Freighters (work in progress)

Post here if you are interested in the balancing of the Tim branded shiplist

Moderators: BitMask, Havok

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Freighters (work in progress)

Post#1 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:02 pm

What to do about the freighters.

Elimination of the SDSF, MDSF & Sm.Tran (as they stand) is worth doing.


=====T_E_B_T_F_Crew_MASS_CARGO_FUEL_$$$___T___D___M
SDSF__1_1__________2____30_____70__200__10___2___2____3
NSDF__1_1__________2____45____150__225__40___2__10____3
MDSF__3_1__________6____60____200__250__65___ 4___4____6
NMDF__3_1__________6____90____300__325_100___4__20____6

TRAN__4_1_2________15___30_____50__180__25___2___2___20
NTRAN_4_2__________30__110____600__450_130___6__40____8


LDSF__6_2_________102___130__1200__600__160__7___85___8
STF__10_4_________202___160__2600_1200__220__13_125___18

Edit to add:
I don't like the NSDF nor the NMDF due to them being marginally more
expensive and still easily used as slot holders.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#2 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:19 pm

I think the solution to the SDSF and MDSF is to increase the SDSF's cargo capacity to 300, increase the MDSF's cargo capacity to 500, and greatly increase the costs for both.

This makes them both truely useful ships and possibly worth building in their own right, and would make them too expensive to use as slot-fillers.

I would suggest increasing the cost of the small to at least 75. T=10, D=35, M=7.

Increase the MDSF to: $=90, T=10, D=50, M=9.

It might not make them absolutly prohibitive to use as slot-fillers, but it would help. With the higher amounts of Duranium it would limit the number built at new bases.

User avatar
Sysop
Site Admin
Posts: 1240
Contact:

Post#3 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:29 pm

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:I think the solution to the SDSF and MDSF is to increase the SDSF's cargo capacity to 300, increase the MDSF's cargo capacity to 500, and greatly increase the costs for both.

This makes them both truely useful ships and possibly worth building in their own right, and would make them too expensive to use as slot-fillers.

I would suggest increasing the cost of the small to at least 75. T=10, D=35, M=7.

Increase the MDSF to: $=90, T=10, D=50, M=9.

It might not make them absolutly prohibitive to use as slot-fillers, but it would help. With the higher amounts of Duranium it would limit the number built at new bases.
I had a similar idea, but only for the MDSF.

You could always take one and make an armored transport out of it as well?

User avatar
Rimstalker
Posts: 955
Contact:

Post#4 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:57 pm

there could be a second way: make the low-tech engines quite expensive in minerals and put 2 or 3 on the small freighters.

But i totally agree that the small deep is completely worthless junk and the medium is only slightly better. I might consider building medium deeps if they had like 500 cargo and a mass like the neutronic fuel carrier. That would also justify a high hull cost and with one engine it would still be quite different to the large deep.
Wirklich reich ist, wer mehr | Truly rich is, who holds
Träume in seiner Seele hat, | more dreams in his soul
als die Realität zerstören kann.| than reality can destroy.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Re: Freighters (work in progress) continuing

Post#5 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:57 pm

=====T_E_B_T_F_Crew_MASS_CARGO_FUEL_$$$___T___D___M
SDSF__1_1__________2____30_____70__200__10___2___2____3
NSDF__1_1__________2____45____150__225__40___2__10____3

ASDF__1_3_1_______20____60____150__225__70___10_20___10


MDSF__3_1__________6____60____200__250__65___ 4___4____6

NMDF__3_1__________6____90____300__325_100___4__20____6

AMDF__3_1_1_______50____10____300__325_130__15__30___15

TRAN__4_1_2________15___30_____50__180__25___2___2___20
NTRAN_4_2__________30__110____600__450_130___6__40____8
ATRAN_4_1_2________60___10____600__450_300__20__40___20
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#6 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:21 pm

So you didn't like my idea of 300 cargo for the small freighter and 500 for the medium?

The point is to make them useful. Consider that the freighter that everyone builds is the LDSF. It holds 1200Kts of cargo. A small freighter that carries 300 cargo is useable, but it is still much more economical to build a LDSF. It would be the freighter of last resort.

The Medium freighter would compare quite a bit better with 500KTs of cargo space. Two mediums would come close to the same capacity as a large, would provide more flexibility, but slightly higher costs.

It might even be worthwhile to increase the capacity of the SDSF to 350, or even 400. The idea is to provide incentive to build them with real engines.

But in thinking about this, it occurs to me that the problem is not just the cost of the hull: it is the cost of the engines and their usefulness.

I will continue this in a different thread.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#7 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:59 pm

Zap,
There's something of a bit of each comment in the above.
I'm basically doing a whiteboard.

Fiddle, take comments, fiddle some more.
I'm not so much rejecting anything right now.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#8 » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:42 pm

Only problem I see with putting a beam(s) on freighters is that
it makes freight raiding by small ships like scouts much more
difficult.

... more thinking/tinkering
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Re: Freighters (work in progress) continuing

Post#9 » Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:03 pm

B A N E wrote:=====T_E_B_T_F_Crew_MASS_CARGO_FUEL_$$$___T___D___M
SDSF__1_1__________2____30_____70__200__10___2___2____3
NSDF__1_1__________2____45____150__225__40___2__10____3

ASDF__1_3_1_______20____60____150__225__70___10_20___10


MDSF__3_1__________6____60____200__250__65___ 4___4____6

NMDF__3_1__________6____90____300__325_100___4__20____6

AMDF__3_1_1_______50____10____300__325_130__15__30___15

TRAN__4_1_2________15___30_____50__180__25___2___2___20
NTRAN_4_2__________30__110____600__450_130___6__40____8
ATRAN_4_1_2________60___10____600__450_300__20__40___20

nice colors 8)

i do not like those armed freighters. i think the 300/500 cargo idea is quite cool. although i often build some mdsf already. most times i build them with level 7 or 8 engines if i am short of money and need a freighter fast to get more supps/money/ressources to a newly developed world. with 500 cargo this would work much much better and make the ldsf obsolete in many situations. never forget the hull tech as a factor here. and only one engine..... easily build!

i think the small transport should never get 600 cargo. it is a SMALL transport!
as alternative to the sdsf it should get the 2 beams but slightly less or the same amount of cargo than the sdsf. that way you could choose between capacity and safety.
have fun!

hennef

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#10 » Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:35 pm

One of the things desired in fixing the original ship list is the removal
of slot fillers.
So, we have to up the cost.
BUT, to up the cost, IMO it should purchase usefulness.

I would not worry about what the original shipslot looked like.

I'm fiddling with useful cargo size with some justifications for the
high cost of the various "former slot fillers"

As for the sdsf, following Rimstalker's advice, putting 3 engines on
it is simply to remove that ship from existence.

Another option would be to perhaps talk to Merlin about a program
that would scan the host files and colonize all sdsfs and mdsfs with
tech1-5 engines after turn 20? :twisted:
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Post#11 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:15 am

B A N E wrote:One of the things desired in fixing the original ship list is the removal
of slot fillers.
So, we have to up the cost.
BUT, to up the cost, IMO it should purchase usefulness.

I would not worry about what the original shipslot looked like.

I'm fiddling with useful cargo size with some justifications for the
high cost of the various "former slot fillers"

As for the sdsf, following Rimstalker's advice, putting 3 engines on
it is simply to remove that ship from existence.

Another option would be to perhaps talk to Merlin about a program
that would scan the host files and colonize all sdsfs and mdsfs with
tech1-5 engines after turn 20? :twisted:
I think my engine revisions will go a long way toward eliminating the SDSF slot filler. (For the rest of you, you'll see them later, after the bugs have chased down and squashed.)

If we were going to put three engines on the SDSF it would be better to simply remove it from the list completely. Better to increase the price of the ship and make it useful to build. Admittedly, the SDSF would likely not get built very often, still, but at least it would be there if you REALLY needed a freighter and didn't have the resources for anything else.

ROFL
No, not even colonize them. Just remove them from the game when the ship count reaches 500! Heh, heh, heh... :twisted: :twisted:

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Epiphany!

Post#12 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:28 am

Replace in races 1-10 the mdsf with the Aries Class Transport.

Why?
The CofM doesn't build it, they have the vastly superior Cobol.
This is a ship that folks WILL build.

What's the drawback?
The Neutronic Fuel Refinery becomes junk?

Yes and no.
The Aries is a very vulnerable ship and can be preyed upon by
relatively small ships.

The NFR is not so easily killed.
Want high productivity? Aries.
Want higher security? NFR.

That leaves the sdsf.
I'm liking the idea of Merlyn deleting them in game. :twisted:
One reason I like the idea of an in game filter is that if the sdsf
is needed and it is built with a respectable engine, it isn't just
a slot filler. The more I think about this, the more I like it.

Then, we just up the cargo hold of the sdsf to say... 300?
Small, useful, deleted when abused.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Posts: 688

Re: Epiphany!

Post#13 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:40 am

B A N E wrote:Replace in races 1-10 the mdsf with the Aries Class Transport.

Why?
The CofM doesn't build it, they have the vastly superior Cobol.
This is a ship that folks WILL build.

What's the drawback?
The Neutronic Fuel Refinery becomes junk?

Yes and no.
The Aries is a very vulnerable ship and can be preyed upon by
relatively small ships.

The NFR is not so easily killed.
Want high productivity? Aries.
Want higher security? NFR.

That leaves the sdsf.
I'm liking the idea of Merlyn deleting them in game. :twisted:
One reason I like the idea of an in game filter is that if the sdsf
is needed and it is built with a respectable engine, it isn't just
a slot filler. The more I think about this, the more I like it.

Then, we just up the cargo hold of the sdsf to say... 300?
Small, useful, deleted when abused.
The Aries is an interesting idea, but I think it might make fuel production too easy. Is it possible to change the ratio of minerals/fuel?

I am honestly not crazy about the idea of filter to remove the small and medium freighters. I think that increasing the cost of tech one engines to 50MCrs each and increasing the mineral cost to T:15 D:5 M:0 would reduce the number of SDSFs built as slot-fillers. With the increased cargo capacity of the SDSF the cost in minerals and money should also increase.

I think 75-100MCrs, T:25-30, D:35-40, M:3-4 as the minimum cost would drasticly reduce the number of SDSFs built as slot fillers.

User avatar
hennef
Posts: 2250

Post#14 » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:25 am

we never agreed on the termination of slot fillers here ;)

i will start a little list with the changes we discussed in this forum. i will take a half LDSF as MDSF. why not? the superDSF is a double LDSF. and i will make the sdsf armored, because i like the thought of that very much. 300 cargo and 2 beams, why not? that way, both ships become a little more expansive and the slot filling will be left for other ships, like the terras, the small frigates, the neutronic transport, the probes and the falcon, etc.....
have fun!

hennef

planetmaker
Posts: 88
Contact:

Post#15 » Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:02 pm

B A N E wrote:Only problem I see with putting a beam(s) on freighters is that it makes freight raiding by small ships like scouts much more
difficult.

... more thinking/tinkering
The biggest problem for armed freighters is the big boost you give the Gorn in doing so: Haul around all your freight needed while hissing. You don't want to do that IMO.

Return to “Project 1: Fixing Tim's List”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron