Creative Robot

T10 SMG Hover "Hammerhead" Mk. I

SMG Hover added 2 years ago

T10 SMG Hover "Hammerhead" Mk. I. Redesigned version of quite successful "Lady Laura" tank. This one have improved frontal Armour. Two pairs of SMGs had to be side mounted to accommodate increased front shielding. As a result the vehicle responds poorly. It is fast but maneuverability is poor. I've added side thrusters to increase turn rate which helps a lot but still this is probably the main problem.

It was battle tested and performed admirably, although there is room for improvement.

All comments are highly appreciated

Pros:
- Shielding (especially front arc)
- Firepower
- Driver Protection

Cons:
- Sluggish (Speed is very good but it suffers from oversteering)
- Side mounted SMGs have limited arc of fire although it was deliberate design decision from the get go
- Rear section is not shielded as of yet but its not that vulnerable due to number of bricks there

Favorites 0
Robot Statistics
Views
570
Comments
5
Ratings
21
Practical Rating
9.3
Creative Rating
9.8
Last Updated
2 years ago
View Ratings

Robot Ratings

Function rating by Kreb089.0
Creative rating by Kreb088.5
Function rating by zomy928.0
Creative rating by Azure_10.0
Function rating by Azure_9.5
Creative rating by Avertion10.0
Function rating by Avertion10.0
Creative rating by Wesley198210.0
Function rating by Wesley19829.0
Function rating by MisterSpock9.0
Creative rating by MisterSpock10.0
Function rating by Burningsolar9.5
Creative rating by Burningsolar9.5
Function rating by lightstorm9.5
Creative rating by lightstorm10.0
Function rating by Xelo8.5
Creative rating by Xelo9.0
Function rating by davie10.0
Creative rating by davie9.0
Function rating by Mark_HD10.0
Creative rating by Mark_HD10.0
Share this Robot
Direct link to this robot
Embed robot info on your website
Comments and Ratings
davie
2 years ago
I absolutely love it! Only one thing: The middle T10.5 shield could be moved down a block to make the T10.5s fit better.

Ratings 10.0 practical and 9.0 creative0
Eidolon
2 years ago
Thanks! That is something to think about! Front shielding was the only design feature I didn't considered to be changed. I built some mock up in different garage to check new configuration that you proposed. I can see that number of bricks underneath front shield will decrease (approx 10 cubes less). Another issue is that there gonna be small gap between front and side shield. From my experience middle and upper shields are the most exposed during head on firefights so when middle one is partially protecting upper one has its value. I would have to think about this idea, because it looks small but in fact its going to be big redesign. But thanks for the tip! I will maybe incorporate it in another design (I'm building plasma helicopter, but I'm going nowhere)
zomy92
2 years ago
got a good tip for you.
have a vaportrail L1 in your hand when taking pictures. It only shows wherever you want to place it, so if you keep the cursor over a surface where you can't place it, (example: the electroplate) it's compleatly invisible. :)

Ratings 8.0 practical0
Kreb08
2 years ago
This bot looks very good shielded :)

For your steering problem try putting your steering thrusters further apart and also play a bit around with the strengh of them.

Ratings 9.0 practical and 8.5 creative0
Eidolon
2 years ago
Thanks! I had this dilemma as on the one hand putting them further apart improves handling but on the other they are more exposed. I have some cpu to spare and I was doing some test of adding additional pair in the rear sections (It looks promising) and/or replace side thrusters with another pair. I didn't decide yet. As for the strength, this is out of question with 6 blades as vehicle is too heavy but if I settle for 8 or 10 it might be a viable option. Thanks for your comment

Constructive Points

Constructive points are what you get when other users mark your reviews (comment+ratings) as constructive.

When should you mark a review as constructive though?

If you answer yes to at least three of these questions you should definitely mark it as constructive; is the review..

  1. friendly?
  2. helpful?
  3. encouraging?
  4. well structured?
  5. fair relative to the CPU used?

Why do I want these points?

After receiving X amount of points you will get a chance of being promoted to "trusted reviewer". This promotion is done by a moderator if (s)he thinks your comment and rating behaviour is reasonable.

Trusted reviewer?

As a trusted reviewer you no longer need to write a comment when rating a robot. If you add a comment you will receive extra points. Trusted reviewer is not necessarily permanent, continous bad behaviour or lack of comments might get you demoted.

Constructive Voting

Hey, seems like you're about to place your first constructive vote. That's awesome! I just wanted to inform you a bit about it before you jump into voting though. You can vote on any comment accompanied with a rating as a "Constructive Review". This will give the reviewer a "Constructive Point".

When should I vote a comment as constructive though?

If you answer yes to at least three of these questions you should definitely vote it as constructive; is the review..

  1. friendly?
  2. helpful?
  3. encouraging?
  4. well structured?
  5. fair relative to the CPU used?

Why do one want these points?

After receiving about 100 total amount of votes the user will get a chance of being promoted to "Approved Reviewer". This promotion is done by a moderator if (s)he thinks your comment and rating behaviour is reasonable.

Approved Reviewer?

As an approved reviewer you no longer need to write a comment when rating a robot. If you add a comment you will receive extra points. Approved reviewer is not necessarily permanent, continous bad behaviour or lack of comments might get you demoted.

Ok, got it! I want to place my vote now.
  • 3 items
1 page