It isn't too bad...occasionally a high rank NPC will pull the shields down...but that is usually only if I lost the interdiction game and they have point defense equipped turrets. Even then, I get away with some hull damage.
T9 needs more cargo space
- Thread starter J.R.Ehman
- Start date
It isn't too bad...occasionally a high rank NPC will pull the shields down...but that is usually only if I lost the interdiction game and they have point defense equipped turrets. Even then, I get away with some hull damage.
He's referring to the totally out of whack long range smuggling/slave trading/CG's etc... If you're just A-B trading you wouldn't even make a tenth of that amount in a Cobra. Playing the game get's you nowhere fast, you have to game the game. Exploits are where it's at in this game. Think of it as the difference between being an honest worker earning a crust and a dodgy exploiting illegals and dodging taxes.
I'm with Lysander lysan on this. I have a T9 and use it when I want to move large amounts of material. Sure it'd be nice to have 50-75 more tons of cargo hold. But its not a deal breaker that it won't. I do often wonder why a dedicated "cargo heavy" doesn't have more cargo space than a multi-purpose or non-specific hull. And I guess the only way that could be controlled would be to restrict slots to types of modules more so than they do currently.
IMO the T9 does what its supposed to do but don't have any misconceptions on it being able to survive an attack for any prolonged period.
Would like to see the size "6" slot converted to a size "7" slot or the "7" converted to an "8". From a coding standpoint that would be nothing to change.
IMO the T9 does what its supposed to do but don't have any misconceptions on it being able to survive an attack for any prolonged period.
Would like to see the size "6" slot converted to a size "7" slot or the "7" converted to an "8". From a coding standpoint that would be nothing to change.
Last edited:
The T9 I think is in a good place. The T6 is also.
The T7, however, I think could use some adjustment. If no "T8" is in the works, I think it should come in around 300 tons or better, and if not, the price needs to be reduced dramatically to compensate its lackluster cargo vs. similarly priced multi-role ships.
The T7, however, I think could use some adjustment. If no "T8" is in the works, I think it should come in around 300 tons or better, and if not, the price needs to be reduced dramatically to compensate its lackluster cargo vs. similarly priced multi-role ships.
Agreed. to me it doesn't fit that a ship that needs a large pad should carry less than another than fits on a medium pad. I would like to see the T7 get a little more cargo space, not much, but enough to fit with its size and requirements.
would rather fd introduce a new line of commodities that only the dedicated haulers can carry, large pieces of equipment ranging from 20t to 100t that on average make 50%-75% more profit than 1t commodities
Or a special trading computer utility that gets realtime trading informations from systems inside the reach of the ship. That's be an transporter exclusive module of course.
While I like those ideas for themselves, they do introduce more complexity without really addressing the core issue. You are trying to make the trading ships more dedicated to trading by giving them a new mechanic that increases their value in the trade business. Unfortunately, introducing mechanics like that is complex in both code work and balancing. You have to watch out that this doesn't throw off the entire game's balance. While I'd like to see something like you suggest, this stuff sounds like a major update. Buffing the cargo capacity by one module class is trivial in comparison. That's why I think it's much more realistic to ask Frontier to make the trade ships more valuable by simply making them carry more cargo - for this one issue. (Not saying they shouldn't be working on more trading stuff in general)
Last edited:
Sure, or give us a bigger endgame trade ship. Actually I quite like the Cutter as a trader, I just don't feel like the Gutamaya look fits; I prefer the appearance of the Type 9.
The game does have shipping containers (filled with 1t canisters) found in industrial stations and on planetary outposts. There's no way these things would fit inside the standard cargo hatch. They'd also take up a lot less space than individual canisters held in place in racks, where the auto-loading system can pick up any individual canister and move it in or out of the ship. Concept art I've seen has a hallway along the canisters along with room above for the arm to pick them up and move them.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
That's why I suggest making the Type's internal bays have the option of loading a cargo rack one size larger than they are (size 5 loading a size 6 cargo rack). The code's already in the game, Orca and Beluga have a different equipment list for some of their internal module spaces than other ships, passenger/cargo/hull only.
My idea about simply changing out one lower sized slot for the next larger in each of the Lakon "T" series freighter doesn't seem to be all that jarring or over powered.
T6 - (1) size 4 goes size 5 = cargo goes from 112t to 128t (+16t)
T7 - (1) size 5 goes size 6 = cargo goes from 232t to 264t (+32t)
T9 - (1) size 6 goes size 6 = cargo goes from 112t to 596t (+64t)
That STILL places the T9 under the Cutter and moves the other's into clearly a freighter hull config.
"shouldn't" be that involved or problematic from a programming standpoint.
Just my opinion ....
T6 - (1) size 4 goes size 5 = cargo goes from 112t to 128t (+16t)
T7 - (1) size 5 goes size 6 = cargo goes from 232t to 264t (+32t)
T9 - (1) size 6 goes size 6 = cargo goes from 112t to 596t (+64t)
That STILL places the T9 under the Cutter and moves the other's into clearly a freighter hull config.
"shouldn't" be that involved or problematic from a programming standpoint.
Just my opinion ....
Last edited:
I could swear that this thread is an exact clone of this older one: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/285293-Love-for-cargo-ships
As I stated there, the Type 9 is not Anaconda-tier. We don't have a "biggest cargo ship" in the game that isn't locked behind faction rank like the Imperial Cutter & Federal Corvette are. The Type 9 is "Python" level, and compared to other ships around that 'tier' like the Imperial Clipper or maybe the FAS, and the Python itself, the Type 9 is clearly the superior cargo ship.
And the same goes for other cargo ships - if you compare them to other ships within the same relative base hull price range bracket, all the cargo ships in the game have superior cargo capacity.
Once we have the Panther Clipper ingame I believe your woes will go away, in the meantime...the Imperial Cutter is one hell of a ship.
As I stated there, the Type 9 is not Anaconda-tier. We don't have a "biggest cargo ship" in the game that isn't locked behind faction rank like the Imperial Cutter & Federal Corvette are. The Type 9 is "Python" level, and compared to other ships around that 'tier' like the Imperial Clipper or maybe the FAS, and the Python itself, the Type 9 is clearly the superior cargo ship.
And the same goes for other cargo ships - if you compare them to other ships within the same relative base hull price range bracket, all the cargo ships in the game have superior cargo capacity.
Once we have the Panther Clipper ingame I believe your woes will go away, in the meantime...the Imperial Cutter is one hell of a ship.
Last edited:
Once we have the Panther Clipper ingame I believe your woes will go away, in the meantime...the Imperial Cutter is one hell of a ship.
It is, but let's be honets, did Gutamaya really build something so sleek and beautiful so that it could spend it's life hauling biowaste from Sothis or mindless CG runs? This should be the job of the specialist hauling ships. You don't tie messages to the legs of swans...
Yeah, it's kinda funny how the Clipper and the Cutter are the best transportation\ mining ships in their prize range.
But the in-game description at least for the clipper sugests it will be eligible for passanger cabins.
Voted no.
Anaconda is more expensive than a T9 and it is a multi role ship so it makes sense that it is a worthy competitor. Why should the T9 be the best ship for trading? It's not even close to the most expensive ship and hasn't got the rank wall like the Cutter has.
I must have spent way more on Sidewinder and Eagle skins when I first started. Not sure it's worth going on a campaign though to buff them and make them more useful.
It's not about the size, it's about the package.
Yes, you can have up to 532 t of cargo for 77m+ cr. But you get crap shields, crap armor, crap reach, crap speed, crap manouverabilty and a target sign on your head on top.
The transporter ships have no redeeming feature and are only intersting for ppl how have tonns of money to spare to try some other ships out for funsies.
There is no way someone would buy this ship with his first 100 ~ 120m cr - the chances for a total loss are just to high.
| 532 t |
But this specialization is something you made up because you got accustomed to the imbalance. And because you have a personal fleet of ships, so you don't even see the problem. The specialization doesn't make sense within the game (hi I'm CEO of Lakon and we build a fleet of ships that do only ONE style of trading and that rather badly! But at least we have the Asp Explorer in our lineup.) and it doesn't make sense to force upon the player. Buffing the T-ships cargo space a little and thereby giving the player the CHOICE to use the T9 or the Conda for either trading style fits the actual theme of the game. It should be a viable choice to use a cheaper but weak and slow dedicated trader instead of a Trade Conda.
I don't think this is an either-or situation. Giving the T-Types a little buff to cargo space is trivial in code work and fixes this one balancing issue in a direct manner. Maybe it's as trivial as increasing one internal module class?
Surely someone could calculate how much more cargo a T9 needs to carry so it becomes a viable option for long range trading over the Anaconda's jump range advantage. You could also ask how much more cargo a T9 should carry based on price difference compared to a T7. And the T7 itself? Uh. And I think these are rather trivial balancing questions compared to "What should the operating cost of every single ship in the game be?" But I agree that they should look into that too.
Which has nothign to do with it really.
The Anaconda is a 400 tonne multi-role hull.
The T-9 is a 1000 tonne dedicated hauler.
The 600 tonne difference cannot merely be bulkheads to hold the ship together.
A 600 tonne more massive hull should have a MASSIVE advantage with internal space and they are almost EVEN in cargo capacity.
T-9 532 tonne cargo
Anaconda 468 tonne
A mere 12% difference in total carrying capacity.
I don't personally condone the Sothis/Ceos stuff myself. Only things my Cutter has hauled so far has been Superconductors, Medical Diagnostic Equipment, Gallium, Palladium (rarely lately, kind of odd), things like that. And if it's at all possible, come 2.2 I'll be using it as a bulk passenger spaceliner!
Yes, they do. Much lower cost for their cargo capacity than other ships of comparable price.
Hi! You've just met a someone - me - who did exactly this, and I'm very glad that I did, as it enabled me to make millions more credits than I was making in the Type 7, that I would not have been able to make nearly as fast if I had opted for a Python instead! Getting to an Anaconda, and now the Imperial Cutter, would have taken me much, much longer if I had not done exactly this!