I want to fly the Anaconda, and I also want it to be nerfed heavily. Tell me why I should care enough about your opinion to stay silent and not ask Frontier to make the changes I would like to see them make?
You're entirely free to say you don't want the Anacona to get nerfed of course.
Edit: it's nothing against you Bill, just that when the arguments boil down to "I want" and "I don't want", I think it's best we're honest and don't make ourselves look like there's really much to discuss.
No offence taken!
The reason you should care is that you're arguing for the never ending cycle of nerf and buff to infect our game. Frontier have done a great job- in my opinion, obviously!
- of avoiding that cycle. There have been relatively few changes to our ships, most of those have been tweaks rather than a good smack with the nerf bat. It leads to a more consistent game, with far less focus on meta builds. We all know what the various ships do in game, so we can gravitate towards the ships that suit us best.
And since that's the case, your wish to fly a heavily nerfed Anaconda is a wish for a completely different new ship that just happens to look like the old one. Why not just fly something closer to your ideal? There are a pretty decent number of ships in game now, surely one of them meets your standard?
(Caveat- obviously game balance goes out the window when people with far too much time on their hands engineer the heck out of everything!
)
Those are hardly fair comparisons due to massive cost differences and often significant differences in technology. Nobody would ever say that an E-rated ship should be equal to a similar but A-rated one. Rather than comparing a modern AR-15 to an old AK, what about an L85, G36, FAMAS or SG 550? They have differences, sure, but you could easily write multiple theses on which one, if any, was better. What about comparing the L85 and the L86? Very similar, but they both have their advantages and disadvantages, so it's quite difficult to outright say that one is better than the other. If comparing tanks, you would never compare a Cromwell to an Abrahams, instead you would be comparing the M1A1 Abrahams to a Challenger 2, or to a Leopard 2, or any other similarly priced tank from the same generation.
But that's exactly what the nerf all the things crowd are doing- arguing for our Cromwells and Abrahams to be more like each other! That has it's place in War Thunder, not Elite Dangerous.
As the owner of several of both... The Armalite owes it's lightness to its construction - Forged Aluminum uppers and lowers vs. the Kalashnikov's steel. Accuracy due to differences in machining. HOWEVER... Leave an Armalite sit outside for six months in the weather. Do the same with the Kalashnikov and see which one still works. AR's are great light-weight, precision riles. AK's are built, in classic Russian style: Tough, like brick outhouse. Pretty, like brick outhouse. Difference in range due to difference in ammunition caliber - .223 (5.56 NATO) for the AR, 7.62x39 (.30 +/-.003) (WARSAW) for the AK. The AR round is smaller, but pushed by more powder than the larger, heavier AK round - basically a .22 caliber round compared to a .30 caliber round.
Sorry... firearms are kind of my thing. But they are a great basis for comparisons here - firearms, like ships, are tools. Use the right tool for the right job, and life is good.
You wouldn't want to hunt a cape buffalo with a .22. You wouldn't want to hunt a squirrel with .600 Nitro Express.
My comment was 'most people'...
To the uninitiated, the extra weight of an almost identical weapon is surprising. And I was staggered at just how hard it was to get a decent grouping with the AK- bear in mind most of my shooting was through a L85, the drop from a 20 inch barrel to 16 really hurts.
I'm not allowed to own either where I stay, sadly. My experience is solely with service weapons- and Western ones have never let me down. My limited experience of AKs is that they don't have some magical defence against dirt ingress, salt water corrosion, dust or poor maintenance.
I once watched some Russian Naval Infantry- special forces, very slick in their drills- suffer half a dozen stoppages in about three minutes. I've been on a range with a Land Rover full of AK-47s and had three of them suffer catastrophic failures. They were old, African owned weapons, only recently aquired by the British Army. I'm pretty sure they would have suffered even more if they were still being maintained by their former owners...
