Missiles usually have extremely limited ammo because they are extremely powerful. Seriously. And yeah, they are situational. Why the heck wouldn't they be? That's why we have missile weapons for, quite literally, every situation. And in those situations they can often turn the tables on a fight almost singlehandedly.Correction: They can often turn the tables on a SINGLE FRIGGIN ENCOUNTER. Because that's how long missiles will last you, unless we're talking about using Squalls or Locusts on several frigates.
Try a Sabot SRM Rack or two. Fling 'em against some well-shielded target. Watch the result.I'm not really surprised you've brought up Sabot rack, the biggest cheese of missiles. And then wow! It really does overload ships!... THREE TIMES and afterwards you're stuck with a flying paperweight.
Stick Harpoons on a ship and wait for a target to be overloaded. Watch the result.Yeah, I've seen the result. You wanna know what it is? Entire goddamn fleet dumps ALL of their harpoons on that single overloaded ship. That's at least 4 or 10 ordnance points on every ship down the toilet for the rest of the fight. And god forbid if that overloaded ship was in middle of a bigger fleet equipped with PD - then it may even survive that spam of harpoons.
Equip a Safety Overrides ship with Hammer Torpedoes and give it something to shoot at. Watch the result.Result: Same as harpoons, except this one can sometimes kill something. That is until it runs out of hammers. Seriously, for what convoluted reason would you pair up missiles with hullmod that adds 2x vent rate??? Movement speed doesn't make any difference if it's the shields/PD that stops your firepower.
Fit those Squalls back onto that Astral and let it snipe the f### out of anything in the vicinity in advance of its fighters launching their payloads. Watch the damned result.*sigh* Yeah right, "snipe" with Squalls. As long as you're shooting at something slow enough to not move out of the way of those Squalls.
the AI uses them poorlyThis is what kills MIRVs for me. AI loves to squander them.
There is an imbalance relating to missiles, in the way that fighters armed with missiles essentially give you unlimited missiles.This is precisely why missiles should be unlimited. This is why I replace all missiles with Converted Hangar and wing of fighters on every cruiser and capital I have, if I cannot have both due to lack of OP. Given the way the game handles fighters, fighters themselves are missiles that can shoot bullets or more missiles, and few of them do not need human pilots. There is a reason why I write "fighters are better missiles than missiles".
The game was more fun when the battlefield wasn't dominated by annoying little hornets that diminish player agency.The game is different. In 0.7.x, I had to solo every fight or else my ships died, and it was too hard to replace the ships and some weapons I liked. Also, fighters were weak to the point of uselessness during 0.7.x, and with useless fighters, carriers were pointless. On the other hand, 0.6.5 was fun, but it rewarded frigate swarms best if you were not doing food runs with huge Atlas fleets. Early 0.6.x up to 0.6.2 was hideous due to loot and supply drain, practically required Atlas fleet led by overpowered Medusa just to loot endgame fleet once without overflow. 0.5.4 was auto-resolve for powerleveling.
Take some insanely *** weapons, for example, like, the Thumper or something. That gun is basically firing darts against starship armor and it still costs something to mount. Why would something like a torpedo that at least has some use be free in comparison to that?Thumper is not that bad anymore, at least when you are stuck with Open Market weapons. It will wreck ships that lost armor, or were thinly armored to begin with. Arbalest and Heavy Mortars are relatively slow. Thumper is fast and not to be underestimated anymore. For ships with three ballistic mounts (namely Enforcer and Eagle), a Heavy Mortar, Arbalest, and Thumper combo is effective enough to be viable.
If missiles were regenerating, all that does it put more and more emphasis on PD, which lowers time to kill overall (because PD doesn't kill ships). What the game needs right now are more distinct "anti-fighter" vs. "anti-missile" PD. Currently, they do both and if you equip anti-fighter you get anti-missile, and vice versa.That is because the line between fighter and missile is blurred to the point of being mostly indistinguishable aside that missiles require green diamond mounts and LPCs require flight decks. As for effectiveness, fighters are generally superior to regenerating missiles because fighters are fast and damaging, while the regenerators are too flawed.
CR is built-in to prevent long kite-and-snipe engagements.Unfortunately, the AI does not think so, and trying to force fights against the cowardly AI without fighters is a pain, either because my big ship is too slow or my small ships are not powerful enough to attack without taking casualties.
To the OP: No.
The point of missiles are to provide flux-free damage, alpha-strike potential, and/or an opportunity to exploit temporary weaknesses. Missiles win flux-wars and punch holes through armor that can literally take minutes to punch through with an ill-suited weapon but can be opened instantly with a missile.
The regenerating missile argument falls flat when I consider that the vast majority of combat situations are decided in less than 5 minutes. CR is built-in to prevent long kite-and-snipe engagements. Limited missiles also plays into a more "arcade"-type of battle. What I hear in this argument is that equipping missiles gimps a ship long-term. That may be accurate, but most of the combat mechanics encourage fast time-to-kill percentages. That's why Safety Overrides is what it is. I usually have missiles to spare at the end of battles because I try to maximize their effectiveness.
If I equip two Reapers on my starter Wolf, yes, I lose a few OP that could have been better served for Vents or hull mods but I gain the ability to absolutely crush a Destroyer that has me beat in all other regards save mobility. Missiles turn otherwise average ships into force multipliers for the fleet. The "Harpoon Hell" that occurs when a ship gets overloaded is so dangerous because even frigates are equipped with them and can contribute to the Alpha strike. Alternatively, it lets my little Wolf genuinely threaten even a Dominator. It won't win the battle single-handedly but a single torpedo creates opportunity for the rest of the fleet to exploit.
I am not opposed to the OP, if missiles stay as they are. I prefer all missiles gain regeneration instead, though. I would use fighters' Swarmers over the limited four-shot if I had a choice.
With tight OP budgets, if I need to sacrifice something, missiles are always the first to go. Sometimes, that is not enough, and I need to sacrifice more than missiles alone, but missiles are always first.
To the OP: No.
The point of missiles are to provide flux-free damage, alpha-strike potential, and/or an opportunity to exploit temporary weaknesses. Missiles win flux-wars and punch holes through armor that can literally take minutes to punch through with an ill-suited weapon but can be opened instantly with a missile.
The regenerating missile argument falls flat when I consider that the vast majority of combat situations are decided in less than 5 minutes. CR is built-in to prevent long kite-and-snipe engagements. Limited missiles also plays into a more "arcade"-type of battle. What I hear in this argument is that equipping missiles gimps a ship long-term. That may be accurate, but most of the combat mechanics encourage fast time-to-kill percentages. That's why Safety Overrides is what it is. I usually have missiles to spare at the end of battles because I try to maximize their effectiveness.
If I equip two Reapers on my starter Wolf, yes, I lose a few OP that could have been better served for Vents or hull mods but I gain the ability to absolutely crush a Destroyer that has me beat in all other regards save mobility. Missiles turn otherwise average ships into force multipliers for the fleet. The "Harpoon Hell" that occurs when a ship gets overloaded is so dangerous because even frigates are equipped with them and can contribute to the Alpha strike. Alternatively, it lets my little Wolf genuinely threaten even a Dominator. It won't win the battle single-handedly but a single torpedo creates opportunity for the rest of the fleet to exploit.
Missiles in general are already a tough sell, since they are extremely limited and highly situational type of weapon. Thing is, installing them takes the same resource that could instead be spent on more flux vents/capacitors or better weapons/hullmods. At least in my case, 9 times out of 10 it's far, FAR more profitable to just rip out any missile launchers, leave their mounts blank and instead spend those OP points on Flux Distributor or other things that would last throughout an entire fight
Missiles aren't really combat-economical as a primary weapon for most ships, and as a secondary weapon their ECCM and Expanded Racks upgrades can't really compete for OPs with ballistics and energy weapons.
I am not opposed to the OP, if missiles stay as they are. I prefer all missiles gain regeneration instead, though. I would use fighters' Swarmers over the limited four-shot if I had a choice.
Regenerating missiles are not the same as carriers with fighters (with/without missiles).You got that right. Regenerating missiles are ineffectual. Fighters can actually kill things. There is a reason why I put Converted Hangar on most gunships instead of wasting the OP on Salamanders and Pilums. As for non-regenerators, it is a case-by-case basis. Often, such missiles are mounted mainly for AI mind-control.
Now, if implemented, that means your average Wolf is going to be able to spit out 12-14 Harpoons/Sabots over its CR duration. That's twice as many missiles.This is not a problem. If anything, that is a good thing. Makes currently non-regenerators useful, if the attacker lives that long.
Again, if missiles are intended to be supplementary (which I think is obvious from their current use and how their mounts are placed on hulls), does regenerating ammo enhance or sabotage this role?I would say enhance, since I have incentive to use them more. Currently, I am inclined to use Converted Hangar plus fighters instead of missiles, because fighters are better missiles.
@ Wapno
Flux positive firing of weapons only occurs when a.) you have SO's bonuses (and thereby reduce your longevity and range) or b.) when you max vents and use relatively weak weapons. Most of the ships in the game, especially the low-tech ones, are extremely flux starved. You can't be flux positive on an Enforcer without going almost all small mounts or PD. The point being, the only way to stay flux positive is to gimp yourself in some way, which is the same argument being made for limited-fire missiles. "High damage, all the time" doesn't exist without a trade-off and not utilizing missile mounts to save OP is typically not enough. I'd love to see some of the non-SO builds you're using where you can achieve this. SO is an exception to the rule and has its own strengths and weaknesses. It can't be used as a "typical" build.
Missiles allow for a ship to operate outside of its typical role. Or to put it another way, missiles have always been supplementary. They are not primary damage dealers nor are they intended to be so. The only ship in the game where this is the case is the Gryphon and it has a ship system to regenerate missiles. The "friggin Kite" can only hurt a Dominator with missiles. No amount of "proper vents, guns, and hullmods" will help a Kite defeat anything larger than itself. It takes the two missile slots to actually do something. Yes, the Kite is an extreme example but as I look across the board, very few ships have a ton of missile slots and most are used to supplement or compliment your primary loudout.
As I look from a "macro perspective," I don't see this as a zero-sum game. You can have hard-hitting, tough ships that also can nuke a dangerous target if the opportunity presents itself. I don't see why this has to be all-or-none. I have a very effective SO Hammerhead build that is flux positive and then I mount two Reapers up front. I could have saved 4 OP but for what? What can 4 OP get me that is better than insta-killing a highly-dangerous and tough Cruiser, even if it's only once? Had I omitted the missiles, I can whittle down the cruiser but in the mean time, it's still firing big guns at my fleet. I see eliminating the most dangerous targets as a much stronger damage-mitigating tool than adding a hull mod. But, that's the old argument of "the best defense is a good offense." :) But that's also why I oppose regenerating ammo because that Hammerhead, if given another minute or so to reload, could do that again, and again, and again...for 4 OP and 0-flux. You'd have to rework the entire missile system to account for regenerating ammo.
Finally, what kind of fleet actions are we talking about here? Early game, end-game, or...? If my early Wolf can use missiles to take out a Destroyer, that's absolutely a win, even if I can't do it again. The Destroyer was probably the biggest threat anyway. Taking out key ships is what causes momentum to shift or again, acts as a force multiplier for me. If I can't exploit temporary weaknesses with high burst damage, the bigger ship wins (with bigger guns, more vents, etc.), all other things being equal.
@Megas
Regenerating missiles are not the same as carriers with fighters (with/without missiles). Carriers have their downsides, namely being relatively weak in and of themselves and having a mechanic that slows down the regeneration over time. I doubt there would be any slowdown effect to the missile regeneration on a combat ship. It would likely be a fixed timer. Spamming bombers from carriers eventually gets the carrier into trouble and unlike combat ships, a carrier's "weapons" can be eliminated and thus, increase the time of regeneration.
For as strong as carriers are in this iteration, they still have factors that work against them. Regenerating missiles would have no drawback beyond reload time which, if you don't re-work the OP costs of missiles, would have to be high enough that balance isn't completely thrown out of whack. I hope no one is suggesting that Harpoons/Sabots have anything less than 1 missile/minute reload times. For a typical frigate, that raises one 3 OP rack from 3 shots to 6-7, assuming you use them early before your CR begins to diminish.
