FDEV please, T6 should be a small pad ship and T7 medium.

[Vasious]

So you don't play in open? It isn't worthless when getting through a pack of hostile players.

Whilst I cannot help but agree she is a wonderful Blockade runner, learned that in the Lugh War running Imperial small arms to the Federal Army in Khaka; that the Lakon Type series 6 and 7 should be the "most cargo for the pad" seems to make sense from an in game persepctive as their market niche.

Having the Type 6 being the cargo box you squeeze into a small pad and the Type 7 being the cargo box you can just squeeze into a Medium Pad.

 

[Ozram]

Whilst I cannot help but agree she is a wonderful Blockade runner, learned that in the Lugh War running Imperial small arms to the Federal Army in Khaka; that the Lakon Type series 6 and 7 should be the "most cargo for the pad" seems to make sense from an in game persepctive as their market niche.

Having the Type 6 being the cargo box you squeeze into a small pad and the Type 7 being the cargo box you can just squeeze into a Medium Pad.

I agree.

 

[Archvillain]

I'd like an independent competitor to come out of the alliance.

That's a much better idea. (But plz no rank needed, just being allied)

Oooh, what about if the Alliance ship wasn't entirely their own ship, but a special Alliance-tech refit and overhaul - so you have to go acquire a Clipper from the Imperials, bring it to the Alliance, pay a bunch of money, and they rebuild it into their special Clipper2.0

That keeps the Alliance feeling different from the superpowers, keeps that underdog feel, adds a new twist on obtaining a ship, and gives the Alliance a special ship. (They should probably have a fed-ship rebuild too)

 

[Ozram]

That's a much better idea. (But plz no rank needed, just being allied)

Oooh, what about if the Alliance ship wasn't entirely their own ship, but a special Alliance-tech refit and overhaul - so you have to go acquire a Clipper from the Imperials, bring it to the alliance, pay a bunch of money, and they rebuild it into their special Clipper2.0

That keeps the Alliance feeling different from the superpowers, keeps that underdog feel, adds a new twist on obtaining a ship, and gives the Alliance a special ship.

Imagine the grind!!!


But in essence a nice idea. Perhaps it should be aligned with a ship kit per ship where the different visual parts actually signal something about the ships stats and performance.

 

[Archvillain]

the Lakon Type series 6 and 7 should be the "most cargo for the pad" seems to make sense from an in game persepctive as their market niche.

Yes, but I think that's overlooking that the design philosophy of those ships is really to be the "most cargo hauling per dollar". I can easily see cargo layout (and thus pad size) being a valid and logical place for ship-builders to compromise when they're aiming to build the cheapest possible way to haul the most cargo.

 

[Vasious]

Yes, but I think that's overlooking that the design philosophy of those ships is really to be the "most cargo hauling per dollar". I can easily see cargo layout (and thus pad size) being a valid and logic place for ship-builders to compromise when they're aiming to build the cheapest possible way to haul the most cargo.

Well back in the day (ie tested in the original pre-release Betas) there were increase fuel costs and maintenance costs for ships of increase sizes and performance and the Lakon Ships did shine here, especially against the aforementioned Gatamaya Clipper

Alas this went by the wayside

 

[Gryphorim]

Yes, but I think that's overlooking that the design philosophy of those ships is really to be the "most cargo hauling per dollar". I can easily see cargo layout (and thus pad size) being a valid and logical place for ship-builders to compromise when they're aiming to build the cheapest possible way to haul the most cargo.

But even if designed as "most cargo per dollar" missing out on a dock size by that tiniest of margins is a dumb compromise, especially for the t7, because you've just drastically reduced your buyer market. It would make sense to reduce the size of the ship to fit into that smaller bay, even if it meant a slight reduction in overall cargo carried (still best cubic volume per cost by a wide margin)

That said, the easiest routes for FDEV to take to make this a reality would be to slightly reduce undercarriage height, lower the floor platform in docking bays by a meter, as they seem to have this amount of clearance already, or some combination of the two. Aside from this fitting on smaller landing pads, I don't think they need any balance adjustments. T7 isn't really going to appeal to the die-hard python drivers anyway.

As for the suggestion that we need a "small-only" type of outpost, what about shipyards and the other CQC inspired stations?

As for ships that could use a full redesign or at least a variant made to fit the smaller pads, Clipper and Orca could both use some attention.

 

[Flimsey]

Can you imagine a ship as good as the ASP with Imperial styling! Omnom.

That os what i am doing

 

[Flimsey]

It's a fair point, both are bad examples.

A ship's design doesn't necessarily have to take the size of the landing area into account. When Boeing and Airbus made their big planes, their sole aim was to make as big an aircraft as possible. In many cases, runways needed to be extended for them to be able to land. In your aircraft carrier example, the design absolutely has to take in the size of the runway and also storage space (the smaller the aircraft, the more the carrier can store).

It's quite reasonable to assume that ships were developed before landing pads, and landing pads were designed to accommodate ships. They worked out that all the ships would be able to land if using just three sizes of landing pad, and so that is the most efficient way of designing space stations.

If ships were designed to fit pads, then the best design for a trade ship would be an oblong the exact size of the landing pad, and as tall as possible.

So if airbus, scania, mersk or lakon decide to build bigger planes, wider cargo trucks, bigger locks/harbours or humongos space ships. Every country is going to lengthen railways, change all the roads, widen all locks or in elite rebuild every starport?
No you are wrong everything has to follow standard. In RL boats and truck dictates by the sea container, planes i think have different standards but i bet they can be stacked efficently in a sea container.

Im not saying you are wrong about the planes but before those planes be construckted they will know that there will be enough airstrips to land on.

 

[Vasious]

As for the suggestion that we need a "small-only" type of outpost, what about shipyards and the other CQC inspired stations?

The Farragut and Majestic have room for a small Landing pad (if it does not have to lower into a bay)

 

[CMDR Spadino]

Couldn't have said it better myself, but I felt this thought needed to be raised as a thread in it's own right.

The boxy shapes of the T6 and T7 are just like what would be churned out to just barely fit on regulation landing pads. And the only limiter here is the height of both ships, which are within a meter or two of hangar limits. Surely the hangar spaces can be stretched just a little, or the T6 and T7 shrunk just a bit so that they fit on the landing pads they were clearly designed for.

I agree! In fact, I asked for this already. As someone also mentioned, the T7 should be a medium ship, or able to carry a fighter. The T6 is obviously better as a small ship. Keelback is larger, so maybe it could remain as medium...

 

[Bladefeather]

I do have to agree with having the T7 be medium. Either that or a large boost to cargo capacity for the whole Type lineup, perhaps 150 for T6, 350-400 for T7, and 600-700 for T9 would be nice if they were shielded with the lowest possible class. This would make them great trade vessels that won't be outclassed by multi role ships. Also, boost the range of the T7 and T9.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

So, hey, FD... can I get a whoop on making the T-7 a medium? I really would like to use it as an alternative to my Python.

 

[Hasaf]

I do have to agree with having the T7 be medium. Either that or a large boost to cargo capacity for the whole Type lineup, perhaps 150 for T6, 350-400 for T7, and 600-700 for T9 would be nice if they were shielded with the lowest possible class. This would make them great trade vessels that won't be outclassed by multi role ships. Also, boost the range of the T7 and T9.

It is clear that the Dev's feel that traders are something you fly untill you can afford a better ship, not a as a role unto themselves. As it is, and it cannot be an accident, that only advantage trade ships have is cost. They are not poorly thought out, they are well thought out in an effort to push pilots away from trade and into ships suited to "pew-pew."

What I would like to see is a similar level of effort being put into making trade an attractive alternative role, not just something one does to make enough credit to go shooting.

 

[CMDR IPL Victim]

Clipper2 would have to be far more expensive, or weaker than the clipper in some other respect, because as it stands, the pad size limitation is an important piece of keeping the clipper great - but not unbalanced - for its current low low price (20M next to the python's 80M for example).
(The other piece balancing the clipper is that part of the clipper's price is naval rank, but a clipper2 as super-fast and powerful and big and versatile and cheap as the clipper, and also able to land at every destination... not good )

i can see a medium pad imperial ship fitting between the cost and performance barriers outlined there nicely. Perhaps called an Imperial Caravel, or better yet, an Imperial Chebec (to maintain the imperial naming scheme mostly adhered to)... iEagle being the Outlier of the jump capable ships.

reduced armament equivalent to a DBX, lower reverse speed so it cannot outfly ships backwards like a bigger cousin, otherwise good maneuver and speed with cargo cap between the Asp X and Clipper.
Well, I can dream, anyhow.

 

[Don Alvarez]

If the ships are just too tall,

Make the landing gear more squat, and remove SRV capability, and

I would fly these ships again.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

It is clear that the Dev's feel that traders are something you fly untill you can afford a better ship, not a as a role unto themselves. As it is, and it cannot be an accident, that only advantage trade ships have is cost. They are not poorly thought out, they are well thought out in an effort to push pilots away from trade and into ships suited to "pew-pew."

What I would like to see is a similar level of effort being put into making trade an attractive alternative role, not just something one does to make enough credit to go shooting.

Hell with the Big 3.

 

[Vasious]

If the ships are just too tall,

Make the landing gear more squat, and remove SRV capability, and

I would fly these ships again.

Don't need to remove SRV capabilityes

If the ship has to kneel to fit in a Hanger, then it can raise itself up to deploy an SRV

Look at the Sidewinder and the Eagles
All three have extendable landing gear, so when they dock at a station they use standard gear, but when they land on a planet they have extended gear to allow the SRV to deploy

 

[Ozram]

Don't need to remove SRV capabilityes

If the ship has to kneel to fit in a Hanger, then it can raise itself up to deploy an SRV

Look at the Sidewinder and the Eagles
All three have extendable landing gear, so when they dock at a station they use standard gear, but when they land on a planet they have extended gear to allow the SRV to deploy

Yep. This is true of quite a few ships actually. When deploying srv the gear extends.

 

[DukeIronHand]

It's settled then.
T7 on medium pads (you can keep the fighter) and the T6 on small with small pad only locations.
Cargo boost for all T-ships so no more (smaller - sometimes way smaller) multi-role ships carrying more cargo then they.
FD? You writing all this down?
Okay? Ready, break!