Forums » Suggestions
The trident's main gun is its forward placement weapon. Methinks you have never actually done a skirmish with a trident.
that is literally the dumbest thing i have ever heard you say
Uh what?
"The trident's main gun is its forward placement weapon. Methinks you have never actually done a skirmish with a trident."
Greenwall, please don't try to make me look bad just because we have a difference of opinion. How am I supposed to use the main weapon of an NPC trident? Or are you just trying to bore Incarnate by trolling in order to kill the topic?
Back to the topic, my vote stands:
+1
Greenwall, please don't try to make me look bad just because we have a difference of opinion. How am I supposed to use the main weapon of an NPC trident? Or are you just trying to bore Incarnate by trolling in order to kill the topic?
Back to the topic, my vote stands:
+1
trolling in order to kill the topic?
Pretty much that.
Anyway, yeah the L-port is the forward weapon, both NPCs and players use them as such. It doesn't work very well for a mine launcher for reasons I already explained.
Pretty much that.
Anyway, yeah the L-port is the forward weapon, both NPCs and players use them as such. It doesn't work very well for a mine launcher for reasons I already explained.
"Pretty much that."
I like how you accuse me of trolling ARF, and then go on to agree with my point. You can't have it both ways.
And Jashen, do you realize you +1ed the OP, stating support for rear placement, and then in your next post you clearly say that rear placement doesn't matter? Do you have multiple personality disorder or something?? You then say some nonsense about how you can't defend the front of a trident and I pointed out your error, which then ARF agreed with me on. You have pretty much shown that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, so unless you have some valid points to bring up, you might as well save yourself from the embarrassment of digging your hole of ignorance any deeper. Unless you want to make some room for Sink to keep your company down in there, in which case dig a little more.
I like how you accuse me of trolling ARF, and then go on to agree with my point. You can't have it both ways.
And Jashen, do you realize you +1ed the OP, stating support for rear placement, and then in your next post you clearly say that rear placement doesn't matter? Do you have multiple personality disorder or something?? You then say some nonsense about how you can't defend the front of a trident and I pointed out your error, which then ARF agreed with me on. You have pretty much shown that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, so unless you have some valid points to bring up, you might as well save yourself from the embarrassment of digging your hole of ignorance any deeper. Unless you want to make some room for Sink to keep your company down in there, in which case dig a little more.
Your other posts come off as pretty trollish. Why are you so against this? Every other turreted "freighter" (Moth, Atlas - both haul freight) has a rear turret. Even the ones that have only a single turret have it on the rear. It's the most important place to have a turret and the Trident is the only one missing it.
Jashen's Trident Turret Placement Explanation for Dummies
-------------------------------------------------------------
When you do hive skrimishes, you can NOT control a trident's main weapon, so there is no way to evaluate the value of the main weapon from an NPC trident. In this case, you are stuck with 4 turrets. On the other hand, there are usualy NO bots at the REAR of a trident, so you can not see the complications caused by the lack of a rear turret. BUT, you immediatelly notice that you can not aim at the FRONT bots. After a while, you see that there is NO WAY to aim bots at the front, back and sides, i.e., bots sitting in the wingspan plain can not be aimed.
When you fly your own trident and find yourself in a situation when you want to escape, you notice that you CAN use a gun in the front large port, you CAN defend the sides by rotating (effectively changing the plane of your wingspan), BUT, you CAN NOT do jack about defending your rear (as you can not steer while turboing).
-------------------------------------------------------------
And greenwall, I never said that having a turret at the rear is not important, I said that it's lack is not so noticable during a hive skrimish. Lacking a REAR turret IS an important issue.
So my +1 to ARF's idea still stands.
-------------------------------------------------------------
When you do hive skrimishes, you can NOT control a trident's main weapon, so there is no way to evaluate the value of the main weapon from an NPC trident. In this case, you are stuck with 4 turrets. On the other hand, there are usualy NO bots at the REAR of a trident, so you can not see the complications caused by the lack of a rear turret. BUT, you immediatelly notice that you can not aim at the FRONT bots. After a while, you see that there is NO WAY to aim bots at the front, back and sides, i.e., bots sitting in the wingspan plain can not be aimed.
When you fly your own trident and find yourself in a situation when you want to escape, you notice that you CAN use a gun in the front large port, you CAN defend the sides by rotating (effectively changing the plane of your wingspan), BUT, you CAN NOT do jack about defending your rear (as you can not steer while turboing).
-------------------------------------------------------------
And greenwall, I never said that having a turret at the rear is not important, I said that it's lack is not so noticable during a hive skrimish. Lacking a REAR turret IS an important issue.
So my +1 to ARF's idea still stands.
Thanks for the clarification, Jashen.
As Incarnate alluded -- the Trident is not a perfect ship. It has flaws and weaknesses. I find this argument acceptable when it comes to explaining the turret placement on the Trident. And there is no arguing that having a rear facing turret on a Trident would help guard it's backside a bit better -- it would without quesiton. The real question is whether or not that is a good thing overall for the game.
As Incarnate alluded -- the Trident is not a perfect ship. It has flaws and weaknesses. I find this argument acceptable when it comes to explaining the turret placement on the Trident. And there is no arguing that having a rear facing turret on a Trident would help guard it's backside a bit better -- it would without quesiton. The real question is whether or not that is a good thing overall for the game.
Has no one considered the implications of this proposed rear turret? The design changes would mean the removal of the Bowling Ally or Swim-up Bar (depending on options fitted...)
I ask you, is it worth giving up these essential components?
I ask you, is it worth giving up these essential components?
The bowling alley can be installed in the forward hold with room to spare, and the rear mounting of the turret won't interfere with the swim-up bar any more than it's current upper aft position does.
"The bowling alley can be installed in the forward hold with room to spare"
Groan....
Groan....
If you just shorten the lanes, you'll improve your averages and make more room.
+1 for bowling closets!
+1 for bowling closets!
Did nobody else see the pun?
It strikes me as rather obvious...
I'm split and could go either way.
Zing!
Thanks, TRS for reminding me. Inc doesn't get to read the forum very often. BUMP!
bump
I still think this needs to happen. Trident turrets are in stupid places.