Make the Type 7 a medium ship

[Stealthie]

OR make it possible to land on medium pads but not enter the hangar. That would still allow the Type 7 to trade, repair, and rearm at outposts. The whole "we gotta spin you around before you take off" requirement at an outpost is ridiculous, and it's the only reason the T7 can't land on a medium pad.

To be pedantic, it's not just that, though, is it?

The problem is that you start the game inside the hangar so that'd need changing, which would probably lead to all sorts of instance-related shenanigans.

How much lower does the T7 need to be?
Maybe it'd be possible to give it dumpy little landing struts so it could fit inside a medium hangar without further changes?

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

To be pedantic, it's not just that, though, is it?

The problem is that you start the game inside the hangar so that'd need changing, which would probably lead to all sorts of instance-related shenanigans.

How much lower does the T7 need to be?
Maybe it'd be possible to give it dumpy little landing struts so it could fit inside a medium hangar without further changes?

It would have to lose 3m in height.

 

[Tryst]

What most people seem to forget is that the Python is a multi role, but like the Jack of all trades, it is master of NONE.

Manouvering is crap, even for the size of the ship, so it isn't really great for combat despite its firepower.
It has a decent jump range but not massive, even with engineering mods, so it's not really well suited to exploration.
The hold can be big but not huge, so it's not really well suited to extremely lucrative mining or trading.

It's more of a step-up ship that players use to trade in more dangerous areas where trade is more profitable but a T7 would get chewed up and spat out like so much tinfoil. Most players buy a Python on their way to getting an Anaconda or one of the faction ships. It's not really the kind of ship that players keep long term. About the only redeeming feature is that it looks sleek. In addition, these more lucrative areas often only have outposts with medium pads at most and few stations that have large pads. This makes the Python ideal for them, while the T7 is better suited to trading in the safer areas where large pads are abundant.

You could say the same about the Anaconda which potentially, has an even larger cargo hold and even more firepower. It can also be a multi-role ship but doesn't really excel at anything. Quite honestly, mining is about the only role that suits it better than most.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

It's more of a step-up ship that players use to trade in more dangerous areas where trade is more profitable but a T7 would get chewed up and spat out like so much tinfoil. Most players buy a Python on their way to getting an Anaconda or one of the faction ships. It's not really the kind of ship that players keep long term. About the only redeeming feature is that it looks sleek. In addition, these more lucrative areas often only have outposts with medium pads at most and few stations that have large pads. This makes the Python ideal for them, while the T7 is better suited to trading in the safer areas where large pads are abundant.

You are very very wrong. The Python is the #1 ship almost everyone keeps, because it's the undisputed king of the medium pad. Even the two Kraits haven't changed that.

 

[Old Duck]

The problem is that you start the game inside the hangar so that'd need changing, which would probably lead to all sorts of instance-related shenanigans.

The solution is easy - if you log out while sitting on a medium pad, you respawn in space a few thousand meters from the outpost. And hangar spawning is already a source of "instance-related shenanigans", so I don't see the issue here. Now in Space Engineers, your ship is where it is - always. Nothing "disappears" when you log out. Your character continues to exist in a cryopod, and your ship continues to exist parked wherever you left it. If someone is hogging a public docking port by logging out while docked, then someone else can come along and give them a nice push, and they'll gently float away (or deorbit in a fiery death). Oh, and this is something else SE gets right - you don't have to "land" on a pad in the vacuum of space a zero-G environment - you can just pull your ship up to a free connector in order to transfer goods. A ship can (and often is) be bigger than the entire station it's trading with using this docking port method. Why ED doesn't have something similar (at least on outposts) is beyond me.

 

[Danieros]

What most people seem to forget is that the Python is a multi role, but like the Jack of all trades, it is master of NONE.

Master of none? It is undisputed master of trading and passenger capacity (similar ships that are dedicated to these roles and would compete with it do not fit in medium pads, which is the whole point of this thread).

It does not lose in firepower - a size 7 PP and PD, along with hardpoints that rivals all combat-focused ships for the medium pad.

In the agility deparment, it actually boasts better agility than all other ships that have a size 7 Power Distributor, without any compromise that the other combat ships have.

For exploration, it won't be very behind either - it fits the largest FSD available in medium pads (size 5). It will lose to the ships with lighter hull mass in this range (and the abnormally light Anaconda which is only 50 tons heavier but uses a size 6 FSD), but if you downsize modules for exploration, you can get in the 55+ ly range which is good enough.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

It does not lose in firepower - a size 7 PP and PD, along with hardpoints that rivals all combat-focused ships for the medium pad.

I almost perfectly agree with everything you wrote, except this. In combat the Krait II has taken over. Better agility, better convergence and a fighter bay. Same distributor, same hardpoint size and number.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Oh, and this is something else SE gets right - you don't have to "land" on a pad in the vacuum of space - you can just pull your ship up to a free connector in order to transfer goods. A ship can (and often is) be bigger than the entire station it's trading with using this docking port method. Why ED doesn't have something similar (at least on outposts) is beyond me.

Pilots Federation got a never-ending patent for the standardised landing pads we have, and due to some shady dealing with all the super powers, they all allow PF to get away with this, as otherwise PF could topple them all. as everyone must use PF flight systems to navigate... that is the real reason why Lakon might be bought by another ship vendor, as they where starting to creating their own competing system... I am still surprised that Fleet Carriers do no thave the otherwise mandatory flip ships around mechanic... I expect PF to rectify this oversight in a later revision of their approval process for Fleet Carriers.


Why Lakon refuses to create a new Type 7, that is better suited for their current landing pad sizes is still beyond me..

 

[Shadowed]

Type 7 absolutely deserves to be a medium ship. It should be the best medium trade ship.

 

[Danieros]

I almost perfectly agree with everything you wrote, except this. In combat the Krait II has taken over. Better agility, better convergence and a fighter bay. Same distributor, same hardpoint size and number.

True! For some reason I see an "agility" stat on Coriolis in which the Python has 129 and the Krait II has 126, but their manoeuvrability in-game stat is 2 versus 3.

It gets these advantages for combat (fighter bay/convergence are important combat points and there's also a 30 ton lighter ship hull helping it) and loses a size 6 optional slot for it (64 tons of cargo). Frankly the Mk2 and Python might be the most balanced ship comparison to dabble in - you can see what is getting exchanged and it's very reasonable.

 

[ethelred]

Pilots Federation got a never-ending patent for the standardised landing pads we have, and due to some shady dealing with all the super powers, they all allow PF to get away with this, as otherwise PF could topple them all. as everyone must use PF flight systems to navigate... that is the real reason why Lakon might be bought by another ship vendor, as they where starting to creating their own competing system... I am still surprised that Fleet Carriers do no thave the otherwise mandatory flip ships around mechanic... I expect PF to rectify this oversight in a later revision of their approval process for Fleet Carriers.


Why Lakon refuses to create a new Type 7, that is better suited for their current landing pad sizes is still beyond me..

Why Lakon didn't fit a rear hardpoint (a la WW2 bomber style) to the T7 is also beyond me

 

[Stealthie]

You are very very wrong. The Python is the #1 ship almost everyone keeps, because it's the undisputed king of the medium pad. Even the two Kraits haven't changed that.

Indeed.

There are a couple of areas where the Python isn't the outright best but it's so close it'll never bother you.

Kind of like, if you want a cargo ship you'll probably be looking at a Cutter or a T9.
If you really, really, want cargo capacity you're going to pick the T9 but you're probably going to really miss the other benefits the Cutter has.

With the Python, even if it isn't The Best at something, it's so close that you're probably not going to care.

 

[Tryst]

Indeed.

There are a couple of areas where the Python isn't the outright best but it's so close it'll never bother you.

Kind of like, if you want a cargo ship you'll probably be looking at a Cutter or a T9.
If you really, really, want cargo capacity you're going to pick the T9 but you're probably going to really miss the other benefits the Cutter has.

With the Python, even if it isn't The Best at something, it's so close that you're probably not going to care.

The Cutter isn't even as good as the Anaconda for cargo. I ranked up to get a Cutter and am now regretting wasting my time since I already had an Anaconda. The Cutter only holds more cargo if you sacrifice the shields, which you don't have to with the Anaconda.

As I said the Python is only really good for hauling if you are using it in a more dangerous area, since it can look after itself better than the dedicated haulers can. It's still an all purpose ship and there are many dedicated ships that can do the same individual jobs far better, but you sacrifice the multi-role aspect.
Asp Explorer has a better jump range and is better for exploration.
Mamba, Vulture and several others are better for combat, one of these could take out a Python and not even break a sweat with a half competent pilot.
The best hauler of all is the Anaconda, even though it doesn't use the medium pad. It's also the best mining ship.

Really, the only reason to keep a Python is because the only thing it's good at is being a multi-role ship. It IS the best multi-role ship. It's the jack of all trades, but it really doesn't come close to mastering any of them.

The ONLY reason I keep mine is for cargo mission running as it can handle the majority of enemy NPC's the mission throws at you and has the agility to avoid interdiction or boost clear of anything tougher, it can hold enough to not have to switch ships and is fast enough for courier work as well as being able to land on outposts so you don't have to switch ships. If I was running purely data delivery missions, the Imperial Courier is the best for that, as well as being able to hold a SRV bay for planetary scan missions.

 

[Bigmaec]

The Cutter isn't even as good as the Anaconda for cargo. I ranked up to get a Cutter and am now regretting wasting my time since I already had an Anaconda. The Cutter only holds more cargo if you sacrifice the shields, which you don't have to with the Anaconda.

I guess you mixed up Cutter and Python a bit here?

 

[Tryst]

I guess you mixed up Cutter and Python a bit here?

No, I quoted and was responding to @Stealthie who said the Cutter or the T9 was the choice for cargo ships.

 

[Bigmaec]

No, I quoted and was responding to @Stealthie who said the Cutter or the T9 was the choice for cargo ships.

Then your sentence makes no sense, as the Cutter is by far better for cargo hauling then the Anaconda.

 

[FullThrusters]

How much is a python and Type-9 cause I would like to find one at a decent price I can never remember where to find each ship

also the Type-7 is a whale of a good time, I am thinking of downgrading to a small ship or maybe a AspX just better flight and overall feel of the ship.

 

[myothershipisacobraiv]

yah it's the way it should be because Python is almost useless multirole stepping stone

and the T7 is really good at hauling

(give the T7 something. medium is what makes sense)

 

[Factabulous]

When Odyssey comes out you'll be able to make the T7 a Medium ship by installing suitable crew:

Spoiler: T7 Medium Crew

Edit: Finally it will be the perfect ship for all those forum necromancers

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

The Cutter isn't even as good as the Anaconda for cargo. I ranked up to get a Cutter and am now regretting wasting my time since I already had an Anaconda. The Cutter only holds more cargo if you sacrifice the shields, which you don't have to with the Anaconda.

Um...no. T9 can carry 758t with size 5 shield, Cutter can carry 730t with size 6 shield (or 762t if you are lucky and have a legacy engineered size 5 shield with +10% optimal mass), Anaconda can carry 454t with size 4 shield. Even the Corvette beats that with 586t and size 5 shield.