Can someone check my trading Python loadout for any glaring issues?

n13L5

n13L5
Well, some people might consider a Python without weapons an atrocity and a waste.

I can understand that, but the upgrade was very much worth it to me over my hated T7.


After someone's advice, I actually tried a 3A shield, but after my girlfriend handing me a cup of coffee at the wrong moment, a minor bump into the small space port buildings you find behind some of the landing pads collapsed the shield and left the Python with 51% hull damage.

So I changed to an A4 shield. I tried to get the lowest possible weight, since the Python's jump range doesn't exactly shine (though no worse than the T7 when considering it takes considerably more cargo - T7 did 17.4 LY with 216 tons, Python does 16.5 LY with 276 tons)

So, aside from low weight, I made sure the power requirements were matched and not over-matched, as I understand there's no point in providing more power than the components can actually draw.


The main thing I'm unsure about is how important the reduced integrity of smaller size components is, like my D5 power plant, being 2 sizes smaller, while still oversupplying the combined consumption of everything installed.

I assume this might have an effect if another player targets your sub-systems, shooting directly at your small power plant.

I do not know if interdicting NPCs will target subsystems, causing a total loss if they take down my power plant quickly, because it was a size 5 instead of size 6 or 7.



Anyway, the setup is this:


[Python]

BH: 1I Lightweight Alloy
RB: 5D Power Plant
TM: 6D Thrusters
FH: 5A Frame Shift Drive
EC: 4D Life Support
PC: 6D Power Distributor (for 4 tons more, I could upgrade to a 5A Power Distributor, but can't really tell if there would be any point)
SS: 6D Sensors
FS: 5C Fuel Tank (Capacity: 32)

6: 6E Cargo Rack (Capacity: 64)
6: 6E Cargo Rack (Capacity: 64)
6: 6E Cargo Rack (Capacity: 64)
5: 5E Cargo Rack (Capacity: 32)
5: 5E Cargo Rack (Capacity: 32)
4: 4A Shield Generator
3: 3E Cargo Rack (Capacity: 8)
3: 3E Cargo Rack (Capacity: 8)
2: 2E Cargo Rack (Capacity: 4)
---
Shield: 292.26 MJ
Power : 11.57 MW retracted (76%)
11.57 MW deployed (76%)
15.30 MW available
Cargo : 276 T
Fuel : 32 T
Mass : 440.0 T empty
748.0 T full
Range : 26.09 LY unladen
16.47 LY laden


Someone had told me the Python would fly like a bus without A6 thrusters installed, but he must have come from a Viper and never tried the T7. To me, the Python moves swiftly with the 6D thrusters and I can boost non-stop, if not at the same speed as 6A's, but my jump range would drop below 16 LY with cargo, not to mention I might also have to upgrade the power distributor. 16 LY is already a pretty short route...


Any comments will be much appreciated! :D
 
Last edited:

ChubbyBunneh

ChubbyBunneh
3A shield with several boosters will be stronger than the 4A and give you more room for cargo.

Theres no reason not to load up on shield boosters on pure trading ships. It's not like you need the power for heavy weaponry or a KWS right?
 
Last edited:

Alex Brentnall

Alex Brentnall
If you are playing in open and want to avoid player interdictions fit the cheapest kill warrant scanner you can and fill all hardpoints with C1 pulse lasers. -> Little reduction in jump distance but you look like a well armed bounty hunter instead of a soft trade target.
Obviously turn them off in module management to save power since you will be running anyway if stopped.
 

n13L5

n13L5
Garix said:
Personally I'd run something more like this.

Still over 16ly jump range.

I may change the 6d distributer for a 5A though. Would need to check in game though that I can still boost. I think the recharge is slightly quicker
Click to expand...

Thanks for link and info! I hadn't thought of checking a size 4 power plant for this :) Looks like it might be worth it! And yeah, I guess some shield boosters aren't a bad idea. Easy to add or remove if you need a little bit of extra jump range...

- - - Updated - - -

ChubbyBunneh said:
3A shield with several boosters will be stronger than the 4A and give you more room for cargo.

Theres no reason not to load up on shield boosters on pure trading ships. It's not like you need the power for heavy weaponry or a KWS right?
Click to expand...

yep, you're right..
 

Djinn144

Djinn144
id swap back to a A3 shield gen(add some Boosters if you want to but not really needed in PvE) i know it doesnt sound alot having 8 extra cargo, but that soon adds up when your doing trading runs for a few hours, 284T cargo python till you can get and out fit a T9 cash cow
 

n13L5

n13L5
Alex Brentnall said:
If you are playing in open and want to avoid player interdictions fit the cheapest kill warrant scanner you can and fill all hardpoints with C1 pulse lasers. -> Little reduction in jump distance but you look like a well armed bounty hunter instead of a soft trade target.
Obviously turn them off in module management to save power since you will be running anyway if stopped.
Click to expand...

Most interesting idea... very clever! What I gather is, that people can scan if you have weapons and kws? I don't really plan to trade in open, so mainly want to be sure I can last against the occasional NPC Anaconda until the FSD cooldown is up. I was one of those guys who wanted the offline game, though being able with some friends isn't a all bad either.
 

Alex Brentnall

Alex Brentnall
n13L5 said:
Most interesting idea... very clever! What I gather is, that people can scan if you have weapons and kws? I don't really plan to trade in open, so mainly want to be sure I can last against the occasional NPC Anaconda until the FSD cooldown is up. I was one of those guys who wanted the offline game, though being able with some friends isn't a all bad either.
Click to expand...

Yeah in supercruise or normal if you select a target you can see on subtargets (right hand side) what their loadout is but not the size/quality. It allows you to disguise a bit but won't fool certain pirates who only worry about the target after they interdict them.
 

n13L5

n13L5
Djinn144 said:
id swap back to a A3 shield gen(add some Boosters if you want to but not really needed in PvE) i know it doesnt sound alot having 8 extra cargo, but that soon adds up when your doing trading runs for a few hours, 284T cargo python till you can get and out fit a T9 cash cow
Click to expand...
From my experience with the T7, I will NEVER get a T9... I'd rather slow-boat it in the Python until I can get an Anaconda for trading...

I hate flying ships that barely fit through the coin slot in the space stations and I don't like their sound, their cockpit or their way of moving. It makes me not want to play.

.


But I will certainly consider the A3 plus boosters.

The only worm in that ointment is the fact that being at least somewhere between optimal and max mass makes a big difference in the shield's capability that isn't visible from the shield's stats.

Sure I'd appreciate an extra 8000-11000 credits on every trip. But it doesn't quite make up for a lost load of Palladium along with the rebuy fee...


Even my lightweight Python is still over the 3A shield's max mass. Even the A4's optimum mass is ~200 tons under.

I have no information if the shield boosters increase the optimum/maximum mass supported by the shields... Has FD ever said anything about that detail?
 
Last edited:

Djinn144

Djinn144
n13L5 said:
From my experience with the T7, I will NEVER get a T9... I'd rather slow-boat it in the Python until I can get an Anaconda for trading...

I hate flying ships that barely fit through the coin slot in the space stations and I don't like their sound, their cockpit or their way of moving. It makes me not want to play.
Click to expand...

i liked my T7 the yaw on that thing was insane but yea the T9 handles like a brick but was only a stepping stone to the trade Annie for me
 

mrHacker

M
n13L5 said:
From my experience with the T7, I will NEVER get a T9... I'd rather slow-boat it in the Python until I can get an Anaconda for trading...

I hate flying ships that barely fit through the coin slot in the space stations and I don't like their sound, their cockpit or their way of moving. It makes me not want to play.
Click to expand...

So you hate big, slow ships and your goal in the game is to buy a conda?
 

Rich Bramwell

Rich Bramwell
I had a Python way before they were nerfed, best ship in the fleet I thought. Then I brought an Anaconda before the 1.2 patch, I hated it because of the massive difference between the Python and Anaconda's agility and shortly after sold it a few days later, then when the Python was nerfed in-line with introducing the FDL in game shorty afterwards I thought FD had done a bad job at first with the Python nerf until I then brought another Anaconda, which subsequently felt much more in line with the progression of ship size and agility up a size from the Python.
My point is that I still love the Python and it still is an awesome ship but now the Anaconda feels much more suitable to it's job of just a larger multi-purpose version of the Python which it never felt like before the Python nerf because the Python was such a devastating agile killer with a 228 ton cargo bay too. It still stands that the Anaconda really needs the 51 million credit A 7 thrusters to be agile enough to be a real killer like the Python though.
Now instead of a 500 ton Type 9, a fully armed 404 ton Anaconda makes better sense to me than ever, especially with the introduction of ''wings'' and more faction fighting soon to be introduced.
 

n13L5

n13L5
mrHacker said:
So you hate big, slow ships and your goal in the game is to buy a conda?
Click to expand...

LOL No, my goal in the game is not to buy a Conda, the Conda would just be my less annoying trading ship to finance my various other bad habits and addictions ;-)
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: EUS

n13L5

n13L5
Rich Bramwell said:
I had a Python way before they were nerfed, best ship in the fleet I thought. Then I brought an Anaconda before the 1.2 patch, I hated it because of the massive difference between the Python and Anaconda's agility and shortly after sold it a few days later, then when the Python was nerfed in-line with introducing the FDL in game shorty afterwards I thought FD had done a bad job at first with the Python nerf until I then brought another Anaconda, which subsequently felt much more in line with the progression of ship size and agility up a size from the Python.
My point is that I still love the Python and it still is an awesome ship but now the Anaconda feels much more suitable to it's job of just a larger multi-purpose version of the Python which it never felt like before the Python nerf because the Python was such a devastating agile killer with a 228 ton cargo bay too. It still stands that the Anaconda really needs the 51 million credit A 7 thrusters to be agile enough to be a real killer like the Python though.
Now instead of a 500 ton Type 9, a fully armed 404 ton Anaconda makes better sense to me than ever, especially with the introduction of ''wings'' and more faction fighting soon to be introduced.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective! Much thanks for that (I've been out of the game from December 27 to May 17, because that's how long it took FD to respond to my support ticket.) So I'm now probably the most clueless beta player in the game :p

- - - Updated - - -

Ancipital said:
..and then fly it sans insurance, and without reading the manual. Remember, no-one reads manuals.
Click to expand...

With the insurance, you're talking about someone else, I've never flown anything without having 3x insurance :p

Manual, well, most games are intuitive enough a manual is only needed for the obtuse. And while I was defending that other guy in the other thread against people's attacks, I myself don't have a boxed version, so I use online info - mostly from other players, which is generally better and more detailed than any manual game makers put out.

Beta testers, for example, did extensive tests on how shield mechanics work and what exactly determines shields strength vs mass etc, stuff you'll never find in any manual. Game makers are never eager to give out the numbers that show how the wheels work in their little clockwork orange.
 
Last edited:

Makya

Makya
n13L5 said:
From my experience with the T7, I will NEVER get a T9... I'd rather slow-boat it in the Python until I can get an Anaconda for trading...

I hate flying ships that barely fit through the coin slot in the space stations and I don't like their sound, their cockpit or their way of moving. It makes me not want to play.

.


But I will certainly consider the A3 plus boosters.

The only worm in that ointment is the fact that being at least somewhere between optimal and max mass makes a big difference in the shield's capability that isn't visible from the shield's stats.

Sure I'd appreciate an extra 8000-11000 credits on every trip. But it doesn't quite make up for a lost load of Palladium along with the rebuy fee...


Even my lightweight Python is still over the 3A shield's max mass. Even the A4's optimum mass is ~200 tons under.

I have no information if the shield boosters increase the optimum/maximum mass supported by the shields... Has FD ever said anything about that detail?
Click to expand...
I couldn't get rid of my T7 fast enough but actually warmed up to flying a T9. Surprisingly, I found it easy to dock. But it truly drives like a big truck. It's now been sold for a Anaconda trader but I've kept my Python. For trading, I think D or C grade thrusters are fine on a Python. I would suggest going with an A grade power plant - the smallest that will cover you power requirements. I think you'll find that you'll have less heat issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom