Forums » Suggestions
Seems incredibly wasteful to me to have space that is dedicated to only supporting ships or only supporting cargo. It's not like you need a repair bay for each ship or something. Just have your docking clamps spread out evenly in the cargo hold, and recessed so that they don't get in the way of storing crates when you don't need so park a ship there.
I mean, in real life we can put whatever we danged well please inside a C-130. They don't have one area roped off with a "Reserved for tanks!" sign.
I mean, in real life we can put whatever we danged well please inside a C-130. They don't have one area roped off with a "Reserved for tanks!" sign.
^ ^ yes... I refuse to accept that nations capable of interstellar travel haven't figured out very efficient methods for storing things.
On capital size ships docking bays and cargo holds are two vary different types of area and not easily interchangeable. Cargo can be temporarily stored in docking areas but at an increased risk of loss for both crew and cargo.
On capital size ships docking bays and cargo holds are two vary different types of area and not easily interchangeable. Cargo can be temporarily stored in docking areas but at an increased risk of loss for both crew and cargo.
Thank God we have a knowledgable authority to tell us these immutable facts.
Thank God we have a knowledgable authority to tell us these immutable facts.
If you assume that cargo crates have very strong magnets, or a simple built-in clamping mechanism allowing two arbitrary crates to be joined together easily, they could be stuck along a wall, then stacked. As we are in space and (I assume) our ships have no artificial gravity, we could stick them to any wall. As long as you don't do anything stupid like make a tower out of them, it will be pretty solid. Stack them in a line along the corner of the "floor" and the "wall", then when you've reached the full width, start a new line above it. When you've gone all the way up, move forward one notch along the floor. That way every crate will be connected to another crate or a wall on at least three sides, and there will be no free-standing spars that could break free if the ship maneuvers too violently. (That doesn't explain how we can instantly jettison an arbitrary crate, but this is a game for Pete's sake.)
Ship storage is less efficient, because they can't be stacked. A lot of this depends on the geometry of the cargo hold of course, but if it's a very open space, ship storage would be limited to along the walls, and could limit how you can safely stack the cargo. However, if the hold is designed with shelves (think honeycomb), things get a lot more efficient. Also, you could store cargo more stably that way as well.
That mostly applies to really really big ships though. For something like a Trident, the hold probably wouldn't be very tall, so there wouldn't be significant wasted space along the middle if you park ships on both the floor and ceiling. If you can even fit them on both. Therefor, no need for shelves.
Really, this isn't rocket science.
Ship storage is less efficient, because they can't be stacked. A lot of this depends on the geometry of the cargo hold of course, but if it's a very open space, ship storage would be limited to along the walls, and could limit how you can safely stack the cargo. However, if the hold is designed with shelves (think honeycomb), things get a lot more efficient. Also, you could store cargo more stably that way as well.
That mostly applies to really really big ships though. For something like a Trident, the hold probably wouldn't be very tall, so there wouldn't be significant wasted space along the middle if you park ships on both the floor and ceiling. If you can even fit them on both. Therefor, no need for shelves.
Really, this isn't rocket science.
@CD I bet if this ever gets into play. Ours will be gone instantaneously.
Bumping this thread because, well: it has been 3 months since suggesting it, and I know several more people are ready or nearly ready to build, but are holding out for the variants. Also, the devs dropped in all 3 master computer missions like a year ago (?), it'd be great to finally move some of these things!
But the REAL reason I'm bumping it:
Back on the topic of what the relative stats and performance might be, I MAY have just changed my mind on the design philosophy behind the type S and P ships, and wanted everyone to consider it: make the Type S faster and more agile and the Type P beefier and less maneuverable. Imagine 4 SCP launching out of a Serco trident vs 4 Valk X-1's... wouldn't those ships be complimented by the OPPOSITE design strategy? Otherwise, the gas-guzzling Proms, which can take a good pounding are riding in the slowpoke tank of a cappie, when they would be better deployed by a faster, more maneuverable assault dropship, while the Itani could use a sturdier house for their already agile fighters, able to stay around longer in the heat to repair the fighters.
just a thought...
But the REAL reason I'm bumping it:
Back on the topic of what the relative stats and performance might be, I MAY have just changed my mind on the design philosophy behind the type S and P ships, and wanted everyone to consider it: make the Type S faster and more agile and the Type P beefier and less maneuverable. Imagine 4 SCP launching out of a Serco trident vs 4 Valk X-1's... wouldn't those ships be complimented by the OPPOSITE design strategy? Otherwise, the gas-guzzling Proms, which can take a good pounding are riding in the slowpoke tank of a cappie, when they would be better deployed by a faster, more maneuverable assault dropship, while the Itani could use a sturdier house for their already agile fighters, able to stay around longer in the heat to repair the fighters.
just a thought...
"I vote treat the docked ships as cargo, and just have one grand unified bay. Ship docks, decrease remaining cargo space by the volume of the ship's bounding box (as opposed to the ship's displacement)."
+1
Alloh's stats
-500 why would a mining ship have better armor and armament than a carrier?
+1
Alloh's stats
-500 why would a mining ship have better armor and armament than a carrier?
1+ any updates to increase interest in tridents would be worthwhile
I disagree on having docking ships become cargo in effect. A docking bay and the cargo bay are different systems. What I would prefer though would be the option to exchange cargo on a docked ship with the cargo in the capship however, then simply increase the cargo bay on the type M to 800cu (4x an XC's hold).
Given the enormous difference in size between the Behemoth and the Trident, I find it ridiculous that the cargo capacity of the latter is not at least an order of magnitude greater than the former. That the Type-M is limited to a mere 400cu is absolutely criminal.
I wholeheartedly support Pizzasgood's suggestion that docked ships be stored as cargo; this is already done, after a fashion, with the station inventories. However, since ships currently occupy 100cu in storage, considerations must be made for ships with cargo capacities greater than 100cu to avoid certain abuses. My preferred solution would be to add the volume of whatever cargo the ship may be carrying to the base 100cu figure (e.g., so an empty XC would only require 100cu, but an XC with a full cargo load would require 300cu).
I wholeheartedly support Pizzasgood's suggestion that docked ships be stored as cargo; this is already done, after a fashion, with the station inventories. However, since ships currently occupy 100cu in storage, considerations must be made for ships with cargo capacities greater than 100cu to avoid certain abuses. My preferred solution would be to add the volume of whatever cargo the ship may be carrying to the base 100cu figure (e.g., so an empty XC would only require 100cu, but an XC with a full cargo load would require 300cu).
It might be an order of magnitude bigger if it didn't have a docking bay, space for 4 ships to dock, and a fully stocked repair and reload facility.
Large ships already require 300cu as a base. There aren't abuses in the stations because no ship can store as much as it costs to "dock" with a station.
The reason the stations "store" ships as storage is to limit the number of ships which can be docked there for a given player, but still allow for unlimited docking for everyone combined.
A capship is another matter. The problem with implementing a similar system as the stations in capships just yet is that the hold would represent a sort of shared space. (BTW, something which doesn't yet exist in stations)
To do this, we need to accept 1 of 2 things:
* Shared space for all who dock, which would mean that the stations would allow for shared space too. This isn't such an easy thing. One of the reasons we can't get guild storage is largely because of the choice to make ships take up storage space. While I think it's fixable, I remain convinced that's why. I should think we should fix storage in the stations first before we go about attempting to muck up the capships.
* A separate docking bay with a fixed number of slots, but with capship storage separate from the ships in the bay. This is the easiest to implement as it follows the existing game engine.
As stated, the desire to utilize storage space on capships when docking with them is straightforward, but I don't think is implementable atm. We need to fix station storage so guilds can share storage (and provide a model for the capships). Doing this would also eventually lead to allowing players to exchange cargo with one another while in the station or on the capship.
The reason the stations "store" ships as storage is to limit the number of ships which can be docked there for a given player, but still allow for unlimited docking for everyone combined.
