Talk:Dreadnought

From Ultronomicon
Jump to: navigation, search

"Ur-Quan fighter pilots are skilled in Gravity Whip maneuvers and use this to augment their already impressive speed." Not that I've noticed- Whenever I play they regularly crash into the planet and bounce off. It is possible that gravity accellerates them slightly (I haven't observed much of a change in speed) but they most certainly don't attempt gravity whips consciously like an Orz Space Marine. -Fadookie 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Huh?[edit]

I agree -- the assertion is completely false. I can't find anything to back this up in the SC2 game manual, so I'm chucking it. Nic 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Been a while[edit]

I haven't played in eight years. I suppose my memory is fallible. Fair enough. Mmrnmhrm 08:13, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Melnorme Trader Bolt[edit]

I've tested the rumour about the trader bolt and fusion blast. Bosth the fully charged bolt and the fusion blast are destroyed.

No, the fully charged trader blast is stronger. By comparison, the Trader bolt deals 16 damage, but the Ur-Quan fusion bolt deals 6 damage. I'm not sure how much health the Trader bolts have, but the Fusion bolt has six health (or maybe it's 8 health), and I would guess that the Trader bolt has 16 health fully charged, give or take a few. --Jaychant
EDIT:I tested it, and the fusion bolt was destroyed by the Trader bolt, which made it to the Dreadnought unscathed. Just thought I'd throw this in. (I know it's 3 years old, but I would hate to see confusion over this in the future.) --Jaychant
That I knew, but it would be interesting at some point perhaps to spell out how these things work (by looking in the code I suppose). By the way JC, just a heads up that if you left UQMF to escape nerds, here might not be the best place to take refuge ;) --Zeracles 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

Weak against section[edit]

In the "Weak against" section, the Arilou Skiff is listed, but then it describes it as an easy match for the Dreadnought, even though the title clearly states that the Skiff is weak against the ships mentioned in the section. For now, I'm moving the material to the "Strong against" section, but I would like to discuss keeping it in a "weak against" section; I think a Dreadnought is in fact weak against a Skiff. --Jaychant

According to one of the veterans, Shiver, the outcome of this match-up is strongly dependent on the respective tactics employed, but in general the Dreadnought should win. He says this in the Skiff section of his guide. I can see where you're coming from, the Skiff can be a serious pain (especially when AI-piloted), and actually if the Skiff plays to win or at least avoid losing, the Dreadnought won't catch it. But if there's going to be a result the Dreadnought would probably come out on top, for the reasons Shiver mentions. Cheers. --Zeracles 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

Restoring some information[edit]

Thanks Shiver for cleaning up the article. I restored some information to the intro, specifically mention of the "eterna-tech" and the ability to destroy structures on a planets surface. I've also tried to make the single Ur-Quan onboard more definitive since both manuals seem to agree on this point. I also added in info on the roped/webbing ceilings which also appears in the manuals. The main reason I restored the info is for completeness, though hopefully readability didn't suffer. If it did, perhaps some rephrasing or moving the info to another page, like Ur-Quan Kzer-Za may be in order. The only other changes that I made were relatively minor, changing the name of the weapon. From my scanning of the canon, most sources call the main weapon "fusion blaster" (I can't seem to find were the name fusion cannon came from) and the projectiles are called either fusion blasts or fusion bolts. Anyways, thanks again for the cleanup, especially the tactical sections. --Fyzixfighter 00:07, 19 February 2009 (CET)

The Eterna-tech bit came off as fan-fiction to me so I mistakenly removed it. All of your recent changes look good to me. --Shiver 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)