Ships How to increase the surviving chances of my Type-9 Miner/Trader?

[MK Regular]

Isn't simpler to just use coriolis?
Type-9, laden 2206, hull 850, max cargo 790
Type-10, laden 2556, hull 1200, max cargo 534

Laden difference is exactly 350t which is the difference from the hulls alone.
And I'm not quite sure the 350t hull difference translates only into hardness and extra hull points with absolutely no leftovers.

Cargo difference is 256t (the T9 buffed value)
You said that T9 was buffed with 256t cargo and T10 was buffed with 64t core (difference between PD6 and PD7)
That still leaves T10 192t behind the buffed T9. Adding another size7 internal to T10 would mean that T10 is still 64t behind T9

tl;dr = adding another 128t internal to T10 would make it useful, while still being behind the buffed T9

You're still missing the fact that the Type 10 was originally a buffed Type 9. When the Type 10 was released in December 2017, both it and the Type 9 had 532 tons of cargo capacity (the extra size 1 slot was a relatively new addition to all ships), but the Type 10 got an additional 256 tons of core internals (difference between size 6 -> 8 and size 6 -> 7 internals) putting it 256 tons AHEAD of the Type 9 before either ship was buffed. From there, the Type 9 received the 256 ton cargo increase putting it back on par with the Type 10, and the Type 10 got the 64 ton distributor increase putting it back in the lead.

As for the Coriolis laden values you got, for some reason the masses of power plants don't follow the same rules as other modules. Typically, modules follow the rules of :

• E-rated mass is 5/8 * 2^[module size]
• D-rated mass is 2/8 * 2^[module size]
• C-rated mass is 5/8 * 2^[module size]
• B-rated mass is 8/8 * 2^[module size]
• A-rated mass is 5/8 * 2^[module size]

Power plants don't follow all of these rules for some reason. They follow the rules for E and D-rated modules, but for C, B and A-rated modules they use [module size - 1] instead of [module size]. This seems to be why you are getting a difference of 350 tons between the laden ships (which indicates they have no difference in capacity), while my math says that the ships have an internal capacity difference of 64 tons (on top of the 32 tons of hardpoints and the 4 tons of utilities).

Note that your laden masses do not include the utility slots, and my math uses the assumption of D-rated shield boosters in every slot giving the Type 10 an extra 4 tons.

Also note that the Type 10 gets a pair of size 5 military slots that both of our calculations ignore, which could give up to another 64 tons in favour of the Type 10.

Changing the builds you gave to incorporate the "full" power plant masses, utility mounts, and military slots (with 2^[module size - 1] ton hull reinforcements):
Type 9 has a laden mass of 2242 tons
Type 10 has a laden mass of 2724 tons

The Type 10 here has an extra 482 tons of mass, 350 of which is the hull. This leaves 132 tons of additional 'stuff' that the Type 10 gets over the Type 9 as follows:

• 64 tons of internal modules (core and optional)
• 32 tons of hardpoints
• 4 tons of utility mounts
• 32 tons of military slots

 

[Northpin]

...
Note that your laden masses do not include the utility slots, and my math uses the assumption of D-rated shield boosters in every slot giving the Type 10 an extra 4 tons.
Also note that the Type 10 gets a pair of size 5 military slots that both of our calculations ignore, which could give up to another 64 tons in favour of the Type 10.
...

I didn't include the utility slots because they're not internal and they're not compartments/modules.
I didn't include the Military slots for the same reason - they're not compartments, they're reinforcements. And they were also a later additions to the ships.

As for the Coriolis laden values you got...

Are you saying that Coriolis is wrong?

...Changing the builds you gave to incorporate the "full" power plant masses...

There is no such thing as "full" power plant mass and you should stop making up numbers to match your logic.
Size 8B PP is 128t. Not 256t. And obviously it is not the same size as a Size 8 Optional Internal

You're still missing the fact that the Type 10 was originally a buffed Type 9. When the Type 10 was released in December 2017, both it and the Type 9 had 532 tons of cargo capacity (the extra size 1 slot was a relatively new addition to all ships), but the Type 10 got an additional 256 tons of core internals (difference between size 6 -> 8 and size 6 -> 7 internals) putting it 256 tons AHEAD of the Type 9 before either ship was buffed. From there, the Type 9 received the 256 ton cargo increase putting it back on par with the Type 10, and the Type 10 got the 64 ton distributor increase putting it back in the lead.

If we take as granted the fact that buffing the T9 with 256t optional internal was warranted,
then at the same time T10 should had been buffed with 128t of optional internal in addition to the 64t gained from PD increase
As it is now, the 350t difference in hull mass can be accounted only as hull hardness and hull hitpoints, but they dont seem to add up to match the 350t difference

So, T10 is bigger, has 350T more hull mass, yet it can carry 256t less cargo
At the same time, being bigger and heavier, it is sensibly faster even tho it is using the same size thrusters.

Lots of inconsistencies


Edit: but i think we should stop here.
We ruined OP's thread

 

[MK Regular]

I didn't include the utility slots because they're not internal and they're not compartments/modules.
I didn't include the Military slots for the same reason - they're not compartments, they're reinforcements. And they were also a later additions to the ships.

That's fair.

Are you saying that Coriolis is wrong?

No, Coriolis gives the correct values. The in-game mass values for power plants don't correspond with any of the in-game mass values for other same-size modules because reasons.

There is no such thing as "full" power plant mass and you should stop making up numbers to match your logic.
Size 8B PP is 128t. Not 256t. And obviously it is not the same size as a Size 8 Optional Internal

We don't know how much space power plants take up. I'm going on the assumption that the amount of space modules take up is based on class size (and using 'tons' in the context of "how many 1 ton canisters of cargo could fit in here?"), although one could just as easily assume that the required space is based on mass instead.

If we take as granted the fact that buffing the T9 with 256t optional internal was warranted,
then at the same time T10 should had been buffed with 128t of optional internal in addition to the 64t gained from PD increase
As it is now, the 350t difference in hull mass can be accounted only as hull hardness and hull hitpoints, but they dont seem to add up to match the 350t difference

So, T10 is bigger, has 350T more hull mass, yet it can carry 256t less cargo
At the same time, being bigger and heavier, it is sensibly faster even tho it is using the same size thrusters.

Lots of inconsistencies

There are a number of things that the extra 350 tons of hull mass could have been used for:

• Structural reinforcement for the additional hardpoints
• Hull armour
• More shield emitters for stronger shields
• Improved (re: more efficient) ducting for the thrusters to improve performance
• etc...

I still disagree on the Type 10 needing another 128 tons of cargo capacity, but I am willing to agree to disagree on that.

Outside of a few extreme cases (cough Anaconda cough), ship design is fairly consistent compared to some of the other things in ED.

Edit: but i think we should stop here.
We ruined OP's thread

Yeah, we kinda did didn't we? To be fair, there was only 1 post in the last week that wasn't by one of us, so I think the thread was just about dead anyways.

 

[schlowi123]

Hello again, I'm back in the bubble and started engineering my T9.

Now that I can do it "hands-on" I appreciate the explanations to the builds even more.

So far I've got

• 0A Shield boosters (3x) -> Heavy Duty Grade 5, Super Capacitors.
• 7A Thrusters -> Dirty Drive Grade 5, Drag Drive

The prismatic shields have to wait a bit, due to upcoming vacations.

Next I intend to upgrade the powerplant and the power distributor.
For the latter I intended to go "classic" with charge enhanced (due to the mining role) but I'm unsure if I maybe should take the system focused to have better shields. I'm also unsure about which experimental effect to use. Can you help me with that?

For the power plant I intended to go for Overcharged and Thermal Spread. Is that a wise decision?

