Ships Introducing the Diamondback Explorer

I keep coming back to this thread even though I know there won't be any significant changes to either ship, because FD have backed themselves into a corner at this point. The Explorer can't have its flight model improved, because if they do that, they invalidate the Scout. If they change the layout of the Scout's internals, they make the Explorer obsolete for anything that isn't raw jump range. They can't reduce the weight on the DBE because then the jump range goes through the ceiling, and as Ziljan says, I don't see them taking that step. About the only thing they could do at this point is fix one and delete the other, or mash them together into some sort of hybrid, and I feel if they did that it would just be a disaster.

I really wish I knew what the reluctance was to just fix the problems with the original design. They obviously didn't see the same issues we were seeing, otherwise we'd still have what the Scout is now, but now with a C4, two C3s, and two C1s. Compared to a Cobra with 3 C4s and 3 C2s, that's hardly overpowered, imo. With the Explorer, though.. to take everything that makes the Scout a good ship, whack it as hard as they could with the nerf bat, then make all the rest of the problems bigger is just... I don't even have words that can describe it.

I'm currently sitting in my Scout about 1000ly away from Wolf 406, thinking about where I want to go. I really do like this ship, and I can overlook its issues because it's fun to fly. I just can't help but lament that it was so damn close to being a really, really awesome ship. It's frustrating. Not so much because there's a blindingly obvious fix, but because they're being so damned stubborn about it. It's like shouting at a wall, and I'm not sure that's really what FD want.

It's their game, I guess.
 
I keep coming back to this thread even though I know there won't be any significant changes to either ship, because FD have backed themselves into a corner at this point. The Explorer can't have its flight model improved, because if they do that, they invalidate the Scout. If they change the layout of the Scout's internals, they make the Explorer obsolete for anything that isn't raw jump range. They can't reduce the weight on the DBE because then the jump range goes through the ceiling, and as Ziljan says, I don't see them taking that step. ...
Picking up on this, I don't see why not?

I mean, why are they reluctant to make a ship capable of a lot higher jump distance? Is there a game lore, or game play reason it would cause a problem? There must be some stars that are just out of reach, and maybe this ship could bridge the gap giving is a true niche?

As I've indicated in my own experience of this bucket, the Scout is the better ship because as a tactical combat and short-range light escort it's a great pilot's ship.

However, the Explorer is pointless in the guise it's been delivered. Everything it tries to do you are better off owning an Asp to do. Frontier have had no problem bringing in the nerf stick in the past, so why not the "un-nerf" stick?

1. The Explorer could do with losing the underbelly third hardpoint and cutting weight there for starters. Graphically, that's not hard to do, along with removing the slot in the Outfitting screen. This would also insta-fix the ground clearance/clipping issue, withought having to change the landing gear.

2. Consider reintroducing the two little hardpoints under the cockpit, as well as, or instead of the two mediums, depending on how much more weight needs to be cut.

3. Making the dedicated Class 5 Fuel Tank slot a flexible Internal Compartment instead opens up greater options as I've mentioned before. Again, I don't believe that's too hard to do game coding wise.

4. Remove the third centre engine and remove more weight there. So now you have a more dedicated long range derivative, for minimal developer effort to make the changes, as most of it is removing things, not adding new stuff.

5. Now play with the numbers to get the thing over 40LY and I might consider buying one again... :D
 
Last edited:
Picking up on this, I don't see why not?

I mean, why are they reluctant to make a ship capable of a lot higher jump distance? Is there a game lore, or game play reason it would cause a problem? There must be some stars that are just out of reach, and maybe this ship could bridge the gap giving is a true niche?

As I've indicated in my own experience of this bucket, the Scout is the better ship because as a tactical combat and short-range light escort it's a great pilot's ship.

However, the Explorer is pointless in the guise it's been delivered. Everything it tries to do you are better off owning an Asp to do. Frontier have had no problem bringing in the nerf stick in the past, so why not the "un-nerf" stick?
1. The Explorer could do with losing the underbelly third hardpoint and cutting weight there for starters. Graphically, that's not hard to do, along with removing the slot in the Outfitting screen. This would also insta-fix the ground clearance/clipping issue, withought having to change the landing gear.

2. Consider reintroducing the two little hardpoints under the cockpit, as well as, or instead of the two mediums, depending on how much more weight needs to be cut.

3. Making the dedicated Class 5 Fuel Tank slot a flexible Internal Compartment instead opens up greater options as I've mentioned before. Again, I don't believe that's too hard to do game coding wise.

4. Remove the third centre engine and remove more weight there. So now you have a more dedicated long range derivative, for minimal developer effort to make the changes, as most of it is removing things, not adding new stuff.

5. Now play with the numbers to get the thing over 40LY and I might consider buying one again... :D
I don't see why not, but then, we aren't them. Maybe they're coming up with a radically new outfitting scheme that will invalidate all of our problems and will be showing it off at E3. I'd be pretty shocked if that were the case, but you never know.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the next round of ships. I just hope they're prepared if they mess it up.
 
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.
I went to Sagittarius A*, then to the Great Annihilator, now I'm on the way back. Currently 7700 LY away from the civilization.
Biggest issues so far have been server issues.

I play solo almost exclusively. So far I have lost 3 ships in the game, two in dock and only one in an interception. And the last one was my own fault because I didn't ran, but took a fight and made a piloting error in not evading a kamikaze attack when he was about to die anyway. So in essence, it's not the interdictors I have to worry about - it's the docking procedure. Now even more so with the new bounty system. And here it doesn't really matter what ship you are in, as long as it has some shields.
 
Last edited:
Picking up on this, I don't see why not?

I mean, why are they reluctant to make a ship capable of a lot higher jump distance? Is there a game lore, or game play reason it would cause a problem? There must be some stars that are just out of reach, and maybe this ship could bridge the gap giving is a true niche?

I suspect the reason the jump range is capped is because if it was any higher, then ships navigating in the core would simply crash every time they plotted a route. There have been several threads about people reducing the issues with route mapping in the core by using cargo bays sliders to limit the jump range, or adjusting their destination range to a better multiple of the average jump distance. Otherwise it can take an EXTREMELY LONG TIME to plot a route. Maybe when they get a better pathfinding algorithm, we'll start seeing ships with bigger jump ranges?
 
I don't see an issue with the DBE out-ranging the Asp - the Asp is more of an all-rounder. I have an Asp, set up mainly for exploring, and it can still carry 64 cargo, so it can do rare goods, and it can fight acceptably as well. A dedicated explorer with 40ly jump range would not compete with that. There are dedicated fighters and freighters so why not a dedicated explorer which excels at exploring and isn't much good for anything else?

I might still get one anyhow. But I suspect I'll keep the Asp just in case I don't like it. Has to be said, the Asp's yaw rate is disgusting, on the subject of handling - so much so that I make turns most always by rolling and pitching.
 
Well having found 'em both for sale, had a look at the scout as an explorer but can't get auto-repair and fuel scoop on it, so that's a no-go for long range. The explorer is *almost* good. Could get a scoop and one auto-repair on it, I'd prefer the weapon mounts on the scout though - the large mount is kind of silly - and with the 2 small you could have 2 small beam lasers, with 2 medium multi-cannon which would deal with chancer NPCs pretty easily. Handling, well it's not a fighter but it's not bad. Didn't find it much worse than the Asp, overall, and better yaw rate. I only put D class thrusters on, too.

If it was reworked to have say 2x1, 3x3 and 1x4 compartments (you only need class 1 for the 2 scanners), and the mass reduced some so it got longer jump range it would be awesome. Reduce the mass a bit more, maybe and it would get away with a class 3 shield... As it is I stripped and sold it and kept the Asp.
 
From a role play perspective, neither the Scout nor the Explorer would be a success, imo.

The Asp is a re-purposed military design. Therefore, it's strengths and limitations can be easily explained as being the best possible outcome when dealing with a predefined platform.

However, both DB's are purposed built ships. Therefore it can be expected that they be the best possible outcome with purpose defining design. Both fail in this regard. The trade-offs are arbitrary with no real regard to what a ship building firm would actually create if they wanted to fulfill a contract or create a craft they expected to actually sell.

The same could be said of the Vulture and the FDL. Both purpose built craft that have "issues". I love my Vulture, but I'd never realistically accept its flaws. And a richey-rich playboy wouldn't accept the FDL's costs vs. it's shortcomings.

Personally, if FD continues with this design process of not quite right, then they need to introduce customization beyond the predefined modules. Meaning that if a player has the credits, they should be able to go to a shop that would be able to shoe-horn in a larger fuel sccop, a better powerplant, etc. Trade offs could be costs, wear and tear, etc. There would be shops that could optimize fuel use, optimize jump range, optimize available power/distribution, optimize weapons damage/fire rates/efficiency, etc. etc.

Without this custom chop-shop in the galaxy and the odd balancing decisions, I have little to look forward to with the remaining ship releases, let alone any possible dlc releases. And, lets face it, with a galaxy full of humans that there's nothing happening with aftermarket customization is unrealistic.
 
From a role play perspective, neither the Scout nor the Explorer would be a success, imo.

The Asp is a re-purposed military design. Therefore, it's strengths and limitations can be easily explained as being the best possible outcome when dealing with a predefined platform.

However, both DB's are purposed built ships. Therefore it can be expected that they be the best possible outcome with purpose defining design. Both fail in this regard. The trade-offs are arbitrary with no real regard to what a ship building firm would actually create if they wanted to fulfill a contract or create a craft they expected to actually sell.

The same could be said of the Vulture and the FDL. Both purpose built craft that have "issues". I love my Vulture, but I'd never realistically accept its flaws. And a richey-rich playboy wouldn't accept the FDL's costs vs. it's shortcomings.

Personally, if FD continues with this design process of not quite right, then they need to introduce customization beyond the predefined modules. Meaning that if a player has the credits, they should be able to go to a shop that would be able to shoe-horn in a larger fuel sccop, a better powerplant, etc. Trade offs could be costs, wear and tear, etc. There would be shops that could optimize fuel use, optimize jump range, optimize available power/distribution, optimize weapons damage/fire rates/efficiency, etc. etc.

Without this custom chop-shop in the galaxy and the odd balancing decisions, I have little to look forward to with the remaining ship releases, let alone any possible dlc releases. And, lets face it, with a galaxy full of humans that there's nothing happening with aftermarket customization is unrealistic.
I agree that the DB ships are poorly designed for their stated purpose. But I disagree about the Vulture and the FDL. The Vulture is an amazing machine, probably the best designed specialist craft in the game. The FDL's only shortcoming is the jump range, it is an amazing ship in every other respect (note that a rich playboy's porsche is not exactly a fuel efficient range champion either).

I think maybe you don't like power constraints, and that's fine. But actually the best designs will always be power constrained (if FD uses some sort of "point system" for advantages and disadvantages for ships, this will basically inevitably follow).

---

The difference between the FDL/Vulture and the DB ships is that while the former have disadvantages (power constraints for example), they are still amazing for their stated purpose (combat), the latter have disadvantages that directly lead to them sucking for their stated purpose.
 
Last edited:
I returned to civilisation this morning. Cashed in around 15 Million credits worth of data towards the stretch goal. Travelled over 50k LY with the DBE. Modules and Hull at 100%.
 
I returned to civilisation this morning. Cashed in around 15 Million credits worth of data towards the stretch goal. Travelled over 50k LY with the DBE. Modules and Hull at 100%.
Heat management is the one talent a DBE has. It also helps for stealth tactics if you play open. If only it had a class 5 fuel scoop and was more fun to fly... I would find its other limitations to be quirky rather than stifling.
 
My Cobra has the same scoop, now that I changed ships, I have to be careful not to get burned. It runs considerably hotter and leaves less margin for error.

How long did it take you to get there & back ? It's taken me about 4 days to get 3K Ly away from home so far.
Good question. Around 2.5 days one way (without server problems, which cause considerable delays). I started last week on Saturday and came back on Saturday morning, so the whole trip was 7 days. I usually fly on one monitor and chat, watch videos or do something else on the second.
 
Did you 'bullet' to SagA then explore on the way home? or explore both ways? I keep getting distracted by Jovian planets.... My meagre 25Ly range is no help either
 
[..snip]The difference between the FDL/Vulture and the DB ships is that while the former have disadvantages (power constraints for example), they are still amazing for their stated purpose (combat), the latter have disadvantages that directly lead to them sucking for their stated purpose.
Both ships are power starved. Don't get me wrong, I said I loved my vulture, and it's made me a tonne of credits in 1.2, however, it still has issues that I would take to my mechanic and have fixed. Powerplant being one of them.

As for the FDL, it's intended roll is a richie rich bounty hunter. But it's just not set up to fill that roll adequetly, imo. Partly because of power issues, and also because of jump range. Sure it works, but were the universe real and populated by peeps with brains, it would never be purchased for anything but another sleek trophy to impress the other partners at a law firm.

You don't buy an BMW M class or Merc. AMG for balance vs. the rest of the driving public. I would expect both ships to have been fine tuned for their respective rolls with all other uses hamstrung instead of being hamstrung from the outset.

Which is what both the Scout and Explorer are first: hamstrung. Which is marginally forgivable due to their cost. Don't get me wrong. I don't expect the Scout to be a better Cobra, nor the Explorer to be a better Asp. However, both the Cobra and the Asp are multiroll ships. And both are better at everything than the DB's. Where it should be that the Scout is at least as good at being the single roll ship it was designed to be just as the Explorer should be right up there in the single roll of exploring. As it is, neither is anything but a cheaper version of one aspect of the Cobra/Asp. Not tuned, nor adeptly balanced for their intended roll (even if it's tuning at a specific price point).

If FD is merely rolling 20d to determine stats, that's one thing. I'm just saying that in this galaxy FD is turning out Yugo's, calling them ricers, but without the aftermarket ability to fix or improve on poor design decisions.
 
So you got 15M just from D scanning? Or did you scan each star?
Mostly D-Scanning. A dozen neutron stars and the two systems (Sag A and Great Annihilator) and some stars on the way when I had to do stuff (not many).
Edit: So essentially the DBE has paid itself off during the shakedown cruise.

BTW, I just bought a T9 for trading. Talk about agility and speed compared to the DBE..
 
Last edited:
Both ships are power starved.
Gotta learn the priority system. They have enough power for how fast they are, just can't run everything.

Actually I feel Vulture's biggest problem isn't the power plant, but the distributor. It's power plant is good enough to run everything.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom