Totally agree. It goes deeper than the FDL, the current meta of constant boosting for constant max manoeuvrability is one of the biggest changes to the original flight model that's gone unexamined
Let's Talk About The FDL...
- Thread starter CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
- Start date
Totally agree. It goes deeper than the FDL, the current meta of constant boosting for constant max manoeuvrability is one of the biggest changes to the original flight model that's gone unexamined
and why do you think that's bad?
i couldn't be happier now that evasion starts being an actually viable strategy (provided you offered a chunk of your body to the gods of grind).
Last edited:
breaking news, different ships have different strong points!
hope not everybody likes to just face tank or hit fleeing cmdrs in the rear.
well afaik that's exactly how it is described.
but that's not really true. with directional thrusters and boost the fdl can dogfight like the best. any other ship actually can, fdl is just very good at it. as it should be ;-)
add:
(ship descriptions are not an argument anymore since engineers blurred all the lines across the board)
Last edited:
As usual, too much boosters IMO
This FDL lacks the most important for a bountyhunter, the KWS. Than it would need at least 1 chaff and 1 PD. Either go for lightweight hull and shield meta or hybrid with bi-weaves and reactive surface composite. Scrap that military hull!
Otherwise, jumprange is okay but try that 5A PP with a class 4 PA and you will exceed the power fastly, even engineered. The class 6 PP is okay.
I would rather see an option to scrap the class 4 hardpoint against a class 5 FSD and a better fueltank. So that we can choose between much PewPew or much range. It would make sense since the FDL has only so tiny components due to the fact, that the class 4 HP eats most of the internal space.
That wasn't my FDL btw. Lol
Just something I threw together on the site to see how it would look on paper maxed out.
Like I said, I'd be happy with both variants of the FDL. And many other ships could do with a few variations in the main hull.
I made a thread about it in the suggestions section, but it wasn't very good. Lol
I love my FDL the way she is.
Didn't read more than the first page of the thread, so maybe it was said already...
I like the FdL the way it is. It is an excellent combat ship, but it's the top of the "fighters" so it should be. I'd like to see 1 or 2 additional ships, one of them being an Imperial design, that compete closely with the FdL for the top fighter spot.
I like the FdL the way it is. It is an excellent combat ship, but it's the top of the "fighters" so it should be. I'd like to see 1 or 2 additional ships, one of them being an Imperial design, that compete closely with the FdL for the top fighter spot.
I totally agree. I think there should be a Core Dynamics, and Gutamaya alternatives to the FdL. Maybe not as grand, but just as capable. In my view, the FDL is really a Large ship that happens to land on a medium pad. I believe the FdL is there to compete/contend with the big 3, not the rest of the Medium pad ships. The FAS comes to mind. It is at a serious disadvantage to the FdL. Give us alternatives with the utility, and fire power of the FdL.
The FdL, I hate flying that thing. I have one, it's as tooled up as my other ships, but it's just a credit dump. I haven't launched in the thing since we got MRP's.
I agree with OP, return the powerplant back where it used to be. The buff made no sense and nobody asked for it. And buffing the FSD size, why not. Grind and tedium be gone.
Giving the Python, Clipper and particularly the FAS more utility slots, would certainly go some way to bringing those ships more into balance with the FDL. As it stands the FDL is in a unique position regarding the number of utility slots it has compared to all other ships.
The FAS is OK cos it can hulltank super well. Similarly the clipper can hulltank, has access to c7 bi weaves and has a niche due to speed.
I do agree that the Python, Dropship and Gunship could use more U slots. The Python because it needs them to counteract its low speed and shield strength, and the Gunship and Dropship as a way to make them comparable to the FAS. In addition, a number of small ships (most notably the Viper III/IV and Cobra III badly need another 2 U slots.
The downside is that U slots are hard-baked into the models. Maybe add double U slots where some ships can just have 2 modules in the same visual slot?
Alternatively, just nerf Shield Boosters and buff base shields so that U slots don't entirely determine a ship's viability
Alternatively, just nerf Shield Boosters and buff base shields so that U slots don't entirely determine a ship's viability
I like this guy, and not just because I'm also an Alexander. He thinks right. Also, I still want more U slots for the FAS, just because I wants em.....
So, is this really a thread for FAS/Python pilots who want the FDL nerfed back down again? The FDL is the best medium fighter because it's expensive and it can't do anything else, it's supposed to be that way.
Wrong. I wasn't one of them, but I remember a lot of people asking for this.
Wrong. I wasn't one of them, but I remember a lot of people asking for this.
Last edited:
The FAS is OK cos it can hulltank super well. Similarly the clipper can hulltank, has access to c7 bi weaves and has a niche due to speed.
I do agree that the Python, Dropship and Gunship could use more U slots. The Python because it needs them to counteract its low speed and shield strength, and the Gunship and Dropship as a way to make them comparable to the FAS. In addition, a number of small ships (most notably the Viper III/IV and Cobra III badly need another 2 U slots.
The downside is that U slots are hard-baked into the models. Maybe add double U slots where some ships can just have 2 modules in the same visual slot?
Alternatively, just nerf Shield Boosters and buff base shields so that U slots don't entirely determine a ship's viability
Largely agree.
I do think that hull tanking is a slightly flawed concept as it stands because of packhounds will effectively end a fight of a hull tanking ship due to the removal of its weapons, which hurts the FAS and some other interesting builds.
Clipper would benefit so much from being able to set a fixed convergence, would love to see that.
Would really love to see how a pre nerf python would fit into todays ships as well.
Without doubt it would be great to see more diversity, although probably the easiest way would be to remove 2 utility slots from the FDL, of course that would go down well...
100% in agreement about the SB's and shields, but as 2 attempted revisions in 2 separate betas have shown, its not popular particularly by those who didn't have those betas to try...
Last edited:
^^ This, this, always this.
The powerplant.
Right back when the plant went up to a size 6 - the powerplant of a Clipper, crammed into an FdL - a ton of PvP commanders said immediately, back in Beta 1.5 as it was, December 2015 iirc, that this would overpower the FdL.
It went through anyway and at a stroke the entire exercise of balancing your FdL build was abolished. We used to choose whether to run something awful at attack, like all cannons, to have the luxury of full shield boosters ... or whether to run four rails but accept that you'd struggle even to power SCB's ... or use a huge PA knowing that you would have to make a ton of compromises just to power up the thrusters.
No, all of that went out of the window. Suddenly you could run four rails and a huge PA and all boosters and a prismatic shield and SCB's.
Then along came 2.1 with its emphasis on utility slots as the most important module (shield squared, shield cubed...) and the already teetering balance went out of the window.
To give Frontier credit, they have done a good job of restoring combat viability to other ships via the combined introduction of MRP's with reduced HRP mass. The FAS is a popular ship again.
However, speaking as someone who's pretty much entire game is fighting FdL or FAS in my Courier, I only ask FdL guys for a duel if there are no FAS guys present. Why?
Time.
The time to chew through the shields of a fully fitted have-it-all FdL is simply absurd. I mean, a full hull tank plus bi-weave hybrid FAS has hit points forever but the FdL with prismatic, boosters, SCB's, has hit points for forever, and back again, and more forever, and even more forever.
One of the reasons I used a shieldless FdL for my Truesilver's Top Tips, No.3 series of 20 duels here...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/341107-Truesilver-s-Top-Tips-No-3-Gimballed-Duelling
...was to show that this is completely unnecessary. You don't need to have the current shield health and build laziness of a 6A powerplant FdL to be competitive. The FdL would be more than a match for an FAS, assuming competent piloting on both sides, dialled back to a size 5.
It's no coincidence that Cmdrs Pipko and Oddissee of SDC and Cmdr PoaArctica of AA (some of the best FdL pilots in this game) have called publicly for a return to the size 5 powerplant.
Returning the FdL to a size 5 would simultaneously restore build intelligence and choice to FDL outfitting, while making FdL duels more skilful and fun - whether you are fighting the FdL, or flying it.
Maybe.. I dunno, I like those ships the way they are. I would like to see two more ships really on par with the FdL, maybe some different slots, but really similar. I think it would take a few balance passes to get it right, but we could handle that. What I don't want is to see every ship in the game buffed or nerfed until they're all equal. The FdL is the TOP (fighter flight profile) combat ship. Just like the Cutter is the TOP trade ship. And the 'conda is the TOP jump range. There are lots of bests, but since combat is PVP, it makes sense to have a few ships that are peers so that there can be some variety instead of everyone flying FdLs. Personally I like flying fighters, so the FdL is my go-to combat ship. I have a 'conda and a Corvette that have bigger shields and more DPS but I don't really enjoy flying them.