[Suggestion] Some new ship configuration ideas

As we are still missing some classic Elite ship models, I thought I'd suggest their potential base configurations:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gecko [Small | Fast Multipurpose | Hull tank | Zorgon Peterson]

Price : 3,500,000cr

Approx top boost speed (fully outfitted with engineering): 620 m/s
Agility rating : 8
Mass lock factor : 9
Jump range : Medium
Hull Hardness : 50

Hard-points : x 4
2 x Small
1 x Medium
1 x Large

Utility slots : x 3

Core Internals
C4 Powerplant
C4 Thrusters
C4 Frameshift Drive
C3 Life Support
C4 Power distributor
C4 Sensors
C4 Fuel tank

Optional Internals (Unrestricted)
1 x C5
2 x C4
2 x C3
1 x C2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mamba [Medium | Fast Multipurpose | Shield tank | Faulcon DeLacy]

Price : 27,500,000cr

Approx top boost speed (fully outfitted with engineering): 600 m/s
Agility rating : 6
Mass lock factor : 12
Jump range : Medium
Hull Hardness : 55

Hard-points : x 5
3 x Medium
2 x Large

Utility slots : x 4

Core Internals
C5 Powerplant
C6 Thrusters
C4 Frameshift Drive
C4 Life Support
C6 Power distributor
C4 Sensors
C5 Fuel tank

Optional Internals (Unrestricted)
1 x C6
3 x C5
2 x C4
2 x C3
1 x C2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boa [Large | Large Multipurpose | Shield tank | Zorgon Peterson]

Price : 105,000,000cr

Approx top boost speed (fully outfitted with engineering): 480 m/s
Agility rating : 4
Mass lock factor : 20
Jump range : Medium
Hull Hardness : 65

Hard-points : x 6
2 x Medium
3 x Large
1 x Huge

Utility slots : x 6

Fighter Bay

Core Internals
C7 Powerplant
C7 Thrusters
C6 Frameshift Drive
C5 Life Support
C7 Power distributor
C6 Sensors
C5 Fuel tank

Optional Internals (Unrestricted)
1 x C7
2 x C6
2 x C5
2 x C4
2 x C3
2 x C2

Military Internals (Restricted)
1 x C4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copperhead [Large | Premium Exploration | Shield tank | Lakon]

Price : 67,000,000cr

Approx top boost speed (fully outfitted with engineering): 480 m/s
Agility rating : 5
Mass lock factor : 16
Jump range : Extreme
Hull Hardness : 55

Hard-points : x 6
3 x Small
2 x Medium
1 x Large

Utility slots : x 5

Fighter Bay

Core Internals
C7 Powerplant
C6 Thrusters
C8 Frameshift Drive
C6 Life Support
C5 Power distributor
C6 Sensors
C6 Fuel tank

Optional Internals (Unrestricted)
1 x C7
1 x C6
1 x C5
2 x C4
2 x C3
2 x C2
2 x C1
 
Last edited:
At first glance, the Gecko seems fine. However, once you compare it to the Asp Scout, you should probably question why you would ever use the Asp Scout instead of the Gecko. The Gecko would have more firepower, more cargo space, a higher mass lock, and likely have more combined shield/hull strength. The 2 main drawbacks of the Asp Scout (the large size and the low speed) would not be present in the Gecko. The only 2 advantages that the Asp Scout would have over the Gecko are maneuverability and jump range, but it would not have enough of an advantage to make up for everything else. As such, I' going to say that something like the Gecko (in its proposed form) should not be added to the game until the Asp Scout gets a substantial buff.

The Mamba looks like the Imperial Clipper and the Python had a child, and that child somehow ended up with smaller everything than both of its parents. It will probably have power issues due to its small power plant, probably have a low jump range unless the hull mass is ridiculously low (which would give it ridiculously high jump range when fully stripped), and will probably struggle to get the desired 600 m/s boost with a combat fit. That being said, I really like the idea behind your suggestion. I would say that the best way to make balance this ship would be to increase the size of the power plant, thrusters, and FSD by 1, and then giving it 350-400T hull. Doing that largely fix the power issues, give a better mass profile for the thrusters, and give a consistent "medium" jump range.

The Boa seems perfectly fine to me. Before you made your suggestion, I theorycrafted my own interpretation of the Boa. There are a few differences between the 2 configurations (slightly different hardpoints, slightly different optional internals, slight difference purchase price, etc...), but overall they are very similar. I should probably post my configuration somewhere for comparison Thread with my Boa concept can be found here (contains link to this thread).

I can't see anything too obviously wrong with the Copperhead. I am however questioning why there is a military slot present, and whether or not that slot should actually be an unlocked slot. The only other thing I'm looking at here is if perhaps a size 7 FSD would be more practical than a size 8. Currently, there is no ship in the game that can use a size 8 FSD, so I cannot say whether or not the given size of fuel tank is large enough (I would expect to have at least 4-5 jumps worth of fuel on an exploration ship). However, we do have ships with size 7 FSDs, meaning that we have all of the information we need to be able to figure out the jump capabilities of a ship with a size 7 FSD. Based on the configuration you provided, a ~700T hull with a szie 7 FSD will provide similar jump capabilities to that of the Anaconda, while also getting an additional max range jump out of the fuel tank. A hull mass under ~700T should be more than enough to give the copperhead the best jump range in the game with a size 7 FSD.
 
Last edited:
I think you should keep both topics together. rename the topics to Classic ship ideas. You could have a friendly debate on why your idea better or not and people could post their ideas.

Don't forget to Add Cobra MK1.
 
Thanks for the feedback.

At first glance, the Gecko seems fine. However, once you compare it to the Asp Scout, you should probably question why you would ever use the Asp Scout instead of the Gecko. The Gecko would have more firepower, more cargo space, a higher mass lock, and likely have more combined shield/hull strength. The 2 main drawbacks of the Asp Scout (the large size and the low speed) would not be present in the Gecko. The only 2 advantages that the Asp Scout would have over the Gecko are maneuverability and jump range, but it would not have enough of an advantage to make up for everything else. As such, I' going to say that something like the Gecko (in its proposed form) should not be added to the game until the Asp Scout gets a substantial buff.
Yeah the Asp Scout is a pretty terrible ship that should not have been added IMO.. If it were made into a fast ship it might be worth using as an upgrade from the Cobra III. IMO if it were much faster it would still be a viable alternative to this Gecko suggestion based on its jump range and price (nearly half). Afterall, if you're a novice explorer for example you would be far more likely to choose the Asp Scout over the Gecko.

The Mamba looks like the Imperial Clipper and the Python had a child, and that child somehow ended up with smaller everything than both of its parents. It will probably have power issues due to its small power plant, probably have a low jump range unless the hull mass is ridiculously low (which would give it ridiculously high jump range when fully stripped), and will probably struggle to get the desired 600 m/s boost with a combat fit. That being said, I really like the idea behind your suggestion. I would say that the best way to make balance this ship would be to increase the size of the power plant, thrusters, and FSD by 1, and then giving it 350-400T hull. Doing that largely fix the power issues, give a better mass profile for the thrusters, and give a consistent "medium" jump range.
The smaller internals and powerplant are deliberate.. if it had equal or more than the Python or iClipper it would eclipse them both easily. I've tried to balance it vs the Clipper by giving it better weapons (also better weapon placing) but less internals and lower top speed. Balance against the Python/Krait would be less internals, firepower, armour and masslock, but a much higher top speed, better agility and a much lower purchase price.
Powerplant is more inline with the early FDL size 5 as that could run all its weapons and 6 utilities on a size 5 (with some management), even before engineering came along. So I think a size 5 would be sufficient, also a Size 6 would be too massive for the light, fast moving Mamba.

The Boa seems perfectly fine to me. Before you made your suggestion, I theorycrafted my own interpretation of the Boa. There are a few differences between the 2 configurations (slightly different hardpoints, slightly different optional internals, slight difference purchase price, etc...), but overall they are very similar. I should probably post my configuration somewhere for comparison Thread with my Boa concept can be found here (contains link to this thread).
Ah yes, very similar.. One thing I might suggest about your version is that 4 x C6 internals might be slightly OP due to the ability to stack shield cell banks. Hence why I went with 1x C7 (for the shield gen) and then 2x C6. Then C5 & C4 slots can be used for HRPs, MRPs, secondary Cell banks etc.

I did forget to add the fighter bay though.. I will add that to mine.

I can't see anything too obviously wrong with the Copperhead. I am however questioning why there is a military slot present, and whether or not that slot should actually be an unlocked slot. The only other thing I'm looking at here is if perhaps a size 7 FSD would be more practical than a size 8. Currently, there is no ship in the game that can use a size 8 FSD, so I cannot say whether or not the given size of fuel tank is large enough (I would expect to have at least 4-5 jumps worth of fuel on an exploration ship). However, we do have ships with size 7 FSDs, meaning that we have all of the information we need to be able to figure out the jump capabilities of a ship with a size 7 FSD. Based on the configuration you provided, a ~700T hull with a szie 7 FSD will provide similar jump capabilities to that of the Anaconda, while also getting an additional max range jump out of the fuel tank. A hull mass under ~700T should be more than enough to give the copperhead the best jump range in the game with a size 7 FSD.
You're probably right about the military slot.. I will convert that into a normal module.

I've also added a fighter bay as all the top-level ships of each class have them - and added an extra size 5 slot giving the ship a 5, 6 & 7 for various potential shield, fuel scoop and fighter bay configurations.

My thinking on the size 8 FSD is that it would be unique to the Copperhead making it the ultimate exploration ship (basically an FSD drive with a hull attached to it) - it would also have to be significantly better than a stripped down Explorerconda to make it feel specialised. I'm not sure what sort of numbers it would produce but I think it would make it appealing to explorers if they could jump 100ly+ at a time.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget to Add Cobra MK1.
I'm not sure if we need any more Cobras to be honest.. A Cobra Mk I would likely be inferior to the current ones if it followed lore. The only possible reason to include it is nostalgia, and on it's own I dont think that is a good enough reason to add it. The ships outlined in my OP fill gaps in the current lineup (price, size, performance, specialisation etc).
 
I'm not sure if we need any more Cobras.. A Cobra Mk I would likely be inferior to the current ones if it followed lore. The only possible reason to include it is nostalgia, and I'm not sure that is a wise option.
I don't think it going to matter if it inferior of the current ones. But more on the line of the classic aspect of having one. Like owning a rare Classic Car feeling.

We also have to look at your current list. How old are some of those ships vs the newer ships we currently have today?

I've got a copy of the ship profile poster somewhere.
I do have the Book. I just have to find it.
 
I don't think it going to matter if it inferior of the current ones. But more on the line of the classic aspect of having one. Like owning a rare Classic Car feeling.

We also have to look at your current list. How old are some of those ships vs the newer ships we currently have today?

I do have the Book. I just have to find it.
:D

I have the Frontier book to hand (and FE somewhere) if you wanna ask anything I'll gladly post or PM the info.
 
Yeah the Asp Scout is a pretty terrible ship that should not have been added IMO.. If it were made into a fast ship it might be worth using as an upgrade from the Cobra III. IMO if it were much faster it would still be a viable alternative to this Gecko suggestion based on its jump range and price (nearly half). Afterall, if you're a novice explorer for example you would be far more likely to choose the Asp Scout over the Gecko.
If the Asp Scout cost half of what it currently does (~3.9M CR) and had a higher base/boost speed (and possibly a third utility mount), I agree that it would probably be balanced in comparison with the Gecko. Unfortunately, that Asp Scout does not have any of these things, meaning that the Gecko would make it almost completely pointless outside of a few niche roles where you might need a bit of extra jump range.

The smaller internals and powerplant are deliberate.. if it had equal or more than the Python or iClipper it would eclipse them both easily. I've tried to balance it vs the Clipper by giving it better weapons (also better weapon placing) but less internals and lower top speed. Balance against the Python/Krait would be less internals, firepower, armour and masslock, but a much higher top speed, better agility and a much lower purchase price.
Powerplant is more inline with the early FDL size 5 as that could run all its weapons and 6 utilities on a size 5 (with some management), even before engineering came along. So I think a size 5 would be sufficient, also a Size 6 would be too massive for the light, fast moving Mamba.
So, a combat focused Clipper with power constraints similar to the Vulture? I can definitely get on board with that. You still might want to give it a size 5 FSD and a bit more hull mass unless you want it to have FDL jump range though.

Ah yes, very similar.. One thing I might suggest about your version is that 4 x C6 internals might be slightly OP due to the ability to stack shield cell banks. Hence why I went with 1x C7 (for the shield gen) and then 2x C6. Then C5 & C4 slots can be used for HRPs, MRPs, secondary Cell banks etc.

I did forget to add the fighter bay though.. I will add that to mine.
I did not think about that. I'll have to reconsider how to divide up the size 6/7 slots, and possibly make a slight reduction to base shield strength to compensate.

You're probably right about the military slot.. I will convert that into a normal module.

I've also added a fighter bay as all the top-level ships of each class have them - and added an extra size 5 slot giving the ship a 5, 6 & 7 for various potential shield, fuel scoop and fighter bay configurations.

My thinking on the size 8 FSD is that it would be unique to the Copperhead making it the ultimate exploration ship (basically an FSD drive with a hull attached to it) - it would also have to be significantly better than a stripped down Explorerconda to make it feel specialised. I'm not sure what sort of numbers it would produce but I think it would make it appealing to explorers if they could jump 100ly+ at a time.
That's certainly a valid approach. Unfortunately, I think that the only ones who know what the stats on a size 8 FSD would be are FDev, and I don't think they would share them unless they were going to release a ship that could use a size 8 FSD. However, If you are going to bill the Copperhead as the 'best in class explorer' with a size 8 FSD, you may want to consider increasing the price of the ship.

As for being specialized, I agree that it would probably need to be better than an exploraconda with a similar build, but I don't think it would need to be that much better. 100+ LY fully kitted seems a bit overkill to me when the current maximum range of the 'conda is around 84LY fully stripped and 80LY with a minimal exploration fit.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom