It would more be putting mechanics questions to the test.
You insist they are getting "3x" the benefit, without actually evaluating how much benefit that actually translates to in practice vs. the new benefit gained for Cruisers.
You also haven't, even once, justified just exactly what it is your typical beam cruiser actually needs even more turn rate for beyond QOL.
I've just recently fought a 5 man BFAW team, they showed me I was very clearly wrong in my assumptions on BFAW's ability to do damage and score kills.
I went into a thread and admitted as such. I doubt those guys were stressing their turn rates as they didn't need all that much turn rate because they was so much beam array spam that it didn't matter where my team (their targets) were.
Even though those guys lost the match, they actually won a more important victory by showing me that BFAW is better than I gave it credit for, even now in the current metagame.
That's what a match can do, it can show you when you are right and when you are wrong in your opinion on actual mechanics by putting those mechanics to the test.
simple, if you just would go back and reread my post you might be able to tell us how placing snb has nothing to do with turn.
No need to hang out in kerrat. Or is a well timed snb QOL?
At the very least, I think the -3 penalty should be removed from the [Turn] modifier. It would be confusing to players if the 10% bonus the [Turn] modifier gives uses a different base than RCS accelerators.
Right, those weren't changed with this...was a case of asking if those will. The OP asked about SIT...but there's other stuff as well that's affected by it.
Was just trying to get away from the...where the discussion went all over the place.
Reducing speed doesn't actually improve turn rate, it just makes you create a smaller circle while turning. If they introduced a mechanic where lower throttle actually improved turn rate, that would be great. Lower power to main engines=more power for maneuvering thrusters. Makes sense.
One turns no faster in reverse than by going forward, with the exception that staying in reverse too long begins to drain power, which, consequently reduces power to engines, which further reduces turn.
Evasive maneuvers should not have to be used simply to bring the ship about in a timely manner.
Why doesn't each ship come with a turn rate modifier?
They all have shield modifiers. Each given shield fitting in and of itself is the same. They have a base HP, and a base regen. This is in turn acted upon by each ship's shield modifier.
Why can't each ship receive a turn rate modifier that acts upon consoles, engines, and other equipment that modify turn rate? In this fashion you could place a flat rate value on everything that modifies turn, and then each ship determines the final amount of turn modification provided by each item, giving the largest numerical benefit to cruisers and carriers, and the smallest to escorts and raiders.
For instance, give a cruiser could have a modifier of 1.0, and when placing a +7 flat rate console, the cruiser receives a +7 for base turn. Sci ships and similarly agile vessels could receive a .6 modifier, which would add 4.2 to base turn. Less for escorts/raiders. Or whatever. This allows for flat rate consoles that increase turn rate the most on cruisers, the least on escorts and raiders, with room to play in between.
I do believe that modifier already exists, and that modifier is the "impulse modifier" and of course, the base turn rate. If you consider the base turn rate the "modifier" on the ship, cruisers have the lowest modifier, science ships the middle, and escorts the highest.
I don't see why cruisers should get a massive benefit from RCS and escorts and other fast turning ships get less. What they are doing now seems to be keeping the base turn and modifiers the same, but tweaking how passive skills like impulse thrusters and console bonuses like RCS operate. So instead of "raising the floor" as it were, they are making the investments you make into a better turn rate yield better returns.
Reducing speed doesn't actually improve turn rate, it just makes you create a smaller circle while turning.
You basically just described how lower speed improves a ship's ability to turn... not the turn rate, no - but the ability to turn. If the complaint is about turning, then one has to consider everything involved with turning - which goes beyond just the turn rate.