Type-10 Balance Discussion - How to make the battle cow viable

[Florenus]

Maybe the problem is not with the ship exactly, but the fact how turreted weapons work in game?
I mean, it would make sense that big ships are less manuoverable, so they should probably rely on turreted weapons more. You want WWI style dogfighting? Use small fighters with fixed weapons. Something between? Medium ships. Want fly big? You shouldn't hope to win by outmanouvering and fight by keeping enymy in you ironsights.
I would say big ships could use some exclusive buff to turreted weapons and even more distinctive manouverability difference from other classes.

 

[SpaceScania]

Maybe the problem is not with the ship exactly, but the fact how turreted weapons work in game?
I mean, it would make sense that big ships are less manuoverable, so they should probably rely on turreted weapons more. You want WWI style dogfighting? Use small fighters with fixed weapons. Something between? Medium ships. Want fly big? You shouldn't hope to win by outmanouvering and fight by keeping enymy in you ironsights.
I would say big ships could use some exclusive buff to turreted weapons and even more distinctive manouverability difference from other classes.

Your ideas are interesting and may have merit. However, the problem is we won't see anything like that until 2020 at the earliest. The suggestions made by the OP could help the ship be more competitive in the meantime.

 

[Sylow]

I would say big ships could use some exclusive buff to turreted weapons and even more distinctive manouverability difference from other classes.

What exact buffs are you thinking about? I mean, look at what i explained about Thargoid interceptors above. Give turrets ten times the damage when mounted on the T10, the turrets would still fire dead center and do ten times no damage. By itself, it wouldn't help.

On the other hand, if Xeno scanners would get like 3 km range, the described problem would actually be much reduced. Then a turret buff would help the ship a lot. You'd still need to dance around the Thargoid to get a shot on the hearts, which is not that easy on the T10. But it would help a lot. Making the T10 even less agile or slower, on the other hand, to make it more distinct, would absolutely kill it for AX duty.

 

[lenna]

Again, you are not taking its description into account nor are you accounting for the fact its a ship in the game a player can use with no indication it was designed to be useless, its a COMBAT ship that sucks at combat, the T10 was designed for combat while the likes of the Anaconda or Imperial Cutter where not, both do it better though.

It is yourself that is actually not taking the description into account. Florenus gets the point, it is a transport vessel design modified for combat not a vessel designed from scratch specifically for combat. The AC-130 is one real world example of this being done, and another example is probably the very first Aircraft carriers which were essentially cargo vessels retrofitted with a flight deck. The general principle is not unprecedented.

As for the T10 sucking at combat, a lot depends on how you outfit it and fly it - it is a false assumption that all ships in ED should be treatable as dog-fighters regardless of size and other considerations. If you try to fly a T10D as a dog fighter then you will fail epically, you are supposed to fly a ship based on it's strengths and weakness adjusting your style to match - not try and assert that all ships should fly pretty much the same way, which seems to be the case here in the case of those complaining about the T10D being "useless".

Maybe the problem is not with the ship exactly, but the fact how turreted weapons work in game?
I mean, it would make sense that big ships are less manuoverable, so they should probably rely on turreted weapons more. You want WWI style dogfighting? Use small fighters with fixed weapons. Something between? Medium ships. Want fly big? You shouldn't hope to win by outmanouvering and fight by keeping enymy in you ironsights.
I would say big ships could use some exclusive buff to turreted weapons and even more distinctive manouverability difference from other classes.

I disagree that such a buff is actually necessary - IME turreted weapons work fine on the most part as it currently stands. They are also balanced to accommodate the fact that they allow a greater time on target. Capitalising on turret usage is as much a flying style consideration as relying solely on fixed/gimballed weapons.

[EDIT]In fact, I believe they got a nerf at some point because some tried to assert that the turrets were OP. Even after the nerf though, turrets are effective enough - it may take longer to kill some things perhaps but TTK is not the be-all and end-all.[/EDIT]

 

[Chaparral]

It is yourself that is actually not taking the description into account. Florenus gets the point, it is a transport vessel design modified for combat not a vessel designed from scratch specifically for combat. The AC-130 is one real world example of this being done, and another example is probably the very first Aircraft carriers which were essentially cargo vessels retrofitted with a flight deck. The general principle is not unprecedented.

As for the T10 sucking at combat, a lot depends on how you outfit it and fly it - it is a false assumption that all ships in ED should be treatable as dog-fighters regardless of size and other considerations. If you try to fly a T10D as a dog fighter then you will fail epically, you are supposed to fly a ship based on it's strengths and weakness adjusting your style to match - not try and assert that all ships should fly pretty much the same way, which seems to be the case here in the case of those complaining about the T10D being "useless".

I disagree that such a buff is actually necessary - IME turreted weapons work fine on the most part as it currently stands. They are also balanced to accommodate the fact that they allow a greater time on target. Capitalising on turret usage is as much a flying style consideration as relying solely on fixed/gimballed weapons.

[EDIT]In fact, I believe they got a nerf at some point because some tried to assert that the turrets were OP. Even after the nerf though, turrets are effective enough - it may take longer to kill some things perhaps but TTK is not the be-all and end-all.[/EDIT]

So fundamentally this is a game, and introduction of assets to conform to a narrative is nice, but if the assets aren't viable - or are easily replaced by other assets - you essentially have a poor game design decision.

No one is suggesting the T10 should be a dogfighter (like a Vulture for example). If the T10 is to have a viable role as a playable ship, and is not outdone by other comparable ships in the price range, it needs to offer something special. The large number of hardpoints makes it appear as having a dps potential greater than the other large ships, but its inability to employ all of those hardpoints simultaneously on a target due to its pitch and yaw rates nullify this apparent advantage.

 

[lenna]

If the T10 is to have a viable role as a playable ship, and is not outdone by other comparable ships in the price range, it needs to offer something special.

It does offer something special - it is the only big ship with 4 L hard points well-placed for turrets that essentially have either very small or no blind arcs (L-sized turret wise) as a result.

 

[Vandellion]

"Florenus gets the point, it is a transport vessel design modified for combat not a vessel designed from scratch specifically for combat. The AC-130 is one real world example of this being done, and another example is probably the very first Aircraft carriers which were essentially cargo vessels retrofitted with a flight deck. The general principle is not unprecedented"

"The Type-10 Defender is the result of collaboration between the Alliance and Lakon Spaceways. With the threat of xeno-war looming, the Alliance's naval arm saw the urgent need for a weapons platform capable of withstanding heavy, sustained attack. Utilising a reinforced Type-9 chassis as a starting point(starting point is not the same as copy and paste), Lakon overhauled(do you know what overhauled means?) and geared every (every means everything) aspect of the design for combat, producing a military behemoth that could be produced in volume at short notice.

Nothing there says anything about a trade ship. The ship has two MILITARY COMPARTIMENTS class 5 like the corvette that is a combat ship. It even has less cargo then the corvette.

Stop reading just what you want to read and get real.

 

[lenna]

Stop reading just what you want to read and get real.

Back at ya! …

Not mentioning trade ship? False - Reinforced T9 chassis counts. While they may have tweaked internals and some of the externals for combat it was still fundamentally based on a trade ship design.

As for being able to withstand heavy sustained attack - that depends on your outfitting choices BUT it can; at least in a PvE context and relatively speaking to the T-9 it is far more durable.

It may have two military compartments but that was part of the design changes, like adding the 4 Large weapon mounts and other changes.

You are also ignoring the last point about being "produced in volume at short notice".

Ultimately, despite the claims of some the T10D is still a capable combat ship (not perfect but then arguably none of the big 4 are) and it's capabilities certainly fit it's price point.

[EDIT]It may not strictly speaking be a PvP Cutter killer but arguably no other ship can stand up to the more extreme and OP Cutter builds. The other two of the big 4 can be out fitted similarly on the most part but the combination of the Cutter's specs on it's own gives it a clear advantage in at least some combat settings - but then it is the most expensive player flyable ship in the game at the moment so that is not unreasonable.[/EDIT]

 

[Tiili]

It does offer something special - it is the only big ship with 4 L hard points well-placed for turrets that essentially have either very small or no blind arcs (L-sized turret wise) as a result.

And when you actually slap some turrets there and try to fight anyone(who is not a total noob) in PVP, you'll notice that the turrets fire wildly all over the place because of chaff & dispersal field and have to jump out before a ship with well placed fixed weaponry shreds you to pieces.

This forces you to fit fixed weaponry to even fight back at all, and you'll notice that you're still not fit to fight the other big ones because they can pump out DPS faster than you and are also tougher and harder to hit.

Which is the reason why this whole thread exists.

 

[lenna]

...

Here is a thought for the PvPers, not every ship is perhaps suitable for PvP and there is nothing wrong with that. How about keeping your own expectations in check?

If you want a cheaper larger ship killer, there are plenty of options - including but not limited to the Alliance Chieftain/Challenger/Crusader which were essentially (lore wise) meant to be the long term solutions to the concern that the T10D was a quick fix for.

 

[RELSPI]

But the T10 is barely even suitable for military PvE. Hardly a 'behemoth'.

 

[Tiili]

After reading through the thread, I'm quite sure that some folks just have some issues with the original poster and oppose balancing the game for that reason

 

[RELSPI]

After reading through the thread, I'm quite sure that some folks just have some issues with the original poster and oppose balancing the game for that reason

I think they're jealous of the impeccable dye job.

 

[Vandellion]

"Reinforced T9 chassis counts"? for what? (why did you ignore the AS A STARTING POINT) You just pick what you like?
The words are meaningless just because you have a different opinion?

The game needed to explain why it looks like the type 9. That is what the starting point is here for. The in game explanation says its designed for combat and you are saying that is a trade ship when that is not said in the in game description. So when you have an argument that the lore or description applys the lore is the rule... when you don't it means nothing?

Just as you can make a corvette or any other combat oriented ship a trade ship you can make this ship a trade ship or any other role really but that is not gonna change the fact that it was made for combat that is why it has that number of hardpoints and military compartiments and less cargo hold then the type 9.

You say i ignore the rushed part but you ignore everithing in the in game description that states that is a combat oriented ship. (every aspect for combat) How clear can that not be for you? why do you ignore that?

To be honest i'm done talking to you. You have no argument whatsoever for your baseless claims and every time you say one different thing. (a few coments back the ship was supposed to be for thargoid hunting) Well thargoid is combat. Now the ship is a trade ship because AS A STARTTING POINT they used parts of the chassis of a cargo ship. (great argument)

 

[HunterMemnoch]

(a few coments back the ship was supposed to be for thargoid hunting)

And as much as I love the Type-10 (I use it for exploration and scouts), it fails at Thargoid combat other than scouts. I mean, I can fight scouts in my Viper III too. It's sad that that's the reason why it has Defender in the name and it fails at that.

Here's Frontier promoting it as such:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/945655556764823554

Source: https://twitter.com/elitedangerous/status/945655556764823554?lang=en

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943485300579368960

Source: https://twitter.com/EliteDangerous/status/943485300579368960/photo/1


And an article discussing it here: https://www.pcgamesn.com/elite-dangerous/elite-dangerous-ships-defender-type-10

The article even closes with: "Hopefully, it’s not all for show and can actually survive a scrape with the Thargoids."

Lol

 

[Chaparral]

It does offer something special - it is the only big ship with 4 L hard points well-placed for turrets that essentially have either very small or no blind arcs (L-sized turret wise) as a result.

This is not valid, given that these arcs are divided by the extra large pancake sized hull. The inability to engage with all firearcs simultaneously on a target above or below the ship (especially given the exceedingly slow pitch/yaw ∆ ) means the 4 L hps cannot be used effectively.

 

[Unknown Zombie]

Not to mention, as previously stated, how slow large turrets are at tracking a target.

 

[Vandellion]

And as much as I love the Type-10 (I use it for exploration and scouts), it fails at Thargoid combat other than scouts. I mean, I can fight scouts in my Viper III too. It's sad that that's the reason why it has Defender in the name and it fails at that.

Here's Frontier promoting it as such:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/945655556764823554

Source: https://twitter.com/elitedangerous/status/945655556764823554?lang=en

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943485300579368960

Source: https://twitter.com/EliteDangerous/status/943485300579368960/photo/1


And an article discussing it here: https://www.pcgamesn.com/elite-dangerous/elite-dangerous-ships-defender-type-10

The article even closes with: "Hopefully, it’s not all for show and can actually survive a scrape with the Thargoids."

Lol

Nice find. That should solve this issue that is not combat oriented or thargoid hunter for good. (a man can dream i guess).

The sad part is the line "the Type-10 Defender won't let you down!" It kinda does...

At least it looks too d a m n g o o d.

 

[sandkid]

Nice find. That should solve this issue that is not combat oriented or thargoid hunter for good. (a man can dream i guess).

The sad part is the line "the Type-10 Defender won't let you down!" It kinda does...

At least it looks too d a m n g o o d.

If we were to stick with the thargoid theme - which I think is reasonable - here's my two credits: the issue isn't turrets or hardpoint placement, or even general design.

It's that what the T10 would be excellent at doesn't really exist well within the game: a flak turret powerhouse for multi-crew. A T10 supporting a squadron for Thargoid hunting - not solo hunting - ought to be able to wreak absolute hell on thargon swarms, caustic missiles, and as it already does - scouts. In other words, it ought to be the premiere area denial ship. In a role like this, the T10 description and design make great sense and even fits the ethos of Alliance-oriented craft (which the T10 was specifically commissioned by): not an 'anchor ship' like a corvette, but a solid support vessel for localized militia...typical of how the alliance supports its member systems.

So...knowing that multi-crew is in the state it is (not bad, not good either, especially for gunner role...which this particularly pertains to...) how then do you reform the T10 for solo usage in this environment? Designing new turret modules and AI for assigning turrets (a la eve online, as opposed to existing fire at will setting) with filters or manual targeting might be a good start. Developing new utility modules specific to AX operations - such as AX defense turrets (I forget their name...blanking, sorry), AX chaff for thargon swarms or caustic missiles, or large-scale Xeno scanner pulses that reveal data/hearts for all allies in radius that require large amounts of capacitor and power to use/equip.

In other words, modules that allow not just the T10 to excel as a support ship, but also serve as choices in medium and smaller ships clearly designed for support roles as well...such as the FDS and Crusader, or even the diminutive Adder and Cobra. I'm a sucker for support roles and I really wish the game provided more options for this that didn't require multi-crew to be viable.

Like I said, my two credits.

 

[Sylow]

After reading through the thread, I'm quite sure that some folks just have some issues with the original poster and oppose balancing the game for that reason

Hehe. Describing my point of view on the creater of the thread in detail here would allow moderators to give me a forum break. But does it matter? The T10 actually has issues, and it would be nice to get them fixed, no matter who created the thread.

[...]

Like I said, my two credits.

An interesting suggestion. But while interesting, unfortunately not that useful in my eyes for some reasons:

• If all of that becomes automatic, then why not simply have it in the turrets? FD could do that, but it would change the game a lot. It would be a huge step from Elite and ED towards EVE. It's not what the game needs, though.
• If this should not all be automatic, your suggestion would give the T10 a specific multi-crew role within a wing. Unfortunately multi-crew and wings currently block each other, and i don't see FD ever changing that. And even if they want to change it, it will be plenty of work.
• Within the next one and a half years we can only expect small upgrades. FD is busy with the next big thing, whatever that will be. So small but helpful improvements is what the thread is about. Changing a few internal values, e.g. shield modifier, base hull mass, etc. can be done quickly. FD has already shown that they can do these things even as server-side only patch. Changing a few values in a table is not that hard. Your suggestion, on the other hand, is large. Even if FD would decide to go for it, it'd be at least two years from now before we would hear the first of it.
• Last not least, if the things you suggest would be implemented, they could be used on any ship. Thus all ships would get better and I even dare to say that other ships would profit more of it than the T10. (Support only is really useful when it can be where it's needed on time. And the T10 is not especially good in that. ) So at best the T10s standing would not change. But more likely, it'd be even further behind.

So mind you, some of the things you wrote could be very interesting. But it's not within the scope of the thread and an acceptable timeframe.