I think the cargo ships needs a bit of a pass for balance sake. I like the idea that ships have their niche, which means that cargo ships should be really good at carrying cargo, and not much else. They should be the go to ship of choice for hauling cargo, no other ships in their class should come close.
Here's the changes I'd make:
- Hauler: Upgrade both class 3 slots to class 4.
- T6: No change.
- Keelback: Extra crewmember
- T7: Extra crewmember and fighter bay.
- T9: Replace class 4 slot with class 9 (yes, class 9).
I'll go through these in order:
Hauler: The problem with the Hauler is that the Adder is just better, and in terms of cost in the early game it's pretty much only one extra mission. Most players skip it and go straight for the Adder, or soon trade up for the Adder. Increasing both the class 3 slots to class 4 will give the Hauler a bit more longevity up to the Cobra. Note that I'm not suggesting the Hauler come standard with class 4 cargo racks in those slots, they'll still be filled with class 2 racks as currently. Upgrading to class 4 racks costs around 30k each, which for a ship that is only 50k to buy is a big investment. So upgrading the Hauler to full cargo capacity will double it's price, so I don't think this change is unbalancing.
T6: No change needed. It's relatively cheap, quite fast and got plenty of cargo, indeed you have to wait til the Asp to beat it. It's fine as is.
Keelback: Needs a second seat for a fighter pilot. Otherwise it's a bit silly. The Adder has a second seat, surely they could fit one in the Keelback. I guess there could be concerns about this being unbalanced, but the Keelback itself has a weak class 3 distributor, and is relatively slow, and once fitting a fighter bay and a shield doesn't have too much room for defensive modules, so it can be targeted directly. I don't think the second seat is overpowered.
T7: The T7s cargo capacity is similar to the Python but it's on a larger pad. So it doesn't compare favourably to the Python for trading, and whilst the Python is quite a bit more expensive, I think there should still be a place for a dedicated cargo ship between the Python and T9. Adding an extra crewmember and fighter bay to the T7 would give it something unique over the Python. It will also justify the large landing pad, I always though it was silly a T7 took up a large pad, it being a presumably compact box, whilst the sleek Python fits on a medium. I seems the height of the T7 is the problem, it doesn't make sense that the designers didn't flatten it a bit for medium pads. Adding a fighter bay means the large landing pad requirement makes more sense. There's also a huge gap from Keelback to T9 for fighter available ships that don't have rank requirements, the T7 can fill that gap. It makes sense that cargo ships have fighters for defence, because they don't have the maneuverability to defend themselves.
T9: This is the big change. Upgrading a class 4 to class 9 will give the T9 1028T of cargo space! That's more than the Cutter! But let me put this in perspective. Here is the price per ton for ship outfitted entirely with cargo racks and D rated:
Hauler: $4000 per ton
T6: $12000 per ton
T7: $30000 per ton
T9 (proposed): $90000 per ton
Note at each step the price per ton goes up 3 times. Even with 1028T in the T9, on a ton for ton basis hauling with a T9 is still three times more expensive than hauling with a T7.
Note that I don't recommend upgrading the FSD or Thrusters. This is on purpose. Whilst the T9 will now be a great trader, it will be as slow as a wet week. Fully laden, with an A-rated FSD it'll have a jump range of 9.61LY and a top speed of 132m/s, with a top boost of just 203m/s.
It's quite likely that traders will have to do some routes not fully loaded just to be able to make the jumps.
These are the sacrifices you have to make to carry 1000T of cargo. But currently, upgrading to an Anaconda is almost a no-brainer unless you're really min/maxing, it's additional speed and jump range is going to come very close to making up any loss in capacity. When the T9, a dedicated cargo ship, barely competes with an Anaconda it's too weak.
It's also silly that the Imperial Cutter, basically a huge ship of luxury with big infrastructure for FSDs, and weapons systems, can fit in more boxes of cargo than what is essentially, a large box.
Adding a Type 9 rack, and basically doubling the T9s cargo capacity I know is a big jump, but the idea in doing this is to not upgrade the FSD and thrusters. Having ships with advantages but severe disadvantages I think is more interesting than ships that are just okay all round.
And as you can see by the progression, at $90,000 per ton of cargo capacity even with this upgrade it's not underpriced compared to other cargo ships.
I'd like to see more T9s lumbering around!
What do you think of these changes? Do you think they are balanced?
Here's the changes I'd make:
- Hauler: Upgrade both class 3 slots to class 4.
- T6: No change.
- Keelback: Extra crewmember
- T7: Extra crewmember and fighter bay.
- T9: Replace class 4 slot with class 9 (yes, class 9).
I'll go through these in order:
Hauler: The problem with the Hauler is that the Adder is just better, and in terms of cost in the early game it's pretty much only one extra mission. Most players skip it and go straight for the Adder, or soon trade up for the Adder. Increasing both the class 3 slots to class 4 will give the Hauler a bit more longevity up to the Cobra. Note that I'm not suggesting the Hauler come standard with class 4 cargo racks in those slots, they'll still be filled with class 2 racks as currently. Upgrading to class 4 racks costs around 30k each, which for a ship that is only 50k to buy is a big investment. So upgrading the Hauler to full cargo capacity will double it's price, so I don't think this change is unbalancing.
T6: No change needed. It's relatively cheap, quite fast and got plenty of cargo, indeed you have to wait til the Asp to beat it. It's fine as is.
Keelback: Needs a second seat for a fighter pilot. Otherwise it's a bit silly. The Adder has a second seat, surely they could fit one in the Keelback. I guess there could be concerns about this being unbalanced, but the Keelback itself has a weak class 3 distributor, and is relatively slow, and once fitting a fighter bay and a shield doesn't have too much room for defensive modules, so it can be targeted directly. I don't think the second seat is overpowered.
T7: The T7s cargo capacity is similar to the Python but it's on a larger pad. So it doesn't compare favourably to the Python for trading, and whilst the Python is quite a bit more expensive, I think there should still be a place for a dedicated cargo ship between the Python and T9. Adding an extra crewmember and fighter bay to the T7 would give it something unique over the Python. It will also justify the large landing pad, I always though it was silly a T7 took up a large pad, it being a presumably compact box, whilst the sleek Python fits on a medium. I seems the height of the T7 is the problem, it doesn't make sense that the designers didn't flatten it a bit for medium pads. Adding a fighter bay means the large landing pad requirement makes more sense. There's also a huge gap from Keelback to T9 for fighter available ships that don't have rank requirements, the T7 can fill that gap. It makes sense that cargo ships have fighters for defence, because they don't have the maneuverability to defend themselves.
T9: This is the big change. Upgrading a class 4 to class 9 will give the T9 1028T of cargo space! That's more than the Cutter! But let me put this in perspective. Here is the price per ton for ship outfitted entirely with cargo racks and D rated:
Hauler: $4000 per ton
T6: $12000 per ton
T7: $30000 per ton
T9 (proposed): $90000 per ton
Note at each step the price per ton goes up 3 times. Even with 1028T in the T9, on a ton for ton basis hauling with a T9 is still three times more expensive than hauling with a T7.
Note that I don't recommend upgrading the FSD or Thrusters. This is on purpose. Whilst the T9 will now be a great trader, it will be as slow as a wet week. Fully laden, with an A-rated FSD it'll have a jump range of 9.61LY and a top speed of 132m/s, with a top boost of just 203m/s.
It's quite likely that traders will have to do some routes not fully loaded just to be able to make the jumps.
These are the sacrifices you have to make to carry 1000T of cargo. But currently, upgrading to an Anaconda is almost a no-brainer unless you're really min/maxing, it's additional speed and jump range is going to come very close to making up any loss in capacity. When the T9, a dedicated cargo ship, barely competes with an Anaconda it's too weak.
It's also silly that the Imperial Cutter, basically a huge ship of luxury with big infrastructure for FSDs, and weapons systems, can fit in more boxes of cargo than what is essentially, a large box.
Adding a Type 9 rack, and basically doubling the T9s cargo capacity I know is a big jump, but the idea in doing this is to not upgrade the FSD and thrusters. Having ships with advantages but severe disadvantages I think is more interesting than ships that are just okay all round.
And as you can see by the progression, at $90,000 per ton of cargo capacity even with this upgrade it's not underpriced compared to other cargo ships.
I'd like to see more T9s lumbering around!
What do you think of these changes? Do you think they are balanced?