New ship: Panther Clipper

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Xenia_K said:
nope - a Cutter hauls 794 to perload on optimized role, a T9 788 to, so the Cutter hauls more.
Nevertheless I prefer the T9 over the Cutter as I cannot tand that ships drifting, especcially with Grade 5 dirty drives it a pain in the bum
Click to expand...
I think (correct me if I am wrong) the T9 edges it if you want to carry a shield however.

I admit however it's been a long time since I flew one as still not got the rank (so it was back when it was in beta)

for me however the cutter just didn't look utilitarian enough for me to use as a bulk trader , where as the T9 just seemed right to me which is why I never bothered deliberately getting the rank for it.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
KKomrade Sylas said:
I would like to completely annihilate the notion that the forums in any way represent the majority of the playerbase. People here are such a terribly small minority, the forums might as well not exist. It's just the same dozen dudes for years who dominate all discourse here.
Click to expand...
Odd then that the results of the official poll on ship transfer were very much in line with those of the unofficial forum poll that preceded it....
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Stealthie said:
When the number of C1 slots a Panther Clipper has is an issue, something's not right.

There's a bunch of video's on Youtube where people do stuff like compare hauling cargo in a Cutter to a T9 to establish whether smaller capacity and more speed is better than bigger capacity and less speed.
The results I've seen haven't been especially optimistic.
Usually, it seems like a Cutter can haul more cargo in less time even though a T9 can carry more.

With that in mind, and given the PC's alleged cargo capacity, it's going to need to be really useful in some other, secondary, way for me even to consider buying one for credits, let alone Arx.

I currently have a T9 that I use exclusively as a "cargo ferry", for moving stuff to and from my FC and I suppose a PC could take on that job, although I'm kind of attached to my T9, which I've had for ten years.

Beyond that, I'd need to see how gank-proof the PC is before I consider using one for anything that I currently use my Cutter for.
Click to expand...

The PC is SCO optimized, the Clipper and Type 9 aren't. That will be a major differentiator in systems with longer in-system hauls.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Maur said:
Realistically, going by the volume of the game models
Click to expand...
"Realistically" and "volume of the game models" have never belonged together in Elite Dangerous, so it's not a surprise that Frontier aren't starting now, though.

The T-9 is around 20 times the size of the T-6, but is only about 6 times larger in terms of total payload. Elite Dangerous has always had a design where the internal capacity goes up much more slowly than the external size.

(And comparing external volumes to how big cargo canisters are starts raising the question of why the T-6 can't carry 3000t of cargo. The T-9 in a normal fit has a density of maybe 10kg/m3 - which suggests that it's >99% empty space.)
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
SlickPBW said:
D&D’s “bag of holding” has found its way into ED.
Click to expand...
Of all the things in elite which feel like that to me (lasers of cooling being the biggest one) - oh and our magic pockets for materials - i dont mind certain ships having none modular areas which are suited to a specific thing but are tied into that ship (i could fully imagine a fixed part of a ship which was only for storage which makes better use of the space than a generic fit all rectangular rack).

indeed i would support more parts for individual ships which are catered to that ship and its originally designed role which if used give it a bit of a step up over a modular part. i am surprised people feel that is too gamey to be honest as it kind of makes sense to me. bespoke outfitting for a specific ship would be better than generic.

as for why we cant pack the ships full to their theoretical internal volume..... my headcanon is its down to

1) the thrust ability of the engines (perhaps a mechanic where A rated could lift off with heavier loads than E rated would be an interesting idea, but that is not what FD chose to go with)
2) the thickness of any armour / equipment and what not - though admittedly this is not modeled in the game having carefully inspected as many parts of a lot of the ships as possible with a fine tooth comb in VR.

There are lots of things FD could have implemented into elite to make it more complex and i have championed a lot of them over the years but it isnt what we have... but making a brand new ship which just flat out hauls lets say 300% more than anything else in the game despite being the same class of vessel**** (Large landing pad hauler) i dont think was ever gonna happen and if it did i believe would be bad for the game. (which is just my opinion and does not matter 1 jot, but it seems FD feel the same).


**** that said they did kind of do that with the Cobra V
 
Last edited:

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Robert Maynard said:
Odd then that the results of the official poll on ship transfer were very much in line with those of the unofficial forum poll that preceded it....
Click to expand...
its not only that...... i saw a poll for what people hoped for max capacity wise for the ship and whilst there was a spread, 1200 tons wasnt far from what a lot of people said they would be happy with.

wanting a 3000t + hauler to make colonisation less painful is totally missing the point imo. such a hauler would totally screw up trading for anything other than those using a PC - and for the 4 months or so of it being a cash only ship it would be inescapably P2W if there were any trade CGs etc.

imo if anyone wants to make colonisation less painful then they should champion adding extra features into colonisation via the missionboard or what not other than plain hauling.

or OTOH perhaps accept that FD have decided T3 stations are not meant to be done solo but are designed as group content. (which isnt what i want personally but its not my game)
 
Last edited:

tolm

tolm
With size 8 thrusters I wonder how agile it will be … would be hilarious if it ends up out-Corvette’ing the Corvette …
 

Surprize960

S
tolm said:
With size 8 thrusters I wonder how agile it will be … would be hilarious if it ends up out-Corvette’ing the Corvette …
Click to expand...

It would be great if the agility was higher than that of the Cutter, roughly on a par with the Corvette. Then the PC2 would be ideal as a pirate-attracting cargo mission runner, a role that the Corvette currently fulfills for me because the Cutter just flies so badly.

With 5-7 boosters in the utilities, a class 7 shield and the 10 hardpoints, this should work out quite well. Given the class 7 PD, you have to be a bit more conservative with the weapons, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom