Buff the Traders

[n13L5]

It is all about internal compartments and ship sizes. T7 is a relatively small box, and looks smaller than a Python, so how on earth it can should be able to carry 350-400t or cargo? That's impossible.
Anaconda can carry that much cargo as it has so many internal compartments. T9 is about 25% unbalanced here but it is again all about internal compartments.

I have no particular opinion about what ships *should* carry how much, but:

The T6 carries ~96 tons (with shield).
The T7 carries ~216 tons (with shield)

But the T7 is MUCH more than twice the size of a T6. So a physical scale argument doesn't really work in either direction.

Frankly, at merely twice the cargo of the T6, the T7 could at least be a bunch flatter and be more convenient to fly through the coin-slot in all the stations.

Further, as you call the T7 a "fairly small box", why can't it land on medium pads?


Either way, I'm with the OP on one thing: T7 is a wanting experience outside of its lateral thrust ability, lacking any kind of 'cool' in the cockpit, which makes it something to hold you over till you can afford the far more luxurious and cool multipurpose version.

I get that its supposed to be a utilitarian space truck. But then that makes no sense if a nice luxury vessel can carry more and land on medium pads to boot.

Believe me, I don't want the Python nerfed in any way, I'm a few hours away from having enough for it, including upgrades, insurance money and trading money. And I'm soooo looking forward to get rid of the T7...

 

[Troa Barton]

I have no particular opinion about what ship *should* carry how much, but:

The T6 carries ~96 tons (with shield).
The T7 carries ~216 tons (with shield)

But the T7 is MUCH more than twice the size of a T6.

Frankly, at merely twice the cargo of the T6, the T7 could at least be a bunch flatter and be more convenient to fly through the coin-slot in all the stations.

Further, as you call the T7 a "fairly small box", why can't it land on medium pads?


Either way, I'm with the OP on one thing: T7 is annoying to fly, lacking any kind of 'cool' in the cockpit, which makes it something to hold you over till you can afford the multipurpose version.
I get that its supposed to be a utilitarian space truck. But then that makes no sense if a nice luxury vessel can carry more and land on medium pads to boot.

Believe me, I don't want the Python nerfed in any way, I'm a few hours away from having enough for it, including upgrades, insurance money and trading money. And I'm soooo looking forward to get rid of the T7...

Oh no nerfs to the multi roles is not the way to go I agree. In this instance buffs are the correct action imo. Nerfing all of the multi roles would make a LOT of people angry. Besides I don't think it's needed those ships on their own are fine it's the trading ships that need attention.

 

[Galvinar]

2 hours from ASP to Clipper is totally reasonable. As is 4 hours from Python to Anaconda.

I'm sorry, Why in a discussion among traders has no one called him on this?

I don't pretend to be a math wiz most of the time, But 4 hours from a Python to an Anaconda is a ridiculous statement.

I just want to run the math by you on this one so you can see what I mean.
The Python Max kitted for cargo, Running no shields, holds 292 Tons of cargo.
Lets say you find the Golden route, the white whale, the absolute cream of the crop trade route, and it manages to sustain its goods during the entire trading session.
I think most would agree that a route like this would be around 2800-3000cr/t Profit.
Lets say, that for the sake of your argument that this route, takes you 10 minutes round trip, a pretty fast run.. This means you can do 6 runs in an hour.
292 Tons of Cargo x 3000 Profit X 6 runs in an hour = 5,256,000 Million Credits in that hour.

This means at the end of your 4 hours you've made 21,024,000 Credits assuming that you run each of those 6 routes absolutely flawlessly, never getting interdicted, distracted, overshooting, and never messing up docking.
The cost of a Python like this, fully trade Kitted - 63 million, give or take depending on your loadout preferences. So after four hours of your golden trade route which has miraculously held its profits. You're now sitting on 84 million and change in assets..

The Cost of a -STOCK- Anaconda, is 146 Million.

If you want it kitted decently for trading, and the cost of selling the Python for the upgrade, tack another 25 or so million on that cost.

171 Million Credits. This means that you need to run your golden route for 16 more hours before you'll have enough to afford the Anaconda - for a total of 20 hours of trading on the absolute best route I've never heard of.

So unless you know of a route that is boasting 15,000 cr/t Profit. 4 hours from a Python to an Anaconda is an absolute absurdity.

Edit: for the sake of Clarity as well.
The cost of a stock t-9 is 76.5 Mil. Which you'd be able to afford after a four hour session on this route. You're still looking at another 16 hours or more, giving room for errors, to hit the Anaconda.

 

[Pendra]

X+2 or 4 hours. Where X is the time it would normally take to get from said ship to the other.

 

[Lucifer Hate]

Look at the game as it is. Trading does not need a buff as it is already to high as it is in proportion to the other career paths. The T9s crazy in what it can make on good trade routes. Other professions nee balancing with trading 1st

 

[Galvinar]

X+2 or 4 hours. Where X is the time it would normally take to get from said ship to the other.

I edited my post to include this as well.
4 hours on the golden route to get from kitted Python to stock T9; AKA 'X'.
It would still take another 8-12 hours to get from said kitted Python to stock Anaconda past that initial X.

And again, I think that just about everyone would agree with me, that the route that I used as an example is an INCREDIBLY rare find. If it exists at all.
Its more likely that Traders are running a 2300-2500cr/t route and probably averaging 4-5 runs/hour as those are far more prevalent throughout the galaxy.

I'd venture a guess and say that most are running some kind of Shields, which lowers cargo, that nobody is consistently trading on a 3000cr/t route, and that they're more likely to be doing 4 or 5 trips/hour than 6.
260t Cargo x 2400 x 5. Means a profit/hour of 3.1 Mill.
This means that you're now looking at something closer to 6 hours for a stock t9, and another 12-18 hours for the Anaconda.

 

[Greyhawk]

IMO The only thing you need to do to trade ships is:

• Replace base pulse lasers with turreted pulse lasers of the same power and in a better position.
• Increase Armour
• Give better jump range
• Get rid of the 2 rank 2 internal compartments and replace with 1 x rank 4. This is to lessen any chance of making a trade ship a better explorer than an explorer by restricting access to the detailed scanner and advanced scanner combo.
• Base ship should have at least one highest rank compartment with highest rank cargo capacity instead of always being 1 lower when bought.
• Increase utility slots by 1 on a type 6 & 7, 2 on a type 9.
• Put old newspapers on the dashboard and some dirty coffee mugs

 

[deathmagnet]

Look at the game as it is. Trading does not need a buff as it is already to high as it is in proportion to the other career paths. The T9s crazy in what it can make on good trade routes. Other professions nee balancing with trading 1st

If you read most of the posts, most people are for making the T6 and T7 less squishy and opposed to making trade more profitable. This is coming from a trader.

 

[Troa Barton]

Look at the game as it is. Trading does not need a buff as it is already to high as it is in proportion to the other career paths. The T9s crazy in what it can make on good trade routes. Other professions nee balancing with trading 1st

I see your point and I agree that the game as a whole really needs to be rebalanced but I will say two things, and in no way am I trying to be rude.
1. The discussion isn't about the game as a whole but the place trading ships have and their stats in relation to other ships.
2. As much as a lot of people want to deny it trading is the backbone of the game.

without trading being profitable there would not be any traders. Without the cargo being valuable there would be no pirates. Without pirates there would be no bounties to hunt. Without all these people causing chaos and being bored there would be no reason to get away from it all and explore.
mining will be an optional way to trade. Follows the same simba's circle of life.
smuggling and salvaging are just placeholders atm..

like i said I get it and agree that the rest of the game needs attention but that's not what this specific thread is about.

 

[deathmagnet]

IMO The only thing you need to do to trade ships is:

• Replace base pulse lasers with turreted pulse lasers of the same power and in a better position.
• Increase Armour
• Give better jump range
• Get rid of the 2 rank 2 internal compartments and replace with 1 x rank 4. This is to lessen any chance of making a trade ship a better explorer than an explorer by restricting access to the detailed scanner and advanced scanner combo.
• Base ship should have at least one highest rank compartment with highest rank cargo capacity instead of always being 1 lower when bought.
• Increase utility slots by 1 on a type 6 & 7, 2 on a type 9.
• Put old newspapers on the dashboard and some dirty coffee mugs

Rep for the dirty coffee mugs. I also think better weapons classes would be nice but would only work if they also increased shield strength. Don't know why a T9 has any small hardpoints. At that size, because its a trader and need to rely on defense, all hardpoints should be increased by 1 size and have better placement. You don't need 2 weapons directly forward. Half the time you won't even be able to see your target because your a slow ass cow. Equally place hardpoints above and below the ship.

 

[Han Brannigan]

I don't pretend to be a math wiz most of the time, But 4 hours from a Python to an Anaconda is a ridiculous statement.

Yes but his statement was that it takes four hrs longer to get to the Anaconda if you switch from a Clipper to a Python along the way. I cannot verify this - but you simply haven't understood his post

- - - Updated - - -

Look at the game as it is. Trading does not need a buff as it is already to high as it is in proportion to the other career paths. The T9s crazy in what it can make on good trade routes. Other professions nee balancing with trading 1st

You are right. This is why the thread is not about making Trading more profitable per se.

 

[Troa Barton]

Rep for the dirty coffee mugs. I also think better weapons classes would be nice but would only work if they also increased shield strength. Don't know why a T9 has any small hardpoints. At that size, because its a trader and need to rely on defense, all hardpoints should be increased by 1 size and have better placement. You don't need 2 weapons directly forward. Half the time you won't even be able to see your target because your a slow ass cow. Equally place hardpoints above and below the ship.

I never understood why the type 7 and 9 have forward facing hardpoints.. That's just silly.

 

[Han Brannigan]

I never understood why the type 7 and 9 have forward facing hardpoints.. That's just silly.

Mining? But I somewhat agree especially with the type 6 who has ONLY forward facing armament.

 

[Ancipital]

Lol yeah for appearances I should start name calling and threatening to quit lol
And you should totally do it I have a blast running around lave in my elite type 6. I make them work for it and if they disable me I abandon all my cargo. If they blow me up its no skin off my back, its a lot of fun and it's my way of promoting meaningful player interaction.

It's not the worst idea that I've ever heard

 

[LeetNoob]

Apologies if this was already mentioned. Cargo space does not seem to be based on volume, but on weight. So for example you can install a Cargo rack that takes 64 tons of cargo. This really bothers me for some reason as it doesn’t make sense, 1 ton of gold would take up a lot less space than say 1 ton of Grain or 1 ton of clothes. But for gaming purposes I suppose it works better.

 

[Han Brannigan]

Apologies if this was already mentioned. Cargo space does not seem to be based on volume, but on weight. So for example you can install a Cargo rack that takes 64 tons of cargo. This really bothers me for some reason as it doesn’t make sense, 1 ton of gold would take up a lot less space than say 1 ton of Grain or 1 ton of clothes. But for gaming purposes I suppose it works better.

This is a good explanation and while it has already been mentioned in a thread there is no need to apologize ( no one should be forced to read through the thread b4 posting ). The counter argument is of course - why then make them so voluminous in the first place. Possible explanation for ease when loading/unloading. However as of now loading/unloading happens in zero time so ....

 

[DangerousLarry]

I dunno... I'm of mind to think there needs to be some freighter buffs or at least more freighters introduced to cover the massive gaps. It's fairly ridiculous to see the second most expensive ship in the game that's a dedicated freighter to only be capable of holding 62T more than a multipurpose ship(Anaconda). If you can afford it the Anaconda is the sure choice as it offers vast improvements in every way even though it's similar in size to the T9. It just seems some ships are very unbalanced. Take the federal dropship: It sucks. No one uses it because it has no real purpose something much cheaper wouldn't be able to do but better. The python is vastly superior to the T7 too.

There's also the price comparison to take into consideration which leads me to believe we'll most likely see a few more varied and top tier ships to flesh out each role in the game. We'll probably see another two freighters in the next few patches to fill the gap between T7-Python and T9-Anaconda(100million is a huge gap!) to diversify each role more and dwarf those multipurpose ships from what they are now(Ace) to what they should be(Jack of all trades, master of none). It's probably a "time will tell" kind of thing. They do seem to have gotten the early game ships balanced quite well and at least the first half of mid-tier ships and they do seem to be focusing on mid-tier ships at the moment in regards to adding more variety which makes sense as this is the first big block you'll hit in progression requiring massive grinding.

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

This thread, at least the first page, was disappointing. I was expecting something about giving traders a larger and more effective armament, so ships like the T9 can actually FLY without an escort, and not have to fear a wing of 3 Eagles.

 

[Troa Barton]

Mining? But I somewhat agree especially with the type 6 who has ONLY forward facing armament.

Yeah but it's not hard to hit a rock bigger than your ship with a top mount on a T9

- - - Updated - - -

This thread, at least the first page, was disappointing. I was expecting something about giving traders a larger and more effective armament, so ships like the T9 can actually FLY without an escort, and not have to fear a wing of 3 Eagles.

Your wording implies that you read on past page 1, but if that is not the case have you seen page 2

 

[Han Brannigan]

Yeah but it's not hard to hit a rock bigger than your ship with a top mount on a T9

True - but at least having mining lasers pointing forward makes some sense ( as long as your ship is nimbler then the average asteroid that is.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread, at least the first page, was disappointing. I was expecting something about giving traders a larger and more effective armament, so ships like the T9 can actually FLY without an escort, and not have to fear a wing of 3 Eagles.

Thats what multi role ships are for imo. Traders are mostly a cheap and efficient way of bringing bulk goods from A to B ( maybe by way of C ) where AB( and C if included) are save systems.
While sticking to bulk trading in a safe zone you should ( imo again ) make more dole with a pure trader then its multi role counterpart.