[Suggestion] Keeping specialised trading/exploration ships attractive vs. multipurpose

[Tactical Tree]

T6/T7/T9 ships could offer insurance of cargo in addition of ship - When your ship is destroyed have an additional option to tick, for the same cost/rate your ship is insured at. That would make these ships less dangerous to haul cargo in, since you wouldn't lose all your money you invested in cargo.

Exploration vessels - Currently there only seem to be two of those, Diamondback Explorer and ASP Explorer, both of which are outclassed by Anaconda. What if the "explorers" could redeem exploration data after death, for greatly reduced income?(90-95%, think reverse of insurance)

That way people who want to use late game ships for trading/exploration still get the incentive to do so (They will do the job better/faster), but an option of dedicated explorers and traders would still be on table, as opposed to current situation of "Get Anaconda forget about all other ships".

 

[CMDR IPL Victim]

Love the idea for the trade ships being the ones that qualify for the as yet to be implemented cargo insurance. Perhaps as an added bonus, the layout of those ship's internals results in a boost to the cargo capacity of any installed cargo racks. I'd include the Hauler in the mix of cargo ships.

I believe Exploration class ships (those named as such, and perhaps the related Scout variants) should have dedicated slots for the two requisite scanners (Discover and Surface) as their 'perk' for being an explorer.

Regarding 'late game ships' - they are only late game if you let them be. I've achieved Elite Exploration. I achieved most of that in an AspX. Only the last run was in a Conda, and aside from the range, I preferred the AspX. Hate the supercruise handling of the conda. Now, I'm using the DBX for that kind of task. I don't explore in my Cutter, Corvette, or Conda. Each ship has a task. But that is just how I do things... ^_~

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commanders!

I'll need more time to consider these, but on the face of it, I'm not completely against the concept of credit insurance for specific ships. It's an interesting concept. We're still fairly against the idea of saving actual cargo, but some form of compensation might not be out of the question. Perhaps it could be some form of insurance module that only "trader" ships could fit? Maybe the benefit could be linked to faction reputation? Or maybe there are some evil exploits I haven't thought of yet?

I'm less keen on the idea of cashing in exploration vouchers for destroyed explorers. I could be wrong, but feel that it might encourage the sort of burn and blow exploration: ships burning out as quickly as possible to explore, then blowing up to return and cash in. And on the other hand, if the reduced rewards was too small, then possibly too few folk would see it as much of a worthwhile benefit.

That's not to say I'm against the idea of giving explorer role ships more benefits to keep them relevant, again possibly using specialist "explorer" ship slots.

 

[wstephenson]

Sandro,

A few of us had a think about how to make exploration earnings less volatile/all or nothing, including some mitigation strategies to deter blowing explorers up to steal their data. It provides exciting gameplay to recover mislaid data, and it doesn't require additional modules or UI - it can pretty much all be done on the backend with the current client inbox and transaction tabs.

The thread is this-a-way: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/337212-Black-Box-Recovery-for-Exploration-Data

HTH

WIll

 

[StiTch]

T6/T7/T9 ships could offer insurance of cargo in addition of ship - When your ship is destroyed have an additional option to tick, for the same cost/rate your ship is insured at. That would make these ships less dangerous to haul cargo in, since you wouldn't lose all your money you invested in cargo.

Exploration vessels - Currently there only seem to be two of those, Diamondback Explorer and ASP Explorer, both of which are outclassed by Anaconda. What if the "explorers" could redeem exploration data after death, for greatly reduced income?(90-95%, think reverse of insurance)

That way people who want to use late game ships for trading/exploration still get the incentive to do so (They will do the job better/faster), but an option of dedicated explorers and traders would still be on table, as opposed to current situation of "Get Anaconda forget about all other ships".

They do need advantages but not like this. "Magic cargo protection" for trading ships and "magic data protection" for explorers is frankly the wrong kind of balance...and without doubt, a strong dose of "remove risk/consequence".

IMO, give traders specialist internal slots that fit cargo in the same way military ships got mil slots. Gives them an edge in, you know, actually trading against multirole competitors, which basically trump them on all grounds, without turning this into "buy these ships and never worry about risk again ever".

- - - Updated - - -

Hello Commanders!

I'll need more time to consider these, but on the face of it, I'm not completely against the concept of credit insurance for specific ships. It's an interesting concept. We're still fairly against the idea of saving actual cargo, but some form of compensation might not be out of the question. Perhaps it could be some form of insurance module that only "trader" ships could fit? Maybe the benefit could be linked to faction reputation? Or maybe there are some evil exploits I haven't thought of yet?

