Turret Nerfs are Overdoing it Guys.

[Sunleader]

The damage modifier for small guns doesn't make any sense indeed. A small hand gun inflicts the same kinetic damage regardless of whether I shot a mouse or an elephant; the elephant simply has more mass and can absorb it much better.

This should indeed be handled by the respective damage versus hull values. That'd be more obvious, and in line with any sort of reasonably sensible physics model.

If you from the Start give an Small Weapon 1/3 of the Damage an Large Weapon has. And an Large Ship 3 Times the Hull of an Small Ship. You could Drop such Modifiers alltogether.
But if they did they would also need to Give Large Ships Bigger Shields.
And as I said before. They are trying Hard to give as much Stealth Buffs to Fighters as Possible.
So an System like this where they can Remove 20-30% of an Large Ships Effectiveness without showing it. Is better for them to work with.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Thicker hull could not be represented with more armor. More armor would affect large weapons against large hulls. Large weapons are unaffected against large hulls. Only smaller weapons are affected against large hulls.


You're being narrow minded. This won't just affect turrets, it will affect all weapons. And you don't bring a bazooka to shoot a motorcycle. Consider that large ships aren't supposed to be great at fighting smaller ones. Actually, large ships already do quite fine against smaller ones.


The elephant has a thicker (harder) skin. The bullet is slowed down some on entry, delivering less than total damage.

To make the example more extreme and more visible, shoot a mouse with a gun and shoot a tank with a small hand gun. The bullet bounces off the tank. The bullet will cleave the mouse in two.
Another extreme example to illustrate the mechanic, throw a dart at a mouse and throw a dart at an elephant. The dart will likely deliver a mortal wound to the mouse. The dart would probably hardly penetrate the elephant's skin.


Maybe you didn't read the post. It's because larger ships have thicker armor. Larger caliber weapons have no issue delivering their damage despite this. Smaller caliber weapons do. So smaller weapons do less damage. It makes perfect sense.

Your Narrow Minded.
If you made such Changes the Weapons Damage would be Revised entirely Anyways.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Your Narrow Minded.
If you made such Changes the Weapons Damage would be Revised entirely Anyways.

You're being completely obtuse. Revamp the entire weapon because you don't prefer to fit turrets on large ships?

 

[Sunleader]

You're being completely obtuse. Revamp the entire weapon because you don't prefer to fit turrets on large ships?

You dont need an Total Revamp.

Think about it.

If they made it so that Weapons would not only get an Damage Modifier of Negative 33% for each Class above their own.
But also an Positive 33% Damage Modifier for each Class below their own.

The Entire System of Turrets would Work Fine with one Hit.
From the Start. As this only Changes Damage against Smaller Vessels. The Overall Damage System will not Change.

I am sure you know this. But an Clipper for example has 2 Large Weapons.
And even the Biggest Ships have at best 3 Large Weapons.

From the Start hitting Small Vessels with these Properly is almost Impossible when using Fixed Weapons.
Because they are Simply Mounted so Far away from each other. That an Small Ship is in most Cases not even Big enough to be Hit by more than one of these Weapons at once. Unless you seriously Manage to in its Sights on a Distance of like 50m.
In which case an Large Damage Bonus would not be Wrong anyways.

Hence the only Real Adjustment would be that Gimballed Weapons would likely be Shifted more towards the Turret Damage than to the Fixed Damage. To prevent that an Corvette can Destroy Fighters in an Alpha Strike.
Albeit Being Honest. In Realism Based Thinking an Corvette Destroying a Small Vessel like an Cobra in an Alpha Strike would be entirely Correct.....




And well Mate.
Why would we keep an Rubbish System that Nerfs Turrets and Corvettes into Oblivion. Just because you want to remain capable of Killing everything easily by using an Fighter ?
If nothing else. The Community here seems to be showing more Resonance towards Improving Corvettes and Turrets. Than it shows to your Idea of leaving it with Fighters being the Kings everywhere.

