Lestat
Banned
Also remember Anaconda has the smallest hull comparied to Corvette and Cutter.
Serious proposals on how to reconcile the Anaconda WITHOUT DIRECTLY NERFING IT. (+Jump range)
- Thread starter GraXXoR
- Start date
I'll ask again, but in context of jump range, how exactly am I being impacted by what ships other players may or may not be using?
Everyone or no one else may be using an Anaconda, which impacts me...how?
Fly the ship you enjoy and that gets the job done. Your decision will impact no one but you.
Everyone or no one else may be using an Anaconda, which impacts me...how?
Fly the ship you enjoy and that gets the job done. Your decision will impact no one but you.
Do nothing. Seriously!
Did you read the other thread... The fact that the MEDIUM sized Federal Dropship is so much heavier
ITEM FDS ANNIE
SIZE MED LRG
MASS 580T 400T
ARMR 540 945
SHLD 200 350
MX JMP 19.7 41.8
You know with that extra weight and engineering the Dropship has stronger armor and can tank far damage than the Anavpnda right? Most people are hitting 5000 points. Its literally a flying piece of armor. I have one. The range makes sense. The best part is ramming a tin can head on and winning.
They will never fix that ship. Comparing its size to a vette, it should be put back to its original weight, 750 tons. That would put it back in form with all other ships. But it is the new players god ship, just ask them.
I agree with a lot of what you say most of the time, GraXXor, but not this time - there just isn't any reason to nerf the Anaconda.
It is quite good at all things, certainly, but it is the best at one thing, and one thing only. Getting places that no (or few) other ships can reach. That's it.
It's a great Combat ship, but it's not the best. Solid arguments can be made for half a dozen other ships for that crown, and I don't really feel that any ship is the best for any and all types of Combat.
It's a great Trade ship, but it's not the best. As was mentioned before, adding weight to an Anaconda has a significant effect on it's jump range - in my case, it loses roughly twice as much range as my Cutter does when fully laden, and that's carrying nearly 300 fewer tons of cargo. That's a big deal, and quite often over-looked.
It's a great Exploration ship, and maybe it could be said that it's the best, but that could be defined differently depending on the mission at hand, and the options a given Commander wishes to have at any given time in their expedition. There are a number of excellent Exploration ships, after all, and that number expands greatly if jump range >40 light years is not a primary requirement.
I would like to point out something else, and not for the first time; Frontier has succeeded with the Anaconda where most other MMO/Online games completely fail - the Anaconda, unlike the "Welfare Epics" of other games, represents something really solid for our most casual friends, and for this reason alone, it should remain as it is.
Don't campaign to take that away from them, GraXXor, especially since the Anaconda is not OP at all in real, actual applications. With the sole exception of jump range, it has strong competitors in every other situation.
Riôt
It is quite good at all things, certainly, but it is the best at one thing, and one thing only. Getting places that no (or few) other ships can reach. That's it.
It's a great Combat ship, but it's not the best. Solid arguments can be made for half a dozen other ships for that crown, and I don't really feel that any ship is the best for any and all types of Combat.
It's a great Trade ship, but it's not the best. As was mentioned before, adding weight to an Anaconda has a significant effect on it's jump range - in my case, it loses roughly twice as much range as my Cutter does when fully laden, and that's carrying nearly 300 fewer tons of cargo. That's a big deal, and quite often over-looked.
It's a great Exploration ship, and maybe it could be said that it's the best, but that could be defined differently depending on the mission at hand, and the options a given Commander wishes to have at any given time in their expedition. There are a number of excellent Exploration ships, after all, and that number expands greatly if jump range >40 light years is not a primary requirement.
I would like to point out something else, and not for the first time; Frontier has succeeded with the Anaconda where most other MMO/Online games completely fail - the Anaconda, unlike the "Welfare Epics" of other games, represents something really solid for our most casual friends, and for this reason alone, it should remain as it is.
Don't campaign to take that away from them, GraXXor, especially since the Anaconda is not OP at all in real, actual applications. With the sole exception of jump range, it has strong competitors in every other situation.
Riôt
Last edited:
A good joke eh?
Respectfully, did you read the OP? The first line is "Serious proposals on how to reconcile the Anaconda WITHOUT DIRECTLY NERFING IT."
He's not proposing to nerf it. He (and I) would like for FD to somehow balance the other ships, so that it actually makes sense to use other ships. How does it affect me? When I join up with others on an expedition, it is so boring with nothing but Anacondas and a few AspXs. I'd like a good reason to fly something else for a change. The Type-9 buff is a good thing, but there's a lot more that ought to be done, imo.
I really shouldn't be surprised, but always am... people are clearly not even reading to the end of the subject line before posting.
It says right up top this isn't about nerfing the Anaconda... yet people keep posting "don't nerf the Anaconda!". I mean the suggestions in the OP are both about buffing other ships to give them access to the amazing Anaconda hull material. Not about doing any changes to the Anaconda at all.
It says right up top this isn't about nerfing the Anaconda... yet people keep posting "don't nerf the Anaconda!". I mean the suggestions in the OP are both about buffing other ships to give them access to the amazing Anaconda hull material. Not about doing any changes to the Anaconda at all.
I did, and every other post in the thread as well, but in a discussion, I am not going to allow my manner of speech to be dictated. That kind of thing belongs in a private echo chamber, to be honest.
That said, I could easily have used the word "changed" instead of "nerfed," and made my point just the same. I'm not going to edit the post, but I will recognize that I could have used some different word choices without affecting what I was trying to say.
I also don't see any need or reason for a fleet-wide balance pass on the ships. There are some ships that probably do need some tweaks (the Beluga being arguably first on that list), but Frontier has done a good job of providing a fairly wide assortment of choices for almost any activity in the game. In each of the three primary pillars of the game, there is at least one meta ship, a few strong contenders, and several to many flavor ships.
I really feel that it would be a grievous error to abandon this in favor of any attempt to replace it with some form of ship classification, as it were. The variety you seek is already present, unless a given Commander cannot look past the meta/most efficient ships for the task at hand.
That isn't a Frontier problem, to be honest.
Riôt
This can be figured out with math!
Jump range in Elite is a factor of ship mass and FSD module size plus fuel used per jump. Larger FSD's can move more mass farther but also use more fuel to do so, and typically ships with larger FSD's weigh more so it balances out. In the Anaconda's case the ship is super light due to it's magical mass value, and this is why it jumps farther than anything else in the game.
Let's take my own Anaconda the Venture, engineered and outfitted for exploration, sporting a very good jump range while also carrying 3D shields and an SRV too. She jumps 65.04ly (Coriolis is a tad off) with a full 20T of fuel:
https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/ana...=.EwegLCAMUgHCA2CBTAhgcwDbJCAjJIUA&bn=VENTURE
Here is the FSD jump range equation which Elite uses:
D=((1000^(1/C))*O*((F/R)^(1/C)))/M
Where:
D = Distance (lys)
O = Optimized Mass of the FSD (engineering improves this)
F = Max Fuel per Jump
M = Current total mass of ship, including fuel
R = Rating Constant of the FSD module (for all A rated FSD's this equals 12)
C = Class Constant of the FSD module (C2=2.00, C3=2.15, C4=2.30, C5=2.45, C6=2.60, C7=2.75, C8=2.90)
Now, by plugging the following parameters from my ship:
O = 2902 (FSD at 61.2% fully modded w/mass manager)
F = 8
M = 544
R = 12
C = 2.60
D can be calculated to be 65.04lys.
SOOOO, what if we bump up the FSD from a 6A to a 7A? Well several things change, first the C value goes from 2.60 to 2.75, and the fuel per jump increases from 8 to 12.8, also the larger FSD is 40T heavier so the ship mass goes up from 544 to 584, and the optimized mass of a fully engineered 7A drive jumps up to 4352 from the 6A's value of 2902. Plugging all of that in you get a jump range of:
D = 94.05lys !!!!!!
Okay, that's clearly ridiculous, BUT we haven't increased the hull mass of the Anaconda like Vasious also suggested. So now the math problem becomes: what new hull mass value of the 7A FSD Anaconda would put it right back down to 65.04lys of range?
The answer is an extra an extra 260T would put it right back where it sits now, so if the 7A FSD Anaconda had a hull mass of 660T it would jump exactly like it does today, at D = 65.04lys.
Now, many people have suggested new hull mass values like 700 to 800 for the Anaconda. How would that play out mathematically? It's easily calculated, using my Venture as an example again:
6A FSD Anaconda @ 400T hull mass, D = 65.04lys (current live build value)
6A FSD Anaconda @ 700T hull mass, D = 41.93lys
6A FSD Anaconda @ 800T hull mass, D = 37.48lys
7A FSD Anaconda @ 400T hull mass, D = 94.05lys
7A FSD Anaconda @ 660T hull mass, D = 65.04lys
7A FSD Anaconda @ 700T hull mass, D = 62.14lys
7A FSD Anaconda @ 800T hull mass, D = 55.82lys
That's how the math plays out at any rate.
Last edited:
Deleted member 38366
D
1st : if there's no issue - don't try to fix it 
2nd...
IF I was somehow forced to implement any change to the Anaconda with regard to its Hull mass, I'd simply do so by giving it the appropriate Armour Rating.
Thus, all I'd do would be to make sure its Hull Mass is in sync with its Armour Rating. If Armour Rating sits too high, reduce it. This leaves the all the Ship's core qualities untouched while still bringing it into line.
Then everyone will look at the Anaconda and ask "How is the hull mass so low?" and one could say "Its Hull Armour Rating is somewhat lower, that's what makes the Ship have fairly little mass for its size.". QED.
2nd...
IF I was somehow forced to implement any change to the Anaconda with regard to its Hull mass, I'd simply do so by giving it the appropriate Armour Rating.
Thus, all I'd do would be to make sure its Hull Mass is in sync with its Armour Rating. If Armour Rating sits too high, reduce it. This leaves the all the Ship's core qualities untouched while still bringing it into line.
Then everyone will look at the Anaconda and ask "How is the hull mass so low?" and one could say "Its Hull Armour Rating is somewhat lower, that's what makes the Ship have fairly little mass for its size.". QED.
Last edited by a moderator:
i dont know what he trying to say but the c6 fighter hanger can deploy 2 fighters , in multi crew, either npc and player or both with your friends least last time i messed with multi crew it did
Except that a Dropship might be durable compared to most medium ships, but it can never be as tough as an Anaconda unless you are comparing a hull tank FDS against a glass cannon Anaconda.
In terms of base hull integrity and hardness, the Anaconda is much higher. In fact, the Anaconda's integrity is the highest of the classic Big 3.
Adding in military composites or reactive armour doesn't change this as it's just a percentage increase to integrity plus some resistances.
The FDS can attempt to close the gap somewhat with HRPs, but an Anaconda has more slots available to fill with HRPs. HRPs overall swing the hull tanking further in favour of the Anaconda.
Engineering has basically the same effect as HRPs, Anaconda's can benefit more from stacking resistances and heavy duty mods than the FDS due to the increased slot count.
