Yeah I know, just saying that this would in my opinion be the easiest and most accepted change,that should stirr up the least controversy.
Serious proposals on how to reconcile the Anaconda WITHOUT DIRECTLY NERFING IT. (+Jump range)
- Thread starter GraXXoR
- Start date
Yeah I know, just saying that this would in my opinion be the easiest and most accepted change,that should stirr up the least controversy.
There are very few hidden stats; I am not sure what you're talking about on that front.
But if you read what I am saying I agree there are fundamental stat issues and that FD won't bite the bullet and correct them. What I am disagreeing with is that the fundamental imbalance comes from its low mass; that's just a figure that has no realistic meaning for any ship, and only upsets people that cannae deal with a self-imposed sense of OCD.
What I am asking is that if a multirole ship has a similar combat prowess to a combat equivalent ship, why would we correct that by reducing the multirole ship's multirole capability?
The 'conda is absolutely one of FD's favourite children, but that manifests itself because they won't hammer its PD down to C7 where it belongs.
Aha sorry I think I missed the point that you could remove it (the mod) and do something else with it instead. Yes, I can see how that could help balance things out
If it was balanced by the way of engineering in the NPC ships would also have access to those mods.
And again, it would not be balanced around the anaconda. The anaconda would be at its peak performance with G5 mod already applied. The hardness and armour value is still a little bit dodgy for such a late ship But without nothing, we can’t fix it entirely.
Hull mass has a direct relation to jump range. That is why the 400T Conda can get 60ly on a 6A FSD, whereas the Corvette gets 20ly. The range equation gives more distance, and you have a vast increase in possible module sizes to choose from. This lets you drop even more weight and still get near full performance.
Presumably Sandro stated this in a livestream or post somewhere? Just curious. It's quite disappointing that he has said that, because without adjustment of at least one of those ships, the imbalance will remain.
I have actually suggested before that the current bulkheads core internal should be split into two separate internals - an "internal structure" which deals mostly with hull integrity and "hull plating" that contributes most of the resistances and hardness. Give both of them appropriate masses, drawing from the base hull mass as necessary, and then it gives a whole new set of balance levers for FD and a new set of toys for players.
Rather than simply making all Anacondas have G5 light hull mods in place for free, I'd rather if they simply increased it's mass to 600-700 tonnes (so still lighter than a Corvette) and retconned all current Anacondas to have the G5 low density hull mods to appease current players (so they still have their 400T hull mass). Newly bought Anacondas would come as stock, so they would have to upgrade to G5 using engineers as normal.
I never questioned the 'conda has a good jump range, and the jump range could have been made good with a higher hull mass; FD decided on it having a 32+ LY jump range unmodded, and they could have achieved that using a number of combinations of figures.
Do you not stop to think why it has a C6 FSD in the first place? Because it's sensitive to mass compared to other ships in its band. Why is it relevant to give it that and a low hull mass? Because it becomes mass sensitive to other modules. An explorer 'conda can jump 60LY. A combat 'conda can jump barely more than a 'vette, because you have piled heavy modules on it that a C6 FSD struggles with comparatively.
FD could have happily avoided all this trouble from people that don't understand game balance, by giving it a C7 FSD, higher hull mass, and letting it have a better jump range than every ship in the game even with a combat outfit. That sound more balanced to you eh?
All I asked was what figures are hidden. I believe outfitting figures and mechanics are fairly transparent.
I think pitch, roll, yaw etc are all "hidden"? I mean you can see them in outfitting, but I dont think they have a direct relation to the mass of the ships and the thruster performance, but every ship has some unique "modifier" for that. Also drift and those kind of things. As you all say, the Corvette is heavier than the Anaconda, has the same thrusters, but it drifts less and pitches faster. That is a hidden stat.
+1
This answer seems pretty straightforward to me.
As I've said in a previous thread, the performance of the Anaconda seems fine as it is, to me, given its price and status as the premium, end game, multipurpose ship.
The real issue's are with the other 2 premium, end game ships. Firstly, they don't have quite enough of an edge on the Conda in their specialised roles, and secondly, they seem to me unnecessarily harshly nerfed in other areas.
I think one of the main reasons why the Conda seems OP is FD's apparent obsession with giving every other ship some sort of crippling disadvantage. I think that's fair enough for some very specialised low and mid-tier ships like the T9, but less so for the top tier, billion credit (when fully outfitted) ones.
Sure, there should always be some sort of trade off for being the top combat ship, etc, but I think the top tier ships should all be free from any really crippling, game-ruining vices.
There are all sorts of baseline ship stats that are essentially arbitrary. Some are exposed and some are not.
Hull mass, hull hardness, turn rate, heat dissipation, mass lock factor, etc
https://coriolis.edcd.io/
Almost all ship stats are given here, so they cannot be that hidden. For more complex mechanics such as heat you'll need to look up guides - Frenotx has a very detailed one iirc that explains figures.
Not every figure is shown directly in-game, but that does not mean they are "hidden"; just that not many games at all display every figure for every mechanic unless numbers are the focus of that game.
As for "arbitrary"...nope. Realistic? Also not. But they are not arbitrary, even if people don't think that game balance is a good reason in a game.
Last edited:
Don't be obsessed with the word hidden. The point is that most of them were arbitrarily set by FD at the time of ship release, and haven't been revisited as subsequent development has amplified their effects.
Ok, lets work out a fairly common example: ASPX
You know that max speed of the ship depends on the thrusters and weight and.. So what is the max speed of the ASPX without thrusters so we can compute the max speed with the basic one up to the top? and how is this max speed calculated? I'll give you a hint, it is not 251, so, in all honesty, what is the base speed of the ASPX and why?
Last edited:
For me the solution goes in the direction of specialized ship.
Type-9 was buffed recently and that's a good thing. Type-7 should haul more as well. With that buff Anaconda and Cutter are not better than an equal size trading ship... and that's a good thing. It was requested for so long.
Now that's the turn to passenger ships to be better at their role compared to equally sized multi-roles/combat ships.
Kruger's ships could receive a small buff with an addition dedicated cabin slot, but what i would really want to see even more is more Luxury passenger missions (and paying well), so that Kruger's ship are the new thing to use... as passenger money making. That way Anaconda, Cutter wouldn't be the thing for passenger transportation, except for economical transportation.
Indeed exploration ships should also receive additional dedicated slot for explorations modules.
A lot of other ships are unbalanced. Think for example at Beluga Liner agility... It's incredibly agile for it's mass Oo and it doesn't have engine all over it like Type-10 and Chieftain.
As soon as specialized ships will be buffed in order to really have an advantage in their fields, multi-role ships won't look like to be best at everything...
And as concerned to Anaconda, it's weight should be increased, like 650T (as for the clipper as it has the same size) but equipped with class 7 FSD so it can keep with it's current advantage. It's nice to have a ship like this with some special advantage. But then i read SiTch post... So maybe FDev really balanced the Anaconda and it is where it should be...
Anaconda shouldn't be able to compete with Corvette/Cutter in term of hull tanking while being more than twice lighter... Anaconda should simply receive a hull integrity nerf.
This way Anaconda become balanced : Anaconda is made of special very light material that provide him with one of the best jump range. It's great at exploration, good at trading/combat but not the best in those fields. It is outclassed by dedicated combat ship because of their higher hull tanking. Problem solved !
Exploration ships could received a higher FSD module and/or additional dedicated modules slots...
As you can see it doesn't requiere much to balance Anaconda... Just make buff specialized ship like it has been done for Type-9 and lower it's hull integrity.
Type-9 was buffed recently and that's a good thing. Type-7 should haul more as well. With that buff Anaconda and Cutter are not better than an equal size trading ship... and that's a good thing. It was requested for so long.
Now that's the turn to passenger ships to be better at their role compared to equally sized multi-roles/combat ships.
Kruger's ships could receive a small buff with an addition dedicated cabin slot, but what i would really want to see even more is more Luxury passenger missions (and paying well), so that Kruger's ship are the new thing to use... as passenger money making. That way Anaconda, Cutter wouldn't be the thing for passenger transportation, except for economical transportation.
Indeed exploration ships should also receive additional dedicated slot for explorations modules.
A lot of other ships are unbalanced. Think for example at Beluga Liner agility... It's incredibly agile for it's mass Oo and it doesn't have engine all over it like Type-10 and Chieftain.
As soon as specialized ships will be buffed in order to really have an advantage in their fields, multi-role ships won't look like to be best at everything...
And as concerned to Anaconda, it's weight should be increased, like 650T (as for the clipper as it has the same size) but equipped with class 7 FSD so it can keep with it's current advantage. It's nice to have a ship like this with some special advantage. But then i read SiTch post... So maybe FDev really balanced the Anaconda and it is where it should be...
Anaconda shouldn't be able to compete with Corvette/Cutter in term of hull tanking while being more than twice lighter... Anaconda should simply receive a hull integrity nerf.
This way Anaconda become balanced : Anaconda is made of special very light material that provide him with one of the best jump range. It's great at exploration, good at trading/combat but not the best in those fields. It is outclassed by dedicated combat ship because of their higher hull tanking. Problem solved !
Exploration ships could received a higher FSD module and/or additional dedicated modules slots...
As you can see it doesn't requiere much to balance Anaconda... Just make buff specialized ship like it has been done for Type-9 and lower it's hull integrity.
Last edited:
Arbitrary=/=based on reasons you don't like, or is unrealistic.
That's a question of mechanics/equations, not figures....you know the figures but want to know how they interact.
I am not sure what you mean by "speed without thrusters". Each ship has a speed value and the ships actual speed is adjusted based on its total mass in relation to the thruster's optimal mass, with speed capping at half the optimal mass on the high end and at the maximum mass at the low end, at which point the ship becomes literally too heavy for the thrusters and an upgraded set is physically required to add more mass.
As much as this is a fun topic, we definitely ARE transgressing OP's topic/guidelines by now. If you have any mechanics queries feel free to take them offline with me.
Last edited:
I do not want to look like I know everything about this game, but this appears to be a flawless solution.
Re the Corvette, yes it was in a recent livestream last month... Sandro was answering questions about ships and one was... "So, are you going to buff the Corvette, increased range or change the two class 1 weapons to something useful?"
He chuckled and said... "Erm. No. The Corvette is a very popular ship already despite it being a limited vessel (I presume he meant Federation Navy) so I see no need to buff it at all considering how many people use it."
The Anaconda quote is listed in the OP.
No, you are the one introducing mechanics, I'm asking a very simple 'stat' question: what is the base speed of the ASPX (before it gets into any thrusters/weight computation). Do you have an idea?
Edit: base speed is that max speed it can reach. That base value that gets modified with the weight or the engine power.
Last edited: