Sorry misread
Last edited:
Buff the Traders
- Thread starter Han Brannigan
- Start date
I would rather there be more believability - even if it were spaced better it would have paper thin armour (compared to the Asp), or have some real big deficiencies that are more pronounced. Costs go up incredible amounts for tiny gains, anyway.
Why? The Clipper is really big, and a load of it is engine that isn't used for storage (see the nacelles).
Last edited:
While I don't exactly agree with the OP I do agree in general. Trading ships do need to be buffed.
if you think of it like combat ships, cheaper and really good at one thing. Trader ships only benefit from one of these things their price. They do not outperform their multi role equivalents in most situations at least in terms of their intended role, trading.
the Type 6 is probably the closest to hitting the nail on the head it is cheap and fast with a great jump range making it ideal as a trader but the drawback of the type 6 is its survivability when outclassed by a larger faster ship such as the clipper or a high alpha Python. Giving the Type 6 the ability to outfit one class higher power plant and giving it one more utility mount would go a long way to help this. To round it out giving it one more class 5 slot would place it competitively in step with the asp. The asp would still technically be better but not by such a huge margin. All of these potential upgrades would also make the ship naturally more expensive after upgrading the ship.
the Type 7 by contrast needs a lot of work. This should be the tanker safer version of the T6. again allowing the fitting of a class 5 reactor and giving it one more utility slot. Allowing the fitting of a class 6 FSD, an additional class 6 cargo rack, upgrading two of the hardpoints to medium, and finally doubling the base shield value. The type 7 really needs a lot of work. Again this would put the python again in a better spot on paper but in practice this would have it to where the type 7 would stay relevant and competitive. Keeping its base price low while allowing it to be upgraded into a competitive setting. The added cargo would be less than the Python, the shield still weaker, but the jump range superior allowing more credits per hour than in the Python. The clipper would be a side grade in that it's speed is its selling point, the Python is firepower and outpost landing options. The T7's would be a low rebuy and more profit.
The type 9 is tricky because in certian situations it is better than the anaconda but it is barely better than the anaconda and monumentally weaker in every way. It's incredibly slow so you're not running from anyone, it can be mass locked by a lot of ships, even an asp. It's shields are pathetic in a real world loadout and even top shelf which you would never do they are terrible. The jump range is the biggest thorn in the type 9's side and is really the biggest issue with the ship.
So the type 9 would need a few things changed to really be a balanced and useful trader. To start this should be the traders ace in the hole for survival and high volume trading. Nothing insane it should not have anything on the conda in terms of shield strength it isn't a combat ship but it should be stronger than any other trader and substantial against any small time pirates. mass lock factor this is the largest, and heaviest ship currently in the game and it get mass locked by an asp, it should have the same mass lock factor as a federal dropship. It's armaments do little to stop Cobras let alone anything else, it is incredibly easy to kill so this should also be addressed. The type 9 should be the Flying Fortress of traders difficult to take down but still relatively weak, huge payload, with amazing range.
so specifically what to change? Again the ability to fit a class 7 reactor, three additional utility slots, one additional class 5 internal slot, a class 7 frame shift drive, match the dropship's mass lock value, upgrade the small weapons to medium and the lower hardpoint to a large, and double the base shield value. All of these upgrade potentials would definitively place it above the conda in terms of trading. The conda would still have much better defensive and offensive options, speed, maneuverability, and even jump range as a trader but the type 9 would be much better protected than it is now, have a comparable laden jump range, have the potential to escape most pirate ships, the cost of these additional upgrades makes it in line with that of the conda as well still cheaper but only good at one thing.
the addition of smuggling / salvaging would also breathe more life into the smaller ships even financially secure players. Ships like the hauler, adder, type 6 and 7 would be useful again. But that's a different topic.
trading ships need to have overhead for upgrades otherwise what's the point of running shields, armor, boosters, banks weapons, A class equipment? As they are now to even compare to their multi role brethren they need to sacrifice everything in order to be even slightly relevant and even then are outclassed by conservative multi role ships running weapons and shields. It should be the other way around. But it shouldn't be free either other than buffing the base shield value all of the changes proposed above come at financial cost, while they would be cheaper to get into much like the vulture their upgrade cost would be prohibitively expensive and not just a blanket buff with no cost.
if you think of it like combat ships, cheaper and really good at one thing. Trader ships only benefit from one of these things their price. They do not outperform their multi role equivalents in most situations at least in terms of their intended role, trading.
the Type 6 is probably the closest to hitting the nail on the head it is cheap and fast with a great jump range making it ideal as a trader but the drawback of the type 6 is its survivability when outclassed by a larger faster ship such as the clipper or a high alpha Python. Giving the Type 6 the ability to outfit one class higher power plant and giving it one more utility mount would go a long way to help this. To round it out giving it one more class 5 slot would place it competitively in step with the asp. The asp would still technically be better but not by such a huge margin. All of these potential upgrades would also make the ship naturally more expensive after upgrading the ship.
the Type 7 by contrast needs a lot of work. This should be the tanker safer version of the T6. again allowing the fitting of a class 5 reactor and giving it one more utility slot. Allowing the fitting of a class 6 FSD, an additional class 6 cargo rack, upgrading two of the hardpoints to medium, and finally doubling the base shield value. The type 7 really needs a lot of work. Again this would put the python again in a better spot on paper but in practice this would have it to where the type 7 would stay relevant and competitive. Keeping its base price low while allowing it to be upgraded into a competitive setting. The added cargo would be less than the Python, the shield still weaker, but the jump range superior allowing more credits per hour than in the Python. The clipper would be a side grade in that it's speed is its selling point, the Python is firepower and outpost landing options. The T7's would be a low rebuy and more profit.
The type 9 is tricky because in certian situations it is better than the anaconda but it is barely better than the anaconda and monumentally weaker in every way. It's incredibly slow so you're not running from anyone, it can be mass locked by a lot of ships, even an asp. It's shields are pathetic in a real world loadout and even top shelf which you would never do they are terrible. The jump range is the biggest thorn in the type 9's side and is really the biggest issue with the ship.
So the type 9 would need a few things changed to really be a balanced and useful trader. To start this should be the traders ace in the hole for survival and high volume trading. Nothing insane it should not have anything on the conda in terms of shield strength it isn't a combat ship but it should be stronger than any other trader and substantial against any small time pirates. mass lock factor this is the largest, and heaviest ship currently in the game and it get mass locked by an asp, it should have the same mass lock factor as a federal dropship. It's armaments do little to stop Cobras let alone anything else, it is incredibly easy to kill so this should also be addressed. The type 9 should be the Flying Fortress of traders difficult to take down but still relatively weak, huge payload, with amazing range.
so specifically what to change? Again the ability to fit a class 7 reactor, three additional utility slots, one additional class 5 internal slot, a class 7 frame shift drive, match the dropship's mass lock value, upgrade the small weapons to medium and the lower hardpoint to a large, and double the base shield value. All of these upgrade potentials would definitively place it above the conda in terms of trading. The conda would still have much better defensive and offensive options, speed, maneuverability, and even jump range as a trader but the type 9 would be much better protected than it is now, have a comparable laden jump range, have the potential to escape most pirate ships, the cost of these additional upgrades makes it in line with that of the conda as well still cheaper but only good at one thing.
the addition of smuggling / salvaging would also breathe more life into the smaller ships even financially secure players. Ships like the hauler, adder, type 6 and 7 would be useful again. But that's a different topic.
trading ships need to have overhead for upgrades otherwise what's the point of running shields, armor, boosters, banks weapons, A class equipment? As they are now to even compare to their multi role brethren they need to sacrifice everything in order to be even slightly relevant and even then are outclassed by conservative multi role ships running weapons and shields. It should be the other way around. But it shouldn't be free either other than buffing the base shield value all of the changes proposed above come at financial cost, while they would be cheaper to get into much like the vulture their upgrade cost would be prohibitively expensive and not just a blanket buff with no cost.
Even though I don't trade that much, I do agree with the OP. Trading ships are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to speed, agility and combat; I think it's fair that they should have a big advantage when it comes to cargo capacity, and possibly jump range. (If they have a higher class of FSD to enable longer jumps, then it stands to reason they also would have much higher fuel usage & costs, as it should be).
The Type 9 is enormous, and the Type 7 is a good deal larger than the Python (looking at the height, which you obviously can't see in the image above). No reason they can't carry more.
The Type 9 is enormous, and the Type 7 is a good deal larger than the Python (looking at the height, which you obviously can't see in the image above). No reason they can't carry more.
How about halving the cargo rack sizes and adding traders ships a fixed, unreplaceable and unsellable internal compartment to make up for this.
So trader ships would carry the same, multirole ships would carry half what they can now, and all the other equipment would not be affected at all.
So trader ships would carry the same, multirole ships would carry half what they can now, and all the other equipment would not be affected at all.
Last edited:
Trade ships don't need to be ... arghh... (I really hate this word,) buffed. We just need some better market analytics.
Traders have every tool in the world to make incredible amounts of credits, they just need to have them available in game, without relying on outside resources.
Traders have every tool in the world to make incredible amounts of credits, they just need to have them available in game, without relying on outside resources.
Thats not my problem at all. As you would no if you had read the OP.
I 'no' plenty.
I read the OP. My comment stands. Trading ships are fine as they are. The analytics could be better.
With my idea you would have to change ( slightly ) two ships ( T6 is fine as it is as is the Hauler imo ) with yours it would affect 3/4 of the fleet.
In reality giving ethe T7 50 extra tons and the T9 100 would probably suffice for what I have in mind.
Other then that though I'd be okay with that.
- - - Updated - - -
Well then either your reading comprehension sucks - or my post was more ambigous then I thought possible. Its not that trading or traders does not generate enough profit - its that the equivalent multi role ships do generate more as well as the pure discrepancy between size and max cargo capacity.
Last edited:
So, you're bummed out that multi-role ships have to completely re-rig themselves to do something almost as well as a pure trader would?
I don't get it, maybe I just don't trade as much as I could, but it seems that a Type7 is much better than anything in its price range at pure hauling.
Of course you could re-fit a Clipper, but it has a horrible fuel tank and you have to rank up with the Empire (and it's more expensive.) I guess a Python is a better hauler, but it is much more expensive to get into.
A T9 is the best pure hauler and the Anny trails just behind... you can get more space on the T9 but you have a better defensive ship with the Anaconda.
Seems pretty balanced?
I don't get it, maybe I just don't trade as much as I could, but it seems that a Type7 is much better than anything in its price range at pure hauling.
Of course you could re-fit a Clipper, but it has a horrible fuel tank and you have to rank up with the Empire (and it's more expensive.) I guess a Python is a better hauler, but it is much more expensive to get into.
A T9 is the best pure hauler and the Anny trails just behind... you can get more space on the T9 but you have a better defensive ship with the Anaconda.
Seems pretty balanced?
Only thing I could really complain about is the fact that a python has more cargo capacity than a type 7. Considering the type 7 is almost as long (81.6L vs 87.9L), about as wide (56.1W vs 58.1W) but 7 meters higher (25.4H vs 18.0H) and box shaped vs the python's wedge shape it's a little silly. And don't bring up the price argument, I'm talking basic logic here:
Another thing that's a bit annoying is the absence of a potential Type 8 to fill the huge gap between the 17M cr Type 7 and the 73M cr Type 9. One would think theres a market there for Lakon. I can almost understand making the trading grind to the conda take as long as it does, it makes sense in a way, but logically this oversight is a bit odd.
I do agree with upping the jump ranges of trading ships by giving them a tier higher FSD's, that would at least make the T9 manageable. The fact that it gets the same class FSD as the 600 tons lighter Anaconda is a little more than ridiculous and pretty much makes it obsolete. The ~50t extra amounts to about 75k cr on a decent (1500cr/ton profit) one way haul, but considering the fact you have to make approximately 1-2 extra jumps VS the conda, 13LY vs 20, not to mention the snails pace of the T9 (130-200 m/s vs the conda with 180-240, and both are running class 7 thrusters with an optimal weight of 1620t, the conda gets a bigger bonus) and the fact that the T9 behaves about as well as a brick on ice.
As it stands, as many of you may know, the conda is just the better trading ship when it comes down to it.
It's faster, more maneuverable, jumps further, has about 3-5 times the shield strengh on a class 4 shield vs a 5 class on the T9 and only carries about 50 tons less if you want a shield with your T9 (which you really, really do).
Another thing that's a bit annoying is the absence of a potential Type 8 to fill the huge gap between the 17M cr Type 7 and the 73M cr Type 9. One would think theres a market there for Lakon. I can almost understand making the trading grind to the conda take as long as it does, it makes sense in a way, but logically this oversight is a bit odd.
I do agree with upping the jump ranges of trading ships by giving them a tier higher FSD's, that would at least make the T9 manageable. The fact that it gets the same class FSD as the 600 tons lighter Anaconda is a little more than ridiculous and pretty much makes it obsolete. The ~50t extra amounts to about 75k cr on a decent (1500cr/ton profit) one way haul, but considering the fact you have to make approximately 1-2 extra jumps VS the conda, 13LY vs 20, not to mention the snails pace of the T9 (130-200 m/s vs the conda with 180-240, and both are running class 7 thrusters with an optimal weight of 1620t, the conda gets a bigger bonus) and the fact that the T9 behaves about as well as a brick on ice.
As it stands, as many of you may know, the conda is just the better trading ship when it comes down to it.
It's faster, more maneuverable, jumps further, has about 3-5 times the shield strengh on a class 4 shield vs a 5 class on the T9 and only carries about 50 tons less if you want a shield with your T9 (which you really, really do).
Last edited:
Not really. A Clipper is 2 hours extra trading in an Asp and you get a much more capable ship. Empire rank can be obtained as you climb the ship tree by running missions as a break between long stretches of trading.
Fuel tank is non factor as you can refuel at the station. If you somehow run out of fuel trading you're doing it wrong.
T-9 is awful, you are better off going straight to Anaconda from Clipper (If you're the type that bore easily you can buy a Python in between and spend an extra 4 hours or so trading to reach Anaconda). The FSD & speed advantage of Anaconda means for any route that requires you to jump over 13 LY it always bring more profit than a T-9.
I know, I spend enough time trading to reach Elite...
tl:dr Yes trading ships bar T-6 are "underpowered".
Last edited:
I suppose this is a reasonable argument, but we have no idea how these ships are structured. They have different manufacturers and are meant for different purposes.
To say that the T7 isn't as efficiently built as a Python is correct, but that means Lakon makes crappola ships. (don't talk about the ASP, Lakon stole the design.)
This is supposed to be fun. Enjoy it and work around the idiosyncrasies.
No. I wrote exactly what my 'problem' is. Try to read my posts.
Oh geez. You really think stopping at a station and refueling is efficient? As opposed to... I don't know, not doing that?
And, 2 hours from ASP to Clipper huh? OK. You just get the Baron rank, how? And you get a pretty crappola trading ship until you kit it up.
Give me a break here.
- - - Updated - - -
I read them. They just don't make much sense.