When compared to the minimum viable product approach? More ideas are better than no ideas.
New ship: Panther Clipper
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
I really do not care what Cargo it holds. As long as its 30% more than the T9 and Cutter. If its 1200T I'll be happy, as long as I can buy the Hauler version and can kit it out nice.
The freedom of one person ends where that of another begins. That applies to multiplayer games as well as to everything else. Sadly the world doesn't work that way, due to a few bad apples, but it should.
So today is apparently the day.
Today is the day if I find out how much Platinum I need to mine
Hopefully a lot, if not I'll just mine salt I guess.
Last edited:
Trial by fire for Arthurs apprentice.....
I'm bracing for the worst.
It will have a whopping... 824 tons of cargo capacity, more than any other ship in the game!
To be fair, we are due another feature later in the year and colonisation was always advertised as being similar to hauling CGs (or maybe I just derived that from the information available, whatever, it was apparent that hauling was the game here). I've built everything I want to build at this point. Adding stuff isn't going to bring me back to messing around with station economies or settlement planning when there things to shoot.
What I would like FDev to do is, when it's ready, leave colonisation alone and focus on the new stuff (fixes to a few things that need looking at aside). Give hauling lovers their focused gameplay, then give everyone else something entirely different and focused on something else with no crossover later. If they keep doing that then eventually we all win, in theory. Adding bits to stuff we're not all that interested in anyway just throws out the development timelines.
Uh...FDEV leaving features hanging in the air and piling up something new instead has been one of the most long standing criticisms of the game. And thankfully we did get some revamps eventually, although it took years in each case. Exploration (which was controversial, but IMO ultimately enriched the game) and mining got their update in ED Beyond, and especially the mining update was well received. And lately came the revamp of Powerplay. So I have to disagree here. And the next ancient feature in dire need of improvements is IMO CQC.
I'll
I just look at things like colonization, and the lack of it being tied into other existing features it could very easily be tied into, while preserving it's hauling focus, and see more missed opportunity. I'd love it if content wasn't hyper focused, but was instead more comprehensive, and integrated.
Whoops. Gone galactically off topic there!
Anyway, I'm going to be positive and predict that we are going to see a sizeable increase incapacity purely based off all the gameplay added since the Cutter originally came out. Colonisation, fleet carriers (tritium hauling) and even to some extent the buffs to metal prices have all given us more reason to engage with hauling, but without a big fancy purpose built trade ship being added. If the capacity close to a Cutter (which I'm used to and know exactly how it behaves, and as a multi-purpose ship I can do other stuff with it while hauling that lump of cargo) I'm not sure if I'm going to want to spend real money on something that isn't a noticeable improvement.
I mean, look at the T-8 versus the old king of medium pad trading, the Python.
My Python stays my smuggling ship, G5 low emissions plant. But as a hauler ? The T8 carries a lot more, even with shield, scoop and FSD booster. 294t max cargo vs 406t max. That's almost 28% more. Although I hope the Panther gets a little bit more than 28% over the Cutter, or we're looking at ~1000t max.
Yes, I suppose they did have to account for the fact that a T-8 can't really have more capacity than a large ship- it's already close enough to an Anaconda. No such limitations for a large ship though.
Make that quintillion and I'll consider it...