Turret Nerfs are Overdoing it Guys.
- Thread starter Sunleader
- Start date
"Targeting Computers?"
Great insights all,
I decided to test out deterrent ability of turrets with a Cobra fitted with nothing but Cannons. I've only encountered AI, yet I'm assuming PvP could fail in a big way with using this set-up.
The AI pilots seem to have some that fly or attack a bit differently, while some will stand off, most I have encountered can be closed on and wish to close in on me. I found it easy to jump away, yet for further testing I took every opportunity to remain engaged with them. With some targets, I couldn't get their shields down because they did not stay close, yet with most, I found that I could stay close with as they wished to close with me and therefore I had great success with taking their shields and keeping close for the kill.
Things I did notice of interest was that when my craft was able to remain steady as the Turreted Cannons did their job, they seem to hit their targets more, yet when my craft was maneuvering, the hits seem a great deal less upon the target.
*note; This brings up the thought of the ability to toggle through targets while not facing them when it comes to Turrets... but I don't believe I would use this option if it ever existed because I'm a bit lazy (thus the Turret Combat and my Docking Computer).
*Space Time = "a player who enjoys luxury at a price"*
I was using a sort of "flip flop" style of fighting, having Turret Beam Lasers on one side or the other to "flip flop" the Turret Cobra so the Turret Beams did their job on the shields, then flop to the other side for Turret Cannons to engage the hull. I switched to the "all Turret Cannons" top and bottom meaning to "stand off the enemy" in a Turret Cannon Deterrent roll for bravely jumping away from any engagement while in a Cargo Role of Play.
WWII = The advent of the Flying Turret;
Whether or not force meeting the future changes the playing field, force with any balance of power was in WWII, the same as it is and was in any battles of equal contest throughout history... yet this be a game or not, I use WWII as a standard of the effects of Turrets being the first time they were ever used. The differences are there, glass bubbles vs armored and shielded Turrets. In this way, I feel at odds with the inability to toggle through targets without the need of facing them.... "Possibly a Targeting Computer" as the Docking Computer is now could be an answer for this, yet only effecting the Turret Weapons deployed?... I don't know, but it would seem to fit the special ability of Turrets "real or unreal".
I believe from all this, that the Attack Role of Turrets currently seems right... "They Stink"... The Deterrent Role seems to be about right because they should do a better job "up close"...
But when it comes to (as in WWII Bombers) "a bubble of protective deterrent"... The Turrets have yet to see their day when each or every could become set to a specific range of engagement with toggle or automatic targeting abilities once all enemy ships have been identified by forward search identity (friend or foe).
*Turret Targeting and Range Set Computer?
"A Player of Luxury"
~Space Time~
Great insights all,
I decided to test out deterrent ability of turrets with a Cobra fitted with nothing but Cannons. I've only encountered AI, yet I'm assuming PvP could fail in a big way with using this set-up.
The AI pilots seem to have some that fly or attack a bit differently, while some will stand off, most I have encountered can be closed on and wish to close in on me. I found it easy to jump away, yet for further testing I took every opportunity to remain engaged with them. With some targets, I couldn't get their shields down because they did not stay close, yet with most, I found that I could stay close with as they wished to close with me and therefore I had great success with taking their shields and keeping close for the kill.
Things I did notice of interest was that when my craft was able to remain steady as the Turreted Cannons did their job, they seem to hit their targets more, yet when my craft was maneuvering, the hits seem a great deal less upon the target.
*note; This brings up the thought of the ability to toggle through targets while not facing them when it comes to Turrets... but I don't believe I would use this option if it ever existed because I'm a bit lazy (thus the Turret Combat and my Docking Computer).
*Space Time = "a player who enjoys luxury at a price"*
I was using a sort of "flip flop" style of fighting, having Turret Beam Lasers on one side or the other to "flip flop" the Turret Cobra so the Turret Beams did their job on the shields, then flop to the other side for Turret Cannons to engage the hull. I switched to the "all Turret Cannons" top and bottom meaning to "stand off the enemy" in a Turret Cannon Deterrent roll for bravely jumping away from any engagement while in a Cargo Role of Play.
