While it is not within the anti-starship category, it is capable of doing heavy damage to tier tens and moderate damage to tier 11s. This is quite good for something with a firing rate of 1000 rounds per minute especially considering that DRv3 operates on a per-shot basis. Tier 10 may be more accurate, however, I don't think it makes sense for a secondary turret that's small enough to be carried in fair number by medium sized starships such as the Plumeria and Urufu classes to be tier 11.To my understanding, Anti-Starship Weapons are Tier 10, Tier 11, and Tier 12. I don't see any reason to lower them down below that. Toshiro is correct, a Tier 9 weapon is not Anti-Starship, so therefore it doesn't classify these weapons.
You should just correct the mistake and note the correction in the approval threads for these ships. Wes or another Yamatai FM will either say "okay" or "no."Thoughts?
I only just realized that I was editing my last post and not writing a new one, but my explanation for what I believe went wrong with the mass-conversion work that went on a few years back is this;So in this case the article is wrong, cause if it was Tier 7 it would be a Light Anti-Mecha Turret, or Tier 8 a Medium Anti-Mecha Turret.
Honestly, I think the articles being used for weapons need to be overhauled. These stubs all seem to be in error.
Why can the name of the weapon be the name of the tier and they match?
These all absolutely need a second look with the DRv3 per-shot approach in mind (Would a general purpose AA gun really be doing tier 9 with each bolt? Would a secondary anti-starship gun really have the juice to do tier 11 damage on a good hit with each of the 16 shots it fires every single second?)I believe all three of these weapons, as well as potentially many more pre-DRv3 weapons, were converted hurriedly and without much thought put into what their tier ought to be beyond raw DRv2 to DRv3 numbers rather than the purpose of the weapon and taking factors such as ROF into account, and most ship pages that they appeared on were converted similarly, hence why they appear in the misconverted numbers more often than on the DRv3 pages that actually use them as an example.
I'm personally of the mind to trust the DRv3 page itself, as each conversion on there was done 'by hand' and with consideration put into what tier it should be rather than using the 'rough and dirty' method for DRv2 to DRv3.
The reason for these conversions being askew seemed clear enough to me; but maybe I'm just talking out of my ass or trying to cause grief; when moving from a damage rating predicated upon per-use/turn to one predicated on per-shot, a direct transfer and conversion of the per-turn number would produce higher values than each shot would actually do.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?