New Ships, Weapons, Rebalancing etc

[Trowa Deathwind]

Now that we have a war, we can finally see R&D accelerate through the Superpowers.


New Ships - I dont even need to go into this. We are over due for not one, not two, not even 3, but a PLETHORA of new craft.


Ship Rebalancing - You have numbers on ships that still don't make sense. Slots need to be overhauled on some. Also, your Federal Dropship, Gunship, and Assault ship look terrible. Want people to fly them? Make them cooler to look at.

Weapons and Modules - Many are sitting to the side because they are down right aweful. And some shouldn't even weigh anything - docking computers shouldn't weigh tons, more like ounces. Make your modules make sense. This is the future for flucks sakes.


Ammo Types - This is the year 3308, soon to be 3309. We should not have to be wasting resources to make ammo types. Let us buy ammo types! Come on, there are trillions of people living in your lore and no one has setup shop to mass produce ammo types? Lets be honest here, DO IT!



This update should be the start of your 'No Man's Sky' redemption arc. Stop living in 2010. You want your game to do well into the future, we need NEW. Not old, not same, not downgrades, but NEW.

 

[BackToTheMud]

Ship Rebalancing - You have numbers on ships that still don't make sense. Slots need to be overhauled on some. Also, your Federal Dropship, Gunship, and Assault ship look terrible. Want people to fly them? Make them cooler to look at.

Dude, lots of people fly the FDL and the Cutter, and those ships look like a badly painted cheese wedge and an adult toy.

We don't need more ships, we need in-game reason to fly more of the ones already in the game.

 

[Trowa Deathwind]

Imma be real.
I absolutely disagree about not needing new ships. How stagnant are you? I mean that respectfully. Having more of a reason to fly what we do have falls in line with rebalancing. I'm sorry, but I want more variety.

 

[Maidor]

We don't need more ships. At best we need rebalancing of the least used ships to serve a nieche or a role.
Also some weapons and engineering needs rebalancing for better serve their porpouse...
But is really way harder than what it seems.

There are instances where the community complain, but there isnt acctually a problem

A simple exemple is the Mamba and FDL. They are so close that there would be no reason to pick the mamba, but visual and the slight more joust centric flight make it a choice for some. Because both are balanced for a porpose and good at it. One is just is slightly better.

While on Alliance and Federal triplets. All of them are so close in functionallity and aimed at combat. But you can easly pick apart the best to worst, and ignore those that are not the Chieftain or with a lot of effort the FAS. Because the other ships are just worst at their intended role.

The reallity is that they arent all meant for the same Role of combat. Some where designed to be support ships, or able to do piracy and other flexibilities like SLF.
Encorage diffrent playstyles. But we tend to go fulll ''BEST META'' on games. And the Dev's might look at it this still not an acctual problem. As having variety and not straight choices is still part of the learning curve of a game.

I play the game alot and eventually find myself wanting to build a new ship, and I do have ALOT of ships to choose from, and still do. I just built a VIPER IV and am having a lot of fun in PVP. Shouldnt that be a horrable ship?

Unfortunattly some ships are underwhealming as are some of the gameplays they are intended for. And reworking both is a lot of work at once.

Ammo Types - This is the year 3308, soon to be 3309. We should not have to be wasting resources to make ammo types. Let us buy ammo types! Come on, there are trillions of people living in your lore and no one has setup shop to mass produce ammo types? Lets be honest here, DO IT!



This update should be the start of your 'No Man's Sky' redemption arc. Stop living in 2010. You want your game to do well into the future, we need NEW. Not old, not same, not downgrades, but NEW.

This I really do agree is the begining of the most urgent changes. Reworking how materials and unlocks are treated in a time of war. And fixing most of the communities complain on Gameplay LOOPS.

 

[BackToTheMud]

Imma be real.
I absolutely disagree about not needing new ships. How stagnant are you? I mean that respectfully. Having more of a reason to fly what we do have falls in line with rebalancing. I'm sorry, but I want more variety.

We have 37(38) ships we can fly. How many of those have you put any real effort into? I ask, because the player base ignore 2/3 of those ships. And the reason the player base do that is because there are no in-game reason to use "weaker" ships. So yeah, I think in-game reasons to use more of the ships we alreade have is more important than adding more ships that won't be flown.

 

[Mersozz]

I like the idea of additional ships, personally.

For example, a small, medium, and large mining ship class would be interesting. These ships could be middle of the road in terms of combat ability, but include dedicated mining slots in hardpoints, utilities, and optional internals.

It always struck me as a little off that someone would use a beautiful looking ship like the Cutter for mining. Aesthetically speaking, it just doesn't feel right to me.

However, if I were King of the Galaxy, my first new addition to the game would be to create orbital and surface structures that players could build and operate. I think that's the best way to keep this game going. 400,000,000,000+ systems is a big sandbox.

 

[Decksmeck]

Ships in Elite are modular, so new ships are really just new hulls with a different configuration of module slots. They might have a little bit different flight characteristic, but you are putting the same modules in them, so how different are they? In the real world, you create new ships because they serve different purposes, but also because you have newer technology. New technology in this game would probably just be new modules. In fact, it is. Look at the community goal reward this week. They are new turreted AX weapons systems. Drop them into a ship and there is your new ship. In the real world, vehicles are not modular. If there were no modularity in this game, you could make 100's of ships and they would all make sense for something, but in Elite, they are redundant.

That's not to say I would be upset at new ships. I like variety too, but if they made a new light fighter, the difference is mostly aesthetic, isn't it? Not that more aesthetic choices are bad. I agree with others though, that they probably need to create missions that favor lesser used ships.

 

[Bigmaec]

Panther Clipper.

All opinions stating we have enough ships are invalid

 

[nemolomen]

Panther Clipper.

All opinions stating we have enough ships are invalid

But only the Panther Clipper...

 

[Mersozz]

Ships in Elite are modular, so new ships are really just new hulls with a different configuration of module slots. They might have a little bit different flight characteristic, but you are putting the same modules in them, so how different are they? In the real world, you create new ships because they serve different purposes, but also because you have newer technology. New technology in this game would probably just be new modules. In fact, it is. Look at the community goal reward this week. They are new turreted AX weapons systems. Drop them into a ship and there is your new ship. In the real world, vehicles are not modular. If there were no modularity in this game, you could make 100's of ships and they would all make sense for something, but in Elite, they are redundant.

That's not to say I would be upset at new ships. I like variety too, but if they made a new light fighter, the difference is mostly aesthetic, isn't it? Not that more aesthetic choices are bad. I agree with others though, that they probably need to create missions that favor lesser used ships.

It's true the modular design allows for players to outfit their ships in many different ways, and I think that's been a great approach.

But just as certain combat-oriented ships (e.g., the Chieftain) have dedicated military slots, I think it would be interesting if they made dedicated cargo, collector, and mining slots for freighters, salvage vessels, and miners, respectively. I think the same idea could be applied to exploration vessels as well.

But still, I think you make good points, and new ships aren't high on my priority list. But I'm a greedy SOB.

 

[Scary Asp Explorer]

give us frontier first encounters ships? more toys to collect! evryone would want that sweet argent quest with wiggling tail or griffin carrier

 

[MVBanks]

I don't understand why some players always repeat "we don't need more ships". We have 37 (or 38 including Cobra Mk IV), but we could play this game if we have only 10 or 15 ships, isn't it? Then, why we have 37? It's too much? No, it's good to have a choice.
We need new ships. But not very similar characteristics to already existing ships. We need something specialised for Thargoid War, for example. Or, huge class ships, Frigate,
Destroyer etc. Who would complain to have 10 more ships? Frontier would sell more ARX. We would have more choices, and less money

 

[Scary Asp Explorer]

who would want to fly battleship sized ship,do you realize the mailslot issue? it would be not able to dock in any station or even carrier, destroyers and battleships would need special location,something like in battlestar galactica razor (at beginning) so destroyers and battleships would need to have thing like this. imagine the cpu load on potato computers. it would explode.

