You gave the FDL a bigger Power Plant...

[Derath]

Maybe you're right. But IIRC the Clipper had the 2nd best top speed because of it's thruster placement, its mass and thruster size. I also think that was the reason for it's not too bad pitch.

As for the Cutter, it doesn't make sense to me that the largest Superheavy Multi-Role ship in the game has a relatively small power distributor (hell, a Python has a Size 7 PD, and it's a third the size and less than a third the mass of the Cutter!)

Its mass and thruster size have nothing to do with its top speed sadly or comparable ships would be much faster, its that fast because its stat file says its that fast the mass and thruster size are just a coating put on top to hide the gubbins inside (and set a cost of course)

The cutter does make sense if you take the distributor as part of the ship, does it make sense that it has more shielding than the apparent combat variant of the big 3? It does if you take its stats as a group it doesn't if you take them in isolation. I don't really think a size 7 distributor is small either lol.

The python isn't a good example because it was designed as a gunboat/armoured trader which is why it has excellent hardpoint placement, a size 7 distributor and is really slow but we don't really have that many comparisons for the multi-roles so it is difficult to correlate that point.

On the original topic I actually think the old FDL was one of the only ships with the right sized powerplant, it made outfitting a choice and you couldn't have everything. Buffing it makes a good example of what happens right? It went from being power limited to being able to fit literally anything without any drawbacks.

I don't think thats good, it reduces build diversity if anything I think more ships should be like the FDL was - but its hard because they set themselves up with this class system where you can only power at set intervals so A5 is 20.4 but A6 is 25.2, there is no in between for a ship that would be perfect with 22.

 

[Davadin]

My bad. Perhaps I should've said "...take another look at these two ships mentioned below...".I'd like to keep it as an Imperial Clipper/Cutter thread, but I can't force anyone to abide by that.

lol fair enough.i asked the mods to re-titled.you may want to edit your OP too.have fun!

 

[Kurdran]

The cutter does make sense if you take the distributor as part of the ship, does it make sense that it has more shielding than the apparent combat variant of the big 3? It does if you take its stats as a group it doesn't if you take them in isolation. I don't really think a size 7 distributor is small either lol.

As part of the ship? I didn't quite get that, sorry.

IMHO shield strength should depend, at least partially, on the power distribution capability of a ship --> I agree with you, the Corvette should have similar or better shielding.
I think, however, we're back to your "stat file" argument on this one: it's just what FDev decided, we can only guess at why things are the way they are, and at best request changes that might end up being completely ignored.

The python isn't a good example because it was designed as a gunboat/armoured trader which is why it has excellent hardpoint placement, a size 7 distributor and is really slow but we don't really have that many comparisons for the multi-roles so it is difficult to correlate that point.

The Python does stand out above most other ships: it's better at multi-role than other multi-roles with the exception of the Asp Explorer with its awesome jump-range. That, to me at least, is an argument in favour of upgrading the Clipper's PD

 

[Kurdran]

lol fair enough.i asked the mods to re-titled.you may want to edit your OP too.have fun!

Thanks for the tip about my OP.

I do hope nobody changes my title though. I want readers to notice that asking for change is ok, and that it can happen.

 

[DragoonKnight]

Can my Vulture gets another large hardpoint?No? At least a medium one?Feel free to increase the price point if necessary..........

How about 2 addtional medium hardpoints? Its called an FAS

 

[Davadin]

How about 2 addtional medium hardpoints? Its called an FAS

damn. hard to argue with that.

but personally (YMMV), i just dislike the look of it...... that metal koi.... and the handling?

I'm saving up for an FDL for going toe-to-toe with the big boys party. I can go 1-on-1 with anything on my vulture, but outside a controlled pvp tournie, what's the chance of that happening?

Once i got an FDL, i'll retire the Vulture for PvE combat grinds.

 

[Ginrikuzuma]

Shot through the heart
And you're to blame
You gave the FDL
A bigger power plant

thanks for the laugh XD sang it as well

 

[kofeyh]

Maybe you're right. But IIRC the Clipper had the 2nd best top speed because of it's thruster placement, its mass and thruster size. I also think that was the reason for it's not too bad pitch.

As for the Cutter, it doesn't make sense to me that the largest Superheavy Multi-Role ship in the game has a relatively small power distributor (hell, a Python has a Size 7 PD, and it's a third the size and less than a third the mass of the Cutter!)

Most of the ship designs at this point don't make sense because base stats are made up. If they followed some kind of rule, neither Anaconda or Corvette would pitch as fast; both are sluggish to turn in SC, which is where only the agility of a ship matters and that belies that Frontier have fudged thruster numbers to make them much more maneuverable.

The numbers, weight etc are faked to make the ships perform. Cutter and Clipper certainly both pitch and turn about the same rate in SC as they do out of it, which is in stark contrast to something like Anaconda, as suggested.

So whilst I'd love to believe there's a method to the madness - I'm pretty sure it's just made up madness at this point. The last small ships added were literally cookie cutter flight models, down to the same 2x small, 2x medium weapon placement that has become the defacto - with different ship models.

Just wait until the new weapons are released; I am waiting for the epic teeth grinding and spreadsheets from leading experts in ship design on how to "correctly" construct everything, and the reasons for ships having their current handling will make more sense (but be universally rejected anyway because first person to pitch, wins).

 

[DragoonKnight]

damn. hard to argue with that.

but personally (YMMV), i just dislike the look of it...... that metal koi.... and the handling?

I'm saving up for an FDL for going toe-to-toe with the big boys party. I can go 1-on-1 with anything on my vulture, but outside a controlled pvp tournie, what's the chance of that happening?

Once i got an FDL, i'll retire the Vulture for PvE combat grinds.

FDL handling is different from the FAS due to inertia. The FAS handling is the closest you will get to a Vulture IMO.

 

[Zeta Legion]

Maybe you're right. But IIRC the Clipper had the 2nd best top speed because of it's thruster placement, its mass and thruster size. I also think that was the reason for it's not too bad pitch.

As for the Cutter, it doesn't make sense to me that the largest Superheavy Multi-Role ship in the game has a relatively small power distributor (hell, a Python has a Size 7 PD, and it's a third the size and less than a third the mass of the Cutter!)

The Cutter may be larger than the Anaconda/Corvette, but I wouldn't call it a multi-role. It's a trading ship, pure and simple. The limp PD just further drives that home in addition to a laundry list of other issues which include but are not limited to; massive drift, poor maneuver performance in general, poor boost/maneuver ratio, inferior hardpoint placement, oversized shield generator. It's so unwieldy that FAOff literally does nothing to improve performance. Basically you end up taking a lot more damage fighting in a Cutter than either the Corvette or Anaconda which makes it a poor choice for long-term combat engagements. Yes, it's fast and durable which makes it somewhat effective at ramming and running like a squirrel, but any half-decent pilot should be able to dodge this lumbering whale.

The Clipper is a multi-role though, and in exchange for massive speed for its' size and good internals it takes a kick square in the PD (and shields, and hardpoint placement) in return.

 

[Kurdran]

...Cutter and Clipper certainly both pitch and turn about the same rate in SC as they do out of it...

With respect, they don't. The Cutter handles like a one-legged cow in and out of SC

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The Cutter may be larger than the Anaconda/Corvette, but I wouldn't call it a multi-role. It's a trading ship, pure and simple.

I didn't come up with that description out of thin air. If you want to think of it as a trading ship only, that's fine. Personally I am waiting for FDev's thoughts on the matter, thank you very much.

 

[Derath]

The ship descriptions aren't written with any particular thought behind them though, its flavour text - its there to give flavour not any real definition of what its talking about, for example the type 7 says

The Type 7 Transporter is Lakon Spaceway's medium size transport vessel. This is a new model, released in 3290. It's slow but moves a lot of tonnage for its size.

by a lot of tonnage for its size they mean the worst out of all large ships

by its text sure the cutter is a versatile all rounder suitable for everything, its characteristics however which are what actually matter all point towards a trader.

 

[Zeta Legion]

With respect, they don't. The Cutter handles like a one-legged cow in and out of SC

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



I didn't come up with that description out of thin air. If you want to think of it as a trading ship only, that's fine. Personally I am waiting for FDev's thoughts on the matter, thank you very much.

Yea, and everyone has either used that point to justify using a glorified T-9 in combat or conversely argue that the Cutter is a waste of space in its' current form and should be a far more effective fighting ship. I used to care about campaigning for the Cutter to actually live up to its descriptor but have since given up. It's clear FD loves the Cutter as-is, since all the complaints listed in my previous post were brought up by prominent and highly skilled CMDR's prior to 1.5 launch. Unless FDev has a change of heart I'm going to treat it the way they want me to treat it; as a large, expensive, rank-locked bulk trader that'll become obsolete the moment a bigger trading ship shows up.

 

[Derath]

Part of the issue is multi-role becomes much harder to define the bigger the ship gets, this is because its difficult to create a useable huge ship that has restricted modules.

Its easy with the cobra vs the viper for example, or the vulture vs the asp because its all about module capacity - but you can't really have the corvette only have 4 module slots it would compromise the idea as a whole. As a result all of the big 3 get constantly compared against each other which is what pushes the cutter towards being a trader because it clearly is the trader out of the big 3.

Viewed seperate to the other two however I think it passes as a very heavily armed multi-role, thats why I can understand why they wouldn't change it. The people advocating upgrades to the cutter basically just want to shift which ones slightly better from one side to the other, It wouldn't bring them closer together it would just move the multi-role imbalance back towards the cutter again.

 

[Kurdran]

by its text sure the cutter is a versatile all rounder suitable for everything, its characteristics however which are what actually matter all point towards a trader.

Which is one of the reasons why I started this thread, I think it's a rather big inconsistency that I would like FDev to address

 

[diOxiN]

... I think it's a rather big inconsistency that I would like FDev to address...

On the contrary, it is the diversity that makes it so hard to select a ship. And it will require you to adjust your tatics to the strengths and weaknesses of your ship, or select a ship that matches your way to play. So if you have to little power get rid of shields and shield cell banks and shield boosters.

 

[Kurdran]

On the contrary, it is the diversity that makes it so hard to select a ship. And it will require you to adjust your tatics to the strengths and weaknesses of your ship, or select a ship that matches your way to play. So if you have to little power get rid of shields and shield cell banks and shield boosters.

No one is talking about the lack or abundance of diversity here, bud. Are you sure you understood Derath's post and my reply?

 

[Julio Montega]

Its mass and thruster size have nothing to do with its top speed sadly or comparable ships would be much faster, its that fast because its stat file says its that fast the mass and thruster size are just a coating put on top to hide the gubbins inside (and set a cost of course)

The cutter does make sense if you take the distributor as part of the ship, does it make sense that it has more shielding than the apparent combat variant of the big 3? It does if you take its stats as a group it doesn't if you take them in isolation. I don't really think a size 7 distributor is small either lol.

The python isn't a good example because it was designed as a gunboat/armoured trader which is why it has excellent hardpoint placement, a size 7 distributor and is really slow but we don't really have that many comparisons for the multi-roles so it is difficult to correlate that point.

On the original topic I actually think the old FDL was one of the only ships with the right sized powerplant, it made outfitting a choice and you couldn't have everything. Buffing it makes a good example of what happens right? It went from being power limited to being able to fit literally anything without any drawbacks.

I don't think thats good, it reduces build diversity if anything I think more ships should be like the FDL was - but its hard because they set themselves up with this class system where you can only power at set intervals so A5 is 20.4 but A6 is 25.2, there is no in between for a ship that would be perfect with 22.

I totally agree with your sentiment on the old FDL,
if you wanted to opt for firepower you had to make sacrifices.
The trend started with the Eagle i'd say,
and it was good, now we loose the need to trade in stuff
and what we get is a one-ship-fits all mentality.

The FDL was a luxurious combat ship before,
it had maneuverability, you just had to learn the quirks of drifting.
I don't like the changes that have been done to the FDL and i don't like
the trend it is setting.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

Which is one of the reasons why I started this thread, I think it's a rather big inconsistency that I would like FDev to address

People said the exact same thing about the Python because of the flavor text. The end result was FDev decided to ignore it and go with it's track record from previous games. In the end the Python went from the best combat ship in the game, to an Armed Trader. In this case, the Cutter already fulfills the role FDev intended. They even stated as such several times.

Looking at the Cutter's modules, it's easy to see why it's got a C7 PD. Simple answer is that it's got C8 Thrusters, C7 FSD and C6 Fuel Tank. All higher than any other ship in the game. That's in addition to the two C8 internal slots.

I'm sorry you bought a fast bulk trader and wanted it to be a combat ship. Most people ignore the flavor text and look at the actual modules and stats to determine what role a ship is best used for. The layout of the ship doesn't say combat ship at all. It literally screams Blockade Runner. The Clipper gets around this because it's actually maneuverable enabling it to be decent in a combat role. Take that maneuverability away (like in the Cutter's case) and you have a smaller version of the Cutter basically.

Using the argument that another ship got a Power Plant upgrade which is why another should get a Power Distributor upgrade is just completely FLAWED logic.

 

[Zeta Legion]

When it comes to the Cutter I think at this point it would make more sense for FD to add a proper warship rather than fussing over that bloated trading barge. There are so many issues to fix (to make it a solid warship or even multirole) that to address them would change the ship fundamentally. It would be like making the T-9 (the closest comparison) capable of dogfighting with the Anaconda or Python. Upgrading the PD is not going to suddenly make it competent in battle.

Here, I'll use the Cutter as a base to create an Imperial warship;

Ditch the nacelles in favor of hull engine pods. Reduce hull mass by 500 tons. Move the C3 mounts onto the sides of the hull, keep the C2 mounts over/under the engines (which are now much closer together). Significantly increase pitch to slightly less than that of the Anaconda, increase yaw, increase horizontal/vertical thrust. Reduce maximum boost and standard speed to ~10%-15% of the Anaconda. Now;

Reduce FSD and Thrusters to C6 and C7 respectively. Reduce C8 internals to C7 and ditch the C3 internal and reduce one C6 to C4. Reduce life support to C6 and main fuel tank to C5. It doesn't need internal space for combat, and doesn't need the oversized modules now that it has much less mass which makes it easy to justify the C8 PD. The ship is now about as energy efficient as the other two and costs significantly less than it would have otherwise to outfit. It's still faster than the Corvette and Anaconda but slower than the Cutter. Keep the focus on raw shield output over armour or SCBs for defense and the proliferation of C2 mounts compared to the Corvette's focus on C4 and Anaconda's focus on C3. You now have an Imperial warship that by dint of the Cutter's existence isn't gonna see use as a trader.