Ships The Cutter really takes the wind out of my sails

[Zelos1983]

Well for an Empire loyalist who wants a super-heavy combat ship the options are limited to nothing viable. I can see why they are annoyed.
I like super-heavies because the feel like tanks, my preferred class in games, and I certainty wouldn't mind 3 ships to choose from rather than just 2.

So what with the federal loyalist who wants a super-heavy trader? They are annoyed as well.
But it would be kind of boring if every faction would have the same assets to offer, just in a different packaging.

Originally Posted by Zelos1983
By your logic, I demand a buff to my T9. I'm happy how it behaves in PvE, namely that it's not very well suited for combat. But since I can always choose Open and enable PvP, it must of course perform as good as the Anaconda when I choose to go after other players. Or else I would be at a disadvantage and I surely cannot be "forced" to buy a Faulcon DeLacy ship or even side with one of those major powers.

You see - your demands are just flawed.

Originally Posted by Jesse Blue
If it were too easy to kill, undoubtedly.

However, there is a difference with the T-series freighter types, in that their game description essentially warns players that "this ship is intended to perform poorly at combat, so fly it at your own discretion". In this especific case, 'losing' is intended for these ship series, and players are conveniently warned.

Not the same case as the Cutter, in which its game description, as well as its large & huge hardpoints, armor and shields suggest a ship meant to see combat heat, but in reality doesn't quite live up to its expectations, being noticeably weaker at combat than its similar ships.

By your argument, everything that is capable of PvP must be "balanced". So you clearly cannot make an exception for the T-9. Certainly not one based on the in-game, in-lore sales pitch, which people would usually ignore and consult ship reviews and forums before making an informed decision about what to buy.

But if for whatever reason someone decides to use the PvP aspect, all its elements have to be balanced.

Ship diversity aspect:

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.

As I said, the cutter is a top ship. Making it "the best" not only in trading, but also in combat, displaces other ships. What next? Does it need a 50LY jump range, so it is top for exploring as well? Then everyone would get a cutter and nobody would consider buying one of the other ships. Sure, I'd also like to have a ship that's superior in every respect, but that removes quite a challenge for me, because I don't have to bother about doing my research and trying out ships and configurations.

 

[Yokoshima]

So what with the federal loyalist who wants a super-heavy trader? They are annoyed as well.
But it would be kind of boring if every faction would have the same assets to offer, just in a different packaging.
.

They won't be the same ship. They would each have pros and cons. Just like the FAS/FGS/FDS vs the I. courier and the I. Clipper. And as far as trading goes, the Panther Clipper is incoming. I'm not saying the federation shouldn't get a trader. Let them.
.
.
The only reason the Cutter can trade as well as it is to offset its very high cost. The issue here however is each faction was to get a Corvette class warship. Only one got it.

 

[kofeyh]

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.

I'm not sure which anaconda you have? But the one I have, for a ship that has 500t hull and weighs in well over one kiloton fully kitted out still manages to pitch very well. A top faction ship isn't an excuse to give it silly performance.

This is the usual response I get "anaconda is the benchmark, all large ships should match the benchmark". That is maintaining the status quo for the sake of it. It's not enough of a reason.

Clearly Frontier disagree. Because they would have made all three the same. They didn't. Rather than telling me I am wrong, recognise it's not me driving this. It's frontier. They chose to do this. Argue the point all you like but the facts remain.

Cutter is not Anaconda 2.0. And I really think that's actually what people want. A better anaconda. This entire thread would have blown over by now if that wasn't the case. But the complaints persist.

I am all for debate, but at some point people need to grasp that things have changed, rather than desperately clinging to the idea that ship evolution must be locked to anaconda's design.

Sure. More agility would be nice. But we aren't getting it, as far as I can see. Sandro and the devs do respond to forum posts from time to time, so I do feel moderately confident this thread would have triggered some discussion if there was discussion to be had.

Silence is probably not the answer desired, but there you go.

 

[Troa Barton]

So what with the federal loyalist who wants a super-heavy trader? They are annoyed as well.
But it would be kind of boring if every faction would have the same assets to offer, just in a different packaging.









By your argument, everything that is capable of PvP must be "balanced". So you clearly cannot make an exception for the T-9. Certainly not one based on the in-game, in-lore sales pitch, which people would usually ignore and consult ship reviews and forums before making an informed decision about what to buy.



Ship diversity aspect:



As I said, the cutter is a top ship. Making it "the best" not only in trading, but also in combat, displaces other ships. What next? Does it need a 50LY jump range, so it is top for exploring as well? Then everyone would get a cutter and nobody would consider buying one of the other ships. Sure, I'd also like to have a ship that's superior in every respect, but that removes quite a challenge for me, because I don't have to bother about doing my research and trying out ships and configurations.

Who said anything about making it the best ship?

 

[Troa Barton]

I'm not sure which anaconda you have? But the one I have, for a ship that has 500t hull and weighs in well over one kiloton fully kitted out still manages to pitch very well. A top faction ship isn't an excuse to give it silly performance.

This is the usual response I get "anaconda is the benchmark, all large ships should match the benchmark". That is maintaining the status quo for the sake of it. It's not enough of a reason.

Clearly Frontier disagree. Because they would have made all three the same. They didn't. Rather than telling me I am wrong, recognise it's not me driving this. It's frontier. They chose to do this. Argue the point all you like but the facts remain.

Cutter is not Anaconda 2.0. And I really think that's actually what people want. A better anaconda. This entire thread would have blown over by now if that wasn't the case. But the complaints persist.

I am all for debate, but at some point people need to grasp that things have changed, rather than desperately clinging to the idea that ship evolution must be locked to anaconda's design.

Sure. More agility would be nice. But we aren't getting it, as far as I can see. Sandro and the devs do respond to forum posts from time to time, so I do feel moderately confident this thread would have triggered some discussion if there was discussion to be had.

Silence is probably not the answer desired, but there you go.

This change for the better you speak of doesnt exsist or the corvette would fly like the cutter only slower.
this isn't some movement or the other ship released at the same time would mirror it.
it doesn't, null argument.
also the anaconda is not the benchmark, the corvette is, right in the description of the cutter.

 

[kofeyh]

Who said anything about making it the best ship?

Most of the responses are varying percentages of "best ship". Between LOL BROKEN to "+agility pls". All seek to fundimentally change Cutter because, basically, it's not anaconda.

Whether people chose to admit or accept it, that's the goal. As good as or better than Anaconda. This requires pretty drastic surgery for folks to basically get an imperial anaconda.

Regardless of where people are on the scale, that's the end goal. Imperial anaconda.

 

[kofeyh]

This change for the better you speak of doesnt exsist or the corvette would fly like the cutter only slower.
this isn't some movement or the other ship released at the same time would mirror it.
it doesn't, null argument.
also the anaconda is not the benchmark, the corvette is, right in the description of the cutter.

Then Frontier have apparently dun goofed because the built cutter wrong. Or - you are making an assumption. I've chosen to look at cutter in light of all the other ships added, not Anaconda.

The new ships are all universally compromised far more than prior ships. There is a pattern. It's pretty obvious. And there is no garuntee that older ships won't be reviewed.

Mmm. Scared yet?

 

[Bzek]

Sure. More agility would be nice.

I honestly can't keep track of what your standpoint is. I don't think anyone wants to make the Cutter a supership, most people (myself included) just want the pitch rate to be addressed. At this point it feels a little bit like just contrarianism.

Also the whole thing of 'silence is your answer' implies people shouldn't voice their frustration if they don't get an answer straight away. It is a good thing people keep voicing where they screwed up while we remain in beta. It is the right time to make changes.

 

[Ezalor]

Being a X52pro user, i have since long accepted that i will never be a pro dogfighter, this will always be left to the mouse-keyb users with fixed weapons. There will never be aiming accuracy in a joystick to be able to win against pro mouse users.

A pro mouse FDL pilot will always have an easy time handing a joystick Cutter pilots ass to him. Even if the Cutter would have handling as an FDL.

That being said, i wouldn't mind, from a joystick perspective, to be able to have a chance in a Cutter against the pro mouse FDL gang, but i would settle for having this chance come from upgraded turrets and better power distr.

An extremely expensive and big ship with lots of hardpoints AND a crappy pilot should have a chance against a "cheap" small ship with a better pilot.

 

[Troa Barton]

Most of the responses are varying percentages of "best ship". Between LOL BROKEN to "+agility pls". All seek to fundimentally change Cutter because, basically, it's not anaconda.

Whether people chose to admit or accept it, that's the goal. As good as or better than Anaconda. This requires pretty drastic surgery for folks to basically get an imperial anaconda.

Regardless of where people are on the scale, that's the end goal. Imperial anaconda.

Then Frontier have apparently dun goofed because the built cutter wrong. Or - you are making an assumption. I've chosen to look at cutter in light of all the other ships added, not Anaconda.

The new ships are all universally compromised far more than prior ships. There is a pattern. It's pretty obvious. And there is no garuntee that older ships won't be reviewed.

Mmm. Scared yet?

Can I have some of whatever you're on? No one post except yours has said anything about making the cutter equal to or superior to the conda or the corvette. Buffing the cutter will only bring it closer in line with its actual competition both in terms of ship difference and description.

again, closer to, not equal, not identical, and certianly not better than.
better in some ways to some people, worse in others for different people. (Before you make the argument that it is very different, that's the problem it's too different while being described as similar.)
this ship is as different to the corvette as the corvette is to the viper. The point is to make it as different to the corvette and the anaconda as they are from each other.

 

[Zelos1983]

Can I have some of whatever you're on?

It's called "reading other posts".

No one post except yours has said anything about making the cutter equal to or superior to the conda or the corvette. Buffing the cutter will only bring it closer in line with its actual competition both in terms of ship difference and description.

The cutter is already the best trader. Now people want to buff it's combat capabilities so that it becomes comparable to the corvette, making it a ship that is not surpassed in combat ability - rendering the Corvette obsolete.
From this standpoint, it would also be logical to increase the jump range to make the Anaconda obsolete as well, leaving the cutter the ultimate ship.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

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.

You took what I said out of context. The T9 requires thinking ahead to use FA off, as does the Cutter. Your fanboy was the one who tried to imply it was a combat ship (maybe as bait with wing support) and you jumped on the knee-jerk train.

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.

I wasn't referring to PvE combat. Personally I feel large ships a waste of time for PvE. The time it takes you to get within weapon range for BHing or CZs, you could have obliterated 4 or more targets with a Clipper, FAS, FdL or Python. Big ships have their uses in wing PvP which is what I was referring to. Apparently you've never seen an FdL, Python or Clipper tank for a wing of silent running DBSes that are boom and zooming. I can assure you it'll be quite common when Horizon launches thanks to several of the new Synthesis buffs both to weapons and hull mitigation (which works on subsystems.)



I'm just going under the assumption both of your reactions is some form of defensive measure because you think the ship needs to be buffed. I have no opinion one way or the other but for claiming lack of bias you guys sure are kind of oozing it.

 

[Ezalor]

It's called "reading other posts".



The cutter is already the best trader. Now people want to buff it's combat capabilities so that it becomes comparable to the corvette, making it a ship that is not surpassed in combat ability - rendering the Corvette obsolete.
From this standpoint, it would also be logical to increase the jump range to make the Anaconda obsolete as well, leaving the cutter the ultimate ship.

And the fact that the Cutter isn't being presented/launched from Frontier as a trader, but a warship?

 

[kofeyh]

And the fact that the Cutter isn't being presented/launched from Frontier as a trader, but a warship?

Doesn't really matter how often you say this, the ship is as it is. Again to the best of my understanding the ship is purposefully supposed to be low agility. This is backed by all the new small ships also having lower agility. If it was supposed to have a bigger CAP, or a more agility - it would have this.

It doesn't. Ergo Frontier were either stonned that day, or its on purpose. I'm going to go with the latter.

 

[Troa Barton]

Doesn't really matter how often you say this, the ship is as it is. Again to the best of my understanding the ship is purposefully supposed to be low agility. This is backed by all the new small ships also having lower agility. If it was supposed to have a bigger CAP, or a more agility - it would have this.

It doesn't. Ergo Frontier were either stonned that day, or its on purpose. I'm going to go with the latter.

All the new fast ships are slow, and the fast ship is slow to turn while the slow ship is extremely quick to turn and armed to the teeth.
im going with stoned or magic powder in the coffee.
the guy having tea made the corvette, helped with the viper, and buffed the FDL.

it also doesn't matter how much you say that the cutter is as designed when it says it's supposed to be a warship.
similar to the federations corvette:
the corvette is a "long range" warship that excels purely in combat.
the cutter is an armed trader that excels in trading
ergo not similar, just as the Python is dissimilar from the FDL.

 

[Troa Barton]

It's called "reading other posts".



The cutter is already the best trader. Now people want to buff it's combat capabilities so that it becomes comparable to the corvette, making it a ship that is not surpassed in combat ability - rendering the Corvette obsolete.
From this standpoint, it would also be logical to increase the jump range to make the Anaconda obsolete as well, leaving the cutter the ultimate ship.

I've read the other posts, have you?
big surprise that we want a warship to excel in combat but not quite match the corvette in firepower as per the description.
ive also said that I would want to buff the corvettes jump range and armor but that went unnoticed as well.

 

[Troa Barton]

You took what I said out of context. The T9 requires thinking ahead to use FA off, as does the Cutter. Your fanboy was the one who tried to imply it was a combat ship (maybe as bait with wing support) and you jumped on the knee-jerk train.




I wasn't referring to PvE combat. Personally I feel large ships a waste of time for PvE. The time it takes you to get within weapon range for BHing or CZs, you could have obliterated 4 or more targets with a Clipper, FAS, FdL or Python. Big ships have their uses in wing PvP which is what I was referring to. Apparently you've never seen an FdL, Python or Clipper tank for a wing of silent running DBSes that are boom and zooming. I can assure you it'll be quite common when Horizon launches thanks to several of the new Synthesis buffs both to weapons and hull mitigation (which works on subsystems.)



I'm just going under the assumption both of your reactions is some form of defensive measure because you think the ship needs to be buffed. I have no opinion one way or the other but for claiming lack of bias you guys sure are kind of oozing it.

It doesn't change the fact that you compared its flight characteristics with the type 9 not what it's supposed to be similar to. My reply to you was of my own accord your accused fanboy had nothing to do with me disagreeing with you.

 

[Zelos1983]

big surprise that we want a warship to excel in combat but not quite match the corvette in firepower as per the description.

So you admit that I was right: You want the best trading vessel to also excel at combat.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

It doesn't change the fact that you compared its flight characteristics with the type 9 not what it's supposed to be similar to. My reply to you was of my own accord your accused fanboy had nothing to do with me disagreeing with you.

I merely commented on another player's piloting ability on an equally unresponsive ship with FA off. You inferred everything else and did quote your fanboy because he's the one who brought combat and the T9 into the discussion.


To quote myself, "You should watch 777Driver fly a T9 with FA off. Perfect example that a ship isn't crap just because you can't master how to fly it well." FA off benefits less responsive ships a lot more than maneuverable ones because it helps offset their shortcomings in ways they can't with it on. Ships like the Anaconda can push that even further. That's a simple fact of the game. It's also not easy to adjust to if you don't use it often.

My only point was that with how it is now, this is exactly the type of ship the Cutter is. If you can't fly with FA off, you won't really be able to make the most of it in a combat situation. I see nothing wrong with that because we need more ships added to the game with skill levels and less ships like Vultures and FAS that fly themselves while you go watch TV.

A lot of the new ships seem underwhelming but I get the feeling that a lot of current ones are going to be re-balanced around crafting so it'll all even out. That's slated for 2.1. The 1.5/2.0 ships already have been, which is also why they blatantly ignored (and have been adamant) about particular changes. That's my theory anyway.

 

[Iori]

I hope that the reason the Cutter is so crap is that it will carry tons of fighters instead of just two, you know, the description is already wrong, so why can't it be more wrong?

[video=youtube;uk1jktjDhxU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk1jktjDhxU[/video]