Lestat
Banned
It really don't teach players how to save money so it really don't help much.
[Suggestion] Keeping specialised trading/exploration ships attractive vs. multipurpose
- Thread starter Tactical Tree
- Start date
It really don't teach players how to save money so it really don't help much.
i am replying to the topic title:
the thing with the insurance came as suggestion to achieve that - which is IMHO not necessary.
Indeed FDev could easily make Luxury passenger mission more profitable and allow Luxury Taxi Ships (Beluga, Orca ,Dolphin) to be fully equiped with luxury cabin. This can be done now easily.
Last edited:
Explorer Ships :
Explorer receive one additional Class 1 Explorer Compartment for : Discovery Scanner or Surface Scanner
--> This way Explorer Ships would have an advantage and a specialization.
Of course Anaconda would not be concerned as it already have the most available slot and it is a multi-purpose military ship and not a specialized explorer ship.
Explorer receive one additional Class 1 Explorer Compartment for : Discovery Scanner or Surface Scanner
--> This way Explorer Ships would have an advantage and a specialization.
Of course Anaconda would not be concerned as it already have the most available slot and it is a multi-purpose military ship and not a specialized explorer ship.
Type 9 should haul more, but not that much more than Anaconda :
From the image below i understand why T9 cannot hold that much cargo. 532T vs 468T : 64T more
In fact it should hold 1/3 more than Anaconda : 156T --> 624T
But we don't know how it is inside.
T7 should defenetly haul more than Python because of it's height
As concerned to T7, i just learned that the reason it cannot go in medium pad is because is height is too tall for outpost hangar !
But as it has more height than Python why does it haul less ?!
T7 should defenetly haul more.
A T10 could haul just a bit more than T9 with more length :
A new ship T10 should be made, just a bit longer to fit in large pad and haul even more. It could defenetly haul 950T without sheild.
Why Trader weight that much :
In you take todays vehicule (including bicycle) the one that weight very less and are very strong are quite expensive : carbon fiber
If you take plane they are made of very light weight expensive materials compared to car.
If you take computer case, normal case are made of iron, they are cheap and heavy, while expensive case are made of aluminium and are quite expensive (Lian Li for example).
That would explain why T6 T7 T9 weight that much and why multi-purpose ship that are quite expensive haul a lot compared to their hull mass.
From the image below i understand why T9 cannot hold that much cargo. 532T vs 468T : 64T more
In fact it should hold 1/3 more than Anaconda : 156T --> 624T
But we don't know how it is inside.
T7 should defenetly haul more than Python because of it's height
As concerned to T7, i just learned that the reason it cannot go in medium pad is because is height is too tall for outpost hangar !
But as it has more height than Python why does it haul less ?!
T7 should defenetly haul more.
A T10 could haul just a bit more than T9 with more length :
A new ship T10 should be made, just a bit longer to fit in large pad and haul even more. It could defenetly haul 950T without sheild.
Why Trader weight that much :
In you take todays vehicule (including bicycle) the one that weight very less and are very strong are quite expensive : carbon fiber
If you take plane they are made of very light weight expensive materials compared to car.
If you take computer case, normal case are made of iron, they are cheap and heavy, while expensive case are made of aluminium and are quite expensive (Lian Li for example).
That would explain why T6 T7 T9 weight that much and why multi-purpose ship that are quite expensive haul a lot compared to their hull mass.
Last edited:
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.
I generally feel like most ships in the game are currently balanced pretty well honestly, with these exceptions:
- Dedicated cargo ships (T6, T7, T9) don't carry enough to be competitive with multi role ships
- Exploration ships are all outclassed by the singular Anaconda
That said, it wouldn't take much to fix these two issues really.
For the T ships I think simply adding specialized cargo slots to them could be enough. Slots where only cargo racks could be installed allowing them to carry more than their multirole counterparts, yet preventing them from being multiroles themselves. Put the T6 up near the Python (but less), put the T7 up there with the Anaconda, and put the T9 up close to the Corvette & Cutter. We'd see a lot more traders flying these ships if they were at least competitive with their counterparts.
For exploration ships, namely the DBX and Asp X, I honestly feel they are both balanced very well. It's the Anaconda which is broken due to it's measly mass value. I mean the medium sized FAS/FGS/FDS are all heavier than the Anaconda!!! So, there are two ways to fix this oversight:
1) Make the Anaconda heavier. The mass is broken, and this is my preferred way of fixing it, even though it will no doubt provoke a huge uproar in the community.
2) Reduce the mass of both the Asp X and DBX slightly to put them closer to the Anaconda's jump range.
All of these are small changes with profound results. And yeah, the Anaconda one is a hard choice as it wouldn't be popular, but from a long term point of view I feel like it almost has to be addressed or this one ship will continue to be flown instead of so many other choices. But from my player's point of view I feel like these changes would give players more robust choices in what to fly.
can you explain that picture?
there are a few rectangles drawn over top-views of some ships.
I did some myself - using cargo units to represent the space it would occupie in a ship:
T9 Cargo
T7 Cargo
both Conda and T9 have pre-occupied spaces for SLF hangars, which havent yet added to my size comparison there.
Last edited:
Same color means same size. We can see the T9 have more space than Anaconda. If you divide by two the red box place one the Anaconda and move it to blue, green, yellow of the same ship, you can see it's same size, so the redbox square is a 1/3 of the Anaconda.
The part of the T9 without colored square is almost same size at that red square. We can then conclude T9 should have 1/3 more cargo capacity than Anaconda.
Now it's also depend on how things are organised inside the T9 and Anaconda. Maybe there is room inside so the driver can sleep like for trucks. The Anaconda seems less a ship with huge interior room, because it's a military ship and deck is on top of the ship.
As you'll see inside the following video, a huge front part of the T9 is occupied by a huge room. Nonetheless i'm not including that part on the picture. On the other hand Anaconda has a huge deck but it's on top of the ship only.
We would need information on how volume were calculated for ships.
But the T7 as it's taller than Python, should really haule more... Unless he also has a lot of room.
As T9 is really slow, there must be room to organise life and cycling drivers. Maybe it's taking part of the cargo space. We would need some precision from the designers.
Inside the Type 9 :
[video=youtube;6hRqJkY_sF0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hRqJkY_sF0[/video]
Last edited:
actually, we know pretty well how the anaconda looks inside
the cargo area seems to be the rectangular shape that forms the belly beneath the bridge,
the reactor is located between the huge slot and the cargo area (from sub-system lock)
and the rest of the nose seems to be room for weapons and landing gear.
not to forget, you got this relatively large observation deck under the nose, the one with the panorama window.
when you make your "size" comparions,
please substract room for the hardpoints, cargo hatch (=SRV assembly location), SLF Bay, and landing gear.
when you do that, multi-purpose ships like the python will have almost no room for cargo left.
the T-Ships on the contrary, have tiny hardpoints, short landing gear, and the shape of the main thruster internal space looks like its visible.
when then take a volume that COULD eventually fit into the multi-purpose ship as "cargo rack" and fit it into the dedicated Hauler ship, you will see lots of empty space.
it may not be the cargo space planned out be the designer that is off - its more the factors around it. the T's selling factor back in the beginning , was their low mainenance and fuel cost and high hitpoints.
after nerfing those costs down, their lower speed and shorter jump-Ranges are questionable.
Hitpoints are moot, when you have to face huge multicannons and lasers these days, that render the haulers hull "hardness" factor meaningless.
You cannot take the game design as having value in relation to volume. Ship design is not done logically in the game, it is done bases on model design which uses game balance as the ruling mechanic. As a result, any logical argument about volume is meaningless.
If you were going to actually determine how much cargo a ship could carry, you would need to stop using Internal Compartments and compute the volume based on the hull mass which would represent the amount of framing used as a foundation for the ship. What you have now is defined by how the ship looks, especially in relation to cost.
+1 these are good suggestions. The Anaconda one is a tough call though, considering its cost to purchase and outfit. Perhabs split the ship into two types: regular Anaconda gets an increase in mass, and Anaconda Explorer gets fever hardpoints and internals?
Currently the Anaconda is the favorite large Exploration vessel, and that seems wrong for a multipupose ship. If the Anaconda gets increased mass (as I agree it should), it would be nice with a dedicated large Exploration vessel.
Thanks for info.
So what you are saying as well is that Haulers should carry a lot more cargo than Multi-purpose ships. Or Multi-purpose should carry a lot less cargo.
Defenetly the desginers only made the ships characteristics based on the fact that more expensive ships are always better... wich completly goes against specialised ships should have better specialized attributes...
This is not how you balance ships :|
Ships are not balanced in the game currently.
Anacondas beat everything. Python is good to go to as a multi-role and beat Trading ship at trading.
Traders hauling capability is flawed. As Binkerkind described Python should haul a lot less considering it's hardpoints. T7, a specilized hauler, almost same size as Python and designed as a brick with less hardpoints haul less than Python... It really need a hauling buff.
Adding dedicated compartment slot for hauler would solve the problem. It would then carry more cargo as it should considering it's size and dedication without allowing it to be multi-role or dedicated to other things.
If you take military ships, they have now dedicatred military compartment.
If you take the beluga liner it has 2 class 5 dedicated compartment.
It could be solved that way.
Yes the game was designed so you have only one ship and a more expensive ship is always better than previous one.
But now they need to specialize ships.
Haulers should haul more cargo. Explorer ships should receive receive one or two additional Class 1 Explorer Compartment for : Discovery Scanner or Surface Scanner
For now the realy specialized ship are the bounty hunters & military ships.
1. for my part - i wouldn't mind if a dedicated hauler would beat a multipurpose ships by different factors then just cargo capacity. they got massive engines, and massive hulls, but for what? whats the point if they are beaten by smaller ships is almost the same cargo capacity with higher speed, higher manouverability, higher jumprange and better shields + weapons + more utility slots.
the T7 is currently well placed next to the Python capacity wise and jumprange, but is restriced to large pads. yet, before engineering, you have to sacrifice posible defense turrets and you need to shut off the cargo hatch.
2. as i stated above - i would prefer special modules that can only fitted to cargo ships, not restricted slots on the ship (simply because i hate having empty slots)
3. its bunkerkind, not binker...
Your recommendations would only make the situation worse by adding to the handwavium quotient. What Frontier needs to do is to actually create volume based design, either procedurally or by actually working out volume values for the models. As of right now, the ships' game configurations have no relation to real world physics, only to game balance, hence my handwavium statement.
imho the volumes are not off, at least no ship at this moment can carry more then would fit into it.
whats wrong, is the MASS of things.