[An4ximandros]

Yes but it fits with the whole : Hades was an asshole, Pluto was pretty cool god, looks over dead and doesn't afraid of anything idea the Greeks had (even though they are the same guy *cough*), that's why I suggested it as a joke.

[Aesaar]

Hades was probably the most decent of all the Greek gods.  Much, much less of a vindictive asshole.

[Phantom Hoover]

He raped, like, one goddess. Not even any mortals. The guy was the image of chastity compared to the rest of them.

[crizza]

So...this thread lost its...meaning...can we stop and close it?^^

[SaltyWaffles]

The Hades has almost 4-8x the armor. It can *actually* tank.

This actually does make me wonder why the Raynor lacks anywhere near that kind of durability. The Hecate at least has the excuse of being primarily a carrier design, and the Colossus had durability fitting its size (and comparable to the Hades, proportionally). The Hatshepsut had decent durability for its size/shape/role (half-carrier, half-thin, long neck and 'nose'), and the Orion was an FS1-era ship. The Deimos has 4/5ths of the durability of a Hecate/Orion, despite being nowhere near as large.

I know, I know--table stats aren't really indicative of much in BP. But seeing the Atreus go from 100 to 92 durability in a few seconds under just gauss cannon fire from a couple Narayanas (which, if it weren't guardianed at 92, would be something like low 80's before the Atreus actually jumps out) doesn't exactly inspire perceptions of next-gen durability. I hope to see the Atreus in action when it's really into a fight; then we'll finally see the Raynor in its full glory.

[Scotty]

You keep getting hung up on insignificant things and extrapolating them to not-insignificant conclusions.

It's even more baffling when you actually admit that they're insignificant, and yet can't get over it.

[Droid803]

The Hades has almost 4-8x the armor. It can *actually* tank.

This actually does make me wonder why the Raynor lacks anywhere near that kind of durability. The Hecate at least has the excuse of being primarily a carrier design, and the Colossus had durability fitting its size (and comparable to the Hades, proportionally). The Hatshepsut had decent durability for its size/shape/role (half-carrier, half-thin, long neck and 'nose'), and the Orion was an FS1-era ship. The Deimos has 4/5ths of the durability of a Hecate/Orion, despite being nowhere near as large.

I know, I know--table stats aren't really indicative of much in BP. But seeing the Atreus go from 100 to 92 durability in a few seconds under just gauss cannon fire from a couple Narayanas (which, if it weren't guardianed at 92, would be something like low 80's before the Atreus actually jumps out) doesn't exactly inspire perceptions of next-gen durability. I hope to see the Atreus in action when it's really into a fight; then we'll finally see the Raynor in its full glory.

Open up that mission in FRED.
Go to the Atreu's SPECIAL HITS field
Check the hull points one and add a zero to the end.

Happy?

because you might as well do that because hitpointsmeanjack**** same with hull integrities unless it explodes.
its a %, which is in no way a complete representation of what damage is actually going on.

[Aesaar]

The Hades has almost 4-8x the armor. It can *actually* tank.

This actually does make me wonder why the Raynor lacks anywhere near that kind of durability. The Hecate at least has the excuse of being primarily a carrier design, and the Colossus had durability fitting its size (and comparable to the Hades, proportionally). The Hatshepsut had decent durability for its size/shape/role (half-carrier, half-thin, long neck and 'nose'), and the Orion was an FS1-era ship. The Deimos has 4/5ths of the durability of a Hecate/Orion, despite being nowhere near as large.

I know, I know--table stats aren't really indicative of much in BP. But seeing the Atreus go from 100 to 92 durability in a few seconds under just gauss cannon fire from a couple Narayanas (which, if it weren't guardianed at 92, would be something like low 80's before the Atreus actually jumps out) doesn't exactly inspire perceptions of next-gen durability. I hope to see the Atreus in action when it's really into a fight; then we'll finally see the Raynor in its full glory.

I said it before, but I'll do it again: Maybe the Raynor's armor is less effective against the UEF's kinetic and missile weapons than it is against beams, the primary weapons of the enemy the ship was designed to fight.

[General Battuta]

This actually does make me wonder why the Raynor lacks anywhere near that kind of durability.

does it

[SpardaSon21]

One thing needs to be made very, very clear: ships are as tough as the plot needs them to be.  Subsystems are guardianed, armor classes are used, and AI classes are modified.  The Atreus needed to be run off by the two Narayana frigates in Darkest Hour, but if the plot ever needed the Atreus to act as a one-ship pain train, it would wreck everything in its path in that mission.

[General Battuta]

I think that perspective is just as wrong as looking things up in the tables. There are rules.

[An4ximandros]

Lesson is: play the game and use what happens in the missions to make your opinion.

[redsniper]

There are fluff rules for how everything works. The game mechanics are bent and fudged to support the fluff rules. And some of you simply cannot understand this for some reason.

[QuakeIV]

Its more like the fluff rules are constantly described in vague terms therefore angering people and causing them to say random things until someone says they are right.

[bfobar]

My  thought on the matter is that it is kind of nice to have the ship table data be baselined to something reasonable before fredding ship's actions in the mission. Yes, I could make the raynor kick everything's A** all day long with only 10,000 hp by setting armor values and smart guardian of systems in fred for every mission through an entire campaign, but It would be kind of nice to have believable stats in the tables that only require tweaks. In the case of the Raynors, it seems like they should have maybe 300,000-400,000 hp or so in the stat blocks, and then you can go in and fiddle from there. Sure that is basically the same thing as Heavy Armor 30 or so, and if you would rather do it that way, then just set the default to heavy armor 30 in the table. Otherwise the future fredder using the model has to go in and try to figure out why the ship described as a brawler keeps blowing up like a glass cannon, and script it to behave as intended every single time.

Unless of course the Raynor is intended to not be used in any other mods than the official blue planet campaigns. Then we really have no right to be looking at the tables or thinking about how it would act in other situations than the ones it has been scripted into, since its IP would be off the table for anybody else.

On a side note, I have no problem with the Atreus leaving after getting shot at by two Narayanas. I think it would be silly to hang around to see if the UEF deploys an Occulus and a Solaris or two, and maybe some Durgas to target your engines. Jumping in, taking a shot and something vunerable,  and jumping right back out seems like a good strategy to take initiative from your enemies. I figure Steele would do that as much as possible.

[General Battuta]

We can't do that because we want to avoid totally rebalancing AoA.

And of course the Raynor is open for anyone's use.

[bfobar]

Which is totally understandable. AoA was primarily vs Shivans, and frankly Shivans need low hp friendly destroyers to seem scary with their stock settings.