Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grievous69 on August 18, 2019, 12:08:51 PM

Title: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 18, 2019, 12:08:51 PM
My biggest gripe out of all ships lies with Aurora. I've really tried giving it another chance to justify its position in my fleet, and it's just meh for 30 DP. I get that it's meant to be a fast skirmisher zooming around and finishing off enemies, but that's not the reason for it to be so expensive. The only thing I've found that Aurora excels in, is killing smaller pirate ships. Anything big as itself or even bigger, it struggles to do anything unless it has many Sabots (but that's another problem). Imo it's mostly hurt by not having decent small/medium energy weapons that are good vs shields, so it has to rely on Sabots. I have honestly tried every single possible loadout and it never feels right, there's always something missing. My current setup is 2x Heavy Blaster, 1x Typhoon, 4x Hammers, 1x IR pulse laser in the far front turret, rest is Burst PD with the back synergy mount empty. Hullmods are ITU, Efficiency Overhaul and Front Shield Emitter, rest is put into vents and caps. So far I've had most succes with this since I've built my fleet with a lot of kinetic dmg to help me kill bigger targets. In my eyes, it's basically a bigger Shrike that costs way too much (speedy boi who relies on missiles and can't fight in fair duels).

There's also been talk about Medusa not being worth its DP cost but I haven't played too much with it to have a solid opinion.

Don't let this be a discussion just about these ships, feel free to talk about anything you find unbalanced in vanilla currently.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 18, 2019, 12:13:30 PM
Aurora is only good if it is loaded with lots of Sabots (all synergies stuffed with Sabots plus Expanded Missile Racks), and I am not sure the AI can use it well.  Sabot Aurora is good under player control, but AI could not overpower a lone Eagle (and eventually died).

Odyssey is another.  It needs plasma cannons to be competitive against serious opposition.  If it is limited to autopulse, it is subpar.  AI just burns to its death.

I will add more later.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 18, 2019, 12:18:19 PM
Exactly my point that I forgot to put. It's kinda ridiculous to have these big ships and they need a specific weapon out of a whole bunch just to be viable. And almost always they're high-tech ships which is a shame.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 18, 2019, 01:10:38 PM
Quote
Exactly my point that I forgot to put. It's kinda ridiculous to have these big ships and they need a specific weapon out of a whole bunch just to be viable.
Either that or able to perform at its cost.  Apogee and Odyssey would have remained mediocre if plasma cannon was not buffed so much since 0.8.x.  Similarly, the loss of 800 range needlers has hurt Medusa.

Normal Shrike compared to Shrike (P).  Standard Shrike is better than (P) for few specific loadouts (Sabots plus Expanded Missile Racks, or all beams).  For anything else, (P) version is superior.  At least Shrike is cheap compared to other ships, so it can get away with mediocrity.  All I want is for both Shrikes to have at least 80 OP and light hybrid.  Pirates have few ships that are identical to standard versions.  Shrike itself is probably worth its price.  My main gripes is Shrike (P) has so little OP (meaning mounts get left empty), but still generally better than normal Shrike.

Medusa needs Railguns in the universals.  Even with a good loadout, it is roughly on par with Hammerhead.  Medusa is probably fine, except its DP cost (12 is too much).  OP budget is a bit tight.

Apogee is fine, until it gets plasma cannon and Locusts.  Then it punches above its worth of 18 DP.  Not overrated as per OP, but underrated if anything.  Similarly, Astral is also a bit underrated.  With unlimited Recall Device and a skilled bomber captain, it is probably worth 50 DP.  I do not think Recall Device is overpowered, just the lone playable ship with it may be underpriced.

Paragon can be very powerful, but only worth 60 DP if it has long range beams to exploit its range advantage.  With pulse lasers, it is still powerful, but does not perform better than cheaper 40 DP battleships.  Probably a bit worse because it has no mobility system to catch enemies, and not enough range if armed with short-range weapons.  I think 50 DP from before was a better price.

P.S.  One highly overrated ship today:  Hyperion.  It has difficulty killing a medium-sized ship before peak performance times out, under player control.  AI is hopeless with Hyperion.  I have no use for Hyperion in the 0.9.x era.  As it is, Hyperion is worth no more than 10, maybe 12 DP.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 18, 2019, 01:18:17 PM
P.S.  One highly overrated ship today:  Hyperion.  It has difficulty killing a medium-sized ship before peak performance times out, under player control.  AI is hopeless with Hyperion.  I have no use for Hyperion in the 0.9.x era.  As it is, Hyperion is worth no more than 10, maybe 12 DP.

Yuuuuup, in all my years of playing Starsector, not even once have I considered getting it in my fleet. Because by the time I can afford it (or find it), I have better things to pilot. Only played with it in missions, and ok I guess. It can kill a cruiser maybe who's all alone and escape. But most of the time enemy ships are clumped up in a deathball and you'd just get destroyed in a second trying to kill something that will die either way from the rest of your fleet. Definitely overpriced.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 18, 2019, 01:31:37 PM
Hyperion was overpowered before 0.7.x, and it was still good during 0.7.  What killed Hyperion today is 1) smarter AI (they take countermeasures the instant you initiate teleport, not after your ship finishes teleporting) and 2) much bigger endgame fights.  Having enough PPT to kill one destroyer or cruiser, in an endgame fleet with ten capitals.  (8 DP Afflictor can kill one or two cruisers or capitals immediately, and 20 DP Harbinger can wipe several frigates or destroyers with surgical precision.)  Not worth the flagship slot.

Re: Aurora
I tried two heavy blasters, one ion pulser (or third heavy blaster), one salamander pod, burst PD, and the other hardpoints were empty.  While it can take out a small group of small ships like Sabot Aurora, it did not do so as quickly and efficiently (when I piloted it).  What I would like is a good loadout that works for AI.  I do not want to bring Aurora if it can only work at its cost under direct player control, because I have better things to pilot by the time I get an Aurora and all of the weapons.  At 30 DP, I rather pay 5 more OP and pilot Doom to nuke ships with mines and blasters.  Maybe 10 more DP and pilot Conquest with a good loadout to steamroll more ships or pummel battlestations.

Aurora can solo some things that are impossible for other cruisers not named Doom.  Not sure if it is worth it at 30 DP.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on August 18, 2019, 01:37:16 PM
Why bring a Aurora when you can deploy 3 Atlas MkII's!

But yeah, it's my opinion that due to high tech's set of weapons they are better served as escorts for atlas carriers rather then as true damage dealers. Assuming you aren't using anything else for that role.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 18, 2019, 01:48:18 PM
Hyperion can be decently powerful, it still can bypass shields with HB or Mining Blaster. But Afflictor is cheaper, easier to use and much faster at assassinating.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on August 18, 2019, 01:55:23 PM
Aurora with 2x pulse laser 1x HB and maybe some IR pulse as well can brawl with stuff ok as longs as you use the lasers to fight shields and the heavy blaster to deal damage to armor (it might even be better to use a phase lance for armor pen). I pretty much always put sabots in the rear facing synergy though and I can't think of a reason not to. Even without expanded missile racks, it's nice to have that option to instantly win a few flux battles. I also always put hardened shields on high tech ships because they really require doubling down on their good shields and flux stats to make up for the terrible energy weapon selection.

I tend to run 2x HB, 2x sabot pods in the two synergies and 4x reapers in the small forward synergies. With expanded missile racks, that's 48 sabots and 8 reapers. It has the alpha to take out cruisers and capitals quickly with the reapers, enough sabots to last out its CR usually and heavy blasters to bully smaller ships. That's my flagship because I find it very fun to pilot, but I tend to sideline it if I find a doom or odyssey. The ship could definitely use a buff, it's definitely not worth giving it to the AI IMO.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 18, 2019, 02:48:41 PM
Why bring a Aurora when you can deploy 3 Atlas MkII's!

But yeah, it's my opinion that due to high tech's set of weapons they are better served as escorts for atlas carriers rather then as true damage dealers. Assuming you aren't using anything else for that role.
atlas mk 3 is currently misspriced. Its got its DP swapped with the current Atlas. It should be 24 Deployment points.

The Aurora and Odyssey and Medusa are great and yall are crazy. The Aurora is a little weak due to the hilarious ACG buff making SO dominators stupidly OP. But other than that it still wrecks face.

Yall just need to stabalize its shields
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Recklessimpulse on August 18, 2019, 03:34:01 PM
Wait really? I've done live tests and it's current price seems right it's about on par or a little weaker then a Dominator heavy cruiser losing to the Dominator more often then not.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on August 18, 2019, 06:28:07 PM
atlas mk 3 is currently misspriced. Its got its DP swapped with the current Atlas. It should be 24 Deployment points.

Wut that was not fixed???!
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Pappus on August 18, 2019, 08:09:51 PM
Why are you hating the odyssey. I made a ship showcase to show off some of it feats and actually improved on it. In AI hands it can solo well over 100 DP by now - an onslaught being part of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ1H74wyHq8
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: pedro1_1 on August 19, 2019, 07:41:50 AM
Why are you hating the odyssey. I made a ship showcase to show off some of it feats and actually improved on it. In AI hands it can solo well over 100 DP by now - an onslaught being part of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ1H74wyHq8

so yesterday I got ambushed on a black hole system after going to search for a distres call, three pirate fleets, I not only did manege to avoid them, but whem they lost me I killed two of them, whit just one ship, my odyssey, analising the combat after the battle, it had killed around 250 DP alone, and the third fell pray to the blach hole's event horizon.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 19, 2019, 08:13:44 AM
Aurora can be a good player ship to kill both smaller and larger ships. The trick I find, is rather counterintuitively to ignore its capacity to mount missiles. Safety overides and mount the fixed small mounts with Antimatter blasters. Leave empty the rearmost fixed small mount for range optimisation. The three foremost medium mounts can be Heavy Blaster, Mining Laser, or more antimatter mounts. The problem is as always, phase ships are always better player ships. As a fleet ship, Aurora is mostly useful because it can move quickly away from danger and so is less likely to be outmatched, but doesn't seem worth the 30 DP. So much of its usefulness is in its speed and Plasma jets. If you wanted to ward off frigates rather than kill them, the Eagle would probably be a better choice.

As a side not, it's also a bit of a shame but the AI "stock" Aurora variants seem to be poorly optimised.

The Medusa is ok in my opinion. A basic Medusa with 2 Pulse Lasers, 4 LR PD Laser and 2 Dual Autocannons beats a sim balanced Hammerhead. Which as it is 12 DP vs 10 DP is as expected.
Oddly enough against the sim Support Hammerhead it simply forever skirts on the edge of the range of the elite medium ballistic guns at range 1400 forever getting shot at, even with eliminate order. It doesn't know how to phase in and out of range it seems. Oddly enough giving Medusa Railguns instead of Dual Autocannon on eliminate, it behaves as expected and dives in and retreat.

As it is I think if the Medusa had 120 speed it would be much better in style. Perhaps with synergy mounts instead.

Sabot Aurora is good under player control, but AI could not overpower a lone Eagle (and eventually died).
I just run simulation a fleet, sub-optimised frigate hunter, Aurora (3 pulse lasers, 1 heavy Blaster, 5 IR Pulse Laser, ITU, IPDAI, IEA, SS, 19 capacitors 34 vents) vs the sim Eagle and it killed the sim Eagle with ease. It didn't even use most of its weapons.

Why bring a Aurora when you can deploy 3 Atlas MkII's!

Because you cannot? 1 Aurora is 30 Deployment Points and 3 Atlas MkII is 72 Deployment Points. You can deploy 2.4 Auroras for 3 Atlas MkII. It's like asking why bring a Dominator when you can deploy a Paragon.

A truly overpriced ship is the Buffalo Mk.II which is so bad I would prefer the Cerberus a combat freighter for the same Deployment Points. The fact that it has so mnay missile mounts that it can contribute to missile spam really overvalued its DP. The Atlas Mk.II is also overpriced. For 24 DP, a Dominator would generally be better. I suppose the Accelerated Ammo Feeder can do a suprising amount of burst damage though.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: lethargie on August 19, 2019, 08:27:31 AM
Aurora definitly fill a niche that needs filling, it just interact poorly with the AI.

Aurora is made to run around hunting carrier/destroyer/frigate. That cruiser is really damn fast compared to most other ship. The plasma burst ability it has makes it out speed all destroyer except the medusa and all cruisers/capitals. Since the AI pretty much only know how to go straight ahead and shoot, the aurora MUST be weaker than other equivalent ships in AI hand right now if we want it to be balanced.

Safety overdrive on the cruisers kinda break the balance on speed because of the ludicruous boost it gives. So I would be wary of using it as we compare ship
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on August 19, 2019, 09:36:41 AM
Why are you hating the odyssey. I made a ship showcase to show off some of it feats and actually improved on it. In AI hands it can solo well over 100 DP by now - an onslaught being part of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ1H74wyHq8

Wow, this is by far the most successful ship config under AI control. I can't believe it, Odyssey destroying Onslaught under AI control. How did you come up with this combination with all these mixed armament?

Although, a nitpick, maybe swap those PD lasers and the rear Sabot for something else? With 4 Xyphos covering the ship, I doubt anything serious would get through, that PD lasers can do anything about, but you can free up 28 OP to put into Capacitors and Vents, allowing it to stay for longer under fire or spend less time venting.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 19, 2019, 09:59:14 AM
Wow, this is by far the most successful ship config under AI control. I can't believe it, Odyssey destroying Onslaught under AI control. Although, a nitpick, maybe swap those PD lasers and the rear Sabot for something else? With 4 Xyphos covering the ship, I doubt anything serious would get through, that PD lasers can do anything about, but you can free up 28 OP to put into Capacitors and Vents, allowing it to stay for longer under fire or spend less time venting.

Yeah, I wouldn't be so impressed by SO-like variant winning 1 on 1. It traded any perspective of long-term fights for these Sabots and Mirvs, what's the point if it can't do at least this much?

Skill-less (and without OP bonus too) player-piloted Odyssey can defeat sim Onslaught without relying on limited missiles with only superficial armor damage.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Pappus on August 19, 2019, 10:54:12 AM
Why are you hating the odyssey. I made a ship showcase to show off some of it feats and actually improved on it. In AI hands it can solo well over 100 DP by now - an onslaught being part of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ1H74wyHq8

Wow, this is by far the most successful ship config under AI control. I can't believe it, Odyssey destroying Onslaught under AI control. How did you come up with this combination with all these mixed armament?

Although, a nitpick, maybe swap those PD lasers and the rear Sabot for something else? With 4 Xyphos covering the ship, I doubt anything serious would get through, that PD lasers can do anything about, but you can free up 28 OP to put into Capacitors and Vents, allowing it to stay for longer under fire or spend less time venting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Loxn2N1qtK4

I just went ahead and let it fight a bigger fleet cause you seemed to like it go. That is the best I have come up with so far the main limitation now is basically that it has no weapon group left.

Anti-Matter blasters largely go unused, more flux regen only speeds up the process of the whole fight but ultimately I am already above what I spend. Also 2 xyphos are iffy due to the ship length if something comes in at the nose while they are behind they won't attack the missiles at all. It would be different if you go double Autopulse with bigger magazine cause that frees up a weapon group. I am not sure how known this is, but the AI has trouble making good weapon decision if they are in the same group but do not have identical coverage.

To the other poster. I think after it defeated 140 OP without any touch of the player your arguments just exploded. In fact if you send two of those against a pirate armada they kill them as fast as they spawn in and push the 3 fleets straight back to the respawn to create a pool of retreating and coming in ships. Feel free to impress us with something you came up with though, I am more than happy to learn.

I also have a legion up that can do roughly the same it just isn't as good as the odyssey due to lack of speed.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 19, 2019, 06:12:41 PM
Aurora definitly fill a niche that needs filling, it just interact poorly with the AI.

Aurora is made to run around hunting carrier/destroyer/frigate. That cruiser is really damn fast compared to most other ship. The plasma burst ability it has makes it out speed all destroyer except the medusa and all cruisers/capitals. Since the AI pretty much only know how to go straight ahead and shoot, the aurora MUST be weaker than other equivalent ships in AI hand right now if we want it to be balanced.

Safety overdrive on the cruisers kinda break the balance on speed because of the ludicruous boost it gives. So I would be wary of using it as we compare ship

The Aurora is one of the better AI cruisers. The main problems that player AI fleets have is clearing out the chaff of enemy fleets that do not have to abide by your fleet size restrictions. AI Aurora are really good at keeping themselves alive and cleaning chaff in order to allow your fleet to win. They might be a tad expensive for that. But when you aren't invested into fighters and so don't have a massive fleet of them they're one of the best cruisers in the game for AI use.

Re: Odyssey. I do not know why i did not think about SHIELD CONVERSION-FRONT for an AI odyssey.... It gives you 125 flux/second and 360 degree shields... That is a great option there
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 19, 2019, 06:36:02 PM
The Odyssey shotgun build posted is commendable for being effective enough for AI.  Did three fights against Onslaught, with Odyssey winning two out of three.  First fight, Odyssey barely won.  Second fight, Onslaught barely won.  Third fight, Onslaught overloaded and Odyssey won by a good margin.  Since Conquest is a much more common fight, I tried that, and Odyssey won (after taking some damage).  Next was a fight against 80 something DP against destroyers and frigates (two Enforcers, two Sunders, Hammerhead, Mule, Vigilance, two Lashers, Hound, and Brawler).  It won the first two attempts with some difficulty, but then got humiliated and destroyed in the next four or so attempts.

Noticed the Odyssey rarely used the rear Sabots, but it has saved it from getting flanked by frigates a few times.  Removing them for something else can be an option.

What makes the build work better is the Steady AI stands off at longer range.  It does not try to burn into a mob, and it does not try to get close enough to overwhelm the enemy with the a bunch of guns.  Instead, it constantly kites like triple lance Odyssey from 0.8.x.  (A different loadout with plasma cannons or a bunch of IR Pulse Lasers, Steady AI will get closer.) 
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Pappus on August 19, 2019, 10:06:31 PM
The Odyssey shotgun build posted is commendable for being effective enough for AI.  Did three fights against Onslaught, with Odyssey winning two out of three.  First fight, Odyssey barely won.  Second fight, Onslaught barely won.  Third fight, Onslaught overloaded and Odyssey won by a good margin.  Since Conquest is a much more common fight, I tried that, and Odyssey won (after taking some damage).  Next was a fight against 80 something DP against destroyers and frigates (two Enforcers, two Sunders, Hammerhead, Mule, Vigilance, two Lashers, Hound, and Brawler).  It won the first two attempts with some difficulty, but then got humiliated and destroyed in the next four or so attempts.

Noticed the Odyssey rarely used the rear Sabots, but it has saved it from getting flanked by frigates a few times.  Removing them for something else can be an option.

What makes the build work better is the Steady AI stands off at longer range.  It does not try to burn into a mob, and it does not try to get close enough to overwhelm the enemy with the a bunch of guns.  Instead, it constantly kites like triple lance Odyssey from 0.8.x.  (A different loadout with plasma cannons or a bunch of IR Pulse Lasers, Steady AI will get closer.)

Yes it was the rear sabbot that taught me parts of how the Ai uses weapons. Long story short you can either link it to force the AI to use it although 3 sabots are more often than not overkill or you link the double sabots to a harpoon for extra punch. The PD lasers were also largely dismounted for 3 burst PDs although it doesn't matter too much.

The only question left is if you want the second tachyon or not for the potential it brings. AI doesn't use it well, doesn't understand to hold it without hard flux on the target and so on or if you want a second auto laser + expanded magazine. An aggressive AI officer with the correct skills will allow it to go fully nuts.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 20, 2019, 07:13:26 AM
Aurora is only good if it is loaded with lots of Sabots (all synergies stuffed with Sabots plus Expanded Missile Racks), and I am not sure the AI can use it well.  Sabot Aurora is good under player control, but AI could not overpower a lone Eagle (and eventually died).

Odyssey is another.  It needs plasma cannons to be competitive against serious opposition.  If it is limited to autopulse, it is subpar.  AI just burns to its death.

I will add more later.
I'm actually loving the Odyssey right now.  Using it more as an ultra-cruiser than a capital, with multiple Odysseys supporting a player Paragon.  They have great speed and tankyness, so they naturally keep up a lot of interference preventing the enemy from being able to overwhelm my paragon.  They also chase down Radiants pretty well.  I keep them very lightly armed, with only 2 autopulse lasers and some anti-shield missiles, focusing mostly on maximizing their shielding.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 20, 2019, 08:03:53 AM
If I want a high tech tanky ship I can just get an Apogee that's ONLY 18 DP, has also decent firepower but lacks the mobility system of Odyssey. But I don't care for mobility on big ships, there are others suited for that role. Sure, flanking is fun but I can just cut through the enemy fleet with other capitals and laugh. My opinion on good cruisers for player piloting changed a lot over the years, and in the end I've had most success with just a simple Dominator. There's not a thing I can't kill with it, who needs fancy systems phh.

After Doom of course, but it costs as much as a capital so not really counting it here.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on August 20, 2019, 08:11:36 AM
Phase ships are kinda "counts as" for the next highest size, right?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 20, 2019, 08:36:36 AM
That's what Alex said before so yes.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 20, 2019, 09:08:30 AM
If I want a high tech tanky ship I can just get an Apogee that's ONLY 18 DP, has also decent firepower but lacks the mobility system of Odyssey. But I don't care for mobility on big ships, there are others suited for that role. Sure, flanking is fun but I can just cut through the enemy fleet with other capitals and laugh. My opinion on good cruisers for player piloting changed a lot over the years, and in the end I've had most success with just a simple Dominator. There's not a thing I can't kill with it, who needs fancy systems phh.

After Doom of course, but it costs as much as a capital so not really counting it here.

Youre missing out.

So semi-aside. Back in the day of eve online there were modules called nanofibers. They increased the speed and reduced the mass of your ship, making it faster and more maneuverable. In EVE everything stacked multiplicatively.

Now each size of ship came with guns that were its own size, like starsector bigger guns had more inherent range. Anyway when you fit nanofiber onto a bigger ship size it would end up with better firepower to a ship one class smaller that was fit for damage. But the larger ship would be faster and more maneuverable and more tanky.

As a result everyone had to fit nano-fibers on everything. And only the largest ships would be sometimes excepted.

In starsector only a handful of ships can do that thing with the speed. But those that can are immensely powerful as a result. Especially as player ships. They let the player and AI isolate and kill smaller ships until such a point as their side outnumbers the larger ships significantly. At which point those slow large ships are simply prey.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 20, 2019, 07:48:33 PM
If I want a high tech tanky ship I can just get an Apogee that's ONLY 18 DP, has also decent firepower but lacks the mobility system of Odyssey. But I don't care for mobility on big ships, there are others suited for that role. Sure, flanking is fun but I can just cut through the enemy fleet with other capitals and laugh. My opinion on good cruisers for player piloting changed a lot over the years, and in the end I've had most success with just a simple Dominator. There's not a thing I can't kill with it, who needs fancy systems phh.

After Doom of course, but it costs as much as a capital so not really counting it here.
Mobility is THE reason to go for Odyssey, and you are severely underrating having mobility on big ships.

Being mobile means that it can get in AND OUT of combat.  A slow paragon or apogee can be super tanky, but when they get overwhelmed it's just a matter of time before they eventually flux out.  An Odyssey can almost always escape from anything strong enough to break its shields.  Additionally, with the high speed getting into combat an Odyssey makes for a great "rescue" ship when you get in over your head yourself piloting something like a paragon.  It can quickly get between you and the enemy fleet giving you time to vent, then out again when you are 0 flux ready for round two.  Just order it to attack some ship on the opposite side of you, then cancel the order as soon as it gets in position.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on August 21, 2019, 03:17:31 AM
Is there anything going for the Condor to make it worthwhile? Ever since the fighter change I have never used the Condor. The limited ranges of fighters plus the slowness of Condors means that enemies will often be beyond the Condor's reach. Condors are slower than some cruisers, and can't escape if pushed by enemy warships. How is Fast Missile Racks suppose to help a carrier?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 21, 2019, 03:31:02 AM
Yea I also don't get the point of it besides being a tutorial carrier. I'd rather have a makeshift carrier with Converted hangar in my fleet than a Condor. Guess it's ok for being a common pirate carrier just to make the early game not a nightmare.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 21, 2019, 03:35:23 AM
Is there anything going for the Condor to make it worthwhile? Ever since the fighter change I have never used the Condor. The limited ranges of fighters plus the slowness of Condors means that enemies will often be beyond the Condor's reach. Condors are slower than some cruisers, and can't escape if pushed by enemy warships. How is Fast Missile Racks suppose to help a carrier?

Spamming salamanders is about the best use you can find for FMR.
Condor is much worse than Drover, but it's still a carrier. It can even solo other DEs in AI vs AI (because they totally can't handle Talons/Sparks).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 21, 2019, 06:50:47 AM
The Condor is the cheapest carrier and the best deployment point to fighter wing ratio in the game. Its also civilian tagged and so always attempds to avoid direct combat with enemy combat ships. The drover is generally more capable if you only have drover but the condor does its job just as well for cheaper if you have a front line for which to hide your carries behind

Condor 10/5
Drover 12/6
Heron 20/6.66
Mora 20/6.66
Legion 40/10
Astral 45/7.5

Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Agile on August 21, 2019, 06:57:20 AM
Condor is only good if you set it up with either spark/spark or talon/spark, and put only missles, expanded missle racks, and expanded hangar crew into it. Maybe reinforced bulkhead because if your facing a death fleet you will lost at least a quarter of your Condors to suicide rushers on the enemy side.

Usually, however, you will win with this setup if you have 9 officers with maximum carrier and combat skills and one officer with JUST combat skills placed in a capital like a Onslaught that takes all the attention / damage.

Every other setup means you just lose too many Condors for it to be useful (considering bombers don't protect Condors very well). And its not the best against [REDACTED] because of their mobility, aka phase skimming right past your capital to target your carriers.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on August 21, 2019, 10:15:22 AM
While Condors are cheaper per wing, they lack a fighter boosting system so they are less valuable per wing. However, FMR + Salamanders shouldn't be underestimated - its actually damn potent fire support in most situations.

I think the Condor is in a fine balance place combat wise, though I wouldn't mind an out of combat stat boost. Its more that the drover is overpowered for 12 DP... as long as it has a line to hide behind or extreme numbers. Exposed carriers are dead carriers when fighting any kind of hunter fleet.

Re: Aurora
It is worth the cost and is an excellent AI ship. Easily capable of killing all other cruisers, not to mention its high speed making it a terror to destroyers.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 21, 2019, 11:23:19 AM
The Aurora looks good on paper, but I haven't found a build for it that I like.  I tried a bunch of different things and couldn't get the AI to beat a single Eagle in decent time.  Any recommendations?  I'm not really too fond of beams and missiles...
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 21, 2019, 12:43:11 PM
I think a lot of reasons for Aurora being unimpressive boil down to AI. Aurora needs to be smart to get anything done.

It's a ship strongly reliant on it's system, yet AI's system usage is seriously lacking.
- It often fails to activate system to pursue enemy
- Sometimes it activates system and sits in place (wants to be at wrong distance from enemy, I guess)
- (advanced) It doesn't reserve system usage. For example, approaching a Paragon with active ship system is very bad idea if your shield can't hold long enough for cooldown to pass and retreat with system after that.

It has problems with range management - try Aurora with 2 Gravitons, rest hard flux. It mistakenly considers itself a standoff ship and will stalemate endlessly against sim Eagle, unless given 'Eliminate' order.

