I wonder if EVE has a similar looking ship... [arrrr]
Krait Mk. II, it's now a Python analog
- Thread starter TheGrimCorsair
- Start date
I wonder if EVE has a similar looking ship... [arrrr]
I agree and disagree with the sentiment. Yes, there are cars that are quanifiably better or worse than others, but having a ship with all upsides and no downsides means people will simply flock to that ship.
I'm torn because I don't necessarily like the options out there. Some people go for the "rock/paper/scissors" approach to balance - more firepower means slower ship or faster ship means weaker hull or whatever. But that always feels hollow to me.
Ideally I'd like to have each ship with its own strengths and weaknesses, but with a degree of upgradability that can compensate--but rather than equal across the board upgrades the way Engineers work right now, each ship type has its own unique "potential" over other ship types.
I think Ziljan means that the limitations are not based on "in game reality", but on arbitrary rules. Like for example, a ship with good shields must have a weak hull. Or a ship that is maneuverable can't also be fast. I agree that you can't have a ship that is "the best ship", but you could have a ship with good shields AND armor, that is also slow BECAUSE it's heavy. Or you could have a ship that is fast AND agile, but can only have weak firepower BECAUSE its distributor is inherently engine focused. Stuff that "makes sense". But instead we have a set of gamey rules like "it's either fast or agile, pick one"
Last edited:
That would be cool as well. I miss the high risk smuggling missions. They were a lot of fun.
Ah, Sothis and my Asp with giant fuel tanks. I miss you.
Even in this very same thread you have people saying it better has a proper PD size 7 or the ship will be worthless, and I can remember you why we got the ship transfer 'QoL' improvement because of low jump ships.. oh, and I forgot the posts about 'buff the corvette' or 'give the corvette a real FSD'.. I'd not blame FD here mate.
I'm just arguing for rules that have some sort of grounding in "reality". I'm fine with a ship that's generally garbage at one thing but brilliant at something else (or just plain garbage at everything), as long as there's a plausible reason why. "If a given ship is fast in a straight line, it must have terrible pitch" is a gamey justification, because it applies to all ships regardless.
Well yeah, that's coming. Regardless of what the ship's like, someone's going to be disappointed. I think I'll probably like it, but then I fly a Viper Mk.IV mostly because I like how it looks and sounds. The Krait looks like it's going to deliver in that aspect at least.
Aesthetically the Krait is very beautiful
Exactly that thing is hindered by the arcady flight model and the artificial restrictions enforced by the flight computer.
Small, agile ships cannot take advantage over bigger ships because the flight computer prohibts it. An Eagle or a Sidewinder cannot out-accelerate a Corvette even though it should be able to.
I'm guessing whoever prepared the video just didn't bother to address that little detail.
Historically, FD have paid a *lot* of attention to what is placed in the trailer. Not idly do the leaves of Lord Braben fall...
A mass cancellation field? Intriguing... but I'm thinking it's just going to be artistic license.
Poor choice of words on my part - I was commenting on the implied promise of mobility, not the display technology, which is much improved.
No, but no doubt Star Citizen will get one.
If we get a ship that looks like the Terrapin I would be fine with SC getting a Krait-like ship
If we get a ship that looks like the Terrapin I would be fine with SC getting a Krait-like ship
We sortof do... the asp explorer. It's way bigger than a terrapin, but the general shape is similar. Also, FDev were a lot more mature about it than CCP.