I'm less keen on the idea of cashing in exploration vouchers for destroyed explorers. I could be wrong, but feel that it might encourage the sort of burn and blow exploration: ships burning out as quickly as possible to explore, then blowing up to return and cash in. And on the other hand, if the reduced rewards was too small, then possibly too few folk would see it as much of a worthwhile benefit.

That's not to say I'm against the idea of giving explorer role ships more benefits to keep them relevant, again possibly using specialist "explorer" ship slots.

Sandro, following from my post, specialist slots are - IMO - the way to go. Lets a ship perform better at its intended role.

What really should be maintained is that any ship can be used for a given role, but the specialist ship performs better at it. Want to take an iClipper trading? By all means, but why should it compete with the trading ship at its tier (T7)?

The idea of magical anti-death barriers doesn't actually make a ship perform better at its intended role. And so every player that plays against risk would find it unequivocally advantageous to use a trade ship not because it's better at trading but because death becomes irrelevant, and every player in Solo/PG that knows half how to fly a ship would still never look at the specialist - without anything to threaten them there's still no point in the "specialist".

Would be kinda nice on the other hand to see the T9 for instance actually trumping some of the big MR ships on cargo cap/trading ability...

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Hello Commanders!

I'll need more time to consider these, but on the face of it, I'm not completely against the concept of credit insurance for specific ships. It's an interesting concept. We're still fairly against the idea of saving actual cargo, but some form of compensation might not be out of the question. Perhaps it could be some form of insurance module that only "trader" ships could fit? Maybe the benefit could be linked to faction reputation? Or maybe there are some evil exploits I haven't thought of yet?

I'm less keen on the idea of cashing in exploration vouchers for destroyed explorers. I could be wrong, but feel that it might encourage the sort of burn and blow exploration: ships burning out as quickly as possible to explore, then blowing up to return and cash in. And on the other hand, if the reduced rewards was too small, then possibly too few folk would see it as much of a worthwhile benefit.

That's not to say I'm against the idea of giving explorer role ships more benefits to keep them relevant, again possibly using specialist "explorer" ship slots.

Hiya Sandro. There is another proposal re: Trader Specific Ships (like the T6 & T9) floating around on the main discussion page.....not sure if you've seen it. Basically, like Luxury Cabins on the 3 Passenger Ships, there was mention of a Bulk Cargo Hold specifically for the big trader ships-Cargo Holds designed to fit various kinds of Bulk Cargo (basically extremely large & unwieldy cargo that can't fit neatly into those canisters we usually use to transport goods)-my thinking was stuff like modules for Capital Ships, Outposts & Stations....amongst other things.

So, what do you think, is this another idea you guys would consider in terms of helping to differentiate the Trade Ships from other ships of the same size?

Here is the thread if you want more details from the OP.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/349670-Suggestion-New-cargo-type

 

[CMDR IPL Victim]

Hello Commanders!
I'm less keen on the idea of cashing in exploration vouchers for destroyed explorers. I could be wrong, but feel that it might encourage the sort of burn and blow exploration: ships burning out as quickly as possible to explore, then blowing up to return and cash in. And on the other hand, if the reduced rewards was too small, then possibly too few folk would see it as much of a worthwhile benefit.

That's not to say I'm against the idea of giving explorer role ships more benefits to keep them relevant, again possibly using specialist "explorer" ship slots.

Id suggest any exploration data saved from the practice outlined above should automatically invalidate any first discovery bonus or naming and simply provide credits as if encountering an already flagged system. Still, id prefer any perk for trade and exploration ships be focused toward making trading or exploration more involved. specialist trade or exploration module slots are a start as with the passenger liners and combat ships.

 

[Lestat]

I only for this idea One time deal for new players at low ranks who don't know any better. A trader lower then Dealer Or a Explorer that Surveyor who died. That supplied with Small % of their goods or Exploration data. With a Readme explaining Don't put all your money cargo with no insurance or a Explorer who Hull damage below 50% and no weapons.

 

[coca_fr]

Perhaps it could be some form of insurance module that only "trader" ships could fit?

Indeed it could be differents insurances modules that you buy according to the risk you want to protect :

10K Cr : 25% Protection
50K Cr : 25% Protection
100K Cr : 75% Protection
250K Cr : 95% Protection

If your ship is destroyed you are reimbursed for your cargo but you loose your insurance module.
That way you pay for the protection you want !

Trader : Internal Compartments for more Cargo
Please make Trading ship hold more cargo that actual multi-role or military ship of same size thanks to dedicated cargo internal Internal Compartments.
It would be based on the same implementation you made for military ship that now have a Military Internal Compartments for module/hull reinforcement.