Arent you the one who is Obtuse there ?
Your playing like I am alone. And your Representing the Big Majority.
But it doesnt seem like that to me

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Maybe you didn't read the post. It's because larger ships have thicker armor. Larger caliber weapons have no issue delivering their damage despite this. Smaller caliber weapons do. So smaller weapons do less damage. It makes perfect sense.

Yes, smaller weapons do less damage since the ship is larger, has more hp and more shields.

THEN we add an ADDITIONAL 66% damage reduction.

THAT's my issue.

The inherent STATS of a larger ship ALREADY account for them being larger and more massive.

Taking the handgun example between a mouse and a car is more akin to:

You shoot a 9mm bullet against a mouse and it becomes a bloody rag.

You shoot a 9mm bullet against a car and it magically becomes a .22 caliber when it hits and does even LESS damage than a 9mm would have done.

THAT is my issue with the reduced damage agains ships that ARE larger, more massive and has the stats to back it up (HP, Shields, Armour and Mass)

 

[Sunleader]

Yes, smaller weapons do less damage since the ship is larger, has more hp and more shields.

THEN we add an ADDITIONAL 66% damage reduction.

THAT's my issue.

The inherent STATS of a larger ship ALREADY account for them being larger and more massive.

Taking the handgun example between a mouse and a car is more akin to:

You shoot a 9mm bullet against a mouse and it becomes a bloody rag.

You shoot a 9mm bullet against a car and it magically becomes a .22 caliber when it hits and does even LESS damage than a 9mm would have done.

THAT is my issue with the reduced damage agains ships that ARE larger, more massive and has the stats to back it up (HP, Shields, Armour and Mass)

Lol.
Mate your Explaining this Perfectly.
And yet you dont Understand it.


See the Thing is.
Just as you say.
If you shoot the 9mm Bullet into the Mouse.
The Mouse Becomes a Bloody Rag. Because the Power is so Large Compared to the Mouse that the Mouse not just gets a Hole but Rather Bursts into a Big Splash on the Wall.

When you shoot the 9mm into a Car. The Car will have a small Hole.
Unless you score a Critical Hit on some Inside Power Lines or something. This small Hole wont even be something the Car gives a Crap about
You can put 100 Holes into that Car but you will still not have anything Tear off etc.

But now lets Shoot at it with an 20mm Gun.
The 20mm Shells will work just like the 9mm on the Mouse.
It will not only Stamp a Small Hole into the Car.
It will Literally Tear Apart the Place where the 20mm Shell Hits and will cause an Opening with several Tears inside it.


The Size of an Weapon Compared to an Target is very Importand.

This has to do with Structural Integrity.
An Large Weapon Fired on a Small Target is doing far more Damage than an Large Weapon Fired on a Large Target.


Simply think about an Tank and an Battleship Firing at each other.

An Tank Firing at an Battleship even if your Gun Penetrates has hardly any Chance to cause Critical Damage or Kill Crewmembers.
An Battleship Firing at an Battleship given it Penetrates will wreak Havoc and Kill not only Crew but also cause Severe Damage.
An Battleship Firing at an Tank will Smash that Tank into the Ground lol....

Thats not because of HP or Damage.
If you put so many Tanks together that they have Equal Armor and Gunpower to the Battleship.
The Battleship would still cause far more Damage with each Shot. Because even with all these Tanks together Shooting at the Battleship. Their Actual Damage Caused on the Battleship would be hardly worth Mentioning.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Lol.
Mate your Explaining this Perfectly.
And yet you dont Understand it.

A more logical solution then would be that any MODULE damage to a larger ship is reduced depending on weapon size.

Hull damage and Armour damage is all the same since the ship already has more overall HP and armour.

Yes, the bullet penetrating the armour has a far less chance of hitting a VITAL part but the overall damage between target A and B is the same - The HULL takes X damage. If the bullet in question PENETRATES the armour that is a question for the individual hulls HARDNESS value VS the weapons PENETRATION value.

But overall damage against the HULL/ARMOUR should remain constant between ships regardless of size since that is happening regardless of armour penetration.

I would on the other hand understand perfectly if MODULE damage would be reduced since hitting a VITAL part with a 20mm cannon against a Car as opposed a Cruise Liner is a very different thing.

 

[jay3141592]

If that's the level of understanding of physics encoded into the Elite Dangerous weapon model, that explains so much. ;-)

Seriously. There's absolutely no doubt that a 9mm shot is more fatal to a mouse than to an elephant, to cite your favorite example.

But that's because the animal has more mass and thicker skin - which maps to more hull mass and more armor already. This affects the relative damage to the target. The absolute kinetic impact is the same.

Introducing an additional damage modifier is just sloppy coding. (I'm a programmer. I can hear the conversation in my head - "Hrm, with those weapons and hull and armor weights, this doesn't make sense. Do we recalculate them all or introduce some random modifier?")

Smaller weapons already inflict less absolute damage, they have shorter range, etc.

As for that battleship versus tank equivalent - I really don't think a battleship would like to be hit by even one tank's main gun. Just, you know, saying.

Going back to the topic of this thread though - none of that justifies the damage penalties that turrets get, and how badly they are positioned on the ships.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

You dont need an Total Revamp.

Really? You suggested reworking the entire weapon system in the previous post.

Just because you want to remain capable of Killing everything easily by using an Fighter ?

I don't want it. FD appears to want it. I'd prefer a more traditional system closer to X3 or something, but that doesn't seem to be the direction the mechanics are going. This is why I say you're being narrow minded. You want to change the relationship between weapons and big ships via turrets, but you fail to consider how that kind of shift in the ship choice dynamic affects the rest of the game.

Yes, smaller weapons do less damage since the ship is larger, has more hp and more shields.

THEN we add an ADDITIONAL 66% damage reduction.

THAT's my issue.

The inherent STATS of a larger ship ALREADY account for them being larger and more massive.

Yes. The inherent stats of the ship account for them being larger and more massive. But not also thicker, equipped with armor that has more stopping power.

For example, a man in a suit of armor that accounts for 10% of his weight. The bullet hits his armor at 1000m/s, then enters his body at 900m/s.
Another example, an elephant in a suit of armor that accounts for 10% of its weight. The bullet hits its armor at 1000m/s, then enters its body at 300m/s.

Because you know, not only does the elephant have more meat that needs to be destroyed before its life is in danger, it also has a heavier suit of armor, as it has more body weight to support it. The elephant is not wearing a suit of armor built for a human. The elephant is wearing a suit of armor built for an elephant. It is not the same size nor the same thickness as the suit of armor built for a man.

Now, regarding damage. A man with a gun that makes up 5% of its weight can shoot another man in armor. ED assumes that a man sized gun is built with man sized armor piercing capabilities, so 100% of the damage is delivered. Man sized weapons however are not designed to pierce elephant sized armor, so the elephant's armor reduces it by 66%. Now, an elephant with a gun that makes up 5% of its weight operates under the same rules. The elephant sized gun is designed to penetrate elephant sized armor, ignoring it and delivering 100% damage. However, the elephant sized gun when hitting man sized armor does not magically accelerate because of the armor thickness or lack there of, and it won't deliver more than 100% damage.

It's all so simple, so what's the issue here?

;-)

Introducing an additional damage modifier is just sloppy coding. (I'm a programmer. I can hear the conversation in my head - "Hrm, with those weapons and hull and armor weights, this doesn't make sense. Do we recalculate them all or introduce some random modifier?")

By sloppy, do you mean lazy in that each ship should have its own value? Or are you a part of the crowd that doesn't get it?

 

[Sunleader]

A more logical solution then would be that any MODULE damage to a larger ship is reduced depending on weapon size.

Hull damage and Armour damage is all the same since the ship already has more overall HP and armour.

Yes, the bullet penetrating the armour has a far less chance of hitting a VITAL part but the overall damage between target A and B is the same - The HULL takes X damage. If the bullet in question PENETRATES the armour that is a question for the individual hulls HARDNESS value VS the weapons PENETRATION value.

But overall damage against the HULL/ARMOUR should remain constant between ships regardless of size since that is happening regardless of armour penetration.

I would on the other hand understand perfectly if MODULE damage would be reduced since hitting a VITAL part with a 20mm cannon against a Car as opposed a Cruise Liner is a very different thing.

No Mate.
Its not about Crew Damage.
But about Hull Damage.

Weapon Damage does not only Affect the Directly Hit Area.
It Affects the Structural Integrity of the Entire Plate.

We can make the Example somewhat better for you.
Lets Compare an Light Cruiser and an Destroyer.
Only one Class Difference here.

Now we Hit both with the Main Gun of an Light Cruiser. (15-18cm)
And both with the Main Gun of an Destroyer (10-12cm

There will be 3 Major Differences.


1.
The Cruiser will Take less Module Damage.
Thats right as you say.
Because Hitting an Module will be less Likely.

2.
The Cruiser will make an large Undamaged Area
Which means in a Game he basicly has more HP Remaining.
Because he has more Area that needs to be Destroyed for it to Sink.

3.
And thats the part your Missing.
The Area Hit. Will be looking very Different.
Because the Area Hit by 15cm Guns will have Taken way more Damage than the Area Hit by the 10cm Guns.
Simply because the Payload of the 15cm is much stronger. And because the Size and the Mass of the Projectile is Bigger thus causing more Damage.

However. The Problem here is.
If we made it as you say. Only by HP and Damage.
The Destroyer would look the same.
But the Fact is. The Destroyer Doesnt Look the Same.

Because the Destroyer is only Laid out to take Hits from 10-12cm Not from 15cm.
So he not only took the same Damages as the Cruiser just in an Smaller Area with an higher Chance of Destroying Internal Stuff.

It actually took more Damage.
Because the Armor Broke Apart when being Hit with that massive Shell it wasnt supposed to hold up against.
Hence the Destroyer thanks to being smaller. Will not have less HP remaining as he had less HP to Start with.
He will actually Take more Damage from the Same Gun than the Cruiser is Taking from it.

 

[Sunleader]

Really? You suggested reworking the entire weapon system in the previous post.





I don't want it. FD appears to want it. I'd prefer a more traditional system closer to X3 or something, but that doesn't seem to be the direction the mechanics are going. This is why I say you're being narrow minded. You want to change the relationship between weapons and big ships via turrets, but you fail to consider how that kind of shift in the ship choice dynamic affects the rest of the game.

Actually I am only Suggesting to Add one Part to the System.
And Adjust 1 Third of the Values.

Thats far away from an Revamp of the Entire System Mate.



Also.
Nope I AM considering the Dynamic Changes.
Thats exactly why I am suggesting this Change which is pretty much within the already Existing System.
Rather than Suggesting a new System like the one used in the X Series Games.

You might think I am just accidently overlooking it.
But I WANT this to Basicly be an Nerf to Smaller Ships.

An Vulture having only 2 Large Weapons. Is Currently really Weak in Comparisson.
Because the 2 Large Weapons are really Limited thanks to Energy Anyways.
And lets face it. The 2 Large Weapons are not really Competing with 2 Medium and 2 Small Slots which is standart on other Ships.
Because despite being Large. The Weapons wont Deal all too much Damage. And to begin with the Vulture Simply does not have the Energy to Sustain them anyways.

But with that System the Vulture would actually make Sense.
Because your Sacrifice of an Effective Energy Efficient Weapon that you can use in Prolonged Combat.
You also get something in Return thats worth it. Which is an Incredible Effective Alpha Strike.

Large Ships as I said. Wont be able to use Fixed Weapons to that End anyways.
Because lets Face a Fact.
even if the Corvette would Manage to do an Effective Alpha Strike against an Small Target (Heck that guy would need to be Deaf and Blind to not Realize if hes Targeted by an Corvette) The Placement of the Weapons would simply not allow to actually use your full Weapon Power anyways.
Most would be going into the Empty Air.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

An Vulture having only 2 Large Weapons. Is Currently really Weak in Comparisson.
Because the 2 Large Weapons are really Limited thanks to Energy Anyways.
And lets face it. The 2 Large Weapons are not really Competing with 2 Medium and 2 Small Slots which is standart on other Ships.

Now, your English is terrible, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you...
Did you just call the vulture weak compared to 2s2m ships?

 

[DragoonKnight]

Now, your English is terrible, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you...
Did you just call the vulture weak compared to 2s2m ships?

The vulture's strength lies in the fact that it can stay on a target's 6 and shoot it constantly. In terms of burst DPS, the vulture does less damage than a Viper MK3 against medium and small ships.

 

[Sunleader]

Now, your English is terrible, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you...
Did you just call the vulture weak compared to 2s2m ships?

In Terms of Sustained Firepower. The Vulture is extremely Weak Mate.
An Viper or Cobra easily Outdamages an Vulture.

 

[Bacalao]

Turrets are a scab on the game, I can accept that a turreted anaconda makes sense (sort of, not really though) but constantly fighting vipers, eagles and FASs with turrets equipped just makes me shake my head. Turret damage is significant and time on target is through the roof, go get into an eagle and sit right above a turreted anaconda and tell me the damage is insignificant.
-
I don't blame you for wanting to have a weapon that aims for you, renders maneuverability almost completely trivial and does gobs of damage, but, well actually that's ridiculous. Good luck.
-
Also, if you are using turrets on a corvette you're doing it wrong, it's a fighter, hardpoint selection and placement are completely wrong for turrets and maneuverability and capacitor capacity make it ideal for harder hitting, high draw weapons. The Cutter is a better turret boat and the anaconda as well, and both do good damage with turrets (which not only have lower damage, but also lower power and capacitor draw and thermal load and time on target, conveniently ignored). The big ships are heavy fighters, when will people get that? They're single pilot fighter craft. Large, turret reliant ships are the capital ships (Farragut and Interdictor).
-
Of course, no one would make such compromises in reality, but no one would artificially (and somewhat magically) limit their speed to ~250m/s, or limit kinetic weapon range to 3km, or the myriad of other reality sacrifices this game makes because it is a game and they make the game more fun and balanced.

 

[Jabezz]

the myriad of other reality sacrifices this game makes because it is a game and they make the game more fun and balanced.

.......which makes it possible for a small fighter to take out the most powerful ships in the game single handedly in PvP which of course is nonsense.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

The vulture's strength lies in the fact that it can stay on a target's 6 and shoot it constantly. In terms of burst DPS, the vulture does less damage than a Viper MK3 against medium and small ships.

In Terms of Sustained Firepower. The Vulture is extremely Weak Mate.
An Viper or Cobra easily Outdamages an Vulture.

The same could be said of a T9, so how is this at all relevant?

.......which makes it possible for a small fighter to take out the most powerful ships in the game single handedly in PvP which of course is nonsense.

Yeah, if the pilot is asleep. This comparison has no relevance to reality my friend. An asteroid could do the same thing under the same circumstances. Are asteroids OP?

 

[Sunleader]

The same could be said of a T9, so how is this at all relevant?


Yeah, if the pilot is asleep. This comparison has no relevance to reality my friend. An asteroid could do the same thing under the same circumstances. Are asteroids OP?

1.
An T9 is an Transport.
Its Fighting Capacity is not relevant for Balancing.

For the Vulture this sort of Balancing is very Relevant.


2.
Well actually. Asteroids in this Game ARE OP
They are Invincible xD
They cant even be Destroyed
Which is very Bad for Miners because despite having nothing left of Value anymore they Haunt you and stay around Forever.

 

[DragoonKnight]

Turrets are a scab on the game, I can accept that a turreted anaconda makes sense (sort of, not really though) but constantly fighting vipers, eagles and FASs with turrets equipped just makes me shake my head. Turret damage is significant and time on target is through the roof, go get into an eagle and sit right above a turreted anaconda and tell me the damage is insignificant.
-
I don't blame you for wanting to have a weapon that aims for you, renders maneuverability almost completely trivial and does gobs of damage, but, well actually that's ridiculous. Good luck.
-
Also, if you are using turrets on a corvette you're doing it wrong, it's a fighter, hardpoint selection and placement are completely wrong for turrets and maneuverability and capacitor capacity make it ideal for harder hitting, high draw weapons. The Cutter is a better turret boat and the anaconda as well, and both do good damage with turrets (which not only have lower damage, but also lower power and capacitor draw and thermal load and time on target, conveniently ignored). The big ships are heavy fighters, when will people get that? They're single pilot fighter craft. Large, turret reliant ships are the capital ships (Farragut and Interdictor).
-
Of course, no one would make such compromises in reality, but no one would artificially (and somewhat magically) limit their speed to ~250m/s, or limit kinetic weapon range to 3km, or the myriad of other reality sacrifices this game makes because it is a game and they make the game more fun and balanced.

How is a cutter a better Turret boat than a Conda when it has a smaller Power Distributor?
And Since the game allows you to double chaff, then you can sit on top of a turreted anaconda for over 90 seconds with little to worry about.
You want ridiculous? It is ridiculous that my sensors can weigh and cost more than a fully equipped combat Eagle but the moment that Eagle deploys the chaff he bought for a few thousand credits my turrets (that are worth 20 Million each) are rendered useless. It is also ridiculous that the biggest ship in the game, the same ship that is designed to use turrets, does not have the Power Distributor to actually use them and is stuck with an inferior.

 

[Sunleader]

Turrets are a scab on the game, I can accept that a turreted anaconda makes sense (sort of, not really though) but constantly fighting vipers, eagles and FASs with turrets equipped just makes me shake my head. Turret damage is significant and time on target is through the roof, go get into an eagle and sit right above a turreted anaconda and tell me the damage is insignificant.
-
I don't blame you for wanting to have a weapon that aims for you, renders maneuverability almost completely trivial and does gobs of damage, but, well actually that's ridiculous. Good luck.
-
Also, if you are using turrets on a corvette you're doing it wrong, it's a fighter, hardpoint selection and placement are completely wrong for turrets and maneuverability and capacitor capacity make it ideal for harder hitting, high draw weapons. The Cutter is a better turret boat and the anaconda as well, and both do good damage with turrets (which not only have lower damage, but also lower power and capacitor draw and thermal load and time on target, conveniently ignored). The big ships are heavy fighters, when will people get that? They're single pilot fighter craft. Large, turret reliant ships are the capital ships (Farragut and Interdictor).
-
Of course, no one would make such compromises in reality, but no one would artificially (and somewhat magically) limit their speed to ~250m/s, or limit kinetic weapon range to 3km, or the myriad of other reality sacrifices this game makes because it is a game and they make the game more fun and balanced.

Actually.
The Corvette Class Ships in this Game are not Single Seaters.
Corvettes have 3-5 Cockpit Seats with Controls.


And yes.
Right now they are.
Because right now the Game is very in this Aspect.
They are making Corvettes into Oversized Fighters for which they are almost useless.

And thats exactly what I am saying they need to Change.
Because right now there is no real Reason to get a Bigger Ship for Combat.

The Best PvP Ships are Ultimately the small Ships like Cobra and Viper.




And no.
This is not making the Game Balanced or Fun.

If this is Supposed how it is.
Then Sorry but Corvettes need to be Reduced to the same Prices as the small Vessels.

If its Planned that an Imperial Clipper can be Bested so easily by an Cobra.
Than the Clipper should not Cost 20 Million and the Cobra 400k
But the Clipper should Cost maybe 700k and the Cobra 400k


Right now an Super Heavy Corvette that Costs like 100 Times as much as an Small Fighter.
Is having an Base Stat Advantage of maybe 20-50% and on top has several Shortcomings to Outbalance thus Advantages.

Sorry but thats not Balance.
Thats simply Bull.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

How is a cutter a better Turret boat than a Conda when it has a smaller Power Distributor?
And Since the game allows you to double chaff, then you can sit on top of a turreted anaconda for over 90 seconds with little to worry about.
You want ridiculous? It is ridiculous that my sensors can weigh and cost more than a fully equipped combat Eagle but the moment that Eagle deploys the chaff he bought for a few thousand credits my turrets (that are worth 20 Million each) are rendered useless. It is also ridiculous that the biggest ship in the game, the same ship that is designed to use turrets, does not have the Power Distributor to actually use them and is stuck with an inferior.

Soo goddamn much this!!!!!
+1

 

[DragoonKnight]

Sunleader is absolutely right regarding ship prices....
1. All PvE combat content can be done in a 15 Million Credit Vulture.

2. People say that they do not want ships to replace skill in PvP, but if paying 100 Million credits or 500 Million credits does not give me a ship that is far far superior than one that can be had for 8 Million credits than what is the point of the larger ships like the Corvette? To Gank newbies? You can do that in any ship, but since ships like the Corvette lack a point that is what it ends up being used for half the time. Why would you want to encourage behavior that leads to Ganking? Corvette pilots do not really need to sit at a Haz Res for Credits. They already have enough credits, so they end up going out to look for something to do. That something to do often turns to Ganking because they have no content for their ships and no combat role to fulfill. It is like expecting an AC-130 gunship to fight the same way as an F-15, it is just wrong.

3. The most expensive ship that serious PvP players use is the FAS and FDL. What is exactly is the role of the Corvette then?

4. Corvettes are handicapped by several major shortcomings already on the sacrificial altar of Balance. This balancing of course ignores the fact that a mid tier Corvette is 400 Million Credits and essentially amounts to Months of play time. Despite all that the Corvette does not have a clear place in the large ship hierarchy.
Conda = Multipurpose Combat / Trading / Exploration
Cutter = Trading
Corvette = ???

Why exactly should I choose a Corvette over any other ship in my Fleet (see my sig) for Combat? I am really struggling to come up with an answer for this one.

Right now I do HAZ Res in an FDL and I undermine in a Clipper. Can the Corvette replace those 2 ships?
The Corvette is not good for undermining as it has horrible jump range as part of its "balancing" and even a lightweight corvette build suffers from slow boost speed (cant undermine them if I cant catch them) so I am still stuck with needing the clipper for undermining.
Well how about PvP.... I dont see any of the serious PvP players use a corvette. They are all in an FAS or FDL for good reason.
Well then, maybe I can use it for Haz Res... Yes, but that reduces the Corvette to a single combat role and one for which there are already a half dozen qualified contenders.

So tell me exactly what combats roles the Corvette is meant for?
And if your answer is that all ships are unique and the Corvette should not be able to completely replace any one of them then that just means the Corvette is seriously overpriced. I would expect a 400 Million credit combat ship, the most expensive dedicated combat ship, to be able to fulfill multiple combat roles and be able to do them well.

5. Finally let us address the Super expensive Class 3 Beam Turrets. This is a weapon that does about as much damage as fixed medium pulse laser, requires almost double the energy from the weapons capacitor to fire, and costs as much as an A rated Combat vulture with Military Armor.
Let us go over this again, just so there is no confusion.
Firepower = medium pulse laser
Cost = 19.4 Million credits = A rated combat vulture with military armor
Yes, I expect this weapon to be freaking powerful. After all for the cost of 4 Beam turrets on a Conda I can finance a wing of Vultures instead and there is no doubt that 4 vultures would tear stuff up in a hurry.
This is one of the things in this game that does not make sense and instead drives people nuts.
You pay Ferrari prices and expect Supercar performance. Instead they take your money and give you an old Honda Civic.