Ships' manoevrability, analysis of the specifications and actual manoeuvrability

[Alexios Komnenos]

The general purpose of this thread is to make the game better by making the game more interesting to play. Sorry, but I've heard exactly the same about the Python a month ago, namely "Python is perfectly balanced, don't touch it". However, a lot of the players that were posting this very idea have posted have concluded that Python's manoeuvrability is fine in 1.1, Python's shields are also more or less fine now and the only parameter that should be improved is Python's boost velocity, i.e. it should be increased by a little degree.

Now I see the same level of protection for the Clipper, and this is worrying as it might mean that now a Clipper becomes a ship that most of the players want to fly. This is understandable and I've posted numerous comments regarding this. The highest speed among the large ships, the ship that performs pitch up faster than most of the small fighters (and in case you want to evade the fight you are going to use pitch manoeuvres and not lateral/vertical thrusters) will provide you with escape from any situation. Sure this makes a Clipper - an untouchable ship. Moreover, due to these parameters it becomes a bane for all smaller ships, except a Cobra probably. They cannot outrun the Clipper, most of them cannot outmanoeuvre the Clipper, all of them are mass-locked by the Clipper.

This were the reasons why players were planning to buy a Python prior 1.1. As it looks now the priority has shifted to a Clipper.

What's the issue with increasing the thrust output (hence acceleration) of lateral and vertical thrusters at the cost of decreased pitch rate? Isn't it balancing?



Unfortunately, this is a problem. It seems to me that after the Python changes a lot of people perceive such threads as please nerf everything threads and fail to notice that the real request is to improve the game. E.g. I open the shipyard as I want to buy a new ship. What do I look at? I am looking at the parameters. When I choose the ship for the first time I totally rely on the stated values. But then it is easy to find that the values for some ships are not reflected in the flight model. I think that this should be fixed.

As for the Viper - you can find that in my posts within this thread I have proposed only to increase its velocities and manoeuvrability. It is a close range interceptor, which is widely used by the authorities, IMO this means that it should be the fastest ship.

Moreover, I do not think that a lot of players were able to thoroughly test a Clipper and a Dropship. These were first introduced during Beta 3, the last Beta testing stage, which was launched the 28th of October 2014 has completed in 3 weeks. It was not that much time to test it especially taking into account that there were some issues that made Clipper difficult to use as even with A5 FSD it had a very limited range. Dropship is not popular as it is primarily meant for the role of troop transport or passenger craft, however, unfortunately, there are no such missions implemented. Due to low internal capacity it cannot be equipped with enough cargo racks to compete with a much cheaper T7 or Clipper. Its only benefit is the capability to land on the outpost, however, it is easily skipped by most of the players in favour of the Python, which has certain advantages over the Dropship as it is faster, it can carry more cargo, it has heavier weapons and tougher shields.

In addition, Python was too good after the release so I think that most of the players skipped a Clipper or a Dropship in favour of a Python and hence no questions were asked about the necessity to rebalance other ships than a Python.

As mentioned above the Python is still a great ship, although it still can be slightly tweaked by increasing the boost velocity by +10-20m/s, may be the shields might be increased to 300 as well.

As I've already stated a Clipper is meant to be fast to the velocities should not be touched. But is it meant to be that much manoeuvrable? Should it be so difficult to control using vertical or lateral thrusters?

Dropship has a hull weight of 580t probably due to heavy armour, however is a value of 300 for the armour enough? IMO it is too easily destroyed even in the conflict zones. I doubt that with such armour value it is meant to get close to the harsh environment conditions as it is advertised to be capable of. At the same time its agility according to the stats is 0, yet it can easily outmanoeuvre a Python or Anaconda. Moreover, its combat mass is very similar to that of an Anaconda, i.e. it is very heavy.

Anaconda - numerous reports that it is still too manoeuvrable compared to the Python. According to the 1.1 patch notes a Python should have been noticeably manoeuvrable than an Anaconda but this does not happen in Combat. The manoeuvrability of a Python and Anacondas (especially higher ranked ones) is about the same. So I have proposed to decrease Anacondas pitch rate by 1s per 360 degree pitch up, which is 8% difference.



You have posted a reply, while I was replying to several other posts, so I am editing my post with a reply to your post.

First of all, I would like to understand what the developers have meant for the Clipper, hence I've proposed two solutions, that can be applied depending on the answer to this question. Unfortunately, I can only repeat it again - if it was meant for agility - 2 then it should not be as agile as it is now. If it was meant to turn that fast - then the values in the stats should be modified.

Secondly, I might be of course wrong with this idea but IMO Clipper is called that way for a reason and this reason is exactly what a Clipper means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper


And the speed is that it has but as you can see they were meant for trading not for combat. The hard point positions on a Clipper are meant for defence purposes in this case.

And again due to hard point placement I've never considered a Clipper as a combat ship. A Python on the other hand was and remains a combat ship capable of dealing with any threat unless that threat can easily get away from it. It is all up to the pilots capabilities. Moreover, take into account that not only the Python was rebalanced but SCBs. This has made usage of SCBs much harder especially by the smaller ships, especially in terms of power management. Moreover, a 5 second delay also has significant implications that impacts the smaller ships much harder than the large ones.

Your idea with the change of hard point position... well, it can be read as Python was rebalanced, let's make a new Python basing on a Clipper.

Regarding the Dropship - it has an excellent position of hard points, 1 large one, 4 medium ones, all positioned very closely, with its current manoeuvrability it is a very capable combat vessel. But was it meant to be it?

As for the chaff - I totally agree that something major should be done with them.

As you bought up the Wikipedia article on clippers, I would like to draw your attention to this particular part:

"Given their speed and maneuverability, clippers frequently mounted cannon or carronades and were used for piracy, privateering, smuggling, or interdiction service."

Also this is quite significant: "Clippers, running the British blockade of Baltimore, came to be recognized for speed rather than cargo space."

Both of these points to me that a Clipper is meant to be a piracy or bounty hunting vessel, with some cargo space to smuggle in stolen/illegal goods, which is precisely what it is right now, as the cargo space it has once optimized for combat is about 72. The one thing the original clipper was really not designed to do was in fact, trading.

Perhaps the only fix that is needed is to change the statistics of the clipper that are displayed. As for the hardpoint location, I would accept a nerf in pitch rate in exchange for better hardpoints, but your comparison that this would make a clipper another Python is rather inaccurate, as the Clipper does not have the shields, nor the lateral thrusters, nor the turn rate of the original python. It was these factors combined that made the original python overpowered, so comparing the old Python to the Clipper is a rather amusing one, as the old Python was the King of all Trades save for speed, and the Clipper only has speed on its side.

 

[Derath]

Clippers probably going to get tweaked, not because its fundamentally OP but because a combination of speed + its size make it the safest ship currently, speed to be honest is extremely strong in ED as a defence, more important than anything else.

 

[Entilzar]

although im probably not qualified to get involved in this discussion, I tend to agree with the OP that the ships should match there stats when purchasing, for example on release the cobra became about 100k more expensive in shipyard but alledged to have an intermediate discovery scanner (I believe correct me if im wrong) but when you bought one it just had the basic scanner, now the cobra is still 100k more then in beta but now lists no Intermediate scanner.

FD stated they changed the python because it didn't match there vision of what the python was, the Dev team need to look at the descriptions and values and decide if that is there vision and match ships accordingly, but if the ship is as desired then they should change the descriptions and values instead.

I personally like the python, and in pre 1.1 form only the shielding felt too much, I can live with the changes after 1.1 even tho I feel the ship isn't quite as nice to fly. I disagree with FDs over the top balancing of that ship but I cant change it.

Balance in this game shouldn't mean everything is equal to everything else, my current python set up for example costs 90mil (10% discounted) a fully fitted 7-9 mil viper shouldn't be able to kill me, it should be able to cause me some damage but not kill me out and out.

if all the more expensive ships become less able to win a fight vs a dedicated snub fighter why have more then 5 ships at all, big ships should be better then smaller ships, that's why the higher cost to run and repair is there.

Enty

 

[Neofactor]

Your post in on point with the discussion, however I don't think anyone is saying that. It seems odd that the ships don't seem to fit into their particular roles. I don't think a viper should be able to kill a python, in the same way a single f-18 engaging a cruiser would have trouble. It just seems as though the current metrics for maneuverability and the ship specs don't match up to what the purpose of what each ships are for. Unless maybe I am the one using the wrong metric. Is a viper suppose to be like an armored speed boat?

I keep comparing fighters to actual real world fighters but maybe that's my error here... Even so though, most armored speed boats move twice as fast as the larger counterparts. That being said, I stand by my original recommendation to make the viper faster, but lower the class of the weapons.

 

[Alexios Komnenos]

Clippers probably going to get tweaked, not because its fundamentally OP but because a combination of speed + its size make it the safest ship currently, speed to be honest is extremely strong in ED as a defence, more important than anything else.

Technically, the Anaconda is equally safe, as only another anaconda can mass lock and kill it. Besides, if the Clipper is nerfed based on speed, then I would like to see the Cobra nerfed too, but then where would we end up?

 

[Montanejos]

The maneuverability rating is a combination of acceleration and pitch rate. Trotting out just the pitch rate of ships as the sole measure of maneuverability is very misleading.

My test results:

360 pitch rotation time (FA-OFF, optimal speed, ignore first rotation, average of 3 rotations)

A3 Viper (115t): 9.8s
A4 Cobra (302t): 8.3s
A5 Asp (381t): 7.63s

Acceleration (Mean acceleration from 0 to supercruise-jump [75%] speed, average of 3 runs)

A3 Viper (115t): 41.5 m/s^2 (5.82s to 242 m/s)
A4 Cobra (302t): 31.9 m/s^2 (7.1s to 225 m/s)
A5 Asp (381t): 22.6 m/s^2 (7.6s to 218 m/s)

If pitch rate were the end all of maneuverability, then the Asp should fly circles around both the Cobra and the Viper, but it clearly doesn't. Same idea applies for the Clipper.

How about just showing turn rate and acceleration separately instead of this vague combined score....

 

[Moriarte]

Firstly, where have you seen me posting that a Viper should always dominate? Please show that?

Where do you see me saying that according to you the Viper should dominate? Why would I want to show you... what exactly? Please read more carefully what I actually posted before making far-fetched assumptions about what you think I thought you thought.

I am saying that a Viper should have chances to get away from a Clipper. It was supposed to be a very fast ship, now it is not.

It has that chance currently. The ability to rapidly change the axis of movement without bleeding much speed and manoeuvrability is something that Viper has over the Clipper. Personally, I don't mind change that you're proposing in regards to Viper's top speed. Nor am I seeing it as necessary, rather something that would affect cobra vs viper situation primarily. I don't hold much enthusiasm when requests to nerf or buff ships crop up, as if we played some kind of pvp twitch arena shooter.

Secondly, haven't you noticed that I have mostly covered the large ships in this thread? Haven't you noticed that I was primarily comparing a Python to a Clipper, a Python to a Dropship, a Python to an Anaconda? Oh, and I have compared a Viper with Cobra as well. Have you missed all that?

I responded to your assumption that space ships can be balanced against each other in the same way naval ships are compared.

Nope, the ships must be corrected not by the bars in the shipyard, but by the way they fit their roles. This means that if the devs say that a Clipper's actual manoeuvrability should reflect 2 bars in the shipyard than the actual ship performance should be tweaked. if the devs say that a Clipper should be able to perform a 360 pitch up in 9-10 seconds then they should set the stats to 8-10 bars in the shipyard.

The manoeuvrability bar is placeholder. It doesn't consider lateral, roll, yaw and pitch in combination or separately and even if it did, that bar would be subject to piloting skills and other considerations. I'd prefer actual data (or bars) on pitch, yaw, roll and lateral thrust instead of questionable almighty manoeuvrability bar. It's just misleading in it's nature, given the abundance of options during space fights.

 

[Quizzical Coconut]

Quick observation: agility rating seems to be related to how momentous a ship is. The higher the rating, the less momentous. It has no discernible implications on pitch/yaw/roll.

 

[Neofactor]

That makes a lot more sense!

 

[Aleksej]

Some additional data was provided by Forum member Ceekay:


Cobra Mk3 (180 T hull)

E4 thrusters mass 10T max 2 pip speed 213m/s
D4 thrusters mass 6T max 2 pip speed 218m/s
C4 thrusters mass 10T max 2 pip speed 215m/s should be around 225m/s I reckon
B4 thrusters mass 16T max 2 pip speed 231m/s
A4 thrusters mass 10T max 2 pip speed 239m/s

Cobra A4 middle of the blue band 118m/s 360 degree pitch 9.7 - 10 seconds
Cobra A4 middle of the blue band 118m/s 360 degree roll 3.3 - 3.6 seconds
Cobra A4 middle of the blue band 118m/s 360 degree yaw 32 - 33 seconds

With max cargo (36T) the D4 speed is reduced to 215m/s so either the C4's have lower thrust or excessive mass I estimate around 100T rather than 10T to get a reduction of 10m/s from a theoretical 225m/s.


Eagle (50 T hull)

E3 thrusters mass 5T max 2 pip speed 211m/s
D3 thrusters mass 2T max 2 pip speed 216m/s
C3 thrusters mass 5T max 2 pip speed 214m/s should be around 220m/s I reckon
B3 thrusters mass 8T max 2 pip speed 225m/s
A3 thrusters mass 5T max 2 pip speed 233m/s


Eagle (50 T hull)

E2 thrusters can't fit
D2 thrusters mass 1T max 2 pip speed 199m/s
C2 thrusters mass 2.5T max 2 pip speed 206m/s
B2 thrusters mass 4T max 2 pip speed 205m/s
A2 thrusters mass 2.5T max 2 pip speed 210m/s


Sidewinder (25 T hull)

E2 thrusters mass 2.5T max 2 pip speed 160m/s
D2 thrusters mass 1T max 2 pip speed 163m/s
C2 thrusters mass 2.5T max 2 pip speed 162m/s
B2 thrusters mass 4T max 2 pip speed 170m/s
A2 thrusters mass 2.5T max 2 pip speed 175m/s


There appears to be some anomalies with thrusters in general, especially the class 2 on the Eagle where it's around 25% faster that the Sidewinder but the ship is twice the mass.

Additionally I measured some 360 degree pitch rotations to gauge the agility benefits between D and A grade thrusters, figures are approximate

Eagle D3 middle of the blue band 100m/s 360 degree pitch 8 - 8.5 seconds

Eagle A3 below middle of the blue band 100m/s 360 degree pitch 8 seconds

Eagle A3 middle of the blue band 112m/s 360 degree pitch 7 - 7.5 seconds

So upgrading from an 18k thruster to a 500k one increases maximum speed by 17m/s (around 8%) and improves pitch rate by perhaps 10 -12%.

 

[Chris M Fortune]

Awesome collection of data and how it relates.

A question though, is it possible that the full 360 pitch measure of pitch is flawed as in the relative initial speed of pitch may be wildly different but the final pitch speed comparable?

EDIT:

Just considered a test of how to examine this without doing less than 360. timed double roll and include a single roll split time. that would give a strong indication of pitch acceleration if not a true measure.

 

[Aleksej]

Quick observation: agility rating seems to be related to how momentous a ship is. The higher the rating, the less momentous. It has no discernible implications on pitch/yaw/roll.

Certainly it can be so. However, I would not call it as manoeuvrability in this case. IMO manoeuvrability should describe only the turn rate along rotational axes, which are pitch/roll/yaw. If we consider the movement of the ship along translational axes, i.e. forward/backward, lateral or vertical then we can talk about acceleration or velocities.

Without knowing the definite answer to the question what is meant by manoeuvrability in the shipyard it might be hard to come to a conclusion what does this parameter mean.

In this case it might be a good idea to introduce additional parameters in the shipyard so that everything would be much clearer.

Not to mention that it would be nice to know, which role was planned for each ship. Just like it was explained for the Python.