we would need to separate ships from roles and reassemble that again so

make ships for only combat purpose so pvp pve
make ships for anti-thargoid combat roles with limited use for pvp
make ships for multirole, exploration combat trading and mining roles
make ships for trading roles both from station to station and from system to system
make ships for exploration roles
make ships for mining roles.

lets say we have only 36 ships. thats 12 ships per role if we count only trade,combat,exploration we can have non-thargoid 6 combat ships and 6 focused thargoid combat ships. there would be no room for multirole and mining role. so yes we need more ships.

we need atleast four focused mining ships. and four multirole/multipurpose ships
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of course knowing how fdevs are working on the game, they will not add new ships,it would create too much chaos.

 

[MVBanks]

who would want to fly battleship sized ship,do you realize the mailslot issue? it would be not able to dock in any station or even carrier, destroyers and battleships would need special location,something like in battlestar galactica razor (at beginning) so destroyers and battleships would need to have thing like this. imagine the cpu load on potato computers. it would explode.

we would need to separate ships from roles and reassemble that again so

make ships for only combat purpose so pvp pve
make ships for anti-thargoid combat roles with limited use for pvp
make ships for multirole, exploration combat trading and mining roles
make ships for trading roles both from station to station and from system to system
make ships for exploration roles
make ships for mining roles.

lets say we have only 36 ships. thats 12 ships per role if we count only trade,combat,exploration we can have non-thargoid 6 combat ships and 6 focused thargoid combat ships. there would be no room for multirole and mining role. so yes we need more ships.

we need atleast four focused mining ships. and four multirole/multipurpose ships
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of course knowing how fdevs are working on the game, they will not add new ships,it would create too much chaos.

Huge class ships have docking bay for 1 midsize, or 2 small ships, to land in outposts or odyssey settlements. FC have 8 large pads and two of them could be converted into 1 huge pad. Stations could have outside docking connection for huge ships, and also FC could use same solution. Planetary ports have enough space for huge pads.
Not all huge ships are battleship size. Frigate is something like 250-300 m long. Bigger ships are Destroyer, Cruiser, Battlecruiser classes. They have internal modules up to size 12. Let's say Frigate and Destroyer to size 10, Cruiser to 11, Battleship to 12.
They would have some advantages:

• Reason for highest Federal/Imperial Navy ranks
• Chance to spend billions of credits, since many cmdrs have too much. Prices: 300M to 2B. Full equipped = 4 - 5 times more.
• To stop complaining how credits are too fast and easy to earn, and every beginner can buy Anaconda. Give them Anaconda Mk II (or Green Anaconda or Boa Constrictor, names are not so important) which is 5 - 6 times more expensive.
• Chance for Frontier to sell more ARX for new ships.
• and most important optional micro-jump module. It should be incredibly expensive, you must sacrifice biggest optional slot for this thing and additional slot for tritium cargo.
• Huge class ships are destructible, so rebuy is something to think about.
• It should be necessary to employ some crew, you can't fly alone ships of this size.
• Huge class exploration ship have 150 LY jump. Using Neutron supercharging it's 600 Ly.
• There should be huge cargo ship, so Panther Clipper, of course!!!!

 

[Scary Asp Explorer]

so yeah, panther clipper or..........griffin carrier. i think griffin could be better choice.

 

[Dushess74]

Ships in Elite are modular, so new ships are really just new hulls with a different configuration of module slots. They might have a little bit different flight characteristic, but you are putting the same modules in them, so how different are they? In the real world, you create new ships because they serve different purposes, but also because you have newer technology. New technology in this game would probably just be new modules. In fact, it is. Look at the community goal reward this week. They are new turreted AX weapons systems. Drop them into a ship and there is your new ship. In the real world, vehicles are not modular. If there were no modularity in this game, you could make 100's of ships and they would all make sense for something, but in Elite, they are redundant.

That's not to say I would be upset at new ships. I like variety too, but if they made a new light fighter, the difference is mostly aesthetic, isn't it? Not that more aesthetic choices are bad. I agree with others though, that they probably need to create missions that favor lesser used ships.

