New ship: Panther Clipper

No, it's not absurd. It's illustrating that balance is in fact something that can be argued and isn't just something to be tossed aside for convenience.
Trailblazers upset the balance! I see you still haven't Googled "paradigm shift" because you're not getting it. FDEV destroyed the balance, and they say this thing is "feature complete" so it's not getting re-balanced. So our only answer was in a new huge hauler. Which they deliberately planned as a solution to something they broke, to generate profits.

Which even knowing that, I would gladly have supported because I truly love the game. Yet this thing missed the mark SO badly, it's not worth spending real money on. It doesn't fix the problem they created.

Again you just either cannot or refuse to see the whole picture.
 
you're asking for a ship that can only do hauling to alleviate the boredom of hauling when the obvious answer is to just stop doing the thing that bores you.

I like pizza. That doesn't mean if I were forced to eat pizza every single meal, every day, for the rest of my life that I "hate" pizza. Is there an AI chatbot or something where you guys are getting these terrible talking-points?
 
That's irrelevant to this topic. If FDEV magically fixes the game play, great. I cannot hope for that and I have no way to affect changes in that department. This thread is about discussing the Panther Clipper which in my opinion is far too conservative for the current state of the game. Not the magical one that you and others are telling me I should shut up and wait for.
why irrelevant? It was you who brought it up. I merely answered.
 
Can you provide in-game lore to explain the (pre-defined) logic & cohesion?

Quite serious as I don't recall anything in the game description that states, quite categorically, that only incremental advances are possible - nor in the CODEX, so where is it described?

If I have missed it somewhere, I'd like to read about it.
We're designing all the ships with the interiors in mind. How the cargo is unloaded all of that sort of thing, how damage occurs.[,,,]. The game has to be structured in a way to allow it from the start. [...}


David Braben, December 2012[7]

When Lord Brebus himself states that, it should be believable also for you, shouldn't it?

Edit: removed some parts of Braben's statement which do not belong to this discussion.
 
We're designing all the ships with the interiors in mind. How the cargo is unloaded all of that sort of thing, how damage occurs.[,,,]. The game has to be structured in a way to allow it from the start. [...}


David Braben, December 2012[7]

When Lord Brebus himself states that, it should be believable also for you, shouldn't it?

Edit: removed some parts of Braben's statement which do not belong to this discussion.

Oh please, he's just rambling. Star Citizen will be a real game before we get a single one of those things at this rate.
 
This is misinformation propaganda being put out by Federation operatives. Who we all know are less skilled and come from sketchy neighborhoods compared to Imperials.
If that's a lame attempt at "git good", you failed. I am not a Federation operative, I am a player who says the Cutter sucks. It's a bad, not fun ship in my book, and only revered by minmaxers. Elevating it to an OP "best ship of the game" to fit the narrative is.... well. You know what it is.
 
When Lord Brebus himself states that, it should be believable also for you, shouldn't it?
Did he state, categorically, that every design decision had to be only incremental and that nothing could be developed that changed capability from that of the game on release?
Yes, designed with interiors in mind appears to have been somewhat abandoned over the years, along with Big Game Hunting on ELWs, but I may be mistaken and they'll appear soon...

As your source is an external wiki, not actually from the game, it isn't really answering my question, although it is pointing toward a 12 years old video, which is brought up with monotonous regularity to excuse any criticism...

Nothing in-game dictates that it must remain stagnant as a mission statement, does it?
 
I like pizza. That doesn't mean if I were forced to eat pizza every single meal, every day, for the rest of my life that I "hate" pizza. Is there an AI chatbot or something where you guys are getting these terrible talking-points?
In the same breath as using being forced to eat pizza for the rest of your life as an analogue, you call my talking points bad? Ok, I'll roll with it, firstly I didn't say you hate pizza, but I would suggest that in the incredibly unlikely scenario that you are somehow forced to eat it for the rest of your life, a device to help you eat it faster is probably not all that helpful. The good news is that you are neither forced to eat pizza or do colonisation for the rest of your life, you could just take a break from it.
 
It depends where they are, and who you are fighting. If its a bendy rando NPC 4 small, 4 medium and 2 large are plenty. And against a player, shooting back is a waste of time.


You do understand that no ship should be an I WIN colonisation / Powerplay button, right? Last time I checked the flying part of ED was the game, not trying to avoid it.
Agreed 100%!
 
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
I would always ask the question of "How many of those new systems are actually a single outpost bridging somewhere or where people are waiting for the end of beta, or for things to be more stable, to actually develop it?", first, before bringing up that there has been a lot of new systems since Trailblazers launched. (And I'm sure someone has in the thread after your post but I have been catching up after a few hours of absence - yes, I know, how dare I exist outside the internet)

Why, well simply, because there is more to colonizing than just slapping down an outpost and leaving the system be, so increasing the hauling amounts might not meaningfully affect new system claims but definitely slow down system development a lot. And considering a medium to large system with its supporting facilities can easily range in the hundreds of thousands of tons or close to two million if you choose to include T3 ports in the build to make the most of it (ignoring some aspects of colonization which make it redundant to build T3s as pure producers of commodities, but I don't look at them that way usually)... I really don't think it needs increasing. Of any values. Other than my valuing of the ability to commit to building a T2 primary starport at 10% a day as I do other things, but not feel like I'm sweating all along the way of doing it, all because somebody thinks chain outposts are being placed too quickly by most likely large player groups working toward somewhere more distant (which would only be marginally affected by higher construction demands).

Forcing one per week would also completely kill off any realistic possibility to do so. But I digress into off-topic territory.
I use your argument against you and say:'BECAUSE it is 3311, there are windows in a space ship'
Nobody in a tourist liner would want to find themselves in a metal box with zero ability to look outside using their own eyes for sure. That alone would excuse the existence of ship windows. Plus, everyone seems to forget safety shutters exist (why can't we use them in Elite if/when the canopy breaks, idk, I guess it's just game mechanics but I think it would make for a good tradeoff to decide between either your ability to visually see a target but be on the life support reserve timer, or purely rely on system guidance from that point onward... may even have given a reason to upgrade life support to A rated outside of roleplaying, instead of the general advice being "D rate and lightweight"). Not going to talk about synthesis here.
If you ask me, the panther clipper should've had just over 1000t hauling with a shield.
It probably isn't going to be far off from that. Should you decide to fit a class 6 shield (and the PC2 not be too heavy for it) that already reduces it to around 1,170 tons (cba to run math through my head tonight/right now) if the suspected numbers are correct, and then add maybe some hull, flight assists for the lazy or convenience, a module reinforcement and an FSD booster... you'd probably be looking at 1,100 or slightly less. Still not bad of course, but as a bandaid to colonization, not sure it's worth the money (ARX, in game credits is probably a no-brainer) unless you have additional sentimental reasons to get the thing.

I also saw the infamous P2W make an appearance... but what are you paying to win for in this case if the Panther did have (comparatively) "excessive" cargo capacity? Colonization? Contrary to the appearance some may give it, there is nothing competitive in it. It is incidental at best due to how it functions and acts as a bit of a landgrab. This would likely be no different if it had been run on a private test server first with no progress carried over past the "beta" period or initial testing.

BGS? Maybe, but diminishing returns (and possibly available demand) would quickly get in the way of just flooding a system with cargo incessantly, keeping varied action as the most effective. And Powerplay... ignoring the balance does not encourage actual competition in that system currently, there it might make a bigger difference if Frontier ever remove the bulk sales "tax" on merits instead of sitting there waiting who knows how long to be rid of all the cargo one at a time.

My concern would more lie with the knock-on effects on other parts of the game [balance] than whether person B is "winning" at the game better by buying a hauler that has whatever thousands of tons of cargo capacity.
 
Did he state, categorically, that every design decision had to be only incremental and that nothing could be developed that changed capability from that of the game on release?
Yes, designed with interiors in mind appears to have been somewhat abandoned over the years, along with Big Game Hunting on ELWs, but I may be mistaken and they'll appear soon...
if it helps you: I would not say categorically but solid enough. We even saw a lot of groundbreaking changes over the years (Guardian tech, AX tech).
As your source is an external wiki, not actually from the game, it isn't really answering my question, although it is pointing toward a 12 years old video, which is brought up with monotonous regularity to excuse any criticism...
Now your turn: Show me in the codex that revolutionary changes are allowed or being the norm in ED.
Nothing in-game dictates that it must remain stagnant as a mission statement, does it?
Nothing in-game dictates that it must remain stagnant as a mission statement because a mission statement comes from outside, i.e. the game designers.
For sure it helps when you stick to your in-game lore and (pseudo)physics. I gave some examples above when a franchise becomes somewhat random when the events and logic are bent too much and every new part of a saga contains retcons which negate central aspects of previous parts.
 
I also saw the infamous P2W make an appearance... but what are you paying to win for in this case if the Panther did have (comparatively) "excessive" cargo capacity? Colonization? Contrary to the appearance some may give it, there is nothing competitive in it. It is incidental at best due to how it functions and acts as a bit of a landgrab. This would likely be no different if it had been run on a private test server first with no progress carried over past the "beta" period or initial testing.
It's fairly simple what Pay 2 Win means with paid ships:
For new players, they can swipe their card to get instant progression and completely circumvent the issue of rebuying... and to additionally skip some of the growing pains with Engineers if they get the more expensive version.
For veterans, this matters none unless that benefit of early access is used in the context of competition, pvp or pve/bgs.

But it does mean that while you're waiting for an early access ship to be unlocked in 3 months of real time, other players will have access to a better ship than you for that time...
if time itself or this prospect personally doesn't matter to you, then of course- it can't be pay 2 win from your perspective.

But literally and objectively speaking it still is p2w because you'll ultimately be paying to circumvent game mechanics. That'll will remain a fact forever, no matter how you slice it- even if you have an endless pocket of credits.
 
Now your turn: Show me in the codex that revolutionary changes are allowed or being the norm in ED.
There is nothing in game lore or the codex that dictates that things should change, but likewise, that they should not, in any manner, incremental or not.

The debate appears to centre around whatever the individual perceives as balance, or appropriate for their vision of the game.

So, naturally, when a contributor has a 'radical' idea to improve their game (which, of course, the same 'radical' ideas are interjected by contributors with diverse interests in gameplay) the very conservative, staid, contributors insist that it would negatively impact the game for some reason that they consider vital to the the smooth running of their game vision.

I'm selfish, I can't play as much as I used to, so naturally want to achieve more in the time I can spare for playing this game, but I shouldn't complain, really, should I?

After all, so many here are very happy to settle for less.
 
Last edited:
But it does mean that while you're waiting for an early access ship to be unlocked in 3 months of real time, other players will have access to a better ship than you for that time...
if time itself or this prospect personally doesn't matter to you, then of course- it can't be pay 2 win from your perspective.

But literally and objectively speaking it still is p2w because you'll ultimately be paying to circumvent game mechanics. That'll will remain a fact forever, no matter how you slice it- even if you have an endless pocket of credits.

A temporary pay-to-win (give people early access to content for $) doesn't matter to me. In some other games they put cars, ships, weapons, gear, bases behind a paywall forever.
 
There is nothing in game lore or the codex that dictates that things should change, but likewise, that they should not, in any manner, incremental or not.

The debate appears to centre around whatever the individual perceives as balance, or appropriate for their vision of the game.

So, naturally, when a contributor has a 'radical' idea to improve their game (which, of course, the same 'radical' ideas are interjected by contributors with diverse interests in gameplay) the very conservative, staid, contributors insist that it would negatively impact the game for some reason that they consider vital to the the smooth running of their game vision.

I'm selfish, I can't play as much as I used to, so naturally want to achieve more in the time I can spare for playing this game, but I shouldn't complain, really, should I?

After all, so many here are very happy to settle for less.

We're playing a game where to fix an issue with Colonization, the population of the human race like doubled overnight after patch day. And they're talking about slow incremental change for "reasons" 🤣🤣🤣
 
Back
Top Bottom