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)

[CoyoteXStarrk]

Clipper is one of the best all round ships in the game. Versatile, good at many roles, nice SC manouverability for its size, and very fast.

No idea why people keep banging on about it needing to be better. If it was any better then there would be threads saying how everyone is flying a Clipper and how other ships need a buff.

You basically end up in a never ending circle of buffs to other ships to overcome the current favourites.

The Anaconda is a good ship, but it has its weakneses. For example, while having the largest jump range, its otherwise a terrible exploration ship. It makes a good combat ship, but its also a large slow target.

The clipper is a fine ship and does a lot of things well but it needs a lot of work to be able to properly compete with other multi-role ships. It cannot carry as much as the python despite being bigger, it's faster but nowhere near as survivable, and it's hard point placement is among the worst in the entire game. I'm not saying that it's unplayable or anything like that and I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy flying it but just because you enjoy using it does not mean that it's a good ship compared to others that are available. Because it's not.


As for what you said about the anaconda you could say the same stuff about the Cutter or the Corvette. The thing is that the Corvette and the Cutter are locked behind rather large rank grinds and neither are as versatile as the Anaconda. And neither can match the anaconda for its jump range or even come close actually.

 

[metatheurgist]

Python is horrible for agility, there are many reasons to use other ships than that.

The Conda is good due had a bugged hull that never got fixed and has been around so long that there would be outrage if it was fixed now so nuthin' doing there.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Well Cutter is quite versatily (minus exploration), it can easily be armed trader, miner, combat ship, it has agreeable jump range for inside bubble work, only on exploration side it looses to Connie. And rank grind is do it once stuff. When you get the rank, you'll have it for good.

 

[CoyoteXStarrk]

Well Cutter is quite versatily (minus exploration), it can easily be armed trader, miner, combat ship, it has agreeable jump range for inside bubble work, only on exploration side it looses to Connie. And rank grind is do it once stuff. When you get the rank, you'll have it for good.

I know but the point that I'm trying to make is that even though the Cutter is a good ship it's not as good as the anaconda despite all the extra effort and credits that it takes to get the Cutter.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Depends on. Cutter can take more cargo, carry more shields, and fly faster. And it is easier to operate without docking computer.

 

[Layne Vakarian]

I've always wondered why we can't play with module sizes. If a ship has module sizes currently adding to, say, 20 total (like a DBX for example), why can't we throw out the existing modules and instead fit modules of whatever size by 'spending' module points up to the count-limit? So, again in the case of a DBX, a player could opt for a size 5 shield module - no idea why, it's an illustration - losing a size 1 slot. Hopefully you get what I mean.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The clipper is a fine ship and does a lot of things well but it needs a lot of work to be able to properly compete with other multi-role ships. It cannot carry as much as the python despite being bigger, it's faster but nowhere near as survivable, and it's hard point placement is among the worst in the entire game. I'm not saying that it's unplayable or anything like that and I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy flying it but just because you enjoy using it does not mean that it's a good ship compared to others that are available. Because it's not.


As for what you said about the anaconda you could say the same stuff about the Cutter or the Corvette. The thing is that the Corvette and the Cutter are locked behind rather large rank grinds and neither are as versatile as the Anaconda. And neither can match the anaconda for its jump range or even come close actually.

Exactly, ever ship has its pros and cons.

 

[Sylveria]

I'd have to agree that other ships could use some love to make them more appealing in comparison. Elite Pythoncondas could use some incentives to get players to fly other ships outside of just a few different slots and such. Sometimes I wish they'd follow the path that EVE did and give them specific passive bonuses relative to the type of ship, that way one can still utilize it however they wish but if used as intended it shines- which gives each ship a distinctive purpose and meaning.

I also agree that a "nerf" to the Pythoncondas aren't needed- problem is it's easier for them to adjust two ships instead of all others except for the two... which means it will never happen because of bureaucracy and red tape, committee meetings about committee meetings, and by the time a decision gets made the next iteration of Elite will be ready for release.

In other words... it'll happen the second Tuesday of Never.

 

[ocflyer]

I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that an Anaconda is a great ship. That slow cow ought to be put out to pasture.

 

[Sylveria]

I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that an Anaconda is a great ship. That slow cow ought to be put out to pasture.

It does. Problem is it gets taken out and milked regularly, too.

 

[Das Boot]

I've never flown a Python or an Anaconda.

I haven't ever flown an anaconda either. My very sparingly used python was scrapped for parts and the hull sold the day the Krait II went on sale.

No regrets.

 

[Layne Vakarian]

I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that an Anaconda is a great ship. That slow cow ought to be put out to pasture.

It is a great ship. If you happen to like Anacondas which personally, I do. I like it because it is clunky and handles like a barge. I liked my Mini (original version) better than the car I have now. The Mini was far worse by any objective measure, but it had character. Same reason I like the old barge. And anyway, you have to have bad ships so that you can tell which are the good ones

 

[Bigmaec]

I've always wondered why we can't play with module sizes. If a ship has module sizes currently adding to, say, 20 total (like a DBX for example), why can't we throw out the existing modules and instead fit modules of whatever size by 'spending' module points up to the count-limit? So, again in the case of a DBX, a player could opt for a size 5 shield module - no idea why, it's an illustration - losing a size 1 slot. Hopefully you get what I mean.

Because that would throw out that little balance we have.
Immediately all combat ships would be only filled with c1 hrps.
5D hrp 700 hull points
1D hrp 200 hull points, also 5x the resistances

 

[Layne Vakarian]

Because that would throw out that little balance we have.
Immediately all combat ships would be only filled with c1 hrps.
5D hrp 700 hull points
1D hrp 200 hull points, also 5x the resistances

Oh well.

A pity though. I've always thought "It's MY ship, I have a workshop, whyinthehell can't I rip out the internals and customise..."

'cause you just know it would happen in real life.

 

[Bigmaec]

That's why the most thought out suggestions to customise mostly trade down slots, like two c2 in a c5 rack, or something like that.
The idea is not new, but it is difficult.

 

[andrewg_oz]

I think that, in general, all the ships in the game are reasonably well balanced. The Anaconda is a clear outlier, however. It is probably the last ship that should be held up as an example to compare other ships to. Out of all the ships in the game, it's the ship that most needs a nerf. It's also most likely to be the last ship to get one.

 

[Sylveria]

That's why the most thought out suggestions to customise mostly trade down slots, like two c2 in a c5 rack, or something like that.
The idea is not new, but it is difficult.

Not difficult. Just a simple decision with a bit of work involved.

The only question is... would the work involved be worth the value of sustainability for the game- instead of lazily accepting that mistakes were made during the design process and correcting them. Yep, it takes work.

Much easier to just be dismissive and act like the problem doesn't exist. The Emperor is still wearing clothes to those who still bow to him.

 

[WR3ND]

My Python is a workhorse, and as such I don't use it all that often. I'd generally rather have fun playing the game, it seems.

The Anaconda? Too much slogging for me. The Python is about the extent of my limits in that regard.

To each their own though. I don't mind if other players want to waste their time away in either of these ships. I do the same in a Vulture after all.

Cheers.

 

[Factabulous]

The game has now been out for years and the Anaconda and Python are objectively speaking the best ships in the entire game still.

No they aren't. Rarely fly either.

/thread

 

[Andrew Hill]

I think the best outcome for all is for new ships to come along that fill the perceived gaps in what has become “normal” in game these past few years. Perhaps a new outlier could be introduced to counter the Anaconda e.g. panther:extreme shielding... Just like in the old days - I think I had one once with over 200 shield generators.

I do agree however that until this happens, increased customisation options as described in the posts above, while difficult to implement, would lead to more variation in the ships pilots choose to fly.