Is it time to 'fix' the Anaconda?

[Thermonuklear]

Would it be possible to make the 'fix' optional via the settings menu? Or to make a new submenu for 'realism'/'lore-accuracy' settings?

[Bugbear]

My 2c / 2p

I agree with the various previous posts suggesting the Anaconda hold be reverted to 250Tc

At the risk of repeating one of the later posts that I've yet to read...would it be possible / worthwhile to make core ship cargo capacity OXP moddable?

[Bugbear]

I created the contracts options to cater specifically for ships with capacities far above the Cobra, where the 127 unit limit for trading commodities was proving a nuisance, and to give an extra 'mission-like' element. So really designed for ships other than the Cobra3.

If the Anaconda's capacity is reduced then, yes, the contracts system should match it. Actually though, the contract generation system should be adjusted so that it takes account of the largest capacity ships available to the player from the core ships and from OXPs.

+1 this

[cim]

would it be possible / worthwhile to make core ship cargo capacity OXP moddable?

It already is. The simplest way to do this by OXP is:

shipdata-overrides.plist

Code: Select all

"anaconda" = {
  "max_cargo" = 150;
}
"anaconda-player" = {
  "max_cargo" = 150;
}

If you have "addition"-style shipset OXPs, or ship OXPs providing Anaconda variants, then you'll also need to edit or override the cargo capacities they define for their Anacondas.

Would it be possible to make the 'fix' optional via the settings menu? Or to make a new submenu for 'realism'/'lore-accuracy' settings?

In this specific case, no, not without giving anyone writing an Anaconda ship OXP a lot of extra work.

In the general case, while that sort of thing is technically possible, that's what OXPs are for. Any option we put in the core game people will (rightly) expect us to have tested. We already don't test Strict Mode enough.

[Eric Walch]

I voted to leave the Anaconda alone, to leave it as is. ... The Anaconda is so slow and difficult to maneuver that its large cargo capacity is not really that much of an advantage.

That is also my opinion. I always fly the BCC and that ship has a cargo space of 175 and cant fit a cargo extension. Most of the time I hardly need more cargo space. When you would give the Anaconda a cargo space of 250 (just 42% more than the BCC), it is hardly an improvement in cargo capacity. Comparing this with the very bad fight characteristics of the anaconda, nobody want to have it. On the other hand, when the cargo space is 4 times higher than the BCC, this makes a big difference and allows for a real career choice of becoming a real trader with limited combat options.

So leave it alone to keep a reel difference between core ships.

[GGShinobi]

I voted to leave the Anaconda alone, to leave it as is. ... The Anaconda is so slow and difficult to maneuver that its large cargo capacity is not really that much of an advantage.

That is also my opinion. I always fly the BCC and that ship has a cargo space of 175 and cant fit a cargo extension. Most of the time I hardly need more cargo space. When you would give the Anaconda a cargo space of 250 (just 42% more than the BCC), it is hardly an improvement in cargo capacity. Comparing this with the very bad fight characteristics of the anaconda, nobody want to have it. On the other hand, when the cargo space is 4 times higher than the BCC, this makes a big difference and allows for a real career choice of becoming a real trader with limited combat options.

So leave it alone to keep a reel difference between core ships.

What Eric Walch and Solonar said!

And as cim said: if I think a ship has the wrong values, I can still modify it as I desire. I already did so with the stardestroyer.oxp, made it a little faster yet less manoeuvrable, so it moves like in the movies. And much more durable With lot's of missiles. If I was only able to add (much) more military lasers to each side and get it to use them... Oh no, I'm drifting off-topic!

[Switeck]

I could even take more cargo contracts than total capacity by temporarily offloading my goods at a station so I had room to get more. This could prove problematic because I'd need to re-buy similar goods later before reaching the destinations.

This has always struck me as a something of a flaw in the cargo business. If someone wants to pay me over the odds to shift some cargo from one end of the chart to the other, you'd think they'd be the tiniest bit particular that the recipient received the same goods at the other end. It should probably penalize you if the contents of your hold drop below the contracted amount.

It depends on what you think cargo contracts are. If they're generic bulk-hauling contracts, (where 1 TC of something is the same as another TC of the same type of item) then I am certainly doing nothing wrong. The problematic risk of needing to re-buy similar goods is weighted against the low payout. Just one bad combat can cause the loss of cargo. There's also OXPs that can empty your cargo bay, some requiring neither being in a fight nor having a bounty on your head.

Cargo Contracts were already cruel enough:
https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.ph ... 63#p161763

Cargo contracts exist to give playing a large-capacity "freighter" type another purpose. And in that regard, Anacondas are the epitome of long-haul cargo carriers.
But cargo contract changes made since v1.75 have served to devalue the Anaconda. Smaller contracts means it's much easier to get started and build a reputation without needing a huge cargo bay. But...contracts now don't pay as much profit relative to their costs. And they're still more like a snipe hunt than a regular route heavy cargo haul.

Taken together, this makes the Anaconda less "worth" playing than before.

[JD]

...whoever is coming up with these contracts deserves to be gamed, scammed, robbed, and put out of business.

You make a good point there.

[m4r35n357]

My thoughts, FWIW; keep the Anaconda as is, restore the energy bomb (with reduced effect), reduce speed of Cobra, and reintroduce "you have been boarded by pirates"

[Cody]

... "you have been boarded by pirates"

Remind me... which version of Elite is that from?

[m4r35n357]

... "you have been boarded by pirates"

Remind me... which version of Elite is that from?

I remember it from the Speccy days, not sure if I ever saw it on the ST version though.

[Cody]

Ah... I certainly don't recall seeing it in BBC Elite.

[m4r35n357]

Ah... I certainly don't recall seeing it in BBC Elite.

Easily done with an OXP I would think! Might look into it after I've refreshed my other stuff for 1.77 . . .

[Commander McLane]

Ah... I certainly don't recall seeing it in BBC Elite.

Easily done with an OXP I would think! Might look into it after I've refreshed my other stuff for 1.77 . . .

Been there, done that. (Twice.)

Oh, and Eric Walch, too.

[m4r35n357]

Been there, done that. (Twice.)

Oh, and Eric Walch, too.

D'oh!, pretty sure I've seen at least one of those before, anyway, no more excuses