What about the speed limit on the Corsair?
What about the Corsair's mass lock?
Is that math?
New ship: Panther Clipper
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
What about the Corsair's mass lock?
Is that math?
Eeehm... go to Equipment Finder on Inara and search for FSD
You're in for a surprize.
PS
there's no Cargo Rack 9E (yet)
The disagreement between what different players want from the Panther-Clipper isn't going to go away, and that's fine... but your model of what players like me want is off. We both want fun. We both don't want bland.
For me, there's no ship design more bland than "number is bigger". I want choice – if I want to make money, I want to (and currently do) feel able to choose between different professions with similar-enough profit/hour. If I choose to trade, I want choice – I want to have different options for effective ships to use, not one ship that's astronomically better than the others. I want to choose between ships for more interesting reasons than which one has the bigger number in one box on a spreadsheet.
I don't want bland. That goes for this thread as well. 35 pages of discussion about one number. I posted last week about how I hoped the Panther-Clipper would have a strong distributor hardpoint selection focused on turret use, firing underbelly. I've a vision in my head of it being a surprisingly powerful landing ship, with giant turrets eviscerating surface defences as it comes in for a landing. I wrote about how my real dream is for a Class 8 'small ship bay' the Panther-Clipper could support. We're not talking about anything like that though. We're talking about a number.
I really don't mind that some people want something different. But what I want is something fun, not something bland.
What about them? Speed and mass lock are not jump range and thruster maximum mass. You're quoting a post where I mention speed being a ship-specific fudge factor twice.
For maximum salt FD can give it size 9 slots but not add the cargo racks to outfitting.Eeehm... go to Equipment Finder on Inara and search for FSD
You're in for a surprize.
PS
there's no Cargo Rack 9E (yet)
Just doing my potential problem analysis.
I was surprised when I first saw it, yeah! That was a while ago though, I'm afraid. It is interesting that Inara.cz shows it but I'm not exactly sure why – and it doesn't actually have data against it, it shows a 0 Cr price and nothing about its statistics. Oddly, there's a Reddit post from 9 years ago that says it knows the class constant of a Class 8 FSD (2.9 – which might just be derived by adding +0.15 like every other class). I couldn't find anything anywhere about what its maximum fuel per jump stat might be, which is the other piece needed to actually make calculations.Eeehm... go to Equipment Finder on Inara and search for FSD
You're in for a surprize.
It's possible that the Class 8 FSD does exist and is statted in the game files, and has been datamined. If that's the case though, 1) they're completely free to change it up before actually launching it, and 2) we should probably pretend we don't know, the same way we're pretending we haven't seen the datamined Panther-Clipper stats already (which, again, might completely change anyway).
All class 9 internals
12 utility slots
30 medium weapon slots, 5 on each side
12 large weapon slots, 2 each side
Stowmaster escape capsule.
12 utility slots
30 medium weapon slots, 5 on each side
12 large weapon slots, 2 each side
Stowmaster escape capsule.
Odd! I consider I hit the nail precisely on the head in that respect.
I play a game where I have fun, currently the fun is diminished because, after 8 years of bland and marginal improvements (bar SCO, that made perfect sense) another batch of vanilla tat, because "Good" is "BAD!!!" in some player's opinion, will do nothing to retain me as a player, or add anything enjoyable.
You may want bland, but not call it bland, because bigger isn't better, or whatever, which is your choice, but I'm happy to be me, not you, if you get my drift...
People just have different things they find fun, and different things they find bland. It's not that the people who disagree with you want 'bland' in the name of simulation, because they forget it's a game, or for "whatever justification they deem applicable". They'd just have more fun with the thing they want than with the thing you want, and vice versa.
It would be nice if this, or any new top tier ship, was more than just a reflexive balance to a bad game mechanic that has high demand for circumvention of the gameplay involoved in that mechanic.
I doubt we'll get that though.
They are just bigger stats of smaller ships that rarely offer anything unique to their use. Perhaps it's not too late to make a new type of slf that allows npc crew to shuttle cargo to outposts or surface stations too dangerous for the main ship at the expense af having to protect the ship and wait for more trips (also allowing multiple deployed slf's). This slf change can later be expanded to salvage gameplay, which requires piloting specialized slf sized ships that surgically cut debris to get components that can only be retrieved that way to then use that stuff with engineers (initially) to craft ships from components that can only be crafted and not purchased or restored via insurance.
I doubt we'll get that though.
They are just bigger stats of smaller ships that rarely offer anything unique to their use. Perhaps it's not too late to make a new type of slf that allows npc crew to shuttle cargo to outposts or surface stations too dangerous for the main ship at the expense af having to protect the ship and wait for more trips (also allowing multiple deployed slf's). This slf change can later be expanded to salvage gameplay, which requires piloting specialized slf sized ships that surgically cut debris to get components that can only be retrieved that way to then use that stuff with engineers (initially) to craft ships from components that can only be crafted and not purchased or restored via insurance.
Indeed, this is so, and was the 2nd time you elected to inform me that bigger isn't better in your opinion.
ETA: Which is not a problem. My opinion of what constitutes fun appears to be the exact opposite to that of a few posting here, naturally, being opinions, all of us are 100% correct.
Last edited:
At the core, elite's problem (one of the less niche ones) is that the gameplay is the same no matter what ship you progress to. Higher end ships and modules don't open up the ability to do harder or even just different gameplay (with a minor exception to some combat).
Trade, exploration, exobiology, mining...these are singular game loops that have no scale or tiers and combat is barely better. So different gear can only reward players by reducing the amount a player needs to participate in the game loop in question for a given reward. Think about how self destructive that is. What it says about what the developers think about their own game. The only reward these player progressions (ships/modules) provide is needing to participate in the game mechanic less. That's not good.
Better gear should do more than that. It should enable successful (at least more successful) activities that were out of reach with lesser gear. So you reward them with different game loops rather than just the prospect of doing less of the same.
Trade, exploration, exobiology, mining...these are singular game loops that have no scale or tiers and combat is barely better. So different gear can only reward players by reducing the amount a player needs to participate in the game loop in question for a given reward. Think about how self destructive that is. What it says about what the developers think about their own game. The only reward these player progressions (ships/modules) provide is needing to participate in the game mechanic less. That's not good.
Better gear should do more than that. It should enable successful (at least more successful) activities that were out of reach with lesser gear. So you reward them with different game loops rather than just the prospect of doing less of the same.
Your term 'acceptable' is a good description. I should have used 'coherent' design for expressing what I mean. I know that ED isn't a simulator - for many reasons (one would be that there's no FTL flight, another that if the physics simulation was stricter, it would probably less fun to play and much more demanding on our gaming hardware - not to speak of the development effort). However, ED is pretty much grounded in terms of dimensions, distance, etc ('coherent'). Therefore, I wrote that the PC's cargo capacity of 3,000-6,000 isn't sounding realistic.
Looking at the video and renders, I'd estimate that it is going to be between 1,200-1,500 tons which isn't all too bad.
Did you get that line from a
Great, we can have another (much bigger) dropship that we don't have gameplay for. We don't even use the dropship as a dropship in game... Nope, we use a Vulture! Of course, if they make your vision a reality you'd have to watch out for skimmers... And personal weapons, they rip down shields and hull pretty quickly...
You must have missed my post where I demanded a size 5 hard point that uses sidewinders as ammo...
Let them make slf with seismic charges for asteroids for starters.
And now this thread has attracted A LOT of people "baiting for a debate".
Grasping at pointless arguments and deliberately miss-interpretating words so they can have arguments.
And elite dies a little more. Not from development or bugs or questionable marketing choices... but because the community is rot.
Grasping at pointless arguments and deliberately miss-interpretating words so they can have arguments.
And elite dies a little more. Not from development or bugs or questionable marketing choices... but because the community is rot.
After many commanders brought their ships and FCs to build a T3 station (in a day!) for another commander having great difficulty playing anymore because of a terminal illness - I can firmly assert that the above statement is false.
A diamond in a mountain of trash doesn't make the trash worth more.
And if you have trash in a pile of diamonds you don't go "BUT ITS SO GOOD"
no. You pick out the trash and throw it away.
But gaming communities, especially space game communities, have this horrid trend of wanting to keep the loud trolls that nitpick the tiniest lose thread, deliberately miss interpret it... then run wild... whilst the moderators sit idle by and don't do anything cause "forum interactions must be good for the game's health right?! And that means money for the company!"
I'd sit and list what and why people miss interpretated things but why should I? Its easier for me to block them and go on with life. I have dishes to clean. I have powerplay grinding to do. I have X4 foundations to plau. I have laundry to do.
And besides... even if I went into detail and wrote out a 20 page essay explaining what I meant that couldn't be miss interpreted...
They would all just go "TL DR lmao" then use an AI to type out a 20 page essay on one vauge detail from the original post then call themselves a genious as they drool over more AI scam art.
no. You pick out the trash and throw it away.
But gaming communities, especially space game communities, have this horrid trend of wanting to keep the loud trolls that nitpick the tiniest lose thread, deliberately miss interpret it... then run wild... whilst the moderators sit idle by and don't do anything cause "forum interactions must be good for the game's health right?! And that means money for the company!"
I'd sit and list what and why people miss interpretated things but why should I? Its easier for me to block them and go on with life. I have dishes to clean. I have powerplay grinding to do. I have X4 foundations to plau. I have laundry to do.
And besides... even if I went into detail and wrote out a 20 page essay explaining what I meant that couldn't be miss interpreted...
They would all just go "TL DR lmao" then use an AI to type out a 20 page essay on one vauge detail from the original post then call themselves a genious as they drool over more AI scam art.