Ships should be reworked in order to give more incentive to players to use something other than the Python or the Anaconda. (No nerfs involved)

[nanite2000]

It would restrict my choice of large pad only ships.

If we were to have more medium pad ships I would want them to be new medium pad ships, more choices not just rearranging the existing choices.

Thank you for providing a reasonable answer, and for doing it without hyperbole, insults, or sarcasm (which some other forum members have resorted to).

That is the right answer. We need another dozen ships of all sizes.

Crossing my fingers for a medium Imperial Explorer...

It's a shame you and @Ezren were unable to see past your petty grievances towards me, when the answers provided above would have been totally fair.

The point I was trying to make, which you affirm in your response above, was that having more ship choice at a given size was not a bad thing. I would also love to see more ships and more choice. But I would especially love to see more multi-role (as opposed to role-specific) ships that I can choose to use in addition to (or instead of) the Python.

I am also aware that FDev's resources are somewhat limited, and so modifying existing ships could achieve similar results without requiring as much effort.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Surprise! Dedicated role shops are better at their dedicated roles than a multi-role ship.

nobody is disputing that.

people are asking for more multi-role alternatives to compete with the Python.

Cutter is not dedicated trade ship, more like combat-trader-miner. Krait Phantom is kind of dedicated exploration ship though. (Main reason I like it more than Conda is superb supercruise handling, flying Anaconda at long sessions gets tedious.)

 

[*Atlas*]

That's not really a criticism. Talking about the "best ship" in the game is itself a subjective argument given the different roles they can play and the requirements at any given time. But okay...

It's not a criticism, that was my point. But people are still using that to argue that ships shouldn't be changed. "Well, I personally only fly the asp scout and not the python because I like the cockpit more" is not really bringing anything constructive to the table if we're talking about how to get people to fly less used ships more. Someone might prefer a b class ships cockpit more than the pythons but the fact remains there's some ships that are just so much better than others that they're flown an order of magnitude more.

 

[nanite2000]

Cutter is not dedicated trade ship, more like combat-trader-miner.

Yes, that's true. I frequently found myself chopping and changing between a Cutter and Anaconda because both could do multiple things very well, and not always the same things.

My feeling is that dedicated role ships should always be better than multi-role ships. The Cutter is indisputably a better trader than the Anaconda for sheer cargo capacity alone, which makes total sense as it's designed to be a trade ship. But the Anaconda is versatile enough to be a great second choice for trade because it's high jump range and extra manoeuvrability allow it to do some other things better than the Cutter.

 

[Dunkel Reynolds]

Thank you for providing a reasonable answer, and for doing it without hyperbole, insults, or sarcasm (which some other forum members have resorted to).


It's a shame you and @Ezren were unable to see past your petty grievances towards me, when the answers provided above would have been totally fair.

The point I was trying to make, which you affirm in your response above, was that having more ship choice at a given size was not a bad thing. I would also love to see more ships and more choice. But I would especially love to see more multi-role (as opposed to role-specific) ships that I can choose to use in addition to (or instead of) the Python.

I am also aware that FDev's resources are somewhat limited, and so modifying existing ships could achieve similar results without requiring as much effort.

Oh I have no "petty grievance" against you. On the contrary, I gave your points every bit of the consideration that they warranted.

 

[Dunkel Reynolds]

Yes, that's true. I frequently found myself chopping and changing between a Cutter and Anaconda because both could do multiple things very well, and not always the same things.

My feeling is that dedicated role ships should always be better than multi-role ships. The Cutter is indisputably a better trader than the Anaconda for sheer cargo capacity alone, which makes total sense as it's designed to be a trade ship. But the Anaconda is versatile enough to be a great second choice for trade because it's high jump range and extra manoeuvrability allow it to do some other things better than the Cutter.

Now take this surprisingly coherent idea that you have here and apply it to the Python. You're so close...

 

[Brrokk]

Something I've not seen in this thread yet... Am I the only one that thinks appearance of a ship is important? I happily go mining in a Python, but I wouldn't carry passengers in one. The Cutter I like for bulk passenger transport. I use it in a cargo role too, but only for high-value commodities. An Anaconda hauls mundane stuff nicely; I can just about consider it for low-value passengers too because it has that viewing deck around under the nose. I want ships to "look the part" in their roles as well as have all the right module slots and landing pads.

Taking appearance into account nicely prevents one ship from being "the best" at everything.

 

[Dunkel Reynolds]

Something I've not seen in this thread yet... Am I the only one that thinks appearance of a ship is important? I happily go mining in a Python, but I wouldn't carry passengers in one. The Cutter I like for bulk passenger transport. I use it in a cargo role too, but only for high-value commodities. An Anaconda hauls mundane stuff nicely; I can just about consider it for low-value passengers too because it has that viewing deck around under the nose. I want ships to "look the part" in their roles as well as have all the right module slots and landing pads.

Taking appearance into account nicely prevents one ship from being "the best" at everything.

No...nothing subjective matters. Only pad size and cargo space. Tangible, objective numbers. Nothing else counts for anything.

 

[nanite2000]

Now take this surprisingly coherent idea that you have here and apply it to the Python. You're so close...

My point (which you're still missing) is that there aren't really any good medium multi-role ships that can compete with the Python, apart from maybe the Krait MKII.

Yes, there are lots of dedicated medium combat ships that can do combat better than the Python.
Yes, there are lots of dedicated medium sized explorers that can do exploration better than the Python.
Yes, there are lots of dedicated medium sized traders that can haul more cargo than the Python. Oh wait - no there aren't!

I'm really struggling to understand why you are OK with creating more medium sized ships to add more choice (like the 'Imperial Explorer' you mentioned previously), but think the idea of modifying some of the larger ships to fit a medium pad with all other stats left unchanged is so crazy.

What am I missing here?

 

[nanite2000]

Something I've not seen in this thread yet... Am I the only one that thinks appearance of a ship is important? I happily go mining in a Python, but I wouldn't carry passengers in one. The Cutter I like for bulk passenger transport. I use it in a cargo role too, but only for high-value commodities. An Anaconda hauls mundane stuff nicely; I can just about consider it for low-value passengers too because it has that viewing deck around under the nose. I want ships to "look the part" in their roles as well as have all the right module slots and landing pads.

Taking appearance into account nicely prevents one ship from being "the best" at everything.

It's a shame there isn't a medium sized Saud Kruger ship (like the Orca) to compete with the Python for passengers.

Or a medium sized Gutamaya ship (like the Clipper) to compete with the Python for trade and looks.

 

[M00ka]

Well that has been an interesting read ….

My own opinion (yes I am sure someone will tell me I am not allowed to have an opinion that differs from theirs ) is that the Anaconda is now a useless ship unless you want to fly a brick extremely long distances. Yes, exploration is the only unique thing that ship does and that is solely down to bad coding by FD. And it isn't even exploration, it is just jumping really really long distances - THAT IS IT.

Don't believe me, well compare the Anaconda to the Corvette. The Corvette can carry more, is better than combat, is nicer to look at (yes @Brrokk appearances do matter ), is more enjoyable to fly - the ONLY thing the Anaconda has over the Corvette is jump range - and in the bubble who the hell cares when most are only mission running. At the absolute maximum when I am running cargo missions is I have to jump twice to get to the destination, and in most instances it would be the same whether I am in my Corvette or the Conda.

Basically, the Conda is a dead ship just everyone is afraid to admit it.

Now the Python still has a niche as the best mutli-role for medium pads, so what, who cares if one ship is slightly better than others. I am still not seeing every Commander flying only a Python when I zip around the bubble. In fact I don't see many hollow square Pythons at all!

Now for my brilliant and oh so simple solution to this game breaking, worthy of an Open Letter, I quit if something isn't done problem - make all pads large - no more crying about what ship can't go where, no more statistical models showing how if x is done y can fit on a medium pad, no more e-peen competitions - everyone can land everywhere and there will be peace in the galaxy

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Anaconda has one special quality in big all around ship league, it does not need rank grind.

 

[kaelys]

the problem with the FDL and the Mamba is just their sheer performance. No need to fiddle with their pad sizes, just a couple of hearty whacks with the nerf bat to some of their base stats to bring them in line.

I don't have a problem with the way the FDL and Mamba are now. They are dedicated fighters; they aren't designed to do anything else. Neither has much in the way of internal compartments. The Mamba has a short jump range and heat issues. The FDL has a decent jump range, but can't fit a fuel scoop without sacrificing cargo or hull re-enforcement. I think they're fine as they are.

people are asking for more multi-role alternatives to compete with the Python.

What people? And how about the Krait Phantom(37mil), Krait MII (44mil), iClipper (22mil), and Orca (48mil) to name a few. The Python (56mil) stacks up against them, but I would argue that, All things considered, it's no better or worse. It's slower and has a shorter jump range than the Orca, slower and less manuverable that the iClipper and Kraits. It has about the same number of internals, give or take, and it's the most expensive.

I own a Python and an iClipper, and, frankly, I find the Clipper to be the more useful vehicle. If the Clipper had better weapon placement, this thread would probably be about it.

 

[nanite2000]

Anaconda has one special quality in big all around ship league, it does not need rank grind.

It's high jump range also means it's an excellent science vessel and miner.

 

[Dunkel Reynolds]

My point (which you're still missing) is that there aren't really any good medium multi-role ships that can compete with the Python, apart from maybe the Krait MKII.

Yes, there are lots of dedicated medium combat ships that can do combat better than the Python.
Yes, there are lots of dedicated medium sized explorers that can do exploration better than the Python.
Yes, there are lots of dedicated medium sized traders that can haul more cargo than the Python. Oh wait - no there aren't!

I'm really struggling to understand why you are OK with creating more medium sized ships to add more choice (like the 'Imperial Explorer' you mentioned previously), but think the idea of modifying some of the larger ships to fit a medium pad with all other stats left unchanged is so crazy.

What am I missing here?

A lot, it seems. But if you actually read and process all the responses to your questions here, you'd understand.

 

[nanite2000]

What people? And how about the Krait Phantom(37mil), Krait MII (44mil), iClipper (22mil), and Orca (48mil) to name a few. The Python (56mil) stacks up against them, but I would argue that, All things considered, it's no better or worse. It's slower and has a shorter jump range than the Orca, slower and less manuverable that the iClipper and Kraits. It has about the same number of internals, give or take, and it's the most expensive.

I own a Python and an iClipper, and, frankly, I find the Clipper to be the more useful vehicle. If the Clipper had better weapon placement, this thread would probably be about it.

Neither the Clipper nor the Orca can land on a medium sized pad.

 

[nanite2000]

A lot, it seems. But if you actually read and process all the responses to your questions here, you'd understand.

It's OK to say that you don't know.

At least I was willing to be open enough to ask.

 

[DarthVain]

It will be interesting to see if or when the Panther Clipper is released.

 

[kaelys]

Neither the Clipper nor the Orca can land on a medium sized pad.

True, so one small advantage to the Python. I never said it was a bad ship, in fact I think it's a good ship. I just don't think its out of balance good.

 

[Dunkel Reynolds]

It's OK to say that you don't know.

At least I was willing to be open enough to ask.

You're not open, that's the problem. We've spent like 20 pages telling you why this problem is not really a problem and you're still going on like a broken record.