Ship specific buffs

[slothman320]

I had a thought that would bring a lot of fun and usefulness into the earlier game ships. Imagine if each and every single ship had its own specific buffs and uniques to them.
Example: FDL +25% projectile travel speed. Meaning that if the huge cannon travels 100 meters per second then on the FDL it will travel 125 meters per second.
Essentially giving certain ships their own unique traits to help add more viability to them. Another level would be ship category based buffs, such as small ships have de buffs to large gimbals and turrets due to their size.
What buffs would you like to see?

 

[Alexander the Grape]

We might see stuff like that with the Engineers, certain upgrades may work very well with certain ships

Personally I wouldn't want ship specific buffs, especially inalienable ones: makes comparisons and thus balancing harder

 

[metatheurgist]

Ships already have that. Every ship has invisible factors that affect how they perform in different areas. The Python's weapons work as if it were a large ship even though it's medium, there are also tweaks as to how weapon damage is applied without the size modifier (the FDL's mediums work really well), the hullmass for jump range is essentially a tweak for balance in each ship. There are probably others.

 

[ChubbyBunneh]

When the FDL first came out I remember a Dev saying something along the lines of its hull is stronger than other ships of that size.

 

[tawittle]

When the FDL first came out I remember a Dev saying something along the lines of its hull is stronger than other ships of that size.

Yes, the FDL has an extra 5% resistance to small weapon types. I believe this is applied in relation to the "hardness/piercing" values. Those typically give a 33% reduction in small weapons damage on a medium ship. Which means that the Fer-de-lance possibly has 38% reduction in small weapons damage? Not exactly sure, maybe someone else can give a more precise figure.

OP makes a good point, that adding these little ship "quirks" /"buffs" could be an interesting way to spice up the game. OP is not talking about engineer related buffs, rather he means the ship itself has a special trait with it.

The Clipper used to never suffer the 15 second penalty when failing an interdiction, but they changed (fixed?) that.

The FDL small weapons damage resistance and Clipper not suffering the 15 second penalty are probably the best examples of the OP's idea that I can think of. Metatheurgist makes a good point too, things like the FDL having exceptionally good heat dissipation or the Anaconda having a very light hull mass are essentially ship specific buffs. I think the idea is a good one in general, and a much more fun way to balance the game compared to having everyone argue over shield cell banks for 6+ months.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

We might see stuff like that with the Engineers, certain upgrades may work very well with certain ships

Personally I wouldn't want ship specific buffs, especially inalienable ones: makes comparisons and thus balancing harder

Agreed, weapons especially should work the same regardless of what ship they are mounted on.

 

[slothman320]

Agreed, weapons especially should work the same regardless of what ship they are mounted on.

But then we run into the issue of ships are skins with slight stat differences. I mean stuff that actually gives them personality. Things like the Lakon type 6 takes 25% less small weapons damage or the asp has +50% heat capacity on mining lasers only. This whole thing comes from playing eve where there is clear cut and dry "these ships are directly better than these ships." Situations. In which cases earlier ships can have significant buffs that leave them relevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[igor37]

But then we run into the issue of ships are skins with slight stat differences. I mean stuff that actually gives them personality. Things like the Lakon type 6 takes 25% less small weapons damage or the asp has +50% heat capacity on mining lasers only. This whole thing comes from playing eve where there is clear cut and dry "these ships are directly better than these ships." Situations. In which cases earlier ships can have significant buffs that leave them relevant in the grand scheme of things.

The ships already have a form of personality, shaped by sound design, balancing and overall feel based on weapon placement etc. Ships may be skins with different stats, but the stats affect the gameplay and behaviour of ships drastically.
So directly buffing weapon damage or other systems on one ship specifically sounds unfair. Then again some ships may have a superior internal design which makes their energy management a bit efficient or lets a weapon cool down a bit faster due to better heatpipes or something like that. So yes, I think slight differences make sense and have a nice touch, but they shouldn't overdo it and most ships already feel very different from others in combat etc.

And don't buff earlier/smaller ships just for making them more significant. A Clipper costs more than 100 times as much as some small ships, and when I pay that much for a new ship I expect it to be superior to a cheaper one(because it is). The Clipper still has drawbacks, it can't land on outposts, and small ships are naturally better at outmaneuvering their opponent. But that doesn't mean that every ship has to be able to win against any other.
And we already have situations where e.g. the Anaconda has the best jump range in exploration, but still the Asp is a viable choice and much cheaper, and I went to Sag A in the even cheaper Type-6 and didn't miss anything and had enough room for two SRVs.
The balancing may not be perfect(it never is), but depending on the playstyle there is no single best ship, and there are always tradeoffs.

 

[Daffan]

The ships already have a form of personality, shaped by sound design, balancing and overall feel based on weapon placement etc. Ships may be skins with different stats, but the stats affect the gameplay and behaviour of ships drastically.
So directly buffing weapon damage or other systems on one ship specifically sounds unfair. Then again some ships may have a superior internal design which makes their energy management a bit efficient or lets a weapon cool down a bit faster due to better heatpipes or something like that. So yes, I think slight differences make sense and have a nice touch, but they shouldn't overdo it and most ships already feel very different from others in combat etc.

And don't buff earlier/smaller ships just for making them more significant. A Clipper costs more than 100 times as much as some small ships, and when I pay that much for a new ship I expect it to be superior to a cheaper one(because it is). The Clipper still has drawbacks, it can't land on outposts, and small ships are naturally better at outmaneuvering their opponent. But that doesn't mean that every ship has to be able to win against any other.
And we already have situations where e.g. the Anaconda has the best jump range in exploration, but still the Asp is a viable choice and much cheaper, and I went to Sag A in the even cheaper Type-6 and didn't miss anything and had enough room for two SRVs.
The balancing may not be perfect(it never is), but depending on the playstyle there is no single best ship, and there are always tradeoffs.

None of this matters.

They need ship specific buffs, or to make them have modules only they can use. For example, smaller ships having a massive interdictor bonus or some sort of disabling utility to take the role of interceptor/agressor.

Otherwise, they are fodder, redundant, obsolete and a waste of time even being in the game. Why would anyone take a smaller ship over an FDL, especially when money doesn't mean anything in this game.

 

[777Driver]

None of this matters.

They need ship specific buffs, or to make them have modules only they can use. For example, smaller ships having a massive interdictor bonus or some sort of disabling utility to take the role of interceptor/agressor.

Smaller ships already have a massive bonus over higher mass ships when interdicting or being interdicted.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

But then we run into the issue of ships are skins with slight stat differences. I mean stuff that actually gives them personality. Things like the Lakon type 6 takes 25% less small weapons damage or the asp has +50% heat capacity on mining lasers only. This whole thing comes from playing eve where there is clear cut and dry "these ships are directly better than these ships." Situations. In which cases earlier ships can have significant buffs that leave them relevant in the grand scheme of things.

As it currently stands, there are already lots of differences, even in addition to what you see in the shipyard stats screen; thermal buildup, supercruise agility, armor hardness, hardpoint placement, cockpit visibility, acceleration, directional thruster performance, shield multiplier, and more. It's grossly inaccurate to claim ships are just skins with minor stat adjustments, imo.

I stronly believe that weapons performance does not need to be altered as well. Diversity is good, but it needs to be careful diversity. Diversity for diversity's sake is poor design.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Why would anyone take a smaller ship over an FDL, especially when money doesn't mean anything in this game.

As someone who recently sold his FDL, owns a large fleet of ships, including a decked-out Python, Anaconda, and Corvette, but also just finished one of those "kill a crapton of pirates" multimillion credit missions in his Viper IV, let me tell you; efficiency isn't always everything, and fun matters.

I love my stable of small ships. They have a "feel" that the larger ones just can't match.

 

[Freebird]

Why would anyone take a smaller ship over an FDL, especially when money doesn't mean anything in this game.

Because it's fun and makes a change.

My FAS is a killing machine that can rake in money on killing missions, or farming bounties; but it doesn't have the excitement of doing the same thing in my DBS.

 

[slothman320]

Because it's fun and makes a change.

My FAS is a killing machine that can rake in money on killing missions, or farming bounties; but it doesn't have the excitement of doing the same thing in my DBS.

This is kind of my point. There's no reason other than enjoyment. An intangible benefit that has little actual reward. That doesn't mean bigger means it's more enjoyable. I love when a cobra brings down a conda or a vulture rips up a corvette. It's super cool! But they have little tangible benefit other than smaller size means harder to hit. I'd love to see an actual line drawn between these ships that makes them stand out. These subtle differences don't contribute much especially when you consider the fact that there's no real announcement that they have the buff. Does the FDL take less small arms damage? I don't know I can't really tell.
You don't need to be a min maxer to desire information on your ship. I love when things have special traits to them since it gives personality, one that doesn't require a 10$ skin.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

There's also the issue that a lot of ships become kind of useless due to design or simply being worse than other ships of its class. The courier (from my point of view) seems relatively useless when compared the iEagle and the larger clipper. The same with the FDS and the FAS. The FAS is the better combat ship but the FDS has much more potential. I'd love to see the FDS have something going for it. Maybe even alternate models for ships that are geared towards certain roles? A chassis (Federal dropship) that then has a completely remade internal set up with possibly permanent modules built for specialization in certain fields (mining )

 

[igor37]

I love when a cobra brings down a conda or a vulture rips up a corvette. It's super cool! But they have little tangible benefit other than smaller size means harder to hit.

So killing a ship that's 10 times larger and having fun while doing it isn't a tangible benefit in you eyes? I've read posts of Commanders who got rid of their Vulture because it was so strong it got boring, and you say being just hard to hit isn't that great?
So what are you really missing?

There's also the issue that a lot of ships become kind of useless due to design or simply being worse than other ships of its class. The courier (from my point of view) seems relatively useless when compared the iEagle and the larger clipper.

So you never flew a Courier, I assume.

And I don't know why "fun" doesn't count as argument for you. Elite Dangerous exists to be fun. Small ships are fun. Purpose fulfilled. Some people don't just look at numbers and statistics and just want to fly an enjoyable ship.
Also, small and cheap ships can already destroy much larger ones, so where's the problem exactly?
To me it sounds like you want all ships to be equally desirable and viable, but that just won't happen. A T-6 will always be a worse trader than a T-7. The Courier will always have less firepower than the Clipper, because it can't fit the same equipment. Not every ship's equally good at something, and that's good, and if you can't find a reason to buy a certain ship then don't buy it.

 

[TuxedoSteve]

Yes, the FDL has an extra 5% resistance to small weapon types. I believe this is applied in relation to the "hardness/piercing" values. Those typically give a 33% reduction in small weapons damage on a medium ship. Which means that the Fer-de-lance possibly has 38% reduction in small weapons damage? Not exactly sure, maybe someone else can give a more precise figure.

OP makes a good point, that adding these little ship "quirks" /"buffs" could be an interesting way to spice up the game. OP is not talking about engineer related buffs, rather he means the ship itself has a special trait with it.

The Clipper used to never suffer the 15 second penalty when failing an interdiction, but they changed (fixed?) that.

The FDL small weapons damage resistance and Clipper not suffering the 15 second penalty are probably the best examples of the OP's idea that I can think of. Metatheurgist makes a good point too, things like the FDL having exceptionally good heat dissipation or the Anaconda having a very light hull mass are essentially ship specific buffs. I think the idea is a good one in general, and a much more fun way to balance the game compared to having everyone argue over shield cell banks for 6+ months.

The actual numbers (or thereabout) are listed in this thread. The FDL has equal hull hardness to the Python and one point less than the T9, which had the highest in the game before the Corvette and Cutter were added. This gives it about 66% damage reduction from small pulse lasers, 45% reduction from mediums, and 20% reduction from larges.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

This is kind of my point. There's no reason other than enjoyment. An intangible benefit that has little actual reward. That doesn't mean bigger means it's more enjoyable. I love when a cobra brings down a conda or a vulture rips up a corvette. It's super cool! But they have little tangible benefit other than smaller size means harder to hit. I'd love to see an actual line drawn between these ships that makes them stand out. These subtle differences don't contribute much especially when you consider the fact that there's no real announcement that they have the buff.

I think we want entirely different games, really. To be honest, I mean this entirely without offense, it seems like you want a much more simple game. Personally, I really value the subtle and almost intangible benefits the different ships offered. If it was simple as a "50% more armor penetration!" or "25% better at interdictions!" I would find it incredibly dull and incredibly limiting in choice.

 

[slothman320]

So killing a ship that's 10 times larger and having fun while doing it isn't a tangible benefit in you eyes? I've read posts of Commanders who got rid of their Vulture because it was so strong it got boring, and you say being just hard to hit isn't that great?
So what are you really missing?



So you never flew a Courier, I assume.

And I don't know why "fun" doesn't count as argument for you. Elite Dangerous exists to be fun. Small ships are fun. Purpose fulfilled. Some people don't just look at numbers and statistics and just want to fly an enjoyable ship.
Also, small and cheap ships can already destroy much larger ones, so where's the problem exactly?
To me it sounds like you want all ships to be equally desirable and viable, but that just won't happen. A T-6 will always be a worse trader than a T-7. The Courier will always have less firepower than the Clipper, because it can't fit the same equipment. Not every ship's equally good at something, and that's good, and if you can't find a reason to buy a certain ship then don't buy it.

That's sort of the issue. There's not a lot of reason to buy certain ships. Giving us a reason to age. These on hand would be nice. The T-6 can't haul as much cargo as a T-7 but with the addition of the keelback we see a bit of variation. The keel back can actually fight back to an extent. I'd rather see these ships have something that is desired. They don't need to be late game but possibly something that just gives you a reason to want one. Something like this ship can carry additional missiles or perhaps it has a lower signature preventing it from showing up on radar as far away. Traits that can make it desirable in multiple situations. A stealth trader (that actually has stealth capabilities besides chaff and silent running) would have a large number of uses.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Also these are just examples. The fact the FDL has those subtle perks is a good thing. But I wish they weren't so subtle. Flew and FDL for 5 months and didn't even notice that fact until last month because there's no in game listing for it.

 

[igor37]

That's sort of the issue. There's not a lot of reason to buy certain ships. Giving us a reason to age. These on hand would be nice. The T-6 can't haul as much cargo as a T-7 but with the addition of the keelback we see a bit of variation. The keel back can actually fight back to an extent. I'd rather see these ships have something that is desired. They don't need to be late game but possibly something that just gives you a reason to want one. Something like this ship can carry additional missiles or perhaps it has a lower signature preventing it from showing up on radar as far away. Traits that can make it desirable in multiple situations. A stealth trader (that actually has stealth capabilities besides chaff and silent running) would have a large number of uses.

The T-6 is a very good exploration ship if you don't have the money for an Asp Explorer. Every ship can be used for some interesting builds. You don't need buffs for that, but you have to experiment for yourself a little.

Also these are just examples. The fact the FDL has those subtle perks is a good thing. But I wish they weren't so subtle. Flew and FDL for 5 months and didn't even notice that fact until last month because there's no in game listing for it.

You gave a lower signature as example for a buff, but I can guarantee that you won't notice that either as long as you don't read about it somewhere. This game doesn't blast all the information in your face, so even if every ship had its unique small buff most players wouldn't discover it themselves, so where's the point? This game already gives you freedom about all the ship's equipment, if you want to play a stealth trader you can do that. Every ship has silent running and power management, every ship can use heat sinks.

 

[slothman320]

The T-6 is a very good exploration ship if you don't have the money for an Asp Explorer. Every ship can be used for some interesting builds. You don't need buffs for that, but you have to experiment for yourself a little.



You gave a lower signature as example for a buff, but I can guarantee that you won't notice that either as long as you don't read about it somewhere. This game doesn't blast all the information in your face, so even if every ship had its unique small buff most players wouldn't discover it themselves, so where's the point? This game already gives you freedom about all the ship's equipment, if you want to play a stealth trader you can do that. Every ship has silent running and power management, every ship can use heat sinks.

The issue is they don't tell you these things. The general disparity of information on stats and such is ridiculous. As for the silent running and stuff it is not reliable in any sense of the word. I've done my share of attempts with Robigo. You are relying solely on chance to not get noticed. Silent running is terrible and even with zero percent heat you will still get scanned.
An actual stealth ship would make more sense, consider the b-2 bomber for example. It uses complex coatings and structural shape to reduce the chance of showing up. It also has limited silent running capabilities as well but it doesn't try to rely on that.

 

[igor37]

The issue is they don't tell you these things. The general disparity of information on stats and such is ridiculous. As for the silent running and stuff it is not reliable in any sense of the word. I've done my share of attempts with Robigo. You are relying solely on chance to not get noticed. Silent running is terrible and even with zero percent heat you will still get scanned.
An actual stealth ship would make more sense, consider the b-2 bomber for example. It uses complex coatings and structural shape to reduce the chance of showing up. It also has limited silent running capabilities as well but it doesn't try to rely on that.

There's a difference between an airplane and a spaceship though. In space it's straight impossible to completely hide yourself from scanners, you can't just decrease the emissions to a level comparable to the surroundings.
And if we think a bit realistically: Do you really think a spaceship approaching a station in silent running wouldn't draw attention? Patrols still have eyes.