Ship launched cargo transport vessel

[Skip Rockbounder]

Well the first part with mentioned 30 tons. I looking at the largest ship that can fit in a Large ship which is a Sidewinder. Even if they took out the Frame Shift Drive of the Sidewinder and replaced it with 4 cargo It give the user at the most 16 slots. That 2x Size 1 Compartments
3x Size 2 Compartments.

It best for players to start using common sense when they accept missions. Have a Python if you are doing a Small station. Or you are going to be dealing with a lot of Docking and undocking both Ship as well as Station if this idea was ever added.

I misunderstood... again, (I do a lot of that)
If you were to have a Cargo Shuttle it would not have to have all of the modules in a sidewinder (and presumably not even resembling one either) it would just have to be a container with a cockpit at one end and an engine at the other, perhaps a bit like a container wagon, drop off a full one and pick up an empty one... or full of a different cargo, whatever, either way the player could entertain herself/himself ferrying cargo back and forth, this would add gameplay for those that chose to do it and would annoy the hell out of people that don't want it.

 

[Shnyrik]

What do you guys think?

Yep, SLF-sized cargo shuttle for small landing pads, collecting and transferring cargo etc. would have been splendid.

 

[trollson]

It seems like a good idea but itd be a bit hard to give a reason to why the ship launched hauler can hold more then a sidewinder.

If its just a shuttle, then no SC or Jump capability - real space hauling short distances; though this would limit space-to-surface. For a SLF-class shuttle about 4 tonnes capacity?


But for larger (huge) vessels, perhaps they could host their own "commodities market", reusing the existing interfaces, and allowing smaller ships to dock. Huge-to-station trading could then occur automatically over a period of time, depending on the stations own commodity prices (presumably using the stations own shuttles).

 

[Puppie]

It wouldnt really need to be a ship at all. A framework with thrusters would work

 

[dm06]

It wouldnt really need to be a ship at all. A framework with thrusters would work

Tiny thrusters on stickers which attached to container... Wait. It reminds me something. Limpets? Learn limpets to transfer cargo to station?

 

[iiMStevo]

I really like this idea... but you're all lacking a bit of common sense in it's implementation in that you're all saying "Take the T9..."; Why does this new feature need to be implemented as something that only current ships can utilise?
Why not have it where it's an option for ships like the T9, Anaconda etc... to diversify their builds with more options?

Furthermore FDev could also invent a new "Carrier" class of ship that could hold 5 or 6 bays for these SLFs.
These Carriers could hold various light transport vessels, or light mining vessels, and then fill the rest of the ship with storage.
Low shielding, no hardpoints: Carriers would be amazing for Transport and Mining only but be at huge risk when operated individually. The multi-crew aspect would also improve their efficiency, making the ship class a multiplayer ship class as opposed to one that you'd be flying solo with.
Obviously the Carrier class could also be compatible with existing fighter bays too but from what I'm seeing you're only able to launch one fighter at a time anyway, so unless that changed, then it probably wouldn't be beneficial having six fighters on one ship (although it would be great for Squadron play).

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

That's a process already in the game, though only NPC's get to utilize it. There called "Distribution Centers" and are harder to find then hens teeth.

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

Perhaps FDev could install a contractual livery system at the smaller stations to accommodate larger ships that can't land there. But then one would have to pay a fee which would have to depend the type of cargo being transferred via the livery system from the ship to the station. My question would be, what happens when the livery ships are pirated in route from the ship to the station.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Hows this, to get around the whole "request landing permission 100x thing, stations and outposts could be equipped with a "lighter dock"(lighters are small ships IRL that do exactly what OP is talking about). these docks would be on the outside of stations/outposts. When permission is granted at a lighter dock, the CMDR would navigate the mothership above it, and then would get "locked in" and the ships computer would match the rotation of the station to stay above it.

The lighter could be an ugly square space barge that would fly between the two. Once landed, perhaps the pad flips over on the roll axis, or it could open outwards like the SLF bay. I think for this to be "worth it", it would have to carry 50 units, so it would probably be a size 6 module. It just needs cargo and cockpit, maybe not even life support.

