If it gets access to fighters, and needs a bit of a nerf in return? Sure, I'd go with that, but the reality is that the fighter mechanics already have built-in costs that would make their implementation balanced anyways, especially on a ship like the Python that would give up a considerable amount of cargo space to run fighters. The minimum size of fighter bay means I have to give up 32 tons of cargo, plus an additional 12% of my profits for the NPC pilot, which combined reduce my profits from long-range trading to something like 70% of what they'd usually be. I'm using the Python as my main ship at the moment as well and I don't even think fighters will be particularly worthwhile for my playstyle, which is mostly multirole combat/trading/mission running, given that I can destroy almost any NPC I face without any real effort, and can run from the occasional Elite Anaconda that gives me any trouble if I need to. I would certainly like the option for fighters, however, and would accept a small nerf to the Python in some way to gain access to them.
Python Fighters ???
- Thread starter TigerTen
- Start date
If it gets access to fighters, and needs a bit of a nerf in return? Sure, I'd go with that, but the reality is that the fighter mechanics already have built-in costs that would make their implementation balanced anyways, especially on a ship like the Python that would give up a considerable amount of cargo space to run fighters. The minimum size of fighter bay means I have to give up 32 tons of cargo, plus an additional 12% of my profits for the NPC pilot, which combined reduce my profits from long-range trading to something like 70% of what they'd usually be. I'm using the Python as my main ship at the moment as well and I don't even think fighters will be particularly worthwhile for my playstyle, which is mostly multirole combat/trading/mission running, given that I can destroy almost any NPC I face without any real effort, and can run from the occasional Elite Anaconda that gives me any trouble if I need to. I would certainly like the option for fighters, however, and would accept a small nerf to the Python in some way to gain access to them.
Cargo does not matter on a Combat Python and there is no need to carry fighters for long range trading anyway. You can easily run away from all engagements or just go get yourself some seeker missiles. That will put an end to any NPC attackers real quick. When I flew my Python as a Combat ship I only had 32 tons of cargo capacity. So losing 32 tons of cargo is not really a balancing mechanic at all. Nevermind that the NPC cut will likely be adjusted anyway.
Last edited:
If you're not giving up cargo space than you're giving up something else, either SCBs or HRPs.
And at the moment it is 12% cut, plus cargo losses, and there's no indication yet that they will decrease it.
Putting a fighter on a ship essentially allows you to add the equivalent damage of a class 4 Multicannon. That is a pretty big deal right there.
So how do you expect this to be balanced for the Federal Gunship, which already has a class 7 distributor to power it's already impressive weapons? If you balance it for ALL the medium-large ships with the size to carry fighters then it will be an actual choice, not a no-brainer to include on any ship capable of carrying them.
You can only carry so many SCBs before it becomes useless additional weight. Same thing with HRPs. Fighters give you a new offensive and defensive option.
A Python wouldnt want to carry more than one 6A SCB in any case. There is no class 6 HRP. So it would be a no-brainer for every combat Python to carry a Class 6 fighter bay in their 3rd Class 6 internal.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The Python also has a class 7 power distributor, in case you have not noticed.
The FGS turns a hell of a lot worse than the Python. It is balanced precisely because the FGS flies like a drunken mule and fighters give it the edge it needs.
This makes no sense. Carrying more SCBs means you can go through more of them and last longer before needing to resupply. That's like saying "too much chaff" becomes useless.
SCBs have extremely limited ammunition with no way to synthesise more. It would make more sense for a Python to carry dual class 6 SCBs, turn one off until ammo is exhausted, and use one of the class 5 slots for fighters.
6A SCB = 5 uses
Heat sink = 3 uses
Yeah, let me just sacrifice all 4 of my utility slots for heat sinks. That is exactly what a Python will need not to cook himself with dual Class 6 SCBs. At the same time he will be sacrificing shield strength and resistances.
Yes, that's my point, there's clearly no issue with having a heavily armed mid-sized ship also being given access to fighters, otherwise they wouldn't have done so with the FGS.
That's an argument to make the Gunship better, not to give it fighters to make it "balanced". Fighters should always be a choice with balanced strengths/weaknesses, not a method of "compensating" for some ships' design weaknesses.
and too much chaff is indeed useless because of what you give up. That is why you will never see anyone running 4 chaff launchers on their ship.
Last edited:
Or maybe stop firing weapons while you use an SCB and/or accept a bit of heat damage. The damage you will save from keeping your shield up is far more important than the heat damage you might incur with the SCB.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
You will often see dual chaff, and that is what I'm suggesting with SCB, a dual class 6 SCB setup. I'm not suggesting you fill all your internal slots with SCBs.
The FGS is slower than the Python, has far less internals, weaker shields, is less agile, and has less jump range. You can't just look at a C7 Distro and act like that means they're the same.
I'm very happy you have nothing to do with balancing this game.
Ships need to be different, not just a collection of similar internals in different looking hulls.
One ship is slow and takes forever to turn around. In return it has good armor, great firepower, and can launch fighters to watch its back.
Another ship is much faster, more agile, and can fit literally twice as much internals into its hull as the first one. However the downside is that it doesnt have a small fighter to watch its back.
This is called making ships balanced and different.
You want the Python to be comparable to the Gunship in that it can launch fighters? Ok, sacrifice 4 of your internals for it. Because all an FGS has is a 6,6,5,2,and 2. Your Python has a 6,6,6,5,5,4,3,3, and 2.
When that FGS equips shields, fighters, and an SCB all it has left are two class 2 internals. One of which may need to be used for a fuel scoop and you have to make choice if you need an FSDI or an ADS. When was the last time you had to make that kind of choice with a Python? Pretty much never so please stop comparing a Python to a ship with literally half the internal hull space.
So you think that the answer to these issues are to give it OP fighters, instead of balancing the base ship class properly?
I'm even more glad that you have nothing to do with balancing the game.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
If they can't make fighters a balanced choice they are dong it wrong. Each ship should have strengths and weaknesses, but they should not need to use any particular module setup to be useful. If you're saying the Gunship "needs" fighters, then that means that the Gunship isn't a properly balanced ship.
You're not understanding the situation here. You're suggesting that the Gunship "needs fighters" as if it's somehow OK to have an underperforming ship and give it access to fighters to make up for poor ship design.
It isn't. Fighters should have balanced strengths and weaknesses, not be an auto-include on any ship that can take them.
Dual chaff is the limit of what anyone runs. You said that you can never have too much. If you did not mean exactly what you wrote, I understand but you can not expect me to read your mind.
Also, the disadvantage of running a class 5 fighter bay is that you will have to wait for a new fighter to be built if yours gets destroyed. A class 6 offers you two fighters so a replacement can be back in the action very quickly. If you are doing PvE then a Single SCB setup is more advantageous since you can easily run away. Your dual 6A SCB might be better for certain PvP encounters.
The gunship is not a properly balanced ship without fighters. I dont understand why you think that there is something wrong with such a mechanic. Not all ships use the same methods of attack and defense. Some ships are optimized to engage in dogfights and others better at standing back a few kilometers and firing their guns. Whats wrong with these approaches?
There would still be a use for quad-chaff, it's just that the other slots are often needed for PD or heat sinks. Dual chaff isn't just useful for capacity, it means that you can upkeep essentially continuous chaff. Quad chaff is still useful, just not optimal given the other uses for utility slots.
Either way you look at it, you are giving something up to mount a fighter bay. Whether that is an SCB, an HRP or some other module it should still be a balanced choice with strengths and weaknesses relative to the other options.
You don't see the problem with this? Seriously?
So they need to somehow balance fighters for the Gunship, which "needs" them? The Keelback, which has no other purpose than to run fighters? The Type 9, which arguably "needs" them more than the Gunship? And also the Anaconda/Corvette/Cutter, which don't need them at all and are going to become borderline-OP with them? How are fighters going to possibly fill all of these roles properly?
Fighters should NEVER be a "balancing" mechanic for certain ships, a "necessity" for others and a "OP auto-include" for others.
The issue is that you shouldn't NEED to use fighters to make a ship useful. The Gunship should have a reasonable choice between using them or not. Same with the larger ships.
That's why Engineers was so problematic, the "drawbacks" to the mods were negligible compared to the benefits, so you really "needed" the mods to make your ship competitive. If they made the Engineering mods true "lateral" moves instead of basically straight upgrades with trivial downsides, we wouldn't have the mess we got with 2.1. It will even further make the non-Horizons players put in a situation where they are facing OP ships with "must-have" options.