One is that PPT is an important limiting factor for SO and phase ships. Anything that substantially increases it is likely to make those completely out of control power-wise.
I'd suggest positive design, like making mixing in smaller ships with a larger fleet have some profound inherent value beyond just being cheaper. The fact that they can capture points quickly isn't really enough for this, since the bonuses are not always large enough to deal with the micromanagement of keeping a forward force of frigates alive.
I think the closest thing to a solution that has been said so far is allowing officers to affect bonuses upon smaller ships. If an officer of sufficient level is in charge of a capital ship, he might be able to extend his benefits to a cruiser, or a pair of destroyers, or three frigates. If all of your ships are capital ships, you won't receive the maximum possible benefit from your officers; at a bare minimum, you'd need to pair each capital ship with a cruiser.
Note that due to the implied overall power increase larger ships offer to the fleet with these mechanics, each tier up should be more expensive to compensate. It would improve the progression curve of the build-up-your-fleet portion of the game, I feel.
Hmm. It might make sense to increase the maintenance and so on cost of cap ships, though, so while it's not a direct cost-to-deploy, that might be an even more powerful incentive not to have too many of them around.
The Onslaught is a prime offender in terms of being too cheap
(As far as officers affecting multiple ships, the merits of the idea aside, that's just a complete non-starter for me in terms of implementation.)
If we had unlimited officers and the salary cost scaled with the size of the ship they were on, that would mitigate most of the problem.(As far as officers affecting multiple ships, the merits of the idea aside, that's just a complete non-starter for me in terms of implementation.)
But what else could really help?
Officer-less frigates (even if they were made more economically efficient) vs officer-ed capital is just whack-a-mole scenario. And with just 10 officers we clearly can't have enough for frigates on 1 for 1 basis.
Also, if officers will have salaries in next update and it's same for frigate or capital... Using them for frigates would be a stop-gap measure at most.
One is that PPT is an important limiting factor for SO and phase ships. Anything that substantially increases it is likely to make those completely out of control power-wise.SO could alter PPT to a fixed time per hull size instead of a percentage. Not sure about phase ships.
Also, larger battles generally gravitating towards larger ships is good for performance - lots of small ships are more intensive than similar firepower on fewer larger ships - so, well. It's definitely something to consider; balance changes that make large numbers of frigates desirable in larger battles would have a large impact on performance.True from a FPS standpoint, but I think the gameplay thought takes precedence. After all, fighters and missiles also spam the screen and kill FPS, and I'd say more so than a couple more frigates.
Bold suggestion... Maybe capships should be *far* more expensive to run? Where even a humble battlecruiser would be like 60, and battleships and capital carriers 70 to 80? It would also fit lore better, how capships are supposedly a rather large investment where right now they are actually *** easy to spam.I don't like this at all. One, because I'm already getting into weird situations where my big fleet is meeting their bigger fleet and for some reason I can field about 2 cruisers and 2 destroyers before I hit my cap. Against twice or more the number of enemies. I'm ready for big battles but the game isn't giving them to me. Inflating costs for larger ships makes this even worse. Two, it tightens the screws on an already challenging logistics system. I'd rather have it eased a little bit for smaller ships than have it be worse for the bigger ones.
One, because I'm already getting into weird situations where my big fleet is meeting their bigger fleet and for some reason I can field about 2 cruisers and 2 destroyers before I hit my cap. Against twice or more the number of enemies. I'm ready for big battles but the game isn't giving them to me.
Two, it tightens the screws on an already challenging logistics system.
(As far as officers affecting multiple ships, the merits of the idea aside, that's just a complete non-starter for me in terms of implementation.)
But what else could really help?
If we had unlimited officers and the salary cost scaled with the size of the ship they were on, that would mitigate most of the problem.
(The main remaining drawback I see is that it'd still cost more and take longer to recruit officers for 20 frigates vs. 5 capitals)
If we take the officer solution without some kind of battle-group mechanic, then the only thing that really makes sense is for an officer's "worth" to be more-or-less consistent regardless of which size of ship he's on.
If an officer makes a capital ship generally more effective, he should make a frigate profoundly superior to a non-officer frigate. This would enable a (unoptimized and niche, but regardless fun) wolf-pack strategy where the whole fleet is just a set of elite small/fast frigates and destroyers with experienced officers all turbocharging their ships.
I wouldn't mind if capitals were a bit more expensive to deploy (in terms of supplys needed, not terms of ow many you could deploy). I think this would be more of a boost to cruiser and destroyer than frigates, though.I probably would either use more cruisers or (more likely) lump the extra cost. I already use only two (or occasionally three) combat capitals because capitals (including stuff like Atlas and Prometheus) eat too much already. Nearly everything else in my combat fleet are cruisers or Drover. My fleet is mostly a cruiser fleet, for having the best balance of cost, speed, power, shot range, and (most important) PPT. Admittedly, if Falcon was not in the game, I probably would use few destroyers, probably Hammerhead, to fill the cheap grunt role.
What I think frigates need to stay relevant are more special circumstances that make them useful. They have two at the moment, pursuit scenarios and capturing objectives. If E.G. fleet splitting, or engaging subsets of enemy fleets ever become a thing, frigates will find probaly find new worth in these scenarios.
As things are now, it seems like you'd have enough officers to stick on a frigate or two, even for the largest battles, right? It's when you want to deploy 10+ frigates in addition to the other ships that the officer limit comes into play. Or if you've only got 4 officers.Head hunter office. You outline the requirements in level, skills and possible skills, they do the paper work and look for them. Boom, colonies are even more useful now. Secondary utility of this would be to hire officers with preset skills (or preset skill picks on level up), which would reduce the busywork again. It would be nice if the effectiveness of this building scaled with accessibility more than with population.
(I've also got some thoughts re: this and the eventual skill revamp, but I really don't want to get into that here and now :))
What I think frigates need to stay relevant are more special circumstances that make them useful. They have two at the moment, pursuit scenarios and capturing objectives. If E.G. fleet splitting, or engaging subsets of enemy fleets ever become a thing, frigates will find probaly find new worth in these scenarios.The best they have to offer is strategic mobility, but this advantage is kill once you need to bring more than frigates. Good substitute would be the ability to engage with reserves, but Alex has already shot that suggestion down.
i've posted several relatively lengthy topics on the subject and though they occasionally they reach 2-3 pages they never get any notice.
Given one of the issues with frigates late game is they are fragile in the face of cruiser and capitals, what if you had a way of mitigating that fragility which didn't work for larger ships. I believe Alex was looking into retaining all weapons on a ship that is destroyed but recovered. Imagine taking that a bit farther and add a method for recovering a certain number of your lost frigates in pristine condition after combat with a reasonable amount of CR restored?
For example, imagine for every Salvage rig in your fleet, you were guaranteed 1 of your lost frigates back with no (extra) D-mods, no loss of weapons, maybe simply down by deployment x2 worth of CR. Or if there was a slow, support capital ship which did something similar for all your lost frigates (imagine a carrier but on an even larger scale, like a frigate factory ship). At which point while there is still opportunity cost in deploying frigates, the annoyance of flying a fleet around to simply restock frigates goes away.
Now the frigate's role becomes that of an expendable ship for dangerous tactics, like distract that Onslaught over there while I finish up this Legion over here. Would that be sufficient of an end game use?
Given one of the issues with frigates late game is they are fragile in the face of cruiser and capitals, what if you had a way of mitigating that fragility which didn't work for larger ships. I believe Alex was looking into retaining all weapons on a ship that is destroyed but recovered. Imagine taking that a bit farther and add a method for recovering a certain number of your lost frigates in pristine condition after combat with a reasonable amount of CR restored?
For example, imagine for every Salvage rig in your fleet, you were guaranteed 1 of your lost frigates back with no (extra) D-mods, no loss of weapons, maybe simply down by deployment x2 worth of CR. Or if there was a slow, support capital ship which did something similar for all your lost frigates (imagine a carrier but on an even larger scale, like a frigate factory ship). At which point while there is still opportunity cost in deploying frigates, the annoyance of flying a fleet around to simply restock frigates goes away.
Now the frigate's role becomes that of an expendable ship for dangerous tactics, like distract that Onslaught over there while I finish up this Legion over here. Would that be sufficient of an end game use?
I'd like it if this was an expensive hullmod and mutually exclusive with converted hangar (or any hangar?) too. Maybe exclude destroyers, as well from equipping it?
Also, a potential limitation could be that the Salvage Rig (or other eligible ship) must select a SPECIFIC frigate in the player' current fleet, and that like installing major modifications to a ship, the process of creating a frigate-backup-on-demand is labor intensive and must occur while docked.
So this way players
a) aren't dependent on only using the salvage rig for this feature
b) can make interesting choices re: fighters vs frigates
c) can't just hotswap their frigate-backup-on-demands between each and every encounter.
IMO this sort of stuff (not speaking to your ideas specifically; I remember reading a number of threads on similar topics) too easily shades into "cure worse than disease" territory. That is, it gets complicated, has unintended consequences, is awkward to explain to the player/provide proper UI support for the mechanic/for the player to actually interact with, and so on. All this stuff sounds great in theory but consider how much of a pain it is to just get a relatively-very-simple "retreat scenario" to work well. Until/unless that's sorted, anything more complicated seems like asking for trouble just in principle.
Deathballs generally tend to... not actually be deathballs, anyway. That is, unless it's mostly carriers. Other ships are more effective spread out in a line, and that's what they tend to do, so *to some extent* the spreading-out that objectives are meant to encourage (and, yes, aren't very successful at) happens naturally.
IMO this sort of stuff (not speaking to your ideas specifically; I remember reading a number of threads on similar topics) too easily shades into "cure worse than disease" territory. That is, it gets complicated, has unintended consequences, is awkward to explain to the player/provide proper UI support for the mechanic/for the player to actually interact with, and so on. All this stuff sounds great in theory but consider how much of a pain it is to just get a relatively-very-simple "retreat scenario" to work well. Until/unless that's sorted, anything more complicated seems like asking for trouble just in principle.I think the problems with the retreat scenario are intrinsic to the fact that it only occurs when one side is totally outmatched and wants to run away. Thats going to have a lot negative consequences inherently, not because of any balance or design decisions. Retreaters all have their backs turned, slow ships (particularly civilian ships) are unable to escape, etc. It's never fun for the player on either side because it's either a mop up chore or a total loss. If the player has any chance of winning in a fight, they will save scum in a conventional battle, and avoid losing civilian ships (or put another way, if you can successfully retreat without losing much, you could have won a straight up fight with some save scumming). There is no upside to retreating unless you give the retreating player some major advantage they wouldn't have in a normal fight (which makes no sense). It's always going to be a boring slaughter.
Deathballs generally tend to... not actually be deathballs, anyway. That is, unless it's mostly carriers. Other ships are more effective spread out in a line, and that's what they tend to do, so *to some extent* the spreading-out that objectives are meant to encourage (and, yes, aren't very successful at) happens naturally.
you have this entire layer of real time strategy in the game that's effectively pointless right now as 1) you never have to actually give orders to anything to win, and giving orders generally doesn't noticeably improve AI effectiveness or behavior anyway and 2) there is no reason to really distribute your forces in any actual formation or distribution. the ad hoc deathball that forms is enough to do the job and there's no ability or even point to forming any sort of actual strategy.
I think the problems with the retreat scenario are intrinsic to the fact that it only occurs when one side is totally outmatched and wants to run away.
The optimal strategy is therefore to stay tightly grouped (forming a tightly grouped line is still more or less a death ball)
TLDR: Ships spreading out drastically reduces the players ability to influence what happens so the player is always incentivized to keep things close. The player wants to control the fight, not leave it in the hands of the AI and the RNG of where ships wander to at the beginning of the battle.
If that's how you want to define it, sure, but a battle line in a large battle can span a considerable portion of the map, is often a more beneficial arrangement than an actual ball (more surface area, less jostling), and also one that's more interesting to participate in for the player. To me that's an important enough distinction to make, since that's what we're after here - situations that are more interesting tactically.I guess I don't really consider it a tactical distinction because the player has no control over exactly how the AI form up, but yes there is a big difference between ball and line. My distinction is more ' are the ships close enough that player can protect them easily or not'. If your entire fleet is close enough that you can protect them and they can all help each other very quickly, then it is more or less a death ball imo.
(And another thing worth adding is that how the "admiral" AI deploys/manages stuff in .8 probably has to do with the perceived effectiveness of grouping up...)Yeah that sounds like a it would influence the issue a lot. Is that changing in .9?
I mean, that's definitely true. Isn't it also a pretty good argument against adding mechanics that force the player to split their ships?I would say I want there to be interesting tactical decisions about where to send your fleet to gain an advantage, and the current lack of control makes that more or less never true. Its hard to judge the current incentives to split (control points) because the lack of control makes splitting not feasible/consistent, regardless of how advantageous it is. If orders are significantly improved, that is very encouraging. I agree that forcing the player to split their fleet when they cannot effectively control it is bad. I just don't like that the best decision is more or less always the same currently.
IMO the argument *for* it is that splitting ships may create different tactical situations, which is good. But just splitting ships for the sake of it isn't necessarily good; i.e. if we've got several nearby "clumps" or line-sections within reasonable range from each other, that goal is more or less accomplished, and splitting ships more still just adds to downsides of doing it.
Improvements to orders could certainly be good, though - and there's a lot of that in 0.9, especially to do with improved (and still safe) order-following.
Also, PLEASE don't add yet another "F*** the player" thing by making caps more expensive. For one it does NOT address the issue of frigates being near useless, baring special ships like the Tempest and the Afflictor. The other is that the AI doesn't care about costs, once again... >.> , and will happily bring two or three caps to a fight wile I STRUGGLE to get ONE out there.
No ghost evasion, please! That would be so aggravating, enough to smash a keyboard or screen in frustration!
I guess I don't really consider it a tactical distinction because the player has no control over exactly how the AI form up
Yeah that sounds like a it would influence the issue a lot. Is that changing in .9?
I agree that forcing the player to split their fleet when they cannot effectively control it is bad. I just don't like that the best decision is more or less always the same currently.
I would like to see control points made more significant to make the advantage of splitting more significant. Maybe maybe the bonuses stronger but AOE so that there are actual positional considerations after you capture a point (that's probably been suggested before).
Also, probably relevant here - multiple retreat orders can be given for 1 CP if they're given within the command frequency window.Can't you do that already with retreat? If you want to retreat a bunch of ships, you can order several with 1 CP today (I think) if no other orders (like capture) are given?
P.S. I have seen the suggestion of randomly phasing shots through fighters before (which I also oppose), but I do not remember seeing that suggested for frigates also before this topic.
Bigger is was not always better in all versions of Starsector.
During 0.6-0.62, you needed to solo everything with a Medusa, and the rest of your fleet is Atlas to scoop up excessive loot. (That was because fleet size was determined by Logistics, and if you had no points in Fleet Logistics, you did not have enough to fully support a single battleship.)
During 0.65, the optimal fleet was the food run fleet, with two Hyperion and fifteen or so Altas. If you want to bounty hunt, anything was good, but forty frigates were optimal due to burn speed. Bounty hunting was done on the side between food runs, and you needed burn speed to not miss food runs.
During 0.7.x, you picked the one ship that could solo the enemy fleet most efficiently. If it was small, a frigate or destroyer would do. If it was a single endgame fleet, a cruiser. If it was 100+ ship pileup from multiple fleets, Onslaught.
No ghost evasion, please! That would be so aggravating, enough to smash a keyboard or screen in frustration!
I knew some people probably wouldn't like that particular suggestion, but that's a little extreme and I don't really understand why.
(It's funny, I had a sentence or two in my prior response about that but ended up deleting it just to keep it more on-point. The thing is, if you have more effecitve control, and then start requiring the player to use it all over the map, that's encouraging more babysitting, so it's not really great, either. "Splitting up" isn't an end goal, right, what matters is how it affects local tactics and overall battle flow.)
Starsector combat is skill based. Sure, there's a strategic layer on top that determines what you can bring to combat. But the heart of the game is how well you can pilot and command ships. Generally if you've kept your CR up (which is basically under your control), the only bit of randomness is bullet spread, which is a minor issue. If you introduce a completely random miss chance, which you literally have no control over, it becomes a different sort of game. Its like changing from chess to roulette. Its a fundamental shift in game philosophy. And some people prefer chess to roulette.
What if frigates could be deployed from the flanks, as in pursuits? What if in order to do this, you need to capture objectives?
What if frigates could be deployed from the flanks, as in pursuits? What if in order to do this, you need to capture objectives?
To do what, be destroyed from a slightly different direction?
Okay, maybe that was a bit cheeky. I actually do like a lot of the creative logistical suggestions people are making.
Here's something that just occurred to me: Perhaps once player fleets reach a "medium" size, they could gain a special fleet slot that behaves much like a fighter slot in a carrier; the frigate placed within would behave almost exactly like an LPC. A "large" fleet would receive a second frigate slot.
If destroyed, they're always recovered, and there is no substantial cost to the player, but they cannot be redeployed again during that battle; if ordered to retreat (for 0 CP) and they survive, they can rapidly repair and be redeployed after a short delay.
I like the general idea, I'd just set it up a bit differently: Allow cruisers and above to equip a "escort tether" hullmod. That would grant them a slot in which a frigate could be put, erasing it from the normal fleet menu. That frigate then deploys automatically with the capital ship (without costing DP) and is on permanent escort duty. It is also automatically (i.e. for free) repaired and maintained by its mothership in between combat.
I'll just chip in and agree that with the opinion that: Any out-of-combat logistical changes will be exceedingly unlikely to change the desirability of frigates in combat. If you want frigates to be more desirable to use and replace in combat, they need some bonus rather than simply being cheaper outside of combat.
It affects frigates disproportionately more than any other size class
Frigates have speed advantage so if they decide to play waiting game, there is not much to stop them beside CR (and other frigates). Fighters are effectively very long range weapons, so they can't force fight if carrier can't keep up.
Speed is their ONLY in-combat advantage (again, special frigates excepted), already balanced by being offensively and defensively weak. They don't need another disadvantage.
What does waiting accomplish, exactly? If anything, it must be during the early game, which isn't terribly important since we all know the early game with a handful of small ships isn't the meat of Starsector.
Of course, to win you don't just wait. You lurk just outside enemy reach and pounce at anything that sticks out. In no CR times single player controlled Tempest could slowly and methodically grind down Hegemony Defense Fleet (largest fleet at that time, 2-3 Onslaught + rest to match, if I remember right).Classic Hegemony System Defense Fleets had three Onslaughts.
No CR promotes this kind of 'kite everyone to death' playstyle as optimal.
Even waiting in its pure form is actually useful (with AI as is) - like my single AI frigate keeping enemy Capital permanently distracted somewhere far from main battle.
Player kiting indefinitely is not as problematic as the AI doing likewise against the player. Today, phase frigates can be untouchable until their CR times out.
It's not necessary (and rarely desirable) to try to cork every possible way for a very experienced player to exploit the game—at least not a single-player, offline game. Advanced frigate kiting is only an issue for someone who knows the game backwards and forwards. Balancing the game around experts can harm the rest of it for people who are not experts, and I doubt I'm the first precocious newcomer to say so.
I've had the issue with no-CR frigates explained to me several times, yet in each case it's mentioned that it takes a long time to do. That's nearly the whole point of frigate-grade CR: It doesn't last as long as the amount of time required to pull off these min-maxed frigate kiting scenarios. I'd consider it far more optimal to finish the battle much faster with a normal fleet, not only in terms of less testing of my patience, but even in terms of use of resources and earning potential. If I can complete twice the bounties with a large fleet in the same amount of time, then tedious frigate kiting is in no way optimal.
Even if I concede that frigate kiting, if possible, is the optimal strategy from at least one point of view, why do it if it sucks the fun out of the game? I still use some ships that I consider to be sub-optimal, both for fun and to indirectly add a bit more challenge.
And a quick example that would likely affect even a player that's not particularly into minimaxing - let's say you're in trouble and the only way to win and avoid a fleet wipe is to use this tactic. It'll take you an hour, it's not particularly fun, and it's not particularly difficult; it mainly requires patience. A lot of people would feel forced to do it, even if they didn't want to to begin with. And this sort of thing will creep in all over the place; if the design makes it optimal, successful strategies will naturally lean in that direction.)In Starsector's case when enemy had Timid officers, I sat and wait on the objective with my battleship until they, the ships with Timid officers, ran out of CR first, instead of me deploying more ships to 1) not add more deployment costs and 2) allow AI to deploy more ships to counter my reinforcements.
(Suggested reading (https://www.designer-notes.com/?p=369).
It's not necessary (and rarely desirable) to try to cork every possible way for a very experienced player to exploit the game—at least not a single-player, offline game.
However, designers can go too far by trying to remove all exploits from a game. Often, the right choice depends upon the game’s context. Does the exploit drown out all other play styles, or is it a fun, alternative way to play? Does the degenerate strategy create an endless grind, or is it a quick shortcut for players who need a little help? ... If possible, designers should provide the ability to turn an exploit on or off, giving the players control over their worst instincts.
And a quick example that would likely affect even a player that's not particularly into minimaxing - let's say you're in trouble and the only way to win and avoid a fleet wipe is to use this tactic. It'll take you an hour, it's not particularly fun, and it's not particularly difficult; it mainly requires patience. A lot of people would feel forced to do it, even if they didn't want to to begin with. And this sort of thing will creep in all over the place; if the design makes it optimal, successful strategies will naturally lean in that direction.)
Your chosen solution has been to cause a warship to break down after four to six minutes in combat, give or take. I find it to be a very artificial solution. Although realism arguments with regard to computer games are often used to support someone's opinion or preferences and not out of any true desire to see more (or less) realism in the game being discussed, nevertheless, I can genuinely say I've found this silly from the moment I started playing Starsector 0.8.1a. I don't remember what I thought about previous versions in years past, as it's been too long.
That was a very nice read. If I may, the summary echoes my own sentiment:It's not necessary (and rarely desirable) to try to cork every possible way for a very experienced player to exploit the game—at least not a single-player, offline game.Quote from: Soren JohnsonHowever, designers can go too far by trying to remove all exploits from a game. Often, the right choice depends upon the game’s context. Does the exploit drown out all other play styles, or is it a fun, alternative way to play? Does the degenerate strategy create an endless grind, or is it a quick shortcut for players who need a little help? ... If possible, designers should provide the ability to turn an exploit on or off, giving the players control over their worst instincts.
I'm in no way attempting to cherry-pick just this one statement, only pointing out that it's included. In Starsector, the CR mechanics are not optional and are insinuated into every aspect of gameplay, especially the skill system.
Your chosen solution has been to cause a warship to break down after four to six minutes in combat, give or take. I find it to be a very artificial solution. Although realism arguments with regard to computer games are often used to support someone's opinion or preferences and not out of any true desire to see more (or less) realism in the game being discussed, nevertheless, I can genuinely say I've found this silly from the moment I started playing Starsector 0.8.1a. I don't remember what I thought about previous versions in years past, as it's been too long.
I hear what you're saying re: being close to the project and so on; however this is definitely a change that was driven by player feedback regarding what was actually happening in the game.
Basically, that paragraph/section is a "don't take this as an absolute" kind of thing; less "summary" and more "disclaimer". The mechanic we're talking about here - infinite kiting - is exactly the sort of thing the rest of the article is about.
The thing is, "infinite kiting" is a prime example of an exploit that "drowns out other ways to play" and "creates an endless grind". I'll also note that peak time/CR degradation was not in place at first, and was added as a result of it - in practice - being a boring and dominant way to play. I hear what you're saying re: being close to the project and so on; however this is definitely a change that was driven by player feedback regarding what was actually happening in the game.I find this very strange. Did a lot of players actually do this pre 0.65? Because the thought of soloing and kiting puts me to sleep. Hell, reward it, and I'm still not gonna do it. I get where that game theory article wanted to go in regards to unfun but successful tactics, but at the same time I think it's drinking its own kool-aid a little too much. Not every player falls into their own un-fun trap. Not every mechanic that fits the theme is exploited at large. It depends a lot on the game and what else there is to play around with.
If infinite kiting works best, I do not hesitate to use it.
Speed is not the issue. Frigate kiting costs very few supplies, and has almost zero risk, as opposed to a full fleet battle with substantial deployment cost and recovery cost, as well as the (substantial) risk of losing ships that are quite valuable. If you lose 2 frigates and a destroyer, thats probably 80-100k credits to replace with all weapons etc, plus the time searching to find suitable hulls and weapons. That is a very substantial portion of any bounty payment, so mitigating that risk is well worth some time investment from an 'optimum play' perspective. For endgame bounties, you can easily lose much more than that in a fleet battle, so the risk/reward equation is quite simple.
The issue lies not in late game fleets (which you are correct are basically invulnerable) but in early game contests where a properly tuned, fast player ship can take on huge fleets of frigates and destroyers (and even cruisers).
The problem is the combination of:
a) kiting and grinding the enemy down lets you win fights you otherwise would have no hope of winning without a fast kiting ship. If you can dart in with a wolf and get a single shot in on armor/hull before retreating yourself, you will win without trouble. This is a strategy that lets the player win impossible fights early, catapulting them into the mid and late game. This could be done either purely solo, or with a couple of similar speed tuned flanking buddies.
b) it is an incredibly tedious and boring strategy, once you have the piloting skill. (Its pretty exciting the first time you pull it off, but not the third.)
Trading boring real world time for the best strategy is imo poor gameplay.