We have so much modular ship that the SRV/SLF bays may be ANYWHERE but right above the hatch. See the actual bays positions: http://a.teall.info/edsa/

 

[Dushess74]

so yeah, panther clipper or..........griffin carrier. i think griffin could be better choice.

I have idea to have it as next model of the vulture, fits the M-pad, + 1 or 2 medium slots and some other changes. Just bird is a bird.

 

[Scary Asp Explorer]

we need dedicated ship that launch ship as fighter. so yes we need escort carrier. vulture with inverted V wing on its back could be nice. anyway in frontier first encounters we had dozens of ships,why not reuse some extras for ED? im up for griffin carrier,because looks so cool.


griffin carrier
(ship classified as support carrier but you can fly it like regular ship,only can land on L pads)
weapon slots 8 (4 forward 2 top 2 bottom) ( 2 huge 4 large 2 medium ) but to limit it in combat use i would prefer option B so 8 medium or 8 small weapons.
utility slots 8 ( 2 forward 2 top 2 bottom 2 on the back)
core internal slots - 10 (additional slot for fuel tanks )
optional internal slots 16 ( 4x slots class 8,4x slots class 7,2x slots class 6,1x slot class 5,1x slot class 4,1x slot class 3,1x slot class 2,2x slot class 1)
can be equipped with one S size landing pad to allow sidewinders,vipers,cobra mk3 to land,also other SMALL ships.
the S landing pad capacity is 2 ships so one ship sitting on the pad and another one in hangar,can be loaded and launched if first ship is destroyed,no cooldown so launch,dies in few seconds,launch next.
cannot instal srv.
cannot install fighter hangar.
base cargo space (0) (maximum cargo allowed 512 - only 2 cargo racks allowed in optional internal slots,no cargo rack in core internal)
base jump range unloaded 80LY max jump range 160LY
base jump range full load 40LY max jump range full load 80LY
base normal speed 150 / max normal speed 250 / base boost speed 100,max boost speed 150.
base hull capacity 5000 max 7500.
base shield capacity 3000 max 6000.
base resistances 25 for kinetic 25 thermal and 25 the other one....explosive?
tritium fuel tank capacity 500
tritium consumption 1 tritium per 1 LY if jump range is unloaded 80ly / 160 ly
tritium consumption 2 tritium per 1 LY if jump range is loaded 40 LY / 80 LY
cannot be engineered to prevent outclassing other ships.
as support ship,can only equip flak guns or missile racks,no any other weapons permitted,its not AX machine gun.
you can load on your S landing pad a cobra mk 3 or sidewinder or viper or other small ship from your current stored ships and assign npc or player as crew.
you can leave station with empty S landing pad but other player in small ship can land on you and you can taxi him too.
the support carrier will have integrated repair,rearm and refuel option. no any other services and no any services can be installed.
carrier will have option to install dedicated upgrade for support limpets that can refuel,rearm,repair in space. just select one of options and launch the limpet to target. so great ship for fuel rats.
support carriers can be destroyed and rebuy is 20% of total ship value plus upgrades.
the base hull price for support carrier could be 1 billion but upgrades would require another 4-6 billions to make it usable.
the refuelling tritium on support carrier is easier than in regular carrier,support carrier will have option to request tethering so when you tether to support carrier you can transfer tritium directly to support carrier tritium fuel tank..


tethering is not docking,its like dropping anchor so you can force boost away but you break tether and risking ship damage. properly you request tethering,then tether to SC,refuel SC,finish refuel and request release then boost away. SC can be tethered with any ship but for only SC refuel (docking with only small ships) after X amount of time you are auto-released if you did not requested release. the griffin carrier could have interior where you could walk with your space legs,technically you could board the stored sidewinder,viper,cobra mk3 or other stored small ship and launch yourself

 

[Dushess74]

Totally not gonna happen, because they will not create unnatural hybrids between common and capital classes.

 

[Vedmo]

Also, your Federal Dropship, Gunship, and Assault ship look terrible.

Blasphemy.