Talk:Dreadnought - Revision history

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edits by 207.164.63.120 (Talk) to last revision by Fyzixfighter

2011-05-28T19:15:15Z

Reverted edits by 207.164.63.120 (Talk) to last revision by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:15, 28 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Great thinking!~~ That ~~rlealy breaks~~ the ~~mold!~~		"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]]. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Huh? ==

			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.
			[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Been a while ==

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

			==Melnorme Trader Bolt==
			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 ;) --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

			==Weak against section==
			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 [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=3941.msg51561#msg51561 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. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

			== Restoring some information ==

			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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)

207.164.63.120: AsUUGLXlQbZaODP

2011-05-28T19:10:49Z

AsUUGLXlQbZaODP

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 28 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"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]]. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)		Great thinking! That rlealy breaks the mold!

	~~== Huh? ==~~

	~~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.~~
	~~[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)~~

	~~== Been a while ==~~

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

	~~==Melnorme Trader Bolt==~~
	~~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 ;) --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

	~~==Weak against section==~~
	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 [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=3941.msg51561#msg51561 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. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

	~~== Restoring some information ==~~

	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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)~~

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edits by 212.239.62.133 (Talk) to last revision by Fyzixfighter

2011-05-28T18:16:05Z

Reverted edits by 212.239.62.133 (Talk) to last revision by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 28 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Glad~~ I've ~~finally found soemthing~~ I agree ~~with!~~		"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]]. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Huh? ==

			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.
			[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Been a while ==

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

			==Melnorme Trader Bolt==
			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 ;) --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

			==Weak against section==
			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 [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=3941.msg51561#msg51561 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. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

			== Restoring some information ==

			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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)

212.239.62.133: lyjcBbuv

2011-05-28T18:14:58Z

lyjcBbuv

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:14, 28 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~"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]]. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)		Glad I've finally found soemthing I agree with!

	~~== Huh? ==~~

	~~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.~~
	~~[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)~~

	~~== Been a while ==~~

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

	~~==Melnorme Trader Bolt==~~
	~~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 ;) --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

	~~==Weak against section==~~
	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 [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=3941.msg51561#msg51561 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. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

	~~== Restoring some information ==~~

	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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)~~

Fyzixfighter: rv vandalism

2011-05-28T18:03:14Z

rv vandalism

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 28 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	That's ~~2 cvleer by half~~ and ~~2x2 clever 4~~ me. ~~Thanks!~~		"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]]. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Huh? ==

			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.
			[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Been a while ==

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

			==Melnorme Trader Bolt==
			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 ;) --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

			==Weak against section==
			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 [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=3941.msg51561#msg51561 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. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

			== Restoring some information ==

			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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)

207.182.139.247: unkEolJDaN

2011-05-28T17:47:55Z

unkEolJDaN

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 28 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Theres a secert about your post~~. ~~ICTYBTIHTKY~~		That's 2 cvleer by half and 2x2 clever 4 me. Thanks!

80.228.85.107: ryGtMAlSRrGpFXrSQO

2011-05-28T17:43:10Z

ryGtMAlSRrGpFXrSQO

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 28 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Thanks alot -~~ your ~~aswner solved all my problems after several days struggling~~		Theres a secert about your post. ICTYBTIHTKY

94.199.178.30: wunwygjCSUWgmfaE

2011-05-28T17:33:14Z

wunwygjCSUWgmfaE

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 28 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"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]]. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)		Thanks alot - your aswner solved all my problems after several days struggling

	~~== Huh? ==~~

	~~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.~~
	~~[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)~~

	~~== Been a while ==~~

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

	~~==Melnorme Trader Bolt==~~
	~~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 ;) --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

	~~==Weak against section==~~
	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 [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=3941.msg51561#msg51561 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. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

	~~== Restoring some information ==~~

	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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)~~

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edits by 202.129.58.68 (Talk) to last revision by Fyzixfighter

2011-05-27T22:02:09Z

Reverted edits by 202.129.58.68 (Talk) to last revision by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 27 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Now~~ I know ~~who~~ the ~~brainy~~ one is, ~~Ill keep loiokng~~ for your ~~posts~~.		"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]]. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Huh? ==

			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.
			[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

			== Been a while ==

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

			==Melnorme Trader Bolt==
			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 ;) --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

			==Weak against section==
			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 [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=3941.msg51561#msg51561 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. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

			== Restoring some information ==

			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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)

202.129.58.68: Undo revision 22052 by 75.45.212.48 (Talk)

2011-05-27T21:36:31Z

Undo revision 22052 by 75.45.212.48 (Talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 27 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"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]]. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 22:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)		Now I know who the brainy one is, Ill keep loiokng for your posts.

	~~== Huh? ==~~

	~~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.~~
	~~[[User:Nic\|Nic]] 22:35, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)~~

	~~== Been a while ==~~

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

	~~==Melnorme Trader Bolt==~~
	~~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 ;) --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (CEST)

	~~==Weak against section==~~
	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 [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=3941.msg51561#msg51561 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. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 19:57, 11 June 2008 (CEST)

	~~== Restoring some information ==~~

	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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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~~. ~~--[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 00:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)~~