From wiki on "Escape Velocity":

 "A rocket moving out of a gravity well does not actually need to attain escape velocity to do so, but could achieve the same result at walking speed with a suitable mode of propulsion and sufficient fuel. Escape velocity only applies to ballistic trajectories."

Specifically under the section titled "Misconception":

"Escape velocity is sometimes misunderstood to be the speed a powered vehicle, such as a rocket, must reach to leave orbit and travel through outer space. The quoted escape velocity is commonly the escape velocity at a planet's surface, but it actually decreases with altitude. It is the speed above which an object will depart on a ballistic trajectory, i.e. in free-fall, and never fall back to the surface nor assume a closed orbit. Such an object is said to "escape" the gravity of the planet.

A vehicle with a propulsion system can continue to gain energy and travel away from the planet, in any direction, at a speed lower than escape velocity so long as it is under propulsion. If the vehicle's speed is below its current escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, the vehicle will assume a closed orbit or fall back to the surface. If its speed is at or above the escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, it has enough kinetic energy to "escape" and will neither orbit nor fall back to the surface."

Do not insult my intelligence and call me uneducated, especially when you yourself are wrong...

Wow, you go on a tirade about how incendiaries as I envision them is completely wrong and unrealistic and shouldn't be implemented...then, you come back and say I should do whatever I think is cool because realism is irrelevant...lovely save of face...

I shall reiterate my legitimate contribution to this thread as well as TEC ideas I've shared elsewhere:

• GRG - There are two debuffs I favor:
• Penalty to shield mitigation - I am leaning away from this debuff because of how it affects advent far more than Vasari
•  Disable passive regen - I am liking this more and more...it is logical that an armor piercing round would be able to reach critical systems (something that armor prevents "normal" weapons from doing)...this debuff is in line with the lore that explains why GRG slows down the ship....I just feel passive regen is more useful than a speed debuff
• Incendiary Shells
• This ability definitely needs a debuff, not just damage over time...I favor a stacking debuff to armor...I've already explained by reasoning for it... 
• I believe the damage over time should be hull damage, not just normal damage...
• Radiation Bomb
•  I believe this needs a secondary effect...perhaps an AoE debuff to passive hull repair, haven't decided yet
• Flak Burst
• I'd like a secondary debuff to this ability...personally, I'd rather it be severe damage over time with a much larger radius, and a secondary debuff that affects the SC's accuracy
• Meson Bolt
• Not a huge fan of the armor debuff...am looking for a different debuff (maybe shield mitigation) but haven't decided on one yet...

Except you can't ignore that.  The regen disable gives the Kol the opportunity to force enemies to play by its terms.  In long fights, it will eventually shine, particularly against titans and starbases.

With regard to the Kol anti-strikecraft weapon suggestion, it's problematic only because it would be a weapon system other battleships/other capital ships do not.

I feel that all capital ships, or at least all battleships, should have point defense weapon banks.

Here's how I think you should buff the Kol:

• In addition to its current effects, Flak Burst now also reduces strike craft accuracy by 4/8/12/24% (thereby mitigating alpha strike damage)
• Adaptive Forcefield is now passive; reduces damage by 10%/17%/22%/27% and increases Phase Missile block by 17%/30%/40%/52% (amounts derived by averaging the ratio of uptime to downtime of existing Adaptive Forcefield values)
• In addition to slowing targets, Gauss Rail Gun now has one of the following perks:
• Ignores shield mitigation (it does so little damage anyway -- what does it matter?)
• Passive regeneration disabled

If you want to give the Kol point defense weapons, I suggest you give them to either all battleships, or to all capital ships (namely: 4 point defense weapon banks for carriers and dreadnoughts, 6 point defense weapon banks for battlecruisers, and 8 point defense weapon banks for battleships).

I beg to differ...especially if it can affect SB's and Titans which have ridiculous shield, hull, and AM regeneration levels...it is an immensely powerful debuff, I've played with it in mods and whatever ability has it instantly becomes the go to ability on that ship...one key to making it useful is to have a decent duration (longer than the 10s GRG currently has)...

Two ways:

1. Click on person's name on the left of one of their replies (above the avatar), select "Private Message"...
2. Click "Private Messages" near top center...have to precisely know how to spell the person's name though, so option 1 is almost always better...

In RR, I did actually put flak guns on the Radiance and Kortul as well.  This thread was about the Kol so I didn't bring it up though.

I love passive Adaptive Forcefield idea.  Especially with extra res against phase missiles. Let's make another Corsev.

Then make Vasari invulnerable to red button as a race perk.

90% of posts in this thread are sheer idiocy.

Didn't read those. Was referring to balance ones.

Video game military/physics experts make me puke.

Perhaps two congressmen? That way they could argue.

I thought that's what Armistice was..

In my defense, I nerfed AFF when I made the change in RR.  Also note that in RR, I nerfed the Corsev.

Mecha, Sanchezz, Greg, or any other MP player, what would you like the change to be?  (And mecha, please don't troll.)

Smurfing...