How is it that an Imperial Courier can outclass a Clipper for shield?
- Thread starter Miko
- Start date
A little more context would be useful. My Courier's shields are purely for landing and suchlike. The only option I have in fights is to not get hit (they are paper). 
Mind you, not getting hit is quite easy in an engineered Courier too.
Mind you, not getting hit is quite easy in an engineered Courier too.You're doing it wrong. Put a reinforced C6 shield on the clipper and a C7 SCB. Goodluck matching that with a courier.
A Clippers shields despite being class 7 are like not enough butter spread over too much bread.
In other words, no matter what you do, they are always going to be pants.
In other words, no matter what you do, they are always going to be pants.
the Courier and Vulture are well known as shield tanks.
![[VR] Jay Le Chardon](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/116/116277.jpg?1599768453){kind=avatar}
Basically the OP is commenting on the fact that if both are built as a "shield tank", before engineering, the courier gets ~700mj shields, where the clipper gets ~470mj
The "Butter and Bread" analogy is correct. Clipper may have a bigger shield, but it's spread over a much larger ship.
That being so, the corvette, conda should all have paper thin shields with the same class 7 generator? But they don't all the big three make more shields than the clipper does with a class 7 shield genny and 4x boosters.
All with 4x A shield boosters, 7A shield generator:
Clipper = 551MJ / 486 integrity / 400T hull
Federal Corvette = 1,329MJ / 666 integrity / 900T hull
Imperial Cutter = 1,264MJ / 720 integrity / 1100T hull
Anaconda = 1,071MJ / 1,071 integrity / 400T hull* - Anaconda has always been known to be "too light"
So, no, I'm not buying the "bread + butter analogy" - compared to bigger ships with the same shield generator + boosters it still makes significantly less shield strength which invalidates the bread and butter analogy. If the shield were calculated around the energy density of the surface by mass or volume, akin to the film thickness of the butter, the larger and heavier ships listed above would have less shields than the clipper, not more.
Clipper = 551MJ / 486 integrity / 400T hull
Federal Corvette = 1,329MJ / 666 integrity / 900T hull
Imperial Cutter = 1,264MJ / 720 integrity / 1100T hull
Anaconda = 1,071MJ / 1,071 integrity / 400T hull* - Anaconda has always been known to be "too light"
So, no, I'm not buying the "bread + butter analogy" - compared to bigger ships with the same shield generator + boosters it still makes significantly less shield strength which invalidates the bread and butter analogy. If the shield were calculated around the energy density of the surface by mass or volume, akin to the film thickness of the butter, the larger and heavier ships listed above would have less shields than the clipper, not more.
The engineers at Gutamaya placed more value on shield effectiveness when designing the Courier than they did for the Clipper.
I've been toying with a combat clipper.
A 7a prismatic with g5 reinforced hi cap, 4 oa boosters g5 heavy duty super cap gives over 2000mj.
pve only of course.
A 7a prismatic with g5 reinforced hi cap, 4 oa boosters g5 heavy duty super cap gives over 2000mj.
pve only of course.
Last edited:
2000mj of terrible damage resistances. Even against pure plasma boat, it won't last.
Anyways, this topic is about the shield being terrible on a Clipper despite being capable of using a class 7. Why the hell are some ships like this? Lol.
This is bad? I did say pve only.
s.orbis.zone
The misses always told me I was dumber than dirt. Guees it carries over to my gaming.
Coriolis EDCD Edition
A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous
The misses always told me I was dumber than dirt. Guees it carries over to my gaming.
Last edited:
There are all sorts of factors that I'm guessing Frontier considered when making ships; jump range, speed, pitch/roll/yaw rates, cargo capacity, weapons, utility slots, running heat, hull, hardness, shield values, potential unlock, etc. I'd wager if something was made really good at one thing, it paid for it by getting hit in another area.
Every ship can't have the best of everything or they would all be the same thing. The game has changed a bit too, so some of the stuff that maybe mattered back when they designed some of these ships (price comes to mind) are all but irrelevant now, so any trade offs a ship might have taken to be good at one thing just might not make a lot of sense in the current state of the game.
