You know what I want? (What I really, really want)

Some very high-value small ships. I couldn't be less interested in flying some behemoth T10 or Anaconda (although I liked the SLF). I like agility and simplicity in my ships. I enjoy flying the Cobra, Viper, Vulture and DBX. I've tried the larger ships and they're not really aimed at pilots, are they? - it's like comparing a Miata to a Grand Cherokee. I want something to shoot for that I actually want.

So. I want a very compact-but-capable ship. Small, Fast, tough, not necessarily particularly heavily armed (otherwise it'll become a griefing ship), excellent jump range and high mass-lock factor. Runs very cool. I guess the FDL isn't a million miles from that.
 
Yep, I agree that there should be some expensive small ships, maybe as some off-shoot of one of the existing manufacturers doing upgraded versions of existing ones (like AMG for Mercedes). I think the first one to get the AMG treatment should be the Cobra Mk4 ;)
 
Yep, I agree that there should be some expensive small ships, maybe as some off-shoot of one of the existing manufacturers doing upgraded versions of existing ones (like AMG for Mercedes). I think the first one to get the AMG treatment should be the Cobra Mk4 ;)

Yes, it's vitally important that in the future there will be a sub-brand that "aspirational" workers can drive on lease whilst whining constantly that they inexplicably can't get on the housing ladder. :) Joking aside. You can now get "AMG-Line" versions of their "cooking" cars. I can't help thinking that'll devalue the brand somewhat.

The Cobra 4 isn't a bad ship at all. It just needs people to understand 2 things about it 1/ It's all about module diversity at a good price 2/ It needs engineering to shine. Still prefer the MK3, though.
 
Yes, it's vitally important that in the future there will be a sub-brand that "aspirational" workers can drive on lease whilst whining constantly that they inexplicably can't get on the housing ladder. :) Joking aside. You can now get "AMG-Line" versions of their "cooking" cars. I can't help thinking that'll devalue the brand somewhat.
People will be the same in the future, no matter what. There will be just more of them.

The Cobra 4 isn't a bad ship at all. It just needs people to understand 2 things about it 1/ It's all about module diversity at a good price 2/ It needs engineering to shine. Still prefer the MK3, though.
My suggestion about using the Mk4 was a joke directed at those that did not pre-order Horizons more than anything :)
 
I've advocated for NEW versions of these ships we currently get from the junkyard / used-ship salesman. I'd like a NEW Adder, or a NEW Viper hot off the assembly line. I'll happily pay triple for one of these. Give me a nice, polished cockpit, not this faded vinyl with wires ducktaped to the wall. The closest example we have is the Imperial Eagle vs. the regular Eagle, though I'm not a huge fan of the JJ Abrams Star Trek look of Imperial ships.

Being new, it should have better hull, perhaps a few more perks (maybe it comes with a Guardian modules preinstalled), etc.
 
I would be nice if we had choice of what type of hull you wanted for each ship.

Standard: What we have now
Hardened Hull: x2 ship price (doubles armour hit point, increases armour hardness increased by 20 points and doubles the ships weight)
Light weight alloy hull: x2 ship price(lose 50% of armour hit points, reduces armour hardness by 20 points and reduces weight of hull by 50%)
Light weight Guardian Hull: x10 ship price(Keep the same stats as standard hull except the hull weight is reduced by 50%)


Standard Imperial Cutter would cost nearly 200mil
Hardened hull Imperial Cutter would cost nearly 400mil
A Light weight Guardian Hull Imperial Cutter would cost nearly 2 billion
 
Yes, it's vitally important that in the future there will be a sub-brand that "aspirational" workers can drive on lease whilst whining constantly that they inexplicably can't get on the housing ladder. :) Joking aside. You can now get "AMG-Line" versions of their "cooking" cars. I can't help thinking that'll devalue the brand somewhat.

The Cobra 4 isn't a bad ship at all. It just needs people to understand 2 things about it 1/ It's all about module diversity at a good price 2/ It needs engineering to shine. Still prefer the MK3, though.
The only thing that makes me stop flying a Cobra 4 are the 3 small hardpoints on top. Don't know why, but when they showed it pre Horizons it seemed silly to me and from this day on I just hate the ship.
 
I love to see that, but I don't see it's likely the physics engine would support it just now. Plus you'd inevitably end up with known configurations that people largely stuck to because googling them is easier than designing your own from scratch. So we'd end up back where we are now, really.

What might be nice would be to have the current ships randomized when you buy them. Just slightly. Some might have slightly better speed, but less integrity. A "Good" eagle might be 60,000 credits, but a particularly lucky one might be 100, 000.
 
I love to see that, but I don't see it's likely the physics engine would support it just now. Plus you'd inevitably end up with known configurations that people largely stuck to because googling them is easier than designing your own from scratch. So we'd end up back where we are now, really.

What might be nice would be to have the current ships randomized when you buy them. Just slightly. Some might have slightly better speed, but less integrity. A "Good" eagle might be 60,000 credits, but a particularly lucky one might be 100, 000.

Someone else mentioned a requirement surrounding the physics engine, but I can't see how any change to it would be required. Would you mind elaborating?

I agree though that there'd be a few staple configurations, but the good thing is that it would give players more flexibility to play their own way, so they can build to a spec that suits their own purposes and playstyle. Given the the number of possible combinations of all the components and modifier values, players could spend ages just playing with ship builds.
 
Tell me what you want, what you really really want! ...Oh wait, you just did.

You want a small ship with a high mass lock factor? 🤔
Yep, because mass lock is based on... mass, not size. A super dense, small ship could theoretically have a high mass lock factor.

Back in the old MS-DOS days, there was a very difficult game called Epic. Basically in the far future, the aggressive Raxxon race is trying to exterminate humans, and the sun is about to go supernova. Humanity's only survival option is a mass migration through hostile Raxxon space to the nearest habitable world.

To accomplish this, humanity uses their entire stock of... well, a super-rare meta-alloy, basically, to engineer three heavy superiority fighters, which you, as humanity's best pilot, must pilot and safely see the convoy through to their destination in a variety of harrowing deep space and planetary combat missions. Great game, never did beat the final battle where you have to save the human fleet from literally hundreds of enemy spacecraft.

But the Epic fighter was essentially what you are asking for OP, a capital class vessel contained in a fighter-size hull, and I like the idea. I still fly small ships also because I love the way they handle, but their actual utility rapidly disappears as one progresses through the game.

I think the problem could be hugely and easily amended by changing the number of utility slots on ALL ships. There are some ships that you fly and think, "Based on the cost and performance of this thing, and the surplus of power, it really should have 6 utility slots, not 4, etc."

Really power concerns are the only limitation for having more utility slots. I actually think most ships should have more utility slots than is actually practical, and the end user can choose to have more utility slots, or more power-hungry modules, but not both. I envision a future where the average ship flies around with several empty utility slots, and where specialized ships can equip more utility modules, but at the expense of some other functions.
 
Tell me what you want, what you really really want! ...Oh wait, you just did.


Yep, because mass lock is based on... mass, not size. A super dense, small ship could theoretically have a high mass lock factor.

Back in the old MS-DOS days, there was a very difficult game called Epic. Basically in the far future, the aggressive Raxxon race was trying to exterminate humans, and the sun is about to go supernova. Humanity's only survival option is a mass migration through hostile Raxxon space to the nearest habitable world.

To accomplish this, humanity uses their entire stock of... well, a super-rare meta-alloy, basically, to engineer three heavy superiority fighters, which you, as humanity's best pilot, must pilot and safely see the convoy through to their destination in a variety of harrowing deep space and planetary combat missions. Great game, never did beat the final battle where you have to save the human fleet from literally hundreds of enemy spacecraft.

But the Epic fighter was essentially what you are asking for OP, a capital class vessel contained in a fighter-size hull, and I like the idea. I still fly small ships also because I love the way they handle, but their actual utility rapidly disappears as one progresses through the game.

I think the problem could be hugely and easily amended by changing the number of utility slots on ALL ships. There are some ships that you fly and think, "Based on the cost and performance of this thing, and the surplus of power, it really should have 6 utility slots, not 4, etc."

Really power concerns are the only limitation for having more utility slots. I actually thing most ships should have more utility slots than is actually practical, and the end user can choose to have more utility slots, or more power-hungry modules, but not both. I envision a future where the average ship flies around with several empty utility slots, and where specialized ships can equip more utility modules, but at the expense of some other functions.
So if you want a ship with super high mass lock factor, meaning it's constructed of very dense material, then you'll also need a different type of drive unless you think a 4A drive can push the mass of the Anaconda as fast as you'd want the new ship to go. Then, with that much mass, you'd need to stop it somehow. You'd need reverse thrusters that are about the size of the ship.

If there were exclusive drives to power a courier size ship that has the mass of the anaconda and the speed of the iEagle, they'd need exclusive power plants and an exclusive FSD to jump that silly thing. You'd have to use solid fuel or have the nuclear option of replacing your reactor every year or so unless there's some magical race yet undiscovered that can do all of that with the current modules.

But yeah, it would be fun to fly through a corvette at 1000m/s like a .50 cal bullet then jump 1000 LY and eat a yogurt.
 
I'd buy it even if all it could do was jump.
It might be interesting if ED ships were more like cars in real life, in other words unique idiosyncracies based on make/model.

So ship X has got great everything, but at high heat levels its shields sometimes randomly go down. Ship Y is a fantastic all-rounder, but .1% of the time the FSD malfunctions and throws you far beyond your target system. Ship Z just completely shuts down and reboots under stress, etc. It would add an element of adventure and unpredictability to things.
 
Top Bottom