That argument only is valid when you're referring to ships that have been retired from their intended role or job. Again, using that logic, you're implying that if a manufacturer designs a new ship(let's say it's a military naval vessel built for fleet support or such, like a Cruiser or Frigate), it can just say "eh I don't want to grow up to be a warship, I identify as a fishing trawler or maybe a sailboat"
Why lift the restriction on passenger ships?
- Thread starter Oss133
- Start date
As I said- perhaps then Frontier should go a bit further and purposely gimp all ships with "military slots" so that they're unusable for anything but combat-specific roles.
I mean, if we're going to argue "logic" here.
Still want to continue with this line of logical debate?
Yes. I agree with you. Ships should be more role specific. Not less.
No, I am talking about an A380 initially purchased for bulk economy 853 pax capacity, then being converted into a luxury long hauler with a much reduced pax capacity, or a full freighter config hauling 200 tonnes.
Nothing to do with retirement, conversions are done as and when it is needed.
It happens with pretty much all the types out there. Some companies also offer Combi's, with relatively speaking instant reconfiguration from a pax hauler into a full blown freighter, or leased for military/scientific work.
Get where you are coming from regarding massive oil tankers and cruise ships, but those are more like the huge bulk freighters and other megaships in game. Behemoths designed for one purpose.
Dolphins, Orcas and Belugas should not have military slots, they should have a couple of dedicated passenger only slots. Type 6's, 7's and 9's should not have either, they are focused on logistics and cargo and therefore would be much better suited for that role than the Cutter. I should not be allowed to take a Vulture and make it just as good for cargo than a Hauler. Because that implies that the Vulture was not built from the ground up to be combat focused. That means smaller hardpoints to make room for non-combat roles, smaller distributor to make room for other roles, smaller thrusters. You have to make room somewhere for extra optional internals, you can't just put some space magic in to put more optional internals in a ship where there is no logical room for them
OK, so by the same "logic" all ships that currently have Military Slots should absolutely NOT be usable for trading, or passenger hauling, or exploration, then?
You shouldn't be able to equip cargo slots, or scanners or anything but weapons and shields/armor on combat vessels, after all.
I've always thought that the ships should have some sort of comfort rating system when it comes to passenger missions. As a passenger I wouldn't expect a ticket for a journey on a converted T7 or T9 to cost me the same as one on an Orca or Beluga. Travelling on something like a T7 is going to be a cheap budget ticket, whilst travelling by an Orca is going to cost a premium fare. You wouldn't expect to pay the same for a voyage on a container ship, even if they did fit it with nice cabins, than a voyage on a proper cruise ship like the Royal Caribbean. So using one of the dedicated passenger ships should command some sort of an extra bonus to the passenger mission payout in my opinion.
Yes. We are absolutely talking in absolutes.
OK, then I shall agree if Frontier is to keep PAX ships restricted to only being "cargo vessels" then "combat" (military) ships shall remain restricted to combat, then.
Settled. /thread.
Oh, you weren't serious- were you?
Perhaps some can start thinking in terms of non-absolutes, then? You know, like what Frontier planned with removing restrictions to PAX ships to begin with?
That was my original question. Does anyone know why they have done this?
Have "they" answered your question, yet?
Please let me know when "they" do. Until then... perhaps some logic will suffice.
Or not. Until then...
o7
No. Nobody seems to know.
All the PAX ships were still useable for other things, as they didn't have only pax slots. Just like most military ships already have various internals locked off as military slots, not all.
I really don't get what your point is regarding military ships. Nobody is asking for military ships to become multiroles, in fact the restricted military slots were added speciically to allow them to be good at combat while stopping them from being too good at other things.
This thread is specifically questioning the decision of removing the restrictions on PAX ships, it's not about removing those on military ships.
How does this:
Their maximum cargo capacity hasn't increased and they're not all of a sudden better at combat because they can put a slightly stronger shield or SCB in them.
The only role they're becoming better at is exploration, something that already has a real world comparison when it comes to the capabilities of refit passenger liners.
Translate to this?
The Orca has slightly over half the cargo capacity of the T-7, same with the Beluga vs T-9.
Other than the external look you could probably make it even more luxurious, roomy and comfortable due to the tanker being designed with a much higher available tonnage capacity. You'd just loose the extra "it's shiny" factor.
It isn't, just like how the Dolphin, Orca and Beluga aren't magically becoming multiroles because they can now fit more modules in the previously locked slots.
Their maximum cargo capacity hasn't increased and they're not all of a sudden better at combat because they can put a slightly stronger shield or SCB in them.
The only role they're becoming better at is exploration, something that already has a real world comparison when it comes to the capabilities of refit passenger liners.
That's also not true. They're close to being on a par with the current choices for exploration; for example I'll still be keeping my 75LY exploraconda built.
However I will likely use my Orca when I'm not planning to be out for months. I'll still have greater range in any of the Anaconda, Asp Explorer and DBS; however the Orca will be close in range to my two smaller ships and has considerably more style. The current exploration ships aren't being made redundant, players are just going to have a few more choices. I tend to like choice in games.
The Asp will always be my favourite explorer, but I'm building an Orca for when I want a bit more equipment on board and jump range almost as good. This is a great new option. I think the Saud-Cruger ships have the right looks for science vessels too, especially the Orca. I don't see danger that they'll become great combat ships or cargo haulers, and I think most players care somewhat about ship appearance for roles as well as stats.
I've heard of Explorer Vultures but not combat T 7s
You should take a look on youtube. Not a single ship in this game that can't kick butt when in the right hands.