Why do combat ships have bad FSD range anyway?

[Ziljan]

Barrier to entry.

Keeps combat ships "local" except for things that run for days.

I would argue that this was a poor game design. There is no benefit to having combat be "local". Having dedicated scout ships with longer range makes sense. But having all combat focused ships with abysmal range is an arbitrary limitation that makes zero sense except to segregate aggressive players from fun by walls of boredom.

Frontier realized this mistake eventually and tried to fix it with instant ship transfer rather than addressing the issue of craptastic jump range directly.

I suspect the WD/NS range increase mechanic is designed to make getting around the bubble much less painful as well. If a bit more dangerous Looking very much forward to this!

Spoiler

If you stop to think about it,

The Corvette weighs 2.2x the Anaconda has only 60% of the Armor and jumps 1/4 of the distance. Nothing about this makes logical sense. Logically, a ship with more armor should be heavier and have a shorter jump range!! But apparently the hull of the Corvette is made from leaden silly putty.

 

[ROSS-128]

I would argue that this was a poor game design. There is no benefit to having combat be "local". Having dedicated scout ships with longer range makes sense. But having all combat focused ships with abysmal range is an arbitrary limitation that makes zero sense except to segregate aggressive players from fun by walls of boredom.

Frontier realized this mistake eventually and tried to fix it with instant ship transfer rather than addressing the issue of craptastic jump range directly.

I suspect the WD/NS range increase mechanic is designed to make getting around the bubble much less painful as well. Looking very much forward to this!

Spoiler

If you stop to think about it,

The Corvette weighs 2.2x the Anaconda has only 60% of the Armor and jumps 1/4 of the distance. Nothing about this makes logical sense. Logically, a ship with more armor should be heavier and have a shorter jump range!! But apparently the hull of the Corvette is made from leaden silly putty.

I definitely agree that the Corvette's armor is too low for its mass (or conversely, maybe the Conda's is too high for its mass considering it also weighs less than the FDS, FAS, and FGS).

It is a bit of a shame that it seems the only thing considered in setting a ship's mass is "what do we want the jump range and shield multiplier to be?", with no consideration to the size of the ship, what it's made out of, or even its mass-lock factor (which actually has nothing to do with mass at all).

 

[Slugsie]

I know its not a new idea by any means...but what exactly is the point of balancing combat-oriented ships with arbitrary drawbacks? Having a bad FSD does not impact your ability to fight in any way. They don't even boot up slower or anything when you're trying to wake out of a bad fight. And combat ships are already restricted by limited internals, making them unsuitable for use as a trader or explorer, where jump range is more relevant. So the FSD restriction is just a pointless extra limitation that isn't actually affecting how the ships can be used. A combat ship with moderate jump range would still only be optimized for combat, and wouldn't eclipse any other ship in any other role.

So, what, exactly, *is* the point of short-range fighters? What's the advantage in discouraging people from chasing combat opportunities around the Bubble? Whats the disadvantage if every ship can get at least an acceptable range for in-bubble transit (~20 Ly base) with an A-rated FSD?

If they're going to force long delays on ship transfers down our throats, they can at least sugar coat it by giving combat ships a bump up to moderate base jump range, so "fly it there yourself" isn't such a dread-inducing idea.

Probably much the same reason that an F35 has a range of around 2,200KM, yet a 747 has a range of around 9,800KM. The range is appropriate to the role. Besides, every ship has to have some draw-back or we'd all be flying the perfect ship.

 

[droid327]

Probably much the same reason that an F35 has a range of around 2,200KM, yet a 747 has a range of around 9,800KM. The range is appropriate to the role. Besides, every ship has to have some draw-back or we'd all be flying the perfect ship.

The 747 is much more fuel-efficient, is why. Airlines have to watch their bottom line....air *forces*, not so much Also its a flying gas tank. I'm sure a Beluga will be able to reach a much longer no-refuel range than a Corvette, simply because it can fit a bunch of additional fuel tanks for extra capacity.

But I gotta call out this fallacious argument again. Jump range has nothing to do with role-specific tradeoffs. If every ship in the game had infinite jump range, still none of them would be the "perfect ship", because the tradeoffs all come in other places. Tell me...what ship in the game right now has it all and would be the obvious ship for everyone to use for every job, except the short jump range is just a dealbreaker?

 

[Slugsie]

The 747 is much more fuel-efficient, is why. Airlines have to watch their bottom line....air *forces*, not so much Also its a flying gas tank. I'm sure a Beluga will be able to reach a much longer no-refuel range than a Corvette, simply because it can fit a bunch of additional fuel tanks for extra capacity.

Um, no. The 747 has a much bigger range because that is what's required to fulfill its role. Not much good trying to flying across the Pacific if you can only make it 1/4 of the way without refuelling. Fighter jets value high speed and maneuverability over range, so they are designed to optimise those abilities.

In E: D 'explorer' ships require huge jump range to make it to many parts of the galaxy. There isn't a single 'fighter' ship that can't make it across the bubble easily (indeed I think every ship has even made it to Sag A*), which demonstrates that they currently have jump ranges suited to their needs.

But I gotta call out this fallacious argument again. Jump range has nothing to do with role-specific tradeoffs. If every ship in the game had infinite jump range, still none of them would be the "perfect ship", because the tradeoffs all come in other places. Tell me...what ship in the game right now has it all and would be the obvious ship for everyone to use for every job, except the short jump range is just a dealbreaker?

I didn't say there was one, just that all ships had to have a draw-back. Besides, what's perfect to you might not be what's perfect to me.

Anyway, the mere fact that threads like this exist, questioning why certain ships have such 'low' jump range proves the point that to some players the jump range of ships is a big draw-back.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Jump range has nothing to do with role-specific tradeoffs. If every ship in the game had infinite jump range, still none of them would be the "perfect ship", because the tradeoffs all come in other places. Tell me...what ship in the game right now has it all and would be the obvious ship for everyone to use for every job, except the short jump range is just a dealbreaker?

For me, for a long time it was the Viper III. Then it became the Vulture. Then it became the Fer-de-Lance. Right now, it would be a combo of the FAS and the Corvette. You have no idea how hard it was for me for swap over from Viper IV / Anaconda as a primary ships to FAS / Corvette. I love the look and feel of the Viper IV, granted, but I absolutely adore the flight model, internal flexibility, supercruise performance, hardpoints, cockpit, and general style of the FAS and the Corvette.

Were it not for the jump range issue, the question would have been settled LONG ago for me, in favor of the Core Dynamics ships, rather than just literally a day or two ago, when I decided that I'm ok losing the 10+ lightyears in favor of better handling and firepower. And honestly, knowing myself, I'll probably change my mind again in a few weeks.

If jump range were not an issue, I would find a lot easier to settle down on a specific ship than I currently do. It's not a matter of a ship that works perfectly for everyone, it's that it's a ship that works perfectly for you, aside from just thatoneissueifonlytheywouldpleasechangeitthisshipwouldbeperfect...

Everyone has that ship, or those ships, I think. Clearly you do, to a degree, or this range thing wouldn't even ping your radar.

 

[Vandaahl]

Because if it was the other way around, high waking out wouldn't be of much help.

 

[Kaybe]

Simple balance. Ships are either good at exploring, good at trading, or good at combat. Multipurpose ships can do a bit of all three, with an emphasis on exploration.

This makes sense if you look at the genre ... scout ships are fast but lightly armed. Big combat ships are slower but bring the pain when they finally arrive.

If heavy combat ships could scout, why would anyone play a scout ship?

 

[Flimley]

The reason combat ships have bad FSD ranges is......uummm....aaahhhhh....

Flimley

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Once the transportation of ships is in place and you're wealthy enough to not care about prices and/or time .. I think the bad FSD range on combat ships will be rendered moot. The question then will become "how long will it take to get my combat ship here"

 

[who?]

Out of game explanation: Balance. If a FDL/FAS etc. had the same jump range as an explorer, why would you ever fly anything but a combat craft (bar big traders)?

In game explanation: Weight. Armour is very heavy. Weapons are heavy. Hull reinforcement packages are very heavy. SCBs are heavy-ish. High-end power distributors are very heavy. High-end powerplants are very heavy. High-end thrusters are very heavy.

 

[goemon]

Imagine if an Asp with full Explorer fittings lost 20 Ly of jump range And traders lose range when laden, true, but range is actually related to their role. Traders don't lose, say, shield and hull resistances as they get more laden.

explorer-builds do several trade-offs to achieve high jumprange. they fit undersized lightweight thrusters, which make landing on surfaces more complicated. i advise you to land a AspE with 4D thrusters on a high-G planet. they fit undersized shields, which don't help against crashs a lot. they only take 1 or 2 srv, even in the danger of loosing one. they fit undersized powerplant, which can't power a distributor and shieldgenerator and srv hangar at the same time .... etc. etc. all these are trade offs in the "exploration"-role.

i'm always wondering, why so many combat pilots complain about jumprange, but so few fit d-class thrusters and d-class shields on a FDL, if they think, jumprange is important. it's not like haz or high res are more dangerous, then flying to jaques.

Just talking about bringing up the minimum range from "unsatisfactory" to "adequate".It doesn't take anything away from traders and explorers if combat ships have moderate instead of poor jump range.

jumprange of a t6 in its role (with cargo): 17,7 ly

jumprange of a t7 in its role (with cargo): 16,6 ly

jumprange of a t9 in its role (with cargo): 12 ly

... which is more or less the same variety you have with combat ships.

jumprange of a DBS: 20,23 ly

jumprange of a vulture with armour and hrp: 15, 1 ly

jumprange of a FDL with armour and hrp: 12,76 ly

___

combatships have more or less the same jumprange as trading ships, it isn't that they are worse than those.

 

[droid327]

Um, no. The 747 has a much bigger range because that is what's required to fulfill its role. Not much good trying to flying across the Pacific if you can only make it 1/4 of the way without refuelling. Fighter jets value high speed and maneuverability over range, so they are designed to optimise those abilities.

In E: D 'explorer' ships require huge jump range to make it to many parts of the galaxy. There isn't a single 'fighter' ship that can't make it across the bubble easily (indeed I think every ship has even made it to Sag A*), which demonstrates that they currently have jump ranges suited to their needs.


Besides, what's perfect to you might not be what's perfect to me.

Anyway, the mere fact that threads like this exist, questioning why certain ships have such 'low' jump range proves the point that to some players the jump range of ships is a big draw-back.

The 747 achieves the goal of its "role" by being fuel efficient, though, that's my point. Fuel efficiency can be part of the rolespace equation. But a 747 isn't faster than a combat jet.

And you're contradicting yourself...if having a high jump range would make a ship universally BIS, then jumprange is a worthwhile balance. But if having a high jump range merely makes a ship optimal for some people, in certain roles, then that merely shows that the system design is working as intended. That's what's supposed to happen. So jump range is not part of the rolespace balance equation, and therefore its an arbitrary extra limitation on combat ships. There's no question its a drawback - the question is whether the drawback serves any useful purpose, or if its just there making life suck a little more for combat pilots.

This makes sense if you look at the genre ... scout ships are fast but lightly armed. Big combat ships are slower but bring the pain when they finally arrive.

The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise tops out at about 45 knots. For comparison, an average cruise ship can hit about 20 knots, and a coast guard cutter (a small ship built for speed) can top out around 42. A Russian Kirov class missile cruiser, the biggest gunship ever built, can hit 35 knots.

Its unrealistic to stereotype large, powerful ships as slow.

Out of game explanation: Balance. If a FDL/FAS etc. had the same jump range as an explorer, why would you ever fly anything but a combat craft (bar big traders)?

Not saying it should have same range as an explorer (ie ~35 Ly fully equipped but unmodded), but just an "average" range (20-22 fully equipped but unmodded) instead of "below average". So you'd still fly explorers for exploring. You'd still fly traders for trading and mining. It wouldn't disrupt any rolespace balance, that's the whole point.

combatships have more or less the same jumprange as trading ships, it isn't that they are worse than those.

Yes but as I think I pointed out earlier here, jumprange is part of the rolespace for traders. Greater jump range means faster trading trips, less exposure to interdiction, and more credits/hour. A better analogy would be if traders lost defensive ability when they're fully laden, because that's not part of their intended role....ie the more cargo you carry, the quicker and easier you die. I don't think many traders would consider that a fair trade off or balanced if it was just arbitrarily put on them in addition to the tradeoff decisions they already have to make.

 

[StiTch]

If something is designed to be so onerous that the grand majority of players will simply not choose to do it, then its functionally the same as if it just stopped you outright. The game exists only inasmuch as its players interact with it.

And again, not "mega" jump ranges. Just enough that you can get where you want to go, fast enough that it doesn't feel like a burden. I'm not asking that everyone gets a Ferrari, just that everyone has a car and doesn't have to ride their bike 20 miles to work. Will a bike get you there? Yes. Will it take longer? Much. Do you just tell someone "leave your house 4 hours before work each morning" simply because its possible? No.

...

I don't drink coffee, and if I'm logged in to play, I want to play...not queue up for half an hour waiting to play. Not go do some other thing I don't want to do while I'm waiting to do the thing I do want to do and logged on to do. And I don't want to have to decide the day before what I'm going to be doing the next day and where, because I don't know what I'm going to feel like doing and in many cases I don't know where the action is going to be.

If it was just a "cuppa" timeframe then maybe. But the poll specifically said it was not going to just be a token delay of a few minutes, which completely changes how you make use of the feature.

I would provide a detailed response but to be blunt this whole complaint just isn't serious. We have established several times throughout the thread that you're being given an additional fast transport method, we have RNGineers upgrades that mean even a corvette can do over 20 LY jumps standard, your explanation for it being such a burden is a very poor analogy about Ferraris, and that waiting more than a few minutes to cross the bubble is too much for you.

I am going to make an assumption of the pretty reliable variety and say this isn't the game for you. Sorry. The game, marketed partially as a space sim, needs to have some sense of scale alongside balancing factors for ships. As stated above by Goemon, you're clearly talking highly specialised combat ships with internals dedicated to combat. Even then they have decent jump ranges, but why should combat ships with dedicated combat setups be given the ability to zip around the bubble instantly?

Everything here just screams that you don't care for immersion or anything other than how you want the game. Which by the sounds of it is an effortless cruise around while you grab all your rewards and feel good about it. There's already an overwhelming flood of input that the insta-ship transfer is destructive to immersion and the sense of scale in the galaxy, hence FD creating a poll to consider changing that.

And sorry but..." so onerous that the grand majority of players will simply not choose to do it"? My apologies, you are correct. Last time I checked, indeed the majority of players don't FSD around the bubble at all, but exist in one system on the basis their combat ships don't have a 30LY jump range.

*sarcasm hat falls off*

Whoops.

 

[Ben Ryder]

[h=2]Why do combat ships have bad FSD range anyway?[/h]
Jet fighther - short range

Passenger / Cargo Jet - Long range

Air craft carrier - used for moving fighters about.

 

[goemon]

traders lost defensive ability when they're fully laden, because that's not part of their intended role....ie the more cargo you carry, the quicker and easier you die. .

they do exactly that. they trade off defense (good shields) for cargo capacity.

1. do combat ships have a underaverage jumprange?

no. they have the same as traders. they have a bit less then multipurpose ships. they have less than explorers. makes sense?

2. do jumprange of combat ships vary? yes. you have the scout with ~23 ly to the corvette with ~12 ly, with ships like vulture, cutter, FAS in between.

3. you don't like it? that's okay. i don't like it either, which is why i have a DBS, and my FDL waits for shiptransfer.

 

[DogsBody]

I really can't understand people's obsession with wanting bigger jump ranges on everything!

One of Elite Dangerous' selling points was the huge size of the play space i.e. an entire galaxy, so why do so many people want to turn that huge game world into something you can cross in a couple of hours? No-one is forcing people to traverse large distances, its quite easy to find yourself a place within the bubble where you have trade, mining, combat / BH all within a few jumps if you don't like to spend much time travelling.

Lets leave the size / travel time ratio of the galaxy as it is, so that those for who getting to a far off place is the challenge / fun aspect of the game (rather than combat for instance) can still do their thing and spend weeks / months travelling to far off points.

The Cobra MK3 (the only ship you could fly) in the original Elite, had a maximum jump range of just 7LY and yet people still managed to traverse the galaxy just fine. In my opinion, average jump ranges should be in single digits and a long distance ship should have a jump range in the 20s, that would make the journey to places part of the experience. Make jump ranges too large and you might as well just have half a dozen systems and be done with it.

 

[Bambi]

Big FSD's are heavy and fighters need to be maneuverable?

 

[JetsonRING]

F22 is probably a FDL, F35 is a Python When I said Eagle I meant the McDonnell Douglas F15 Eagle, not the Core Dynamics Eagle, sorry if that was confusing...but yeah, I'd actually probably compare the Elite Eagle to a F14 since that's a pure air-superiority platform, with the newer and faster F15 being analogous to a Viper, and the F16 maybe is more like a Cobra inasmuch as its more multirole than strict air superiority.

But in the F14, F15 and F16, you still have considerations of range and speed and power projection in their design. They're not built to be cheap, light, and disposable like the first reply was talking about, not caring about range because they were just designed as point-defense patrol craft. The real-world analogy there might be something like the WWII-era carrier-based Bearcat, which was a slimmed-down Hellcat, but still stands in contrast to contemporary carrier-based fighter-bombers like the Mustang that were built for longer-range sorties. Range and speed are almost always important in fighter craft design, I guess is my point

Now if you wanted to talk about tradeoffs for military ships, maybe we should be looking at *fuel efficiency*, since that's often what you sacrifice to fly a multiton hunk of impenetrable death around at supersonic speeds. I'd be 100% OK if military ships had better jump ranges, but burned fuel so fast (both in SC and realspace) that you could plausibly run out over the course of a combat gaming session if you're not careful. I think that'd be a much better way to "balance" combat ships, especially since fuel is generally an afterthought in most other cases. Plus that might create more utility for fuel tanks (cant scoop in combat zones) and for fuel limpets as part of a combat-ship support role.

The F-16 fighting falcon absolutely was designed to be highly maneuverable, simple and relatively inexpensive (compared to the F-15 at the time) in order to provide the USA (and our allies) a highly capable, relatively inexpensive alternative to the F-15 Eagle as a response to a perceived threat of overwhelming numbers of aircraft from the "Soviet Horde". They were also designed so that, if necessary due to need or damages, an engine could be swapped out of an F-16 in about an hour and installed into another one. Simple, capable, maneuverable, disposable, cheap. The F-16 Fighting Falcon.

 

[dunnst]

Back in FFE days, AspX had a range of 18 LY and it was considered A LOT. Nowadays commanders are complaining, that their heavily armed ship has only 15 LY
Let's have it your way - increase the size of FSD on combat ships one grade up (FDL will now have 5 instead of 4), decrease thrusters speed and boost speed, decrase maneuverability and see how many people like it. The way I see it - smaller FSD slot allows these ships to have superior maneuverability and thrusters speed. Game mechanics is quite brilliant in this.https://www.google.cz/search?q=mane...ved=0ahUKEwj5h-_iuILPAhVEXRQKHcPVBasQvwUIGigA