 

[Chrystoph]

I'm less keen on the idea of cashing in exploration vouchers for destroyed explorers. I could be wrong, but feel that it might encourage the sort of burn and blow exploration: ships burning out as quickly as possible to explore, then blowing up to return and cash in. And on the other hand, if the reduced rewards was too small, then possibly too few folk would see it as much of a worthwhile benefit.

This could be resolved by removing the Discovered By tag and reputation increases if the player suicides. They would still get cash, which is arguably least important, but not get the fame.

 

[Lestat]

This could be resolved by removing the Discovered By tag and reputation increases if the player suicides. They would still get cash, which is arguably least important, but not get the fame.

I think it to much of a easy way out. I think retrieval would plus losing discovered by tag. Would be fair. Maybe lose 50% of what they discovered.

 

[Bryan]

Tactical Tree

I like your suggestions and agree with all of them. I also think there should be more Freighter Ship designs available and be separated out from the larger explorer vessels. Believe it when I say there is a lot of grown up people who love to play the Trading Hat out there and they love it.

 

[Galactic Fork]

T6/T7/T9 ships could offer insurance of cargo in addition of ship - When your ship is destroyed have an additional option to tick, for the same cost/rate your ship is insured at. That would make these ships less dangerous to haul cargo in, since you wouldn't lose all your money you invested in cargo.

Exploration vessels - Currently there only seem to be two of those, Diamondback Explorer and ASP Explorer, both of which are outclassed by Anaconda. What if the "explorers" could redeem exploration data after death, for greatly reduced income?(90-95%, think reverse of insurance)

That way people who want to use late game ships for trading/exploration still get the incentive to do so (They will do the job better/faster), but an option of dedicated explorers and traders would still be on table, as opposed to current situation of "Get Anaconda forget about all other ships".

I like the idea of making specific ships more desirable to a player, but rather than credit based, make them module based. Everybody can get a Rating E cargo rack, make a T6 able to buy Rating C, a T7, Rating B, and a T9 can buy a Rating A. These Ratings start at Class 4. With Cs adding 3T for Class 4, 6T for Class 5, 9T for class 6, 12T for class 7, and 15 T for class 8. Rating B would add 6T, 12T, 18T, 24T, and 32T. And for the T9, the Rating A would add 9T, 18T, 27T, 36, and 45T. (these are not set in stone of course).

Explorers could get better scanners, A Diamondback explorer could get a 1b Detailed surface scanner, with a higher range and quicker scan time (made better by engineering). And an ASP Explorer could get a 1A Detailed surface scanner. They could alternatively get a special fuel scoop.

I'm not sure if there are specified miners, but some ships could get better refineries.

 

[Tactical Tree]

They do need advantages but not like this. "Magic cargo protection" for trading ships and "magic data protection" for explorers is frankly the wrong kind of balance...and without doubt, a strong dose of "remove risk/consequence".

IMO, give traders specialist internal slots that fit cargo in the same way military ships got mil slots. Gives them an edge in, you know, actually trading against multirole competitors, which basically trump them on all grounds, without turning this into "buy these ships and never worry about risk again ever".

- - - Updated - - -



Sandro, following from my post, specialist slots are - IMO - the way to go. Lets a ship perform better at its intended role.

What really should be maintained is that any ship can be used for a given role, but the specialist ship performs better at it. Want to take an iClipper trading? By all means, but why should it compete with the trading ship at its tier (T7)?

The idea of magical anti-death barriers doesn't actually make a ship perform better at its intended role. And so every player that plays against risk would find it unequivocally advantageous to use a trade ship not because it's better at trading but because death becomes irrelevant, and every player in Solo/PG that knows half how to fly a ship would still never look at the specialist - without anything to threaten them there's still no point in the "specialist".

Would be kinda nice on the other hand to see the T9 for instance actually trumping some of the big MR ships on cargo cap/trading ability...

Right, well, I don't see it as "magic protection", at least not in the first case. Traders are actually risking more than combat oriented vessels - if you die in your combat Conda you lose your rebuy Credits. If you die in your trader Conda with cargo, you lose your rebuy Credits + worth-of-cargo Credits. I suggested that to bring the risk to par with other professions, not as a way to remove it.

Hello Commanders!

I'll need more time to consider these, but on the face of it, I'm not completely against the concept of credit insurance for specific ships. It's an interesting concept. We're still fairly against the idea of saving actual cargo, but some form of compensation might not be out of the question. Perhaps it could be some form of insurance module that only "trader" ships could fit? Maybe the benefit could be linked to faction reputation? Or maybe there are some evil exploits I haven't thought of yet?

I'm less keen on the idea of cashing in exploration vouchers for destroyed explorers. I could be wrong, but feel that it might encourage the sort of burn and blow exploration: ships burning out as quickly as possible to explore, then blowing up to return and cash in. And on the other hand, if the reduced rewards was too small, then possibly too few folk would see it as much of a worthwhile benefit.

That's not to say I'm against the idea of giving explorer role ships more benefits to keep them relevant, again possibly using specialist "explorer" ship slots.

An actual insurance as in lose cargo but get X% of Credits after dying with cargo worth Y would effectively be the same, since you could just buy it again, so no problems from me there.

As for the exploration suggestion, I was thinking about it in terms of a consolation prize, a thing to go "Oh hey I went 30k LY and screwed up, at least I got a bit of credits" without the ability to actually put your name on the systems if you die, but I understand how it could be easily ignored if the reward was too small.

 

[Lestat]

Right, well, I don't see it as "magic protection", at least not in the first case. Traders are actually risking more than combat oriented vessels - if you die in your combat Conda you lose your rebuy Credits. If you die in your trader Conda with cargo, you lose your rebuy Credits + worth-of-cargo Credits. I suggested that to bring the risk to par with other professions, not as a way to remove it.

I also see it as magic protection hold my hand feature. This is when common sense need to come in to play. Combat Anaconda you save for Insurance so when they die they can rebuy their ship. Now a Trade Anaconda. Most people make the Stupid mistake buying large amount cargo then forget the ship insurance. I rather have a warning buying a large amount of cargo. Pointing out hay you don't have rebuy cost for your ship.

An actual insurance as in lose cargo but get X% of Credits after dying with cargo worth Y would effectively be the same, since you could just buy it again, so no problems from me there.

I see a major problem because it take the risk and reward out of the game.

As for the exploration suggestion, I was thinking about it in terms of a consolation prize, a thing to go "Oh hey I went 30k LY and screwed up, at least I got a bit of credits" without the ability to actually put your name on the systems if you die, but I understand how it could be easily ignored if the reward was too small.

I see it as a easy button. If I out 30k LY and get tired and crash into the sun or planet. Get in my case around 300 million. Even with out name on the planet I win.

 

[StiTch]

Right, well, I don't see it as "magic protection", at least not in the first case. Traders are actually risking more than combat oriented vessels - if you die in your combat Conda you lose your rebuy Credits. If you die in your trader Conda with cargo, you lose your rebuy Credits + worth-of-cargo Credits. I suggested that to bring the risk to par with other professions, not as a way to remove it.

"Right, well"...sorry but isn't that the trader's problem? They're optionally taking on a known quantity of goods for resale at profit. That is financially risking more on top of your ship, but combat ships take on their own hazards by launching themselves at enemy combat ships in more expensive gear. All you have to do is run effectively on the odd occasion risk comes your way.

And it doesn't change that a suggestion in the form you have put forwards still effectively removes risk for traders. The role of trader will have literally zero drawbacks when in one of these ships, and yes it is "magical" that suddenly this protection is applied to certain ships but absolutely no protection is available.

It's incredible because if you set aside your "I don't want there to be risk in mah game!" paranoia for a moment, you would surely recognise that increased cargo capacity as per my suggestion would equal higher profit - and provided that with basic precautions it's nigh on impossible to die would equal overall monies for you and me (probably more you).

It's more logical, allows a more natural relationship between trade ships and MR ships, would ultimately be more profitable to a trader that makes an iota of effort, and still leaves a smidgeon of risk for a trader that doesn't.

Can't see how "impossible to risk money in trading" does anything for the game other than appeasing the "if you let risk exist, you're stopping me play mah way" crowd.

 

[Tactical Tree]

"Right, well"...sorry but isn't that the trader's problem? They're optionally taking on a known quantity of goods for resale at profit. That is financially risking more on top of your ship, but combat ships take on their own hazards by launching themselves at enemy combat ships in more expensive gear. All you have to do is run effectively on the odd occasion risk comes your way.

And you still would be risking it, proportionally to the cargo you buy. 100% insurance is not what anyone suggested.

And it doesn't change that a suggestion in the form you have put forwards still effectively removes risk for traders. The role of trader will have literally zero drawbacks when in one of these ships, and yes it is "magical" that suddenly this protection is applied to certain ships but absolutely no protection is available.

The drawbacks are that you can haul more and faster in other ships. With better defenses. Making more Credits if you risk it.

It's incredible because if you set aside your "I don't want there to be risk in mah game!" paranoia for a moment, you would surely recognise that increased cargo capacity as per my suggestion would equal higher profit - and provided that with basic precautions it's nigh on impossible to die would equal overall monies for you and me (probably more you).

Personal attacks are absolutely unnecessary. I have never once said that I don't want risk in the game.

It's more logical, allows a more natural relationship between trade ships and MR ships, would ultimately be more profitable to a trader that makes an iota of effort, and still leaves a smidgeon of risk for a trader that doesn't.

Can't see how "impossible to risk money in trading" does anything for the game other than appeasing the "if you let risk exist, you're stopping me play mah way" crowd.

You can risk money in trading. It's just that you would have extra protection if you chose to go for lower profits. And if a pirate interdicts you, perhaps you'd try to run and risk a rebuy if you knew you're not going to lose all your money you invested?

And again with the weird reasoning, you're just trying to reach at anything and everything you can. I don't recall saying that without this insurance the game is unplayable for me and that it's somehow someone elses fault. If you could refrain from making up stuff that'd be great.

 

[coca_fr]

Indeed it would be a good idea to have better cargo rack class for trading ships.


Better cargo rack class for trading ships.
(+25% per T but add 1T per class ? class 8 8T ?)
8E 256T 8C 320T
7E 128T 7C 160T
6E 64T 6C 80T
5E 32T 5C 40T
4E 16T 4C 20T
3E 8T 3C 10T
2E 4T 2C 5T
1E 2T 1C 2T

Dedicated cargo rack too for trading ship
There should be a dedicated cargo rack too for trading ship (T9 class 8, T7 class 6, T6 class 5) like we have for military ships with military compartment.

This would make trading more interesting to use :
T9 950T without shield ((1.25*504)+320)
T7 460T without shield ((1.25*304)+80
T6 180T without shield ((1.25*112)+40)

Insurrance for your cargo
Like i wrote here you could buy different module commodities protection for a fixed price that you would loose if you got destroyed.

You could as well mix that with a small percentage on your trader profits. For example 1% at start.

Each time you got blown up your insurance increase by 0.1%.

After a long period without blowing up your ship your insurance would decrease.


This would drastically make trading ship more interesting !

 

[Lestat]

I think it should stay on new player a one time pass. Even if they are high level rank or ship. If they die they get a lot of their funds back and ship back.

With a warning explaining This is a one time donation for new player and their own mistake. Next time. Save your credit for your insurance and your Cargo.

For exploration It should be This is a one time donation. With a warning explaining Time + Credit = equal higher risk of losing data and your ship. Always dock at a station that safe.

Each time someone dies. They should get that warning. Next save your credit for insurance and Cargo and exploration Data.

Another idea is pay a real Fine with real money to get some of your credits back after death. It support future upgrades.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Indeed it would be a good idea to have better cargo rack class for trading ships.


Better cargo rack class for trading ships.
(+25% per T but add 1T per class ? class 8 8T ?)
8E 256T 8C 320T
7E 128T 7C 160T
6E 64T 6C 80T
5E 32T 5C 40T
4E 16T 4C 20T
3E 8T 3C 10T
2E 4T 2C 5T
1E 2T 1C 1T

Dedicated cargo rack too for trading ship
There should be a dedicated cargo rack too for trading ship (T9 class 8, T7 class 6, T6 class 5) like we have for military ships with military compartment.

This would make trading more interesting to use :
T9 950T without shield ((1.25*504)+320)
T7 460T without shield ((1.25*304)+80
T6 180T without shield ((1.25*112)+40)

Insurrance for your cargo
Like i wrote here you could buy different module commodities protection for a fixed price that you would loose if you got destroyed.

You could as well mix that with a small percentage on your trader profits. For example 1% at start.

Each time you got blown up your insurance increase by 0.1%.

After a long period without blowing up your ship your insurance would decrease.


This would drastically make trading ship more interesting !

this - is up to now, the most reasonable suggestion.

i would not compare it to the military slot in combat ships, because thats just an additional slot limited to certain modules.
i think it would be better to have something like the passengerships luxury cabins, or the SLF Hangars,
those slots don't need to be restricted to a certain type but they can be equipped only to dedicated ships.

so no "restricted" slots on the ships, but exclusive modules for ship archetypes:

• hull hardener for combat ships only (here i would restrict them to military slots for balance reasons)
• high density cargo racks for hauler
• luxury passenger cabin for passenger ships
• high-security, scan proof passenger cabin for prisoner or trooper transport, restricted to military-passenger ship (eg. dropship by name, or IClipper)
• Surface Combat vehicle bay (a larger multicrew-enabled vehicle) for any ship that can fit SLF bay
• ...