Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: BillyRueben on May 03, 2012, 04:24:11 PM
-
Why are the freighters so costly when it comes to Fleet Points? Their carrying capacity isn't that large compared to other ships, they are awful in combat, and I can't imagine them being that hard to maintain outside of combat. Right now, bringing along an extra Venture is better than having a freighter even if you are only interested in adding to your cargo capacity. What am I missing?
EDIT:
So, I figured I'd let Excel do some arguing for me. Here are the Fleet Point cost vs. Cargo Capacity for a few ships that I could round up data for:
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff17/BillyRueben/FPtoCCStarfarer.jpg)
(Note: I left the Atlas off because I think it is fine, and it makes the graph hard to read.)
Every ship on that graph has a use in combat except for the Tarsus and the Buffalo, which is why I think either their Fleet Point requirement should be decreased or their carrying capacity increased.
Then I got around to thinking "maybe their cost has a little to do with it". So:
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff17/BillyRueben/FPtoCCtoHCStarfarer.jpg)
(Note: HC = Hull Cost. All CC/HC numbers are multiplied by 1k to fit on graph.)
Even with their costs "factored" in, the dedicated freighter FP costs seems too high IMO.
-
Hammerhead 100
Sunder 80
Condor 120
Enforcer 90
Buffalo 300
Gemini 250
Tarsus 300
Valkyrie 50
Buffalo Mk.II 60
Medusa 50
so, worse case you would need 6 medusas ( 66 FP ) to equal 1 buffalo. best case you would need 2 hammerheads and a medusa ( 31 FP ) to equal 1 gemini. that's still very terribly uneconomical than buying a single buffalo / gemini.
EDIT: herp derp.
-
But on the other hand:
Venture 500 cargo 12 FP
It kind of defeats the purpose of anything smaller - its not even that much more expensive for the cargo space and is pretty decent in combat. As much as it pains me to say, I think the Venture needs to be nerfed down to ~400 cargo. :'(
-
Freighters work really well in the early game to boost transport capability for loot.
Later on you don't need them anymore due to the combined storage of your whole fleet.
Though they might still come in handy if you go for complete fighter wing fleets which cuts down in fuel/cargo capacity.
-
But on the other hand:
Venture 500 cargo 12 FP
It kind of defeats the purpose of anything smaller - its not even that much more expensive for the cargo space and is pretty decent in combat. As much as it pains me to say, I think the Venture needs to be nerfed down to ~400 cargo. :'(
but then you could just just save up 3.2k extra, and spend 3 more FP and get an atlas, which has 4x the cargo capacity, making cargo room a non-issue for the rest of the game.
though really, you cant stack ventures, as 12 FP vs 100 total gets quite crippling really fast, plus if you plan on using fighters, its gets even more prohibitive.
-
I use an Atlas, love it, remember that that thing has a flight deck! And 20 hangar space.
-
I use an Atlas, love it, remember that that thing has a flight deck! And 20 hangar space.
it has more than 1 flight deck
-
I use an Atlas, love it, remember that that thing has a flight deck! And 20 hangar space.
it has more than 1 flight deck
Nope, only one, I'm looking right at it at the moment so I'm not mistaken.
-
The Astral is the 3 deck carrier.
-
The Astral is the 3 deck carrier.
Ya know, the big blue modern one, not the medium brown/gray/old one
-
The Astral is the 3 deck carrier.
Ya know, the big blue modern one, not the medium brown/gray/old one
wut?
-
*cough* ATLAS = Super Freighter.
Astral = Super Carrier
-
^
Yup lol. But I do have to say, making an Atlas as a flagship and flying that thing around with a few fighters and some light assault guns... Isn't as bad as you think.
-
:P Don't get into any fights though, that thing is outclassed by even a Lasher.
-
but then you could just just save up 3.2k extra, and spend 3 more FP and get an atlas, which has 4x the cargo capacity, making cargo room a non-issue for the rest of the game.
though really, you cant stack ventures, as 12 FP vs 100 total gets quite crippling really fast, plus if you plan on using fighters, its gets even more prohibitive.
The idea of freighters seems to be that they sacrifice combat capability for cargo/fuel/personnel space (depending on the type of hauler), which is supposed to be "worth it" based on the FP costs that are more or less equal to other ships of the same size. "not being able to stack ventures" because of their FP cost isnt really relevant when you see that you cant really stack anything else either because of the low FP cap, the problem is with how efficient each are at their job. If using ventures (which can deal and take some serious punishment compared to other freighters) is better than using any freighter then it should probably be balanced.
Not that we really have anything significant to haul around at this point or anything :P. I'm not surprised the balance is out of wack, its not useful atm and i think its safe to assume it will improve in the future.
-
FP cost isn't really relevant
that's all i read.
-
Yeah... FP Cost isn't directly tied to a ship's combat effectiveness, or... any effectiveness in some cases. ( ie mining drone )
-
...? talk about taking stuff out of context, holy ***. I never understood why people post "thats all i read", it makes you look silly for not reading the surrounding words and often damages the discussion as is apparent.
Look:
"The idea of freighters seems to be that they sacrifice combat capability for cargo/fuel/personnel space (depending on the type of hauler), which is supposed to be "worth it" based on the FP costs that are more or less equal to other ships of the same size. "not being able to stack ventures" because of their FP cost isnt really relevant when you see that you cant really stack anything else either because of the low FP cap, the problem is with how efficient each are at their job."
@AC, mining drones im sure will eventually be for mining (what other reason would there be for all those visitable asteroids around the solar map) so general effectiveness is probably a good bar for FP (not combat specific, obviously). In the case of high tech ships, their "effectiveness" is balanced out by increased credit cost. Increased price would lower the "effectiveness" due to the extra difficulty of maintaining and deploying it, not that any of this is easily quantifiable.
-
i have to assume ships like the venture that do everything well are going to end up being MORE expensive than everything else when there are actual campaign bits in there. (IE progression not via combat) or much harder to find.
-
I do hope we get mining at some point.
But mining drones could also just be the drones (fighter wing without pilot losses) of the low tech variety.
-
I'm pretty sure we will. Freighters have unusually high FP to limit what a trader can carry, and mining drones are limited to make mining fleets weaker in combat.
I think ships like the Venture, Buffalo and the Lasher won't be very expensive- yes they're good but high tech ships have advantages over them. They're supposed to be ubitiquous anyway.
-
I guess the Venture will lose some carrying capacity, it doesn't seem like it'll be a rare ship and gimping it in combat seems like the wrong approach too.
-
Yes please. I am fine with this. But combat nerf would be sad. :(
-
I absolutely agree on keeping the Venture's combat stats the same. Its kind of a unique ship combat wise and I would hate to see its niche left empty.