I told you in the game there is no balance. I have a bunch of devices against turrets and nothing against a fixed weapon.
If I went out to fight on the T10 against a corvette I would install more torpedoes.
Why Turrets are Hot Garbage - Fixed v Gimbaled v Turreted (Video)
- Thread starter Exigeous
- Start date
If I went out to fight on the T10 against a corvette I would install more torpedoes.
Deleted member 192138
D
The question isn't about balance within a ship type my statement was that the T10 is a fundamentally bad ship and can do things where the bar is low, not that you can polish a turd to make it a good ship.
The T10 has:
1. Awful convergence for using fixed weapons, if you want to fire as one volley you'll miss with at least half of them all the time (compare to the Anaconda where you can generally get all hardpoints on target in one go).
2. Awful shield multiplier which results in very low shields which means it's got one of the worst health pools, especially regenerative healthpool, for a ship in its size class.
3. It's just a big pie - very large profile, very easy to hit. Chaff is largely pointless for something so big.
4. It's very slow in every way - its acceleration, directional thrust resulting in manoeuvrability, its rotational speed - all of these things make it sluggish at moving and positioning assertively in a fight.
The fact that to make the T10 minimally viable in most scenarios people have to resort to an inferior weapon selection (gimbals and turrets) when the best weapons in the game come only fixed (plasma, rails, pacifiers) is not an endorsement of the T10s capabilities, nor is it an endorsement of turrets. Instead it's one of the reasons that you should select a better tool for basically any task that isn't AFK NPC farming - and not fly the T10.
Which is the sort of nuance that becomes apparent if you
Deleted member 192138
D
So it'll be a slow fight while I kite torpedoes until you've spent them, and then you'll have half your hardpoints wasted on one pump chumps that got nothing for you. And then it will be a very fast fight because I don't have to worry about you having any actual DPS.
In my opinion it is not realistic for a ship of +150m in length to behave like zeros, with fixed weapons ...
What you say that type 10 is bad, lie, to that monstrosity you have to put turrets yes or yes, it is like trying to shoot down an x-wing with an imperial destroyer and it had to be placed with its 1600m continuously to fire forward.
I forgot the multi objective is glorious.
The only flaw in the turrets is the almost zero negative elevation angle, it should be 2-3 degrees.
What you say that type 10 is bad, lie, to that monstrosity you have to put turrets yes or yes, it is like trying to shoot down an x-wing with an imperial destroyer and it had to be placed with its 1600m continuously to fire forward.
I forgot the multi objective is glorious.
The only flaw in the turrets is the almost zero negative elevation angle, it should be 2-3 degrees.
Deleted member 192138
D
The Imperial Destroyer equivalent would be a Farragut capital ship. I proposed a pair up against a Corvette, which is in the same size class as the T10.
Which is like putting a Battle Ship up against an armed oil tanker. Sounds like a balanced and fair fight to me.
If you are not happy to go one on one in the same ship, to prove your weapons are better than theirs; you have no grounds to criticise their weapon choices.
Deleted member 192138
D
Strange parameters you place on the conundrum for no reason whatsoever. Ship choice and weapon choice are not isolated but connected. Ability to use better weapons more effectively has a direct effect on determining which ship is better to use in a combat situation. I don't care whether or not someone flies a T10 with turrets because it's convenient and sufficient for their PvE needs. But that doesn't make it better than alternatives or even good at what it does. Just that it meets minimum standards to be capable.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, digressing or changing the criteria, makes no difference. You were offered a ship against ship fight, using the same ships, but with your own weapon load out against a turret load out and you said; let me come to that fight, in a better fighting ship, basically designed for combat. The corvette has 5 time the base shields, than the T-10 for a start. So OK basically, you wanted to bring a gun, to a knife fight, fair enough; unless you consider, the discussion was that fixed weapons will beat turreted weapons. Not whether a T-10 can beat a Corvette.
Deleted member 192138
D
Would a turret Corvette beat a fixed weapon Corvette?
Chieftain, Cutter, Anaconda, Challenger, Python, Krait, FDL ...
It's not that I don't think a fixed T10 would beat a turret T10. It's that I have no desire to put together a bad ship to prove it can beat a worse ship.
The discussion isn't "a turret T10 would/would not beat a fixed T10" - Zieman inserted that.
It's that fixed weapons are better than turreted weapons. Statistically and in practise.
Y'all standing here like King Canute with a snorkel to defend the turret T10 for I don't get what reason.
Chieftain, Cutter, Anaconda, Challenger, Python, Krait, FDL ...
It's not that I don't think a fixed T10 would beat a turret T10. It's that I have no desire to put together a bad ship to prove it can beat a worse ship.
The discussion isn't "a turret T10 would/would not beat a fixed T10" - Zieman inserted that.
It's that fixed weapons are better than turreted weapons. Statistically and in practise.
Y'all standing here like King Canute with a snorkel to defend the turret T10 for I don't get what reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that you are missing the point of my objection. Corvette against T-10 is not a fair fight. Now you explain your reasons for offering to come out in a Corvette, is because flying a T-10 is beneath you. However: You fail you understand, that turreted weapons on a T-10, is possibly the better option, because the T-10 has the reactions and movement capabilities of a brick in toffee.
Think about it: Which type of weapons, would be better fitted a T-10, fixed or turreted? Torps and mines, probably.
Deleted member 192138
D
Who caresI think that you are missing the point of my objection. Corvette against T-10 is not a fair fight. Now you explain your reasons for offering to come out in a Corvette, is because flying a T-10 is beneath you. However: You fail you understand, that turreted weapons on a T-10, is possibly the better option, because the T-10 has the reactions and movement capabilities of a brick in toffee.
Think about it: Which type of weapons, would be better fitted a T-10, fixed or turreted? Torps and mines, probably.
The T10 is bad
Don't fly it
Fly something better
Don't polish a turd.
That's my original point when the T10 was brought into the equation.
I will repeat my question once again, if fixed is better, why is it 16 times cheaper ?
Deleted member 192138
D
Ask FDev, not me. I guess the simplest way to cache it out would be that the tracking mechanism and software costs a premium, even though it doesn't improve potential performance.
Are we really arguing turrets are useful for anything except applying experimental effects?
I guess some are trying to say that within a certain skill bracket and/or for certain ships, turrets are good enough and can provide better overall damage than fixed weapons - maybe even better than gimbaled too within certain circumstances.
Granted, for the skill bracket of Cmdr Barnard17, fixed are way better.
But lets get on record that the Commander refused a duel between a fixed T10 and a Turreted one
I understand the commander of Barnard17 and even share his point of view, but I do not understand why:
1. If this garbage, why is it so expensive ?
2. Why is there no 4th class turret ?
3. Why can a turret be put even on a small fighter ?
4. Why can't my CO-pilot (NPC) sit behind a turret ?
(turret mode is not the same as shooting itself).
5. Why am I flying in the SLF can leave the CO-pilot ship (NPC) and switch to turret mode and what would my NPC control the ship I can not ?
and so on.
1. If this garbage, why is it so expensive ?
2. Why is there no 4th class turret ?
3. Why can a turret be put even on a small fighter ?
4. Why can't my CO-pilot (NPC) sit behind a turret ?
(turret mode is not the same as shooting itself).
5. Why am I flying in the SLF can leave the CO-pilot ship (NPC) and switch to turret mode and what would my NPC control the ship I can not ?
and so on.
![[VR] Enexemander](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/119/119036.jpg?1621636716){kind=avatar}
Okay, I'll play!
1. Lore based reasons! A swivel mount with target tracking software is more complex than a simple mounting. (Obviously).
2. FDev assumes you would be smart enough not to use it anyway.
3. Why not?
4. The turrets are outside the ship. Stop trying to murder co-pilots.
5. Galaxy Brain
Barnard is one of the best PvP pilots in Elite and could spank a turreted T10 with Chieftain if he really wanted to.I guess some are trying to say that within a certain skill bracket and/or for certain ships, turrets are good enough and can provide better overall damage than fixed weapons - maybe even better than gimbaled too within certain circumstances.
Granted, for the skill bracket of Cmdr Barnard17, fixed are way better.
But lets get on record that the Commander refused a duel between a fixed T10 and a Turreted one
I don't blame him one bit for not wanting to waste time and credits buying and engineering a pile of junk T10 because someone on the forums is delusional and thinks turrets are good.
On the topic at hand, the only reason to use turrets is if you're disabled or just want to play the game less and put little to no effort into it. Same goes for dock assists and supercruise assists. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play that way but to argue that turrets are better is just silly and ridiculous. And for those that use turrets because you're not good enough to stay on target, even with gimballed, let me just say that you're never going to get better if you keep clutching on something that requires no effort.