 

[PauloG01]

Great idea, both mining and transport shuttles. They would add a great amount of gameplay.

 

[Sylow]

Great idea, both mining and transport shuttles. They would add a great amount of gameplay.

For the mining SLFs: yes, they would add to the game. It would give some new mining options and could, if the fighters have all the essential pieces of equipment make multicrew mining actually viable.

For the transport shuttles, what would it add to the game? It would "add" the removal of the last niché of medium transport ships: being able to access outposts which large ships are blocked from. While many players still stick to big ships and just ignore outposts (so it doesn't seem to be that big a deal), some players keep a Python fitted and ready and use it when the task at hand involves going to an outpost.

So yes, this suggestion comes up every other week. There's nothing new about it. And there's no real merit to it, either. It's just a thinly veiled attempt to remove one of the few small advantages which non-large ships still have.

 

[Scubadog]

I've followed the thread, contemplating the pro and con arguments. It seems to me that there is a niche that SLTs (Ship Launched Transports) could fill. I agree that having a ship like a Python (which I do) is a better choice most of the time. But consider the situation where you want to take multiple missions with different types of cargo and different destinations and you have a T-9 or other large ship. I've stacked data-delivery missions before and some of the destinations were to Outposts. Now, if I'm doing this in my Anaconda, that means I have to go back to my home station or have my Python transferred in order to finish everything out. But what if I'm carrying more cargo for more missions than my Python can carry? That's a no-go. Or, what if I'm way out at stations farther into the black? It would be nice to have an option to stack missions to various destinations and, when the situation calls for it, I can transfer mission cargo via an SLT to an Outpost. Remember, some of these missions may only call for 10-20T of something, which might be about right for a single or even double trip from my Anaconda via an SLT.

So, yes, I think you could make a fair case for a 10-20T SLT to allow large ships to stack missions. When I'm stacking Data Delivery missions I never have to worry about my ship capacity, so, it makes sense that I intentionally choose a Python or even a Sidewinder for stacking those. But with cargo, it's a different story.

 

[Scubadog]

So yes, this suggestion comes up every other week. There's nothing new about it. And there's no real merit to it, either. It's just a thinly veiled attempt to remove one of the few small advantages which non-large ships still have.

I don't agree. I don't believe the idea removes any advantages to the medium ships. It actually NEGATES a DISADVANTAGE of the medium ships: Capacity. Now, I'm primarily an explorer. But the draw of buffing my bank account with profits from Void Opals was strong enough that I outfitted my Python for mining. I don't planning on doing very much mining (because I just don't enjoy it) but the Python allows me to load up all the right modules for deep core mining and having 128T of capacity. And I can sell the cargo at Outposts. This medium ship perfectly fits my use and I only have to make one trip out, one trip back. This would NOT be the case if I was using my Anaconda or Corvette. I'd have to find a full station with the highest profit for Void Opals. I live in the Colonia region...you might find two places where the profits are maxed out for Void Opals. If I had my Anaconda and I mined Void Opals and Low Temp Diamonds, filling all my holds, I might have two different stations/outposts I would need to go to in order to maximize profits. If one or both of those were outposts, it may actually be impossible for me to even change to a smaller ship to sell my cargo. Having an SLT wouldn't save me from having to go to two different stations, but it would allow me to ONLY have to visit those two stations.

 

[Sylow]

I don't agree. I don't believe the idea removes any advantages to the medium ships. It actually NEGATES a DISADVANTAGE of the medium ships: Capacity. Now, I'm primarily an explorer. But the draw of buffing my bank account with profits from Void Opals was strong enough that I outfitted my Python for mining. I don't planning on doing very much mining (because I just don't enjoy it) but the Python allows me to load up all the right modules for deep core mining and having 128T of capacity. And I can sell the cargo at Outposts. This medium ship perfectly fits my use and I only have to make one trip out, one trip back. This would NOT be the case if I was using my Anaconda or Corvette. I'd have to find a full station with the highest profit for Void Opals. I live in the Colonia region...you might find two places where the profits are maxed out for Void Opals. If I had my Anaconda and I mined Void Opals and Low Temp Diamonds, filling all my holds, I might have two different stations/outposts I would need to go to in order to maximize profits. If one or both of those were outposts, it may actually be impossible for me to even change to a smaller ship to sell my cargo. Having an SLT wouldn't save me from having to go to two different stations, but it would allow me to ONLY have to visit those two stations.

Nice text. So you basically say that:

- You go mining. If you use an Anaconda, you would have go to two different places to sell or perhaps not even manage to access all stations you need to sell.
- You instead use a Python, as that one allows you to land at outposts and thus you can sell everything.
- Now you want an option for the Anaconda to also sell at the outpost.

So come again, in which way would it help your Python to be more useful?

All i see is that it would help your Python to collect dust, while your Anaconda would be able to do everything.

Considering that Anacondas already since a long time are the go-to ship, used for anything out there but docking at outposts, i really don't see any profit there. I mean, why not just change the Anaconda to use a medium landing pad? Wouldn't that be the more honest and more direct fix?

 

[Scubadog]

Not at all. My Anaconda is an exploration ship, period. My Corvette is a combat ship, period. My Python is now my mining ship. I also have a Chieftain, a Krait Phantom, Diamondback Explorer, Eagle, Hauler, Vulture, Mamba and two Sidewinders. The Eagle, Hauler and Vulture all "gather dust" in the core systems because I only switch to them if needed when I visit the core. The Mamba is mostly useless right now because they still don't have the heat issues addressed on it, but it will be awesome once they do. My DBX, Phantom and Chieftain are each configured for specific uses. Not everyone is inclined to buy and outfit many ships for unique purposes. Because of my preferences, my Python is very much the logical compromise between capacity and destination flexibility. I never have to make multiple trips because I'm good with not exceeding the capacity of the ship. I may have to hit more than one destination, but I don't have to change ships to do it. If I were more serious as a miner or trader, capacity would aboslutely be an issue and the ability to stack missions would be something I would want to do. Something like a Type-9 would allow me huge capacity with multiple cargo types, multiple missions and multiple destinations---but I would be necessarily limited to ground or large stations (for people who don't have Horizons ground stations are out of the equation).

The point is that the suggestion for an SLT has some merit to it, but it's not like you can't get the job done with what we already have. I could use similar nay-sayer arguments against the whole SLF thing. And I don't agree that the Anaconda is the "go-to ship", even though I do like the ship a lot. And, sure, FDev could change the Anaconda to be able to land on medium pads, but then you have no excuse not to make the Corvette, Cutter or Beluga do the same. Adding an SLT would add sufficient "grind" to choosing to stick with a large ship but allow enough flexibility depending on how you play. Personally, I can't imagine every using one since I don't enjoy mining or trading, and on the few times I've done cargo Community Goals or mining to make a quick fortune the Python was exactly the right balance for me. I'm not about to reconfigure my Anaconda or Corvette away from their primary missions for that.

 

[Sylow]

In contrast, i actually started to like mining with the rework. But i use a Cobra MK IV for it. (Would i not have access to that, i'd use the Asp Explorer. And actually the Asp Explorer would be the better choice, but i'm happy to finally have something in game where the Cobra MK IV actually is useful for. )

That being said, i still see the SLT only as a means to work around landing pad size limits. I mean, you can philosophize if the limitation is good for the game or not. I also think that the advantage of being able to land at outposts is a weak point for smaller ships. There should be better incentives for that. But at the moment it's apparently a deciding factor and as long as there are no better incentives, i think it should remain.

And on the comparison between SLF and SLT: The SLF indeed does open new gameplay. When one of my rarely playing friends comes on and has limited time, thanks to the SLF and multicrew we can quickly do something together, without having to plan the first 30 minutes of the hour he has at hand to meet up. (The former "solution" to this issue was to play another game instead. Which sure worked for us, but was to EDs advantage. ) Outside of that, having an NPC along in combat to fly the fighter just adds a new element to combat gameplay. Thus it does add to the game.

In contrast, the whole "gameplay" of the SLT would be that you can also hover next to an outpost and do the same things there, which you usually would either do with a medium sized ship or at a station with large landing pad. That's not really new gameplay. It just would eliminate one of the very few inherent disadvantages of a large ship and thus in effect eliminate one of the few remaining advantages of non-large ships.

 

[Scubadog]

The exact same point could be made for the SLT. The SLF can only be used within range of the mothership and, I could argue, you should just be using a ship better equipped for combat or develop better evasion techniques. The SLF fills a niche, plain and simple. An SLT could as well. Heck, if we really wanted to get jiggy with it, you could allow the SLT to drop to a planet. If you're using multicrew, your buddy could drop down to deliver cargo while you stayed in orbit. Anyway, as I said, I think there's fair case to be made in favor of an SLT, but it's simply a suggestion and the lack of it isn't a game-changer.

 

[Le-Betz]

(...)

In contrast, the whole "gameplay" of the SLT would be that you can also hover next to an outpost and do the same things there, which you usually would either do with a medium sized ship or at a station with large landing pad. That's not really new gameplay. It just would eliminate one of the very few inherent disadvantages of a large ship and thus in effect eliminate one of the few remaining advantages of non-large ships.

I don't think so. Just imagine how long it might take to unload a large ship at an outpost by using a small shuttle. Let's say you have to unload 200t of cargo in an SLT that has a capacity of 5t. Transfer cargo from ship to SLT, undock from your ship, request docking permission, dock, unload / sell cargo, undock from the outpost, dock back at your ship again, transfer another 5ts of cargo to SLT's, rinse and repeat 39 more times. About 3 hours later: Mission accomplished (assumed you have the outpost's landing pad all for yourself and the mission is not time critical). No need to be a genius to figure out that using a Python to do the job is by far the better choice.

And there are people who consider mining to be underpaid and boring.

 

[iiMStevo]

1. Regarding the discussion about how this just removes the only benefit of a Medium ship over a Large ship - Are you forgetting that the Large ship would be sacrificing storage space for a hanger, as well as sacrificing speed in delivery for a slower process? For example sake, you could have Large Ship X with storage capacity of 250T without a hanger and then 200T with a hanger. Using only Large pads, they're transfering cargo to their destination quicker, and more cargo. The same ship with the hanger, and using medium and small pads (depending on which hanger is fitted / whatever limitations are put in place) transferring 50T per trip would take at least 4 times longer to deliver less cargo. A medium ship with a capacity of 150T cargo space would deliver the goods in the same time as the Large Ship without the hanger, but it delivers less cargo.

It is simply a case of Speed vs Value. Instead of going from one extreme (250) to the other (150) you're granted a middle-ground option (200) which sacrifices the speed as part of the benefit.

2. Regarding multiple docking requests - ...or you just simply submit one docking request, and that pad is reserved for your transport ship to make as many trips as necessary until you leave the area or inform the docking station that you're no longer using that pad anymore. If the station has a Large pad for you already, then you dock as normal anyway.

3. Regarding the mining vessels - this would be something I'd enjoy having a large freighter fitted with mining vessels to allow for faster mining, so long as multiple vessels can be used from one ship simultaneously.

 

[Scubadog]

I don't think so. Just imagine how long it might take to unload a large ship at an outpost by using a small shuttle. Let's say you have to unload 200t of cargo in an SLT that has a capacity of 5t. Transfer cargo from ship to SLT, undock from your ship, request docking permission, dock, unload / sell cargo, undock from the outpost, dock back at your ship again, transfer another 5ts of cargo to SLT's, rinse and repeat 39 more times. About 3 hours later: Mission accomplished (assumed you have the outpost's landing pad all for yourself and the mission is not time critical). No need to be a genius to figure out that using a Python to do the job is by far the better choice.

And there are people who consider mining to be underpaid and boring.

I never liked mining and only did it to satisfy engineers. BUT, with the new equipment, I took my bank account from 12mil credits to 520mil credits in 2 evenings of core mining. I'm still not making it my career, but as long as one or two items fetch large profits, this will be my go-to for quickly replenishing my bank.