T9 needs more cargo space

[J.R.Ehman]

There are two design philosophies conflicting here:

multirole vs dedicated
"Jack of all trades, master on none"

The price increase buys you a multirole hull. You pay for the versatility of the ship. You can do everything, but not better than a dedicated ship. The people with this premise are complaining about the trade ships again and again. Why? Because they think the difference between a dedicated trader and a multirole ship should mirror the difference between a dedicated fighter and a multirole ship. So looking at the ship stats and the actual gameplay, the fighter keeps its edge compared to the multirole. Either by agility, speed or some other quality unique to the dedicated fighter. Then they apply this to the dedicated trade ships and realize something is off. The traders keep no redeeming quality over the multirole ship. Not even a significant amount of cargo space.
​

price progression
"More expensive means better"

More expensive should be better. The price progression needs to make sense. A more expensive ship needs to make more money, not only because of the high buy cost, but simply to pay for the running costs (maintenance and fuel).
​

Frontier is obviously trying to keep some balance between these ideas. They put in the distinction between dedicated ships and multirole ships, but I feel they lost some of the balance when they nerfed the running costs of the big ships, almost negating that part of the argument. What we are left with are trade ships that are left behind by ships that are not dedicated freighters and don't cost much more to run. On the other hand fighters keep having their own unique quality over multiroles.
And even if you favor price progression over the role dedication, you have the following problem:

Why would I invest money in a ship like that when I can pay a little extra and have another ship better at everything?

Even if the T-Type ships make kind of sense to run for one particular kind of trading, it's only really happening for a very short period of time before you buy the next bigger better ship. So even if you think that ships should only be stepping stones to the next more expensive ship, you have to agree that the "stepping stone" of the T-Types is too "small". So even then you should agree to a sensible cargo buff.

(Making the T9 a overpowered ultimate trading ship)
Um, that's almost exactly what folks keep asking for, in this thread and others...?

I can't speak for other threads. But please take a look at my posts and this poll. Do you honestly think "give T9 a slight cargo buff" is almost exactly "make T9 the ultimate trading ship ever"?

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

I think we are getting our wires crossed. I am FOR diversity and choices. I am against introducing new ships for the purpose of 'correcting' balance issues with existing ships.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

As an alternative I think that FDev could just introduce more new dedicated trading vessels into the game.

Maybe a Type 9 mkII with more cargo space and a bigger jump drive, at the expense of hull integrity and weapon/utility slots.

Maybe a Type 10 or just give us the Panther Clipper.

 

[Adhock]

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).

Exactly.

The problem stems from the fact that the Anaconda is ridiculously light for an Escort Class ship. Increasing it's hull mass would solve the problem of it being the "Best ship EVAR!" Riots would break out though and people would whine and get angry about the 'nerf'. The best compromise there would be to reduce the T9's hull tonnage enough if you really wanted the T9 to compete. This would solve both the Shield and Jump range which are two of the biggest differences on why a T9 is 'inferior' to a Conda.

I already pointed out the major differences which are jump range, shield mass, and firepower. That's 3 out of 4 differences with the last one being a tie. Close the gap on two of them by reducing the hull mass just enough to make sense and the T9 won't be so outclassed.

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.

It's not billed for that according to both in-game description and lore.

The Federal Corvette is the smallest warship deployed by the Federation Navy. It is a quick, hard hitting vessel also capable of transporting cargo and personnel. Its versatility makes it the most common vessel of the Federation Navy that most people will encounter. It can be found everywhere, on long range patrol, peace keeping, pirate suppression, in fact anywhere the navy wishes to maintain a solid presence without deploying one of the Farragut class Battlecruisers. It is possible, but extremely rare for a private citizen to own one of these vessels. The ship can carry and deploy two small fighter class ships.

It's not supposed to be an emplaced gun platform. It's supposed to be a transport and an Escort class vessel. It fails at it's very role of Escort if it was supposed to, as you say, "park in a system and obliterate the enemies there for week(s) at a time". It supposed to be the long arm of the Federation.

We're talking full deployment of Marine battallions and their support and logistics elements after the infantry has secured a landing zone from dropships.

We're talking long range patrols spending those "weeks at a time" out in the deep black looking for pirates to suppress or anything strange to report. Which means jumping into multiple systems and having a look around before returning to it's port. It may not even return to the same port.

We're talking about armed transport on the level of the TradeConda for active battlezones for logistical reasons. Places you wouldn't want to be caught dead in a T series without escort.

We're talking about a ship that was billed to be a cheaper and economical solution to deploying a Farragut. Which are         expensive to build and maintain. Not to mention the appearance of a Farragut causes everybody to lose their collective      but nobody would notice or care about a Corvette which works to the Corvette's advantage.

To quote Ozpin of RWBY.

So tell me, when you prepare to go to war, which do you send in first: the flag bearer, or the scouts?

While Corvettes can do a phenomenal job at ether role, they fail at both if, once again as you insist, are nothing more then emplaced gun platforms.

 

[DragoonKnight]

If we are going to compare the T9 to a Conda then it should cost just as much. And if it is going to carry Cutter levels of cargo, then it should cost as much as a cutter.

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

As an alternative I think that FDev could just introduce more new dedicated trading vessels into the game.

Maybe a Type 9 mkII with more cargo space and a bigger jump drive, at the expense of hull integrity and weapon/utility slots.

Maybe a Type 10 or just give us the Panther Clipper.

Why do we need a Panther Clipper in the game? It would basically be an iwin button for trade cg. The Cutter is already so good at that, anyone with a Conda is seriously outclassed.

 

[Weps]

The best compromise there would be to reduce the T9's hull tonnage enough if you really wanted the T9 to compete. This would solve both the Shield and Jump range which are two of the biggest differences on why a T9 is 'inferior' to a Conda.

Wait, now I realize I might have made a mistake in my previous argumentation since Coriolis.io possibly already factors in mass modifiers. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Adhock]

If we are going to compare the T9 to a Conda then it should cost just as much. And if it is going to carry Cutter levels of cargo, then it should cost as much as a cutter.

The problem with this argument is that you're asking a specialized ship be priced the same as TWO multi-role ships which can specialize or hybridize to any role with the right internals.

That extra cost is going into a hull that is specially designed to be good at everything. This requires more advanced designs and specialized equipment that's going to see a lot of tuning to ensure peak performance and to slide it in the direction to allow the ship to be good at whatever it's pilot wants it to be good for at the moment.

The T9 is specifically designed for cargo hauling. This makes it cheaper and easier to produce since every stock T9 will be more or less the same and all will be used for the same role. Thus since it doesn't cost as much, the manufacturer can ask for less.

So no. The T9 should NEVER cost the same as two multiroles because it's not a multirole ship.

 

[DragoonKnight]

The problem with this argument is that you're asking a specialized ship be priced the same as TWO multi-role ships which can specialize or hybridize to any role with the right internals.

That extra cost is going into a hull that is specially designed to be good at everything. This requires more advanced designs and specialized equipment that's going to see a lot of tuning to ensure peak performance and to slide it in the direction to allow the ship to be good at whatever it's pilot wants it to be good for at the moment.

The T9 is specifically designed for cargo hauling. This makes it cheaper and easier to produce since every stock T9 will be more or less the same and all will be used for the same role. Thus since it doesn't cost as much, the manufacturer can ask for less.

So no. The T9 should NEVER cost the same as two multiroles because it's not a multirole ship.

The T9 already has the most cargo out of any ship, more than the Conda, that is not rank locked behind a huge grind wall. In the time I spent ranking up for the cutter I could have earned 150-200 million, maybe even more.

So the real question is why buff the cargo capacity of a ship that already has the most cargo capacity?

