combat ships make the game better? Really..

The Anaconda has a hull mass of 400 tons, despite being only slightly smaller than the Corvette and Cutter. It has the same hull mass as a Clipper, despite being the fourth or fifth largest ship in the game. It has a better DPS than the Corvette, more maneuverability than the Cutter and because of its unreasonably low hull mass, can achieve better jump ranges than both. It is the ship that we all pretty much have to purchase.. and owning a couple does not change how I feel about it. People should be able to enjoy their Corvettes and Cutters more, and visit remote locations in the galaxy without having to pull their hair out.

The Anaconda is the one ship allowed to be unbalanced. Which brings me to another point, how does limiting the jump ranges of combat oriented ships specifically make the game better? Where does the combat bias come from? If a person wants to fly a Corvette everywhere because it is their favorite ship, why must the game be more tedious for that person? Really there is no benefit to the stinginess of jump range that combat ships are targeted with. It basically limits fun factor for no real reason.

Especially the likes of the FDL and Vulture. Combat ships are either given unrealistically heavy hull mass, poor fuel tank volume, under-sized FSD or a combination of multiple. I have never understood the bias that allows multi-purpose ships to have superior DPS AND ease of mobility.

I do not feel that stifling jump range makes the game better. I think people should be able to fly any ship they want pretty much anywhere. It should not take somebody that has a favorite ship that happens to be combat oriented hundreds or thousands of more jumps to reach the same areas that some ships can reach far easier.

I know that Frontier has collectively turned a blind eye towards the Anaconda but why not buff others? Every combat ship should be buffed by no less than 10 to 15 light years in my opinion.

It really depends on how you view the anaconda's weight.

It is entirely possible to make something lighter and just as strong, all that it needs is better materials, going by the lore.
"The Anaconda is the pride of Faulcon deLacy's ship yards." Add that it is an older design, so maybe simply got cheaper to create over time, compared to others despite being able to keep up with more modern ships in the lore universe.

So it really doesn't mean the ship is unbalanced per say, the only ones that can truly judge that is frontier, you might find it unbalanced, but it might not be, heck it might also be.

Add that you are saying "combat ships" are unbalanced, but are they? combat ships aren't meant for travelling last I checked? so why would they need a long jump range?
as for multiroll being superior, i've seen most pvp'ers in smaller ships then the big three, so I do not agree.

 

[n13L5]

All your complaints about the Anaconda make no sense. Pure envy.

The Anaconda was built with a rare high tech material of better quality than other ships. The manufacturer had found a metallic ring in a far away location they kept secret, where they were able to mine a rare metal called Handwavium. This is what gives the Anaconda its inimitable properties.

The only other ship, where traces of this material were used is the Cobra MKIII. Its fairly obvious, that a new supply contract of Handwavium for the Cobra MKIV was denied.

 

[Sylveria]

Fundamentally, the Anaconda is not properly balanced, but we all know that it will never be nerfed, so the only viable approach is to do a proper rebalancing of all the other ships. Here's my take:

• Multi-role ships should be mediocre-to-good at most tasks, but not excel at any. That means that (because of the Anaconda) all of the other ships need some tweaks, so that the best ones are better than an Anaconda in 1 or 2 metrics.
• Explorer ships should have very-good jump ranges and have dedicated slots for exploration tools like scanners and scoops, with enough free slots for SRV hangers, AFMUs, hull repair limpets, etc.
• Trader ships should have good jump ranges when empty and be able to haul a lot of cargo.
• Mining ships should be much like a Trader, but come with a built-in mining laser and a master limpet controller that can program/control several different kinds of limpets. It should also allow multiple limpets to unload at the same time.
• Combat ships should have decent jump ranges, but a fully-armored and weapon-fitted ship should not be able to jump as far as a multi-role ship, because it's HEAVY. It should have a jump range similar to a laden trade ship. Perhaps engineers could offer light-weight mods for armor, shields, and weapons, so you could jump further, but with some sort of a tradeoff.

As for improving jump ranges, one approach would be to have an engineer who can lighten your hull; that would help a lot. It could also explain the Anaconda: Its magical-lightweight hull has already been engineered to the max and cannot be lightened any further, but other ships can be buffed to a similar extent. As for materials, I'd suggest gathering pieces of anacondite from USSes, where an Anaconda was reduced to scrap.

Excellent suggestions. I've echoed a similar tune in the past- especially in regard to the mass overhaul needed for all ships. Agreed with all points.

Multi-roles should not be the "go to" ships for everything- there should be some thought and consideration when choosing ships for activities, for which there really isn't at present time. People tend to favor certain ships above others (for whatever personal reasons) but for the majority of activities, you'll see most choosing a Python or Anaconda because they're exceptional at everything with very few cons to outweigh the pros.

"Combat focus" is a big problem- as evidenced throughout the years. Other activities have received little to no attention in regard to ship balance, and that's why we have a slew of "combat" ships and a few "multipurpose" ships, but relatively little in the other areas of activity. We don't have any "mining" ships for exactly this reason. Haulers and Explorers are mediocre in focus, if you choose them they have massive trade-offs where combat ships really don't. As for the fallacies surrounding weak argument- people know this is the case, and are equating their counter-arguments to things like making an F-15 Eagle into a C-5 transport... which is utterly ridiculous in comparison. No one is asking that a T-9 should be able to fight like a Fer-de-lance, as an example- they're asking that the T-7 be exceptional at what it's purposed for just like the Fer-de-lance is exceptional at Combat activities. When a Python can rival a T-7 AND carry weapons/armor and still land on Medium pads, it's a bit ridiculous. It's plain to see that there's a need for a re-balance/refocus, and if some can't see the writing on the wall they're either blind or willfully ignorant. (I'd choose the latter in most cases) Those resisting change are most likely stuck in the "combat focus" paradigm that FD has reinforced over time, but it does not make the facts irrelevant.

In short- for the naysayers, burying your head in the sand isn't going to make the problem go away. It's going to get worse with time as they introduce more ships, modules and systems... it's like building a castle on a mound of sand. I'm quite sure FD knows this, they're just trying to figure out how to deal with it without causing massive repercussions in the player base because people have become fond of their "king of the hill" and "big 3" ships. You can either accept a re-balance that includes a buff for activity-focused ships, or a nerf to the "exceptional" ones, but things need to change one way or another.

I do also believe that the lack of any sort of "profession" system exacerbates this issue, because all activities are exactly that currently. Just activities. Everyone's a "generalist" pilot and there's no real "buy in" for one activity over another- but combat is all over the place simply because of the nature of the "dangerous" environment lacking any sort of cohesive civilized social system.

 

[E-L-Y-S-I-U-M]

I'm afraid that I don't own an anaconda and so I cannot check, but just out of curiosity... what is the armour rating of the anaconda given its lower mass and what would be the rating on a Corvette? This is where I would nerf the Anaconda based on other stats and where Frontier might have too.

I love my fer-de-lance and as much as it frustrates me, I understand that to travel long distances I need to travel in a ship dedicated for this and not kitted out for combat. If I want more fuel, I have to give up an internal and if I want a bigger FSD then I should really be giving up a couple of weapon sizes to squeeze it in as I'd probably need a bigger power plant to power it too... And then the weight will go up and manoeuvrability will suffer and all of a sudden I've become a Python. This way we have a nice variety of ships, otherwise we just make them all perform the same but look different. And if I do want to do a little exploring in my fer-de-lance, I shouldn't be able to get it to Colonia at the same speed as an Asp Explorer.