Never again the T-9
- Thread starter Snarfbuckle
- Start date
not as such, it is merely one of the most glaring examples.
Several ships, even among the most harmless ones have complete bizarre values. The Anaconda and the iCourier are simply the most glaring ones.
I mean, there is for example no rime and reason between ships module cost to upgrade bulkheads and differ wildly between ships - By making a comparison between cost/ship base tonnage to get a comparison and some ships pay 4 times their value for X2 HP and others merely X1.
A good system where you have multipliers based on ship values combined with hard module values would be far more interesting.
And in a game where money is easy to come by pricing is not a good balance tool.
Nah,
I get that it might appear to be (mostly) working on the surface but it just creates constant headaches for the dev's and confusion for players.
Going forward, it'd be far better to eliminate all the fiddle-factors and rely on consistent calculations.
That way, whenever you design a new ship you've got a bunch of pre-defined tools which calculate it's stat's and then you can tweak things to obtain the desires results.
I suspect that the big problem is that they can't actually "nerf" anything in a meaningful way as long as somebody's flying it.
It'd be a bit of a downer if you were exploring Beagle Point in your Anaconda, logged off for the night and then, when you logged back in, you found that your ship no longer had sufficient jump-range to get to another system or that the slot which you had your SRV or AFMU in had vanished, taking a module with it.
It's simple, all extra mods stored And anaconda docked in nearest station
You had to refuel the T9 twice? Did you go to Colonia?
Stop trying to nerf my Conda people.
Gettin' real tired of my favourite ships getting nerfed. lol
Python. Nerfed.
FDL. Nerfed (ok, that was fixed, but still).
Anaconda. Talk of nerfs. Please no!
While my exploration Anaconda has a really good range, my PvE one does not. 25~ly, which is comfortable for bubble travel, but any lower and it'll become the FDL of my fleet, and I just transfer everywhere. Lol
Using the T9 for mining is extremely dangerous, IMHO.
It's poor speed, poor defences, poor hull and shields, all make it a death trap when you're within a mass lock area.
Last time I mined in a T9, I spent more timing jumping in and out avoiding pirates, than mining.
Lol
No chance they would change the hull mass on the Anaconda. The weird mass certainly sticks out like a sore thumb, however it would be bizzare if they decided to change it after all these years.
Regarding mining, is there really that many terrible cmdrs out there? Absolutely nothing dangerous about mining in a T9 lol, it amazes me how many people struggle unless they are in something like an Anaconda, actually quite mind blowing that anyone with even below average experience could struggle in a T9. I wonder if it is just a psychological thing, people feel safe simply because they are in a Anaconda/Cutter.
I could post videos of my shieldless mining rig taking out any NPC pirate with ease, NPC's are simply an annoyance in game unless you are dealing with multiple Elite ranked ships
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
Tis funny reading through this...funny because Im at sag A right now with an unengineered T9. Got there with a whopping 19ly range to so to all those who say the low range is something they cant live with...lightweights.
Then again, as much fun as its been spending the better part of a week getting here from colonia, Im planning on staying in and around the core fer another month or two so range really aint a big concern tbh.
Neither is cargo space and I dont have a single rack fitted...not one. I like being different ^
Then again, as much fun as its been spending the better part of a week getting here from colonia, Im planning on staying in and around the core fer another month or two so range really aint a big concern tbh.
Neither is cargo space and I dont have a single rack fitted...not one. I like being different ^
and thats not it. its the inconsistency.
and ships could indeed have a shield value but instead of giving each ship a unique inherent value as they have today (how else would one explain the 2e vs 3e shield on icourier vs adder)we give each shield a base MJ value and how that value is affected by a ships base mass and maximum mass.
We could then also have armour hardness and armour value impact shield values negatively promting a larger shield to counteract it.
Ships have to be inconsistent. It's called being unique. Sorry not sorry if it upsets people, this is a game, not an OCD fulfillment programme.
To be fair it's not even unrealistic. You can put the same engine in two different cars with the same chassis weight, but does it mean for a second they will perform exactly the same? Perhaps the 3 mill I spent on my iCourier was for better under-the-hood shizz than the 150k or whatever my Viper costs. I don't care what shizz that is.
The 'conda is in itself a demonstration of why variability is good. If FD want to create a ship that jumps well while empty but loses jump range than other ships when mass is applied, why the hell not? I can see absolutely zero reason that homogeny contributes to a good game. Or realism for that matter.
Last edited:
You are correct to a point.
Im ok with the courier having better shields if they at least had the same size rating of shield which they do not.
Sure, the courier could be a supercar under the hood but then it should rather be reflected in the modules it carry.
Heck, since it can have a S4 PP why not give it a S4 shield instead of simply inflating its shield generator value.
And its hardly a matter of the volume of internal parts so it could fit it.
Take a run of the mill 30y old japanese car with a 1300ccm 4cyl combustion engine putting out 60hp.
Then there's the suzuki hayabusa with a 1300ccm 4cyl combustion engine putting out 200hp.
The courier costs 2.500.000 credits, the adder 40k (only 1.6%...).
What more is there to discuss?
That's kinda the intention though...FD simply want x ship to have better shields. And that isn't a problem, as I said earlier, and as Zebaoth mentions above. If all ships calculated shields and hull hp with the same variables, then you couldn't actually have ship diversity.
So the mass is used like this because it doesn't set "how good" the shields are. FD decided quite independently the shields on the iCourier would be amazeballs, and that's set by its shield value. All the mass does is in this example is determine how well the ship can downsize shields; the iCourier's lower mass means the drop from C3 to C2 is very little, where the viper's bigger mass sees it lose a bit more when it downsizes. But neither ship was "designed" to work with either shield gen.
They could have set a low shield value on the little imp, and the iCourier would have a lower shield rating than the viper with a C3 equipped and a better shield rating than it with a C2 equipped.
The base outfitting in ED is actually very well balanced. It frustrates me they layered such appalling balance on top through engineers.
If the cutter didn't exist, the T9 would have a purpose. More cargo capacity than an anaconda, thick hull, and a huge bridge and slow to turn.
As it stands though, the T9 is a pointless "bridge ship" that exists only until you can get the cutter, which outclasses it in every way. Other ships like this with only the price tag in their favor (IMO) are the adder, viper mk4, asp scout, hauler, type6. Most ships do at least one thing better than any other ship, even if it's a narrow mission. The beluga, for example, now exceeds the anaconda in short range VIP passenger hauling (like at Niu Hsing for fed rank); the Type 7 is hard to interdict; and so on.
As it stands though, the T9 is a pointless "bridge ship" that exists only until you can get the cutter, which outclasses it in every way. Other ships like this with only the price tag in their favor (IMO) are the adder, viper mk4, asp scout, hauler, type6. Most ships do at least one thing better than any other ship, even if it's a narrow mission. The beluga, for example, now exceeds the anaconda in short range VIP passenger hauling (like at Niu Hsing for fed rank); the Type 7 is hard to interdict; and so on.
Last edited:
Trick is finding the single jump trade routes.. once they dry up you gotta find another which requires a LONG period of time to get there. Just getting to an engineer can take forever.
I really didn't like the T9 at all. Was better to just keep making money until you get an anaconda.
The only way I'd every fly the T9 again would be if they doubled the capacity.
I used the T9 for a while to get to the Anaconda.
It served me well.
Of course my T9 became obsolete after that, but not every ship can be useful forever.
Am starting to think the bulk of you guy's must live in Colonia :-/ either that or we are playing a different game, it is impossible to run out of 1 jump routes whilst working the BGS, heck even the Ovid/I-Bootis cluster from Alpha/Beta is still thriving with 1 jump routes, the average jump in that region is 5LY. Pleiades has also become another excellent source for 1 jump routes, then you have the surrounding systems from Q1 Eridani, heck even flying routes out of Mercury in Sol. The one thing that trumps all is systems in a state of War.
Am imagining all these Anaconda/Cutter drivers complaining about low income, flying 40 LY for a route, all the while missing the systems in outbreak or in Famine 4LY away.
Last edited:
Truth here
I was just flying my T-9 around last night for a while.
Sure, it's a lumbering hulk, a flying warehouse, but it's also outfit with a fuel scoop, and I've had it as far as Maia and often load it with Rare goods, and NPC's be damned, it gets me where I want to go just fine.
Sure, it's a lumbering hulk, a flying warehouse, but it's also outfit with a fuel scoop, and I've had it as far as Maia and often load it with Rare goods, and NPC's be damned, it gets me where I want to go just fine.
That should be an advertisement for the Anaconda
Attacking the poster and not the post is the lowest form of argument. I posted a Type 9 build similar to what I used yesterday and reminded you about it twice when you made similarly incorrect assumptions in other posts. But you can't debate the facts, which are that the Type 9 is massively under-powered in it's role compared to other ships and is a fringe ship for people who like the "feel" of it, so you must attack the person. Shame.
I'd love to see a video where someone proved the Type 9 wasn't a slow, fat, inefficient mining ship. Please do share...
Budget isn't the issue. It's a twofold problem, making the Type 9 robust enough to survive PVP interdiction (ie CG play) takes slices off an already terrible jumprange and/or drops your cargo capacity closer to 400 than 500. Running shieldless isn't an option on a ship that slow either, you will lose modules before you can jump and you will die. Unless you lose even more cargo to stop that happening. It's a classic vicious circle and even if you solve it, which I would genuinely like to see btw, you run into a more intractable problem.
It's Mass Lock Factor and speed are so poor that you have to high wake against anything bigger than a Fighter. And who'll be waiting for you when you jump back in? Now I've only done about 20(?) cargo CGs in my short career, so sample size is small, but it's been my experience that once a CG goes hostile the Type 9's go Solo. Or at least they go somewhere else that's not in my contacts panel.
edit: Oh and for those who made the point, I will agree, it probably has the best cockpit view of any ship in the game.
Last edited: