Medium Ballistics: Probably Thumper. It is not so bad that it is useless or a liability, but all it is good for is finishing off enemies in the early game when I have junk. I do not see a use for endgame loadouts when I have everything.The thumper is definitely top pick for a tragic weapon. It has all the weaknesses of a fragmentation weapon, but isn't good as point defense. The 5% armor system deals a devastating blow to frag weapons, and impact Mitigation 1 also armor caps naked hull.
LR-PD seems like a good idea, but in practice, regular PD lasers work better for point defense, and Tactical Lasers work better at long range.
To me the single light autocannon stands out as the worst weapon. It is inaccurate, inefficient, low DPS, and high OP cost for its DPS. In its current form it has no redeeming qualities. I believe it is getting an extremely large accuracy boost for next version: that, a change to 1.0 efficiency, and a reduction to 3 OP would make it an ok gun.
I think I know which weapon is the worst in game, and it's the Standard Bomb Bay (https://starsector.fandom.com/wiki/Standard_Bomb_Bay), I mean why would anyone equip a ship whith one of these things if you can equip a carrier whith Piranas, which use the same weapon and are better at using it, which is not to say much since piranas are a joke.
I think I know which weapon is the worst in game, and it's the Standard Bomb Bay (https://starsector.fandom.com/wiki/Standard_Bomb_Bay), I mean why would anyone equip a ship whith one of these things if you can equip a carrier whith Piranas, which use the same weapon and are better at using it, which is not to say much since piranas are a joke.
Sorry to be a buzzkill here, but you realise that the Standard Bomb Bay is not acquirable in the campaign? The fact you can put it on ships in the single missions is an oversight to me, it should have the SYSTEM tag like any other fighter-only weapon. Given that, I don't think it's fair to call it out as "a bad weapon".
The 5% armor system deals a devastating blow to frag weapons, and impact Mitigation 1 also armor caps naked hull.I would really really like a ship system that gets around this, or at least reduces it, even if it's only for certain hulls or something. It really strips out a lot of interesting builds (which still wouldn't be top tier but at least wouldn't feel painful to field).
Alright then, I'll play ball.
Standard Bomb Bay = worst weapon in vanilla? Nah.Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/zqK0Dbx.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/xGdwGmQ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KBRharD.png)[close]
the only reason I put it as the worst is because it has limited ammo...
If you want HBL done right, check out Machete from Disassble Reassemble.True true, that thing is really great. If I want to spend a medium energy slot for a PD weapon, I also want that weapon to do more than just hit a few missiles on the way (and even that's not crazy good since flak is the king of PD). That got me thinking, would an energy aoe weapon be too good or break balance?
One thing that I wanted to ask is if any of you have tried builds for ships where the medium or even the large slots are used for the point defence with the other slots being used for the actual weapons? Like a Medusa with two heavy burst lasers and so on?Can't say that I have, at least I don't remember similar builds. Because pretty much all bigger weapons have more range and dps. But the biggest problem imo is ballistics having no good large PD option and energies having bad small weapons. If that weren't the case I could see myself using a Odyssey build with Paladins or a PD Onslaught as you mentioned.
If that weren't the case I could see myself using a Odyssey build with Paladins or a PD Onslaught as you mentioned.Paladin would be no good because its flux cost is too high. I tried Paladin on Paragon as an alternative autopulse, but the flux cost is high enough to overload Paragon.
Large Missile: Nothing here is terribly bad but Hammer Barrage is obviously the weakest of all, makes sense since it's available on open market but it usually misses most targets (it's like a Hurricane MIRV but inverted) unless you're point blank. Fast daamage but it kinda runs out quickly, which is ok I guess since mostly Ludds and Pirates use it.Radiants too, and they are nasty.
the only reason I put it as the worst is because it has limited ammo...
Hum. So... What about missiles?
The Standard Bomb Bay has 10 shots each doing 400 HE damage for 4000 lifetime damage. That's easily comparable to a Harpoon MRM Rack or Atropos Torpedo Rack as far as total damage output goes, accounting for the reduced effectiveness against heavy armour and then some.
