Love for cargo ships.

[Vasious]

When you say grind like mad, do you mean:

(i) Ask where most Imperial Charity missions are
(ii) Dump credits into all available on bulletin board there
(iii) Instance switch to refresh and return to (ii) until your next promotion?

That, to me, does sound like madness, yes.

---

That the Dev sais that they can allow internals on certain ships to be the only fits to fit certain modules does open up some interesting possibilities.

High Capacity cargo racks, or armoured cargo racks for the Lakon Type series are interesting ideas.

I saw here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/283520-Lakon-Fragment-Cannon that the dev stream had a Lakon branded module, so the possibly of proprietary cargo rack that only fits their haulers, it the specialised internals could become a thing.

The Cargo racks seem to hold 4 canisters per SRV sized space, or an alternative configuration by Lakon could allow for more canisters per space without a Tardis effect

I do like the Type 7 none the less, the had the niche of low running costs and repairs relative to cost of ship once.

 

[RedWarden]

Love this discussion. And very interested in a "Freighter Cargo Rack" option. Curious how that would play out.

I think one immediate fix for the T-7 would be to simply allow Medium landing pads. If the Python can land on a pad, then so can the T-7. That would give it an advantage over the Clipper with similar haulage.

We really can't decide on a trucker progression without considering costs. We can't compare a T-7 to a Python, or a Python to an Anaconda because the cost is so much more. Also I discount faction ships because calling the Clipper superior to the T-7 "for the same money" completely ignores reputation grind needed. Unless another Comm Goal comes along that removes the restrictions.

I would have liked the T-7 be about 7MCr rather than 17MCr. T-6 at 1M then the next freighter at 17MCr? Wow! I personally stepped into an Asp (@ 6+MCr) for a marginal cargo bump, but went exploring. Then played with the T-7 much later.
We have room for a 30-35MCr T-8 *if* the T-9 moves up into Anaconda price territory. Each step 5-7 times the cost of the previous ship, etc.
Also each T-ship would have double of the cargo of it's cheaper sibling. (T-6=100, T-7=200, T-8=400, T9=800). BUT the Panther would have to be enormous. And after Beluga shrinkage....not sure the Panther would retain its size.

Specialized freighter modules makes things interesting. I would love to see something like this. Bottom line at a given price point the Freighter should always have superior cargo capability.

(I sold my T-9 after being completely ripped apart by dangerous/deadly/elite NPCs on more than one occasion and I couldn't afford to keep it. I loved flying it for the week or so I had it: <500t 8-9 ly jumps. LOL. That Morai CG doubled the money I've ever made in Elite...so someday soon she'll be back)

 

[Frank]

I keep thinking of ditching the Anaconda as a trader and engineering the hell out of a Type-9 instead. I need to take up more docking slot space to fulfil myself as a person.

I can remember wanting to build a battlecow. I just didn't have the money to do it justice. I still don't, but at least now we have engineers that can do something about that turn rate. A fully specced battlecow with maxxed mods has to be the ultimate rich man's folly. It's on my to-do list <grin>

 

[Drezden]

Devs could revisit operating costs again (fuel + maintenance). Currently operating cost are determined mostly in terms of insurance and cargo loss, which skews in favor of multiroles survivability. The downside of multirole is higher initial cost.

 

[V'larr]

I loved my cargo ships. They were perfectly fine and balanced for the cost I paid to purchase them. Now I've got an Anaconda, and soon will have my hands on the Imperial Cutter...I reckon it'll be a small matter of time after that to get a Corvette, too.

And it's those cargo ships that got me the kinds of funds I needed to fulfill that dream, for far less investment than it would have taken if I had instead gone the (more popular) route of the Asp Explorer > Python > Tradeconda.

The main problem I think people keep having is they overestimate the "tier" of cargo ships.

The Type 6, for instance, is more "Cobra III" tier than "Asp Explorer" tier, capability-wise.

Type 7 is more "Asp-E" tier than Python-tier.

And the Type 9 is more on that level of the Python/Imperial Clipper/FAS, and definitely ain't on the level of the current "Anaconda-tier" trinity.


Really what I think everyone wants/expects is a non-faction-unique endgame cargo ship, but run into trouble when they assume it's the Type 9.

Currently, it's the Imperial Cutter (though the Corvette's cargo capacity potential is nothing to sneeze at either), which is understandably not the most apparent thing in the game.

 

[Commandeur_Brin]

I loved my cargo ships. They were perfectly fine and balanced for the cost I paid to purchase them. Now I've got an Anaconda, and soon will have my hands on the Imperial Cutter...I reckon it'll be a small matter of time after that to get a Corvette, too.

And it's those cargo ships that got me the kinds of funds I needed to fulfill that dream, for far less investment than it would have taken if I had instead gone the (more popular) route of the Asp Explorer > Python > Tradeconda.

The main problem I think people keep having is they overestimate the "tier" of cargo ships.

The Type 6, for instance, is more "Cobra III" tier than "Asp Explorer" tier, capability-wise.

Type 7 is more "Asp-E" tier than Python-tier.

And the Type 9 is more on that level of the Python/Imperial Clipper/FAS, and definitely ain't on the level of the current "Anaconda-tier" trinity.


Really what I think everyone wants/expects is a non-faction-unique endgame cargo ship, but run into trouble when they assume it's the Type 9.

Currently, it's the Imperial Cutter (though the Corvette's cargo capacity potential is nothing to sneeze at either), which is understandably not the most apparent thing in the game.

So basically either we get the Panther Clipper and It's all sorted out (kinda) or they need to buff the whole cargo ship class into something more than a stepping stone to a multi-role ship that is basically better at everything.

I mean multi-role ships should be somewhat good at everything but definitely not better than a specialized ship in it's domain.

 

[dunnst]

I understand this thread as mostly a sum of possibilities for Fdevs to consider. They shall have the final word as they can evaluate this from a wider view. For example the factin specific ships cost you a lot of time to progress and lots of money too. So it's ok, if they are somehow superior to non-faction ships. On the other hand, it makes little logic, when an empire, a military organisation, has it's top vessel as transport ship. Should the number of ships double, it would make complete sense to have faction specific cargo ship, let's say Imperial T10 or so.

 

[V'larr]

So basically either we get the Panther Clipper and It's all sorted out (kinda) or they need to buff the whole cargo ship class into something more than a stepping stone to a multi-role ship that is basically better at everything.

I mean multi-role ships should be somewhat good at everything but definitely not better than a specialized ship in it's domain.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about: "The main problem I think people keep having is they overestimate the "tier" of cargo ships." - what's off is your perspective on what "tier" the cargo ships hold.

A type 7 is not comparable to a Python. They have similar cargo potential but the Python is much more capable (and much more expensive).

If you look at ships based on price-range, you get a much better idea of comparable potential. (head to https:coriolis.io and click the "Cost" tab to sort ships by cost)

You'll see the Type-7 is comparable in price to ships like the Federal Dropship and the Imperial Clipper, certainly not the Python. And it most *definitely* has far better cargo capacity than either of those ships!

The type 6 is in the price range of the Diamondback Explorer and Cobra Mk IV - and again, compared to those ships, has a much better cargo capacity.

Same with the Type-9; it's little bit more than the Python in price range, but half-or-less the cost of any "Anaconda"-tier ship. For its price range it's no competition when it comes to cargo capacity.

But in that, I think you are right about the Panther, and that's the role I think we'll see it taking, unless it goes a tier further and is clearly even better than the Imperial Cutter. (I hope not, the Imperial Cutter is one good-looking ship, takes a LOT of work to get and I'd have trouble coming up with a reason to keep one if not as a cargo ship!)

 

[Weps]

I was really excited when they announced their intention to investigate role specific modules at Gamescom. In my opinion, they should test cargo / trade specific modules come the next Beta, because this is an activity a lot of people get into (compared to passengers).

 

[NCFCpaul]

Yay Panther Clipper! Huge capacity, bristling with weapons, don't mess with the king of Frontier (Amiga version). I have no idea how much such a ship would cost but it's got to be worth it.
As an aside I have a great fondness for my type 6- as a trader I started making good money, as a rare trader I did better, a quick refit later it serves as a surprisingly decent explorer. A really versatile ship that gets overlooked too readily