Ships Ships balance in Elite: Dangerous (and what could be improved)

Dear Elite: Dangerous Community and Frontier Dev. Team,

I am playing Elite for 2 months now. I have transported cargo arround the galaxy, fought against pirates, discovered new planets and engineered my ships. But there is one thing annoying me: The ships balance. As I experienced in my virtual career as a pilot, the balance of ships is in some cases nicely done, but when it comes to ships like the brand new Mamba or the good old Chieftain I just start wondering about what's the point of these ships?

The Mambas design is absolutely incredible, I love the smooth looks and the detailed cockpit. But this ship is meant to be a "Combat-Racing ship" and a racing vessel needs manouverbility too, not only a decent speed. The Fer-De-Lance is nearly as fast as the Mamba, with extra manouverbility and better hardpoint placement. Seriously, a combat ship with all the hardpoints on top? [blah]

Same with Viper MkIV, the manouverbility is awful! And the fact that the Chieftain is a ship with everything but speed makes me :mad: . I certainly know that every ship needs at least one downside too, but to take the Chieftains speed or the Mambas manouverbility seems like a lack of ideas to me.

The easiest eay to solve this problem is to change the price tag of some ships. I would rather have a more expensive but more efficient Chieftain than the one I know by now.
And it would be great to have the Mamba with a price tag of 30mil so that new players get an extra opportunity for combat between Vulture and Fer-De-Lance.

Let me know what you think of the ships balance in Elite: Dangerous! Fly safe & o7

-CMDR _Xplosive
 
Broken like all other multi player game mechnics in this game. Bigger ship allways wins- you cannot outrun them and cannot fight them.
Whatfor play multiplayer then? Programmed by idiots who don´t play the game.

Yeah blah blah ever tried to fight an maxed out fed corvet in whatever?? It´s so broken i´ve deinstalled this game for poor maintanance and balancing. I liked it but after being just allways FSD interdicted by some poorly designed FED corvete in a Python i bites on this poorly crafted bite graveyard. I wasted hundrets of hours only to find out it´s a solo game unless you´re in some maxed out engineered all the grind way down big ship.
Poor design choice- poor buisness choice.
Bye Frontier.
 
The only balance change I'd make to the ships themselves is to revert the FDL to it's 1.3 statistics, where it was still incredibly potent, but not always the most obvious choice among a myriad of medium combat vessels.

Other changes relating to the economy and environmental conditions to make stepping stone vessels and smaller ships relevant again would be appreciated, but I don't feel their fundamental stats need adjustment. As it stands, credits are not a useful way to balance ships because the game has been in a post-credit state for at least two years.

Engineering could use a major balance pass.

Anyway, your assessment of the attributes of some vessels is omitting some very relevant things. Most glaringly, you are overemphasizing rotation and ignoring vertical/lateral thruster performance when it comes to defining and assessing maneuverability.
 
Elite and I would say F.D., don't do balance. By this I mean, ships are not made to be matches for each other, they are what they are and it is we, the Commanders and builders; that make the best of them.

Two things:
You have been playing for two months; in Elite playing time, that can be a drop in the Ocean.

The FDL, this ship is meant to be, the Daddy of ships; especially close combat.

Each the their own and as stated above. The Engineers open up a whole new type of game play.
 
Last edited:
Broken like all other multi player game mechnics in this game. Bigger ship allways wins- you cannot outrun them and cannot fight them.
Whatfor play multiplayer then? Programmed by idiots who don´t play the game.

Yeah blah blah ever tried to fight an maxed out fed corvet in whatever?? It´s so broken i´ve deinstalled this game for poor maintanance and balancing. I liked it but after being just allways FSD interdicted by some poorly designed FED corvete in a Python i bites on this poorly crafted bite graveyard. I wasted hundrets of hours only to find out it´s a solo game unless you´re in some maxed out engineered all the grind way down big ship.
Poor design choice- poor buisness choice.
Bye Frontier.
lol, You quit, but you're still here. I look forward to seeing the same post against next week.
 
Dear Elite: Dangerous Community and Frontier Dev. Team,

I am playing Elite for 2 months now. I have transported cargo arround the galaxy, fought against pirates, discovered new planets and engineered my ships. But there is one thing annoying me: The ships balance. As I experienced in my virtual career as a pilot, the balance of ships is in some cases nicely done, but when it comes to ships like the brand new Mamba or the good old Chieftain I just start wondering about what's the point of these ships?

The Mambas design is absolutely incredible, I love the smooth looks and the detailed cockpit. But this ship is meant to be a "Combat-Racing ship" and a racing vessel needs manouverbility too, not only a decent speed. The Fer-De-Lance is nearly as fast as the Mamba, with extra manouverbility and better hardpoint placement. Seriously, a combat ship with all the hardpoints on top? [blah]

Same with Viper MkIV, the manouverbility is awful! And the fact that the Chieftain is a ship with everything but speed makes me :mad: . I certainly know that every ship needs at least one downside too, but to take the Chieftains speed or the Mambas manouverbility seems like a lack of ideas to me.

The easiest eay to solve this problem is to change the price tag of some ships. I would rather have a more expensive but more efficient Chieftain than the one I know by now.
And it would be great to have the Mamba with a price tag of 30mil so that new players get an extra opportunity for combat between Vulture and Fer-De-Lance.

Let me know what you think of the ships balance in Elite: Dangerous! Fly safe & o7

-CMDR _Xplosive
I hate to be the one saying it but 2 months playing doesn't give you near enough the time to know the nuances of ship balance in ED. As one of the least affective 'balance' options is price.

Give it another 6-8 months and see what you are thinking.
 
Last edited:
The only balance change I'd make to the ships themselves is to revert the FDL to it's 1.3 statistics, where it was still incredibly potent, but not always the most obvious choice among a myriad of medium combat vessels.

Other changes relating to the economy and environmental conditions to make stepping stone vessels and smaller ships relevant again would be appreciated, but I don't feel their fundamental stats need adjustment. As it stands, credits are not a useful way to balance ships because the game has been in a post-credit state for at least two years.

Engineering could use a major balance pass.

Anyway, your assessment of the attributes of some vessels is omitting some very relevant things. Most glaringly, you are overemphasizing rotation and ignoring vertical/lateral thruster performance when it comes to defining and assessing maneuverability.
Engineering, HRPs, MRPs, shield boosters, SCBs, pretty much everything that touches combat. Slightly nerf the FdL, give the Challenger the second C3 and C7 PD it ought to have had, take the Crusader and Asp Scout back to the drawing board, yeah, not too many changes needed.
 
I have already engineered my Fer-De-Lance, but I prefer Mamba design. It's such a pretty ship! But FDL is just better at everything...
 
The Mambas design is absolutely incredible, I love the smooth looks and the detailed cockpit. But this ship is meant to be a "Combat-Racing ship" and a racing vessel needs manouverbility too, not only a decent speed. The Fer-De-Lance is nearly as fast as the Mamba, with extra manouverbility and better hardpoint placement. Seriously, a combat ship with all the hardpoints on top? [blah]
If by "nearly as fast" you mean "about 80 m/s slower with about 50 m/s less boost when fully engineered", then yeah the FDL is "nearly as fast" as the Mamba. While the mamba is not as maneuverable as the FDL, it still has quite the speed advantage and can easily out-maneuver some of the more sluggish medium combat ships (and all of the large ships too), so it's not like the ship is a complete brick. As for the hardpoints the top/bottom placement is not important for fixed weapons, but if you're using gimballs (or maybe turrets on the smalls) you can use your excellent roll rate to get the enemy 'above' you so I don't really see the issue here.

Same with Viper MkIV, the manouverbility is awful!
Have you tried using the vertical and horizontal thrusters on the Viper IV? Yes, the ship is a bit sluggish while turning but it can start and stop on a dime in all 3 axis. It's honestly a miracle the pilot doesn't pass out when you hit the boost button (doing so results in something like 16Gs of acceleration when fully engineered), especially when you're strafing up/down/left/right at the same time.

And the fact that the Chieftain is a ship with everything but speed makes me :mad:. I certainly know that every ship needs at least one downside too, but to take the Chieftains speed or the Mambas maneuverability seems like a lack of ideas to me. The easiest way to solve this problem is to change the price tag of some ships. I would rather have a more expensive but more efficient Chieftain than the one I know by now.
When you have players like me who could buy half a dozen combat ships and still have rebuys to spare, balancing ships around price tag seems a bit pointless. As Morbad said, credits aren't a particularly good way to balance ships. This is especially true when you consider that the modules on the ship are typically worth several times more than the ship's hull, but aren't quite proportional to the ship's purchase price. To give you an example, the Krait Mk II costs about 45.7M CR to buy while the FDL costs around 51.6M CR (about 6M more), but my combat fit Krait costs around 268M CR while my combat fit FDL only costs 216M CR (about 52M less) because it has smaller modules.

Yes, purchase price is a balancing tool, but it is not the be-all and end-all of ship balancing and should be done with care. It is often more prudent to give ships restrictions to speed, maneuverability, firepower, armour, outfitting, etc rather than a price change.

And it would be great to have the Mamba with a price tag of 30mil so that new players get an extra opportunity for combat between Vulture and Fer-De-Lance.
Because there aren't enough combat ships between the Vulture and FDL already? We've already got 9 ships that fill this not-quite-a-niche (Fed ships, Alliance ships, both Kraits, Clipper), do we really need another one?
 
...The easiest eay to solve this problem is to change the price tag of some ships. I would rather have a more expensive but more efficient Chieftain than the one I know by now.
And it would be great to have the Mamba with a price tag of 30mil so that new players get an extra opportunity for combat between Vulture and Fer-De-Lance...

-CMDR _Xplosive
No, price is not a way to balance things as others already mentioned it.
I play for 3.5 months and after 2 months i was already flying a fully engineered Imperial Cutter worth of close to 1.2 billions and had enough credits for 38 re-buys :)
 
I feel that the Type-10 is the least balanced ship I have flown, it just seems like it was purposely made worse then everything. And the one thing it was supposed to be good at is actually the one thing it can't do.
 
I feel that the Type-10 is the least balanced ship I have flown, it just seems like it was purposely made worse then everything. And the one thing it was supposed to be good at is actually the one thing it can't do.
All of the CMDRs that have killed goids with the T10 beg to differ with you. I agree there are better ships for the task, but its not fair to say the T10 can't do it. And if you want a massive hull tank battering ram + turret fortress + missile boat, the T10 is the ship for you. But if you want to zip around in the T10 like a Chieftain, then yeah it can't do anything right :\
 
I still find it hilarious that EVEN after it's buff the Type 9 Heavy STILL holds less cargo than a Cutter.

Shieldless Cutter with all cargo holds 792 Tonnes
Sheildless All Cargo Type 9 holds 788 Tonnes.

Sure its 4 tonnes less but I still think it should hold more for a dedicated hauler ship. Maybe add another 8 slot or 7 slot as well as reducing the ship weight or buffing the size of FSD it holds.
 
I still find it hilarious that EVEN after it's buff the Type 9 Heavy STILL holds less cargo than a Cutter.

Shieldless Cutter with all cargo holds 792 Tonnes
Sheildless All Cargo Type 9 holds 788 Tonnes.

Sure its 4 tonnes less but I still think it should hold more for a dedicated hauler ship. Maybe add another 8 slot or 7 slot as well as reducing the ship weight or buffing the size of FSD it holds.
Yes, but if you add the minimum shields (because flying without shields is not cost effective) to each ship, that number changes dramatically.

Cutter = 728
T-9 heavy = 756

Just saying.
 
What I find even more ridiculous than the T9/iCutter comparison - I mean, sure, the iCutter is the much more stress-free ship compared with the T9, especially because of it's nearly indestructable shields and it's impressive speed, but the T9 costs fully equiped less than a stock iCutter - is that every single ship which came after the Krait/Challanger where pointless. Useless and already supersedet by other, partially only a few months older ships.

The Mamba is sexy af., but trash compared with every other medium battleship, also the Krait Phantom, and the Crusader is the worst, literally. The worst alliance ship you can get, in every term and role, so it is as general medium ship.

And that really bothers me. Because the 3 ships before where actually pretty good balanced, to a point that was nothing less than impressive.

But in case of the Crusader, the Mamba and the Krait-Ph it's the same ASPS-thing all over again. Each of these three have a minimum of one direct compeditor, which is basicly the same ship, from the same manufacturer.

In case of the Crusader this is IMO most obvious. You have nearly the same optional-internals as the Chieftain, worse HPs in trade for a fighterbay, which would destruct your only access to a ok-ish SCB. And given it's speed and manouvrability, the SLF is not much more than a deployable gun, which isn't doing what you expect it to do. By that, it looses it's best argument for installing it: Keeping up with the smaller ships, your sluggish Battletank isn't able to keep up with.
All three are offensive fighters, with less variance in their flight-models between them, as between the FDS and the FAS, and there still is a even more sluggish and slow ship among the federal mediums.
If we compare these alliance tripplings with the federal ones, you'll see on later side one okish multi-purpose, which wasn't much pleased of the past releases and buffs of other medium ships, but still does it's job (FDS), a space attack-chopper with fighterbay and a jumprange directly from hell (FGS), and a fighter comparable and up to all of the alliance ones (FAS). In generall it' s not a big problem that the Challenger and the Chieftain are nearly the same ship, you'll still have to decide between raw-dmg and survivability, which is in a class like this already enough to devide. But the Crusader filled a gab, you'll already only able to see with a microscope, and even worse, it fills it bad.
What would have helped here is either bulking or speeding the Crusader up a lot, adding an additional c5, maybe even a c6 internal for a SCB, or adding more Uts for better shields, although this would be quite difficult afterwards.


If we look at the Krait-Ph, it's nearly the same thing, maybe worse. I mean, if you can afford a Python, why even bother with a more fragile, less capable and less controlable clone of this classic? Yes, it's cheaper, but the modules are that expensive, that the purchase won't effect the overall spend money that much, that price would be an argument. Especially in times where you can get from a New-Game-Sidey to a Python in less than 24h.
The Krait2 had no problem with the comparison to the Python, because it's nearly the same ship with a complete different, but equally good flight-modell and a fighter hanger, which gave it a complete new role.
But all what's left for the Krait-Ph are less freight options, smaller internals, not even a c4 for 2 SRVs, so you'll have to downgrade a c5, less HPs and worse handling. And while the decission Python or Krait2 is a tough one, there is no reason, except jumprange and looks, why would you ever fly a Krait-Ph.
And If we compare it to the other common explorer-ships, it's also get dumped. It's jumprange is still exceedet by the 'Conda and the DBX, and compared to the ASPX, you have much more problems at landing at a planetary surface, than you'll allready have with the ASPX. Which is actually that much hillarious as it's impressive.
What I have to admit is that the Krait-Ph is one of the best looking ships ingame, and the designer which was in charge of it definitly deserves a fund raise, but that doesn't help the ship itself. What could help is buffing the c5s to c6.
All of them.
I'm serious about this, by doing this, it would still keep it's place as an "explorer-Krait", but would reach close to the Python in terms of cargo-capacity, 284 to 292, but would exceed the Pythons jumprange easily. It would finally be, what it's thrusters tried to implicate, an Elite Millenium Falcon. For sure, it would be a hard hit for othe medium traders, as the iClipper - which allready is rubbish in every way, and I see no way to buff it without a complete redesign, but as enough people are liking it, this wouldn't necessary - the FDS - which already is surpassed by the Krait-Ph in this stage - And the T7, but this one still holds more cargo for less money.


And the Mamba is also a classic case of a ship which is completely pointless, as it's, to say the obvious but painfull truth, a bootleg FDL. It's a tiny bit faster in trade of a bit worse handling and a massivly downgraded defence, at both, shields and the allready paperthin hull. And this is maybe most easy to fix, by just adding a single c5. Even a military would do it, just to be able to use a c5 shield as well as a c5 SCB or a c5HRP. That would be more than enough to reach closer to the FDL, although she would still keep the better overall defence, and the better handling, and the better placed HPs as well.


And these are just the latest three. I better don't begin with the already mentioned ASPS or the FDS or half a dozen other, older cases, but as I know balancing is a really, really hard thing, especially in this segment where allready are a tremendous amount of ships implemented, which all have to included in the balancing process.

But at least, as someone who even saw the Python nerf back then, I have still hope on a few of these cases.
FDev allready did a good job with both SK buffs and with the T9 buff. And maybe one day the balancing of Elite would work as it should. So that every ship has it's place.
 
Nerf FDL PP back to C5 and watch build variety return to PvP.

Im deadly serious. It should not get near 4k in shileding in medium class. No ship should be capable of that.



Nerf the FDL, watch all the fanboys scream and whine, restore some balance to PvP.
 
Anaconda, if you ask me needs sorting.

For example. In my eyes I see it solely a hardcore combat ship which, in the right hands and if built correctly can rival the cutter or vette. Its just what gets me is the sheer jump range you can get from a ship that's 3 times the size of something like an AspX. 65-70lys or something with G5 FSD range and Class 5 Guardian FSD Booster?? Come on...

Also its the ONLY ship that actually suffers visual damage as if its genuinely been hit by cannons. Sparks fly Hull breaches in various spots where as every single other ship in terms of visual damage receives :

-lazer burn from beams.
-Laser bullet holes from pulse and burst.
-Multicannon Bullet holes.

Aside from that, in my experience the Anaconda is a rare sight now in PVP thanks to engineering and people's preference to use ships such as the FDL, FAS or Krait MK2 or Phantom. Even the Vette and Cutter are starting to become less used (console player so it's a little less populated granted but even so).

I'm no big ship pilot but it be nice to fight big ships equally as much as mediums and for those who really know how to handle them, small ships.
 
What about the Asp Scout? it was discussed long ago but went silent.
I fly it pretty much 40% of the time i'm playing and know that ship inside and out. What could be the best improvements to this ship?

Option A:

  • 1 extra utility mount (so atleast you can tell it's a medium ship)
  • Remove the 2 medium hardpoints, add 4 small hardpoints. (total of 6 small hardpionts, lower DPS than the asp explorer, higher than the diamondbacks. Also puts that size 4 distributor to work)
  • FIX THE SHIELD GENERATOR! seriously, this bug is around for so long (mainly due to nobody flying it, how ironic): the difference between a size 4 and 5 shld generator on the scout is 4MJ. Why bother with a size 5 shld generator??
  • Maybe: a little more speed, say 10m/s?
Option B:

  • Scale the hitbox down to the size of a small ship, thinking cobra mkIV sized.
  • Remove the second seat, or keep it and have it fullfill the same purpose as the one in the vulture. (though i love having my second account sitting idle in there)
 
What about the Asp Scout? it was discussed long ago but went silent.
I fly it pretty much 40% of the time i'm playing and know that ship inside and out. What could be the best improvements to this ship?

Option A:

  • 1 extra utility mount (so atleast you can tell it's a medium ship)
  • Remove the 2 medium hardpoints, add 4 small hardpoints. (total of 6 small hardpionts, lower DPS than the asp explorer, higher than the diamondbacks. Also puts that size 4 distributor to work)
  • FIX THE SHIELD GENERATOR! seriously, this bug is around for so long (mainly due to nobody flying it, how ironic): the difference between a size 4 and 5 shld generator on the scout is 4MJ. Why bother with a size 5 shld generator??
  • Maybe: a little more speed, say 10m/s?
Option B:

  • Scale the hitbox down to the size of a small ship, thinking cobra mkIV sized.
  • Remove the second seat, or keep it and have it fullfill the same purpose as the one in the vulture. (though i love having my second account sitting idle in there)
You put a size 5 shield on the Asp scout for it regen.

Completely agree on the extra utility (I'd say 4 utilities wouldn't be op tbh), not sure about 6 smalls.... but the amount of experimental effects would be awesome!

A little more base speed wouldn't go a miss but not too much as it's handling is just nuts!
 
Top Bottom