Gotta agree with this [up]
No Love for the space cow? ❤️️🐮
- Thread starter Melkundu
- Start date
Gotta agree with this [up]
The problem is not with most of the specialty ships, it’s with the big three. They make everything else irrelevant. If you can have a ship that fights like a battle ship, hauls cargo like a container ship and handles like a destroyer… why would you fly anything else? In the real world these are three very different boats, In ED they are all wrapped up in a ‘multi-purpose” ship. In reality a multi purpose ship should be ‘ok’ at everything. Purpose built ships should VASTLY outperform non purpose built ships at the task they were designed for. Combat ships should be combat ships… little to no cargo, great shields,maneuverability and punching power, Cargo runners should have massive cargo holds, be slow and have limited defenses, explores light, fast, insane jump ranges, and limited firepower. As it is the “big 3” are great at everything, and that is the problem with the rest of the ships.
I meant that a ship like the Conda is basically better at all the specific purposes, which is a bit awkward. A dedicated ship is expected to be better at its thing, as you said; I implied that a multipurpose like the Conda is too good at everything, which is sort of saying the same thing
A game about flying spaceships is expected to promote the use of shipS depending on the use, the situation, etc. Not push towards owning a Conda, then offering variety for taste. I'm exagerating on purpose.
The big3 aren't the real problem... they are really expensive after all (not everyone makes riches by "biowaste" delivery), of course the should hande stuff better than smaller ships.
Also aside from the Conda all of them have some downsides - secondary mostly, but hey at least some downsides.
The real Problem of the specialazed ships are the multipurpose ships flanked by the fact that FDev want to have "every ships in Elite highly configurable". Thats not how it works.
It makes the Multipurpose Python the best ship in the game. It's good at combat, has many internal spaces for cargo, a good jumprange and is cheap (compared to all the specialized and bigger ships).
The game needs special modules like they did allready with the passenger ships, it's time to get rid of the "everything can handle everything" idea. You would't use a 10t truck for passenger transportation and you wouldn't use an Omnibus to transport 10t cargo - and you wouldn't use either of them as weapon platforms in a conflict area.
The Big3 on the other hand need investment, getting nerfed soon for combat and two of them are behind a secon grind layer, they don't need a further downgrade, but the shouldn't get a benefit from future specializations either.
Last edited:
Sure, that’s a good way to “skin the cat”. My point is just that the specialty ships should in all cases be better at one specific thing than any of the “multi-role” ships. I think your idea of limiting applicable modules would work as well as anything else.I do however, take umbrage with the fact that just because something is expensive, it should be invulnerable. The price of something is not arbiter of it’s abilities alone. An aircraft carrier is a hugely expensive warship, but is actually quite vulnerable without its defensive screen destroyers and subs (and uh… the sire craft). Point is price is not the gate to invulnerability.
i am ok with the "everyone can modify his ships like he wants".
but specialised ships shoud excell at their specialisation in a way, that cannot be beaten by a multipurpose ship.
bringing in the price argument doesnt help, as there are no two ships that cost the same. you can only look at the ship class to compare them.
this already anoyed me when i started, and noticed that the multipurpose "Adder" is better at hauling then the "Hauler"
but specialised ships shoud excell at their specialisation in a way, that cannot be beaten by a multipurpose ship.
bringing in the price argument doesnt help, as there are no two ships that cost the same. you can only look at the ship class to compare them.
this already anoyed me when i started, and noticed that the multipurpose "Adder" is better at hauling then the "Hauler"
I also think the T9 should have more cargo-space...
OR, if FD really want it to be a lower tier ship, they could at least create a new, bigger space-cow...
A slow and bulky Space-Mammoth with a strong FSD (jumping like an Ana) and about 1000t cargo...
Trading needs more love, in what form ever
OR, if FD really want it to be a lower tier ship, they could at least create a new, bigger space-cow...
A slow and bulky Space-Mammoth with a strong FSD (jumping like an Ana) and about 1000t cargo...
Trading needs more love, in what form ever
Price. It's incredibly cheaper to fly a Type 9 as opposed to any of the Big 3.
Because a cargo ship is any order of magnitude more affordable than any cruise ship or especially a war ship.
Fast googling:
Cargo ship prices IRL: 10-100 million dollars.
War ship prices IRL: on the order of 7-30 BILLION dollars.
Not even close to comparable.
I agree, increase cargo to match the cutter at least!
- - - Updated - - -
Bigtime
With a corresponding change in PRICE to be on the order of a full billion to purchase & outfit, like the Cutter? Then fine. Go right ahead. (For reference, it cost me maybe 180 million all told to buy and A-fit my Type 9, including boosters and weapons and all.)
oh, please show me a comparable fit, please
a grade t9 costs almost 400m, the cutter a bit more then 900.
the higher outfitting price of the cutter comes from higher tier modules you fit.
if they change what you can fit on the t9, it naturally will cost more.
Last edited:
The only way you'll push a Type 9 past ~190 million is by using the military bulkheads, which is both overexpensive and counterproductive for trading in most cases; nobody in a trader wants to stick around for when shields go down anyway.
However, I grant the same logic applies to a trading Cutter; the one I currently fly would cost you ~605 million to build. (assuming fully armed/properly shielded in both cases)
That's still a significant gap of over 3 times the cost of a Type 9. (Which is actually a larger proportion than that of the stock Type 9 - ~75 million - versus the stock Cutter at ~200 million.)
Cargo racks being relatively cheap, buffing its cargo capacity won't add to the cost of a Type 9 significantly at all - a few million more at most. You'd have to bump up the stock price of the ship by quite a lot to bring it anywhere close.
Last edited:
Price is an irrelevant factor as it is, essentially, an arbitrary figure added after the fact by FD in a attempt to achieve some kind of "balance and sense" to a non-sensical system.
If I designed a Cobra Mk IX with a mass of 100 tons (ship mass = another arbitrary FD figure - see Anaconda) and it can haul 500t of cargo does charging 200 million credits for purchase make it make sense?
If I designed a Cobra Mk IX with a mass of 100 tons (ship mass = another arbitrary FD figure - see Anaconda) and it can haul 500t of cargo does charging 200 million credits for purchase make it make sense?
Last edited:
That's a great idea, but it should be the Type-7, not T9, that's converted to use medium landing pads.
Dude, what? Are we playing the same game?
Price is *the* relevant factor. It's the prime measure by which you measure the accessibility of any ship, followed somewhat closely by if it's rank-locked.
Seeing it as "an arbitrary figure added after the fact" makes me question whether you're one of those Ceos/Sothis players who've exploited so much money out of the system that you've forgotten what credits are for....
Mass is clearly *not* a variable by which ship viability has been or is meant to be measured by - just another one of the variables that can be tweaked, like the size of a powerplant or the default fuel tank.
As for your Cobra Mk IX example, I wouldn't know what the correct price would be. The figures ingame are a bit too specific to just be arbitrary/random. Other factors come into play, I imagine: How many weapon hardpoints? How many utility hardpoints? What kind of internal classes are available? How many/what size optional internals are there? All those questions, I feel, are a part of what confers a final pricetag.
Which, going back to a Type 9 if it were buffed, would mean it wouldn't get to Cutter price just by more cargo capacity, unless it's a LOT more capacity, but it would still have to be significantly more to purchase than it currently is if you, say, added a new Class 8 optional internal slot.
- - - Updated - - -
This is what got me excited about SLFs back when that feature was first announced...my immediate jumped-to conclusion was that I'd be able to use a Sidey or Eagle to *finally* interact with outposts again.
I'm glad I didn't start holding my breath for that, else I'd have long ago become a dead Smurf.
still, you pack like twice the stuff, and higher tier stuff into your cutter, and still take that as base for your price argumentation, while your defensive and offensive numbers tripple too?
- - - Updated - - -
Then keep everything the same, fine...but then allow the T9 and only the T9 of the large vessels to land at outposts. For storyline conceptualizations, just say that some political figure has someone over a barrel to get this done galaxy wide.
the issue with that is the model size.
the T7 doesnt fit into a medium landing bay - physically
the Python just fits into it, because its flat enough
FDEV has to enable outposts to trade via limpets through this slot:
but that would enable the same feature for any other big ship too
Last edited:
The price-point for Cutter/Anaconda/Python, etc is because they're multipurpose, as opposed to the T-series which are fairly useless beyond dedicated trade ships and the like. The increased fitting price is the tradeoff for those multipurpose ships; they *must* have higher class fitting slots to enable them to be multipurpose.
The end result of this is a ship that should be a jack of all trades in general, but a dedicated fit should only get it *on par* with a specialised ship of that type, not superior. Right now that's not the case.
The price point also comes from the fact that, say, you buy a Python, a fit it out, all done for any task. But if you buy a t7, you then need to shell out for an FDL and pay for additional fitouts if you want a comparable combat capability.
Advantage of a Python is you can just interchange fits if capital is a premium au the time, but if you sell fits in your FDL to fit a T7, your FDL is useless.
The end result of this is a ship that should be a jack of all trades in general, but a dedicated fit should only get it *on par* with a specialised ship of that type, not superior. Right now that's not the case.
The price point also comes from the fact that, say, you buy a Python, a fit it out, all done for any task. But if you buy a t7, you then need to shell out for an FDL and pay for additional fitouts if you want a comparable combat capability.
Advantage of a Python is you can just interchange fits if capital is a premium au the time, but if you sell fits in your FDL to fit a T7, your FDL is useless.
Last edited:
Accessibility?
What in the Seven Hells of Luxor does "accessibility" have to do with anything in this thread?
We are talking ships, ship purpose, and the designs of such as represented in the game.
Price means nothing in this discussion.
And to address the other point made above (not by you) in regards to "multipurpose" ships.
So I take a ship that's more then half the size of dedicated trader but charge twice as much and call it "multipurpose" that now means it can haul the same amount of cargo as the dedicated bigger ship. A ship made for only one thing?
How does that make sense?
Charging twice as much for a ship, then slapping a label of "multirole" on it, doesn't mean it should hail the same amount of cargo as a dedicated cargo ship twice its size does it?
Sorry but if there is sense or logic there it is above my head because I don't get it.
Last edited: