Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1

Suggestions / Re: raise armour of static High Tech capital ships???

« on: Today at 04:09:43 PM »

You didn't actually address anyone's points here and, no, Armored Weapon Mounts is not dumb on a Paragon for keeping weapons online. The fact that shield hullmods are good on it is not evidence that AWM is bad. I don't know where you got the impression that just because you are boosting shields, you can't also boost armor. You have the OP and it directly solves one of your main points, that the ship's weapons can get knocked out.

... As Armoured Weapon Mounts boost it to indestructible levels, contrary to 1650 which is still pretty much lame. ...

It is 1650 vs 1925. The former is weak and the latter is indestructible?! Come on now, that is just patently, utterly ridiculous as a statement. 1925 is higher than 1650 sure, but not that much higher. Over and over you claim that the Paragon's armor is bad and therefor you won't invest anything in it. Circular reasoning or a self-fulfilling prophecy, your pick.

Another assertion you keep saying over and over again is that the Pegasus is a glass cannon, and you use that to claim that 1500 is low armor. That is also circular reasoning at its finest! Why is the Pegasus a glass cannon despite having good shields (17k base + .8 efficiency is better than an Onslaught and it gets more HP/capacity) and 17k hull (right between an Onslaught and a Legion)? Well it must be because its armor is low! Therefor 1500 is low armor. That's just not true. The Pegasus isn't a glass cannon.

2

Suggestions / Re: raise armour of static High Tech capital ships???

« on: Today at 02:22:58 PM »

I don't see any problems with the Paragon's armor or hull in that clip. It soaks significant amount of damage after flux runs high - enough for you to kill many ships in a row before finally getting picked apart. Saying 1500 armor and 18k hull is not much is just wrong. Onslaughts have 1750 Armor, not 1900-2000. If you are putting armor mods on the Onslaught, why not put them on the Paragon before you say it has poor armor?

The main issue you seem to have with the Paragon is its mobility, not its armor, as it keeps getting kited and picked apart. In this clip there were many times when a faster turn rate would have been extremely good. Luckily there are 3 different options available (2 skills and a hullmod) to give +50% maneuverability each. One of them even improves the armor. CR also improves maneuvering some as well, though not a huge amount.

Shoutout to S mod Auxiliary thrusters, which combos very well with Elite Helmsmanship! Get's the "cruising" speed of a Paragon up to 112 and lets it turn at +100% any time it pauses in firing/shielding. Not fast, but a big improvement.

This issue is further compounded in that you put 85% of the ship's offensive firepower in forward facing Hardpoints. It kind of exacerbates the issue.

Pre-emptively: this is a case where you can't just ignore the effect of skills and S mods on turning, because maneuverability in particular is not just a stat race. It is far easier to boost how fast a ship can turn than it is to boost how fast other ships can circle around it (and they often can't because of other ships being there). The same thing applies to Onslaughts/Dominators/Executors etc.

Similarly you say you have issues with the guns going offline, but have taken none of the options to make them last longer or come back online faster. One of them even improves the armor.

In terms of dealing with enemies surrounding you, or kiting you, or whittling away your armor/hull when you have to lower shields: you took none of the options that let you control the enemy except for some (short ranged) ion canons. Instead of those 38 OP invested in Reapers, how about 4 Salamanders for 12? Instead of Pulse Lasers, what about Ion Beams (Ion Pulsers are probably too close range)? For bursting down enemies, how about selecting more weapons with burst? Plasma Cannons have lots of punch, but none of the other weapons really follow.

So yes, for a completely un-skilled Paragon that has none of the hullmods or weapons to cover its weaknesses, there are some weaknesses. This isn't a problem with the armor or the ship.

3

Suggestions / Re: raise armour of static High Tech capital ships???

« on: Today at 12:40:21 PM »

... since when is 1500 armor "entirely runs on shields"?!

The Paragon is the 'exception that proves the rule' because it is high tech, yet both slow and heavily armored. Yes, 1500 is heavy armor that requires good anti-armor tools to crack in a reasonable amount of time.

4

General Discussion / Re: armoured weapon mounts sets Enforcer's armour to 989???

« on: Today at 12:03:35 AM »

Unfortunately I find that while they can keep up with cruisers (at least the relatively speedy ones) over an open stretch, they can't in combat because the AI is so hesitant to use/cancels the ability too often. They will burn drive for a moment to catch up but then cancel it if there is HE damage or a missile anywhere near them.

5

General Discussion / Re: armoured weapon mounts sets Enforcer's armour to 989???

« on: April 23, 2024, 10:47:19 PM »

There is that, yeah. But if they are getting pounded then the other ships aren't, I suppose! I think they are good escorts for Capitals, but not for Cruisers because they just can't keep up.

6

General Discussion / Re: armoured weapon mounts sets Enforcer's armour to 989???

« on: April 23, 2024, 08:24:58 PM »

It WOULD be a good anti-flanking ship, if the AI knew how to keep it in a flank-protecting position instead of wandering off or getting itself killed. It is, as we all agree, very slow for its weight class, which means if it wanders off, it will never get back into position.

They make good use of the current escort order as defenders (the new escort order solves the wandering off issue, as long as the Enforcer is fast enough to keep up with the capital). The order has some issues with facing still, so the guns being turreted works well. They just don't have the offense that the other destroyers have (especially if using HVDs), but I like using converted hangar on them to get some supplemental firepower out of all those OPs.

7

General Discussion / Re: High tech feels like a wet noodle.

« on: April 23, 2024, 11:28:54 AM »

I wonder if that Mauler is worth it. Not a bad choice for sure and I often go mauler in that slow since 2 HACs is a decent amount of kinetic DPS, but I wonder if for this variant going triple HAC would work? Caps are obviously low, but this has a full weapon load and no S mods, so in campaign it would have some spare OP.

Gazers are an interesting choice - I haven't really played with them much on the Eagle. They have a reload cost of 3 on autoloader, so the two mounts with autoloader brings 42 missiles (6 missiles per reload, 2 to start, 5 later).

8

General Discussion / Re: High tech feels like a wet noodle.

« on: April 22, 2024, 10:53:13 AM »

And it is! A very good weapon. Heavy Autocannon + phase lances + advanced optics is solid on both ships, especially with the recent efficiency boost.

9

General Discussion / Re: High tech feels like a wet noodle.

« on: April 22, 2024, 09:45:18 AM »

Eagle looks like the most generic cruiser, but it's actually a beam sniper. Which is a terrible specialization in Starsector.

With IR autolance and phase lances in their current form, I'm not sure it is anymore! Just stay away from HVDs on an Eagle, those are a trap.

10

General Discussion / Re: High tech feels like a wet noodle.

« on: April 21, 2024, 03:30:51 PM »

In terms of can't counter kinetic, I think it depends on the ship size.

High tech (non-phase) small ships have very very weak armor, so they must depend on their mobility, but thankfully they have it. For larger (cruiser +) high tech, while their armor is weaker than other tech levels, it is strong enough to stop kinetics. So they retain decent mobility and enemies still have to bring some anti-armor as well.

Then there is the elephant in the room: phase ships. Kinetic is a poor choice (in general, there are some minor exceptions) so mixing in phase ships with high tech makes the counter less obvious.

11

General Discussion / Re: High tech feels like a wet noodle.

« on: April 21, 2024, 02:05:45 PM »

I know, i know, high tech ships are great at dismantling slower out of position ships and bursting things down, but not everything can be a Nova.
With enough low/mid tech kinetic dakka you delete high tech shields and without them, those ships are made of paper.
On my current game made a killing developing Tri-tach contacts and farming their high tech bounties. It was incredible how much faster they die.

I have no idea how, or if they could be changed and to be honest, they DO work against slow ships without burn drives/enough speed but at this point, it just feels unfair to bully them. I kinda hope Tri-tach gets a rework at some point.

Is it possible that you just have a fleet that is good at killing high-tech because you have a ton of kinetic weapons? Have you tried actually using high tech yourself, or is this just observations from killing bounties?

12

General Discussion / Re: Does anything genuinely benefit from the existence of story points and s-mods?

« on: April 20, 2024, 04:45:28 PM »

Reading this thread makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Am I completely misunderstanding how story points work, or is everyone else?

- Worries about S-modding early game/bad ships: Do you realize you get the XP back if the ships are lost or if you scrap them? There's no drawback, go ahead and S-Mod your early game D-modded frigate all you want, scrap it later and get the XP back.

- Green options that give 100% XP - I literally ALWAYS take these. You get 100% of the XP back on the story point, how is this a waste? These are the most efficient possible uses of story points, there is literally no drawback unless you are saving the SP for something else and you can't spare them.

Seriously, people who are saying don't S-Mod ships that might get blown up or spending story points on green options, do you know how this works?

You are correct. It takes a certain amount of combat/other XP gain to get the spent S point back, but you do get it back in full, PLUS the extra progress towards the next level (and whatever value the S point was getting you in the first place). All 100% options are a net positive in that you get the extra level and whatever bonus the option gives.

The lifecycle XP gain on S-modding then scrapping is 100% for all ship classes, with frigates getting 75% up front. It is indeed a great idea to S mod things on early frigates: the value they bring can be large and they accelerate levelling significantly. And they become guaranteed recoverable until you don't want them anymore!

Once a player is at maximum level the 100% options become more neutral, because the value from gaining levels faster is no longer there.

13

General Discussion / Re: Early game colony?

« on: April 20, 2024, 11:56:30 AM »

Re: very early colonies: you can also settle a world inside a system claimed by your faction, if you have a commission. This is somewhat a crapshoot, but decent early mining worlds sometimes spawn in the core systems. They even come pre-surveyed.

If you feel like restarting a few times to make sure you have a candidate, what you can do is start a new game and click onto the map to check out the hegemony star systems. The map view where all the planets are laid out in a pretty line is ideal as you can just click on all of them rapid fire to check the conditions. If one is suitable, grab a heg commission, kill the pirates in corvus/galatia for the in system bounties + commission payout, then head to wherever crew is on clearance sale and colonize. If no planet is decent, restart.

Being in a heg system is both high accessibility (from being close to the core) and also some protection from pirates, depending on system. The commission will make you go in and out of wars sometimes, but you can just ignore that if you want or go hunting for ships/cash.

14

General Discussion / Re: Aren't phase fleets way too op in their current iteration?

« on: April 18, 2024, 08:41:27 PM »

Oh wow, I just completely typed the wrong weapon, my bad! Yeah phase lance is way, WAY more lol. Don't know what I was thinking there.

15

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Legion (Battle carrier?) AI Issue

« on: April 18, 2024, 07:07:42 PM »

Save sent! I do have detailed combat results and lazylib running btw.

Maybe when the Hammerhead is close to/firing on the Onslaught the Legion is more likely to be in "carrier mode"? But it isn't consistent. I also thought it might have had to do with assigning the HH as an escort to the Legion, but then that wasn't consistent either.