Can we please buff trader ships?

[Crazy Jedi]

Damn it !

i have been quite enjoying this thread and have set my mind to formulating a reasonable contribution.
It has been a good diversion whilst exploring....
unfortunately I wasn't paying enough attention to what I was doing and got too close to a neutron star resulting in an emergency stop.
my cargo hatch dropped to 60% and promptly deposited several tons of survey data caches. If anyone wants them they are orbiting the neutron star in Parenago 2149..... I ain't going back for em now.

good thread though.

 

[Tanith Low]

Well, in their trader loadouts. Not a fully A spec combat Python ofcourse!

If that's the case, they choose their ship load out....poorly.

My Python has enough combat potential to Hi Res bounty hunt and only RTB when the ammo runs out. And on top of that also has 208 tons of cargo space.

That lakons are a different matter but they are pure traders and a lot cheaper than their multi role counterparts. The T7 and T9 are less than 1/2 their equivalent multi roles (Python and Conda) and the T6 is 1/6th the cost of an Asp. and that's just for the base ships. A decent multi role load out is not cheep.

There is a suggestion further up this thread about being able to hire AI wing mates which I think is a much more sensible way of improving traders survivability.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Alright! Let's give these tarders atleast a SINGLE CHANCE! Who is with me?

Today I was running Sothis missions in an Asp - after leaving the main Sothis station and entering SC for the mine outpost I was interdicted by a PC flying a clipper. ( *waves at the pilot who cant be named using beams and missiles - Cmdr Dax Jameson here btw ) Without so much as a "haharr!" they opened fire and the chase was on.

I live to tell the tale.

Why ?

My Asp only has 28T cargo space ..

Part of the problem at the moment is caused by the traders themselves building a ship that's paper thin .. if you drop some of the cargo space and add shields / shield boosters / armour / shield cells / defence turrets / chaff / heat sinks / etc / etc .. then you would have a fighting chance .. but no, ships have to be made to maximise the cargo space in a shameless pursuit of credits.

PvE you can get away with flimsy ships but PvP ... different ball game.

(Reminds me of Hardcore Diablo 3 - you build and gear up completely differently compared to SC and so many people who "try" hardcore die and give up ... they fail to understand the difference .. similar thing here)


EDIT:
I add to the story of Sothis that I managed to get back into supercruise with 30% hull left, slowed down, then immediately dropped into normal space. Had the aggressor found me then I would have died but I hoped they would have missed my low-wake and flown on by .. that seemed to be the case. When I entered back into SC about 5 mins later I spotted them attacking other ships and made a run for it ... btw - comms is beautiful : managed to warn other traders I met on the way

 

[goemon]

My Asp only has 28T cargo space ..
)

what did you put in your class 6 slot? a fuelscoop?

 

[Bacalao]

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?

Unfortunately that isn't the way ED is set up. For multirole ships, sure, you can do any role, lots of internals let you outfit for any activity you happen upon, problem is, the big power plant, excellent hardpoints, low hull/high armor values, and decent jump ranges with all those internals also make them better at exploring, combat and trading than their more focused counterparts.
-
If all ships are to be multirole ships, in one chassis style or another, I'd welcome it, but if (as seems to be the case) they are to be purpose built to do one thing well (trade/explore/combat) and other things poorly, lets at least have them designed so they can do that one thing well, and not just mediocre (or worse than the multirole in that same class), while doing anything else abysmally. Meanwhile ships that seem to be meant to do anything reasonably well (multirole), do, and they outperform single purpose ships when outfit specifically for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Today I was running Sothis missions in an Asp - after leaving the main Sothis station and entering SC for the mine outpost I was interdicted by a PC flying a clipper. ( *waves at the pilot who cant be named using beams and missiles - Cmdr Dax Jameson here btw ) Without so much as a "haharr!" they opened fire and the chase was on.

I live to tell the tale.

Why ?

My Asp only has 28T cargo space ..

Part of the problem at the moment is caused by the traders themselves building a ship that's paper thin .. if you drop some of the cargo space and add shields / shield boosters / armour / shield cells / defence turrets / chaff / heat sinks / etc / etc .. then you would have a fighting chance .. but no, ships have to be made to maximise the cargo space in a shameless pursuit of credits.

PvE you can get away with flimsy ships but PvP ... different ball game.

(Reminds me of Hardcore Diablo 3 - you build and gear up completely differently compared to SC and so many people who "try" hardcore die and give up ... they fail to understand the difference .. similar thing here)


EDIT:
I add to the story of Sothis that I managed to get back into supercruise with 30% hull left, slowed down, then immediately dropped into normal space. Had the aggressor found me then I would have died but I know the limits of a defensive-trade ship ... now, had I been flying my Cobra the outcome would have been quite different (fastest ship in the game .. sure, would have taken a beating but not to the same extent)

Problem is, if I'm going to throw a good shield, an SCB, a hull reinforcement, some turrets, chaff, boosters, good thrusters, a power plant to keep it all on in my T7, I may as well pilot an asp, because it'll move about the same amount of cargo at that point with the same amount of survivability, there won't ever be a comparison to the pythons survivability and the T7s, no matter how defensively you set up the T7, despite the fact that they are the same class of ship.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

what did you put in your class 6 slot? a fuelscoop?

I am not logged in right now to double check but IIRC : A6 shields and A5 fuel scoop (can't hang about with those pesky "I say old bean, I have news for you" NPCs hell bent on murderering you)

Give me a couple of mins and I will log in and clone it on a ship builder.

EDIT:
LINK

This is my cuurent spec - 24/25LY jump range .. and yeah - I really do use a docking computer

Dont geat me wrong - 2v1 and I would die; 2nd attack and I would most likely die ... it's made to sustain 1 assault and give you chance to get away. High wake is always a good thing to do as most attackers don't use wake-scanners

 

[CMDR Corlas]

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?

Perhaps. If I played EVE. But I don't.

You're incorrect in thinking that just because your ship weighs a lot that means it has to have heavy armor. No. A little bit of googling tells me that the WWII battleship Bismarck had a displacement tonnage about 1/4 that of a modern Carnival Cruise ship. Does that mean the Carnival Cruise ship would stand up to 4x the damage the Bismarck could? Clearly not.

You're making far too many assumptions and blanket equalizations in your calculations for them to really mean anything.

 

[Bacalao]

Perhaps. If I played EVE. But I don't.

You're incorrect in thinking that just because your ship weighs a lot that means it has to have heavy armor. No. A little bit of googling tells me that the WWII battleship Bismarck had a displacement tonnage about 1/4 that of a modern Carnival Cruise ship. Does that mean the Carnival Cruise ship would stand up to 4x the damage the Bismarck could? Clearly not.

You're making far too many assumptions and blanket equalizations in your calculations for them to really mean anything.

If carnival knew it's cruise ships had a high probability of ending up in the same kind of combat as the Bismarck, I'm sure they'd manufacture their ships a little differently. The tonnage/armor ratio is ridiculous for different ships, even within the same manufacturer building ships for the same purpose (read: Asp Explorer and Diamondback Explorer, both Lakon, both explorers, DBX has higher hull mass and lower armor...why?)

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Problem is, if I'm going to throw a good shield, an SCB, a hull reinforcement, some turrets, chaff, boosters, good thrusters, a power plant to keep it all on in my T7, I may as well pilot an asp, because it'll move about the same amount of cargo at that point with the same amount of survivability

In all honesty, that's not even mildly accurate. The most you can haul on an Asp with a shield is 120 tons. A T7 with relatively equal shields will do 216 tons.

Yes you lose out on a lot of flexibility the Asp offers, and if you simply argued that you lose too much, I'd probably agree with you. But it's not even close to "the same amount of cargo".

- - - Updated - - -

If carnival knew it's cruise ships had a high probability of ending up in the same kind of combat as the Bismarck, I'm sure they'd manufacture their ships a little differently.

Yeah, that's exactly the point. They'd probably cut back on passenger space and amenities (their "cargo racks") and put on some better defenses.

The tonnage to armor calcs might seem a off, yeah. But's it also incorrect to simply assume that higher tonnage means more armor. That's as silly as people who think more horsepower automatically equals faster car, or more megahertz means a faster computer.

 

[goemon]

EDIT:
LINK

thank you! difference of class 5 and class 6 shield on an asp are less than 10% --- but sounds as if you needed them!

 

[Bacalao]

In all honesty, that's not even mildly accurate. The most you can haul on an Asp with a shield is 120 tons. A T7 with relatively equal shields will do 216 tons.

Yes you lose out on a lot of flexibility the Asp offers, and if you simply argued that you lose too much, I'd probably agree with you. But it's not even close to "the same amount of cargo".

I'm talking about survivability, not just Mj of shielding. Maneuverability, jump range, supercruise handling, armament. It all comes into play, the only way traders are worth it is if you go lean on the build and stuff as much into the internals as you can, once you "pay your dues" and get enough to buy the almighty multiroles, there isn't a reason to ever get in a T-x again.

 

[Lumweishaupt]

Today I was running Sothis missions in an Asp - after leaving the main Sothis station and entering SC for the mine outpost I was interdicted by a PC flying a clipper. ( *waves at the pilot who cant be named using beams and missiles - Cmdr Dax Jameson here btw ) Without so much as a "haharr!" they opened fire and the chase was on.

I live to tell the tale.

Why ?

My Asp only has 28T cargo space ..

Part of the problem at the moment is caused by the traders themselves building a ship that's paper thin .. if you drop some of the cargo space and add shields / shield boosters / armour / shield cells / defence turrets / chaff / heat sinks / etc / etc .. then you would have a fighting chance .. but no, ships have to be made to maximise the cargo space in a shameless pursuit of credits.

)

an Asp isn't a trade ship so....not relevant at all really

not too hard to escape alive in an Asp that has even 100T of cargo space

 

[Damocles]

Space is big enough to fly as a trader in open without worrying too much about other Cmdrs. I never had much trouble going from T6 > Clipper > Python > T9 > Conda. I've done my trading time, had some scrapes but generally its been event less. The Anaconda is the cream of the crop of trade ships and my current load out gives me ample protection and excellent cargo space. I haven't played as a pirate but as a trader I don't see any issues.

As far as T9 vs Anaconda goes - for traders the main reason is the extra jump range on the Anaconda making runs much quicker, not the extra armament potential.

The main issue for traders is, IMO, if you stick with in game tools only, is the time taken to find a good trade route.

 

[Soliluna]

In all honesty, that's not even mildly accurate. The most you can haul on an Asp with a shield is 120 tons. A T7 with relatively equal shields will do 216 tons.

Yes you lose out on a lot of flexibility the Asp offers, and if you simply argued that you lose too much, I'd probably agree with you. But it's not even close to "the same amount of cargo".

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, that's exactly the point. They'd probably cut back on passenger space and amenities (their "cargo racks") and put on some better defenses.

The tonnage to armor calcs might seem a off, yeah. But's it also incorrect to simply assume that higher tonnage means more armor. That's as silly as people who think more horsepower automatically equals faster car, or more megahertz means a faster computer.

But are they not MEGA?!

DO THEY NOT HURT?!

*Checks ebay*

"Ultra Fast 10.4GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB MEMORY, GTX 750ti"

Spot on.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I'm talking about survivability, not just Mj of shielding. Maneuverability, jump range, supercruise handling, armament. It all comes into play, the only way traders are worth it is if you go lean on the build and stuff as much into the internals as you can, once you "pay your dues" and get enough to buy the almighty multiroles, there isn't a reason to ever get in a T-x again.

I'd agree with you that the way the game is right now multirole ships are probably too good, in practical use outclass both trading ships and combat ships at their primary tasks, and something should be done about that.

Doesn't change the fact that your claim about cargo capacity was incorrect. I think if we focus on the problems that are actually problems, and not get so frustrated that we exaggerate and complain about problems that aren't actually problems, we're way more likely to see some positive change.

I don't think the solution is just to flat buff the defenses on trading ships though. There's already an in-game way for them to do that. That solution already exists.

 

[Bacalao]

Yeah, that's exactly the point. They'd probably cut back on passenger space and amenities (their "cargo racks") and put on some better defenses.

The tonnage to armor calcs might seem a off, yeah. But's it also incorrect to simply assume that higher tonnage means more armor. That's as silly as people who think more horsepower automatically equals faster car, or more megahertz means a faster computer.

Right, so look at the size, tonnage, and shape of the T-9...why does it only have 500T of cargo space and terrible armor and non stellar internals? It's given up the cargo space to add.....more useless, non armor, hull.

 

[Bacalao]

I'd agree with you that the way the game is right now multirole ships are probably too good, in practical use outclass both trading ships and combat ships at their primary tasks, and something should be done about that.

Doesn't change the fact that your claim about cargo capacity was incorrect. I think if we focus on the problems that are actually problems, and not get so frustrated that we exaggerate and complain about problems that aren't actually problems, we're way more likely to see some positive change.

I don't think the solution is just to flat buff the defenses on trading ships though. There's already an in-game way for them to do that. That solution already exists.

I have no problem staying with my statement about an Asp and a T7, if you are going to make a T7 as survivable as an Asp, you're going to have comparable cargo carrying capacities. Especially when you throw into the mix that the Asp will do the trade routes in far less jumps than a T-7.
-
Go run some builds on coriolis with the asp and T-7, then think of the ships overall, to get the shielding and armor values equal your only 50% higher on tonnage (and far behind on time per trip) in the T7, and you're a brick that can't fight back or avoid interdiction, passing through far more systems each trade, you'd need far more shielding and armor than an asp because you'll be in a fight a lot longer than an Asp, taking far more damage.

 

[goemon]

you'll be in a fight a lot longer than an Asp

besides being exactly as long in a fight as an Asp - till you highwake out.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Right, so look at the size, tonnage, and shape of the T-9...why does it only have 500T of cargo space and terrible armor and non stellar internals? It's given up the cargo space to add.....more useless, non armor, hull.

Lakon's crap at making ships? I dunno, lol.

I'm not saying trade ships (or combat ships, for that matter) are in a perfect place, or that Pythons and Anacondas aren't kind of overly powerful. Just that a passive buff to tradeship hulls is a poor solution.

To my eyes, the main issue is that Frontier kind of painted themselves into a corner with the Python and Anaconda (and to a lesser extent, the Asp and Cobra). They're, even post Python nerf, just too good, and have hardly any downsides other than cost. Maybe they have too many internals, maybe it's too large internals, or too big of power plants, or too many hardpoints, I am not sure. Both most all of the complaints of ship balance seem to point back to those two ships as the measure of "balance" that everyone wants their favorite ship to reach. To me, it's then more likely that the standards are wrong, not that everything else is.

How to fix this by not angering people with simple nerfs? Now THAT's the question.

Go run some builds on coriolis with the asp and T-7, then think of the ships overall, to get the shielding and armor values equal your only 50% higher on tonnage (and far behind on time per trip) in the T7, and you're a brick that can't fight back or avoid interdiction, passing through far more systems each trade, you'd need far more shielding and armor than an asp because you'll be in a fight a lot longer than an Asp, taking far more damage.

Yeah, T7 are really dangerous to run in without a wing. I don't dispute that. I only disputed the claim about cargo capacity and the originally proposed tradeship solution of hull buffs.

 

[myrr mac]

Working under the assumption that interdiction is gonna get fixed, I only see a problem with t7. Reasons stated by others here.