T9 needs more cargo space

[lysan]

I love my T9 and will not change it. It's industrial design and overall flight model gives it a special feeling. I can't wait to see the internals of her.

I imagine the haul where big chains hang from the roof dripping water, and I need to check the air vents for some strange sounds.

Anyone seen the Cat?

 

[thorn-]

Sadly, the Lakon line isn't about high-end dedicated freighters, it's about cheap freighters for people that don't need anything more.

77 Million isn't a cheap freighter, especially given than it's ~ 4X more expensive than the T7, and certainly doesn't hold 4X cargo.

Everyone's comparing it to the Conda, but failing to note that within the T-series, there is an extreme price jump which isn't quite merited.

 

[Monk]

I love my T9 and will not change it. It's industrial design and overall flight model gives it a special feeling. I can't wait to see the internals of her.

I imagine the haul where big chains hang from the roof dripping water, and I need to check the air vents for some strange sounds.

Anyone seen the Cat?

Cat got into the corrosive resistant cargo rack with a live alien artifact...the Cat is not what and where you think it is, anymore.

Andplusalso...the T9 is perfect for what it is...as the entry into large hauling, it fits the bill perfectly. Looking to fit mine with as many economy class cabins as possible...Shall be the Southwest Airlines of space travel

 

[thorn-]

Andplusalso...the T9 is perfect for what it is...as the entry into large hauling, it fits the bill perfectly.

The T9 shouldn't be the "entry point" in large hauling - it should be the "final point".

 

[Monk]

The T9 shouldn't be the "entry point" in large hauling - it should be the "final point".

Perhaps, but with the Cutter and, potentially, Panther Clipper it is the entry.

 

[Kellan Fell]

The T9 shouldn't be the "entry point" in large hauling - it should be the "final point".

This is precisely the point of the OP, and the point so many people are missing...
Yes, once you can afford a Vulture, the sidewinder is osolete, but the Vulture is a specialist combat ship. It is very good at being a combat ship, and you wouldn't want to use it for anything else. I think the point that the OP is trying to make is that the "specialist" trading ships (the T series) are not "specialists" at all...

If you want to fight you buy a Viper, Vulture or FdL, but if you want to Trade, you buy a Python or Anaconda? These are supposed to be multi-purpose ships, which by definition are Jack of All Trades (and master of none).
THe problem is that the "specialist" traders just aren't that good at it. Yes they're cheaper than outfitting a muli-purpose ship (though not by much in the case of a T-9), but again that's not the point. They are supposed to be specialists. The T-9 should be the pinnacle of trading, not a stepping stone en route to an Annie or a Cutter. Realistically the T-9 should be able to haul as much as a Cutter at the smae cost as it currently is in order to make it into the specialist trading ship it is supposed to be.

 

[Mohrgan]

The T-9 shouldn't be anything but the T-9. There were no promises that it would be the pinnacle. That's just an assumption people make in the absence of a T-10, or something else. That assertion, that the T-9 should be the best trade ship, is not supported by the facts. It's just a T-9 Heavy, nothing more should be inferred.

 

[J.R.Ehman]

77 Million isn't a cheap freighter, especially given than it's ~ 4X more expensive than the T7, and certainly doesn't hold 4X cargo.

Everyone's comparing it to the Conda, but failing to note that within the T-series, there is an extreme price jump which isn't quite merited.

This.

Added poll. Please understand that people who are arguing YES for more cargo space are not saying that the T9 should hold the most cargo. I'm not saying it needs to be the best trader. I'm just saying the balance is off if you compare the trading capabilities within the T series and their prices. And if you compare the trading capabilities of T-Types with multipurpose ships, especially between the T9 and the Conda.

Didn't the T9 start out with a cargo capacity of 1000 in the beta? Well, that might have been a bit much, but the nerf it received was just too much.

 

[777Driver]

The T-9 shouldn't be anything but the T-9. There were no promises that it would be the pinnacle. That's just an assumption people make in the absence of a T-10, or something else. That assertion, that the T-9 should be the best trade ship, is not supported by the facts. It's just a T-9 Heavy, nothing more should be inferred.

And that pretty much sums it up, it has never been suggested that the T9 was supposed to be the pinnacle of trading, it is and has always been the space equivalent of a beat up old Kenworth truck with low maintenance costs. Op seems to be confusing the Panther Clipper with the T9.

Going back to maintenance costs, this has been discussed in depth a number of times in the past, the devs caved in and screwed up the balance with maintenance and fuel costs. Running a ship like the Python/Clipper/Anaconda was extremely expensive, the Lakon series had very low operating costs. Speak to any Clipper pilot back in the early days, even a heavy landing was a serious tax on your trade run profits.

Hopefully we will see a T10 along with the Panther and other various freighters, the T9 is what it is, and does the job well when in the right hands.

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

@ racer1
Yes I know that the small cargo increase means a bonus on super short trade routes. However, that means for the player that he is restricted to this single very very tiny fraction of gameplay.

What are you on about mate? There is a massive amount of short haul routes to choose from, I could even give you high paid routes that are between two or more ports on the same planet, no need for Supercruise.

 

[thorn-]

Op seems to be confusing the Panther Clipper with the T9.

If the T9's price vs capacity wasn't so out of whack compared to the T7, that wouldn't be happening. The T9 should be in the $40-45 Mill range, and the P-Clipper (if it ever comes) at that $77 Mil price.

 

[Monk]

And that pretty much sums it up, it has never been suggested that the T9 was supposed to be the pinnacle of trading, it is and has always been the space equivalent of a beat up old Kenworth truck with low maintenance costs. Op seems to be confusing the Panther Clipper with the T9.

Going back to maintenance costs, this has been discussed in depth a number of times in the past, the devs caved in and screwed up the balance with maintenance and fuel costs. Running a ship like the Python/Clipper/Anaconda was extremely expensive, the Lakon series had very low operating costs. Speak to any Clipper pilot back in the early days, even a heavy landing was a serious tax on your trade run profits.

Hopefully we will see a T10 along with the Panther and other various freighters, the T9 is what is, and does the job well when in the right hands.

I totally forgot about that...and kindof miss it. The only problem I ever had with the old way was the high cost on integrity. They should have brought it down to a mid-level, but instead made it insignificant.

Also, repair costs didn't seem to measure up to the type of damage. Collision damage on hull should be relatively cheap. Weapons and heat damage to internals should be high cost.

Anyway, treating your ship like a Tonka truck is the way things go now and it is a little disheartening.

 

[777Driver]

If the T9's price vs capacity wasn't so out of whack compared to the T7, that wouldn't be happening. The T9 should be in the $40-45 Mill range, and the P-Clipper (if it ever comes) at that $77 Mil price.

We will have to agree to disagree 45 million is a single low paid hauling run in a T9 (Long range) My Cutter can pull in 100 mill easy, imagine how much the Panther Clipper will generate. If anything big ship prices are too low.

It took me months to afford a Clipper/Python/T9 back in Gamma and early release, now it takes a Cobra pilot a couple of sessions to earn 45 million

 

[J.R.Ehman]

And that pretty much sums it up, it has never been suggested that the T9 was supposed to be the pinnacle of trading

I haven't suggested that either and that's not what this is about

Going back to maintenance costs, this has been discussed in depth a number of times in the past, the devs caved in and screwed up the balance with maintenance and fuel costs. Running a ship like the Python/Clipper/Anaconda was extremely expensive, the Lakon series had very low operating costs. Speak to any Clipper pilot back in the early days, even a heavy landing was a serious tax on your trade run profits.

So the T9 had way more cargo space in the beta, but was nerfed too much. And the big multipurpose ships have been buffed when their maintenance cost was reduced, while the T-Type ships didn't receive any buff to balance this. Yet, when people wonder about the viability of the T9, you don't agree there's a balance issue? I don't follow your logic as you just provided wonderful examples and even a possible timeline of said balance issues.

There is a massive amount of short haul routes to choose from

But that's not the issue. Imagine the Asp Explorer had received a comparable nerf so it's only good for scanning a single type of star. What's the problem? There's lots of those stars in the galaxy! And if you want to do more than a single type of scanning, you can always get an Explorer Conda! [wacky]

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

And when the Panther finally arrives, noone will even talk about the T9 anymore. Forum discussion will then probably revolve around Panther capacity vs. Cutter speed.

 

[thorn-]

It took me months to afford a Clipper/Python/T9 back in Gamma and early release, now it takes a Cobra pilot a couple of sessions to earn 45 million

45 Million in 2 sessions? I must be playing the game wrong. I still feel accomplished making 2-3 Million per session doing bounty hunting.

(I'm not being snarky saying that. Guess I haven't discovered that income method...)

 

[veryinky]

Hopefully we will see a T10 along with the Panther and other various freighters, the T9 is what it is, and does the job well when in the right hands.

Something like this? Presuming minimum amount of work from FDev.

Type-9 flies like a brick, a Type-9e Extended would fly like a brick someone else flew. But it'd be a giant cargo box designed to fit large station landing pads and hangars. Would also re-use the Type-9's cockpit, crew quarters, engineering section while just having more cargo rooms in between.

 

[Monk]

45 Million in 2 sessions? I must be playing the game wrong. I still feel accomplished making 2-3 Million per session doing bounty hunting.

(I'm not being snarky saying that. Guess I haven't discovered that income method...)

Yup, long range smuggling has introduced a serious cash cow more bovine than even the T-9

 

[veryinky]

45 Million in 2 sessions? I must be playing the game wrong. I still feel accomplished making 2-3 Million per session doing bounty hunting.

(I'm not being snarky saying that. Guess I haven't discovered that income method...)

He's referring to that drug running CG that paid out hundreds of millions and the gold shipping CG which paid 5000+Cr a ton that happened a couple weeks ago. Yeah, you're not earning 45 million in 2 sessions in a cobra with the current 300-500cr a ton CGs but we'll be hearing about how "those two CGs mean that CGs are free money, not like back in my day when we had to fly a cobra up to hutton both ways I tell you what kids these days" for years. YEARS I tell you. FDev will never live it down.

 

[racer1]

Yup, long range smuggling has introduced a serious cash cow more bovine than even the T-9

That really is what makes the T9 seem pointless. It used to take months to get from T9 to conda, now it takes a three runs to Ceos/Sothis.

People have always loved it or hated it. I wouldn't complain if it had a small cargo buff but at less than half the price of an anaconda outfitted for trade it seems fine where it is to me.

A shield buff I think it could do with perhaps when compared to the conda. While under attack I'd happily relax as the FSD spooled up in a conda with 4A shields and 8 boosters but I'd be more than a little worried in the T9 with A5 and 4 A0 boosters. With post 2.1 NPC I'm not sure if A5 would be enough...

 

[777Driver]

So the T9 had way more cargo space in the beta, but was nerfed too much. And the big multipurpose ships have been buffed when their maintenance cost was reduced, while the T-Type ships didn't receive any buff to balance this. Yet, when people wonder about the viability of the T9, you don't agree there's a balance issue? I don't follow your logic as you just provided wonderful examples and even a possible timeline of said balance issues.


But that's not the issue. Imagine the Asp Explorer had received a comparable nerf so it's only good for scanning a single type of star. What's the problem? There's lots of those stars in the galaxy! And if you want to do more than a single type of scanning, you can always get an Explorer Conda! [wacky]

T9 cargo capacity has always been the same since I joined the original beta and all through gamma. Perhaps it had a higher capacity in early Beta, no idea.

Fuel and maintenance costs were reduced for all ships to the point that we don't have to think about running costs, the only balance issue is the ridiculously low ship running costs. People cried about running costs because average earnings were extremely low, 1000 credits for a kill, 500 tonne cargo run netted you 600,000 credits if you got lucky, now we have A-B-A routes netting you millions & long range hauling.

Bottom line is this - It doesn't matter if you fly a T9/Anaconda/Cutter, you will earn rediculous amounts of money. The T9 specializes in short haul high capacity routes, there are millions of those routes out there, the Anaconda specializes in long range point to point, use each ship accordingly. My T9/Anaconda/Cutter all have a role in my fleet.

In my opinion the devs would be better off spending their time looking at finally balancing operating costs, all they did back then was whack everything down to the point that nobody even blinks at fuel or maintenance costs.