You also say that the T9 is specialized for cargo. That is reflected in the price. A shielded 500 ton T9 costs 84 million. A shielded 400 ton Anaconda is 250 million. So the multipurpose costa 3 times as much and carries 100 tons less

 

[thorn-]

You also say that the T9 is specialized for cargo. That is reflected in the price. A shielded 500 ton T9 costs 84 million. A shielded 400 ton Anaconda is 250 million. So the multipurpose costa 3 times as much and carries 100 tons less

For the 7th time: why is the T9 4 Times more expensive than the T7? It doesn't carry 4x more cargo.

Let's stop comparing it to the Conda for a moment. I'm (personally) not suggesting that the T9 needs a huge buff in cargo to make sense... you could drop the price of the T9 by 50-60%, and THEN it would make perfect sense.

 

[DragoonKnight]

For the 7th time: why is the T9 4 Times more expensive than the T7? It doesn't carry 4x more cargo.

Let's stop comparing it to the Conda for a moment. I'm (personally) not suggesting that the T9 needs a huge buff in cargo to make sense... you could drop the price of the T9 by 50-60%, and THEN it would make perfect sense.

A T-9 carries 532 tons vs 232 of a T7.
532 / 232 = 2.29
2.29 * 14 million (price of T7) = 32.1 million
That would support your suggestion for a 50% discount. However, and you may have noticed this, such increases in Elite do not have a linear relationship. It is often exponential. So the 4x difference in price makes sense from that point of view.

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

What I think the T9 really needs is more range. Perhaps a higher mass lock factor as well.

 

[J.R.Ehman]

The problem stems from the fact that the Anaconda is ridiculously light for an Escort Class ship. Increasing it's hull mass would solve the problem of it being the "Best ship EVAR!" Riots would break out though and people would whine and get angry about the 'nerf'. The best compromise there would be to reduce the T9's hull tonnage enough if you really wanted the T9 to compete. This would solve both the Shield and Jump range which are two of the biggest differences on why a T9 is 'inferior' to a Conda.

I already pointed out the major differences which are jump range, shield mass, and firepower. That's 3 out of 4 differences with the last one being a tie. Close the gap on two of them by reducing the hull mass just enough.

To make sense the Anaconda should have a little more mass and the T9 a little less, I agree. And yeah, some ppl would go crazy if you suggested to nerf their ultimate best ship. But I don't understand what they'd "lose" if the T9 was a little better. Do you really want everyone ending up with the same ultimate most expensive best ship? I'd rather see a diverse selection of ships being viable.

 

[xondk]

I bought skins for the T9 and now I'm salty over the fact that the Anaconda is so much better at trading. Pls buff cargo space of the T9 to make my skin purchase worth it.

The T9 is a lot cheaper then conda, so yeah, you get what you pay for, and even irl, much the same goes, especially for trading, because it isn't just about having a big ship with a lot of hollow space for cargo, there's a lot more to it, granted many ship designs are decided to have this or that, depending on design intentions, but even then it meshes fairly well with the fact that more expensive stuff can do more then cheaper stuff, which also holds true irl.

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

To make sense the Anaconda should have a little more mass and the T9 a little less, I agree. And yeah, some ppl would go crazy if you suggested to nerf their ultimate best ship. But I don't understand what they'd "lose" if the T9 was a little better. Do you really want everyone ending up with the same ultimate most expensive best ship? I'd rather see a diverse selection of ships being viable.

Anaconda shouldn't really have more mass though, I do not know what you are judging that by.

T9 is: 117.4L - 115.3W - 33.2H
Conda: 152.4L - 61.8W - 32.0H

Longer, but thinner then T9, add that the biggest thing on the conda is the 'dock' beneath it, other then that is quite a thin/flat ship for its size compared to T9 which is big and bulky, so I'd say personally designs hold up quite well in that light?

 

[777Driver]

Anaconda shouldn't really have more mass though, I do not know what you are judging that by.

T9 is: 117.4L - 115.3W - 33.2H
Conda: 152.4L - 61.8W - 32.0H

Longer, but thinner then T9, add that the biggest thing on the conda is the 'dock' beneath it, other then that is quite a thin/flat ship for its size compared to T9 which is big and bulky, so I'd say personally designs hold up quite well in that light?

