Agreed, nerfing should never be done at all, just make ships based on the cost , period.
Is it time once again to nerf the Python?
- Thread starter FlyByNight
- Start date
Agreed, nerfing should never be done at all, just make ships based on the cost , period.
Majinvash
Banned
Fine this is my last post about it.
But are you honestly saying you CANNOT see how it would be exploited to generate huge quick profits and then jump into Open to spend them, risk free.
Majinvash
The Voice of Open
First: Even with the ship stripped down, I can't jump as far as I'd like to. I'd like to have it more comparable with the Asp (which still has great range even when you've got it loaded up with cargo).
Secondly: I understand where you're coming from on not wanting to take away the internal slots. So maybe just re-classifying some of those internal compartments so that they provide less cargo capacity but still give you a lot of options for internal compartment load-outs would do the trick?
As an "all-rounder" ship, I feel that it just doesn't have enough jump range. I would never take the Python exploring, but that's certainly something you could do with an Asp or Anaconda. I guess the Python is more like the Cobra then when it comes to "all-rounders".
That said, if they don't ever change anything on the Python, I will still like it and use it, these are just my preferences.
There is no nerf to do, Type 7 costs much less, of course it has to be inferior and offer less than a Python, I don't understand why you suggest to rebalance things, they are already balanced, a Python is not invincible in combat, it can't jump very long ranges and its capabilities are proportional to its cost, a Python costs 58M, a T7 around 16-18M, the difference in cost is huge.
They require different landin pad sizes cause the T-7 is larger than a Python, a Python is a little longer but still fits medium pad.
I think you should try to upgrade your Type-7 to maximise its cargo if you are into trading but of course, it will come at a cost, I usually prefer general purpose ships honestly and I fit them so that I have some cargo but also weapons and strong shields, a Type-x ship would probably not be for me as I don't trade that much, my cobra has 20T cargo capabilities which is well enough to play trading and smuggling missions
This doesn't sound like the Python needs a nerf. It sounds like the T-7 either needs to be able to carry more stuff, or fit on a Medium pad - I'd expect the "Type" craft to designed for the maximum capacity for their size - otherwise you're doing the equivalent of excusing a BMW X5 being able to carry more than a Transit Van on the grounds that it's more expensive.
It needs no new nerf, its fine how it is. Stop whining already!
If you buff the T7 cargo space you probably then need to buff the T9 also, otherwise the T7 ends up being too close in cargo space to the T9.
I think the correct approach isn't to buff the cargo, but to shrink the model slightly so it fits on a medium pad, and also increase it's shields by 50% or so. The Python and T9 can then continue to stay how they are (although there's an entirely separate argument about buffing the T9s cargo space so the Anaconda is not so relatively appealing for trading).
So if you wanted go further you could boost the T7 cargo by 64 tons (by increasing a class 6 to class 7) whilst also adding 128 tons to the T9 (by increasing the class 7 slot to a class 8). I think that all would balance well. The T7, with it's 50% buff to shields, medium pad and 64 further tons of cargo space will be the trading vessel of choice over the clipper, and the very slow T9 will start to look appealing compared to the much larger and longer jump range Anaconda.
I think the correct approach isn't to buff the cargo, but to shrink the model slightly so it fits on a medium pad, and also increase it's shields by 50% or so. The Python and T9 can then continue to stay how they are (although there's an entirely separate argument about buffing the T9s cargo space so the Anaconda is not so relatively appealing for trading).
So if you wanted go further you could boost the T7 cargo by 64 tons (by increasing a class 6 to class 7) whilst also adding 128 tons to the T9 (by increasing the class 7 slot to a class 8). I think that all would balance well. The T7, with it's 50% buff to shields, medium pad and 64 further tons of cargo space will be the trading vessel of choice over the clipper, and the very slow T9 will start to look appealing compared to the much larger and longer jump range Anaconda.
Just my 2 Cent's:
.
There is no need to nerf the Python, there is just need for another alternative in this Tier (Tier = Price Range).
We do have a 100-200 Million Jack of all Trades (Python)
We do Have a 100-200 Million pure Cargocontainer (Type 9)
We DO NOT have a 100-200 Million pure Combatship, that actuallly excels in this role in comparison to the Python (which it should, as the Python is a Multipurpose)
.
Problem is not, that the Python is too good for what it is, problem is, it's also the only option available for what it should not be (best Combat ship in this Tier)
.
Cheers,
Nuit
.
There is no need to nerf the Python, there is just need for another alternative in this Tier (Tier = Price Range).
We do have a 100-200 Million Jack of all Trades (Python)
We do Have a 100-200 Million pure Cargocontainer (Type 9)
We DO NOT have a 100-200 Million pure Combatship, that actuallly excels in this role in comparison to the Python (which it should, as the Python is a Multipurpose)
.
Problem is not, that the Python is too good for what it is, problem is, it's also the only option available for what it should not be (best Combat ship in this Tier)
.
Cheers,
Nuit
I daresay a Type 7 would be a free kill even with a 1000 MJ shield.
I'd be more in favour of a cargo increase for T7 and T9 - they have enough problems to deal with (inability to dock at outposts, inability to defend themselves, inability to outrun attackers, awkward to fly) I think they should have a clear advantage in capacity. And for the record, my trader is a Python, so I'm not just asking for my personal ship to be buffed.
That said, there are big traders coming next season, which could change things. If something - say a Panther Clipper - comes out which dwarfs a T-9's capacity, then that changes how we look at the freighters/traders: the T-7 is a handy low-end trader, the T-9 is mid-range, and the new Panther is the high-end, eclipsing the Anaconda and everything else.
yeah that is the problem FD is too busy making season 2 while season 1 still broken, like SCB stacking, we still waiting on ship transport, I wonder how long until they realize we actually need that. Also, there a lot of good suggestions all over these NERF threads, in which will make FD job a lot easier if they actually listen. Additionally, if we ever going to get any Change we have to voice our opinions regardless of people like it or not, Is just an opinion after all, bottom line we all love the game and we don't want to ignore the problems we want the game to get better, but broken mechanics is not the way forward.
Last edited:
I actually agree with them, I wouldn't take that ship from Earth to Mars with that FSD and fuel tank in real life. I will be better off with a hauler. I'm not even a FDL lover
Wow, the nerf whiners are really grasping at straws here. Just wait for Ships update. I know it's a long time to not have anything major to nerf, but just wait. Once the Ships update comes, I bet there will be at least two ships to nerf. The Federal Corvette, maybe even as the most expensive ship in the game, will be complained about because those 2 Huge hardpoints are 1 hitting players, and it'll be just SOOO unfair, we'll probably need to knock it down to just one huge hardpoint. Or maybe have JUST 2 huge hard points.
Also, never mind that the base model will be 1,000x the cost of a Viper, if 4 vipers in a wing can't take it down, then it must be nerfed, we'll start with the shields, or maybe make sure internals can't have many SCB, and definitely not many utilities for shield boosters. Also, make sure that thing pitches at 0.0000002 degrees an hour, or it will just be totally unfair.
Also, never mind that the base model will be 1,000x the cost of a Viper, if 4 vipers in a wing can't take it down, then it must be nerfed, we'll start with the shields, or maybe make sure internals can't have many SCB, and definitely not many utilities for shield boosters. Also, make sure that thing pitches at 0.0000002 degrees an hour, or it will just be totally unfair.
Yea, i used it for a long time but in the end all its strength are not worth the trouble, i really hope Frontier will buff it's average agility, bad jump range, low power available and maybe tiny more cargo.
This ship shouldn't be tagged as a bounty hunter ship, cause bounty hunters need to follow/chase there target which cannot be done with 11-14 Ly jump range.
Last edited:
RES hunter is more like it, IF the RES is in the same system as the FDL.
Only ship in game currently I've not flown yet.... and TBH, from all the reading I've done - I don't want to now.
You got to be joking right? That was the worse PvP load out I had seen. E thrusters? No Chaff? No interdictor, but you do have an scanner for what? sightseeing, A rated sensor? B rated life support. So, even if I decided to roll with that I won't be able to deploy my weapons, even after I set my priorities, in conclusion try again.
RES hunter is more like it, IF the RES is in the same system as the FDL.
Only ship in game currently I've not flown yet.... and TBH, from all the reading I've done - I don't want to now.
You are very right not to, this ship has a great "character", the sound and the physical shape are amazing, but the Vulture prove to everyone that balanced ships regarding every stats are much better than unbalanced ones.
Not even talking about the new Viper mk 4, i mean i never seen it in action, but by reading the description i feel like it's a big disappointment for all viper lovers, if you ever buy a Viper what do you want ?
simple: speed and firepower first, then maybe agility and shield second, and so on.
if you ever want the mk+1 of the same ship, you want basically the same things but pushed even more right ?
how do they describe the Viper mk 4 compared to it's older version ? slower, less agile, with the exact same firepower oO they add more shield and cargo...
sometimes i wonder who make these choices ? i mean Frontier Devs are amazing for everything except ships stats
EDIT: ho i forgot, it's a bigger target too...
Last edited:
No I think the argument will be the Annie " will be the new Python" SCB stacking is going to be a problem for the Cutter or Corvette 1on1 against an Annie pilot. And I think the problem is going to be more apparent at that higher level, I cannot wait.
I think you are missing the point, by your logic an Armored Escalade should be better than a Military Humvee just because it cost more? Again dedicated fighters in the game should be better than Multirole's. I'm not suggesting the Viper should be at the same level of the Python neither.