Can't rep. Best way to keep explorers from getting stranded while reducing the range of combat setups. +1
Serious proposals on how to reconcile the Anaconda WITHOUT DIRECTLY NERFING IT. (+Jump range)
- Thread starter GraXXoR
- Start date
Can't rep. Best way to keep explorers from getting stranded while reducing the range of combat setups. +1
Sort of. Optimal multiplier doesn't affect super-cruise handling, however optimal mass can (it's a bit dependant on where the base stat for thruster handling ends up). It's possible the new DD5 ratio for how much optimal mass is lost (which is better than the old blueprints IIRC) will result in improved handling in SC.
It's anecdotal, but I've had an increasing number of people ask me if handling of some ships has changed because they swear it's different.
Hell, I've even noticed type-9 handles a little differently with new blueprint DD3's (even the godfersaken crawl in SC seems better) but then I've put the optimal mass special on it, so I can't know for sure which it is. It could all be placebo. But I'm not so sure.
Last edited:
This is far and away the least insane idea for fixing imbalance issues with the Anaconda.
Never had an Anaconda, don't want one either. I fly a Corvette, and 19Ly jump is fine, because I never got used to more. There is a subtle point in that last sentence, and it relates to how you boil frogs.
So here is what needs to be done. Figure out the basic model for ships, then *slowly*, start to normalize all ships towards that point, where each finds its own place. No big bangs, no epic flailing of the nerf bat.
Finally, FDev, how about publishing some player stats, starting with % of total cmdr hours per ship, by month. Start a "game health" initiative. There seem to be some genuine concerns being expressed here, as well as some outright nonsense. Share some data and engage, educate and inform.
So here is what needs to be done. Figure out the basic model for ships, then *slowly*, start to normalize all ships towards that point, where each finds its own place. No big bangs, no epic flailing of the nerf bat.
Finally, FDev, how about publishing some player stats, starting with % of total cmdr hours per ship, by month. Start a "game health" initiative. There seem to be some genuine concerns being expressed here, as well as some outright nonsense. Share some data and engage, educate and inform.
Yeah well, thrusters do not change SC handling a bit, so...
Wow now you even start making stuff up, makes all of your arguments more valid at least.
Let me me make this clear for You: thrusters don't influence SC behavior. at all. You know many explorers use 5D thrusters instead of 8A on their Anacondas? You know what the optimal mass of those is? Still there is absolutely 0 influence on SC handling. Try it yourself, even on a heavy ship, or provide some source, but I can tell you it's just wrong.
on the Anaconda topic: one acceptable and reasonable suggestion I guess would be to decrease the base armor by about 30% or so, I guess nobody could complain too much about that.
Last edited:
More pips to engines considerably increase maneuvering on impulse speeds depending on your mass curve efficiency.
It is in the patch notes.
I haven't experienced anything out of ordinary in Supercruise.
As long as they remain completely unable to turn towards my Vulture and keep popping within 10 seconds under frag cannon fire from my FAS, I could not care less about their hull mass 
That is EXACTLY what the Hull Engineer could do... We say that for some Lore reason, all Anacondas leave the dock with a grade 5 Light Hull Mod in place..
They are free then to remove it to increase their hardness by 5 and weight by 200T or change it for another Hull Mod...
High Density Hull mod ...
or the...
Heat Dissipating Hull mod...
or the...
Stealth Composites Hull Mod...
or the...
Weight Balancing Hull Mod...
etc...
Thus the main OP advantage of the Anaconda is written into Lore AND System.... Does not require a nerf, but does not make other ships OP off the bat!
I swear this is the best solution I've heard in the two + years this has been debated... It's so elegant it's almost stupid that it took this long to come up with... NW3 (or someone else if they've said the same thing earlier) deserves a lot of credit here!
It sounds like waffle to me.
The ship needs nerfing.
If they're not going to do that, leave the rest of the bloody game alone.
