T9 needs more cargo space

[J.R.Ehman]

EDIT:
Added Poll.
What this is about: 128 or 256 tons more for the T9, by increasing one internal class module by one size. (Wouldn't hurt other T-Types either.)
What this is not about: making the T9 the ultimate trading ship surpassing even the Panther Clipper or something silly like that.
So it' about a sensible increase in cargo space to make specialized trade ships a more viable choice.



I'm wondering why all the dedicated trading ships are outclassed in trading capability (cargo space and jump range) by multipurpose ships. I've found a lot of threads complaining about this issue here and on reddit, but I haven't found a satisfying answer to this. Has there ever been an official statement by fdev about this? What is the game design and balancing idea here?

The issue:
Hauler, Type 6, Type 7, & Type 9 are dedicated trading ships, but they don't hold (significantly) more cargo than their multirole counterparts. For example, the Type 9 can hold more cargo than the Anaconda, however the additional cargo space is too little to matter over the reduced jump range. Once you have the money for a Trade Conda, it doesn't make sense to keep using the T9, even for pure trading and even if you like the T9 more (for the cockpit, or whatever reason). Should the T9 handle like a brick, fly slow, have less range, have less firepower? Yes, of course! But it should bring in so much more cargo that it is significant over a Trade Conda.

The answer:
I have read the following argument from other players: The multirole counterparts are more expensive, so it is ok that they outperform the cheaper dedicated ships. This argument seems to address both the game design (external) and the game lore (internal) issue. I think it doesn't.

• Game Design
  First of all, this reduces dedicated ships to stepping stones instead of making them viable choices over the long term. I don't think that is a good design philosophy, because dedicated ships should excel at the one role they are build for. That's the whole point of having dedicated vessels. Sure, the "jack of all trades" is more expensive and more versatile, but it also follows that it's a "master of none" compared to the pure dedicated master.
• Game Lore
  Second, I'm not sure about the internal logic here. If you compare the argument to real life cars, ships or planes, it turns out quite silly. Sure, a major multipurpose sea vessel costs more than a container ship and it can do all sorts of things - but guess which ship can transport significantly more cargo? So what would be the ingame lore explanation for trading vessels being worse at trading?

So finally, I don't understand this game design. I don't understand it from the perspective of Frontier, nor do I understand it from inside the game lore. Therefore, I say: give the T9 (and the other dedicated traders) more cargo space, or please explain why you (Frontier) want the galaxy to be full of Condas outfitted for trading one day and combat the next day, instead of a more versatile ship distribution with dedicated ships.




tl;dr
I bought skins for the T9 and now I'm salty over the fact that the Anaconda is so much better at trading. Pls buff cargo space of the T9 to make my skin purchase worth it.

 

[Siranui]

Has there ever been an official statement by fdev about this?

Once you have the money for a Trade Conda, it doesn't make sense to keep using the T9

I'm not sure why they should ever have to make a statement in defence of any vessel's design.

Once you have money for a Vulture, the sidewinder is useless. Ultimately a kitted 'Conda costs a lot more than a T-9. They aren't really in the same class.

 

[racer1]

If you have a short trade route the T9 is a better option than the conda.

I traded in a T9 even after I had a conda as it made more credits on a short trade route. That was shieldless though so the difference between it and the conda was larger.

I wouldn't be against a small increase though - say make the class 6 slot a class 7 (+64 tonnes cargo).

This was pre 2.0. I'm planning on trying it out again to see if it is still viable as a trade ship. The shields are so weak I'm not sure if it will be able to stand against NPC while the FSD spools.

T9 costs 92 million fitted for trade, the conda costs 220 million - that is a big difference. Pre long range hauling/smuggling that sort of money took a long time to earn.

T9 shields A5 + 4 A0 boosters = 302MJ
Conda A4 + 8 A0 boosters = 850MJ

Shields is where it needs a buff IMO the T7 as well.

 

[J.R.Ehman]

@ Siranui
Maybe read my post again? You're just repeating the money argument. I think a ship's role and design should be important, not only its price. I'm comparing ships based on role and (in this case) cargo space, not just price. If an expensive ship is always better at everything than the dedicated ships, then ultimately, most players will gravitate towards the most expensive ship instead of the ship that actually is designed towards the role they want to play. See any thread asking about the Conda or what to buy for proof. The obvious recommendation is to get the Conda as soon as you can afford it, because it's better at everything. Given the money, who, besides roleplaying masochists or single hop fetishists is flying a T9 over a Trade Conda? I don't think the most expensive should always be the best at everything. I think that makes for bad game design and doesn't make sense within the game.

@ racer1
Yes I know that the small cargo increase means a bonus on super short trade routes. However, that means for the player that he is restricted to this single very very tiny fraction of gameplay. Out of all the trading gameplay you are restricted to this one thing. It's as if you had an exploration ship that can only scan a single kind of sun!? A dedicated trading ship should be restricted to being good at trading, yes. But it shouldn't be restricted to a single tiny fraction of trading gameplay. And within the game lore? What is Lakon thinking building the T9 this way?

 

[veryinky]

Lakon specializes in freighters (who knows why they acquired the Asp liscence but they did).

"Lakon bulk cargo racks", available only to Type-6, Type-7, Type-9 and the Keelback for which they were designed for. +100% cargo capacity at double the cost since they're a manufacturer exclusive item and feature specially designed cargo loading mechanism to fit in Type class ships. This would mean that Type class ships would excel at one thing over all else, short ranged bulk traders.

 

[Mohrgan]

The T-9 is certainly a Cargo ship, but it does not follow that it has to be the best trading ship. The T-9 is what it is with no promises of superiority. The OP is trying to attach some greater meaning to the 'T' class ships than they actually have.

 

[Siranui]

@ Siranui
Maybe read my post again? You're just repeating the money argument. I think a ship's role and design should be important, not only its price. I'm comparing ships based on role and (in this case) cargo space, not just price. If an expensive ship is always better at everything than the dedicated ships, then ultimately, most players will gravitate towards the most expensive ship instead of the ship that actually is designed towards the role they want to play. See any thread asking about the Conda or what to buy for proof. The obvious recommendation is to get the Conda as soon as you can afford it, because it's better at everything. Given the money, who, besides roleplaying masochists or single hop fetishists is flying a T9 over a Trade Conda? I don't think the most expensive should always be the best at everything. I think that makes for bad game design and doesn't make sense within the game.

@ racer1
Yes I know that the small cargo increase means a bonus on super short trade routes. However, that means for the player that he is restricted to this single very very tiny fraction of gameplay. Out of all the trading gameplay you are restricted to this one thing. It's as if you had an exploration ship that can only scan a single kind of sun!? A dedicated trading ship should be restricted to being good at trading, yes. But it shouldn't be restricted to a single tiny fraction of trading gameplay. And within the game lore? What is Lakon thinking building the T9 this way?

I agree that Elite should not be like regular MMOs/games where the ships are a strict progression: They should indeed be a selection of options instead. That said, money ultimately does have a lot to do with it, and the Conda is priced substantially above the T-9. The T-9 still has a place, both before the Conda can be purchased, and in some situations, after it as well. I don't see it as a particularly hard done-by vessel, and certainly not one with issues that FD make an official statement to explain themselves over. I wouldn't cry if it got an extra bit of cargo space, but it's not strictly necessary.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

If you keep the default Class 6 shield generator and dedicate the rest of a T9's space to cargo, it hauls 468 tons. That's a heck of a lot of cargo.
If you do the same with an Anaconda, you max out at 404 tons.

And if for some reason, you'd opt to give up shields on either of these:

Type 9: 532 tons
Anaconda: 468 tons

Clearly, as a freighter, the Type-9 stuffs more stuff per cubic meter.

Now with 6A FSD's the Anaconda out-jumps the T9 by 3 Ly +/- some decimals, but it doesn't compete in raw hauling capacity.

And when it comes to cost... few things out-price an Anaconda, making the T-9 a vastly cheaper alternative.

But if you've the money to blow, and the rank to pull it off, convert an Imperial Cutter to a freight hauler.

Fully fitted with Cargo Racks, and keeping the Class 8 shield generator, the iCutter weighs in at:

536 tons of cargo
and Jumps 1 Ly less than the Anaconda

Without shields, 792 tons cargo space in the iCutter.

But what a waste of a beautiful ship!

 

[J.R.Ehman]

The T-9 is certainly a Cargo ship, but it does not follow that it has to be the best trading ship. The T-9 is what it is with no promises of superiority. The OP is trying to attach some greater meaning to the 'T' class ships than they actually have.

And what's the difference between a cargo ship and a trading ship?

Lakon specializes in freighters (who knows why they acquired the Asp liscence but they did).

"Lakon bulk cargo racks", available only to Type-6, Type-7, Type-9 and the Keelback for which they were designed for. +100% cargo capacity at double the cost since they're a manufacturer exclusive item and feature specially designed cargo loading mechanism to fit in Type class ships. This would mean that Type class ships would excel at one thing over all else, short ranged bulk traders.

Where does that quote come from? It seems to suggest that the special Lakon loading mechanism is still missing from the game. It seems like it's something that works as soon as it is implemented on stations. So if the station you are buying at uses the special loading mechanism, you get +100% cargo capacity. Is this the case? If so, any word from fdev on when this might be implemented?

 

[KuroNyra]

The T9 really need more place in the cargo hold. There is just no reason to get it over the Anaconda who can do more, while being more versatile and still efficient.

 

[Weps]

Lakon specializes in freighters (who knows why they acquired the Asp liscence but they did).

"Lakon bulk cargo racks", available only to Type-6, Type-7, Type-9 and the Keelback for which they were designed for. +100% cargo capacity at double the cost since they're a manufacturer exclusive item and feature specially designed cargo loading mechanism to fit in Type class ships. This would mean that Type class ships would excel at one thing over all else, short ranged bulk traders.

This.

There has been a similar thread exactly on this matter, so I'll just repeat some points from that thread:

- the Type-9 functions as a cargo ship yes, but there's no reason to use it when there are similarly priced ships which do the same thing a lot better
- only the hull of the Type-9 costs less; outfitting it to superior modules and engineering it costs the same in terms of credits / mats
- the small tonnage advantage of the Type-9 is easily outmatched by survivability advantages in other ships

 

[Fishy]

Sadly, the Lakon line isn't about high-end dedicated freighters, it's about cheap freighters for people that don't need anything more. By buying a ship from the Lakon T-? series, you don't get a multirole ship whose bells and whistles are all replaced with a cargo ferrying optimal design, you just get a multirole ship where everything that wasn't related to cargo-ferrying has been stripped off to make the ship cheaper.

 

[J.R.Ehman]

If you keep the default Class 6 shield generator and dedicate the rest of a T9's space to cargo, it hauls 468 tons. That's a heck of a lot of cargo.
If you do the same with an Anaconda, you max out at 404 tons.

I went down with the shields as far as possible and that's where another problem comes in: for some reason the T9 has 1000-something mass and the Conda has 700-something mass. Meaning that you can go down to a class 4 shield on the Conda, but only down to a class 5 on the T9. This means you can put in another class 5 cargo rack in the Conda, but not in the T9. This is another thing that doesn't make sense, since the T9 is basically a flying cargo rack. So the empty mass should be lower. The Conda on the other hand has more base armor, more room for internals and externals that all need to be housed and wired. So how can it have less mass? If anything, the base mass of these ships should be switched.

I don't have the rank to get an iCutter or Corvette yet

 

[veryinky]

Where does that quote come from? It seems to suggest that the special Lakon loading mechanism is still missing from the game. It seems like it's something that works as soon as it is implemented on stations. So if the station you are buying at uses the special loading mechanism, you get +100% cargo capacity. Is this the case? If so, any word from fdev on when this might be implemented?

I listen to "sidewinder radio" and they play Lakon ship ads way, way too often. And the loading mechanism would be inside the ship itself, I interpret all that extra mass that Type ship hulls have as the ships being setup for cargo racks alone. Not official beyond fluff text.

Specialized internal modules which are treated as larger for specific types of items would be a welcome addition to the game. Say the largest optional internal module in an explorer ship is set to "Fuel Scoop Bay", so an Diamondback Explorer with a size 4 fuel scoop bay could mount a size 5 fuel scoop in it, or any type of size 4 module as if it was a standard general purpose bay.

Type ships? Give them cargo module bays instead of general purpose multipurpose internal modules, which would allow putting a size 9 cargo rack in it's size 8 internal module, sure you could put a size 8 shield or a size 8 fuel scoop or a size 8 hull reinforcement package, but it'd be made for cargo racks. Maybe it's placed directly over the cargo hatch so it doesn't need nearly as much internal "automated cargo transfer system" as the cargo racks are described at the outfitting screen.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I had a T9 for a while, I tried trading in it, and mining.

For both, it was considerably more vulnerable than my trading or mining Python.
So I sold it again, and continued to use my Python for trading and mining CGs.
When I could afford to buy and fit my Anaconda for trading, I found it had considerably survivability over the T9, and only a slightly less cargo capacity.
It also handled better.

I still use my Python. Lol
(Personal preference!)

I believe the T class ships should have special dedicated cargo racks just for these ships, like there are enhanced thrusters for small ships.
100% capacity is a bit OP, that'd make the T9 a bit too good.
So maybe 50%.
The T9 also needs slightly lower default mass, as it is just an empty box with some ship stuff glued on where it fits. Lol

 

[veryinky]

If anything, the base mass of these ships should be switched.

Anaconda is one of the first 4 ships put into the game, before they started giving any thought to balancing. So it's 400 ton hull was considered amazingly heavy because when it was put in the only things to compare it to were the sidewinder, viper and cobra.

 

[Monk]

IDK...the T9 is relatively cheap in comparison to other big ships.

The cost to benefit ratio is very good....just don't skimp on shielding!

 

[bubbabenali]

For example, the Type 9 can hold more cargo than the Anaconda, however the additional cargo space is too little to matter over the reduced jump range. Once you have the money for a Trade Conda, it doesn't make sense to keep using the T9, even for pure trading and even if you like the T9 more (for the cockpit, or whatever reason). Should the T9 handle like a brick, fly slow, have less range, have less firepower? Yes, of course! But it should bring in so much more cargo that it is significant over a Trade Conda.

Last time I've checked the 'conda was as double as expensive as an T9...

But yeah, the Transport ships are a bit lacklustre - all of them need some serious defens capabilities. As of now they are floating shoe boxes. A T9 with it's 1000t Hull schould have an amour that wouldn't care about attacking Vipers.

I certainly hope the Pantha Clipper won't be such a lootbox when it gets a release.

 

[Mohrgan]

And what's the difference between a cargo ship and a trading ship?

A cargo ship can, generally speaking, only haul cargo. Other design features makes it a poor combat or exploration vessel. A trade ship is any ship that can be fit to haul and do trade. A T-9 can trade, but so can an Anaconda, but the 'Conda can do other tasks equally well.

 

[Darrett]

Frontier's idea of ship progression is linear. If you applied that to real life, there would be no reason ever to buy a sedan because a bulldozer costs more money, and so is more effective at all things. The entire ship roles system needs to be looked at, especially since they're making moves to make money far easier to earn, which means you move past half of the ships in the game within your first few hours.