A lot of humans tend to like to be able to see out so even if it made no sense there would probably be windows but not the enormous things we get in Elite.
New ship: Panther Clipper
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
That‘s why the Gemini 7 demanded to get them into their capsules.
I was wondering: are recent ships findable in broken state on the surface of planets or are we still stuck with the same wreckage archetypes (with only few exterior hatches to crack open) since Odyssey?
Wondering because with the Panther it would be the best time to add explorable wreckage of it, and by extension of the other ships eventually. I mean sure not fully explorable but at least key parts of it like the bridge and the rear cargo bay. for example.
Wondering because with the Panther it would be the best time to add explorable wreckage of it, and by extension of the other ships eventually. I mean sure not fully explorable but at least key parts of it like the bridge and the rear cargo bay. for example.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
not sure if deliberate but you are sounding really arrogant!. it isnt that i want to dunk on anyone and god knows i have had plenty to complain about in the game over the years.... i just dont want 1 ship which is so much better than any other ship in the game that it is essentially playing a different ball game!.
power creep is inevitable in any long term RPG (that said not everyone agrees, some here believe there should be NO creep at all). Me personally i am fine with slight improvements over time. but 200%+ jump is not a slight improvement!. IMO your issue should not be with the PC II capacity (btw a ship i am looking forward to adding to the stable) but you should be complaining about the numbers for colonisation . I am not saying I agree or disagree there but its a separate complaint imo. solo colonisation is the only area where a 3000t capacity would ever be needed imo.
that range on a trade CG would have you at elite trade in 1 CG,....... and i just do not think that would be good for the games longevity, and indeed it is because i want the game to still be trucking along why i do not think FD should dial the numbers up to 11 right away.
Last edited:
he can ask for what ever he wants..... but going off on one at players who didnt want a capacity that big and blaming them for the games inevitable demise due to what a failure the PC is now it is only a 50% increase on the next largest hauler in the game sounds a stretch to me.
but if that is the hill he wants to die on that is fine....... i had one too once, my toys flew out of the pram at the thought of Ody dropping VR.
however my reply was a simple statement of fact, there was no judgement behind it. (my other reply may have had a small amount of judgement behind it however
)
Last edited:
I think comparing vocal disappointment and vocal praise should be taken with a grain of salt, it will always be lopsided towards the vocal disappointment since humans are far more likely to complain about a small disappointment than they would be to vocally praise a small bit of excitement. The wild expectations also played a huge role in exacerbating the disappointment. In the end, Game balance >>>> Meeting player's expectations in my book.
Becasue it wasn't year 3311
Well since colonisation started there have been many new systems so obviously the amount of materials should be higher so that it takes months of hauling to complete . So that you need that same amount of journeys with the PC2 ??
Ok, reposting this here, because the other thread was declared a duplicate and closed.
So, if Fdev did allow all the size 7 and 8 slots, vs 1 of each, it would be a savings of 5-7 runs per "Big" commodity, and 25-35 runs less total for the project.
The "Big Five" being a reference to the 5 commodities that make up 90% of most construction projects. The context for this example is a T3 starport being constructed.
So, if Fdev did allow all the size 7 and 8 slots, vs 1 of each, it would be a savings of 5-7 runs per "Big" commodity, and 25-35 runs less total for the project.
I'm glad they added it - but was one of those folk who had noticed that the expansion details never mentioned VR - although I did add my own comment in support of it being added.
I agree, your comment was not judgemental
Of course it should.
Any group of random individuals are very unlikely to agree about anything.
Even alleged strong supporters of the game have suggested it might be better taken offline permanently in the past. as it didn't meet their vision of what the game was going to be.
FD chose conservatism with the PCII in order to maintain whatever they consider is balance in the game, it will be praised by the conservative minded players and criticised by the more radical ones... nothing will change regardless of any noise made.
cant wait to build two MK2 as combat platform and second one as Cargo carrier
and we need specialized Panther Clipper cargo Engineer to extend Cargo Racks Capacity by 300T more
fdev and Mr. Braben Thank you
and we need specialized Panther Clipper cargo Engineer to extend Cargo Racks Capacity by 300T more
fdev and Mr. Braben Thank you
Last edited:
On the contrary, after we've all bought the Panther Clipper Mk 2 they'll probably announce its big brother, the Panther Clipper Mk 3
Why does their idea require a suspension of belief for only 1 of 2 otherwise identical cargo racks? Only for 2 sizes of racks?With no apparent in-game technical reason? For the most common of modules, but it can only work on 1 hull?
So a percentage (and not a large one) fewer runs to complete a project - must be an improvement in FD's eyes, I'm sure.
It is a beautiful ship, but not adventurous enough to warrant my spending real money on.
Yes, 1000-ish when kitted out to survive & thrive is better than the T-10 & Cutter, so, depending on its performance, I may part with credits for the ship, but not Arx for PJ or kit.
It may even haul a reasonably large amount of cargo...
he can ask for what ever he wants..... but going off on one at players who didnt want a capacity that big and blaming them for the games inevitable demise due to what a failure the PC is now it is only a 50% increase on the next largest hauler in the game sounds a stretch to me.
but if that is the hill he wants to die on that is fine....... i had one too once, my toys flew out of the pram at the thought of Ody dropping VR.
however my reply was a simple statement of fact, there was no judgement behind it. (my other reply may have had a small amount of judgement behind it however
I wasn't doing that and you know I wasn't....
If players don't want a large capacity ship there's a brilliant solution: use another ship or don't fill yours full of stuff. So see? How is that even comparable here?
We've well articulated exactly why we want a large hauler. You and others though never do the same for your position. You just say we're wrong, blurt out "balance" which is a slogan not a explanation, or invoke "P2W" which is just a complaint about monetization in general not feedback about the Panther Clipper.
Hmm. Reading about this ship isn't making colonisation any more palatable for me I'm afraid.
I was hoping a really serious haulage capacity but this seems to fall short.
Still, I suppose things could still change although, as it stands, it will (probably) be the only ship I won't get.
I was hoping a really serious haulage capacity but this seems to fall short.
Still, I suppose things could still change although, as it stands, it will (probably) be the only ship I won't get.
I did a bit, but the challenge of a tier 3 ground port helped me lose interest. Hopes that the PC might ease the burden kept the idea on the back burner, at least until yesterday)
I suspect a few of us were.
Last edited:
Tell us you've ignored ALL feedback about Colonization without telling us. Like you aren't even trying at this point. It's borderline trolling to just claim it's because we don't want to fly our ships. That's just being so dismissive....
A ship with Uber mega hauling capacity won't fix colonization in any way shape or form. It'll just make it so you have to engage with it less, which means the design of colonization is the root issue.