Oh, is there another $77 Mil ship that holds more cargo?
T9 needs more cargo space
- Thread starter J.R.Ehman
- Start date
Oh, is there another $77 Mil ship that holds more cargo?
Price has nothing really to do with capacity.
The Annie is more expensive because it's a MULTI-ROLE ship but it is also the BETTER hauler than a ship that has a 600 tonne mass and volume advantage.
The T-9 should either be LIGHTER and FASTER or it's 600 tonne extra mass should actually MEAN something.
The T-9 should be a better trade ship because it IS a dedicated trader
It weight's 600 more tonnes and that should by golly include a lot more VOLUME to put stuff than the Anaconda has, unless some idiot engineer decided to build the ship out of LEAD.
And it is. Because the Type 9 is cheaper than the Anaconda.
Your problem seems to be you are hung up on the idea that the Type 9 is the endgame cargo trading ship.
It is not.
I seem to have to keep repeating myself, but the Type 9 is at the "Python" level of ship progression. It is not end-tier. (And it still can arguably get as much, or possibly more, CR/hour as the Anaconda....)
So firstly, you clearly didn't even glance at the linked thread....
For the umpteenth time, T-9 is not equatable to the Anaconda in terms of price or ship progression.
Sure it can. There's many reasons the Anaconda is so much more expensive. (I'm putting that in bold because it's a key point many of you seem to keep conveniently skipping and forgetting.)
I think the T-9 is in a good spot, all the trade ships are very cheap for there cargo 
Plus I think we're just missing the last ship in the lakon line which will be surpassing the "huge" ships like the corvette and cutter.
Edit: I also have a yellow T9 skin fav ship
Plus I think we're just missing the last ship in the lakon line which will be surpassing the "huge" ships like the corvette and cutter.Edit: I also have a yellow T9 skin fav ship
Last edited:
Wrong. Price has everything to do with ship progression. You buy costlier ships as you amass funds within Elite Dangerous. Ships you can buy earlier on by virtue of lower price are advantageous for that reason.
There's a reason the Imperial Cutter is considerably more costly than the Anaconda....
I agree the T9 is like half the price of the anaconda and the T7 is like a quarter the price of the python. The trade ships are great cost for money per cargo that's why they lack as much defenses as a trade off.
No one said that the T9 should be the ultimate trading ship.
Also, you don't fix a balance issue between current ships by just adding more ships!? That would be very bad game design. It just gives players a more expensive thing to grind for and once enough players can afford it and realize new balance issues, you throw out yet another, better, more expensive ship? Is that really the game design you wish for?
I'd rather have the choice to use T-Type ships make sense, even if you can afford their multirole counterpart. Ships should hold their own, not just be stepping stones on a race to get the most expensive ship.
You know, that's a good example. The Eagle is STILL a great ship, isn't it? It's fast, agile, fun to fly and can hold its own. Sure a Python has more firepower, but an agile fighter doesn't become pointless once you can afford a more expensive ship. A slow, weak, short ranged trader that doesn't even hold a significant cargo advantage is just obsolete the second you can afford something else. Just as you can make the choice to fly around in a rather weak, but agile fighter, I'd like the choice to use weak and slow traders, because they have enough cargo to compensate.
I like it!
Now, explain why the T9 is 4X more expensive than the T7, yet doesn't hold 4X more cargo?
This. The T9 is an empty flying cargo rack and the Anaconda is a multirole hull. The Anaconda houses many more internals, hardpoints and utility modules. The mass / cargo distribution makes no sense at all.
I wouldn't say "nothing", but it shouldn't be the single deciding factor. IF Frontier wants the ships and their roles to make some kind of sense. Otherwise it's just "more expensive = better at everything".
Like what? The Anaconda uses some unexplained never mentioned magic that makes it have way less mass, but hold practically the same amount of cargo? Ok, let's try this: why isn't the Anaconda as agile and fast as an Eagle? I mean the Thrusters alone cost more than those small ships, right. I bet you'd have a problem with big powerful ships being as fast and agile as small weak fighters, even though the Anaconda is so much more expensive. Because of game balance and because you apply some kind of real world logic to their mass and manoeuvrability. Now I wonder, why doesn't this kind of balance and real world logic apply to cargo capacity? Why is it ok that more expensive = magically less mass and more cargo (per mass of ship)?
No it isn't.. It is something that pretty much anybody who has traded in ED understands. T9 makes more profit on short haul routes, the Anaconda has the ability to perform point to point trades over a greater distance. Doesn't get much more complicated than that.
I suggest you use the search function, we have discussed this many times in the past, the devs have never hinted on chaninging anything with the T9, there is no need to change anything.
Last edited:
Lighter more expensive alloy metals? Ever shopped for a peddle bike?
How about a sports car?
I think steel wheels and alloy wheels are a plain example of something equalling the same size and similar purpose, but drastically different weights, costs and performance.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I do agree that the anaconda is too cheap, it should be more expensive by at least another 100 million cr. The trouble is that if you do there are not enough ships to fill the gap in the progression of ships. There is already a big gap between the Asp and the Python and the Anaconda. Making the gap any bigger really needs to be filled with another step.
Last edited:
Tell that to my Vulture.
Keep in mind that lighter alloys normaly comes with lower armor.
Even SciFi logic comes to an end when the values are 400t/945 Armor for the Anaconda against 1000t/432 Armor for the T9.
Also the Mass lock Factor is a joke too 16 (t9) against 23...
The Anaconda is made of space magic - she is made of meta-alloys (harhar), has build in cargo compression and a special gravity generator, just to create a MLF it doesn't deserve.
Last edited:
I think mass lock factor is a combination of mass and FSD size?
Been saying this for ages... Voted yes because trade ships need be able to haul MUCH more than any other ship type, not just marginally more - otherwise the risk does not outweigh the benefit of using them.
Edit: Also, because of the massive rewards offered by missions these days, there is no longer a need to keep trade ships cargo lower for balance reasons. Buffing their cargo capacity by 25% would not hurt the game.
Perhaps each trade ship should be given an extra fixed cargo rack, a bit like how passenger ships have fixed passenger cabins...?
Edit: Also, because of the massive rewards offered by missions these days, there is no longer a need to keep trade ships cargo lower for balance reasons. Buffing their cargo capacity by 25% would not hurt the game.
Perhaps each trade ship should be given an extra fixed cargo rack, a bit like how passenger ships have fixed passenger cabins...?
Last edited:
Not really.
Sure, some alloys you could say this is true - and example give by other poster re: alloy vs steel wheels is not a great example because wheels - even the higher market ones, are still designed around price/benefit ratio.
Better example in line with price = better position of some ppl in this thread --> Titanium (especially military grade versions).
Titanium alloys (differing versions exists) have far greater tensile strength, toughness, resist extreme temperatures, and are far, far lighter in mass than equivalent durability alternatives.
ED fantasy/fiction doesn't have to bear equality with real life of course - but if you're going to say lighter alloys normally comes with lower armor, that's just not true based on easy (higher priced) examples like titanium and even more exotic alloys.
Yes, I know that there are High tech alloys, that could have an armor factor of 4:1 to any other space craft alloy IRL.
But keep in mind that it isn't a thing for massproduction.
As of now I see at least 5 Anacondas in every inhabited System while in Supercruise - it is the cheapest of the big 3 - strangely contrary to it's armor value its power plant can be sniped as if it was mounted outside of the hull.
In a galaxy where that phantasium-alloy is that common, one has to ask, why the top notch heavy transporter is build out of paper when it has no other redeeming feature.
If it weren't for one nagging premise which I find faulty, I'd agree 100% with your counter reply here. Makes sense and could be viable debate.
But the premise here which you touch upon is that 'phantasium-alloy' is easy to machine/craft with. Given the apparent ship price differentials, it is not.
Let's take the premise in two parts - #1 - that phantasium is very common - it doesn't have to be; maybe it is, maybe it isn't in terms of relative element percentile in the galaxy. But given how far humanity has spread and the abundant in gross tonnage that we now know even 'super rare' elements are in space - even if compared to hydrogen the percentile proportions are tiny, the gross tonnage available to mine in space is staggering.
So yes - I can easily see how phantasium, despite being overall rare, could also be common at same time given scope of galaxy wide mining ability vs relatively tiny human population vs scope of galaxy.
2nd premise part - even if phantasium was as common as carbon, the costs of obtaining/mining/extracting a material pales in comparison to working that material, forming the alloy, and building something with it.
Platinum is a bad example because it is pricey but easy to work (relatively soft metal); in the price analysis for platinum, you'd be right - the overall costs to work the metal are far, far less than the overall costs to obtain the raw element and work it into the craftable metal. If platinum were super common, you'd wonder why the heck it wasn't used in more electronics since it is so available and cheap to work.
But a good example is titanium again - in addition to being pricey to extract, process and produce the craftable raw alloy in the first place, the machining / working / crafting part of it is also very expensive because by definition titanium is one of the poster childs of HRSA (heat resistant super alloys).
HRSAs are difficult to machine, difficult to craft with - especially in specific shaped and reinforced designs like planes, which I logically assume would be even more so for the fiction phantasium which presumably is even stronger/more resistant than titanium.
So I'm not saying it's the definitive answer and no other theories allowed - just saying it's quite viable and easy to explain why in a galaxy where phantasium could be super common, but fleets of heavy transporters are not made of that same material because the abundance of a material is not the whole of the price equation to craft something with it.
If phantasium is even stronger/better than titanium, all the more reason to assume the crafting portion of it would be even more expensive (and difficult). The anaconda maker charges that large premium in price, while the transport maker says screw it, we don't need that kind of exotic strength/mass lightening and charges correspondingly lower price.
Last edited:
"....never hinted on changing anything with the T9, there is no need to change anything." your opinion and evidently not everyone's.
"Your problem seems to be you are hung up on the idea that the Type 9 is the endgame cargo trading ship." you and others seem to be "hung up" that this is your agenda and may not be other players agenda's - I read people saying that hull "X" (T9 here) is not the "end game" for freighters. That would depend on what I expect and want out of a given (this) game. For me right now, it IS my hauler. I have enough credits to purchase two Cutter's but alas, I'm caught being a rank wall. (nice term btw) which is another topic for another threadnaught. (linear vs logarithmic rank progression) so for me, currently, its my end game, go to hauler. I hope that one day I'll get past this rank wall before I loose intrest in the game and do something else. And on that day I will have a choice (I hope) of either doing a Cutter (sexy sexy) or a Panther Clipper (if it looks anything like the assumed artwork, and I can afford it, I'm there) and it will be my end game or go to hauler.
I keep seeing "ship progression". This is a planned path of upgrading your current ship to next perceived better hull. Along such path there are several decisions that can be made. For example, from a T7 do I go Python or T9? Depends on what I want to do. If I like simply haulin cargo around, and the more the merrier, then a T9 is where I'm going. If I want to run missions and expect/want to do some PVE or PVP, I may go python or ???? Point is, you're assigning you premise or plan of ship purchase progression based on your play style, time to spend in game, etc. And that "plan" does necessarily jive with mine/others. So please keep that in mind.
"Your problem seems to be you are hung up on the idea that the Type 9 is the endgame cargo trading ship." you and others seem to be "hung up" that this is your agenda and may not be other players agenda's - I read people saying that hull "X" (T9 here) is not the "end game" for freighters. That would depend on what I expect and want out of a given (this) game. For me right now, it IS my hauler. I have enough credits to purchase two Cutter's but alas, I'm caught being a rank wall. (nice term btw) which is another topic for another threadnaught. (linear vs logarithmic rank progression) so for me, currently, its my end game, go to hauler. I hope that one day I'll get past this rank wall before I loose intrest in the game and do something else. And on that day I will have a choice (I hope) of either doing a Cutter (sexy sexy) or a Panther Clipper (if it looks anything like the assumed artwork, and I can afford it, I'm there) and it will be my end game or go to hauler.
I keep seeing "ship progression". This is a planned path of upgrading your current ship to next perceived better hull. Along such path there are several decisions that can be made. For example, from a T7 do I go Python or T9? Depends on what I want to do. If I like simply haulin cargo around, and the more the merrier, then a T9 is where I'm going. If I want to run missions and expect/want to do some PVE or PVP, I may go python or ???? Point is, you're assigning you premise or plan of ship purchase progression based on your play style, time to spend in game, etc. And that "plan" does necessarily jive with mine/others. So please keep that in mind.
Yep, this is another question that never gets an answer from the people who think the trade ships are perfectly balanced. First it's all about price while comparing the T9 to the Conda, saying the T9 doesn't need more cargo, because the Conda is more expensive. But somehow that "price is everything" logic doesn't apply within the T-Type line of ships or they would have to admit that the T9 needs more cargo when compared to the T7.
Wait a second, you mean to tell me that new players have been looking at the trader ships, comparing their mass, cargo size and prices and came back to the forum full of questions and suggestions to buff them a little? And this has been going on since the game launched? Gee, could that possibly be because they have a point?
Giving them a fixed cargo rack is another possibility. Or make them use those special "Lakon Cargo Racks" that someone talked about. Meaning they get a bonus capacity if you use the internals for cargo racks.
@ Phantasium argument for Conda having less mass while being better at everything and holding same cargo
Maybe I'd buy it, if the Conda was rare. You know, not just expensive (and it would have to be even more expensive than it is), but also rare. Meaning that you couldn't buy it almost everywhere anymore. Meaning that you couldn't buy it all the time. They would have to go out of stock on Condas, because they can't produce them out of thin air - they need phantasium. Wouldn't this need more background simulation? seems like a super complex solution to a rather trivial problem
Last edited: