I agree 100 percent, well said master builder.
Is it time once again to nerf the Python?
- Thread starter FlyByNight
- Start date
DAmn man you are on fire today, another great post, I am going to login in my computer to give you a Rep.
How to you deploy the weapons on that thing?
Cant even power then with all the cell banks, lifesupport, cargo hatch and FSL disabled
It "works" but needs some fiddling with the Systems during Combat:
- CargoHatch perm. disabled
- FSD + LifeSupport set to Prio 5
- 1st SCB kept at Prio 1 disabled
- 2nd SCB kept at Prio 1 disabled
- 3rd SCB kept at Prio 1 disabled
- Sensors set to Prio 2
- all Lasers set to Prio 3
- both Multicannons set to Prio 4
.
1. You start of with the 3 Lasers deployed. (Multicannons, FSD, LifeSupport power down)
2. When you have your target stripped of shields, you power down one of your medium Pulses (that will bring both Cannons online)
3. If you need your SCB power 2 of them up, this will disable all your guns while you fire the SCBs
3a. If you enable the 3rd SCB too, your Sensors will shut down, but you can hit all 3 SCBs at once (giving you 425 MJ of your 1029 MJ Shield back)
.
.
Written just from thoughts, so no offense if it's not 100% correct.
But I have one like that too (swapped the small SCB for an interdictor set to Prio 5, so no needing to fly blind, adding chaff and using the saved energy to improve Thrusters - sets your shields back to 936 MJ), it "works", but is kinda hasty in the middle of combat.
Even in PvE a very decent Anything-Hunter.
No question, you absolutely need to be able to work your menus quick an reliable from your controls while flying at the same time (so a well trained pair of hands on a HOTAS is recommended
)Hint: Buy your components in the right order to have your list sorted right, to quickly reach the needed Subsystems.
.
Cheers,
Nuit
Last edited:
Instead of nerfing Python, I think price on FDL should be knocked down a bit (e.g. to ~35-40 mils base). This will make more sense in terms of FDL actual worth and provide middle ground before Python.
Nerfing the Python? I run a Prismatic shielded Python fully A graded. Yesterday I met a Python and Vulture NPC in a wing - easy prey I thougth (I am not THAT bad at npc fighting). Getouttahere! Could kill the Python but had to run from the Vulture with 37% hull left .. So Python overpowered - no way ... The Vulture on the other hand ... (NOT )
)Nerfing the Python? I run a Prismatic shielded Python fully A graded. Yesterday I met a Python and Vulture NPC in a wing - easy prey I thougth (I am not THAT bad at npc fighting). Getouttahere! Could kill the Python but had to run from the Vulture with 37% hull left .. So Python overpowered - no way ... The Vulture on the other hand ... (NOT
What armour did you have?
That's the only thing I don't have enough money for atm I know you are right :d ... Does it make such a difference?
Agreed.
While a Python is a good combat ship and so is the Anaconda the main problem could be that we do not HAVE an EQUIVALENT combat ship compared to the Anaconda for example.
This could also be an issue with the amount and size of internal modules.
My view on different kind of ships:
-Multi-role crafts have MANY but MODERATE SIZED module slots?
-Trader vessels have FEW but LARGE SIZED module slots?
-Combat vessels have VERY FEW module slots but STRONG and LARGE main modules like shields, armour value and weapons?
Would it honestly be a bad thing if the Anaconda had smaller internal compartments (except shields).
Anaconda: Today it has 7.6.6.6.5.5.5.4.4.4.2 (Theoretical cargo 468 tonnes)
Compare that to the T9, 8.7.6.5.4.4.3.3.2 (Theoretical cargo 532 Tonnes)
Yes, the Anaconda is a lot more expensive but should not a T-9, with a hull weight at 2,5 times the size of the Anaconda hold more than 68 tonnes more cargo?
Nice comparison, it gets even worse, if you take the Space for Systems and Weapons into account too (stuff that is stored in the hull too).
I think, this is something they got a lot better balanced in the lower tiers, manly because in the higher tiers some variants (Fighter/Transport/Multipurpose) are just missing.
Best to Archive would be: Fighters and Transport should be around the same price Level and Excel in their respective roles (fighters maybe a little less, taking ammunition cost into consideration). The Multipurpose of the same Tier should be around 20% more expensive and not be able to Excel in one of the dedicated roles, but perform quite nice if pushed to either Function.
.
In my oppinion, that was quite nicely done in the Vulture / Type7 / Asp Tier (The Vulture and Type 7 ending around 30-40 Mio and the Asp around 50 Mio, depending on loadout).
The Vulture being a pure and nimble Fighter and a waste of money when trying to haul anything.
The Type7 being the opposite, big haul, no guns (at least no guns worth mentioning), flying like a brick.
The Asp being a good step in between, not rivaling the Vulture as a fighter too much and not getting close to the cargo capacity of the Type7, but having it's own unique edge: way more range than the other two.
.
Would be great if we would get this kind of variants for the top tiers as well
Fighter and Transport counterpart for the Anaconda Tier (most likely comming up in form of the Cutter/Corvette and the Panther).
Fighter counterpart for the Python/Type9 Tier. I assume this should have been the FdL but it somehow fits more into the Faction exclusive Tier (Imp.Clipper / Fed.AssaultShip) as the final Price of the FdL is so far below what the initial price suggests (around 100 Mio) and the FdL is hardly superior to a full fledged Python (~300Mio)
.
Just my 2 Cents
.
Cheers,
Nuit
I think, this is something they got a lot better balanced in the lower tiers, manly because in the higher tiers some variants (Fighter/Transport/Multipurpose) are just missing.
Best to Archive would be: Fighters and Transport should be around the same price Level and Excel in their respective roles (fighters maybe a little less, taking ammunition cost into consideration). The Multipurpose of the same Tier should be around 20% more expensive and not be able to Excel in one of the dedicated roles, but perform quite nice if pushed to either Function.
.
In my oppinion, that was quite nicely done in the Vulture / Type7 / Asp Tier (The Vulture and Type 7 ending around 30-40 Mio and the Asp around 50 Mio, depending on loadout).
The Vulture being a pure and nimble Fighter and a waste of money when trying to haul anything.
The Type7 being the opposite, big haul, no guns (at least no guns worth mentioning), flying like a brick.
The Asp being a good step in between, not rivaling the Vulture as a fighter too much and not getting close to the cargo capacity of the Type7, but having it's own unique edge: way more range than the other two.
.
Would be great if we would get this kind of variants for the top tiers as well
Fighter and Transport counterpart for the Anaconda Tier (most likely comming up in form of the Cutter/Corvette and the Panther).
Fighter counterpart for the Python/Type9 Tier. I assume this should have been the FdL but it somehow fits more into the Faction exclusive Tier (Imp.Clipper / Fed.AssaultShip) as the final Price of the FdL is so far below what the initial price suggests (around 100 Mio) and the FdL is hardly superior to a full fledged Python (~300Mio)
.
Just my 2 Cents
.
Cheers,
Nuit
Last edited:
There is a logical fallacy in assuming a multirole ship must be inferior in combat vs a ship that can only do combat well. You call this simgle role ship a 'combat' ship only because that is all it can do, instead of it being a weak multirole ship.
a porsche panarama turbo is very high end and expensive. It is also by any definition, multirole - carries equal or more cargo than most SUVs on market, has every stat a car needs to be considered world class sports car for speed, handling, etc - yet is gentle daily driver as well. Solo or full family, it is truly a multirole car - yet does far better in each specialty than almost all cars that only does one specialty well.
The issue therefore appears to be simply pricing. An anaconda i feel is priced correctly for the range of multirole things it can do and how well it does. Some MR ships though are fairly cheap for the bang it delivers. I am not calling for nor want a price change, but i would concede the logic that some MR ships could be made more expensive to reflect their abilities vs weaker multirole ships.
but simply saying multirole ships must inherently be weaker at combat than ships who cant do other roles well is a logical fallacy. Some of the best things in one specialty are also equally good in other roles. The key factor though IRL is that the more things a device, car, etc is awesome at - the price goes up comparibly.
a porsche panarama turbo is very high end and expensive. It is also by any definition, multirole - carries equal or more cargo than most SUVs on market, has every stat a car needs to be considered world class sports car for speed, handling, etc - yet is gentle daily driver as well. Solo or full family, it is truly a multirole car - yet does far better in each specialty than almost all cars that only does one specialty well.
The issue therefore appears to be simply pricing. An anaconda i feel is priced correctly for the range of multirole things it can do and how well it does. Some MR ships though are fairly cheap for the bang it delivers. I am not calling for nor want a price change, but i would concede the logic that some MR ships could be made more expensive to reflect their abilities vs weaker multirole ships.
but simply saying multirole ships must inherently be weaker at combat than ships who cant do other roles well is a logical fallacy. Some of the best things in one specialty are also equally good in other roles. The key factor though IRL is that the more things a device, car, etc is awesome at - the price goes up comparibly.
Last edited:
Ideally they would re-design it so that it is not as vertically challenged and would fit medium bays.
Its all very well not moving them, but one team has a hockey net and the other has rugby posts.
At first it seems laughable that the Python has a shielded capacity of 284T and The Conda has 452T. The argument is that the Conda's power plant bay size and thrusters, sensors etc still take up a massive amount of space. And I accept that. Its just why do the Type 7 and Type 9 have so little cargo space relative to their size (and equipment mountings)?
I would only make 1 change to the Python now, which is to reduce its power coupling to class 6. Befitting its aging trading vessel roots. I'd sooner boost the type 7 and 9 cargo space now than remove a Python compartment.
Last edited:
It's not a fallacy, it's just a different view.
Same goes for your example of Porsche vs. an SUV...for me wrong point of view, comparing them for their cargo hold, if it goes for Cars and Cargo, go for a Van or a Truck, all your combis and SUVs suddenly suck, go for pure muscle, take a real sportscar a two seater with just enough trunk space to include the folding roof. The dedicated Cars (Sport/Transport) would most likely excel at their spot (Speed/Cargohold).
.
.
Just for taking sides:
I am too completely against nerfing the Python. It is really fine as it is. I just would like to see a few more Options (usefull ones) in this Price Tier. Because as long as I do not want a Cargo Hauler, ther is no other option but the Python, this is what I would like to be changed.
.
Cheers
Nuit
I would just allow the T7 to land on a medium landing pad. Pretty sure it fits on one. No nerfs are neede for the python.
ok, fair point, and good one about pure cargo vehicle being better in that role.
I would call it a toss up then because while my example of porsche panamera (damn forum spell correction keeps screwing this up) turbo falls apart for cargo - as a van or moving truck would indeed utterly outclass it in that role - i comtend it still holds up vs 2 seaters; the only assembly line 2 seater sports car that will be more a muscle or sports car in traditional stats - hp, torque, 0-60 acceleration, 60-0 deceleration, lateral grip, etc - is the 911 TT
Hand built exotics like some (not all even) lambos, ferraris, etc will beat the panaorama turbo in the sports/muscle specialty just barely, but we're now talking hand crafted exceptions. For about 180-190k USD, you're getting a sedan turbo doing 0-60 in 3.7sec with lateral grip only a true 2 seater 911TT and hand crafted exotics beats.
however, conceding that as only car example i can think of, perhaps actual fighter craft would be better example. Until the stealth hybrid programs started phasing them out, for the time they were in service (and still are in service but referring to when F35, F22, etc did not exist) - the F/A 18 Hornet and later Super Hornet upgrades were considered the best fighters in the sky despite being in multirole production as both A2A and ground attack roles.
(i concede 'best' from national viewpoint, there has to be Mig afficionados that would dispute this, but from national USN pov, the multirole F/A 18 was better than single role craft.)
Specialty A2A aircraft like the F14 were phased out because the Hornet was so good in both A2A and G/A roles.
For actual ships, I would point to frigates in age of sail - some had more cannons, some had less. There 's some official designation I believe in terms of number of guns to qualify as a 1st class SoTL (ship of the line) - but depending on configuration could carry troops / cargo, be ships of the wall, or solo patrol / chass down all but the fleetest schooners. They were the multipurpose kings of the sea for their day.
i further concede not every example of MR being better in most specialties for its time or class means it reverses the general rule of thumb that specialty = better than MR - but it doesnt seem it has has to be 100% sure as some seem to make out that specialty ships ALWAYS has to be better than a multirole (MR)
i guess i'm back to price should reflect what you get.
Going to have to stop reading forum posts. Way too much "I don't like it ,so make it the way I want it. waa,waa,waa,sniff,sniff ,sniff. It makes no difference your reasoning and the couple of people who agree. It hurts a lot of players who are happy playing as it is and not reading hanging out at the forums. So one day they go to play and bam some stupid nerf again that screws them and benefits you. Stop it already.
Not only would it struggle to support its 5 weapons, it would severely limit it capacity to boost. Given is slow non-boost speed already, at that point one need not even bother and could just as well bring an Anaconda then.
It won't fit. Its too tall vertically. An oversight no doubt way back in Alpha days. They should re-design it imo.
Mephane said:
It does OK with its 5 weapons with a 6A distributor.
Just checked and it can boost with a 6D but not a 6E. I wonder if that is the _sole_ reason it got a 7 power distributor to begin with. Back in the 2014 October mad mad rush to release period when the Python and Clipper got added with no (I don't think they did?) advance beta testing. At least they did a bit of testing on the Asp and removed a 64 cargo bay. The Viper started out as a 450 speed ship before getting knocked down to 410 ish. IIRc the Cobra got a boost to hull strength. The Python just got thrown in there way OP without testing.
Last edited: