I remember this too, didn't they say that had some kind of plans for all the small ships? Wonder what it was supposed to be
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)
- Thread starter CoyoteXStarrk
- Start date
I remember this too, didn't they say that had some kind of plans for all the small ships? Wonder what it was supposed to be
Yeah, they all got 2 C1 slots. 
Sure, which is why I don't really think it'd happen, but if they launched say "Elite: Deadly" as an entirely new game, you'd start from scratch there.
Other games have sometimes done large sweeping changes, with refunding resources for existing accounts etc, so established players essentially stay at the power level they had previously.
Or like in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer Biower made max of 10% changes to an item, would see for a month, then make another 10% buff/nerf, repeat, until happy.
Dunno the best solution, but i'd guess mild-nerf-batting a few outliers like the conda and FDL wouldn't harm things drastically.
Make the T7, Clipper and Orca medium-pad ships.
Just have clipping if they can't be bothered re-doing models - not like there aren't other examples of clipping
cough Large hardpoints.
Or, if you need to land on a medium pad, you could just fly a ship that fits on a medium pad. Could we try that?Sure, which is why I don't really think it'd happen, but if they launched say "Elite: Deadly" as an entirely new game, you'd start from scratch there.
Other games have sometimes done large sweeping changes, with refunding resources for existing accounts etc, so established players essentially stay at the power level they had previously.
Or like in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer Biower made max of 10% changes to an item, would see for a month, then make another 10% buff/nerf, repeat, until happy.
Dunno the best solution, but i'd guess mild-nerf-batting a few outliers like the conda and FDL wouldn't harm things drastically.
Make the T7, Clipper and Orca medium-pad ships.
Just have clipping if they can't be bothered re-doing models - not like there aren't other examples of clipping
![[PS4] Filthymick420](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/201/201444.jpg?1555738739){kind=avatar}
Are people go for looks or just to be different sometimes more than practicality though. For example I've been a lot more into the federal Corvette and the Krait mk2 and choose those over conda and python. Im actually not a fan of the conda at all. That might change if i ever decide to do some serious exploration and for whatever reason decided i need one of the biggest ships in game for that. But looks are reason enough to choose something else.
I'd rather they not change how all the ships are just to change a few minds.
Sure, which is why I don't really think it'd happen, but if they launched say "Elite: Deadly" as an entirely new game, you'd start from scratch there.
Other games have sometimes done large sweeping changes, with refunding resources for existing accounts etc, so established players essentially stay at the power level they had previously.
Or like in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer Biower made max of 10% changes to an item, would see for a month, then make another 10% buff/nerf, repeat, until happy.
Dunno the best solution, but i'd guess mild-nerf-batting a few outliers like the conda and FDL wouldn't harm things drastically.
Make the T7, Clipper and Orca medium-pad ships.
Just have clipping if they can't be bothered re-doing models - not like there aren't other examples of clipping
If they did another Elite and respecced the ships there would be people complaining about how they specced those ships.
This is called the reality of the internet.
You take that back!
For BGS, nothing beat a Python. would be nice to fly something else without losing my efficiency.
Exactly. It's some lack of variation here.
I tried a Python and Conda, and found them too "stiff" to fly. That makes a HUGE difference for me. I like my ships fast and nimble.
I play mostly exploration and trade, but I don't shun pve combat. My multi-role ship is a krait mk2, because. It has everything I need. Fast, perma-boost, good weapons, good cargo. I love the cockpit view too.
For exploration, I have an aspX dumped somewhere, and now fly a Phantom. Because I can make it a 60ly jumper while still carrying optimal gear to improve my survival chances.
And when I need the ludricrous speed, I go to my courier racer, with sport engines and lightweight gear.
Anaconda and Python? Meh.
I play mostly exploration and trade, but I don't shun pve combat. My multi-role ship is a krait mk2, because. It has everything I need. Fast, perma-boost, good weapons, good cargo. I love the cockpit view too.
For exploration, I have an aspX dumped somewhere, and now fly a Phantom. Because I can make it a 60ly jumper while still carrying optimal gear to improve my survival chances.
And when I need the ludricrous speed, I go to my courier racer, with sport engines and lightweight gear.
Anaconda and Python? Meh.
In the meanest possible spirit... I'll use any other ship than the Anaconda or Python... (although my Python remains specced as a miner, but as mining doesn't particularly interest me...)
Both are fine utility ships, but others are more interesting to fly...
No changes needed
Both are fine utility ships, but others are more interesting to fly...
No changes needed
Well on other hand i would not object to some "buffs" for my Cutter to make it "more competitive" to Conda...something like Anaconda style jump range would be nice
(Only reason I would consider buying Anaconda would be jump range....)
(Only reason I would consider buying Anaconda would be jump range....)
It's the slot system. More slots in general equal better. That is baked in core design and difficult to tackle.
The Clipper, the T7, and the Orca don’t fit on medium pads.
Pretty much this. They're fine for some things, but they are by far not the "best ships" for everything. Having a lot of internals is nice, but isn't everything there is to a ship's performance.In the meanest possible spirit... I'll use any other ship than the Anaconda or Python... (although my Python remains specced as a miner, but as mining doesn't particularly interest me...)
Both are fine utility ships, but others are more interesting to fly...
No changes needed
Correct ..so I'm saying that if you do need to land on a medium pad, go fly a ship that lands on a medium pad. There are lots of options.
Please provide some examples of those many options that compare favourably with the Python.
Making those ships fit a medium pad would provide viable alternatives to the Python without negatively impacting gameplay.
Do you at least agree that giving players more options and variety would be a good thing?
Mamba and FDL are both much faster and better dedicated combat ships. The Krait MK II has more firepower. The Krait Phantom has better range.
Pretending the Python is the only viable medium ship is either an ignorant argument, or a dishonest one.
It is the only medium ship that can carry 294t of cargo (no shields or anything even vaguely useful) or even 192 as a miner...
Just consider it a Ford Transit - will shift loads of stuff, but not a desirable 'daily drive'.
That cargo ability is about the only thing any other medium ship is unable to match - but the Krait II has other benefits that minimise the lower cargo capacity
Make the T7, Clipper and Orca medium-pad ships.
Just have clipping if they can't be bothered re-doing models - not like there aren't other examples of clipping
Which would then result in the T-7 basically invalidating the Python, as it would then take away the Python's only real role away from it by being both half the price and higher performance. If you want combat, the Python has already been invalidated by the Mamba, FDL and Krait MkII. The Python would be left as an awkward in-between with no real place as it would be suboptimal for every practically every activity (and don't say the Python is better at defending itself than a T-7, NPCs are so poor that a well equipped T7 can pretty much guarantee either dodging the interdiction or escaping afterwards).
More generally on topic, there's a few issues that have lead to all of this:
Firstly, there's the issue of massive, massive income inflation that has rendered actual ship costs pretty irrelevant to the majority of players. It used to be that a Python was a serious outlay of credits and so making do with an AspX for medium pad trading was a reasonable solution. The Python may have been the ultimate medium pad ship, but you had to pay to get its performance and for a lot of players it was more commercially viable to save up a bit more and just skip straight up to a T9 rather than milking medium pads for all they are worth. You listed the Python as being "affordable to buy" and "affordable to outfit", but it overall still is one of the most costly ships to buy and outfit and is by far the most costly medium ship once outfitting is accounted for.
Secondly, it's not that the competition's ships are underpowered, many of them perform admirably for their prices (arguably too well in some cases cough FDL cough), it's that the Python doesn't really have any competition in its respective category. There's been a huge influx in extra medium ships in the last several releases, but other than the Mamba and the Krait MkII they are all in the low-middle end of the medium ships rather than fully maxing out the capabilities of the medium landing pad, and both the Krait and the Mamba are both quite combat specialised. If each of the major manufacturers had their own "medimax" ship that could manage 250-300 tonnes of shielded cargo capacity (with other appropriate strengths/weaknesses to balance out any differences in capacity) and so present a similar performing alternative to the Python, then this would be much less of an issue. To be honest, considering how prevalent outposts are, I would have thought that in-universe the high-end medium landing pad ship would be among the most in-demand an lucrative market segments for ship manufacturers, and yet only Faulcon Delacey seems to even care about it as they have the three best performing medium pad freighters (Python and the two Kraits).
The Anaconda doesn't have any rivals in the "large explorer" capacity, but that's about it and there's no other ships that come close; granted, the DBX has a similar issue in the small ship category too, so this issue isn't really restricted to the Anaconda, it's more just a common issue that there aren't many ships with super-long jump ranges in the game. In pretty much every other regard, the Anaconda is actually extraordinarily well balanced with the Federal Corvette; despite their differences, they are actually very similar in their overall performance across a variety of different activities. The only balance issue I see with the Anaconda vs the Corvette is that the Corvette can't really justify it's ~40 million higher price tag, but I don't know whether that is because the Anaconda is 40 million credits undercosted (which would help bring it into balance with the T10) or because the Corvette is 40 million credits overcosted (which would help differentiate it from the Cutter, which is very much in a different league).