Can we please buff trader ships?

[Commander Biscuit]

I have sympathy for people wanting trader buffs. Sure you have people saying "well just build your ship into a tank instead, it's your own fault for minmaxing"

The problem with this argument is that there are other professions and ships where no sacrifices are needed. Some ships can A spec everything they need to work at maximum potential and don't need to downgrade their effectiveness in their role by fitting things intended for other roles.

 

[xondk]

Space is dangerous for everyone, and we all want free armor. Still not much of an argument IMHO. Its not a 'minor upgrade' you're proposing, it's a 40% price reduction (thats the relative cost of reinforced armor). Thats massive. Thats akin to a Conda pilot asking for free 7A thrusters 'because space is so big and I need more speed'.

Well, I get what you are saying, but the trade ships are only good at one task, hauling cargo, and lets face it t9 has horrific jump range and everything else absolutely no advantage over a conda, conda can jump much farther then a t9 with full cargo and we are only talking like 50 cargo difference with shield but like 9-10 in jump range difference.
I'm not using any of those ships any more, but I feel that trader ships would be well aware of their one role job and as such be constructed to just a be a bit more practical, I mean its not like a truck irl doesn't come with enough hauling power to do its job either? by that reasoning why don't trading ships come with more cargo space fittet?

Edit: giving them better default armour might make them viable instead of switching to another non trade specific ship?

 

[CMDR LACEWING]

Space is dangerous for everyone, and we all want free armor. Still not much of an argument IMHO. Its not a 'minor upgrade' you're proposing, it's a 40% price reduction (thats the relative cost of reinforced armor). Thats massive. Thats akin to a Conda pilot asking for free 7A thrusters 'because space is so big and I need more speed'.

Dude... A Type-9 with military bulkheads costs as much as an Anaconda and still has less armour, agility, jump range and combat ability at ~ same cargo space. How is this fair?

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

The problem with this argument is that there are other professions and ships where no sacrifices are needed. Some ships can A spec everything they need to work at maximum potential and don't need to downgrade their effectiveness in their role by fitting things intended for other roles.

Um that's not true. Pirates have to choose between cargo space or other modules/shield cells, armor or speed. Explorers have to choose between equipping weapons and defenses for the return trip, or jump range. Bounty hunters can choose to equip cargo racks if the want to make a little money by scooping cargo that drops from their targets.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

ISome ships can A spec everything they need to work at maximum potential and don't need to downgrade their effectiveness in their role by fitting things intended for other roles.

The accuracy of this claim aside, your problem is in viewing things like shields and armor as "intended for other roles". The "role" of shields and armor is to help you stay alive. I think that's a pretty valid goal in all professions.

 

[goemon]

i actually see no problem at the t6 level. a t6 with a class 4A shield (second largest slot) has 148 MJ shields (more than a cobra!), while still being able to fit boosters, and 96 t - loosing 8 tons against a 3A shield... - and it can boost to 403 m/s.

beyond that everybody has the money for every outfit he likes. i think it's funny, that people complain about "i lost my 2 mio cargoload" while not willing to sacrifice 16 T of cargo for a good shield. if you want a ship, that can defend itself, trade in a Asp, Clipper, Anaconda. You want to trade in a Truck, with the possibility of getting robbed, trade in a T7 or T9.

 

[Commander Biscuit]

Um that's not true. Pirates have to choose between cargo space or other modules/shield cells, armor or speed. Explorers have to choose between equipping weapons and defenses for the return trip, or jump range. Bounty hunters can choose to equip cargo racks if the want to make a little money by scooping cargo that drops from their targets.

What I said is true, there are other ships and professions that don't need to make sacrifices. I have a bunch of them. I don't need cargo space in my fighter, I dont need a cloud analyzer on my explorer, I don't need a refinery on my smuggler. Etc etc.

All you're doing is listing others which also need to make sacrifices, which has nothing to do with the point I made. And you can't compare losing a tiny bit of jump range on an explorer for equipping guns, when jump range is counter-intuitively an unimportant stat for exploring, with the cargo space loss when outfitting a trader for tanking.

The accuracy of this claim aside, your problem is in viewing things like shields and armor as "intended for other roles". The "role" of shields and armor is to help you stay alive. I think that's a pretty valid goal in all professions.

Needing to be tanked out might be a reality for traders, but it doesn't really address the fairness of that reality.

 

[Cmdr Wullfen]

i actually see no problem at the t6 level. a t6 with a class 4A shield (second largest slot) has 148 MJ shields (more than a cobra!), while still being able to fit boosters, and 96 t - loosing 8 tons against a 3A shield... - and it can boost to 403 m/s.

beyond that everybody has the money for every outfit he likes. i think it's funny, that people complain about "i lost my 2 mio cargoload" while not willing to sacrifice 16 T of cargo for a good shield. if you want a ship, that can defend itself, trade in a Asp, Clipper, Anaconda. You want to trade in a Truck, with the possibility of getting robbed, trade in a T7 or T9.

Indeed my point exactly, it really is just a few tons of cargo people, greed is what's killing your trade ships at the moment

Sacrifice a few 100k per trip to save 10s of millions in death

- - - Updated - - -

Dude... A Type-9 with military bulkheads costs as much as an Anaconda and still has less armour, agility, jump range and combat ability at ~ same cargo space. How is this fair?

Also, as much as what kind of conda? Probably one you wouldn't want getting shot too much either

Edit : never mind I retract this, you can make a C rated trade conda with 7c shield for 100 million less than a full T9 with mil spec

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Buff player interaction and leave trader ships as they are. Traders sacrifice safety for cargo, that's their choice. They also have the choice of bringing along escorts if they sacrifice the ability to defend themselves. The problem is no one is motivated to accompany them, not that trader ships are helpless. They have the option to fit defenses, they choose not to, they shouldn't be surprised about being helpless.

 

[Cmdr Wullfen]

Buff player interaction and leave trader ships as they are. Traders sacrifice safety for cargo, that's their choice. They also have the choice of bringing along escorts if they sacrifice the ability to defend themselves. The problem is no one is motivated to accompany them, not that trader ships are helpless. They have the option to fit defenses, they choose not to, they shouldn't be surprised about being helpless.

If only we could get paid a real amount for escort work instead of chump change or a cargo scoop fest

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Needing to be tanked out might be a reality for traders, but it doesn't really address the fairness of that reality.

How is that "unfair"? Everyone runs the same risk of "tanking out" to whatever level they feel comfortable, or potentially dying in the course of their profession.

I think it just seems unfair to you because you can put shields and shield cells in the same slots that you can fit items for your "primary role". That's not unfair though, that's actually kind of an awesome bonus of flexibility that no other professions get. Combat pilots can't choose to trade their shields or shield cells to increase their damage. That's not an advantage they have, it makes their outfitting less flexible and far less interesting.

It's a flaw of approaching your ship from a min/max perspective; the drive to maximize cargo space and range at the cost of everything else. Change your perspective from maximizing your profits on a spreadsheet to maximizing your ability to complete a trade run in-game, and your "problem" disappears.

Just because the game lets you do something, doesn't mean the game has to make it completely viable in all circumstances to do it that way. If I want a long-range combat ship, and so equip all my weapon mounts with C1 weapons, I can't justifiably complain that I do gimpy damage. I chose to do that to maximize my range, just as many traders are choosing gimpy defenses to maximize cargo.

FDEV could just lock your highest-level equipment slot to shields only, and lock another one to shield cells only. Don't complain that you were given the more flexibility. It's entirely an individual choice to look at, say, a T7 and see 8 slots to put cargo racks in, or 6 slots to put cargo racks in because you need some defenses.

 

[goemon]

What I said is true, there are other ships and professions that don't need to make sacrifices. I have a bunch of them. I don't need cargo space in my fighter, I dont need a cloud analyzer on my explorer, I don't need a refinery on my smuggler. Etc etc.

i hate to say it, but you are playing a trader, not a storage container. if your ship is a storage container and your job is a docker - yes, cargo space is the only part of your profession. but if you are a trader, part of your job is moving stuff from a-b. nobody is paying you for storing. you have to bring it there. now, if bringing there requires a shield...

i do smuggle and salvage a lot (not only in these days), i have to take a lot of those decisions. running cold requires a small power plant, while docking under fire of a crazy cop at an outpost requires a decent shield, and good thrusters. the best running cold ship is a dbs, which is nearby as fast as a cobra, but it doesn't have enough cargo space. now - what do i sacrifice? which decisions do i do?

i'm not sitting here, saying: please give the cobra a buff of a higher base shield value - i have to sacrifice coldness and cargo for shields, other professions don't have to do sacrifices!

the sacrifices of choosing a combat ship is that they are starving on power and on jumprange.

and so on, and so on.

___

i run a trading clipper, not a t7 - for a reason. i have a class 4 shield on it, because i don't want to sacrife the class 6 slot. but i have a set of scb, too, if a wing interdicts me.

 

[Gremlin]

Can't make head nor tail of this. Traders can have enough protection if they want to.



They (I have one) can use a Conda for that, thats the whole purpose of the thing. A T9 is just a compromise between more space and therefore less security. Whats wrong with causality?

I believe the stated problem is that the mass of the ship simply is not scaling with the armor/anything else; A T9 is a heavy ship - but what is making it heavy? If its large its volume would imply greater capacity..
If it is the super structure, then that is effectively armor - except that it isn't.

I'd love to see the ship model info - for real scale numbers/sizes.

I ran a spreadsheet early this year and I concluded that the ship stats are all made up numbers to "balance" them. None of them scale by the projected mass of the ships and their armor values.
TBH I assumed all ships were spherical, and had armor skins, I assumed ships had equal density.
I derived the base skin thickness/density from a sidewinder and then scaled that up based upon the effective mass ratios for the larger ships.
I only did this for the combat ships I cared about and, its not even close.

Balance is a terrible thing. life isn't balanced, nor should ED be, ED isn't a PvP shooter where we get to play rock/paper/scissors with classes.

Just like life, you take a knife (eagle) to a gunfight (anaconda) you ought to get your <donkey> handed to you.

my $0.02

 

[c48113]

I'd be happy if they just limited SCB's to 1 per ship like shields and same with chaff. I could sacrifice some cargo for for a SCB on my tradeconda, but with PVP being decided by how many SCB's you have the trader can't win. And getting rid of double chaff would make turrets more effective on a space cow.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

i hate to say it, but you are playing a trader, not a storage container. if your ship is a storage container and your job is a docker - yes, cargo space is the only part of your profession. but if you are a trader, part of your job is moving stuff from a-b. nobody is paying you for storing. you have to bring it there. now, if bringing there requires a shield...

I want to rep you, but it won't let me yet.

This is exactly right though.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I'd be happy if they just limited SCB's to 1 per ship like shields and same with chaff. I could sacrifice some cargo for for a SCB on my tradeconda, but with PVP being decided by how many SCB's you have the trader can't win. And getting rid of double chaff would make turrets more effective on a space cow.

The point of adding SCB is not that you can kill the pirate, but that you can escape. It is totally irrelevant how many SCBs the pirate has, as long as you get that few extra seconds to escape.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I'd be happy if they just limited SCB's to 1 per ship like shields and same with chaff. I could sacrifice some cargo for for a SCB on my tradeconda, but with PVP being decided by how many SCB's you have the trader can't win. And getting rid of double chaff would make turrets more effective on a space cow.

You don't need to win by killing the other guy; you're a trader, you win by docking in one piece. That single SCB may not make you last long enough to kill the other guy, but it'll probably make you last long enough to jump out.

 

[Cmdr Wullfen]

You don't need to win by killing the other guy; you're a trader, you win by docking in one piece. That single SCB may not make you last long enough to kill the other guy, but it'll probably make you last long enough to jump out.

Precisely even with just a couple SCBs and chaff you will have more than enough tank to high wake out and back in, dependant on the ships(s) that pulled you even a low wake

 

[Gremlin]

You don't need to win by killing the other guy; you're a trader, you win by docking in one piece. That single SCB may not make you last long enough to kill the other guy, but it'll probably make you last long enough to jump out.

See there we go - playing rock/paper/scissors with professions.

ED isn't that; a T9 is a large ship with a different load out capability than another ship - nothing about that says "trader" in itself.
If you want to slap C7 shields on it, a massive fuel tank, massive PP and guns - why not? The ships should be tuned for physics though - not because a playing card derived set of numbers says it has to weigh 1000T and have an armor value of 4.

Perhaps a few minutes on utube looking up - "EVE: When Carebears fight back" might be educational?

That was a massive mining ship configured for combat and it was able to tank/fight remarkably well. I dont see why ED shouldn't be able to configure something similar, if that is what someone wants.

A ship is just a platform that you configure in whatever manner suits you. Just because its a T9 chassis doesn't mean you have to be "a trader";

What does flying an Anaconda say? trader? or combat?

 

[Ian Skippy]

A ship is just a platform that you configure in whatever manner suits you. Just because its a T9 chassis doesn't mean you have to be "a trader";

I cant put shields on my tradeship, the online guide I found told me I'd lose cr/hr.