Also regarding these two. Two builds were posted that used Guardian Modules (powerplant and distributor). What are the benefits of these two? I've seen some videos that explain these two modules but I got the impression it just can matter if figthing. But that is what I want to avoid, thus, it seems it's not worth the grind. Is that correct?
For the powerplant I had the impression that overcharged, thermal spread are almost equally good as the guardian powerplant. Is that a wrong impression?

Thank you again for your help

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

System focused only affects charge capacity and recharge rate— four pips to systems will do the same thing for shield strength regardless of what kind of distributor mods you have. I would go charge enhanced over anything else on 99% of applications.

Charge enhanced+super conduits will give you the best recharge rate, and keep up with your mining lasers better.

Overcharged is fine, and gives you more flexibility with builds. I used to have one on my T9, but eventually switched to an Armored plant for additional defense. Grade 5 armored+monstered gave me just enough to run all of my shielding and gear, so if you go that route, ensure that you have access to grade 5, and the materials to max it out. You may need it.

Regular engineered modules are better than guardian modules past a certain level. If you don’t have access to certain engineers, guardian plants and distributors can make a difference.

A guardian plant has the power output of a grade 4 overcharge, but the poor thermal effeciency of a grade 5 overcharge. It lies somehwere in between. They are more durable than standard overcharged plants.

They are convenient for putting together new builds, since you don’t have to engineer a plant. Definitely worth unlocking I think, even if you only use them temporarily.

 

[schlowi123]

Thank you very much gals and guys for the excellent advice. Two minutes ago (well, maybe it's three now) I survived my first player interdicition in the Upaniklis system . I haven't installed the prismatic shields (since I still don't have them) and I ran of course away. I was not mass locked and ran away. I don't know if I would survive the 1 and a half minutes against an optimized ganker until system security arrives but running away is a totally OK for me. Fits the role I have for the time being.

 

[photomankc]

Thank you very much gals and guys for the excellent advice. Two minutes ago (well, maybe it's three now) I survived my first player interdicition in the Upaniklis system . I haven't installed the prismatic shields (since I still don't have them) and I ran of course away. I was not mass locked and ran away. I don't know if I would survive the 1 and a half minutes against an optimized ganker until system security arrives but running away is a totally OK for me. Fits the role I have for the time being.

Well done man! Nice to see someone harden up and try again.

Consider going with armored/monstered for the power plant and use priority to shut down what you don't have to run when you deploy hard-points. Your power plant, thrusters and FSD will be targets for the ganks so if they can tear down the shields your armor will help, but they are likely not going to take your hull to 0% they will work on smashing modules. If your power plant goes, you go so that 's an obvious target. You are a big, slow, cow and sniping will not be hard. More integrity is more better.

I believe high-wake is not impacted by mass-lock so if you are facing a Python or better look to high-wake rather than just take punishment for minutes waiting to low-wake if that's not already covered.

 

[Hantif]

On a somewhat related note, but not directly responding to the OP - is anyone able to reliably win the interdiction mini-game in a T9?

Against NPCs, I can reliably beat the mini-game if I choose to. G3 Dirty Drives and A-rated core modules helps, but the trick in a T9 is to keep the throttle in the blue zone and remember to use your lateral thrusters, since they start working once the interdiction begins. The mini-game is a bit trickier in a space cow, you have to learn to lead the target circle and guess where it's going to go next. You'll spend more time inside the target circle that way, and you will slowly beat the interdiction.

 

[JetsonRING]

... enemies spawned by missions rather than by random encounters will always try to kill you. They'll never ask for cargo.

NPCs do in fact ask for cargo but they never just take the cargo and leave the CMDR alone, they always try to kill the player whether the player cooperates or not. o7

 

[schlowi123]

I got them prismatic shields. Now I'm good … as usual, the community was awesome. Thank you all for the help

 

[virago3]

[

On a somewhat related note, but not directly responding to the OP - is anyone able to reliably win the interdiction mini-game in a T9?
[/QUOTE]
I always win the mini game in my t9, I think the mini game responds to what ship your in, I find it a lot harder in my Python and Asp exp which obviously respond a lot quicker.