C&P loop-hole. Trade ship builds can be more than combat build ships! Even a T7!

Susanna

Susanna
[Moderators, please move to a different location as you see fit, you usually do, without notification, anyway]:|

C&P update: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/405850-Crime-System-Changes
In point 3.

"you pay 10% per point of notoriety of the difference between your rebuy cost and your victims rebuy cost".

However...!

Fuel scoops are very expensive items, especially if you fit an A rated one so that your vulnerable trade ship (with no weapons) isn't sitting around near a star refuelling for ages! A large trader ship with a large fuel scoop can expect to pay:

6A 28.763 million credits (T7)
7A 91.180 million credits (Conda)
8A 289.04 million credits (T9/T10/Cutter) more than the cost of a T9, T10 or Cutter!

The cost of a decent fuel scoop may well mean that there is a good chance the traders rebuy will be higher than the murdering soab attacker... They simply don't fit a fuel scoop! Yes, they will have the cost of their weapons, but you can buy a lot of weapons for even 28mil, the same cost for a size 6A fuel scoop. Weapons are, by and large, relatively cheap items...

Shields are another thing. Most traders will fit a 'cheap' size 6A as a trader shield, rather than take up a larger slot with a more expensive shield. Yes, you can argue that that makes my point mute, but it doesn't really. A trader build can easily be a lot more expensive than an effective combat build! A 6A shield is fitted for withstanding one-off combat in mind and costs more than a 7C Biweave shield (fitted on a combat ship for sustainable attacks, rapid shield regeneration).

6C Biweave shield.. 2.696 million [T7 170MJ, T9 134MJ, T10 131MJ, 258MJ Cutter]
6A shield.............. 16.179 million [T7 217MJ, T9 303MJ, T10 227MJ, 438MJ Cutter]
7C Biweave shield.. 8.548 million [T9 257MJ, T10 256MJ, 522MJ Cutter]
7A shield.............. 51.289 million [T9 330MJ, T10 352MJ, 702MJ Cutter]
8C Biweave shield.. 27.087 million [T9 336MJ, T10 387MJ, 763MJ Cutter]
8A shield............... 162.586 million [T9 408MJ, T10 483MJ, 943MJ Cutter]

(figures taken from https://beta.coriolis.edcd.io/)

Hence, making a trade ship can cost a whole lot more than a good combat ship.

I'm not a PvP combat pilot so I'll leave others to fill in that part of the puzzle, but a T9 being used as a trader ship would look something like:https://beta.coriolis.edcd.io/outfi...w18RQ==..EweloBhA2AWEDMsAcICmBDA5gGzSEARghKA=
And cost 208.498 million credits, insurance 10.420 million credits.

Even a T7 trade build would look something like: https://beta.coriolis.edcd.io/outfi...==.Aw18aQ==..EweloBhBmUDYAsICmBDA5gG2SEBGCQoA

And costs 70.509 million credits, insurance 3.502 million credits.

I suspect a competent combat build can be made for less than 70 million...

Here is an example build of a Chieftain: https://beta.coriolis.edcd.io/outfi...18eQ==.Aw18eQ==..EweloBhBGA2EoFMCGBzANokMK6A=

Cost: 67.853 million credits... Less than a trade T7!

Hence, this whole 10% x Notoriety of the difference in rebuy cost added to the bounty may be easily circumnavigatable...

Possibly the only way to avoid this cost difference is that the trade ship not fit a fuel scoop to keep its build costs down, significantly hampering it's range for trading, which is its very purpose!

TL;DR
Trade ship builds can easily cost more than a combat ship because fuel scoops and A rated shields are so expensive compared to Biweave Shields and weapon costs, even a T7 is more expensive than a Chieftain! Hence, this difference in rebuy cost added to the bounty is probably never going to happen...
 
Last edited:

Kayweg

Kayweg
Won't a trader, i know i do, not also just skip the fuel scoop and fit a cargo rack instead ?
Fuel is cheap enough, the profit from the extra cargo rack more than pays for it.
Plus you don't loose the time from faffing about with stars and scooping.
 

Crimson Kaim

Crimson Kaim
I can kill any trader in my Diamondback Scout with ease thanks to engineers and their modules which are covered but not considered by insurance.
By design engineers still need alot of work especially when it comes to TTK and secondary effects that ware worth WAY more than a couple of 100 million credits.
Cascade mines and a super penetrator (C1) is all I need really. Maybe some FSD disruptor but other than that even an Eagle can do it.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
You're correct that rebuy is a crude measure of ship capabilities, but it might nevertheless be enough.

I assume the intent is to provide additional bounties for attacks which go down a whole size class or more (e.g. a FDL attacking a T-6 or the stereotypical Cutter attacking a new player's Sidewinder) rather than to be particularly precise around ships of similar sizes. Remember that someone killing a ship with a higher rebuy than their own
- still gets the murder bounty
- still gets a notoriety point
- still gets an increment to their own bounty based on their own rebuy
...so it's still a big improvement on 2.4

Sandro did confirm in the Beta discussions that the rebuy used for the calculation would be a normalised one ignoring any discounts or markups on the modules bought - so buying from LYR won't help with it on either side.

More interestingly he also said that they would include some sort of adjustment where engineered modules counted as more expensive than normal ones for this purpose. Whether that means an engineered C-rated ship would count as having a greater bounty-normalised-rebuy than the stock A-rated ship it significantly outclasses, we'll find out soon, I guess ... but depending on how steep this markup is, it might mean that your T-7's fuel scoop is considerably outcosted by the array of G5 engineered combat modules the other ship has.

We'll have to see how that works in practice but if they get the calibration for engineering on the normalised rebuys right, it might give hostile pilots a tricky choice:
- go fully engineered and A-rated, and rapidly accumulate massive bounties on their ships that will take hours of PvE grinding to clear off, reducing the time they can spend on the attack
- use cheaper ships, cheaper modules and less engineering, to have just enough to kill a poorly-defended trade ship before it escapes ... accumulate far smaller bounties, but be a much easier target for PvP-fit escorts and patrols who don't have to worry about that rule, and so be much more practical to just chase away from hotspot systems.
 

Susanna

Susanna
Kayweg said:
Won't a trader, i know i do, not also just skip the fuel scoop and fit a cargo rack instead ?
Fuel is cheap enough, the profit from the extra cargo rack more than pays for it.
Plus you don't loose the time from faffing about with stars and scooping.
Click to expand...

Yes I pointed out that a trader can choose not to fit a fuel scoop...

But the point remains, even without a fuel scoop, Many trade builds will be more expensive than a competent combat build as illustrated in post #3.
 

Shadowdancer

Shadowdancer
Kayweg said:
Won't a trader, i know i do, not also just skip the fuel scoop and fit a cargo rack instead ?
Click to expand...
Yup, sacrificing the size 7 slot seems far-fetched for a trading ship. It's much more likely to run across a size 6 scoop (1:12 time-to-fill is still pretty fast, even my definitely not minmaxed explorer runarounds "go infinite" on 1:33 scoops unless I have a bad streak of non-sequence stars) and size 5 shields, which immediately chops 30% off the rebuy of the T-9 example build.

I don't know what the OP is doing to pay over 67 Million (or over 40 Million for that matter) for a trade T-7 either.

So yes, it's technically possible to maybe build trade ships victim bricks that don't work as well with the penalty scheme, but I doubt they're realistic.
 

Kayweg

Kayweg
Susanna said:
Yes I pointed out that a trader can choose not to fit a fuel scoop...

But the point remains, even without a fuel scoop, Many trade builds will be more expensive than a competent combat build as illustrated in post #3.
Click to expand...

Right, you still have a point then, scoop or not.:)
 

CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost

C
Susanna said:
…
Trade ship builds can easily cost more than a combat ship because fuel scoops and A rated shields are so expensive compared to Biweave Shields and weapon costs, even a T7 is more expensive than a Chieftain! Hence, this difference in rebuy cost added to the bounty is probably never going to happen...
Click to expand...

Only if you insist on using the most expensive equipment that offer no real advantage.

On your T-7 build: There is absolutely no need for a 6A fuel scoop on that ship for trading. Even for long range trading the cost of using that scoop - not being able to put a class 6 cargo rack into that slot - is way to high compared to the slight increase of scooping speed for getting an empty tank full. If you scoop on every possible star it's just a waste of cargo space and credits.

The class6 shield gives you 50 MJ more. Going from 254 to 303 in your example build. That difference isn't going to save you.

Going with class 5 scoop and shields will give you 64 t more cargo (getting rid of the stupid docking computer will give you 8t more ;) ) and lower the price of the T-7 to around 40 Mcr.

Honestly I would just go shieldless and get an even less expensive ship. 1.7 Mcr rebuy and 264t cargo, if you want you can put a HRP and a MRP in the class 3 slots.
 

Ashnak

Ashnak
That "difference in the rebuy cost" wasn't put in there to discourage honest piracy, it was put in there to discourage seal clubbing. Cutter against a T-6/Hauler/Sidey kind of stuff. Chieftain against a T-7 (or T-9) should give the trader a reasonable chance to get away. Damaged, maybe, but away.

Then again, I'd encourage you to choose your examples with a bit more care:
- for starters, each of those traders will do 100 ly+, fully laden, fastest routing, on a full tank. I don't see the need for a fuel scoop under these circumstances if you use them as trade ships. You can make the trip from the bubble to the Pleiades in either of these ships without a scoop. Admittedly, in the way I'd fit them out, they'd be much more expensive - those military bulkheads aren't cheap.
- as StiTch once put it aptly, "Chaff on a T-9 is like a Ghillie suit on the Empire State building". Your T-9 could chaff from all 4 HPs continously, it's still too large to miss and too slow to actually get out of the line of fire. Point defense, on the other hand, on the right positions, will definitely discourage hatch breaker limpets or FSD disruptor missiles.
- most PvP combat ships run either heavily engineered military or reflective bulkheads. On the Chief with it small shields, those are almost mandatory.
- your Chief is no threat to anyone. As soon as he deploys weapons, he'll shut down :D
- in a combat ship, you never combine a full stack of A-rated boosters with Bi-Weave shields. Advantage of bi-weaves is their fast recharge, which gets negated by those large boosters
- you also don't use a docking computer on a fighter (although I realistically wouldn't know what to put there - probably either module reinforcments for combat or a SRV for planetary misisons)
- if you ever fit a Chief, swap those HPs around. You want your kinetics on the largest HPs, as those will suffer from a penalty against bigger ships (small kinetics against big ships = bad)
 

Ashnak

Ashnak
Susanna said:
For competing against other pvp builds yes, against a trader? Probably not...
Click to expand...

If you take your Chief against a player trader, you're in Open. If you actually encounter a trader, you're most likey at a CG (or other hotspot). If you're in a combat ship at a CG, you will have to at least consider facing PvP builds, either from bored pirates (or worse scum) or from players RPing as militia.

No such thing as "limited open" in ED, you get all or nothing, for better and worse.
 

-VR- Max Factor

-VR- Max Factor
I don't fit a fuel scoop when trading. But if I wanted to go a long distance I would prefer to fit a fuel tank instead as it means I don't have to faff around burning up my hull, scooping at stars. If I fit a fuel tank instead of a scoop I can go around 300ly or so fully laden. Should be plenty for my long distance needs.
 
Last edited:

Susanna

Susanna
CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost said:
Only if you insist on using the most expensive equipment that offer no real advantage.

On your T-7 build: There is absolutely no need for a 6A fuel scoop on that ship for trading. Even for long range trading the cost of using that scoop - not being able to put a class 6 cargo rack into that slot - is way to high compared to the slight increase of scooping speed for getting an empty tank full. If you scoop on every possible star it's just a waste of cargo space and credits.

The class6 shield gives you 50 MJ more. Going from 254 to 303 in your example build. That difference isn't going to save you.

Going with class 5 scoop and shields will give you 64 t more cargo (getting rid of the stupid docking computer will give you 8t more ;) ) and lower the price of the T-7 to around 40 Mcr.

Honestly I would just go shieldless and get an even less expensive ship. 1.7 Mcr rebuy and 264t cargo, if you want you can put a HRP and a MRP in the class 3 slots.
Click to expand...

These were example builds, I'm not here to debate specifics of difference builds, which could easily be made to make the argument as you see fit. They were to illustrate the issue only, providing some comparisons, NOT provide specifics for you to argue minutiae over...

The point is that combat builds, whether for seal clubbing or taking down a T9 trader, do not have to be especially expensive. Granted, even a combat DBX or Eagle will cost more than a newbies Sidewinder, but not by much... 10 notoriety points (100%) x next to nothing rebuy cost, is still... Next to nothing. As pointed out rebuy cost is a very crude measure of a ships abilities.
 

ITZC0ATL

ITZC0ATL
Agreed, if they have that much money spent on their ship, that should come with the knowledge of high-waking and avoiding (within reason) gankers.

Also, if the ganker's ship is heavily engineered, that should also count into the equation. I don't think we know how yet, but it will be accounted for. Again, if the trader is also heavily-engineered, then they're just fair game as they should know themselves how to fly safe.

My 2 cents
 

CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost

C
Susanna said:
…
The point is that combat builds, whether for seal clubbing or taking down a T9 trader, do not have to be especially expensive. …
Click to expand...

At the same time trading ships don't have to be expensive.

I agree with you that the difference between the re-buy between attacking ship and attacked ship can result in no additional bounty cost for the attacker. I don't think that this is a problem.

If an attacker uses a cheap ship only the re-buy cost of the attacker ship is used to calculate the bounty. An attacker in a cheap ship will have to pay less. The difference in re-buy only affects part of the overall "bounty" the attacker has to pay.

And the "victim" re-buy is always reduced by the notoriety of the attacker.


Btw: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...r-real-money?p=6401954&viewfull=1#post6401954

Nice explanation of the system by Sandro Sammarco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom