That's a reasonable point, imo. In the past, I have proposed and implemented the idea of making sure the larger ships have the most cargo capacity. But with the requests to allow small ships to offer the same kind of cargo options if they are compromised in other areas has resulted in the current system that lets you give up other modular components in exchange for more cargo space (in a small frame). But to make a Talon a 5 cargo bay hauler requires some near bottom end compromises for engine, wing/thruster set, shield core, and/or fuel tank. But the option is there for the players that seem to want it (likely to get access to heavier cargo loads earlier in the game and for peaceful transport options in safe space).I agree with that, but shouldn't a leviathian be able to carry more cargo than a talon can?
I wouldn't think so, depending on what that final cost was. It might be more feasible to allow such transitions that expand in one area, but don't exceed current tolerances (which poses the problems I referred to earlier).and would being able to have a couple extra missile hardpoints on a saber be such a bad thing if there was a cost attached in both credits and equipment?
IIRC, Rami suggested something a while back that involved 'sub' classes of existing frames. You could buy one that was pre-built for a more combat role in its design, giving you another 2 hardpoints or something in exchange for 1 less equipment hardpoint (just an example of the idea). That might be an option since all of the current tolerances could be kept and these purpose-built designs could be added to the current data templates and menus.maybe an alternative option could be a larger range of ships in the shipyard which had these changes built-in, this would allow the additional flexibility yet restrict it in a way to reduce any negative effect on gameplay.
For example, lets say you drag and drop a frame to upgrade to. Another menu might open offering you 3 or 4 different possible pre-built configurations, a default model, combat tuned, or transport tuned. Each model might offer this type of configuration:
- Talon (default) 2 hardpoints, 4 crew, 5 equipment slots
- Talon (combat) 6 hardpoints, 2 crew, 3 equipment slots
- Talon (transport) 4 hardpoints, 2 crew, 4 equipment slots
So for the combat design, you'd get something like 4 extra hardpoints in exchange for less crew and equipment (of which things like a mining/tractor beam might not be as necessary, but the three could be used for a cannon relay or repair system, shield boost, and jump drive). The transport model could offer two extra hardpoints for additional weapon storage (more for trade than combat) while offering another equipment slot for the tractor beam.
Of course, with the heavier ships, you get a frame that's pretty well maxed out (and would need to remain within those limits to avoid exceeding current tolerances), but this might be an option for the lighter frames since the adjustments and reductions would keep within existing limits.
.