Not trying to undermine your opinion here, just trying to understand why you think the bomb bay is quite so awful.
If the proxy mine launcher had an autoloader like the pilum I could see myself using it as a fighter denial system. As it stands it's limited ammo vs unlimited fighters makes it less desirable.My vague memories of trying out the Proximity Charge Launcher as a ship weapon was that it was slow and can even get shot down and so realistically speaking never seems to be in the right place. It's good on the unlikely chance it does hit.
I could give it a go on my next run however, putting it on my low tech ships as the anti-fighter to a vulcans anti-missile.
9 OP for 700 range Light Needler is too high, maybe 8 at most, provided something is done to Railgun. If not, 7 OP so that is it a choice between damage and accuracy (railgun) or speed and flux efficiency (needler). Railgun has been unchanged for a long time, and it was not broken. Light Needler was worth 9 OP when it had 800 range (and lots of ammo when ballistics had ammo). 7 OP may be less than Arbalest's 8, but Arbalest is a basic Open Market weapon (like Thumper and Mortars) while Railgun and Needlers are elite weapons that require high rep and commission to buy (until player steals the blueprints).The cost of the Light Needler is appropriate compared with Light Dual Cannon. Light Needler does about the same amount of dps, with a "free" inbuilt 3 OP worth of flux vents. That's already worth 8 OP. It has faster projectile speed with better accuracy and +100 range. Another +1 OP for that seems very reasonable for all those advantages especially when that extra range is worth +1 OP all by itself.
Proxy bombs are terrible for PD. They are too slow and run out of ammo too quickly. To add insult to injury, they cost 12 OP instead of the standard 10. If proxy bombs cost 7 OP or gained ammo regeneration, they could be worth using. As they are, they are only good on flash wings.
As for standard bomb bay, I'm pretty sure at some point it was available. Don't know if it's been patched out or if it was produced from blueprint.It is available in the campaign, but only via salvage, and has no blueprints. If you explore long enough you can guarantee you'll find one or two of them.
If the proxy mine launcher had an autoloader like the pilum I could see myself using it as a fighter denial system.It works okay but still isn't super useful due to being slow, drifting ordnance that doesn't care about friendly fire, which absolutely will bite you in the flank if you use it enough.
For medium ballistics, you guessed it: flak cannons. See Devastator for precisely the same reason. Dual flaks are only slightly better due to the better coverage. Those things REALLY need a narrower detonation range by a little bit. Low damage on an AOE weapon is fine but it needs to TRY to pop somewhere in the same GALAXY as the targets.Are you playing with some wacky mods? I've never witnessed a flak cannon detonate prematurely, it always hits at max range. Still I'm shocked to see someone mention flaks as the worst.
For large ballistics I have to give it to the devastator, honestly. The huge variance in detonation range makes it hideously unreliable for point defense (you know, its apparently intended purpose?) and the damage to shields and armor is underwhelming. For the OP cost, I'd take literally anything else. A storm needler, a hellbore--anything.
For medium ballistics, you guessed it: flak cannons. See Devastator for precisely the same reason. Dual flaks are only slightly better due to the better coverage. Those things REALLY need a narrower detonation range by a little bit. Low damage on an AOE weapon is fine but it needs to TRY to pop somewhere in the same GALAXY as the targets.
Small ballistics? Hmm. I usually try to get away from small ships as fast as possible so I honestly don't monitor small weapons as closely. Have to pass on this one.
Most missiles are really not my bag; the limited ammo turns a lot of ships into VERY limited use vessels and I prefer my boys to be able to duke it out. I tend to avoid reapers more than anything though; the critically limited shots combined with the likelihood of my lemming AI ships blowing themselves up is just too much to bear. Fantastic damage yeah, but if you miss...let's just say I don't need that kind of negativity in my life and leave it at that.
the group it's in, compared to missiles it's an actually good weapon, but because it's in balistics it falls far because of it's ammo, AM blaster has limited ammo, but can it consume all of it in 10-15 seonds? No, that's the reason a limited ammo weapon can be good, whie other can be bad or in the SBB case, being the worst weapon in game.
... the worst them becomes Proximity Mine Launcher.
If the proxy mine launcher had an autoloader like the pilum I could see myself using it as a fighter denial system. As it stands it's limited ammo vs unlimited fighters makes it less desirable.
[Light Needler stuff]
For medium ballistics, you guessed it: flak cannons. See Devastator for precisely the same reason.
Most missiles are really not my bag; the limited ammo turns a lot of ships into VERY limited use vessels and I prefer my boys to be able to duke it out. I tend to avoid reapers more than anything though; the critically limited shots combined with the likelihood of my lemming AI ships blowing themselves up is just too much to bear. Fantastic damage yeah, but if you miss...let's just say I don't need that kind of negativity in my life and leave it at that.
Recently I've been trying some weird builds for my ships, like an onslaught with it's mediums being HMGs and only using it's central large slot for a large weapon, the other two being more HMGs.
One thing that I wanted to ask is if any of you have tried builds for ships where the medium or even the large slots are used for the point defence with the other slots being used for the actual weapons? Like a Medusa with two heavy burst lasers and so on?
The real elephant in the room is Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler. Range is important and those two weapons have the extraordinary range of 1000. Those two weapons in combination are generally favoured over every other non-PD medium ballistic weapons even with all their disadvantages.Range is powerful because the AI is not terribly reliable at choosing good engagement ranges. Case in point, how many times has anyone seen a gauss Conquest charge in to secure a kill, usually against itself? Ugh. Or how many times have you seen a dozen kites all hover perfectly inside a Paragon's disco range? Long range weapons cause opponents to refuse getting in close where they would otherwise have the edge and the results aren't always pretty.
The real elephant in the room is Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler. Range is important and those two weapons have the extraordinary range of 1000. Those two weapons in combination are generally favoured over every other non-PD medium ballistic weapons even with all their disadvantages.What elephant? You just described the lowest possible DPS weapon combo. People favour them because they have range, and people like having range on ships. If you seriously think they're broken for their OP cost I've got bad news for ya.
What's your problem? Why act so hostile and then repeat exactly what I wrote? The range of Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler make all other medium non-PD ballistic not favoured. That'll require a discussion on what the difference between broken and simply favoured is. Are they broken? Of course not, the other medium weapons are still useful, just that they aren't favoured in most configs since range 1000 is so much better. For instance is the railgun broken? No it isn't it is just undercosted.The real elephant in the room is Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler. Range is important and those two weapons have the extraordinary range of 1000. Those two weapons in combination are generally favoured over every other non-PD medium ballistic weapons even with all their disadvantages.What elephant? You just described the lowest possible DPS weapon combo. People favour them because they have range, and people like having range on ships. If you seriously think they're broken for their OP cost I've got bad news for ya.
And instead of making railgun more expensive just further increase the delay before it starts firing. Then lower Light needler to 8 OP and it's all good. There's really no reason to be lower than that, it's a pretty rare weapon after all.
What's your problem? Why act so hostile and then repeat exactly what I wrote? The range of Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler make all other medium non-PD ballistic not favoured. That'll require a discussion on what the difference between broken and simply favoured is. Are they broken? Of course not, the other medium weapons are still useful, just that they aren't favoured in most configs since range 1000 is so much better. For instance is the railgun broken? No it isn't it is just undercosted.I wasn't being hostile. And what did I repeat when you just said ''disadvantages''? That can mean literally anything. I'm just telling you they're fine, to say that any other non PD option is bad in most configs is a lie. I mean you might be using them everywhere but I know not everyone is like that.
I think the difference between light needler and railgun is far more significant in AI hands rather than in player hands. Ship behavior on both sides is altered by flux levels and the needler surges flux quickly. A needler burst can quickly bring a ship towards overload, so the attacker will push in harder than normal. Good for staying on the attack and ultimately scoring kills.
As anyone ever found anything to do with it?
As anyone ever found anything to do with it?
Pilum defence.
That you can compare railgun to medium sized weapons says it all really.Not a bad idea when 9 OP is just shy of mid-grade medium. That is the reason why I am not opposed to 8 OP on Railgun, thanks to Arbalest. (Arbalest can be a bit junky since it is Open Market grade.) 9 OP is too close to Heavy Autocannon. 9 OP on light needler? Not with Arbalest and Railgun around.
Antimatter Blaster is fine. It has a use and if it was cheaper it would be even more favoured as a weapon of choice for phase ships and as a strike weapon. It's good that weapons that can fulfil different roles exist, otherwise all loadouts will look the same.I doubt it. Antimatter blaster will always be taken by phase ships piloted by player because there is not much else those ships can use well. As a general purpose assault weapon, it stinks. The only reason it cost is somewhat justified is AI exploitation, which usually means outright paralyze a ship for twelve seconds after hitting its shield when its flux is nearly capped. Kind of a lame reason. If not for stupid tricks like that, it would be bad because its stats on paper are worse than IR Pulse Laser.
I've got bad news for ya. Why pretend I wrote that they are broken when I did not? There is no need to pretend I wrote soemthing I did not, when it is just you.What's your problem? Why act so hostile and then repeat exactly what I wrote? The range of Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler make all other medium non-PD ballistic not favoured. That'll require a discussion on what the difference between broken and simply favoured is. Are they broken? Of course not, the other medium weapons are still useful, just that they aren't favoured in most configs since range 1000 is so much better. For instance is the railgun broken? No it isn't it is just undercosted.I wasn't being hostile. And what did I repeat when you just said ''disadvantages''? That can mean literally anything. I'm just telling you they're fine, to say that any other non PD option is bad in most configs is a lie. I mean you might be using them everywhere but I know not everyone is like that.
I don't see why anyone would try to use the antimatter blaster as a general purpose weapon and compare it to such weapons. There are plenty of other energy weapons to fulfil that role. Not to mention antimatter blaster is limited by ammo so you can't use it as as general purpose weapon anyways. Surely as a weapon instead of proclaiming it overcosted, you could increase its cost to see where the tipping point where you would stop using it. lets see. For antimatter Afflictor, it'll have to be something ridiculously high like 20 OP. There aren't any alternatives for that afflictor playstyle of repeatable spike damage so that playstyle will simply disappear for the Afflictor. For Harbinger, as it has three other good alternatives in Heavy Blaster, Mining Blaster and Phase lance, it'll depend on preference, but lets say 12 OP. Underpriced the anitmatter blaster is not.I say it is overpriced because outside of strikes from phase ships or overloading shields with it, I see no reason to use it. Has ammo (no good for multi-round fights), horrible range (400), horribly slow rate-of-fire (missing hurts), massive flux spike(s), and even minor windup (no good for Hyperion with maybe a single frame to act between teleports without getting shot). It is an awkward weapon that is the best at some special teams stuff (likely flagship only too) and bad at nearly anything else. It is nearly as expensive as mining blaster. I probably would not put it at 5, though. It feels at the level of burst PD, so maybe 7 OP. I do not think it is as versatile as mining blaster. Can the AI use AM Blaster well? AI seems incompetent with smaller phase ships. Is there a good reason to use AM Blasters on more conventional ships the AI can use better, like say maybe Medusa or Aurora?
The real elephant in the room is Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler. Range is important and those two weapons have the extraordinary range of 1000. Those two weapons in combination are generally favoured over every other non-PD medium ballistic weapons even with all their disadvantages.What elephant? You just described the lowest possible DPS weapon combo. People favour them because they have range, and people like having range on ships. If you seriously think they're broken for their OP cost I've got bad news for ya.
And instead of making railgun more expensive just further increase the delay before it starts firing. Then lower Light needler to 8 OP and it's all good. There's really no reason to be lower than that, it's a pretty rare weapon after all.
As anyone ever found anything to do with it?
Pilum defence.
You are always better off spending same OP budget on basic PD lasers, even if you fill fewer slots.
I will just throw into all this that I feel the railgun is a pretty good "standard". Maybe it's too powerful, but I think it highlights more how many weapons are just not up to snuff. Railguns and Needlers competing for space ought to be differentiated, imo, by just making needlers way better at burst, and making railguns the "wear them down" option.Yea I also feel similar, most weapons just feel meh without some skills, and even then they don't feel ''dangerous''. It's like when you see a ship with a HIL, Autopulse, Mjolnirs, Reapers, Assault chainguns and so on, you actually think ''guess i'll need to look out for that'' before the battle or as you see it coming. But most weapons are just either wet noodles or inaccurate flux hogs. They only ever seem dangerous when massed on stations. I get that not every weapon can be strong and always useful, but nerfing weapons that actually feel good to use is not the right way imo.
I will just throw into all this that I feel the railgun is a pretty good "standard". Maybe it's too powerful, but I think it highlights more how many weapons are just not up to snuff. Railguns and Needlers competing for space ought to be differentiated, imo, by just making needlers way better at burst, and making railguns the "wear them down" option.Yea I also feel similar, most weapons just feel meh without some skills, and even then they don't feel ''dangerous''. It's like when you see a ship with a HIL, Autopulse, Mjolnirs, Reapers, Assault chainguns and so on, you actually think ''guess i'll need to look out for that'' before the battle or as you see it coming. But most weapons are just either wet noodles or inaccurate flux hogs. They only ever seem dangerous when massed on stations. I get that not every weapon can be strong and always useful, but nerfing weapons that actually feel good to use is not the right way imo.
I think ideally every weapon should have its "i'm the best" spot. One of the big areas for this, that allows for weak weapons, would normally be "I need 5000 of these". So a light motar might make sense if you're going to have a swarming fleet of 20 frigates, because it's cheap to get vs say a light autocannon.YES! Just as weaker units in rts games fall off in late game, they can still be good in large numbers. Megas often says that 2 Light mortars are better than 1 LAG so there's at least some of that decision making in Starsector. The problem is other damage types and energy weapons as a whole (because you're always better with any beam PD other than Mining laser).
Unfortunately the economy is kind of a mess, especially for ships/weapons, so scarcity rarely (if ever) limits you except in a few niche cases, and thus such weapons don't really shine and just feel like filler.
Yeah light motar isn't the best example, and it's way more obvious with ships (Condor vs Drover), but it's certainly a way weapons could be balanced that is pretty heavily underused right now. I'd much prefer weapon/ship acquisition be a bit harder so that decisions (such as getting a commission or specing into industry for more salvage) matter more, as right now there's very few things that are actually hard to acquire in whatever number you need.I think ideally every weapon should have its "i'm the best" spot. One of the big areas for this, that allows for weak weapons, would normally be "I need 5000 of these". So a light motar might make sense if you're going to have a swarming fleet of 20 frigates, because it's cheap to get vs say a light autocannon.YES! Just as weaker units in rts games fall off in late game, they can still be good in large numbers. Megas often says that 2 Light mortars are better than 1 LAG so there's at least some of that decision making in Starsector. The problem is other damage types and energy weapons as a whole (because you're always better with any beam PD other than Mining laser).
Unfortunately the economy is kind of a mess, especially for ships/weapons, so scarcity rarely (if ever) limits you except in a few niche cases, and thus such weapons don't really shine and just feel like filler.
... Antimatter blaster will always be taken by phase ships piloted by player because there is not much else those ships can use well. As a general purpose assault weapon, it stinks. The only reason it cost is somewhat justified is AI exploitation, which usually means outright paralyze a ship for twelve seconds after hitting its shield when its flux is nearly capped. Kind of a lame reason. If not for stupid tricks like that, it would be bad because its stats on paper are worse than IR Pulse Laser.
(... and further AMB discussion...)
You say Antimatter Blaster is overpriced because it works very well in situations intended for its use and performs in cases outside of that? In that case every weapon is overpriced.I don't see why anyone would try to use the antimatter blaster as a general purpose weapon and compare it to such weapons. There are plenty of other energy weapons to fulfil that role. Not to mention antimatter blaster is limited by ammo so you can't use it as as general purpose weapon anyways. Surely as a weapon instead of proclaiming it overcosted, you could increase its cost to see where the tipping point where you would stop using it. lets see. For antimatter Afflictor, it'll have to be something ridiculously high like 20 OP. There aren't any alternatives for that afflictor playstyle of repeatable spike damage so that playstyle will simply disappear for the Afflictor. For Harbinger, as it has three other good alternatives in Heavy Blaster, Mining Blaster and Phase lance, it'll depend on preference, but lets say 12 OP. Underpriced the anitmatter blaster is not.I say it is overpriced because outside of strikes from phase ships or overloading shields with it, I see no reason to use it. Has ammo (no good for multi-round fights), horrible range (400), horribly slow rate-of-fire (missing hurts), massive flux spike(s), and even minor windup (no good for Hyperion with maybe a single frame to act between teleports without getting shot). It is an awkward weapon that is the best at some special teams stuff (likely flagship only too) and bad at nearly anything else. It is nearly as expensive as mining blaster. I probably would not put it at 5, though. It feels at the level of burst PD, so maybe 7 OP. I do not think it is as versatile as mining blaster. Can the AI use AM Blaster well? AI seems incompetent with smaller phase ships. Is there a good reason to use AM Blasters on more conventional ships the AI can use better, like say maybe Medusa or Aurora?
The only other viable small energy hard-flux option is IR Pulse Laser, which is mediocre except maybe on capitals. (Aurora can use lots of IR Pulse Laser, but it is not as good as two heavy blasters and nothing else). AM Blaster is even worse for brawling, and I certainly would not want to use it as PD if that is even possible.
I would only use AM Blaster on non-Doom phase ships, mostly because they cannot brawl. (I would prefer old cloak to come back so phase ships can brawl with autocannons and assault guns, something AI can do.) I guess I would use it on Scarab flagship, except Scarab stinks in 0.9a. (It was great in 0.7.2a, though.) Ever since invulnerability frames were removed from decloaking, I am not fond of AM Blaster on Afflictor because low range and health gives little room for error, and Afflictor can cheese fights with Reapers (for now). For now, Harbinger flagship is the only ship I use AM Blasters with. Mining Blaster and Phase Lances are options on Harbinger, but they are not as good as AM Blasters. Phase Lance is competitive, but AM Blaster might be a bit better.
Wtf is brawling? Is that different from general purpose?
It is also excellent on any ship that can take advantage of situations where you DON'T need to trade flux (the enemy is already fluxed up from another ship, you can target the enemy's engines around the shield, etc). Ships under AI that can pull it off: Wolf, Medusa, Phase Ships, Hyperion. I might be missing a few, but on all those ships I mount AM blasters with large success.
I don't see where I have placed a personal attack on anyone.
Would you also say that Assault Chaingun is overpriced because it can't be used successfully outside of safety override builds? Or Tachyon lance because it can only produce soft flux? Or all the Kinetic weapons because they are poor at damaging armour? No of course not, as you can only compare them with the weapons within their own use. And so you must consider, does antimatter blaster in afflictor or in harbinger or in any other ship deserve to be cheaper? No it does not. Its cost can be risen in comparison.
Do you think it is that I try to reply to every signle point megas has made? Or is it the question marks?
Good thing others reminded me because I've been *** on Heavy burst laser as the worst energy medium and completely forgot about Ion pulser, that's how much I care about it. I can't remember ever using that on something, apart from testing the weapon when it came out. I think I put one on Aurora (front hardpoint), I was so damn disappointed, one of the few weapons that bring up the question ''why is this a thing?''. So yeah at least the Heavy burst laser has SOME use, even tho I hardly used it, but Ion pulser takes the cake.
I'm not sure, I find the Ion Pulser's overall damage output quite respectable. It's only 75 non-EMP damage per shot (exactly halfway between the IR and regular Pulse Lasers), but its burst DPS is incredible. For 20 base shots (up to 30 with Expanded Mags) I think it's decent.
The only really good use for emp is to disable most guns on enemy ship in sync and vent in their face. Obviously, only player can do this.
I don't use Ion Pulser, because I don't use SO much at all.
On the other hand, I have genuinely never used Heavy Burst Laser. I have used mining lasers, mining blasters and other crap weaponry, but never HBL. Or Paladin PD.
Its a bit of a radical solution, but I would want to see burst PD and HBL converted to high dps, rapid fire frag burst beams. Would help with sparks and their armor melting ways as well!
....but never HBL. Or Paladin PD.Same.
....but never HBL. Or Paladin PD.Same.
The small Burst Laser is better for a lower cost (both OP and flux), so I always prefer to use small energy mounts for PD wherever gives adequate cover and leave the medium energy mounts for ship-to-ship guns.
Downsizing the mounts is also something that happens a fair bit for medium energy, just because the the HBL is so underwhelming when you want PD.
The Paladin is fairly unique in that it has possibly the most restrictive usage options of any weapon in the game.
It's completely pointless in a hardpoint.
Of the two ships that can realistically mount it in turrets (Paragon & Odyssey), neither can realy use it without seriously undergunning themselves and undermining the whole point of fielding a capital.
If you put it in the Paragon's turrets, you've reduced its firepower by 50%, and restricted what's left to whatever you can point the entire ship at.
If you put it in one of the Odyssey's port turrets you again reduce its firepower by 50%, and if you put it in the starboard turret it's more-or-less useless as that side is facing away from most of the threats.
Paladin is not a bad weapon because it doesn't perform, as it's actually very good at PD. There's just no real opportunity to use it.
Pilums are definitely the 2nd worse.
Seriously though, Pilums might feel crappy on execution, but don't forget that they're A) incredibly cheap, and B) insane when you start stacking them.
[RE Pilums...]
And also very cheap to counter, because they are slow and have no missile hp to speak of. Single PD laser shuts down 1-2 Pilum launchers. Actual PD, like paired dual flaks can stop any amount of them (as long as ship doesn't stupidly charge right into Pilum swarm, which AI may do). Even meager efficiency Pilums enjoy comes from AI flaws, rather than Pilum inherent stats.
Pilums are definitely far more deadly against phase ships...
Against AI phase ships.Not really. Pilums can place significant pressure a player phase ship as well. Most missiles can be dodged once and it's over, but pilums have to be avoided over and over. Even if it's survivable, it's still an obstacle that other missiles don't provide.
I think Pilums are very weak. If you have that many medium missile slots, filling them with harpoons is much more deadly.They feel somewhat like piranha's in that you're supposed to use them as a cheap but efficient alternative and hit a critical mass. I generally load them on my piranha carrying condors, mass them, and then go cap/station hunting. They're obviously pretty bad vs frigates, but with enough of them on the filed you really screw with the enemy AI, and the sustained pressure isn't nothing.
I think Pilums are very weak. If you have that many medium missile slots, filling them with harpoons is much more deadly.
QuoteAgainst AI phase ships.Not really. Pilums can place significant pressure a player phase ship as well. Most missiles can be dodged once and it's over, but pilums have to be avoided over and over. Even if it's survivable, it's still an obstacle that other missiles don't provide.
QuoteAgainst AI phase ships.Not really. Pilums can place significant pressure a player phase ship as well. Most missiles can be dodged once and it's over, but pilums have to be avoided over and over. Even if it's survivable, it's still an obstacle that other missiles don't provide.
Nope, player-piloted phase ship can handle any amount of Pilums without significant efficiency loss.Spoilerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1fF21o0Ntc[close]
Maxed out character Afflictor vs 20 ECCM + Racks Pilum spamming Falcons (+Talons hangar and Swarmers). Even for no skills Afflictor (not on video) real obstacles are Talons and Swarmers, not Pilums per se.
Also, overspammed Pilums cause notable amount of friendly fire.
Pilums are useless vs the player. But it works well versus the AI in large numbers, add in fighters and its even better. The problem is pilums have trouble catching up with enemies when you get a good kill rate going and thus become useless again.Indeed. The Pilums are less about dealing damage, and more about maintaining space superiority along with fighters. They act like mobile contact mines and does the job better than proximity charge launchers. Beam weapons are the primary means to defeat any phase ship (especially beam burst lasers like phase lance).
Pilums cause notable amount of friendly fire.Not once in any of the numerous instances of using Pilum carpets have I ever seen this.
Not once in any of the numerous instances of using Pilum carpets have I ever seen this.
(Frag Damage)*(Anti-Armor/(anti-armor + armor))