Merge transports' nanobots into hull

[Capt. Henry Morgan]

I'm sure, in a 12 page thread (Edit: Now 13 pages), that this has been brought up before, but why stop with transports? Why not merge the bots on anything larger than a fighter? It would make a nice distinction between single-seat ships like snubs and freighters and larger, multi-crewed transports and capital ships.

---

Natio Octavarium
Faction Information and Status • Recruitment
Faction Feedback • Internal Affairs

[St.Denis]

Please. Make Transports less prone to instakills!

How about not making your Bomber capable of instant kills or, even better, use a fighter? I remember when most of the pirates I used to meet were in a Fighter.

Nowadays, most pirates are in Bombers that have a loadout, that if they don't get their 15 million within 5 seconds, they can kill the Trader in 2 seconds.

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[Lucas]

Please. Make Transports less prone to instakills!

How about not making your Bomber capable of instant kills or, even better, use a fighter? I remember when most of the pirates I used to meet were in a Fighter.

Nowadays, most pirates are in Bombers that have a loadout, that if they don't get their 15 million within 5 seconds, they can kill the Trader in 2 seconds.

On the opposite side of that coin, unless you fly a bomber it is basically impossible to pirate anything that is not a 5k cargo transport.

[SnakThree]

Please. Make Transports less prone to instakills!

How about not making your Bomber capable of instant kills or, even better, use a fighter? I remember when most of the pirates I used to meet were in a Fighter.

Nowadays, most pirates are in Bombers that have a loadout, that if they don't get their 15 million within 5 seconds, they can kill the Trader in 2 seconds.

This seems like huge exaggeration of an issue that is not directly responsible for this idea.

People should not be forced to fly certain loadout to have fun. What if people like EMP+Snac combo. SNAC deals 132k damage and would insta-kill majority of transports.

Here, take a look at it - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e...iA/pubhtml

Altohugh this is not just about SNAC and unarmored transports but in general protecting transports from insta kill for numerous reasons and cases.

---

[St.Denis]

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that Bombers are very good at taking Capital Ships and therefore, after the big nerf on the big Transports, 5kers are way too vulnerable.

I am not asking you to fly a certain loadout, but this just seems a way to appease your conscience. If it tickles you too much, don't pull the trigger.

To these silent Traders, it isn't going to make a difference, to them, whether you kill them on the first shot or the second one. The end result is the same.

I don't even bother trying to outrun a heavily armed Bomber, as it is generally a waste of time. Just pay the Pirate. He goes away happy with his 15 million and you go on Trading (or he gets to shoot the Trader and goes away happy but muttering about afk Traders and the Trader just ends back at square one, less the credits he originally spent).

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[SnakThree]

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that Bombers are very good at taking Capital Ships and therefore, after the big nerf on the big Transports, 5kers are way too vulnerable.

What nerf? In the past even VHFs could easily pirate most transports.

This would be a sweet "buff" in terms of "no more insta kills" by high-damage-in-one-hit weapons like SNAC, Nova, Mortars, etc. This would make transports with lag less likely to be shot down without chance of survival. But in the end, it would have no negative effect on their total HP and longevity. So I am still confused or simply don't understand why would you be against this change that benefits traders in transports more.

---

[St.Denis]

What nerf? In the past even VHFs could easily pirate most transports.

This would be a sweet "buff" in terms of "no more insta kills" by high-damage-in-one-hit weapons like SNAC, Nova, Mortars, etc. This would make transports with lag less likely to be shot down without chance of survival. But in the end, it would have no negative effect on their total HP and longevity. So I am still confused or simply don't understand why would you be against this change that benefits traders in transports more.

A couple of years ago or so, 5kers lost about 30% of their hull value and also their bots and bats.

For instance;
Pachyderme went from @125 hull to 88k hull and 450 bots/bats to 315.
Shetland went from @180 hull to 130k hull and 500 bots/bats to 350.

That is a big nerf, at least in my books.

Adding the bots to the Pachyderme would increase its hps to 277k. Just over 2 SNAC hits.

Adding the bots to the Shetland would increase its hps to 340k. Just under 3 SNAC hits.

It isn't going to make much of a difference when the Bombers are equipped to take down Capital Ships and do it quite well.

Against Transports, Heavy Bombers use 1 weapon to take down the shield, another to do the most damage to the hull and then dual Hellfire Pods to wipe out what is left. Very effective and even with bots built in, ends in same result (Trader doesn't have to waste his time hitting the button to stave off the inevitable).

As someone who Trades most of their time, whilst in Game, I don't see the point. Pay the Pirate and hope he isn't the impatient type that likes to count down very quickly whilst you are 2 finger typing some RP (which he isn't really interested in or believes you are calling in the cavalry).

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[Karst]

Since this was bumped, I'm going to jump in again.
From a balance perspective, this makes basically no difference whatsoever. Transports (with armor!) are already immune to any instakill short of like, battlecruiser mortars, and I don't see those being used against them very often. The main benefit is to those transport pilots that regularly fail to buy regens, because they forget autobuy exists or something. Mostly it would provide better immersion, since it looks weird to see a gigantic supertrain go from flaming to unscathed in a fraction of a second.
Giving them a handful of bots also solves the pirate restocking issue Actually that's obviously not true, since the transport will inevitably use the bots if dying. Even if it won't help them, so at least to just deny the pirate.
I don't see why this shouldn't be done (besides the effort of going through every transport entry in shiparch).

I'm sure, in a 12 page thread (Edit: Now 13 pages), that this has been brought up before, but why stop with transports? Why not merge the bots on anything larger than a fighter? It would make a nice distinction between single-seat ships like snubs and freighters and larger, multi-crewed transports and capital ships.

Not desirable for Gunboats, as they are intended to be instakillable by certain heavy cap weapons. For cruisers, eh. It's pretty difficult to instakill a cruiser and they could probably stand to lose their bots, too.
Edit: Honestly I wouldn't mind it for freighters either, although I'm sure there would be many tears about not being able to SNAC them anymore.
Double Edit: St. Denis, 5ks are supposed to be vulnerable. Prior to their nerf, we had the ridiculous situation in which a Shetland, in a situation in which transport weaponry wasn't an effective defense, would actually outlast a Shire.
If you maximize your cargo space by using a 5k you should also have your survivability minimized. A Cau8 5k not named Zoner Whale is still reasonably durable anyway.

---

[axisdeus]

All nice and all, but have you ever think of the repair costs, once nano-bots are off? I do remember it costs way less to repair by bots, than to pay for it inside a base.

Before everyone jumps at me, I might be wrong, as I have been away for quite a while and did not test this as of yet. But if memory serves me well, this will become an issue for transports getting damaged for whatever reason.

EDIT: Fixed some typos.

[SnakThree]

All nice and all, but have you ever think of the repair costs, once nano-bots are off? I do remember it costs way less to repair by bots, than to pay for it inside a base.

Beofre everyone jumps at me, I might e wrong, as I have been away quite a while and did not test this as of yet. But if memory serves me well, his will become an issue for transports getting damaged for whatever reason.

Fairly certain repair costs are insignificant in relation to profit from trading.

---