The one-trick pony advice involves more than just the fuel scoop - to be honest, the scoop really doesn't have anything at all to do with what I mean by that build. It's the (lack of) power, more than anything else.
First of all, it's only a perceived lack of power, and this perception is wrong (and brought on by either inexperience or lack of understanding of how certain systems and power priorities work). As I explained earlier, you can't run everything at once, certain systems only work while in supercruise, others only on thrusters, and others, like the AFMU, you want to be out of supercruise for or you risk additional damage, so not having AFMU power in supercruise and having a habit of always dropping out can arguably be safer. Not having enough to use AFMU while in SC does not put commanders, new or otherwise, at any additional risk. This is just plain wrong.
You did point something out though, that I feel is worth expanding upon - perhaps I am the only person in the game who tops off at every scooping opportunity, but I feel confident in saying that most players, the vast majority of the time, do not habitually run their tank almost dry before scooping.
No, you're not. I scoop at every main sequence star, and so do a lot of commanders. Your scooping habits don't make you a rare bird - what does is your class 4 scoop recommendation on an Anaconda. There are some who recommend class 6's instead sometimes, but this is new
My disagreement here is not about the black and white number difference in scoops - it's the presentation that the large scoops are required for ships using 32T or less fuel capacity (and this is an important distinction). They are not - it's the difference between a perceptual benefit (the importance of which I do recognize), and an actual, fully-realized benefit.
Except, of course, that nobody ever said that they are absolutely required, in a sense of "you will not survive your trip". What was said was a
recommendation larger scoop saves more time and helps with heat efficiency, but if you're feeling masochistic you can put a 1E scoop on an Anaconda and it'll work (and will burn you out of the game, or at least have you self destruct and refit unless you have ungodly amounts of patience).
Just for the record - I do own and use a 6A scoop for various purposes. I use it when Mission running, and for travelling longer distances (kylies, not hundreds), which likely involve a Passenger Mission, or some other purpose with a quick turnaround. It's the only scoop I use on my Beluga. If I am running Trade, or a Trade CG in my Anaconda, I use the 4A. I don't argue the usefulness, I argue the viewpoint that they are necessary.
Well, of course you'll put a smaller scoop for a bubble CG ship, everyone does that - you need the cargo space. That's fine. We're talking about an exploration Anaconda here.
You know what's interesting? The 5B/C, and 6C/D are all better scoops for an Anaconda than the 4A, and they are cheaper, to boot. If I was to be jumped on about something, this should have been it. I was waiting for it, but it never came. I chose to mention the 4A specifically because when someone is first buying an Anaconda, there is a really good chance that they already have a 4A scoop.
It did come, just not as directly as you apparently expected it:
There's no reason to even talk about the class 6 ones since a 7B will vastly outperform a 6A and come at a much lower price. But if one can afford it, the 7A should really be used.
I thought it was obvious that this rule applies across all classes - 6B will outperform a 5A, and so on as you go down through the classes. In short, though, when we distill your response there we can find that you're criticizing the build advice most of the community provides as not just sub-optimal, but somehow risky to new explorers, yet when asked to say how exactly you fail to provide any solid arguments. I wouldn't latch on if you just said "this is how I prefer to do it" but when you accuse the community of endangering new commanders with bad build advice, and then fail to provide evidence (your attempt at "lack of power", an "argument" which was disproved even before you attempted it, was fairly weak for reasons I now explained twice), it really needs to be answered. Let's not even mention that you even tried suggesting installing, as you put it, "barely adequate" thrusters also somehow endangers explorers, which only demonstrates a lack of understanding of game mechanics - in this case, that thrusters do not affect planetary landing or supercruise performance in any way, a fact that's been tested by members of the community on more than one occasion. So, you've pointed a finger at the community about offering bad advice but when it comes to backing up your claims with factual evidence you fall short.
Look, nobody's saying there aren't different ways of doing things, and that you're somehow not allowed to have personal preferences and build your ships however you like. But when offering advice we can only offer what you call "standard" advice as that's been proven to surely work for most people - it surely won't endanger explorers. Advice that would endanger explorers would be "take shield generator off the ship" or something like that, but using power priorities intelligently so you're not being bogged down by a needlessly heavy plant, or putting in the best scoop you can afford, these are quality of life suggestions that will work for most, and for those that have other preferences, they can always refit next time they're in port, no harm done.
And of course we build ships based on their purpose. I don't put a bunch of SCB's, prismatic shields, or plasma accelerators on my exploration Anaconda, nor did I put a 7A scoop on my Corvette
