![]() Currently the Conda's advantage is that it can be fully laden with cargo and still have significantly more low jump routes available to it, or cover long distances in notably less time. Which would mean it was a better trader than the Anaconda. The Corvette cannot be made substantially heavier without losing a fair bit of it's thruster and rotational performance, and the base values or ENG pip slopes for these cannot be improved without giving the ship too much of a situational advantage.įully laden and kitted for trading it's just over 19. More base mass and larger sensors are less elegant solutions because they would harm the combat capabilities along with the jump range. FDev had a choice about any number of factors that they could've used to fine-tune both values, not least of which was the base mass value itself and the class of sensors required (which is one of the few components that cannot be downclassed to save mass). I'm very aware of the relationship between mass and jump range. For now, I'd be content with a low jump range if it means the Corvette keeps its amazing maneuverability. far more agile than one would expect from a massive ship. I liked the Anaconda, I like multi-purpose ships, but I couldn't get that thing to move the way I wanted. The maneuverability is what sold me to get this ship over the Anaconda I used to own. I did read up on a post I made about the jump range that someone said that if they made the Corvette jump farther, then they'd have to downgrade its maneuverability. I agree with you: I'm not asking for insanely long jump range, just something more manageable than 11ly fully outfitted. Going into a RES, I feel like Slave I in Episode II in the ring around Geonosis. ![]() Post/comment not appearing? It may have entered our AutoModerator's event horizon. Read the Subreddit's Rules and Removals Info Page before posting ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |