Shield Strength: Chieftain vs Cutter?

[Bob Lighthouse]

Which is all fine as long as the other components which make something work better are identifiable.

If you put a TRD supercharger on a V6 Camry and it makes 240bhp and you put the same supercharger on a Lexus ES300 and it makes 300bhp there must be some other identifiable component which is responsible for the difference.

If there isn't, it might as well be voodoo.

I would expect the intakes/throttle bodies/fuel pumps to be different, and some other parts too;
just like I'd expect the shield emitters to be different/more numerous on a ship that costs 10x the price.

This shield emitter non sense sounds almost plausible if you compare combat to non combat ships but falls apart in the cheiftain case. It's a combat ship and strong shields matter for combat. 'But the cost' you say? No. Courier and vulture are cheaper and have better shields. 'Its the shape' . No. Its designed for combat. If its shape was bad for shield strength than so is the giant ovary and birth canal shape of the cutter. The answer to why its shields are weak is because some dev thinks they should be and nothing else.

Some companies prioritize different factors, simple.

 

[Chaparral]

It is a strange decision making process about shield strength.

People complain about the shield strength on the Clipper for example. If you consider using biweaves and all of that speed as a defensive cocktail, the shield strength is more than adequate for PVE , haz res or any CZ.

The Chieftain was marketed as a goid fighter. Since the goids ignore a bit of shields, the design choice is a bit toward the hull tank.

The Cutter is deigned (IMO) as an elite hauler, with the capacity to endure pirate attacks. Fat shields make sense. It does not have the yaw to make it any kind of a turn fighter, but it does have the capacity to run.

I don't see any issues with the way things are now (except for the magic Anaconda hull - but don't take that away from me please).