RSI - Polaris - Corvette

[Reavern]

7 hours ago, Karmaslap said:

S4 manned turrets fit S3 guns, though, which aren't near as heavy.  DPS would still be determined by the time till overheat, the powerplant wouldn't do a whole lot unless there are some crazy power sucking cooler upgrades it could fit.

Don't get too hung up on turret sizes because it seems that CIG has (unofficially) simplified their weapon hardpoint terminology so it's easier to understand. When the Weapon Hardpoint Revision was posted a year ago, hardpoint and turret sizes were overly complex and confusing because the ship specs might list a Size 6 hardpoint, which could mount a Size 6 weapon in a fixed mount; or a Size 5 weapon in a gimbal mount; or a Size 4 turret. That turret could either mount a Size 4 weapon or two Size 2 weapons. So Size 6 hardpoint, size 4 turret, two size 2 weapons. It's very convoluted and confusing.

Supposedly, CIG has (unofficially) simplified weapon and turrets sizes so it's easier to understand. As I and many others suggested, the size of the hardpoint/turret will indicate the max size of the weapons that can be mounted. So what you see is what you get. Meaning that the Polaris' ship stats say it has six Size 4 dual gun manned turrets and those dual guns are both Size 4. Supposedly.

The rumour is that the CIG concept ship designers themselves were confused by the whole thing so they simplified it.

I understand it's just a rumour but I'm inclined to believe it because it makes more sense that the Polaris has turrets equipped with Size 4 weapons, not Size 3, because Size 3s wouldn't be effective anti-fighter weapons. Also, they'd be smaller than many other large ships' manned turrets, like the Constellation, Starfarer, 890J, and Idris. The Polaris having manned turrets with dual Size 4 weapons grants it decent anti-fighter and anti-missile defense -- although Size 5s would be better.

And finally, all ship specs are WIP and subject the change. Considering how ineffective manned turrets are ATM I foresee CIG giving them all a major buff in the future. So it's probably not worth dwelling too much on the turret sizes because there's a good chance they'll change -- and if they are changed they'll definitely be up-sized.

[Riley Egret]

Why the Polaris gets torpedoes

 

( direct link to the video, it seems relevant to the discussion)

[Devil Khan]

3 hours ago, Reavern said:

Don't get too hung up on turret sizes because it seems that CIG has (unofficially) simplified their weapon hardpoint terminology so it's easier to understand. When the Weapon Hardpoint Revision was posted a year ago, hardpoint and turret sizes were overly complex and confusing because the ship specs might list a Size 6 hardpoint, which could mount a Size 6 weapon in a fixed mount; or a Size 5 weapon in a gimbal mount; or a Size 4 turret. That turret could either mount a Size 4 weapon or two Size 2 weapons. So Size 6 hardpoint, size 4 turret, two size 2 weapons. It's very convoluted and confusing.

Supposedly, CIG has (unofficially) simplified weapon and turrets sizes so it's easier to understand. As I and many others suggested, the size of the hardpoint/turret will indicate the max size of the weapons that can be mounted. So what you see is what you get. Meaning that the Polaris' ship stats say it has six Size 4 dual gun manned turrets and those dual guns are both Size 4. Supposedly.

The rumour is that the CIG concept ship designers themselves were confused by the whole thing so they simplified it.

I understand it's just a rumour but I'm inclined to believe it because it makes more sense that the Polaris has turrets equipped with Size 4 weapons, not Size 3, because Size 3s wouldn't be effective anti-fighter weapons. Also, they'd be smaller than many other large ships' manned turrets, like the Constellation, Starfarer, 890J, and Idris. The Polaris having manned turrets with dual Size 4 weapons grants it decent anti-fighter and anti-missile defense -- although Size 5s would be better.

And finally, all ship specs are WIP and subject the change. Considering how ineffective manned turrets are ATM I foresee CIG giving them all a major buff in the future. So it's probably not worth dwelling too much on the turret sizes because there's a good chance they'll change -- and if they are changed they'll definitely be up-sized.

Yup, the Polaris (Q&A 2) there is no sizing just a "place holder". Anyway I will see, hopefully the torps will be included if correct. I'd say that  S5 is to large for the gladiator torps and S9 for the tali of course those are just from 2.4 code.

[Reavern]

Just now, Devil Khan said:

Yup, the Polaris (Q&A 2) there is no sizing just a "place holder". Anyway I will see, hopefully the torps will be included if correct. I'd say that  S5 is to large for the gladiator torps and S9 for the tali of course those are just from 2.4 code.

Yes, it's very confusing and the Ship Stats are totally unreliable. Right now the stats page says that the Gladiator carries 4 x S5 torpedoes, the Retaliator carries 6 x Size 3 torpedoes, the Harbinger carries 3 x S3 torpedos, and the Polaris has 4 x S10 torpedo launchers. How can the Gladiator carry larger torpedoes than the Tali? And the Harbinger's torpedoes are much smaller and look different than the Tali's torpedoes, so they can't both be Size 3s.

Part of the confusion is that Missiles and Torpedoes are classified differently, so a Size 3 missile is smaller than a Size 3 torpedo. The confusing part is that the largest missile we've seen so far is Size 3, so many assumed that the Gladiator's Size 5 torpedo was simply a Size 5 missile, and that somewhere around Size 4 or 5 that missiles were referred to as torpedoes. But apparently that's not the case.

So there's no much that we can do until CIG doesn't a total revamp of the Ship Stats page.

[GeraldEvans]

What happened to Q/A 3?  Don't we normally get 3 before the sale ends?

[Caldon]

5 minutes ago, GeraldEvans said:

What happened to Q/A 3?  Don't we normally get 3 before the sale ends?

Another QA?

[GeraldEvans]

Yeah.  Traditionally it's sale Friday, first Q/A Wednesday, then Friday, then Monday, and the sale is over.

[Trophias]

We've only been getting 2 Q/A's in recent times I believe. I don't think they ever said there would be 3 Q/A's unless I missed something.

[Devil Khan]

we were only getting 2 QAs

They stopped receiving questions on weds

[Karmaslap]

4 hours ago, Reavern said:

Don't get too hung up on turret sizes because it seems that CIG has (unofficially) simplified their weapon hardpoint terminology so it's easier to understand.

And finally, all ship specs are WIP and subject the change. Considering how ineffective manned turrets are ATM I foresee CIG giving them all a major buff in the future. So it's probably not worth dwelling too much on the turret sizes because there's a good chance they'll change -- and if they are changed they'll definitely be up-sized.

 

If that were true, CIG would've mentioned it. It's just total speculation. See the Starfarer stats, you've got a -1 size reduction. That's the best we have to go on, actual stats from other ships.

 

The last point of your is the reason I have posted my opinion on the ship's advertised strength and torpedo dependence on reddit and the RSI forums. Backer opinions and feedback is what CIG uses to gauge design choices and if more people are aware of things then there will be more to sway CIG's choices. I think the guns will get a buff too. 

[Reavern]

1 hour ago, Karmaslap said:

 

If that were true, CIG would've mentioned it. It's just total speculation. See the Starfarer stats, you've got a -1 size reduction. That's the best we have to go on, actual stats from other ships.

Actually, the reason why the Starfarer had a Size 5 turret and Size 4 guns was that there weren't any Size 5 guns in the game yet, until a couple of months ago when the Behring M7A Laser cannon was introduced. CIG updated the Starfarer's default loadout with two M7As mounted on the dorsal turret, so the Starfarer currently has a Size 5 turret equipped with 2 x Size 5 laser cannons.

That's precisely what I'm talking about: turret size is now equal to the max size weapons the turret can equip. It's simpler to understand and what I and many others suggested after the confusing Hardpoints Revision. CIG hasn't officially mentioned the change. I don't know why.

[ChiefWarrant]

OMG..... take the time and watch this video from Jim.  Should lighten the mood in this thread.

 

[Donut]

lol cyborg pigeons 

[Wu Jen]

22 hours ago, Reavern said:

STS does stand for "Ship To Ship". I don't recall CIG ever explaining STS but I believe these weapons are intended to attack large ships, like the Constellation, Caterpillar, Starfarer, etc., but not to attack capital ships, like the Polaris, Idris, Javelin, or Bengal, because they're not powerful enough to penetrate their cap-class shields and hull armour. The Idris Frigate's single STS cannon can probably make short work of a Connie, but it wouldn't be effective at killing an opposing frigate or even a corvette. Whereas the Polaris Corvette is armed with Size 9 torpedoes (the same as the Tali) and can probably kill an Idris with a couple of torpedo volleys because those torpedoes are anti-capital ship weapons. I think the Javelin's dual cannon STS turrets would definitely kill a Polaris or Idris, but not an opposing destroyer -- they're big ass cannons but not anti-capital ship cannons. The only anti-capital ship cannons seen so far are on the Bengal Carrier's ventral turret. I expect that cruisers, battleships, and dreadnoughts (like the Retribution) will also be armed with anti-capital ship cannons.

STS are Capital weapon turrets.

Capital-Class Turrets

In particular, the Behring Applied Technology laboratory has been given credit for two types of high yield capital ship weaponry: Anti-Ship Artillery (ASA) weapons and Ship to Ship (STS) turret weapons. ASA turret mounts are designed, simply, to protect large ships from smaller ones. With lightning-quick hydraulics and integrated targeting interfaces, ASA turrets are generally sited in a ring around a capital ship’s hull to offer as full an arc of protection as possible. ASA turrets mount smaller yield laser weapons similar to those found on civilian spacecraft. The stock military Idris-M frigate, for instance, carries six ASA turrets that each mount a Behring M3C laser system.

Ship to Ship turrets are a much more powerful affair, designed to punch through the shields and hull of other large starships. Although they lack the quick reaction time of ASA turrets and so are generally unsuitable for flak coverage, their higher caliber weaponry will ensure that any hit against a fighter or bomber is likely deadly. Like their smaller cousins, STS turrets are modular and can be outfitted with a variety of individual guns. For example, the Idris-M corvette mounts a centerline STS ‘stinger’ turret featuring a Behring M5C laser cannon. The workhorse of the Navy, the Javelin destroyer, mounts a pair of Behring M6A laser cannons on STS turrets standard.

While the concern is responsible for manufacturing, antimatter yield coring, and other important processes in turret development, likely the most significant advancement they have been credited with is the development of the shield interphase kits that are now standard on all turrets. Prior to the 28th century, it was believed impossible to design a shield system that could operate with a rotating turret; where early shields were designed with ‘blind spots’ that could allow fixed cannons to fire out of a designated hardpoint, they lacked the ability to do the same with a gun whose position was impossible to predict before firing. Capital ships of an earlier era would need to drop their shields entirely before firing, which made arming with anti-spacecraft weaponry impractical. With BAT’s interphase kits, almost anything can be shot out from within a standard shield.

[GeraldEvans]

That video was awesome.

[Reavern]

44 minutes ago, Wu Jen said:

STS are Capital weapon turrets.

Capital-Class Turrets

In particular, the Behring Applied Technology laboratory has been given credit for two types of high yield capital ship weaponry: Anti-Ship Artillery (ASA) weapons and Ship to Ship (STS) turret weapons. ASA turret mounts are designed, simply, to protect large ships from smaller ones. With lightning-quick hydraulics and integrated targeting interfaces, ASA turrets are generally sited in a ring around a capital ship’s hull to offer as full an arc of protection as possible. ASA turrets mount smaller yield laser weapons similar to those found on civilian spacecraft. The stock military Idris-M frigate, for instance, carries six ASA turrets that each mount a Behring M3C laser system.

Ship to Ship turrets are a much more powerful affair, designed to punch through the shields and hull of other large starships. Although they lack the quick reaction time of ASA turrets and so are generally unsuitable for flak coverage, their higher caliber weaponry will ensure that any hit against a fighter or bomber is likely deadly. Like their smaller cousins, STS turrets are modular and can be outfitted with a variety of individual guns. For example, the Idris-M corvette mounts a centerline STS ‘stinger’ turret featuring a Behring M5C laser cannon. The workhorse of the Navy, the Javelin destroyer, mounts a pair of Behring M6A laser cannons on STS turrets standard.

While the concern is responsible for manufacturing, antimatter yield coring, and other important processes in turret development, likely the most significant advancement they have been credited with is the development of the shield interphase kits that are now standard on all turrets. Prior to the 28th century, it was believed impossible to design a shield system that could operate with a rotating turret; where early shields were designed with ‘blind spots’ that could allow fixed cannons to fire out of a designated hardpoint, they lacked the ability to do the same with a gun whose position was impossible to predict before firing. Capital ships of an earlier era would need to drop their shields entirely before firing, which made arming with anti-spacecraft weaponry impractical. With BAT’s interphase kits, almost anything can be shot out from within a standard shield.

I believe you misunderstood the meaning of "Capital-class Turrets". That means they are weapon turrets equipped by Capital Ships, not for destroying enemy cap ships. That's why both ASA and STS turret weapons were included under the Capital-class Turrets heading.

As the description said, STS turrets are more powerful, designed to punch through the shields and hull of other large starships. It doesn't explicitly say capital ships.

I think anyone can judge that Idris-M's STS turret isn't a "capital-ship-killer" weapon. I'm certain it's powerful enough to take out a Constellation or Retaliator in a few shots, but I don't believe it's going to destroy another frigate very quickly. I believe the Idris' spinal rail gun and missile turrets are intended to be its anti-cap ship weapons.

That's why I don't believe STS = anti-capital ship weapon. I think some STS weapons are powerful enough to be anti-cap ship, but not all STS weapons are. Just like some missiles are powerful enough to be effective against ships like the Freelancer and Connie, whereas smaller missiles are only effective against fighters.

[AstroJak]

2 hours ago, Nova-Prime said:

OMG..... take the time and watch this video from Jim.  Should lighten the mood in this thread.

 

I didn't know that part about the pigeons! you learn something new every day!!! 

AJ 

[Amedeus]

He almost got thru the pigeon part with out his voice cracking. Wonder how many takes that took to do with a straight face.

[Devil Khan]

Personally, the pigeon is the only fact which is concrete unlike from CIG tbh . 

 

[MarcusReed]

LOL love that video 

[Wu Jen]

13 hours ago, Reavern said:

I believe you misunderstood the meaning of "Capital-class Turrets". That means they are weapon turrets equipped by Capital Ships, not for destroying enemy cap ships. That's why both ASA and STS turret weapons were included under the Capital-class Turrets heading.

As the description said, STS turrets are more powerful, designed to punch through the shields and hull of other large starships. It doesn't explicitly say capital ships.

I think anyone can judge that Idris-M's STS turret isn't a "capital-ship-killer" weapon. I'm certain it's powerful enough to take out a Constellation or Retaliator in a few shots, but I don't believe it's going to destroy another frigate very quickly. I believe the Idris' spinal rail gun and missile turrets are intended to be its anti-cap ship weapons.

That's why I don't believe STS = anti-capital ship weapon. I think some STS weapons are powerful enough to be anti-cap ship, but not all STS weapons are. Just like some missiles are powerful enough to be effective against ships like the Freelancer and Connie, whereas smaller missiles are only effective against fighters.

J.Dadley CIG

"Time for some clarification.

The current design is that ALL of the turrets on the Javelin DO elevate with the exception of the two large anti-capital ship turrets. This means that the ship is highly defensible against fighters but means lining up powerful shots against other capital ships requires more finesse.

Before anyone panics it is worth iterating that this is currently just an 'on paper' design. When the ship is fully operational in-engine we will be testing how effective this is - if it proves to not work as designed then it will be trivial to allow elevation on these two turrets. We won't be releasing anything that hasn't been play-tested and balanced properly."

 

ATM - as far as CIG is concerned STS = Anti-Cap ship weapons.

[Pagan-Tempest]

14 hours ago, Wu Jen said:

STS are Capital weapon turrets.

Capital-Class Turrets

In particular, the Behring Applied Technology laboratory has been given credit for two types of high yield capital ship weaponry: Anti-Ship Artillery (ASA) weapons and Ship to Ship (STS) turret weapons. ASA turret mounts are designed, simply, to protect large ships from smaller ones. With lightning-quick hydraulics and integrated targeting interfaces, ASA turrets are generally sited in a ring around a capital ship’s hull to offer as full an arc of protection as possible. ASA turrets mount smaller yield laser weapons similar to those found on civilian spacecraft. The stock military Idris-M frigate, for instance, carries six ASA turrets that each mount a Behring M3C laser system.

Ship to Ship turrets are a much more powerful affair, designed to punch through the shields and hull of other large starships. Although they lack the quick reaction time of ASA turrets and so are generally unsuitable for flak coverage, their higher caliber weaponry will ensure that any hit against a fighter or bomber is likely deadly. Like their smaller cousins, STS turrets are modular and can be outfitted with a variety of individual guns. For example, the Idris-M corvette mounts a centerline STS ‘stinger’ turret featuring a Behring M5C laser cannon. The workhorse of the Navy, the Javelin destroyer, mounts a pair of Behring M6A laser cannons on STS turrets standard.

Those weapons are exceedingly small for their intended role, so I'm going to have to assume that they will change. I'm referring here to the six ASA turrets on the Idris-M utilizing M3C's which are S1 weapons; the centerline STS 'stinger' turret mounts an M5C which is a S3 weapon; and the Javelin mounting pairs of M6A's which are S4 weapons. (The M6A's come standard on the Constellation Andromeda.)

The M3C's would do nothing more than tickle Super Hornets, Gladiators, and the like. You would need focused fire from four to six turrets for a long period of time to destroy a Super Hornet with these weapons. (What a SH or Gladiator would be doing this close to an Idris-M in the first place is a conundrum.) 

The M5C's aren't terrible since they are two upgrades up from M5A's, but they are still S3 weapons. Only long periods of sustained fire will damage medium sized ships, and large ships will just shrug them off and continue on. The M5C's would be near-optimal ASA turret weapons. 

The pairs of M6A's on the Javelin are better, but I'd still consider them suboptimal. These would, however, make for near-optimal ASA turret weapons at S4: they would shred fighters and bombers at close range. They would do well against medium-sized and large ships with sustained fire, but you'd still expect these turrets to allow for S5 to S6 weapons given their role.

For the sake of comparison, the Polaris is equipped with six manned S4 turrets capable of equipping two S4 weapons each and one remotely operated turret capable of equipping two S5 weapons. You would expect much larger ships to have weapons at least as large as that of the Polaris.

One thing I haven't yet mentioned is the range of these weapons. All three of these Behring weapon systems have ranges of <2100 meters. Gladiators and Retaliators never need to be within this range to drop their payloads and run away. So, the first thing that needs to be done is to swap all of these weapons out for ballistic weapons that have ranges >5500 meters. With bombers being forced to fly straight at an Idris or Javelin for a period of time to get in torpedo range, the chances of landing shield-penetrating "cockpit shots" goes up dramatically. These weapons will also deal significant hull damage to bombers since they are not heavily armored. And they will deal significant damage to the medium to large sized ships they are meant to be firing at. Another benefit is that they will be less of a drain on the ship's power plant(s) allowing for more power usage in other areas of the ships. 

[Zeabz]

Don't get me wrong now.. I think it is cool to theory craft and stuff but the whole ship vs ships weapon, armor, shield comparisons are kind of pointless at this point.  On the main Star Citizen page there is literally a 16 page straight up argument/rant on the 890j vs Polaris.  It seriously reminds me talking politics with family members.  both camps labeling "their" information as fact.  conspiracies..  People quitting the forums all together...

Be patient.  In time stats will be released and guess what even after the new stats are released they will probably change again.  Nerfs will happen.. Buffs will happen.  It the nature of MMOs.   

[GeraldEvans]

In the meantime though, they lost the opportunity to bring in a few Polaris sales.  A little additional work on fleshing out the concept would have been helpful I think. 

[Painmiester]

What was the last count or estimated sale on the.   pole.........