I am sorry but you are the one without an argument...
Let's take the AC-130 v C-130 as an analogy, the AC-130 basically takes the C-130 chassis and adds guns to it in order to modify it for a ground attack role. It is powerful and capable of dealing a lot of damage BUT it is still essentially just a heavily armed C-130 - essentially a flying artillery piece. Given the number of weapons and sheer size of the craft it could reasonably be referred to as a military behemoth too.
The T-10D by comparison (v. baseline T-9):-
- Hull hardness increased to 75 (at least better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda if not the best in ED)
- Baseline Hull points increased by ~20% (better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda)
- Baseline Agility rating increased by ~50%
- Baseline Cruise Speed increased by ~38%
- Baseline Boost Speed increased by ~10%
- Added 4 L hardpoints that for whatever reason have clearly been intended for turrets.
- Added 4 Utility hardpoints (increasing the number of utility slots to 8)
- The FSD and PD have been beefed up by one grade
- The PP has been beefed up by 2 grades
- A class 8 optional has been traded for 2 class 5 military
- MLF increased over the T-9 (increased from 16 to 26 which places it second only to the Cutter - at least according to on-line sources. Can't locate the MLF stats in-game to check if they are right, certainly not in any of the places I expected them to be)
While it is the slowest and least manoeuvrable of the big 4 it is still faster and more manoeuvrable than the T-9 on which it is based and is the cheapest of the big 4.
So what if you would pay X billion credits for a T10D specified exactly as you would like it to be, such a ship would then cease to be a T10D.
- Is it geared for combat? Arguably yes given the limitations notionally imposed by reusing the T-9 chassis.
- Is it effective for PvE? IME yes it is.
- Is it effective for PvP against the typical "god" PvP builds? That depends on numerous variables but ultimately should be irrelevant.
- Are there better ships for combat out there? Probably yes on balance, but moot given all the factors in play - on balance the T-10D is neither useless nor without purpose.
As for the "
Behemoth" part of the definition, it does not necessarily mean what you think it should.
"Let's take the AC-130 v C-130 as an analogy, the AC-130 basically takes the C-130 chassis and adds guns to it in order to modify it for a ground attack role. It is powerful and capable of dealing a lot of damage BUT it is still essentially just a heavily armed C-130 - essentially a flying artillery piece. Given the number of weapons and sheer size of the craft it could reasonably be referred to as a military behemoth too."
That analogy doesn't apply and has nothing to do with anything this tread is all about. The ingame stated as a starting point(you can't just ignore that part because it's convenient to you). Like other people said in OP those are nothing but words that DEv can change if they feel like it at any time and nowhere the game implied that the chassis of the type 9 was one obstacle to make it a proper military ship like you keep saying or making assumptions.
The game wanted to make a ship similar to type 9(looks) battle oriented to fight thargoid as a primary role(in game description not my opnion or assumption See twither of elite like SYLOW posted a few posts back). That is everything the ingame description is for and that is why the "starting point" is there. Saying that those that made the ship was thinking like you are now is nothing but baseless assumption and that is void.
The comparison between the ships specs/stats bellow is void again because like the game stated the ship is battle oriented and was changed in every aspect to fit that role. You can't compare the ships because their roles in game are different and have nothing to do with anything being said in this tread. The game didnt said that they made a type 9 battle oriented it said it used it's carcass (chassis) as a starting point to make a battle ship(starting point is not the same as copy and paste). If you take the engine out of a car you will have nothing but metal that is worth almoust nothing. Is the inside that counts. And in that regard the game said in a lot of words that every aspect was made for combat.
Comparing a battle oriented ship with a cargo ship just proves how far out of topic you really are and how you don't quitte understand what this ship was builded for.
The T-10D by comparison (v. baseline T-9):-
- Hull hardness increased to 75 (at least better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda if not the best in ED)
- Baseline Hull points increased by ~20% (better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda)
- Baseline Agility rating increased by ~50%
- Baseline Cruise Speed increased by ~38%
- Baseline Boost Speed increased by ~10%
- Added 4 L hardpoints that for whatever reason have clearly been intended for turrets.
- Added 4 Utility hardpoints (increasing the number of utility slots to 8)
- The FSD and PD have been beefed up by one grade
- The PP has been beefed up by 2 grades
- A class 8 optional has been traded for 2 class 5 military
- MLF increased over the T-9 (increased from 16 to 26 which places it second only to the Cutter - at least according to on-line sources. Can't locate the MLF stats in-game to check if they are right, certainly not in any of the places I expected them to be)
While it is the slowest and least manoeuvrable of the big 4 it is still faster and more manoeuvrable than the T-9 on which it is based and is the cheapest of the big 4.
"So what if you would pay X billion credits for a T10D specified exactly as you would like it to be, such a ship would then cease to be a T10D."
That has nothing to do with anything i said earlier about the credits. Everyone that plays this game and gets to the point that they can choose to buy one type 10d knows by that time that credits doesn't matter enought to justify having a poor ship that is outperformed in everithing it does just to save a few credits that you can farm in one hour or so.
- "Is it geared for combat? Arguably yes given the limitations notionally "imposed by reusing the T-9 chassis". Assumption/ The game said it used the chassis as a starting point it didnt said it reused with the same specs like you keep saying. Just as you can assume that the type 9 chassis is bad at combat role anyone can think otherwise. If the ship was build to be a cargo ship having a lot of guns with bigger distributors/powerplant is meaningless so they made it good at the only thing they wanted it for(saved space that would benefit combat for the sake of having more optionals). With a chassis of a ship with that mutch space (second best in game) what makes you think that it can't be proper fit to a combat role? You wanted the type 9 to have a 7 distributor and the same number of guns as the t10d to you assume that it would perform well in a combat role? does that seems reasonable to you? The restrictions that you keep saying are there because the ship was made for a specific role trade/cargo(type 9) and that role is not the same as the type 10d. i disagree fully that the type 9 chassis is a weakness like you try to make it be.
- Is it effective for PvE? IME yes it is. That is your opnion and just as you can have one so can everyone else in this tread.
- Is it effective for PvP against the typical "god" PvP builds? That depends on numerous variables but ultimately should be irrelevant. That is where you are wrong. There are no variables that can make it half decent in pvp. Since it seems that the game wanted it to be for pve (thargoid) that is something that at the very least is not worth debating further.
- Are there better ships for combat out there? Probably yes on balance, but moot given all the factors in play - on balance the T-10D is neither useless nor without purpose.
- Useless nothing is until you give it a purpose. Just because you find the purpose you gave to the ship works for you (even tough is one purpose that was not intended by the dev) that doens't mean that the ship doesn't need balance. This is a game. People can give any ship a purpose if they really want to. Even a wrong one.
"As for the "
Behemoth" part of the definition, it does not necessarily mean what you think it should."
Tell me... where have i said anything about the behemoth part other than copy and paste the ingame description? Now you read my mind too and make your arguments on that?(on what i maybe thinking) I mean really?
What i may think of the behemoth part and what you think of it is something that neither of us have any right to claim we are right on because what the game intended with the behemoth is something that neither of us can know for sure because is open to interpretation. Everyone can interpret as they feel like it. And neither will be wrong or right on that part.
