Forums » Suggestions
ok but HOW does it give traders no chance in hell? 500 word essay please with sources cited otherwise lecter wont take you seriously
+0.25 to OP.
Lets revisit the silly graph idea... This time with labels instead of just mystery bars!
Here we have Thrust/Mass ratios of a few ships. (I prefer Mass/Thrust so we're not dealing with stupidly small numbers, but im trying to stay consistent with the OP here.)
I included the ships mentioned here, and other threads as well as a couple others for comparison just to put this whole ridiculous debate into perspective.
For the 2-port ships (Raptor, Vultures) This includes the mass of a LENB, UC powercell, and a Sunflare rocket. Addon mass: 1500kg.
Its really hard to stay light without compromising firepower or putting a huge drain on your battery with a Valkyrie. It's equipped as 2x Raven, UC powercell, and a Sunflare rocket. Addon mass: 1660kg.
Sport/Lport ships (Hogs, Atlas) Includes the following: Megaposi, UC powercell, Sunflare rocket. Addon Mass: 1600kg.
The Greyhound doesn't have such a bad combat thrust ratio. Its better than all of the Warthogs save the WTD.
The Raptor would probably be a worthwhile chase ship if it had a lower turbo drain.
Which one of these is supposed to be the purpose-built interceptor again?
Lets revisit the silly graph idea... This time with labels instead of just mystery bars!
Here we have Thrust/Mass ratios of a few ships. (I prefer Mass/Thrust so we're not dealing with stupidly small numbers, but im trying to stay consistent with the OP here.)
I included the ships mentioned here, and other threads as well as a couple others for comparison just to put this whole ridiculous debate into perspective.
For the 2-port ships (Raptor, Vultures) This includes the mass of a LENB, UC powercell, and a Sunflare rocket. Addon mass: 1500kg.
Its really hard to stay light without compromising firepower or putting a huge drain on your battery with a Valkyrie. It's equipped as 2x Raven, UC powercell, and a Sunflare rocket. Addon mass: 1660kg.
Sport/Lport ships (Hogs, Atlas) Includes the following: Megaposi, UC powercell, Sunflare rocket. Addon Mass: 1600kg.
The Greyhound doesn't have such a bad combat thrust ratio. Its better than all of the Warthogs save the WTD.
The Raptor would probably be a worthwhile chase ship if it had a lower turbo drain.
Which one of these is supposed to be the purpose-built interceptor again?
"Its really hard to stay light without compromising firepower or putting a huge drain on your battery with a Valkyrie. It's equipped as 2x Raven, UC powercell, and a Sunflare rocket. Addon mass: 1660kg."
That's the Angry Pecker!
That's the Angry Pecker!
Yeah, one of my personal favorite loadouts. It's light and still packs a punch. Bit of a disadvantage when compared to the rest of these loadouts though as Ravens are only 195m/s.
+1 OP
It's the biggest joke here that Itani valk jocks consider 3 ports to be disadvantage. Oh look, we have 3 ports therefore we *HAVE* to equip 3 weapons and they *HAVE* to be heavy ones therefore we have more weight.
3 weapon ports are not a disadvantage, they are a massive advantage if you aim to keep a craft light. You can choose between a single, straight aligned port or two offset aligned ports and keep your weight advantage. That's not a downside, it's an upside.
Ship comparisons occur on the basis of the same loadout. Otherwise it's not a comparison. 3 ports is not a downside.
ARF's graph is not a comparison graph, it is stat manipulation.
3 weapon ports are not a disadvantage, they are a massive advantage if you aim to keep a craft light. You can choose between a single, straight aligned port or two offset aligned ports and keep your weight advantage. That's not a downside, it's an upside.
Ship comparisons occur on the basis of the same loadout. Otherwise it's not a comparison. 3 ports is not a downside.
ARF's graph is not a comparison graph, it is stat manipulation.
I just want to say how funny it is that you're using the unit of "N/kg" here. Wouldn't it be clearer to just write that as acceleration?
As to the OP, as long as high thrust values don't make the engine wig out (which really wouldn't surprise me) this seems like a reasonable proposal.
As to the OP, as long as high thrust values don't make the engine wig out (which really wouldn't surprise me) this seems like a reasonable proposal.
ok but HOW does it give traders no chance in hell? 500 word essay please with sources cited otherwise lecter wont take you seriously
Even the essay wouldn't make me take him seriously, but I would take his argument more seriously if it contained at least some explanation of how a change in accelleration -- not top speed, not combat ability, not firepower -- is problematic. How much faster would 600N let a Hound reach 225m/s than 350N? Not even twice as fast. OOOoooohhhh, soooo OP!
So yeah, I'm waiting for something more than 'Oh no, we can't have the crappy armored, EC-88 spin torqued, low combat speed, overpriced Hound accellerating in straight lines really fast!' That is the one thing the Hound is supposed to do better than anything else. As of now, it doesn't, but it should.
Even the essay wouldn't make me take him seriously, but I would take his argument more seriously if it contained at least some explanation of how a change in accelleration -- not top speed, not combat ability, not firepower -- is problematic. How much faster would 600N let a Hound reach 225m/s than 350N? Not even twice as fast. OOOoooohhhh, soooo OP!
So yeah, I'm waiting for something more than 'Oh no, we can't have the crappy armored, EC-88 spin torqued, low combat speed, overpriced Hound accellerating in straight lines really fast!' That is the one thing the Hound is supposed to do better than anything else. As of now, it doesn't, but it should.
Well, the hound does happen to be the only ship that can charge a UC/FC batt while turboing and go faster than 150m/s...
Oh look, we have 3 ports therefore we *HAVE* to equip 3 weapons and they *HAVE* to be heavy ones therefore we have more weight.
If I'm not using 3 ports I'll just fly a Vulture instead for the smaller hit profile. I never see you flying valks with an open slot either.
ARF's graph is not a comparison graph, it is stat manipulation.
No, these are all real game stats from real loadouts that people use for chase/interception. Savet even had a name for one of them.
Oh look, we have 3 ports therefore we *HAVE* to equip 3 weapons and they *HAVE* to be heavy ones therefore we have more weight.
If I'm not using 3 ports I'll just fly a Vulture instead for the smaller hit profile. I never see you flying valks with an open slot either.
ARF's graph is not a comparison graph, it is stat manipulation.
No, these are all real game stats from real loadouts that people use for chase/interception. Savet even had a name for one of them.
TRS has a point that it is better to give everyone the same weight equipment then to adjust that based on ports. Otherwise you could make the argument that a 2 port ship should equip heavier weapons to achieve firepower parity, etc. It is best to do the calculations with a fixed amount of equipment weight, say 1500kg.
Yeah, that's why I shot for ~1500kg of weapons + 100kg powercell. I could have put the Widowmaker/dual scanner X-1 on there or a SVG with dual XGX just to make synthetic stats for the sake of discussion.
Instead I chose to use real loadouts people acutally use.
Instead I chose to use real loadouts people acutally use.
Oh what a load of crap, it's easy as pie to compare the valkryie to 2 port blasters just by doing exactly what vandt said and using 2x N3 + UC weight. That's a perfectly viable loadout for any ship, the third port is a luxury and the valk has a plethora of options these days, such as switching one neutron out for a raven and putting an xgx, or a PCB, or whatever.
Likewise you can fly with one port empty on your SVG or Greyhound if you think its too slow.
The point I was trying to make with this graph is that while you're constantly bringing up this ridiculous argument year after year picking at the tiny details between top-end ships, the vast majority of the ships available in the game are so far down on the charts that they may as well not even exist (See: Warthog MkII)
Do I need to include the Orion Hornet and BioCom Vulture? I'm pretty sure you're going to just ignore anything that doesn't match your own opinion anyway.
The point I was trying to make with this graph is that while you're constantly bringing up this ridiculous argument year after year picking at the tiny details between top-end ships, the vast majority of the ships available in the game are so far down on the charts that they may as well not even exist (See: Warthog MkII)
Do I need to include the Orion Hornet and BioCom Vulture? I'm pretty sure you're going to just ignore anything that doesn't match your own opinion anyway.
The first graph is the OP graph with 1000kg of added weight, the second is the same but with 1500kg instead.
So yes, ships on the lower weight scale have a disadvantage when it comes to loading up with heavier loadouts, but I don't see the relevance to the suggestion at all. There's no good reason why the greyhound shouldn't be that little bit faster.
> "I'm pretty sure you're going to just ignore anything that doesn't match your own opinion anyway."
You mean, throw an ARF? Nowai!
So yes, ships on the lower weight scale have a disadvantage when it comes to loading up with heavier loadouts, but I don't see the relevance to the suggestion at all. There's no good reason why the greyhound shouldn't be that little bit faster.
> "I'm pretty sure you're going to just ignore anything that doesn't match your own opinion anyway."
You mean, throw an ARF? Nowai!
the vast majority of the ships available in the game are so far down on the charts that they may as well not even exist (See: Warthog MkII)
And yet, for chasing and killing trade ships, the Hog Mk II is still often chosen over the Hound. Part of the reason is cheapness/availability, but the main reason is that the Hound just isn't fast enough off the mark to outweigh its combat weakness and astronomical cost.
And yet, for chasing and killing trade ships, the Hog Mk II is still often chosen over the Hound. Part of the reason is cheapness/availability, but the main reason is that the Hound just isn't fast enough off the mark to outweigh its combat weakness and astronomical cost.
err, the IBG accidentally made it into those graphs, whoops. ohwell.
Personally I prefer the Atlas X for that anyway, you can take home enough loot to at least cover the repair bill.
Trade ships rarely go faster than 160m/s and just about any fighter in the game is able to chase them down with relative ease.
Trade ships rarely go faster than 160m/s and just about any fighter in the game is able to chase them down with relative ease.
I'd like to see you use an XGX Valkyrie and then come back to me and tell me it's better than a fully armed valk. No.
There are reasons the valk is as good as it is, and it should be properly given to military personnel only. Likewise with the prom.
There is no point in comparing anything to the Valkyrie or the Prometheus because they're supposed to be the best in their classes.
If you want to give the Hound a massive 600N, then make its spin torque half. Then you can say it's a pure interceptor. Don't compare everything to the valk and say that everything else needs to catch up, it doesn't.
There are reasons the valk is as good as it is, and it should be properly given to military personnel only. Likewise with the prom.
There is no point in comparing anything to the Valkyrie or the Prometheus because they're supposed to be the best in their classes.
If you want to give the Hound a massive 600N, then make its spin torque half. Then you can say it's a pure interceptor. Don't compare everything to the valk and say that everything else needs to catch up, it doesn't.
+1. I agree with Lecter; the Greyhound falls short of being the best in its class.
You've clearly never faced the LENB/XgX/XgX spideyvalk.
It is the most feared creature in all the land, none can escape its grasp.
It's spin torque is already rubbish, half the existing spin torque and you've basically got a behemoth. That's when you start to impact its ability to be an interceptor at all since the slightest movements by an enemy ship will require it to drop turbo for a longer period to adjust.
It is the most feared creature in all the land, none can escape its grasp.
It's spin torque is already rubbish, half the existing spin torque and you've basically got a behemoth. That's when you start to impact its ability to be an interceptor at all since the slightest movements by an enemy ship will require it to drop turbo for a longer period to adjust.