Never again the T-9

[777Driver]

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.

Hehe, of course the T9 is slow and fat Can't agree with the inefficient part tho..

Am not attacking the poster, just simply stating you talk a lot of nonsense, I didn 't bother replying to your previous thread because you speak from the perspective of someone that spent less than a week in an unengineered ship.. You also went on about prismatics on a T9 :-/ Honestly not worth my time debating unless you actually come back with substance to back up your claims.

Regarding videos, I have plenty online, have also spent the last few years offering build/combat/defensive and trading advice. Am more than happy to create a new one to demonstrate that you are talking a lot of nonsense. Just let me know the situation you want me to demonstrate, my new rig was built primarily to stream all my sessions in VR without an FPS hit. Would also be great if you can post some vids since you clearly seen to think you also have a few years experience flying the ship.

As always, it's just a game, no hard feelings, let me know what video you wanna see, look forward to yours too.

Cheers

 

[StiTch]

Budget isn't the issue. It's a twofold problem

...No, it's a onefold problem.

takes slices off an already terrible jumprange and/or drops your cargo capacity closer to 400 than 500.

Oh no!

It's a perfectly viable ship mate. If maxing cargo is your concern, yes, survivability will be compromised. I didn't have 500T capacity, but I did make it to my destination every time. And fun fact: I rarely high-wake.

Wanting max profits without concession is inherently a PvE stance in this game: so yes, better suited to Solo and not Open. I think I used a T9 with max thrusters, reactive bulkheads, shields, boosters, PDs and HRPs, with a MRP to boot.

It was expensive but boy did it get me from A->B with little concern. Just don't have any use for it at present. Miss the view, though.

 

[Knightshark]

Hehe, of course the T9 is slow and fat Can't agree with the inefficient part tho..

Am not attacking the poster, just simply stating you talk a lot of nonsense, I didn 't bother replying to your repvious thread because you speak from the perspective of someone that spent less than a week in an unengineered ship.. You also want on about prismatics on a T9 :-/ Honestly not worth my time debating unless you actually come back with substance to back up your claims.

Regarding videos, I have plenty online, have also spent the last few years offering build/combat/defensive and trading advice. Am more than happy to create a new one to demonstrate that you are talking a lot of nonsense. Just let me know the situation you want me to demonstrate, my new rig was built primarily to stream all my sessions in VR without an FPS hit. Would also be great if you can post some vids since you clearly seen to think you also have a few years experience flying the ship.

As always, it's just a game, no hard feelings, let me know what video you wanna see, look forward to yours too.

Cheers

I'd be very inserted to get some tips from a T9 veteran about builds and best practices with a T9 for a range of roles (mining, trading, CG,...).

 

[777Driver]

I'd be very inserted to get some tips from a T9 veteran about builds and best practices with a T9 for a range of roles (mining, trading, CG,...).

I'll hunt from some old posts of mine from back when the NPC's received a temporary buff, there are actually quite a few experienced Cmdrs on here that fly the T9, quite a few of them offering advice... A lot better than 'I flew the ship for 1 trade run and then sold it'... Yeah great contribution, am sure the forum benefits from those 15 minutes of experience :-/

 

[Achibot]

It's a perfectly viable ship mate. If maxing cargo is your concern, yes, survivability will be compromised. I didn't have 500T capacity, but I did make it to my destination every time. And fun fact: I rarely high-wake.

Wanting max profits without concession is inherently a PvE stance in this game: so yes, better suited to Solo and not Open. I think I used a T9 with max thrusters, reactive bulkheads, shields, boosters, PDs and HRPs, with a MRP to boot.

It was expensive but boy did it get me from A->B with little concern. Just don't have any use for it at present. Miss the view, though.

Ok, but at that point why not use an Anaconda? Similar cargo capacity, +10ly laden range, more survivable with less effort? My point wasn't that you can't use a Type 9, I did. It's that it isn't the best option for trading, which it isn't. It's not even really a competition with the Anaconda, much less the Cutter.

I'll hunt from some old posts of mine from back when the NPC's received a temporary buff, there are actually quite a few experienced Cmdrs on here that fly the T9, quite a few of them offering advice... A lot better than 'I flew the ship for 1 trade run and then sold it'... Yeah great contribution, am sure the forum benefits from those 15 minutes of experience :-/

It's like you genuinely can't understand the difference between being able to make something just about work to it being the best option to recommend to someone. Telling a guy who is getting his first big ship that he should get a Type 9 because you have one for a toy is liable to be bad advice. Especially since other options can both trade and do other things too, versatility being important when you have limited resources.

 

[Sylveria]

Ok, but at that point why not use an Anaconda?

The problem becomes quite obvious when this is the go-to response to everything, isn't it?

It's pretty bad when a ship *has* to be engineered just to bring it on a level close to being usable...

Not saying all ships should be equal in any respect- but when very few people use a particular ship, it's perhaps time to start looking at correcting the issues with it.

The game isn't called Elite: Dangerous "Anacondas", after all.

 

[Achibot]

The problem becomes quite obvious when this is the go-to response to everything, isn't it?

It's pretty bad when a ship *has* to be engineered just to bring it on a level close to being usable...

Not saying all ships should be equal in any respect- but when very few people use a particular ship, it's perhaps time to start looking at correcting the issues with it.

The game isn't called Elite: Dangerous "Anacondas", after all.

Agreed.

 

[StiTch]

Ok, but at that point why not use an Anaconda? Similar cargo capacity, +10ly laden range, more survivable with less effort? My point wasn't that you can't use a Type 9, I did. It's that it isn't the best option for trading, which it isn't. It's not even really a competition with the Anaconda, much less the Cutter.

Actually you did kinda make the point it struggles to survive...that aside, it still has better raw capacity, and really should it be on par with the anaconda all round? The anaconda costs nearly twice what the T9 does.

That said, I've stated a few times that we would do well to see trader specialised slots akin to the military slots; the mil slots were used for the parallel purpose of ensuring combat ships could compete with multirole ships.

Should it be comparable to ships twice or thrice its costs? Nope. Should the game's "premier" cargo ship have less cargo capacity than the game's premier combat ship, at third overall? Yeah that's a little bit of a shame. It is unusable? Hell no.

The game isn't called Elite: Dangerous "Anacondas", after all.

It's a relatively cheap, non-rank locked ship of one of the big 3, and the only easy-access high-end multirole. Of course it's going to be overutilised. It's indicative of a lack of ship options, not that cheaper/smaller ships should be equal to it.

 

[Tadeus72]

Big, slow, unwieldy haulers are pretty standard in SF. But that's not how ship balancing in ED works. Most ships in this game don't have to sacrifice much (or even nothing at all) for their specialization This ship sacrifices everything for cargo that isn't even close to best in class.

I like real variety in games and this is why I would like to see as many truly competitive ships as possible. No idea why so many people don't want this ship improved.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I'd be very inserted to get some tips from a T9 veteran about builds and best practices with a T9 for a range of roles (mining, trading, CG,...).

I'll hunt from some old posts of mine from back when the NPC's received a temporary buff, there are actually quite a few experienced Cmdrs on here that fly the T9, quite a few of them offering advice... A lot better than 'I flew the ship for 1 trade run and then sold it'... Yeah great contribution, am sure the forum benefits from those 15 minutes of experience :-/

I'm not in-game, so it's hard to remember some of the smaller internals, but here's my mining T-9...

https://eddp.co/u/Q9cZ3BDE

For shields, it's a thermal resist generator, with a combination of resistance/HD boosters
The multicannon turrets are long-range modded
The 6A hangar makes sure my pilot always has a fighter available
The rest of the mods are pretty standard (dirty drives, range FSD, overcharged power plant, etc.)

With a cargo capacity of 256, this T-9 pairs well with my cargo python, which hauls 240. (For example, have them both parked at the local RES station, mine, transfer to the Python and haul your cargo elsewhere).

Limpet controllers can be swapped out as you feel. In VR, the T-9 is really easy to maneuver around asteroids and fragments, so no need for a ton of limpets. I do find that the low speed of the T-9 lends itself well to the 3A prospector (speeds up prospecting and ultimately mining).

The engineered shields, long range multicannon turrets (top mounted), and fighter make soloing Low and Medium RES cake. You just sit there and mine and let your fighter and turrets do the work. High RES can get hairy if you get ganged up on by by bigger ships - for High and Haz I recommend some escorts.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

I'm not in-game, so it's hard to remember some of the smaller internals, but here's my mining T-9...

https://eddp.co/u/Q9cZ3BDE

For shields, it's a thermal resist generator, with a combination of resistance/HD boosters
The multicannon turrets are long-range modded
The 6A hangar makes sure my pilot always has a fighter available
The rest of the mods are pretty standard (dirty drives, range FSD, overcharged power plant, etc.)

With a cargo capacity of 256, this T-9 pairs well with my cargo python, which hauls 240.

Limpet controllers can be swapped out as you feel. In VR, the T-9 is really easy to maneuver around asteroids and fragments, so no need for a ton of limpets. I do find that the low speed of the T-9 lends itself well to the 3A prospector (speeds up prospecting).

The engineered shields, long range multicannon turrets (top mounted), and fighter make soloing Low and Medium RES cake. You just sit there and mine and let your fighter and turrets do the work. High RES can get hairy if you get ganged up on by by bigger ships - for High and Haz I recommend some escorts.

Eh, nothing against your build but why would anybody struggling to survive in a T9 go into a res for mining? I always did my mining (in the T9 or any other ship I used for mining) in random spots where no enemys are.

 

[JetsonRING]

Well, I tried the T-9 ONCE because I wanted to deliver 500 tonnes of cargo in one go.
- Had to refuel TWICE to get there
- Poor jump range
In comparison I could have taken the Beluga for 10 more millions, FAR better jump range and TWICE the fuel tank.
Sure, i "only" squeeze in around 300 cargo but in the time the T-9 took to get there with refuelling I could have taken the Beluga there TWICE without refueling.
Sure, the T-9 has more HP and hardness but the Beluga's mass lock factor is better, not to mention the Beluga's speed.
Im sure the T-9 if engineered can be awesome but until then...no.

For "Space Trucking" it is hard to beat a Gutamaya Cutter. o7

 

[Zebaoth]

I'll hunt from some old posts of mine from back when the NPC's received a temporary buff, there are actually quite a few experienced Cmdrs on here that fly the T9, quite a few of them offering advice... A lot better than 'I flew the ship for 1 trade run and then sold it'... Yeah great contribution, am sure the forum benefits from those 15 minutes of experience :-/

Last time I was commanding a T9 was in beta, now that I think of it.
Might wanna buy 'Betty' again now that we're finally able to put names on the hull.
A decent ship, too bad none of the other ships feel like the T9 does,
actually makes you think you're inside a huge monster of a ship.

The other big 'uns (tee hee hee) feel more like fighters.

 

[777Driver]

It's like you genuinely can't understand the difference between being able to make something just about work to it being the best option to recommend to someone. Telling a guy who is getting his first big ship that he should get a Type 9 because you have one for a toy is liable to be bad advice. Especially since other options can both trade and do other things too, versatility being important when you have limited resources.

Are you going to continue talking out of your rear dude? Not once have I recommended any Cmdr choose a T9 over an Anaconda, I currently have 4 Anaconda's and only two T9's in my fleet.

Let's get this clear - I have only ever stated that the T9 excels as a cheap bulk hauler, (ideally 1 Jump) the higher capacity means higher profits, an almost unlimited supply of 1 jump routes exist out there - Which is perfect since they introduced system state trading.

I have also stated that if used and configured correctly (including without shields) You will never have an issue with any NPC, be it avoiding losing an interdiction , destroying a hostile pirate (up to Elite rank)

I also stated the ship is fine for Open in CG's (As long as you know what you are doing) The ship is also a great money maker for mining, destroying hostile NPC's again are non issue unless you are completely incapable of handling yourself.

Now if you think any of the above is incorrect, enlighten me, with actual proof.. I don't want to hear the usual 'I flew the ship for a few days and died a lot' That says more about the Cmdr then the ship itself.

The Anaconda is one of the best ships in game (artificial buffs and all) I've taken mine across the galaxy on multiple occasions, Personally I would recommend anyone who likes large ships to have an Anaconda in their fleet.

What I am not too keen on is the posts claiming the ship is a death trap, sorry to be blunt, but it's the guy at the helm that is the issue. Also the cargo tonnage, until the Anaconda starts hauling 532 tonnes, it will not out haul the T9 on short haul routes.. This is coming from extensive trade experience with both ships.

Roll on T-10

 

[Flavourless]

I spent quite a while flying a T9 in Open (way before Engineers), carrying mostly tea.
Didn't make much money, but had a lot of fun. Those were the days!

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Eh, nothing against your build but why would anybody struggling to survive in a T9 go into a res for mining? I always did my mining (in the T9 or any other ship I used for mining) in random spots where no enemys are.

To answer in short - bounties. Bounties and higher fragment yield.

By RES mining you increase both the frequency of higher-value minerals/metals, and increase the yield you get from the fragments. More value, less time. Add the bounties you get as the cherry on top. When you return with your hold full of valuable cargo, dropping off 500k-1M in bounties is a nice bonus.

So it's faster (I've never timed it, but I would venture to say twice as fast), more lucrative (because time is money), and more fun.

My mining T-9 doesn't struggle to survive. Like I said, as long as you don't try soloing High or Haz, it does the work for you. Bring two or three capable escorts into a High or Haz, and it's a proverbial gold mine.

 

[Harley Quinn]

It's not a question of "balance".

It's a question of the Anaconda apparently being made out of some material which isn't available to any other ship or manufacturer in the game.

I'd love to see somebody try and argue that the Anaconda isn't an aberration or, at worst, simply the result of a typo' when the ship stat's were being compiled.

It's the faulcon delacy badge. Instantly buffs any ship in Elite once added. Makes them lighter, faster, better handling and better armoured just by adding the badge.

As a 1984er, I'm fine with that to be honest.

But an ingame reason. Well I could invent one like Faulcon Delacy having secret tech to align the molecules in their frames providing better strength for less weight giving improved armour for a lighter vessel.

And while the results are known by all ship manufacturers the tech to do this which they gained with the acquisition of Cowell & MgRath (which was why the Cobra was always so good and could take out old Condas easily) has remained a closely guarded secret.

The technology was extended for use on the Anaconda as well as the Cobra as it is their top of the range item.

Unfortunately the skills to extend the tech to new designs have been lost which is why Faulcon Delacy rely on older designs rather than designing new vessels.

But that's just a load of rubbish in my head to justify it. You would need FDev to answer that one, but I can't see them wanting to farm the salt from nerfing the Conda.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

For "Space Trucking" it is hard to beat a Gutamaya Cutter. o7

That's more delivering goods via luxury yacht.

Type-7 feels more like trucking and the Type-9 like container ship.

 

[Sylveria]

Part of the issue, IMO is when FDEV allowed combat-able ships the ability to haul as much as a role-dedicated freighter. By allowing such, they've relegated the freighters to the bottom of the scrap heap.

Any ship that is combat-defensible and has the ability to hold it's own should never be > 50% of the cargo capacity per mass of a role-dedicated freighter. PERIOD. In other words- if you want to be "prepared" for everything (including combat) you need to be prepared to haul less goods, too.

I'd bet that if you saw such a balance, you'd also see a LOT more people flying the freighters to haul goods.

Now the Cutter has turned into the "End all, Be All"- because of it's ability to not only be good in combat but also it's hauling capacity, for example.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

For "Space Trucking" it is hard to beat a Gutamaya Cutter. o7

I don't think anyone expects a T9 to compete with the cutter