| Author |
Krill Layout |
Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
|  Posted: 2012-09-04 11:36
An idea I had for a redesigned Krill.
x6(or 7, depending on what people think about it) SI(LEFT,RIGHT)
x3 Plasma Cannon(LEFT,RIGHT)
x2 Disruptor(FORE,LEFT,RIGHT,AFT)
x3 Disruptor(LEFT,RIGHT)
x1 Anti-Matter Jump Drive(LEFT)
x4 PSI Drive(AFT)
x3 Auxiliary Fusion Reactor(RIGHT) [
x2 Organic Armor(LEFT)
x1 Chitinous Armor(LEFT)
x2 Organic Armor(RIGHT)
x1 Chitinous Armor(RIGHT)
x1 Organic Armor(FORE)
x1 Organic Armor(AFT)
x1 Cloaking Device(FORE)
[ This Message was edited by: Mylith *CO* on 2012-09-04 12:17 ]
_________________
http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2012-09-04 12:10
Random quickie thoughts that involve no actual numbers-checking whatsoever, based on the dev's general design principles:
Ships generally shouldn't have weapons with fire arcs that aren't adjacent to each other (no fore/aft or left/right weapons).
Way too many all-arc beams, particularly for a luth ship.
Way too many armour plates.
Pretty sure dreads have three engines and not four.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
| Posted: 2012-09-04 12:20
Quote:
|
On 2012-09-04 12:10, Gejaheline wrote:
Random quickie thoughts that involve no actual numbers-checking whatsoever, based on the dev's general design principles:
Ships generally shouldn't have weapons with fire arcs that aren't adjacent to each other (no fore/aft or left/right weapons).
I designed this ship as a heavy fire support ship designed for a niche role, not something you'd fly every day.
Way too many all-arc beams, particularly for a luth ship.
Changed, but it seems kinda odd now.
Way too many armour plates.
It only has 1 armor each on fore and aft. I can drop 1 armor from the sides though(chitin isn't full arc anymore, so I thought it'd be balanced).
Pretty sure dreads have three engines and not four.
ICC dreads have 4 engines, and ICC cruisers have 3. I'm not sure about K'luth dreads though.
|
|
[ This Message was edited by: Mylith *CO* on 2012-09-04 12:20 ]
_________________
http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2012-09-04 14:40
the krill doesn't need any layout changes it weas nerfed for good reasons when the dred layouts were done
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-09-04 20:30
- All ships have a points limit depending on their hull level.
- Weaps and gadgets take up these points as you mount them on
- Additional arcs take up additional points
- The Krill was demoted from a Dread2 hull to Dread1 hull after the 8-SI qq fiasco so you can't design it with as many weaps as a Siphon
That is why I propose to return it to its former 1.5 configuration. But with slight tweaks.
6 dual arc SIs, forward biased
4 dual arc standard PSIs, forward biased
6 dual arc standard disruptors, distributed evenly around
Remove the 7th rearwards SI
You end up with a ship that doesn't assault well, and doesn't handle itself too well against cruisers, and is limited to a fire support role. Its primary role will be to decloak from medium range, ard 300 to 500 Gus out and attack with core weaps. Useful against dreads and stations, useless against anything smaller.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
| Posted: 2012-09-04 20:32
Quote:
|
On 2012-09-04 20:30, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
- All ships have a points limit depending on their hull level.
- Weaps and gadgets take up these points as you mount them on
- Additional arcs take up additional points
- The Krill was demoted from a Dread2 hull to Dread1 hull after the 8-SI qq fiasco so you can't design it with as many weaps as a Siphon
That is why I propose to return it to its former 1.5 configuration. But with slight tweaks.
6 dual arc SIs, forward biased
4 dual arc standard PSIs, forward biased
6 dual arc standard disruptors, distributed evenly around
Remove the 7th rearwards SI
You end up with a ship that doesn't assault well, and doesn't handle itself too well against cruisers, and is limited to a fire support role. Its primary role will be to decloak from medium range, ard 300 to 500 Gus out and attack with core weaps. Useful against dreads and stations, useless against anything smaller.
|
|
...could you please post about the layout I was proposing in this thread and make another thread for your layout? Not meaning to insult you or anything, but I kinda don't want this to get hijacked.
_________________
http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2012-09-04 23:40
You've essentially created the antithesis of a K'luth ship.
Almost no fore weapons, instead two equally powerful broadsides.
Heavy armor concentrated in two arcs, non fore. Fore instead is weak.
A main fire support ship.
This overall conflicts with K'luth design, like making a pure beam ICC ship.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-09-05 02:12
Quote:
|
On 2012-09-04 20:32, Mylith *CO* wrote:
...could you please post about the layout I was proposing in this thread and make another thread for your layout? Not meaning to insult you or anything, but I kinda don't want this to get hijacked.
|
|
No offense taken.
But the way I see it, our weap complements are almost similar, except for the firing arcs. Anyway, the thread says Krill Layout, and not Mylith's Idea of What the Krill should be. 
As SpaceAd put it, your layout doesn't even reflect what Kluths are about. They should have forward biased weaps, and not all around coverage.
Maybe you should get fleeted with a Kluth fleet and try flying their dreads more often. Try them out to see how one should fly and fight first.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2012-09-05 02:19 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2012-09-05 07:14
[quote]
On 2012-09-04 12:20, Mylith *CO* wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-09-04 12:10, Gejaheline wrote:
Ships generally shouldn't have weapons with fire arcs that aren't adjacent to each other (no fore/aft or left/right weapons).
I designed this ship as a heavy fire support ship designed for a niche role, not something you'd fly every day.
|
|
I don't really follow your logic.
"This is a niche ship, therefore it should have turrets that can shoot in opposite directions without being able to fire at the intervening arcs in defiance of common sense."
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2012-09-05 08:36
Quote:
|
On 2012-09-04 20:30, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Remove the 7th rearwards SI
|
|
i loved the rear si, left the enemy something to remember be by as im running for my life with no armor!
_________________
|
Spicker
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 03, 2004
Posts: 177
From: Craiova
| Posted: 2012-09-05 11:14
i rather see krill remain like this ...and perhaps remodel Siphon ...it seems too squishy / not enough dps.
_________________
|
Walrus of Apathy
Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: August 07, 2005
Posts: 466
From: Dorans Basement
| Posted: 2012-09-05 13:00
Geja, the Combat Dread has rails that have a left/right arc, so it's not unknown. But most of the other concerns about that layout in this thread are valid.
_________________
|
*Flash*
Chief Marshal
Joined: April 19, 2009
Posts: 291
From: Semi retired after 1.67 !
| Posted: 2012-09-05 15:08
.Quote:
|
On 2012-09-05 11:14, ThoR. wrote:
i rather see krill remain like this ...and perhaps remodel Siphon ...it seems too squishy / not enough dps.
|
|
yea probably the siphon should be a lil better then the Mandi since its a FA ships. Maybe less disruptors and 4 Si or something, im sure the devs can figure out something and mandi should not have so many torps since its an admiral ship.
_________________
 In space , no one can hear you scream!
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2012-09-05 23:31
The Mandi vs Siphon debate is interesting, in the cruiser and destroyer classes the main beam ship is actually the first one you unlock, with the cannon/torp one being the second. In the dreadnought classes this is changed and the cannon torp Kluth dread, mandi, is actually unlocked first.
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2012-09-07 06:05
Personally, its very presence offends me now. Such a high req for such a piece of crap.
Would be better to just remove it, than try to find a roll for it. Its current role -holder of mothballs, is really not a good one. And just the thought of making it a decent ship brings too much hate from too many players.
_________________
bucket link
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