Yes, a Courier with max size shields will have more shields than a Clipper with max size shields. Why shouldn't it be that way? Why should a Clipper innately deserve a higher shield value when using max size shields than a Courier?
The clipper has a power grid that is built to provide 186 MJ (or 180MJ based on which site you are looking at) of energy to the shield module (I assume at a balanced distribution between shields/engines/weapons via the distributor module). The kind of shield module installed uses that 186 MJ to provide the final MJ of shielding with more or less efficiency based on its class rating (A-E) and with the minimum and maximum hull size also affecting the final strength of the shield.
The courier has a power grid that is built to provide 230 MJ (or 200 MJ based on which site you are looking at) of energy to the shield module. This ship is fundamentally built to provide more energy to shields.
These base numbers are included on the ship stats in EDSY or Coriolis. These base numbers are a part of the ship's basic design and at this time I don't think they can be modified.
(I might be wrong about this. Someone correct me please, if so. The two site do not list the same values but I lean they can probably be computed if you use a module with 100% efficiency and an optimal hull size, or you know how that formula works. There must be a base amount of MJ supplied because the shield modules themselves do not output power, they just use it. Also, I do not understand MW to MJ conversions and exactly what the difference is between them, but the shields say in their stats how many MW they draw from the distributor (with even pips probably). That number might be what is converted to the base MJ so perhaps the formula is not needed but just understanding that to get the most efficient MW to MJ conversion is when your ship is at the optimal mass. Although, if the distributor draw is how the base MJ is realized, then it still will not make sense that the same shields supply different MJ in a ship with the same hull size, so it must be something more. It is of note that even with 0 pips to systems, the shields do not collapse from being without power so the distributor draw probably is not the full draw.)
The courier has a power grid that is built to provide 230 MJ (or 200 MJ based on which site you are looking at) of energy to the shield module. This ship is fundamentally built to provide more energy to shields.
These base numbers are included on the ship stats in EDSY or Coriolis. These base numbers are a part of the ship's basic design and at this time I don't think they can be modified.
(I might be wrong about this. Someone correct me please, if so. The two site do not list the same values but I lean they can probably be computed if you use a module with 100% efficiency and an optimal hull size, or you know how that formula works. There must be a base amount of MJ supplied because the shield modules themselves do not output power, they just use it. Also, I do not understand MW to MJ conversions and exactly what the difference is between them, but the shields say in their stats how many MW they draw from the distributor (with even pips probably). That number might be what is converted to the base MJ so perhaps the formula is not needed but just understanding that to get the most efficient MW to MJ conversion is when your ship is at the optimal mass. Although, if the distributor draw is how the base MJ is realized, then it still will not make sense that the same shields supply different MJ in a ship with the same hull size, so it must be something more. It is of note that even with 0 pips to systems, the shields do not collapse from being without power so the distributor draw probably is not the full draw.)
Last edited:
Because the Clipper has a class 7 shield. Why is that point being ignored. It's absurd that a small ship utilising a class 3 or class 2 shield can completely outclass a larger ship using a larger shield.
I don't think it's a question of every ship having the best of everything, but you would expect the game to have some degree of consistency with regards to design when particular classes of modules can be utilised by the vessel - the class 7 shield in the case of a Clipper.
Another issue off topic is the mass lock factor. The game should base this on ship mass and nothing else. Another warped design by my logic. But hey ho.
Shields have maximum and optimal mass. The Clipper still got a pretty obvious behind the scenes shield Nerf, and the Courier a buff, but there is more to it than 7 shields on any ship give more value than 3 shields on any ship.
A Hauler with size 2 thrusters will go faster than a Corvette with 7 thrusters, similar scenario, the module size and its effect is relative to the weight of the ship.
Edit: MLF makes very little sense, I agree with you there!
A Hauler with size 2 thrusters will go faster than a Corvette with 7 thrusters, similar scenario, the module size and its effect is relative to the weight of the ship.
Edit: MLF makes very little sense, I agree with you there!
Buy them books and all they do is chew on the pages.
I probably need to go chew on some. It would probably help.