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)

Strange. I have 22-ish ships or so and while I do have a Python, I never really fly it. I've tried to like it, but I just don't. I have a snazzy gold wireframe paintjob for it, and it always has a little plastic christmas tree bobblehead on the dashboard, but even tricked out and engineered for fun, I just... I'd rather fly my Kraits for cargo stuff, and my Mamba or FdL for blowing stuff up.

As for the Anaconda, I had one. Didn't like it. Replaced it with a Type-10 Defender, an Imperial Cutter, and a Federal Corvette.

Sure, none of them can jump as far as the Anaconda could, but I like flying all of them for their own reasons. Something about the way the big snake handles just feels off to me. So mine is bricked in a shipyard somewhere, dusty and forgotten, its modules long since moved to ships I actually like flying.

And that's how it should be I think. I'm sure there are a lot of people that love the Anaconda, and all power to them. I totally understand that feeling.

That's how I feel about all of my other ships.

Even, to some degree, the Python.

[edit: I'm an idiot and typed Clipper instead of Cutter. I meant Cutter, of course. Although I do like the Clipper.]
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
🤷‍♂️ I have been playing Elite since 2014 and I am yet to use either of the two ships mentioned in the OP. I much prefer my Krait II over the Python for many reasons, including the fighter bay and 3 crew members. Also the ship is way cooler. I have not used any of the big 3 yet, Anaconda or not (except possibly the Type 9 back then during the original Beta in 2014). I enjoy more the better maneuverability and landing pad availability (among many other things) of medium and small ships.
 
Last edited:
My Python's proved very useful for bulk hauling in situations where I don't feel safe with a "Type" truck, but if you want to kill things then a FdL, Mamba or even Vulture is both efficient and far more involved because they can move. Pythons can't explore, and I can't afford an Anaconda so I need my Asp as well.
 
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?

The existing ships that are too large for a medium pad are literally that - the models are too big to fit in the hole they're filed into when docked. To make them fit you're going to have to redesign the model. Making new craft rather than mangling the look of an existing one seems a far more efficient use of development time.

I'd also note that the problem of Outposts not having a Large spot is factored into the value of the large ships - whether that be by how much cheaper a Type 7 is compared to the Python, or that visiting an Outpost in a small craft contains less worry of Hot Laser Death from an Anaconda.

The other thing I'd raise here is that unless you've got an awful lot of time and a nearby source of all the coolest High Tech toys to constantly swap your loadout, your "bigger capacity than a Type 7" Python got there by foregoing the kind of shielding, hull hardening and so on that make it a halfway sensible combat ship anyway. Running separate ships for separate jobs is less hassle.
 
Just need to dramatically increase the running costs for larger ships in my view. The older games like Elite II required a certain number of crew to be employed before you could even take off. Fuel should be a lot more and repairs etc.
Yeah, we need more money sinks in this game, especially with the increasingly ease with which credits are made. Employing full crews on bigger ships seems to be a no brainer. Fuel costs need to be higher, absolutely. I'd even say periodic maintenance should cost something...need to change hyperspace fluid in the FSD every 3000 light years, right?
 
I wanted to take a moment to address some of the statements and questions raised in the comment above and really try and get people to understand where I'm coming from in my suggestions to modify some large vessels down to medium sized pads. I do this in the hope that people will understand that I am not some raging zealot who wants (nay, DEMANDS!) that the game change to suit him. I'm not that person, but I am aware that some people have misunderstood what I'm asking for in the comments I've made in this thread, so I want to try lay it all out here to give people a better understanding.

I think we can all agree that having more choice is a good thing, and that having hundreds of ships to choose from would be great (see: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...naconda-no-nerfs-involved.537536/post-8300474).

I think we also all agree that FDev created different landing pad sizes as a deliberate design decision to force players to make a choice when choosing a ship suitable for the type of task(s) you are performing.

Outposts are the only starports in the game that do not have a large landing pad, and so players are required to use only small or medium sized ships if they want to perform tasks that involve outposts.

I think we all accept that there should not be any one single 'perfect' ship that can do everything better than all other ships. And I think we all agree that it makes sense that ships designed for a specific role should be better at the role they were designed for than a ship that was not specifically designed for that same role.

Hopefully we are all in agreement so far? 🤞

For the remainder of this post, I would like to focus on medium sized ships specifically and echo the OP's sentiment (though not necessarily the OP's specifics) that the Python is maybe a bit too good for it's size.

Don't get me wrong - I love the Python. If I need a medium ship that does most things really well, I'll choose the Python. If I want to take on a variety of different mission types simultaneously, I'll use the Python (or maybe the Krait MKII).

If I need to haul cargo, the Python is peerless as a medium trader having the largest cargo capacity of any medium sized ship in the game.

If I want to do dedicated exploration, then I would use dedicated medium ships that are far better at exploration like the Asp Explorer, or the Krait Phantom.

If I want to do dedicated combat, I have many dedicated medium combat ships to choose from, each with their own respective pros and cons, but all very effective combat vessels - of which the Python is one.

But when it comes to taking on a variety of different tasks without wanting to switch between dedicated ships, I'll choose the Python nearly every time because no other medium sized ship offers that kind of versatility nearly as well as the Python (except maybe the Krait MKII).

I would like to have some more medium sized ship options to choose from that can provide an equivalent level of multi-role performance as the Python (because remember: having more variety is a good thing). I am not asking for these ships to outclass the Python in every field. I am not asking for ships to made homogeneous.

I am simply asking for other medium sized multi-role options that offer fun alternatives to the Python.

I recognise that FDev has limited development capacity, and in my opinion I believe it could be easier to modify some existing large ships to become medium ships than it would to create whole new medium ships from scratch (though I am happy to be proven wrong on this assumption).

I understand some people don't want to see these ships modified - that's fine. But making them fit a medium pad wouldn't stop you from doing anything that you are already doing with them right now, and would open up more options for gameplay.

With that in mind, here are some of the large ships that are very close to being medium ships in terms of raw stats...

The Imperial Clipper

The only thing preventing the Clipper from landing on a medium sized pad is it's width. If the Clipper was adjusted to become a medium sized ship, it would not make the Python obsolete. The Python would still:
  • Have a larger internal cargo capacity.
  • Have a higher jump range.
  • Have more firepower.
  • Have a higher MLF.
  • Have a lighter hull.
  • Have a larger passenger capacity.
The Clipper would give the Python a run for it's money as a medium sized trader and multi-role ship. Even though the Clipper wouldn't be able to carry as much cargo, it can do slightly faster round trips which would make up for having to do more of them. It's price could be adjusted higher to reflect it's versatility as a medium sized ship.

Of course, if FDev chose to release a new medium sized Gutamaya ship altogether, then I would also be fine with that.

The Orca

The only thing preventing the Orca from landing on a medium pad is it's height. If the Orca was adjusted to become a medium sized ship, it would not make the Python obsolete. The Python would still:
  • Have a larger internal cargo capacity.
  • Have more firepower.
  • Be more agile.
  • Have more armour.
  • Have more shields.
  • Have a higher MLF.
  • Have a larger passenger capacity(!)
The Orca would be a great alternative to the Krait Phantom as an explorer, and would become a nice multi-role alternative to the Python.

Of course, if FDev chose to release a new medium sized Saud Kruger ship altogether, then I would also be fine with that.

The Type-7

The only thing preventing the Type-7 from landing on a medium pad is it's height. If the Type-7 was adjusted to become a medium sized ship, it would not make the Python obsolete. The Python would still:
  • Have more firepower.
  • Be more agile.
  • Be faster.
  • Have more shields.
  • Have a higher MLF.
It would make sense to me that a dedicated hauler like the Type-7 would have better cargo capacity than a multi-role ship like the Python. It sacrifices speed, firepower, agility (and, subjectively, looks) to provide that extra cargo space.

Of course, if FDev chose to release a new medium sized Lakon hauler ship altogether, then I would also be fine with that.

I hope this post helps people understand why I was asking for those changes, and maybe agree that it's fine to have differing opinions.
We all get your points. You've made them over and over. We just don't agree. It's not a matter of using more words to convince us.
 
Just need to dramatically increase the running costs for larger ships in my view. The older games like Elite II required a certain number of crew to be employed before you could even take off. Fuel should be a lot more and repairs etc.
I agree, but problem with rapair cost is that if you make them scaled with real module cost, and even after taking that 95% insurance into account cost make AFMU somehow indispensible for big ships, so in the proccess you need drastic change in cost of AFMU ammo too. Simple salution are landing fees based on ship rebuy and maybe engineering too.
 
I have a Python, and I have a Conda, of course I do. I have them for those things they are absolutely best in. The Python is the best in carrying cargo to medium pads. The Conda is the biggest toolbox that can still jump very far.

Aside from that I have 24 other ships. I have them, because they have roles they're actually better in than either Python or Conda. Python and Conda are of course popular, because they're multirole and can do everything adequately, just like the AspE, the Cobra III, the Krait II. But they are not the be all and end all ships. Most of the other ships aren't obsolete either, because they perfom one or two tasks excellently, while the Python and Conda can only do them adequately.
 
Pythons can't explore...
Huh? Not sure what I saw on DW2 then.

Python2982.19%43.5
(i'm guessing ship / number / percentage of fleet / average jump range)

The existing ships that are too large for a medium pad are literally that - the models are too big to fit in the hole they're filed into when docked. To make them fit you're going to have to redesign the model. Making new craft rather than mangling the look of an existing one seems a far more efficient use of development time.

Orca and T7 just need lower landing gear. Clipper nacelles pulled in, which an intern could probably knock out. i'd argue the other way, far easier for a quick hack job than make whole new ships, especially given we're in maintenance mode ;)

Ship sizes (ship / Length / Width / Height):
Clipper106.7103.724.8
Orca130.450.822.7
Type 781.656.125.4
Python87.958.118.0
Pad sizes:

umt173aea1ux.jpg
 
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.

Making grossly exaggerated claims and dishonest arguments are something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place. Your argument was all about how "too good" the Python was, rife with inaccurate statements and ridiculous claims.

The fact that the last two pages are you saying "where did I say that?" and having it pointed out to you over and over shows a lot about how you're pretending your argument was something else completely.
 
Having much higher maintenance and fuel costs, plus the need to employ crew members, maybe 1 for medium ships and 2+ for large ships, with rebalance of their pays would make things more even and, to be honest, more logical. Even if that means bringing the ship crew feature into base game from horizons.
 
It would seem that the consensus is that while Python and Conda might possibly be the best ships in their class in the minds of some people, they are not the best at everything, and have actual competition, especially for combat for conda and exploration for python.

However, maybe the problem and reason Conda and Python are used a lot is not because they are overpowered ships, but because others are really bad? How about the Asp Scout, Keelback, Alliance Crusader or the Federal Driftship? Or type-7? Don't really see many commanders flying these. Also, I think the crusader at least is inferior to Krait MK II in just about every way, except maybe hull strength. But even that is offset by Kraits shields which make it better in combat. It's more expensive but a few million difference in rebuy is, as the economy currently is, pretty minor. Also, the Asp Scout is basically a worse Asp Explorer, while also not costing that much less, again, economy considered.

Maybe we should focus more on the ships that no one flies instead of the ones most commanders fly?
 
I agree, but problem with rapair cost is that if you make them scaled with real module cost, and even after taking that 95% insurance into account cost make AFMU somehow indispensible for big ships, so in the proccess you need drastic change in cost of AFMU ammo too. Simple salution are landing fees based on ship rebuy and maybe engineering too.
Landing fees is a good and very realistic idea, actually. Dock tax, something. I like it.
 
Huh? Not sure what I saw on DW2 then.

Python2982.19%43.5
(i'm guessing ship / number / percentage of fleet / average jump range)



Orca and T7 just need lower landing gear. Clipper nacelles pulled in, which an intern could probably knock out. i'd argue the other way, far easier for a quick hack job than make whole new ships, especially given we're in maintenance mode ;)

Ship sizes (ship / Length / Width / Height):
Clipper106.7103.724.8
Orca130.450.822.7
Type 781.656.125.4
Python87.958.118.0
Pad sizes:

umt173aea1ux.jpg
No
 
Huh? Not sure what I saw on DW2 then.

Python2982.19%43.5
(i'm guessing ship / number / percentage of fleet / average jump range)

With enough engineering, anything can jump some distance. Doesn't mean a craft is suited to it, however.
 
Making grossly exaggerated claims and dishonest arguments are something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place. Your argument was all about how "too good" the Python was, rife with inaccurate statements and ridiculous claims.

The fact that the last two pages are you saying "where did I say that?" and having it pointed out to you over and over shows a lot about how you're pretending your argument was something else completely.
Thankfully for both of us I have already addressed all your points in https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...naconda-no-nerfs-involved.537536/post-8300872
 
Back
Top Bottom