Forums » Suggestions
Yea, ok, go away...
Mynt-
Wow, I didn't even realize how sensitive the max speed was. My initial thought was that if it's an interceptor, it should go faster than the MkII variant (which has infini boost still). Anyway, I just wanted to make it faster than all the other Warthogs, but just by 5m/s... is that too much to ask? I guess the Valk's Top Speed should be buffed again, but really we should have a set system, like we all suggested on incarnate's post on, "how throttle and turbo work"...
Anyway, that isn't the issue. When you look at the stats I provided you, it is more like a 8.5% difference in thrust to weight ratios. That is within reason. Remember, this is supposed to be UIT's decent fighter we're talking about. And without a S-port housing, you invariably lose some mass.
Mynt-
Wow, I didn't even realize how sensitive the max speed was. My initial thought was that if it's an interceptor, it should go faster than the MkII variant (which has infini boost still). Anyway, I just wanted to make it faster than all the other Warthogs, but just by 5m/s... is that too much to ask? I guess the Valk's Top Speed should be buffed again, but really we should have a set system, like we all suggested on incarnate's post on, "how throttle and turbo work"...
Anyway, that isn't the issue. When you look at the stats I provided you, it is more like a 8.5% difference in thrust to weight ratios. That is within reason. Remember, this is supposed to be UIT's decent fighter we're talking about. And without a S-port housing, you invariably lose some mass.
Quote by SuperMegaMynt: The way thrust works is that a ship with double the thrust/mass ratio will reach the same speed twice as fast as another, be it 100 m/s or 220 m/s.
I'd be quite put off were it differently.
The TD hog does need to be the best Warthog there is, or else there is not much point to it. I wouldn't want a 2 L-port warthog, simply because that is not the hog's role. We shouldn't go around inventing new roles for ships, we should make sure the existing ones really do fit in theirs.
And before you say "Oh, but what about your gunship turret-addons for the maud?", let me say "Ah, well, you see... The maud was/is(?) supposed to be a modular design. Let's actually make it modular."
I'd be quite put off were it differently.
The TD hog does need to be the best Warthog there is, or else there is not much point to it. I wouldn't want a 2 L-port warthog, simply because that is not the hog's role. We shouldn't go around inventing new roles for ships, we should make sure the existing ones really do fit in theirs.
And before you say "Oh, but what about your gunship turret-addons for the maud?", let me say "Ah, well, you see... The maud was/is(?) supposed to be a modular design. Let's actually make it modular."
tosh-
The TD hog does have to be the best Overall Warthog at least. Why give it a cool name like that? Why have a action standing requirement? Why give it so much Turbo Drain? Why is the Spin torque 7.3 and not 7.2 like the III and IV?
There are more reasons why it should be the best hog, but Ithink you get the point...
The TD hog does have to be the best Overall Warthog at least. Why give it a cool name like that? Why have a action standing requirement? Why give it so much Turbo Drain? Why is the Spin torque 7.3 and not 7.2 like the III and IV?
There are more reasons why it should be the best hog, but Ithink you get the point...
As Incarnate explained on several occasions *big overall speed nerf* happened for balance reasons and as far as I know 225 m/s is the top speed in VO.
Reducing TDs thrust and spin torque along with *big overall speed nerf*...
i'll just say again that devs had a good reason to do it.
I am sure devs will consider minor tweaks and buffs to TD hogs stats to make it slightly better then other hog variants but you will never get your uber spam&run hog again.
So just stop flogging a dead horse.
Reducing TDs thrust and spin torque along with *big overall speed nerf*...
i'll just say again that devs had a good reason to do it.
I am sure devs will consider minor tweaks and buffs to TD hogs stats to make it slightly better then other hog variants but you will never get your uber spam&run hog again.
So just stop flogging a dead horse.
Mynt: Please read completely before forming a reply in your head.
We've been through this. The weapon mass doesn't matter when comparing the mk2 hog to the mk4 hog because it can be assumed to be identical. Why would you arm two hogs differently to compare them against one another? Think back to your last science class, because in every one of them for the past sixteen years I've heard the phrase 'reduce variables.' That's elementary through college level. To compare any two hogs, you assume the same mass of weapons.
To humor you, assume 1100 kg (positron, megapositron, heavy batt):
TD: 5300 -> 6400.. 220/6400 = .034
MkIV: 5600 -> 6700.. 235/6700 = .035
And what do you know? The mk4 still has more thrust per mass. This will happen every time with any matching weapon/battery combination.
I fought in hogs for a very large part of my time in VO. Ask moldyman if you want a reference. What kills hogs is their inability to get out of the line of fire. Their weapons options are great, their armor is beyond reproach. The problem in any hog is whether or not, despite seeing that incoming fire or rocket, your ship will strafe out of the way in time. You can press the right buttons all day and fail to dodge in a hog.
Now, given this fact, that dodging is the weakness of the hog, why would you fly a model which is even worse at dodging? I switched from the TD to the MkIII way back when I figured this out, and I saw instant results. This is fact, not opinion.
</end Mynt:>***
Since then I've sought ever more maneuverability till now I can barely stand any hog, but that is less relevant to the point. If nothing else changes, the one thing the TD cannot do without is Thrust >= 235 N. Equal to the mk3 and mk4, given its lighter base mass, will be enough to make it the best of all hogs. This is the minimum, the yardstick if you will, of any supposed improvement to the TD hog.
I would argue against giving it infiniboost, no fighter has it (save that 107). 55 or 54 m/s wouldn't be a bad thing, but that's no big deal. Armor could be a nice perk, but that's no big deal. Different ports would be interesting, but that's no big deal. Seeing the trend people?
I'd like to propose a more modest TD revision than the earlier portion of this thread. Increase the thrust to 235, and make the drain 54/sec. These two changes make the model exactly what its name suggests, an interceptor that can defend territory better than other hogs. A ship that can chase. And that will be enough.
We've been through this. The weapon mass doesn't matter when comparing the mk2 hog to the mk4 hog because it can be assumed to be identical. Why would you arm two hogs differently to compare them against one another? Think back to your last science class, because in every one of them for the past sixteen years I've heard the phrase 'reduce variables.' That's elementary through college level. To compare any two hogs, you assume the same mass of weapons.
To humor you, assume 1100 kg (positron, megapositron, heavy batt):
TD: 5300 -> 6400.. 220/6400 = .034
MkIV: 5600 -> 6700.. 235/6700 = .035
And what do you know? The mk4 still has more thrust per mass. This will happen every time with any matching weapon/battery combination.
I fought in hogs for a very large part of my time in VO. Ask moldyman if you want a reference. What kills hogs is their inability to get out of the line of fire. Their weapons options are great, their armor is beyond reproach. The problem in any hog is whether or not, despite seeing that incoming fire or rocket, your ship will strafe out of the way in time. You can press the right buttons all day and fail to dodge in a hog.
Now, given this fact, that dodging is the weakness of the hog, why would you fly a model which is even worse at dodging? I switched from the TD to the MkIII way back when I figured this out, and I saw instant results. This is fact, not opinion.
</end Mynt:>***
Since then I've sought ever more maneuverability till now I can barely stand any hog, but that is less relevant to the point. If nothing else changes, the one thing the TD cannot do without is Thrust >= 235 N. Equal to the mk3 and mk4, given its lighter base mass, will be enough to make it the best of all hogs. This is the minimum, the yardstick if you will, of any supposed improvement to the TD hog.
I would argue against giving it infiniboost, no fighter has it (save that 107). 55 or 54 m/s wouldn't be a bad thing, but that's no big deal. Armor could be a nice perk, but that's no big deal. Different ports would be interesting, but that's no big deal. Seeing the trend people?
I'd like to propose a more modest TD revision than the earlier portion of this thread. Increase the thrust to 235, and make the drain 54/sec. These two changes make the model exactly what its name suggests, an interceptor that can defend territory better than other hogs. A ship that can chase. And that will be enough.
@Bojan's I do not understand the meaning of your reference to that crackbotting thread.
You argued in favor of restoring a 'broken' game dynamic in that thread, while in this one you argue the exact opposite; you believe the 250 m/s hog was broken and you'd like the change to stay.
I just find it a little hard to put stock in your opinions when your position varies like that. It makes you seem like you have an agenda other than the improvement of the game. This isn't personal, I just hope I'm not the only one who realizes some posters need to be taken with a grain of salt. Mynt usually ignores everything I say for instance, so the sword is indeed double edged.
You argued in favor of restoring a 'broken' game dynamic in that thread, while in this one you argue the exact opposite; you believe the 250 m/s hog was broken and you'd like the change to stay.
I just find it a little hard to put stock in your opinions when your position varies like that. It makes you seem like you have an agenda other than the improvement of the game. This isn't personal, I just hope I'm not the only one who realizes some posters need to be taken with a grain of salt. Mynt usually ignores everything I say for instance, so the sword is indeed double edged.
@Aramarth: Ok now this needs explanation.
Crackbotting was not a "broken" game dynamic bearing in mind bots AI at the time it was happening. Bots were unable to enter tight asteroid cracks and players devised a tactic to hide into tight roid cracks and shoot bots from there. It was heaps of fun and everyone did it. It provided newbies with much needed aiming and shooting practice as well as with, to some extent, good piloting skills since it was not easy for a newbie to run thru a bot infested roid sector, find a good cracked roid and hide inside it.
Then some VO vets decided its fun to go on cracked roids sectors patrol and shoot crackbotters. That was a new element to the game since crackbotters were not comfortable inside their cracks anymore and became prey for expirienced vets.
The whole thing turned into a very amusing hide/seek/chase game and everyone liked it.
At the time I proposed to devs to give us crackbotting back VO was pretty dull and boring and some of us older players thought revival of crackbotting would make game more alive and provide more fun to playerbase.
It was a suggestion and as you can see opinions on it varied a lot.
Crackbotting is and will always be a part of happy days VO history. I get nostalgic sometimes so it reflects on some of my suggestions.
That's it about crackbotting. Now to address that TD hog issue.
You can not know what I think or believe. While we had that uber TD hog I was using it a lot. It was a fine ship. Some other players misused it for griefing & spamming other players.
Situation turned to very bad, majority of playerbase became very angry and upset so devs intervened and nerfed TD hog.
It was their decision and their concern about balance in VO.
"Putting stock in your options..." well dear fellow I am posting my suggestions when I think I am onto something that could be used to improve VO because I care.
I am not posting them to make you happy or make you like me.
And for "agenda other then improvement of the game" if you think so by all means take your concerns to the devs. If any of the devs agrees with you I will simply go with their verdict and stop posting to VO forums forever.
Unless you can prove your serious accusations and get a written opinion from devs about my posts and intentions I would suggest to you to stop acting like a condescending pompous nitwit. In-game and in VO forums.
Crackbotting was not a "broken" game dynamic bearing in mind bots AI at the time it was happening. Bots were unable to enter tight asteroid cracks and players devised a tactic to hide into tight roid cracks and shoot bots from there. It was heaps of fun and everyone did it. It provided newbies with much needed aiming and shooting practice as well as with, to some extent, good piloting skills since it was not easy for a newbie to run thru a bot infested roid sector, find a good cracked roid and hide inside it.
Then some VO vets decided its fun to go on cracked roids sectors patrol and shoot crackbotters. That was a new element to the game since crackbotters were not comfortable inside their cracks anymore and became prey for expirienced vets.
The whole thing turned into a very amusing hide/seek/chase game and everyone liked it.
At the time I proposed to devs to give us crackbotting back VO was pretty dull and boring and some of us older players thought revival of crackbotting would make game more alive and provide more fun to playerbase.
It was a suggestion and as you can see opinions on it varied a lot.
Crackbotting is and will always be a part of happy days VO history. I get nostalgic sometimes so it reflects on some of my suggestions.
That's it about crackbotting. Now to address that TD hog issue.
You can not know what I think or believe. While we had that uber TD hog I was using it a lot. It was a fine ship. Some other players misused it for griefing & spamming other players.
Situation turned to very bad, majority of playerbase became very angry and upset so devs intervened and nerfed TD hog.
It was their decision and their concern about balance in VO.
"Putting stock in your options..." well dear fellow I am posting my suggestions when I think I am onto something that could be used to improve VO because I care.
I am not posting them to make you happy or make you like me.
And for "agenda other then improvement of the game" if you think so by all means take your concerns to the devs. If any of the devs agrees with you I will simply go with their verdict and stop posting to VO forums forever.
Unless you can prove your serious accusations and get a written opinion from devs about my posts and intentions I would suggest to you to stop acting like a condescending pompous nitwit. In-game and in VO forums.
I think you took my comment a little out of proportion. I see the hog issue as personal for you, hence the grain of salt comment. I can be wrong, that isn't news.
You do seem to take the suggestion forum more personally than most, I stand by that comment. We're all free here to agree and disagree with whom we like. I particularly dislike comments that shout down all opposing argument without discussion.
"Grow up, the devs are not going to give you one again" is such a statement, and in this case it was not based upon the suggestions presented, even. 225 m/s is not uber, though it is not chase-able. In no way did anyone want a 250m/s single large port spam machine, they suggested minor improvements. If telling the posters to grow up is not malicious in any way, then I am wrong, and I apologize.
You do seem to take the suggestion forum more personally than most, I stand by that comment. We're all free here to agree and disagree with whom we like. I particularly dislike comments that shout down all opposing argument without discussion.
"Grow up, the devs are not going to give you one again" is such a statement, and in this case it was not based upon the suggestions presented, even. 225 m/s is not uber, though it is not chase-able. In no way did anyone want a 250m/s single large port spam machine, they suggested minor improvements. If telling the posters to grow up is not malicious in any way, then I am wrong, and I apologize.
There was nothing malicious about that "grow up" statement. Sometimes i do joke in suggestions threads when arguments get hot. :)
Lot of posters are newer and do not know, or remember, why and how was TD hog nerfed.
I liked that ship and there is nothing personal for me being against buffing it again.
I know, from fist hand expirience, what a TD hog with better thrust, spin torque and speed can do. I used it a lot and even got named as the best hog pilot in the old BLAK long time ago.
Devs know what that hog can do very well. THEY nerfed it for a good reason and all I can say is, I know why they did it and I support their decision.
Lot of posters are newer and do not know, or remember, why and how was TD hog nerfed.
I liked that ship and there is nothing personal for me being against buffing it again.
I know, from fist hand expirience, what a TD hog with better thrust, spin torque and speed can do. I used it a lot and even got named as the best hog pilot in the old BLAK long time ago.
Devs know what that hog can do very well. THEY nerfed it for a good reason and all I can say is, I know why they did it and I support their decision.
@Bojan-
Okay, this is about buffing the "Warthog Territorial Defender".
-We all know what the devs did.
-We all know it was nerfed.
-We also know that you support their decision to nerf it.
*We do not need you to tell us those same three things anymore. You are repeating yourself.
If you can limit your posts to "reasons we don't know that you have against the TD hog", we can get on with this. Arguing whether or not the TD hog needs a buff is pointless.
Right now, we have already established that it definately needs a buff. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A BIG BUFF! I showed you how big it could possibly be (within reason), and I admit, my version of TD could be nerfed but only very slighty.
Now read these stats, and tell me what you honestly think, that you haven't said before.
DO NOT nitpick, support your argument with examples, and relevant information.
Update De-Nerfed Warthog Territorial Defender
Faction UIT
Faction Req. 720
Variant Assault
Level 2/2/2/-/-
Armor 10000
Cargo 4
Weapons 1 large
Mass 5220 kg
Length 10 m
Thrust 241 N
Thrust to Weight Ratio : .04617N/kg
(Thrust to Weight Ratio)X(Spin Torque) : .3370NNm/kg
Max Speed 65 m/s
Spin Torque 7.3 Nm
Turbo Speed 220 m/s
Turbo Energy 55/s
Bear in mind these are not set in stone, simple little suggestions will actually help form these stats.
Okay, this is about buffing the "Warthog Territorial Defender".
-We all know what the devs did.
-We all know it was nerfed.
-We also know that you support their decision to nerf it.
*We do not need you to tell us those same three things anymore. You are repeating yourself.
If you can limit your posts to "reasons we don't know that you have against the TD hog", we can get on with this. Arguing whether or not the TD hog needs a buff is pointless.
Right now, we have already established that it definately needs a buff. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A BIG BUFF! I showed you how big it could possibly be (within reason), and I admit, my version of TD could be nerfed but only very slighty.
Now read these stats, and tell me what you honestly think, that you haven't said before.
DO NOT nitpick, support your argument with examples, and relevant information.
Update De-Nerfed Warthog Territorial Defender
Faction UIT
Faction Req. 720
Variant Assault
Level 2/2/2/-/-
Armor 10000
Cargo 4
Weapons 1 large
Mass 5220 kg
Length 10 m
Thrust 241 N
Thrust to Weight Ratio : .04617N/kg
(Thrust to Weight Ratio)X(Spin Torque) : .3370NNm/kg
Max Speed 65 m/s
Spin Torque 7.3 Nm
Turbo Speed 220 m/s
Turbo Energy 55/s
Bear in mind these are not set in stone, simple little suggestions will actually help form these stats.
/me waits for Divine intervention. :P
We should bring back Arolte too. I thought he was loads of fun.
Jim Kirk said:
tosh-
The TD hog does have to be the best Overall Warthog at least. Why give it a cool name like that? Why have a action standing requirement? Why give it so much Turbo Drain? Why is the Spin torque 7.3 and not 7.2 like the III and IV?
There are more reasons why it should be the best hog, but Ithink you get the point...
I said (one post before):
The TD hog does need to be the best Warthog there is, or else there is not much point to it.
Jim-
Read my posts more closely, please.
tosh-
The TD hog does have to be the best Overall Warthog at least. Why give it a cool name like that? Why have a action standing requirement? Why give it so much Turbo Drain? Why is the Spin torque 7.3 and not 7.2 like the III and IV?
There are more reasons why it should be the best hog, but Ithink you get the point...
I said (one post before):
The TD hog does need to be the best Warthog there is, or else there is not much point to it.
Jim-
Read my posts more closely, please.
Ahh I see where I misread... sorry about that.
I thought you said, "The TD hog does [not] need to be the best Warthog there is..."
I thought you were on bojan's side of seemingly anti-(UIT/Warthog) people.
I thought you said, "The TD hog does [not] need to be the best Warthog there is..."
I thought you were on bojan's side of seemingly anti-(UIT/Warthog) people.
Aramarth: Please read completely before forming a reply in your head.
We've been through this. The weapon mass doesn't matter when comparing the mk2 hog to the mk4 hog because it can be assumed to be identical. Why would you arm two hogs differently to compare them against one another? Think back to your last science class, because in every one of them for the past sixteen years I've heard the phrase 'reduce variables.' That's elementary through college level. To compare any two hogs, you assume the same mass of weapons.
To humor you, assume 1100 kg (positron, megapositron, heavy batt):
TD: 5300 -> 6400.. 220/6400 = .034
MkIV: 5600 -> 6700.. 235/6700 = .035
And what do you know? The mk4 still has more thrust per mass. This will happen every time with any matching weapon/battery combination.
</end Aramarth:>***
(In other words, I haven't tried arguing otherwise anymore than you have. You mistook a comment that I made awhile back, when I satirically pointed out that the "the WTD is 300kg lighter than Mk IV", and have been in cahoots about it since. If you look a little ways back in that UIT imbalance thread, you'll see that I point out how the Mk IV is superior. And yet, you continually claim that *I* fail to read completely a post before formulating a reply. Honestly man, I was going to let you keep making a fool of yourself, but it's getting obnoxious, and taking up thread space. The Devs looked at the WTD, they made what they felt the necessary changes at this moment in time, and they're amply aware of what it can or can't do. Shut up already!)
http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15456?page=2
Anywho, sometimes I like to fly a Warthog with just a Devestator Mk II equipped. It's truly a devestating combination. A small port weapon would only waste my energy, as small guns are never as effective as their large gun counterpart. Kirk, I still think those stats are too beneficial, and here's why. The Mk IV with a large port gun and no small gun is a formidable weapon, and it pulls off shots no other ship can do, since it is the most maneuverable one with a large port. To improve the Warthog's thrust without taking away something in return would unsettle the balance, in my humble opinion. Here's my suggestion for those stats.
Update De-Nerfed Warthog Territorial Defender
Faction UIT
Faction Req. 720
Variant Assault
Level 2/2/2/-/-
Armor 11000
Cargo 4
Weapons 1 large
Mass 5300 kg
Length 10 m
Thrust 220 N
Thrust to Weight Ratio : .041509N/kg
(Thrust to Weight Ratio)X(Spin Torque) : .290563NNm/kg
Max Speed 65 m/s
Spin Torque 7.3 Nm
Turbo Speed 220 m/s
Turbo Energy 57/s
I'm not exactly sure how Spin Torque works, but if it works as I think it does, then the WTD has a significant advantage over the others that I failed to see before. Although using the Warthogs empty weight as a number doesn't give strictly accurate results, for the sake of simplicity I used just that in relation to the spin torque.
WTD......726.027397 kg/Nm
Mk IV....777.777778 kg/Nm
Apparently, assuming the the equation for calculating spin torque and weight is linear, the WTD turns its nose about 7.1% faster than the Mk IV. And if you do the same statistics comparing a WTD with only a Mega Posi (5900kg) vs. a Mk IV with a Mega Posi and a Neut (6600kg), it's a %13.4 increase. For reference, such a WTD would turn only a little slower than a SVG with double Gauss. So, I say in return for sacrificing the small port, this theoretical WTD just gets additional armour.
We've been through this. The weapon mass doesn't matter when comparing the mk2 hog to the mk4 hog because it can be assumed to be identical. Why would you arm two hogs differently to compare them against one another? Think back to your last science class, because in every one of them for the past sixteen years I've heard the phrase 'reduce variables.' That's elementary through college level. To compare any two hogs, you assume the same mass of weapons.
To humor you, assume 1100 kg (positron, megapositron, heavy batt):
TD: 5300 -> 6400.. 220/6400 = .034
MkIV: 5600 -> 6700.. 235/6700 = .035
And what do you know? The mk4 still has more thrust per mass. This will happen every time with any matching weapon/battery combination.
</end Aramarth:>***
(In other words, I haven't tried arguing otherwise anymore than you have. You mistook a comment that I made awhile back, when I satirically pointed out that the "the WTD is 300kg lighter than Mk IV", and have been in cahoots about it since. If you look a little ways back in that UIT imbalance thread, you'll see that I point out how the Mk IV is superior. And yet, you continually claim that *I* fail to read completely a post before formulating a reply. Honestly man, I was going to let you keep making a fool of yourself, but it's getting obnoxious, and taking up thread space. The Devs looked at the WTD, they made what they felt the necessary changes at this moment in time, and they're amply aware of what it can or can't do. Shut up already!)
http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15456?page=2
Anywho, sometimes I like to fly a Warthog with just a Devestator Mk II equipped. It's truly a devestating combination. A small port weapon would only waste my energy, as small guns are never as effective as their large gun counterpart. Kirk, I still think those stats are too beneficial, and here's why. The Mk IV with a large port gun and no small gun is a formidable weapon, and it pulls off shots no other ship can do, since it is the most maneuverable one with a large port. To improve the Warthog's thrust without taking away something in return would unsettle the balance, in my humble opinion. Here's my suggestion for those stats.
Update De-Nerfed Warthog Territorial Defender
Faction UIT
Faction Req. 720
Variant Assault
Level 2/2/2/-/-
Armor 11000
Cargo 4
Weapons 1 large
Mass 5300 kg
Length 10 m
Thrust 220 N
Thrust to Weight Ratio : .041509N/kg
(Thrust to Weight Ratio)X(Spin Torque) : .290563NNm/kg
Max Speed 65 m/s
Spin Torque 7.3 Nm
Turbo Speed 220 m/s
Turbo Energy 57/s
I'm not exactly sure how Spin Torque works, but if it works as I think it does, then the WTD has a significant advantage over the others that I failed to see before. Although using the Warthogs empty weight as a number doesn't give strictly accurate results, for the sake of simplicity I used just that in relation to the spin torque.
WTD......726.027397 kg/Nm
Mk IV....777.777778 kg/Nm
Apparently, assuming the the equation for calculating spin torque and weight is linear, the WTD turns its nose about 7.1% faster than the Mk IV. And if you do the same statistics comparing a WTD with only a Mega Posi (5900kg) vs. a Mk IV with a Mega Posi and a Neut (6600kg), it's a %13.4 increase. For reference, such a WTD would turn only a little slower than a SVG with double Gauss. So, I say in return for sacrificing the small port, this theoretical WTD just gets additional armour.
Sounds like a decent suggestion Mynt, congrats. :)
What are NNm?
you mean aside from nonexistant?
the spin torque and thrust:weight are completely unrelated. It's your spin torque divided by your rotational inertia that matters.
the spin torque and thrust:weight are completely unrelated. It's your spin torque divided by your rotational inertia that matters.
Okay mynt, we'll play your game. You enlighten me how bringing up weapons makes any impact in the world on the difference in the ratios of two different hogs. Your text is right there on page 3. You're beating kirk over the head with your "people equip guns" argument as if it means a damn.
Nobody's arguing a ship with one gun doesn't have a weight advantage over a ship with two.
Further, turning your nose toward the enemy is only part of the battle. The TD will still be getting shot, in the side, nose, or otherwise, far more often.
Nobody's arguing a ship with one gun doesn't have a weight advantage over a ship with two.
Further, turning your nose toward the enemy is only part of the battle. The TD will still be getting shot, in the side, nose, or otherwise, far more often.
Cunjo's right.
Assuming that VO assimilates a ship to a stick, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) the inertia can be estimated as 1/2*Mass*Radius^2.
So in MegaMynt's last example this is 66,250 / 7.3 = 9,075
With a batt and a gatling turret it is:
1/2*(5,300+100+2,000)*25 = 92500/7.3 = 12,671
To compare with a 2xN2 1xSun Valk:
1/2*(3,000+100+1,000+1,200)*36 = 95400/7 = 13,628
And with a current Hog Mk IV with a single gat:
1/2*(5,600+100+2,000)*25 = 96,250/7.2 = 13,368
Add a sunflare tube to the current Mk IV, to see if the numbers fit with how one "feels" the ship:
1/2*(5,600+100+2,000+1,000)*25 = 108,750/7.2 = 15,104
The lower the better, of course.
So even with Mynt's slight changes, the resulting performance of the fully loaded ship would be way better.
Assuming that VO assimilates a ship to a stick, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) the inertia can be estimated as 1/2*Mass*Radius^2.
So in MegaMynt's last example this is 66,250 / 7.3 = 9,075
With a batt and a gatling turret it is:
1/2*(5,300+100+2,000)*25 = 92500/7.3 = 12,671
To compare with a 2xN2 1xSun Valk:
1/2*(3,000+100+1,000+1,200)*36 = 95400/7 = 13,628
And with a current Hog Mk IV with a single gat:
1/2*(5,600+100+2,000)*25 = 96,250/7.2 = 13,368
Add a sunflare tube to the current Mk IV, to see if the numbers fit with how one "feels" the ship:
1/2*(5,600+100+2,000+1,000)*25 = 108,750/7.2 = 15,104
The lower the better, of course.
So even with Mynt's slight changes, the resulting performance of the fully loaded ship would be way better.