Right now, I need more magical fairy-dust cobblers in the game like I need a broken leg.
Agreed. The attack was uncalled for. Honestly, I have to disagree about the nerf, simply because of the uproar it would causel.
I think so too.
Right.
Yep.
And it unbalances the game. I'd like to see a larger variety of ships and reasons to fly them.
I agree. No nerf, simply tweak the stats of the other ships so there's some consistency.
It's main weaknesses are a lousy view from the cockpit, the dangling wires in the cockpit, and that it's ugly. None of those are crippling.
I agree; it's not. I think a balance pass to the other ships would add some fun to the game.
I like your idea of additional hull mods!
Thanks! I made same the proposal a few months back, but it got lost in the churn and chaos of the forum.
Last edited:
DOESN'T ANYONE READ THE OP?
I politely asked you to keep the discussion in the other, far more exciting thread. Here I am Kindly asking for PROPOSED SOLUTIONS please.
This is not a solution.
This was already discussed... The actual buffs capable would likely not be 33% across the board. They'd be ship specific engineering mods with some ships benefiting more from the mods than others, probably.
One more Engineering mod is unlikely to destroy the game and is simultaneously likely to keep the jump range junkies happy... I see it as a win win... The combateers might even have a clear choice:
Lightweight composites for increased jump range at the cost of slightly reduced hardness OR High density hull for increased hardness with a little additional weight.
This is adding nothing to the thread... I asked for solutions and specifically said, "no nerfing the Annie," which FDEV have said explicitly they are not going to do.
No nerfs and buffs. This needs to be a fix that can be applied to all ships optionally without breaking game balance.
Finally, someone who gets it...
SMH
I politely asked you to keep the discussion in the other, far more exciting thread. Here I am Kindly asking for PROPOSED SOLUTIONS please.
This is not a solution.
This was already discussed... The actual buffs capable would likely not be 33% across the board. They'd be ship specific engineering mods with some ships benefiting more from the mods than others, probably.
One more Engineering mod is unlikely to destroy the game and is simultaneously likely to keep the jump range junkies happy... I see it as a win win... The combateers might even have a clear choice:
Lightweight composites for increased jump range at the cost of slightly reduced hardness OR High density hull for increased hardness with a little additional weight.
This is adding nothing to the thread... I asked for solutions and specifically said, "no nerfing the Annie," which FDEV have said explicitly they are not going to do.
No nerfs and buffs. This needs to be a fix that can be applied to all ships optionally without breaking game balance.
Edit: Never mind, as was pointed out, it's off topic.
Finally, someone who gets it...
SMH
So... in a nutshell, nerf the Anaconda?
le sigh.
Your solution/head cannon has literally been said a thousand time... But it doesn't make sense when a) the FSD can be swapped between ships... b) the Anaconda is a 500 years old design.
Hull hardness isn't really a fudge factor... Smaller, lighter ships are squishier than heavy, Navy ships... IMHO, Hull hardness is one of the smarter mechanics FDEV have introduced and creates a solid gameplay dynamic.
People just want some semblance of parity and many do not like outliers that have no rationale.
Well, they [hull hardness values] roughly go up with size so the bigger ships are more resistant to light weapons etc, but there are wild exceptions, such as the medium Fer-de-lance having the top hull hardness (shared with the cutter and corvette).
Basically it's a fudge factor that allows devs to arbitrarily adjust (balance) a ship's resistance to weapon damage. But they gave it a name and so there is "lore" to justify it.
If the FDL hull can be 'harder' than any equivalent ship, there's no reason why the anaconda hull materials can't be 'lighter' than other large ships.
Last edited:
Waffle? Lightweight hulls and high density hulls? Hardly a huge amount of waffle there... I think they would add more dynamics into the game... Imagine a stealth composite FAS or a High Density, even slower Type 10
I don't think hardness has much effect overall, I find (NPC) FDLs are the best value for Credits/minute from a bounty point of view. Once their shields are gone they pop in a jiffy.