It's also a bursty ship that needs to vent a lot, and AI is not good at securing vent opportunities. Take same sim Eagle - once you get through it's shield and disable mortars you can vent away right in it's face - LRPDs and Gravs will barely scratch your armor in process. I don't think AI even has logic for 'most enemy guns are currently disabled, rest can barely scratch me = it's safe to vent'.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Garance Doré on August 21, 2019, 01:27:02 PM
Never thought there'd be a thread with complaints regarding the Aurora, thing is ridiculous.

Spoiler
(https://i.ibb.co/b3DVVtM/screenshot000.png)
[close]
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 21, 2019, 01:35:06 PM
@Garance Doré
That's SO build. 2 chain deployed Afflictors can get more kills for half DP cost in about the same amount of world time. And they'd be able to get more useful kills too (picking not omni-shielded capitals right at the start of the fight)
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Garance Doré on August 21, 2019, 01:42:07 PM
@Garance Doré
That's SO build. 2 chain deployed Afflictors can get more kills for half DP cost in about the same amount of world time. And they'd be able to get more useful kills too (picking not omni-shielded capitals right at the start of the fight)

The comparison is poor as the Afflictor much like the up tier'd Harbringer (already batted) is in desperate need of a nerf. Going forward it seems more sensible that if a comparison is going to be made on DP cost it should be within the realm of realism i.e. Cruiser to Cruiser - Frigates by nature are already going to be cheaper, an over performing Frigate is just that.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 21, 2019, 01:53:42 PM
@TaLaR

Imagine being OP and trying to have a normal discussion about ships when half of the people are ''hey look just put missiles with missile spec 3 and SO and then watch things go kaboom, ship strong, yes''. If all battles lasted 5 minutes or so that would be swell, but you're telling me a 30 DP and 45 DP ships are considered ''ridiculous'' just because they can quickly kill a couple of ships. Yea sure then everyone would get a fleet of Odysseys and put autopilot on.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Garance Doré on August 21, 2019, 01:56:50 PM
@TaLaR

Imagine being OP and trying to have a normal discussion about ships when half of the people are ''hey look just put missiles with missile spec 3 and SO and then watch things go kaboom, ship strong, yes''. If all battles lasted 5 minutes or so that would be swell, but you're telling me a 30 DP and 45 DP ships are considered ''ridiculous'' just because they can quickly kill a couple of ships. Yea sure then everyone would get a fleet of Odysseys and put autopilot on.

You need zero combat skills for SO Aurora to be a successful player or AI ship in elongated battles.

I'm not quite sure what a "normal discussion" entails but in my mind it includes all in game mechanics. Certain hulls and builds are made and broken by hull mods and load outs, this is basically Star Sector 101.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 21, 2019, 01:59:37 PM
Same with SO Hammerhead, which is like three times as cheap, and ten times more common.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Garance Doré on August 21, 2019, 02:04:19 PM
Same with SO Hammerhead, which is like three times as cheap, and ten times more common.

Destroyer, cheaper than Cruiser - who knew?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 21, 2019, 02:19:22 PM
Aurora really needs Aggressive or Reckless AI to do well with hard flux loadouts.  With Steady AI, Aurora will hang back and let SIM Eagle or equivalent kill it.  With Aggressive AI, Aurora will make an effort to attack Eagle and will win eventually.

As for Aurora, the core loadout I give it is two Heavy Blasters and five burst PD, all on turrets.  If I use Sabots, then I fill the rest of the mounts with Sabots and get Expanded Missiles Racks.  If no missiles, then the rest of the mounts stay empty while I get hullmods Hardened Shields, Shield Conversion: Front, and Stabilized Shields to let it fire blasters longer.

I tried a novelty loadout with seven IR Pulse Lasers and one Heavy Blaster for the most efficiency for trading flux (heavy blaster when shields are down).  It worked decently in one-on-one fights against other cruisers, but was sub-optimal against a group of small ships.  Also tried two Pulse Lasers in turrets and one Heavy Blaster on hardpoint.  Better against groups, but I had the best results with simply two Heavy Blasters on the turrets (and no other weapons beyond burst PD) for a no-missiles loadout.

I wished Aurora had its 0.8.x flux stats back.  (12k capacity, plus somewhat higher dissipation.)

Aurora requires too much finesse to make it worth its 30 DP cost.  Aurora is mostly good at soloing small fleets that would overwhelm any other cruiser aside from Doom and maybe Heron.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 21, 2019, 04:12:46 PM
The Aurora looks good on paper, but I haven't found a build for it that I like.  I tried a bunch of different things and couldn't get the AI to beat a single Eagle in decent time.  Any recommendations?  I'm not really too fond of beams and missiles...

Nothing, besides SO, will beat a sim eagle in a "decent time" when the AI uses it. The sim Eagle is full "worthless but it doesn't die" mode with 3 gravitons, 2 sabots, and the incessent need to back off using its active ability.  Even SO ships can have some trouble with eliminate orders/aggressive AI.

Aurora really needs Aggressive or Reckless AI to do well with hard flux loadouts.  With Steady AI, Aurora will hang back and let SIM Eagle or equivalent kill it.  With Aggressive AI, Aurora will make an effort to attack Eagle and will win eventually.

I cannot get an officer-less Aurora to lose to a sim eagle. Well i mean, i can. But i can't get it to happen from a build i might actually field.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 21, 2019, 04:27:57 PM
No need for officer if fleet doctrine is Aggressive or higher.  (In my case, I leave it on Steady AI, and I do not want to change it just to accommodate one or two problem ships.  I will need officer for Aggressive AI if doctrine is Steady.)

I tried Aurora with blasters and sabots.  When I pilot it, enemies die.  When Steady AI pilots it, it hangs back, does not get close enough to use blasters, chucks a few sabots here and there ineffectively, but is mostly passive and will let something with superior range like Eagle kill it, or at least lose the PPT war.  With Aggressive AI, Aurora got close enough to use both blasters and sabots and overpowered Eagle.  I wished Steady AI would use a relatively straightforward loadout like blasters, sabots, and appropriate hullmods, but it failed miserably the times I tried.  When Aggressive or Reckless AI pilots it, Aurora behaves like it supposed to, charge in and blast the enemy.

Conquest with Storm Needlers behaves similarly to hard-flux Aurora.  Needs Aggressive AI to work properly.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 21, 2019, 08:09:00 PM
The Aurora looks good on paper, but I haven't found a build for it that I like.  I tried a bunch of different things and couldn't get the AI to beat a single Eagle in decent time.  Any recommendations?  I'm not really too fond of beams and missiles...

Nothing, besides SO, will beat a sim eagle in a "decent time" when the AI uses it. The sim Eagle is full "worthless but it doesn't die" mode with 3 gravitons, 2 sabots, and the incessent need to back off using its active ability.  Even SO ships can have some trouble with eliminate orders/aggressive AI.

Aurora really needs Aggressive or Reckless AI to do well with hard flux loadouts.  With Steady AI, Aurora will hang back and let SIM Eagle or equivalent kill it.  With Aggressive AI, Aurora will make an effort to attack Eagle and will win eventually.

I cannot get an officer-less Aurora to lose to a sim eagle. Well i mean, i can. But i can't get it to happen from a build i might actually field.
Two frigates or a capital will beat it quickly, the Frigates might need an eliminate order (otherwise they might never go near it), but that's all.  The problem I have is that Cruisers in general are utterly useless.  My end-game fleets end up as Frigates+Capitals only with Odyssey being my cruiser stand-in.

Eagle is my bottom-tier metric.  The ship already failed against Onslaught, Conquest, and Dominator.  When it fails against Eagle too it's time to chuck the ship.

In other news, I just managed to set up an AI Odyssey to solo Sim-Paragon.  The build that finally did it:
2x Autopulse Laser (left broadside)
2x Sabot SRM (front)
1x Squall MLRS
Expanded Magazines
Hardened Shields
Auxiliary Thrusters (probably not needed here)
Integrated Targeting Unit
Longbow Kinetic Bomber
Lux Heavy Fighter
56 Capacitors
60 Vents

I had an aggressive officier, but I'm pretty sure it was still being treated as my flagship on autopilot.  I have 17 points of piloted ship combat skills (including power grid modulation), so less effective than a maxed out officer would be.  Fleet Doctrine is also aggressive if that helps.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on August 22, 2019, 12:00:23 AM
What? Cruisers are the majority of my fleets... I have at least 4 apogees in my fleet at all times. Capitals are fun but they require so many resources that it's rarely worth having more than 2 in a fleet. Any more and you will spend most of your time searching for fuel and you can't deploy more than 2 in 90% of battles. Dominators are decent, tanky and with good damage but unable to escape. I don't love eagles tbh, and the aurora is a player missile boat with ok brawling ability. The heron and mora are both great and i tend to have 3-4 cruiser sized carriers in my fleets. The astral is also god tier, but for interceptors I would rather have cruiser sized carriers that can distribute their fighters more. Frigates are way less useful in late game, then last like 1 minute and then you have to retreat them. I just keep a few tempests and omens (mostly for pursuits), and otherwise never use frigates.

Obviously cruisers can't solo capitals though... I have no idea why you would expect a ship that costs a fraction of the supplies and deployment points to beat onslaughts or Conquests when piloted by the AI. I can easily set up aurora builds that can nuke an onslaught or conquest with missiles, but the AI will not be able to execute that. Ships don't have to be able to solo every other ship in the game to be useful, they just have to fill role in the fleet (tank damage, deal damage, control the airspace etc..)
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 22, 2019, 01:17:08 AM
What? Cruisers are the majority of my fleets... I have at least 4 apogees in my fleet at all times. Capitals are fun but they require so many resources that it's rarely worth having more than 2 in a fleet. Any more and you will spend most of your time searching for fuel and you can't deploy more than 2 in 90% of battles. Dominators are decent, tanky and with good damage but unable to escape. I don't love eagles tbh, and the aurora is a player missile boat with ok brawling ability. The heron and mora are both great and i tend to have 3-4 cruiser sized carriers in my fleets. The astral is also god tier, but for interceptors I would rather have cruiser sized carriers that can distribute their fighters more. Frigates are way less useful in late game, then last like 1 minute and then you have to retreat them. I just keep a few tempests and omens (mostly for pursuits), and otherwise never use frigates.

Obviously cruisers can't solo capitals though... I have no idea why you would expect a ship that costs a fraction of the supplies and deployment points to beat onslaughts or Conquests when piloted by the AI. I can easily set up aurora builds that can nuke an onslaught or conquest with missiles, but the AI will not be able to execute that. Ships don't have to be able to solo every other ship in the game to be useful, they just have to fill role in the fleet (tank damage, deal damage, control the airspace etc..)
In order to be useful a ship needs to win on at least 4 to 1 odds and basically never die.  Remember that the enemy has infinite ships and fleets multiple times the size of yours, and you do not.  A couple of frigates like Tempests do the job admirably.  Carriers fail at the "never die" but they are great for killing things.  Cruisers however can't manage either aspect, they die easily compared to both capitals and frigates, and they don't kill anything.

I've modded my game to increase deployment size, but my current fleet is 1 Paragon, 2 Astrals, 3 Odysseys, and 5 Tempests.  That's it (for combat ships).  It's 325 deployment which is only slightly over default max.  I could probably make do with only 2 Odysseys and work it with default settings.  I have never found a build for a Cruiser or Destroyer that improves this fleet at all, save possibly for carriers.  I use this fleet (among other things, like fighting multiple core fleets at once) to hunt Remnant ordos.  2 and 3 Radiant Ordos are common (complete with 6-9 brilliant cruisers and god knows how many frigates and destroyers).  I need to be able to fight those without significant losses multiple times in a row.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 22, 2019, 01:51:59 AM
Eagle with level 20 officer can solo some officer-less capitals (I mean proper ones, not Atlas mk2). And you get almost 2 instead of each Conquest, exactly 2 instead of Odyssey, etc.
With battle size 500 (max default) and 10 officers there is no strict need to use many larger ships. Maybe 1 capital under AI control and 1 for player.
What I like about Eagles is that they are very simple to use, both for player/AI and efficient. I think AI is least error-prone with Eagles compared to any other direct combat ships.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 22, 2019, 01:57:46 AM
Eagle with level 20 officer can solo some officer-less capitals (I mean proper ones, not Atlas mk2). And you get almost 2 instead of each Conquest, exactly 2 instead of Odyssey, etc.
With battle size 500 (max default) and 10 officers there is no strict need to use many larger ships. Maybe 1 capital under AI control and 1 for player.
What I like about Eagles is that they are very simple to use, both for player/AI and efficient. I think AI is least error-prone with Eagles compared to any other direct combat ships.
I find that 2 Astrals on bombing duty is more efficient than 1.  You need a critical mass of bombers to accomplish anything with them and I find that 2 Astrals gives that critical mass.  The Odyssey can solo a freaking Paragon, it's arguably the best ship ton for ton in the game being (much) faster than the Eagle with more firepower than the Dominator.

Eagles, like Auroras, don't really do anything at all.  A mass of enemy Eagles is something of a minor threat, but one or two allied Eagles is at-best a distraction.  They can MAYBE kill Destroyers, but the capitals all kill destroyers in seconds so that's never an issue.  Tempests make a pretty decent distraction anyway, and unlike Eagles they don't tend to get surrounded and murdered.

Every ship in my fleet uses a level 20 officer.  There's a reason I have exactly 11 ships.  I do my testing with either officers or player skills, so that's another reason I expect every ship to punch above its weight in sim or else consider it trash, sim enemies have no officer stats.  Sim ships also use default loadouts which have tons of wasted OP and garbage flux stats.  Basically consider every Sim ship to be one weight class lower than it actually is, while every officer player ship is one weight class higher.  Aurora vs Sim Eagle is therefor a capital vs destroyer battle in practice, and the Aurora manages to not win quickly enough so into the trash it goes.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Sebenko on August 22, 2019, 02:21:43 AM
I told you guys. I told you about Odysseys.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 22, 2019, 03:41:56 AM
Capitals are fun but they require so many resources that it's rarely worth having more than 2 in a fleet. Any more and you will spend most of your time searching for fuel
How? Most capitals have similar fuel efficiency as most other ships. One on one, of course they use up more fuel, same way that a cruiser generally use more fuel than a destroyer which use more fuel than a frigate. To get the same combat power, you will need a similar amount of fuel.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 22, 2019, 10:48:42 AM
I had an aggressive officier, but I'm pretty sure it was still being treated as my flagship on autopilot.  I have 17 points of piloted ship combat skills (including power grid modulation), so less effective than a maxed out officer would be.  Fleet Doctrine is also aggressive if that helps.
Your fleet commander (if you set on autopilot and let AI take over) is treated as a Steady officer, even if fleet doctrine is different.  (Another reason why I prefer Steady as default AI.)  The ship you are in is treated as Steady after you set it to autopilot.

It would be nice to change the AI behavior of you if you want to set it to autopilot.  Your character is locked at Steady.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 22, 2019, 01:48:44 PM
Does fleet doctrine actually do anything to your Fleet? I always assumed it only affects the colony patrols and fleets.

Anyways I've been playign around with the Aurora. Still not a good fleet ship. I can configure a frigate/destroyer killing loadout, helped significantly by it's speed and ship system. I suppose the plethora of synergy mounts and its ship system makes it a good player ship, but it a fleet, it is certainly not worth the 30 DP, unless all your other ships are specialised against cruisers and/or capital ships.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Wyvern on August 22, 2019, 02:01:17 PM
It's possible to design a missile-less Aurora variant that can, with no officer on it & under AI control, take on all three sim Dominators at once.  (Admittedly, this is with various fleet-wide skills in play, including 85% CR and +10% OP.)

If that's not sufficient to make a cruiser count as a "good fleet ship", I'm not really sure what is.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 22, 2019, 02:11:23 PM
It's possible to design a missile-less Aurora variant that can, with no officer on it & under AI control, take on all three sim Dominators at once.  (Admittedly, this is with various fleet-wide skills in play, including 85% CR and +10% OP.)

If that's not sufficient to make a cruiser count as a "good fleet ship", I'm not really sure what is.

Yes because fighting 3 slowest cruisers with the fastest cruiser is exactly the same as being in a real fight with real dangerous deathballs and tons of fighters. You could probably kill 3 Onslaughts with an SO Hammerhead or something, and what does that prove? Absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 22, 2019, 02:16:44 PM
Dominators are too slow, 3 of them test ability to kill, but not ability to survive. Which is the more important part, imo.

Imo better test would be fighting sim Eagle + sim Falcon, skill-less.
Player piloted missile-less Aurora can easily clear it by focusing Falcon while avoiding the Eagle, then usual 1v1. AI Aurora always fails from what I've seen.
AI Odyssey also gets tag-teamed by cruisers and fails, despite being able to delete Falcon quite fast.

Which is why I like Eagles/Falcons. They may not be strongest ships overall, but they don't brain fart (or at least nowhere near as badly as other ships).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 22, 2019, 04:45:31 PM
Capitals are fun but they require so many resources that it's rarely worth having more than 2 in a fleet. Any more and you will spend most of your time searching for fuel
How? Most capitals have similar fuel efficiency as most other ships. One on one, of course they use up more fuel, same way that a cruiser generally use more fuel than a destroyer which use more fuel than a frigate. To get the same combat power, you will need a similar amount of fuel.

An Eagle is 22 DP per 3 fuel. A Paragon is 60 for 10. So 3 Eagles is 66 for 9. All capitals are fuel inefficient, even the Odyssey. (16 DP per 3 fuel). Only some frigates and destroyers have worse DP/Fuel use ratios than capitals. Cruisers are generally the most fuel efficient ships in the game. They're also generally OP/Deployment point efficient. (60 DP worth of eagles, as an example, has 422 Deployment points. A paragon has 370)

Eagles are really good. And they just keep getting better the larger your fleet gets due to their high range and significant ability to stack HVD while also not dying. Plus there is the wide line effect that prevents them from being surrounded and killed.

The only real place that cruisers start to falter is when fighting stations.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on August 22, 2019, 06:46:34 PM
...

The only real place that cruisers start to falter is when fighting stations.

This is how I feel about destroyers. They tend to survive quite well even in capital slugfests (unless they get focused by a capital with no other ships around, which is bad fleet management more than bad AI), but the concentrated firepower of a station is just plain nasty.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 23, 2019, 02:10:01 PM
Capitals are fun but they require so many resources that it's rarely worth having more than 2 in a fleet. Any more and you will spend most of your time searching for fuel
How? Most capitals have similar fuel efficiency as most other ships. One on one, of course they use up more fuel, same way that a cruiser generally use more fuel than a destroyer which use more fuel than a frigate. To get the same combat power, you will need a similar amount of fuel.

An Eagle is 22 DP per 3 fuel. A Paragon is 60 for 10. So 3 Eagles is 66 for 9. All capitals are fuel inefficient, even the Odyssey. (16 DP per 3 fuel). Only some frigates and destroyers have worse DP/Fuel use ratios than capitals. Cruisers are generally the most fuel efficient ships in the game. They're also generally OP/Deployment point efficient. (60 DP worth of eagles, as an example, has 422 Deployment points. A paragon has 370)

Eagles are really good. And they just keep getting better the larger your fleet gets due to their high range and significant ability to stack HVD while also not dying. Plus there is the wide line effect that prevents them from being surrounded and killed.

The only real place that cruisers start to falter is when fighting stations.
An eagle with 7.3 DP per fuel and Paragon with 6 fuel efficiency isn't really that much of a difference. The Dominator, and Falcon and Mora all have worse fuel efficiency than a Paragon. It's more of a case that the Eagle is particularily fuel efficient per DP. As is the Apogee and Aurora, but I suppose it's rare that someone would consider making a fleet purely out of these.

The difference between cruisers and capitals isn't so much that suddenly you have difficulty finding fuel for more than 2 capital ships. Afterall, they should be considered to replace cruiser ships, not adding to them. And presumably by the time you can wield more than 2 capital ships, you should have either colonies, or military markets to obtain fuel from anyways.

As a base of comparison, people make pure destroyer class fleets. 60 fuel a lightyear. No trouble fueling that. Surely you can fit 3 capital ships into that?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on August 23, 2019, 02:28:39 PM
Another way of thinking about it is capitals condense a lot firepower into one fleet slot but also a lot supply/fuel consumption. You don't have the option to deploy 1/3 of a paragon but you can deploy 1 of your 3 eagles. You also can't leave 1/3 of your paragon at home but you can take 2 out of 3 eagles. My goal is to spend the least number of supplies per combat, and cruisers IMO are the best way of achieving that for most battles. The two important considerations are supply cost to deploy and peak performance time. Frigates and destroyers do not last long enough in combat because of PPT and so you spend many extra supplies on recovering lost CR. Capitals do not have the granularity to minimize supply cost to deploy.

There are also skills that decrease enemy range and increase your speed based on the number of ships you have deployed, so deploying more ships is directly beneficial. I also find that having more ships decreases the chances of getting surrounded which can be a big problem for capitals.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 24, 2019, 03:38:04 AM
Another way of thinking about it is capitals condense a lot firepower into one fleet slot but also a lot supply/fuel consumption. You don't have the option to deploy 1/3 of a paragon but you can deploy 1 of your 3 eagles. You also can't leave 1/3 of your paragon at home but you can take 2 out of 3 eagles. My goal is to spend the least number of supplies per combat, and cruisers IMO are the best way of achieving that for most battles. The two important considerations are supply cost to deploy and peak performance time. Frigates and destroyers do not last long enough in combat because of PPT and so you spend many extra supplies on recovering lost CR. Capitals do not have the granularity to minimize supply cost to deploy.

There are also skills that decrease enemy range and increase your speed based on the number of ships you have deployed, so deploying more ships is directly beneficial. I also find that having more ships decreases the chances of getting surrounded which can be a big problem for capitals.
I disagree.  A single capital will outperform half a dozen cruisers.  It might die to the same half-dozen cruisers at once, but in the general pace of battle it will do more killing and take less damage/casualties.  Now, if you happen to be going into a battle where only a single cruiser is sufficient, that might be a different story.  I don't think that's likely to happen, but you will EASILY find battles where a single Paragon or Odyssey is sufficient.

For the rest, yes Capitals are at risk for being surrounded.  For the Paragon especially, that's pretty much the only way it dies short of engaging 10 cruisers at once.  Having 2 or 3 cruisers in place of a capital doesn't really help that, because they die without needing to be surrounded.  Using them in addition to a capital mitigates that.  Using a second capital (particularly a fast one like Odyssey), or even a number of Frigates also helps.  Cruisers are pretty much completely obsolete in base game.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on August 24, 2019, 05:15:36 AM
In mainline battle, yeah cruisers are as useful in capital ship fights as they were in real life (not.) But for long range expeditions against anything but the strongest opponents, cruisers serve that nice role as tactical capital ships or as stronger escorts then destroyers.

Bang for buck, a battleship is the best (Or super carrier) but for affordable flexibility or cost effectiveness on the rim anything bigger then an Eagle is simply a waste of supplies and fuel. Which is kind of the purpose of cruisers, to cruise.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 24, 2019, 05:53:24 AM
In mainline battle, yeah cruisers are as useful in capital ship fights as they were in real life (not.) But for long range expeditions against anything but the strongest opponents, cruisers serve that nice role as tactical capital ships or as stronger escorts then destroyers.

Bang for buck, a battleship is the best (Or super carrier) but for affordable flexibility or cost effectiveness on the rim anything bigger then an Eagle is simply a waste of supplies and fuel. Which is kind of the purpose of cruisers, to cruise.
Ok I understand your point.  I don't really agree because I consider Cruisers to be woefully underpowered for their weight class, but I definitely know the value of fielding a smaller force for an appropriate task.  I recommend the Odyssey still though as a cruiser-capital hybrid.  It fills every role a cruiser can, while also bringing more firepower and defense, and a pretty good logistical profile as well especially when you consider its cargo/fuel/crew capacity.  The Odyssey is arguably the best one-ship fleet you can have.


Just to put this in terms of the original topic: Overrated/overpriced ships?  Every non-carrier, non-phase cruiser in the game
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 24, 2019, 06:03:46 AM
For combat with cruiser-capital hybrid, I prefer Doom over Odyssey.  Dooms are a bit cheaper and tend to stay alive longer.  Also, it is a pain to outfit Odyssey.  A good offensive loadout for player will probably get AI killed, and a good support loadout for AI will be underpowered for player use.

Also, Conquest is cheaper than Odyssey and is powerful enough to fight as a battleship.

Speaking of Odyssey, I experimented with a variation of the shotgun build posted pages back.  Replaced lance with HIL and MIRV with Squalls.  Seems to function decently.  Works well against (smaller?) human fleets.  Not very good against a big Ordos fleet.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 24, 2019, 06:12:23 AM
Another way of thinking about it is capitals condense a lot firepower into one fleet slot but also a lot supply/fuel consumption. You don't have the option to deploy 1/3 of a paragon but you can deploy 1 of your 3 eagles. You also can't leave 1/3 of your paragon at home but you can take 2 out of 3 eagles. My goal is to spend the least number of supplies per combat, and cruisers IMO are the best way of achieving that for most battles. The two important considerations are supply cost to deploy and peak performance time. Frigates and destroyers do not last long enough in combat because of PPT and so you spend many extra supplies on recovering lost CR. Capitals do not have the granularity to minimize supply cost to deploy.

There are also skills that decrease enemy range and increase your speed based on the number of ships you have deployed, so deploying more ships is directly beneficial. I also find that having more ships decreases the chances of getting surrounded which can be a big problem for capitals.
I now see what you mean thanks. With 80-120 deployment limit a single Paragon will cause that granularity problem you just described. So it is worthless to have more than 2 Paragons, at least if you are always able to recover CR before redeploying again. That said, you still shouldn't run into problems getting fuel.

In mainline battle, yeah cruisers are as useful in capital ship fights as they were in real life (not.) But for long range expeditions against anything but the strongest opponents, cruisers serve that nice role as tactical capital ships or as stronger escorts then destroyers.

Bang for buck, a battleship is the best (Or super carrier) but for affordable flexibility or cost effectiveness on the rim anything bigger then an Eagle is simply a waste of supplies and fuel. Which is kind of the purpose of cruisers, to cruise.
The game doesn't work that way. The ship classes don't have anything specific delineating them, but that they tend to be bigger. Some have burn speed higher than the rest. Some have different fuel costs. Some have weaker hulls than the class below.

Cruisers are useful in capital ship fights. Cruisers don't cruise in this game (except maybe Apogee, but that's because it's supposed to partly be a logistical ship).

What you think crusiers did in real life has no bearing on what they were used for in real life anyways.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 24, 2019, 06:50:44 AM
For combat with cruiser-capital hybrid, I prefer Doom over Odyssey.  Dooms are a bit cheaper and tend to stay alive longer.  Also, it is a pain to outfit Odyssey.  A good offensive loadout for player will probably get AI killed, and a good support loadout for AI will be underpowered for player use.

Also, Conquest is cheaper than Odyssey and is powerful enough to fight as a battleship.

Speaking of Odyssey, I experimented with a variation of the shotgun build posted pages back.  Replaced lance with HIL and MIRV with Squalls.  Seems to function decently.  Works well against (smaller?) human fleets.  Not very good against a big Ordos fleet.
I run 2x autopulse, 1x squall, 2x sabot on the Odyssey (no other weapons). I found the MIRV just gets wasted on shields, especially against remnants.  Squall isn't THAT much better, but at least it's intended vs shields.  In human hands it's not that impressive.  It's basically 2 autopulse lasers and a really strong shield attached to the fastest ship in the game to sport a large mount.  That 70 base speed with a ship system to go even faster is what makes it.  An Eagle has 0 firepower (anything less than a large mount is literally a frigate weapon), and only 50 speed with the much slower manuvering jets system.  A Conquest has high firepower, but tissue paper defense and incredibly slow speed (45 base, again with maneuvering).  The slow speed makes them utterly useless at chasing down destroyers and frigates, which as a "small fleet" it's doubly important because nobody else is gonna do it.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on August 24, 2019, 07:03:40 AM
What's your opinion on the dominator? I can see your opinion on non-capitals for proper battle, but that is the biggest big-gun cruiser available.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 24, 2019, 07:07:13 AM
Most people seem to think it's great. Primarily because it has 2 frontal large ballistic mounts. The bigger your battle size, the better the Dominator is.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 24, 2019, 07:18:54 AM
What's your opinion on the dominator? I can see your opinion on non-capitals for proper battle, but that is the biggest big-gun cruiser available.
Too slow, never reaches the enemy, gets surrounded by frigates and fighters and dies.  Weapons are pretty good for fire support especially if you load it up for long range, but it's overpriced for what little it actually accomplishes.

The main issue is it's absolutely incapable of killing anything solo due to its speed.  Enemies will either dance in and out of range forcing it to waste time forever, or it will engage something it can't beat like a capital ship or larger fleet and just get utterly destroyed.  It's an AI only ship that the AI can't use effectively.

If speed didn't matter I'd just run 5 paragons.  They have the best firepower and best defenses of any ship, no question (4x front facing large slots, flux for days and nearly unbreakable shields).  I'm pretty sure you already know that doesn't work.  You get 2 dominators plus a frigate for the cost of a Paragon, but gain nothing.  They have the same or less firepower, the same or less speed, and WAY less defense.  So if the Paragon is already insufficient, the Dominators will be much worse.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 24, 2019, 03:37:44 PM
Dominator has the Burn Ship System, so it's a much faster at catching retreating ships than would be expected from its speed. It is worth +100 speed. If anything it's burn needs to be more frequent and less lengthy so it's less likely to put itself in a dangerous situation. I prefer the Eagle myself, but too slow, never reaches the enemy just means that the rest of your fleet is faster than it.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 24, 2019, 04:20:18 PM
A Conquest has high firepower, but tissue paper defense and incredibly slow speed (45 base, again with maneuvering).  The slow speed makes them utterly useless at chasing down destroyers and frigates, which as a "small fleet" it's doubly important because nobody else is gonna do it.
Conquest is not that fragile.  (Not since 0.8a.)  It is actually quite tough, or at least not frail.  Not the toughest like Onslaught or Paragon, but it is no slouch.  As for chasing down destroyers and frigates, that is not much of a problem (let them run).  A bigger problem is avoiding or surviving them when they decide to swarm en masse to kill your ships, especially when bigger enemies are threatening at the same time.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on August 24, 2019, 05:44:49 PM
... uhhh, anything less than a large mount counts as 0 firepower? Thats not right.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Dov85 on August 25, 2019, 06:22:06 AM
The game doesn't work that way. The ship classes don't have anything specific delineating them, but that they tend to be bigger. Some have burn speed higher than the rest. Some have different fuel costs. Some have weaker hulls than the class below.

I agree with that but on one specific point : Range. Because of the way ITU works, the ship class dictate its max engagement range which I find to be a very important factor in deciding who will win an engagement, both in simulation and actual fleet battles.

As an aside, I kind of don't like the way ITU works because it's pretty much mandatory on capital ships. My current fleet it built on long range engagement, with most ships using beam and missile weapons to soften the enemy from afar, a strong ECM game (most battles the enemy's range is cut by 25%) and carriers to deliver the killing blow. It's not unusual with that configuration that my beam Tempests will outrange cruisers and capitals that don't use ITU+Advanced Optics and, being Tempests, they don't care about missiles the enemy might throw at them. They don't do a lot damage-wise except for heating up the enemy's shield a bit but quite often they manage to get the attention of a few of the bigger enemy ships and lead them in a wild chase accross the map where they're being utterly useless and not helping the rest of their fleet.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 25, 2019, 06:47:18 AM
The game doesn't work that way. The ship classes don't have anything specific delineating them, but that they tend to be bigger. Some have burn speed higher than the rest. Some have different fuel costs. Some have weaker hulls than the class below.

I agree with that but on one specific point : Range. Because of the way ITU works, the ship class dictate its max engagement range which I find to be a very important factor in deciding who will win an engagement, both in simulation and actual fleet battles.

As an aside, I kind of don't like the way ITU works because it's pretty much mandatory on capital ships. My current fleet it built on long range engagement, with most ships using beam and missile weapons to soften the enemy from afar, a strong ECM game (most battles the enemy's range is cut by 25%) and carriers to deliver the killing blow. It's not unusual with that configuration that my beam Tempests will outrange cruisers and capitals that don't use ITU+Advanced Optics and, being Tempests, they don't care about missiles the enemy might throw at them. They don't do a lot damage-wise except for heating up the enemy's shield a bit but quite often they manage to get the attention of a few of the bigger enemy ships and lead them in a wild chase accross the map where they're being utterly useless and not helping the rest of their fleet.
Tempests can do that anyway without the beams.  I load my tempests with Pulse Lasers and Unstable Injector.  They do what you described just fine and manage to kill a few frigates by themselves in the process.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 25, 2019, 07:52:42 AM
As an aside, I kind of don't like the way ITU works because it's pretty much mandatory on capital ships.

ITU/DTC is mandatory on cruisers/capitals by design, that's the reason DTC exists at all. Any build without these aside from SO cruisers,  dedicated carriers and maybe all-missile gryphon is pretty much invalid.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 25, 2019, 08:57:36 AM
As an aside, I kind of don't like the way ITU works because it's pretty much mandatory on capital ships.

ITU/DTC is mandatory on cruisers/capitals by design, that's the reason DTC exists at all. Any build without these aside from SO cruisers,  dedicated carriers and maybe all-missile gryphon is pretty much invalid.
There is literally no reason for DTC to exist.  ITU does exactly what it does, better, for the same cost, and can be used on smaller ships, and they don't stack.  ITU provides 40/60 percent range for cruisers and capitals for 15/25 OP, while DTC provides 35/50 percent range for 15/25 OP.  You never ever have a reason to use DTC, unless you simply don't own the ITU hull mod.

Aside from that, I'm not sure I really agree that extended range is that necessary.  It's good for a standoff playstyle that takes forever, but not all that helpful for a direct assault playstyle intended to rush down enemy targets as quickly as possible, which is how I play.  I use it sometimes, but not always.  In fact I'd consider Unstable Injector, which is almost exact opposite of ITU/DTC, to be the more mandatory hull mod in most cases.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 25, 2019, 09:29:42 AM
You never ever have a reason to use DTC, unless you simply don't own the ITU hull mod.

Which is exactly the point. DTC is a stand-in.

Aside from that, I'm not sure I really agree that extended range is that necessary.  It's good for a standoff playstyle that takes forever, but not all that helpful for a direct assault playstyle intended to rush down enemy targets as quickly as possible, which is how I play.  I use it sometimes, but not always.  In fact I'd consider Unstable Injector, which is almost exact opposite of ITU/DTC, to be the more mandatory hull mod in most cases.

On frigates, DEs - sure. Cruisers/Capitals are just never fast enough to face hug enemies, unless SO. And a ITU/DTC-less cruiser often has less effective range than DE, since it's large itself and many slots are not on the very front of it.

ITU gets more efficient with size, UI - less. UI is mandatory for frigates (except maybe opticc Wolf of Tempest), good for DEs (but less so for AI piloted ones), dubious for cruisers (on Eagle/Falcon or Aurora UI doesn't even increase your average speed that much, since a lot of it comes from ship system). Paragon, Conquest and Odyssey can consider UI, but I still find more range better for them.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Dov85 on August 25, 2019, 09:48:44 AM
Outside of Odyssey, and maybe Conquest as cruiser and DD killers I would not consider UI over ITU for any capitals. Well, Prometheus, in case you're having a bad day.

Even with UI Paragon/Legion/Onslaught arn't rushing anything with a +15 top speed. It still leave them much slower than most cruisers and open them up to being kitted to death due to their reduced range, but then I guess you would not include any of them in a rushing fleet in the first place.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 25, 2019, 09:57:57 AM
You never ever have a reason to use DTC, unless you simply don't own the ITU hull mod.

Which is exactly the point. DTC is a stand-in.

Aside from that, I'm not sure I really agree that extended range is that necessary.  It's good for a standoff playstyle that takes forever, but not all that helpful for a direct assault playstyle intended to rush down enemy targets as quickly as possible, which is how I play.  I use it sometimes, but not always.  In fact I'd consider Unstable Injector, which is almost exact opposite of ITU/DTC, to be the more mandatory hull mod in most cases.

On frigates, DEs - sure. Cruisers/Capitals are just never fast enough to face hug enemies, unless SO. And a ITU/DTC-less cruiser often has less effective range than DE, since it's large itself and many slots are not on the very front of it.

ITU gets more efficient with size, UI - less. UI is mandatory for frigates (except maybe opticc Wolf of Tempest), good for DEs (but less so for AI piloted ones), dubious for cruisers (on Eagle/Falcon or Aurora UI doesn't even increase your average speed that much, since a lot of it comes from ship system). Paragon, Conquest and Odyssey can consider UI, but I still find more range better for them.
In terms of percent speed bonus, UI gets more efficient with size.  A Tempest with 180 base speed gets +25, which amounts to a 13.8% gain at the cost of 10% of its OP.  A Paragon with 30 base speed gets +15, which is a 50% boost at the cost of 6.8% of its OP.  So in percentage terms, UI is over 5 times as efficient on a Paragon as on a Tempest.

I pretty much always run UI on my Paragon.  Coupled with aggressive use of zero flux boosts, I can chase down most cruisers and destroyers (the enemy will never have 0 flux boost unless they are in full retreat).  When I'm fighting Remnants in particular I like to hold fire until I can touch shields with the Radiant, then let loose.  Even after it teleports away, I have enough speed and range (range does matter, it's a question of how much) to keep up and kill it.

Even if I can't fully outspeed something, more speed relative to their speed means that I can push forward and hold them in firing range for longer.  That's how you end up killing cruisers and destroyers, especially faster ones like Falcons, with the Paragon, where otherwise they would simply run away as soon as their shield gets low and never take real damage.  Get as close to them  as possible before they get scared, and then have as much speed as possible to chase after them while they try to turn and run.  You won't beat them in speed, but it means extra time to do damage.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Dov85 on August 25, 2019, 10:14:46 AM
In terms of percent speed bonus, UI gets more efficient with size.  A Tempest with 180 base speed gets +25, which amounts to a 13.8% gain at the cost of 10% of its OP.  A Paragon with 30 base speed gets +15, which is a 50% boost at the cost of 6.8% of its OP.  So in percentage terms, UI is over 5 times as efficient on a Paragon as on a Tempest.

I pretty much always run UI on my Paragon.  Coupled with aggressive use of zero flux boosts, I can chase down most cruisers and destroyers (the enemy will never have 0 flux boost unless they are in full retreat).  When I'm fighting Remnants in particular I like to hold fire until I can touch shields with the Radiant, then let loose.  Even after it teleports away, I have enough speed and range (range does matter, it's a question of how much) to keep up and kill it.

I would argue that you can do the same with an ITU Paragon since its beams will force the enemy to shield up while you close in on 0 flux. Though thanks to your calculations I realised that I'm better off using Nav relays rather than UI on my frigates and destroyers. So that's the last use I had for UI removed, ironicaly. Sorry.  :)
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: pedro1_1 on August 25, 2019, 10:22:39 AM
You never ever have a reason to use DTC, unless you simply don't own the ITU hull mod.

Which is exactly the point. DTC is a stand-in.

Aside from that, I'm not sure I really agree that extended range is that necessary.  It's good for a standoff playstyle that takes forever, but not all that helpful for a direct assault playstyle intended to rush down enemy targets as quickly as possible, which is how I play.  I use it sometimes, but not always.  In fact I'd consider Unstable Injector, which is almost exact opposite of ITU/DTC, to be the more mandatory hull mod in most cases.

On frigates, DEs - sure. Cruisers/Capitals are just never fast enough to face hug enemies, unless SO. And a ITU/DTC-less cruiser often has less effective range than DE, since it's large itself and many slots are not on the very front of it.

ITU gets more efficient with size, UI - less. UI is mandatory for frigates (except maybe opticc Wolf of Tempest), good for DEs (but less so for AI piloted ones), dubious for cruisers (on Eagle/Falcon or Aurora UI doesn't even increase your average speed that much, since a lot of it comes from ship system). Paragon, Conquest and Odyssey can consider UI, but I still find more range better for them.
In terms of percent speed bonus, UI gets more efficient with size.  A Tempest with 180 base speed gets +25, which amounts to a 13.8% gain at the cost of 10% of its OP.  A Paragon with 30 base speed gets +15, which is a 50% boost at the cost of 6.8% of its OP.  So in percentage terms, UI is over 5 times as efficient on a Paragon as on a Tempest.

I pretty much always run UI on my Paragon.  Coupled with aggressive use of zero flux boosts, I can chase down most cruisers and destroyers (the enemy will never have 0 flux boost unless they are in full retreat).  When I'm fighting Remnants in particular I like to hold fire until I can touch shields with the Radiant, then let loose.  Even after it teleports away, I have enough speed and range (range does matter, it's a question of how much) to keep up and kill it.

Even if I can't fully outspeed something, more speed relative to their speed means that I can push forward and hold them in firing range for longer.  That's how you end up killing cruisers and destroyers, especially faster ones like Falcons, with the Paragon, where otherwise they would simply run away as soon as their shield gets low and never take real damage.  Get as close to them  as possible before they get scared, and then have as much speed as possible to chase after them while they try to turn and run.  You won't beat them in speed, but it means extra time to do damage.

Paragon does not care about ITU/DTC, since it has the ATC, so unstable injector is easier to fit, but I still prefer the range of the my Tachyon Lances to be 2 500su, since it's easier to get the hit on anithing, since AI focus on not being in a 1 000su range around your ship for Tachyon Lance, and most of the time in my Odissey I use Helsmaship to increase the speed to shot off the enemy's engine, using the ITU to increase it to 1 120su
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Tackywheat1 on August 25, 2019, 02:20:49 PM
3 HVD 3 Graviton 3 Tactical laser 2 triple sabot Eagle is decent support. Add ITU and as many vents as possible. Nothing but a destroyer/frigate rush or mass carrier can touch it and then you're just playing wrong. It kind of works like a beam sunder as long range massed support but better at dealing with shields and less effective vs armor and hull (although 3 HVD's can crack armor decently well). Support it with some carriers with mostly fighters and some bombers. Add in something very tanky like a Dominator or an Apogee and this strat works pretty well on low battle sizes (I play with low battlesizes because I dislike losing ships). I've taken down pirate death fleets with 1x Eagle 2x heron (maybe a mora because of how tanky they are) 1x Apogee and some beam sunders (although beam sunders are extremely effective vs derelicts and pirates given proper support).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on August 25, 2019, 04:38:03 PM
As an aside, I kind of don't like the way ITU works because it's pretty much mandatory on capital ships.

ITU/DTC is mandatory on cruisers/capitals by design, that's the reason DTC exists at all. Any build without these aside from SO cruisers,  dedicated carriers and maybe all-missile gryphon is pretty much invalid.
There is literally no reason for DTC to exist.  ITU does exactly what it does, better, for the same cost, and can be used on smaller ships, and they don't stack.  ITU provides 40/60 percent range for cruisers and capitals for 15/25 OP, while DTC provides 35/50 percent range for 15/25 OP.  You never ever have a reason to use DTC, unless you simply don't own the ITU hull mod.

Aside from that, I'm not sure I really agree that extended range is that necessary.  It's good for a standoff playstyle that takes forever, but not all that helpful for a direct assault playstyle intended to rush down enemy targets as quickly as possible, which is how I play.  I use it sometimes, but not always.  In fact I'd consider Unstable Injector, which is almost exact opposite of ITU/DTC, to be the more mandatory hull mod in most cases.

ITU is a reward for either exploration or having high reputation and a commission (or killing lots of enemy ships with ITU). It may not stay this way in future versions, but it is a direct powerup by design.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 25, 2019, 04:38:07 PM
The game doesn't work that way. The ship classes don't have anything specific delineating them, but that they tend to be bigger. Some have burn speed higher than the rest. Some have different fuel costs. Some have weaker hulls than the class below.

I agree with that but on one specific point : Range. Because of the way ITU works, the ship class dictate its max engagement range which I find to be a very important factor in deciding who will win an engagement, both in simulation and actual fleet battles.

As an aside, I kind of don't like the way ITU works because it's pretty much mandatory on capital ships. My current fleet it built on long range engagement, with most ships using beam and missile weapons to soften the enemy from afar, a strong ECM game (most battles the enemy's range is cut by 25%) and carriers to deliver the killing blow. It's not unusual with that configuration that my beam Tempests will outrange cruisers and capitals that don't use ITU+Advanced Optics and, being Tempests, they don't care about missiles the enemy might throw at them. They don't do a lot damage-wise except for heating up the enemy's shield a bit but quite often they manage to get the attention of a few of the bigger enemy ships and lead them in a wild chase accross the map where they're being utterly useless and not helping the rest of their fleet.

I was talking about ship roles specifically. Destroyers don't destroy torpedo boats, cruisers don't cruise and capital ships don't adhere to the limits of the 1922 Washington naval treaty.

But since I wasn't clear, you are correct. Add to that, the number of capacitors and vents are strictly delineated by hull type, as are hullmod costs and any hullmods that change according to hull type.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on August 26, 2019, 02:33:18 AM
and capital ships don't adhere to the limits of the 1922 Washington naval treaty.

Paragon intensifies!

Although I suppose the Vigilance (or a bunch) armed with a torp launcher might count as a torpedo boat, assuming the AI could ever really play the role.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 26, 2019, 02:37:41 AM
and capital ships don't adhere to the limits of the 1922 Washington naval treaty.

Paragon intensifies!

Although I suppose the Vigilance (or a bunch) armed with a torp launcher might count as a torpedo boat, assuming the AI could ever really play the role.

Surprisingly they can! I gave The Last Hurrah mission a couple more tries recently, just to see if I could get a better score. Initially I had some troubles but experimented with loadouts on all ships, and whaddya know Vigilances with Typhoons aren't so bad. Since you have a few in the mission they provide nice ''support fire'' when a ship overloads.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Dov85 on August 26, 2019, 09:27:02 AM
I was talking about ship roles specifically. Destroyers don't destroy torpedo boats, cruisers don't cruise and capital ships don't adhere to the limits of the 1922 Washington naval treaty.

But since I wasn't clear, you are correct. Add to that, the number of capacitors and vents are strictly delineated by hull type, as are hullmod costs and any hullmods that change according to hull type.

Oh. Well to be fair, real world destroyers have stopped carring about destroying torpedo boats a while ago. They pretty much made the first few ones as torpedo boat destroyers and the admiralty was like "Oh... You know what we could use that thing for ? An high sea torpedo boat !" *yoink*.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: AgentFransis on August 26, 2019, 10:33:09 AM
Condor is much worse than Drover, but it's still a carrier. It can even solo other DEs in AI vs AI (because they totally can't handle Talons/Sparks).
A Drover can solo a lot more than that with the right fighters.
The most hilariously OP combo I've ran across so far is a drover with Diable Avionics Ravens. Replacement Fighters was clearly not designed with single fighter wings in mind (should probably not add any fighters to single fighter wings). That setup can solo a Conquest, and anything smaller is just evaporated. Even abstaining from the obviously broken setups, two Falx or any other good two wing fighter wing is extremely strong in a Drover. Operating at +50% strength most of the time and having losses replaced on demand makes this probably the strongest carrier in the game, with the only major weakness the limited operating time.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 26, 2019, 01:11:18 PM
I just wanted to say that I don't like Dedicated Targeting Core or the Integrated Targeting Unit. The range increases are massive and drives the whole bigger ships is better fleet ships problem as they then tend to zone away smaller ships with ease. Are the bigger ship hulls supposed to have greater range almost innately? Then they should simply have that range increase innately, though I guess there would be some builds which don't particularily care about range increase like Safety Overides or Unstable Injector, or simply not wanting to pay the cost. That ITU supersede DTC completely is bizarre. Either DTC or ITU should be removed completely. That you can find ITU, which replaced DTC seems like a storyplot reward element that has long since vanished.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Tackywheat1 on August 26, 2019, 02:26:25 PM
DTC you don't have to find. ITU is a direct upgrade that you have to find. Also Paragon has innate range increase
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 26, 2019, 07:53:11 PM
Without increased range destroyers reign supreme(well them and SO cruisers). Larger ships are too slow to be competitive without them and would me, more or less floating hulks.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Eji1700 on August 27, 2019, 01:13:24 AM
RE: Condor-

Get 2-4 of them and load them up with piranhas + LRMs and use them to pop stations and capitals (especially the pirate atlas).  You don't always want them deployed, and you might want to wait until you clear some of the chaff, but bringing them in is somewhat the equivalent of a medieval trebuchet in that if you set up enough you WILL annihilate anything they can hit.  It's one of the fastest and easiest ways to go station hunting in the early game.

Also that shotgun odyssey is glorious.  Great job.  Really highlights how its loadout lets it carry a unique mix of some of the best weapons in the game (xyphos, sabots, tac lance, pulse) on a frame thats both tanky and maneuverable.  Playing nice with the AI is a full sweep.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 27, 2019, 10:05:05 AM
Without increased range destroyers reign supreme(well them and SO cruisers). Larger ships are too slow to be competitive without them and would me, more or less floating hulks.

I'm saying I don't like that both hullmods exist. Just one or the otheris enough. There's no need for a hullmod that makes the other redundant. Especially when just the DTC itself is worth having. As everyone likes to write ad nauseam, range is king. 5%/10%/15%/20% would be a bonus enough for the ITC cost that would be worth buying for. 10%/20%/40%/60% seems so excessive.

___

Not related but I've changed my mind slightly about the Atlas MkII. In large numbers, (not solo), their awkward weapon placement and shape is somewhat mitigated and their Accelerated Ammo feeder Ship System, gives them enough burst damage to potentially catch kill nearby frigates by surprise. Which with the generally unaggressive fleet AI is exactly what is needed to kill ships. Which is fine as it's not really a ship anyone wants to have in their fleet generally. I just wish its thumbnail doesn't look so much like a penis on the contact/deployment screen.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: SCC on August 27, 2019, 10:19:55 AM
DTC is for when you haven't found ITU yet.
And the reason those are hullmods at all is because a) weapons have their own ranges already, having different range bonuses for different ships of the same type would be confusing and inconsistent, b) this means you "get" bonus OP for specialist builds, when not picking DTC/ITU.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 27, 2019, 12:18:49 PM
But apparently the current different weapon ranges for 2 different types of range extending Hullmods dependent on ship hull type, and then another 2 hullmods for 2 range reducing hullmods, on top of the normal weapon range, isn't too confusing or inconsistent?

I've already acknowledged that other non ITC builds a few posts before hand. Either case, you express no disagreement that the range increase is too big, nor that there is a particular reason for both to exist.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: SCC on August 27, 2019, 12:25:36 PM
But apparently the current different weapon ranges for 2 different types of range extending Hullmods dependent on ship hull type,
No, because it's expected and bonuses are fairly similar. It means HVD either has 1350 or 1400 range for all cruiser, not some number that depends on the ship's innate stat, hullmods and weapon's innate stat.
and then another 2 hullmods for 2 range reducing hullmods, on top of the normal weapon range, isn't too confusing or inconsistent?
Not really in the case of SO, since it makes the ship visually different from normal ships. In the case of UI it wouldn't hurt to have it pronounced better, but then you'd have consistency issues: most hullmods don't have any indicators they are there at all.
Either case, you express no disagreement that the range increase is too big, nor that there is a particular reason for both to exist.
First part is true. As for the second, one is the basic kit, and the other is a hullmod that's not found by default and it's supposed to increase your ship's performance above the baseline (the baseline being DTC).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Ebola on August 27, 2019, 12:47:03 PM
Why are you hating the odyssey. I made a ship showcase to show off some of it feats and actually improved on it. In AI hands it can solo well over 100 DP by now - an onslaught being part of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ1H74wyHq8
I have to chime in on this.
No clue what it is about this build that makes the AI love it but it's amazing.
Just now my "aggressive" officer in this thing decided that turning on the plasmadrive and then drifting right through the middle of a [REDACTED] Ordo sounded like a good plan. She somehow survived that -the fighters sure didn't- but nearly overloaded her shields and had around 5 destroyer-class ships against her. Then she seemingly got stuck in the middle of the map. 
Somehow she survives the carnage with under 15% hull and absolutely no armor anywhere, destroys one ship after the other and eventually falls back to the rest of the fleet as some astral decides to send it's fighters on the last enemy that the Odyssey was still fighting. Might just have to savefile edit her into reckless after this.
I can only imagine the look the crew of my Onslaught had as the Odyssey passed them and then later came back utterly wrecked just as if nothing had happened.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 27, 2019, 01:38:30 PM
I'm saying I don't like that both hullmods exist. Just one or the otheris enough. There's no need for a hullmod that makes the other redundant. Especially when just the DTC itself is worth having. As everyone likes to write ad nauseam, range is king. 5%/10%/15%/20% would be a bonus enough for the ITC cost that would be worth buying for. 10%/20%/40%/60% seems so excessive.

In the begining DTU didnt exist. There was only ITU. Non-capital ships could get away with no ITU but capital ships and cruisers could not. They ended up worthless. So DTU was added as a mod that you always started with. Such that you could fit capitals and cruisers without them being worthless before you acquired ITU while ITU was still a thing.

I suppose it would be nice to move to “every ship has ITU installed by default” and get rid of ITU but finding transformative hull mods/equipment is kinda the name of the game. There is a balancing track that does not just involve how powerful or necessary any particular thing is but also how it changes the game when you acquire it and the feeling you get when you make that transformation
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 27, 2019, 02:07:13 PM
During Starfarer, all of the hullmods were available and ITU was the default.  DTC was added later when most hullmods became something to acquire and learn during play, with DTC being one of the default you know from the start, while ITU being an acquired upgrade.

ITU could have been built-in for all (and OP lowered to compensate), but Alex did not want to do that in case of ships that did not need ITU, like carriers or pure missile ships.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 27, 2019, 03:45:47 PM
SCC, you cannot argue, logically, that somebody's proposed system is too complicated when the current system is more complicated. You also cannot argue simultaneously that you "get" bonus OP for specialist builds, and DTC is the baseline.

Though it is interesting, I can't say I particularily care about the differing versions of people's recollections over the history of DTC/ITU, as related to game mechanics.

Also, that DTU doesn't have to be found, DTC is for when you haven't found ITU yet, ITU is not found by default, all do not matter to my opinion that there is no need for both to exist. Stop typing it. We all know that. It is irrelevant. It doesn't need to be said. It just obscurates.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 27, 2019, 05:33:44 PM
Yes, it is ugly that there is both DTC and ITU, and it would be nice if ITU was the only range mod, and available from the start.  Alas, DTC/ITU split has been around for years, and there is no sign that it will change.  As much as people would like only ITU or even range adjustment baked into hulls, it probably will not happen.  Much like wanting beams to do hard flux by default, or wanting CR removed from the game and play like pre-0.6a Starfarer.

@ Plantissue:  Join the people who said much the same about DTC/ITU years ago as you did.  You probably will not be the last.  Sad but true.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 27, 2019, 07:27:49 PM
Also, that DTU doesn't have to be found, DTC is for when you haven't found ITU yet, ITU is not found by default, all do not matter to my opinion that there is no need for both to exist. Stop typing it. We all know that. It is irrelevant. It doesn't need to be said. It just obscurates.

Yes. It does. Because the purpose of ITU is to be loot. So the fact that DTU isnt also loot provides a reason for both to exist.

Quote
SCC, you cannot argue, logically, that somebody's proposed system is too complicated when the current system is more complicated

You can indeed argue that a proposed system is more complicated than a current system

It doesnt mean that things cant be different or based on other preferences but it does mean that there is a purpose for the current construction.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Nimiety on August 27, 2019, 07:32:30 PM
Why are you hating the odyssey. I made a ship showcase to show off some of it feats and actually improved on it. In AI hands it can solo well over 100 DP by now - an onslaught being part of that.

Nice video. I'd never really seen the point of hardened shields but your shrike viseo really changed my mind. I'm using one of those as a flagship right now and its great (solo killed two pirate bases ising a pair)-- going to build an oddessey once I know I can afford to lose it when it dies.

Has anyone had any luck with the scarab?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 28, 2019, 03:55:30 PM
It's a dumb argument, because I don't see a reason why DTC and ITU should coexist. It shouldn't be a reward. You aren't rewarded with different version of every single hullmod. There is no better Safety overides. There is no better hardened shield. there is no better Additional berthing hull mods as rewards. It's just out of place. It doesn't even feel like a reward.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on August 28, 2019, 04:12:50 PM
It's a dumb argument, because I don't see a reason why DTC and ITU should coexist. It shouldn't be a reward. You aren't rewarded with different version of every single hullmod. There is no better Safety overides. There is no better hardened shield. there is no better Additional berthing hull mods as rewards. It's just out of place. It doesn't even feel like a reward.

But it is a reward. Why should it not be a reward? Because you don't want it to be? Because there isn't a loot equivalent to everything in the game? Why should there be a loot equivalent to everything in the game?

You're right in that its partially arbitrary. It is. But plenty of things are arbitrary. Why are there XIV battlegroup ships with special hull mods? Why are there LP ships which are effectively drop only. Why are there drop only [redacted] fighters, why are they so much better than wasps? Well because there ought to be some loot in a game like this and so we're going to need some things to loot. And sometimes those things will be upgrades over the current.

As it stands ITU is just a hullmod like any other. You have to find all of them (except the ones you can get from skills). The only difference is that DTU exists because if it did not then ITU would be a required find before you could field capital ships.

And yea, man ITU feels like a reward. I love finding ITU. Its not quite as nice as the first Pristine Nanoforge or Synchroton or Odyssey Blueprint... But its still a really really nice reward.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Pappus on August 28, 2019, 09:05:44 PM
Why are you hating the odyssey. I made a ship showcase to show off some of it feats and actually improved on it. In AI hands it can solo well over 100 DP by now - an onslaught being part of that.

Nice video. I'd never really seen the point of hardened shields but your shrike viseo really changed my mind. I'm using one of those as a flagship right now and its great (solo killed two pirate bases ising a pair)-- going to build an oddessey once I know I can afford to lose it when it dies.

Has anyone had any luck with the scarab?

Glad you liked it. I actually thought nobody would be really watching these things from this community.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 29, 2019, 01:46:31 PM
It's a dumb argument, because I don't see a reason why DTC and ITU should coexist. It shouldn't be a reward. You aren't rewarded with different version of every single hullmod. There is no better Safety overides. There is no better hardened shield. there is no better Additional berthing hull mods as rewards. It's just out of place. It doesn't even feel like a reward.

But it is a reward. Why should it not be a reward? Because you don't want it to be? Because there isn't a loot equivalent to everything in the game? Why should there be a loot equivalent to everything in the game?

You're right in that its partially arbitrary. It is. But plenty of things are arbitrary. Why are there XIV battlegroup ships with special hull mods? Why are there LP ships which are effectively drop only. Why are there drop only [redacted] fighters, why are they so much better than wasps? Well because there ought to be some loot in a game like this and so we're going to need some things to loot. And sometimes those things will be upgrades over the current.

As it stands ITU is just a hullmod like any other. You have to find all of them (except the ones you can get from skills). The only difference is that DTU exists because if it did not then ITU would be a required find before you could field capital ships.

And yea, man ITU feels like a reward. I love finding ITU. Its not quite as nice as the first Pristine Nanoforge or Synchroton or Odyssey Blueprint... But its still a really really nice reward.


I don't think both hullmods should exist together so obviously I don't think it should be a reward. I am but a sample size of one, but I find ITU pretty fast. I don't even have to look for it. It's just...boring.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on August 29, 2019, 01:51:39 PM
I rarely even use ITU any more myself. If you just pick up the EW perk so all your ships produce the range debuff, then you basically have a fleet wide range upgrade anyway.

Sometimes you want your ships to be short ranged so they don't waste time firing artillery at mining drones. Which annoys me to no end, even when they do hit!
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 29, 2019, 02:12:43 PM
Why not both (aside from annoying potshots at insignificant targets)?  Electronic Warfare 1 is probably the most important skill in the game for everyone, mainly to prevent range penalty if the enemy has ECM.  If anything, more EW beyond first level is dubious since the enemy may have ECM as well and, being evenly matched or superior to your fleet, will offset your ECM unless you put ECM Package on multiple ships to ensure range advantage despite two evenly matched (or disadvantage for the player) having EW.

If enemy does not have EW, you have an advantage.  If enemy has EW, and enough ships to match yours, you will probably be more-or-less at zero regardless of ECM maximum, unless you kill their ships, which by that point, the fight is decided and just a matter of time before you win.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 29, 2019, 02:21:16 PM
Why not both. If one is such an advatange, then why not get both and get even more of an advantage? Is there a point where you just stop and say there are limited returns, that it isn't worth it to get that skill/hullmod just because you already have a hullmod/skill? There isn't one, not in this case. In fact the two combined is synergistic and even more advantageous.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: FooF on August 29, 2019, 02:32:01 PM
The "point" of ITC/DTC is to give bigger ships an offset for their poor mobility. They might have more guns and more concentrated firepower but they can't catch anything so the range increase makes up for their inability to close gaps. DTC being available at all times gives them a natural advantage that can't be just replaced by adding another Destroyer/Frigate.

Now, one could argue that DTC is therefore an OP-tax on cruisers/capitals and should be baked-in, so to speak. Or to put it another way, if the default is greater range, than the option to take it off for a special build should add OP. I've always been a fan of Cruisers/Capitals inherently having greater range given equivalent hardpoints on a Destroyer/Frigate. If that's the normal case, than a hull mod could be added that increases OP or increases vents/capacity or something. Basically, you're trading the range for a different playstyle instead of adding a hull mod for the intended playstyle.

But this really off-topic...
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 29, 2019, 02:41:36 PM
I am writing that there is no need for both to exist in the game. At the same time. One or the other is OK. I'm not saying that range increasing hullmods should exist at all.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: SCC on August 30, 2019, 12:05:23 AM
Range is such an important stat, cruisers and capitals need it. On the other hand, if that was built-in for them, it would be impossible to give it up for other benefits, unless you're okay with negative cost hullmod. If ITU didn't exist, then it would be weird that it's impossible to upgrade such an important statistic, even though you can upgrade almost everything else.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on August 30, 2019, 03:27:28 AM
Yeah to be fair, without range the Hammerhead is the best ship in the game for all round stats. Barring drover madness.

I do feel like range is only an advantage so long as the AI is afraid of it. A lot of good range does my cruisers when mighty ludd stuffs 30 torpedo boats down my throat. So these day's I make my cruisers short-er ranged defensive bricks and leave the long range bombardment to the carriers and capitals. Basically treating them like stronger destroyers, which are still faster then my capitals so they still sorta fill the role.

But back on the topic, all energy weapon ships. Energy weapons are just not that great and they bring all high tech ships down with them. The Paragon is good in SPITE of their energy mounts.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 30, 2019, 03:43:30 AM
But back on the topic, all energy weapon ships. Energy weapons are just not that great and they bring all high tech ships down with them. The Paragon is good in SPITE of their energy mounts.

I don't really count Paragon here since every single imaginable build puts kinetics in universals, either Needlers or HVD. Just like the pirate Shrike makes a big difference for only having ONE small ballistic mount. And here lies the most frustrating part, every single all energy weapon ship is absolutely useless vs shields, unless you spam Sabots. Regular Shrike, Aurora, Odyssey. That's why I don't like them. We really need something that's decent vs shields that's not a Graviton beam. Right now you spend so much flux firing inefficient flux weapons at shields that you can't really capitalize on that. That's why I call those 3 ''Pirate killers'', in real fights they die first.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: FooF on August 30, 2019, 01:19:09 PM
I love the Aurora and think it's the best pound-for-pound ship in the game so I think it funny that a lot of people here think it's overrated/overpriced. I can do things with it that I can't come close to with anything else (except maybe the Doom but for different reasons) and it's so dang versatile that the only thing I can't do with it is take down a Paragon solo.

All-energy notwithstanding, what a lot of the high-tech ships can do relatively well is approach being flux-neutral while firing, which wins them most flux battles by default. Yes, their time-to-kill isn't great but when the enemy is flux-capped, it's not like they're firing much anyway. I've embraced the opportunistic nature of high-tech ships and I think they are superior in many ways to the low-tech bricks and even the mid-line all-rounders.

Most Aurora's I pilot simply don't take hull damage in a fight so I understand why it costs so much: all the cost is front-loaded. An equivalent Low-tech cruiser will be cheaper to deploy but you're going to end up taking armor damage and that adds to the overall cost to deploy. If the deployment cost of some high-tech ships were reduced, I'd be ok with it but I get why they're at where their at, for the most part.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 30, 2019, 01:32:34 PM
I can do things with it

Exactly. It's in such a weird spot being so super rare and hard to get, that by the time you have one in your fleet, you'll be piloting something more worthwhile. And having AI pilot it is just a waste of DP. There's such a huge difference in deploying a Medusa + Apogee than a single Aurora (both being 30 DP).

EDIT: Lemme just share a story I already said on the subreddit: ''In a huge fight vs a low tech battlestation and some ludd ships, guess which ship died first. Bingo bango bongo it was an Aurora with a steady lvl 20 officer, given no eliminate orders and wasn't close to the battlestation. My fleet was a Conquest, Onslaught, Legion, Dominator, Aurora, Heron, Apogee, Falcon and 2 Shrikes. Even the *** Shrikes lasted longer. It's just sad seeing that since it takes an effort to acquire one without a blueprint.''
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on August 30, 2019, 01:38:29 PM
It's the problem with "player" ships. How do you fix their DP cost? Take for example most phase ships. They are already only ever used by the player and rarely as an AI ship in actual battles. You can't even set to their actual worth as a player ship, for as battle size increases, the higher the DP cost the player is willing to take.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 30, 2019, 01:42:45 PM
Tbh I'd take AI Doom over AI Aurora any day of the week. And yeah I get the difference in skill piloting fast ships, it's just sad having more than half of the high tech ships fail miserably in fights.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 30, 2019, 01:43:46 PM
EDIT: Lemme just share a story I already said on the subreddit: ''In a huge fight vs a low tech battlestation and some ludd ships, guess which ship died first. Bingo bango bongo it was an Aurora with a steady lvl 20 officer, given no eliminate orders and wasn't close to the battlestation. My fleet was a Conquest, Onslaught, Legion, Dominator, Aurora, Heron, Apogee, Falcon and 2 Shrikes. Even the *** Shrikes lasted longer. It's just sad seeing that since it takes an effort to acquire one without a blueprint.''

Right, AI is incredibly stupid with them (well, as it is with ANY mobility systems. It's just much harder to catastrophically misuse maneuvering jets).
1) I'm at 0 flux, far from enemies -> let's charge with system ahead of the allied fleet and get focused by whole enemy fleet.
2) My flux is quickly rising and there are Reapers incoming, but system is on cooldown -> dead.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on August 30, 2019, 01:49:29 PM
I mean it has Hardened front shields with a lot of caps and vents. What am I supposed to do? Only deploy when I need to clean up weak fleets?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 30, 2019, 01:53:53 PM
I think the only safe way to deploy an AI Aurora against significant opponents would be a beam boat. But that's not worth 30 DP.
AI simply can't pilot some ships. And there are much worse cases of this, like Hyperion.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 30, 2019, 02:00:16 PM
I mean it has Hardened front shields with a lot of caps and vents. What am I supposed to do? Only deploy when I need to clean up weak fleets?
Yes!  I guess that is why Aurora is worth 30 DP.  Player can wipe the floor against a fleet of mooks… which is not what the player fights at endgame, usually.  They fight ten capital deathballs or Ordos with tough shields.

Maybe Aurora is good in a pursuit, but with auto-resolve, I prefer to use ill-equipped ships that cannot fight in a real fight.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on August 30, 2019, 03:56:55 PM
EDIT: Lemme just share a story I already said on the subreddit: ''In a huge fight vs a low tech battlestation and some ludd ships, guess which ship died first. Bingo bango bongo it was an Aurora with a steady lvl 20 officer, given no eliminate orders and wasn't close to the battlestation. My fleet was a Conquest, Onslaught, Legion, Dominator, Aurora, Heron, Apogee, Falcon and 2 Shrikes. Even the *** Shrikes lasted longer. It's just sad seeing that since it takes an effort to acquire one without a blueprint.''
Steady officer cannot use Aurora armed with hard-flux energy weapons competently (because it cowers too much).  Aurora needs an Aggressive officer to get close enough to attack effectively with short-ranged weapons.

That is another reason why I dislike Aurora.  I need an Aggressive officer dedicated to Aurora (or Conquest with Storm Needlers).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Agile on August 30, 2019, 05:47:32 PM
Most of the ships are overrated and suck simply because the AI sucks.

In the hands of a good player, a lot of the ships can take on a entire ship class or two.

This is why I stopped using most ships and simply went carrier heavy. After that, I have yet to lose a fight, or at least significantly, simply because fighter AI doesn't have to be good (especially when you get the better fighters like sparks). And the AI is specifically good at being a coward, which is exactly what carriers have to be in order to be effective.

Hence even the worst carriers are better than most ships, which is kinda sad, since I like playing around with the ships. But you yourself being good, unless your piloting a very good ship that your comfortable with, usually isn't going to turn the tides of battle significantly enough later game to matter.

Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 30, 2019, 06:19:07 PM
Most of the ships are overrated and suck simply because the AI sucks.

In the hands of a good player, a lot of the ships can take on a entire ship class or two.

This is why I stopped using most ships and simply went carrier heavy. After that, I have yet to lose a fight, or at least significantly, simply because fighter AI doesn't have to be good (especially when you get the better fighters like sparks). And the AI is specifically good at being a coward, which is exactly what carriers have to be in order to be effective.

Hence even the worst carriers are better than most ships, which is kinda sad, since I like playing around with the ships. But you yourself being good, unless your piloting a very good ship that your comfortable with, usually isn't going to turn the tides of battle significantly enough later game to matter.
Carriers without a fleet in front of them aren't good enough at "being a coward" to survive.  You yourself being good, or at least setting yourself up with a strong enough ship that you can utilize effectively compared to the AI, makes a HUGE difference ESPECIALLY in the big later game battles.  I usually fly a paragon in vanilla, mainly because not even a reckless AI is aggressive enough to turn the tide, while I certainly can.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on August 31, 2019, 10:18:06 AM
Most of the ships are overrated and suck simply because the AI sucks.

In the hands of a good player, a lot of the ships can take on a entire ship class or two.

This is why I stopped using most ships and simply went carrier heavy. After that, I have yet to lose a fight, or at least significantly, simply because fighter AI doesn't have to be good (especially when you get the better fighters like sparks). And the AI is specifically good at being a coward, which is exactly what carriers have to be in order to be effective.

Hence even the worst carriers are better than most ships, which is kinda sad, since I like playing around with the ships. But you yourself being good, unless your piloting a very good ship that your comfortable with, usually isn't going to turn the tides of battle significantly enough later game to matter.

Outside of specific roles like interceptor cover, I think [poorly built ship < carrier< well built ship in a well designed fleet]. Its extremely easy to make a decent carrier - literally just add fighters. Carriers also force combine effortlessly, so there isn't much need to mind fleet composition - just pile on more carriers. However, they kill quite slowly and require overwhelming the enemy (granted, this is helped in the extreme by the AI not knowing how to fight carriers or outfitting anti-fighter weapons).

Well built ships in a good fleet however lets you take on larger enemies more cheaply - more powerful per DP.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Agile on August 31, 2019, 08:01:08 PM
I mean, ive never lost by spamming carriers with Sparks or Spark / Claw combo except against high tech Star Fortresses, and thats about it.

Ive never really seen the benefit of one good ship piloted by the player vs more carriers, considering the fact that the AI is really bad in sticking together and fighting optimal opponents; they either face roll into an opponent and die, or stay as far as possible and only take a few pot shots.

The only times the AI does anything is when I force them to via orders or when you are so hopelessly outmatching your opponent that you don't really need to do anything. Sometimes your forced into fights with the AI where you clearly have a much, MUCH better fleet but it doesn't give you an option to fast forward it; thats when the AI is effective essentially.

Maybe im just not getting it, but I haven't seen a setup used by a player in a actual non-simmed battle where they mattered in a big fight. Not talking the scrap fights early game; you matter then. But later game? When your faced with capital / carrier spam by the AI? I haven't really seen a need for individual skill at that level.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Pappus on August 31, 2019, 08:37:27 PM
I mean, ive never lost by spamming carriers with Sparks or Spark / Claw combo except against high tech Star Fortresses, and thats about it.

Ive never really seen the benefit of one good ship piloted by the player vs more carriers, considering the fact that the AI is really bad in sticking together and fighting optimal opponents; they either face roll into an opponent and die, or stay as far as possible and only take a few pot shots.

The only times the AI does anything is when I force them to via orders or when you are so hopelessly outmatching your opponent that you don't really need to do anything. Sometimes your forced into fights with the AI where you clearly have a much, MUCH better fleet but it doesn't give you an option to fast forward it; thats when the AI is effective essentially.

Maybe im just not getting it, but I haven't seen a setup used by a player in a actual non-simmed battle where they mattered in a big fight. Not talking the scrap fights early game; you matter then. But later game? When your faced with capital / carrier spam by the AI? I haven't really seen a need for individual skill at that level.

As a player you can go and make builds that onehit capital ships and do it over and over.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on August 31, 2019, 08:38:53 PM
I mean, ive never lost by spamming carriers with Sparks or Spark / Claw combo except against high tech Star Fortresses, and thats about it.

Ive never really seen the benefit of one good ship piloted by the player vs more carriers, considering the fact that the AI is really bad in sticking together and fighting optimal opponents; they either face roll into an opponent and die, or stay as far as possible and only take a few pot shots.

The only times the AI does anything is when I force them to via orders or when you are so hopelessly outmatching your opponent that you don't really need to do anything. Sometimes your forced into fights with the AI where you clearly have a much, MUCH better fleet but it doesn't give you an option to fast forward it; thats when the AI is effective essentially.

Maybe im just not getting it, but I haven't seen a setup used by a player in a actual non-simmed battle where they mattered in a big fight. Not talking the scrap fights early game; you matter then. But later game? When your faced with capital / carrier spam by the AI? I haven't really seen a need for individual skill at that level.
It depends on how you equip your fleet.  You have to build with the AI in mind, test with the AI in mind, deploy with the AI in mind.  Usually it ends up being a very capital-heavy fleet, because the AI can't do much of anything with vanilla destroyers or cruisers, but they are pretty freaking good with Odyssey for some reason (don't bother arguing stats or anything, the proof is in the results)

Personally, with the fleet I run, I find that giving orders of any kind is usually counterproductive.  I can sit back and watch if I want to, or I can fight personally and get the battle over with 3x faster, but either way the AI does its thing and I mostly ignore it.  Escort and Eliminate orders are the worst as both force the AI to take suicidal positioning.  Rally orders don't really do much of anything.  Fighter strike is pretty good.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on August 31, 2019, 10:46:37 PM
How exactly is AI good with Odyssey? The only build that gets anywhere is Sabot + Mirv spam, which is pretty much is SO-build-equivalent in terms of lack of longevity. Any other type of build just folds when it tries to go against sim Conquest (both skill-less). And even that only because sim Conquest has somewhat weak build (no ballistic kinetics on brawl side, no gauss side), particularly unsuitable to countering Sabots.

Said Conquest is very easy to win against by making it waste missiles first, then rolling over it with classic Plasma melee Odyssey. That is what I'd call good piloting. AI is nowhere near.
In fact the only thing that prevents Conquest from being trampled right away is that due to Squall launcher placement it's impossible to align Plasma Cannons to both clear Squalls and hit the Conquest.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 01, 2019, 12:01:06 AM
How exactly is AI good with Odyssey? The only build that gets anywhere is Sabot + Mirv spam, which is pretty much is SO-build-equivalent in terms of lack of longevity. Any other type of build just folds when it tries to go against sim Conquest (both skill-less). And even that only because sim Conquest has somewhat weak build (no ballistic kinetics on brawl side, no gauss side), particularly unsuitable to countering Sabots.

Said Conquest is very easy to win against by making it waste missiles first, then rolling over it with classic Plasma melee Odyssey. That is what I'd call good piloting. AI is nowhere near.
In fact the only thing that prevents Conquest from being trampled right away is that due to Squall launcher placement it's impossible to align Plasma Cannons to both clear Squalls and hit the Conquest.
I run Squall instead of MIRV, and dual AutoPulse.  The AI does reasonably well using the autopulse to get kills in fleet battles.  The missiles only exist to soften up the first wave of targets.  The main purpose of the Odysseys is to be simultaneously tanky and fast, so that they can trade out damage and then recover flux instead of getting overwhelmed, while my Astrals do most of the heavy lifting in damage safely behind the lines of other capital ships.  The Odysseys DO score kills though, even after they run out of missiles they have absolutely no trouble killing Brilliants solo or ganging up on Radiants.

In sim, this build beats Sim Paragon about 80% of the time, and beats sim Conquest or Onslaught 100% of the time, solo AI only with no orders.  But it's not sim that matters in the long run.  What matters is those remnant ordos, or the giant nexerelin fleets from every mod imaginable.  Even more important than kills and damage (which they always do reasonably well on in the analytic mod log) though is survivability, and the Odysseys VERY rarely die.  Certainly less often than any of my player controlled ships, and about on par with the Astrals which are in back avoiding conflict entirely with timid officers (Odysseys have Aggressive officers)

Full Odyssey Build:
2x Autopulse
2x Sabot SRM Pod (front)
2x Tactical Lasers (front)
1x Squall MLRS
1x Longbow Kinetic Bomber wing
1x Lux Heavy Fighter wing
Auxiliary Thrusters, Expanded Magazines, Hardened Shields, Accelerated Shields
58 Capacitors, 60 vents

I find the AI does terrible with Plasma Cannons no matter what you put them on or where.  It simply doesn't fire them most of the time, or doesn't use their range appropriately.  Autopulse just works better, and it benefits from the AI pussyfooting around by storing charges for when they finally get in range.  I also find that front shields on the Odyssey appear to screw with the broadside AI preventing it from turning and shooting properly, so while 360 degree shields would be nice, the AI simply works better with the normal 180 degree omnishields.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 01, 2019, 12:44:15 AM
Do you mean with 20 level officer? Because no-skills it fails miserably even against sim Conquest (well, stalls mostly, since it's too afraid to attack). Paragon obviously overpowers it too.

I mean if it has 20 level officer, it would have to match a Radiant with 20 level officer. Which I guess is not going to happen, since I doubt this matchup is doable even for best players (it certainly isn't in no skills fight).

No ITU? But this means it only occasionally blunders into attacking with Autopulses, most of the time it's dissipation rate is simply wasted because it doesn't commit to attack and doesn't drop shield to dissipate hard flux.

If you have to build this badly sub-optimal Odysseys to make them do anything under AI control, isn't it better to just spam Eagles? AI can use their best builds without any significant issues.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 01, 2019, 11:29:18 AM
Do you mean with 20 level officer? Because no-skills it fails miserably even against sim Conquest (well, stalls mostly, since it's too afraid to attack). Paragon obviously overpowers it too.

I mean if it has 20 level officer, it would have to match a Radiant with 20 level officer. Which I guess is not going to happen, since I doubt this matchup is doable even for best players (it certainly isn't in no skills fight).

No ITU? But this means it only occasionally blunders into attacking with Autopulses, most of the time it's dissipation rate is simply wasted because it doesn't commit to attack and doesn't drop shield to dissipate hard flux.

If you have to build this badly sub-optimal Odysseys to make them do anything under AI control, isn't it better to just spam Eagles? AI can use their best builds without any significant issues.
Have you even tried it?  With NO officier (which would be dumb in practice, why the hell wouldn't you put an officer on all your capital ships?) it beats the Sim Conquest IMMEDIATELY.  It just rushes in, unloads autopulse, and then the sim conquest is max flux and mostly helpless.  The Sim onslaught takes a lot longer, with the onslaught overloading twice and still surviving a while longer thanks to its high armor, but the Odyssey still eventually wins with 0 hull damage.  It does lose to sim paragon with no officer.  It's extremely close in the flux game though, and when the odyssey does win (with officer) it's all in the flux game, having taken 0 hull damage.

Make sure your fleet doctrine is aggressive of course.

This is anything but sub-optimal.  Sub-optimal is wasting 30+ OP on useless point defenses, or running beams that do absolutely nothing, or putting ITU on a ship that's intended to out-speed its enemy.  All those choices are sub-optimal.  This ship build is the definition of optimized for its role.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 01, 2019, 04:03:58 PM
I was under the impression fleet doctrine does nothing to how your AI ships act.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on September 01, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
I was under the impression fleet doctrine does nothing to how your AI ships act.

I'm unsure as to the simulator, but it sets the personality of non-officered ships in battle. Very useful :).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on September 01, 2019, 04:36:25 PM
Your character counts as a Steady officer if the ship has your portrait.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 01, 2019, 04:39:50 PM
Thank you for the infomation guys. What are your experiences with fleet doctrine? What do you set it to?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Hiruma Kai on September 01, 2019, 05:00:45 PM
Have you even tried it?  With NO officier (which would be dumb in practice, why the hell wouldn't you put an officer on all your capital ships?) it beats the Sim Conquest IMMEDIATELY.  It just rushes in, unloads autopulse, and then the sim conquest is max flux and mostly helpless.  The Sim onslaught takes a lot longer, with the onslaught overloading twice and still surviving a while longer thanks to its high armor, but the Odyssey still eventually wins with 0 hull damage.  It does lose to sim paragon with no officer.  It's extremely close in the flux game though, and when the odyssey does win (with officer) it's all in the flux game, having taken 0 hull damage.

Make sure your fleet doctrine is aggressive of course.

This is anything but sub-optimal.  Sub-optimal is wasting 30+ OP on useless point defenses, or running beams that do absolutely nothing, or putting ITU on a ship that's intended to out-speed its enemy.  All those choices are sub-optimal.  This ship build is the definition of optimized for its role.

The reason to use no officer is because the Conquest doesn't have an officer.  In typical enemy fleets, the capitals will have some form of enemy officer boosting its stats as well.

I just tried this in using the random mission on the mission list, getting an Odyssey, and then trying to fit it to your specifications, then running against the sim Conquest.  Due to the lack of the extra 10% OP, I had to use 40 capacitors and 50 vents.  Obviously neither side had an officer.

The conquest won decisively the first time, with just armor damage, no hull damage.  The Odyssey was engaging for me, and didn't really cower.

Then I tried it with the Full Assault option, and it was even more aggressive.  However the Odyssey still lost.  The conquest's flux went up, but then it dropped its shields and started to armor tank.  Perhaps with a few more runs it might get an overload if the timing is right.  How many test runs did you do with this without an officer?

I guess my comment is you have no dedicated anti-armor weapon on this build.  150 autopulse damage pretty much gets dropped down to the minimum 85% on Conquest armor initially.  Its got plenty of kinetic and EMP, but no immediate knockout blow.  If the conquest armor tanks some of the squalls and sabots (which it did in the test runs I just tried), you've got nothing to punish it with.

Here's a variation that does better in this particular match up and also demonstrates the use of point defense. Swap a plasma cannon in for one autopulse.  Drop the accelerated shields, auxiliary thrusters and expanded magazines.  Remove the 2 tactical lasers and throw on 6 small burst pd in the front left facing small mounts.  Throw on in integrated point defense AI.  Drop capacitors to 26.

I ran it again with that variation, and the Odyssey wins in that case.  About half the squalls don't actually impact its shields.  When the conquest armor tanks, it actually is punched through by the plasma cannon, which in turns lets the autopulse rip up the hull.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 01, 2019, 06:01:29 PM
Have you even tried it?  With NO officier (which would be dumb in practice, why the hell wouldn't you put an officer on all your capital ships?) it beats the Sim Conquest IMMEDIATELY.  It just rushes in, unloads autopulse, and then the sim conquest is max flux and mostly helpless.  The Sim onslaught takes a lot longer, with the onslaught overloading twice and still surviving a while longer thanks to its high armor, but the Odyssey still eventually wins with 0 hull damage.  It does lose to sim paragon with no officer.  It's extremely close in the flux game though, and when the odyssey does win (with officer) it's all in the flux game, having taken 0 hull damage.

Make sure your fleet doctrine is aggressive of course.

This is anything but sub-optimal.  Sub-optimal is wasting 30+ OP on useless point defenses, or running beams that do absolutely nothing, or putting ITU on a ship that's intended to out-speed its enemy.  All those choices are sub-optimal.  This ship build is the definition of optimized for its role.

The reason to use no officer is because the Conquest doesn't have an officer.  In typical enemy fleets, the capitals will have some form of enemy officer boosting its stats as well.

I just tried this in using the random mission on the mission list, getting an Odyssey, and then trying to fit it to your specifications, then running against the sim Conquest.  Due to the lack of the extra 10% OP, I had to use 40 capacitors and 50 vents.  Obviously neither side had an officer.

The conquest won decisively the first time, with just armor damage, no hull damage.  The Odyssey was engaging for me, and didn't really cower.

Then I tried it with the Full Assault option, and it was even more aggressive.  However the Odyssey still lost.  The conquest's flux went up, but then it dropped its shields and started to armor tank.  Perhaps with a few more runs it might get an overload if the timing is right.  How many test runs did you do with this without an officer?

I guess my comment is you have no dedicated anti-armor weapon on this build.  150 autopulse damage pretty much gets dropped down to the minimum 85% on Conquest armor initially.  Its got plenty of kinetic and EMP, but no immediate knockout blow.  If the conquest armor tanks some of the squalls and sabots (which it did in the test runs I just tried), you've got nothing to punish it with.

Here's a variation that does better in this particular match up and also demonstrates the use of point defense. Swap a plasma cannon in for one autopulse.  Drop the accelerated shields, auxiliary thrusters and expanded magazines.  Remove the 2 tactical lasers and throw on 6 small burst pd in the front left facing small mounts.  Throw on in integrated point defense AI.  Drop capacitors to 26.

I ran it again with that variation, and the Odyssey wins in that case.  About half the squalls don't actually impact its shields.  When the conquest armor tanks, it actually is punched through by the plasma cannon, which in turns lets the autopulse rip up the hull.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.
Video evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOXUsr89o4s&feature=youtu.be

I usually see it kill with 100% hull, this time it took some scratches and ended up on 98% hull.  AI can be funny sometimes with how it uses shields, but that's to be expected.  The conquest absolutely didn't stand a chance.  This is no officer.  Plenty of fleetwide player skills though.  Better to test with those than without, because you are absolutely going to have them.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on September 01, 2019, 06:55:13 PM
lol Oh that Conquest AI was just awful! I'm not disputing the victory at all because its often like that, but yeesh!
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 01, 2019, 07:28:46 PM
lol Oh that Conquest AI was just awful! I'm not disputing the victory at all because its often like that, but yeesh!
Here's one of the Odyssey vs Onslaught.  Same setup, but the Onslaught AI doesn't go full-***.  It takes MUCH longer, but the result is the same: Odyssey wins with only superficial damage.  I think this video does a much better job of demonstrating the Odyssey's AI, how it can back off and vent.  The high number of vents installed is very key to this victory because the Odyssey does an active vent while the Onslaught is venting and finishes first.

https://youtu.be/HWskCon3aHU


Now, this fight raises the question about missiles.  The Odyssey is completely out of missiles by the end, and only finishes with its pulse lasers and longbows.  If it had to fight another onslaught, it would almost certainly lose.  However, these ships are intended to be used in a fleet setting.  I allow fleet battles to last no more than about 4 minutes, so by the time the Odyssey runs out (without expanded racks), the fight should be nearing its end.  Furthermore, missiles are only needed for softening up the first wave of opponents and creating an opening/advantage.  Once they die (with fleet help, in far less than 4 minutes per ship), I should have a numbers/DP advantage and no longer need the extra edge.  Again, longbows do contribute to the sustainability.

(edit: I said dominator for some reason, it's an onslaught of course)
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Hiruma Kai on September 01, 2019, 09:16:12 PM
I usually see it kill with 100% hull, this time it took some scratches and ended up on 98% hull.  AI can be funny sometimes with how it uses shields, but that's to be expected.  The conquest absolutely didn't stand a chance.  This is no officer.  Plenty of fleetwide player skills though.  Better to test with those than without, because you are absolutely going to have them.

Fair enough, I agree it works when the Odyssey has about 20% more shield capacity from fleet wide skills.  The 84% CR means your shield damage ratio drops to 0.71 from 0.75 and 10% extra OP dedicated to vents and capacitors combines to about 20% more shield capacity.  My test didn't have those, and so I saw a much different result.

I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of the test.  When I do ship comparisons, I prefer to do it without fleet wide skills.

I will point out, enemy fleets in campaign also can have both fleet wide player skills.  I've certainly fought at a -20% EW penalty in a 200 vs 300 deployment fight even when both the opponent and my character have EW skills.  Most capitals in enemy fleets will come with an officer.

There's a 249k bounty in my game right now.  If I look at the campaign file these are the leader's skills:

"ordnance_expert":3,"missile_specialization":3,"coordinated_maneuvers":1,"officer_management":3,"combat_endurance":3,"helmsmanship":3,"target_analysis":3,"defensive_systems":3

The ships in that fleet benefit from coordinated maneuvers, a fleet wide skill.  Not to mention the Onslaught she is piloting has a lot of damage skills, better shields, and is faster.  And will be at 85% CR, not 70%.  And she's allowed up to 10 officers.

She has 9 officers in her fleet are at varying levels, around level 15 or so.

The reason to test no skill vs no skill is because in real fights it is skill vs skill, and the sim can't replicate that for the other side.  The only in combat skills I think the player can benefit from that the AI fleets can't is the Loadout Design and Fleet Logistics.  So you do have the 10% OP over all other opponents, and possibly 15% CR.  On the other hand, sometimes you engage 2 or 3 enemy fleets simultaneously.  Always fun facing 20 enemy officers.

Look at this way, if the position was reversed, and you were using the Conquest with an extra 31 OP dedicated to 10 more flux vents and 21 more capacitors, it'd beat the sim version of your Odyssey setup hands down.

When I'm comparing ship effectiveness for myself to use, I often modify the sim to include both variants I'm considering and will put them head to head, at least if I'm interested in 1 on 1 performance.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Pappus on September 02, 2019, 12:11:58 PM
Just want to point out that the odyssey venting wouldn't happen in a fleet battle, while the onslaught venting might still happen. The onslaught vents because it detects the severe lack of armor punch. Meanwhile the ody has less armor so in a 1vs1 sure it will vent, but not in the front line.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 08:48:36 AM
So as with Aurora I tried playing a bit with the Odyssey in my current run, and I still can't find a justification for its cost (and rarity tbh). Yes, it's super fast for a capital and has nice campaign stats, but that's it. I replaced the Conquest in my fleet for it as a capital I fly when Paragon is overkill and ehhhh. Sure it gets to the action faster but it kills things slower and is just as fragile. And it has the same problem as the Shrike, tight OP even with LD3 which means I have to leave out hullmods that it needs just to have enough flux to fire my weapons. I even put basic PD lasers all around and yet still had barely enough OP left for fighters. All these ships that have to have mandatory sabots on them have the same problem, they cost way too much just to be a win more ship, or should I say win faster. The more I play with the big energy boys, the more I appreciate the Shrike since its cost is not that absurd like the others (could use a bit more OP still).

I truly wonder if all those who say Odyssey has the best potential as a player ship ever piloted a Conquest.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Pappus on September 03, 2019, 08:56:06 AM
So as with Aurora I tried playing a bit with the Odyssey in my current run, and I still can't find a justification for its cost (and rarity tbh). Yes, it's super fast for a capital and has nice campaign stats, but that's it. I replaced the Conquest in my fleet for it as a capital I fly when Paragon is overkill and ehhhh. Sure it gets to the action faster but it kills things slower and is just as fragile. And it has the same problem as the Shrike, tight OP even with LD3 which means I have to leave out hullmods that it needs just to have enough flux to fire my weapons. I even put basic PD lasers all around and yet still had barely enough OP left for fighters. All these ships that have to have mandatory sabots on them have the same problem, they cost way too much just to be a win more ship, or should I say win faster. The more I play with the big energy boys, the more I appreciate the Shrike since its cost is not that absurd like the others (could use a bit more OP still).

I truly wonder if all those who say Odyssey has the best potential as a player ship ever piloted a Conquest.

The odyssey is good in AI hands, cause the AI doesn't look into the future it relies on speed.

In player hands you would rather take ships that onehit the enemy or can tank the entire fleet for the whole match.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 03, 2019, 09:04:30 AM
Odyssey doesn't have to rely on Sabots. You can make an effective player-piloted endurance build for it.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/5EDajtl.png)
[close]

It's good enough to kill any capital except Radiant in no skills fight, taking only token damage in process. And maybe better Conquest builds, that you can't bait for missiles (since it can have better weapons and can't be outmaneuvered).
Admittedly, it's much more finicky to pilot than Conquest and while good in 1v1, Odyssey loses a lot of it's advantage against multiple big opponents. Odyssey needs to secure position behind Onslaught/ to rear-side of Paragon to win, where Conquest wins by simply maintaining range.

AI can't pilot this build (which is understandable, it's tricky in terms of flux management even for me). Keys are ensuring right approach/positioning and using system dodge to dissipate (it usually doesn't give enough time for proper vent). Also requires much better position awareness than AI has (to actively hunt any vulnerable ships).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on September 03, 2019, 09:23:49 AM
A lot of these Oddy builds seem to rely on some kind of kinetic fighter support or missiles.

Which is tricky for me, personally, as in my current game my best weapons are the pulse laser and HE beam. So I can't really build a lot of these for my fleet.

I tend to find missile reliant Oddy builds tricky as in an actual battle under AI control, they are guaranteed to go to waste. (Coming from a guy who still likes to give the AI missiles.) So any 1v1 build isn't as suitable for a AI driven fleet v fleet build.

Advice? I know I'm not much of a meta player, and basically never use SO(not that capitals can have that) but what should I be looking for? Just focus on them being tanks who can kill anything smaller before surrounding and killing the enemy capitals like I usually do?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on September 03, 2019, 09:33:32 AM
I played shotgun Odyssey more, swapping out lance and MIRV for HIL and Squalls, and piloting it.  (Fighters were Sparks for my latest tests.)  It is decent even for player use, and the AI can use it.  Still, it did not do anything amazing other battleships cannot do.  Well, Onslaught is more likely to die if mobbed, but at least Onslaught has a minute or two of power to smash anything in front of it very quickly (with needlers, Annihilators, and TPCs) if it has enough support to keep mobs off its back.

Not fond of high-tech ships were they need to load up on Sabots and Expanded Missile Racks for enough missiles because they cannot put hard flux on shields fast enough without capping flux themselves with highly inefficient weapons.

Quote
I truly wonder if all those who say Odyssey has the best potential as a player ship ever piloted a Conquest.
A good Conquest is good for player and AI alike.

Quote
A lot of these Oddy builds seem to rely on some kind of kinetic fighter support or missiles.
Like other high-tech ships without kinetics, modern Odyssey (at least for AI) works best stuffed with missiles.  It needs Expanded Missile Racks to have enough to last a while.  Trying an energy only loadout is frustrating, especially for AI use.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 09:35:47 AM
@TaLaR
That was actually my build in previous playthroughs, I'd say that's the classic Odyssey loadout for a player. And while it performs decently, it builds up way too much flux so it's kinda risky to engage when there's a lot of enemies. Why the hell are there Pilums tho? Are you just memeing? Also funny you say it doesn't have to rely on Sabots while you have 2 Longbows... I find their survivability questionable and good ol' Sabot pods give me better results. Only way to guard Longbows is to plasma burn towards the enemy with the shields but that'll get you in sticky situations.

I just put Wasps since they're cheap and provide good PD coverage.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Locklave on September 03, 2019, 09:42:14 AM
Enforcer/Dominator/Onslaught all seem to have the same AI control issue. The devs need to revisit how these ship react to events around them. I can't help but think the Onslaught would perform well if it had 3 times it's combat speed/turning. Not that the speed would make it overpowered but rather that the things those ships try to do in combat suit faster ships.

Ships like the Lasher try to drift and shoot, those slow ships look very much like they are trying to do the same thing but only getting themselves destroyed because they can't do it right.

edit:

A good example is when the Onslaught literally moves to expose it's unshielded back. It's trying to do an acceleration and drift fire, all it ends up doing is making the enemies job of getting behind it easier. Because it's acceleration sucks as much as it's turning.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 03, 2019, 09:43:11 AM
I was wondering, does anybody actually ever use or buy the Gremlin and the Pirate Phase ships? Playing a recent "salvage only" playthrough, I found that those are actually fairly rare as pirate ships, negating their worth as an introduction to phase ships, and vastly over-represented in markets, relatively many being available to buy. What are people's opinions on them?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 09:47:51 AM
I was wondering, does anybody actually ever use or buy the Gremlin and the Pirate Phase ships? Playing a recent "salvage only" playthrough, I found that those are actually fairly rare as pirate ships, negating their worth as an introduction to phase ships, and vastly over-represented in markets, relatively many being available to buy. What are people's opinions on them?

Was also curios so went ahead and salvaged one. Nothing noterworthy about it, it dies super quick, sometimes manages to actually hit something with a missile. That's it basically, as you said it's an introduction to phase ships so it's just an annoyance more than anything.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Serenitis on September 03, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
A lot of these Oddy builds seem to rely on some kind of kinetic fighter support or missiles.

Which is tricky for me, personally, as in my current game my best weapons are the pulse laser and HE beam. So I can't really build a lot of these for my fleet.
Odyssey works reasonably well as a beam platform with HIL + Tac. But it really struggles against cruiser/capital shields without either Sabot pods or Longbows.
If you have them, Sabot pods are preferable since that allows you to fit 2x Xyphos for more beams and PD.
Without Sabot, you could use Salamander.
The AI loves protecting it's engines from heatseekers, which provides a convenient opportunity for shooting unshielded things. The Starsector equivalent of shouting "look! behind you!" at someone, and then hitting them when they turn round.

<Endurance Odyssey>
This is a neat build. If you took this down the beam route and used Tachyons instead, that might make the flux a little easier to manage, and give you a few extra OP for use elsewhere. But you'd lose hard flux damage from your guns.
You'd also lose the weird interaction the plasma bolts have with the drive system that flings them really hard in the direction of travel. Whether this is a gain or a loss is down to your preference. I imagine someone somewhere will have perfected aiming these things like sniper bolts.
You could also swap the Pila for Salamanders for the same reason as above.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on September 03, 2019, 10:08:16 AM
I tried Gremlin yesterday to see if it can do the same Reaper cheese as Afflictor.  It can, but it needs Unstable Injector and Defensive Systems 3 (for x4 time shift) to be fast enough to do it.  Still, the results of two unboosted Reapers is not that impressive.  Four Reapers is enough to take down a cruiser, then your glass sword is broke and needs to retreat.

I might use pirate Afflictor if it was all I had, but it gets discarded once I get the real thing.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 03, 2019, 10:11:20 AM
@TaLaR
Why the hell are there Pilums tho? Are you just memeing? Also funny you say it doesn't have to rely on Sabots while you have 2 Longbows... I find their survivability questionable and good ol' Sabot pods give me better results.

Pilums make it harder for AI to vent and provide opportunities to waste zero flux boost (making it harder for AI ships to surround me, among other things). Yes, they are usually intercepted by PD or shields - but that means that enemy often won't vent right away even if I'm out of range. Ody has free ECCM, might as well wring some use out of it.

Longbows don't run out, that's good enough for me.

You'd also lose the weird interaction the plasma bolts have with the drive system that flings them really hard in the direction of travel. Whether this is a gain or a loss is down to your preference. I imagine someone somewhere will have perfected aiming these things like sniper bolts.

Not exactly perfected, but it makes decent opening volley vs Capitals (big enough targets).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on September 03, 2019, 10:15:16 AM
Mining Pods are not a bad idea for Odyssey with short-ranged weapons and needs to get close to kill things.  The Pods are free and act like mini-meat shields, even without fighter skills.  I use them if I cannot afford Xyphos or Longbows.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 03, 2019, 10:33:45 AM
Enforcer/Dominator/Onslaught all seem to have the same AI control issue. The devs need to revisit how these ship react to events around them. I can't help but think the Onslaught would perform well if it had 3 times it's combat speed/turning. Not that the speed would make it overpowered but rather that the things those ships try to do in combat suit faster ships.

Ships like the Lasher try to drift and shoot, those slow ships look very much like they are trying to do the same thing but only getting themselves destroyed because they can't do it right.

edit:

A good example is when the Onslaught literally moves to expose it's unshielded back. It's trying to do an acceleration and drift fire, all it ends up doing is making the enemies job of getting behind it easier. Because it's acceleration sucks as much as it's turning.
Most ships act better with better manoeuvrability. Especially wolf.

A while ago I played around trying to make AI piloted "endurance" Odyssey. It was something like ignore most of the small mounts, Plasma Cannons, no missiles, Xyphos. I gave up and went back to Sabots.

Nice to see that nobody else really find a good use for those pirate phase frigates either.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 11:38:22 AM
I truly wonder if all those who say Odyssey has the best potential as a player ship ever piloted a Conquest.
I have and it sucks.  The Conquest is the worst non-civillian capital in the game regardless of whether you give it to the AI or pilot it yourself.

It's slow, it has AWFUL shields, it does not focus firepower properly, and it lacks the OP necessary to properly equip both broadsides.  The AI cannot handle it because of the poor shields, and frankly broadside ships feel terrible to pilot normally but the Conquest deserves a special place in hell for that shield.

Odyssey is literally everything conquest should be, but isn't.  It only has the one broadside, so it doesn't have to waste OP on unusable firepower, it has a great shield, great speed, and its own fighter support.  Still difficult-to-impossible to player-pilot, but the AI makes good use of it as a high-speed tank.  It does lack in killing power though, which is why it serves best in a tanking/support role, and why I don't bother to put finishing-type damages on it.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 11:56:06 AM
and it lacks the OP necessary to properly equip both broadsides
Well there's your problem mate, don't try to put best possible weapons in both broadsides, use one for PD. It's how I make every single loadout for it, don't know how well AI would pilot that since I never trust it enough to test. Btw if you're already criticizing shields, Odyssey also has awful ones for a high tech ship that needs to get close to put hard flux on enemies. If I'm not mistaken it has worst shields out of all high tech ships.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 03, 2019, 12:03:48 PM
I truly wonder if all those who say Odyssey has the best potential as a player ship ever piloted a Conquest.
I have and it sucks.  The Conquest is the worst non-civillian capital in the game regardless of whether you give it to the AI or pilot it yourself.

It's slow, it has AWFUL shields, it does not focus firepower properly, and it lacks the OP necessary to properly equip both broadsides.  The AI cannot handle it because of the poor shields, and frankly broadside ships feel terrible to pilot normally but the Conquest deserves a special place in hell for that shield.

You know you can leave mounts empty right? I usually outfit my conquests asymmetrically and put some downsized stuff in the weak broadside to fend off small ships and then I put heavy hitters on the other side. I also often leave the medium missile and medium energy slots empty to save OP for other stuff. You're right that the shields are a big problem, but if you either max capacitors or put hardened shields on it (or possible heavy armor and avoid using shields), you can solve that problem without too much trouble.

Odyssey is literally everything conquest should be, but isn't.  It only has the one broadside, so it doesn't have to waste OP on unusable firepower, it has a great shield, great speed, and its own fighter support.
Odyssey shield is not very good: it has 1:1 damage to flux which is on par with low tech shields (onslaught has 1:1) compared to high techs like paragon with 3:5 (.6) and apogee with 7:10 (.7) damage to flux but it still has the very high shield upkeep of most high tech ships. The odysseys shield is its weakest part by far IMO (assuming you have plasma cannons for firepower). I consider odyssey to be more OP starved than conquest since it really needs all the mounts it has to put out any decent firepower while conquest can easily do good damage with partially filled slots.

Also

Still difficult-to-impossible to player-pilot, but the AI makes good use of it as a high-speed tank.

What? The odyssey is primarily useful as a player piloted ship, the AI just burns straight into the enemy fleet and explodes 50% of the time when against significant opposition. I love flying it, but I would never even think of giving it to the AI against any serious opposition. I remember the conquest AI being significantly better on this patch, but I still consider both ships primarily player ships that are wasted potential (and possibly a major loss) in AI hands. TBH I slightly prefer odyssey as a player piloted ship, but I usually just fly a doom so I end up using neither most of the time. Conquest is better than odyssey vs. ships with good shields because it can equip kinetics, but odyssey is better for smashing ships with bad shields.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 12:08:50 PM
and it lacks the OP necessary to properly equip both broadsides
Well there's your problem mate, don't try to put best possible weapons in both broadsides, use one for PD. It's how I make every single loadout for it, don't know how well AI would pilot that since I never trust it enough to test. Btw if you're already criticizing shields, Odyssey also has awful ones for a high tech ship that needs to get close to put hard flux on enemies. If I'm not mistaken it has worst shields out of all high tech ships.
What are your other options though?  Paragon and Astral are way too slow.  I tried a setup with 3 Paragons once, but they were simply too slow to cover each other.  Swapping the two AI paragons for 2 AI Odysseys turned battles I could not win into ones that I won without effort or losses.  Astrals obviously aren't going to cover anybody, but they technically do have better shields.

Dropping down to the Cruiser level, the Apogee and Aurora technically have better stats.  The Apogee is slower than the Odyssey and lacks a movement system, which makes it easier to overwhelm.  It doesn't really have much firepower either.  Ultimately when the Apogee gets into combat it becomes a stationary shield bubble, whereas the Odyssey can fight free and back off.  The Aurora looks great on paper, but we all know how it goes in practice.  The AI simply can't use the ship no matter what, and it's just not strong enough to be worth piloting as a player (you'd need multiple anyway).  Theoretically if you don't care about damage, the Aurora might be your best bet as off-tank for the paragon, but while the Odyssey lacks in killing power (as I said earlier), it still does do substantial damage in fleet, more than enough to justify its cost.

I would however take any one of the ships I mentioned over a conquest, even the no-damage AI aurora.  It's just that bad.
I truly wonder if all those who say Odyssey has the best potential as a player ship ever piloted a Conquest.
I have and it sucks.  The Conquest is the worst non-civillian capital in the game regardless of whether you give it to the AI or pilot it yourself.

It's slow, it has AWFUL shields, it does not focus firepower properly, and it lacks the OP necessary to properly equip both broadsides.  The AI cannot handle it because of the poor shields, and frankly broadside ships feel terrible to pilot normally but the Conquest deserves a special place in hell for that shield.

You know you can leave mounts empty right? I usually outfit my conquests asymmetrically and put some downsized stuff in the weak broadside to fend off small ships and then I put heavy hitters on the other side. I also often leave the medium missile and medium energy slots empty to save OP for other stuff. You're right that the shields are a big problem, but if you either max capacitors or put hardened shields on it (or possible heavy armor and avoid using shields), you can solve that problem without too much trouble.

Odyssey is literally everything conquest should be, but isn't.  It only has the one broadside, so it doesn't have to waste OP on unusable firepower, it has a great shield, great speed, and its own fighter support.
Odyssey shield is not very good: it has 1:1 damage to flux which is on par with low tech shields (onslaught has 1:1) compared to high techs like paragon with 3:5 (.6) and apogee with 7:10 (.7) damage to flux but it still has the very high shield upkeep of most high tech ships. The odysseys shield is its weakest part by far IMO (assuming you have plasma cannons for firepower). I consider odyssey to be more OP starved than conquest since it really needs all the mounts it has to put out any decent firepower while conquest can easily do good damage with partially filled slots.

Also

Still difficult-to-impossible to player-pilot, but the AI makes good use of it as a high-speed tank.

What? The odyssey is primarily useful as a player piloted ship, the AI just burns straight into the enemy fleet and explodes 50% of the time when against significant opposition. I love flying it, but I would never even think of giving it to the AI against any serious opposition. I remember the conquest AI being significantly better on this patch, but I still consider both ships primarily player ships that are wasted potential (and possibly a major loss) in AI hands. TBH I slightly prefer odyssey as a player piloted ship, but I usually just fly a doom so I end up using neither most of the time. Conquest is better than odyssey vs. ships with good shields because it can equip kinetics, but odyssey is better for smashing ships with bad shields.
Odyssey shield upkeep is half of what high tech cruiser shield upkeep is.  The Aurora is 425/sec, the Apogee is 420/sec, the Odyssey is only 250/sec, Onslaught is 240/sec and Conquest is 480/sec.  Not that it makes all that much difference at that level, but keep that in mind.

Also, one would expect that you max capacitors and put hardened shields on EVERY ship.  So you can't say the "conquest is good with those upgrades" because compared to better ships that also have those upgrades, it's just as flimsy as it ever was.

While one might think the Odyssey just charges ahead and explodes, in practice that's not what happens at all against large enemy fleets.  It DOES charge ahead, but it DOESN'T explode.  As long as you have a fleet to support it.  Ultimately the Odyssey is an overgrown Cruiser, not a true capital.  You use it to support other capitals (ie the paragon) because the base game cruisers are all severely lacking in one area or another whereas the Odyssey has no such weaknesses, it simply doesn't have the raw might of a capital (ie paragon)
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 12:15:03 PM
What are your other options though?  Paragon and Astral are way too slow.

You forgot low tech gang with burn drives. Both Onslaught and Legion can quickly get into fights despite being slow bricks otherwise. I actually consider them very well balanced, unless you're doing some weird builds. If you REALLY want speed, just grab a Doom.

@intrinsic_parity
It's a rarity that someone writes a lot of sentences, and I agree with every single one. Spooky.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 12:17:42 PM
What are your other options though?  Paragon and Astral are way too slow.

You forgot low tech gang with burn drives. Both Onslaught and Legion can quickly get into fights despite being slow bricks otherwise. I actually consider them very well balanced, unless you're doing some weird builds. If you REALLY want speed, just grab a Doom.

@intristic_parity
It's a rarity that someone writes a lot of sentences, and I agree with every single one. Spooky.
Fast in, slow out, and even with paragon-tier shields that's a death sentence.  Any other suggestions?  70 speed is nothing to laugh at, it outspeeds almost every cruiser and comes close to most destroyers.  Simply backing away is all it takes to shake the most threatening enemy ships.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 12:21:34 PM
Any other suggestions?  70 speed is nothing to laugh at, it outspeeds almost every cruiser and comes close to most destroyers.  Simply backing away is all it takes to shake the most threatening enemy ships.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/1UriCFV.png)
[close]
Try this and tell me it's bad.

EDIT: I already said speed is very nice, but in the end doesn't make that much of a difference. It's almost as Odyssey is meant to be a glass cannon, but lacks the cannon part.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 12:23:31 PM
Any other suggestions?  70 speed is nothing to laugh at, it outspeeds almost every cruiser and comes close to most destroyers.  Simply backing away is all it takes to shake the most threatening enemy ships.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/1UriCFV.png)
[close]
Try this and tell me it's bad.
Fine.  Give me 20 minutes and I'll set up 3 of those and go find a Remnant Ordo.  Replace the 3 Odysseys with 3 conquests while keeping the fleets the same, and see how both fleets fair in AI only battle.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 12:26:35 PM
I meant try as pilot it yourself, why test things with AI since it's obvious it can't perform well with either of the battlecruisers.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 12:32:19 PM
I meant try as pilot it yourself, why test things with AI since it's obvious it can't perform well with either of the battlecruisers.
The AI performs EXCEPTIONALLY well with the Odyssey.  In my fleet, I can fight any single remnant ordo and not lose a single ship, just sitting back and watching.  If your Conquest is good, it will replace the Odyssey 1 for 1 and I still won't lose ships.  If I lose ships, then it isn't successfully filling the role that my Odysseys fill.  Obviously I'll test with both ships, just to be sure I actually can win automatically.

Now, would you prefer a steady or aggressive officer (or anything else)?  I use Aggressive in my Odysseys, and Reckless in my Paragon.

I can't pilot Odyssey or Conquest worth a damn.  Broadside shooting doesn't gel with turn and strafe to mouse controls, nor do omnishields.  Non-strafe controls just confuse me.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 12:34:14 PM
I have honestly no idea since I pilot it personally every time. Guess steady would work better with my longe range build.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Innominandum on September 03, 2019, 12:38:24 PM

Try this and tell me it's bad.

EDIT: I already said speed is very nice, but in the end doesn't make that much of a difference. It's almost as Odyssey is meant to be a glass cannon, but lacks the cannon part.
Not bad, not bad at all, still prefer my own loadout though.

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/ByuyLPE.png)
[close]
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 12:43:31 PM

Try this and tell me it's bad.

EDIT: I already said speed is very nice, but in the end doesn't make that much of a difference. It's almost as Odyssey is meant to be a glass cannon, but lacks the cannon part.
Not bad, not bad at all, still prefer my own loadout though.

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/ByuyLPE.png)
[close]
Hmmmm that seems oddly familiar...
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 12:53:22 PM
Initial testing is promising on your Conquest.  While they are incapable of interception like the Odyssey do (coming between the Paragon and its main threat whenever the Paragon's flux is high), their general fire support still serves well enough to win against some fleets.  I'm looking for the breaking point now, where one fleet can win/win without losses and the other can't.

It works.  I won't say it works better than the Odysseys, but the conquest fleet is able to hold a similar level of performance somehow.  I guess I was wrong and the Conquest is good enough as is, despite its very glaring weaknesses.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Zeeheld on September 03, 2019, 01:23:49 PM
[...]
What? The odyssey is primarily useful as a player piloted ship, the AI just burns straight into the enemy fleet and explodes 50% of the time when against significant opposition. I love flying it, but I would never even think of giving it to the AI against any serious opposition. I remember the conquest AI being significantly better on this patch, but I still consider both ships primarily player ships that are wasted potential (and possibly a major loss) in AI hands. TBH I slightly prefer odyssey as a player piloted ship, but I usually just fly a doom so I end up using neither most of the time. Conquest is better than odyssey vs. ships with good shields because it can equip kinetics, but odyssey is better for smashing ships with bad shields.
First time poster, long time lurker, but I just had to come out and say something. This quote seems to be the popular opinion on the Odyssey right now and I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why.
Do you not micro your ships? The AI is not capable of any other behavior than to pilot straight on into the enemy. That's why you get the deathballs with every pirate/luddic path armada.
I think that seems to be the big misconception about capitals in this game: They are not created equal.
Sure, the Paragon and Onslaught are perfectly happy just sitting at the heart of battle and taking all the abuse the enemy can dish out, in fact, that's their entire purpose. They cannot maneuvre and are not agile enough to pick their fights.
The Odyssey, however, can do just that. It has the mobility of a cruiser and is therefore suited for maneuvering around the battlefield. This makes the Odyssey perfect for flanking and also for supporting areas where your own ships might run into trouble.
I see it as a better Aurora. And with the right loadouts, i.e. the "shotgun" build or versions thereof, it can easily be entrusted to the AI's hands. You do have to be mindful that it cannot deal well with being outnumbered more than 3:1 by capitals and cruisers.
It needs to be coordinated with your fleet, however, in the sense that it is all too tempting to sic it into a carrier-backline right away and watch it get swamped by the entire enemy fleet on its way there.
Especially if you use a Paragon as your flagship. Only once Paragon is properly engaged can the Odyssey, and by extension your cruisers, safely strike. This requires patience, however, and might seem counterintuitive, having such an expensive ship idle, or just pick off some suicidal frigates.
Additionally, the Odyssey offers a counter to being outmaneuvered, which is terribly important when fighting against phase ships.
In summary, I do not get this discussion.

The Conquest, on the other hand, is just not that good, in my opinion, since I cannot find a role it excels in. It's an HMS Hood or Lion in my mind.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 01:44:45 PM
Initial testing is promising on your Conquest.  While they are incapable of interception like the Odyssey do (coming between the Paragon and its main threat whenever the Paragon's flux is high), their general fire support still serves well enough to win against some fleets.  I'm looking for the breaking point now, where one fleet can win/win without losses and the other can't.

It works.  I won't say it works better than the Odysseys, but the conquest fleet is able to hold a similar level of performance somehow.  I guess I was wrong and the Conquest is good enough as is, despite its very glaring weaknesses.
Glad I was able to open your eyes a little bit, yup it's not great, but it makes up for its weaknesses.

Especially if you use a Paragon as your flagship. Only once Paragon is properly engaged can the Odyssey, and by extension your cruisers, safely strike.

Ughh what? A capital needs to wait for another capital to distract everything so it can engage enemies without dying horribly? Why would I pay 45 DP for that when a frigate can do exactly that, and faster... I don't get these arguments for AI Odysseys being good when people use them as cleanup ships or to flank already overloaded enemies. No wonder it seems ''good'' that way.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 01:47:00 PM

I truly wonder if all those who say Odyssey has the best potential as a player ship ever piloted a Conquest.

The conquest is a lot slower and kills a lot slower in my experience.

For build i like xyphos/spark (or double xyphos), 2 plasma cannons, ITU, hardened shields, resistant flux conduits. Then slam vents and caps. Missiles are nice (i like sabots and mirvs, but salamanders and sabots and locust are also good options). You could also put a tach lance or autopulse on the rear but i think missiles are a lot Better. Sometimes i put typhoons on the front and sabot in the back to make killing stations faster. The sabot heavy player option is safer. Salamanders are probably safest for the AI

The plasma cannons just shred everything really amazingly fast. They penetrate armor almost as fast as HIL and do the same shield dps as mark IXs. And they cannot be stopped by intersecting with projectiles or missiles

With Plasma Cannons the Odyssey has the second highest all around DPS in the game behind “a paragon with its shields down” and the highest all around effectivre DPS in the game because it has the highst dissipation that can bring plasma cannons to bear consistently. (The paragon has 250 more dissipation but it shield costs 200 more and its slow so cant consistently fire them, the conquest does not have large energy slots despite having more dissipation)

So saying that the conquest does DPS but the Odyssey does not confuses me to no end. There is no higher DPS over the course of a fight but the Odyssey

Here is how you play with one as a player.

Step 1: select ordo
Step 2: solo that ordo.

(Ok its actually a bit tough to solo Huuuge fleets with that Odyssey and its a tad weak to fighters so has a lot more problems vs modded ordos but it only takes a few backers to just absolutely slaughter with it)
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 01:53:00 PM
Good, I was beginning to worry when will someone come who'll just put numbers in a vacuum and go ''look man, the numbers don't lie''. What I say to thee: ''Thou shall not ignore other combat variables''. As for Conquest being a lot slower, can an Odyssey fly backwards with its system while spinning around like a beyblade? Didn't think so.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 02:03:17 PM
Oh hell yes it can! Though its hard to pull off since you need to flameout during the plasma burn. But you will spin a lot faster than a conquest ever will.

And like... no the Odyssey is better than the conquest at dealing with combat variables. Its faster, more maneuverable, and safer. It has fighters and can use them to deal with “combat variables” that the conquest cannot. It can fit plasma cannons, which absorb incoming fire without reducing your own!

The only thing the conquest can do that the Odyssey cannot is more effectively use MIRVs (and that does have a lot of value since MIRVs are great) since the conquest has longer range and has two large slots.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Zeeheld on September 03, 2019, 02:06:06 PM
Ughh what? A capital needs to wait for another capital to distract everything so it can engage enemies without dying horribly? Why would I pay 45 DP for that when a frigate can do exactly that, and faster... I don't get these arguments for AI Odysseys being good when people use them as cleanup ships or to flank already overloaded enemies. No wonder it seems ''good'' that way.
I think you misunderstand my post. Maybe I should have clarified that your fleet needs to work in concert. If you send your fastest ships to engage the enemy alone, while your slower ships aren't in range, you're playing a dangerous game of catch up.
I also wasn't talking about mop-up or engaging only weakened enemies. That is indeed the frigates' job. I was talking about coordinating your forces for maximum effect. And an Odyssey isn't designed to sit around in the middle of the battlefield. You put your Odyssey on a flank, or to bolster defenses where needed. It can totally engage any ship on its own, and it's not so squishy it gets instantly turned to bits by being in a bad spot, but it cannot take the brunt punishment of a Conquest or Paragon; You do have to look out that it doesn't steam head first into the heart of the enemy fleet.
This should be obvious if you only consider that it needs those two fighter wings to work correctly. Its PD is very lacklustre on its own, and even with two Xyphos wings, it cannot stand up for long to too many Hammers raining down on it.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 02:10:34 PM
Gauss Cannon > every other cannon in vanilla. Thank you, you've all been great, plenty of good discussions all around.

On a serious note, all I'm seeing here is a shotgun Odyssey build being the only decent one that's sometimes worth the price. Sure you can go bananas with missiles but Odyssey ain't the best ship for that (both mount and cost wise).

EDIT:
I think you misunderstand my post. Maybe I should have clarified that your fleet needs to work in concert.

Ahh, I see where the misunderstanding is, my musical education isn't really the best. Only tactic I know is the Cavalry Charge™
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 03, 2019, 02:17:32 PM
[...]
What? The odyssey is primarily useful as a player piloted ship, the AI just burns straight into the enemy fleet and explodes 50% of the time when against significant opposition.
First time poster, long time lurker, but I just had to come out and say something. This quote seems to be the popular opinion on the Odyssey right now and I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why...

It because of the odyssey ship system. It can only go forward and does so in one quick burst. The AI is not good at recognizing that it will be in danger after it does something and the nature of the ship system is that it cannot escape easily once it has made a bad decision. The result is that odyssey burns towards stuff it can't handle because of mediocre shields and armor, and then dies when it is unable to escape. Even if your fleet is even or more powerful than the enemy, the odyssey will put itself in situations where it is locally in a 3:1 battle by isolating itself (the aurora also does this). If you are fighting a fleet that doesn't have any enemies that can legitimately threaten the odyssey, then it may not be a problem, but then IMO you are wasting supplies deploying a capital in the first place.

Ships with high mobility are generally poorly utilized by the AI because it has trouble assessing the risk of using the systems and often puts itself in bad situations with no escape by the system it just used to get there (while the player would typically use normal mobility to be aggressive and the system to escape).  No one is saying the odyssey is bad, its just the AI makes major mistakes with it and capitals are crazy expensive to lose so there is little room for error. It is much preferable (IMO) to have a slightly less powerful ship that consistently survives rather than a stronger one that randomly dies due to AI behavior. I think this is also influenced by the rest of your fleet. Maybe in a fleet where every ship is hyper aggressive, the odyssey will not isolate itself so much, but it happens consistently enough when I've tried it that I stop allowing the AI to pilot it.

As a player ship it is great, although most capital ships should be able to handle a single ordo with a bit of backing. IMO conquest with storm needler + HE kills hard shields ships (remnants) faster (although perhaps marginally so, but storm needler is 1400 dps vs shields at 2:1 damage to flux by itself which is almost the same dps as both plasma cannons combined with twice as much efficiency). Pairing it with something like a mjolnir and some medium HE weapon and double locusts (for hull dps/finishing power as well as anti fighter/frigate in a pinch) gives extremely high shield and hull damage and decent armor pen. A HAG can also work well as a pair with the storm needler if you want more armor pen but the mjolnir has good damage per shot so it works quite well in my experience. I know the AI sucks at using storm needlers though, so that is definitely a player only loadout. I have written off gauss cannon for a while because of the subpar efficiency, but maybe I ought to give them another try.

As to micro managing the odyssey as a strategy, I can't afford to take any skills that give extra orders because there are so many more important skills. I spend most of my orders on escorts to keep my carriers safe and then ordering bombing runs at critical points in the battle and saving a few for priority retreat orders leaves little to micro manage other ships. Why would I do that when I can just use ships that don't require it and perform just as well?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on September 03, 2019, 02:35:30 PM
A reason why the "shotgun" Odyssey is good is because Steady AI does not burn into a mob to die.  Instead, it kites like it should, much like 0.8.1a triple lance Odyssey did.  Whenever I use a more classic loadout for Odyssey, Steady AI thinks it can burn into a mob, unload plasma cannons or autopulses, then die.  Shotgun Odyssey does not do that.

Quote
Gauss Cannon > every other cannon in vanilla. Thank you, you've all been great, plenty of good discussions all around.
Gauss Cannon is the best?  I do not agree with that.  It is a gigantic flux hog that does not have enough DPS, not to mention small ships dodge it like crazy.  It is good for its niche, but for general-purpose assault, other guns are better.

For Conquest, I like either Mjolnir+Heavy Needler+Mark IX, or HAG+Mark IX+2xHeavy Autocannon.  Plenty of kinetic damage, with enough anti-armor.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Innominandum on September 03, 2019, 02:36:02 PM
Intermission
EDIT:
I think you misunderstand my post. Maybe I should have clarified that your fleet needs to work in concert.

Ahh, I see where the misunderstanding is, my musical education isn't really the best. Only tactic I know is the Cavalry Charge™
Cavalry Charge™
Spoiler
(https://media.giphy.com/media/SYLCDhXfADV7ckp9R9/giphy.gif)
[close]
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 04:39:20 PM
[...]
What? The odyssey is primarily useful as a player piloted ship, the AI just burns straight into the enemy fleet and explodes 50% of the time when against significant opposition.
First time poster, long time lurker, but I just had to come out and say something. This quote seems to be the popular opinion on the Odyssey right now and I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why...

It because of the odyssey ship system. It can only go forward and does so in one quick burst. The AI is not good at recognizing that it will be in danger after it does something and the nature of the ship system is that it cannot escape easily once it has made a bad decision. The result is that odyssey burns towards stuff it can't handle because of mediocre shields and armor, and then dies when it is unable to escape. Even if your fleet is even or more powerful than the enemy, the odyssey will put itself in situations where it is locally in a 3:1 battle by isolating itself (the aurora also does this). If you are fighting a fleet that doesn't have any enemies that can legitimately threaten the odyssey, then it may not be a problem, but then IMO you are wasting supplies deploying a capital in the first place.
This is the perception, not the result.  The result is that the Odyssey actually gets close enough to do damage (or even just bully the enemy away from your actual damage ships), rather than getting scared as soon as the enemy starts hitting it with beams and other long range weapons.  However, due to being faster than every high-damage ship in the game and with a strong (if not necessarily the strongest) shield, it can easily charge in, unload damage, and then back away at 70 until it gets out of enemy range again.  As a capital ship itself, if the enemy chases with faster ships like frigates and destroyers, the Odyssey simply kills those or chases them off with higher firepower, now that they are separated from the more dangerous cruisers and capitals.

The Aurora struggles due to low firepower.  It's shield and speed are comparable to the Odyssey, but it simply can't kill the frigates and destroyers that come chasing after it, therefor it can never get enough breathing room to vent.  It also has less armor/hull, so if it gets too heavily fluxed it dies much faster.  Remember that AI is a little dumb when flux is high, dropping shields for a couple seconds and then bringing them back up again repeatedly.  It's not an ideal strategy, but if you know your AI is going to do that anyway, you have to make the most of it.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 03, 2019, 04:56:28 PM
How would the Aurora have low firepower, if the Odyssey does not? In terms of purely shield dps, for the Deployment Points, an Aurora with 3 pulse lasers is the same as an Odyssey with 2 Plasma Cannons. If you are worried about defeating high armour values, 2 Heavy Blaster would be the DP equivalent firepower. The Aurora, just like an Odyssey should be able to dissapitate those weapons flux. Of course, the Aurora needs to be closer and so will get itself closer into more danger, but in theory Plasma Jets will also get it out of more danger too.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 04:59:45 PM
How would the Aurora have low firepower, if the Odyssey does not? In terms of purely shield dps, for the Deployment Points, an Aurora with 3 pulse lasers is the same as an Odyssey with 2 Plasma Cannons. If you are worried about defeating high armour values, 2 Heavy Blaster would be the DP equivalent firepower. The Aurora, just like an Odyssey should be able to dissapitate those weapons flux. Of course, the Aurora needs to be closer and so will get itself closer into more danger, but in theory Plasma Jets will also get it out of more danger too.
The Odyssey has 2 large energy slots it can actually use, a large missile slot, and 2 fighter wings, plus medium missiles..  The Aurora has 4 medium slots that the AI is more or less incapable of using short of maybe beams and medium missiles.  In practice, the Odyssey has firepower about equivalent to a Dominator (super heavy cruiser), whereas the Aurora's firepower is closer to that of a frigate (usually only firing a single medium slot and maybe some medium missiles).

A PLAYER can make much better use of the Aurora, and bring its firepower in line with other medium cruisers (still less than a dominator).  However, we aren't looking for player ships, we need AI ships to support a player ship, and furthermore the player piloting a medium cruiser simply doesn't make good enough usage of the players capabilities.  He either needs something faster so he can be more tactical with speed usage, or something much bigger so he can have more impact with strategic firepower and aggressiveness.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 07:26:29 PM
How would the Aurora have low firepower, if the Odyssey does not? In terms of purely shield dps, for the Deployment Points, an Aurora with 3 pulse lasers is the same as an Odyssey with 2 Plasma Cannons. If you are worried about defeating high armour values, 2 Heavy Blaster would be the DP equivalent firepower. The Aurora, just like an Odyssey should be able to dissapitate those weapons flux. Of course, the Aurora needs to be closer and so will get itself closer into more danger, but in theory Plasma Jets will also get it out of more danger too.
Because it has a lot less dps? Like... A whole hell of a lot less. Like... how could you even confuse the two?

So the Aurora has 800 base flux with 425 base shield cost and 3 medium slots(and some smalls). Its a cruiser and so it can fit 30 vents base and 36 with Loadout Design 2. This makes its shieldless and shielded total flux dissipation 1160/735 with loadout design 2. And 1100/675 without. If we assume stabilized shields then this goes up to 1160/948 and 1100/888. With that amount of capacity it can fire Heavy Blasters at an efficiency of 500/720 which gives it a DPS of 806/658 or 764/617 with stabilized shields and 806/510 or 764/469 without. This at 500 armor pen. It could fire Pulse Lasers instead at 303/333(and then IR pulse for when venting is >999 at 1 to 1) but it would be down to 100 armor pen a significant difference vs armor. Either way this puts you at 1070/862 or 1001/808 with stabilized shields and 1070/669 or 1001/614. Respectable numbers either way.

The Odyssey has 1000 base flux with 250 shield cost and 2 large slots (and some smalls that you should probably not bother fitting). Its a capital and so it can fit 50 vents base and 60 with Loadout Design 2. This makes its shieldless and shielded total flux dissipation 1600/1350 with Loadout Design 2 and 1500/1250 without. A Plasma Cannon does 750 DPS at 825 flux per second. This means that its Loadout Design 2 DPS is 1500/1266 and its regular numbers are 1406/1172

Plasma Cannons also have more range than Heavy Blasters and are not subject to being stopped by opposing projectiles in addition to the increased range of ITU and the fact that the Odyssey is as fast as the Aurora even if the Aurora is using its Plasma Jets in terms of chasing things down.(Also the third pulse laser mount is not on a turret and so will miss more often)

So the Aurora peaks out at 1070 DPS and 100/50 pen if it doesn't have its shields up and you have Loadout Design 2. The Odyssey will being doing 1172 with its shields up and without loadout design 2 and 500 armor penetration. Assuming the same fleet skills and similar shield necessity the damage difference is:

Edit: To make it easier going through and doing the per DP DPS ratio

Loadout Design 2/Shields Down/5x armor pen/Stabilized Shields: Odyssey does 40% more damage. 7% Less per DP vs shields. Armor/Hull Depends on target
Loadout Design 2/Shields UP/5x armor pen/Stabilized Shields: Odyssey does 47% more damage. 2% less per DP vs shields.  Armor/Hull Depends on target
Loadout Design 2/Shields Down/Same Armor Pen/Stabilized Shields: Odyssey does 86% more damage 24% more per DP
Loadout Design 2/Shields UP/Same Armor Pen/Stabilized Shields: Odyssey does 92% more damage 28% more per DP
Loadout Design 2/Shields Down/5x armor pen: Odyssey does 40% more damage 7% Less per DP vs shields. Armor/Hull Depends on target
Loadout Design 2/Shields UP/5x armor pen: Odyssey does 82% more damage 21% more per DP vs shields. Armor/Hull Depends on target
Loadout Design 2/Shields Down/Same Armor Pen: Odyssey does 86% more damage 24% more per DP
Loadout Design 2/Shields UP/Same Armor Pen: Odyssey does 148% more damage 65% more per DP


Shields Down/5x armor pen/Stabilized Shields: Odyssey does 49% more damage .5% Less per DP vs shields. Armor/Hull Depends on target
Shields UP/5x armor pen/Stabilized Shields: Odyssey does 45% more damage 3.5% Less per DP vs shields. Armor/Hull Depends on target
Shields Down/Same Armor Pen/Stabilized Shields: Odyssey does 83% more damage 22% more per DP
Shields UP/Same Armor Pen/Stabilized Shields: Odyssey does 90% more damage 27% more per DP
Shields Down/5x armor pen: Odyssey does 49% more damage .5% Less per DP vs shields. Armor/Hull Depends on target
Shields UP/5x armor pen: Odyssey does 91% more damage 27% more per DP vs shields. Armor/Hull Depends on target
Shields Down/Same Armor Pen: Odyssey does 83% more damage 22% more per DP
Shields UP/Same Armor Pen: Odyssey does 150% more damage 67% more per DP

Now. If you normalize to deployment points and are using stabilized shields and are shooting at 100/50 penetration then you're going to get pretty close. You might even technically do more shield damage in a brawl-off with the Aurora deployment point for deployment point. The Odyssey costs 45 deployment points and the Aurora costs 30 so. 45/30 -> 50% more DPS is our breakpoint.

But if you want the same armor pen and hull DPS the Odyssey is still going to absolutely crush the Aurora even deployment point for deployment point. Against a 1000 armor'd ships hull Pulse lasers will be doing 66% of their normal damage while plasma cannons will still be dealing 83% of theirs which gives the Odyssey a 25% damage advantage. This puts the Odyssey back on top significantly even deployment point for deployment point.


And then the range and the ability to broadslide and...

Kinda big important note... I totally forgot to include any DPS from the Odysseys two fighter bays. I usually have like Xyphos and Spark or double Xyphos, so the DPS there is usually pretty minimal* but you could absolutely run an interceptor or heavy fighter wing and have decent increase DPS for zero flux. The numbers above do not account for that (nor do they count for missiles but the Odyssey has more missiles slots per DP than the Aurora anyway) and are, as such an underestimation of the value of the Odyssey.

*2 Xyphos Wings still adds 200 DPS at 25 pen (Assuming only the ion beams hit and there is no ion arc damage). So the raw DPS numbers should be like.. So the raw DPS number for the first case. Loadout Design 2, shields Down, pulse lasers on the Aurora should actually be 59% more damage for the Odyssey or 6% more damage per deployment point.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 03, 2019, 07:41:57 PM
Aurora is all about missiles (usually lots of sabots and reapers and some heavy blasters for anything that doesn't require a reaper). That's the only loadout that really is worth its cost in terms of output in player hands, but there are other things the player would rather pilot so it just doesn't have much of a role in the fleet. The aurora does not do sustained dps well, it nukes big things instantly with missiles and chases down smaller stuff with respectable but certainly not impressive damage.

Also 3 pulse lasers = 900 dps, 2 plasma cannons = 1500 dps
900 is not equal to 1500, not sure how that math works.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 03, 2019, 07:52:04 PM
@Goumindong
Don't want to quote all that.  I just want to point out that Longbows are one of the most effective things you can put on an Odyssey in practice.  Bombers in general are pretty good on Odyssey.  Because the odyssey fights in close quarters (still close relative to dedicated carriers even if running long-range weapons), the bombers don't have very far to fly and are relatively protected by the Odyssey's presence (either inside its shield, or else the enemy is distracted attacking the Odyssey).  That changes a bit if you run something like Tachyon+ITU, but alone it's a strong argument for skipping ITU.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 08:30:55 PM
@Goumindong
Don't want to quote all that.  I just want to point out that Longbows are one of the most effective things you can put on an Odyssey in practice.  Bombers in general are pretty good on Odyssey.  Because the odyssey fights in close quarters (still close relative to dedicated carriers even if running long-range weapons), the bombers don't have very far to fly and are relatively protected by the Odyssey's presence (either inside its shield, or else the enemy is distracted attacking the Odyssey).  That changes a bit if you run something like Tachyon+ITU, but alone it's a strong argument for skipping ITU.

I find that i never needed longbows. I would have more than enough sabot from the medium launchers if i wanted them. Though i am sure they're fine.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Zeeheld on September 04, 2019, 04:47:48 AM
I can't afford to take any skills that give extra orders because there are so many more important skills. I spend most of my orders on escorts to keep my carriers safe and then ordering bombing runs at critical points in the battle and saving a few for priority retreat orders leaves little to micro manage other ships. Why would I do that when I can just use ships that don't require it and perform just as well?
That of course changes everything. If you are not willing do direct the Odyssey, it doesn't perform that well.

Sotanaht is absolutely right about everything. I have nothing more to add to that.
Except the part about Longbows being the best choice for fighters on an Odyssey.
I really like two Xyphos wings, too. However, that might be a matter of taste. I like to give it extra defense, but extra KE works fine, too. But with three Sabot pods, it can usually dish out enough KE for a long enough time to be effective.
The Longbows work particularly well when choosing a Plasma Cannon in favor of an Autopulse, since the AI is always so hesitant about using it. That really bums be me out about the PC in general.

As for the Aurora, that might be the one ship with a glaring price problem right now. 30 DP is just too much. I don't think it's worth it at all because it's just too squishy to punch above its weight constantly. And it does need to do just that: punch above its weight because its deployment cost shrinks your effective fleet.
That IBB Aurora, however, is just a joy to behold. That thing is easily worth the 40 odd DP because in essence it is just as effective, if not more so, than the Odyssey.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 04, 2019, 07:54:21 AM
Aurora is all about missiles (usually lots of sabots and reapers and some heavy blasters for anything that doesn't require a reaper). That's the only loadout that really is worth its cost in terms of output in player hands, but there are other things the player would rather pilot so it just doesn't have much of a role in the fleet. The aurora does not do sustained dps well, it nukes big things instantly with missiles and chases down smaller stuff with respectable but certainly not impressive damage.

Also 3 pulse lasers = 900 dps, 2 plasma cannons = 1500 dps
900 is not equal to 1500, not sure how that math works.
Do the maths again, but this time taking into account of DP.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Hiruma Kai on September 04, 2019, 08:05:58 AM
I like Longbows on an Odyssey when I don't feel like I have the spare DP for 2x Sabot Pods.  I can spend 24 OP for 4 flux free burst PD + unlimited sets of 4 Sabot or 20 OP for Sabot pods (6 salvos) plus another 30 OP on flux free Ion Cannons plus burst PD.

For example, my current flagship Odyssey is running 2x Plasma cannons, 1x Locust Launcher, 3x Burst PD, 6x PD Laser, 2x Longbows for offense.  59 Vents, Hardened shields, Flux Distributor, Resistant Flux Conduits, and Integrated Targeting Unit.  With Power Grid Modulation 3, I think it vents like 2,760 flux per second.  Going from near full flux to empty is like 4 or 5 seconds.  A half bar is like 2 seconds.  Typically I'll ship system once or twice and just hit vent, throwing off most things for 2 or 3 seconds, long enough to safely vent and bring shields back up.  Also, with that character's skills the Plasma Cannons + shield are just under flux neutral (by like 3 flux or something).  I can't see dropping Flux Distributor and 6 vents for 2 Sabot pods and upgrades to Xyphos for example.

For the shotgun style AI Odyssey, the xyphos seem to work fine.  Although I admit in the heaviest fighting, I've still found my AI  Odyssey is still the most likely to go down of my AI ships, although I tend to have a "Set escorts, meet enemy at waypoint X at the beginning of the fight, turn off waypoints, and now forget about them" attitude for my AI ships.  And given I almost always under deploy or am fighting in 200 DP (me) to 300 DP (them) fights, it generally is going to be outnumbered.  Given a limited 200 DP deployment, I can't afford half of my front line warships to be leaving the carriers and other battleship behind and I don't feel like micromanaging a flanker while I'm already flanking.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 04, 2019, 09:09:28 AM
After experimenting a bit I find that 1 Xyphos + 1 Longbow is the best option overall on Odyssey. 1 Xyphos wing is enough if ion gets through, second Xyphos doesn't add much.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 04, 2019, 10:06:24 AM
I like to put sparks on odyssey and skimp on PD (usually 2 burst PD by engines and maybe 1 or 2 other PD weapons near bow), but I haven't tested a lot of other things. It works for me though. I use sabot pods for kinetic also.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 04, 2019, 10:30:21 AM
Aurora is all about missiles (usually lots of sabots and reapers and some heavy blasters for anything that doesn't require a reaper). That's the only loadout that really is worth its cost in terms of output in player hands, but there are other things the player would rather pilot so it just doesn't have much of a role in the fleet. The aurora does not do sustained dps well, it nukes big things instantly with missiles and chases down smaller stuff with respectable but certainly not impressive damage.

Also 3 pulse lasers = 900 dps, 2 plasma cannons = 1500 dps
900 is not equal to 1500, not sure how that math works.
Do the maths again, but this time taking into account of DP.

I did. It was a fairly large post, i even gave the aurora the benefit of the doibt and assumed it would be firing IRpulse to fill in the flux gap, did you miss it?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 04, 2019, 10:57:48 AM
I was looking purely at "firepower", so I only worked out the shield dps, in my head, with assuming shields off. You seemed to put in a lot of effort into the maths with variants and shields on and off, and stabilized shield for Aurora is an unfair comparison, so hats off to you.

I only factored in the the weapons which I wrote. No IR Pulse Laser.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 04, 2019, 02:49:56 PM
Stabalized shields isnt too bad a comparison. Aurora should probably have it, even over hardened shields. Aurora pays 9 OP for 212 effective dissipation when your shields are up. That is twice the value of vents! Its better than vents even if you have safety overrides! If you arent fitting that you should absolutely be fitting a front shield conversion which gives the same cost reduction for 1 more OP. You could even fit both and each one would still be better price than vents(unless you were SO) at 106 for 10 or 9 for the second mod.

Odyssey in comparison pays 15 for 125 effective dissipation. Worse than vents (still better than flux distributor but not by a whole lot). And you would almost certainly much prefer to go for the front shield conversion. Which is 125 for 18.(worse than a flux distributor but the ability to have rear shields is worth)

Hell i probably should have done a run for both on the Aurora. That gives the Aurora 1053 effective dissipation with its shields up!* Which is enough to run a pulse laser and heavy blaster... almost exactly with .75 flux/second to spare. Which puts it at 803 DPS with decent (but not Odyssey) penetration at loadout design 2. The Odyssey does 57% more damage with shields up before considering fighters or the DP difference or the penetration difference. Which gives it a 5% damage per DP advantage. Still good but i think it changes my estimation of the Aurora to “actuallly it does a LOT of damage” rather than “yea it does pretty good damage”

*Compare to an Onslaught that has 960 with its shields up. While the onelaught has use of TPCs and can more easily switch damage types so deal the right type of damage its also a lot harder to do those things than it is to just sit at the right range with an Aurora
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Wyvern on September 04, 2019, 03:21:02 PM
Note that officer skills do skew things some - Defensive Systems and Power Grid Modulation are very nearly must-have options for an officer for an Aurora, and with that extra 25% shield cost reduction, going for stabilized + front shields is a bit less attractive.

I'll also note that my preferred Aurora variant mounts 2x pulse laser, 2x ir pulse, 4x ion cannon, 1x heavy blaster; this gives you 1100-ish sustained DPS for 1200-ish flux/s - not quite flux-neutral, but close enough (once we count in officer skills) - with the heavy blaster as a very-much-not-flux-neutral add-in when you need to break armor.  And once you've got a target high on flux, the ion cannons shut them down and let you stay close much longer than you could based on your shields alone.  The AI is, of course, not -as- competent with this build as the player can be, but it's also not terrible, either.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 04, 2019, 03:21:47 PM
Stabalized shields isnt too bad a comparison. Aurora should probably have it, even over hardened shields. Aurora pays 9 OP for 212 effective dissipation when your shields are up. That is twice the value of vents! Its better than vents even if you have safety overrides! If you arent fitting that you should absolutely be fitting a front shield conversion which gives the same cost reduction for 1 more OP. You could even fit both and each one would still be better price than vents(unless you were SO) at 106 for 10 or 9 for the second mod.

Odyssey in comparison pays 15 for 125 effective dissipation. Worse than vents (still better than flux distributor but not by a whole lot). And you would almost certainly much prefer to go for the front shield conversion. Which is 125 for 18.(worse than a flux distributor but the ability to have rear shields is worth)

Hell i probably should have done a run for both on the Aurora. That gives the Aurora 1053 effective dissipation with its shields up! Which is enough to run a pulse laser and heavy blaster... almost exactly with .75 flux/second to spare. Which puts it at 803 DPS with decent (but not Odyssey) penetration at loadout design 2. The Odyssey does 57% more damage with shields up before considering fighters or the DP difference or the penetration difference. Which gives it a 5% damage per DP advantage. Still good but i think it changes my estimation of the Aurora to “actuallly it does a LOT of damage” rather than “yea it does pretty good damage”
Word of advice: I find that front shields interfere with the AI's ability to use broadside weapons.  They tend to waffle back and forth between aiming directly at the opponent and turning towards the broadside, which reduces DPS substantially.  That's why I end up fitting Accelerated Shields on the Odyssey.  The AI likes to raise and lower shields a lot, so accelerated prevents a pretty substantial amount of damage that would otherwise go around the slowly-raising shield.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 04, 2019, 03:25:21 PM
@wyvern. Yea but for the comparison the Odyssey does better for officer skills. You get more punch per officer because of the increased DP and because the better efficiency of plasma cannons makes the marginal flux increases more valuable.

It was easier to just ignore them. Even then with officer skills you get 160 flux for the first and 79 for the second. Still better than a distributor.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: mvp7 on September 08, 2019, 10:09:37 AM
Here's my Aurora build.

It's likely my last ship in the game as I don't feel like moving into Capital myself. Officers can handle them better than me and Aurora's incredible mobility serves me much better.

Two Pulse Lasers and three IR Pulse Lasers give a solid base damage against both shields and hull, they also shoot down fighters effectively. Sabots help take down shields and Ion Cannons will quickly cripple the unshielded enemy. Phase Lance is great for burst damage and stripping armour so that the pulse lasers and ion cannons can do their magic. Burst PD in the rear can shoot down occasional missiles and enemy fighters with ease.

Even with my limited flux skills (concentrated more of stuff that benefits the entire fleet) the five lasers and two ion cannons can sustain fire pretty much indefinitely with the Converted front shields. Front shield conversion gives the ship a 360 degree shield coverage which, together with almost maxed capacitors, makes the ship incredibly tough. In practice it takes a capital or concentrated kinetic weapon fire from several smaller ships to really even move the hard flux marker.

Plasma Jets give Aurora incredible mobility so it can get in and out of trouble with ease and catches even fastest frigates. It's definitely expensive to deploy, it doesn't pack massive alpha strike or DPS (although it will destroy any frigate or destroyer in seconds, wreck cruisers without breaking a sweat and can max the flux on most AI Capitals without too much trouble) but it's great general purpose combat ship that is invaluable in supporting the slow and cumbersome Onslaughts and Legions that form the core of my fleet.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on September 08, 2019, 10:22:17 AM
Yeah not going to lie, I have some of the exploration cruisers with plasma cannons and ion cannons. Having them stun lock enemy ships is very nice.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on September 08, 2019, 06:35:28 PM
2 heavy blasters on an Aurora is very comfortable as long as its not trying to take on very heavily shielded enemies: weapon flux should ALWAYS be higher than the maxed dissipation, because there will always be downtime where weapons aren't firing.

For more shielded enemies switching over to 1HB + PL + a few IR pulse is tempting, but I would rather just mount some sabots and stick to HB armor cracking. Even once the sabots run out, Auroras outflux most ships even with HBs. Not to mention that in real battle you can always use the superior speed for 2v1 with other ships, in which case the superior DPS shines even more.

IR Pulses and Pulse lasers are simply too weak against armor and hull of cruiser grade enemies...
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on September 18, 2019, 11:25:43 AM
Aha, I found an decent ammoless Odyssey build, based on the Odyssey build found in this thread. Not as much burst firepower, but Longbows give it a pretty decent long range anti-shield power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNyhTKQHPeI
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Crimson Sky Gaurdian on September 18, 2019, 11:38:32 AM
Exactly my point that I forgot to put. It's kinda ridiculous to have these big ships and they need a specific weapon out of a whole bunch just to be viable. And almost always they're high-tech ships which is a shame.
It might just be me, but High Tech being highly specific feels on point, thematically.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 18, 2019, 12:48:39 PM
Exactly my point that I forgot to put. It's kinda ridiculous to have these big ships and they need a specific weapon out of a whole bunch just to be viable. And almost always they're high-tech ships which is a shame.
It might just be me, but High Tech being highly specific feels on point, thematically.
High tech (ie energy) weapons simply don't offer much choice.  Once you've eliminated the beams and the emp weapons that don't do anything at all, you are left with only 2 options for a large slot, 3 for medium, and 2 for small.  The Mining Blaster and Antimatter Blaster are niche options, so really it's 2 large, 2 medium and 1 small.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Crimson Sky Gaurdian on September 18, 2019, 12:51:38 PM
That's disappointing.
You'd think High Tech'd be highly specific, but have the most variety in what they do.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Wyvern on September 18, 2019, 12:57:17 PM
Once you've eliminated the beams and the emp weapons that don't do anything at all
...Lol?  I mean, seriously, have you tried ion cannons?  Put four in the front hardpoints of an Aurora, and once you drive your enemy's flux up once they just stop being able to fight back effectively, capable of only sporadic return fire that your shield can easily absorb.  Or there's the HIL that, sure, doesn't do much against shields, but eats armor.  Or the Tachyon Lance that does all of the above (and is actually decent at forcing overloads on frigates/destroyers/high-flux-targets-of-any-size, too).
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 18, 2019, 01:06:43 PM
Once you've eliminated the beams and the emp weapons that don't do anything at all
and once you drive your enemy's flux up
You outplayed yourself mate. We have enough energy weapons to punish ships with downed shields, any decent weapon can capitalize on that. The problem is breaking shields, which only Autopulse is decent at. Why spend 24 OP for weapons that only do something when you already won the fight, you're just taking more time to kill something. I'm not saying Ion Cannons are useless, but they're far from being that amazing.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 18, 2019, 01:09:34 PM
Once you've eliminated the beams and the emp weapons that don't do anything at all
and once you drive your enemy's flux up
You outplayed yourself mate. We have enough energy weapons to punish ships with downed shields, any decent weapon can capitalize on that. The problem is breaking shields, which only Autopulse is decent at. Why spend 24 OP for weapons that only do something when you already won the fight, you're just taking more time to kill something. I'm not saying Ion Cannons are useless, but they're far from being that amazing.
Have to agree.  90% of the fight is breaking the shield, the remaining 10% is just waiting for the enemy to die.  Once his flux is high he can't shoot much anyway, because he's doing everything he can to flicker shields and survive a few more seconds.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Wyvern on September 18, 2019, 01:13:16 PM
Have to agree.  90% of the fight is breaking the shield, the remaining 10% is just waiting for the enemy to die.  Once his flux is high he can't shoot much anyway, because he's doing everything he can to flicker shields and survive a few more seconds.
Lolnope.  I mean, sure, that's how it plays out against lightly armored pirate clunkers, but try that philosophy against anything with heavy armor and you're going to get owned.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 18, 2019, 01:14:41 PM
Have to agree.  90% of the fight is breaking the shield, the remaining 10% is just waiting for the enemy to die.  Once his flux is high he can't shoot much anyway, because he's doing everything he can to flicker shields and survive a few more seconds.
Lolnope.  I mean, sure, that's how it plays out against lightly armored pirate clunkers, but try that philosophy against anything with heavy armor and you're going to get owned.
Works just as well against Onslaughts and Dominators.  Once their flux is up, they barely fight back as long as you don't let them run away to vent, which is kind of hard to do when they only move at 30
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 18, 2019, 01:26:08 PM
Have to agree.  90% of the fight is breaking the shield, the remaining 10% is just waiting for the enemy to die.  Once his flux is high he can't shoot much anyway, because he's doing everything he can to flicker shields and survive a few more seconds.
Lolnope.  I mean, sure, that's how it plays out against lightly armored pirate clunkers, but try that philosophy against anything with heavy armor and you're going to get owned.
Works just as well against Onslaughts and Dominators.  Once their flux is up, they barely fight back as long as you don't let them run away to vent, which is kind of hard to do when they only move at 30

Low tech ships  do have potential to trade armor for flux advantage. But AI isn't smart enough to it properly! It only happens to a limited degree and mostly by accident.

So shield break being 90% still stands. I mean obviously one shouldn't do stupid builds like all Needlers without any HE support, but just minimal inclusion of armor-breaking weapons is enough.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on September 18, 2019, 01:27:54 PM
Even then, any decent HE will permanently smash any exposed armour in seconds. And who's not carrying a little of that now a days?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Agile on September 23, 2019, 06:47:14 AM
Yeah, it really boils down to "the AI isn't smart enough".

The player can take an Onslaught and destroy a Paragon by armor tanking, but the AI won't think of that; not even as a Reckless officer. Sometimes they do it out of sheer luck; they pull off a kamikaze run without being owned by torpedos and win the flux fight simply cause they can fire without shielding while their opponent is shielding and firing, but thats a "once in a blue moon AI moments" type deal.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 23, 2019, 01:51:29 PM
Yeah, it really boils down to "the AI isn't smart enough".

The player can take an Onslaught and destroy a Paragon by armor tanking, but the AI won't think of that; not even as a Reckless officer. Sometimes they do it out of sheer luck; they pull off a kamikaze run without being owned by torpedos and win the flux fight simply cause they can fire without shielding while their opponent is shielding and firing, but thats a "once in a blue moon AI moments" type deal.
The Onslaught only has 250 more armor and 2000 more hull than the Paragon, at the cost of 8000 less flux capacity, 650 less dissipation and worse shield efficiency.  While a player Onslaught might be able to leverage armor to take out an AI paragon, I think that in a player vs player situation (or AI vs AI where the AI was programmed to do that), the Paragon will win, because the Paragon can armor tank too.  But then, the Paragon costs 15 more DP, so it should win obviously.

The Onslaughts biggest advantage is not armor/hull, but weapon types.  3 Medium Missiles in particular make for a lot of flux-free damage to bring the effective damage closer compared to the Paragons 4 small missiles that usually aren't even worth equipping.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: SCC on September 23, 2019, 02:08:10 PM
But then, the Paragon costs 15 more DP, so it should win obviously.

The Onslaughts biggest advantage is not armor/hull, but weapon types.  3 Medium Missiles in particular make for a lot of flux-free damage to bring the effective damage closer compared to the Paragons 4 small missiles that usually aren't even worth equipping.
20 more DP (Onslaught's 40, Paragon's 60) and 4 medium missiles, not 3.
I think that currently the biggest issue with armour-tanking ships is that they don't shield flicker aggressively enough. They often keep shields up, even if only kinetic projectiles are coming in.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 23, 2019, 02:14:39 PM
i think all this is a little too unfair on the AI. The AI does flicker shields. It seems to depend on the weaponry and it's own armour. The AI doesn't seem to aim shields properly though, or take into account that it takes time to extend the shield. The AI also vent flux aggressively, but only when it thinks it is winning.

Shield breaking being 90% of a fight is a bit of an exaggeration. More like 80%. It's more of that we, the players tend to make sure that there are some armour destroying weaponry, so we never really see armour being tanked, at least on the opponent side.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on September 23, 2019, 02:19:40 PM
i think all this is a little too unfair on the AI. The AI does flicker shields. It seems to depend on the weaponry and it's own armour. The AI doesn't seem to aim shields properly though, or take into account that it takes time to extend the shield. The AI also vent flux aggressively, but only when it thinks it is winning.

Shield breaking being 90% of a fight is a bit of an exaggeration. More like 80%. It's more of that we, the players tend to make sure that there are some armour destroying weaponry, so we never really see armour being tanked, at least on the opponent side.
Flickering shields is dumb.  It causes the AI to stay near max flux, which means they don't fight back because they turn off weapons the higher their flux gets, which means they just die.  In practice nearly any situation where you would consider flickering shields, you are better off just hitting active vent and hoping for the best.  Either you die, or you get back into combat with 0 flux and a lot less armor/hull, but that's better than a guaranteed death on a shield flicker.  The main exception is if you can escape, shield flickering can buy faster ships a little more time to get outside of enemy range, but the AI could easily compare speeds and say "if my speed < enemy speed +X, vent, else flicker"
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on September 23, 2019, 04:02:25 PM
The Vigilance, I don’t know what it is good for, and have never deliberately used it myself. I guess it’s for harpoon pods? But I don’t like the idea of any ship that can’t kill anything by itself.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 23, 2019, 04:22:53 PM
Vigilance has a number of good fits. Its actually a really good frigate. First off its fast, only the wolf, tempest, and kite are faster(ignoring other phase ships, TT brawler with active, and SO ships) so its not going to get caught.

It has low dissipation but it does have an omni shield and its medium mount is on a turret, which means that its much more effective than normal.

Good options for the energy slot are

Graviton Beam/Ion Beam/Phase Lance

Good options for the launcher are

Salamander Pod, Harpoon Pod, Sabot Pod

The Salamander option is pure support. But it does it really well. Most efficient Salamander per DP so the Graviton/Ion beam harass is just icing

Sabot Pod lets is duel other frigates pretty well though the AI isn't that good with this a pulse laser or phase lance will do plenty of damage. Harpoon lets you dump on things.

I prefer the Gravoton/Ion/Salamander option. (you can actually get Salamander, Graviton, vents to keep shields up and fire the graviton with no flux increase, max caps, eccm, and hardened subsystems without the OP skill)
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 23, 2019, 09:55:25 PM
i think all this is a little too unfair on the AI. The AI does flicker shields. It seems to depend on the weaponry and it's own armour. The AI doesn't seem to aim shields properly though, or take into account that it takes time to extend the shield. The AI also vent flux aggressively, but only when it thinks it is winning.

Shield breaking being 90% of a fight is a bit of an exaggeration. More like 80%. It's more of that we, the players tend to make sure that there are some armour destroying weaponry, so we never really see armour being tanked, at least on the opponent side.
Flickering shields is dumb.  It causes the AI to stay near max flux, which means they don't fight back because they turn off weapons the higher their flux gets, which means they just die.  In practice nearly any situation where you would consider flickering shields, you are better off just hitting active vent and hoping for the best.  Either you die, or you get back into combat with 0 flux and a lot less armor/hull, but that's better than a guaranteed death on a shield flicker.  The main exception is if you can escape, shield flickering can buy faster ships a little more time to get outside of enemy range, but the AI could easily compare speeds and say "if my speed < enemy speed +X, vent, else flicker"

Flickering is good tactic, but as usual AI is bad at it and uses it incorrectly most of the time. You don't wait until your flux is maxed and armor is torn to start flickering. 2 proper Scenarios:
- Anti-Gauss: 1000-1200 (*60% capital ITU bonus) is range band that only has Gauss Cannons, TPCs and 1000+ base range guns fitted on a Paragon. Shield blocking individual Gauss shots and micro-venting between them is the best thing you can do against a Sniper Conquest.
- Armor-tanking: only raise shield to block larger energy and HE, let kinetics hit armor. You do it with full armor and start at low flux. Needlers are particularly vulnerable to this approach.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 24, 2019, 06:49:00 AM
I agree Talar, but only for 1 on 1 scenarios. The AI behaviour seems built to lay down pressure whilst trying to survive as long as possible, so when it is in trouble, it tries to retreat and survive a long as possible, so that it can be rescued, which to be fair is generally how you want your ships to act in a fleet battle. The AI ship doesn't know when you would rather want do as much damage as possible before being destroyed.

As for Vigilance, it's a cool looking ship, looking a bit like a mini Odyssey, but doesn't seem capable of doing much outside of being long range support of Graviton Beam/Ion beam and Pilum/Salamander. It dies to missiles and fighters that are faster than it. Once cruisers shows up it really doesn't seem capable of doing much. Tried Sabots. Makes the Vigilance a glass cannon frigate. Doesn't survive long.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on September 24, 2019, 07:23:48 AM
The Vigilance is, for deployment points, one of the best ways to deploying reaper torpedo launchers on a frigate. If not the only way.

For equal DP, and when set to eliminate they can kill any cruiser in the game with pure torpedo spam, as they should. Otherwise I'd reccormend avoiding them outside of an escort role, as they aren't good otherwise.

Not that other ships can't do this, but it is worth considering once you can churn out suicide vigils for fun and cost effective profit.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 24, 2019, 08:27:15 AM
Yuuup, in the mission The Last Hurrah, you are given some Vigilances and I found Reapers are the best thing. Put them on escort duty and they'll finish anything that's high flux. They even managed to take half of the Onslaught's hull. Other than the ''fast torpedo boat with PD'', I don't see them being good at anything else as they die quite fast.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 24, 2019, 09:26:53 AM
If you want frigates specifically that can throw out 4 reapers in a few seconds, for an extra 2 OP, Brawler, Kite, Lasher, Mercury, Wayfarer, Wolf can all do it with their 2 missile mounts and with Expanded Missile Rack. Admittedly it's 4 reapers in 5 seconds as opposed to 3 seconds, but it is not as if it is an utterly unique ability. Wolf in particular I found good success being a fast torpedo boat with reapers and most of the ships I just written can do that and contribute meaningfully in the battle beforehand and afterwards.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 24, 2019, 09:41:38 AM
They all have small missile mounts tho, which is a big difference.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 24, 2019, 10:03:51 AM
What does this so called big difference do? It makes no real difference to your outcome of 'fast torpedo boat with PD'' nor of Igncom's deploying of reaper spam. As you see, neither is particularily unique of the Vigilance.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on September 24, 2019, 10:17:06 AM
Having a missile weapon isn't unique, no. But having a medium mount missile on a frigate with fast missile racks IS unique. And so is the purpose of the frigate.

Does that make it a GOOD overall frigate? No, absolutely not. They get slaughtered very easily by anything putting in any effort.

But if you want a frigate sized missile spewer, there isn't a better option. Unless all you need is a couple small missile mounts.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 24, 2019, 10:36:09 AM
You wrote that Vigilance is one of the best ways to deploy reapers on a frigate, if not the only way. But that as I had described afterwrds is seen to not really be true.

You can go ahead and say that a medium missile mount is unique on a frigate afterwards, but what is the outcome that makes that worth describing? It certainly isn't deploying reapers.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on September 24, 2019, 10:37:00 AM
Vigilances are paradoxically not bad as cruisers escorts - they need a big strong ship nearby to protect them, and then they can support.

My main issue is that they go down really hard to interceptors. Not pretty at all.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 25, 2019, 12:15:05 PM
I wonder why pirate variants with missing weapons and OP ( Wolf, Afflictor, Shade) have the same DP? In the case of the pirate Wolf, you are very likely to fight and scavenge loads of them. The pirate phase ships are strangely rare as active ships but relatively plentiful on the market. I suppose the idea is to discourage the player away from using these ships. Or perhaps to make it easier for for the player to destroy an overvalued pirate ship. But then Pirate Shade exists which isn't missing mounts, and is reasonable for it's DP in comparison to its normal version.

Also I wonder what are people's opinion on the Prometheus II? I've never gained the opportunity to play around with them and the incentives around combating Pathers being what it is, I've never really fought them in a proper battle or scavenged one either.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on September 25, 2019, 12:21:39 PM
Quote
Also I wonder what are people's opinion on the Prometheus II? I've never gained the opportunity to play around with them and the incentives around combating Pathers being what it is, I've never really fought them in a proper battle or scavenged one either.
32 DP is about right.  Its stats are sub-par, but it can have some nasty loadouts comparable to a Blackrock ship.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 25, 2019, 02:04:14 PM
Also I wonder what are people's opinion on the Prometheus II? I've never gained the opportunity to play around with them and the incentives around combating Pathers being what it is, I've never really fought them in a proper battle or scavenged one either.
As Megas said it's stats are decent for a low DP capital, although I'd like both MkII capitals to have better campaign stats. They're just way too bad even for a converted piece of metal.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Terethall on September 26, 2019, 03:29:31 PM
Agreed on the MkIIs. If they kept a little more of their heritage (a bit more cargo/fuel capacity -- Prometheus is kind of there but not enough for its DP cost) and maybe came with some thematic logistics mods (shielded holds?/augmented drive field?) then they would be nice. It's kind of unclear whether the player is really supposed to be using them. It seems like they'd be most appropriate as salvaged capitals for a midgame mixed exploration/smuggling/piracy fleet composition, but at that stage it's easier and better to spam Colossi, Phaetons, and a mix of Apogees/Hammerheads.

