Is it time once again to nerf the Python?

[Fendalton]

If anything, the T7 should receive more internal compartments, because the sheer volume of the ships looks like twice that of a Python, especially given the T7's engines are on the outside of the ship compared to the Pythons Internal engines, on a smaller chassis, that has more armour, that has more space for cargo?

I expect the T7 to be made of sheet metal, minimal luxuries, but have more cargo space than a Python. Irrespective that the Python costs more, just by looks the T7 should carry more cargo alone.

 

[FlyByNight]

It's good to see that my tongue in cheek title for the thread has got some posters blood boiling.
I did say in my post that I wasn't seriously looking to nerf the Python.


What I would like though is an affordable mid level freighter that can land on a medium size pad.


It is clearly possible as the Python can do it, but I don't need/can afford all of the other features that a Python has to offer.


As some posters have mentioned it is down to the height which is incredible really. With three standard docking bay sizes in the entire galaxy a ship that could have been designed to fit in a Medium bay is designed too tall!


Can you imagine a ship builder designing a freighter/Tanker that was too big for the Panama Canal?


Time for a Type-7 MkII?

 

[lysan]

Enough with the nerfing! The Python already got the nerf hammer.

 

[PiLhEaD]

...By the way despite the provocative title I am not seriously suggesting that this inbalance be corrected...

Then why lead with such an obvious click-bait dumb-ass title?

 

[V3teran]

I see the Whiners are back again, stop asking to nerf every god-damn ship that kills you.

 

[SGT TickleFight]

You are not making any coherent arguments...

There are 3 ships in this class: The fer-de-lance, python, and type 9.

The Fer-de-Lance is a combat only ship which performs better than the python in some ways, worse in others, but costs about 50mil less to A-rate.

The Type 9 carries almost twice the cargo, but requires a large pad.

These 3 are pretty balanced if you ask me... Buff the Lance's PD and PP and put the huge in a better spot, but you really don't need to nerf the Python... It is in a good spot cost vs capability...

 

[FlyByNight]

Then why lead with such an obvious click-bait dumb-ass title?

For the same reason that tabloid newspapers do.
It prompts readers to read on which subsequently promotes discussion and debate.

 

[baudelier]

You definitely get a lot more ship for a lot more money with the Python, but I can't understand how it can land on Medium pad, especially if you believe it to be in the same tier as the T9.

Because Lakon built the Type-7 too tall to fit in a medium bay. It would be like sending a 12 foot truck under an 11 foot 8 inch bridge. Of you want examples search for 11foot8 on YouTube.

 

[PiLhEaD]

For the same reason that tabloid newspapers do.
It prompts readers to read on which subsequently promotes discussion and debate.

Nope, I think I answered my own question when I used the phrase 'dumb-ass'.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahhh, I think many of us missed that.

But from what you're saying here... I take it that your original post was, perhaps, a trolling/baiting post???

Oooh, not just me...

 

[Indy Original]

Within a space station (of any type) space is at a premium. The T7, while it might be narrower than a Python, is far taller... Blame Lakon for getting it wrong, not Faulcon DeLacy for getting it right!

What if Lakon designed the Type 7 for planetary landings? If you look at it, it has those stubby little wings, which might make it much easier to fly in an atmosphere than a wing-less Python... also, if a Type 7 only carries 200 tons of cargo, it will be able to stay in the air more easily than a Python carrying 250 tons. And although it makes sense for space to be at a premium on space stations, there should be plenty of room on the ground... so perhaps ground-based outposts have more head-room for their landing pads, which means that the Type 7 is not at a disadvantage when landing there!

Personally, I think that making the Python really struggle when under the influence of gravity would be a good way to nerf it... it could remain an excellent space ship, but be a terrible lander. And likewise, if a Type 7 excelled at landing on planets, then that would be a nice buff for the Lakon craft - as it would actually have a niche all of its own!

Of course, now we just have to wait for atmospheric landings...

 

[Lowievisser]

i agree , only 2 small hardpoints and no cargo hold.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

View attachment 69835

Done. /micdrop

Go away, we're trying to argue about imaginary spaceships on the internet.

 

[Vasious]

What if Lakon designed the Type 7 for planetary landings? If you look at it, it has those stubby little wings, which might make it much easier to fly in an atmosphere than a wing-less Python... also, if a Type 7 only carries 200 tons of cargo, it will be able to stay in the air more easily than a Python carrying 250 tons. And although it makes sense for space to be at a premium on space stations, there should be plenty of room on the ground... so perhaps ground-based outposts have more head-room for their landing pads, which means that the Type 7 is not at a disadvantage when landing there!

Personally, I think that making the Python really struggle when under the influence of gravity would be a good way to nerf it... it could remain an excellent space ship, but be a terrible lander. And likewise, if a Type 7 excelled at landing on planets, then that would be a nice buff for the Lakon craft - as it would actually have a niche all of its own!

Of course, now we just have to wait for atmospheric landings...

Also the landing Gear of the Type 7 Seems quite sturdy

I could see it delivering much needed supplies to disaster zones away from the same star ports

I still wonder of those little wings were designed to fold up when the landing gear is deployed (as we see on the Adder) as they seem to have the machinery in place to do so.

And as others have said, no need to compare the Python to the Type 7

 

[Kayin]

No, NO, and for the third time NO! The Python is the BEST all round ship in the game. Yes, it can get beaten by other vessels, but there is (currently) no other ship that has such a wide range of capabilities. Will people PLEASE stop asking for the Python to be nerfed? I would suggest that the next person who asks finds that their account is nerfed, and every ship they own is crippled!

You pretty much just explained the problem. It is the BEST all around ship in the game. It's so good at everything it ALMOST beats the other ships that specialize in their own area. In fact, it's pretty much beats every ship in its area.

You want to bounty hunt, but not only bounty hunt? Buy a python
You want to do CZ, but not only do CZst? Buy a python
You want long range combat,, but not only do long range combat? Buy a python
You want short range combat, but not only do short rannge? Buy a python
You want PP ship (trade/pirate/CZ combo)? Buy a python
You want to trade, but not only trade? Buy a python
You want to mine, but not only mine? Buy a python

However, this doesn't necessarily mean it should be nerfed, but needs more competitors. The only ship to really compete with a Python is the Anaconda, and it's easily 3 times as expensive, and that multiplier scales as the fitting costs scale as well. i.e 200 to combat fit python vs 600 mil to combat fit an Anaconda, etc.

 

[PotatoOverdose]

Never not nerf the python.

Honestly, all it needs is to lose a size class in power plant and power distributor, then it'll be balanced.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

...

- as a multi purpose (expensive) ship is the python at the moment in a good place ? (IMO yes)
- as a dedicated (mid range) cargo ship is the T7 in a good place at the moment ? (IMO no)

Wouldn't it then be more logical to buff the T7 rather than reduce the Python ?

(I own neither btw so my opinion is unbiased towards either)

 

[Starender]

no need to nerf, just buff a little the FdL and add as many ships of the same size/capabilities as the python

it's true that this ship is incredibly balanced tho, it's only weakness is speed but everything else is very good

 

[Slack]

If anything, the Python needs a speed buff. It looks and sounds so fast, and yet it's as slow as mud. Even my tubby Asp with A3 shields can laugh at a "Deadly" Python as I slowly boost away.

Something with that much firepower would be completely overpowered if it could catch up with every ship. Even in PvP despite of its speed in can be very effective, in a wing its the tank on the battlefield. However 1v1 I would take my Fed Assault ship/Clipper/FDL any day of the week. The Python has almost no chance of killing any of those ships 1v1, but they do have a chance of killing the Python.

So there is at least some balance there, it does have a weakness.

 

[Legacy_LuckyLuke]

Go away, we're trying to argue about imaginary spaceships on the internet.

That made me actually laugh out loud ... As you were

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

no need to nerf, just buff a little the FdL and add as many ships of the same size/capabilities as the python

it's true that this ship is incredibly balanced tho, it's only weakness is speed but everything else is very good

I think it needs to be a little bit of both, honestly. The Pythons internals are a little too good to be true.