Well, new Interstellar Initiative is going to introduce new weapon that is supposed to work equally well against human and Thargoid targets and will not be AX limited.
Type-10 Balance Discussion - How to make the battle cow viable
- Thread starter besieger
- Start date
Once again you just reinforce my point... even if you could put 9 AX weapons on a T10 its still bad even for AX combat, you say you have flown the T10 yet forget its biggest issue... CONVERGENCE, all AX weapons that are worth using are Fixed, you also fail to take into account of utility weapons such as Vent beams or Flak
I think you miss the point.
It's not that we don't agree about T10 being imperfect - we just think it's understandable, because it's just a cheap ad-hoc technical.
Like putting some armour and guns on a bus
Of course it can't compete with more expensive, combat dedicated ships.
I flown T9 before and T10 was a step up for me as an armed freighter.
I think you miss the point.
It's not that we don't agree about T10 being imperfect - we just think it's understandable, because it's just a cheap ad-hoc technical.
Like putting some armour and guns on a bus
Of course it can't compete with more expensive, combat dedicated ships.
I flown T9 before and T10 was a step up for me as an armed freighter.
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.
What's with the description and lore ? and like pages and pages of arguing over that stuff, it's meaningless.
Imo, game balance is where we should be looking at. Lore/descriptions can be easily changed afterwards as they are just text.
Heck, even the core internals have changed already, and our ships magically grow more optional slots in almost every patch, why are people so opposed to change
? lol
Imo, game balance is where we should be looking at. Lore/descriptions can be easily changed afterwards as they are just text.
Heck, even the core internals have changed already, and our ships magically grow more optional slots in almost every patch, why are people so opposed to change
? lol
No, definitely not good enough. Reasons for that:
- Four AX MCs would indeed do the job when hunting scouts. But about any other ship does that better. Scouts are fast and agile, other ships are much better in tracking them.
- Higher speed also allows you do avoid the thargoid missiles. The T10 is one of the few ships which can not outrun those.
- Against interceptors, you need to be able to shoot not at the whole Thargoid, but at the "hearts". You drop their health by a certain percentage, then one of the hearts becomes active. This "heart" rapidly repairs the interceptor at a faster rate than you can damage it.
- The "heart" can be destroyed by shooting directly at it.
- If you go for interceptors in NHSSes, they are not aggressive yet. Those you can scan with the Xeno scanner. When you have them scanned, you can select sub-targets. So yes, against those the AX MCs can be used.
- When you fight in AX CZs, the Interceptors are in combat mode right from the start. They move around. The Xeno scanner has only 500 meters range. It's very hard to keep a Thargoid interceptor in combat mode within that range, even when using a fast and agile ship. It's utterly impossible with a slow ship like the T10.
- As you thus can't select a subtarget, turreted AX MCs will always shoot at the center of the Thargoid interceptor. And thus deal zero damage to the "hearts".
In pure theory you could also do that with AX missiles. But due to their flight time and how Thargoids move, that's much harder than with the gauss. While providing less ammo. And if you use them on the C3 hardpoints of the T10, you can always only use one hardpoint. They're too far apart to shoot two missiles at the same time and have any resonable chance of both hitting the heart. Which means you have to be closer to compensate for the flight time and spend more time there, due to only being able to use one launcher a time. It makes things harder and more dangerous. (You'll spend much too much time inside the range of the yellow beam. And the T10 also doesn't have the speed to get out quickly. When things go south in that situation, they go south quickly for the T10, as this slow ship has no chance to disengage. )
What the C3 hardpoints are good for is guardian shard cannons. Pack both cannons to one side of the ship. Thus they are not seperated by the width of the ship, but only the height of the ship. This is still some distance, but a good part of their firing cone overlaps.
I hope that helps for understanding, why turreted AX MCs are not really attractive at all.
Fully outfitted, it's not really cheaper. Depending on the setup, even more expencive than the alternavites, while not performing as well.
Last edited:
You rush job is more important then all the other things is said about the ship being made for combat? The greatest problem of this ship in case you don't know by now is the hardpoint placement/conrvergence and if you look ate the ship belly you will see that rushed or not there is a lot of places to put hardpoints. They wanted the hardpoint placement to be poor located. Rushed job has nothing to do with that. DEV probably tought that the ship would have too many damage and now he barelly has any.
Before you was saying the ship was bad because of money or because it's not made for combat or because it was made for thargoid hunting even tough you have never used it so you no better and now the only argument you have is the outdated rushed job part. (how many years in game have passed since this ship was created? they can't make improvements? are they still rushing it?)
Well then lets make a post to DEV make a type 11 DEFENDER WITHOUT THE RUSHED PART seems reasonable right? they can increase the price to the same of corvette since we are at it/ boost the shield/ lower the mass/ give extra spoilers / give a size 8 distributor and better hardpoint placement. How does that sound?
Being rush is not the same as being made bad at what is suposed to do. You said before it was not made for combat and had to agree with me that it was made for combat because you have no clue about what you where are saying... when i said the guy that wrote lore didnt play the game you coudnt make no arguments there because that is the trush.
You will just keep picking any argument no matter how outdated to try to appear like you have any understanding of what you are saying when everyone here knows better.
What's with the description and lore **? and like pages and pages of arguing over that stuff, it's meaningless.
Imo, game balance is where we should be looking at. Lore/descriptions can be easily changed afterwards as they are just text.
Heck, even the core internals have changed already, and our ships magically grow more optional slots in almost every patch, why are people so opposed to change
My thoughts exactly... coudn't say any better. Having another ship viable in the game is a win to everyone. If it becomes powerfull they can nerf latter but make it s u c k just because of text seems really pointless.
The type 10 was built by Lakon...
'Nuff said...
(Chieftain was a fortunate "accident")
'Nuff said...
(Chieftain was a fortunate "accident")
Nothing to do with combat, but just posting this here .....
Mining T-10 with "Alien" connotation. View his spoiler for the connection.
Mining T-10 with "Alien" connotation. View his spoiler for the connection.
@Sylow
Thanks for explanation. Really appreciate it.
I actually believe all of you guys when you point out this ship flaws as combat vessel.
But that's the part I like about it - like it happens in RL, this is a design that proves to be somewhat inadequate at a role it was made for, while finds some use at other things.
I imagine I bought mine from army surplus. Unliked and abandoned.
I could fly Cutter, but I really like my crappy T10. The fact it's crappy is part of the charm for me.
I hope Devs will add some better thoght out Thargoid fighting T10 alternative without ruining inadequateness of this one
Thanks for explanation. Really appreciate it.
I actually believe all of you guys when you point out this ship flaws as combat vessel.
But that's the part I like about it - like it happens in RL, this is a design that proves to be somewhat inadequate at a role it was made for, while finds some use at other things.
I imagine I bought mine from army surplus. Unliked and abandoned.
I could fly Cutter, but I really like my crappy T10. The fact it's crappy is part of the charm for me.
I hope Devs will add some better thoght out Thargoid fighting T10 alternative without ruining inadequateness of this one
I understand the underdog charm. But if this is the goal, then the ship is massively overpriced. I mean, it comes with all the flaws it has. Yet depending on the setup it costs as much or even more than adequate setups of the other big ships. While not performing as well as they do.
So no matter how you look at it, be it "efficiency per player" or "efficiency per credit", the T10 always is at a bad spot. For me, more following the first line of thoght, the ship should be improved. For the "unliked and abandoned" line of thought, the price would have to be reduced a lot. This wouldn't make it a good ship, but there would be some logic to it.
The argument that we should live with the Type-10 as-is because it was a rush job and had flaws due to time-sensitive development does not make any sense in a game where the next major update is 2020. There is no planned evolution of ships in the game. We won't be getting a Type-10 Mk II anytime soon. Because the Type-10 is with us for the long haul Frontier has a responsibility to make the ship useful for its intended role(s). It definitely needs some love.
Also people should be careful when talking about price. The base price is a bit lower but the Type-10 is expensive to outfit compared to some of the other big ships. Also, credits have lost all meaning in the game now.
I am going to discuss the ship from the other side. Space trucking. To me the Type-10 is clearly meant to be a multi-role ship as it adds combat capabilities to the Type-9 despite what the earlier lore said. Why is it not very great in that role?
The Type-10 did have a short-lived niche role as a more defensible Type-9 for hauling cargo in dangerous areas. However, after the Type-9 got its awesome C8 slot buff the trade-offs were no longer worth it. The Type-9 ironically enough is almost perfect (the perfect set of trade-offs) while its newer bigger sibling languishes. For non-combat uses it is the buff to the Type-9 that really killed the Type-10. I have no idea how to fix that but the buffs suggested by OP wouldn't hurt the ship for space trucking either. Another option would to increase its cargo capacity to somewhere in between the Anaconda and the Type-9 but adding slots may cause other problems.
They fixed the Type-9 and they fixed the Beluga so hopefully they can figure out something for the Type-10 in one of the 2019 updates.
Also people should be careful when talking about price. The base price is a bit lower but the Type-10 is expensive to outfit compared to some of the other big ships. Also, credits have lost all meaning in the game now.
I am going to discuss the ship from the other side. Space trucking. To me the Type-10 is clearly meant to be a multi-role ship as it adds combat capabilities to the Type-9 despite what the earlier lore said. Why is it not very great in that role?
The Type-10 did have a short-lived niche role as a more defensible Type-9 for hauling cargo in dangerous areas. However, after the Type-9 got its awesome C8 slot buff the trade-offs were no longer worth it. The Type-9 ironically enough is almost perfect (the perfect set of trade-offs) while its newer bigger sibling languishes. For non-combat uses it is the buff to the Type-9 that really killed the Type-10. I have no idea how to fix that but the buffs suggested by OP wouldn't hurt the ship for space trucking either. Another option would to increase its cargo capacity to somewhere in between the Anaconda and the Type-9 but adding slots may cause other problems.
They fixed the Type-9 and they fixed the Beluga so hopefully they can figure out something for the Type-10 in one of the 2019 updates.
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 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.
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.
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]
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
"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.
"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.