Cargo ships of elites

[Misty_Dark]

When I look at the cargo ships I do not follow the logic....


We have 3 sizes of ships,
small
medium
large

So I would expect to have something like this for each size
Entry level trader - Very cheap
Long range trader - Cheap, reduced cargo space (compared to bulk trader), as design is to make the good balance on costs, range and cargo capacity.
Bulk trader - Maximize capacity, at the cost of range and speed. very tough ships, that can take alot of beating. Design is basically a BRICK, to maximize the usage of the landing pad.


Then we have the issue with all stations having small landing pads also have medium landing pads, this have effectively killed off the small traders...So I would like to see that really small outposts/stations only having small landing pads! Making small traders a vialable gameplay.


So what cargo ships do we have?
Hauler - small
Type 6 - Medium
Type 7 - Large
Type 9 - Large


I do not consider Keelback and Type 10 here, as these are combat versions, and I ignore Cobra, Python, Anaconda, Corvette and Cutter, etc, as these are not primarily for hauling...

Entry level traders, Hauler, Type 6 and Type 7
Long range traders, none
Bulk traders , Type 9 (sort of...)


So there are definitely room for more trader ships.....

We could have two more small traders:
Type 4 - For long range trading
Type 5 - Maximized for cargo capacity on a small pad. (this is a BRICK!)


We have room for two more medium traders (I think of these to be Type 7 and 8)
Type 6LR - This is the long range version of type 6,
Type 6B - Maximized for cargo capacity on a medium pad. (this is a BRICK!)


And for large traders we would need some drastic changes.... ( I think of these in this context as Type 9, 10 and 11)
Type 11 - Entry level trader (the existing Type 7)
Type 12 - Long range trader (best fit for is Type 9, but we need to increase the jump range)
Type 13 - Bulk trader. Yet another BRICK! 1000-1500T capacity or something like that...

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

You can't have a dedicated long-range trader, since jump range is dependent on cargo weight. Consequently any ship with lots of large optional slots which can jump a long way fully laden automatically becomes an explorer once you empty it. This is what happened to the T7 when FDev tried buffing it.

 

[Teh Smoo]

You can't have a dedicated long-range trader, since jump range is dependent on cargo weight. Consequently any ship with lots of large optional slots which can jump a long way fully laden automatically becomes an explorer once you empty it. This is what happened to the T7 when FDev tried buffing it.

Role bonus: vastly reduced effect of cargo mass on jump range. At the cost of less space to put cargo in. The mechanics CAN change, you know.

You are so negative, always rushing to tell people why their idea cannot be done, instead of thinking up anything constructive.

 

[Iskariot]

So what cargo ships do we have?
Hauler - small
Type 6 - Medium
Type 7 - Large
Type 9 - Large

I do not consider Keelback and Type 10 here, as these are combat versions, and I ignore Cobra, Python, Anaconda, Corvette and Cutter, etc, as these are not primarily for hauling...

Not considering ships that are very popular and much used ships in the role of freighter seems odd to me.
I always use my cutter for bulk cargo hauling.
The Anaconda is a very popular cargo ship too.
Same is true for the Python, especially when outposts come into play. The Python is the most popular medium freighter in the game.
The Anaconda is a very good ship for long range trading and so is the Cutter.
Also don't forget the Adder. It is a capable small trader.

You can ignore these ships, but then you ignore a huge part of popular game play options.

Whether you personally consider them not to be primarily for hauling is inconsequential. That is not how ships work in Elite... obviously.
The only thing that counts is how ships are actually used by the players.

If you want to make a valuable assessment, then ignoring important ships is not the way to go.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Role bonus: vastly reduced effect of cargo mass on jump range. At the cost of less space to put cargo in. The mechanics CAN change, you know.

You are so negative, always rushing to tell people why their idea cannot be done, instead of thinking up anything constructive.

Reworking the fundamental basics of ship customization and balance at this stage of the game's lifecycle strikes me as a stupid idea.

You can always block me if you feel I'm being a buzzkill.

 

[Teh Smoo]

Reworking the fundamental basics of ship customization and balance at this stage of the game's lifecycle strikes me as a stupid idea.

You can always block me if you feel I'm being a buzzkill.

Incorrect, changing a game is the only way to keep it alive.

I point you to WoW, EVE, any MMO that lasted more than 10 years. They all changed. Players get bored, and age out. Without new people, the game simply dies. Without new systems, people wander off.

EVE did a lot of MASSIVE updates. I remember when it went from low-poly stuff from launch, to newer directX stuff. It left some playerbase in the dust, but the game would have died without it. Any new players would have taken one look, made a remark about bad graphics, and never even tried it.


FD should leave PP and mining alone, if reworking basics is a stupid idea. You're kinda calling them stupid by saying that.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Not considering ships that are very popular and much used ships in the role of freighter seems odd to me.
I always use my cutter for bulk cargo hauling.
The Anaconda is a very popular cargo ship too.
Same is true for the Python, especially when outposts come into play. The Python is the most popular medium freighter in the game.
The Anaconda is a very good ship for long range trading and so is the Cutter.
Also don't forget the Adder. It is a capable small trader.

You can ignore these ships, but then you ignore a huge part of popular game play options.

Whether you personally consider them not to be primarily for hauling is inconsequential. That is not how ships work in Elite... obviously.
The only thing that counts is how ships are actually used by the players.

If you want to make a valuable assessment, then ignoring important ships is not the way to go.

Reason why I ignore those ships, is that their primary function is not cargo hauling, even though they make pretty descent cargo haulers.

The cutter sort of lost alot of appeal for cargo hauling when they boosted the Type 9 to almost have the same capacity. And Type 9 is not locked behind a rank-grind, even though changes have make the rank grind be alot easier than before.


And you seems to have missed my idea that we should have a "brick" in each class that is the king on hauling cargo.


And basically nothing in my suggestions would really change for the other ships, except that a dedicated cargo ship, that is supposed to be built to maximize cargo capacity would be able to haul the most cargo in a single trip.

So if those ships I have excluded are so popular and used, why do you think I excluded those? Because they are more popular! They do not really need lots of tweaking for making them more popular....

But then we have some other ships, that is not so popular, as their use is not so great, even if they are "cheap", as so many other more popular ships can do the same "better". So why you should pick a Type 6 or Type 7? What are the reasons? other than costs? which isn't really any issue any more, as just doing missions could easily give you a descent income, without doing any fancy tricks, etc, you just have to check the missions board and pick missions and complete those...

So what are your suggestions to make lesser used ships more popular?

 

[Misty_Dark]

Reworking the fundamental basics of ship customization and balance at this stage of the game's lifecycle strikes me as a stupid idea.

You can always block me if you feel I'm being a buzzkill.

At what stage? You mean, crazy game changing changes like Engineers? Reworking engineers? Guardian Modules/Weapons? Or totally crazy changes to ships, that magically get more slots to put modules in? Like military slots, for specific modules added to all "combat" ships, or Adding more modules slots to ships like Type 9.... or adding Multicrew, that gives you more available "power" and the possibility to shoot in all direction that is human controlled (Multi crew gunner with turrets), or have ship launched fighters as they give you increased firepower, especially against ships that cannot have SLF. Also we shoudl get rid all the new cool ships we have got, like the Chieftain, DBX (2nd best juymprange!)


Yeah, you are totally correct, we should obviously NOT do any changes to the balance or ship customizations.....


So it is quite clear, that no one should use engineers, as these had a very huge impact on balance!
We should remove all guardian modules, as they changes the balance.
No more increased jump range that we have enjoyed on most ships thanks to engineering and other rebalancing of ships, and the removed bugged Guardian FSD booster...
While we are at it, remove all limpet controllers as well. No more fuel transfer, no repairs (better get right of AFM as well and module reinforcement modules too)
Also we can't have game chaning stuff like Squadrons, fleet carriers either. How would that be if you could have your own movable base placed where you "want" it?


I totally see why we should NEVER do any such changes to the game.

I really want to see all the changes you want us to rollback that fits your description of "Reworking the fundamental basics of ship customization and balance at this stage", as so many changes have had that kind of impact.