Now, if implemented, that means your average Wolf is going to be able to spit out 12-14 Harpoons/Sabots over its CR duration. That's twice as many missiles. It would be higher as the ship size and CR limits increase. The question I ask myself is: do I want 2-3x as many missiles flying around? Or perhaps more importantly, would regenerating missiles create a situation where I no longer value the limited supply (i.e. use them with abandon)? I'm a big fan of opportunity cost so using a missile now means I can't use one later. If I could count on regeneration, that decision-making is basically eliminated. I'd rather have the AI use them more intelligently rather that use more of them, to be honest.
As it relates to carriers, there's nothing I can do as a player from keeping that Wolf from firing 12+ missiles but I can slow down the rate that a carrier's fighters can be replenished. They are comparable but not indistinguishable. If every combat ship had twice as many missiles at their disposal over the course of the battle (even if it slows to a trickle after the initial volley), I can't do anything about that from a mitigation perspective besides slap on more PD or hope I can disable a missile mount via damage or EMP. The question I have to ask myself is: are twice as many missiles in the game good or bad? (And I would argue this needs to be taken on a missile-by-missile level. I agree with Megas on MIRVs, for example.)
Again, if missiles are intended to be supplementary (which I think is obvious from their current use and how their mounts are placed on hulls), does regenerating ammo enhance or sabotage this role? It would make using them less of a gamble but in essence, you've just created very slow reload weapons. I'm still a fan of high-risk/high-reward weapons but I admit, the AI needs to use them more intelligently.
See what I'm getting at here? In almost every situation you present, taking the missiles out of the picture is a good, worth considering tactic. That's my main point - a player should not be presented with such a dilemma, because it means that a weapon type may be too expensive, impractical, unfun, or all of the above. And frankly, I think that's a good description of how missiles in Starsector currently are.
The hardest part is determining how fast they should regen.Not really based on anything more than my desire to play with missiles more freely, and a vague feeling of what I wanted to achieve.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. It's the law of diminishing marginal utility. There comes a time where you've maxed vents, got the ideal weapons, and the margin to gain by pressing this further is minimal. You simply can't hit any harder at that point. Missiles break deadlocks, win flux battles, are aces in the hole, and/or are equalizers. Standard guns, save a few, can't do this and the vast majority can't penetrate armor like missiles. The armor mechanic is weighted far too heavily toward high damage per shot. Missiles excel at this for little OP and 0-flux. They allow ships to punch above their weight when they have no other recourse (and most don't). I absolutely disagree that having flux-neutral or flux-positive loudouts is typical so I can't follow your logic that adding more guns or vents is better than adding 0-flux missiles. The vast majority of ships are unable to reach parity with their weapon flux costs without taking sub-optimal weapons that have drawbacks of their own -or- taking SO, which also has its own drawbacks. I love SO but I don't argue that it's normative of regular combat.
Could missiles be improved? Yes, but the system is not fundamentally broken. I have a lot of fun using missiles and having missiles used against me. I prefer to have specialized missiles to open up shields or a hole in armor but I know I only have a few opportunities to use them. It creates meaningful decision-making both in loading out a ship and in battle and while I would like to have more missiles at my disposal, I also see the wisdom in keeping them very limited.
I don't see why we have to go into the "0 OP" territory with every missile. Like, I personally think the big torpedo launchers like the Cyclone suck, and would never use missiles on my Astral, but at the same time, 0 OP Hurricanes/Squalls/Whatever would just encourage Astral/Mora/Legion spam even more than they do now."0 OP" is just a proposed solution. Might not be the best one, but the actual purpose of my post was to get your attention to a problem that exists with missiles. There are definitely better solutions. The best one would imo be taking the ammo limit off by making all missiles regenerate, but considering how controversial that is, I've lost hopes of this ever happening, so I'm proposing something else to address the situation.
The only 'free' weapon in the game right now is the Talon and Mining Pod. Mining Pod aside, the Talon is alright for a 0 OP fighter squadron, though your actual bill comes in the form of crew lost from all those dead fighters, as well as the opportunity cost of mounting something better in the first place.
I'd much rather the missiles themselves go back to basically removing everything in existence that they touched, with maybe a cap on their fire rate instead. I don't think you need to change Missile Spec as a skill, just up damage a little bit (just not for Sabots), travel speed, and turning. There was a time when the Reaper touched cruisers and they vanished into thin air. I'd like that time to come back.
high risk, mediocre reward weapon that the missiles areSums up the weaknesses of most non-regenerators.
0 OP Hurricanes/Squalls/Whatever would just encourage Astral/Mora/Legion spam even more than they do now.Astral is powerful enough to be spammed without need of missiles. It is already a missile factory via fighters or bombers.
I think that carriers with unlimited fighters being currently brokenly powerful shows that regenerating missiles would be an even worse idea.Not sure about this. I find that true only for a flagship with Helmsmanship 3 and Unstable Injector. Even then, a well built Paragon comes close to Astral, until only frigates are left.
I actually had a bright idea to put the missile strategy to use by including some support ships in my fleet - those supports putting heavy emphasis on missile use. That strategy however did nothing but cost me money, as those missile ships were usually the first to die, usually by rushing at the enemy for no apparent reason and promptly getting torn to shreds, all the while my gun-only units and carriers were delivering a carnage.
And no, upping the damage (or other stats) on missiles is not going to solve anything. It's the fact that they are ammo-limited weapons that have to compete over ordnance points with ammo-unlimited weapons. No matter how much you buff the damage, using missiles is still going to be a gamble.
I think it does. The Atrophos is a good example of this, back in the day at least. You used to get more mileage out of the dirt-cheap dual rack than from your increased, what, 4 vents?Before 0.8, Atropos were worth 3 OP for singles and 6 OP for dual (-1 to OP cost if player had Optimized Assembly, which is safe to assume). They were expensive, but at least they were worth it in 0.7.2 for being mini-(pre-drunk-)Clarents. (Before 0.7.2, Atropos were a joke for being too slow and clumsy.) Today, they are just merely slightly beefier Harpoons that are a bit overpriced (at least the single shot). Good for the Daggers they were redesigned for, but not so great for playership use.
I think that carriers with unlimited fighters being currently brokenly powerful shows that regenerating missiles would be an even worse idea.
Once mods get included, all bets are off. Blackrock has some nice regenerating missiles (that are not overpowered) - the sort of stuff I like to see in unmodded games. Templar ships exploit typical AI swarm behavior (Priwen Burst nukes frigate swarms that destroy nearly every non-mod ship).
Pre-0.8 Missile Specialization was extremely powerful. Without it, only Salamanders and 0.7.2 Atropos and maybe restored Sabots were useful. With old Missile Specialization, missiles became deadly and worth using, especially Reapers and Harpoons, perhaps too hard to defend against.
I think that carriers with unlimited fighters being currently brokenly powerful shows that regenerating missiles would be an even worse idea.Missiles are far easier to shoot down than fighters.
I actually had a bright idea to put the missile strategy to use by including some support ships in my fleet - those supports putting heavy emphasis on missile use. That strategy however did nothing but cost me money, as those missile ships were usually the first to die, usually by rushing at the enemy for no apparent reason and promptly getting torn to shreds, all the while my gun-only units and carriers were delivering a carnage.All you need to "fix" this is 1 timid officer and 1 CP per battle.
Pilums suck too muchA single Pilum is laughable. A trio is annoying. Half a dozen is threatening. Twenty is terrifying.
All you need to "fix" this is 1 timid officer and 1 CP per battle.Look, all of that effort just to make a certain weapon useful. And that's just one missile type - I don't think it would work with anything else than pilums, and maybe harpoons. Plus, that ball of Vigilances is still going to cost me deployment points which I could spend on some brawlers or close support ships and their effectiveness might be questionable, depending on how much PD the other side has.
Set up your missile ships for long range fire support, so Pilums (or any other suitable missile) some PD, along with UI and ECCM.
Assign your timid guy to the biggest/slowest missile ship you have. And in every battle you deploy your missile boats into, bandbox/shift-select all the uncaptained ones and tell them escort your timid. They will then form a little ball which hovers around the edge of the battle puking out a constant stream of explosives which is also well defended enough to deter most threats that challenge it.
Works incredibly well with a group of Vigilances.
A single Pilum is laughable. A trio is annoying. Half a dozen is threatening. Twenty is terrifying.I disagree. Any ship with proper PD is instantly immune to Pilums, no matter how many you throw at it. I've actually did a test - using Console Commands mod, I gave my ship infinite ammo and instant reload, meaning it could puke hundreds of Pilums in an instant. I spawned a single enemy cruiser and kept spamming missiles at it. And as it turns out, even that wave of hundreds of Pilums (I've made sure to spread them around so as they are not packed together) hits a brick wall as soon as there's at least one ship with Flak cannons. Beam PD is less effective, but will still stop Pilums dead.
They are like the missile equivalent of beams. The more of them you have, the better they become. Once you get to the point where you can field 10+ launchers, you can create a tide of pain that slowly creeps accross the battlespace punishing anyone who dares cross that line.
Granted, the missiles themselves could stand to be a little faster since some cruisers can outrun them. But otherwise they're fine.
Look, all of that effort just to make a certain weapon useful. And that's just one missile type - I don't think it would work with anything else than pilums, and maybe harpoons. Plus, that ball of Vigilances is still going to cost me deployment points which I could spend on some brawlers or close support ships and their effectiveness might be questionable, depending on how much PD the other side has.And?
I disagree. Any ship with proper PD is instantly immune to Pilums, no matter how many you throw at it. I've actually did a test - using Console Commands mod, I gave my ship infinite ammo and instant reload, meaning it could puke hundreds of Pilums in an instant. I spawned a single enemy cruiser and kept spamming missiles at it. And as it turns out, even that wave of hundreds of Pilums (I've made sure to spread them around so as they are not packed together) hits a brick wall as soon as there's at least one ship with Flak cannons. Beam PD is less effective, but will still stop Pilums dead.Look at all that effort you've gone to, and yet you are still wrong. All the lab tests in the world won't prove a thing.
Now, such "lab tests" aren't usually a reliable source, but I'm observing similar results in the actual battle. Sure, once in a blue moon AI will turn its unshielded back at the incoming missiles and ignore them, but AI's stupidity is not something I'd like to rely on in a fight. At the very least, Pilum might have been at least remotely useful due to its regenerating ammo, but the weapon is so anemic that it almost doesn't matter. I don't know how many Pilum ships am I supposed to deploy for that tactic to actually work, half my fleet? In that case I prefer to deploy much more reliable brawlers and hit the targets directly.
So the core problem here is that:3) They are incredibly unforgiving of mistakes
1) Their usage is replaced/Dominated by fighters
2) The OP cost is un-competitive compared with other weapons
4 is the biggie. Remember when ballistics had limited ammo, and everyone went to enormous lengths to use only energy equppied ships wherever possible because running out of ammo mid-fight is really as far from fun as you can get?That was me. Ever since ballistics became unlimited, I use less high-tech ships and mostly low-tech and midline. Also, limited ballistics meant you can shield-tank and kite ballistic ships like Onslaught until they run out of ammo if you cannot beat it any other way.
Beams like Phase lance/beam are indeed a nice addition, but they do lack range, maybe too much to be useful on direct combat on larger ships. It would be nice to have a longer range (1200) beam weapon that isn't point to point accurate and have 1/1 damage to flux ratio.Phase Lance is mostly junk (600 range and no hard flux), since Pulse Laser is better for general assault or blasters for burst damage. Phase Lance is good only for two cases: 1) Ships that can combine 800+ range kinetics with Phase Lance plus Advanced Optics for 800 range and 2) Ships with Safety Override that cannot support Pulse Laser comfortably. Phase Lance needs more range (and/or much better flux efficiency than hard flux weapons). It used to have 700 range when it was the continuous Phase Beam.
Is Pilum spam still viable?Not as good as they used to be, but still useful. Far more dependant on having numbers than previously as well - you need 6+ launchers deployed to see the effect now. It used to be 3-4. Quite a disincentive with a limited fleet really.
Against some missiles, especially MIRVs, sometimes Sabots, it makes sense to make the enemy waste them first, then fight when they are out.This meta thing is something I loathe so much.
This meta thing is something I loathe so much.
Against some missiles, especially MIRVs, sometimes Sabots, it makes sense to make the enemy waste them first, then fight when they are out.
Using missiles at a critical time in an engagement can turn the tide of that engagement, quickly eliminating that enemy threat and freeing up the attacking ship to go assist allied ships in their own engagements, starting a domino effect. Burst damage is a powerful tool in starsector, and one of the greatest sources of it (missiles/ torpedoes) are limited in ammunition to balance out their incredible power.
Missiles both have bigger bursts and longer ranges than HMGs and similar weapons, for none of the flux cost. I think that limited ammo is one of just two main downsides of vanilla missiles compared to other weapons. (Excepting Pilums and Salamanders) The other downside is that they can be intercepted with PD. But on the rest... They have amazing range. They cost no flux. They're guided. While you have ammo, they have insane DPS. Look at the Harpoon rack. If you had unlimited missile ammo without changing anything else, it has 750 DPS in a small slot. That's THREE Hellbores, with over twice the base range.Using missiles at a critical time in an engagement can turn the tide of that engagement, quickly eliminating that enemy threat and freeing up the attacking ship to go assist allied ships in their own engagements, starting a domino effect. Burst damage is a powerful tool in starsector, and one of the greatest sources of it (missiles/ torpedoes) are limited in ammunition to balance out their incredible power.
Agreed, but the most reliable burst damage is close rage builds like machine gun hammerhead, not missiles ships.
According to my ingame tests, a default Lasher with harpoons take out an Onslaught in 1 min 45' with 6 harpoons, while without missiles but better flux and weapons it took 2min 10'. A Rocket pod version did it in 1 min 5'
So just 6 missiles shaved 20sec of TTK against the best armor in the game for a frigate, and rockets halved it. Even the SO version of that frigate that didn't had to vent only matched the TTK of the Harpoon equipped variant.
So as mentioned multiple times already: missiles can be a damage multiplier, a support weapon or a finisher, but they rarely are a main damage dealer and it is pointless to compare them as such.
Medium (sabot) may be overkill.
But isn't the Gryphon one of the only few ships that can actually regenerate missiles?
Missiles both have bigger bursts and longer ranges than HMGs and similar weapons, for none of the flux cost. I think that limited ammo is one of just two main downsides of vanilla missiles compared to other weapons. (Excepting Pilums and Salamanders) The other downside is that they can be intercepted with PD. But on the rest... They have amazing range. They cost no flux. They're guided. While you have ammo, they have insane DPS. Look at the Harpoon rack. If you had unlimited missile ammo without changing anything else, it has 750 DPS in a small slot. That's THREE Hellbores, with over twice the base range.
Missiles both have bigger bursts and longer ranges than HMGs and similar weapons, for none of the flux cost. I think that limited ammo is one of just two main downsides of vanilla missiles compared to other weapons. (Excepting Pilums and Salamanders) The other downside is that they can be intercepted with PD. But on the rest... They have amazing range. They cost no flux. They're guided. While you have ammo, they have insane DPS. Look at the Harpoon rack. If you had unlimited missile ammo without changing anything else, it has 750 DPS in a small slot. That's THREE Hellbores, with over twice the base range.
Why in the world would you think people just want regenerating missiles to be the ammo number deleted from the spreadsheet? Of course they'd be insane if they could fire at their current DPS with unlimited ammo. Nobody is suggesting that, because it's bananas. Regenerating missiles would need to be properly balanced - but then, missiles in general need to be properly balanced anyway. Many of them are bad, and some them are way too good, even in their current ammo-limited state. Might as well make them a proper pyramidion in the weapon triangle by giving them regen while you're doing a necessary balance overhaul.
most PD isn't even good at it's job much less outside of it's job.
Let's not forget fighters being unlimited now as wellmost PD isn't even good at it's job much less outside of it's job.
Strongly disagree.
PD weapons are fantastic support weapons, machine-guns in particular make for fantastic close assault weapons.
The Onslaught can, however, and is largely a survivable design when Flaks are put in the right places. I rarely bother putting LMGs onto Onslaughts; anything that gets through the Flaks should get addressed by Vulcans; there's no case where that isn't the right answer.Legion can do this too, and it is an effective defense as long as it does not get attacked from behind. Sure, it gives up missiles, but that is not a problem.
One experiment that might be worth trying is to simply remove Flak altogether, if we're not going to have credible versions for Frigates and the heavier ships. I think it would fundamentally improve how we see PD in the game.
Oh, and that change to the way burst-damage was calculated meant that the Tachyon Lance gained enough bite to justify itself, sometimes. I get that people think it's OK on a Paragon, but everything's good on a Paragon and usually the HIL's a better choice if you're not going Plasma Cannon.Please elaborate Tachyon Lance vs. HIL. I tried both (on Sunder and Paragon), and Tachyon Lance outperformed HIL every time. Burst damage plus shield pierce is great. I even tried HIL and Ion Beam combo, but they do not kill as quickly as Tachyon Lance alone.
...or are tooling around in a modded ship that can stack Medium Kinetic and Large Energy......or if the enemy is the battlestation, with its Targeting Supercomputer and other weapons.
Oh, and that change to the way burst-damage was calculated meant that the Tachyon Lance gained enough bite to justify itself, sometimes. I get that people think it's OK on a Paragon, but everything's good on a Paragon and usually the HIL's a better choice if you're not going Plasma Cannon.So far, HIL is poor-man's damage half of Tachyon Lance. HIL is what gets used if player has not found enough Tachyon Lance (and Tachyon Lance is very rare).
Then again, TL can exploit same flaw in AI behavior.Tachyon Lance is much better at exploiting AI flaws than HIL, thanks to burst damage and near-hitscan.
Paragon with 4x Tach Lance is imo by far the strongest load out . 4x tach lance can 1 shot destroyers and frigates a lot of the time, especially in a fleet context. Instantly eliminating an enemy ship from almost 2000 range (with advanced optics) is uniquely powerful. The massive range also helps make up for low mobility and speed. I would take 4x TL paragon over anything in the vanilla game. The burst damage nature of the weapons also compensates for the soft flux somewhat, since you can still easily overload enemies with burst damage before flux dissipation can kick in. In my experience, 4x TL generates so much soft flux that the next time you fire, most of it will not have been dissipated yet. Burst soft flux is very different from low level sustained soft flux like graviton beam.That is my flagship of choice, and quad lances are backed by 2x HVD for hard flux. Those HVDs are great against nearly dead ships that will never lower shields while fighting (meaning no AI cheese), and those HVDs will slowly but surely put hard flux on shield, then Tachyon Lance will pierce and fry the enemy behind the shields. Paragon's only weakness is frigate swarm, because enemy frigates will avoid Paragon until they can swarm and kill it fast.
It occurred to me that once the loot bug is fixed, that might enable the player to chain-deploy ships to missile-spam, retreat, repeat until all ships have retreated, then full retreat to end the battle. Then, when the enemy still wants to fight, player does it again for round two, and maybe round three. In effect, this is like the Gryphon's original Missile Nanoforge system (that drained CR), except the refill occurs between rounds instead of instantly mid-round.One more reason why missile balance should be revamped.
Today, I would think free missiles is not a bad idea, given that most are unsuitable for endurance fights players tend to get caught in within the campaign, while the regenerators are inferior to the Converted Hangar and fighters combo.With exception of Frigates, and maybe some weaker Destroyers, such "missile-spam" is not going to rack up too many kills, even if it's a Gryphon that's firing them. Fleets with at least decent point defense, and/or high tech fleets with good shields might not even get hit in the hull once. All the while the only thing you achieve is wasting your CR by deploying ships.
But once the loot bug gets fixed, free missiles would be unbalanced by perhaps enabling missile-spamming chain-flagship fleets. That is, player deploys a flagship, fires "all the missiles" at enemies (to overcome defenses), kills a few ships, then retreats that ship. Repeat with the rest of your fleet one ship at a time. If that does not kill everyone, full retreat to end the round. If enemy wants to fight round two, repeat the missile spam. (If enemy runs, auto-resolve to get your free kills.
Currently, full retreating is punishing because player forfeits all loot, but not XP, from ships killed that round, even if player ultimately wins the encounter. But that was said to be a bug, and will get fixed. With loot bug fixed, a full retreat to take a timeout (to stop CR from decaying and/or reload missiles) becomes a viable strategy instead of a huge loot tax.
That would be an incentive for limited ammo weapons to regenerate, to discourage full retreat timeouts if that proves to be very effective.