Ship matrix

[AstroSam]

Same here. Hm, I'd expected something more..."wow"...
I mean, after all they announced, spreading the hype word for the awesome new ship matrix.
But this? Its basically the old ship matrix with some more details but less information in it.
*sigh* I probably should simply lower my expectations.

 

[Sirus7264]

Same here. Hm, I'd expected something more..."wow"...
I mean, after all they announced, spreading the hype word for the awesome new ship matrix.
But this? Its basically the old ship matrix with some more details but less information in it.
*sigh* I probably should simply lower my expectations.

Thats the navy nuke way we always thought the worst outcome so that you can never be disapointed.

Other than that i like that they updated all ship info and were more specific now it makes alot more sense and i feel more comfortable with my fleet

 

[Tealwraith]

Weren't they telling us that the original stats were wrong, that the new ship matrix would fix the discrepencies and the 600i Pacer Explorer and the Constellation Aquila were much closer in size and performance, just more luxury for Origin? New Matrix: Aquila 61m x 26m x 14m, Explorer 91.5m x 52m x 17m. Aquila 416,009kg, Explorer 1,576,792 kg. Aquila 3-4 crew, Explorer 2-5 crew. Aquila 12 gimbal thrusters, Explorer 8 fixed thrusters. So, the 600i Pacer is 50% longer, over 3x the mass and much less maneuverable. I thought I had a good idea of what a 600i Pacer would look like compared to a Constellation, but now my head is spinning. This thing is closer in size and mass to a Caterpillar, which is 111.5m x 39m x 13.5m and masses 1,623,573kg. YIKES! I hope that all you guys who bought one of these consider this an upgrade and not a bend over.

 

[Crymsan]

Firstly they get a lot of criticism for going of on tangents, (wasting development time, feature creep etc), so the fact the matrix looks the same is okay by me. As for how accurate stuff is well, as we all know ship sizes for anything other than fighter size ships is only pencilled in until they actually put the ship together.

The 600 should be large than a connie (if cost means anything not sure it means that much mind), its a ship which pretty much maps its functionality, well two versions of the connie anyway. Else the badge on the 600 is seriously expensive and well if so I would sell the badge and keep the ship!

 

[supitza]

Firstly they get a lot of criticism for going of on tangents, (wasting development time, feature creep etc), so the fact the matrix looks the same is okay by me.

Haven't they been working on the new matrix for like... months?

 

[Crymsan]

Months, isn't that the same as just getting started for CIG.

 

[D3Mark]

But this? Its basically the old ship matrix with some more details but less information in it.

It's actually not the same stats because originally the Lancer MAX had 4xT4 engines, while normal Lancer had 2xT4 engines. Now, all Lancers have 2 engines. This significantly lowers the beast mode of the original Lancer MAX because you got double cargo but you also got double engines. Same engine size as a Coni on a Lancer, combined with lower mass/weight, it would have been a relatively faster ship. Think like a big block engine in a small truck compared to a standard engine.

THAT is why I'm concerned here.