The measure of a good ship.

[Bacalao]

How do you determine if a ship is good?

I'll admit I'm slightly tired of the insane amount of buff/nerf threads (a few are legitimate, most are backed by very poor reasoning, if any at all). The thing I dislike the most about all of the "balance" discussion is that it's heavily dependent on combat capability. For a combat ship that's where the discussion should be centered, but they aren't all combat ships, there are other roles in the game than blowing things up. Does the cobra mkIV/Asp scout/Viper IV need to be as fast as <faster ship here> to compete with it in combat? Isn't it okay if it's just not as good at combat but good at mining, or trading, or mission running. Why is the measure of "balance" for any ship (barring the T-x) combat? And why on earth (or off it) should they all have roughly equal combat ability?
-
FWIW, I think the cobra mkIV is good, I don't mind it being slow. It's going to be an incredibly flexible ship that lets a pilot do a lot of things all at once. If occasionally being outrun or outgunned is the price to pay for that...I don't see a problem. It's a big, heavy cobra, and I like that it performs and feels that way. Yes, it has a great personality.
-
What capabilities of a ship do you judge it by? Just the pew pew? Or is there more to it?

 

[MottiKhan]

Just the pew-pew.

 

[drholliday]

I generally don't like ships that can't land on outposts. I make an exception for my Anaconda. But that's the #1 reason I don't fly her that often anymore.

 

[Don Alvarez]

How well does it do what you expect it to do. That is the only measure.

 

[ShimEnki]

Just the pew-pew.

Ditto

...the ship can look like a craphouse with wings, if i can make my target go boom in quicktime, that baby is mine

 

[fantasmic]

Exactly. I get very tired of people complaining about the balance of "only" having 3-5 (opinions may vary) top end combat ships when there are other roles a ship may fulfil.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

There are two ways of balancing:

1. Make object A relatively equal to object B
2. Make object A counter object B which counters object C which counters object A

A ship is a good one if it is capable of doing the task good for what it is meant for. It has to be better than its siblings in the same tier/seize class (example Viper - Cobra are in one tier class).
For example a hauler should be more capable of hauling cargo instead of fighting. The Eagle should be better at combat than Hauling and the sidewinder should be better at the multipurpose task(s).
I would say that this is somewhat true except for the sidewinder. The Eagle could just have one C3 and one C1 internal instead of the additional C2 one, making it more capable than the sidewinder in terms of cargo capacity and jump range.

For the Cutter/Anaconda/Vetter drama: The main problem is that the cheapest ship that doesn't requiere a rank in addition, the Anaconda, is the most capable one. Let's call it object A for this now, Cutter being object B and Vette being C.

The Anaconda does not stand in either of the above mentioned examples. It counters object B AND object C in various areas (combat, jump range, price, etc.). It is also not countered by any other ship in any area except for MLF, making it the most efficient of all big ships. It comes with alot of benefits with just tiny tradeoffs.

The hard task of a balcning team is to compare benefits and tradeoffs and decide how much they are worth compared to eachother. It is a task of comparing things that have nothing to do with eachother but are combined and connected within one object. They need to take a look at the whole picture and decide where to make it not perfect ... otherwise they would have to make everything perfect which would basically result in just a copy of the perfect object.


Now to conclude: A good ship is determined by its capabilities in various areas. If it has too many tradeoffs that don't justify its less benefits, it is a bad ship. If it has too many benefits that do not justify the low amount of tardeoffs, it is simply overpowered (IMHO the Anaconda is the OP ship of the three big ships). If a ship has balanced tardeoffs and benefits that justify themselves, it is a good ship and a balanced one.
This also applies for any kind of object ingame (weapons, SCBs, etc.)

So we can say an object with balanced tradeoffs and benefits is a good object, anything that is out of 'the line' is unbalanced, UP or OP.
And don't ask me what 'the line' means, I could write another whole post about this. The short version, however, would be another word called 'average'.

 

[Ziljan]

How do you determine if a ship is bad?

Well, if the ship leaves brown skid marks and a rank sulfurous odor after take off and landing, then that ship is probably interchangeable with the contents of my astronaut diaper. Also, if the name tag in the ship yard says "Mk IV" that's a pretty good indicator that you are about to make a bad purchase.

As a general rule though, if it lands on a "small" landing pad and isn't a Mk III, Vulture, or DBS, then it is probably a horrible horrible ship that should be smothered with a pillow. Don't worry, you won't have to push down very hard, since it can't really fight back.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

Everybody will have their own opinion of what makes a good ship. I have 6 ships, and they all work well for what I want them for. I will get other ships, as and when I can, but they will need work to get them right for my style of flying.

However, to my way of thinking, a good ship is one that you want to fly (and leaves a smile on your face) and keep flying, and a bad one makes you want to stop playing. However, some ships may need work to end up good.

 

[Elyssaen]

How do you determine if a ship is good?

I'll admit I'm slightly tired of the insane amount of buff/nerf threads (a few are legitimate, most are backed by very poor reasoning, if any at all). The thing I dislike the most about all of the "balance" discussion is that it's heavily dependent on combat capability. For a combat ship that's where the discussion should be centered, but they aren't all combat ships, there are other roles in the game than blowing things up. Does the cobra mkIV/Asp scout/Viper IV need to be as fast as <faster ship here> to compete with it in combat? Isn't it okay if it's just not as good at combat but good at mining, or trading, or mission running. Why is the measure of "balance" for any ship (barring the T-x) combat? And why on earth (or off it) should they all have roughly equal combat ability?
-
FWIW, I think the cobra mkIV is good, I don't mind it being slow. It's going to be an incredibly flexible ship that lets a pilot do a lot of things all at once. If occasionally being outrun or outgunned is the price to pay for that...I don't see a problem. It's a big, heavy cobra, and I like that it performs and feels that way. Yes, it has a great personality.
-
What capabilities of a ship do you judge it by? Just the pew pew? Or is there more to it?

I've agreed with most of the balance discussions I've seen, and I think the Cobra Mk IV may well deserve to be faster. But looking at the specification of it and looking at a lot of the discussion, I've had the same thought as you. The number of internal spaces on that ship, for that size, is amazing. I wouldn't expect a ship with that many internal component spaces, at that cost, to be that viable in combat. I wonder how much my view is influenced by having chosen the Diamondback Scout over the Cobra Mk III: I spent a long, long time with very few internal spaces. I never even flew the Asp long before the Vulture and most recently the FAS. Eight internal spaces is princely to me.

 

[CMDR-Bullsey]

Everybody will have their own opinion of what makes a good ship. I have 6 ships, and they all work well for what I want them for. I will get other ships, as and when I can, but they will need work to get them right for my style of flying.

However, to my way of thinking, a good ship is one that you want to fly (and leaves a smile on your face) and keep flying, and a bad one makes you want to stop playing. However, some ships may need work to end up good.

yes this , my new smile is caused by the fed corvett
love everything about it , its a joy to fly and can protect itself while doing a bit of trading
its going to sit right next to my annie , not bothered if its not the best at anything , its the cats whiskers to me

 

[tafkabb]

It's simple. A good ship is fun, a bad ship isn't.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Oh gosh. This sounded so promising from the title, but just another min-max question for most.

The Courier. The sounds, the flight model, the ways she looks....

yeah, I miss her every time I fly something else to be practicable.

 

[Bacalao]

Oh gosh. This sounded so promising from the title, but just another min-max question for most.

The Courier. The sounds, the flight model, the ways she looks....

yeah, I miss her every time I fly something else to be practicable.

It's actually quite the opposite, I don't think ships should just be judged because of their killing capacity, there is a lot more to it. Most of the community seem to think thrusters, distributor and hardpoints are all that make a ship.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

How do you determine if a ship is good?
…
What capabilities of a ship do you judge it by? Just the pew pew? Or is there more to it?

For Solo Mode:
Is it fun to fly and can I do the things I want to do with the ship? The result is that a lot of ships are good.

Open Mode:
Do I have a chance to survive against a CMDR in FDL, Clipper or FAS? The result is, that almost all ships are rubbish and anything slower than 400 m/s constant boost is a deathtrap.

 

[Cliffson]

Short answer: (in terms of playing the game): A ship is bad if it's no fun to use and no good for grinding (sometimes you just want to grind after all). Highly subjective I know.

Longer answer (in terms of game design):

Spoiler

I consider a ship good if it is something I would consider flying for a task based on 1. Does it do the task well (objective cr/hr), 2.Is it fun to use to do the task (subjective), 3. Is there another ship which does the same job in a similar way in a similar price bracket but is just better by measures 1 or 2 (I.e does it fit into ship progression).

If I can't think of any task where it passes 1,2 then I consider it bad. If it passes 1 or 2 but fails on 3... I might consider it to be bad, especially if the ship which does something better than it is much cheaper.

So for instance bounty hunting, I will fly (depending on mood) Eagle / Viper / Vulture or FAS. The first two do very well on Conditon 2 (helped by the challenge I think) and are sufficiently different in terms of how they fly to not cancel each other out. They lose out to the later 2 on Condition 1 but do not trigger condition 3 due to being cheap and different. The Vulture and FAS are quite similar and both pass 1&2, but I wouldn't consider the vulture bad as it is much cheaper than the FAS.

In terms of new ships I don't consider the Viper4 bad, as the ships I consider to be it's peers (Cobra 3, Courier, Dbs) are sufficiently different that I would consider using them.

The Keelback I lean towards bad, a T6 is cheaper and trades better, a Cobra 3 is much cheaper and does the armed trading thing better I think. Maybe the ship launched fighter will change things though?

The Asp scout I'm also leaning towards bad, for mission running or smuggling I'd take a cobra III (much cheaper and arguably better due to the speed) For combat I feel a DBS is a similar flight style, and more fun while being cheaper. Basically I think it's bad because I don't think the additional price tag warrants any improved performance over ships which can perform the same tasks in a similar way for less outlay.

The Cobra 4 I worry will be bad as I looking at the reports so far (Beta still not downloaded) I can't see when I'd use it over another ship.

Admittedly this is still highly subjective.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

For me, completely depends on the role I assign to it.

In that role, I value effectiveness and survivability.
No point in getting its core job done but not make it to the Mission Destination in one piece.
Also no point in running an invincible tank that survives everything - but just can't get the core job done right anymore due to that.

Depending on that role, I'll weigh alot of parameters against each other.

So for me, in short :
A good Trader needs Cargo space on the job with sufficient survivability and still-sufficient JumpRange to get out of hostile environments.
A good Bounty Hunter packs maximum punch against big-game Targets, while still needing minimum Maneuverability and Weapons to deal with groups of smaller Targets.
A good Conflict Zone/Multi-Bogey-Environment heavy Combat Ship needs to pack a punch against all Target types, while still affording maximum durability and endurance even when coming under extreme and prolonged fire.
A good Miner needs to pack full gear and still sport useful Cargo space while offering maximum protection and the ability to offensively deal with smaller Targets in the Destination area... all while maintaining at least acceptable JumpRange.
A good Smuggler needs to combine speed with sufficient Cargo space and very good JumpRange, all while maintaining good survivability and some basic defensive capabilities.
A good Courier needs good JumpRange combined with speed & good survivability.
A good Explorer needs excellent JumpRange while offering the minimum desired survivability at all times and packing all needed gear. The longer the trip & effort planned, the higher I value survivability over JumpRange.

 

[Heavenly-Hammer]

To me, the measure is how much fun I have while flying it. The opportunities it gives me to go,

"WAOOOOOOOOO"

My short list:

• Imperial Courier - Turning and burning in a flightdeck that looks like an F-16 is just joy. And it handles so well and sounds so good. Every kill feels well-earned.
• Asp Explorer - I think this ship is ugly as sin, but...my god THE VIEW!
• FdL - Every time I chunk something with a well-placed C4 cannon or PA I get the :O face, followed by the face. Every time.
• Anaconda - Watching C3 beam turrets on your deck turning with your target and firing while you sip tea and listen to Rachmaninoff...accept no substitutes for when you want to feel like you're actually the commander of something. Something about that ship and deck were made for you to watch the beauty of C3 beam turrets. Magic.
• FGS - Anchoring wings with the quad-Hammer FGS and landing those bursts. every time.

 

[CMDR-AD]

I want a ship that is nicely configurable for the variety of tasks I enjoy. Some light cargo/courier/wreckage missions, some mining, and now with Horizons perhaps some occasional SRV excursions.

A bonus if the cockpit gives a nice sense of scale and interest (Cobra and Python top my list).

Combat is something I never do. I don't even carry weapons. As mentioned above, since these kinds of ships can be a deathtrap in Open play, and I don't care to be forced out of enjoying those ships, I play Solo mode.

At present, I really enjoy the Cobra Mk3 and Python. The Asp is close, but the cockpit feels lonely and lacks any sense of player sized scale (but will probably be fantastic with Horizons!). The Clipper and Anaconda are OK, but for whatever reason I don't enjoy the cockpits as much, and I really don't like giving up the outposts with the large pad.

After Horizons lands, I am interested in the Cobra Mk4, Viper Mk4, Keelback, and Asp Scout. But I'll have to work my way back to them, as I'm most likely going to reset my CMDR save and enjoy the ride again.

 

[Bartizan]

Asps and Pythons are going to be awesome for Horizons.....or maybe that's just me daydreaming till I can get home and login again. =)