Ships Introducing the Diamondback Explorer

But it got me there.

View attachment 43197

Now to see the other black hole and then back to hand in the data.
Nice picture! Are you the first DB-Explorer to visit Sag A* then? Maybe they could use you for the next newsletter? :)

I feel like a total jerkoff for saying this because I don't want to cheapen FD's hard work...
Yeah, I don't like reacting like that either. I'm sure the people that designed the model worked very hard and I did want to like it.
 
Nice picture! Are you the first DB-Explorer to visit Sag A* then? Maybe they could use you for the next newsletter? :)
Thanks!
I think so. At least the previous visitors in the SgrA* thread came with Asps.

I stayed there for the night, maybe I will try taking a screenshot with DSR and enhance it in LR.
 
There's not going to be an 'upgrade' in the field of exploring to the Asp (and Anaconda) in the first 25 ships (unless the Imperial Cutter ends up as a kind of explorer as well). The thing about the Asp is it doesn't have to compromise much to keep a decent jump range and explorer fittings.

I actually kind of miss the days of the constant interdictions when leaving the edge, until you're about seventeen systems out of civilised space or so. Maybe they should be back in, so people will think about arming explorers and/or using good grade thrusters on them.
 
The only thing I am critical about is Mike Evan's willful inability to understand what stats are relevant for explorers, and his rather childish reaction of "I should just nerf scooping speed across the board, that will show you ingrates, lol."

---

Let me tell you a story. I was doing Imperial Navy promotion missions lately (many of them popped in a row), in my Vulture. These missions entailed me doing 5-6 jumps to find the station with the right mission.

My usual Vulture kit is a 2A scoop for a 8T tank + class 4 FSD. I basically lost patience, and put a 4A scoop in. Even going 5 systems took too long. I can't imagine going to Sag A* like that, it would kill me.

---

This DB thing is like as if they added a new trading ship that has as much cargo room as a type 7, but has a max speed of 30 (so the asp ends up getting more credits per hour). And then when someone complained about the ridiculously low top speed, Mike Evans would show up and say "30 is too slow? Are you kidding? I should just nerf ship speed across the board, lol."

And then like 20 forum posters show up and say how much they love the new ship, and how trading should be about smelling the roses, and not credits/ton/hour, and how they enjoy watching the station mailslot sail away majestically from them at a snail's pace, and how the new ship is perfect for them, etc. Also, if you don't like the new trader ship, you are not a real trader.

It's just completely bizarre.
I also think that Mike was a bit out of line with that remark as many of us aren't ingrates and we do have legitimate concerns. But from his perspective it's likely at least a little bit justified too. I'm sure he was trying to do what he could to design ships we would like that could also play fairly effective roles in the new Powerplay content. I can imagine that it can be very difficult trying to balance these things while also having to remain somewhat neutral and unattached to try and follow FD's goals and of course actually be able to get anything done and implemented into ED.

Having previously worked in the IT field as a person that had to (and wanted to) try and fix everything for any and all "internal customers" (and some external, for that matter) from the president down for a relatively large financial institution with many locations, I know that it can easily be very frustrating and overwhelming just securely balancing, navigating, prioritizing, and accurately identifying specific issues as genuinely politely and quickly as possible before even getting to the point of being able to investigate and resolve them or delegate that work to someone else who can that has the time to, if you let it. I can imagine that while hopefully not quite as urgent and demanding, it's similar designing and implementing new content for a game with such an active and involved community.

Also, technically skilled and effective individuals don't always have the greatest people skills, even if it's just relating to others. I'm not meaning to say that's the case here, but it may be a possibility.

The reason I mention all this is that we have to remember that developers are human too, but likewise developers should understand the same about their customers. They're not just a goal line nor a passive entity, especially if you want to continue to succeed. As weird as it may sound off the cuff like this, I hope that Mike remembers to take into account the passion that active members of this community as a whole have for ED and how highly that speaks of it and the work they've done so far. We don't all agree with each other, prioritize the same things, nor even look at ED in the same way with the same insights, but by and large we all want the same thing, for ED to continue to improve and succeed.
 
And for the 47th time, the point is the DBs aren't an upgrade to the adder and the type 6.
It is in terms of range, which is of importance to some explorers.

I think the throughput scooper is actually the exception and not the rule when it comes to common explorer archetypes. There are plenty who scan the star or everything (as I often see going out), and I don't sit there waiting for the (random) time to finish hyperspace so I zero my throttle and alt-tab becuase I can do something else in the same time.

I also think that Mike was a bit out of line with that remark as many of us aren't ingrates and we do have legitimate concerns. But from his perspective it's likely at least a little bit justified too. I'm sure he was trying to do what he could to design ships we would like that could also play fairly effective roles in the new Powerplay content. I can imagine that it can be very difficult trying to balance these things while also having to remain somewhat neutral and unattached to try and follow FD's goals and of course actually be able to get anything done and implemented into ED.

Having previously worked in the IT field as a person that had to (and wanted to) try and fix everything for any and all "internal customers" (and some external, for that matter) from the president down for a relatively large financial institution with many locations, I know that it can easily be very frustrating and overwhelming just securely balancing, navigating, prioritizing, and accurately identifying specific issues as genuinely politely and quickly as possible before even getting to the point of being able to investigate and resolve them or delegate that work to someone else who can that has the time to, if you let it. I can imagine that while hopefully not quite as urgent and demanding, it's similar designing and implementing new content for a game with such an active and involved community.

Also, technically skilled and effective individuals don't always have the greatest people skills, even if it's just relating to others. I'm not meaning to say that's the case here, but it may be a possibility.

The reason I mention all this is that we have to remember that developers are human too, but likewise developers should understand the same about their customers. They're not just a goal line nor a passive entity, especially if you want to continue to succeed. As weird as it may sound off the cuff like this, I hope that Mike remembers to take into account the passion that active members of this community as a whole have for ED and how highly that speaks of it and the work they've done so far. We don't all agree with each other, prioritize the same things, nor even look at ED in the same way with the same insights, but by and large we all want the same thing, for ED to continue to improve and succeed.

I didn't think his comment was that shocking; more like a comment someone would use to people they are perhaps more familiar with perhaps.
 
That's a fair point too and I'm pretty sure he was joking to at least some extent. At this point though, I'd get a solid laugh out of it if he actually made those changes. (Too bad he's missed April fools this year.)

My main issues with his comment is that I'm not sure that he took some of our concerns and opinions as constructive criticism instead of as the rantings of trolls, spoiled brats, or something similar, and then it didn't convey much respect for people who have some of these concerns.

I know I can sometimes be harsher and more cynical than I intend to be, more than is merited in retrospect.

When all is said and done, this isn't a pressing issue really (for me, at least), though I'd like it if he reads my previous post and gives it some consideration.
 
I came up with an idea, that I haven't seen suggested by anyone else, which could help with the problems some are having with the DB-Explorer, and also help all other ships with the same loadout benefits.

If you agree with the suggestion, or have any criticisms of it, be great to have your input and thoughts:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=155961&p=2384628#post2384628
After playing with the DBE for a week, I realize that it's biggest problem is that it's slow and heavy for no reason. The DBE weighs as much as Asp and yet fits easily on a small pad! Yet it has no benefits to counter it's gently caressless inertia. With superior 5 and 6 D-rated higher class equipment costing a fraction of 4A gear, the DBE isn't even really cheaper than the Asp.

An explorer specced DBE costs about 16M. Yet you can get a vastly superior all-round performance from an Asp for just 17M.

The concept was clearly rushed out the door half baked. When Mike Evans bristled and responded with threats as people pointed out the obvious flaws, I lost a great deal of faith in Frontier's professionalism. Maybe Mike was just having a bad day, idk. But they shouldn't have thrown away a whole ship slot on a grumpy employee's bad mood. "Staying the course" with current DB Explorer design would be a minor tragedy, unless of course they are actively trying to discourage people from exploring for some reason to do with server capacity.

This ship would be a great exploration deterrent because it is probably the least fun to fly of all the ships under 5 Million, and provokes an instant gut reaction of "regret" when you fly it out of the hanger for the first time. Especially compared to the DB Scout, which is the polar opposite by being both instantly fun and useful in certain key combat roles.
 
Last edited:
I really don't like the Asp, so I was happy to have another long range ship with the DBE. I bought one and A-fitted it, and while it's indeed a poor fighter, I like it. It will be my Powerplay missions ship, able to fly around very fast to deliver mission items, while still able to defend itself decently. Its jump range is of course its main trick.
I also equipped it for smuggling (some cargo and two heat sinks), to try this if I find where to get smuggling goods without resorting to piracy.
 
After playing with the DBE for a week, I realize that it's biggest problem is that it's slow and heavy for no reason. The DBE weighs as much as Asp and yet fits easily on a small pad! Yet it has no benefits to counter it's gently caressless inertia...

...This ship would be a great exploration deterrent because it is probably the least fun to fly of all the ships under 5 Million, and provokes an instant gut reaction of "regret". Especially compared to the DB Scout, which is the polar opposite of the DBE, by being both fun and useful.
Indeed, said the same myself, and costs aside, I couldn't stomach the thing for more than a night, I don't know how you putting up with it for a week! :eek:

Still, I think the idea to unlock the dedicated fuel compartment in all ships into a standard internal compartment would seem logical now that additional fuel tanks are a thing. That would give rise to more flexibility in all ships, and I don't think it would be hard to do in terms of how they design the ships.

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't like the Asp, so I was happy to have another long range ship with the DBE. I bought one and A-fitted it, and while it's indeed a poor fighter, I like it. It will be my Powerplay missions ship, able to fly around very fast to deliver mission items, while still able to defend itself decently. Its jump range is of course its main trick....
Don't you find it oddly sluggish for its size though? If it was lighter it could have even more jump range. Also, it seemed to me in my tests that my Asp is even more nimble than the DB-Explorer, and has more flexibility with its 6 hardpoints.

Each to their own though, if you like it, you like it. I just feel it could have been much better with a little more thought.
 
Last edited:
After playing with the DBE for a week, I realize that it's biggest problem is that it's slow and heavy for no reason. The DBE weighs as much as Asp and yet fits easily on a small pad! Yet it has no benefits to counter it's gently caressless inertia. With superior 5 and 6 D-rated higher class equipment costing a fraction of 4A gear, the DBE isn't even really cheaper than the Asp.
The reason, fundamentally, is the way jumps are calculated: the total ship mass is set against the FSD class and size, combined with the distance of a jump, to determine the fuel consumption. Every FSD then has a maximum fuel consumption per jump, which determines the limit on the jump range.

For speed, agility, shields or armour, the ships have built-in base values and the equipment adds modifiers to these values. For hyperspace jump fuel consumption (and therefore jump range), no such built-in values exist; only the above consideration is necessary to calculate the result*. Therefore, some ships have unusually high or low hull mass considering their size - this is how FD can adjust the jump range of a ship. Apparently FD decreed the DBE must have a smaller jump range than the Asp, and therefore set its hull mass accordingly high. It's also why the Courier has such a low hull mass (possible lore reasons "Gutamaya uses ultra-light-weight high tech materials" aside), and the Dropship almost 50% more than an Anaconda.

*In fact this is a good thing, and makes lots ofs sense from a perspective of the fictional science of the FSD; the problem is rather the coarse scaling of FSD classes. If there were, for example, an FSD class between 4 and 5, the DBE might have ended up lighter but with that intermediate FSD size, to satisfy the condition "jump range Asp > DBE".

Since speed and agility scale off built-in values specific to each ship, that means it is meant to be this slow, because they could increase the hidden values to compensate for the mass of the ship if it were meant to be faster.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, said the same myself, and costs aside, I couldn't stomach the thing for more than a night, I don't know how you putting up with it for a week! :eek:

Still, I think the idea to unlock the dedicated fuel compartment in all ships into a standard internal compartment would seem logical now that additional fuel tanks are a thing. That would give rise to more flexibility in all ships, and I don't think it would be hard to do in terms of how they design the ships
Your idea is a good one for general game design, but it wouldn't even begin to address the weight issues with the Explorer. It needs to lose a lot more than just than just 16T, and sacrificing fuel capacity on an explorer would be either incredibly tedious, or recklessly suicidal. First and foremost, it should be FUN to fly, so it needs a boost speed of 360, a top speed of 270 and a maneuverability of at least 6. The internals can be sorted by making it:

class 5 x 1
class 3 x 2
class 2 x 2
 
The reason, fundamentally, is the way jumps are calculated: the total ship mass is set against the FSD class and size, combined with the distance of a jump, to determine the fuel consumption. Every FSD then has a maximum fuel consumption per jump, which determines the limit on the jump range.

For speed, agility, shields or armour, the ships have built-in base values and the equipment adds modifiers to these values. For hyperspace jump fuel consumption (and therefore jump range), no such built-in values exist; only the above consideration is necessary to calculate the result*. Therefore, some ships have unusually high or low hull mass considering their size - this is how FD can adjust the jump range of a ship. Apparently FD decreed the DBE must have a smaller jump range than the Asp, and therefore set its hull mass accordingly high. It's also why the Courier has such a low hull mass (possible lore reasons "Gutamaya uses ultra-light-weight high tech materials" aside), and the Dropship almost 50% more than an Anaconda.

*In fact this is a good thing, and makes lots ofs sense from a perspective of the fictional science of the FSD; the problem is rather the coarse scaling of FSD classes. If there were, for example, an FSD class between 4 and 5, the DBE might have ended up lighter but with that intermediate FSD size, to satisfy the condition "jump range Asp > DBE".

Since speed and agility scale off built-in values specific to each ship, that means it is meant to be this slow, because they could increase the hidden values to compensate for the mass of the ship if it were meant to be faster.
The ship needs to trim down to increase the handling and top speed. Any jump range benefit is secondary actually. This thing is such a chore to fly, it's too depressing and saps the joy from the game. They really should have just fixed the minor issues with the DBS and never made the DBE. Fixing the handling issues on the DBE would mean dropping the mass enough to also give it an ultra high jump range. And I can't see FD taking that bold of a step.
 
The ship needs to trim down to increase the handling and top speed. Any jump range benefit is secondary actually. This thing is such a chore to fly, it's too depressing and saps the joy from the game. They really should have just fixed the minor issues with the DBS and never made the DBE. Fixing the handling issues on the DBE would mean dropping the mass enough to also give it an ultra high jump range. And I can't see FD taking that bold of a step.
They could increase the base speed and agility values for the same effect, without affecting the jump range.
 
They could increase the base speed and agility values for the same effect, without affecting the jump range.
That would solve 90% of the general negativity about this ship. And despite its other obvious flaws, people would rave about it anyway.
 
you could fit an 5A scoop together with 2x class 4 16t fuel tank if that idea is implemented, retaining the original range.

Personally, I don't see agility and "top speed" as an issue for an explorer vessel. It's something that doesn't impact much. Besides, due to the flight model, all ships feel extremely sluggish compared to what should have been.
 
Yeah, the DbS is more along the lines of the type of exploration ship I was hoping for than the DbE, though still falling short of what I consider to be reasonable expectations for an exploration ship. Using it as one is actually a bit of a liability compared to other more cost effective options.

Agility and top speed aren't the primary exploration ship capabilities, but they definitely are an advantage for exploration survivability. For example, running and jumping away from interdictors, dodging celestial bodies when nodding off, being distracted, or jumping into systems with a potentially hazardous layout, and so on. Also, being better at avoiding combat is a more effective and complementary strategy to exploration ship optimizations than trying to setup exploration ships that excel at combat. That isn't to say that there aren't scenarios where the latter is more desirable, but those are more of a specialized niche role for ships than general exploration optimized ones.

The game dynamics are what they are, but yeah, I'm in favor of all the ships having their potential maneuverability, speed, and perhaps acceleration doubled. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I am not suggesting that speed and agility be added to the DBE to make it a better exploring ship. I am saying that the lack of speed and agility makes the ship so unpopular that it prevents most people from even attempting to use it for any purpose...

The Scout has many of the same issues as the Explorer, but people fly it anyway because it is such a joy to pilot that people stick with it long enough to discover it's other strengths (like heat management/stealth). Most sane people that jump into an Explorer fly it out of the station once, do a few turns, spins, and boosts, and then head right back to the station for a refund. Either that or they store it under a dust tarp, and walk away quietly shaking their heads.

To anyone who takes the thing out for serious exploration, I applaud your courage. Please let me know if you want an escort when returning to Lembava. Barring that, I highly recommend that you buy a racing Cobra, and store it a colony station at the edge of the bubble near your return vector, in order to deal with NPC interdictors and human griefers.
 
Top Bottom