The Anaconda is hugely out of whack compared to the other ships in it's class range, it's no secret the devs artificially reduced its mass to give it a high jump range.

Anyway, people can go on about changing the stats on the T9, it ain't going to happen. Op would be better off using the search function.

 

[CMDRBuxton]

The T9 already has the most cargo out of any ship, more than the Conda, that is not rank locked behind a huge grind wall. In the time I spent ranking up for the cutter I could have earned 150-200 million, maybe even more.

In the time it took me to rank up for the cuttter I earned about 250 million credits (from hundreds of ground assault missions). I didn't advance in trade rank or anything, but I did get enough money to buy and upgrade the cutter as soon as I had the rank.

 

[asphaltpilot]

I do agree that the T9 should have more cargo space compared to a trade anaconda, ONLY because the T9 is a sitting duck compared to a trade anaconda. If the T9 is going to that much more vulnerable, at least beef up the cargo capacity.

 

[Leo Sagan]

Specialized = best at = T9 rules trading (and is very bad at everything else)
Make it so

 

[V'larr]

the categorization of long range delivery missions (legal or smuggling from bubble exterior to bubble interior such as Robigo / Sothis / Ceos) as 'exploit'.

You want to explain why it's getting nerfed in 2.2, then?

It's not billed for that according to both in-game description and lore.

But it does match its in-game description. It's good for combat because it is quick (in normal space), though not as high a top speed as the Cutter. It's supposed to escort *Farragut* battleships.

You're the only one taking what I said as "fixed gun platform".

Its role is to go and control a system for long periods of times (sort of the whole Federation gunboat philosophy). That has nothing to do with being a stationary gun platform, it could be doing all sorts of things within each system.

Not to mention that, like any other ship, explorers do use Corvettes just fine.

If we are going to compare the T9 to a Conda then it should cost just as much. And if it is going to carry Cutter levels of cargo, then it should cost as much as a cutter.

Which, in other words, is like what I said - it's basically removing the Type 9 and replacing it with something else.

For the 7th time: why is the T9 4 Times more expensive than the T7? It doesn't carry 4x more cargo.

I already answered this. If you didn't read or pay attention to the answer, that's your fault, not ours.

 

[Tobias Reaper]

If you keep the default Class 6 shield generator and dedicate the rest of a T9's space to cargo, it hauls 468 tons. That's a heck of a lot of cargo.
If you do the same with an Anaconda, you max out at 404 tons.

And if for some reason, you'd opt to give up shields on either of these:

Type 9: 532 tons
Anaconda: 468 tons

Clearly, as a freighter, the Type-9 stuffs more stuff per cubic meter.

Now with 6A FSD's the Anaconda out-jumps the T9 by 3 Ly +/- some decimals, but it doesn't compete in raw hauling capacity.

And when it comes to cost... few things out-price an Anaconda, making the T-9 a vastly cheaper alternative.

But if you've the money to blow, and the rank to pull it off, convert an Imperial Cutter to a freight hauler.

Fully fitted with Cargo Racks, and keeping the Class 8 shield generator, the iCutter weighs in at:

536 tons of cargo
and Jumps 1 Ly less than the Anaconda

Without shields, 792 tons cargo space in the iCutter.

But what a waste of a beautiful ship!

The cutter outfitted for Cargo might be a waste in one way but its a one hell of a hauler in the other.. I want one!

 

[jacozilla]

You want to explain why it's getting nerfed in 2.2, then?

You want to explain why you think it is getting nerfed based on 2.2 beta payouts - when beta payouts have always been lower, and not reflected at live launch for the past 3 betas I've been in? (and from other players who've been around even longer saying same thing since earlier betas?)

In another thread somewhere re: same question, I caveated somewhat so will say same thing again -

I concede it is possible this will be the one time FD goes by exception rather than long established precedent. And that the lower payouts in beta actually will be the live form.

However, as that has never been the case before, and lower payouts not reflected when it went live, it's far safer and intelligent to assume the established precedent than cry wolf over beta conditions which are the same as prior betas
(e.g. lowering ship prices to 10%, lowering beta payouts, etc that are not reflected when going live)

 

[Adhock]

Anaconda shouldn't really have more mass though, I do not know what you are judging that by.

We're judging it by the fact that the Hull Mass Tonnage (how much the empty frame devoid of all components weighs) is what ultimately affects three of the most important components when it comes to travel. Thrusters, FSD, and Shields.

The Anaconda weighs in at 400 Tons.

The T9 weights in at 1000 Tons.

Shields calculate how powerful they are based on this mass alone. Each shield Class (Number) determines the Shield's Optimal Hull Rating. Each Rating (Letter) determines the multiplier amount.

A 6E is going to have the same optimal rating as a 6A. However a 6A is going to have a better multiplier then a 6E which is what an A rating better then an E rating on shields for ships that the Class six is an optimal range.

A Class 7 shield has a higher optimal rating meaning it provides better protection for larger ships.

All shields measure their protection against Hull Mass alone. If a ship's Hull Mass is less then the optimal mass rating of a shield, it then adds a mulitpler making the shield's 'stronger' because the shield compounds on itself after covering the entire surface area of the ship.

if the ships hull mass is more then the shield is rated for, the shield strains to protect the surface area making the shield 'weaker' to incoming fire. There is a maximum effective range which is why you can't put say class 3's on a T9 at all. The game won't let you.

With the Conda's Hull tonnage, It can enjoy a lower class of shield then the T9 and be well protected saving it's larger class 7 internal for a larger cargo rack. Larger cargo racks means more cargo, better pay. A warship Anaconda can instead equip a Class 7 shield and become an impenetrable fortress. All thanks to it's low Hull Mass.

The T9 must equip a Class 7 shield at the very least to enjoy a level of protection you'd be comfortable with. It could potentially equip a class 8 if there is such a thing but you're not looking to take a T9 to battle, you want it to haul cargo so that Class 8 is reserved for Cargo racks.

This is just shields alone.

Next is where your head might REALLY start spinning.

The total weight of the ship is Hull Mass+Total weight of all components. This is why people who want to race or travel far tell you to strip your ship everything you don't need.

Thusters are the biggest one. They have an optimal total mass rating. If your total mass is equal or less then the rating, your thruster are operating at optimal or better then normal which means you'll see an increase in speed and innate handling making you more maneuverable. Again lighter is better.

The Anaconda enjoys a very low Hull Mass which is what makes it so nimble and you can pretty much weigh it down without a noticeable impact to it's performance.

The T9 on the other hand is double the weight which is what makes it such a lumbering beast. It's thrusters are likely to always be overworked and that's why it handles so poorly.

The same concept for thrusters applies to the FSD. The less weight you haul to get closer to the optimal rating of the FSD in question, the farther you can jump.

Once again. Lighter is better. The lighter you are, the further you go.

So as you can see, this is not about the Surface Area Squared Mass. This is about the Empty Hull Weight Mass. The actual weight mass that affects gameplay.

Lighter is Better is how you should live when it comes to outfitting a ship, Except the best performing parts are not necessarily lighter meaning you need to play a balancing game when outfitting your ship.

The Anaconda is an anomaly when it comes to this balancing act. It is ridiculously light for an Escort weighing in at about the same as a Dropship/Clipper at Gunship class rather then weighing in at the same weight class as it's fellow Escorts, the Corvette and the Cutter. Therefore it will always be the uber ship at that level.

If the T9 had it's weight reduced by a third, it could 'compete' rather then getting more cargo room since it would close the gap on shields and jumprange meaning the real question of why you'd pick a Conda over a T9 is because of it's firepower. And if you need it's firepower, you must be ether hauling something very valuable or traveling through very dangerous space without an escort.

 

[CGI_Artist]