Serious proposals on how to reconcile the Anaconda WITHOUT DIRECTLY NERFING IT. (+Jump range)
- Thread starter GraXXoR
- Start date
I'm only on page 6. Where is this mystical page 8 that has some good stuff? I'm very much looking forward to it.
That's it. Leave Anaconda as it is.
This unnecessary cry for nerfs is tiring
Interesting solution... You clearly have a far higher salt tolerance rating than I do.
These forums would make he Dead Sea look like pure river water if they did that... LOL.
I'm only on page 6. Where is this mystical page 8 that has some good stuff? I'm very much looking forward to it.
I blame T.J.
Haha, it's better than these endless circular arguments...
All the inconsistencies regarding correlation of mass and performance as well as all the other factors were pointed out 4 years ago before release.
You needn't look any farther than comparing the Anaconda to the Clipper. Same mass, Anaconda has Class 7 thrusters, Clipper has size 6. Duh, why is the Clipper faster? Because FD said so. The logical inconsistencies were pointed out and argued about and ignored. FD doesn't use a common "Physics" model for ship design - it's just handwavium and it always has been.
This ship sailed a long time ago. Every ship gives up something to one degree or another. The Anaconda is slow.
These threads are fun - but useless
You needn't look any farther than comparing the Anaconda to the Clipper. Same mass, Anaconda has Class 7 thrusters, Clipper has size 6. Duh, why is the Clipper faster? Because FD said so. The logical inconsistencies were pointed out and argued about and ignored. FD doesn't use a common "Physics" model for ship design - it's just handwavium and it always has been.
This ship sailed a long time ago. Every ship gives up something to one degree or another. The Anaconda is slow.
These threads are fun - but useless
Many players enjoy ships other than the Python and Conda and an appropriate buff to them would enhance their enjoyment in those chosen ships, rather than inducing disdain
in Conda and Python oriented cmdrs.
As Van R mentioned, downstream a ways when more powerful ships do arrive, these current reference points will fade, but until then, enhance those other ships instead.
in Conda and Python oriented cmdrs.
As Van R mentioned, downstream a ways when more powerful ships do arrive, these current reference points will fade, but until then, enhance those other ships instead.
Exactly on point.
C7 can deploy more than one provided you are using multicrew, which is why it's prominent. A ship with C7 fighter can deploy one NPC fighter and one CMDR fighter, but on the 'conda this uses its highest slot, and on the iCutter one of its two signature C8 slots. The 'vette has three C7s to work with, so it doesn't need to give away its soul
Last edited:
Frontier will never nerf the Anaconda now, it’s far too popular and is the most flown ship in the game. Probably due to it’s brokenness no doubt. So with that option off the table there is only one other way left to address the imbalance: boost the rest of the fleet up to meet it.
If I were Frontier right now, here is how I would fix the ship design imbalance:
Adjust the hull mass numbers of the fleet downwards to be more in line with the Anaconda’s design, resulting in slight buffs for every other ship. Also where applicable boost some armor values for a few combat ships too.
I’ve played with the math of mass vs jump range and it wouldn’t require huge reductions, in most cases rather minor ones actually. Frontier has actually been doing this gradually, they reduced the DBX hull a while ago (not enough though), they reduced the Beluga hull (again not enough), and just this week they reduced the T7 hull too. They need to go farther to make up for the gross imbalance of the Anaconda.
For example, if the Asp Explorer’s hull was lowered from 280T to 250T (just a 30T reduction, or 11%) it would today jump almost exactly like the Anaconda, no other change needed at all. Similarly if the DBX hull was lowered from 260T to 245T (15T or 6%) it too would jump as far as the Anaconda does. Now drop both exploration ships an extra 5T and suddenly the ships with the word “Explorer” in them have the best jump ranges in the game, not much more than the Anaconda currently but a bit more. And all it took was a small reduction in hull mass, that’s it.
Likewise you could drop the hull mass of the rest of the fleet too, boosting the jump ranges of combat ships and traders alike. They would never jump as far as the Anaconda but they could be much more comparable. The three passenger ships should all jump closer to the Anaconda, still less than it but not by as much as they do now. If I were doing it I’d make the Dolphin jump a bit more than the Orca with the Beluga being a bit behind the Orca. These mass reductions would result in the following rebalancing of the fleet:
That’s how I’d address it. Just lower hull mass and boost some combat ship armor values and leave everything else alone, then reassess after that.
If I were Frontier right now, here is how I would fix the ship design imbalance:
Adjust the hull mass numbers of the fleet downwards to be more in line with the Anaconda’s design, resulting in slight buffs for every other ship. Also where applicable boost some armor values for a few combat ships too.
I’ve played with the math of mass vs jump range and it wouldn’t require huge reductions, in most cases rather minor ones actually. Frontier has actually been doing this gradually, they reduced the DBX hull a while ago (not enough though), they reduced the Beluga hull (again not enough), and just this week they reduced the T7 hull too. They need to go farther to make up for the gross imbalance of the Anaconda.
For example, if the Asp Explorer’s hull was lowered from 280T to 250T (just a 30T reduction, or 11%) it would today jump almost exactly like the Anaconda, no other change needed at all. Similarly if the DBX hull was lowered from 260T to 245T (15T or 6%) it too would jump as far as the Anaconda does. Now drop both exploration ships an extra 5T and suddenly the ships with the word “Explorer” in them have the best jump ranges in the game, not much more than the Anaconda currently but a bit more. And all it took was a small reduction in hull mass, that’s it.
Likewise you could drop the hull mass of the rest of the fleet too, boosting the jump ranges of combat ships and traders alike. They would never jump as far as the Anaconda but they could be much more comparable. The three passenger ships should all jump closer to the Anaconda, still less than it but not by as much as they do now. If I were doing it I’d make the Dolphin jump a bit more than the Orca with the Beluga being a bit behind the Orca. These mass reductions would result in the following rebalancing of the fleet:
- The two Explorer ships now jump a tad farther than the Anaconda.
- Combat ships all jump more, which is sorely needed.
- Trading ships can jump much more when empty and slightly more when loaded.
- Passenger ships jump a bit behind the Anaconda but not a lot (Dolphin best, Orca next, then Beluga).
- The Anaconda stays right where it’s at, still an OP multirole but much less so when compared to the rest of the fleet.
That’s how I’d address it. Just lower hull mass and boost some combat ship armor values and leave everything else alone, then reassess after that.
FD basically already did that by introducing the Corvette and the Cutter
The Corvette is better at combat
The Cutter is a superior trader
The Anaconda is more versatile and has the best range
Now with the bump to the T-9 that is a more viable option in the big ship range.
The real embarrassment is the Beluga which is more a factor of poor mission availability in the Luxury category and the need for more passenger compartments.
Anaconda has competition in it's size category and many players openly post that they don't like to fly one.
As stated, I argued years ago for design consistency and it fell on deaf ears. To now go back and overhaul the whole lineup after many players have large fleets with specifically outfitted ships in several locations designed for specific uses would be a bad decision by FD
Perhaps they will do it after all...
The Corvette is better at combat
The Cutter is a superior trader
The Anaconda is more versatile and has the best range
Now with the bump to the T-9 that is a more viable option in the big ship range.
The real embarrassment is the Beluga which is more a factor of poor mission availability in the Luxury category and the need for more passenger compartments.
Anaconda has competition in it's size category and many players openly post that they don't like to fly one.
As stated, I argued years ago for design consistency and it fell on deaf ears. To now go back and overhaul the whole lineup after many players have large fleets with specifically outfitted ships in several locations designed for specific uses would be a bad decision by FD
Perhaps they will do it after all...
No changes are needed. All ships have their sting points and their weak points. Diversity is good.
If a specific ship does everything you want it to do but is ugly in your eyes, you just found it’s weak point.
If the ship you love doesn’t have the jump range you want, you just found it’s weak point.
Ship choice is about making trade offs. Balancing all the ships ruins that. Please don’t take away that element of Elite Dangerous.
If a specific ship does everything you want it to do but is ugly in your eyes, you just found it’s weak point.
If the ship you love doesn’t have the jump range you want, you just found it’s weak point.
Ship choice is about making trade offs. Balancing all the ships ruins that. Please don’t take away that element of Elite Dangerous.
And what could they do about the Anni being able to carry twice as many passengers, twice as much cargo, having twice the shielding and twice the hull armour and having twice as many hardpoints/utility points as say a 400 ton Clipper not mentioning the shed load of slots it's got...
Nah, Nerf it or Bin it, a calculation mistake was made and you don't change the world just address the mistake..
GraXXor... at my age I've seen a ship load of salt.
Last edited:
The point is, the Anaconda is "so broken", compared to all the other ships and we know it won't ever be nerfed (and I don't want it to be). I'd just like some way to normalize all the other ships. I seriously doubt that FD would buff all the others, so the best suggestion I can think of is mentioned in the OP.
Well, firstly, I find FDev's concern about negative reactions from the player-base rather "selective".
If acting in accordance with the wishes of the community was a priority, half the stuff in 3.0 would have been very different.
Just a wild guess but I suspect Sandro's "concern" about player reaction to nerfing the Anaconda (or Corvette) is actually a euphemism for "We can't be bothered to change it"
That being the case, my first point becomes relevant.
If FDev have a "plan" and they're not likely to modify that plan in response to player's wishes, they're not likely to be willing to make the effort to create new engineering options (ones which could have huge ramifications for all the other ships in the game) just cos some players want it.
Let's face it, magical super-light hulls for every ship except the Annie is going to create a LOT of testing and it's going to create a lot of other anomalies.
Hell, applying that mod' to an iCourier is likely to create a ship fast enough to travel in time.
I've already suggested the simplest way to "fix" the Annie without upsetting explorers or those who use it as a multirole or pew-pew.
If that's "off the table" because FDev don't want to monkey around with the Annie's stat's (despite them being glaringly out of whack) then I'd suggest/hope monkeying around with all the other ships should be equally "off the table" as well.
I've got 4 Annie's and the 2 multiroles are, as has been said, not especially good at anything once they're built into a reasonable multirole configuration.
IIRC, mine jump about the same distance as my Cutter but don't have as much hull integrity.
Just leave the bloody thing alone.
And leave everything else alone too.
![[VR] Shadowman](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/16/16608.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Just buff the jump range of the Beluga, so she becomes the queen of exploration ships (as should be). Suddenly we have an useful Beluga, and the 'Conda becomes a "jack of all trades, master of none". Right now she's only the master of explorers in the "big 4" podium.
Or release a new big exploration ship.
Or release a new big exploration ship.
But that is the issue: the Anaconda has too many strong points and not enough weak points in comparison to the rest of the fleet. It’s too versatile, thus it outclasses most everything else, killing diversity.
No one wants to take the trade offs away, but there can be no balance as long as the Anaconda is so OP. Again, this is the problem. If we had balance then the distribution of flown ships would be more evenly spread across all of the playstyles, but instead the majority of players fly Anacondas. Trade offs are a good thing as long as every ship adheres to that philosophy. Currently most of them do, but the Anaconda does not. That is the opposite of balance, and it’s what a lot of people would like to see improved upon. The easy but controversial way to do that is to increase the Anaconda’s hull mass. The more difficult way is to rebalance the rest of the fleet to be more in line with the Anaconda’s design philosophy.
Like I said above, the most effective way to do this is to lower the hull mass of other ships slightly to make them more balanced compared to the Anaconda. Just a handful of very small hull mass reductions coupled with some armor value adjustments to combat ships could make the Anaconda suddenly less OP, giving a breadth of new life to ship variety in the game and making some ships far more appealing for the roles they were intended.
And again like I said above, Frontier has been slowly doing this in the past year one ship at a time, they just need to follow through and go a bit further to really give the fleet some semblance of “balance” vs the Anaconda.
In the end Frontier will probably just keep lowering the hull mass of various ships gradually over the next year or so because they know the Anaconda is broken, I just wish they’d quicken the pace some. I especially wish they’d lower the hulls of the Asp X and DBX to give them jump ranges comparative to the Anaconda. This alone would greatly diversify the ships you’d see on exploration expeditions. Currently most expeditions look like Anaconda Fan Club rallies, out in deep space you’d think it was the only ship in the entire game!
Last edited:
Again, an Anaconda fitted for PVP combat does not have an OP jump range, and an Anaconda with a 64ly range would have a hard time winning a fight with a stock sidewinder.
Also, why the assumption that size and hull mass are directly proportional, or that all hulls are made of the same materials with equal mass?
How many tons would be added to the anaconda if all of the windows along the sides and nose were replaced with "hull"?
The inbalance is assumption at best.
Plenty of cars are much bigger than mine, but weigh much less.
Also, why the assumption that size and hull mass are directly proportional, or that all hulls are made of the same materials with equal mass?
How many tons would be added to the anaconda if all of the windows along the sides and nose were replaced with "hull"?
The inbalance is assumption at best.
Plenty of cars are much bigger than mine, but weigh much less.