Imp Clipper size 7 internal....

[NavyBee]

[...] Why wouldn't you just downgrade to 7D? That's considerably cheaper than 6A at pretty much the same strength.

Agreed, that loadout would be more reasonable. I guess I was lazy and preferred 4*20 sec faster shield recharge.

 

[Mephane]

I think it SHOULD be a class 6. I run a clipper personally and love it to bits. But there is a clear inbalance between it and the T7. The T7 is a PURE trader with very limited defensive capabilites that costs MORE than the clipper (10% discount in Patreus systems thank you) but can't carry as much. Where's the logic there?

If you compare the Clipper, Python and T7, it becomes clear that Clipper and Python are fine - but the T7 deserves a class 7 compartment like the clipper.

 

[Aleksej]

Your calculations are about right with certain limitations, i.e. you can get and equip a Python at the same stations you are currently trading. However, if you go for a discounted ship then you might easily need additional 1-2 hours to get it, equip it and get back to your trade route and these are additional 5-10M Cr of unearned profit.

Currently trading Anaconda is priced at around 140M Cr with ~7M Cr insurance.
Assuming 7M Cr for cargo, this results in 154M Cr, which means that when you can afford a Python (~64M Cr taking into account discounts), ~90M Cr are going to be remaining to get Anaconda (not taking into account time required to sell T7 and its equipment and to buy a Python and equip it).

What does a properly fitted Python mean and why can't you then properly fit a T7?

I think it SHOULD be a class 6. I run a clipper personally and love it to bits. But there is a clear inbalance between it and the T7. The T7 is a PURE trader with very limited defensive capabilites that costs MORE than the clipper (10% discount in Patreus systems thank you) but can't carry as much. Where's the logic there?

And what would be the usage of Clipper then?
Even with 7A shield generator its shields with 4A boosters are not great. Change it to 6A and it looses 16.5% of its shield strength, thus reducing its combat capabilities to non-existent.
Taking into account that it will also result in 64t less cargo capacity, this is going to result in Imperial Clipper being useless as a trading ship as well.
Not to mention that it is not that easy to get this ship early as it requires a pretty high rank with the Empire.

 

[Quineloe]

Maximum jumprange from downsizing distributor and thrusters as well. The Type 7 cannot do this. People often forget about this and that's why the type 7 seems to come out ahead on jump range when it actually does not.

 

[Aleksej]

Maximum jumprange from downsizing distributor and thrusters as well. The Type 7 cannot do this. People often forget about this and that's why the type 7 seems to come out ahead on jump range when it actually does not.

Agreed but then the question is whether you are going to fly a Python with 3A or 4A shield generator as 4A offers 35% more protection. And some of the NPC interdiction are tricky.
But of course, T7's A4 shields are not as good as Python's 3A.

So still I'd say that the conclusion which ship is better is not that trivial due to many variables.

As for the jump range, sometimes the optimization is about gaining addition tenths of the light year.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

If you compare the Clipper, Python and T7, it becomes clear that Clipper and Python are fine - but the T7 deserves a class 7 compartment like the clipper.

IF FD were to change anything (and TBH I do not see it happening) but IF they were then this is the best suggestion imo.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=703,4zh4zh5Rr5Rr01Q01Q0_g0_g,329Y9Y7_7_9Y7_6k,7le7UI4_w9tQ7fO7fO12G12G

I use those too. That above was my combat build. Going PVE swap out the 2nd chaff for a KWS and you can take on any NPC ship anywhere, even the pirate lord missions should be straight forward assuming they arn't in a wing of 5 Anacondas.
Sure you break the Jump range but no more than similar combat ships.

sorry if derailing however your build... how do you get around the 118% power requirements? disabling FSD, interdictor and cargo hatch get you so far, but not 18% surely?

(or do you only power your shield cells when you need them? great if you can do it, but under fire personally i cant pull it off!)

 

[Aleksej]

IF FD were to change anything (and TBH I do not see it happening) but IF they were then this is the best suggestion imo.

- - - Updated - - -



sorry if derailing however your build... how do you get around the 118% power requirements? disabling FSD, interdictor and cargo hatch get you so far, but not 18% surely?

(or do you only power your shield cells when you need them? great if you can do it, but under fire personally i cant pull it off!)

You can always disable SCBs and use them as required. Set the right priorities to weapons so that some of them are disabled when you need to use SCBs.

 

[GammaZ]

I'l guess he only use either 2*3B or 7B SCB, not all of them at the same time.
Then when one of them is depleted it will be disabled manually to use another one.

Personally i woiuld still throw away hull reinforcements and put FS+FSDI there, add 2*class4 SCB-s and remove class 7 SCB (or keep it for even more SCB madness ). But it is a matter of personal preference i guess...

 

[Alex Brentnall]

IF FD were to change anything (and TBH I do not see it happening) but IF they were then this is the best suggestion imo.

sorry if derailing however your build... how do you get around the 118% power requirements? disabling FSD, interdictor and cargo hatch get you so far, but not 18% surely?

(or do you only power your shield cells when you need them? great if you can do it, but under fire personally i cant pull it off!)

Yeah.
Disable everything: cargo hatch, interdictor, FSD and fuel scoop. It allows you to run 1 cell bank at a time. Have to swap out after the 4 uses but thats not too bad. You could run the 2x 3B together or separate depending on how bad the situation is.

 

[NavyBee]

BTW, if folding under fire is a concern, the Type 7 flat out loses anyways due to lower MLF and far lower speed. If you expect to get shot at, a 6A Thruster Clipper is the best thing in the world right now.

I absolutely love that build - a trading Clipper with A6 Thrusters is the ultimate blockade runner!

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

If you compare the Clipper, Python and T7, it becomes clear that Clipper and Python are fine - but the T7 deserves a class 7 compartment like the clipper.

As it was said in this thread before already, the pure traders lose out so much, it isn't funny. Adder > Hauler, Asp > T6, Clipper > T7, Conda > T9. To make the trading ships really worth flying over a much better defended multirole ship would be an increase in the cargo capacity by roughly 50%. That would mean giving the Hauler a class 4 compartment, putting it at 26t vs 22t Adder, The T6 one more class 5 and one more class 3 compartment, giving it 144t vs 120t Asp. The T7 would need one class 4, 5 and 6 compartment upgraded to one class higher, giving it 324t vs 240 for the Clipper, which is also better than Python as a tradeoff for the T7 being unable to land at outposts. The T9 finally would need the class 7 and the class 6 compartment upgrade by one for 692t over the 452t of the Conda. Then of course it needs either a class 7 FSD or a significant hull mass reduction, or it won't get anywhere anymore.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

As it was said in this thread before already, the pure traders lose out so much, it isn't funny. Adder > Hauler, Asp > T6, Clipper > T7, Conda > T9. To make the trading ships really worth flying over a much better defended multirole ship would be an increase in the cargo capacity by roughly 50%. That would mean giving the Hauler a class 4 compartment, putting it at 26t vs 22t Adder, The T6 one more class 5 and one more class 3 compartment, giving it 144t vs 120t Asp. The T7 would need one class 4, 5 and 6 compartment upgraded to one class higher, giving it 324t vs 240 for the Clipper, which is also better than Python as a tradeoff for the T7 being unable to land at outposts. The T9 finally would need the class 7 and the class 6 compartment upgrade by one for 692t over the 452t of the Conda. Then of course it needs either a class 7 FSD or a significant hull mass reduction, or it won't get anywhere anymore.

I agree. There is literally no reason to fly a T9 and suffer 1000 interdictions per trip when an Anaconda with a Combat-Trading loadout gets 1 interdiction and demolishes the attacker, for that 50T difference you even get a crazy jump range increase in the Conda. Traders are in fact underpowered for anything except group/solo and wings.