To be honest, I think an extension of NW3's idea could be applied to every ship out of the gate to balance outliers.
The FDL, Vulture and DBX which are extremely heavy could already have "High Density composites Level X" or some such already applied from the factory which could be removed at the expense of hardness and reduce weight to improve jump range. This would make the DBX a truly high jump range ship and the FDL and Vulture suck less for travelling while weakening them in a fight.
Last edited:
Nah hull hardness is a completely arbitrary fudge factor with the Fer-de-lance a clear outlier. Its sole purpose is as a tool for FD to balance the combat effectiveness of individual ships.
Does a 500 year old design have to remain exactly the same? Or is it likely that perhaps a modern anaconda will have been refined with thousands of advances in materials, construction and components? Modern passenger aircraft are a real life example of how technical advances have improved the range of a base design, over time.
Can't happen. This thread comes from another one where the exact reason to discuss the conda's weight was to justify a buff in the corvette FSD, and slowly keeps drifting towards the same point again.
I also feel that the Anaconda needs nerfing, currently it's hull makes makes it a weird outlier that makes absolutely zero sense.
Currently it has the most reinforced hull of the original big 3, while also being the lightest and the cheapest. It can't be made of some super-science composite materials, because it's the bargain bin cheap option. It can't be over reinforced basic materials, because it's the lightest hull.
The two solutions that I see are either to increase hull mass but give the Anaconda a larger FSD so that it remains the same jump range, or instead completely axe it's hull values but provide massive increases to both performance and mass for the high-tier bulkheads it can use. To be honest, a lot of the bulkhead upgrades need a balance pass anyway.
Currently it has the most reinforced hull of the original big 3, while also being the lightest and the cheapest. It can't be made of some super-science composite materials, because it's the bargain bin cheap option. It can't be over reinforced basic materials, because it's the lightest hull.
The two solutions that I see are either to increase hull mass but give the Anaconda a larger FSD so that it remains the same jump range, or instead completely axe it's hull values but provide massive increases to both performance and mass for the high-tier bulkheads it can use. To be honest, a lot of the bulkhead upgrades need a balance pass anyway.
My $0.02 FWIW, doing my best to stick with the OP’s instructions...
The Corvette is intended to be the most powerful warship in the game. It weighs 900T and has a base armour of 666. The Anaconda is a multipurpose ship based on a design that is hundreds of years old. It weighs 400T and has a base armour of 945. This is clearly horribly unbalanced. If nerfing the Anaconda is forbidden, I would buff the Corvette’s base armour to around 1100-1200 and knock maybe 150T off its base mass (numbers off the top of my head). This would put the hull/armour ratios somewhere sensible (without making the Corvette itself OP), give the Corvette more of a speed/agility advantage over the Anaconda (it does have this, but not as much as it should) and also help it jump a little further.
The Corvette is intended to be the most powerful warship in the game. It weighs 900T and has a base armour of 666. The Anaconda is a multipurpose ship based on a design that is hundreds of years old. It weighs 400T and has a base armour of 945. This is clearly horribly unbalanced. If nerfing the Anaconda is forbidden, I would buff the Corvette’s base armour to around 1100-1200 and knock maybe 150T off its base mass (numbers off the top of my head). This would put the hull/armour ratios somewhere sensible (without making the Corvette itself OP), give the Corvette more of a speed/agility advantage over the Anaconda (it does have this, but not as much as it should) and also help it jump a little further.
Respectfully I agree with Stealthie - it sounds too hand-wavy and arbitrary to introduce a new engineering mod for all ships...except the Anaconda. It rather draws attention to the fact that it is so broken, instead of fixing it. If the hundreds-of-years-old-Anaconda is made from some material that makes it super tough and lightweight...why didn’t everyone else use that in the first place? There is perhaps the argument of cost, but that can’t really apply to the Corvette as it’s more expensive already, not to mention the huge rank wall.