It seems to me like the chief argument here is "the Anaconda is broken, so you should break MY ship too." Not that I don't see the original point, and I read the whole thread, so I've seen the point illustrated many, many times, but I sorta agree that boosting combat ships would only break that class just as the Anaconda is broken in your eyes. As a guy who likes to just explore and catalog planets, I'm okay with my ship not being a massive gun platform. And it seems that the reason behind the chief complaint is the OP wants to patrol the farthest reaches of the galaxy.
Patrol them... for what? From what I understand, there isn't much out there that needs combating, so the only ones that would be combated are players who are out to explore and catalog. In other words, it seems to me like the only reason the player needs to travel that far is to attack other players who have ships of lesser durability and armament. I could very well be wrong. But, as someone who has been frequently blasted by role-playing pirates, I'd say no thanks, we'll keep to the fringes, safe from your aggression, and you keep to your stomping grounds, leashed by your low jump range.
From the arguments presented here, I'd say the Anaconda does seem a little over powered, and I guess they aren't going to fix that, but if they "break" combat ships to match it, now there are more problems, not fewer. Imagine; they bump up your ranges to the 20-30 range. Now, you can catch more explorer builds that haven't been engineered to within an inch of their lives, and beat them up, so the Explorers complain that combat ships are "broken," and they give into that concern, and boost explorer builds. Eventually, every group will complain about the other getting "broken," and once every class is broken to match the Anaconda, the Conda crowd will lose it's mind because boosting everyone else except them is the same as nerfing them.
I am far too inexperienced in this game to present arguments like the original poster and the others who have backed their positions with data, but as the layman, complaining about a broken ship and proposing to solve it by breaking something else is not logical.
Well to be honest your ignorance shows. Most explorers I know don't even play on open play in the first place, and if you really do explore, you would know that the further you are from the bubble, the less people you run into. People such as yourself arguing about balance and what will be thrown out of whack are the same people using an Anaconda, which is a ship that is allowed to not have a weakness really. It is a ship that spits on the idea of a defined role because it can do anything. Your logic sounds like an excuse, because a combat fit Anaconda will still have far more jump range then a Cutter or a Corvette. If you don't have those breathing down your neck while you are outside of the bubble, then it proves that your argument is nonsensical.
My point is that protection of one broken ship should not dictate what other people do with their own favorite ship. Forcing more tediousness and load screens on one player over another is not right. No one can argue for the Anaconda without being dishonest. The ship itself is dishonest, and the fact that the community would rather protect it than fix the problem by either buffing other ships or nerfing the Anaconda proves that as much as they want to talk about role play or realism, it's nothing more than a bias. If the community is willing to allow the Andaconda to impose on every ship that is added to the game, then it proves that they have allowed one portion of the community to be more important than the others.
If these Anaconda fliers only value jump range, take away the *** military slot, take away the fighter bay, give it a smaller shield generator and less armor then superpower military ships. But these people will not support that idea, because the idea for them is not balance, it is to maintain the brokenness. Supporting imposing limitations on other players yet doing everything in your power to avoid them for your preferred play style makes those people hypocrites.