I'm working on a spreadsheet of all freighters and transports, hoping to spark some interest in changing the way some of these ships are used. I'm a firm believer in spreading the utility ships around evenly amongst the houses. A player should not have to think "which faction must I align to so that I can fly a freighter that's worth buying". He should have a couple of interesting and useful freighter choices in any house.
In my work on improving the freighter and better defining its role, I've come up with questions that will help me move forward if answered by someone (Igiss:)) with inside knowledge.
1) Why are pirate/unlawful factions restricted from using tranports? I just want to understand the logic behind a pirate not being able to fly a transport if so desired. I realize they are not supposed to be traders, but is that the sole reason for keeping them out of transports or is there something more?
2) Why is the definition of a Freighter being reduced by half to "less than 500-unit hold"? Again, I'm trying to understand why the ability to collect/pirate/move cargo is so heavily restricted for many IDs. Smaller/fewer freighters means less opportunity to try things like piracy beyond "2mil or die!".
Why do I ask these questions?
- Because only a small subset of the current freighters see any use in Disco; they are, generally, too small in cargo space.
- Because I see very useful and fun roles for freighters as smugglers and pirate vessels, but those roles are hindered by many freighters' newbie-only nature, or by strange stats on the freighters making them close-but-not-good-enough for use.
If you could enlighten me I'd put you on my christmas card list!;)
"To gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence;
to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence."
Cargo ships are most valuable for their cargo space. There's no way you can make them more used with higher-level players, other than increase the cargo capacity many times.
Freighters are basically transport ships for lower-level players. Yes, sure, many people who start playing get starting bonuses from factions. But what if they don't want to? Then they'll need a cheap old Rhino, as well as other low-level freighters. More sophisticated freighters are well-defended and can withstand dangerous routes even in a hostile environment. But they are still for relatively low-level players.
Making Mk II versions is possible, sure, but it's also useless, confusing, and won't solve the problem in any logical way. Freighters still won't have cargo capacity above 500 - simply because of their size. Transports are superior in size, larger, less maneuverable, and capable of carrying more goods. Also, we'll be getting more transports with 4.84, which will allow more factions to use their own transports.
500 restriction is used only for making the rules more clear. One of the most important points is that Neutral ID cannot be used for any ships above 500, which means that factions cannot deploy sort of "neutral traders" to collect money while being immune to any player attacks.
Now, about the ID restrictions. What factions are not allowed to use transports, can you specify more precisely? I do believe that more factions should be allowed to use transports. However, pirating will be restricted to unlawful IDs anyway.
' Wrote:Cargo ships are most valuable for their cargo space. There's no way you can make them more used with higher-level players, other than increase the cargo capacity many times.
This is where tradeoffs between cargo space and survivability come into play. It is entirely possible to set stats on a 2000-unit transport so that it is more desired in certain situations than a 4000-unit transport. i.e. make it much more agile and significantly better defended than its big brother. I don't see the current drawbacks being big enough on the large transports, or the current benefits being high enough for the smaller transports. The skew toward everyone flying the biggest transports is because they currently have no serious drawbacks in the vast majority of trade situations.
Quote:Freighters are basically transport ships for lower-level players. Yes, sure, many people who start playing get starting bonuses from factions. But what if they don't want to? Then they'll need a cheap old Rhino, as well as other low-level freighters. More sophisticated freighters are well-defended and can withstand dangerous routes even in a hostile environment. But they are still for relatively low-level players.
A transport shield on a Freighter makes it very survivable, yes, but like you say the hold is too small to be of use to expereienced traders. This is only half of the equation though. Because the monstrous transports are also very survivable, they will of course be more used with their larger cargo bays.
My objective is to see transport stats adjusted to where smaller traqnsports are better armored and shielded and more maneuverable and faster than their 4000-unit brothers. This imparts choice for the pilots; fly a huge ship in safer areas or fly the armored and maneuverable ship for dangerous trade routes.
Likewise, those who would like to fly a Camara should be able to out-maneuver and outfly a Behemoth in every way... but they can't. Ships like the Camara are solid, but they bring absolutely nothing to the table that a Behemoth doesn't bring.
Quote:Freighters still won't have cargo capacity above 500 - simply because of their size.
Here is an argument I didn't expect. Many ship models are odd in size compared to their class and capability. If the 500-unit limit on freighters is simply to help match physical size with cargo hold, I have no argument directly against that. I do feel, however, that balance and usability of ships is more important than physical model size comparisions with cargo hold size.
Quote:Transports are superior in size, larger, less maneuverable, and capable of carrying more goods. Also, we'll be getting more transports with 4.84, which will allow more factions to use their own transports.
Yep, and I'd like to see the trade-off between cargo hold size and all other flight characteristics exaggerated so that there is a real decision to be made between 'larger' and 'more survivable' when choosing a trade ship.
Quote:500 restriction is used only for making the rules more clear. One of the most important points is that Neutral ID cannot be used for any ships above 500, which means that factions cannot deploy sort of "neutral traders" to collect money while being immune to any player attacks.
Can't that just be handled with the Neutral ID wording of "can't fly any ship with cargo hold greater than 500" instead of cutting the definition of a freighter in half?
Quote:Now, about the ID restrictions. What factions are not allowed to use transports, can you specify more precisely? I do believe that more factions should be allowed to use transports. However, pirating will be restricted to unlawful IDs anyway.
Junkers is a big one. These guys are scrap haulers and scavengers, and a sub-500 unit hold is too small for them. I don't have access to my faction ID spreadsheet here at work to check others, I will have to get a list together next chance I have time at home.
To clarify something... I'm not wanting to see MkII transports and freighters; I'm working for across-the-board adjustments of hold size vs flight/combat characteristics to make the smaller ships more valuable. I want a pirate to be tempted to fly a modified Camara or Kushan Freigher or a Turanic Raider Freighter that has been adjusted to 500-600 cargo units, given more bots/bats, and had a cruise disruptor mounted. I want a merchant on a dangerous trade route to seriously consider flying a 1500 cargo unit armored trader with a stiff shield, thick armor, good maneuver, and a rear-firing cruise disruptor.
The goal for me is more variety and choices for both the trader and the pirate. Not variety by adding more ships, but variety by making the currently ignored ships more tempting to fly.
And thanks for responding Igiss.
"To gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence;
to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence."
a highlevel player should know to value agility sometimes higher than cargo hold. - and going for size only encourages the very one sided non roleplay trader ( shouldn t sound offensive - but i think that is a problem indeed ) when i say that a high level player is only interested in cargo, then i WILL get that sort of traders that exploit Tau-31. ( and thats not the fault of tau-31, its the players that do it )
when we want to see more than just trains flying around - we must make alternatives.
many suggestions were made. like VIPs NOT taking up 5 cargo slots on liners. passengers taking up 2 slots on a cargo tansport, but only 1 on a liner. artifacts/drugs taking up 1 slot on a freighter - but 2 on a cargo transport. take away thrusters from transports, double their armor but reduce their shield class to lvl4.
a lot of those suggestions were made and i think some of them would work into the direction to NOT see all the high levels fly trains or container ships. those that fly anything else but those 2 ships are naive roleplayers and i am damn happy that we have those around. cause when you only go by stats, - i m really sorry, transports are the ship of choice. they are master of all traits and not master of one like they should be. a transport is a flying fortress that can hardly be cracked by anyone that sticks to roleplay. ( yes, i know a fighter can crack a contrainertransport with armor upgrade 8 - but try with a roleplay fighter, roleplay armor, roleplay weaponry - whats left then. a few corsairs might be able to take a transport down, cause they have novas. a few outcasts might - but they don t have armor 8 - and will prolly die to the transports turrets and they only have infernos and their kraken weapons - no one else has high punch weapons, order won t pirate, zoners don t do that either - not too many others have access to that technology )
to encourage roleplaying and diversity - i believe its a step into the wrong direction to punish freighters even more. if you think they are only for the low level players - make them more attractive to the higher levels - and i do not mean increasing their cargo. there ARE other stats than just cargo size - and players know about it.
Ps.: i m flying a luxory liner right now, cause my main cargo is passengers and artifacts - and yes, i could easily afford a train or even an advanced train when its going live. but what passenger would like to travel in a container when there are liners around.
@ Igiss: I agree with Morrigan. I personally have a Junker ID on my Container Transport (4400 units). My CT has both Junker ID and Junker IFF. He is 100% Junker. As the Junker ID states, he is authorized to participate in "trade". Yes, this ID permits other activities, such has bounty hunting, mercenary work and piracy. But these are not the ONLY things the ID permits. And this is the same for many other ID's. As such, I've chosen to role play my Junker as a trading vessel. If you look at the Trader ID, it specifies the Trader ID is not permitted to participate in illegal activity - hence no Artifacts, Cardamine, etc. The Trader ID is the generic ID similar to the Pirate ID. Rogues, Mollys etc are the specific pirates. In the same way, Republic ID, etc are the specific traders. There are trading vessels bearing the Trader ID, Liberty Navy ID and other lawful ID's that participate in smuggling operations. I don't see a problem with Junkers and the like from wearing their Junker ID on a transport or freighter (so long as they do not engage in piracy, military operations, etc). If they are in a transport or freighter, they should be carrying cargo (legal or illegal cargo).
Quote:Freighters are basically transport ships for lower-level players. Yes, sure, many people who start playing get starting bonuses from factions. But what if they don't want to? Then they'll need a cheap old Rhino, as well as other low-level freighters. More sophisticated freighters are well-defended and can withstand dangerous routes even in a hostile environment. But they are still for relatively low-level players.
You are welcome to find another server with a better roleplay. If you think that low-level players should not exist at all, and should not have any ships to use, then Discovery is obviously a wrong mod choice.
Distinction between freighters and transports comes from Vanilla. All player-flyable trading crafts are called "freighters". Larger NPC trading ships are called transports. Armored transport, transport, large transport. There are other names (like Train, or Lifter), but they are less generic. Given the limited options to customize ships that are availabel in Freelancer, it's not possible to divide the trading ships into two separate groups (like top-level VHFs and LFs, or something like that). I don't see what a transport cannot provide compared to a freighter. Agility? Not much needed, since such ships cannot participate in combat. Defensive capabilities? How can a freighter that's 10 times smaller than a transport have nearly as much hit points, shield and power capacity?
As for IDs and roleplaying: I think that nearly all factions will be allowed to fly transports with their "native" IDs, including pirate IDs, and even military IDs. We got a wrong practice when factions use transports with different IDs to get richer, and this will have to stop.
Cargo volume cannot differ from ship to ship. I know that there were suggestions about VIPs and passengers on liners, but there is no way this can be implemented. I already said that many times. Maybe you'll use search instead of posting same stuff again and again?
I believe that the only way to remove Tau-31-like exploits is to remove such opportunities from the game. Which will be done in 4.84. You cannot change people's minds to make everyone follow RP conventions. Also, before saying that transports are too tough, maybe you play 4.84 first? I hope that everyone who've posted here has been on PvP server in the recent weeks, cause otherwise it's a really pointless discussion.