Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,038
# 31
08-21-2012, 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by darat View Post
IMO, this is just another way towards asking for KDF to be streamlined for integration into the federation, KDF as a whole is different, the ships reflect that difference and present a challenge to any player attempting to get the best result out of any given ship.
This is a textbook example of missing the point.
Nobody here asks for ships to be identical.
Nobody asked to be integrated into the Federation.
What people ask is:
"why are Klingon Raptors at best comparable in some parts and certainly inferior in others?"
Because last time I checked "balance" is achieved by giving a unit (as a general term) a certain number of characteristics with a certain number of advantages and disadvantages that should even each other out.
In this case we have Raptors with the same strengths as their Federation counterparts and an additional weakness.
Why the heck is this weakness not compensated by something (for example by fixing the turn axis)?
That's the point you're missing.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,764
# 32
08-21-2012, 05:20 AM
I compensate for the Raptors weak turn pivot, not rate mind you but pivot point that makes the nose too slow (meaning that all escorts ingame can turn inside you in a dog fight- a glaring weakness in any escort class vessel) to come to target.
I use twin ApO to get the turn boost up as much as possible or I sacrifice armor for RCS consoles and I always use my impulse engine speed to make for as tight a turn as possible. I even carry Engine batteries to use to get as much turn as possible becuase in a dog fight turning is key to victory.
My complaint about the Raptor is that in all respects it is a copy paste of the Defiant-R and a poorer shadow of the other fed escorts that gains nothing to call its on unique flavor. Not even Cloaking.
If the vessel is not to be a dog fighter or scrapper, with the ability to turn tight and swiftly to keep its opponent always in its sights, then it need to be the Brute or warrior of the line rushing headlong into the face of battle with guns blazzing, ready to come around for another pass to decimate any foes left standing from its first onslaught.
I already experience the need to do wide sweeping turns to get those passes down, especially with the vessels long nose travel. Unfortunately the Raptor does not fall into iether description due to this and is niether scrapper or brute.
If the turn pivot is not to be addressed and one must keep the long nose travel to keep the Raptor different from the fed escort designs then its time the Raptor had a strictly KDF design of mostly forward weapons points.
Give it a 5/2 set-up weapons set-up so the charge it has to make is more inline with how it has to be flown. The slower turning brute to the faster turning fed scrappers. No otehr change would ever be needed.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 127
# 33
08-21-2012, 06:05 AM
Bah.

6/1

^.^
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,038
# 34
08-21-2012, 06:17 AM
From (unconfirmed information) what I hear it's currently not possible to put more than 4 weapons in a single facing.

I still hope we'll get some kind of "anti-carrier" on the KDF side.

IMHO the K't'inga would have been an excellent ship to turn into an "escort cruiser".
Utilizing, the comapared to its own size, large forward torpedo launcher for some kind of "flak torp launcher" particularly useful against fighters.
Well, maybe we'll get a C-Store version with such a weapon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 127
# 35
08-21-2012, 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
From (unconfirmed information) what I hear it's currently not possible to put more than 4 weapons in a single facing.

I still hope we'll get some kind of "anti-carrier" on the KDF side.

IMHO the K't'inga would have been an excellent ship to turn into an "escort cruiser".
Utilizing, the comapared to its own size, large forward torpedo launcher for some kind of "flak torp launcher" particularly useful against fighters.
Well, maybe we'll get a C-Store version with such a weapon.

As far as I know this is entirely correct. The system is hardcoded with only 4 weapon slots front and aft possible.

I am relatively sure that when they ever think about an increase of the level cap and later XIV equipment that would have to go. On the other hand there is the power problem then as well if you had something like 10 weapon slots as a cruiser that wants to run beams.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,038
# 36
08-21-2012, 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sechserpackung View Post
As far as I know this is entirely correct. The system is hardcoded with only 4 weapon slots front and aft possible.

I am relatively sure that when they ever think about an increase of the level cap and later XIV equipment that would have to go. On the other hand there is the power problem then as well if you had something like 10 weapon slots as a cruiser that wants to run beams.
Well, they could either increase power levels on higher-level ships of they could add Mk XIII or MkXIV weapons with reduced power requirements.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,251
# 37
08-21-2012, 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelingmaster View Post
Oh, and don't give me that BS about 'oh, it won't be easy to make it turn properly, but it's possible'. I know it's possible (as I clearly explained). . .but at the expense of any pretense towards survivability on the part of the raptor, because they have to devote 1-2 of their engineering slots towards this nonsense.
If the turn rate isn't to be addressed then perhaps an additional 2 engineering slots so one can equip the necessary consoles without having to sacrifice survivability. I'd prefer the turn rate to be addressed however. I don't run Raptors for that particular reason of it's poor turn rate compared to Fed escorts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macronius View Post
Cryptic is sloppy. Breaking News at 11. This is what happens when there is no outline or plan and you just make up **** as you go along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shredder75 View Post
We can tell our great grandchildren, "In my day, our cloaks were so sensitive that even dialogue broke them and we couldn't change our clothes!"
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,764
# 38
08-21-2012, 08:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by majesticmsfc View Post
If the turn rate isn't to be addressed then perhaps an additional 2 engineering slots so one can equip the necessary consoles without having to sacrifice survivability. I'd prefer the turn rate to be addressed however. I don't run Raptors for that particular reason of it's poor turn rate compared to Fed escorts.
Its turn rate is fine. Evidently its the Turn Pivot which according to others is becuase the Raptor is built open a Cruiser frame instead of an Escort one. Making its nose slow to turn.
Though an additional two Engineer slots would not hurt my feelings.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,219
# 39
08-21-2012, 08:31 AM
If the enemy is always on you tail then maybe that's where the weapons should be.


...No, haven't tried an all-out tailgunner yet, but have surprised a few when they got a Har'Pheng in the face (while staring at my rear).
KBF Lord MalaK
Awoken Dead

You're gonna upgrade my Chel Grett for FREE but charge me $30 to upgrade my Kamarag ?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,038
# 40
08-21-2012, 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmalak1 View Post
If the enemy is always on you tail then maybe that's where the weapons should be.


...No, haven't tried an all-out tailgunner yet, but have surprised a few when they got a Har'Pheng in the face (while staring at my rear).
HMM, well that could be an interesting idea for Romulan ships: don't give them Dual Cannons forward, give them Dual Dannons to the rear.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 AM.