The Possible reason for the turn issues on Raptors

darat

I was on an alt last night, brand new KDF captain, doing some of the FE's when I came across this:

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii606/darat76/screenshot_2012-09-23-00-49-41_zpsd53eacce.jpg

A couple of minutes later I had to kill one

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii606/darat76/screenshot_2012-09-23-00-51-18_zps653ec318.jpg

And lastly closer to the end of the space section of this FE I came across this:

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii606/darat76/screenshot_2012-09-23-00-54-36_zps5c00be27.jpg

As you can see from the time stamp on these screen shots, they were all taken within a 5 minute period, all are also untouched with the UI showing.
This leads me to believe that my theory of Raptors (Qin in particular) is being overlayed on the battle cruiser flight mesh instead of it's own, or the fed escort one.

What I cannot fathom is if those particular spawns in that mission are "working as intended" or if they are actually bugged, and to be honest, either way, I don't care.
Instead, I would rather like to know if the Qin's fatal turn flaw is "working as intended" or just yet more proof that bugs and issues on the KDF side are unimportant enough to be looked into and corrected.

Addendum: I am not posting this for a bug report, nor to troll, create unrest, incite anger, or anything else of the like. I am posting this to bring to the attention of the Dev's which will hopefully lead to it being corrected, as well as the KDF players to support what I have posted in the past about the Raptor class ships (those that have read my posts will understand this).

bitemepwe

The Qin being overlayed onto a Cruiser frame would certainly explain the poor turn pivot.

jnohd

I think its been fairly clear the Qin pivot is a Battlecruiser pivot point. That said, if it is in fact "as intended," there are several ways to make up for it, one suggested in the ENT "Sleeping Dogs" and the other in the color text for the Raptor Class given at the Shipyard.

1) Up the hull closer to that of a cruiser. As per ENT "Sleeping Dogs," the Raptor was capable of surviving enormous crushing pressure deep within a gas giant, without being destroyed. This is not carried over to STO.

2) The color text for the Raptor clearly states the front arc is considered absolutely deadly. If the pivot point is a balancing point for this, then either move one weapon slot from the rear to the front, or up the innate cannon DPS boost from the standard Escort 15%.

If of course the battlecruiser pivot point is not "as intended," it really needs an immediate fix, at least to the endgame Qin!

palpha2clearance

Klingons fighting among themselves seems pretty canon to me :P

bitemepwe

jnohd wrote: »

I think its been fairly clear the Qin pivot is a Battlecruiser pivot point. That said, if it is in fact "as intended," there are several ways to make up for it, one suggested in the ENT "Sleeping Dogs" and the other in the color text for the Raptor Class given at the Shipyard.

1) Up the hull closer to that of a cruiser. As per ENT "Sleeping Dogs," the Raptor was capable of surviving enormous crushing pressure deep within a gas giant, without being destroyed. This is not carried over to STO.

2) The color text for the Raptor clearly states the front arc is considered absolutely deadly. If the pivot point is a balancing point for this, then either move one weapon slot from the rear to the front, or up the innate cannon DPS boost from the standard Escort 15%.

If of course the battlecruiser pivot point is not "as intended," it really needs an immediate fix, at least to the endgame Qin!

Unfortunately its been satted a 5th forward weapon slot is not supported by the games engine.

jnohd

bitemepwe wrote: »

Unfortunately its been satted a 5th forward weapon slot is not supported by the games engine.

Missed that, but assumed it wouldn't be possible, which is why I suggested the increase in the +15 weapons power. (which I erroneously listed as a % DPS boost - oops!)

bitemepwe

If the pivot can not be fixed becuase the design is set and a 5th forward weapon is not possible then an increase in Hull, shields and a 5th tactical consoles lot would be fine by me.

darat

bitemepwe wrote: »

If the pivot can not be fixed becuase the design is set and a 5th forward weapon is not possible then an increase in Hull, shields and a 5th tactical consoles lot would be fine by me.

Hull and shield point boost is unlikely to happen, recall it being said during the season 6 development that raptors already have a lot of hit points by a dev when questioned about the fleet ships. The 5th tac console would be nice tho.

As I see it, they have a few options in correcting the turn issue for the Qin model in particular:

First, realign it correctly on it's current flight mesh.

Second, adjust the turn rate of it's current flight mesh to a slightly higher value to being it in line with what it's reported to have, this may have long term issues tho and should only be a "last resort" fix of the issue.

Third, take the model off it's current flight mesh, and line it up on to the patrol escort flight mesh, this could possibly take more resources as it would need testing to get the correct alignment and tweaks as well as more coding than I feel should be needed.

And lastly, build a raptor only flight mesh to put the raptor models onto, this last option would be the most time intensive of all, which would cost the most, with a possible little to no income for it.


I think that by fixing this issue on the level 40 Qin will translate over to the Fleet Qin, or at least would hope it did, which may cause the people that like the models of the Raptors to consider purchasing the stronger (on paper) Fleet Qin Raptor from the fleet store. I know that I would be strongly tempted to move my main KDF tac captain from the lvl 40 BoP across to the Fleet Qin. But with the way things are now, i'll just keep waiting till my fleet gets to the t5 shipyard for my sci captain to get the fleet vo'quv carrier.

@palpha2clearance
I didn't screen shot the fact I was KDF fighting klingons, I screen shot a K't'inga Refit battle cruiser being called a "House Of Torg Raptor Escort" and then within 5 minutes taking the 3rd screen shot showing a Qorgh Raptor called "House Of Torg Raptor Escort".

I admit, I should have added arrows and such to the screen shots, but did not wish to enter the whole "you modded that, it's not true" argument. And yes, I did also log in to confirm I had the correct names of the ship models seen in the screen shots I posted.

jnohd

Well, I suppose there is a little more hull already on the fleet Qin, but there is far more out of step here...


Advantages:

Fleet Patrol Escort:
~6.5% (1 degree) higher turn
7% higher shield mod
Universal Ensign
Escort pivot point.


Fleet Qin Heavy Raptor:
non-battle Cloak
~6.5% higher hull

All other stats are comparable. That shows not just the Pivot is out of balance!



To fix, pick (at least) two:

• Increase hull by 2200 more
• Universal Ensign
• Shield modifier to ~1
• 5th Tac console
• Increase turn to 16
• Fix Pivot

I'm all for Hull/Tac-console fix, but frankly that pivot may be worth more than 1 balance point (in which case, Universal Ensign too, please, or double up that hull increase)

diogene0

A question to ask in the next ask cryptic, since it's the only way to get answers.

aveldra

They ain't fixin this, they'll just say it's working as intended and come up with an excuse to back it up like they did with the cloaking issue.

majesticmsfc

diogene0 wrote: »

A question to ask in the next ask cryptic, since it's the only way to get answers.

But they rarely ever answer KDF questions. It's generally always the fluff, Federation and nonsense questions that they answer. They should answer an equal amount of Federation and KDF questions, so it is no longer as rigged as it currently is.

bitemepwe

[*]Universal Ensign

[*]5th Tac console

I'll take these two if the Pivot can't be increased.
If the Pivot can be moved I'll gladly just take the 5th tac console.

jnohd

aveldra wrote: »

They ain't fixin this, they'll just say it's working as intended and come up with an excuse to back it up like they did with the cloaking issue.

I'm fine with a "working as intended" reply as long as it is given as part of a discussion with a developer, allowing us to ask the follow up question: "then what is it balanced against" and the second follow up to that where we can offer why it is not in fact balancing out, and/or how other things are not accounted for (I still feel that the pivot may be worth more than some extra hull as we currently have it).

It is entirely possible that the Raptor living on a Battlecruiser mesh is an intended design, making us a bit slow to turn, but a beast to kill, and a beast to be on the business end of: the A-10 Warthog of space. BUT it needs to be clearly shown that whatever their intention, the result has been to actually keep us too far out of balance.

That said, if I am to be an A-10 Warthog in space, I'm leaning hard towards even more hull and that extra Tac console - Don't get in my front arc. Period.



EDIT: I would love to get a peek at the Dev's ship design chart. I have to imagine they have it all worked out, base stats, mods (and what each is worth), and use it to balance ships. I suspect somewhere, someone missed a point or two on the chart for us, or failed to plug in what mods they applied before leaving.

bitemepwe

majesticmsfc wrote: »

But they rarely ever GIVE A DEFINABLE answer TO KDF questions.

Sorry, I felt I had to change the sentence structure as we have had a few KDF only Dev question podcasts and Blogs in the past.

jnohd

Something I stumbled upon while discussing a (turns out possibly well founded) Fed request for turn rate improvement on cruisers:

Tier 4 comparison:

Galaxy:

• Hull: 32,500
• Shield Modifier: 1
• Crew: 1,000
• Device Slots: 4
• Turn Rate: 6
• Impulse Modifier: 0.15
• Inertia rating: 20
• Bonus Power: +5 all power levels

Vor'cha

• Hull: 30,000
• Shield Modifier: 1
• Crew: 1,500
• Device Slots: 3
• Turn Rate: 7
• Impulse Modifier: 0.15
• Inertia rating: 20
• Bonus Power: +10 weapons power /+10 engine power
• Innate cloak

Galaxy has an ~8% bonus in hull over the Vor'cha, while the KDF has a ~16.6% bonus to turning, which is likely what they were intending when they designed them - so this could indicate the Devs consider hull to be worth *twice* as much as turn rate? I personally would have considered the opposite to be true!

Of course, if the stowiki entries are correct, the Vor'cha enjoys 500 more crew, plus the cloak. But loses one Device slot... ?

So who the heck knows what they are doing with balancing these things.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jnohd

I meant as they make them, not repairing them. The Raptor issue has gotten loud enough to be noticed more than once.

I'm hopeful, but one of those times it was noticed we were told it had enough hull, seeming to indicate they intended the hull buff to make up for the pivot point (or they don't understand the issue and mean hull buffs are balanced against turn rates)

PS - I am people they can sell keys to. In fact, I fully intend to try for a timeship. But I am still VERY focused and vocal about getting KDF up to snuff, and Raptors into balance, as I intend to stick with the Raptor.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jnohd

On the up side, it appears our cruisers are fairly OP when compared to Fed cruisers point for point?




:rolleyes:

Unknown

This content has been removed.

misterde3

jnohd wrote: »

On the up side, it appears our cruisers are fairly OP when compared to Fed cruisers point for point?




:rolleyes:

Personally, I wouldn't call this an upside.
I'd call it two downsides...or rather two matters that should be taken care of at the same time for the sake of the game.

*EDIT: a simple and hopefully sensible appraoch would be to give Fed ships that don't have an insane turnrate like the Defiant a decent power bonus to compensate for the higher turnrate of the battlecruisers along with their cloak and of course as a method to compensate for the Raptors' cloak which I think is not overpowered but should be compensated for somehow nontheless because it's...still more than nothing./*

jnohd

The devs already have what looks like a 2:1 value on hull, 8% hull = 16% turn loss? But I'm not sure our ~6.5% hull = pivot point even with this in mind.

Has anyone actually done the math to see what our "effective" loss in turn is, what the time to target is the equivalent of, turn wise?


EDIT: oh and what's this about the Fleet Somraw Raptor Retrofit having a correct pivot?

darat

I pretty sure I have said this before, but I'll go ahead and be a broken record.

I don't feel the Qin really needs anything more done to it other than fixing the pivot points.

That alone coupled with the rest of the stats for the Qin will turn it into the beast the stats suggest it should be.

As for the ensign boff slot, we are supposed to have an ensign engi on the mirror universe Qin, but someone slacked off badly and just went highlight, copy, new file, paste, insert skin code, there done i fixed it! (this may have been corrected i don't rightly know), this just leaves us lacking a Qin design with the ensign sci slot, and/or the ensign uni one (or did i forget a qin model that has an ensign uni?)



At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what they do to the Qin to fix it, if it's not a correction to the pivot points, then it's just a stop gap fix. increase the turn rate doesn't compensate for the fact that the nacelles point at the target 3 years before the nose does, and that's where cannon fire hard point is, increase to the hull and/or shields just means you last half a second or so longer against that escort in pvp, does next to nothing against most ships that fight back in stfs or fleet events, 5th tac console, sure you hit harder, but your still being shafted to hell and beyond if your nose gets off target.


I'm not going to go comparing fed and kdf cruisers in this thread, but I will say that compared to each other at equal ranks, they offset each other nicely when you take lore and history of each side into consideration.

wolverine595959

I have been an advocate of a change to the Qin. But like many have said the Qin is less an escort more a frigate and I think a Dev even said this. While it slots as an escort because there is BIG hole after BoPs and before Cruisers it really should be a frigate with a new actual escort brought in but Feddies will cry because KDF has another special ship. CC online and EON can't get here fast enough.

lordmalak1

jnohd wrote: »

The devs already have what looks like a 2:1 value on hull, 8% hull = 16% turn loss? But I'm not sure our ~6.5% hull = pivot point even with this in mind.

Has anyone actually done the math to see what our "effective" loss in turn is, what the time to target is the equivalent of, turn wise?


EDIT: oh and what's this about the Fleet Somraw Raptor Retrofit having a correct pivot?

I wont say it's a loss in turn, but as the nose is so far from the fulcrum those nose mounted weapons will be lagging a bit further behind the target than the ones closer to the fulcrum. I'd guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 8deg (est) lost from the nose mounted cannons firing arc.