Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Painting the Stars (02/07/20)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BonhommeCarnaval

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
General Discussion / Re: favourite capital ship
« on: September 17, 2013, 12:42:11 AM »
Firing storm needlers vs Paragon means you are within range of it's 2 heavy needlers

Good point, I hadn't thought of that because until recently I've used flak cannons in those universal slots as my Paragon's only PD defense. Lately I've started using burst laser PD a lot so I'd have every reason to fit heavy needlers on the Paragon.

With that kind of setup, the Conquest would have no choice but to stay away from it for the entire battle.

2
General Discussion / Re: favourite capital ship
« on: September 17, 2013, 12:29:33 AM »
You don't shoot while the Fortress Shield is up, you dissipate your flux while the Paragon generates hard flux.

I wouldn't use HILs on a Paragon in every day usage. I'd definitely go for Autopulses, otherwise I'll die to the first enemy Paragon I run into because I can't scratch his shields.

3
General Discussion / Re: favourite capital ship
« on: September 17, 2013, 12:18:17 AM »
I forgot about the optics, although a Paragon with HILs and Gravitons is a Paragon specifically fit to 1v1 a Conquest. A Conquest with Storms and Maulers is an extremely versatile fit that also happens to be a huge threat to a Paragon (and everything else). The fortress shield is a non-factor as it prevents the use of weapons and a Conquest with Expanded magazines has a lot of ammo. Depending on the Paragon's setup, perhaps the Conquest would run out of ammo eventually and have to leave.

4
General Discussion / Re: Fighters viability
« on: September 16, 2013, 11:49:31 PM »
I tried using an Astral with a bunch of Broadsword wings earlier today. I wanted them to attack the enemies one at a time, super aggressively like a swarm of angry bees. What actually happened is that they cruised around, hesitant, with no purpose and not posing a threat. They were so ridiculously passive that most of them died before they could get a shot off. They were on Search & Destroy.

Back to flying an actual capital ship and ignoring fighters as they should be. They're irrelevant after an hour or 2 of playtime.

search and destroy is the wrong thing to have them on then. if you want them to all attack one target at a time use Engage on one target at a time and everything available will swarm that target

I tried that too, they were still extremely hesitant and still died one wing at a time without accomplishing anything. I've only given it a few tries but it's not looking good.

5
General Discussion / Re: favourite capital ship
« on: September 16, 2013, 11:48:12 PM »
Most of the time (in a 1v1 simulation anyway) by the time you manage to get behind the Onslaught with your Conquest you will be clinging to life.  Though the Conquest is indeed more manuverable, it isn't so much of a difference that you can loop around outside of the Onslaught's range and then cut in behind it.  No, you have to burn past it at point blank range and THEN use maneuvering thrusters and cut in behind it hard.  That will work, but most of your weapons will be offline from the pounding you took in getting there.  This assumes a 1v1 in a sim where the Onslaught isn't distracted by anything else of course.  Real battles are totally different and the Conquest is great for the mobility it offers.  As Gunnyfreak said, it's great for controlling the battlefield vs smaller ships.  I voted Onslaught though; being able to tank hits on the armor with no need for shields is very satisfying.  Not to mention the firepower.

Right. That, and all things being equal with both the Conquest and Onslaught outfitted with ITU, the built-in Thermal Particle Cannons have extraordinary range that'll prevent the Conquest from getting behind the Onslaught without first taking large amounts of damage and/or disabling many of its weapons. In a capital v. capital 1-on-1 fight, the Onslaught is tough to match, even with it in AI hands. That said, its extraordinarily slow speed, low maneuverability, and high deployment cost make it pretty tough to deploy economically.

Nevertheless, I voted for the Onslaught.

Maulers have the same range as the TPCs and the Conquest has the advantage in maneuvering. If the Onslaught ever uses his burn drive while the Conquest is sitting at the maximum range of his Maulers as he should, the Conquest will dodge and the Onslaught's TPCs become irrelevant. The Onslaught dies to a Conquest behind him.

If both players play perfectly though, it'll be a fight between their respective shields' ability to withstand the enemy's Maulers and TPCs (the latter mostly missing IMO), with the Conquest deciding whether he wants to move into large ballistic weapons range (optimally Storm Needlers) in which case the Onslaught has 1 or 2, the Conquest has 2.

The Storm Needlers force the Onslaught's shields off otherwise it's a near instant overload. The Maulers disable his front facing weapons.

The Conquest has higher flux capacity, twice as much base dissipation but unfortunately 1.4 base flux/dmg as opposed to the Onslaught's 1.0. On top of that, I would say the Onslaught has less spare OP to dump into dissipation than the Conquest.

If I had to put my money on one of those 2 ships in a duel between 2 highly and evenly skilled players, I'd bet on the Conquest.

I also think the Conquest beats a Paragon because the only weapons the Paragon can use that would reach the Conquest are the High Intensity Laser and the Tachyon Lance, both of these choices are rather useless if that's all you can hit your target with, dealing mediocre soft flux damage to a Conquest with extremely good dissipation.

6
General Discussion / Re: Fighters viability
« on: September 16, 2013, 11:29:59 PM »
I tried using an Astral with a bunch of Broadsword wings earlier today. I wanted them to attack the enemies one at a time, super aggressively like a swarm of angry bees. What actually happened is that they cruised around, hesitant, with no purpose and not posing a threat. They were so ridiculously passive that most of them died before they could get a shot off. They were on Search & Destroy.

Back to flying an actual capital ship and ignoring fighters as they should be. They're irrelevant after an hour or 2 of playtime.

7
General Discussion / Re: favourite capital ship
« on: September 15, 2013, 07:37:48 PM »
This is a straightforward thing to work out, requiring just a tiny bit of math.

You're taking theory crafting to the extreme and missing a lot of factors that do make a difference in practice, IMO.

8
General Discussion / Re: "Is Boardable" chance is absurdly too low.
« on: September 15, 2013, 07:12:31 PM »
I agree that you should be able to designate one ship as boarding target. possibly it will take less damage from all ships as a result, because you're firing to disable not to destroy?

Yea that's what I'd like to see, so there's actually a reason not to designate any ship as a capture target (again, more meaningful player choices).

9
General Discussion / Re: "Is Boardable" chance is absurdly too low.
« on: September 15, 2013, 06:38:02 PM »
would it be possible to make that a hull mod? "advanced assault airlocks", increases success for boarding and decreases potential damage taken from hard dock.

Call it Pizza Delivery Paintjob. With this paintjob, hungry captains are 25% more likely to welcome your pizza delivery staff onboard. The pizza tastes like PLASMA RIFLES. SURPRISE!

I wish I knew how to mod that in.

10
General Discussion / Re: What happened to coasting?
« on: September 15, 2013, 06:31:15 PM »
Hahaha that's amazing, although having played KSP myself I can tell you that the pace of the video doesn't do justice to the huge amount of work you'd need to put into preparing those scenes. :P

Let's leave realistic physics where they belong however (not in Starsector clearly). back on topic : hooray for the removal of coasting. I didn't mind the mechanic itself, but having such a huge advantage over the AI is bad in my opinion.

11
General Discussion / Re: favourite capital ship
« on: September 15, 2013, 05:53:16 PM »
What's a Prometheus? Is it a mod ship or do I have a memory blank?

Either way, the Conquest because when you have the speed advantage of any opponent that poses a threat, you are completely in control of the outcome.
This is the Prometheus:
Spoiler
[close]

Wow.. it looks like a rocket-powered, disease-ridden, fat, veiny... on second thought I won't finish this sentence.

I need to get one! lol

12
General Discussion / Re: favourite capital ship
« on: September 15, 2013, 05:38:23 PM »
What's a Prometheus? Is it a mod ship or do I have a memory blank?

Either way, the Conquest because when you have the speed advantage over any opponent that poses a threat, you are completely in control of the outcome.

13
General Discussion / Re: What happened to coasting?
« on: September 15, 2013, 02:38:52 PM »
Lol that was using your numbers. No, the 35% was not on top of 150/200. Using your numbers, it used to travel at 200 and now travels at 150. That's a 25% decrease in speed (not counting the crew bonuses). Honestly, I'm not even sure it even reached those speeds to begin with.

Oh then we had a misunderstanding. I was saying that after the patch, my Conquest goes 150 without using the jets, and 200 when the jets are active. This is extremely good in my opinion and thus the current Conquest is amazing at its role and amazing overall. My 10% was me saying that before the patch, I think my Conquest was going about 10% faster (probably because of the elite crew bonus changes and the CR changes).

14
General Discussion / Re: What happened to coasting?
« on: September 15, 2013, 02:22:50 PM »
Again, if the Conquest was going 35% faster than 150/200 then I'm glad it was justifiably nerfed. It still excels at its intended role and we both agreed on the game not being too difficult, so removing a player-only advantage was a good change in my opinion.

15
General Discussion / Re: "Is Boardable" chance is absurdly too low.
« on: September 15, 2013, 02:17:49 PM »
I think boarding should generally be high risk and require a lot of marines (probably more than now) except for small ships, so that you mostly only bring marines along when you specifically want to capture a ship. To make this possible, you should be able to select 1 of the enemy ship as a capture target to greatly increase the chance of having a boarding opportunity. Perhaps doing so would also give you some sort of penalty, to simulate the fact that you and your captains are trying to "take this one alive".

What this sort of change would result in is that people would buy a lot of hopefully expensive marines, both in purchase cost and supply upkeep, then hunt down their intended capture target and take a large risk in exchange for a decent chance at capturing it. There would be a cost, a risk, and a payout. That makes it interesting and introduces an actual choice the player has to make. People not intending to capture anything in particular could carry no marines or very few (to replace their lost frigates for example).

Pre-patch, the situation was that you could easily carry a huge army of marines and capture everything given the chance, and you were given the chance often. That results in a steady extra income for the player which is definitely not needed right now as credits are already easy to get just by destroying ships.

Post-patch (currently), the situation is that carrying marines is very supply intensive and the rewards are rare, random and generally useless.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7