On the original topic, most overrated ship is obviously the Doom; fight me. It's not that it's bad, it's that it's not the second coming of Jesus Christ. Speaking overall regarding forum sentiment and how expensive and rare it is in game, that is. Obviously if you decide the competition is about sensor profile or AI performance against sim opponents or something else contrived then all bets are off.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Serenitis on September 27, 2019, 01:39:42 AM
Vigilance is a good platform for Pilum.
It's fast enough to run from almost anything, and has enough OP to fit several useful hullmods. And fast racks works really well with Pilum.
They are made of wet paper though, and must be kept away from the front lines. Either a single timid officer, with all other Vs set to guard them will work. As will just bandboxing the group and manually herding them away from danger.

It's babby's first artillery.
Works well enough to be useful, but has enough downsides that you want to progress to something better.

I'd only put 'close in' weapons like harpoons or reapers on a Vigilance if I had no other way to get those weapons into battle.
The only Vigilance that can reliably survive on the front lines is one controlled by the player. Do you want to fly a Vigilance?


Doom is a good ship, and it has a good system. But I dislike flying it because the system and weapons are 'fighting' for use of the cursor.
Guns aim to face cursor. And missiles home in on whatever was under the cursor when fired. Both complimentary actions.
But I need to move the cursor away from the target to effectively use the mines.

It's a similar problem to the Hyperion.
Extra micromanagement which requires extra thought and 'twitch' behaviour on top of everything else, while in a fast moving situation. Not a fan tbh.
Can't say I'm super disappointed by it though, as I have dozens of other options which suit me just fine.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 27, 2019, 02:43:31 AM
Pilum Vigilance:

Pilum missiles have extremely low hp, they are among very few missile types that can actually be stopped by token PD lasers. Trying to seriously base tactics on them is too easily counter-able.

Plus, Pilums have about the worst compatibility with FMR system. Can't spam like Salamanders due to clip based nature, and dumping like Sabots/Harpoons is nowhere near as threatening.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 27, 2019, 05:41:21 AM
It just struck me that I don't actually know the weapon arc of the Prometheus MkII, nor have I had the opportunity to get one, so I have no idea about how the ship weapon arcs go. There is no no real reason to deliberaly seek to fight Pather fleets and so it's like a black box of knowledge. From the sounds of it, nobody else had the opportunity to use it either. Unlike Atlas MkII, it is not readily available to buy or recover. I can't seem to find blueprints for it. It's moderately fast for a Capital. It's got two fighter wings, which always seem to be trash fighters under pathers, and it's like the Legion in that it is built to be exploited from behind. For all we know, it could be drastically under or over pointed.

Doom is good, both as a player and an AI ship. I've never had a problem with its cursor. There's only 2 Turrets and if they need to be constantly firing, just put them on auto fire. If they are "strike" weapons like phase lance or Heavy Blaster, just let go of shift when you are using mines. Being able to deploy mines when phased is so ridiculously powerful. Using mines is fast and as a phase ship you have plenty of time to decide when to fire.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 27, 2019, 02:19:45 PM
The Atlas has two overlapping(front plus same broadside) universal larges and a front fixed large missile launcher. Plus 2 fighter wings! Its turret structure is really really good.

The problem is:

Onslaught: 40 DP, 360 OP, 600 dissipation, considered one of the worse capitals.
Prometheus mk ii: 32 DP 220 OP, 450 dissipation.

If the prometheus had the same OP/DP as the Onslaught it would have 288. To have similar “post max vent” OP it would need 298(304 for post vent post itu). Now it may be better than an onslaught at that price just due to the universal larges (allowing you to mount autopulse, or like... combo HIL/MK IX) and the total flux/DP.  But it might not be.

Like... the Odyssey has difficulty fitting two large energy a large missile at 280 DP (it also has a better shield, special, and as much dissipation as a max vent Prometheus, so its not like its weak, just a fitting reference) and the Prometheus has 60 less than that.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Reshy on September 27, 2019, 04:09:06 PM
Quote
Exactly my point that I forgot to put. It's kinda ridiculous to have these big ships and they need a specific weapon out of a whole bunch just to be viable.
Either that or able to perform at its cost.  Apogee and Odyssey would have remained mediocre if plasma cannon was not buffed so much since 0.8.x.  Similarly, the loss of 800 range needlers has hurt Medusa.

Normal Shrike compared to Shrike (P).  Standard Shrike is better than (P) for few specific loadouts (Sabots plus Expanded Missile Racks, or all beams).  For anything else, (P) version is superior.  At least Shrike is cheap compared to other ships, so it can get away with mediocrity.  All I want is for both Shrikes to have at least 80 OP and light hybrid.  Pirates have few ships that are identical to standard versions.  Shrike itself is probably worth its price.  My main gripes is Shrike (P) has so little OP (meaning mounts get left empty), but still generally better than normal Shrike.

Medusa needs Railguns in the universals.  Even with a good loadout, it is roughly on par with Hammerhead.  Medusa is probably fine, except its DP cost (12 is too much).  OP budget is a bit tight.

Apogee is fine, until it gets plasma cannon and Locusts.  Then it punches above its worth of 18 DP.  Not overrated as per OP, but underrated if anything.  Similarly, Astral is also a bit underrated.  With unlimited Recall Device and a skilled bomber captain, it is probably worth 50 DP.  I do not think Recall Device is overpowered, just the lone playable ship with it may be underpriced.

Paragon can be very powerful, but only worth 60 DP if it has long range beams to exploit its range advantage.  With pulse lasers, it is still powerful, but does not perform better than cheaper 40 DP battleships.  Probably a bit worse because it has no mobility system to catch enemies, and not enough range if armed with short-range weapons.  I think 50 DP from before was a better price.

P.S.  One highly overrated ship today:  Hyperion.  It has difficulty killing a medium-sized ship before peak performance times out, under player control.  AI is hopeless with Hyperion.  I have no use for Hyperion in the 0.9.x era.  As it is, Hyperion is worth no more than 10, maybe 12 DP.

Does sound like, in general, the high-tech ships are falling behind in terms of cost/deployment effectiveness.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 27, 2019, 05:19:50 PM
Nah. High tech ships is just a blind spot for Megas
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 28, 2019, 02:29:21 AM
He has interesting opinions. It's best not to take his opinions as facts. Anyhow Goudmindong, I assume you mean prometheus MKII, not Atlas MKII. Have you used it though? I know it has a large from missile mount and two overlapping large ballistic mounts becuase I've fought it, but I've never really been able to buy of recover one for use. So I have no idea how wide the arcs are, how manoeuvrable the Prometheus MKII is, and what the rest of the mounts are like, unlike the Atlas MKII, where we can give layouts and proper opinions on its usage. I don't even know if its small mounts can even cover its own engines from Salamanders. I suppose it'll forever be just an opponent ship. I just find it hard to compare. It might have relatively low dissapitation rate compared with an Onslaught, but it does have 2 fighter bays so part of its ability to fight isn't reliant on dissapitation rate directly. Compared with the Legion, it's flux dissapitation is reasonable.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 28, 2019, 03:06:53 AM
You can just use Console commands to spawn a prometheus if you don't have a chance to otherwise get it. Or just put it in a mission so you can play around with various builds. It's much easier to see how a ship performs in that way rather than just looking at stats in codex or as you said, fighting against it.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 28, 2019, 03:15:45 AM
You are going to have to tell me how to do it rather than telling me to do it, as I aren't familiar with programming. "Just" put it in a mission you say. If only it was so easy for me, I would had done it already.

I've been asking for the sim to be much more options for a while now so that it is easier to test out builds.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Grievous69 on September 28, 2019, 03:25:07 AM
I've actually suggested multiple times that same thing, where we can just pick our ships, pick the enemies, and have a fight. Like a custom mission option but from the in-game menu. Playing with officers would also be great. But it seems Alex ain't too keen on that.

Now for the ''modding'' part, I also had zero clue on what do to, so I played with files and let's say I mostly figured out how to do it. So go into the game folder > starsector-core > data > missions and then I just altered the random battle one. Open the missiondefinition.java with notepad, scroll down until you see a list of ships starting with ''addShip'' then somewhere in those lines add the Prometheus mk II. It should be ''addShip("prometheus2_Standard", x);'' where x I think is the probability of a ship to be in a random mission, so just put it at 5 or something. I did the same with Atlas mk II so I could test them both.

EDIT: It's probably smart do to a backup of any files you plan to fiddle with.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on September 28, 2019, 03:49:25 AM
You are going to have to tell me how to do it rather than telling me to do it, as I aren't familiar with programming. "Just" put it in a mission you say. If only it was so easy for me, I would had done it already.

I've been asking for the sim to be much more options for a while now so that it is easier to test out builds.

Ok man, let's get you in a Prometheus in the simplest way, take you less than 2 minutes:

1.Run Starsector with any save,
2.Open your fleet and pick a ship you don't want any more, strip it and rename it something funny, like "1122334455", and then save game
3.Go to your save folder and open campaign.xml with a word pad
4. Press Ctrl+F and search for that funny ship name, "1122334455" in this case. You should find the funny name in a block of text like this, with the ship type defined with hId one or two lines below the ship name:
Quote
<FMmbr z="138215" o="1" sid="buffalo2_FS" sN="1122334455" t="SHIP" iF="false" id="1e92cf" sUN="false" civ="false" cCiv="false">
<savedVariant z="138216" hId="hermes" v="0" c="0" hVId="buffalo2_FS" vDN="Support" s="REFIT" mAAW="true" gV="true">
5.Change the hId="hermes" or whatever, to hId="prometheus2"
6. Save the campaign file, and load it up in game, and the ship you didn't want any more will turn into a Prometheus Mk2
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: SCC on September 28, 2019, 04:00:22 AM
I have played with Prometheus Mk II for a bit. It's the only ship in the game that can mount a HIL/TL+ ballistics combo and it's decently fun. Its speed of 50 is in between battleship and battlecruiser mobility, and it has burn drive, too. However, its flux stats leave much to be desired, so the best way to use Prometheus Mk II is to pretend it's a heavy cruiser, much like Atlas Mk II. Too bad it's very hard to acquire, in comparison to ubiquitous Atlas Mk II.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 28, 2019, 04:01:20 AM
You are going to have to tell me how to do it rather than telling me to do it, as I aren't familiar with programming. "Just" put it in a mission you say. If only it was so easy for me, I would had done it already.

I've been asking for the sim to be much more options for a while now so that it is easier to test out builds.

Ok man, let's get you in a Prometheus in the simplest way, take you less than 2 minutes:

1.Run Starsector with any save,
2.Open your fleet and pick a ship you don't want any more, strip it and rename it something funny, like "1122334455", and then save game
3.Go to your save folder and open campaign.xml with a word pad
4. Press Ctrl+F and search for that funny ship name, "1122334455" in this case. You should find the funny name in a block of text like this, with the ship type defined with hId one or two lines below the ship name:
Quote
<FMmbr z="138215" o="1" sid="buffalo2_FS" sN="1122334455" t="SHIP" iF="false" id="1e92cf" sUN="false" civ="false" cCiv="false">
<savedVariant z="138216" hId="hermes" v="0" c="0" hVId="buffalo2_FS" vDN="Support" s="REFIT" mAAW="true" gV="true">
5.Change the hId="hermes" or whatever, to hId="prometheus2"
6. Save the campaign file, and load it up in game, and the ship you didn't want any more will turn into a Prometheus Mk2
Thanks, I'll give it a go.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 28, 2019, 05:05:23 AM
He has interesting opinions. It's best not to take his opinions as facts. Anyhow Goudmindong, I assume you mean prometheus MKII, not Atlas MKII. Have you used it though? I know it has a large from missile mount and two overlapping large ballistic mounts becuase I've fought it, but I've never really been able to buy of recover one for use. So I have no idea how wide the arcs are, how manoeuvrable the Prometheus MKII is, and what the rest of the mounts are like, unlike the Atlas MKII, where we can give layouts and proper opinions on its usage. I don't even know if its small mounts can even cover its own engines from Salamanders. I suppose it'll forever be just an opponent ship. I just find it hard to compare. It might have relatively low dissapitation rate compared with an Onslaught, but it does have 2 fighter bays so part of its ability to fight isn't reliant on dissapitation rate directly. Compared with the Legion, it's flux dissapitation is reasonable.

I have. Though not for long. It was by choice rather than luck. I found it so amazingly hard to fit that it wasnt worth more than a cruiser at the time. With max vents and ITU it has 140 DP left for other things. Which is like... the large guns and talons.

Its turret arcs are really good.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on September 28, 2019, 05:43:16 AM
Too bad it's very hard to acquire, in comparison to ubiquitous Atlas Mk II.

Don't the pirates have heavy industry in vanilla? I think it's under a tier 2 low tech station. Not the best armed with guns and a decent target to hammer again and again that does the whole sector a favour.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Serenitis on September 28, 2019, 09:41:46 AM
Pilum missiles have extremely low hp, they are among very few missile types that can actually be stopped by token PD lasers. Trying to seriously base tactics on them is too easily counter-able.
Try using more. The same principal as fighters applies to them: Too many targets to effectively counter.
You just need more of them because they are so fragile.

Quote
Plus, Pilums have about the worst compatibility with FMR system. Can't spam like Salamanders due to clip based nature, and dumping like Sabots/Harpoons is nowhere near as threatening.
Thankfully, Pilums have about the best compatibility with FMR system. Because it helps to achieve the weight of numbers above when each launcher gives 6 missiles 'per shot'.

Pila are fantastic for campaign play because very few ships, let alone fleets are capable of dealing with them en masse.
Even the best PD (flak) will falter because it forces the target to run up its flux shooting/tanking silly missiles, leaving them vulnerable to more direct action as they try to back away.

Different approach, different result.

Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 28, 2019, 09:59:59 AM
Pilums are too fragile to ever achieve a critical mass (in proper sense, like Spark Drovers). Just 2 LRPD (on a Falcon) are enough to shutdown 4 Pilum launchers (on Falcon P). Token PD is enough to stop attempts at Pilum spam.

It may kind of work against AI ships, but only because AI is too easily distracted by Pilums (way more than they deserve) and may lack even token PD.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Serenitis on September 28, 2019, 10:13:04 AM
It may kind of work against AI ships
It doesn't kind of work. It does work. They can absolutely achieve critical mass.
Granted, not many people will go to the lengths needed to make it work by building thier fleet around trashmissiles (https://i.imgur.com/Z4iMFj3.png). But that doesn't make it not work.

And what other kind of ships are there but AI ones?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on September 28, 2019, 10:40:05 AM
Pilums are... well their greatest strength is in their ability to confuse the AI and stick around as potential threats for a long time. I have seen them achieve hits, and watching their cloud of HE slowly, slowly, hit overloaded targets is oddly satisfying. ECCM is a tremendous boost to their effectiveness, but it also negates their low OP cost to a certain extent.

I wish that one of the new skills is a fleetwide boost to missile stats - that would be amazing for Pilums.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: TaLaR on September 28, 2019, 10:42:40 AM
I mean just a bit better designs + getting less distracted by Pilums would have been enough to break this strategy. Not so with proper spam strategy (Spark Drovers).
Though it's actually questionable, how important Pilums actually are in yours. You do have a lot of converted hangar Sparks after all.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Serenitis on September 28, 2019, 10:59:00 AM
Pilum are not 'optimal' by any stretch, but they are certainly good enough to be an option if you're willing to consider it.

ECCM is a tremendous boost to their effectiveness, but it also negates their low OP cost to a certain extent.
Not wrong. But I prefer to think of it as the low cost allows me to more freely use that boost. And all the ships that you're likely to use as missile platforms have quite a lot of 'spare' OP when you're not using the more expensive missiles.

Though it's actually questionable, how important Pilums actually are in yours. You do have a lot of converted hangar Sparks after all.
And all of those are on Falcons, which are waypointed off into a corner so they get infinite peak time, which is something that I've found is really nescessary when you can't do large battle sizes and have to take the long haul through all the reinforcements.
The Sparks don't need to be there, but they are insurance in case the Falcons need to defend themselves. Usually I'd use Wasps or Talons for that, but I had a ton of Sparks so why wouldn't I use those instead? It's not like the Falcon can't afford it.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on September 28, 2019, 11:01:01 AM
ECCM also reduces enemy ECM bonuses right? So that's another nice little bonus from using them!
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on September 28, 2019, 11:37:30 AM
ECCM also reduces enemy ECM bonuses right? So that's another nice little bonus from using them!

Iirc, it halves the penalty from dominant enemy ECM for that one ship. That is actually pretty nice in the early stage of battle when the enemy has tons of numbers. Benefit most noticeable on... Dominators maybe? EMR + ECCM + 3 medium missiles is doable with its OP if using a slightly lighter gun load, triple harpoons is quite deadly, and as a slow ship it really needs gun range.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 29, 2019, 07:49:34 AM
Having played around a bit with the Prometheus MKII, it's hard to quantify how much DP it is worth. Fighter bay makes it very hard to put a DP value on Prometheus MKII. Fighter bays which can be a large part of fluxless damage. There is nothing around its DP other than the Aurora and Doom both of which have problem in testing. It's certainly better than the Dominator, which is both outranges due to being a Capital, and outflux due to being limited to 50 OP instead of 30 OP. It is certainly worse than the Conquest or Onslaught. Though piloted with good weaponry and with the more OP skill, it can destroy both.

Mountwise it is quite similar to the Dominator. Like the Dominator, it either uses its two medium mounts for normal weapons or for flak which makes it lose a lot of potential firepower. The pather version is equipped with heavy Autocannons it seems. For fleet actions the large mounts covering a 135 degree arc is a definate positive over the Dominator. Inner large turrets are less likely to be disabled but frontal medium turrets very likely to get disabled. Testing under standard variant as a likely opponent ship shows that its vulvan turret arcs are hilariously underprotected from the front.

Dominator seems a bit useless now that Atlas MKII and Prometheus MKII exists. Both are more DP efficient but I suppose are logistically worse than Dominator. Perhaps the Dominator can do with its fixed hardpoint mounts to being as wide as the Apogee's and Hammerhead.

Prometheus MKII lower right small turret has less angle coverage despite being identical to the left.

There's something wrong with the Codex. I cannot find the 3rd medium ballistic or the 9th small ballistic mounts. I count 2 medium and 8 small mounts. They are missing on the model or the Codex is wrong.

Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: SCC on September 29, 2019, 08:15:19 AM
Due to a bug, some weapon mounts were duplicated. You can observe it on Prometheus Mk II by equipping any medium ballistic weapon, then holding shift.
While Prometheus Mk II is too rare to be a Dominator substitute, Atlas Mk II isn't. Dominator has much better defences, but Atlas Mk II has appreciably more firepower and more range than Dominator.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Igncom1 on September 29, 2019, 08:27:03 AM
I find that their flux stats and general defences make them far too vulnerable to be used in any kind of serious battle.

A dominator cat at least adsorb anything but reaper torpedoes pretty easily, where as an atlas MKII tends to die to anything that bypasses the shield.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on September 29, 2019, 08:50:49 AM
You guy got any good loadout for Colossus Mk2 and Mk3? Atlas and Prometheus conversions might not be top notch, but  combat Colossus are downright terrible. Especially the Mk3, which is basically a frigate but easier to hit.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Agile on September 29, 2019, 09:28:47 AM
I thought MK III is the premier choice for early carrier support, since they get 3 fighter bays, no?

Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on September 29, 2019, 09:34:02 AM
I thought MK III is the premier choice for early carrier support, since they get 3 fighter bays, no?


Did I get the names wrong? I meant the worst Colossus is the LP one with SO. The carrier one has only 2 bays, imo not as good as the condor, but maybe it can work with Talons, railguns and ITU?
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Agile on September 29, 2019, 09:49:14 AM
I thought MK III is the premier choice for early carrier support, since they get 3 fighter bays, no?


Did I get the names wrong? I meant the worst Colossus is the LP one with SO. The carrier one has only 2 bays, imo not as good as the condor, but maybe it can work with Talons, railguns and ITU?

Oh, the SO LP one? Never used that one but id imagine the best way to use it is with hammers and just face slamming into your opponents till you explode onto them.

Never seen a good use for them tbh.

There is four types of colosseus that Pirates can field; the MK II, with two fighter bays, the MK III, which three fighter bays, and the BaTTLEgROUP FouRTEENTH (the literal conversion of it, no joke) which has Very Converted Bays and 3 fighter bays (very good early game if you can fight it, usually in hegemony markets in black market).

If your talking about the LP SO Colosseus, I have 0 clue on how to make it good cause its ... just bad in general.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Goumindong on September 29, 2019, 11:51:26 AM
The best part about the LP colosus is that if you fire the hammer point blank you get 5 explosions against your opponents armor
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on September 30, 2019, 04:18:25 AM
What are you people talking about? There is the Colossus MkII which has Safety Overides and built in Hammer Barrage and the Colossus MkIII which has 2 fighter bays. The MkII does not have any fighter bays and the MkIII does not have 3 fighter bays. There aren't any other variants.

Colossus MK II is only good for doing a somewhat prolonged burst damage with its built in Hammer Barrage which can catch out some ships. Once the ammo runs out in about 17 seconds, the MKII is practically useless. The Pathers equip them with so much weaponry that they can't possible fire them all. Their PD don't cover the front or rear, only the sides, though a human player can try to cover the front if they really want to. There aren't any range 450 small mounts either. I had some success with frontal Railgun, Light Mortar and Vulcan Cannons, thought it's doubtful you would want to use precious railguns on such a ship. Trying machine guns and light mortar practically makes the ship like one big bomb. In practice, you will never really want to buy this ship for its cost, or have the opportunity to recover it.

Colossus MK III is probably the cheapest fighterbay per DP, though if you are equiping it with fighters, since the drover can give extra fighters, it's not as good as it seems. It actually has a reasonably good amount of OP for it's DP so you can give it two bombers if you want to. Since it has similar stats to the MKII, in theory you can fight with it, but it's best to regard it as a massive Condor with no ability to defend its own engine. I think the Condor needs some attention to make it a ship people would want to use.

I had reasonable good success with Atlas MK II, even killing Capitals when supported. For its DP it can creat a nice anti frigate zone around itself. I did a recover only, bounty only run and recoving Atlas MKII was the only practical way to get ships good enough to face Atlas MKII themselves. Like the Colosuss MKII, it does prolonged burst damage, but can keep doing so without running out. I think I gave them Expanded Missile racks since much of their firepower is in their large missile mounts and only filled for the small mounts, the 2 frontmost and 2 rearmost mounts and left the mediums empty. The only problem with Atlas MKII compared with the Dominator is that it is bad logistically.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Megas on September 30, 2019, 04:57:50 AM
I treat Colossus 3 as poor-man's Valkyrie.  Bring it for the Ground Support Package hullmod, which is nice for raiding markets with about 1000 defense or less (there are plenty such targets).  I would not rely on it for fighting.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: SCC on September 30, 2019, 05:28:48 AM
Colossus Mk XIV is from Vayra's ship pack.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Agile on September 30, 2019, 03:42:09 PM
Colossus Mk XIV is from Vayra's ship pack.

Oh my bad, I play mainly with mods, so I forgot about that.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: goduranus on October 01, 2019, 06:01:30 AM
Aha! I found out how to use Pilums, and Condors for that matter. They need Thunders. The Thunders disable the engines so the enemies cannot dodge, overload their shields so they can't shield tank, and disable the PD so Pilums don't get shot down. It overcomes all of Pilums' weaknesses, and is the most effective way to use Pilums and Condors yet.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: sotanaht on October 01, 2019, 06:57:02 AM
Aha! I found out how to use Pilums, and Condors for that matter. They need Thunders. The Thunders disable the engines so the enemies cannot dodge, overload their shields so they can't shield tank, and disable the PD so Pilums don't get shot down. It overcomes all of Pilums' weaknesses, and is the most effective way to use Pilums and Condors yet.
So in other words, just use something else to do everything and forget about the pilums.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on October 01, 2019, 09:50:30 AM
Aha! I found out how to use Pilums, and Condors for that matter. They need Thunders. The Thunders disable the engines so the enemies cannot dodge, overload their shields so they can't shield tank, and disable the PD so Pilums don't get shot down. It overcomes all of Pilums' weaknesses, and is the most effective way to use Pilums and Condors yet.
So in other words, just use something else to do everything and forget about the pilums.

No, the Pilums would still be bringing the HE and raw damage. I haven't tested the above, but if it does keep the pilums alive that would be quite effective.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 01, 2019, 02:10:01 PM
Ships with good 360 shields would be pretty much immune though.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on October 01, 2019, 06:28:25 PM
Thats true, and Thunders don't do that great kinetic damage. I'm theorycrafting as I haven't tried it, but I wonder if mixing in a few broadswords would help? In dedicated carriers of course so the thunders don't lose their speed.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 01, 2019, 07:32:40 PM
I feel like it would be decent against everything except omens (and maybe apogee and paragon with super good shields might not care). It does feel like a bunch of unshielded fighters might struggle to reach critical mass without dying too much. Another thought is that the engagement range mismatch between thunder and broadsword might be weird, I don't know how the AI handles that sort of thing. I would like to see it tested.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Plantissue on October 02, 2019, 05:11:56 AM
If Thunders could so reliably disable engines, shields and weapons, then they would be completely overpowered for their cost and need to be nerfed as even a little direct damage weapon would just wreck everything.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Lucky33 on October 05, 2019, 12:18:58 AM
But then, the Paragon costs 15 more DP, so it should win obviously.

The Onslaughts biggest advantage is not armor/hull, but weapon types.  3 Medium Missiles in particular make for a lot of flux-free damage to bring the effective damage closer compared to the Paragons 4 small missiles that usually aren't even worth equipping.
20 more DP (Onslaught's 40, Paragon's 60) and 4 medium missiles, not 3.
I think that currently the biggest issue with armour-tanking ships is that they don't shield flicker aggressively enough. They often keep shields up, even if only kinetic projectiles are coming in.

They do. If you dont have really powerfull (750+ damage) HE weapons equipped. Shield flicker, armor tanking, vent-in-your-face and so on. But if they see even a single Harpoon... Well...
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Lucky33 on October 05, 2019, 12:49:37 AM
Why not both (aside from annoying potshots at insignificant targets)?  Electronic Warfare 1 is probably the most important skill in the game for everyone, mainly to prevent range penalty if the enemy has ECM.  If anything, more EW beyond first level is dubious since the enemy may have ECM as well and, being evenly matched or superior to your fleet, will offset your ECM unless you put ECM Package on multiple ships to ensure range advantage despite two evenly matched (or disadvantage for the player) having EW.

If enemy does not have EW, you have an advantage.  If enemy has EW, and enough ships to match yours, you will probably be more-or-less at zero regardless of ECM maximum, unless you kill their ships, which by that point, the fight is decided and just a matter of time before you win.

Maxed out ECM and fitting for ultralong-range battle brokes the regular fleets. And you need high ECM to break even with the Remnant fleets.
Title: Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
Post by: Thaago on October 05, 2019, 11:28:19 AM
Well thats the annoying thing about ECM against fleets that also have it: taking 1 point it as good as taking 3 (or 4). I'm looking forward to that changing with the skill redesign...