Buff Imperial Trader (ehm I meant Cutter) for 2.1

TheoZ · Feb 24, 2016

So, whoever is experienced enough with the game will notice that the Imperial Trader (ehm Cutter) is lacking a lot.

Firstly there is a maneuverability bug presented very clearly in the video of Kornelious here:

[video=youtube;OKbtXLChmNU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKbtXLChmNU[/video]

Conda and Corvette have similar (as they should due to same maneuverability rating 2) handling. That's not the case of Imperial Trader which is even 10 secs slower than the other 2 in terms of pitching, yawning or whatever else. Which definitely means it's not even close to rating 0 (type-9 maneuverability). The bug concerning slow turning is present from the beta of the ship.

Careful here Fed lovers, maneuverability is NOT speed. Speed is a different element and has a separate index value.

Secondly, The A8 Thrusters + the A8 Shield result in very few power left. It's the same case like the FDL pre-buffed. FDL pre buff as well as Imperial Trader cannot support any other weapons apart from multicannons and or some pulses. If you want more energy hungry weapons (that will deplete the low A7 power distributor), then you can't outfit most modules to A class, EXACTLY like FDL was pre-buff. We heard a lot of complains from FDL owners pre-buff correctly, that they bought the ship but couldn't equip it to A class due to lack of power. And FD listen and gave them what needed.

So I am wondering if FD will address the really weak Imperial Trader to claim the name of Cutter in 2.1 Cutter is a "warship", and it should get rightfully the title if the power issues as well as the maneuverability bug are addressed. Not prior to that. When new weapons come out, I think it will be even more clear (since you still won't be able to equip any if you want decent shield), due to lack of power. Do we wait till the 2.1, for the problem to become more obvious or do we take action proactively?

Troa Barton · Feb 24, 2016

Oh you know I'm all for this!
back in beta I made this thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=207593
You have my full support, fight the good fight commander!

AreZee · Feb 24, 2016

I always wondered whether it is intented that the cutter flies like the brick when you exit a station. It takes ages to take off even with the best A-rated thrusters. My guess was that it has to do with the feeling you get when you fly a ship that has it's cockpit at the front and is that big. The Anaconda and Corvette have their cockpit after the "rotational mid point" (dont know a better word, help me out

) so it feels it turns faster.

Hell Razor5543 · Feb 24, 2016

On a Narrow Boat the "rotational mid point", as you put is, is known as the pivot point. Depending on the weight of the boat (varies due to levels in fuel and water tanks) this pivot point is anywhere from a third of the length from the bow to the same distance from the stern.

bootsam · Feb 24, 2016

Yes it handles like a crab on rollerskates juggling jet engines. One of these days Im gonna hit that slot backwards.

TheoZ · Feb 24, 2016

AreZee said:
I always wondered whether it is intented that the cutter flies like the brick when you exit a station. It takes ages to take off even with the best A-rated thrusters. My guess was that it has to do with the feeling you get when you fly a ship that has it's cockpit at the front and is that big. The Anaconda and Corvette have their cockpit after the "rotational mid point" (dont know a better word, help me out ) so it feels it turns faster.

Some claim it's due to draft (due to it being 100kgs (only) heavier that T-9). I believe it's because of the maneuverability bug. The ppl comparing it to T-9 concerning handling are so wrong. Firstly they have different index, and secondly yes Imperial Trader is indeed 100kgrs heavier but it also have A8 instead of A7 Thrusters, meaning that it indeed should handle better than T-9.

The_Quasar · Feb 24, 2016

The Imperial Cutter/Trader could be a really nice ship, IF you could use all those slots. However, you can't, it hasn't enough power.

I agree, it's not a Cutter, and won't be unless it has more power. It's a trader, only

Soopyyy · Feb 24, 2016

Is this "bug" a thing because its Imperial and not better than the Corvette?

Because it just seems like an obese version of the Clipper to me, which is also garbage.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The_Quasar said:
The Imperial Cutter/Trader could be a really nice ship, IF you could use all those slots. However, you can't, it hasn't enough power.

I agree, it's not a Cutter, and won't be unless it has more power. It's a trader, only

It was only ever designed as a trader. You're not suppose to fill every slot with power consuming modules either.

TheoZ · Feb 24, 2016

Hell Razor5543 said:
On a Narrow Boat the "rotational mid point", as you put is, is known as the pivot point. Depending on the weight of the boat (varies due to levels in fuel and water tanks) this pivot point is anywhere from a third of the length from the bow to the same distance from the stern.

Lateral and vertical thrust is almost non-existance. At least change the maneuverability index to -1, since it's definitely not comparable to maneuverability 2. It definitely doesn't feel even close to handling like that conda or corvette.

You can't just have working as intended if it is so obvious that it doesn't have maneuverability index 2.

Since you talk about ship handling, in the last 20-30 years, there are these things called bow-thrust and similar which help exactly for improving the maneuverability of long vessels. I do believe that Imperial Trader has some like those and it's thrust is not only based on the two huge side thrusters that point in 1 direction. The Front.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Soopyyy said:
Is this "bug" a thing because its Imperial and not better than the Corvette?

Because it just seems like an obese version of the Clipper to me, which is also garbage.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It was only ever designed as a trader. You're not suppose to fill every slot with power consuming modules either.

No, it's designed as a Warship, the Counterpart of Corvette. Check description. Or at least FD RENAME the ship to Imperial Trader and let imperials (and PVPers) have another real choice apart from corvette concerning big ships.

sqzbox1 · Feb 24, 2016

Yeah - I dunno - apart from the little bug mentioned earlier it seems OK to me. I like it quite frankly.

It seems that for every ship that comes out there is a storm of protest and calls for buffing. Look - it is what it is. Play it accordingly. It's not rocket science. Wait - well, perhaps it is, but folks this is just a game and it doesn't matter what FD do there will always be those who want it changed. Why not avoid the ulcers and be happy? I'm happy to just have the game to play - I've been hanging out for it for nearly 30 years and it is close enough for me. And I can see it getting better as well. Most of the problems with the game are people-caused quite frankly.

TheoZ · Feb 24, 2016

The_Quasar said:
The Imperial Cutter/Trader could be a really nice ship, IF you could use all those slots. However, you can't, it hasn't enough power.

I agree, it's not a Cutter, and won't be unless it has more power. It's a trader, only

it's a good miner too!

Wasp0 · Feb 24, 2016

bootsam said:
Yes it handles like a crab on rollerskates juggling jet engines. One of these days Im gonna hit that slot backwards.

Just Love your description of the Trutter...Best so far by a country mile!

.

Mine only comes out for CG Haulin, but you have apply the brakes in the previous CG to get it to stop in the current CG!

Soopyyy · Feb 24, 2016

TheoZ said:
Lateral and vertical thrust is almost non-existance. At least change the maneuverability index to -1, since it's definitely not comparable to maneuverability 2. It definitely doesn't feel even close to handling like that conda or corvette.

You can't just have working as intended if it is so obvious that it doesn't have maneuverability index 2.

Since you talk about ship handling, in the last 20-30 years, there are these things called bow-thrust and similar which help exactly for improving the maneuverability of long vessels. I do believe that Imperial Trader has some like those and it's thrust is not only based on the two huge side thrusters that point in 1 direction. The Front.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

No, it's designed as a Warship, the Counterpart of Corvette. Check description. Or at least FD RENAME the ship to Imperial Trader and let imperials (and PVPers) have another real choice apart from corvette concerning big ships.

heh, yeah. Like the Clipper... They're all Trade ships.

TheoZ · Feb 24, 2016

Clipper has a few combat roles. Check out a bi-weave or a pure silent one. Definately, not the top choice, as it shouldn't be compared to other more dedicated combat ships like the FDL for example. But I can assure you Clipper is more than a trader. It can fulfill a few roles.

OMIKRONXI · Feb 24, 2016

Secondly, The A8 Thrusters + the A8 Shield result in very few power left.

Additionally to a A8-Shield and A8 Thrusters the Cutter's A8 Power Plant is capable of supporting a variety of beams, multicannons and a huge cannon, a 5A SCB and up to 6 (!) 0A Shield Boosters. To avoid power issues, you only have to use power management to turn off FSD, Cargo Hatch and Fuel Scoop while HP extracted. Sorry, mate...what kind of power problems are you talking about?

Feel free to check it out yourself:

http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=70_,7u67u64yS4yS4zi4zi7RL0_g0_g0_g0_g0_g0_g0Wg0Wg,2-CgCgB6BaB6Ba9s,7XQ0DI0AA0AA0AA50U7iM0722UI

TheoZ · Feb 24, 2016

OMIKRONXI said:
Additionally to a A8-Shield and A8 Thrusters the Cutter's A8 Power Plant is capable of supporting a variety of beams, multicannons and a huge cannon, a 5A SCB and up to 6 (!) 0A Shield Boosters. To avoid power issues, you only have to use power management to turn off FSD, Cargo Hatch and Fuel Scoop while HP extracted. Sorry, mate...what kind of power problems are you talking about?

Feel free to check it out yourself:

http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=70_,7...,2-CgCgB6BaB6Ba9s,7XQ0DI0AA0AA0AA50U7iM0722UI

that build clearly shows me your lack of knowledge, PVP side.

Have you ever heard of DUAL shield cell bank use?

and another question for you: Why does that Size 6-8 shield cell banks exists for this ship, according to your thinking?

Also, have you ever tried to fire those beams of yours with 2 pips to Weapons? How long do they last for you? 0.5 secs or smthg?

check out http://coriolis.io/ you might like it more.

777Driver · Feb 24, 2016

TheoZ said:
that build clearly shows me your lack of knowledge, PVP side.

Have you ever heard of DUAL shield cell bank use?

and another question for you: Why does that Size 6-8 shield cell banks exists for this ship, according to your thinking?

Also, have you ever tried to fire those beams of yours with 2 pips to Weapons? How long do they last for you? 0.5 secs or smthg?

check out http://coriolis.io/ you might like it more.

I keep one cell bank shut down, regarding capacitor drain, that is obviously to do with the distributor not the power plant. Am running 3 PACs and the rest multi cannons, not having any major issues, I make sure the plasma shots will land before firing. The ship could do with a better distributor, although it's not a huge deal. complaints about maneuverability etc etc.. usual whinging, hopefully the devs have learnt to ignore that stuff now

TheoZ · Feb 24, 2016

777Driver said:
I keep one cell bank shut down, regarding capacitor drain, that is obviously to do with the distributor not the power plant. Am running 3 PACs and the rest multi cannons, not having any major issues, I make sure the plasma shots will land before firing. The ship could do with a better distributor, although it's not a huge deal. complaints about maneuverability etc etc.. usual whinging, hopefully the devs have learnt to ignore that stuff now

there are some workarounds to builds, I can't object to that but you have to admit.... The sacrifices made are huge due to the small power plant and the hungry shields and thrusters. It does remind me so much of the FDL pre-buff concerning power problems. Concerning maneuverability you must agree there is something wrong there. You have to do acrobitics and FA-off on and put a lot of effort just to turn the ship nicely, when fighting.

777Driver · Feb 24, 2016

TheoZ said:
there are some workarounds to builds, I can't object to that but you have to admit.... The sacrifices made are huge due to the small power plant and the hungry shields and thrusters. It does remind me so much of the FDL pre-buff concerning power problems. Concerning maneuverability you must agree there is something wrong there. You have to do acrobitics and FA-off on and put a lot of effort just to turn the ship nicely, when fighting.

I agree, you do have to put a lot of effort in, in my opinion that's not such a bad thing. The Cutter is the largest flyable ship in game, it has a unique feel and requires a different flying style. In all honesty I wouldn't complain if the maneuverability was slightly increased with the higher thruster modules, on the flip side I have no problems with it's current handling in Combat.

With all that being said, I only take mine out for SSS fun or CG's, in PvP I use it as a support ship, same as my Anaconda. If want to get stuck in I use the Python and more recently the FDL

OMIKRONXI · Feb 24, 2016

that build clearly shows me your lack of knowledge, PVP side.

Sorry, but in your OP you have concealed that you want to use this TRADER - and that's exactly how you called it - for PVP. But I actually use DUAL SCB's in my Python. BTW: I won't use DUAL SCB in a trading vessel with nearly 2100 MJ shield strength.

Also, have you ever tried to fire those beams of yours with 2 pips to Weapons? How long do they last for you? 0.5 secs or smthg?

You're right, the power will deplete faster than you can say "empty". Have you ever thought about using 1/1/4 setting? My Python runs pretty well using it.