The range on the DBS is higher. I take your point about price being less of an issue now that a single ELW scan is worth ~600k, which is pretty much the hull cost of either ship now, so I'll concede that the Cobra Mk III would make an alternative to the DBS. It's still not in the top three, obviously.
Since we're theorycrafting a bit, let me point out how the cheaper Cobra Mk III is better at exploration than the DBS. Unengineered, a DBS that carries a lightweight build, 3A fuel scoop, 3D shield gen, ADS+DSS will do 27.59 ly on a full tank. (
link) For the very same capabilities and equipment (so same costs on outfitting), the Cobra jumps 26.1 ly. (
link) The differences between the two? The DBS can carry nothing else, while the Cobra still has two empty internal slots, allowing it to carry an SRV bay, an AFMU, or anything else. Also, the DBS can fit a class 3 fuel scoop only, while the Cobra can do a class 4. In practice, that means the DBS takes 1m30s to refill, while the Cobra does it in 0m46s.
You might say that giving all of the above up for +1.49 ly (stock) is worth it, but I think you'll find that most would disagree.
> Hm, hold on, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Do you mean novelty in the pejorative sense?
I'm using the definition that is closest to "denoting something intended to be amusing as a result of its new or unusual quality".
Heh, I see. So in short, your answer is yes.
People seem to be outraged that their favorite ship isn't in the top three.
Please, no need for hyperbole. I think you'll find nobody here was outraged at anything. If there was actual outrage going on here, you can bet the thread would have been locked by now, heh.
Given that you're citing objective metrics, I wonder if you've considered how metrics are usually used. You aren't doing a weighted score based on several factors, after all. Consider how a DBX can jump 40 ly stock and an Anaconda can jump 40 ly stock, and will be equal if that's all you measure by - but the actual examples will show that the Anaconda is more useful for most cases at that equal range.
The new route plotter is actually great for measuring this. Let me give you a specific example: I recently ran some tests with it while planning my next expedition - a short one to go to Pearcy's "Earth-like dance with giant", and look for volcanism on its moon.
On a Clipper with 40.18 ly jump range, it plotted 77 jumps (filters off). On a DBX with 56.77 ly jump range, it plotted 53 jumps. Given that the Clipper can travel considerably faster than the DBX (can scoop much faster, and turns a bit better too), the difference in time travelled would then be maybe fifteen minutes. Meanwhile, once I get there and wish to look for volcanism on the planet's moon, the Clipper has better forward speed and better cockpit visibility, and a multicrew seat as well. Personally, I'd say that the fifteen minutes of travel (or half an hour if we include a return trip) I'd spare with the DBX wouldn't be worth giving up these advantages. Other people would disagree. In the absence of an agreed-upon numerical method, both would be subjective opinions.
The only such method that has been suggested so far was to use jump range in itself only. Unfortunately, as seen before, that is not useful as a single, standalone metric.
> No offense, but I wouldn't call flying to an already-discovered system via an already-established route a feat of exploration
Given the Sidewinder's low range and limited space, getting to BP in one is at least worth some praise. That's gotta be hard.
I didn't say it wasn't, it's just not one of exploration. Same as how Allitnil going to Colonia without a fuel scoop was an impressive feat, but not one of exploration: both were impressive accomplishments of travelling. Oh, and don't get me wrong, I don't wish to imply that travelling is in any way worse than exploration. It's simply different. (And let's not forget how travelling is intertwined with other in-game activities as well, not just exploration.)
Also, we might have different meanings for 'exploration'. For some this means 'going to systems no one has been in before', but to many others it means 'going to interesting and exciting places' (SagA*, nebula, pulsars - POI objects). For the first group, if you want to explore a mostly uncharted area, say 15k Ly out from the bubble, higher range is going to get you there (and to exploring your area) quicker. For the second group, it's less jumps to the nifty thing you want to see.
Like I said, the difference is that you include travel in exploration. For the purposes of travel, we of course agree on what's useful. Mind you, the above "going to interesting and exciting places" is pretty much the exact definition of tourism. The key difference is that with tourism,
you know there's something interesting at your destination, whereas with exploration, you don't. As such, for the purposes of exploration, the most important will be the number of systems visited, not the total distance travelled.
Given that, if you talk with more people, you'll find that for plenty of them, comfortable exploration is more important than travelling very fast. You'll find several such people in this thread already.
Oh, one more thing. If you care about other people visiting what you've found (which, let's not forget, you might not!), or you wish to visit it again later, then larger distances are actually counter-productive. The farther away something is, the more special it has to be for people to actually want to visit it. (Unless they are doing tourist missions for the credits, heh.) So there's also a good case for looking for stuff closer to the bubbles - in which case higher jump ranges don't offer much of a benefit.
So, in conclusion: as you can see above, jump range alone isn't everything. I wouldn't suggest to anyone to stick to just those three ships only, because they might find that none of them fit their needs, and then they'll just give up on exploration altogether. So, "Anaconda, AspX, DBX only, everything else is novelty" is bad advice to give.
