T9 needs more cargo space

[veryinky]

@ 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

That and if the Type-9 was made out of that Phantasium that the Anaconda is, given that 945 armor'ed hull weighs 400t and costs 142million, a 432 armor hull would made out of that Phantasium would weigh 182 tons and 63 million. This isn't counting all the extra costs that'd go into the huge/large weapon mounts or the superior thruster handling of the anaconda.

So yeah. Build Type-9s out of Phantasium and they'd be much cheaper and lighter. I'd be ok with this.

 

[Weps]

One thing which has been bothering me is the shield difference between the Cutter and the Type-9. Take the stock version for each ship on Coriolis.io, no boosters, no modifications, slap a 6A shield on each of them and compare the base shield values:

184MJ for a hull mass of 1000t for the Type-9 versus 441MJ for a higher! hull mass of 1100 for the Cutter.

That's right, the Cutter gets more than twice the shield strength just by.... being a Cutter. That's before taking anything else into calculation such as optimal masses and multipliers, optional internals, number of utility mounts for boosters, and so on. From what I could gather the ship itself defines the base shield strength for any given size shield module, which is to say there is some sort of "ship shield modifier" applied before anything else (or *along with any other multiplicative modifiers such as those based on hull mass). And the Type-9 seems to have one of the worst modifiers out there. You cannot reach other large ships' shield values even by sacrificing it's biggest class 8 internal.

 

[DaveB]

The T9 and T6 are already decent ships if what you want to do is ONLY haul stuff. They do that job well and they make bank if the trader piloting them can find his backside with both hands and doesn't mind needing some serious aircon in the cabin because of how they heat up. The pig of the family is the T7. Slower than molasses, oversized for its cargo cap, eggshell-thin if anyone shoots at it even if you up its armor and shields to the max...

 

[Don Alvarez]

One thing which has been bothering me is the shield difference between the Cutter and the Type-9. Take the stock version for each ship on Coriolis.io, no boosters, no modifications, slap a 6A shield on each of them and compare the base shield values:

184MJ for a hull mass of 1000t for the Type-9 versus 441MJ for a higher! hull mass of 1100 for the Cutter.

That's right, the Cutter gets more than twice the shield strength just by.... being a Cutter. That's before taking anything else into calculation such as optimal masses and multipliers, optional internals, number of utility mounts for boosters, and so on. From what I could gather the ship itself defines the base shield strength for any given size shield module, which is to say there is some sort of "ship shield modifier" applied before anything else (or *along with any other multiplicative modifiers such as those based on hull mass). And the Type-9 seems to have one of the worst modifiers out there. You cannot reach other large ships' shield values even by sacrificing it's biggest class 8 internal.

Weak shields seems to be a hallmark of everything Lakon manufactures

 

[Darrett]

The 600 tonne difference cannot merely be bulkheads to hold the ship together.

Don't forget to look at armor and shield values as well. The T9 is 2.5X as heavy as the Anaconda, but has lower armor and shields. At the least, it needs a massive boost to base armor value so that it is ridiculously durable. That would give it a reason for existence as it would be able to withstand a lot of damage that other ships couldn't.

 

[veryinky]

Don't forget to look at armor and shield values as well. The T9 is 2.5X as heavy as the Anaconda, but has lower armor and shields. At the least, it needs a massive boost to base armor value so that it is ridiculously durable. That would give it a reason for existence as it would be able to withstand a lot of damage that other ships couldn't.

Could always remove 512 tons of hull mass and add 2 size 8 internal bays (512t cargo). Still would be an giant floating target but would be a giant floating target that carries a lot of cargo.

 

[GraXXoR]

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

The cutter is an anomily. It's a naval vessel with mediocre combat capability, thus meaning it is mostly used as a posh freighter.

People keep bringing up the Panther Clipper, but as far as FDEV official "word," there hasn't been a single one AFAIAA.

 

[Jazzy]

This is something that sure does need looking at. Currently there is no reason to bother with the Type 7 and Type 9, since they are outplayed by other ships easily. Might as well remove all trade only ships since even the Type 6 is only useful for a very short period and all multi-role beat them in cargo, jump, etc. So unless FD are going to look at the pure cargo ships design, there is no real place for them in the current game.

 

[GraXXoR]

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

Long distance runs have apparently been nerfed in 2.2 so your statement is only true until mid October.

 

[Lycan_Bravo]

I don't know why people argue against this.

The sooner we can accept that the T series is a completely useless family of ships the sooner we can get on with our lives.

At every tier of the t series there is a ship in comparable price that does it better and isn't a death trap.

 

[Adhock]

The shields are so weak I'm not sure if it will be able to stand against NPC while the FSD spools.

The standard Grade 6 comes in at optimal hull mass of about 540 or so. Max somewhere around 1380 or something like that.

The T9 weighs in at 1000 tons hull mass.

The Grade 6 would buy you a few seconds but you need to be spooling up by the time someone drops in on you.

Upgrading to a Grade 7 with optimal at 1080 is probably your best choice. The shields won't strain themselves and you'll have plenty of time to escape as long as you aren't getting swarmed.

Grade 8's would turn you into a fortress but that really should be your cargo slot.

With a Grade 7 and nothing but cargo racks you'll pull a solid 404 tons. Exactly the same as a Conda with an optimal Grade 6 and nothing but Cargo racks.

In other words a Tradeconda and a T9 in terms of specializing in ONLY cargo hauling and holding shields capable of withstanding major attack are EXACTLY the same.

The key difference in why you want a Tradeconda over a T9 is because the Tradeconda is lighter so the engines and FSD aren't pushing the same weight at they would trying to push a T9. This is where maneuverability and jump range take an impact. The heavier a ship is, the less maneuverable it is and the less range it has.

Also the Conda, regardless of role, has a greater range of firepower. Reguardless of the role you use it for, it would be stupid to pick a fight with a Conda with that many guns.

The T9 is half again heavier then the Conda in just the hull alone. This impacts significantly on it's range and maneuverability. Also it doesn't have as many guns nor are they the same size as the Conda.

Should a T9 be a warship? That wasn't what it was built for.

But if they slashed the hull weight down by a third of what it is now to somewhere around 600 to 700 tons. That would increase it's jump range enough to make it a choice you might stick with for even longer. The only reason you might consider a Conda is if you needed the firepower.

That's the main problem with the corvette. They made it too heavy and made the FSD too small. If they adjusted that for better balance, the Corvette would probably be a little more popular.

 

[Weps]

With a Grade 7 and nothing but cargo racks you'll pull a solid 404 tons. Exactly the same as a Conda with an optimal Grade 6 and nothing but Cargo racks.

In other words a Tradeconda and a T9 in terms of specializing in ONLY cargo hauling and holding shields capable of withstanding major attack are EXACTLY the same.

Actually they're not.

Yes, cargo capacity is exactly the same at 404t, but shield values are very different. Check out the values from Coriolis.io:

That is 300MJ with the Type-9 vs. 502MJ for the Anaconda. That's a 67% increase! Both ships are above the optimum with those values, so the ratio stays along those lines, but I'd reckon the Anaconda will get an even better multiplier since it's further down (400t down from 540t).

 

[V'larr]

This multiquote is in reverse order chronologically but I'm le tired and can't be bothered sorting them straight!

That's the main problem with the corvette. They made it too heavy and made the FSD too small. If they adjusted that for better balance, the Corvette would probably be a little more popular.

The Corvette *is* popular though, it's definitely the best "warship" of the current "Anaconda-tier" ships. It doesn't really need the FSD to be high, as its intended job is to park in a system and obliterate the enemies there for week(s) at a time.

The cutter is an anomily. It's a naval vessel with mediocre combat capability, thus meaning it is mostly used as a posh freighter.

Which is kinda/sorta exactly how much of the Empire carries its influence - trade & a mobile work force in the forms of Imperial Slaves. It makes sense to me.

People keep bringing up the Panther Clipper, but as far as FDEV official "word," there hasn't been a single one AFAIAA.

I could swear it's there's been mentions by Fdev about a ship too big for mailslots & needing a special means of docking to interface with stations...?

"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" this is your agenda

My agenda?

No, it's my experience playing thoroughly with all the ships in question here.

I don't think you are getting how the ship scaling with price correlates directly with intended ship progression. I feel like the intent is pretty self-evident if you take 5 minutes and look at the ships available based on price range. It's pretty straightforward, though the pricing on the Orca/Beluga mixes things up a little.

my end game, go-to hauler

Well, if you don't wish to play the rank grind (and I don't blame you really, it is a dedicated grind and the whole system smells of a future redesign), the Anaconda is currently the endgame ship. If we ignore the Federal Corvette and Imperial Cutter, the Anaconda is the one and only pinnacle of exploration, combat, and trade. (And the most expensive ship.)

And yet the Type 9 *still* gives that endgame ship a run for its money when it comes to trading capability, especially on shorter routes.

It's certainly a matter of perspective, and I have no doubt in my mind that we will see more ships added to Elite over time - like the Panther Clipper!

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.

That's exactly what I did myself.

The T9 and T6 are already decent ships if what you want to do is ONLY haul stuff. They do that job well and they make bank if the trader piloting them can find his backside with both hands and doesn't mind needing some serious aircon in the cabin because of how they heat up. The pig of the family is the T7. Slower than molasses, oversized for its cargo cap, eggshell-thin if anyone shoots at it even if you up its armor and shields to the max...

I must be in a tiny minority of players who enjoyed the Type 7, as disappointing as it is to lose the ability to land on medium pads....I did get ganked by some mysterious all-railgun NPC once in it (pre-2.1!), and I'll never know what ship it was, it happened so fast - but I upgraded my defenses after that and payed more attention to interdictions ever since and that's that.

No one said that the T9 should be the ultimate trading ship.

Um, that's almost exactly what folks keep asking for, in this thread and others...?

Also, you don't fix a balance issue between current ships by just adding more ships!? That would be very bad game design.

Wait, wait, more diversity and available choices is bad game design? Really now.

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

And it already does.
How do I know?
Because I used them all, and they were my mainstay of progressing through this game every since I started playing back in December of last year.

Instead of buying the multirole counterpart, I always opted for better trading capacity. And it paid off.

Now, explain why the T9 is 4X more expensive than the T7, yet doesn't hold 4X more cargo?

1. The T9 can get up to 4x more profit on a basic A-B-A-B bulk cargo route, because it's doubling up on profits at both point A and point B.
2. The price scaling is not necessarily tied directly to capability scaling, whether it be combat, trade, exploration, or what-have-you.

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.

It makes at least some sense to me. The Anaconda is about as expensive as it gets in Elite Dangerous, because it uses all the lightest durable metals and miniaturization techniques available. (Anybody remember how expensive miniaturization tech got in Spaceward Ho! ?)

The Type 9 on the other hand is made to be relatively affordable, cheap even, while still having the capability to more carry bulk cargo than almost all other ships in the game, with mass-efficient construction being of secondary concern. (And that hasn't stopped deep space explorers from taking Type 9s to places like Beagle Point, either!)

Otherwise it's just "more expensive = better at everything".

Would it make much sense to you if "more expensive = not much better at things"?

why isn't the Anaconda as agile and fast as an Eagle? I mean the Thrusters alone cost more than those small ships, right.

Because those thrusters are moving an Anaconda. And not an Eagle.

Quite frankly I don't quite follow why so many players focus so strongly upon ship mass. It's not something I focus on or worry about, since it doesn't really directly affect anything and feels pretty arbitrary in nature to begin with (like each ship's hidden shield strength modifier). And let's keep in mind, Elite Dangerous is technically still in constant development, so this variable isn't even set in stone.

 

[fus roh potato]

I think the best answer is that we need a T10.

Same price class as conda, 2x the cargo space, 40ly jump range, 4 medium weapons, a weaker shield and has to be docked through the mail slot sideways because of how stupid big it is.

 

[AveMe]

T6, T7 and T9 need to be re-balanced. They're currently useless: Weak FSDs, weak hulls, weak shields, they can't defend themselfes or even escape and frakking m-p ships have more cargo space. There is literally no point in buying any of T series ships.

 

[Muetdhiver]

T6, T7 and T9 need to be re-balanced. They're currently useless: Weak FSDs, weak hulls, weak shields, they can't defend themselfes or even escape and frakking m-p ships have more cargo space. There is literally no point in buying any of T series ships.

Nice summary. The T9 could do with a hull mass reduced from 1000 to 500 and an additional C8 internal.

The T6 is kind of fine, but the T7... it's terrible. Either cut down the price so that it reflect it's cardboard hull with thrusters strapped nature, or buff something (anything really XD).

 

[racer1]

After all this talk of T7/T9 being terrible and useless in 2.1. I decided to give them another go after using them successfully pre 2.0.

Only used the T7 so far. Been doing the CG out at Maia. Build here https://coriolis.io/outfit/type_7_t...4050504043245012f.Iw18aQ==.Aw18aQ==?bn=Trader

So far so good. T7 has no mods. Submitting to interdictions and high waking is absolutely no problem. I am deadly so my interdictions are mostly deadly or elites. One time I deliberately failed the interdiction mini game and then my shields just held before I high waked. I will run mod free for a few days, but my feeling is I will eventually meet an NPC who kills me but it will be rare. With clean drive upgrades and shield/booster/hull upgrades I think there will be no problem.

Nothing can carry more cargo than a T7 in its price bracket. Clipper is 5 million more and rank locked, Python is 3 times more expensive.

Will try the T9 in a week or so.

TL;DR T7 is fine, can be vulnerable but it always was. With mods you will always have time to high wake from NPC and should never die...

 

[irongut]

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

Then it needs a major price hike to make it more expensive than the Cutter.

The T-series are the transit vans of the galaxy. Cheap and cheerful, good for moving stuff but there are better options out there; there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Weps]

The problem with this approach to the Type-9 (it's cheap guys, just a goof!) is that Elite is not the sort of game where that works. Why would I invest money in a ship like that when I can pay a little extra and have another ship better at everything? If I were to manage ships and assign them to shipping routes à la X3 then probably I would consider getting a fleet of Type-9s because of the investment costs. (oh man I loved getting all the different Argon Mercury variants and matching their cargo size with route capacities between different production centers, just for the sake of it... the memories)

Elite is a game where you have to work hard to get your ships. Engineers is a further enticement to focus on one ship and make it the best. And now with ship transfers you can easily move that fine tuned ship to make use of opportunities. There's no incentive to have a slightly worse ship lying around when you can simply use the better one, if you have access to it, in all available situations.

 

[lysan]

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

I think the Panther Clipper will be that, maybe even bigger ships, Elite had some pretty massive haulers.

The Lynx Bulk Carrier would be the final goal I think, oh boy I would like one of those.