Ship launched cargo transport vessel

[Velixar]

Well I think the Keelback has a size 5 slot for a hanger... how silly does that look?

The Keelback look fine. I ran 2 games at the same time. The keelback with the small fighters look fine. Frontier did a good job. It not a large ship giving birth to a median ship.

OK, think outside of the box presented to you, instead of stating how impractical it would be think about what would be practical, perhaps something smaller than a type six, perhaps half that size? would that look too silly to you?

Maybe just maybe what players need to do is before accepting a mission. Is buy the system data before accepting the mission and let Frontier make worth while updates like landing on Earth like worlds or walking than unneeded and worthless updates. That only caters to players who likes click and accept all missions with out reading them.

Would you go smaller, or in fact just say no and be done with it... after all I'm sure when some players heard that a good few ships could/would be carrying a fighter they said no as well.

The current SLF are just fine. It looks realistic and not stupid. It don't look like some thing given birth to a Big Rig or type 6.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

The Keelback look fine. I ran 2 games at the same time. The keelback with the small fighters look fine. Frontier did a good job. It not a large ship giving birth to a median ship.

Maybe just maybe what players need to do is before accepting a mission. Is buy the system data before accepting the mission and let Frontier make worth while updates like landing on Earth like worlds or walking than unneeded and worthless updates. That only caters to players who likes click and accept all missions with out reading them.


The current SLF are just fine. It looks realistic and not stupid. It don't look like some thing given birth to a Big Rig or type 6.

Look, I see your point about wanting ELW for landing on but... c'mon realistically, it ain't gonna happen any time soon, tooooo much work for that one I think, however if by spending a fraction of that time expanding on a feature already present in the game to entice many players to enjoy a bit more time in the bubble then it keeps the game fresh,
If it ain't for you, then you can still go about your game in the same manner planning your route and making sensible decisions about what you do... some of us however have a different outlook about how we spend our time... we don't like to have to keep checks on everything we just want a carefree time in game and this would go some way towards that.

 

[Velixar]

Look, I see your point about wanting ELW for landing on but... c'mon realistically, it ain't gonna happen any time soon, tooooo much work for that one I think,

I guess you don't keep tabs on other Frontier games? I don't think they will have a problem.

observer if by spending a fraction of that time expanding on a feature already present in the game to entice many players to enjoy a bit more time in the bubble then it keeps the game fresh,

I am fine with fresh. But I draw the line on players that want just click and accept missions. With out reading it or researching it. You might like that type of game play and there 100s of game to suit your play style.

If it ain't for you, then you can still go about your game in the same manner planning your route and making sensible decisions about what you do... some of us however have a different outlook about how we spend our time... we don't like to have to keep checks on everything we just want a carefree time in game and this would go some way towards that.

See you want to ruin one part game play. Because sensible decisions to you is click and accept all missions.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

I guess you don't keep tabs on other Frontier games? I don't think they will have a problem. I am fine with fresh. But I draw the line on players that want just click and accept missions. With out reading it or researching it. You might like that type of game play and there 100s of game to suit your play style.

See you want to ruin one part game play. Because sensible decisions to you is click and accept all missions.

I'm not sure where I ruin your game by not reading a description... and you have no rights to draw the line on anyone's play style.

By the way your quote is wrong.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Thing is that Airbus Beluga it landed at a Airport. It not flying by a small Airport while those triple trailer big rig flying off to the small Airport and landing like planes.

Maybe the Beluga would only need to land because trucks don't fly? [big grin]
The point was to address your concern with a large ship "giving birth" to something considerably smaller but still relatively large, in following with your advice to look to current day reality as a reference point.
A triple trailer big rig rolling out of a plane would be a strange sight to behold, but would be awesome to watch.
It's not something I'd protest in other words, but the point is, something like that is doable with current tech, so why not in future?

Well most people look at practical and realistic. If I wanted a game of impractical there many games you can choose from.

You think most people look for the practical and realistic in a futuristic space game with advanced alien civilisations and hyperspace jumping?
The only concern for practicality should be regarding what makes play unnecessarily cumbersome for players.

I find it impractical to have a LARGE ship give birth to a medium ship. It would be like having a person giving birth and having them asking to wait until the child is 5 years old and then give birth to a 5 year old.

As previously stated, we can't know the minimum dimensions of the proposed cargo vessel, because we don't know the physical dimensions of the cargo racks.
We'd need to know how big each cargo rack is, so that we could determine how much space a 100t hold would occupy, and build the cargo vessel around that.
Even so, it has already been stated that the Type 9 is many times the volume of the Type 6, so other than some subjective notion you have about it looking strange in a way you don't like, there's no objective reason that proves the infeasibility of the proposal, particularly with a purpose-built cargo vessel, and a modified or alternate hatch.

Suffice it to say at the moment though, that the cargo vessel would be considerably smaller than a Type 6, as it would have minimum sized modules, no FSD, no utilities or hardpoints, a small fuel tank, small cockpit, no cabin considerations, a thinner hull, and no elaborate external design features that would unnecessarily increase the space it occupies. It may even have folding parts like the fighters, to further reduce its stored size.

Lastly, I don't think it's fair to say that this feature is only for players who just click and accept missions without reading them. Other than there being no way to determine that, it discounts without qualification that this added gameplay element would be something people would enjoy engaging with.
If the only objection here is "I don't think I'd like how it would look", then it carries little weight.
if the actual objection is "I don't want players to have a way to deliver large amounts of cargo in large ships to outposts or stations they can't dock at", then my question is, why? And saying "if they want to deliver to those locations, they should use smaller ships" is not an answer to why they shouldn't be able to use bigger ships with ship launched cargo vessels.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Solved it.

OK, so I decided to take current ratios already applied to ships in the game to determine whether a cargo vessel could be made small enough to reasonably fit inside of and be launched from a Type-9, Type-10, and Imperial Cutter.

Currently in the game, the best ship volume to max cargo space ratio is found on the Dolphin, which comes in at 112.9m3 per tonne of cargo.
So if we take that and multiply it by 100 tonnes for our test, then a ship which has a 100 tonne max cargo hold will have a minimum volume of 11,287m3, which is just over half the size of a Type-6 Transporter.

The Diamondback Scout, a ship categorised as small in the game because it will fit on a small landing dock, has a volume of roughly 11,657m3, so our 100 tonne cargo hold ship would be a little smaller than that.

Now, the smallest of the aforementioned three large ships is the Type-9 Transporter, which has a volume of 449,403m3, which is close to 40 times larger than our 100 tonne ship, so you could make the case that a Diamondback Scout may already be small enough to be launched from one of the aforementioned large ships, possibly with a modified or alternate hatch, of which I would prefer a cargo bay door opening.

However, the Diamondback Scout has larger core internals than what a dedicated cargo vessel will need. It also has placements for utilities and hardpoints that the cargo vessel won't. Moreover, the DB Scout has an elaborate external ship design, whereas the cargo vessel should look more like a flying truck, or else take some other minimalist form suited for purpose. The result is that the cargo vessel should be considerably smaller than the Diamondback Scout.

Lastly, just because the Dolphin has the best ratio for this purpose, that doesn't mean that it's the best ratio possible within Frontier's design rules, so when configuring the cargo vessel, the game designers could easily decide to improve that ratio, making the ship smaller still.
Ultimately, we could have something somewhat smaller than a Dolphin, and without the fins, which is not difficult to imagine flying in and out of a Type-9 or bigger ship.

 

[Berpol]

I agree with PauloG01 that it would be a logical addition.
Perhaps this shuttle it could only be used by trade type ships like Type 9 or a new vessel.

 

[Misty_Dark]

I am a relatively new player who's into trading, so please take my opinion with a grain of salt.

The game lacks ship launched cargo transporting vessels, which would be similar to the ship launched fighters, but for the purpose of transporting small amounts of cargo.
No hardpoints or shields, just cargo space and ability to dock at small landing pads so you can finally start doing cargo runs to small outposts in a Type 9.
Personally, I think this would dramatically improve the trading aspect of the game. You'd think the future would have this, no?

Maybe the ship launched cargo vessel would be something like a hardpoint-less and shieldless Adder with no FSD, and instead with some more cargo space (30 tons?) just to balance things out.

What do you guys think?

What would the point of this be? why do you need to run cargo mission in your Type 9 to a small outposts? How would this improve the trading aspect of the game?



Because we already have a problem today with that the small cargo ships is made redundant by the medium cargo ships,and here you are now proposing a change that would make all medium cargo ships redundant by the big cargo ships.


So max cargo medium ship is the Python, where you can cram in 293T of cargo, skipping shields. (with minimum shield 284T)
Now do the same to a Type-9, skip shields, and dedicate one size 8 slot for he cargo mover. and we have 532T of cargo. (with minimum shield 500T)


Why should anybody fly a cargo Python if this is implemented?

Docking, there is only 1 or 2 small medium pads as an outpost, but there are 2 or 3 small pads. So it is easier to get docking permissions on small landing pads compared to the medium. You can carry almost twice cargo.




So there would be no reason to fly small cargo ships, as today Medium cargo ships is vastly superior. And with his suggestion, even medium cargo ships would be outmatched in cargo capacity by the big cargo ships, and I have now assumed we need to use the size 8 slot for this. If can use a size 7 slot instead, we now have over the double capacity of the Python. And if we can use the size 6 slot instead, we gain even more cargo capacity to the big ships.









And how fun would it be to go back and forth some 22 times to unload a full Type-9? Assuming the ~30T capacity.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

What would the point of this be? why do you need to run cargo mission in your Type 9 to a small outposts? How would this improve the trading aspect of the game?



Because we already have a problem today with that the small cargo ships is made redundant by the medium cargo ships,and here you are now proposing a change that would make all medium cargo ships redundant by the big cargo ships.


So max cargo medium ship is the Python, where you can cram in 293T of cargo, skipping shields. (with minimum shield 284T)
Now do the same to a Type-9, skip shields, and dedicate one size 8 slot for he cargo mover. and we have 532T of cargo. (with minimum shield 500T)


Why should anybody fly a cargo Python if this is implemented?

Docking, there is only 1 or 2 small medium pads as an outpost, but there are 2 or 3 small pads. So it is easier to get docking permissions on small landing pads compared to the medium. You can carry almost twice cargo.




So there would be no reason to fly small cargo ships, as today Medium cargo ships is vastly superior. And with his suggestion, even medium cargo ships would be outmatched in cargo capacity by the big cargo ships, and I have now assumed we need to use the size 8 slot for this. If can use a size 7 slot instead, we now have over the double capacity of the Python. And if we can use the size 6 slot instead, we gain even more cargo capacity to the big ships.









And how fun would it be to go back and forth some 22 times to unload a full Type-9? Assuming the ~30T capacity.

It should be a 100t capacity cargo vessel if it’s going to be in the game at all, and it very much should require a size 8 slot.
That would restrict it to 3 ships in the game (see my previous posts).

It makes sense for an outpost at times to require a cargo delivery greater than what a medium ship can carry, and to want to save on delivery costs by not paying a premium for multiple trips.

As for larger ships being better for transport, that’s as it should be. You work your way up to the ship with the greatest cargo capacity you can afford. That doesn’t need to be balanced by screwing large ships with landing pad shortages.

In any case, it would still be a trade off to make use of a cargo vessel.
1. The cost of a large ship.
2. The cost of a cargo vessel hangar.
3. The cost of the cargo vessel.
4. Sacrificing 256 tonnes of cargo capacity from your size 8 slot for the hangar.
5. The effort of making multiple trips in your cargo vessel for delivering the cargo.
6. The additional time required to make those trips.

Given the above, a Python might make the same profit from trading as a Type 9 with a cargo vessel in a similar span of time.

Ultimately though, it would just be an additional mechanic in the game that people would enjoy, and which would harm nothing.
Just another way to “blaze your own trail”.

 

[Misty_Dark]

It should be a 100t capacity cargo vessel if it’s going to be in the game at all, and it very much should require a size 8 slot.
That would restrict it to 3 ships in the game (see my previous posts).

It makes sense for an outpost at times to require a cargo delivery greater than what a medium ship can carry, and to want to save on delivery costs by not paying a premium for multiple trips.

As for larger ships being better for transport, that’s as it should be. You work your way up to the ship with the greatest cargo capacity you can afford. That doesn’t need to be balanced by screwing large ships with landing pad shortages.

In any case, it would still be a trade off to make use of a cargo vessel.
1. The cost of a large ship.
2. The cost of a cargo vessel hangar.
3. The cost of the cargo vessel.
4. Sacrificing 256 tonnes of cargo capacity from your size 8 slot for the hangar.
5. The effort of making multiple trips in your cargo vessel for delivering the cargo.
6. The additional time required to make those trips.

Given the above, a Python might make the same profit from trading as a Type 9 with a cargo vessel in a similar span of time.

Ultimately though, it would just be an additional mechanic in the game that people would enjoy, and which would harm nothing.
Just another way to “blaze your own trail”.

