Type 11 Avenger

Exiledkhallisi

Exiledkhallisi
Military combat type variant with focus on offense vs defense.

Or you know... buff the type 10.

The t10 would be worth using if it:

A. Went about 100ms faster and had at least a 15% buff to pitch/yaw
B. If its class 8 shield could actually behave like a class 8 shield and not a class 4.
 

Amanojaku

Amanojaku
T10 is more agile than the Cutter and has much higher DPS. It also has the best Armor Rating in the game. If they buffed it's combat capabilities they would have to be careful, as it's already very good at it imo.

What it really needs is special thargoid caustic resistant alloys and a lift on the ax weapon limit/ban. Then it would be the ship it was designed to be.
 

lenna

lenna
Amanojaku said:
T10 is more agile than the Cutter and has much higher DPS. It also has the best Armor Rating in the game. If they buffed it's combat capabilities they would have to be careful, as it's already very good at it imo.

What it really needs is special thargoid caustic resistant alloys and a lift on the ax weapon limit/ban. Then it would be the ship it was designed to be.
Click to expand...
Have you not noted the Hull Hardness of the T10D? It already has a (minimal?) counter to caustic attacks via that.

The OP's idea seems to be a spin off from my suggestion in the T10D balance thread which essentially put forward the position that the T10D is balanced fine as-is and any revisions of substance to the T10D design should probably take the form of a new ship (T11 Avenger touted there)

Possible balance comparison T11A v T10D
  1. Increase hull price - between that of a Corvette and a Cutter
  2. Make weapon profile more aggressive
    1. Remove small and medium mounts
    2. Add two centrally placed huge mounts (one above/one below) - or add one Huge below and keep two medium above
  3. Improve core internals
    1. Reduced weapon count should mean no need to increase PD
    2. Sensors should probably be improved - Alliance ships and T10D have only class 4 sensors, these could be beefed up to class 5 or 6 (Corvette/Anaconda has Class 8, Cutter has class 7)
  4. Reduce internal optional module capability (number of modules and/or overall class balance)
    1. Bias towards military slots
    2. Reduce overall cargo capacity potential
  5. Reduce hull points and ship mass (33% less HP/15% less Mass) there by increasing jump range, shield strength, speed, and manoeuvrability
  6. Caustic resistance to be catered for by guardian modules perhaps but alternatively trade some hull hardness for inherent caustic resistance (15 hardness traded for 5% natural caustic resistance)
  7. Looks wise, some of the "fat" would be lost from the forward superstructure so it looks more arrow like (the proposed 2 Huge hard points could be mounted either side of the cockpit instead of above/below)
[EDIT]Resulting baseline stats for the proposed T11A:-
  • Hull Price: 195M
  • Hardpoints: 2 H/4 L/8 U
  • Hull Mass: 1000 (between the Corvette and the Cutter)
  • Hull Integrity: 696 (slightly more than the Corvette, less than the Anaconda/Cutter)
  • Hull Hardness: 60 (less than an Anaconda/Corvette/Cutter/T10D and Alliance range of ships)
  • Baseline Hull Resistance: -40/-20/0/5 (Natural 5% caustic resistance)
  • Core Internals (PP/T/FSD/LS/PD/S/FT): 8/7/7/5/7/5/6
  • Optional Internals (Generic): 8/7/6/4/4/2/1
  • Optional Internals (Military): 5/5/5
Not sure how the speed/manoeuvrability would pan out (probably slightly worse than the Corvette on balance).[/EDIT]
 
Last edited:

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Exiledkhallisi said:
Military combat type variant with focus on offense vs defense.

Or you know... buff the type 10.

The t10 would be worth using if it:

A. Went about 100ms faster and had at least a 15% buff to pitch/yaw
B. If its class 8 shield could actually behave like a class 8 shield and not a class 4.
Click to expand...

What would the trade off be? You said focus on offense vs defense, so surely that sould mean less defenses, so maybe no buff to the shield? Maybe a reduction in internal compartments and utility slots?
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Exiledkhallisi said:
T10 already has terrible shields
Click to expand...

But you said focused on offense instead of defense... so if T10 is defensive, then the T11 should be less defensive in return for the greater speed and offense.

Or you want to trade out something else?

Or is this a case of just wanting a bigger better Type 10?

That's fine, but then there has to an increase in cost (not that that means much these days) I suppose.

I want a bigger better Cobra. A Cobra Mk5 if you will, with a large hardpoints, and a SLF bay, and better shields, and more internals. :p
 

MK Regular

M
Exiledkhallisi said:
If you compare the max size 8 shield on t10 to the same modded size 5 on an FDL...

You will laugh
Click to expand...
The Type 10 gets an extra 13 MJ of shield on a stock 8A shield generator and the FDL on a stock 5A shield generator. G5 reinforced w/ hi-cap increases the shield differential to 20 MJ in favour of the Type 10.

The only good thing about the Type 10 in this comparison is that it gets an additional pair of utility mounts, which it can use to mount 0A G5 Heavy Duty w/ Super Cap shield boosters for an additional 1045 MJ of shield, plus the ~60 MJ increase to the shield differential from the other boosters courtesy of the Type 10's marginally better unboosted shield strength for a grand total of ~1125 MJ of shield more than the FDL. This means that if you build an FDL to have 2700 MJ of shield (which is entirely doable), a Type 10 with the same configuration will get ~3825 MJ.

However, when you compare this to the same configuration in other ships, it quickly becomes clear just how bad the Type 10's shields are in comparison to the Conda with ~4700 MJ, the Corvette with ~5900 MJ, and the Cutter with ~7500 MJ.
 

MK Regular

M
ebbrell said:
What happened to type 8
Click to expand...
I have yet to find any concrete evidence on the fate of the Type 8, although I've heard a number of theories on what may have happened to the design:
  • The Type 8 was a design evolution of the Type 7, but was scrapped due to the size limitations of the Type 7 hull (Type 7 being too tall for medium landing pads but smaller than any other ship needing a large landing pad)
  • The Type 8 was an older design that was made obsolete and replaced by the newer Type 7 (Type 7 being released in 3290)
  • The Type 7 was a rush job while Lakon designers worked out the numerous technical issues of the design that will become the Type 8. This of course raises the question of why 15 years have passed since the Type 7's release without the Type 8 being released:
    • Priority and resources may have been given to other Lakon projects which only recently started to bear fruit due to the large amount of time needed to design a new ship. These other projects would have resulted in the Diamondback and Chieftain series as well as the AspS and Type 10.
    • Design specifications for the Type 8 were changed numerous times (speed, range and capacity requirements, hardpoint and fighter bay requirements, etc...), resulting in a number of iterations of the design that will never be released.
  • Various other theories with varying levels of plausibility and coherence (ALIENS!!!1!!!)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom