Nerfers are the bane of gaming.Away with you foul creature!
Is it time once again to nerf the Python?
- Thread starter FlyByNight
- Start date
Python isn't too big to fit on medium, the T7 is too tall to land on medium. If it weren't too tall, it too would land on medium. The problem lies with the manufacturer who designed the T7. So, put up a little more money and buy the Python as soon as you can. Actually, I transitioned from T7 to Clipper to Python.
Why is everyone's default request to nerf this and nerf that? Instead of nerfing the Python how about requesting buffs for the T7?
Done. /micdrop
You've basically invited a thread full of 17million/vs50million price tag arguments (which really means nothing, that amounts to "wait a week or two before you get a ship better at everything), all of which will ignore the pythons incredible survivability, weapons, flight characteristics, etc.
-
I don't think the python should be nerfed, I think the T7 should be buffed, the price fits a box that can jump goods (very slowly and poorly) from one system to another, it can't do anything else, and as shown, can't even do what it does very well. It needs a buff.
-
If you look at the elite dangerous ships from the viewpoint that they are all designed as multiroles (with some being terrible at one aspect or the other and mediocre at their focused role), they make a lot more sense. FdL=multirole terrible at trading, T7=multirole terrible at combat, python=multirole good at everything.
-
Multiroles haul better than cargo ships, they fight at least as well (and with much more varied loadout options and far fewer compromises, and unrivaled survivability) as combat ships, they explore well, the only thing they compromise the slightest bit on, is speed, they are armored more/ton of hull mass than other ships, they have mass lock factors higher/ton of hull mass than other ships. Multiroles are the favored children of FD.
-
In combat, a combat ship should do to a multirole what a multirole will do to a trader. In trading, a trader should be to a multirole what a multirole will be to a combat ship. Still waiting on an actual exploration vessel. My two cents.
- - - Updated - - -
Is it going to bonk its roof on.....space?
-
I don't think the python should be nerfed, I think the T7 should be buffed, the price fits a box that can jump goods (very slowly and poorly) from one system to another, it can't do anything else, and as shown, can't even do what it does very well. It needs a buff.
-
If you look at the elite dangerous ships from the viewpoint that they are all designed as multiroles (with some being terrible at one aspect or the other and mediocre at their focused role), they make a lot more sense. FdL=multirole terrible at trading, T7=multirole terrible at combat, python=multirole good at everything.
-
Multiroles haul better than cargo ships, they fight at least as well (and with much more varied loadout options and far fewer compromises, and unrivaled survivability) as combat ships, they explore well, the only thing they compromise the slightest bit on, is speed, they are armored more/ton of hull mass than other ships, they have mass lock factors higher/ton of hull mass than other ships. Multiroles are the favored children of FD.
-
In combat, a combat ship should do to a multirole what a multirole will do to a trader. In trading, a trader should be to a multirole what a multirole will be to a combat ship. Still waiting on an actual exploration vessel. My two cents.
- - - Updated - - -
Is it going to bonk its roof on.....space?
Because it's easier to throw around words like "Nerf" than to actually seek out solutions that benefit everyone.
Lakon trading ships need a serious buff, along with many others. That's all there is to it.
Let me put it this way. Within a space station (of any type) space is at a premium. There will not be a square foot that is not assigned a purpose. Somebody decided that the dimensions of each type of hanger is X by Y by Z. The Python fits the dimensions assigned to the standard medium hanger (just, but it fits). The T7, while it might be narrower than a Python, is far taller, so while it just fits X, easily fits Y, it is too tall for Z. Blame Lakon for getting it wrong, not Faulcon DeLacy for getting it right!
Jeez guys the t9 is the same league as the Tronda! T9 500 somewhat cargo Tronda 448 cargo shielded. Do your maths. Both large landing paths.
This. I have been asking to give the T9 a load of bout 700t long time ago. Not done thats why Tronda all the way!
Yeah me too, but I don't actually fly it because it's too slow in normal space and its combat-ready jump range is garbage. Also whenever NPCs fly slow enough for me to kill them, it breaks the immersions because they seem to want to die. Anybody except large Lakon transport or an Anaconda can outrun my little Python. Yet every single NPC stays around even when their shields are down and they're at 35% hull, they never use boost to get away, and always turn back in to me to finish the fight.
You need to take into consideration. on the Design's of the ship.. Im willing to bet will see the hugest differnce between ships once we can walk around in them.. im certain that a Python fully packed will look different then a T7 fully packed. you also have to consider the possibility that changes to each ship in the future the T7 may end up being able to do more. there are some large area's on that ship that could be folding doors dor small ship landings.. as too Python does not.. price also matter as well . also another thing is i always seen the Type 6,7,9 being good mining ships. perhaps in future becuase of size differnce will be able to see that process in action comapers to Python cannot. its safe to argue the CLIPPER has a larger hold also.. but i suspact the clipper is more luxury also with better living quarters build in. T7 may have small rooms on another deck just basic needs, while I suspect python will have small closet style living quartes no very comforable at all.
i think you need to readjust your way of thinking and perhaps look into the bigger picture and possibilities.
i think you need to readjust your way of thinking and perhaps look into the bigger picture and possibilities.
OK so I put together 2 vaguely equivalent builds, both designed for trading, python is a bit more substantial but I didn't go silly and put A grade power plant and plasma accelerators everywhere,
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=705,5...,2-BQ9Y7_6QB69Y8I,0AA0AA7UI08c08c07205U05U2Uc
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=70X,5QS5QS5QS5QS01Q01Q0Wg0Wg,2-6Q7_7_6Q4s5K8I,0AA0AA08c08c0727RA03w03w
The python is almost 4 times the price, it is better at combat but trust me that load out is not going near a hi RES anytime soon, it can land on medium pads but it does have a substantially lower jump range. It is broadly speaking much better than the T7 for a much bigger price tag.
If you want a trader to compare the python to than this is the ship you're looking at.
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=70Y,5...,2-9sBQ9Y8S9Y6u9s,0DI0Bk0AA7Sk07207205U05U03w
Sorry but the python doesn't need a nerf. All you've really said is "OMG, this better ship is better than that not so good ship. That's so unfair"
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=705,5...,2-BQ9Y7_6QB69Y8I,0AA0AA7UI08c08c07205U05U2Uc
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=70X,5QS5QS5QS5QS01Q01Q0Wg0Wg,2-6Q7_7_6Q4s5K8I,0AA0AA08c08c0727RA03w03w
The python is almost 4 times the price, it is better at combat but trust me that load out is not going near a hi RES anytime soon, it can land on medium pads but it does have a substantially lower jump range. It is broadly speaking much better than the T7 for a much bigger price tag.
If you want a trader to compare the python to than this is the ship you're looking at.
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=70Y,5...,2-9sBQ9Y8S9Y6u9s,0DI0Bk0AA7Sk07207205U05U03w
Sorry but the python doesn't need a nerf. All you've really said is "OMG, this better ship is better than that not so good ship. That's so unfair"