[suggestion] Asp Explorer Mk II

[NW3]

Imo, the Asp Explorer should have a larger jump-range than the Anaconda, which is supposed to be a general-purpose ship. I'd like an Asp Explorer Mk II, with a larger FSD, larger fuel tank, and replace 1 of the size 2 cargo slots with 3 size 1 slots. There's absolutely no reason to not have some size 1 slots on an explorer ship, when all the scanning modules (and docking computer) only need a size 1 slot. Keep the iconic shape and the bubble cockpit canopy; just make the ship a bit larger to hold the larger modules. It should still be a "medium" size ship. Why the larger FSD? Basically, I would like to be able to skip through all the "found" stars near the bubble and get to interesting areas more quickly.

Also, I'd like to see the "computer rack" idea implemented (as described elsewhere in the Suggestions).

Why a docking computer? Because after spending months out exploring, I don't want to worry about docking, I just want to get home.

 

[Bazziegamer]

I think its fair that a 140 million credit ship should have a better jumprange than a 6.6 million credit ship. Idk why, maybe it has something to do with the 133.4 million credit defference.

 

[DeathStroke]

I think its fair that a 140 million credit ship should have a better jumprange than a 6.6 million credit ship. Idk why, maybe it has something to do with the 133.4 million credit defference.

I concur, the only people who don't think it's fair can't afford an Anaconda.

 

[Bazziegamer]

Imo, the Asp Explorer should have a larger jump-range than the Anaconda, which is supposed to be a general-purpose ship. I'd like an Asp Explorer Mk II, with a larger FSD, larger fuel tank, and replace 1 of the size 2 cargo slots with 3 size 1 slots. There's absolutely no reason to not have some size 1 slots on an explorer ship, when all the scanning modules (and docking computer) only need a size 1 slot. Keep the iconic shape and the bubble cockpit canopy; just make the ship a bit larger to hold the larger modules. It should still be a "medium" size ship. Basically, I would like to be able to skip through all the "found" stars near the bubble and get to interesting areas more quickly.

Also, I'd like to see the "computer rack" idea implemented (as described elsewhere in the Suggestions).

Why a docking computer? Because after spending months out exploring, I don't want to worry about docking, I just want to get home.

To be fair i get where you are coming from. The ASP is an exploration ship, it should have a high jumprange. But there are 2 problems imo.

1. This is going off the wiki. But the ASP explorer is classified as a multipurpose. So is the Anaconda, a (heavy) multipurpose ship. And since the conda is a tad more expensive it should outperform the asp.

2. If you are going to classify the ASP as an exploration ship and not a multipurpose (which i completely understand if you do), you get the same problem. A viper mk 3 will most likely be destroyed by a python. Even though the viper is a combat ship and the python is a multipurpose. But the python is just better because its a bigger, badder, more expensive ship.

 

[NW3]

I didn't realize the AspX was considered a general purpose ship. Still, it has "explorer" in the name, so imo, it should be better that a plain Anaconda. If FD introduced an Anaconda Explorer, I would agree with you.

I think its fair that a 140 million credit ship should have a better jumprange than a 6.6 million credit ship. Idk why, maybe it has something to do with the 133.4 million credit defference.

I never mentioned price. Size 6 FSDs are way more expensive than size 5s, so I would expect an AspX Mk II to be noticeably more expensive that the original AspX. An Anaconda can carry more cargo (and it's a large ship), so that's part of why it should be more expensive.

I concur, the only people who don't think it's fair can't afford an Anaconda.

Not true. I can afford an Anaconda, several actually. I don't own one because I hate it. The cockpit view is terrible, compared to the Lakon "fishbowl". When I'm exploring, I want to SEE stuff; I don't want my view blocked. Compared to an Asp, the Anaconda is sluggish and it can't land at outposts. The outer reaches of the bubble are sparsely populated and I sell my exploration data at the first station I find, which is usually an outpost. Why? Because I don't want to risk many millions of exploration credits.

 

[Allchemyst]

I concur, the only people who don't think it's fair can't afford an Anaconda.

Commander R. Daneel Oliver, Admiral-King, triple-elite member of the Pilots' Federation and owner of nearly every ship in game, including fully A-rated and fully engineered 'Conda, 'Vette and Cutter, along with a big wallet, reporting for duty...

Besides the fact that I had way too much free time in the past two years, As someone who owns and has had the chance to use and compare nearly every single ship in game, my verdict is simple :

The Anaconda is riddiculously overpowered in all aspects. The other 2, vette and Cutter, just toss themselves aside because of how violently not worth the grind they are.

It's the best trader because of it's tonnage/jump range/defensive abilities - and because you don't need to bother with naval ranking.

It's the best combat huge ship because its actual combat efficiency is about 95% of that of a Corvette - and actually, the Corvette only turns out to be better against large, hardened targets, while the Conda's weapon placement makes it much better against the more prevalent smaller and more manoeverable vessels - while not demanding any kind of naval ranking.

It's the best miner and the best prospector because of how much mining equipment/tonnage/protection/jump range/weapon emplacements it has.

It's the best explorer because of its jump range, its ability to carry everything you need - and still retain massive jump ranges.

It's the best passenger ship - Yes you heard that right, because of how many passengers it can carry, its jump range, and because luxury cabins are useless (See reasoning Here : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...are-pointless-right-now?p=5404514#post5404514).


You see, the Anaconda is supposed to be a Multi-purpose ship, implying it's a jack-of-all-trades, master of none. The problem is that it is empirically better and more practical at nearly every role than any other ship in the game. This ship is completely out of whack!

It's a jack-of-all-trades, master of everything. The only reason I don't use an anaconda all the time is that I ground my way to the other 2 ships... And because I like to have different ships for every role...

In my opinion, the OP is totally right.

In fact, I think the Type-9 should get additional dedicated trading slots to bring its tonnage above that of the Cutter, I think the Asp's and the DBX's jump range should both be superior to the Anaconda's, I think that the Corvette's 2 size 1 weapons should be made into size 2s, I think the Beluga's weight should be significantly decreased (not by an infinitesimal and meaningless margin like last time, but by a lot), and that its Mass lock factor should be smashed through the roof up where it belongs with all other large ships, instead of being stuck at 18 like a bloody Python.

*calms down"

People who criticize the Anaconda aren't empoverished crybabies ; they are evaluating the situation correctly. From where I stand, it's the rich selfish people who want wallet size to dictate everything in the game...

 

[NW3]

You see, the Anaconda is supposed to be a Multi-purpose ship, implying it's a jack-of-all-trades, master of none. The problem is that it is empirically better and more practical at nearly every role than any other ship in the game. This ship is completely out of whack!

It's a jack-of-all-trades, master of everything. The only reason I don't use an anaconda all the time is that I ground my way to the other 2 ships... And because I like to have different ships for every role...

In my opinion, the OP is totally right.

In fact, I think the Type-9 should get additional dedicated trading slots to bring its tonnage above that of the Cutter, I think the Asp's and the DBX's jump range should both be superior to the Anaconda's, I think that the Corvette's 2 size 1 weapons should be made into size 2s, I think the Beluga's weight should be significantly decreased (not by an infinitesimal and meaningless margin like last time, but by a lot), and that its Mass lock factor should be smashed through the roof up where it belongs with all other large ships, instead of being stuck at 18 like a bloody Python.

I agree. Rep++

I'd be happy if FD did a rebalancing pass on all the ships. Players would scream bloody murder if the Anaconda was nerfed, to bring it more in line with the other ships. The only reasonable choice is to tweak the other ships, so that players have a reason to use a specialized ship. My only large ship is a Type-9; I'd love to see it buffed too. It's a large trading ship; it should be better at trading than the jack-of-all-trades.

 

[Chrystoph]

There is NO reasonable choice in the current design philosophy. As was pointed out above, it follows a gaming challenge progression, not anything to do with reasonable mechanics; literally, more expensive, therefore better at everything.

It is contrived tripe based on "game balance" and model design in a game that should be following a consistent model based on science.

 

[DeathStroke]

I don't own one because I hate it.

So you want the asp to be better than the anaconda simply because you hate the anaconda? Okay, then I want an Eagle explorer with a size 6 FSD, along with a super sidewinder with 14 huge hardpoints.

I sell my exploration data at the first station I find

And for 1, 2 max, more jumps you can land at an actual starport with a L pad.

 

[CMDR Yates]

I'd like to see the combat variant of the Asp that's actually mentioned in the AspX description. I'd expect it would have somewhat less jump range and manoeuvrability but with a large hardpoint or two and an SLF bay, and be much more expensive. Something along the lines of a less-tough Federal Gunship but with a longer range and not rank locked.

 

[NW3]

So you want the asp to be better than the anaconda simply because you hate the anaconda? Okay, then I want an Eagle explorer with a size 6 FSD, along with a super sidewinder with 14 huge hardpoints.

No, I think that an Asp "Explorer" should be better at exploration than a general-purpose ship, like the Anaconda.

Please note that I'm asking for a new ship variation, not changing the existing Asp. These aren't unreasonable changes; I'm suggesting increasing the engine size by 1 and replacing a size 2 cargo slot with 3 size 1 slots. The proposed AspX Mk II would be a somewhat larger ship, which would be quite a bit more expensive.

Fwiw, an Eagle Explorer would be cool too, especially for the "Small Ships Expedition". More ships is good. I wouldn't mind a combat Asp variant either. There should be reasons to fly ships other than the Anaconda.

As Allchemyst said earlier: "You see, the Anaconda is supposed to be a Multi-purpose ship, implying it's a jack-of-all-trades, master of none. The problem is that it is empirically better and more practical at nearly every role than any other ship in the game. This ship is completely out of whack!

It's a jack-of-all-trades, master of everything."

Since we all know that the Anaconda will never be nerfed, the only solution is to buff some of the other ships, to provide some balance to the game.