WWII = The advent of the Flying Turret;
Whether or not force meeting the future changes the playing field, force with any balance of power was in WWII, the same as it is and was in any battles of equal contest throughout history... yet this be a game or not, I use WWII as a standard of the effects of Turrets being the first time they were ever used. The differences are there, glass bubbles vs armored and shielded Turrets. In this way, I feel at odds with the inability to toggle through targets without the need of facing them.... "Possibly a Targeting Computer" as the Docking Computer is now could be an answer for this, yet only effecting the Turret Weapons deployed?... I don't know, but it would seem to fit the special ability of Turrets "real or unreal".
I believe from all this, that the Attack Role of Turrets currently seems right... "They Stink"... The Deterrent Role seems to be about right because they should do a better job "up close"...
But when it comes to (as in WWII Bombers) "a bubble of protective deterrent"... The Turrets have yet to see their day when each or every could become set to a specific range of engagement with toggle or automatic targeting abilities once all enemy ships have been identified by forward search identity (friend or foe).
*Turret Targeting and Range Set Computer?
"A Player of Luxury"
~Space Time~
Ahem m8, turrets, like any other weapon, are just a way to turn energy into damage.
A particularly silly argument made was the one about large turreted bursts doing less damage than small fixed ones. It's very possible that turrets will get much more time on target. Comparing the raw numbers in this case is not appropriate.
I rarely find a need to use turrets, but I currently have them fit on my CIII. Why? To duel CIVs. Turrets allow you to move in a completely different direction than where you are shooting. If a pilot cannot see this as a major tactical advantage (especially against a ship that can corner as hard as a CIV, like the FGS or FDS), it's a deficiency of the pilot.
Someone made the suggestion to the effect of them being unpopular therefore they should be removed. Well that's another stupid suggestion. Very few people mine - should mining be removed?
If a pilot is incapable of using turrets to any effect, that's a problem of the pilot and the circumstance (which is just another facet of pilot problems). This is fine.
Lastly, consider that bigger!=better. The bigger ships can't do what the heavy fighters (VIV, vulture, etc) can and the heavy fighters can't do what the agile fighters (VIII, IE, etc) can. Don't complain when you bring a corvette to do a DBS' job and do it ineffectively.
However, there does need to be more things that big ships are actually good at, other than trading. I think capital ship battles will be the answer.
A particularly silly argument made was the one about large turreted bursts doing less damage than small fixed ones. It's very possible that turrets will get much more time on target. Comparing the raw numbers in this case is not appropriate.
I rarely find a need to use turrets, but I currently have them fit on my CIII. Why? To duel CIVs. Turrets allow you to move in a completely different direction than where you are shooting. If a pilot cannot see this as a major tactical advantage (especially against a ship that can corner as hard as a CIV, like the FGS or FDS), it's a deficiency of the pilot.
Someone made the suggestion to the effect of them being unpopular therefore they should be removed. Well that's another stupid suggestion. Very few people mine - should mining be removed?
If a pilot is incapable of using turrets to any effect, that's a problem of the pilot and the circumstance (which is just another facet of pilot problems). This is fine.
Lastly, consider that bigger!=better. The bigger ships can't do what the heavy fighters (VIV, vulture, etc) can and the heavy fighters can't do what the agile fighters (VIII, IE, etc) can. Don't complain when you bring a corvette to do a DBS' job and do it ineffectively.
However, there does need to be more things that big ships are actually good at, other than trading. I think capital ship battles will be the answer.
Last edited:
The thing making Corvettes Bad is the Turrets Mate.
As I said before.
An Clipper is far from Harmless.
But if two Equally Pilots Clash. One having a Cobra and one having a Clipper.
The Clipper will lose because he will be Outmaneuvered Fairly Easily.
Ultimately the Difference might not be that Big.
But its a Fact that Viper/Cobra are more Maneuverable than Clipper/Conda
So you wont get Fixed Weapons to Bear with your Clipper unless your Opponent is Significantly Less Skilled than you.
Meanwhile even an Significantly lower Skilled Pilot in a Cobra will bring his Fixed Guns to Bear against an Clipper or Conda.
The Turrets having proper Damage that actually Justifies their Price in Credits and Energy would solve this very Easily.
And would also Allow them to be Played like Corvettes and not like Oversized Fighters.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Why should I feel Blessed about having Turrets when they are as useful as your useless comments ?
You have obviously never flown a clipper, you just looked at its agility rating of 2 and decided that it is bad. If you had you would not be comparing it to a Conda. Even with A thrusters a Conda does not even begin to compare to a Clipper with C thrusters.
A clipper is comparable to an FAS and FDL and will match the Cobra in a dogfight. So long as you stick to gimballed and not turrets then the Cobra is easy pickings.
Here are the pitch numbers for a Cobra, Clipper, FAS, and FDL
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=182465
Cobra 9.17
Clipper 9.5
FAS 9.52
FDL 9.7
If you cant change direction in a Clipper then you just suck at flying. The only weakness of a clipper are the placements of the hardpoints.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
And just for an additional comparison a Conda is at 14.49
Last edited:
Yep. The Clipper is one nimble ship. No need for turrets on that thing. I use mine mostly for trade but feel it can do just fine with one or two of its weapons on fixed as well. That ship (unlike, say, the Python) actually moves like a large fighter. With boost and FA off it actually gains an advantage from its drift. Quite a lovely and unique ship, that one.
"Targeting Computers?"
Great insights all,
I decided to test out deterrent ability of turrets with a Cobra fitted with nothing but Cannons. I've only encountered AI, yet I'm assuming PvP could fail in a big way with using this set-up.
The AI pilots seem to have some that fly or attack a bit differently, while some will stand off, most I have encountered can be closed on and wish to close in on me. I found it easy to jump away, yet for further testing I took every opportunity to remain engaged with them. With some targets, I couldn't get their shields down because they did not stay close, yet with most, I found that I could stay close with as they wished to close with me and therefore I had great success with taking their shields and keeping close for the kill.
Things I did notice of interest was that when my craft was able to remain steady as the Turreted Cannons did their job, they seem to hit their targets more, yet when my craft was maneuvering, the hits seem a great deal less upon the target.
*note; This brings up the thought of the ability to toggle through targets while not facing them when it comes to Turrets... but I don't believe I would use this option if it ever existed because I'm a bit lazy (thus the Turret Combat and my Docking Computer).
*Space Time = "a player who enjoys luxury at a price"*
I was using a sort of "flip flop" style of fighting, having Turret Beam Lasers on one side or the other to "flip flop" the Turret Cobra so the Turret Beams did their job on the shields, then flop to the other side for Turret Cannons to engage the hull. I switched to the "all Turret Cannons" top and bottom meaning to "stand off the enemy" in a Turret Cannon Deterrent roll for bravely jumping away from any engagement while in a Cargo Role of Play.
WWII = The advent of the Flying Turret;
Whether or not force meeting the future changes the playing field, force with any balance of power was in WWII, the same as it is and was in any battles of equal contest throughout history... yet this be a game or not, I use WWII as a standard of the effects of Turrets being the first time they were ever used. The differences are there, glass bubbles vs armored and shielded Turrets. In this way, I feel at odds with the inability to toggle through targets without the need of facing them.... "Possibly a Targeting Computer" as the Docking Computer is now could be an answer for this, yet only effecting the Turret Weapons deployed?... I don't know, but it would seem to fit the special ability of Turrets "real or unreal".
I believe from all this, that the Attack Role of Turrets currently seems right... "They Stink"... The Deterrent Role seems to be about right because they should do a better job "up close"...
But when it comes to (as in WWII Bombers) "a bubble of protective deterrent"... The Turrets have yet to see their day when each or every could become set to a specific range of engagement with toggle or automatic targeting abilities once all enemy ships have been identified by forward search identity (friend or foe).
*Turret Targeting and Range Set Computer?
"A Player of Luxury"
~Space Time~
Unfortunately I Disagree.
Turret does about 1/3 of the Damage of an Fixed Weapon.
So if someone with a Fixed Weapon Approaches someone with Turrets. He does not need to Evade or something.
Because he knows he will be the one Dealing Damage First.
Hence the Deterrent Value of Turrets is = Zero
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Unfortunately Nope.
In this Game all Weapons are Forward Weapon Hardpoints.
As such the Nice Idea of Turrets Firing to the Rear etc is not Hooking as most Hardpoints are Blocked off by your Ships Structure and thus only have an somewhat bigger Arc than Gimballed Weapons.
Only very few Hardpoints actually Allow to Fire to Rear and Sides.
And mate see thats the Problem.
In this Game Bigger Ships DO NOT HAVE an Role.
There is only DBS Jobs.
An Corvette Performing an Corvette Job does not exist because for that it would need to be Given Turrets that actually Work. Not the Crappy Light Show Turrets we got right now.
Normally an Corvette which is Stacked with Turrets to the Brim should be an AA Corvette and should be really Powerful against Fighters. While its Power against Enemy Corvettes should be Weak due to Lack of Heavy Focused Weapons.
Ingame however Turrets Just Lack Completely.
So an Corvette only has the DBS Role in which it of course Sucks against Fighters.
An Anaconda is clearly easier to Kill with an Clipper than with a Cobra because the Clipper basicly Becomes an Super Heavy DB.
But there is no other Job aside from DB in this Game.
And Fighting DB against an smaller more Maneuverable Ship is Bull
. And Mate Damage is Damage.
Turrets do less Damage so they do less Damage. Thats an Hard and Proven Fact. Its got nothing to do with Pilot Skills.
That so hard to Grasp ?
Guys pls stop making me say it over and over....
Against NPCs who only do one Directional Maneuvers and dont really use their Potential thats all Fine and Working and Nobody has Trouble getting em into Gimballed Weapons.
Even with an Type 9.....
Against an Player you cant just take one Value and then assume you.ll beat him on that...
You might not have noticed it.
But while the Pitch of the Clipper is almost able to Reach the Cobra (its still not reaching it which means you will still not be able to catch up once he is out your Firing Arc)
The Cobras Roll Rate is Way Faster. Which means that the Cobra will simply Spiral out of your Path having you unable to Follow.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The Clipper is clearly the most Maneuverable Large Ship yes.
Which doesnt change the Problem tough.
Turrets are still to Weak. And weather you use the Clipper as Example or an Python or whatever etc doesnt Matter.
The Fact at the end of the Day is that the Fighters are More Maneuverable.
In case of the Clipper they are only a little bit more Maneuverable. But they are still more Maneuverable
In case of an Conda or other Heavys this argument is already for naught tough.
And we are back to needing Turrets.
If I was tasked to assess the content of this post in as as few words as possible, I'd say the content of this post is ranDoM capiTal lEtter garbage.Unfortunately Nope.
In this Game all Weapons are Forward Weapon Hardpoints.
As such the Nice Idea of Turrets Firing to the Rear etc is not Hooking as most Hardpoints are Blocked off by your Ships Structure and thus only have an somewhat bigger Arc than Gimballed Weapons.
Only very few Hardpoints actually Allow to Fire to Rear and Sides.
And mate see thats the Problem.
In this Game Bigger Ships DO NOT HAVE an Role.
There is only DBS Jobs.
An Corvette Performing an Corvette Job does not exist because for that it would need to be Given Turrets that actually Work. Not the Crappy Light Show Turrets we got right now.
Normally an Corvette which is Stacked with Turrets to the Brim should be an AA Corvette and should be really Powerful against Fighters. While its Power against Enemy Corvettes should be Weak due to Lack of Heavy Focused Weapons.
Ingame however Turrets Just Lack Completely.
So an Corvette only has the DBS Role in which it of course Sucks against Fighters.
An Anaconda is clearly easier to Kill with an Clipper than with a Cobra because the Clipper basicly Becomes an Super Heavy DB.
But there is no other Job aside from DB in this Game.
And Fighting DB against an smaller more Maneuverable Ship is Bull
And Mate Damage is Damage.
Turrets do less Damage so they do less Damage. Thats an Hard and Proven Fact. Its got nothing to do with Pilot Skills.
That so hard to Grasp ?
But I will elaborate. Fortunately, yes, for the most part I am correct and you are wrong. However,
You are correct to say many ships can't shoot behind them with turrets.
You are wrong to say that turrets are nothing but weak gimbals with a slightly bigger arc. Some ships and some hard points benefit much more than others. Don't generalize based on what will be convenient for your argument at the time.
You are right to say that large ships don't have a clearly definable role.
You are wrong to think that changing turrets is the way to solve this issue. The solution to this is more to do with content than turret balance. Multi-crew will likely have a big impact too.
You are correct in saying that there's really no real way for the corvette to do its job.
You are wrong to say this requires turrets. It requires whatever the job requires. What is the job? We don't know, we just established this job doesn't exist.
You are also being too narrow minded with your definition of corvette and how you think it should work. I suggest returning to reality rather than assuming anything but what you want it to be is wrong.
Thirdly, why you think the corvette should perform like a DBS is beyond me and speaks volumes to the origin of your arguments.
Lastly, regarding turrets and damage, damage is damage. Time gimbals don't spend hitting their target is not damage. Turrets may hit their target when gimbals don't. That is the hard proven fact, not whatever it is you tried to say.
This is not hard to grasp.
I am familiar with a defensive spiral maneuver in aircraft. It relies on gravity, and that is not going to work in space since gravity has no affect on ship combat in the middle of nowhere. A spiral will not help the Cobra turn quicker. It will just give the Clipper CMDR an opportunity to match the Cobra's pitch rate using FA OFF and shoot him with his Class 3 weapons and that is something the Cobra can not take much of. Only 120 MJ or so of shields before it takes armor damage.
All i really see here is a person who does not like turrets because they do not do what they want them to do. on a ship they spent a lot of money on and are now disappointed in.
Would it be nice if they did more damage? sure.. Would they then be over powered Probably yes.
if you put turrets on the correct places on the correct ships they are very effective.
I know well enough that a turret does a lot less damage than fixed or gimbled. But you dont have to even fire a turret..
i use 2 mc turrets, as i have mentioned they are on the same fire group as my fixed kinetic weapon (frag cannon)
i shoot with my burst lasers untill the shields are gone. then i get in position and fire the frag three times hitting the opponent with all 3. At this point the Mc turrets start following and firing the opponent automatically.
this allows me to keep fire on the opponent even though they have now definatly taken evasive action. Its not much damage, but it adds up. it helps you keep on the offencive. After a while the frag cannon will have reloaded. If the sheild had regenerated whilst it was reloading the Mc turrets would have kept it down to 1 ring or even managed to take them offline again.
could i change the 2 mc turrets to fixed rail guns or cannons and do a lot more damage on my 1st shot??
Sure i could. would it actually work out better in the long run?? for me probably not. and would be MASSIVE over kill for smaller ships. so over all it would be less efficient.
I really dont see how you can claim they are not useful. they are useful.
The low energy draw, high rate of fire, very good tracking (even with chaff launched may i add), high ammo count, automatic fire, and not even needing to see the target. mean that they are a lot more than just "this does 5x more dps if you hit something with it"
you really don't seem to understand that.
then When some one comes in here and says Actually i do use them and i like them, You want to argue with them..
you cant argue with some one saying something is not useful if they do find it useful and you don't.
Im pretty sure i wouldn't find a pace maker useful, but that does not mean they are not useful.
If you argument is "turrets are no good on xxxx ship" then make that your argument.
But if the end result is "turrets should be (enter number here)x more powerfull, so they work better on xxxx ship"
just remember that those of us who have already found a use for them will be chewing through opponents even faster, which will probably make you ask for a Nerf again.
And you cant just say you should not be able to mount any gun to any slot because on xxx ship you cant mount a turret there due to how the ship was designed..
thats just how it is.. Some ships are much harder to use good fixed weapons on than others due to the design. So you just adapt FOR THAT SHIP. you dont ask to buff the bejesus out of the fixed weapons because 1 ship cant really use them that well, or all the ships that can use them well will start handing you your ship back in 5 seconds. And you cant say well in that case i think all fixed weapons should be rear facing only because my ship sux using them.
and you also cant say the ship is pointless because you dont find it effective, I cant stand the t9, dont see any way to make it viable, many people love it though. so i cant say its pontless.
Would it be nice if they did more damage? sure.. Would they then be over powered Probably yes.
if you put turrets on the correct places on the correct ships they are very effective.
I know well enough that a turret does a lot less damage than fixed or gimbled. But you dont have to even fire a turret..
i use 2 mc turrets, as i have mentioned they are on the same fire group as my fixed kinetic weapon (frag cannon)
i shoot with my burst lasers untill the shields are gone. then i get in position and fire the frag three times hitting the opponent with all 3. At this point the Mc turrets start following and firing the opponent automatically.
this allows me to keep fire on the opponent even though they have now definatly taken evasive action. Its not much damage, but it adds up. it helps you keep on the offencive. After a while the frag cannon will have reloaded. If the sheild had regenerated whilst it was reloading the Mc turrets would have kept it down to 1 ring or even managed to take them offline again.
could i change the 2 mc turrets to fixed rail guns or cannons and do a lot more damage on my 1st shot??
Sure i could. would it actually work out better in the long run?? for me probably not. and would be MASSIVE over kill for smaller ships. so over all it would be less efficient.
I really dont see how you can claim they are not useful. they are useful.
The low energy draw, high rate of fire, very good tracking (even with chaff launched may i add), high ammo count, automatic fire, and not even needing to see the target. mean that they are a lot more than just "this does 5x more dps if you hit something with it"
you really don't seem to understand that.
then When some one comes in here and says Actually i do use them and i like them, You want to argue with them..
you cant argue with some one saying something is not useful if they do find it useful and you don't.
Im pretty sure i wouldn't find a pace maker useful, but that does not mean they are not useful.
If you argument is "turrets are no good on xxxx ship" then make that your argument.
But if the end result is "turrets should be (enter number here)x more powerfull, so they work better on xxxx ship"
just remember that those of us who have already found a use for them will be chewing through opponents even faster, which will probably make you ask for a Nerf again.
And you cant just say you should not be able to mount any gun to any slot because on xxx ship you cant mount a turret there due to how the ship was designed..
thats just how it is.. Some ships are much harder to use good fixed weapons on than others due to the design. So you just adapt FOR THAT SHIP. you dont ask to buff the bejesus out of the fixed weapons because 1 ship cant really use them that well, or all the ships that can use them well will start handing you your ship back in 5 seconds. And you cant say well in that case i think all fixed weapons should be rear facing only because my ship sux using them.
and you also cant say the ship is pointless because you dont find it effective, I cant stand the t9, dont see any way to make it viable, many people love it though. so i cant say its pontless.
Last edited:
Somehow I am wondering if your playing the Clueless Guy on Purpose or if you really just dont know what your Talking about...
Mate an Spiral means you Roll and Pitch at the same Time.
The Clipper has an Very Good Pitch for his Size. But his Roll Rate is very Low.
So the Cobra can simply Spiral Out.
As the Clipper cannot Follow the Cobra in Rolling the Cobra will use its Pitch vs the Clippers Rudder. And the Clipper is Terrible at Turning to the left or right side.
The Corkscrew from Aircraft is basicly the same in terms of the Maneuver but there is an Importand Difference here.
Due to the Gravity this is an Defensive Maneuver for Aircraft which allows you to Escape but does not get you behind the Enemy as you will be Forced to Perform it into an Certain Direction.
In Space thanks to Zero Gravity this means you can simply stay outside the Clippers Pitch Arc and stay behind him.....
Sigh just get a Clipper and do some PvP....
1.
Ehm mate.
Assuming that your First Attack Run Really Sucks and you only have Guns on Target for 2-3 Seconds before he manages to Evade.
You would still cause 50-60 Damage with an Railgun.
For that Damage your MC Turret of the same Class needs to remain on Target for Half a Minute.
So Unless you need over 30 Seconds to get him into Target Again your Turrets are actually useless because just Firing Railguns at him would have Damaged his Shield for more Damage than what your MCs Prevented it from Regenerating.
2.
Mate this does not actually change the Argument.
Turrets are Supposed to be the Primary Weapon for Large Ships.
And right now they are honestly said not even Worth being used as Tertiary Weapons because they take up the Space of Primary or Secondary Weapon Slots.
Currently having Turrets on your Ship is like Replacing the 10cm Main Artillery of an Patrol Corvette with 7.7mm MGs and then fight Patrol Boats.
Nope actually I am taking that back. Patrol Boats dont have Shields which Prevent Damages as long as they Hold. Thanks to that the MGs would actually still be closer to the 10cm Main Gun than the Turrets in this Game are to an actual Primary Weapon...
3.
See the Funny thing is you are nicely Cornering yourself there.
Because lets think this Example of yours Through.
Lets assume 2x Class Two MC Turrets are Capable of keeping down a Shield.
They are doing 4 DPS Together. So the Shield apparently has only 4 HP Regen per Second as well.
Now lets assume your Target has 1000 Shield Points.
Your Frags do 200 Shield Points Damage (Random Value as these dont Change in the Setup anyways and will be Equal for both examples)
Now lets Check this Idea with your Setup of MC Turrets vs Railguns
You Head in and Open Fire.
Your Attack Run only Manages to keep Weapons on Enemy 2 Seconds.
So the Shields are down to 800 Shield Points and dont Regenerate.
This means you need 5 Passes at him to get down his Shield.
Now if you had 2 Railguns in your First Attack Run.
2 Seconds would mean you only did One Shot with the Railguns. (They have 2 Seconds Reload)
But in this Single Shot they are Dealing 85 Damage to the Enemy Shields.
Using the 4 HP per Second.
This means the Enemy will need 21 Seconds before he manages to Regenerate the Damage caused by your Rail Guns.
Moreover if your any Faster than these 21 Seconds you will actually find him to have lower Shields than if he had been kept down by your MC Turrets.
Now pls note.
An Clipper needs only 6 Seconds for an Full Pitch Rotation.
If you need 20 Seconds to get an Enemy into your Sights again. This would mean that your doing a bit more than 3 Full Rotations before your Finally Catching up to the Enemy.
Now let me ask you Something.
Which of my Earlier Points do you Wish to Admit First ?
That Turrets Suck Pretty Badly.
Or that an Clipper is actually much less Maneuverable than an Fighter and thus ends up with you needing over 20 Seconds to get a Second Shot into him.
4.
Mate if end up Chewing Opponents Faster than Thank me Afterwards.
Because as you can see from the Above example. It would be Faster to Chew em without Turrets.
If for example you used Gimballed Beam Lasers it would be pretty hard to get an Attack Pass with less than 4 Seconds on Target.
Which would mean that your Damage on Target would actually Surpass the Railguns with which we only assume you to manage a Single Hit on the Enemy.
And as your other Weapons are Ballistics you would not need the Energy either which means there is no Problem in Burning the Energy on each Pass.
No matter how you turn it around Mate.
Turret currently Suck.
They are Weak.
They are so Weak that an Clipper using Turrets Facing an Cobra using Fixed Weapons in an Headon Dueal. The Clipper would likely lose despite its Better Hull Armor simply because the Cobra despite having lower Weapon Classes would have an far Higher Damage Output.
5.
Mate with all due Respect.
If thats your Opinion you could just Remove all other Ships and only have Cobras and Vipers in the Game.
Get this into your Head.
Right now this Game has 4 Ship Classes.
Fighters
Heavy Fighters
Corvettes
and Transports/Liners
But the Weapons and Equipment we are given is only Suitable to 2 of these Classes which are Fighters and Heavy Fighters
Corvettes were Reworked in an Shabby Makeshift Effort to somehow Adapt em to this Equipment which is entirely unsuitable for them.
Thanks to that the current "Corvettes" are basicly not really Corvettes but simply Over Heavy Fighters.
The Supposed Balance is Simple
Corvette Kills Fighter
Fighter Kills Heavy Fighter
Heavy Fighter Kills Corvette
But thanks to them Castrating Turrets into Useless Light Show Junk.
The Current Balance is actually looking like this.
Fighter Kills Corvette and Heavy Fighter
Heavy Fighter Kills Corvette
Corvette Kills nothing...
6.
The T9 is an Transport.
Its not meant for Combat.
There is no Viable Setup for it because its not supposed to be Viable in Combat.
It has an Insane Cargo Load instead.
Last edited:
M M8
I'm gonna assume he didn't read my previous post.
.
.
As many people have pointed out, your understanding of the situation is flawed.
.
.
.
Firstly, a clipper needs more like nine or ten seconds or so for a full rotation. I'm assuming you're talking about the blue zone and not a boosted FAOff maneuver. A boosted FAOff maneuver will typically either put you way out of position or give the enemy a free ten seconds of time on target, not practical for a dogfight in the traditional sense.
However, a clipper slides. This is like free FAOff blue zone time without the hassle of managing speed.
.
.
What's your definition of corvette this time?
.
.
.
I'm gonna assume he didn't read my previous post.
.
Alright. Let's put you in an FGS, or for kicks an orca, and your opponent will be a courier. Let's see how good your railguns are.
.
Says who? You? Don't you think that the largest hard points would have turrets if turrets were meant to be the primary armament for the largest ship?
As many people have pointed out, your understanding of the situation is flawed.
.
No, it's not. It's replacing those cannons with turret mounted fly swatters and swatting flies. Anyone can look at the numbers (or the game models) and figure this out.
.
Once again we have a clear illustration of how broken your understanding your idea of the game is. Shield regen is 4Mj/sec because twin multicannon regeneration is 4 MJ/sec? What an asinine assumption.
.
This is cute, but a dogfight doesn't work like this.
Firstly, a clipper needs more like nine or ten seconds or so for a full rotation. I'm assuming you're talking about the blue zone and not a boosted FAOff maneuver. A boosted FAOff maneuver will typically either put you way out of position or give the enemy a free ten seconds of time on target, not practical for a dogfight in the traditional sense.
However, a clipper slides. This is like free FAOff blue zone time without the hassle of managing speed.
.
I'd love to see this in practice. I'd love to see the clipper just sits there and laughs as the CIII bottoms out its distributor trying to dent the SCBs. And when the CIII's chaff runs out, it will pop.
.
Yep. Explorers aren't a thing. Nope, not a thing at all. #brokenunderstanding
What's your definition of corvette this time?
.
I don't disagree with this.
.
Oh? I suggest taking your CIII up against a CIV and see who's the last one there. I'd gladly fly a CIV against your CIII. I'll make another video.
.
Let me fix that last line for you: "I have no idea how to use large ships". This is what it comes down to, and what you refuse to believe. Turrets aren't broken, they escape your comprehension I guess (perhaps you don't understand English?).
Once I am done rank grinding for the Corvette... just one more rank to go... I think will pull my Clipper out of storage and try some PvP specifically against a Cobra. Specifically with the maneuvers you suggested.
I still think that with proper application of FA OFF the clipper can regain a firing solution and take advantage of its bigger weapon.
And to stay on topic, Turret use seems to be limited to sticking two small turrets on the Conda or Corvette because you have nothing else to fill those almost useless small hardpoints with anyway and in that role they can kill NPC eagles without you have to turn around. Given the popularity of dual chaff, no one will ever use turrets in PVP but they are useless for PVE as well.
If anyone wants to prove the OP wrong that turrets are terrible then post a viable build for an Anaconda or Corvette that relies on turrets and can kill just as fast as gimballed. One quick link will save pages of arguing, except that no one will post such a build because it does not exist.
Since you understand it so well, post a turret build that can kill just as fast as gimballed and is suitable for haz-res and combat zones.
For starters, I don't think turrets should be relied on. This is like me saying I'm going to rely on armor. Yeah, that's gonna be okay sometimes, but it would be superior to rely on both armor and shields most of the time.
.
Besides, the issue the OP has is with turret changes making large ships worse. This is absolutely not the case. Personally I think that FD is trying to push large ships out normal everyday. I expect they are meant to be footholds for wings. I see large ships in the same light as say, the orca. The content hasn't quite caught up yet.
I've been testing out turrets on my Python and so far have found them of very limited use. The best I came up with (that worked somewhat but at a real cost to overall firepower) was to use one large and one medium pulse turrets on the same side (so they're close to each other). It's not wonderful, but it does provide cover fire and damages ships when not in the line of sight. Obviously, this is PVE only and in fact not something I'm sticking to, but it works.
Haven't used turrets yet, so I can't weigh in as to their current effectiveness, but I do think they have a place in the game. They may just need balancing and more parameters for the devs to adjust ('tuning levers' is a phrase I like for this.)
I know this is an aside, but...it's bugging the ever-living crap outta me...
'A' is how you precede a word that begins with a hard consonant, like 'A cobra' or 'A clipper.' 'An' is used for words that start with vowel sounds, like 'AN srv' or 'AN anaconda.'
Yell grammar all you want, but...sorry. It's just painful and cringeworthy to read. Carry on.
EDIT: wow, of all the things to censor...really, FD?
I know this is an aside, but...it's bugging the ever-living crap outta me...
'A' is how you precede a word that begins with a hard consonant, like 'A cobra' or 'A clipper.' 'An' is used for words that start with vowel sounds, like 'AN srv' or 'AN anaconda.'
Yell grammar
all you want, but...sorry. It's just painful and cringeworthy to read. Carry on.EDIT: wow, of all the things to censor...really, FD?
Last edited:
Oh my god. I felt like I was the only one who recognized this.'An' is used for words that start with vowel sounds, like 'AN srv' or 'AN anaconda.'
.
Question: Is it a RES or an RES? Is it a FGS or an FGS? When typed.