Jump to content

Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter


Devil Khan

Recommended Posts

Lotw - video was slightly wrong in some matters i.e. the components (most) don't have dedicated room due to the hallways size unlike the main ones like engineering also if maneuvered correctly it can bring up to 5 turrets on target (directly ahead and tilted slightly down) but for most of the time it will likely be 2 - 3 on target      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :D 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:

schematics2.thumb.jpg.3689f0a059a7754480

Hammerhead-BP1.thumb.png.c8251767a1d0303

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:

On 11/26/2017 at 2:59 PM, Reavern said:

A variant of this would involve using the fighter fist as cover for a Warlock or Raven to get close enough to the Hammerhead to disable it with its EMP, then pick off the turrets before it recovers.

On 11/26/2017 at 8:26 PM, Reavern said:

That is the best scenario I can imagine for dealing with a Hammerhead using only conventional ships. Aside from sneaking in an EMP ship or calling in an Idris to snipe it with its rail gun, I can't think of a better tactic to defeat a Pirate Hammerhead. Bombers and torpedoes probably won't be effective because the Hammerhead can easily shoot them down.

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reavern said:

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. :D 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: <snip>

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.

<snip>

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).

Well, I think I've been pretty open-minded about the Hammerhead so I'm guessing your post wasn't aimed at me. And even if the Hammerhead won't get a single Capital sized component I'm still going to treat it as one and call it a Hammerhead Corvette (also because it's my largest warship and to me it has all the hallmarks of a corvette). :P

I also remember telling people at the time of the concept (on Spectrum or Reddit) that it would get fast-tracked because CIG would likely want to use it for SQ42 yet several people told me I was crazy or that the Polaris should come first. Which was silly because the Polaris is a much lower priority because lore-wise the Polaris wouldn't have been built during the time SQ42 takes place. So it was good to see my 'gut feeling' was correct. Made sense too as CIG would want a nice spread of ships for SQ42 and the Hammerhead will look awesome during cinematic cutscenes flying alongside the Idris and Javelin. :)

There are still some odd things with the Hammerhead. Most notably this potential issue of the 9 crew vs 8 escape pods so I sincerely hope the devs just forgot about some in another location and that there will be 2 behind the bridge for the pilot and co-pilot.

In addition to that I find it rather peculiar for the devs to claim that running all energy weapons may be borderline and that they might switch them out for ballistics if that's the case. That kinda feels like intentionally gimping the ship by starving its power and in doing so hindering it from performing its primary task. So rather strange why they don't simply add another powerplant. Heck, if they would complain about 'no room' they could easily fit in 2 Medium powerplants near each Large powerplant on for a total of 2xL + 4xM. But I guess if these are MIL-C grade then popping in a MIL-A (or maybe even IND-A which is likely a lot cheaper and more durable) we might be fine. ;)

In any case, I'm also glad that I melted my Polaris Warbond for one of these as the Hammerhead was the patrol+escort corvette that I wanted and the ship that's the actual equivalent of the Kamrani Corvette (instead of Ben Lesnick claiming that the Polaris was the equivalent of the Kamrani Corvette, which made no sense as that one wasn't even remotely similar). RSI ships are stoopid anyway (except for the Orion). Go Aegis or Go Home! 😎

Anyways, happy times ahead for me and I can't wait to walk around my Hammerhead Corvette. I just hope CIG added 2 more escape pods on the bridge for the pilot and co-pilot or I am definitely going to keep bugging them about it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Danakar Endeel said:

Well, I think I've been pretty open-minded about the Hammerhead so I'm guessing your post wasn't aimed at me. And even if the Hammerhead won't get a single Capital sized component I'm still going to treat it as one and call it a Hammerhead Corvette (also because it's my largest warship and to me it has all the hallmarks of a corvette). :P

I also remember telling people (on Spectrum or Reddit) that it would get fast-tracked because CIG would likely want to use it for SQ42 yet several people told me I was crazy or that the Polaris should come first. Which was silly because the Polaris is a much lower priority because lore-wise the Polaris wouldn't have been built during the time SQ42 takes place. So it was good to see my 'gut feeling' was correct. Made sense too as CIG would want a nice spread of ships for SQ42 and the Hammerhead will look awesome during cinematic cutscenes flying alongside the Idris and Javelin. :)

There are still some odd things with the Hammerhead. Most notably this potential issue of the 9 crew vs 8 escape pods so I sincerely hope the devs just forgot about some and that there will be 2 behind the bridge for the pilot and co-pilot.

In addition to that I find it rather peculiar for the devs to claim that running all energy weapons may be borderline and that they might switch them out for ballistics if that's the case. That kinda feels like intentionally gimping the ship by starving its power and in doing so hindering it from performing its primary task. So rather strange why they don't simply add another powerplant. Heck, if they would complain about 'no room' they could easily slot in 2 Medium powerplants on each side for a total of 2xL + 4xM. But I guess if these are MIL-C grade then popping in a MIL-A (or maybe even IND-A which is likely a lot cheaper and more durable) we might be fine. ;)

In any case, I'm also glad that I melted my Polaris Warbond for one of these as the Hammerhead was the patrol+escort corvette that I wanted and the ship that's the actual equivalent of the Kamrani Corvette (instead of Ben Lesnick claiming that the Polaris was the equivalent of the Kamrani Corvette, which made no sense as that one wasn't even remotely similar). RSI ships are stoopid anyway (except for the Orion). Go Aegis or Go Home! 😎

Anyways, happy times ahead for me and I can't wait to walk around my Hammerhead. I just hope CIG added 2 more escape pods on the bridge for the pilot and co-pilot or I am definitely going to keep bugging them about it. :D

I suspect that the energy management is in that you wont have all 6 turrets firing at the same time or not for very long as most fighters would go pop in a sort time from just 2. 

Regarding the escape pods i expect most will automate 4 turrets and have 4 - 5 npc/players so more than enough pods (at least when we get npc/AI) also as to the size - 115Lx75Wx16H < this should be accurate (or close to) as of the ATV/SS on Friday/Saturday  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MericSever said:

I suspect that the energy management is in that you wont have all 6 turrets firing at the same time or not for very long as most fighters would go pop in a sort time from just 2. 

Regarding the escape pods i expect most will automate 4 turrets and have 4 - 5 npc/players so more than enough pods (at least when we get npc/AI) also as to the size - 115Lx75Wx16H < this should be accurate (or close to) as of the ATV/SS on Friday/Saturday  

Most likely and they did mention that you can still upgrade the stock components to better ones. Stock it apparently comes with MIL-C grade, so MIL-A (or even IND-A) might be more than enough. :)

 

Regarding the escape pods I personally doubt that CIG would intentionally reduce the number of escape pods "because players might automate turrets" as to me that would just be a lame excuse that makes no sense. The ships in Star Citizen are designed to feel somewhat realistic (hence the mess hall, kitchens and bathrooms) so it makes no sense for CIG to have a ship designed for 9 people with only 8 escape pods. In addition to that those escape pods are all in the aft section of the ship so the pilot and co-pilot will have zero chance to survive in case they need to abandon ship if there are no other escape pods. :(

And with the Reclaimer having 5 escape pods for a crew of 5 (2 near the bridge and 3 on the tech deck) and the Starfarer+Gemini even having a whopping 10 escape pods for a crew of 6 (6 near the bridge and 4 on the engineering deck) I find it very hard to believe that CIG would not give the Hammerhead enough escape pods to save all its crew "because players might automate turrets". :P 

That's like saying the Javelin doesn't need escape pods for all the crew because players might put a Vanguard Hoplite in the hangar bay. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Danakar Endeel said:

Most likely and they did mention that you can still upgrade the stock components to better ones. Stock it apparently comes with MIL-C grade, so MIL-A (or even IND-A) might be more than enough. :)

 

Regarding the escape pods I personally doubt that CIG would intentionally reduce the number of escape pods "because players might automate turrets" as to me that would just be a lame excuse that makes no sense. The ships in Star Citizen are designed to feel somewhat realistic (hence the mess hall, kitchens and bathrooms) so it makes no sense for CIG to have a ship designed for 9 people with only 8 escape pods. In addition to that those escape pods are all in the aft section of the ship so the pilot and co-pilot will have zero chance to survive in case they need to abandon ship if there are no other escape pods. :(

And with the Reclaimer having 5 escape pods for a crew of 5 (2 near the bridge and 3 on the tech deck) and the Starfarer+Gemini even having a whopping 10 escape pods for a crew of 6 (6 near the bridge and 4 on the engineering deck) I find it very hard to believe that CIG would not give the Hammerhead enough escape pods to save all its crew "because players might automate turrets". :P 

That's like saying the Javelin doesn't need escape pods for all the crew because players might put a Vanguard Hoplite in the hangar bay. :D

not saying the current ex-pod design is not stupid for a military vessel, it should have same or excess of crew requirements (even though it was designed by space Nazis) the later iterations ie. the ones we have now should be up to military standards or even more due to being sold to Civi-militia, same could be said for almost non existent bulkheads in the corridors (look at the Starfarer ... a bit excessive though)

 

....

Messersssssssssssssssssss XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Danakar Endeel said:

Well, I think I've been pretty open-minded about the Hammerhead so I'm guessing your post wasn't aimed at me.

 

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. :P

23 minutes ago, Danakar Endeel said:

There are still some odd things with the Hammerhead. Most notably this potential issue of the 9 crew vs 8 escape pods so I sincerely hope the devs just forgot about some in another location and that there will be 2 behind the bridge for the pilot and co-pilot.

In addition to that I find it rather peculiar for the devs to claim that running all energy weapons may be borderline and that they might switch them out for ballistics if that's the case. That kinda feels like intentionally gimping the ship by starving its power and in doing so hindering it from performing its primary task. So rather strange why they don't simply add another powerplant. Heck, if they would complain about 'no room' they could easily fit in 2 Medium powerplants near each Large powerplant on for a total of 2xL + 4xM. But I guess if these are MIL-C grade then popping in a MIL-A (or maybe even IND-A which is likely a lot cheaper and more durable) we might be fine. ;)

2

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.)

4 minutes ago, MericSever said:

I suspect that the energy management is in that you wont have all 6 turrets firing at the same time or not for very long as most fighters would go pop in a sort time from just 2. 

Regarding the escape pods i expect most will automate 4 turrets and have 4 - 5 npc/players so more than enough pods (at least when we get npc/AI) also as to the size - 115Lx75Wx16H < this should be accurate (or close to) as of the ATV/SS on Friday/Saturday  

5

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2017 at 4:51 AM, Gallitin said:

So mad at myself for missing this, would have loved to add this to my fleet the more I'm reading about it.

Just In case it is on sale till the 10th of Oct ... i think 550 WB or 650 CCU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@Reavern It isn't a cap. See the four values small, med, large, cap are for hanger sizing. 

The stats are 115x 75x 16 and it carried across as LARGE. of course this hasn't been changed in 11 months and the said that the size hasn't increased in size really outside of a few feet in width. Read the page it literally gives you what size and what class.  Afaik there isn't any official class given to it as a Capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Devil Khan said:

 

@Reavern It isn't a cap. See the four values small, med, large, cap are for hanger sizing. 

The stats are 115x 75x 16 and it carried across as LARGE. of course this hasn't been changed in 11 months and the said that the size hasn't increased in size really outside of a few feet in width. Read the page it literally gives you what size and what class.  Afaik there isn't any official class given to it as a Capital.

I don't think they have done a proper size / class chart yet witch is annoying, do they class on weapon loadout or is it based on size alone ?

https://starcitizen.tools/Category:UEEN_Ship_Class_Designations - still a fan site though.

https://t.co/k4VQXZRP6Y - YT ship size comparisons.

* Hammerhead - 115m - Gunboat,  ..... more gun than boat XD though still should have a military classification

-------- Capital Class ------------

* Carrack - 153m? - Corvette, although this is a military vessel (as to why it should have a military classification) its true to the nature of its namesake Carrack Explorer ship - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrack *The size is still not confirmed though so 123 or 153? i think it was sub 100 before than updated to 123m but has been confused to be longer at 153m*

* Polaris - 155m - Corvette, (its on the concept page / Brochure)

* Idris - 237m to 242m? - M* Frigate / P* Light Frigate, (the size difference is probably the rail gun and small changes)

* Javelin - 480m - Destroyer, org fleet cap ship XD (can't wait to see someone try to solo this)

* Pegasus-Class - (tbd) 923m? - Escort Carrier, in development so not a lot known ATM maybe 800m to 1000m but a lot less volume i.e. single runway.

* Bengal-Class - 1000m (tbd) - Carrier, not a lot known about full details yet.

* Retribution - 2789m (tbd) -  Super Dreadnought, not a lot known but DANG big probably 2-3 Bengal-Class long

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Reavern said:

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.

I have a Banu MM as well - but you and I know enough as to why we shouldn't be "frustrated" ---- since we both know that ships are being built first that are used in S42 and the MM is not - right?

14 hours ago, Reavern said:

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. 🤣

You and I have been around long enough to know that ships in general will get larger (even smaller ones like the Avenger).... since it is CIG's pattern ever since the UK office or F42 was opened (pretty much since the beginning) - with the prominent example of the Idris.   The Hammerhead didn't have an obvious functional reason why it had to get bigger - but I am glad that it did.   Instead of sacrificing needed interior functions for its typical mission length (like the mess hall) - CIG did more work to do the right thing.    This is just an example of how AWESOME CIG is ------ doing the right thing = designing it as it should be.   Same thing goes with my pet peeve - the prevalent over-abundance of corridors looks like it was fixed as well even with a larger design (per the "After" X-ray).

There is one ship though - the Mercury StarRunner that I think functionally has to get larger to get the stated interiors to work within the Hull (since the overlay's don't really work) - so in this case I think CIG's stated desire is to keep it as its stated size but then sacrifice the interior as needed to make it work - which I am also fine with for that ship - since it doesn't have essential needs for interior spaces (other than its computer room) that the Hammerhead did.

 

14 hours ago, Reavern said:

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).

Agree 100 % :)

13 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

I also remember telling people at the time of the concept (on Spectrum or Reddit) that it would get fast-tracked because CIG would likely want to use it for SQ42 yet several people told me I was crazy or that the Polaris should come first.

The important thing though is to remember that people MUST understand that S42 ships have the higher priority - so making a case for an old ship like the Banu MM (with no prior Banu ship design language) - makes no sense - but those that do have the MM should be encouraged by the Banu Defender being worked on for this language to be created. - per my response to @Reavern above.

13 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

There are still some odd things with the Hammerhead. Most notably this potential issue of the 9 crew vs 8 escape pods so I sincerely hope the devs just forgot about some in another location and that there will be 2 behind the bridge for the pilot and co-pilot.

I may be wrong about this - but my recollection from RTV is that the normal crew compliment for the Hammerhead is 8 - not 9 (like the ship matrix shows) - don't have a time stamp on this though and I could be wrong.

13 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

In addition to that I find it rather peculiar for the devs to claim that running all energy weapons may be borderline and that they might switch them out for ballistics if that's the case. That kinda feels like intentionally gimping the ship by starving its power and in doing so hindering it from performing its primary task. So rather strange why they don't simply add another powerplant. Heck, if they would complain about 'no room' they could easily fit in 2 Medium powerplants near each Large powerplant on for a total of 2xL + 4xM. But I guess if these are MIL-C grade then popping in a MIL-A (or maybe even IND-A which is likely a lot cheaper and more durable) we might be fine. ;)

I don't see this as a negative... I see this as a balancing issue (along with the ship's slow speed).   It could also fit lore - maybe (like the Idris-M) - a military variant could have a power plant (or 2) that could run all the guns with energy weapons.   Remember this is a military ship - authorized for the civilian market - not the actual ship the UEEN uses = so Lore wise it makes sense to be gimped - right?

 

13 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

In any case, I'm also glad that I melted my Polaris Warbond for one of these as the Hammerhead was the patrol+escort corvette that I wanted ...

I have both ships - but ....Keep in mind - it is more likely that a Polaris will take out a Hammerhead in a 1v1 +++ the Polaris will have MANY more mission types it can fulfill (especially with its hangar to have a smaller ship expand its mission base) than the Hammerhead (which will only likely be used for combat type missions only).   You are probably aware of this limitation with dog-fighters (yes you can run cargo missions with a Hammerhead but when they implement cost of operation - it will be very inefficient for this).   Keep in mind that the Hammerhead still only has ASA turrets - like the Polaris - not STS turrets - so it isn't designed to get into a slug-fest with another capital ship ;) .  I've kept both and I personally love the RSI aesthetic which is more cohesive and logical - than the Aegis design aesthetic (while recognizable to some degree isn't as Iconic as RSI is ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, VoA said:

I have both ships - but ....Keep in mind - it is more likely that a Polaris will take out a Hammerhead in a 1v1 +++ the Polaris will have MANY more mission types it can fulfill (especially with its hangar to have a smaller ship expand its mission base) than the Hammerhead (which will only likely be used for combat type missions only).   You are probably aware of this limitation with dog-fighters (yes you can run cargo missions with a Hammerhead but when they implement cost of operation - it will be very inefficient for this).   I've kept both and I personally love the RSI aesthetic which is more cohesive and logical - than the Aegis design aesthetic (while recognizable to some degree isn't as Iconic as RSI is ;) )

Yes the Polaris sounds really good for attacking larger ships, with its torpedo complement. It is kind of the perfect counter to the Hammer head.  And when thinking ship versus ship, it is important to remember that fighters will likely accompany, as they are simply the best effective DPS per player available ( I mean a hornet can  about out dps a size 9 torpedo in the time it takes to lock?). The Polaris gets a lot of diversity from supporting them...just as you said.  

Turret game play will improve, but a Hammerhead will likely still have to play to its strengths when fighting fighters. This may mean as a tool for denial of space rather than an magic eraser against player fighters.

I also like ...the RSI aesthetic too. And that under mounted cockpit of the Hammer head is still weird to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, VoA said:

I have both ships - but ....Keep in mind - it is more likely that a Polaris will take out a Hammerhead in a 1v1 +++ the Polaris will have MANY more mission types it can fulfill (especially with its hangar to have a smaller ship expand its mission base) than the Hammerhead (which will only likely be used for combat type missions only).   You are probably aware of this limitation with dog-fighters (yes you can run cargo missions with a Hammerhead but when they implement cost of operation - it will be very inefficient for this).   Keep in mind that the Hammerhead still only has ASA turrets - like the Polaris - not STS turrets - so it isn't designed to get into a slug-fest with another capital ship ;) .  I've kept both and I personally love the RSI aesthetic which is more cohesive and logical - than the Aegis design aesthetic (while recognizable to some degree isn't as Iconic as RSI is ;) )

Yep i don't think the Hammerhead is and should not be in the same class of the Polaris i think it could have a chance if it was a knife fight (CQC) that avoided the torps but unlikely that it would have a chance on a head on head approach, i got my HH to fulfill end game combat content vs small to large ships (not Polaris size) ..... and cause DANG that sexy ship and 2nd ..... it's gona be $$$ in game XD 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, VoA said:

I have both ships - but ....Keep in mind - it is more likely that a Polaris will take out a Hammerhead in a 1v1 +++ the Polaris will have MANY more mission types it can fulfill (especially with its hangar to have a smaller ship expand its mission base) than the Hammerhead (which will only likely be used for combat type missions only).   You are probably aware of this limitation with dog-fighters (yes you can run cargo missions with a Hammerhead but when they implement cost of operation - it will be very inefficient for this).   Keep in mind that the Hammerhead still only has ASA turrets - like the Polaris - not STS turrets - so it isn't designed to get into a slug-fest with another capital ship ;) .  I've kept both and I personally love the RSI aesthetic which is more cohesive and logical - than the Aegis design aesthetic (while recognizable to some degree isn't as Iconic as RSI is ;) )

That the Polaris can take out a Hammerhead is of no concern of mine. As I stated, I wanted a proper patrol&escort ship and the Hammmerhead appears to be that one due to superior turret coverage and defensive posture. The Polaris is more of a FAC that mainly relies on torpedoes and straight-line speed as its turrets are weaker and the placement+coverage is abysmal. So to me the Polaris would suck as an escort ship when compared to the Hammerhead. ;)

Besides, I'm going to see if I can replace the 4xS4 guns on my top turret with 2xS5 (2xS6?) guns with the longest range. That way I WILL have my STS deck gun! Someday... :P

Javelin_ATV_17.thumb.png.e1b1795a1001d8e6b203a174ef894cef.png 

 

Also going to see if I can replace those MARSDEN683 racks with MARSDEN625 or MARSDEN616 racks. Both 625 and 616 racks are already available ingame but no ships could use them ... yet ... so maybe the Hammerhead will be the first and allow me to have a few (smaller) torpedoes of my own. 😎

Hammerhead-Marsden.png.6f53dab95ece6a8fd8735ecb6f05a36b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, the whole system of ships is fudged up really badly. only 4 classes of hanger/ship. There are then civilian built for as capital?!? 

Most capital class (military) ship had capital shields (excluding the Polaris). Iffy with the two ships fighting 1v1. The Polaris only anti-cap weapon is 4x S10 torps and Hammerhead main weapons are anti-fighter/torpedo. Speed is the key for the Polaris and basically if she stays around too long then it only takes 1 mistake. Also they both have the same type of shields 2x Large, but Polaris has a Capital power plant, so she may had the ability to recharge shields much faster than the Hammerhead.  

Also, It's not meant for the Polaris to be alone really... *cough*wolf pack*cough*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad I didn't sell my Polaris to get a Hammerhead. I have both as well 🤗Sadly I am looking at buying a home now, so I will be keeping what I have, but probably not adding to it. Good luck to all you well off people over the coming months. I hope there is much excitement for you. I am pleased at what I have been seeing/hearing about the Hammerhead lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Devil Khan said:

 

@Reavern It isn't a cap. See the four values small, med, large, cap are for hanger sizing. 

The stats are 115x 75x 16 and it carried across as LARGE. of course this hasn't been changed in 11 months and the said that the size hasn't increased in size really outside of a few feet in width. Read the page it literally gives you what size and what class.  Afaik there isn't any official class given to it as a Capital.

1

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.

On 11/25/2017 at 7:45 PM, Reavern said:

There's no way the 195,000 kg mass stat for the Hammerhead is correct. That's 100,000 kg less than a Retaliator! So Turbulent has definitely screwed up the ship stats. (I bet that's going to be a popular question for the Q&A and CIG will resolve the confusion. I wonder how long it'll take for Turbulent to correct the stats.)

The Hammerhead might be classified as a "Large" ship ATM, but as we recently learned about the Carrack, ships always get larger from the concept to production phases of development. If you check out the ship's cross-section from the brochure, to say the interior is spartan is a gross understatement. The entire ship is basically hallway.

I believe the room in the middle is the Crew Quarters, which has 4 double bunks for 8 crew members. The smaller room forward of the bunk room is presumably the Captain's Quarters. But where does the crew eat? Or sit when they're not in the turrets or bridge? The Redeemer has more crew amenities than the Hammerhead. Also, the side Landed view of ship shows what appear to be a crew elevator near the front, and a cargo lift at the back. The interior cross-section only shows the cargo lift in the back. I originally thought it had to be the engine room, but it that's the cargo lift. So where's the ship's engine room!? Even if the ship has a lower deck... how do you get to it? There are no stairs, ladders, or elevators, from what I can see. Most bewildering: How do you get to the ship's bridge!?! The bridge should be located under the T-intersection of the hallway at the front, but there's nothing there. Not even stairs to the bridge.

There's no way that is the Hammerhead's final design. It's just a rough concept. I guarantee that CIG will add more rooms to the interior, which will significantly increase the ship's size. It'll probably be somewhere between 130-150 metres. That'll put the Hammerhead in the capital ship range.

 

On 11/26/2017 at 12:47 AM, Reavern said:

Also, the video explained that there is a small galley for the crew to eat, and internal diagrams show the engine room is the same room as the one with the cargo lift. Regardless that the ship has these rooms, I still believe that the ship will increase in size during the ship production pipeline. The concept artists can get away with blocking out a kitchen nook and claim the crew can eat, and place the ship's power plants on the walls of a room with a cargo lift in the middle, but I guarantee those aren't getting through production.

...

That is why I believe the Hammerhead won't be as spartan when it's finished as the concept art portrays. CIG will add several rooms and the missing features that I mentioned, and the ship will probably be at least 25% larger.

1

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. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...