Should I get an Anaconda for trading or keep the T9?
- Thread starter specialsymbol
- Start date
I can only comment on the T9 as I'm now using my python to afford an Anaconda.
The T9 could be greatness. It should have far more hull, far more power, and far more cargo space than an Anaconda. So much so that even without shields it should be incredibly hard to kill. As a trader it should be my ultimate goal (right now) for a trade ship.
Sadly, it's slower than mud, turns even worse, and isn't bristling with turreted weapons to at least scare most pirates.
So, the Anaconda wins.
Now, if the hull represented what it feels like when trying to get the space cow to move. And if it had 4 medium or even small hard points top and bottom with 3 medium hard points around the cockpit...
Well, I guess there's a reason I'm not designing ships for ED!
The T9 could be greatness. It should have far more hull, far more power, and far more cargo space than an Anaconda. So much so that even without shields it should be incredibly hard to kill. As a trader it should be my ultimate goal (right now) for a trade ship.
Sadly, it's slower than mud, turns even worse, and isn't bristling with turreted weapons to at least scare most pirates.
So, the Anaconda wins.
Now, if the hull represented what it feels like when trying to get the space cow to move. And if it had 4 medium or even small hard points top and bottom with 3 medium hard points around the cockpit...
Well, I guess there's a reason I'm not designing ships for ED!
One more tip, when exiting/entering the docking bay, you need to favor the top end of the port/mail slot, as opposed to the T9 which has it's cockpit on the bottom. Since you're already used to handling the T9, it shouldn't be very difficult to adapt to the Anaconda. Just remember, there is a lot of ship below you 
.
.
Last edited:
Correct - which is why I positioned it as minimum 5.7% delta, not that is a static threshold.
However, and I should probably update that thread, without going into the boring math, there's essentially a sweet spot curve for the Anaconda v Type 9, and the route I picked to compare was just about in the middle of that spot, to try and keep comparison as fair to both type 9 and Anaconda as possible
In short - a 4 jump route for Type 9 became a 2 jump route for Anaconda ; 15 min round trip turns into 12 min - BUT - when you analyze the time/cost savings on a per jump basis - it turns out exactly as most people would assume from common sense:
e.g. Type 9 doesn't lose that much time on the pure hyper jump to hyper jump increase - since that is a fairly short transition. The biggest gain from the Anaconda is on the book ends of your route - the launch and landing - some gain yes, from reducing number of jumps, but only a smaller time savings there.
So basically, most people assume common sense that the hyper part is the least time part of a route - and that is true. But maybe against common sense because we look at Anaconda and see what great jump range increase it has - unless you go to the really far extreme end of the curve in which case there is an inflection point were at super long ranges the Anaconda starts to beat the Type 9 again even on time saved from hyper jumps, the reality is for most routes:
the longer your route is, the smaller the advantage the Anaconda has over the Type 9, because the entire advantage of the Anaconda is getting to and from the bookend destinations as fast as possible in order to squeeze in 1 more full round trip over X amount of time in order to make up the ~48 ton cargo gap.
Over the sweet spot middle, a pretty big range of about 14 to 102 LY, the Anaconda has the biggest gains from the bookend parts - liftoff and landing (getting from station to hyper point) as well as the increased efficiency of reducing just enough number of jumps to make the hyper portion a big gain as well. But once you go beyond the ~100 LY range, the Type 9 starts to reduce that Anaconda advantage because more and more of the travel time is pure hyper.
Yes, Anaconda still wins because obviously less jumps in hyper = overall less time, but the rate of gain in terms of better profit starts to get reduced is my point.
So believe me that this somewhat long winded summary is the short version - I plotted jump routes of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 (approx 170 LY). I figured that covers most the usual max distance between the bubble. The sweet spot for the Anaconda to beat the Type 9 is on the 1-6 jump routes. Even a 100 LY seems to be a super long route so not sure how many people would run that.
So it's reasonable to assume that my sample jump route used - a 2 jump ~34 LY route for the Anaconda, or 4 jump ~34 LY route for the Type 9 is a fairly representative sample.
I'm sure there are routes that allow more than 5.7% gain on the Type 9. But I am also sure it will never be order of magnitude, and not even double by estimate. I believe the best range you can expect to get is somewhere in the 5-10% range, and the only way you get 10% is on an extremely specific route where the Anaconda gets the most advantage over the shorter leg Type 9 (e.g. the Type 9 is forced to detour 3-4 extra systems because it can't cross one critical gap in one jump - but this is pure theory because most type 9 drivers won't use a trade route like that - they'l just find another one with same CR/ton without that critical gap that causes them to run an extra 3-4 systems)
Thanks!
And thanks for the reminder on insurance. I sure look out for that.
That's what I was hoping for. No, super awesome 1 hop trade routes don't exist anymore..
With my T9 I trade in a single hop route worth 1,2-1,4 million Cr bidirectional. Is it awesome enough? This way I earn 4,8-5,6 M Cr/hour.
1.3M CR for your roundtrip translates to 2620 CR/ton profit on 496 ton Type 9. That is not bad, but you can easily find 3k+ routes and with research, routes approaching 4k CR/ton. But for ease of starting, I'd suggest you at minimum try and get 1.5k each way, or 3k round trip
That will translate into at least ~753k more, pushing you more towards the 6M+ CR/hour territory which is what I'd consider reasonably ok with Type 9. You don't need to find a max 8-9M route right away, but I'd suggest 7M CR/hour as a good target to start.
If you have a good short route now, stay in the T9. If at some point, you wish to leave molasses-space and venture into normal-space again, go for the Anaconda. Though I suggest that you wait until you can afford a decent trade Anaconda, with credits to spare. If you are really patient, wait until you can afford both the T9 and the Anaconda.
Also good valid points and advice from posters^^
Personally, I'm slightly biased towards the Anaconda...
Fly dangerous
Also good valid points and advice from posters^^
Personally, I'm slightly biased towards the Anaconda...
Fly dangerous
On the other hand, there are plenty of routes out there where a T9 is best. If you can afford owning both at the same time, it becomes situational.
I was using a 432t Conda, A spec, with weaps, not a stripped out trade conda. There is a mostly safe, 10 LY A-B-A trade opportunity that was sustainable for a T9/conda sized ship. If you own a conda, you have enough money such that the rebuy on a stripped out T9 is not a big deal. So, I bought a T9, and went from moving 432t to 532t. That's a significant difference.
BUT, I am using the T9 as a throw away ship. I'm not going to fly the T9 around looking for trade routes, and doing all the other stuff I can do in my Conda.
I am just saying that you may get to a point like this, where a T9 is more useful than even a stripped out conda.
And as others have said, the answer to your question is, 'It depends'.
I was using a 432t Conda, A spec, with weaps, not a stripped out trade conda. There is a mostly safe, 10 LY A-B-A trade opportunity that was sustainable for a T9/conda sized ship. If you own a conda, you have enough money such that the rebuy on a stripped out T9 is not a big deal. So, I bought a T9, and went from moving 432t to 532t. That's a significant difference.
BUT, I am using the T9 as a throw away ship. I'm not going to fly the T9 around looking for trade routes, and doing all the other stuff I can do in my Conda.
I am just saying that you may get to a point like this, where a T9 is more useful than even a stripped out conda.
And as others have said, the answer to your question is, 'It depends'.
I am using this trade conda right now. with 448T of cargo it gets 20.3LY jump range with no cargo its got 36.2LY jump range
http://coriolis.io/outfit/anaconda
http://coriolis.io/outfit/anaconda
Anaconda just for the quality of life improvements. Faster pitch and yaw, faster boost speed, tougher shields, much better jump range, more weaponry. You get all that and can still haul 90% as much cargo as the T9.
The cost is jaw dropping.
Ship seems a bit tired to me.
Cant wait for more ships around the Python cost, way more realistic stepping stone for many up and coming Captains.
ATM, the costs of Anoconda can put some players off the long term.
Would be nice to have some DLC ship skins, that way you can make an ugly duckling into a catwalk model for a bit of coin.
Ship seems a bit tired to me.
Cant wait for more ships around the Python cost, way more realistic stepping stone for many up and coming Captains.
ATM, the costs of Anoconda can put some players off the long term.
Would be nice to have some DLC ship skins, that way you can make an ugly duckling into a catwalk model for a bit of coin.
I disagree with this. There is no equivalent scenario when you compare like vs like, that an Anaconda moves less CR/hour than a Type 9. The advantage can shrink to where it is only a few percent as I've outlined in my prior posts and thread, but it never gets to be a negative (e.g. the Type 9 earns more/hour)
In your example, you compared your armed and combat shielded Anaconda (vs using smaller trade sufficient A4 shield) to a fully stripped Type 9, yet in your summary you say (even in situational scenario) that "a T9 is more useful than even a stripped out conda" - yet you didn't strip out your Anaconda to make that comparison.
So the more accurate comparison would be an unshielded stripped Type 9 to an unshielded stripped Anaconda. Even my trade-shielded Anaconda carries 448 tons cargo. Trade-shield means I'm using A4 shield - good enough with boosters to fight off with zero risk any NPC the game throws at me in one or multiple interdictions. I am armed with full pulse lasers and MC. For your 432 spec, I am assuming you are using an A5 shield.
In your comparison, a fully stripped unshielded T9 at 532 tons should be compared to a 464 ton stripped Anaconda - translates to a 68 ton per round trip delta.
with the anaconda's ability to shave at minimum ~3 min from every 15 min Type 9 trade duration - an advantage more pronounced for short 1 hop routes because the biggest portion of Anaconda advantage is on the liftoff and destination stages of a route - that translates into roughly 12 min of extra trade time per hour vs the T9.
For just about any 1-2 jump route, an Anaconda will fit the entire round trip in less than that 12 min gap - which means essentially an Anaconda get 1 free extra round trip per hour, vs the type 9. This 1 extra round trip in this scenario translates to 464 tons moved - minus the 272 tons the Type 9 moved in excess of the Anaconda.
That still translates to an extra 192 tons/hour the stripped Anaconda will move faster and safer than a stripped T9 - because these are stripped numbers, this translates into bit more than my minimum 5.7% projected.
But say for argument sake we use your numbers - 432 ton combat shield Anaconda vs fully stripped T9 532 tons - that's an extra 100 tons per round trip the T9 moves. But over an hour duration, that 400 tons is still less than the 432 tons the Anaconda will move for 1 extra round trip it gets.
If you don't believe this, take a T9 - run any route with or without cargo - just time how long it takes to lift off from station, move to hyper - jump once - and land at final destination. Do this in reverse to get full picture of 1 round trip. Whatever this time is - the Anaconda will beat it by substantial (not huge - just substantial) margin. Multiply the T9 time to approximate an hour and you'll see the Anaconda gets at least 1 extra round trip per hour.
The only way a T9 would be better than an Anaconda - even on a short 1 jump trip - would be to carry an extra ~113 tons of cargo. At 112 it breaks even exactly with the Anaconda 448 ton spec which is armed and shielded.
Last edited:
Personally I prefer the T9. For me it is all about the role play. If I am being a trader and I am in a great big heavy trader then I expect it to handle like a cargo ship. And actually I don't have a problem with handling the T9 - but then, I have been a professional truck driver in my day and so I have driven all sorts of monster beasts and so therefore I am used to adapting driving to suit the beast I am currently in.
Sure, if you simply "play the game" with a "how fast can I win?" mentality then the Anaconda probably makes sense. But if you play the game and truly want to "be a space ship pilot" then I think the T9 is the better choice.
What is also being overlooked is that the T9 is cheaper (so cheaper insurance), is a lot cheaper to repair, and is a lot cheaper to fuel, and wear and tear is cheaper as well. Furthermore, how can you factor in to the lovely calculations performed already (well done by the way) the delta for this when you can't provide an average for being shot out of the sky by pirates or players. I've only lost one so far but I can imagine that others could lose more - would they have lost if they were in an annie? Perhaps not but maybe yes.
I suspect that there are too many imponderable variables that just can't be included in a scientific analysis of comparative costs and so, really, the whole exercise is invalidated because of this so in the end it comes down to personal preference. Those who just can't be bothered to fit into the role but would rather every ship handle like a vulture will go for the annie, and those of us who enjoy the role playing aspect will stick with the T9.
Sure, if you simply "play the game" with a "how fast can I win?" mentality then the Anaconda probably makes sense. But if you play the game and truly want to "be a space ship pilot" then I think the T9 is the better choice.
What is also being overlooked is that the T9 is cheaper (so cheaper insurance), is a lot cheaper to repair, and is a lot cheaper to fuel, and wear and tear is cheaper as well. Furthermore, how can you factor in to the lovely calculations performed already (well done by the way) the delta for this when you can't provide an average for being shot out of the sky by pirates or players. I've only lost one so far but I can imagine that others could lose more - would they have lost if they were in an annie? Perhaps not but maybe yes.
I suspect that there are too many imponderable variables that just can't be included in a scientific analysis of comparative costs and so, really, the whole exercise is invalidated because of this so in the end it comes down to personal preference. Those who just can't be bothered to fit into the role but would rather every ship handle like a vulture will go for the annie, and those of us who enjoy the role playing aspect will stick with the T9.
I'm not going to strip out my A spec Conda for an extra 16t. It would still be less than the 532t T9. I am making more per hour in the 532t T9 than any Conda. Period.
edit* also, the time difference is insignificant between the T9 and Conda in this case, and certainly not on the level of getting an extra trip per hour.
Last edited:
Won't bore you with the long boring analysis - the conclusion is this: go for 17.20 LY minimum fully laden, and unless you can get 25.2 LY, anything in between is essentially not that useful.
The minimum gap in LY between various good routes will come up often enough were 17.21 LY will just get you over that gap to keep the route as 1 jump, or keep it as short 2 jump route. But any excess over that to about ~25 LY still won't reduce that 2 jump route into 1, and won't reduce most 3 jump routes into 2.
So I go fully armed with pulse lasers and MC, shield boosters, and A4 shield to get an exact 17.21 LY fully laden 448 ton cargo config - that lets me cross almost all 'long' gaps in usual trade routes in 1 jump, and unless I want to really slim down cargo, I can't really use any excess jump capacity for the good trade routes I can plot till about 25.2 LY jump range
Obviously, am not saying this will be true in every case, nor your case. Just some rough rule of thumb guidance that if you are trade spec'ing an Anaconda, in my so far observed experience being a trade nerd, there really isn't much needed after 17.20 LY until next break point at 25.2 LY
I'm certainly willing to be wrong, but I don't think I am in this case. Especially as I've given numbers and facts to real trade route examples, while you have not.
I don't need your trade goods data - but can you at least then provide this example route or distance?
e.g. how far in LY is it from point A where you start, to point B where you end, on this 1 jump route?
Because I stand by my statement - even a fully unshielded 532 ton T9 will NOT out deliver a shielded, fully armed Anaconda 448 ton spec. Period.
Please provide your route distance and I will re-test, but I've already done extensive 1 jump tests - the T9 over any route that requires 1 take off, 1 hyper jump at minimum ~5km point from system A --> to hyper in, SC less than 1000 LS as usual for 'good' routes and land loses roughly 3 min of extra travel time to the Anaconda for every 15 min in T9.
I've provided numbers and data. Please refute them with facts rather than simply stating "I am making more per hour in the 532t T9 than any Conda. Period" - because I have already disproved that, as any T9 and Anaconda owner can verify.
It takes simply ONE extra round trip per 60 min of trade time by even fully shielded Anaconda vs fully stripped T9, in order for the Anaconda to beat the T9 resoundingly. If you are refuting that the Anaconda CAN'T achieve this over a 1, 2, or even 3 jump route - then provide numbers. Tell me how fast your T9 is crossing the segment or round trip.
You can believe whatever you wish and end the statement with Period. But thus far you are simply wrong - and have provided no data to conveniently refute you by.
**EDIT - read your edit above. So you are indeed claiming there is no or only insignificant time difference between a T9 and Anaconda on a short 1 jump route.
That's even easier to refute and prove wrong - since you're clearly not going to believe anything I say and have this inflexible position in your mind that the T9 must be equal to Anaconda on 1 jump distance route, this is more for other readers than you.
The respondent here bases his incorrect belief in an obviously untested assumption - he believes that a T9 is just as fast in and out of dock as an Anaconda where the time delta is not material. In a 1 jump route, the hyper time will be equal, as will the SC time between station and star. Although the Anaconda will shave some time on SC portion due to faster turn rates, this can be ignored and still easily see the time superiority
Since I'm the only one to have provided numerous and test data, I can't continue to debate with a respondent that simply stick to essentially 'this is what I say. Period'
So believe what you wish to believe, or easier - just test it yourself.
Last edited:
I was making 7.3 M/hr with 432 Conda. I am making 8.7 M/hr with the T9.
Maybe you want to calm down and re-read my post. Also, keep your passive aggressive crap to yourself.
And I can make 9M/hr with Anaconda and 0 with T9 if I use different goods - your factoid above is meaningless unless you provide confirmation it is same goods, same route, distance of route, and avg time per round trip for T9 and avg time for round trip for Anaconda.
edit2: You are also continuing to pretend a fully stripped T9 compared against fully armed & A5 shielded Anaconda is somehow an equivalent comparison. By that reasoning I could just say my 448 ton cargo Anaconda is superior to my Type 9 because I removed all but 1 cargo rack from the Type 9. Your 1.4M credit delta, even if it weren't some fabrication, is meaningless when you self admittedly compare non-stripped to stripped.
I've already told the thread my data re: 1 extra round trip at minimum for Anaconda over each 60 min trade period in T9.
Stating facts is apparently passive-aggressive, whereas you are just simply pure aggressive. And provide zero data to back your claims, and resort to pure aggression when called on it as incorrect.
Math is math - I will repeat - even if you move 100 more tons per round trip with stripped T9, you'll still be beat by the extra 448 tons the Anaconda delivers in excess every hour vs the ~400 tons the T9 delivers - which is made worse by fact the true delta is not 100 tons but more like 68 tons for like v like comparison.
Come back with more pure aggression response - it boosts your credibility
/sarcasm
Last edited:
Very informative thanks for the info. I am currently smuggling with my conda so my goal with the layout was to drop my heat as much as possible. right now it runs at 21%