If it would fit as it is, then great, i'd be up for it changing to being a medium ship.
I'm not up for ships being expanded/shrunk though just to make them fit on a particular pad size.
If it would fit as it is, then great, i'd be up for it changing to being a medium ship.
I'm not up for ships being expanded/shrunk though just to make them fit on a particular pad size.
The keelback is an amazingly underappreciated ship. More people should get a keelback.
Can't believe i overlooked it for so long.
I'm genuinely not trying to have a go at you. Perhaps you could explain what compelling reasons exist to fly a T7, or an Asp Scout for that matter, once you can afford not to, beyond whimsy? The Asp Scout's hidden stat is that it turns pretty fast in supercruise but not by an amount that would make it a clever choice over the competition... ever.
Once again, I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't fly these ships, of course you can, but that they're objectively poor choices in the context of the systems the game lays before us and the other available ships. The fact that you can technically explore in anything, for example, is missing the point.
Last edited:
Well, perhaps it might have started better if you hadn't tried to tell me my opinion was wrong.
Ok, here's a simple reason, because they can be kitted out to do a job decently. Not the best, not by a long way, again, note, this is like comparing things to the Python. Once you start doing that then half the ships in the game need changes.... or the Python needs a good nerf.
The Type 7 makes a damn fine trade ship and a really nice exploration ship. I took one to Colonia. Its also very fast and agile for its size, with the best yaw of any ship in the game.
Even the much maligned Asp Scout is a damn good exploration ship, a good courier ship, and not even that bad at combat. Its got the highest agility of all medium ships, much better than the next best, the Asp Explorer. Good agility in combat is very useful.
Yes. That's basically what I'm saying the problem is.
The issue I have with your opinion is that you're writing sentences such as:
But in the context of having dismissed the value of comparison. It's much easier to say "X is a damn good Y ship" when you've explicitly decided not to compare it to other ships that are objectively better than it. I know you're a reasonable type, I'm therefore a bit confused by this take.
If your argument is literally that you can do certain tasks in underpowered ships, then yes you can. Like I said, I've been using a Keelback recently out of boredom, for a change of pace. I like it for aesthetic and novelty reasons. I am, all the while, fully lucid that the Keelback performs worse than pretty much every ship in my stable for pretty much every role, while you seem to be judging it in a vacuum. It seems impossible to have an interesting discussion about game balance in that context.
And my point is that then FD would have to go down the road of either balancing half the ships in the game or giving the Python a nerf (which would not be popular).
And once they go down that road, then there will be constant complaints from people suggesting further balancing tweaks and it will be never ending. Not to mention if they are actually going to balance, that means some nerfs somewhere. You can't just keep adding more pluses otherwise you just more power creep. Power creep is what has led to ships becoming bullet and shield sponges and in my opinion there needs to be some good solid nerfs in this direction.
But if FD nerf anything, then the "FD nerf all the things" crowd will be up in arms.
As long as ships are useful for some activities, then they are good enough.
If you want to only consider optimal ships for certain tasks, then by all means. Some of us are fine with diversity and ships with strengths and weaknesses.
To circle back to being on topic, this one basically revolves around the type 7 not being able to land at outposts. Well, boo hoo. Its hardly critical.
Yes. They should be engaged in ongoing balancing of the game - that's part of their job description as the developers of a 'live service' game in 2021.
Who cares if people complain, people are complaining now. Look. Watch me. This is the reality of the game development and social media intersect, and not a compelling reason to just give up and let the game be poorly balanced.
I disagree with both clauses here. Some ships are not useful for any activities when compared with other ships (and any analysis without comparison to other ships is kind of meaningless in such a discussion). They aren't good enough if they have no compelling systemic use in context. Things would be a bit different if credits were more of a concern or if Elite were some kind of roguelike, but they aren't and it isn't.
So am I. It'd be absurd to ask Fdev to make all ships exactly the same, what'd be the point of that? The issue is precisely that many don't have appreciable strengths and weaknesses - there are ships which (again, in comparison with others) only have weaknesses, or only have strengths. A love of diversity is what drives this kind of suggestion, even if the suggestions themselves aren't always very well thought-out.
I am capable of dressing down in poor ships for my own personal enjoyment and a change of pace, but it would be categorically better from a game design perspective if the choice were more interesting, and more ships had niches in the game's varied progression systems.
And that is where we disagree. I'd rather not have the devs spent much effort constantly balancing ships. As i said, i think all ships are good enough to use for various purposes. For a predominantly PvE game i think that's fine.
So, people complain now, and would complain if FD change things. So... where is the motivation for FD to actually do anything here unless they decide they want to do it?
Yeah, fine, disagree. Its where we diverge strongly in our opinions. I think we can accept we have different opinions here.
I don't think anyone is asking FD to make all ships the same. Some ships are better than others at certain tasks. That's a given. Even if they were balanced more, that would remain the same. What we have at the moment though is plenty of diversity. I don't see shrinking the Type 7 changing that much. Its not like it changes the performance of the ship. Just where it can dock. Furthermore, personally speaking, i don't want it shrinking. I like my Type 7 big and chonky.
Cool, me too. I've got a combat CM4 which i enjoy using. There is lots of diversity and plenty of interest. The fact that some ships are sub-optimal adds to the interest and diversity to me, so i reject your assertion that it would be "categorically better".
Just because Y is better doesn't stop X being a damn good ship after all damn good doesn't necessarily mean best ever.
The T7 is one of the best ships to pick if you are flying cargo and have been daft enough to stack a lot of missions so know you will get multiple interdiction attempts.
I don't see how it being PvE or PvP really makes a difference. In game design in general balance is a key concern, video or otherwise, multiplayer or otherwise.
To go back to the CRPG example, if I'm playing a game by myself I would still like different classes, as well as the various abilities of those classes, to present interesting choices to me as a player. Characters and skills tend to have pros and cons and aim for vague parity in terms of efficiency and fun, while catering to different tastes and tasks. It's a fairly big undertaking and some games put a lot of effort into it. Arguably perfect balance is unachievable, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. There are extensive balance discussions relating to single-player games too, Devs don't want to spend time programming multiple classes if players are then going to gravitate towards just one.
If it's 100x more effective to play a wizard, then people choosing not to be a wizard have to make a conscious choice to handicap themselves IRL - knowing the rules and limits of a game and choosing to ignore them. They can do this, but it's not desirable design-wise. Similarly, if a wizard has one extremely powerful spell that does everything and has no drawbacks that's detrimental to variety regardless of how many other spells have been programmed in. Putting them in the game isn't the same as making them useful.
The motivation would be to make the game better, in part in the terms I've just described. They've already done several balance passes in the game's lifespan and will probably do more. The suggestions forum exists for people to make this kind of request.
The thing is, you started out by saying "these ships are great", but now as far as I can tell you're accepting that they aren't in comparison to others, but that's fine because you don't care? There's a subtle but important difference between defending a piece of game design or just saying that you don't care about it - but yeah... I might be missing some element of your case here, and I can see we're not going to see eye to eye on this and that is, as you say, fine.
Yes, in my opinion the type 7 is a great ship. Like i said, i used it for exploraiton and it was great, and its a good trade ship (in my opinion) as well.
But we've gone back and forth and we clearly have very different opinions on the matter, so we should probably give it a rest now.
Length wise it is shorter than the python.
As i understand its the height that is the problem. Its too tall.
Basically to fit on a medium pad it needs to look like this
Not exactly the chonky boi we are used to.
Or it could be shrunk in all directions equally, but then it really wouldn't look deserving of all that internal capacity it has. It wouldn't the same chonky boi.
Going by the RPG example you're saying that daggers, shortswords and longswords should all do the same damage even if they cost different because no one will use the first 2 because they don't do the same damage as a longsword. 
I wouldn't change any ship in the game, maybe a small tweak here or there.
Large changes such as large ships to medium? NO Multirole to combat ? NO
Every ship has strengths and weaknesses, quirks to if you will.
I've also seen players bring to life every ship in the game.
You're assumptions are invalid.
Large changes such as large ships to medium? NO Multirole to combat ? NO
Every ship has strengths and weaknesses, quirks to if you will.
I've also seen players bring to life every ship in the game.
You're assumptions are invalid.
Going by the RPG example you're saying that daggers, shortswords and longswords should all do the same damage even if they cost different because no one will use the first 2 because they don't do the same damage as a longsword.
No, I'm not saying that, that would be stupid.
Why is it so common in this forum to conflate the idea of 'game balance' with 'things being exactly the same', even in the presence of clear examples. That's not what game balance means.
As always, I support making the following ships fit on a medium pad:
- Type-7
- Imperial Clipper
- Orca
Meh, I gave up waiting for a medium Type-7 (a medium Clipper too, for that matter). It gave me an excuse to turn it into this crazy, indestructible HGE farmer. I actually hope for gankers every time I'm out with it. Fun times..
I think there’s a very simple solution, at least foe the Type-7 & potentially other ships in its particular situation:
-Allow the Type-7 to “land” on medium sized landing platforms, but prohibit it from entering the internal dock given that it doesn’t have the height clearance to do so.
-This means it has access to all the services that a ship normally has WITHOUT entering the internal dock, but not those that do require to enter (namely outfitting, livery and shipyard).
-Same can apply to any other large ships that can physically fit in the actual area of a medium-sized landing pad (likely considering some clearance space), but are also too large to fit inside the internal docking.
In other words, split the difference between what it physically can do and what it can’t and treat it accordingly.
Thus a Type-7 could do missions and haul cargo between outposts, but not be outfitted at them even if the service is available to medium size ships.
-Allow the Type-7 to “land” on medium sized landing platforms, but prohibit it from entering the internal dock given that it doesn’t have the height clearance to do so.
-This means it has access to all the services that a ship normally has WITHOUT entering the internal dock, but not those that do require to enter (namely outfitting, livery and shipyard).
-Same can apply to any other large ships that can physically fit in the actual area of a medium-sized landing pad (likely considering some clearance space), but are also too large to fit inside the internal docking.
In other words, split the difference between what it physically can do and what it can’t and treat it accordingly.
Thus a Type-7 could do missions and haul cargo between outposts, but not be outfitted at them even if the service is available to medium size ships.
This is a very strong idea
It also adds to the legendary Panther Clipper potential.