Ships you want to see in Elite: Dangerous?

[Aewarin Jameson]

Call me hardcore but I think we should be made to start in an interplanetary shuttle or a Lifter... and a second hand one at that. Otherwise definately no point in having them in game & flyable.

You're wanting me to stand in that hut aren't you .. I bet you and geraldine have been talking

Actually I like this idea - the opening premise of Elite was "Take a ship and 100 credits to make money legally or illegally - trade, bounty-hunt, pirate, assassinate your way across the galaxy" - now we weren't told what kind of ship, and I know DB wants to keep people localised to ensure they meet each other, so perhaps a shuttle kind of thing with limited jump capabilities; all the planets around the start area are close by, but to leave the start area you have to upgrade to a ship with warp capabilities. (Hopefully you get what I mean)

 

[Steve O B Have]

You're wanting me to stand in that hut aren't you .. I bet you and geraldine have been talking

Actually I like this idea - the opening premise of Elite was "Take a ship and 100 credits to make money legally or illegally - trade, bounty-hunt, pirate, assassinate your way across the galaxy" - now we weren't told what kind of ship, and I know DB wants to keep people localised to ensure they meet each other, so perhaps a shuttle kind of thing with limited jump capabilities; all the planets around the start area are close by, but to leave the start area you have to upgrade to a ship with warp capabilities. (Hopefully you get what I mean)

That's properly hardcore - of course it would require a inner-system variable economy or ferry/taxi missions from planets to stations. Could make for some really cool life stories though. I really like it as an idea also.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I was under the impression that Liqua wanted a frame where you could mix and match and put whatever you wanted into it, whereas more expensive frames would allow for more power for power requirements and various small tweaks for different roles.

Again, not familiar with FE/FE2 but the way I imagined it was:

- Each ship has a set mass that affects inertial. (Turning circles that kind of thing)
- Each ship has a fixed number of hard points (number of weapons you can mount)
- Each ship has an amount of "space" that you can consume and use how you please
- Each component has a unit of space consumed and power requirements
- Engines provide power, use up space, and any spare power is used for propulsion

You couldn't then turn a hauler (big cargo carrier) into a ship of death by mounting 100 military lasers in it; but if the hauler had say 4 mount points you could build it with 4 military lasers and use the rest of the cargo hold for a huge engine; multiple shield generators; mine layer; etc; etc ... the skin is not changable (which affects cargo hold; mount points; and types of equipment it can accept) but everything else goes.

In Gran Turismo for example I could fine tune the starting car (I chose a Mazda MX5); add various engine parts and what have you; tweak the engine specific for each race track, but not matter what I did to it I could not fix a 3rd stage turbo to the engine (as the car was limited to either Stage I or II) - to go faster I had to upgrade the car.

In a similar sense each ship should have it's strengths and weaknesses ....

 

[Mika]

Excuse me? I like how you conveniently forgot missiles, fuel scoop compatibility, gun mountings, hyperdrive ranges, and crew capacity.

Sounds like we played a different game. In the E2/E3 i played, i could buy as many missiles as my cargocap cap can hold, fuel scoop was just an item taking up cargospace, guns were just items taking up cargospace, hyperdrive ranges - okay, those depended on ship mass, crew? Just an annoyance forced upon you for higher cargo/hull capacity.

So yeah, just empty "frames" (with two drawbacks for heavier frames: crew and jump/fuel range).

I was under the impression that Liqua wanted a frame where you could mix and match and put whatever you wanted into it, whereas more expensive frames would allow for more power for power requirements and various small tweaks for different roles.

That is what the E2/E3 i played was like. The only downside to larger hulls, was jumprange/fuelefficiency/crewreqs.... heck, i think if one wanted to, one could even make all those things just a function of hullmass.

Everything else, was just: Design your ideal ship, regardless of the hull's supposed "role".

The FE2/FFE ships are geared torwards a specific role, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change a ship's role beyond a few exceptions.

I give up, we HAVE played a completely different game.

Since just this annoyed me about E2/E3 a lot, please tell me which version had this: I've played the amiga, PC, and JFFE versions.... which version did i miss?

 

[OneoftheLost]

I deleted my response, as it felt a bit rude and rushed.

That being said, I am done with this conversation, so please don't wait on a response.

 

[Mika]

Hmm, sorry, if this kind of E2/E3 existed, i'd really would have liked to play it, because it would take out one of the things i liked less about it.

 

[Steve O B Have]

Hmm, sorry, if this kind of E2/E3 existed, i'd really would have liked to play it, because it would take out one of the things i liked less about it.

I just fired up FFE and tried to buy more missiles than I had hard points - wouldn't let me so I guess 'this kind of E2/E3' exists.
You have an oddly confrontational way of 'discussing' subjects. This isn't a forum where we argue to 'win at the internet' we're here to share an enjoyment of the game, offer ideas, feel free to disagree but ultimately to mutually respect that not only do we all have our own opinions but we also have the common right to openly voice them.

Most of us have been playing these games since we were knee high to a grasshopper (well I was - played Elite since I was 5 years old) so we don't typically make stuff up. If you find something that you think is incorrect or that you don't agree with then by all means pipe up but don't get offended when someone has a differing opinion - that's the way of public forums.

As an aside, Oneofthelost is quite right in that the ships all had limiting factors in what you could fit and it wasn't based purely on a 'frame' at all. There were also ships (Imperial Trader and Courier) that had limits on the type of engine you could put in them - i.e. you couldn't replace them unless you allowed it to fail. So again it wasn't just a frame at all.

 

[Mika]

Accepted.

Do you have any other "proofs" than a hardlimit on missiles, and appeal to "acting nice" (you know, for someone supposedly being a technician, you really like using logical fallacies in discussions, don't you? But since you asked: Yes, i do have a "confrontational" attitude to discussion.... i do however tend to back it with sound arguments, and often infobits that allow the individual/community to significantly improve, if it can deal with "being proven wrong".

Since you appear to like "references" and "authority" so much, how about this (one example out of very many): Without me, ogg vorbis still would sound like **** at high freqs (9-12khz range). I was the one, who first reported and via ABX-tests verified the reproducable behaviour, which around 2005 made ogg vorbis artificially sound "better than the original". Just one example, happy to provide more if you're so hot on social -waving and "social approval" as opposed to logic and maths).

 

[Steve O B Have]

Accepted.

Do you have any other "proofs" than a hardlimit on missiles, and appeal to "acting nice" (you know, for someone supposedly being a technician, you really like using logical fallacies in discussions, don't you? But since you asked: Yes, i do have a "confrontational" attitude to discussion.... i do however tend to back it with sound arguments, and often infobits that allow the individual/community to significantly improve, if it can deal with "being proven wrong".

Since you appear to like "references" and "authority" so much, how about this (one example out of very many): Without me, ogg vorbis still would sound like **** at high freqs (9-12khz range). I was the one, who first reported and via ABX-tests verified the reproducable behaviour, which around 2005 made ogg vorbis artificially sound "better than the original". Just one example, happy to provide more if you're so hot on social -waving and "social approval" as opposed to logic and maths).

Wow you're actually quite offensive aren't you. Who's socially willy-waving? All I'm suggesting is that this has, up until this point, been a friendly and respectful forum. You have the dubious honor of being one of the very few that has set out to be deliberately offensive and to take offence at anyone that disagrees with you.

I have no idea what these 'logical fallacies' are that you refer to, please feel free to point them out but surely if they existed you'd have challenged them at the time? With all due respect I've also yet to see you present a sound argument, it's always been more forceful and condescending opinions like your inference that I don't even possess a BASIC understanding of networking (that fell on its face didn't it...).

I can see why Oneofthelost bowed out of discussion with you, discussion with someone unable to either accept that they're wrong or able to gracefully agree to disagree is not discussion at all. Like him I will leave it at that. I don't foresee this discussion having a useful conclusion since you will just see offence at every point that someone has a differing opinion.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Who's socially willy-waving?

I have never heard that expression before (heard similar) but it's one I have to adopt

 

[Mika]

Mr. "I'm a pro, but actually i'm just good at rethorics":

Here is a challenge: If i prove your implications completly wrong, in the E2/E3 universe, by cold hard data and stats - will you agree to politely excuse yourself, or will you continue to argue in the style "f*** truth and logic, you do not phrase yourself in a nice way, therefore that overules truth"?

I mean this seriously, i will do it if you agree

 

[Steve O B Have]

Mr. "I'm a pro, but actually i'm just good at rethorics":

Here is a challenge: If i prove your implications completly wrong, in the E2/E3 universe, by cold hard data and stats - will you agree to politely excuse yourself, or will you continue to argue in the style "f*** truth and logic, you do not phrase yourself in a nice way, therefore that overules truth"?

I mean this seriously, i will do it if you agree

Very well - so what you have to prove is this:

1. That the ships in Frontier (and I mean all the ships) are based purely on a frame basis that accepts any configuration as long as it fits within the cargo constraints defined within the game (in all versions of the game).

2. That you can buy as many rockets as you like in ANY version of Frontier/Elite regardless of the number of hardpoints available.

Off you go - find me the cold hard facts that entirely refute these points (since these are the only ones that I have supported in this discussion so far). And again I have not once said that your inability to carry reasonable and respectful conversation negates the validity of your arguments, only that it makes continuing the discussion with you so unpleasant as to not bother trying to filter through the vitriol to find the 'facts' as you present them.

Edit: and again I will point out that you are the only one reducing the 'discussion' to a 'mines bigger than yours' level and as for my rhetoric, well telling me that I use well constructed sentences and am respectful in the forum context, it's hardly a bad thing is it?

 

[Mika]

Very well - so what you have to prove is this:

1. That the ships in Frontier (and I mean all the ships) are based purely on a frame basis that accepts any configuration as long as it fits within the cargo constraints defined within the game (in all versions of the game).

No, i do not have to prove this ***100%*** to prove my point. Something like 90% would be sufficient to make E2/E3 ships for gamplay purposes mostly lack any identity.

2. That you can buy as many rockets as you like in ANY version of Frontier/Elite regardless of the number of hardpoints available.

No, i already in a previous post granted this possible argument to you (though, just out of TRUST. It may very well be more "static" than you implied). Why are you bringing this up again, despite of my previous post?

Off you go - find me the cold hard facts that entirely refute these points (since these are the only ones that I have supported in this discussion so far).

Will do, if you still agree to the terms, as clarified in this post.

And again I have not once said that your inability to carry reasonable and respectful conversation negates the validity of your arguments

Right, because truth becomes notruth, just because of HOW you state it - MR INCOMPETENT TECHNICIAN.

Still up for an empirical and logical fight, mr sophist?

 

[Steve O B Have]

No, i do not have to prove this ***100%*** to prove my point. Something like 90% would be sufficient to make E2/E3 ships for gamplay purposes mostly lack any identity.

Oh so we're gunning for a 'I have 90% proof but there is still 10% chance that I'm wrong' approach. I don't think so. You clearly stated that you have proof that I am wrong, not that I am kind of wrong or partially wrong. If you can't present irrefutable facts then they aren't facts are they?

No, i already in a previous post granted this possible argument to you (though, just out of TRUST. It may very well be more "static" than you implied). Why are you bringing this up again, despite of my previous post?

There you go - you don't need to 'Trust' me at all - this is what a fact looks like.

Will do, if you still agree to the terms, as clarified in this post.


Right, because truth becomes notruth, just because of HOW you state it - MR INCOMPENTENT TECHNICIAN.

Still up for an empirical and logical fight, mr sophist?

Truth is not how I state it, it's how the proof states it (100% proven not partially true or probably true). So no I do not accept a 'I'll prove it to 90% certainty' as a basis. And now I am an Incompetent technician that uses sophistry to carry an argument? Oh the irony coming from someone that just attempted to set the goal posts on proof at 90% accurate? That's like walking into the Lottery shop and stating that you've won division 1 but I only have 4 out of 5 of the numbers, you'll have to take the 5th one on faith... because I said so... I don't think you understand what an empirical and logical fight is...

 

[Mika]

What Mika offered:

- 90% equipment tonnage can be freely customized by the user
- Number of missiles may perhaps be ship dependant.

What Mr Sophist cop-outed with:
- 90% arbitrary customazability still gives ships a clear role and identity
- Variable num of missiles gives ships a clear role and identity

< INSERT AUDIENCE LAUGHTER HERE >

Please excuse me, while i myself laugh my ass off, blowhard!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

 

[Maliker]

 

[Steve O B Have]

What Mika offered:

- 90% equipment tonnage can be freely customized by the user
- Number of missiles may perhaps be ship dependant.

What Mr Sophist cop-outed with:
- 90% arbitrary customazability still gives ships a clear role and identity
- Variable num of missiles gives ships a clear role and identity

< INSERT AUDIENCE LAUGHTER HERE >

Please excuse me, while i myself laugh my ass off, blowhard!

At what point did I discuss anything about roles and identity? You've put those words into my mouth. Not a single time have I refuted or attempted to support anything to do with roles and identity. Again I'm not the one changing the goal posts here. I think you may find yourself laughing alone.

 

[Mika]

You replied to MY argument, and then AFTER THE FACT made it look like, as if your new argument, were to debunk MY argument.

This is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

But more importantly, it in one of your typical ways of argumentation, intentionally ignores the point, and instead tries to imply truth with nothing more than sophism (aka: intentional misinformation - aka lying). It doesn't matter if you only did it as a "rethorical sports game", as so many people like to do it. If this were a forum mainly addressing rethorical sports games, it would be fine. But from what i know, thats not what this forum is about. So what you did, was using lies as a means of winning a stupid internet argument.

 

[Steve O B Have]

You replied to MY argument, and then AFTER THE FACT made it look like, as if your new argument, were to debunk MY argument.

This is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

But more importantly, it in one of your typical ways of argumentation, intentionally ignores the point, and instead tries to imply truth with nothing more than sophism (aka: intentional misinformation - aka lying). It doesn't matter if you only did it as a "rethorical sports game", as so many people like to do it. If this were a forum mainly addressing rethorical sports games, it would be fine. But from what i know, thats not what this forum is about. So what you did, was using lies as a means of winning a stupid internet argument.

Yeah I think that there is nothing else to say on this - anyone is welcome to go back and read what I have said word for word and are quite able to judge for themselves if there are any lies or misinformation present. I'm done carrying a 'debate' that has only earned me insults and spurious accusations especially where I don't believe that I deserve it.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Actually - nevermind.