Why must it be 100T? Why the not initial suggestion of 30T? or 50T? 10T? 2T? or just about any other size? the "discussion" about how this would a be a highly optimized vessel, makes no sense, since we already in the Elite Universe have NO cargo ship that is fully optimized to take max amount of cargo that can fit on a Large landing pad, we even get designs like the Type 7, that a big ship, despite most of it dimensions indicates it should have been a medium ship. Not a single cargo ship in Elite is designed to take full use of the standard sized landing pads...so what logic would suggest that a ship launched cargo vessel be optimized in this regard then?


The "cost" of a large ship. You mean the massive cost difference between a Python (55 Million) and a Type 9 (73 Million)? Sure outfitting cost a bit more for the Type 9, this increases slightly if we D-rate everything but FSD, but still keeps the biggest class size, so no downsizing thrusters, power plant, etc. Python lands on 64 Million, and Type 9 lands on 98 Million.

So bare bone, Type 9, is 18 million more expensive, but D-rated for jump range, the Type 9 34 million. Not an earth shattering difference. And then a few millions for cargo vessel, considering that Class 7 SLF only costs 2.4 Million I doubt the cargo vessel would be much more than that.






It does not make sense for outposts to have large ships doing this kind of deliveries. Just check how logistics is done, where there is use cases for many different transport vehicles. there is not a single I rule it all transport option.


But it makes sense that lazy players to request changes to take away responsibility from the gameplay, ie accepting delivery mission to an outpost and going there in their big ship, now by inventing a gameplay mechanics, by essentially making existing gameplay options obsolete. Not only have existing gameplay made small obsolete in doing cargo missions, now this would make medium ships obsolete for this as well.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Why must it be 100T? Why the not initial suggestion of 30T? or 50T? 10T? 2T? or just about any other size?

Anything less than 100t would be too cumbersome, not to mention ridiculous when you consider it’s supposed to be designed to offload massive amounts of cargo from a large ship. Less than 100t capacity would make it unfit for purpose, and so better off not being in the game at all.

the "discussion" about how this would a be a highly optimized vessel, makes no sense, since we already in the Elite Universe have NO cargo ship that is fully optimized to take max amount of cargo that can fit on a Large landing pad, we even get designs like the Type 7, that a big ship, despite most of it dimensions indicates it should have been a medium ship. Not a single cargo ship in Elite is designed to take full use of the standard sized landing pads...so what logic would suggest that a ship launched cargo vessel be optimized in this regard then?

Because it’s specifically a Cargo Vessel, designed purely for offloading cargo, and so would naturally be optimised for holding and offloading cargo to the exclusion of all other non-essential functionality. So the discussion concerning existing cargo-to-volume ratios in the game to determine the viability of such a vessel becomes relevant.

The "cost" of a large ship. You mean the massive cost difference between a Python (55 Million) and a Type 9 (73 Million)? Sure outfitting cost a bit more for the Type 9, this increases slightly if we D-rate everything but FSD, but still keeps the biggest class size, so no downsizing thrusters, power plant, etc. Python lands on 64 Million, and Type 9 lands on 98 Million.

So bare bone, Type 9, is 18 million more expensive, but D-rated for jump range, the Type 9 34 million. Not an earth shattering difference. And then a few millions for cargo vessel, considering that Class 7 SLF only costs 2.4 Million I doubt the cargo vessel would be much more than that.

So then, as stated, there are additional costs associated.
More critical though would be the sacrifice of the size 8 slot, meaning a potential 256t of cargo capacity, as well as the not discountable time and effort required for making the offloading trips.

It does not make sense for outposts to have large ships doing this kind of deliveries. Just check how logistics is done, where there is use cases for many different transport vehicles. there is not a single I rule it all transport option.

Stating that current day transport logistics don’t utilise the proposed method of delivery does not actually make a case against it.
Neither you or anyone else opposing this has provided a single reason why it doesn’t make sense for a large ship in a futuristic space game to be able to offload cargo via a vessel at outposts not equipped with large landing pads.

But it makes sense that lazy players to request changes to take away responsibility from the gameplay, ie accepting delivery mission to an outpost and going there in their big ship, now by inventing a gameplay mechanics, by essentially making existing gameplay options obsolete. Not only have existing gameplay made small obsolete in doing cargo missions, now this would make medium ships obsolete for this as well.

Smaller ships being less suited for cargo transport than larger ships is not a gameplay aspect - it’s simply a reflection of reality. Moreover, small ships aren’t “obsolete” for cargo transport to players who can’t yet afford a larger ship. They’re necessary stepping stones.

Lastly, this whole “lazy players” scapegoating for when someone decides they don’t like a given feature proposal is getting tired, and ironically it’s just a lazy way of responding when you don’t make the effort to properly assess the merits, purpose, and impact of the suggestion, outside of poorly reasoned or inapplicable Pavlovian attempts that are in truth just thinly veiled variations of “I don’t like it”.

It’s not “lazy” to be willing to take the time and effort to make multiple cargo offload trips from your ship in a cargo vessel. It’s more work and time, which in the game means credits. So maybe it’s not laziness or want of a quick cash grab that’s motivating the people who support this suggestion, but rather a desire for another way to accomplish a task and play the game, which they find interesting.

 

[Velixar]

I see another issue players using this feature to force others in solo or private. Why? Well they can the cargo ship to sit on landing pads. So they have a combat ship floating outside while a cargo stuck on the landing pad. This could be done in large stations as well.

People JUST pick the missions your ship is used for. Instead of asking for a lame shortcut. All because you are UNWILLING to use some game mechanics to help your self picking missions for your large ship.

Note I don't want to see a large ship giving birth to a medium ship.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

I see another issue players using this feature to force others in solo or private. Why? Well they can the cargo ship to sit on landing pads. So they have a combat ship floating outside while a cargo stuck on the landing pad. This could be done in large stations as well.

People JUST pick the missions your ship is used for. Instead of asking for a lame shortcut. All because you are UNWILLING to use some game mechanics to help your self picking missions for your large ship.

Note I don't want to see a large ship giving birth to a medium ship.

The large ship is going to be hovering closely over the outpost, so any attackers may have to contend with the security ships for practically no gain. I’m not saying it won’t happen at all, but it’s not going to be the issue you’re making it out to be. Moreover, even a docked ship can be attacked in this way. Also, the use of cargo vessels should not be an option at stations equipped with large docking pads.

Read my post above titled “Solved it” and you’ll see that it’s viable for the cargo vessel to be a small ship.

Lastly, no. We want to have a way to deliver large amounts of cargo in a large ship to outposts that aren’t equipped with large docking pads, hence the request. We find the existing game mechanics insufficient, obviously.
For whatever obscure reason you’ve failed to articulate, you find that lame. That’s fine, but it’s not an argument.
Also, if you’ve been paying attention to the added logistical requirements of this mechanic, you’ll realise very quickly that it’s not in any way a “shortcut”.

Honestly, it’s such a low impact suggestion, with its own inherent cost and difficulties, and it doesn’t encroach on or disadvantage the play of people who decide not to use it. It doesn’t warrant this frankly bizarre degree of opposition.

 

[Nadreck]

All of this should be possible soon anyhow if Carriers finally arrive. You do cargo runs to/from the Carrier in either a T9 or a Python (depending on the size of the station's pad and the Carrier's hangar).

I've also put in a suggestion for a "Pocket Carrier" as a Large-pad dockable ship capable of carrying about 3 Small-pad shps. Many possible uses for that, and carrying 3 fully-laden Dolphins is one of them.

Both of those concepts would be far more versatile than a dedicated cargo shuttle.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

All of this should be possible soon anyhow if Carriers finally arrive. You do cargo runs to/from the Carrier in either a T9 or a Python (depending on the size of the station's pad and the Carrier's hangar).

I've also put in a suggestion for a "Pocket Carrier" as a Large-pad dockable ship capable of carrying about 3 Small-pad shps. Many possible uses for that, and carrying 3 fully-laden Dolphins is one of them.

Both of those concepts would be far more versatile than a dedicated cargo shuttle.

That sounds like something I’d like to use as well. Though I imagine a carrier is going to be considerably expensive, and therefore out of reach for many players, so it shouldn’t preclude a large ship having a cargo vessel, which seems to be similar to the pocket carrier you mentioned.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Anything less than 100t would be too cumbersome, not to mention ridiculous when you consider it’s supposed to be designed to offload massive amounts of cargo from a large ship. Less than 100t capacity would make it unfit for purpose, and so better off not being in the game at all.



Because it’s specifically a Cargo Vessel, designed purely for offloading cargo, and so would naturally be optimised for holding and offloading cargo to the exclusion of all other non-essential functionality. So the discussion concerning existing cargo-to-volume ratios in the game to determine the viability of such a vessel becomes relevant.



So then, as stated, there are additional costs associated.
More critical though would be the sacrifice of the size 8 slot, meaning a potential 256t of cargo capacity, as well as the not discountable time and effort required for making the offloading trips.



Stating that current day transport logistics don’t utilise the proposed method of delivery does not actually make a case against it.
Neither you or anyone else opposing this has provided a single reason why it doesn’t make sense for a large ship in a futuristic space game to be able to offload cargo via a vessel at outposts not equipped with large landing pads.



Smaller ships being less suited for cargo transport than larger ships is not a gameplay aspect - it’s simply a reflection of reality. Moreover, small ships aren’t “obsolete” for cargo transport to players who can’t yet afford a larger ship. They’re necessary stepping stones.

Lastly, this whole “lazy players” scapegoating for when someone decides they don’t like a given feature proposal is getting tired, and ironically it’s just a lazy way of responding when you don’t make the effort to properly assess the merits, purpose, and impact of the suggestion, outside of poorly reasoned or inapplicable Pavlovian attempts that are in truth just thinly veiled variations of “I don’t like it”.

It’s not “lazy” to be willing to take the time and effort to make multiple cargo offload trips from your ship in a cargo vessel. It’s more work and time, which in the game means credits. So maybe it’s not laziness or want of a quick cash grab that’s motivating the people who support this suggestion, but rather a desire for another way to accomplish a task and play the game, which they find interesting.

Yikes. and here it comes, 100T is needed to avoid making this to into much work, call it what it is, you want EASY MODE.

You do not care about available options, that if you are to deliver cargo to outposts, you have to pick a small (yea right who does once they have access to medium ships...) or medium ships.

If you carelessly fills your large ship with deliveries to outposts, then you did not check the mission when accepting these.



There is no new gameplay here.


And you decided to fail to understand how transport logistics works. They passes throughout distributions centres that the move cargo between different sized vehicles. In Elite one such place is the stations. You do not deliver stuff in a ship directly to customers, you deliver them to a dock, and then you stuff onto lorries, and in most cases, these got to another distribution centre, where they go on box cars for their final delivery.

But hey, maybe you should take a deep dive into logistics and how that works when transporting stuff.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Yikes. and here it comes, 100T is needed to avoid making this to into much work, call it what it is, you want EASY MODE.

You do not care about available options, that if you are to deliver cargo to outposts, you have to pick a small (yea right who does once they have access to medium ships...) or medium ships.

If you carelessly fills your large ship with deliveries to outposts, then you did not check the mission when accepting these.



There is no new gameplay here.


And you decided to fail to understand how transport logistics works. They passes throughout distributions centres that the move cargo between different sized vehicles. In Elite one such place is the stations. You do not deliver stuff in a ship directly to customers, you deliver them to a dock, and then you stuff onto lorries, and in most cases, these got to another distribution centre, where they go on box cars for their final delivery.

But hey, maybe you should take a deep dive into logistics and how that works when transporting stuff.

Nothing you said is applicable.

100 tonne capacity does not make it an “easy mode”, it just ensures it’s viable, or in other words not a ridiculous “stupid mode” where you have to make 22 trips, and which no one would use, making the feature pointless. You still have to make multiple trips though, which balances it out.

And how many times does it need to be explained to you that we want this option in addition to the available ones? There’s no reason it shouldn’t be considered, or why the existing options should be set in stone. This is the suggestions forum, remember?

It seems to be falling on deaf ears that this feature is not to benefit players who carelessly select missions at outposts they can’t land at. It appears to have escaped you that even with this new mechanic, those players would need to be aware of the docking requirements, and plan ahead by equipping their ships appropriately with the hangar and vessel.

The new gameplay is the cargo vessel loading and deploying, which currently doesn’t exist, meaning necessarily that its implementation would be new gameplay. It’s very weird that you’d choose to contest that self-evident fact.

Lastly, I develop software for the transport industry, so I’m well aware of the logistics involved.
It’s not my failure to understand current day logistics processes that’s the problem here, but rather the failure is in your assumption that the logistics in a futuristic space game must mirror those of the present day, and your failure to articulate why that must be. Moreover, a large ship delivering cargo to an outpost with the use of a cargo vessel ultimately has the same result as a smaller ship delivering cargo, in that it still ends up being distributed as it normally would, as there’s still no direct to customer delivery that might have made your analogy applicable, even though it doesn’t matter because future logistics don’t have to adhere to current day logistics.

The result of this back and forth is that you don’t have any valid reason to oppose this suggestion, other than that you don’t like it.
Objection noted.