Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 51
03-11-2010, 01:04 PM
It has nothing to do with anything except the turn rate. No matter how you work the numbers, 6 is %50 more than 4.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 52
03-11-2010, 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Dravis
EDIT: In other words, we cannot assume that a point of 'turn rate' is equal to another point of turn rate, with our currently available turning data.
At what point in my post on the first page was I trying to give a math lesson, or to even get into the nitty gritty numbers?

Never

It's just to show how unmaneuverable the carrier is compared to anything you'll be flying.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 53
03-11-2010, 01:09 PM
Also, considering how you were fine with it being %150 then the rest about the linearality or lack thereof of the turning rates is arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 54
03-11-2010, 01:32 PM
I stand corrected on the 150%/66% comment. I just tested the difference in degree/sec between turn rates of 5, 6, 7, and 8 on Tribble. There is a very funky non-linear relationship.

Therefore, I recommend your original post be amended to simply have turn rate values for comparison, rather than qualitative judgments (i.e., percentages).

And no, I'm not merely arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm attempting to help you make your post as accurate as possible, and as helpful as possible for new players, which also serves as bumps for your thread (not intended, but it is a beneficial secondary effect).

Specifically, percentages need to be used more carefully because of how confusing they are when dealing with things like consoles and Status window stats.

Please comment on the -content- of my posts, and not your perceptions/assumptions of my -intention-.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 55
03-11-2010, 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Dravis
Please comment on the -content- of my posts, and not your perceptions/assumptions of my -intention-.
I have been. I was merely pointing out that you were going way beyond anything necessary here.

What you don't seem to understand yet is that this isn't a numbers post. It's some general information and guidelines. It's not intended to allow people to do the calculations to figure everything out. Given the intentions of the post, "%50 more maneuverable than" is completely adequate. It's just a means to shock the average federation player into understanding just how bad the maneuverability is and, for that purpose, the turn rate alone is perfectly valid.

If you would like to put together a thread that goes into detail regarding the maneuverability of ships and the different things that you can do to maximize it then I will certainly link to it in that post, but to go beyond that is completely outside of the scope of this thread.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 56
03-11-2010, 05:37 PM
Carrier pvp can be a strange thing. I`ve had some fights where i have held off many ships for some time and others where i have been killed in three seconds.

It basically comes down to having some assists. The carrier is an artillery ship, designed to support others from long distance with waves of resummonable stuff. It does this really well, but all too often i have found that other klingons hide when danger appears and leave the carrier without any cover at all. It is not a front line ship, though it can do this at a pinch with the right skill set.

A carrier on its own is a lacking, clumsy beast, but with one ship nearby, it becomes doubly effective. It is a fleet ship and when it actually has a fleet with it, it is formidable.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 57
03-25-2010, 10:32 AM
I just have to question the mentality of posting our ship weaknesses to the enemy- let them figure it out. That's akin to creating new technology and then telling the enemy just how it to defeat it. Sheer lunacy.

I must also agree with Idryll. Hence why I believe carriers should be allowed multiple flights simultaneously. The ship is commonly referred to as a "carrier" and is also listed as a "dreadnought". Both of these ship types historically deliver a powerful punch from either weapons or power projection (aircraft). Ever see a carrier that could only launch fighters? or just bombers? Carriers by design launch multiple types of craft to fight- combat air patrols to defend the ship itself, fighter escorts to protect other planes, bombers to hit distant targets, recon to detect enemy etc... The point being carriers should not be limited to just 1 launch in space. Perhaps the designers should add a second set of launch bays. Since a carrier is a slow lumbering ship that can't even cloak with the fleet and often gets left relying on its great mass to survive (the fleet having hidden)- it should be a ship to reckon with; with many teeth. My 2 cents.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 58
03-25-2010, 11:52 AM
This post was a response to all of the people saying that they were unkillable, which isn't the case. I prefer less arguments and better fights to keeping secrets.
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 09:36 PM.