exactly this. The Asp is currently a far more effective trader than the T7 if you account for all factors including safety.
Can we please buff trader ships?
- Thread starter Crimson Kaim
- Start date
exactly this. The Asp is currently a far more effective trader than the T7 if you account for all factors including safety.
The "T" line sure could damn well do with an ARMOUR boost, as they are too easy to be killed in now thanks ot buffed NPC/AI pilots
But the Python and Anaconda kick **, now way they need buffs! I RES hunt in 'em, heck I mine AND hunt in an Anaconda
Unless of course, the big caveat:
anyone stupid enough to put smaller shields in them to get more cargo is indeed DUMB and deserves a Darwin Award every time they leave the safety zone of a dock!
But the Python and Anaconda kick **, now way they need buffs! I RES hunt in 'em, heck I mine AND hunt in an Anaconda
Unless of course, the big caveat:
anyone stupid enough to put smaller shields in them to get more cargo is indeed DUMB and deserves a Darwin Award every time they leave the safety zone of a dock!
Yes, I would fully agree with that statement.
Like I said, my only complaint was about the comment of cargo capacity.
could be, yes. i think they made a good job in the cobra class (10-15 mio outfitting if a class), bringing a lot of ships which are better in something else (dbs, dbe, courier).
i hope that neither the cutter nor the corvette has multirole qualities, and the panther simply has double cargo of an anaconda.
I would totally get behind a change like, say, cargo ships, being designed for it, get double capacity from all cargo racks, and combat ships, being designed for it, get double ammo capacity for all hardpoints and shield cells.
I think that would go a lot farther towards actually addressing the core of the problem; that "specialist" ships can't really specialize any better than a multirole ship can.
I think that would go a lot farther towards actually addressing the core of the problem; that "specialist" ships can't really specialize any better than a multirole ship can.
Greetings
I would agree that the T's need a buff as in much much tougher shields and armour ,maybe better weapons but this should come at a severe cost to speed and maneuverability.
Turrets should really be the only option for large traders as defensive weapons placed mid haul top and bottom and maybe one or two front for mining lasars.
I would agree that the T's need a buff as in much much tougher shields and armour ,maybe better weapons but this should come at a severe cost to speed and maneuverability.
Turrets should really be the only option for large traders as defensive weapons placed mid haul top and bottom and maybe one or two front for mining lasars.
Could always just make Tx ships have inherent cargo capacity regardless of internals. Like 8t for a T6, 32t for a T7 and 64t for a T9.
I really think the miniscule benefits of the Tx range are not worth it. Assuming 1k per ton profit, a T9 would have to do 15 trips to make 1m more than an Anaconda could do. When the ships are costing 200m that amount extra is just silly esp considering they can perform one role, two if you consider mining I guess, three at a push if you include smuggling though the low jump range really inhibits it. All in all, the Anaconda fits every role, perfectly well, possibly being the best in every role. The Tx line should be the best trading ships.
Let's hope the Panther shakes things up a bit.
I really think the miniscule benefits of the Tx range are not worth it. Assuming 1k per ton profit, a T9 would have to do 15 trips to make 1m more than an Anaconda could do. When the ships are costing 200m that amount extra is just silly esp considering they can perform one role, two if you consider mining I guess, three at a push if you include smuggling though the low jump range really inhibits it. All in all, the Anaconda fits every role, perfectly well, possibly being the best in every role. The Tx line should be the best trading ships.
Let's hope the Panther shakes things up a bit.
The main point I made still stands:
If you play solo / private group you can use all modules for cargo space to maximise profits as the NPCs are tricky but survivable.
If you play in open expect to be jumped so build your ship accordingly - that means giving up cargo space for defensive modules. - plus you should hyperspace out and not try to get into supercruise.
Last edited:
and my point still stands. it's easier to make an Asp survivable compared to a T7.
it costs as much as a new Python to make the T7 even close to a 100T cargo Asp just for armor and shields. Plus the Asp is faster and has better chance to avoid interdiction in the first place.
I see what you did there. You're a funny man.
Last edited:
I'm all for a buff to Type 7/9 Hull strength. They seem so squishy for the great lumbering hulks of metal that they are
Last edited:
Indeed it is
well then i'm glad we agree that the T7 is pretty useless as is in 1.4
The difference is how close to the attacking ship you are and how easy a target while you highwake out.
make t9 mass lock everything and not get mass locked.
dont give it more armor but let it have allot more total hull hit points so it can have a wide range if module failers at least 3 ( weapons/ distributor cargo hatch or, power plant/engine cargo hatch.
give trader ships a slightly longer fsd cool down than combat and mutlie roll.
(i chose t9 as a example because the most difference is at the top end of the ships)
dont give it more armor but let it have allot more total hull hit points so it can have a wide range if module failers at least 3 ( weapons/ distributor cargo hatch or, power plant/engine cargo hatch.
give trader ships a slightly longer fsd cool down than combat and mutlie roll.
(i chose t9 as a example because the most difference is at the top end of the ships)
I like the Lakon series
Only flown the Type 6 and 7 never the 9, but the Type 7 has been my Bulk trade ship since delivering arms in the Lugh Conflict.
Used it for short range and long range trading out to Sothis, even exploring in the Type 7
The Lakon Type series are Bulk Traders for systems with Good security
I would like the Lakon type 7 to use a medium pad, but that is not a balance thing, more a wish list, as I would also like the winglets to fold up when the gear is down as there seems to be the machinery in place for it.
Only flown the Type 6 and 7 never the 9, but the Type 7 has been my Bulk trade ship since delivering arms in the Lugh Conflict.
Used it for short range and long range trading out to Sothis, even exploring in the Type 7
The Lakon Type series are Bulk Traders for systems with Good security
I would like the Lakon type 7 to use a medium pad, but that is not a balance thing, more a wish list, as I would also like the winglets to fold up when the gear is down as there seems to be the machinery in place for it.
My combat Courier with double chaff against your small-shield trader Conda without shield cells, okay?
Any ship fitted for trading can't realistically defend itself against a combat fitted ship. The only reason the Anaconda doesn't mind is because the shield is still fairly strong due to shield boosters and highest MLF in the game.
Why are the shield "emitters" stronger in combat ships again? I'm installing the same 5 million 5A shield generator into a Type 9 as into a FDL, yet the FDL gets three times the shield strength out of it.
Some people have said that you trade more trading power for less defense when you use a Lakon Type trader, but that couldn't possibly be further from the truth, as Lakons are not that much better compared to the equal size multipurpose ships the game has now
The Hauler (as obsolete as that thing is anyways) has less cargo than the Adder and is inferior in every single way
The Type 6 has less cargo than the Asp (I realize they are quite far apart, but with mission income what it is now, that gap is crossed a lot faster than it used to be 9 months ago, so Type 6s will last new players for a few hours only)
The Type 7 has less cargo than an Imperial Clipper and is just equal or inferior in every other aspect
The Type 9 has 10% more cargo than the Anaconda, but the minuscule jump range prevents it from using many good trade routes.
The balance question here is very simple: Should trade ships be free kills for combat ships? That's pretty much exactly what we have right now. High waking will save you from small fighters, but if your type 9 gets interdicted by two FdLs, you're dead before those 15 seconds are up, and that's 10 million credits poofing.
I've always proposed a significant cargo capacity buff fo pure trading ships, it makes no sense that they're maybe 10% as formidable for combat as a multipurpose ship, while not having any sort of cargo advantage over them. Pure combat ships definitely do have advantages over multipurpose ships when it comes to combat.
So buff what they're supposed to be strong at, add cargo to all of them. Type 6 + 64t, Type 7 +96t, Type 9 +160t in max cargo capacity.
Another thing is discounted insurance. You all know this from RL, your Porsche is a lot more expensive to insure than your family van. Because risky driving is associated with the type of car you drive. Trading ships do not actively seek combat, therefore it makes sense to have them pay less on insurance. Given they're already losing an entire cargo hold on death as well, it's actually the other way around right now. Dieing as a trader is far more expensive as dieing as a combat pilot.