A capship is another matter. The problem with implementing a similar system as the stations in capships just yet is that the hold would represent a sort of shared space. (BTW, something which doesn't yet exist in stations)
To do this, we need to accept 1 of 2 things:
* Shared space for all who dock, which would mean that the stations would allow for shared space too. This isn't such an easy thing. One of the reasons we can't get guild storage is largely because of the choice to make ships take up storage space. While I think it's fixable, I remain convinced that's why. I should think we should fix storage in the stations first before we go about attempting to muck up the capships.
* A separate docking bay with a fixed number of slots, but with capship storage separate from the ships in the bay. This is the easiest to implement as it follows the existing game engine.
As stated, the desire to utilize storage space on capships when docking with them is straightforward, but I don't think is implementable atm. We need to fix station storage so guilds can share storage (and provide a model for the capships). Doing this would also eventually lead to allowing players to exchange cargo with one another while in the station or on the capship.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/25286#311311
Behemoths must take 400cu. Other ships remain as they are, with 300/Large, 200/medium, 100/light
And fixed docking bays. Cargo capacity should be "tied" to docking bay size. So we have 4 trident versions for Combat/NPC, hauler, "generic" and carrier.
And since a Moth takes 300/400cu storage for maximum 200cu cargo, not a good deal to pack them into a carrier trident.
Behemoths must take 400cu. Other ships remain as they are, with 300/Large, 200/medium, 100/light
And fixed docking bays. Cargo capacity should be "tied" to docking bay size. So we have 4 trident versions for Combat/NPC, hauler, "generic" and carrier.
And since a Moth takes 300/400cu storage for maximum 200cu cargo, not a good deal to pack them into a carrier trident.
I'm not liking the idea of docking bays tied to cargo capacity, nor docked ships impacting the main cargo hold, mostly for what I imagine would be a rather complicated fix for the devs to implement this on player ships, and they have enough work to do on these ships that are WAY more important. But also:
1) docking facilities would include all kinds of specialty hookups, docking clamps, repair and reload equipment, etc, to service a set number of ships, and my deck chief would have a fit if when rags were making combat landings there were a bunch of crates in the way.
2) Tying them would beg the issue of being able to dock as many ships as the cargo capacity allowed, and that is just not reasonable. No matter the size of the small ship, vult or moth, only a set number of ships would be able to be secured aboard.
3) I really didn't have a 3rd reason, but is sure seemed like I should. I guess it falls under "if it's not broke, don't fix it" category. Docking and cargo work on the trident. Don't invite future bugs.
@Mulle: with the reduced component recipes and reduced final mission, it is now in the realm of a dedicated solo effort. (my share of the effort on ORE's would have built one now). Your reticence is part of how the devs planned to limit the initial population of player tridents. I'll just say as a build-once-buy-the-rest ship, it has been totally worth it. Far less annoying than making superlights over and over, and you won't know all the uses of one until you look for them. They are magnets for group activity, offer a mobile repair & reload base, make levi hunting WAY easier, and are helping speed the builds of other players' Tridents.
At any rate, being that the ship gets improved with every update they give it, so could the type S and type P. The devs need only be clear as to what relative advantage each should offer, then keep that in mind as they update all 3, then players can choose their style and commit their build. I'll repeat my belief that: The more player cappies we field as a player base, the more right we have to ask for improvements.
The whole point of this thread, and my bumping it, was as a wake-up call for the implementation Incarnate intended before we greedy children insisted we get his first draft rather than wait for the finished plan, which as evidenced by the Prosus and Siepos Master computer builds (no small feat in themselves) dropped ingame just 2 weeks after the Milanar Computer, included a trio of ships.
1) docking facilities would include all kinds of specialty hookups, docking clamps, repair and reload equipment, etc, to service a set number of ships, and my deck chief would have a fit if when rags were making combat landings there were a bunch of crates in the way.
2) Tying them would beg the issue of being able to dock as many ships as the cargo capacity allowed, and that is just not reasonable. No matter the size of the small ship, vult or moth, only a set number of ships would be able to be secured aboard.
3) I really didn't have a 3rd reason, but is sure seemed like I should. I guess it falls under "if it's not broke, don't fix it" category. Docking and cargo work on the trident. Don't invite future bugs.
@Mulle: with the reduced component recipes and reduced final mission, it is now in the realm of a dedicated solo effort. (my share of the effort on ORE's would have built one now). Your reticence is part of how the devs planned to limit the initial population of player tridents. I'll just say as a build-once-buy-the-rest ship, it has been totally worth it. Far less annoying than making superlights over and over, and you won't know all the uses of one until you look for them. They are magnets for group activity, offer a mobile repair & reload base, make levi hunting WAY easier, and are helping speed the builds of other players' Tridents.
At any rate, being that the ship gets improved with every update they give it, so could the type S and type P. The devs need only be clear as to what relative advantage each should offer, then keep that in mind as they update all 3, then players can choose their style and commit their build. I'll repeat my belief that: The more player cappies we field as a player base, the more right we have to ask for improvements.
The whole point of this thread, and my bumping it, was as a wake-up call for the implementation Incarnate intended before we greedy children insisted we get his first draft rather than wait for the finished plan, which as evidenced by the Prosus and Siepos Master computer builds (no small feat in themselves) dropped ingame just 2 weeks after the Milanar Computer, included a trio of ships.
Aye - Many of us, myself included prefer to get a buggy feature rather then no feature at all. If the missing features and bugs bother you then I would suggest to build the components at a slow pace until you feel the result is worth the effort.There are a lot of competing game issues that need work and as Guild is only a small team we all need to be patient. Guild has made a lot of progress in the last two years with the release of conquerable stations and Cappies along with adding a whole new platform for us to play on.
As a matter of referance real world warships have very little cargo space on board with the exception of carriers. Almost all the space on board is pack full of systems, crew quarters and so on. The trident is a Military design with the same weapons and crew requirements. It is not a cargo vessel. If you really want a cargo ship or some other utility ship then expect it to have much less armor and weapons availible. In the long run Guild should design some capital sized ship for commercial purposes but that would require hiring for the new art work and modeling which is not in the cards at the moment.
As a matter of referance real world warships have very little cargo space on board with the exception of carriers. Almost all the space on board is pack full of systems, crew quarters and so on. The trident is a Military design with the same weapons and crew requirements. It is not a cargo vessel. If you really want a cargo ship or some other utility ship then expect it to have much less armor and weapons availible. In the long run Guild should design some capital sized ship for commercial purposes but that would require hiring for the new art work and modeling which is not in the cards at the moment.
In the long run Guild should design some capital sized ship for commercial purposes but that would require hiring for the new art work and modeling which is not in the cards at the moment.
Or, you know, just making the pre-existing TPG Constellation Heavy Transport available.
Or, you know, just making the pre-existing TPG Constellation Heavy Transport available.
The trident is a Military design with the same weapons and crew requirements. It is not a cargo vessel. If you really want a cargo ship or some other utility ship then expect it to have much less armor and weapons available.
This is assertion is undermined by the fact that the Trident with the most cargo space is the militarized Skirmish variant at 550cu, and the one with the least is the civilian Convoy variant at 300cu. As far as I can tell from the stats, the Type-M is supposed to occupy a sort of middle ground–not quite fully military or civilian. Meanwhile, the enormous Constellation Heavy Transport – a capship specifically designed as a freighter – has a rather unimpressive 1500cu cargo bay.
No, the problem is that capship cargo capacities in general are just insane.
This is assertion is undermined by the fact that the Trident with the most cargo space is the militarized Skirmish variant at 550cu, and the one with the least is the civilian Convoy variant at 300cu. As far as I can tell from the stats, the Type-M is supposed to occupy a sort of middle ground–not quite fully military or civilian. Meanwhile, the enormous Constellation Heavy Transport – a capship specifically designed as a freighter – has a rather unimpressive 1500cu cargo bay.
No, the problem is that capship cargo capacities in general are just insane.
Or, you know, just making the pre-existing TPG Constellation Heavy Transport available.
+1
Not that I've never agreed with the good Doctor's ideas, but this might be a first: saying I do :)
All in good Soon(TM) time, I suppose...
+1
Not that I've never agreed with the good Doctor's ideas, but this might be a first: saying I do :)
All in good Soon(TM) time, I suppose...
I almost dread seeing what the crafting requirements will be.....