Without massive changes to combat, what do we have to see? Any new weapons they come out with will get far better use on almost any other combat/multirole ship. Same with modules, unless some game breaking C8 internal comes out.
Ships The Cutter really takes the wind out of my sails
- Thread starter Troa Barton
- Start date
I have seen videos of him flying a T-9 with FA off. Its a crap combat ship.
If people want to use the Cutter for combat they can, it doesn't change the fact that it is objectively bad for (PvE at least) combat. As far as non-starter combat/multirole ships it is far and away the worst. "hit and run" is not a valid combat style. Nor is "face tanking". Nor are turrets.
An I. Eagle can be described as a better combat ship. With its speed and agility, plus a few chaff, it is pretty much invulnerable in 1v1 combat. The Cutter sustains much more damage each battle, though it can kill large ships faster. Not a worth while trade off imo.
Last edited:
Here we go with comparing this ship with something it isn't supposed to be compared with.
A type 9 is not a warship, unless I missed that in the description somewhere it is a pure trader not meant for speed or combat prowess.
ED has a lot of ships that don't match up to descriptions, any sort of vulturisim is getting a ship designed around its description which the vulture is one of the few ships that actually accomplishes this. The vulture is supposed to be a heavy space superiority fighter, which it is and in spades.
the type 6, eagle, viper, asp explorer, vulture, and now the Python are all ships that meets their description.
just because you CAN do trading in the FDL does not mean it is a trading vessel on par with a lakon.
just because you CAN do exploration in an eagle does not make it a viable alternative to the asp explorer.
just because you CAN do combat in an adder it does not make it an effective bounty hunter.
you wouldn't expect to do trading in an FDL, it does not state in its description that it is one. You would, as a hardcore trader be understandably upset if you were promised a ship to do so and be given another and be told it's the way it should be. If that was the case why doesn't the corvette turn like a barge? Obviously not the way it's supposed to be.
It's the equivilent of being invited to your dates house for some Netflix and chill, showing up and it's a book reading with the in laws about abstinence.
I have not read a single post where people want the Cutter to be without flaws. It has many. Assuming it gets a C8 PD and pitch equal to the Conda, it still has (vs the other two): Far worse maneuverability (positive and negative acceleration, thruster strength, roll, etc.), very high drift, least amount of internals, very high cost (and by extension operating costs including rebuy), and power issues. It is a worse multirole than a Conda (as the Conda is an awesome explorer), less armor than the Corvette and Conda when combat fit, less pitch then the Corvette, worse hard point layout than both the Corvette and the Conda, less burst DPS than the Corvette (thanks to its dual C4s), 1 less C3 hard point vs. the Anaconda(as well as one less hard point overall), and there is probably more that I am missing.
.
.
.
I honestly don't know why people are against a pitch and maybe PD buff. It would hardly make it the best of the 3 ships, and far from overpowered. To those against it, why? What is your fear? What do you stand to loose?
This. It seems so simple, yet the message gets lost over and over again.
.
.
Honestly I am starting to think, aside from people just hating the Empire, people want the Cutter to remain crap to satisfy their ego. Basically "I can kill in this crap ship. Look how awesome I am! It's not a bad ship! Look, I killed an Anaconda!" but if FD made it a good combat ship they wouldn't be able to brag about an "achievement" that is little more than an effort in tedium. Akin to digging a large hole with a small stick. Anyone can do it. Your not special. Well, you may be.
Last edited:
This isn't likely to change. Cobra Mk IV remains a low agility, slow ship. There is zero indication that any of the newly added ships will be changed. Nor should they given all of the testing that's gone on as is.
Whether Frontier review all ships in future is an unknown. But I think based on history that we can pretty safely assume that Cutter and Corvette and indeed all the new ships added will see exactly zero changes (beyond bug fixes).
FDL had a power plant and agility change. That's the only ship change in recent history. Apart from Python nerf. So it's very uncommon for ships to be changed; mostly nerfed. A buff almost never happens.
Cutter's handling and PD choice aren't bugs. They are purposeful intent. It has nothing to do with fear. It's just simply where frontier are going. This is very clear in their responses that, to date, where actually answering a ship tweak question, are holding the "no changes are planned" line.
Rather, I think commanders are more afraid of what Cutter represents. What big ships should be like.
I can't see any sort of reason why they'd even contemplate changing Cutter (or anything else ship wise now) heading into 2.0 release. We are up to Beta 3, so I'd expect at most one more bug fix version and that'll be it.
Last edited:
But all they need to do is improve its pitch to Conda levels and maybe give it a C8 PD. That's it. No massive changes, no reorganizing internals, nothing. The FDL got a bigger change than people want for the Cutter. And honestly what harm could it do? So the Imps. get a combat viable warship. So what? Why is that so bad? They built this game around dogfighting. They can either stick to their guns or overhaul the whole system, and I would bet buffing the Cutter is the easier move.
Last edited:
Even the wiki is in agreement that it is a trader/miner and not a combat ship.
http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Cutter
.
Please FD, you don't have to say you will or won't change it right now. Even something like "We are aware of it, and will be reviewing it at a later date" would be better than silence.
Anaconda is not the model they are aligning new ships to; that is, high agility, high pitch speed in a large ship frame.
There is probably a very good reason for that. Anaconda doesn't fly like a large ship. It has a medium ship flight model. In a big frame. Having three ships do this is borderline insanity.
Even though more agility would be nice, I have adapted without it. Maybe that's the point. Actual choice (and don't start with the ships must be identical to be fair argument; it's assumptive reasoning).
CMDRs are addicted to highly agile large ships. I am not surprised there is protest. It's pretty brave of Frontier to do this, to be honest; they are absolutely certain to have known what the reaction is. They really aren't as stupid as people like to paint them.
Last edited:
Yes, however that they are not suggests they don't see an issue? CMDRs do, because we don't have 3 anacondas now. Why do you assume Frontier want 3 anacondas?
Even if they don't see an issue you'd think with a 23 page post they'd at least chime in.
Frontier aren't blind to feedback. I'm not going to demand they down tools for a couple minutes to respond to the agility question, when the ship was clearly made this way on purpose?
It doesn't make sense to change now; it makes more sense once they can compare beta usage with live. This means making a more informed opinion, rather than just caving to forum member demands. To me this would be better than a knee-jerk reaction that may result in a ship that's actually worse than what we have.
This is the danger of demanding specific changes without seeing all of the context.
CMDR_UberDude
Banned
They haven't chimed in on that FDL megathread that's asking for even more buffs on top of the buffs they just got. Why would they chime in here. Did they make any announcements well in advance of buffing the FDL? No? Okay then. Assuming that silence is an answer in itself, is small minded.
Fair enough my good sir. I however don't mind the way the cutter is now it's just different.
Don't speak for them.
If they don't see an issue, let them come here and tell us and WHY.
Also, the Anaconda IS the model for the two new ships, they said so in the livestream.
Last edited:
A Conda is far from "highly agile". In fact, in live, it the most un-agile combat/multirole ship with the FD/Gs a bit ahead of it. It has crap top speed, slow picth (even wit FA off, comparatively), high drift, poor lateral thrust, etc.
If FD wanted to try something new, fine. But not a top faction ship.
Also, there is no "adapting" there is only making the best out of a bad situation. In the end, its still a bad situation.
They would not be anything like 3 anacondas. You are building a straw man here. If the Cutter got a picth buff to Conda levels, and maybe a C8 PD, each ship would still have very different, yet viable, combat roles. Just like every other non-starter combat/multirole ship in the game. Just look at an FDL and a Python. Very different approaches to combat, but still within the only viable realm of dogfighting.
All the context is known. This is a dog fighting game. Pure and simple. The Cutter doesn't do it even remotely well. Unless they had a hoard of very powerful long range weapons then there is no hope for the Cutter. And even if they do, most ships can keep up with the Cutter (in speed). And ships like the FDL/Clipper will be much, much better with them, so within its role the Cutter would still be at the bottom.
Also this. + symbolic rep.