Jump to content

Reavern

Imperium Member
  • Content Count

    3,148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50
  • Feedback

    100%

Reavern last won the day on July 5

Reavern had the most liked content!

About Reavern

  • Rank
    Warrior Wordsmith
  • Birthday 09/20/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    Writing, video games, and watching movies.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,642 profile views
  1. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    Why don't you bother READING my posts instead of knee-jerk replying? What you posted doesn't refute the point I was making -- it confirms it. I know that the Hammerhead's stats on the Concept Sale page are incorrect. That was my point! 🙄 The HH's stats changed (or were incorrect) during the November 2017 concept sale itself, which proves that CIG does change the ships and/or makes mistakes. The HH ship designers explained in the AtV/SS video that there wasn't room for all the amenities and rooms on a single deck inside the HH, which is why they changed the HH's interior and added a second deck. The HH's design changed, just as I predicted. That's why your comments, and the others like you on this thread, with the attitude that the Hammerhead design hasn't changed and will never change, are so blatantly wrong and ridiculous. You can try to deflect the issue with nonsensical arguments, and conspicuously ignore all of the things I was right about so you can avoid admitting you were wrong, but I'm going to continue calling you out for it so everyone knows what you really are.
  2. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    I agree that we won't know the 2018 Hammerhead's revised ship specs until 3.3 is released. Regardless, I am 100% certain that they'll be different than 2017 because I don't believe for a second that the Hammerhead will be the only ship that CIG has ever developed that remained the same size from concept to flyable. (I'm also 100% certain that the 2018 Hammerhead won't be the final design either.) I've seen that AtV/SS video multiple times already and none of the interviewees said that the Hammerhead's dimensions are "exactly the same". I acknowledge that they didn't say the ship has grown either -- so it's a stalemate, at best. (Ambiguity sucks!) Regardless, I guarantee the ship's dimensions have changed since 2017. They did say that they lowered the back half of the ship in order to fit the galley and other amenities on the upper deck. How could they lower the cargo hold and crew quarters inside the ship without also lowering the ventral hull? It doesn't matter if they raised the dorsal hull or lowered the ventral hull to fit in two decks, the point is that the distance between the dorsal and ventral hulls has increased to accommodate two decks, therefore, the Hammerhead's size has changed. The fact that the Hammerhead now has two decks is incontrovertible proof the Hammerhead's design has changed since 2017, as I said it would. @Devil Khan can be petty and refuse to acknowledge that I was right about the Hammerhead changing, but it's only a matter of time until the CIG reveals all of the changes they've made to the Hammerhead since the 2017 concept sale. Although, we'll have to rely on Turbulent to post those 2018 Hammerhead ship specs, so who knows what will happen? 😖 The Hammerhead's Concept Sale Page still has these ship dimensions posted: HAMMERHEAD MAX CREW 9 LENGTH 100M WIDTH 40M HEIGHT 20M Who knows where Turbulent got those ship specs from? And I remember a comment I made in this thread about the Hammerhead's mass only being 195,000 kg, which had to be wrong. Now it's 4,260,000 kg on the Ship Matrix. That's a helluva weight gain. I sincerely wish that CIG would take over responsibility for maintaining the RSI site. Or if they explicitly stated the correct ship specs in their videos (both verbally and with an on-screen graphic) because we know that video content comes from CIG, not Turbulent. If the ship specs were included in videos it would preserve a record of how they changed over time. We could go back to a video from Nov 2017 and see the Hammerhead's specs were this. Then in the latest AtV/SS video from September 2018 the HH's specs were that. We could track the changes and go by the most up-to-date source. It would settle a lot of pointless arguments. But I don't think CIG wants an easy way of keeping track of all of their mistakes.
  3. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    I'm not surprised that you refuse to admit that you were wrong despite the fact that CIG has used "capital ship" to describe the Hammerhead on innumerable occasions, both back in November/December 2017 and now in September 2018. As I stated before, your failing is that you treat what CIG writes on the ship pages as gospel. Firstly, the RSI site is riddled with mistakes and contradictions. We all know this. So you treating it like it's 100% accurate and consistent is ridiculous! Second, every ship has changed during its development, and every large and cap ship has grown larger. The Hammerhead abides by this unwritten rule of ship development. As my quotes from November 2017 prove, I recognized that the HH's interior design didn't make sense and was incomplete because it obviously lacked a path to the ventral bridge, the crew quarters were too small, the ship lacked any amenities, and having the cargo bay in the engine room made no sense. I predicted that CIG would re-design the Hammerhead and enlarge it to fit everything it needed inside. Whereas you were among the people on this thread who stubbornly defended the 2017 Hammerhead design and declared it wouldn't change. Wrong. The 115m x 75m x 16m stats you quoted are from 2017 -- they're in the ship brochure! CIG just revealed that they've re-designed the Hammerhead with a second deck. Do you really believe the stats are the same now? Really? 🤨 Ok, the HH ship designers didn't mention any specific stats in the Ship Shape video, but once again I guarantee that the Hammerhead has grown since 2017. To add a second deck, the Hammerhead must be taller. Logically, it would have to be at least 2 metres taller -- yunno, so the crew could stand upright on the upper deck. It's probably taller than that but I can only guestimate. Since the HH must be taller, consequently, to preserve the ship's exterior design and proportions, its length and width also must've increased. That's perfectly logical and not a bad thing because it makes the ship designers' jobs easier to cram everything inside the hull. The CIG ship designers aren't going to restrict themselves to the 2017 Hammerhead's specs just because people like you @Devil Khan absurdly believe that ship stats are written in stone and can never change. The people are working at CIG and Foundry 42 are smart, talented people who actually know what they're talking about. Regardless, I suppose it'll only be a few more months until the Hammerhead is flyable and the revised ship specs are revealed, and I'll be proven right again.
  4. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    Correct, I wasn't referring to you. There were several posters from last November who disagreed with my analysis and TC-ing about the HH. The one in particular that I was referring to is active on this thread so he knows the Hammerhead's design has changed and it is now a capital ship. I wonder if he has the integrity to acknowledge that he was wrong and apologize. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, because I enjoy a spirited debate with intelligent, rational people. When a poster makes a well-written, detailed post about a topic, I always prefer and enjoy reading those posts -- instead of trite 1-2 sentences posts, which belong on twitter or someone's Facebook wall instead. It's when those small-minded people who are intolerant of different opinions and want to shut down discussion, speculation, and theorycrafting with the lame catch-all argument "that's not what CIG says!" that's when I get annoyed. And that's why I couldn't resist doing a victory lap to rub it in their faces. I agree that the escape pod and the power management issues are concerning and kinda baffling. Having one less escape pod compared to the Hammerhead's full crew size doesn't make any sense -- unless one escape pod is a double or something. But the placement is poor. It's kinda the opposite the problem with the Retaliator. The Tali's escape pods are in the upper deck behind the cockpit, which isn't too far for the pilot and top-fore turret gunner, but the rest of the crew manning the turrets in the back are screwed! For the Hammerhead, 4 of 6 gunners are close to the escape pods, but the 2 side-fore gunners and the bridge crew are screwed. It would be cool if the bridge could detach from the main hull and serve as a lifeboat, similar to the Vanguard Warden's escape module. The best solution is to fill in that pointless gap in the middle of the hull and put 5 escape pods or an actual lifeboat there. The limitation of the power plant seems really game-y IMO. I think CIG understands that the HH is OP'd versus fighters so they've given it an under-powered power plant so it can't have all 6 turrets firing quad laser repeaters simultaneously. They're compelling the HH owner to swap the LRs to ballistics, which have limited ammo. I'm hoping the power issue can be resolved by buying a superior after-market power plant, but since CIG obviously chose to impose the power limitation they presumably aren't going to allow an easy fix. They're going to compel HH owners to compromise and make a difficult choice. It's annoying but understandable because it's a game. (IRL it would be inexcusable.) I doubt fighters -- at least not player-flown fighters -- will fly close enough to a HH that they'll be shredded as quickly as you suggest. Only NPCs are that dumb. I think players will linger beyond the HH's effective range and execute strafing runs against it so they're in and out before multiple turrets can concentrate fire on them. Regardless, I think in a combat situation that most of the HH's turrets will need to be firing almost constantly -- only pausing to let the laser repeaters cool down -- because the only way an opposing force has a chance against the HH is if they have a dozen or more ships and swarm it. If the HH doesn't have sufficient power to keep its guns firing, it's just a matter of time before its turrets run short on power and it becomes vulnerable to the enemy swarm. As for the escape pods, it doesn't make any sense to have fewer escape pods than the full crew size. That's a lesson humanity learned the hard way with the Titanic. I can't imagine why in the 30th century a warship would be designed with one less escape pod than it needs, so the ship designers basically are condemning one person to die. It might just be that CIG figures that in the Alpha the number of HH owners who will fly the ship with a full crew will be extremely small. CIG will almost certainly take a second pass at the Hammerhead at some point and presumably rework the design to include sufficient number of escape pods for the whole crew.
  5. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Gunboat Anti-fighter

    I'm impressed that CIG has nearly completed the Hammerhead in less than a year and it'll be flyable soon. They explained that they utilized existing assets from the Retaliator and Javelin to speed up the process. When CIG pulls something like this off, it's all the more frustrating that older ships, like the Banu Merchantman, which was revealed in November 2013, isn't flyable yet. Regardless, I'm pleased that the Hammerhead's interior has been revised and expanded -- as I predicted and knew it would be. It's no surprise to me that the HH's interior would be changed because the original concept schematics were obviously WIP and not final designs. Remember these: I don't have a quote, but I recall someone at CIG saying that the Hammerhead was a "single deck ship", which is what the concept schematic and interior layout depict. But I knew they were wrong. There's no door, ladder, stairs, or elevator to the ship's bridge -- that's a major design flaw. There were plenty of other indicators that the design wasn't complete -- the most obvious being that it was a CONCEPT SHIP! I knew the Hammerhead would have to change and expand to become a fully functional ship. Whereas numerous posters on this thread treated CIG's word as gospel, believing that the Hammerhead was a "gunboat" and not a capital ship (which CIG contradicted within a week of the HH's concept sale). Someone on this thread told me "Hammerhead is not a cap ship." To which I replied, "It will be." They also believed that the HH's stated 100-metres length was set in stone (below the threshold of a capital ship) and that its size wouldn't change. I pointed out how ridiculous that opinion was because every ship has changed during its development and every large ship and capital ship has grown larger from concept to flyable. Despite those facts, there were people who were adamant that what CIG said about the Hammerhead would never change. 🤣 Watching the Ship Shape and LawoftheWest's videos, even I am amazed at how accurate my analysis and theorycrafting was. Compare what Law said about the HH to my posts from November 2017 and he could've been reading from my posts: My point isn't that I was right, it's that now that everyone can see that I was right, I wish people would be more open-minded about speculation and theorycrafting here on this forum (that's kinda the point of its existence!) instead of being so close-minded and treating CIG's word as gospel, which cannot ever be questioned or challenged. Their attitude is that if CIG didn't say it, it's worthless. Whereas because their opinions simply parrot whatever CIG says (at the time), they are automatically correct. I take considerable time and effort to compose my posts and present my well-reasoned points and rational arguments, but too often it's like debating a 3rd grader whose juvenile response is covering their ears and screaming "La-la-la-la-la-not-listening-la-la-la-la-la!" That's never been my mindset, which is why I often have dissenting opinions and post my speculation and criticisms about CIG's ship designs and Q&A's -- which, as everyone can see, often end up being correct. (CIG just needs about a year to catch up to my thinking. Just give them time. 😏) Now that the Hammerhead's updated design has been revealed and its nearly flight ready, I'm glad that I melted my Polaris Corvette for it and look forward to flying it in the PU -- assuming that it doesn't get delayed, like OCS and Hursten. 😡When the HH is flyable in the PU, I assume that it'll land on a large pad, like the Starfarer. Although, it would be great if it could dock at Port Olisar and other stations using its docking ports, especially the one on its bow, as depicted in the concept art. That seems like a much better way to dock a ship the size of a HH, instead of a huge landing pad. I think for the Alpha, CIG will stick with the landing pads. But one day I hope they have cap ships use docking ports instead, which is far more realistic and more aesthetically pleasing -- instead of having space station with impractically huge landing pads for 100+ metre ships. Also, being able to walk directly onto a large ship via a docking port would be far superior to using an airlock and spacewalking to board your ship as you do now. Docking ports would be more convenient and realistic (thereby immersive).
  6. Reavern

    Star Trek Captain Picard Returns

    Spectacular news! I grew up on TNG, so it's a dream come true for Patrick Stewart to return for a new Star Trek series.
  7. Reavern

    300i rework

    It looks like the 300i Rework will be significantly larger than the original. The concept image with the scale model of the pilot in the cockpit makes it seem like the cockpit is extremely roomy. In the interior shot, the cockpit seems wide enough behind the pilot seat that it could have two seats for passengers. Considering that the 100 series is the Origin Starter ship and is a single seater, it would make sense if the 300 series could seat more than one person. Perhaps the 300i and 315p models could have 3 seats. The 325a and 350r would only need one seat. I wonder how the SC community will react to the 300i Rework (seemingly) being larger. I anticipate that the players who use the 325a and 350r for dogfighting and racing will hate that the Rework is larger and presumably heavier, whereas 300i and possibly 315p owners will be okay with it because they're getting more ship for their money.
  8. Reavern

    RSI Apollo = Triage + Medivac (variant)

    The only other variant model of the Apollo that CIG should release a "base model", similar to the Retaliator Base model. And I mean base model. I don't mean a cheaper cargo model, like the Constellation Taurus. The reason is that the RSI Apollo is supposed to be modular, which means that it doesn't need variant models, like CIG did with most of the early ships (Aurora, 300, Hornet, Freelancer, Constellation, Cutlass, etc). CIG has designed the Apollo Triage and Apollo Medivac variant. The only other Apollo model they should create is the base model without any modules installed. The problem with different ship models is that CIG won't allow you to "downgrade". For example, if you have a 300i and you use a CCU to upgrade it to a 315p, you can't ever go back to the 300i. You can only upgrade it further to a 325a or 350r. That's the problem with ship models, and why ship modularity is superior. Because with a modular ship, the ship doesn't change, only the module(s). CIG has stated that the RSI Apollo uses modules in the "main interior section" where the medical bays are located in the Triage and Medivac models. So the Apollo is a modular design, which is great. Modularity is great because you can buy one ship and buy however many modules you want, install one, like an Exploration module, for exploring, and then return to base and install another one, like a Passenger module, for transporting passengers. It's unbelievable that some backers want the Apollo to have variant models instead of a variety of modules. CIG should create an Apollo Base model, so backers don't have to buy the Triage or Medivac to acquire an Apollo. A cheaper Apollo Base model would enable backers to buy a modular Apollo hull and then buy the modules they wanted for it. I think the Apollo Base should be priced around $110-125. I know that sounds too low -- especially since CIG is overpricing ships these days -- but the Apollo Base would have to be cheaper than the Constellation Taurus because the Taurus is larger, has more weapons and engines, and is configured for cargo hauling. The Apollo is comparable in size to a Freelancer or Cutlass, so I think the $110 price for the Apollo Base is justifiable (even if it's unlikely that CIG would price it that low). Ideally, CIG will release an Apollo Base model and a variety of Apollo modules at the same time, so backers can buy the modules they want for their Apollo -- which is what they did with the Retaliator Base and modules. I don't want it to be like the Caterpillar, which was touted from the beginning as being a modular design, and CIG concepted a dozen different modules, but they've seemingly abandoned them and relegated the Caterpillar to a cargo hauler only. If CIG released the Apollo Base without the modules, there's no guarantee that CIG would follow through with the Apollo modules. It's important to remember what Paul Jones said about the Apollo's ship development: CIG rushed the Apollo through the concept phase, which is probably they didn't develop any variant models for it. They just wanted to get a medium-size Medical Ship out there for backers to buy. That makes me doubt if CIG has any intention to develop the Apollo into a multi-role hull because that would involve a lot more work. Using the Reclaimer as an example, its only role is a Salvage ship and it doesn't appear that CIG has plans to develop it any further. That's why I kinda doubt that CIG will both developing the Apollo further. They'll probably get the Apollo in the game relatively quickly, compared to other ships that we've been waiting 4+ years for, like the Banu Merchantman. I wouldn't be surprised if the Apollo makes it into Alpha 3.5 because Medical gameplay is going to be important and is probably going to be prioritized.
  9. Reavern

    RSI Apollo = Triage + Medivac (variant)

    The RSI Apollo Medivac variant model was inspired by a future sci-fi action movie, wherein the hero ship apparently was armed with missiles -- because, why wouldn't it? The RSI Apollo Triage is the base model and it only seems to have a dorsal remote gun turret. It makes sense that the Apollo has some weapons, but it's obviously not a combat ship. I'm surprised that the Apollo doesn't have an auto-turret like the Connie Phoenix, which would provide superior protection than the single remote turret. The turret is also oddly placed midships on the Apollo's dorsal side. Considering the placement of the scanner dome behind it and the raised hull sections in front, I can't imagine that remote turret will have good firing arcs -- unless it elevates. It seems to only be intended to fire forward and up. It's baffling why CIG would place the turret in the middle instead of the front, like the Connie. Also, when firing forward, the turret's lasers would flash past the skylight. That would probably be distracting to medics and disconcerting to patients -- very poor, nonsensical design.
  10. Yesterday, upon hearing the new Concept Ship was a medical ship, I was indifferent to it. Medical work has never interested me, but I know it will be invaluable in Star Citizen's PU because of the DoaSM game mechanics. So I considered buying it. Then I played the Astromedics game and unlocked the Medivac variant, which comes with superior armour and 2 missile racks -- albeit for an extra $25! (Thanks a lot CIG.) Regardless, I decided to buy the Apollo Medivac because of its enhanced defensive capabilities and "limited" status. The only thing I don't like is the Medivac model's paint scheme. The red paint job of the Apollo Triage model is far more distinct and clearly distinguishes it as a medical ship. The white paint job of the Medivac model could be easily mistaken for an RSI Constellation Phoenix. It seems ridicuous to make the base model Apollo look cooler than the upgraded version. I think the Medivac should be mostly red, like the Triage, with black and white stripes, so it's obviously a medical ship, but it's different than the Triage model. TBH my knee jerk reaction upon seeing the RSI Apollo wasn't positive because it's obviously derivative of the RSI Constellation. I know in-lore the Connie's design is derived from the "classic" RSI Orion, but in reality, we all know the Apollo was designed after the Connie. Regardless of my first impression of the Apollo, I've quickly grown to like it because it's sleaker and more elegant than the Connie. My favourite aspect of the design are that the Connie's moving winglets are fixed and integrated into the Apollo's fuselage. Also, the Apollo doesn't have those ugly and primtive turbo-lift-fans. I also like the Apollo's wider fuselage, which presumably increases the usable internal space. I also think the Apollo resembles the Intrepid-class starship from Star Trek: Voyager -- at least when viewed from a top view. The Apollo makes me wish that CIG redesigns the Constellation Phoenix with a wider fuselage, or perhaps creates a luxury Apollo variant model. A question I have is what weapons are equipped on the Apollo Triage and Medivac? All we know is that the Medivac model has 2 missile racks. I don't see any weapons visible on the Apollo from the concept art. There's a disc shape protruding from the ventral hull, which I suppose could be a retracted gun turret. But I doubt it. I suspect it's some kind of docking port, larger than the standard docking port that the Connie uses on its port and starboard sides. Perhaps it's a wider "Medical Docking Port" -- or possibility an elevator -- that allows a patient to be transferred on/off the ship on a gurney. If that disc shape isn't a turret, then I wonder if the Apollo has any weapons, and where they're located on the ship. I expect the Apollo has gimballed guns, similar to the Constellation, but they're not visible. Perhaps they're retracted into the hull. Or perhaps CIG just didn't bother to include guns in the concept art because the Apollo is a medical ship. I look forward to learning more information about the RSI Apollo tomorrow.
  11. Reavern

    Aegis Reclaimer

    Law demonstrated it was possible to complete combat missions with the Reclaimer, but it wasn't exactly thrilling. I don't know what weapons Law was using -- they appeared to be either quad gimballed cannons or two remote turrets, with laser repeaters. I'd guestimate that a solo Reclaimer has roughly the same firepower as a solo Constellation, excluding any missiles. I think Law is correct: The Reclaimer is a tank versus the hapless AI Pirates because they aren't smart enough to focus fire on the Reclaimer. The AI is torn between attacking the escort ship and the Reclaimer. Even when the AI attacks the Reclaimer, they don't focus on it long enough to sap its shields and inflict real damage. That's the only reason Law's Reclaimer survived and defeated them: incompetent AI enemies. That one Gladius or definitely the Constellation could've destroyed the Reclaimer if it was player-controlled. It's unclear how long the 600i had been attacking the Reclaimer (near the end of the video) before it destroyed the heavy salvage ship. Probably not long. So it appears that, like the Hurricane, the Reclaimer is made of explodium. Once its shields are down, it's a powder keg waiting to go off. CIG needs to fix that. The Reclaimer shouldn't be an invincible tank, but it should be much tougher than it is now. I'd be interested to see the Reclaimer fully crewed with gunners, fighting AI enemies and then real players. I don't think it would stand a chance until CIG fixes the ship exploding problem.
  12. Reavern

    Aegis Eclispe

    The Retaliator should be able to fire 4 torpedoes for its first volley, and 2 torpedoes for its second. (Although that will hopefully change if and when the Tali is reworked.) The Tali's ability to launch multiple torpedoes at once is its best selling features. The Tali can spam multiple torpedoes at a large ship or cap ship, so even with point defense weapons, chances are that some of the torpedoes will get through and hit the target. As I've mentioned before, I believe that when bombers, torpedoes, and stealth are more developed, we'll either have dumb-fire torpedoes or the ability to disable the targeting sensors/guidance systems of torpedoes, so the targeted ship won't be alerted that it's being targeted by a missile or torpedo. That should allow an Eclipse to execute a stealth torpedo run by launching an unguided torpedo at the enemy ship, which would impact with little to no warning. I predict that is how Eclipses will be used most of the time. Using guided torpedoes spoils the element of surprise, so it only makes sense for there to be a way of torpedoing an enemy ship without being detected.
  13. Reavern

    Aegis Eclispe

    It depends on the civilian ship. The Reclaimer is one of the largest and probably the toughest of the Industrial ships, so I think it will be more resistant to damage. Considering that the Reclaimer's job is to get in close to derelict ships, grab them with its gripper arm, and cut the ship apart, there's an inherent risk of large pieces of the derelict breaking loose and colliding with the Reclaimer, so it has to be tough, with strong shields and a reinforced hull, which should provide protection against torpedoes. Whereas the Starfarer will be very vulnerable because even if its shields don't collapse from a torpedo impact, explosive damage bleeding through the shields could rupture the external fuel tanks and blow up the ship. Presumably, the Gemini will be tougher because it's a military conversion. I don't think that the high cost of torpedoes should be the main factor in balancing bombers vs. other ships because that will only encourage and reward P2W players, as well as large Pirate/Criminal Orgs. Bombers can't be OP'd, just like fighters cannot continue being OP'd versus large ships, as seen in Law's video. I'm certain that CIG will revise the ship balance, but I don't think they'll allow the Eclipse to easily solo kill a large ship, like the Reclaimer.
  14. Reavern

    Aegis Eclispe

    In the video that I posted, you can see that the Eclipse's torpedoes sapped the Reclaimer's shields to ~50% but they inflicted no damage to its hull. I believe that's how they're supposed to work. Missiles/torpedoes in Star Citizen aren't like proton torpedoes in Star Wars, which pass through ray shields, but are blocked by "particle shields". Star Citizen shields provide protection against both ballistic and energy weapons, however, ballistics pass through the shields while being slowed down by them, and impact the hull, inflicting damage. Energy weapons, like lasers, are absorbed by the shields until the shields overload and collapse, then the lasers inflict heavy damage to the ship's hull. Missiles are different than bullets because they are armed with warheads that detonate on impact. If the target ship has shields, the missile will detonate against the shields. If the ship's shields have collapsed, the missile will impact against the hull and inflict severe damage, possibly destroying the ship. Missiles don't penetrate the shields and then detonate. That's why it's best to sap the enemy ship's shields with guns and then launch a missile to finish it, so the shields don't absorb explosive damage.
  15. Reavern

    Aegis Eclispe

    Check out this combat ship test of the Eclipse vs. the Reclaimer compared to the Esperia Blade vs. the Reclaimer: The Eclipse's gun and torpedoes can't even penetrate the Reclaimer's shields, whereas the Blade's dual S2 lasers sap the Reclaimer's shields in less than 15 seconds of continuous fire (slowed down at the end by overheating). After the shields collapse, the Blade blows off one of the Reclaimer's main engines after 10 seconds of slow, OH'd laser fire. Within 30 seconds, the Reclaimer explodes! Law drove home the point about how the Reclaimer is strong vs. bombers, like the Eclipse, but ridiculously weak vs. light fighters, like the Blade. I agree with Law that the Eclipse shouldn't be able to take out a Reclaimer solo, so it's fairly balanced with Reclaimer. The only questionable thing from the video was how Law was launching torpedoes at the starboard side of the Reclaimer, but when the torpedo impacted, it sapped the port, fore, and aft shields to ~50%, whereas the starboard shields didn't even register an impact and remained at 100%. The same thing occurred for all 3 torpedoes. I also noticed that the torpedoes would fly erratically when they were close to the Reclaimer, as if they were being jammed or fooled by countermeasures. But no one was controlling the Reclaimer and the Argos IX torpedoes are cross-section targeted torpedoes, so flares and chaff shouldn't do anything against them, even if they were used. Considering that the Reclaimer was stationary, I can't imagine how the torpedoes could be confused by its cross-section. I'm wondering if the torpedo somehow missed and then looped back around and impacted the port side of the Reclaimer instead. I think this is a glitch, probably with the Eclipse and/or the Argos IX torpedoes, not with the Reclaimer. I wonder if and when it's fixed if the Eclipse will be far more effective against the Reclaimer. I think the Eclipse's torpedoes should be more effective. I think one torpedo should deplete the impacted shield quadrant to 20-30%. The second torpedo should be launched fast enough that it impacts before the Reclaimer's shields can regenerate to 50%, and the second torpedo would collapse the weakened shield quadrant to 0% and inflict some hull damage. The third torpedo should impact before the shields have regenerated to 20% and should severely damage the Reclaimer. If the torpedo impacted the starboard engine, it should destroy that engine. If the third torpedo impacted the main hull near where the power plant is located, it could rupture the power plant and destroy the ship. That would be for an unmanned Reclaimer that was a sitting duck. In a realistic combat scenario, the Reclaimer wouldn't just sit there. It would have a pilot flying the ship and should have gunners in the turrets trying to shoot down the incoming torpedoes. The Reclaimer might get blindsided by the stealthy Eclipse's first torpedo attack, but it wouldn't suffer enough damage to matter. After the first strike, the Reclaimer pilot should be maneuvering the ship so that the weakened shield quadrant isn't facing the second torpedo. Granted, the Eclipse probably shouldn't be detectable by the Reclaimer, so the pilot won't know which direction the second torpedo is coming from. Regardless, a smart pilot would reorient the ship so the unseen Eclipse can't torpedo the Reclaimer from the same side. The Eclipse would have to fly and realign itself to attack the weakened shield quadrant, which would take time and the shield would have more time to regenerate. Even if the Reclaimer can't detect the Eclipse stealth bomber on its sensors, it should be able to detect when the torpedo is locked on and inbound. Therefore, the Reclaimer's gunners should be able to detect and/or see the incoming torpedo and try to shoot it down. I'll estimate their odds of shooting down the 2nd and 3rd torpedo are 50%, which means the Reclaimer will probably suffer 2 torpedo impacts. That shouldn't be enough to destroy it, so the Reclaimer would survive the attack from the solo Eclipse stealth bomber. I think that's fair. If there were two Eclipse bombers or the Eclipse was working with fighters, which sapped the Reclaimer's shields and kept them from regenerating, the Reclaimer would be defeated and destroyed. I think that would be a "fair and balanced" combat scenario because the Eclipse can't solo kill a large non-combat ship, like the Reclaimer, but when operating in an attack group, the Eclipse should be deadly. I also think that the Eclipse should be able to launch its torpedoes faster. I understand why the Eclipse can't launch all three torpedoes at once, contrary to its depiction in the concept art. However, it shouldn't take 20 seconds to launch the next torpedo, especially against the same target. I think the Eclipse should be able to queue multiple torpedoes against the same target and launch them consecutively after a ~ 5-second delay while the next torpedo is loaded into launch position. I think all bombers should be able to launch torpedoes faster because the wait time for all missiles Size5 or larger is too long. The long wait time to launch torpedoes reduces the effectiveness of all bombers, whereas fighters are ridiculously OP'd against large ships.
×