Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: Plantissue on January 15, 2020, 07:09:23 AM
-
The competitors as player piloted ships would be Afflictor, Shade and Harbinger. Not saying that Falcon (P) doesn't need a nerf, but it's hardly the most absurdly powerful and DP efficient player ship.
Don't forget an honorable mention for the Safety override hammerhead! It definitely has much harsher limitations, but when it shines it cleans house.
I do not understand the cult of SO Hammerhead. SO Medusa is better anyways. The phase frigates and Afflictor outmatch the SO Hammerhead in destruction and consistency and safety.
My point is that if there is a way to exploit an advantage, then player will make it work. In the end it all comes back to the simplest "who has more dakka" question.
Timing matters. Defences matters. And speed. And range. And layout. And every other factor that matters in a fleet game. You cannot boil down the analysis of a ship and its weapons to simply DPS.
-
I do not understand the cult of SO Hammerhead. SO Medusa is better anyways. The phase frigates and Afflictor outmatch the SO Hammerhead in destruction and consistency and safety.
Ease of acquiring.
-
SO hammerhead is only super good because the assault chaingun is very over-tuned right now. Without that, it is nowhere near as good.
-
SO hammerhead is only super good because the assault chaingun is very over-tuned right now. Without that, it is nowhere near as good.
AC is fine. AAF is broken. Double dps free of charge. It turns destroyer into heavy cruiser. I think its something rudimental. Leftover from the times of limited ammo. And therefore not affecting dp costs.
-
SO hammerhead is only super good because the assault chaingun is very over-tuned right now. Without that, it is nowhere near as good.
AC is fine. AAF is broken. Double dps free of charge. It turns destroyer into heavy cruiser. I think its something rudimental. Leftover from the times of limited ammo. And therefore not affecting dp costs.
AAF is not left over from the times of limited ammo. A while ago (long after ammo changes) it used to double flux cost as well as damage and the hammerhead was considered a low tier destroyer because it would immediately flux itself out when it activated its system. AAF got buffed to its current state because it was useless for the AI and situational at best for the player. It could probably be a 50% damage boost without being underpowered, but 'heavy cruiser' is a massive overstatement. It's basically 4 medium slots instead of two while the system is activated, which is definitely more light cruiser territory. It also doesn't give the increased range, capacity, and hull/armor of a cruiser so I wouldn't even claim it raises the hammerhead to the level of a light cruiser, but it definitely gives it more firepower than other destroyers.
AC is definitely over-tuned. It has much much better efficiency than any other HE weapon along with an absurd 600 dps: better than any large HE weapon (I think plasma cannon is the only weapon with better hull DPS but that has almost double the flux cost). The only downside is the terrible range, but SO already kills range, so there is no downside on SO ships and a bunch of extra dissipation to handle the high flux cost. It's like a heavy blaster but with good efficiency and better dps. Any SO ship will be way way better with AC than with any other HE weapon.
-
AAF was indeed buffed because of Hammerhead.
Assault Chaingun buff was bigger than expected. It used to have decent DPS and middling hit strength. Now its hit strength is decent, DPS is excellent (surpassed only by storm needler) and so is the efficiency. I expect it to lose some RoF to put it back to 400 DPS.
Falcon (P) is, I believe, a prize ship, not really playing by normal, though perhaps it isn't rare enough right now. It can either be made rarer, or be less, uh, explosive. Something like making medium turrets missile only and medium hardpoints ballistic only.
-
SO hammerhead is only super good because the assault chaingun is very over-tuned right now. Without that, it is nowhere near as good.
AC is fine. AAF is broken. Double dps free of charge. It turns destroyer into heavy cruiser. I think its something rudimental. Leftover from the times of limited ammo. And therefore not affecting dp costs.
AAF is not left over from the times of limited ammo. A while ago (long after ammo changes) it used to double flux cost as well as damage and the hammerhead was considered a low tier destroyer because it would immediately flux itself out when it activated its system. AAF got buffed to its current state because it was useless for the AI and situational at best for the player. It could probably be a 50% damage boost without being underpowered, but 'heavy cruiser' is a massive overstatement. It's basically 4 medium slots instead of two while the system is activated, which is definitely more light cruiser territory. It also doesn't give the increased range, capacity, and hull/armor of a cruiser so I wouldn't even claim it raises the hammerhead to the level of a light cruiser, but it definitely gives it more firepower than other destroyers.
AC is definitely over-tuned. It has much much better efficiency than any other HE weapon along with an absurd 600 dps: better than any large HE weapon (I think plasma cannon is the only weapon with better hull DPS but that has almost double the flux cost). The only downside is the terrible range, but SO already kills range, so there is no downside on SO ships and a bunch of extra dissipation to handle the high flux cost. It's like a heavy blaster but with good efficiency and better dps. Any SO ship will be way way better with AC than with any other HE weapon.
You just said that indeed its a leftover and it was pushed into the new system for no reason apart from keeping already existing assets. First version after infinte ammo was a straighforward balancing attempt (no cheating) and who would guessed that it wouldnt work. Cheating worked because sure it did. Thats all.
No, "heavy cruiser" is not an overstatement. You just forgot 4 small mounts. At the press of the "F" buton railgun's 167 DPS turns into 334. Mark IX has 348.
We dont have any other shipborne HE weapons with 450 range. And yes all weapons are balanced in terms of range/flux. Compare HMG-Arbalest-HAC-HVD-Gauss. Range costs flux. This is exactly why SO gives you double dissipation at the cost of range.
Comparison with the energy weapons should take into account that it can be mounted only on midline and hitech ships and they already have more dissipation without SO. Compare Shrike/Medusa and Enforcer. Thats double dissipation built-in.
-
Nah its really the AC buff. ACs were fine before they were buffed and now theyre insane
-
If AAF decreasing flux usage is cheating, is High Energy Focus, too? Is flux skimmer? I don't think it's a meaningful statement.
What can be said instead is that AAF is an overpowered ship system, which is something I would necessarily disagree with. It also has to be kept in mind that ship systems should be judged with ships that use them. At the moment, Hammerhead's firepower is disproportionate, if compared to that of Falcon or Eagle, but not so towards other cruisers.
-
You just said that indeed its a leftover and it was pushed into the new system for no reason apart from keeping already existing assets. First version after infinte ammo was a straighforward balancing attempt (no cheating) and who would guessed that it wouldnt work. Cheating worked because sure it did. Thats all.
I don't know what you mean by 'leftover' but it is not the conventional meaning of the word. A system would be leftover if it was balanced around a previous state of the game, and the rest of the game changed while the system stayed the same. This version of AAF never existed while limited ammo existed so it can't be left over. It's only ever been balanced around infinite ammo. It was implemented because the hammerhead was too weak to compete with other destroyers without it, not for 'no reason'.
Also, calling it 'cheating' is silly. Does the aurora cheat when it doubles its speed? Or does the paragon cheat when it reduces incoming damage by 90%? They are unique ship systems that make the ships more powerful. The ships are balanced around having those special abilities. It is likely that the hammerhead is a bit over tuned and should be balanced, but there is no reason why a ship can't be balanced while also having systems that don't follow the normal rules.
And yes all weapons are balanced in terms of range/flux. Compare HMG-Arbalest-HAC-HVD-Gauss. Range costs flux. This is exactly why SO gives you double dissipation at the cost of range.
This is exactly why AC is too strong in SO loadouts. It already has 450 range so the downside of SO doesn't effect it at all, but the upsides still buff it by a huge amount. AC fits well into the range/flux balance of normal ships, but SO gives it a huge dissipation boost with no range reduction (since SO reduces all weapons range to 450) which breaks the flux/range balance. SO also gives a big speed bonus letting the ship close range much more easily. AC is too strong in SO loadouts, but fine in normal loadouts.
-
*raises hand*
I spent a long time thinking the Hammerhead was a shining example of a well-rounded destroyer design. In hindsight, perhaps a little too good, in that it was basically impossible to mess up with. Then in the last update it had a maintenance cost increase, and IMHO it's no longer an "obvious choice", but just another balanced general purpose destroyer. It has places it works and places it doesn't (admittedly the latter list is still pretty short). I agree that the new Assault Chaingun is a much bigger cause for grief than the Hammerhead ship or AAF system - its current DPS is already highly respectable, and on a Safety Overrides build it's just a beast. Needs an SO caveat if you ask me, just a small one.
In other thoughts...
Arguing that AAF is the equivalent of having twice the number of ballistic weapons is sorta fine... Except that it only gets that for effectively half the time in combat. Less than, in fact: The system has about 6 seconds of active duration and a 10 second cooldown. So (since you want to bring math into this) if you're spamming AAF off cooldown, a Hammerhead has double guns for two fifths of its active combat time. Or, on average 1.4x guns.
One last thing @Lucky33: The Hammerhead isn't the only ship with Accelerated Ammo Feeder as its system. Given your opinion of it so far, what are your thoughts on other ships with AAF?
-
If I'm not mistaken AC before had 300 DPS, then Alex buffed it by 100% to what we know today. Maybe a middle ground of 450 DPS would not be broken?
-
If AAF decreasing flux usage is cheating, is High Energy Focus, too? Is flux skimmer? I don't think it's a meaningful statement.
What can be said instead is that AAF is an overpowered ship system, which is something I would necessarily disagree with. It also has to be kept in mind that ship systems should be judged with ships that use them. At the moment, Hammerhead's firepower is disproportionate, if compared to that of Falcon or Eagle, but not so towards other cruisers.
Yes. HEF too. Its less pronounced but it still is.
I know nothing about "flux skimmer".
Hammerhead is not a cruiser in the first place. Its a 10 DP destroyer. You shouldnt even be comparing these ships. The fact that you are is doing it provides the best illustration just how broken Hammerhead is.
-
You just said that indeed its a leftover and it was pushed into the new system for no reason apart from keeping already existing assets. First version after infinte ammo was a straighforward balancing attempt (no cheating) and who would guessed that it wouldnt work. Cheating worked because sure it did. Thats all.
I don't know what you mean by 'leftover' but it is not the conventional meaning of the word. A system would be leftover if it was balanced around a previous state of the game, and the rest of the game changed while the system stayed the same. This version of AAF never existed while limited ammo existed so it can't be left over. It's only ever been balanced around infinite ammo. It was implemented because the hammerhead was too weak to compete with other destroyers without it, not for 'no reason'.
I never said anything about current version of AAF being in existance in the times of limited ammo. The whole system (doubling the rate of ammo spending) was invented in those times. And it was balanced by the ammo being limited. You can destroy something faster but you cant destroy more than you have ammo. When it became infinite, AAF became a leftover. And the diffrence of the current realization is limited to flux reduction. The very thing that is supposed to balance unlimited ammo.
AAF was introduced in 0.53a.
Also, calling it 'cheating' is silly. Does the aurora cheat when it doubles its speed? Or does the paragon cheat when it reduces incoming damage by 90%? They are unique ship systems that make the ships more powerful. The ships are balanced around having those special abilities. It is likely that the hammerhead is a bit over tuned and should be balanced, but there is no reason why a ship can't be balanced while also having systems that don't follow the normal rules.
Aurora pays for its mobility in DP. Same goes for the Paragon's system. However its more like Paragon trades its FS for its lack of mobility and its DP is a price for the sheer amount of flux and mounts.
Any rule breaking system will only result in inevitable tactical exploitation. You cant balance it. You either follow the rules (by paying the universal price for the given combat capabilities) or you dont. What makes you simply stronger. No amount of blah-blah-blah in the system's description can hide that simple fact.
This is exactly why AC is too strong in SO loadouts. It already has 450 range so the downside of SO doesn't effect it at all, but the upsides still buff it by a huge amount. AC fits well into the range/flux balance of normal ships, but SO gives it a huge dissipation boost with no range reduction (since SO reduces all weapons range to 450) which breaks the flux/range balance. SO also gives a big speed bonus letting the ship close range much more easily. AC is too strong in SO loadouts, but fine in normal loadouts.
SO doesnt buff guns. It only ails them. SO gives you extra dissipation to spend. You can utilize it by mounting more guns. Or by shooting for longer periods of time. AC already gimped to 450 range. By design. SO doesnt make it any stronger. All guns with the range below combat standard have higher dps compared to op costs.
Why it even should be a problem? HB, mounted on the Medusa, can get that extra dissipation without SO. HB has more dps against shield and the same dps against anything with noticable armor.
Generally speaking, AC is the lowtech version of the HB.
Its the AAF what makes a difference.
-
I meant the phase skimmer, sorry.
AAF sucked with limited ammo, too. Ballistics were limited by ammo and flux, more so by the latter. It wasn't until it got a discount on flux that it was useful.
AAF doesn't break any rules, because there are no rules saying that a ship system can't be strong, only that ships can't be overly strong. You have a valid point (that a Hammerhead might be too strong), but you are derailing it with an unnecessary claim (that a ship system "cheats", by allowing the ship to do things it normally cannot, which is completely in line with every single ship system in the game).
-
This AAF is really off topic by the way, even if kinda interesting. (Are all weapons OP with AAF? Are all ships with AAF OP? Or is a limited set of circumstances that make the Hammerhead powerful?)
But on the actual topic I've not really seen much of an issue with the Falcon (P) beyond it's unusual built in systems that probably don't need to be there. Otherwise why don't pirates put built in mods into all their ships like that? At least the luddites go full safety override with their craft, with the downsides of doing so being evident. (I've rarely used SO because it always seemed like a bad idea of prolonged fights and ranged fights, never got why people seem to love it.)
-
Arguing that AAF is the equivalent of having twice the number of ballistic weapons is sorta fine... Except that it only gets that for effectively half the time in combat. Less than, in fact: The system has about 6 seconds of active duration and a 10 second cooldown. So (since you want to bring math into this) if you're spamming AAF off cooldown, a Hammerhead has double guns for two fifths of its active combat time. Or, on average 1.4x guns.
One last thing @Lucky33: The Hammerhead isn't the only ship with Accelerated Ammo Feeder as its system. Given your opinion of it so far, what are your thoughts on other ships with AAF?
You are assuming that every ship is firing for the unlimited period of time. To destroy another Hammerhead you need only from 4 to 5.5 seconds depending on how good the ai will manage to vent in the process. And thats without even single flux point spent on firing back. And no sabots. With them and more typical overload scenario you need only 3 seconds. And all that means that you need a much heavier ship to take all 6 seconds of AAF damage in the first place.
Atlas mk2 is OK or something like that. It has its flux stat reduced to the level of Falcon. Everything else is closer to Hammerhead.
-
I meant the phase skimmer, sorry.
AAF sucked with limited ammo, too. Ballistics were limited by ammo and flux, more so by the latter. It wasn't until it got a discount on flux that it was useful.
AAF doesn't break any rules, because there are no rules saying that a ship system can't be strong, only that ships can't be overly strong. You have a valid point (that a Hammerhead might be too strong), but you are derailing it with an unnecessary claim (that a ship system "cheats", by allowing the ship to do things it normally cannot, which is completely in line with every single ship system in the game).
"Phase skimmer": Wolf and Medusa pay for extra mobility. Remnants dont. While they are unavailable for the player I dont really care.
Sucked = was balanced.
Creating damage out of thin air is a cheating. Even extra mobility is a less of a problem. But damage kills. Sorry for being too obvious but you clearly need to make your priorities straight.
-
Sometimes I feel like you guys are playing a different game. SO hammerhead performs badly in real battles when it faces fighters and ships that are bigger than destroyers. Hammerhead is fine now that it is 10 DP as opposed to 8 DP. It still have problems hitting frigates sometimes due to its fixed mounts. It's no longer an overwhelmingly better DP spend compared to other destroyer hulls. No it's not like a heavy cruiser. The weakest cruisers are Falcon and Venture (which isn't even a combat ship) and both can deal with the Hammerhead well enough. Assault Chaingun will only ever be seen in SO builds.
-
If I'm not mistaken AC before had 300 DPS, then Alex buffed it by 100% to what we know today. Maybe a middle ground of 450 DPS would not be broken?
It had 400 DPS at 1 flux/dmg Where it was fine (but niche). I used them before the buff even on non-SO builds. Now it has 600 dps at .66 flux/dmg
-
I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff was that it was done by increasing damage per shot meaning it got a lot better at armor penetration as well as a DPS boost. The old version was underpowered IMO because it had such poor armor penetration, in fact there was a whole thread a while ago about armor mechanics where we showed that AC performed the same as heavy mauler against mid level armor while costing twice as much flux. If it got nerfed back to 400 or 450 DPS by reducing ROF rather than shot damage, it might be in a better place.
The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses. The amount of extra damage it needs to compensate is certainly up for debate, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with giving a ship a special system to compensate for other weaknesses.
-
I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff
What problem? Care to describe?
The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.
Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.
-
Cool it with the "1v1 me bro". 1v1 fights don't matter for balance, and if there's player control in the mix it doesn't matter times a million. Starsector is ultimately a fleet combat game - 1v1s happen rarely outside of the simulator.
-
B-b-but Hammerhead is so weak!? Why is it so difficult to illustrate its weaknes in this simple manner?
-
"Phase skimmer": Wolf and Medusa pay for extra mobility.
In what way? Phase skimmer doesn't cost you any flux at all. While AAF can kill, phase skimmer can save. Plasma jets and plasma burn can allow you to destroy a vulnerable ship, before its allies can retaliate. Fortress Shield and Damper Field can let you survive what should have kill you. All of these let ships do things they wouldn't be able to otherwise. That is the express purpose of ship systems, to let ships do things they can't otherwise. It's impossible to break, abuse or circumvent the rules, if there are no rules, so it's impossible to cheat in this regard. Well, not exactly. Ship systems have no rules, but ships themselves do. They have to pick between defence and offence, they can't attack you without you being able to fight back somehow, stuff like that. There are ships like that in the game, but Hammerhead isn't one of them.
Again, Hammerhead being too strong for its cost is something that can be argued for and that some people will agree with. The insane claim that AAF breaks rules that don't exist doesn't help you convey this point across.
Sucked = was balanced.
Hammerhead was actually harmed by that version of AAF. The enemy could flicker the shield, dodge it, tank it on the shield or be too small to be hit with all the projectiles, whereas Hammerhead had to pay full price in flux for all these shots. It was better not to ever use it, unless you already won, or else the enemy would capitalise on you getting fluxed out. It wasn't fun, it had no utility and it couldn't even do what it was supposed to do (increase the ship's offensive capability). Does this sound desirable to you?
You could theoretically plan for this, by making Hammerhead undergunned, but that would make it only half the ship it's supposed to be every other time. Or you could fire only a few of your guns while using AAF, but good luck making AI do that.
-
In what way?
In DP way.
While AAF can kill, phase skimmer can save.
Thats "wining" against "not losing".
That is the express purpose of ship systems, to let ships do things they can't otherwise.
Use the console.
It's impossible to break, abuse or circumvent the rules, if there are no rules
There are rules. Otherwise there would be only random symbols in the stats.
Again, Hammerhead being too strong for its cost is something that can be argued for and that some people will agree with.
The insane claim that AAF breaks rules that don't exist doesn't help you convey this point across.
You only produced some name calling so far. If you think that I'm impressed and at a loss for words then think again.
Hammerhead was actually harmed by that version of AAF. The enemy could flicker the shield, dodge it, tank it on the shield or be too small to be hit with all the projectiles, whereas Hammerhead had to pay full price in flux for all these shots. It was better not to ever use it, unless you already won, or else the enemy would capitalise on you getting fluxed out. It wasn't fun, it had no utility and it couldn't even do what it was supposed to do (increase the ship's offensive capability). Does this sound desirable to you?
Yes.
You could theoretically plan for this, by making Hammerhead undergunned, but that would make it only half the ship it's supposed to be every other time. Or you could fire only a few of your guns while using AAF, but good luck making AI do that.
Or you could unmount the AAF once and for all. Problem solved. Everyone's happy.
-
B-b-but Hammerhead is so weak!? Why is it so difficult to illustrate its weaknes in this simple manner?
Because illustrating its weakness by looking at its greatest strength seems counterproductive. And the hammerhead isnt weak it just isnt OP.
-
B-b-but Hammerhead is so weak!? Why is it so difficult to illustrate its weaknes in this simple manner?
Because illustrating its weakness by looking at its greatest strength seems counterproductive. And the hammerhead isnt weak it just isnt OP.
I'm not looking at its greatest strength. I'm looking at the lack of any substantial proof that Hammerhead is weak without AAF.
-
While AAF can kill, phase skimmer can save.
Thats "wining" against "not losing".
Antonyms of losing:
(of a game or contest) Opposite of present participle for to fail to win:
winning
“He would win against his opponent, a fitting finale to the hard work and training he had put in over the last few months.”
Anyways, how exactly do you think that removing the AAF from Hammerhead will make it more balanced, Lucky ? It's already pretty weak in terms of firepower considering that both of it's mediums are front facing instead of being turrets, its mobility is average, shields average, not very survivable against anything larger than it that can out-range it or can keep aiming at it. The only time I've seen the AAF be a threat was when I was nearly overloaded and couldn't run away from the Hammerhead. In comparison, a Medusa's teleportation or a Wolf's phase skimmer allows me to directly jump into the enemy's blind-spot and shoot them from behind while they can't hit me.
-
I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff
What problem? Care to describe?
The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.
Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.
Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.
-
Hey, don't bully my Hammerheads! They're great ships, but that's largely in part to how simple they are. They're reasonably durable, reasonably quick, and can supercharge their weapons for a real kick. As individual packages the Hammerhead isn't anything special, AAF doesn't really do anything special, and Assault Chainguns aren't anything special. It's really hard to get into AC range, the ships that are fast enough are too fragile and the ships that are durable enough are too slow. Rather, it is the full combination that comes together and makes it terrifying. A Safety-Overrides Hammerhead has the speed to get into range, enough agility to dance around more lumbering targets, and the extra kick of AAF to give the firepower it needs to win. It's really the perfect storm of up front ass kickery, and you will struggle to find another ship that can fight the same style.
-
Re: Hammerhead without AAF, and Hammerhead balance in general:
Before the Hammerhead had its small mounts changed from energy to energy/ballistic and its system was changed to reduce flux, it was considered the weakest of the destroyers (there was also quite a lot of forum chatter about it, so in a way its documented). Of course this was also before quite a number of other changes: Enforcers could stack 2 different engine booster hullmmods that carried no penalty, fighters were extremely weak so Medusa's had no common predator, the long range high performance medium ballistics (HVD, Heavy Mauler) had higher DPS, and offensive skills were vastly more powerful than defensive skills. It makes it hard to examine the strength of the destroyers across different versions, because the relative strength depends so heavily on the equipment they can use and the foes they face. I believe the Enforcer, Medusa, and Sunder have received no changes in many versions (other than maybe a DP/supply tweak?), but their relative usefulness has changed quite a bit.
The assault chaingun going from 400->600 by getting +50% per shot damage is a lot easier to analyze: it went from a lackluster weapon that was a bit 'meh' even in SO builds to being extremely strong. A Hammerhead with 2 of them and 4 lmgs will 'melee' for 1200HE + 600K, doubled with system with a 1.4 effective average DPS (though frontloaded, so it has 'alpha' compared to average). Its about 1.5 times the firepower of an SO Medusa for comparison, though the Medusa has the mobility and shield advantage (and the weakness to fighters). I also use the new AC on non-SO ships as 'point defense' when I expect to be swarmed by smaller enemies: I have a campaign Legion (recovered) that uses them to great effect. Its also a pretty good weapon against fighters believe it or not by virtue of sheer DPS.
A Hammerhead without AAF would be quite a lot weaker - maybe not as bad as the current Enforcer, but weaker than either the Medusa or Sunder for sure. Its pretty easy to see why: the system is a front loaded 1.4x on firepower at no flux cost. Is the current Hammerhead really 1.4 or more times better than other destroyers? I really don't think so. If it got a good other system to compensate it would be comparable: the base Hammerhead stats and weapons are solid. Maneuvering jets might be an interesting choice, as mobility/being swarmed is one of the current Hammerheads weaknesses, and it would be quite speedy with them.
If people would like to have it out and test to prove their points, I do stream exhibition matches. If people are unfamiliar with the tournament mod, it would be a simple matter for me to set things up if you provide me with variants, and I can make a simple mod to disable AAF on the Hammerhead. You should settle on some rules first though (SO or no SO allowed, allies allowed, total DP, AAF vs no AAF, etc).
And finally, putting on my other hat: So far this thread has been reasonably civil, but its been growing a bit heated. As a general reminder, everyone please continue to be respectful.
-
B-b-but Hammerhead is so weak!? Why is it so difficult to illustrate its weaknes in this simple manner?
Because illustrating its weakness by looking at its greatest strength seems counterproductive. And the hammerhead isnt weak it just isnt OP.
I'm not looking at its greatest strength. I'm looking at the lack of any substantial proof that Hammerhead is weak without AAF.
A 1v1 destroyer match is the hammerheads greatest strength...
As combats get bigger, the ability to not die matters a whole lot more than the ability to kill. If you have Hammerheads vs Medusa and the Medusa can reset their shield damage by leaving when they get targeted by hammerheads but the hammerheads cannot; then very quickly it becomes Hammerheads-1 vs Medusa. At which point it very quickly becomes Hammerheads-2 vs Medusa...
-
While AAF can kill, phase skimmer can save.
Thats "wining" against "not losing".
Antonyms of losing:
(of a game or contest) Opposite of present participle for to fail to win:
winning
“He would win against his opponent, a fitting finale to the hard work and training he had put in over the last few months.”
Oh, nice. Now look up in the vocabulary the meaning of "not".
Anyways, how exactly do you think that removing the AAF from Hammerhead will make it more balanced, Lucky ?
You will no longer be able to press F to win.
It's already pretty weak in terms of firepower considering that both of it's mediums are front facing instead of being turrets, its mobility is average, shields average, not very survivable against anything larger than it that can out-range it or can keep aiming at it.
You are talking about 0.52 era. When firepower was limited by the ammo on the "per gun" basis. This is how Hammerhead earned its fame as a weak ship. Nowdays, firepower is tied with the protection and defined by the flux. Dissipation limits your ability to deal damage without lowering you defence, total capacity shows how much damage you can deal and receive without taking permanent damage and shield efficiency specify that ratio further.
Take Enforcer for example with its five turreted medium mounts. Its x2.5 times more than Hammerhead, yes? Completely op. And lets put those op assault chainguns in all of them. Nothing could go wrong.
Erm... OP Enforcer lost its shield before getting through half of the Hammerhead's. And the later wasnt even firing. How can it be? But the number of mounts! But the arcs! And the burn drive! These are strong points. Or not? Maybe you should look first at the dissipation and compare it to the gun's flux build up? And after that you should check total flux capacity and the shield efficiency? Because this is what really matters for the firepower comparison.
The only time I've seen the AAF be a threat was when I was nearly overloaded and couldn't run away from the Hammerhead.
Please quote me where I'm talking about Hammerhead being a threat to a player? All this time I was talking about Hammerhead being broken in the player's hands.
In comparison, a Medusa's teleportation or a Wolf's phase skimmer allows me to directly jump into the enemy's blind-spot and shoot them from behind while they can't hit me.
And it is broken because you dont need to jump anywhere. You press forward, push the F button and when you win.
-
I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff
What problem? Care to describe?
The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.
Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.
Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.
"design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less"
-
I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff
What problem? Care to describe?
The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.
Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.
Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.
"design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less"
To prove what? "Kite is overpowered you can't design stronger ship of 2 dp or less". "Paragon is overpowered you can't design a better capital of 60dp or less?".
And here i thought that finally we'll see some kick ass hammerhead loadouts. But it's just another forumwarrior with made up tales of overpowered ships and stuff.
-
Re: Hammerhead without AAF, and Hammerhead balance in general:
...
The assault chaingun going from 400->600 by getting +50% per shot damage is a lot easier to analyze: it went from a lackluster weapon that was a bit 'meh' even in SO builds to being extremely strong. A Hammerhead with 2 of them and 4 lmgs will 'melee' for 1200HE + 600K, doubled with system with a 1.4 effective average DPS (though frontloaded, so it has 'alpha' compared to average). Its about 1.5 times the firepower of an SO Medusa for comparison, though the Medusa has the mobility and shield advantage (and the weakness to fighters).
1.5/1.4=1.07. Hammerhead without AAF is 1.07 times stronger than SO Medusa. This is how weak it is. Literally unplayable.
A Hammerhead without AAF would be quite a lot weaker - maybe not as bad as the current Enforcer, but weaker than either the Medusa or Sunder for sure.
Even with AAF included it must be weaker than ships with higher DP. Right now its stronger than 12 DP Medusa.
Its pretty easy to see why: the system is a front loaded 1.4x on firepower at no flux cost. Is the current Hammerhead really 1.4 or more times better than other destroyers? I really don't think so.
Me too. Its more than that.
-
I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff
What problem? Care to describe?
The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.
Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.
Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.
"design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less"
To prove what? "Kite is overpowered you can't design stronger ship of 2 dp or less". "Paragon is overpowered you can't design a better capital of 60dp or less?".
And here i thought that finally we'll see some kick ass hammerhead loadouts. But it's just another forumwarrior with made up tales of overpowered ships and stuff.
To make those claimants of the Hammerhead weakness to fail at proving it. If you cant exploit supposed weakness of the Hammerhead in any possible variant of any gun-destroyer of the same or lower DP then Hammerhead is not weak. Case closed.
-
I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff
What problem? Care to describe?
The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.
Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.
Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.
"design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less"
To prove what? "Kite is overpowered you can't design stronger ship of 2 dp or less". "Paragon is overpowered you can't design a better capital of 60dp or less?".
And here i thought that finally we'll see some kick ass hammerhead loadouts. But it's just another forumwarrior with made up tales of overpowered ships and stuff.
To make those claimants of the Hammerhead weakness to fail at proving it. If you cant exploit supposed weakness of the Hammerhead in any possible variant of any gun-destroyer of the same or lower DP then Hammerhead is not weak. Case closed.
Ok so HH is best 10dp (and under) ship. Medusa is best 12 dp (and under) ship. Paragon is best 60dp (and under) ship. I'm sure community can make a mod for you, where those ships are deleted. No need for spamming suggestions with that kind of nonsense.
-
Ok so HH is best 10dp (and under) ship.
See. It was easy.
-
Re: Hammerhead without AAF, and Hammerhead balance in general:
...
The assault chaingun going from 400->600 by getting +50% per shot damage is a lot easier to analyze: it went from a lackluster weapon that was a bit 'meh' even in SO builds to being extremely strong. A Hammerhead with 2 of them and 4 lmgs will 'melee' for 1200HE + 600K, doubled with system with a 1.4 effective average DPS (though frontloaded, so it has 'alpha' compared to average). Its about 1.5 times the firepower of an SO Medusa for comparison, though the Medusa has the mobility and shield advantage (and the weakness to fighters).
1.5/1.4=1.07. Hammerhead without AAF is 1.07 times stronger than SO Medusa. This is how weak it is. Literally unplayable.
A Hammerhead without AAF would be quite a lot weaker - maybe not as bad as the current Enforcer, but weaker than either the Medusa or Sunder for sure.
Even with AAF included it must be weaker than ships with higher DP. Right now its stronger than 12 DP Medusa.
Its pretty easy to see why: the system is a front loaded 1.4x on firepower at no flux cost. Is the current Hammerhead really 1.4 or more times better than other destroyers? I really don't think so.
Me too. Its more than that.
Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower. The Medusa has other strengths, such as a very efficient shield, higher speed, and a very good system. Your contention that a no-system SO Hammerhead is better than an SO Medusa is... well its just not true. We saw on stream in the tourney before last that the classic SO Hammerhead with AC and lmgs WITH AAF loses to the SO Medusa.
I love the Hammerhead, but I don't think its that much better than the other Destroyers, especially without AAF; except maybe the Enforcer, which is in a truly sorry state, and has a very mediocre ship system.
But why don't we run an actual test instead of just theorycrafting about it? I could be wrong, it happens very frequently, and I'd love to get some data. I'll stream a match, or best of 3 even. Say you submit 6 Hammerheads with SO but not AAF, and someone else submits 5 SO Medusas - thats equal DP at 60, good for a little skirmish. In order to avoid bias from me being able to see your designs before the match, how about someone else can submit the SO Medusas (or I suppose I could grab the variant from 2 streams ago, I might be able to find a DL link or just watch the stream again). You've been accusing everyone else of failing to prove things, how about you do some proving of your own?
-
Arguing that AAF is the equivalent of having twice the number of ballistic weapons is sorta fine.....
You are assuming that every ship is firing for the unlimited period of time. To destroy another Hammerhead you need only from 4 to 5.5 seconds depending on how good the ai will manage to vent in the process. And thats without even single flux point spent on firing back. And no sabots. With them and more typical overload scenario you need only 3 seconds. And all that means that you need a much heavier ship to take all 6 seconds of AAF damage in the first place.
Atlas mk2 is OK or something like that. It has its flux stat reduced to the level of Falcon. Everything else is closer to Hammerhead.
Mmkay, that's a fair argument. I misunderstood your point as meaning it had twice the firepower at all times, my apologies. You're right, AAF does wonders as a situational ability, and five to six seconds is definitely enough time to wreak serious havoc on a target.
-
Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.
Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.
The Medusa has other strengths, such as a very efficient shield, higher speed, and a very good system. Your contention that a no-system SO Hammerhead is better than an SO Medusa is... well its just not true. We saw on stream in the tourney before last that the classic SO Hammerhead with AC and lmgs WITH AAF loses to the SO Medusa.
Not mine. Yours. I was using your numbers.
I love the Hammerhead, but I don't think its that much better than the other Destroyers, especially without AAF; except maybe the Enforcer, which is in a truly sorry state, and has a very mediocre ship system.
It all started like this:
Sabotpod has 9 sec between bursts. Thats heavyac level of op. Typhoon has 15 sec chargedown. Better than heavymortar I guess. But not even in the same universe as the chaingun.
Medium missiles are balanced just fine. Its medium energy mounts what are gimped unless you have a huge dissipation. And since basic Falcon doesnt, its just a "cruiser" with the worse armanent than Hammerhead. Only compared to that, (P) version looks great.
Sounds familiar?
But why don't we run an actual test instead of just theorycrafting about it?
Sure.
The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.
Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.
And the I part comes from this:
This isn't a problem I've encountered in the campaign. It was only really evident from the Starsector tournament. Let's not balance the game around that, please!
This doesn't come from the tournament. It comes from player-piloting in the campaign. A missile-spamming Falcon P flagship is absurdly powerful and DP efficient. The competing ships, Gryphon and Aurora, both cost more DP (i.e. have less fleet support) and have equivalent or inferior missile-power.
Looks like I'm the only one who still remembers that we are all discussing here.
And, yes, anyone is still welcome to design beforementioned variant for me to fight.
-
Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.
Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.
No, it's not. Firepower-at X range-at Y speed-with Z survivability as whole is what matters. A hypothetical extremely slow and short ranged ship with infinite damage output will lose to everything (unless it also has infinite durability). Survivability matters because as shorter ranged and faster ship with better weapons you still need to survive incoming fire during approach and fight itself.
Hammerhead has more firepower than Falcon, yet it will still lose every single time assuming perfect piloting on Falcon's part.
If both use HVD + Mauler or Needler + Mauler, then Falcon wins by range.
If Hammerhead uses HVD + Mauler vs Needler + Mauler Falcon, Hammerhead loses by firepower (since Falcon has better flux stats and 2 Gravitons to help).
Railguns on Hammerhead never get chance to enter firing range, so ultimately do not matter..
Of course, Hammerhead can still win if Falcon fails at maintaining range ,which is exactly what happens in player Hammerhead vs AI Falcon scenario.
-
Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.
Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.
No, it's not. Firepower-at X range-at Y speed-with Z survivability as whole is what matters.
If its not, take it as zero then.
Hammerhead has more firepower than Falcon, yet it will still lose every single time assuming perfect piloting on Falcon's part.
Both. Its all about ships being overpowered while under player control.
PS I just realized that all-missiles Falcon (P) is a blast from the past of limited ammo days.
-
Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.
Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.
The Medusa has other strengths, such as a very efficient shield, higher speed, and a very good system. Your contention that a no-system SO Hammerhead is better than an SO Medusa is... well its just not true. We saw on stream in the tourney before last that the classic SO Hammerhead with AC and lmgs WITH AAF loses to the SO Medusa.
Not mine. Yours. I was using your numbers.
...
I reject that more firepower is the same as being stronger. Thats an artificial definition - one which you need some pretty twisty logic to justify - that flies in the face of, well, every other statistic in the game. You are twisting what was from me a cut and dry mathematical statement of weapon firepower into a complete value judgement on the ship. I don't particularly like having my words twisted. This is what I wrote:
The assault chaingun going from 400->600 by getting +50% per shot damage is a lot easier to analyze: it went from a lackluster weapon that was a bit 'meh' even in SO builds to being extremely strong. A Hammerhead with 2 of them and 4 lmgs will 'melee' for 1200HE + 600K, doubled with system with a 1.4 effective average DPS (though frontloaded, so it has 'alpha' compared to average). Its about 1.5 times the firepower of an SO Medusa for comparison, though the Medusa has the mobility and shield advantage (and the weakness to fighters). I also use the new AC on non-SO ships as 'point defense' when I expect to be swarmed by smaller enemies: I have a campaign Legion (recovered) that uses them to great effect. Its also a pretty good weapon against fighters believe it or not by virtue of sheer DPS.
Note that the subject of this paragraph is the AC and its DPS, not relative ship strength. You responded with:
1.5/1.4=1.07. Hammerhead without AAF is 1.07 times stronger than SO Medusa. This is how weak it is. Literally unplayable.
You make the contention that a Hammerhead without AAF is "stronger" than a Medusa. When I told you that this is wrong, you responded with:
Not mine. Yours. I was using your numbers.
Which is frankly rather insulting. My own words spoke ONLY of dps numbers, and even mentioned the other mitigating factors of mobility and shield in the same sentence. Trying to cover up your own wrong statements by saying I said it first is a poor dodge.
I have video evidence to back up my claims on balance, and am offering to spend my time doing an unbiased experiment to get real data.
-
I reject that more firepower is the same as being stronger.
Bold move but unsubstantial.
Thats an artificial definition - one which you need some pretty twisty logic to justify - that flies in the face of, well, every other statistic in the game.
The game is fine. I was able to recreate the Napoleonic era rating system while using game's stats. And it all led to firepower being first, defence being second and mobility acting as some minor adjustment for the cases strongly above or below median.
And any system where you have to destroy something by dealing damage to it will end up like this.
You are twisting what was from me a cut and dry mathematical statement of weapon firepower into a complete value judgement on the ship. I don't particularly like having my words twisted.
I didnt twist any of your words. If I see matter as "firepower equals strength" this is it. Thats my point. You can disagree with it but it have nothing to do with me twisting your words.
Which is frankly rather insulting. My own words spoke ONLY of dps numbers, and even mentioned the other mitigating factors of mobility and shield in the same sentence. Trying to cover up your own wrong statements by saying I said it first is a poor dodge.
This is how you measure firepower. DPS = firepower.
I have video evidence to back up my claims on balance, and am offering to spend my time doing an unbiased experiment to get real data.
And how exactly did you get a video evidence of me not being able to hadle some destroyer variant while piloting Hammerhead? Oh, you dont. You are talking about championship. What have nothing to do with my claims or topic in question.
-
Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.
Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.
No, it's not. Firepower-at X range-at Y speed-with Z survivability as whole is what matters.
If its not, take it as zero then.
Which would be just as useless as having infinite firepower, but:
- having zero range
- OR zero speed with less than infinite range = shot from safe distance
- OR significantly lower speed & shorter range than assumed opponent = kited to death
- OR higher speed & shorter range & no survivability = killed on attempt to approach
-
Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.
Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.
No, it's not. Firepower-at X range-at Y speed-with Z survivability as whole is what matters.
If its not, take it as zero then.
Which would be just as useless as having infinite firepower, but:
- having zero range
- OR zero speed with less than infinite range = shot from safe distance
- OR significantly lower speed & shorter range than assumed opponent = kited to death
- OR higher speed & shorter range & no survivability = killed on attempt to approach
No, its simplier than that. Having firepower, as your ability to deal damage, set strictly at zero will leave you without zones where destruction of anything is still possible.
With zero range you still can destroy the target if it is upon you. It is probable.
With zero speed you still can destroy targets if they came or were brought into range or you have infinite range.
With zero defence but infinite firepower you still can destroy targets if you hit first or they have zero firepower.
And so on.
In less abstract systems (without all those zeroes and infinites) it typically ends up with "firepower counters firepower" so you have to destroy enemy's firepower faster then it destroys yours. But the fundamental reasoning for that is still the defining role of the firepower. You need it if you want to do something and everything else acts to support it.
-
A weapon-less brick with unreasonable durability and mobility could still be useful to body-block for carriers or currently venting ships. Pushing enemies away from carriers/snipers would also be an option.
-
Mobility and range both can 'counter' firepower... thats why a dominator dies to a wolf/tempest or a sunder dies to a falcon. Is it really that hard to see that the combat in this game is multi faceted and no single capability or stat is sufficient to determine how good a ship is...?
It's also why the Hyperion got nerfed into the ground. You could literally solo kill every ship in the game at once because it had such insane mobility with only two medium energy mounts and two small energy mounts. CR was added to prevent strategies that abused mobility excessively because they were so strong that it wasn't worth using any other strategy.
-
A weapon-less brick with unreasonable durability and mobility could still be useful to body-block for carriers or currently venting ships. Pushing enemies away from carriers/snipers would also be an option.
It doesnt destroy anything. You are talking about protecting your sources of the firepower. Which you still have. As I said, to set your minds straight you should assume zero firepower. Like nothing, nil. No, ramming damage is not allowed also. Neither is target's self-damage. After that you will realize what is primarium here.
-
Mobility and range both can 'counter' firepower... thats why a dominator dies to a wolf/tempest or a sunder dies to a falcon. Is it really that hard to see that the combat in this game is multi faceted and no single capability or stat is sufficient to determine how good a ship is...?
It's also why the Hyperion got nerfed into the ground. You could literally solo kill every ship in the game at once because it had such insane mobility with only two medium energy mounts and two small energy mounts. CR was added to prevent strategies that abused mobility excessively because they were so strong that it wasn't worth using any other strategy.
Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.
-
Mobility and range both can 'counter' firepower... thats why a dominator dies to a wolf/tempest or a sunder dies to a falcon. Is it really that hard to see that the combat in this game is multi faceted and no single capability or stat is sufficient to determine how good a ship is...?
It's also why the Hyperion got nerfed into the ground. You could literally solo kill every ship in the game at once because it had such insane mobility with only two medium energy mounts and two small energy mounts. CR was added to prevent strategies that abused mobility excessively because they were so strong that it wasn't worth using any other strategy.
Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.
The dominator doesn't turn fast enough to track the wolf and a huge amount of its firepower is in hard points or forward facing turrets, no matter who is piloting. The sunder does not have enough range or speed to hit the falcon regardless of how much damage it would do if it did manage to hit it. The only reason a sunder can ever kill a falcon is because the AI fails to use its range and mobility correctly when piloting the falcon.
-
Mobility and range both can 'counter' firepower... thats why a dominator dies to a wolf/tempest or a sunder dies to a falcon. Is it really that hard to see that the combat in this game is multi faceted and no single capability or stat is sufficient to determine how good a ship is...?
It's also why the Hyperion got nerfed into the ground. You could literally solo kill every ship in the game at once because it had such insane mobility with only two medium energy mounts and two small energy mounts. CR was added to prevent strategies that abused mobility excessively because they were so strong that it wasn't worth using any other strategy.
Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.
The dominator doesn't turn fast enough to track the wolf and a huge amount of its firepower is in hard points or forward facing turrets, no matter who is piloting. The sunder does not have enough range or speed to hit the falcon regardless of how much damage it would do if it did manage to hit it. The only reason a sunder can ever kill a falcon is because the AI fails to use its range and mobility correctly when piloting the falcon.
Are you trying to say that human will not be able to kill the Wolf in the Dominator or Falcon in the Sunder? Thats not funny.
Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.
-
Jesus Christ what the hell has this thread become... Everyone please take a break and look how stupid you look. ''1v1 me bro or else you dumb'' > ''no i'm not, my clearly scientific data i got from playing alone suggest otherwise'' > ''i have proof you dumb'' > ''no u (u being everyone else who has a different opinion)'' - basically the last 3 pages. Not only is it a massive derailment that has more posts than the actual topic but it's just childish bickering in circles. And I thought mods were starting to be more active...
-
I agree with Grievous, and should have probably said something sooner. This thread has turned into a pointless shouting match about something completely apart from the original topic.
Y'all who are arguing: I think it's been going on long enough for you to realise that you aren't going to change each other's opinions. Probably best to agree to disagree and leave it there. The "discussion" is no longer productive, informative or interesting.
-
Did you know, make your font size and bolding your words does not make you right? What's wrong with people arguing with each other. It's an interesting read.
-
I agree that this is a derailment and have split the thread off. So far this thread has remained mostly polite, lets everyone keep it that way moving forward.
In the interests of fairness I'm going to recuse myself from the thread.
-
I'll start this off by saying that the Hammerhead's ability, Accelerated Ammo Feeder, is the main thing the ship has going for it.
Without it the ship would be a largely under-gunned and under protected basic destroyer when compared to the Enforcer and Medusa. Having Hybrid mounts isn't much of an advantage when it's ability only works with ballistic weapons.
-
What's wrong with people arguing with each other. It's an interesting read.
Because if it's left to simmer too long it turns into people shouting at each other and being a**holes, and eventually a moderator has to step in and shut the whole thing down and EVERYONE has a bad day.
This is a discussion forum, not a soap opera. Not the place for drama.
-
Base Hammerhead isn't all that bad. It isn't slow, fragile or short ranged. Being a duelist at this size type isn't bad, either, since it isn't expected to fight many enemies at once in the first place. It doesn't really suck at anything in particular, which is why it's so good when it also comes with AAF.
Use the console.
Oh, but what console? I just downloaded a fresh game from the site and it doesn't come with any.
Yes.
The point of AAF is to increase offensive power. Choking on flux and dying in no way helps with attacking. With how important managing flux is, I consider the flux discount more important than rate of fire buff.
Are you trying to say that human will not be able to kill the Wolf in the Dominator or Falcon in the Sunder? Thats not funny.
Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.
Depends mostly on bigger ships' loadouts.
Dominator might have great firepower, but when the target can just dodge it, it might as well have none. When the target can pick when to engage and you cannot, you also cannot press the advantage. Dominator with railguns or similar guns can keep the Wolf away, but might not be able to kill it. Without sabots, harpoons or salamanders, it has no hope of dealing damage to the Wolf, outside of strike builds that can damage the Wolf, while it's overloaded from the initial strike.
The importance of applicability of firepower is better visible in the Falcon and Sunder case. Sunder with beams can't damage Falcon at all. Sunder with hard flux weaponry won't be able to reach the Falcon without taking a lot of damage on the shields. Sunder with SO, while faster, has to close a longer distance as well. Sunder either can face an enemy with better range and mobility and fail, or trade firepower for range and also fail, just slower. At least, if you don't missiles. If you do, you trade lasting power for killing one, two Falcons.
That said, if the Falcon you're facing against isn't built similarly to sim Falcon (kinetics and ion beam combo), you have better chances of winning. Unless the Falcon doesn't actually outstrike you...
Too bad Hammerhead isn't in the same position as Sunder. The speed's the same, but the range is much better. While it isn't much tougher, it has an easier time managing its flux, since ballistic weapons are more efficient, effectively making it harder to defeat in practice.
-
The point of AAF is to increase offensive power. Choking on flux and dying in no way helps with attacking. With how important managing flux is, I consider the flux discount more important than rate of fire buff.
You can see how this is important by considering how you might fit if you just had the discount. Usually you're going to fit something like this for the AI
Weapon Flux Usage = Dissipation minus shield upkeep cost.
This way the ship does not generate its own soft flux and kill itself.
But if you have AAF just be -flux cost you can fit weapon flux usage to be greater than dissipation such that weapon average flux usage = dissipation minus shield upgrade cost
Wherein the ship will no longer net generate soft flux. Since you've got more weapon usage you're doing more damage. The damage buff at the same time makes it so that its easier to determine what the optimal AI fitting is, because you don't have to do additional calculations to hit flux neutrality.
-
Use the console.
Oh, but what console? I just downloaded a fresh game from the site and it doesn't come with any.
Welcome to the forums!
Here:
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=4106.0
Yes.
The point of AAF is to increase offensive power. Choking on flux and dying in no way helps with attacking. With how important managing flux is, I consider the flux discount more important than rate of fire buff.
And this is what we are here talking about. AAF gives a generic 10 dp ship the firepower of a 20 dp one. Thats nice to have. Comes handy sometimes.
Depends mostly on bigger ships' loadouts.
Loadout is the nature of the firepower. Means to convert flux into damage. You are saying that against certain targets certain weapons are better as a means to project firepower onto targets. Of course they are.
Dominator might have great firepower, but when the target can just dodge it, it might as well have none. When the target can pick when to engage and you cannot, you also cannot press the advantage. Dominator with railguns or similar guns can keep the Wolf away, but might not be able to kill it. Without sabots, harpoons or salamanders, it has no hope of dealing damage to the Wolf, outside of strike builds that can damage the Wolf, while it's overloaded from the initial strike.
(https://i.imgur.com/uuFW98k.jpg)
How the heck did that happen?! Did we just witness a miracle? Should all the Dominators from the whole sector to go on the pilgrimage to the place of this epic sim battle there they will be able to regain their lost hope?
If you do, you trade lasting power for killing one, two Falcons.
Nice, at least here is still some hope left which saves me some time.
Yes, single 11 dp destroyer killing one or two 15 dp cruisers is not a big deal. This is what those 30 supplies per month were paid for. To die.
Too bad Hammerhead isn't in the same position as Sunder. The speed's the same, but the range is much better. While it isn't much tougher, it has an easier time managing its flux, since ballistic weapons are more efficient, effectively making it harder to defeat in practice.
Praise the Ludd for He has teached us the importance of range above all else!
(https://i.imgur.com/rJ3DiJ8.jpg)
-
I'll start this off by saying that the Hammerhead's ability, Accelerated Ammo Feeder, is the main thing the ship has going for it.
Sure it does.
Without it the ship would be a largely under-gunned and under protected basic destroyer when compared to the Enforcer and Medusa. Having Hybrid mounts isn't much of an advantage when it's ability only works with ballistic weapons.
w/o AAF
Enforcer shooting at Hammerhead with HACs has 1.6 damage to flux ratio. Hammerhead shooting at Enforcer with railguns has 2.67. Flux capacity is the same. Hammerhead has better dissipation and will win the flux war.
In some abstract scenario when both ships has singe AC to actually kill each other with, Enforcer has four HMGs and Hammerhead one HMG and four LDMGs its still the Hammerhead who will have the upper hand.
Compared to Enforcer, Hammerhead is under-missiled.
Medusa can outgun Hammerhead.
-
On Dominator vs Wolf: Dominator can't catch a properly piloted Wolf. Since AI isn't competent, catching it isn't a problem.
1v1 correct tactics for Wolf are either:
- stall/retreat
- get behind the Dominator with triple skim (or by exploiting Burn drive use) and stick there (much more reliable if Dominator doesn't have stacked Aux Thrusters + characters skills). Also depends on what's in Dominator's rear slots.
Trying to fight Dominator from front like AI does is suicide.
-
On Dominator vs Wolf: Dominator can't catch a properly piloted Wolf. Since AI isn't competent, catching it isn't a problem.
1v1 correct tactics for Wolf are either:
- stall/retreat
- get behind the Dominator with triple skim (or by exploiting Burn drive use) and stick there (much more reliable if Dominator doesn't have stacked Aux Thrusters + characters skills). Also depends on what's in Dominator's rear slots.
But definitely not trying to fight from from front like AI does.
That Dominator had an op meta strike build of DTC, four HMGs and seven light autocannons. I realized that forgot to put two more only afterwards, sorry.
And this is exactly how that Wolf died. Used up all its displacer charges. Was bated by my dazzling stern-forward advance only to find in the end that Dominator with its guns turned off can rotate at 24 degrees per seconds and accelerates from zero to 230 in 2 seconds.
And the important part is that we were talking about player piloting in the campaign and it was about Dominator's troubles with Wolves. Not Wolves against Dominators.
-
Starsector does not appear to be (nor should be) balanced around 'bigger is better'.
There is no problem with a destroyer putting out cruiser level firepower, it both makes logical sense (mimicking basically any real life mobile dedicated firepower platform) and game sense (you don't just get to ignore the smaller things unless you're literally in a paragon).
My take on the balance goal of starsector is to have ships that fill a role, and they should play like it. The hammerhead strikes me as the bread and butter military damage dealer, practically the AK-47 of the universe. It's not some cargo hauler converted to military out of necessity (which i'd love more of....), it's a basic, sturdy, maneuverable hunter/killer sort of thing that's designed to annihilate frigates that can't escape it, and get in blind spots on cruisers/capitals and tear them apart.
To not get lost in nitty gritty hypotheticals, i'd summarize it as the hammerhead is a pretty good balance point. Maybe certain builds should be less obvious (adjust mods/weapons), but if there's ships that "aren't as good" i'd really rather see those adjusted/buffed than the hammerhead heavily nerfed. A military gunship should be able to destroy/ruin the day of just about anything it points at if it can't defend.
-
Starsector does not appear to be (nor should be) balanced around 'bigger is better'.
Game was much more small ship friendly at the start. Those days are lo-o-ong gone.
There is no problem with a destroyer putting out cruiser level firepower, it both makes logical sense (mimicking basically any real life mobile dedicated firepower platform) and game sense (you don't just get to ignore the smaller things unless you're literally in a paragon).
The thing is, in real life, destroyers were special purpose boats dedicated to hunting down other boats. When first true cruisers were designed to deal with the torpedo carrying boat threat they were supposed to be capable of fending off about half- or even full flotilla of them at the same time. With no differentiating between torpedo boats or destroyers in mind. The only way for the boats to deal with the cruiser was a near point blank torpedo launch. Idea of the single destroyer sinking or blowing up the combat ready cruiser with its gunfire would be deemed ridiculous at best.
My take on the balance goal of starsector is to have ships that fill a role, and they should play like it.
Something like that, yes.
The hammerhead strikes me as the bread and butter military damage dealer, practically the AK-47 of the universe.
If it would be some puny AK-47 I'd have no trouble with that. But this AK-47 apart from the usual "safe", "single shot" and "full auto" has the "vulcan mega-bolter" setting.
It's not some cargo hauler converted to military out of necessity (which i'd love more of....), it's a basic, sturdy, maneuverable hunter/killer sort of thing that's designed to annihilate frigates that can't escape it, and get in blind spots on cruisers/capitals and tear them apart.
Not the blind spots. Head on. The question then arises as to why we need those cruisers specifically designed to kill their targets slowly.
To not get lost in nitty gritty hypotheticals, i'd summarize it as the hammerhead is a pretty good balance point. Maybe certain builds should be less obvious (adjust mods/weapons), but if there's ships that "aren't as good" i'd really rather see those adjusted/buffed than the hammerhead heavily nerfed. A military gunship should be able to destroy/ruin the day of just about anything it points at if it can't defend.
Thats a fair point.
-
The Assault chaingun and AAF both got individually buffed, so it only makes sense that the combination would end up getting, like, double buffed as a result. Individually neither are particularly game distorting changes, but the combination is clearly very potent. If one wished to nerf this combo and ONLY this particular combo, it is possible:
- Give the Assault Chaingun ammo (~30 rounds, ~400DPS recharge rate)
For most ships, this results in roughly 7 seconds of continuous fire before the weapon needs to "cool off". It's not something that would be often seen in normal use, but for AAF the insane fire rate will dry it out nearly instantly. The Hammerhead would need to compensate with expanded magazines, but that's a steep tax on a build which is already pretty lean on OP. Even with the hull mod the overall killing power would be drastically reduced, since the Hammerhead would need to wait and recharge between attack waves. It wouldn't be able to chain kills back to back anymore (well, that only really happens with domain drones).
-
ACs are still blindingly good on other ships (like the dominator and falcon/eagle) that work well as an SO ship
-
ACs get to above 1 damage to flux ratio against shields only at 1.4 efficiency of the latter.
In Hammerhead on Hammerhead action you need half of your flux pool to remove hp with ACs. What leaves you with the other half to remove shields. You need 2 to 1 ratio for that. And thats without enemy returning fire. With the AAF you need only half of your flux to remove shields and that gives you enough flux to tank. Simple as that.
Nothing wrong with the AC. Its AAF magic. And mostly for the regular KE weapons since it gives 4 to 1 ratio for LDAs compared to only 1.5 to 1 for the ACs (you still cant win against KE even without AAF on the opponent's side).
-
The hammhead was not an issue when AAF existed but ACs were at previous levels. (I still dont think it is but it definitely was not then).
AAF has existed in this form since .8a. We are on .9. Which i should not have to remind you was a pretty big time difference
-
The hammhead was not an issue when AAF existed but ACs were at previous levels. (I still dont think it is but it definitely was not then).
AAF has existed in this form since .8a. We are on .9. Which i should not have to remind you was a pretty big time difference
For what I can tell, you may not be having issues with piloting an op ship with press-f-to-win system at all. This chages nothing in the facts stated above.
-
Almost anything player piloted can kill anything not player piloted in a 1v1. Trying to argue balance with a player vs AI sim fight as your basis is utterly pointless. Congratulations you killed a Wolf by piloting a Dominator. Guess what - a lot of people on this forum alone could kill a Dominator by piloting a Wolf. I could kill an Afflictor with a Dominator too - and I could kill a Dominator with an Afflictor. Player piloted trumps everything.
-
Here's my sweetheart for personal krumping. This bad boy can basically 1v1 anything its size, and smashes most cruisers as well. The up front dual-MG pulls double duty. It absorbs incoming missiles, which keeps shield flux low, and shreds enemy shields at 16.6x efficiency. Hot! I don't really use the sabots, but they can pull double duty with cracking shields and reducing return fire with the EMP. The rear guns are nothing special, but they fill in some extra shield damage when the DMGs are busy and don't steal too much flux from the main guns.
The AI seems to work better with light needlers as its primary weapon. With the shorter range MGs they hover permanently out of range of the main guns and won't charge in without an opening. The needler does a good job cracking open shields and the burst power keeps them from wasting flux in melee. Alternatively, if you crack the shields as nearby support, the aggression of hammerheads will dramatically increase and they'll follow up for the kill.
Player piloted trumps everything.
This is very true, but there are a few combat styles that the AI struggle with. In particular, the AI struggles with the jousting style of phase ships and the intimate style of melee ships. Ships can be perfectly well balanced against each other in an AI context, but the ones weak in AI hands end up being much stronger in player hands. I don't think thee's any real way of escaping it, or even if addressing it is a good idea. Players are still going to fly bigger, meaner, comfier ships for any number of reasons. I do think it's great that there's still a lot of fun to be had in smaller ships as well.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Almost anything player piloted can kill anything not player piloted in a 1v1. Trying to argue balance with a player vs AI sim fight as your basis is utterly pointless.
Everything else requires actual effort or limited resources for that.
Congratulations you killed a Wolf by piloting a Dominator. Guess what - a lot of people on this forum alone could kill a Dominator by piloting a Wolf.
Dominator might have great firepower, but when the target can just dodge it, it might as well have none. When the target can pick when to engage and you cannot, you also cannot press the advantage. Dominator with railguns or similar guns can keep the Wolf away, but might not be able to kill it. Without sabots, harpoons or salamanders, it has no hope of dealing damage to the Wolf, outside of strike builds that can damage the Wolf, while it's overloaded from the initial strike.
-
@Lucky33
I think your problem is that you find the AAF system boring, as you said it's just ''press F to do moar dmg'', super simple. Hammerhead as a destroyer does is job and that's it, destroys *** but dies super quickly if it gets in trouble. One fighter wing can end it, one unlucky frigate behind it as well, it's really not absurdly broken as you say it is in a fleet setting. You can't look at ships in 1v1 scenarios and then come to a conclusion that x is strictly better than y in every situation.
-
Everything else requires actual effort or limited resources for that.
Player-piloted Medusa can kill any ship a player-piloted Hammerhead can, except carriers. And some that Hammerhead can't too (optimized Aurora or Eagle). Doesn't need to use SO or missiles for it either (harder opponents can take decent amount of time and cost some armor damage).
-
@Lucky33
I think your problem is that you find the AAF system boring, as you said it's just ''press F to do moar dmg'', super simple. Hammerhead as a destroyer does is job and that's it, destroys *** but dies super quickly if it gets in trouble. One fighter wing can end it, one unlucky frigate behind it as well, it's really not absurdly broken as you say it is in a fleet setting. You can't look at ships in 1v1 scenarios and then come to a conclusion that x is strictly better than y in every situation.
I'm well aware of all other scenarios. Hammerhead, along with Brawler and Lasher are my de facto standard for opening stages of the campaign. You hardly can present any parcticular threat to them that I know nothing about.
-
My bad. As in all balance discussion, when talking about ships, I assume there's no player input or skills in play. With player input (and skills), all bets are off and you have to declare Paragon OP for being able of soloing a Remnant Battlestation, Low-Tech and Midline Star Fortress and High-Tech Battlestation (mines are too difficult to deal with, when you spend so much time fortress shielding), Conquest for being able of soloing Remnant Ordos (though I'm not sure if it counts, because Ordos can vary in size and I didn't really pay attention to what I was fighting, so long it was named Ordo), Tempests for being able to solo all bounties that don't use too many cruisers (my best fight was wrecking 5 cruiser and 20 ships total hegemony bounty), so on.
Though, well, I think you mentioned this was about player control, so that's on me. I tried that loadout (or my approximation of it) and I was surprised Wolfs were stupid enough to let shields down in Dominator's rather short range. Big ships will tank all kinetics that come their way, but an itty bitty wolf with tin foil armour will happily tank four heavy machine guns and multiple light autocannons on with the hull. It feels as if Alex messed up how AI handles this at some point.
Additionally, I think you have missed a part of my post.
outside of strike builds that can damage the Wolf, while it's overloaded from the initial strike.
Was that not a strike Dominator?
Praise the Ludd for He has teached us the importance of range above all else!
Could you record your fight Hammerhead versus Onslaught fight? I have trouble doing it without skills and without flanking the Onslaught.
Also, aren't railguns a suboptimal choice there? Machine guns would deal more damage for lower flux. While they would struggle against Onslaught's hull, you've got assault chainguns to handle that.
I think your problem is that you find the AAF system boring, as you said it's just ''press F to do moar dmg'', super simple. Hammerhead as a destroyer does is job and that's it, destroys *** but dies super quickly if it gets in trouble. One fighter wing can end it, one unlucky frigate behind it as well, it's really not absurdly broken as you say it is in a fleet setting. You can't look at ships in 1v1 scenarios and then come to a conclusion that x is strictly better than y in every situation.
Hammerhead isn't as fragile as you think. It certainly isn't the most fighter-allergic destroyer, as that award goes to Medusa. My biggest gripe with it is that it's quite difficult to justify using destroyers that aren't Hammerhead (or Drover, but that's another discussion, one I already had).
-
I think your problem is that you find the AAF system boring, as you said it's just ''press F to do moar dmg'', super simple. Hammerhead as a destroyer does is job and that's it, destroys *** but dies super quickly if it gets in trouble. One fighter wing can end it, one unlucky frigate behind it as well, it's really not absurdly broken as you say it is in a fleet setting. You can't look at ships in 1v1 scenarios and then come to a conclusion that x is strictly better than y in every situation.
Hammerhead isn't as fragile as you think. It certainly isn't the most fighter-allergic destroyer, as that award goes to Medusa. My biggest gripe with it is that it's quite difficult to justify using destroyers that aren't Hammerhead (or Drover, but that's another discussion, one I already had).
Not sure it you made a typo here but how is Medusa weak to fighters in any way? Speedy ship with a teleport and omni shields where any weapon you put on it are great vs fighters (Heavy blasters, Pulse lasers, Phase lances and so on). While Hammerhead has turrets that face only front and 4 smalls that deal little damage to multiple fighters. Also I'm in shock that people don't use Sunders in later stages of campaign. For me, the most reliable and useful destroyer in vanilla (in a support role ofc).
-
Everything else requires actual effort or limited resources for that.
Player-piloted Medusa can kill any ship a player-piloted Hammerhead can, except carriers. And some that Hammerhead can't too (optimized Aurora or Eagle). Doesn't need to use SO or missiles for it either (harder opponents can take decent amount of time and cost some armor damage).
This is that I call "to put an effort". Medusa is as close to being an honest ship as it gets. You need to actually pilot it to be effective. Mobility system has nice gradual cooldown logic with some innate gambling feel. Limited number of universals force you to actually make a choice between "easy but limited" missiles and "harder but sustained" ballistics. Or just go "all I want is BOOM" and put the AMBs in. Its fantastic defencive efficiency is balanced by the fantastic offensive inneficiency.
-
outside of strike builds that can damage the Wolf, while it's overloaded from the initial strike.
Was that not a strike Dominator?
It was an anti-strike Dominator. Strongest burst is 160 from the HMG. Most powerfull shot is 50.
Praise the Ludd for He has teached us the importance of range above all else!
Could you record your fight Hammerhead versus Onslaught fight? I have trouble doing it without skills and without flanking the Onslaught.
Whats your point?
Also, aren't railguns a suboptimal choice there? Machine guns would deal more damage for lower flux.
I just strapped whatever I saw first. You can see that some mounts are empty on both ships. I missed them. This is how optimized these builds are.
-
It was an anti-strike Dominator. Strongest burst is 160 from the HMG. Most powerfull shot is 50.
I guess our definitions of strike differ, then, because while it doesn't technically have any alpha, it still has to overwhelm its target in a short time. It sacrifices range for sustaining what other ships would call an alpha strike, indefinitely.
Whats your point?
I want to see it done without skills and flanking, because I couldn't do it this way.
-
It was an anti-strike Dominator. Strongest burst is 160 from the HMG. Most powerfull shot is 50.
I guess our definitions of strike differ, then, because while it doesn't technically have any alpha, it still has to overwhelm its target in a short time. It sacrifices range for sustaining what other ships would call an alpha strike, indefinitely.
Do you realize that Storm Needler deals more damage per time unit than two HMG's combined while having a more damage per shot than Light Autocannon? And that Heavy Needler have 1500 burst with the same per shot damage as LA? And both of them have greater range than HMG and LA? And I can install them on Dominator? And they will evaporate that poor Wolf in the blink of an eye?
Whats your point?
I want to see it done without skills and flanking, because I couldn't do it this way.
You literally want me to waste my time so that you have fun.
No.
-
Do you realize that Storm Needler deals more damage per time unit than two HMG's combined while having a more damage per shot than Light Autocannon? And that Heavy Needler have 1500 burst with the same per shot damage as LA? And both of them have greater range than HMG and LA? And I can install them on Dominator? And they will evaporate that poor Wolf in the blink of an eye?
It can. It also isn't the only thing it can do. Heavy Needler has a 1500 burst that lasts a second, 4 HMGs have 1280 damage per second. Not equivalent, but the difference is that a heavy needler or two are less dangerous to be in range of, in exchange for greater range. Or rarer mount, in case of the Storm Needler. Heavy machine guns can't deal as much instant damage as heavy needlers, but your target doesn't stay in your range for only an instant.
It could be called a brawler loadout, too, but in this discussion, I focused more on the capability to suddenly deal a lot of damage, not necessarily about per shot damage. Hasn't in your simulator wolf entered the HMG range and got overwhelmed in a second or two with all the damage you put out?
You literally want me to waste my time so that you have fun.
No.
Then I'm forced to assume that that was done with either skills or going behind the Onslaught (or both), in which case, it's an image proving that the player can do great things in the game, but doesn't contribute to discussion of Hammerhead in any way.
-
Also I'm in shock that people don't use Sunders in later stages of campaign. For me, the most reliable and useful destroyer in vanilla (in a support role ofc).
Sunders struggle with a few aspects of the AI. Mainly, the ship is designed to always be fighting at maximum range, since it has no real bonuses in close quarters. However, the AI tends to push ships up really close when the enemy is fluxed out. The Sunder ends up in extra danger for no gain, and a single mistake is all it takes for the fragile ship to pop. It's otherwise a pretty decent and comfy ship to fly.
Do you realize that Storm Needler deals more damage per time unit than two HMG's combined while having a more damage per shot than Light Autocannon?
I keep hearing amazing things about the storm needler, but when I try it out all I get is disappointment. It starts out as short range among big guns, which is already a difficult situation for capital ships. It consumes an absolutely monumental amount of flux, and after an enemy ship loses shields the storm needler will still be going to town. This ends up dealing pitiful scratch damage vs. armor while overloading the aggressor. Yuck.
The bursty nature of the other needlers is way better. They can spike a shield really quickly, and after the shield fails the weapon can comfortably sit on cooldown, not wasting energy on armor. It's a good system.
-
Do you realize that Storm Needler deals more damage per time unit than two HMG's combined while having a more damage per shot than Light Autocannon? And that Heavy Needler have 1500 burst with the same per shot damage as LA? And both of them have greater range than HMG and LA? And I can install them on Dominator? And they will evaporate that poor Wolf in the blink of an eye?
It can. It also isn't the only thing it can do. Heavy Needler has a 1500 burst that lasts a second, 4 HMGs have 1280 damage per second.
And 444 HMGs deal 142080. Very usefull info. But two Heavy Needlers deal more damage per burst than Wolf have flux. Now thats a strike.
Or rarer mount, in case of the Storm Needler.
There happend to be two of them.
Heavy machine guns can't deal as much instant damage as heavy needlers, but your target doesn't stay in your range for only an instant.
There will be no target left. So, in a sense, you are right. Target will not stay.
It could be called a brawler loadout, too, but in this discussion, I focused more on the capability to suddenly deal a lot of damage, not necessarily about per shot damage. Hasn't in your simulator wolf entered the HMG range and got overwhelmed in a second or two with all the damage you put out?
You was trying to prove that such a nimble ship as Wolf will counter the firepower of the Dominator with mobility. I made a ludicrous variant for the latter with the sole purpose of not having anything resembling strike capabilities. And now you are trying to tell me that HMGs coupled with Light Autocannons are powerfull strike weapons. No, they are not. Its just that Wolf has weak defence and its mobility under the command of ai was not enough to compensate even for that level of the firepower.
Then I'm forced to assume that that was done with either skills or going behind the Onslaught (or both), in which case, it's an image proving that the player can do great things in the game, but doesn't contribute to discussion of Hammerhead in any way.
Wha... What are even talking about!? What Onslaught? I posted no images of Onslaught in either this or parent topics.
However, this is what I'm talking about. I was supposed to go out of my way and get a recording software, make it running, do a battle against Onslaught, win it and in the end it will be another "it proves nothing" comment. Because you are seeing things.
Unbelievable.
-
I keep hearing amazing things about the storm needler, but when I try it out all I get is disappointment. It starts out as short range among big guns, which is already a difficult situation for capital ships. It consumes an absolutely monumental amount of flux, and after an enemy ship loses shields the storm needler will still be going to town. This ends up dealing pitiful scratch damage vs. armor while overloading the aggressor. Yuck.
The bursty nature of the other needlers is way better. They can spike a shield really quickly, and after the shield fails the weapon can comfortably sit on cooldown, not wasting energy on armor. It's a good system.
Well. We are hunting Wolves here. SN is amazing against everything light and shield dependent. Against everything else its an opener. Supposed to be. But the truth is that there are no proper platfom/target combination for it.
-
The hammhead was not an issue when AAF existed but ACs were at previous levels. (I still dont think it is but it definitely was not then).
AAF has existed in this form since .8a. We are on .9. Which i should not have to remind you was a pretty big time difference
For what I can tell, you may not be having issues with piloting an op ship with press-f-to-win system at all. This chages nothing in the facts stated above.
I don’t understand what youre trying to say? I didnt say anything about piloting the hammerhead. I said it wasnt a balance issue.
-
I said:
a) Hammerhead is op. With proofs.
b) Hammerhead is op because AAF is op. WIth proofs.
c) If you dont think that Hammerhead being op is a balance issue thats OK. For you.
-
I said:
a) Hammerhead is op. With proofs.
b) Hammerhead is op because AAF is op. WIth proofs.
c) If you dont think that Hammerhead being op is a balance issue thats OK. For you.
Well pick one, it's either a or b. And I don't recall who started this whole thing but you clearly have an issue with AAF, why is Hammerhead even a subject? It's like giving a gun to a child, suddenly it's dangerous when before it pose no threat to anything. Are you gonna take away the gun or beat up the child? Same thing here, no change to Hammerhead is gonna solve this ''problem''. I mean you can up its DP cost to the point where it won't be good anymore, what's that gonna accomplish...
EDIT: Ok maybe that wasn't the best analogy but I hope you get the point.
-
Its both. They dont contradict.
Hammerhead was mentioned as an example of the powerfull ship what makes basic Falcon feel bland and weak. And this is why Falcon (P) feels overpowered. We are in the hijacked topic.
I cant do anything about it. Im not Alex. And I dont care that much how you would assume from reading all this. You can look up topics that Ive created and this is what I really care about.
-
But the basic falcon is not bland or weak. Its quite good. And the Hammerhead isn't OP. And AAF isn't OP. You didn't "prove" anything. You just stated it and expected people would take what you said as gospel.
Maybe this will make sense. The version of the hammerhead that you say is OP, was not OP in .8. But the hammerhead was not changed between .8 and .9
-
Thats my system of arguments:
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17698.msg277995#msg277995
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17698.msg278032#msg278032
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17698.msg278165#msg278165
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17698.msg278370#msg278370
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17698.msg278500#msg278500
As you can see its based on the purely objective facts.
-
The Falcon does not feel bland and weak.
"Purely objective facts" does not mean an opinion that you feel strongly about.
-
I'll be honest, I've been watching this thread for a while and Lucky's arguments left me very confused.
-
I'll be honest, I've been watching this thread for a while and Lucky's arguments left me very confused.
Do you have troubles with the numbers?
-
Well anyways, is it the Hammerhead (without taking into account AAF) or the AAF itself or the combination of both which you think is unbalanced ?
-
It's really the whole package that makes it work. A normal hammerhead using typical guns with AAF is nothing to be really scared of. A normal hammerhead using ACs is also no big deal, it's simply too slow to get up close and walk away unscathed. It NEEDS the safety overrides, it NEEDS the assault chainguns, and it NEEDS the accelerated ammo feeder all working together to really show off. A lot of things are adding together into this. You start with a brawly ship, give it sanic speed, load it up with brawly guns, supercharge those guns, and it all combos into a lethal package. It doesn't work nearly as well if any single piece is missing.
I would like to see a few more hammerheads actually in action though. Just because it's a beast in player hands doesn't mean the AI can make full use of it. The only place I've seem them really shine is against domain drones, at least in vanilla. Using ordinary vanilla settings, I have no problem using 3 SO hammerheads (with officers) to mop up any domain probe fleet without issue. They also work great towards the end of a grueling battle as a high speed cavalry to mop up. Personally I don't use them much in pure line vs line battles.
-
If you can only use them to mop up a fight, that's hardly a ringing endorsement is it? To only be able to use them when the enemy has already been defeated.
-
Well anyways, is it the Hammerhead (without taking into account AAF) or the AAF itself or the combination of both which you think is unbalanced ?
AAF.
-
If you can only use them to mop up a fight, that's hardly a ringing endorsement is it? To only be able to use them when the enemy has already been defeated.
Hey, 2 minutes of PPT can only go so far. It's a hell of a mop up during that time, but destroyers just aren't made to jump into capital slug fests, no matter how good they are. They're certainly not made to deal with wave after wave of reinforcements. Use them for what they're good at, and they're VERY good at shredding stragglers*.
*Lone radiants also count as stragglers
-
I would like to see a few more hammerheads actually in action though.
You can use the Fleet Tester mod (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15137.0) to arrange whatever fleets you want against one another. So long you don't need to load new variants (which you might want to do, as enemy variants can't be edited in game), you can change playerside loadouts and ships for both sides without rebooting the game.