14/10/2019 at 20:36 #32955
Suggested Design Intent
The Kharvaach-class is meant to be a different take on a beam-heavy vessel. Equipped with three Focused Ion Beam arrays, it can devastate shields and ships systems to assist in quick target neutralization. Due to the power and space requirements of the FIB arrays, however, it has neither the shields nor the reinforced hull to withstand pitched combat for very long and thus relies on its allies to remain engaged while it takes advantage of openings between its extended beam cycles. To provide it some means of pitched engagement, it does have limited ordnance that can be deployed from its two tubes to handle imminent threats to the ship. This ordnance is extremely limited and should, therefore, be used with the utmost discretion. Due to these factors, it is best suited to an active combat support role.
A close-range vessel that lives and breathes Delta 1.
Suggested Design Execution
– 3 Focused Ion Beam arrays
Hard-hitting but slow (burst vs sustained DPS)
Staggered to moderately prevent overkilling, ranges@1000, 850, & 700
Arcs widen as they get shorter to help handle fighters & drones, though its long cycles may be better used on larger targets
– 2 Tubes (6T 0N 1M 2E 4S + 2B 6P 2T)
Intended so it can beam + homing/p-shock significant threats (EG tractor)
– Destroyer Hull
12 Front Shields
8 Rear Shields
Fewer nodes than other ships; 62 vs 73 average (“weak hull”)
Slower than Lancer but faster than other fleet ships
Higher manuevering than Lancer to bring its narrow beams to bear
-Doubled Beam Damage
14/10/2019 at 21:15 #32956
- This topic was modified 1 month ago by Thomas Avirson. Reason: Changes
At this point, it requires the following:
Feedback on design intent/execution
Field testing for design iteration
A working texture map (could not figure that out)
The vertical nacelles are intended to be difficult to reach and the rings are subject to hallway damage, but it may be too troublesome in its present stage.
In solo field tests to work on certain vesseldata features, it did very well at punching through shields and into target systems on lighter targets, which was the intent. TTK was consistently higher than Lancer under similar conditions, likely because the longer cycle gave time for targets to repair systems.
The image links didn’t work quite right, but you can right-click and view them in another tab.
The vesseldata is stored in a .txt file under the “Resources” link, which itself contains the .snt, .dxs, and the same images as above.
Even if this concept is rejected, the .dxs and .snt can still be used for other vessels.14/10/2019 at 23:23 #32957
1) As recommended by Nhaima, beam damage has been doubled for testing.
2) File paths for .dxs and .snt have been modified to direct to the “/data” file, rather than “/data/TSN/Player” file for ease of copy/pasting files during design iteration.
Resource file updated to reflect changes, code be posted here for easy viewing:
<vessel uniqueID="25" side="0" classname="Kharvaach Class" broadType="player"> <art meshfile="dat/kharvaach.dxs" diffuseFile="dat/artemis_diffuse.png" glowFile="dat/artemis_illum.png" specularFile="dat/artemis_specular.png" scale="0.2" pushRadius="150" /> <internal_data file="dat/kharvaach.snt" /> <shields front="12" back="8" /> <performance turnrate="0.007" topspeed="0.7" shipefficiency="0.6" warpefficiency="0.3" jumpefficiency="1.0" /> <beam_port x="0.00" y="5.90" z="211.45" damage="0.38" playerdamage="7.50" arcwidth="0.08" cycletime="40.0" range="1000" /> <beam_port x="0.00" y="5.90" z="211.45" damage="0.38" playerdamage="7.50" arcwidth="0.08" cycletime="40.0" range="1000" /> <beam_port x="-1.15" y="5.90" z="211.45" damage="0.38" playerdamage="7.50" arcwidth="0.12" cycletime="40.0" range="850" /> <beam_port x="-1.15" y="5.90" z="211.45" damage="0.38" playerdamage="7.50" arcwidth="0.12" cycletime="40.0" range="850" /> <beam_port x="1.15" y="5.90" z="211.45" damage="0.38" playerdamage="7.50" arcwidth="0.16" cycletime="40.0" range="700" /> <beam_port x="1.15" y="5.90" z="211.45" damage="0.38" playerdamage="7.50" arcwidth="0.16" cycletime="40.0" range="700" /> <torpedo_tube x="1.15" y="5.90" z="211.45" /> <torpedo_storage type="trp" amount="6"/> <!-- Homing"--> <torpedo_storage type="nuk" amount="0"/> <!-- LR Nuke--> <torpedo_storage type="min" amount="1"/> <!-- Mine"--> <torpedo_storage type="emp" amount="2"/> <!-- EMP"--> <torpedo_storage type="shk" amount="4"/> <!-- Plasma Shock"--> <torpedo_storage type="bea" amount="2"/> <!-- Beacon"--> <torpedo_storage type="pro" amount="6"/> <!-- Probe"--> <torpedo_storage type="tag" amount="2"/> <!-- Tag"--> <engine_port x="0.00" y="91.88" z="-208.96" /> <engine_port x="0.00" y="77.60" z="-208.96" /> <engine_port x="0.00" y="-92.05" z="-208.96" /> <engine_port x="0.00" y="-77.78" z="-208.96" /> <engine_port x="70.15" y="10.74" z="-144.31" /> <engine_port x="61.28" y="-6.88" z="-144.31" /> <engine_port x="79.41" y="-6.88" z="-144.31" /> <engine_port x="-70.15" y="10.74" z="-144.31" /> <engine_port x="-61.28" y="-6.88" z="-144.31" /> <engine_port x="-79.41" y="-6.88" z="-144.31" /> <long_desc text="Kharvaach Class Destroyer^Destroyer class suited for interception of light craft.^3 FIB arrays^2 Torpedo tubes^Stores for 6 Homing, 0 Nuke, 1 Mine, 2 EMP, 4 PShock."/> </vessel>15/10/2019 at 04:17 #32958
I absolutely love what you’ve done with this. The only factors that jump out at me as items that would inhibit this from being a candidate for a Line vessel would be, well, its comparative inability to hold a line: its want of shield strength and total lack of appropriate drone defense in the form of a beam that fires more than once before lunchtime. As a support and harassment vessel, I think it would be nicely effective.
The mobility, arcs, and engagement philosophy should keep a helmsman happy and engaged. Speaking solely as a Weapons Officer, I worry about your gunner’s boredom with beams that *all* have long cycle times and such a tight leash on ordnance. The engineer, however, would have no shortage of things to do between bracing for an attack run and helping the helm set up for the next pass. I don’t see that this ship’s design significantly affects either of the Science or Comms roles.
For a Delta-1 Attack specialist–officially described as firing on the enemy while avoiding return fire–the beam arcs are not the design I would have chosen; the narrowness and progressive shortness of arc necessarily means that when you fire on the enemy you *will* be taking fire in return, and if acting alone very likely swooping down the lion’s maw rather than merely exposing yourself to its claws. However, beam arcs as shown will certainly lend well to the strafing run approach which we usually see performed, and which you describe as the focus of this model.
At current stage of my thinking (albeit less than an hour, and I am one to obsess for several before making solid decisions) I don’t know if I would recommend the Kharvaach as a mainstay of the 4th Light’s lineup, but I’d be overjoyed to have her as a supporting element.
TL;DR: Great Job! I think I’d have fun with this ship, but as a Weapons Officer I don’t know if I’d want a permanent posting on it.15/10/2019 at 08:52 #32959
Regarding Weapons Officer Engagement
You’re correct that there will not be an abundance of activity on weapons, but there is a degree of challenge involved as each of those passing shots matter. Being able to maintain a visual lock on a specific ship system as it performs a Delta-1 at warp, arguably warp 2 at least and even assuming the helm officer moving in a straight line, requires some degree of skill. And, when engaging an ship whose shields have been exhausted, the beams may best be fired in a way to spread the damage over the target’s visible systems.
It’s spikes of fine-details activity rather than consistent activity… though, for experienced weapons officers, it may not prove interesting enough. You do bring up an excellent point in that regard. Perhaps an increase in light ordnance to lighten those restrictions is due, and while I hesitate to be adding a PD beam I’m not entirely opposed to it.
Regarding Beam Arcs
The arcs are intentionally narrow and short to encourage having to expose the ship to some danger in order to be effective. As it operates to avoid direct engagement between cycles, it has some time recover in between those strikes. I wanted to avoid creating a ship that had low-to-no operational risk, but if it proves to be too fragile as a result it can be tweaked accordingly. It’s a shared point of concern, and you’re right to point it out.
Regarding Durability & Defenses
It’s not intended to engage fighters or drones – it will invariably be pursued by them at times, but its agility allows it to dance around those problems rather than facing them directly. I would also note that it will disable fighters it fires upon in the first volley, possibly even one per arc (part of the reason for the staggers, though admittedly that’s taking a risk with a high skill ceiling attached to the execution).
When it dives through the lion’s maw, those shield should be pumped to 300% to mitigate some of that damage – and even then, I do fully expect it to take low-to-moderate system damage as no ship engaging in its weakest field should come out unscathed. It’s not a line ship, as you correctly identified, but a specialist to support a contingent.
Thank you very much for the feedback – and as stated, I do share many of your concerns on its current design iteration. I’m glad you find the ship concept to be fun.
Notes for thread:
Aft Shields are initially listed at 8, not 5; I cannot edit the topic to fix that typo.
Thinking out its Delta-1 passes, I do have some concern that boosted beams might refresh faster than it can realign for another passing strike, doubly so if it’s having to avoid drones & fighters. Perhaps adding more damage to the beams while extending the cooldown will keep its potential from being wasted without dropping its overall DPS, though I’ve no suggestion as to what those exact numbers should be.16/10/2019 at 02:12 #32966
You’re right that boosted beams will recover far and away faster than beams left at baseline. The gains made will be different depending on whether beams are fired manually or automatically. I’d need to talk to Starry to confirm the precise figures, but it is my understanding that 300% beams fired manually will cycle 9 times faster than baseline, whereas 300% beams fired automatically will cycle only 3 times faster. Working from a 40 second baseline, that’ll be 4.4 seconds manual and 13.3 seconds auto. You could take these figures and toy with them to work out how often you want to fire when boosted.
Now, you could spin this in one of three ways:
– Take it as an opportunity to adjust the beams to hit harder without worrying about trying to conduct firing passes more frequently than you’d expected, as you suggest, or . . .
– Accept it as a feature that you don’t need to boost beams under most conditions. You can instead shunt that power and coolant into keeping both fore and aft shields healthier and cooler for longer periods of time without failing, along with boosting warp or maneuver to minimize your exposure, or . . .
– Optimal damage requires free reign on the target. It is entirely reasonable that you’re going to land fewer shots on target while avoiding fire than if you were to post up and blast away. This is true with all manner of weaponry and vehicles. Your attempts to evade enemy fire necessarily prevent you from killing your target as quickly as you could otherwise.
Now, the 4.4 second boosted firing rate may simply be a valid answer to my Gunnery-Boredom concern, particularly when engaged in Kappa or when locked into a tractor beam. One thing you definitely don’t want is to be tractored by a Skaraan Executor, have your weapons officer miss the weapon node on his first shot (which in manual will expend all beams in range simultaneously in most cases), and end up sitting there clicking furiously for 20-30 seconds while the Executor looks back at you through mirrored sunglasses taunting you: “Stop trying to hit me and HIT ME!”04/11/2019 at 22:59 #32990
Looks like a snub nose. Just an observation.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.