Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

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 - Philder

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: Doom is Just Unbalanced
« on: April 01, 2021, 12:39:23 PM »
Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is endurance.

As others said, Doom is essentially a capital ship, but it really doesn't have the same lasting power, constant damage output or tank; once it's out of ammo it's done in terms of facing larger ships, it's pretty much just built for burst, phasing eats into it's already lower operating time like crazy, and while phasing can somewhat be considered a 'renewable' source of damage absorption, it eats up operating time in exchange.

IMO the role of the Doom is to quickly pick off some prime targets and then vamoose. Well fitted capitals and even some cruisers can have a better bang for your buck than Dooms, but Dooms have a faster kill rate which can be very important at the beginning of a large battle. High cost, high performance and higher risk, essentially.

But it suffers heavily when you don't have an opportunity to sneak behind those big ships. Bigger redacted fleets especially. Not even worth deploying at all in some cases. I never have more than one Doom in my fleet. It's too situational to solely rely on.

Maybe the Doom could stand to be dialed back a touch, but I don't think it's terribly unbalanced. It's pros have costs.

2
It depends on the circumstance. I mostly use them to evade hostile fleets or speed up my fleet when I'm low on supplies (I turn off repairs and just defer that supply cost till I can resupply). Otherwise they're just a big drain on resources and readiness, sometimes even time when they REALLY shoot me off course, and can be dangerous by shooting me right into unwanted battles while my readiness has just been tanked.

I feel like direction of the bump depends on your position to the center of the storm mass and your current momentum. Something like....it gives you major impulse to your current momentum + a minor impulse from the center of the storm mass.

3
Suggestions / Low-tech Station Critical Vulnerability To Hammer Torpedos
« on: October 08, 2019, 06:44:21 AM »
I haven't tested it out with other missiles or stations, but against a tier 1 lowtech station I was able to damage the main component by firing hammer torpedos at the station wings surrounding it. Basically, you can could use a buffalo mk2 with Expanded Missile Racks to kill a t1 lowtech station. Seems...unintended.

4
General Discussion / Re: Making the Conquest great
« on: February 14, 2019, 02:15:40 AM »
Capital ships have flux limitations just like every other ship, sometimes even worse than other ships, because otherwise they would be too powerful. They have a lot more and bigger weapons that they can fire at greater ranges on a single target, and they are inordinately tankier than smaller ships so they can continue to fire long after smaller ships have been destroyed.

Anyway, just trust in Alex (the dev) that it's more-or-less balanced. Accept that that's the way ships are and work around the problem instead of getting frustrated by it. There are ways to make it work.

The flux cost of HBs is a balance issue. Except for flux and range, it has very good stats. Stats easily on par with and even superior to some large weapons.

Anyway, there is a lot of value to higher dps. It allows you to do more damage before your target's defensive measures can counteract you (shields, turning armor, fleeing, increase your flux, etc).

Using them on the Conquest, I typically put them into the same weapon group as non-missile and non-PD weapons, and my keys 3, 4 and 5 are all binded to Toggle Autofire instead of Select Weapon Group. That way I can turn off weapons without turning off PD, which is hella more useful than the button to turn of ALL weapons. To compensate for the higher flux drain, I do, in fact, active vent after a few shots, and continue to vent as frequently as possible. Short vents are safe enough, and combined with Resistant Flux Conduits, it essentially overdrives my flux dissipation capabilities with little risk (in most cases).

Regarding Ion Beams:
In my opinion Ion Beams are too expensive on a direct-fire ship. Flux is too important for causing damage to essentially sacrifice 200 flux for just EMP. 50 beam damage is almost nothing. Compare that to LR PD Laser which is somewhat comparable, and ask yourself if that absurd increase in flux cost is worth it. If you want more EMP, either get some Ion Cannons in the smalls or a Converted Hangar with a Xyphos wing. The range of Ion Cannon isn't too big an issue, espcially considering the drastically reduced flux cost and change to hardflux. And that heavy OP cost for a Converted Hangar is worth it. You essentially get the OP equivalent of 2x Ion Beams, 2x Burst PD, the flux dissipation those weapons use as well as whatever damage they soak, and the unknown cost of having those four weapons able to fire through friendly ships with essentially no directional blindspots (relative to the parent ship).

Other fit choices I like:
-Normal Flak Cannons for the extra range, which adds to the dps output at Heavy Blaster range, and the higher damage, making it more efficient against smaller armor but especially against hull.
-Hurricane MIRVs in the large slots. Most options available to and commonly used on Conquests aren't so great against high armor targets, and I don't need more ammo so I don't need to spend OP on another hullmod. This also diverts the normally expensive armor damage into flux-free damage, and reduces my need for anti-armor ballistics allowing me to maximize my anti-shield and anti-hull.
-Storm Needler combined with Heavy Blasters. They are both such amazingly dps dense weapons in a single slot, and the shorter range of Storm compared to other large weapons is less impactful when my Conquest's battle doctrine is getting in close anyway. The dps of Storm Needler against shields is so absurd that you open up a lot of options to yourself, too. You could grab the silly Devastator Cannon for some cross utility and make those small energy slots unnecessary (ie: free up some OP), or you could slap another Flak or Dual Flak on there, or you could double-down on the DPS with a Mjolnir or MarkIX, or or or...
-Sniper build with Gauss and Maulers, Phase Lance and small beams with Advanced Optics for some close-range DPS assist, and 4x Salamander MRM to make it easier to nail fast and/or long range targets. Sniper build also reduces the need for defensive hullmods, opening up additional options for you. Since this build also requires less focus, I like getting an Operations Center so I can improve my control over my fleet, which ends up increasing both the offensive and defensive potential of my fleet.
-LR PD Lasers are really nice on capital ships for providing super long range PD support (that doesn't friendly fire) to your fleet. (for PD purposes, LRPDL is superior to Tac Lasers).

5
General Discussion / Re: 6th Fleet Building Tournament
« on: February 14, 2019, 12:26:19 AM »
Why not make the fleet slots a random draw so everyone who wants to join has a chance, not just the same few lucky individuals?

Set a deadline and give everyone 3 or 4 choices for slots that they can submit before that date, putting them into a random draw pool for that slot. After the deadline, just go through the slots and randomly pick someone from that slot's pool.

Part of the problem with carriers is that they tend to be slow and weak. They might not even suicide any more than other ships, they're just less suited to surviving the mistake and more likely to be noticed by players due to the circumstance (players assume they should always be in the backline) and confirmation bias.

Another part of the problem is that there is a lack of player control in the AI Tournament, which isn't an expected scenario in the base game, and the turn resets mess up the approach order of the ships, which in the base game it is assumed that the slow carriers will reach the battle slower and therefor tend to be in the backlines.

AI Tournament is a unique scenario not expected in the base game. Although AI could use some work, a large portion of the problems in the AI Tournament would be solved by compensating for the lack of player control and the messiness of turn resets.

6
Suggestions / Custom Campaign + Settings
« on: February 01, 2019, 01:12:47 PM »
Foreword: Anything mentioned in this post is a suggestion of an idea. I'm not asking that these ideas be implemented exactly as written. It is assumed that Alex will modify or decline any idea as he see's fit. This post is for Alex, so I will also not be replying to anyone but Alex. Feel free to comment if you'd like to add anything but keep in mind that Alex is the final arbiter and likely has a better grasp on the ins and outs of game development so if you have objections to my ideas, commenting about it is rather pointless....but if you feel like Alex doesn't have the intellect to reach the same conclusion as you, feel free to criticise as you'd like.

The Short:
It would be great if we could easily create campaigns with customized values to suit the level of difficulty and reward we enjoy most, to add variety by trying to play the game different ways, and experimenting with different levels of balance. This could also be of aid in finding balance profiles and gameplay styles that players tend to enjoy.

What Exactly?
A custom campaign mode where the player can change values via a slider, a seed value so players can easily communicate their full setting profile, and recommended presets for setting profile archetypes that best suits a certain player such as New Player, Default, Easy Progression, and Hard to start off with which can be fine-tuned for later patches, and an option to add/remove presets using seed values, including adding the current settings of a live campaign). It would be best if the 'customize' window is hidden by default so new players aren't overwhelmed, with a checkbox to show customizable settings for the players who wish to delve into that. Extra: an options menu for live campaigns whereby players can adjust settings which can be adjusted in a live campaign. If using a preset or seed to change it, omit any setting not changeable in a live campaign.

Suggested customizable options:
(note: a category listed in plural means just a single suggested slider option, but each category listed is an individual suggested slider option itself)
-Name of custom campaign settings
-Reward scaling for the different mission types
-Difficulty for the different mission types
-Frequency of the different mission types (including up to 0, ie: no missions of that type)
-Fleet sizes and number of fleets for the different factions (including the player's)
-Global damage modifier for the different factions (including the player's, and also affection auto-resolved combat)
-Scaling base cost of weapons, commodities, data, special items, blueprints, and ships.
-Scaling sell value of weapons, commodities, data, special items, blueprints, and ships. (% of base cost)
-Drop rates of weapons, commodities, data, special items, blueprints, and ships.
-Reputation scaling for acts of aggression, trading, missions, and assisting fleets in combat.
-Experience gain for the player, combat officers, and administrators.
-Scaling for fuel, CR and repair costs.
-Chance of player ships being disabled rather than destroyed.
-Chance of additional d-mods for recovered player and enemy ships.
-% recovery rate of the different ship sizes (with cost rates scaled respectively).
-Deployment Point cost of the different ship sizes.
-Maintenance and Deployment impact of d-mods.
-Frequency of pather, pirate and hostile faction planetary events.
-Impact of planetary stability events
-Starting wealth
-Spawning chance of specific officer attitudes. One slider for each, scaled against each other:
Code
[Spawn chance of [Attitude]] = [Weight Value of [Attitude]] / [Sum of all Weight Value]
Where [Weight Value] is some arbitary positive integer range of 0 to >0.
-Spawn frequency and quality of debris fields.
-Spawn frequency of hyperspace storms.
-Spawn frequency of random events such as distress beacons and derilicts.
-Spawn frequency of scavanger fleets and etc.
-Size of 'Universe'.
-Density of system groups.
-Min and max density of systems within a system group.
-Density of core systems.


The Long:
1) Although a properly enterprising fellow can go into the game files and edit some things, this is laborious, can only support one setting profile at a time, and is obviously inaccesible to the less tech savvy or time restricted. Mods can ease the burder, somewhat, but it still doesn't offer the ease of use and accessibility of a feature implemented into the core game, especially with features that mods cannot easily create, or create at all. And mods all rely on someone doing the work. If there is plenty of interest but no modder available or interested in creating it, there is nothing.

2) I enjoy playing with very hardcore difficulty settings, from harder-than average difficult to true roguelike hardcore nightmare difficulty as well as bullet-hell type combat messiness, where a single errant shot can end it all. I play games like Diablo2/3 and PoE on high difficulty hardcore, where you can spend weeks building up a character who can die and disappear from this world in a split second. (Whereby 'hardcore' game mode means that you have only a single life)

I realize that this preference is rather extreme, but I know I'm not alone in wanting a greater challenge than the default options available. A strong indicator interest in this would be the prevalence of such custom game create settings in roguelikes that have had large cult followings and have lasted for up to over a decade, Dwarf Fortress being the perfect example, and the popularity of hardcore difficulty settings in ARPGs like Diable2/3 and PoE.

And this can go in both directions. New players can also meet a more forgiving, relaxed and rewarding game, reducing the pressure of trying to learn a new game with punishing penalties, ie: losing ships they're attached to from a momentary mistake, and long-time but less skillful players (a large and important portion of most cult community) can enjoy a more relaxed experience tailored specifically to their preferences.

3) Large scalar changes to these values can create a whole different meta, or in other words, whole different game. Players can create a campaign where trading is the only truly profitable enterprise, or progression is slower paced, the player is less likely to be fleet-wiped and faction events have larger impacts on the flow of the game so its more like a story, or scavenging can become a proper way-of-life, or factions are a lot more resistant to player interference, or larger ships are rarer and/or more expensive to employ and a well built fleet of smaller ships is more important than just getting bigger ships and better weapons, or the game focuses more heavily on planets and politics, or the outter systems are the wild wild west, or etc etc...

This game has so many different aspects to it, and many of them can be explored in many different ways. By changing the settings with which each campaign is built upon, players can force themselves to into a new meta with which they can strive their best against rather than setting up arbitrary rules that they can easily break during a moment of weak will. Although the difference may seem insignificant to some, it actually has a huge effect on motivation. Just look at the post-secondary education industry. There is plenty of accessible literature for those who have the know-how, the motivation and the discipline to teach themselves nearly anything they want, but how many people are actually self taught? People are way more motivated to 'play the game' in a fabricated game environment with which they have no control over.

4) It should be self-evident that test servers for players are highly useful in the development of video games. Putting the controls of the 'test server' in the player's hands will allow the community to help itself find what they find most fun, giving Alex feedback on more than just what's currently apparent in the latest release. If the game also sent back the data on [duration of game session] and [total time spent] on certain seeds, it would be invaluable for shaping the default game modes into both more enjoyable experiences as well as experiences that players are willing to invest a lot of time into. This kind of data is also crucial for tailoring the game for the different types of players that play or MAY play the game. That second part is very important for the success of a game. The game has to be able to retain the interest of new players, and I personally feel like the introduction for new players in this game can use some work. The game-mode that players start off with is, in my opinion, too punishing and places too much pressure on a player that is still brand new and learning the game. Finding the right balance for each group in the player base is very difficult, especially for new players. There has to be just the right amount of punishment, reward and learning curve to keep the largest common denominator of players interested in the game. And then after that, there has to be enough variety and interaction to turn interested players into long-time players.

So my suggestion is that rather than limiting the play-testing to just the one or two game-modes of the current release and the less accessible option that is modding, why not allow players to freely and easily explore the field of possibilities themselves and get hard data back on who plays what and what tends to work and what doesn't? I'm sure it would much less biased, a much more populous and more efficiently consumed dataset than community comments...in addition to the other points I've made, of course.

7
General Discussion / Re: Why is there friendly fire?
« on: January 19, 2019, 01:49:10 AM »
Identity signals can be spoofed and friendlies can suffer damage to identity signaling systems. If a commander had to choose between giving the enemy the chance to disable their weapons, or trust in their forces to not shoot each other or walk into the line of fire and just accept some occasional friendly fire losses, they'd choose the second option every time.

It'd make a lot of sense for intelligent munitions to electronically shield itself and no longer accept signaling after being fully armed and fired to prevent counter-measures from interfering with its mission, or even worse, being used by the enemy. Intelligent munitions and everything they involve are also a lot more costly to produce.

I'm not an industry expert on the matter but as far as I know, Identity signaling just gives weapon controllers a message of who they're aiming at, and it's the weapon controllers' perogative to shoot or not.

To answer your question, my take on friendly fire is that FF is an integral part of warfare. Removing FF completely changes the way war is waged. It's typically instituted because the idea behind the game is completely untennable with FF, whether through game functionality or multiplayer griefing. Logic and historical continuity need not apply to fictional works.

Either way, the ACTUAL problem you're having an issue with is either AI deficiencies or you're just blindly moving into the path of oncoming weapons.

8
General Discussion / Re: Conquest ship build/fleet Tips?
« on: January 17, 2019, 08:11:00 AM »
As a foreword, I'd just like to say that there are plenty of ways to outfit a Conquest. The build I outline here is just one that I like.

Even with 1.4 base efficiency, Hardened Shields is still useful. Rather than judging ships shield's ability solely by its flux efficiency, you should judge it by its total ability to soak damage and dissipate it. Best way to do that is by looking at EHP and EHP regen (EHP: Effective Health Points).
EHP = shield efficiency * flux capacity
EHP regen = shield efficiency * flux dissipation.

EHP is essentially how much damage your shields can take, without having to bother with other factors.
And regardless of base shield efficiency, Hardened Shields will always increase the EHP and EHP regen by 33%, which can be more-or-less comparable to Heavy Armor and Reinforced Bulkheads.

Personally if I had to choose between shield, armor and hull hullmods, on the Conquest I'd choose shields since upgrading flux stats is dual-purposed and meshes extremely well with the saying "A strong offense is a good defense".

Because of that, I prioritize max vents, Flux Distributors, Resistant Flux Conduits and Hardened Shields, and follow that up with a habit of active-venting early and often (when it's safe, obviously). This also allows me to not really care about flux load vs flux dissipation, and flux capacity. If I can overload and destroy a target quicker, that's a much better outcome than trying to brawl with what a Conquest has.

With that in mind, my go-to weapons are Storm Needler, Mjolnir, Heavy Blaster and Hurricane MIRV or Locusts, with Xyphos to primarily provide the utility of lots of EMP at zero flux cost to me.

Storm is the most mount-efficient source of KE damage. Regardless of armor and hull dps of alternatives, you need to get past shields to touch armor and hull. The faster you do, the faster you can bring that armor and hull dps to bear.

Mjolnir is all around great, and provides enough armor dps against most targets to get things done. Personally I think this is better than HAG because high armor targets are more limited on the battlefield, which pairs very well with the limited ammo nature of missiles, thus the Hurricane MIRVs. Meanwhile, Mjolnir will provide a good constant dps against everything else in addition to the EMP.

Heavy Blasters, while flux expensive, are just beasts. Being able to add them makes it a lot less painful to dedicate the medium ballistics to PD, and is a great addition to the "strong offense" philosophy. As I mentioned before, I can ignore such heavy flux costs with early and frequent venting as well as the heavy EMP pressure this loadout can provide. The heavy damage output can also disable weapons.

Hurricane MIRV is for the limited times I need heavy armor penetration. I prefer it to unguided torps and harpoons because it's guided, more resistant to PD and has plenty of ammo.

I'll use any combination of Flak, Dual Flak, or HMG, but DF + HMG is my favorite. Having more than one DF can be overkill, but HMG projectiles can continue past the detonation points of Flak and hit other things. It's also great against shielded fighters and provides a lot of cheap shield pressure if you get that close to your target.

With this loadout I leave the medium missiles empty.

In the small slots I may or may not put LRPDL. It's cheap and you don't lose out too much any other option. Tac Lasers aren't worth it IMO. The flux cost isn't worth it, and the much slower projectile speed (yes, beams have projectile speed) and turret speed end up losing you some of that higher dps, compared to LRPDL. Tac Lasers are also pretty useless vs fighters that are already on you. Technically you don't really need the LRPDL for PD, but ITU + LRPDL on a capital ship helps your whole fleet out so it can be worth it.

Xyphos, while expensive, is worth it on this build. A ton of pinpoint accurate EMP, at no flux cost to you, is immense. Being able to shoot both the ION Beams and Burst PD Lasers while active-venting is also a great benefit.

I fly this cautious-aggressively. I'm careful not to dive into range of too many enemies. I'll stay at range unless I can safely engage at closer range. And as I've mentioned many times, I'll active-vent early and often. If I overload my target, I'll vent. If I've disabled most of their weapons that are facing me, I'll vent. I don't mind the weapon down-time since if I just keep shooting I'll fill my flux caps and will not only no longer have the opportunity to vent safely when I want, I'll also be forced into a long period of vulnerability.

Also of note is that I switch up my weapon-group keybinds. 1 is 'select", but 2-5 is 'toggle autofire'. Shift+2 to 5 is 'select'.
1 is missiles. 2 is Storm. 3 is Heavy Blaster. 4 is Mjolnir. 5 is all PD.
This way I load in with the only weapon I'll manual-fire already selected, and I can toggle autofire easily with everything else. I very rarely need to manual-fire anything else, so I make it easier to use the more used function, which is 'toggle autofire'. Also, the weapons I select or toggle autofire the least are the higher numbers. If *** hits the fan, turning off everything but PD is easy. I don't like turning off all autofire because its necessary to save the ship, although this rarely happens.

For a fleet supporting a Conquest, carriers with non-bombers is good, 2-3 Gryphons with Locust or Hurricane, Harpoon Pods and Swarmers(multi-purpose and doesn't empty itself immediately), some fast harassers to keep the enemy fleet busy, and a couple Eagles to provide front-line beef and wingman for me. Omens are great harassers and support ships in general. Outfit the Eagles with KE and tanky stats. They aren't there to get kills. They're there for support. They pressure flux to keep the enemy fleet at bay and to lower shields for you and the Gryphons, and they provide targets for the enemy so that you can more safely approach targets.

As far as not using bombers, it's because they have a long cooldown between uses and are deployed regardless of whether the target has shields or not. Gryphons, on the other hand, can fire intelligently and fire often. They can also hit small ships, which bombers struggle with, and fire often enough to deal with many frigates. The interceptors, on the other hand, work as both damage soakers, shield killers, fleet-wide PD, keep enemy interceptors at bay, and allow Harpoons to travel unimpeeded.

The reason I rely on fighters and guided missiles so much is because they don't need line-of-sight or close range. If you have too many direct-fire ships, they just end up crowding each other and preventing each other from outputting their full dps potential. Fighters and guided missiles, however, have much larger coverage and can focus fire much much much better. With more fighters and guided missiles, and just a few choice direct-fire ships like your pilotted Conquest, you're optimizing the DP and associated costs you spend, rather than just having all your ships stepping on each others' toes all the time.

Along the same lines, I have outfit many ships with KE only so that they can pressure flux exceptionally well for the dual purpose of reducing the enemy's ability to cause damage and providing other specialized ships more opportunities to smash armor and hull. My fleet loses the ability to solo 1v1 against bigger ships, but at the same time it can more easily secure kills and keep itself safe without my intervention in general.

edit: didn't realize Storm Needler was downgraded to burst  :'(

9
General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build
« on: January 11, 2019, 12:10:47 PM »
@Thaago
Your understanding is correct.

Perhaps better descriptive terms would be "forcibly spent" and "net zero".

If ships weren't assigned OP based on mounts granted, and the addition of TPCs didn't remove from the available OP pool, I'd agree that 'free' is the most accurate description.

Net zero does not mean free, even though outcomes may be the same. Similar is not same.

10
General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build
« on: January 11, 2019, 02:04:03 AM »
@Thaago
To reiterate, if one declared that TPC is free, then any s/m/l weapon costing 4/10/20 would also be considered free, because in the end it would leave you with a net 0 change in additional OP. Any weapon with a cost of 5/11/21 when then be considered to have a cost of 1, 3/9/19 would have be considered a refund of 1, and etc... which is a terrible system to go by.

There is also no baseline for the total combination of mount sizes and count. A ship can be given more or less mounts of varying sizes. Ships with more than the average size and count of mounts aren't considered to have 'free' weapons. As pointed out with the Odyssey vs Onslaught, there's a huge disparity of number and sizes of mounts. If you equip a 4/10/20 OP weapon on all the mounts that the Onslaught has over the Odyssey, are those mounts now considered free?

I mentioned before that although the OP assignment is systemized, there are some ships which have had their OP adjusted. In addition, I also mentioned that some ships have either hullmods built in, and even equivalents of hullmods, like the Odyssey's extremely low shield upkeep.

Again, I believe that OP is, more-or-less, balanced. Clever combinations of outfits and even fleets can get you more out of what's available, just the same as substandard outfits and fleets can cause substandard outcomes, but it's more-or-less balanced. All the interlinking systems that Alex has designed into the game make for a complicated game of balancing this and that, but he's still managed quite well over time, and he definitely wouldn't leave such a monstreous a gap of overbalance in the Onslaught as many Onslaught fanatics claim.

11
General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build
« on: January 10, 2019, 07:19:57 PM »
@Thaago
A Mining Pod wing is free. TPC is not. Considering TPC as free would be like consider any s/m/l weapon with 4/10/20 OP cost as free.

Although I don't know for sure, I'm reasonably certain that 10 OP per flight deck is way too much. The range of costs are from 0 to 18, with most being on the lower end. I suspect that, if flight decks even do grant OP, it'd be something like 6 or below. Consider the benefits that fighters give you and their associated OP costs, and relate that to weapon costs. I actually wouldn't be surprised if flight decks grant no OP, treating fighters more like hullmods. After all, a mining pod is rather insignificant, and gaining access to a nearly infinitely renewable supply of missiles, including torps, is easily on the level of the most expensive of hullmods.

Good point about the multiplicative bonus. I overlooked that.

Odyssey has many viable sources of damage, not just Plasma Cannon. I don't believe it should be considered a 'must have'. Also, I don't believe that all viable Odyssey builds require max vents. Odyssey isn't crippled by flux limits anywhere near as bad as Onslaught is. Dipping into your 'vent funds' on an Odyssey is a reasonable possibility. Also, the only defensive hullmod that Odyssey values on the same level as the many armor and hull and repair type hullmods that benefit the Onslaught, is Hardened Shields. Auxiliary Jets is also a high value hullmod for the Onslaught.

Devils advocate: As far as the OP costs of typical equips for each ship, Odyssey is more likely to have weapons (and wings) with higher than the given OP cost for their slot, while Onslaught is far more leniant with downgrading or even omiting slots.

In the end, I believe that OP is more-or-less balanced. In a literal sense the Onslaught does, in fact, have more OP than just about every ship in the game, but the value of that statement is near insignificant due to balance. I don't believe that the Onslaught is a terrible ship. I don't believe that other players shouldn't use them. I do believe, though, that many players overestimate it, just as many underestimate the Odyssey due to not knowing how to use it as well as just not finding it aesthetically pleasing enough.



@intrinsic_parity, and others
Heavy Blaster is a super-charged specialization. Its armor penetration and dps against shields, armor and hull is on the level of a large weapon, and it's not even at the bottom of that list. You pay for that, of course, with flux and a shorter range, but its turret speed is decent and accuracy is perfect. To help put things into perspective, let me add Heavy Blaster to my previous table of weapon stats.

Tachyon - 346 dps @ 750 dmg @ 462 f/s
115 dps (0.25) - 314 dps (0.68) - 1.5s - 6s  - 2250 dmg
HIL - 500 dps @ 250 dmg @ 500 f/s
250 dps (0.5) - 385 dps (0.77) -  -  -
Plasma - 750 dps @ 500 dmg @ 825 f/s
188 dps (0.23) - 653 dps (0.79) - 1s - 2s - 1500 dmg
Autopulse - 1500 dps @ 150 dmg @ 1250 f/s
225 dps (0.18) - 1000 dps (0.8 ) - 3.7s - 15s - 5550 dmg
' (sustained) - 375 dps @ 150 dmg @ 313 f/s
56 dps (0.18) - 250 dps (0.8 ) -  -  -
Paladin - 667 dps @ 500 dmg @ 1000 f/s
167 dps (0.17) - 579 dps (0.58) - 8.6s - 20s - 5778 dmg
' (sustained) - 267 dps @ 500 dmg @ 400 f/s
67 dps (0.17) - 231 dps (0.58) -  -  -

Heavy Blaster - 500 dps @ 500 dmg @ 720 f/s
125 dps (0.17) - 435 dps (0.6) - - -

Perhaps a better way of looking at the Heavy Blaster is to think of it as a burst weapon with unlimited charges, except those charges cost a little more flux. You don't use it to grind away in a flux war. You use it to blast your target into smithereens ASAP, hit and run, or strike from a blind-spot.

Regarding lack of non-missile kinetics, Onslaught vs Odyssey, or high tech vs low tech in general....it's not really an equitable situation. There are all kinds of factors that change the parameters of a fight, or a ship's overall effectiveness in battle.

'Winning the flux war' doesn't necessarily mean winning the battle. Ships (at least intelligently player-piloted ships) don't just stand toe-to-toe and exchange blows if they can help it. Being able to win a toe-to-toe flux war is an advantage, sure, but it's not the only path to a strong victory.

12
General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build
« on: January 10, 2019, 05:34:16 AM »
@Draba
Being rather rude with the unwarranted malicious sarcasm there. Piece of advice: Your relationship with people would be a lot more pleasant if you didn't automatically assume that everyone you talk to is an idiot or use that as an excuse to be a jerk to people.

Regarding the first quote, I was replying to this: "Odyssey maxes out flux even against a beefy officered cruiser, chaining kills without a break just doesn't happen." and related comments.
Tactics make all the difference. In competitive gaming, a single player can wipe out a whole team even though each team is given equal circumstance and resources. And in StarSector you aren't even fighting cleverly adapting human players but against a fixed-intelligence AI that is purposely designed to be less intelligent than the average gamer. It should be no surprise that an intelligent gamer can take advantage of the AI's lesser intelligence.

Regarding damage output, I'm referring to the 2 large energy weapons, 3 medium missiles, 1 large missile, 2 potential bomber wings, and many small energy weapons that the Odyssey can simultaneously direct at a single target. And if you want to mini/max it all, you can fill those left facing small energy slots with AMBs and still have flux cap left over to spam dual Plasma Cannons. Although not terribly realistic (...unless the player is me, cause I'd load up on AMBs for *** and giggles), it's a fair comparison since this type of min/max insta-kill build is what phase frigates normally do. Perhaps Conquest can similarly achieve such absurd insta-kill potential, but it's much less reasonable.

I guess you don't understand the system of OP assignment and also chose not to read what I wrote carefully. I can only suggest you look through old messages from Alex to find the relevant details.

TPC isn't free. It's a weapon that costs the same OP as the large weapon slot grants. It also costs flux to use it, and the strengths of the weapon are balanced by its weaknesses. And regardless of how many guns you put on it, it doesn't have the flux stats to fire them all for more than a few seconds, nor does it have the turret arcs to focus them on a single target, nor does it have the maneuvrability to efficiently handle most targets. If you ignore all that, Conquest would easily have the best damage output in the game.

TPC is energy damage, not HE. It has good flux efficiency for an energy weapon but its miss rate is truly abyssmal and even your opportunity to shoot at targets is crippled by some of the worst maneuvreability in the game. If you factor in the missed shots, it has pretty terrible flux efficiency. If you factor in the missed opportunities, it's a very situational weapon. Close range weapons like HMG aren't a reasonable source of damage to factor in as a dependable source of damage, especially for such a slow ship. It's too situational. Ballistic HE also isn't as efficient as you think. It typically has either low damage or low base DPS. Against heavily armored cruisers and capitals, most ballistic HE faces near or max damage reduction. And the split kinetic/HE array of weapons (I believe it's safe to assume that you fire all weapon types at all times?) gives your ship a pretty bad flux overall effiency. Kinetic vs armor and hull is a heavy loss. HE vs shield, not as much but still subpar. If not me, at least trust Alex on this; except for a minor overall penalty on flux efficiency, ballistic vs energy is balanced.

I'm not sure why you're being so snarky about the shield efficiency comment. You were talking about high tech cruisers as if their shields could take far more punishment than an Odyssey while also being able to dish out fatal levels of damage. I'm just pointing out to you that shield efficiency isn't everything, which is what you were saying.

As for your last point....Armor and hull matter to an Onslaught cause it HAS to take it. If you're cruising around at 30 base speed, charging into the enemy fleet with your flux up and shields down in an Odyssey....you're very much doing it wrong. Anyway, preventing damage can be done in many different ways. If you disagree, I'm sorry but I'm not willing to go to the lengths required to teach you how.

13
General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:23:44 AM »
@Draba
Tactics make a big difference, and the Odyssey has stats that allow for them.

For example, I vent anytime I feel like I can do so safely, and I mean any time. I don't wait for my flux caps to max out. By doing so ASAP whenever you have the chance you gain the benefit of active flux venting dissipation rate but without the dangerously long vulnerability time, you're getting rid of hardlfux (even if only a little) and it's not like you lose out on too much. Since you're the one who vented first, you gain the advantage in case the enemy also vents in response. If they don't vent, you gain a huge leg up in the flux war. This also allows me to pull off tactics like pressuring ships to retreat. And I don't just go ham and brawl straight away. Once I've isolated a ship I'm often free to 'reset' the fight and re-initiate it in whatever manner that the Odyssey is capable of. Frequent venting also makes the limit of flux caps irrelevant in most cases.

Odyssey can do the frequent active venting far easier than most cruisers and capitals because it has the mobility to either retreat safely or manage distances properly (staying around max range vs its target) or use allies and/or enemies to block lines of fire, it has the flux stats to do so quickly, it has a ship system that can boost you away from torps, it has fighters that can run interence and/or act as PD while ship weapons are disabled, it has an omni shield, and it has capital class range. Many ships have some of these, but few, if any, have all of them.

Oh btw, all ships are granted fixed OP values based on ship size and weapon mounts, though I think there are some exceptions (I can't remember any besides Conquest). OP for weapon mounts is sort of like an 'average' (small=4, medium=10, large=20 I think? that's probably not correct values), so weapons that cost higher than those base values end up taking from the fixed pool of addition OP you get based on ship size. I can't remember if flight decks add OP. Anyone know?

Onslaught only seems like it has way more OP because it has such a gratuitous amount of mounts. Although you can, of course, downgrade or even remove weapons, there's also the potential that you end up using more of your ship-size base OP on weapons than a ship with less mounts. Another factor to take into consideration is that flux stats are a hard-cap on your dps output, no matter how many weapons or how hard they hit. Missiles skip this but they have additional considerations which may limit their use. Also, Odyssey has a lot more missile capabilities so Onslaught can't claim this as an advantage.

By default Odyssey has a huge lead on all ships (excl Paragon) regarding how much flux dissipation they have access to while shields are up. Very very few ships actually have such a highly efficient shield upkeep factor (nothing above frigate size, I think), so it's kind of like you already have Stabilized Shields, and Front Shield Conversion is also unnecessary, giving you all the good stuff with none of the bad. You also already have ECCM, which is pretty important for a missile-dependent ship, especially a high tech one.  Ships that come 'equiped' with hullmods, by default, typically have an advantage in additional OP to spend....though this is often done as a balance so that they aren't encombered by hullmods which are must-haves and are instead free to ACTUALLY customize the ship. In the case of the Odyssey, it's a bit of both. The ship is high tech and thus requires lots of flux and can benefit from Expanded Magazines, and it also has a large amount of missiles (potentially) which it needs to rely on due to the lack of other mounts as well as two flight decks. Your OP, therefor, is tugged in a lot of different directions at the same time. Of course....you can also choose to omit going in those many directions and make use of the Odyssey's natural gifts to double-down in a specialized direction. Personally, I like to do so with flux stats (including hardened shields), missiles (including utilizing bombers as an unlimited source of torps or sabots), and PD.

Oh and the shield efficiency of ships is relative. Even though an Onslaught has a 1.0 shield efficiency it'd be silly to think that it's not as tough as a Scarab. A more accurate measure of a ship's shield defense is Max EHP and EHP Regen, where you multiply total flux cap and dissipation, respectively, as well as the dps and flux efficiency of flux damage that ship can cause. EHP (Effective Hit Points) is a true measure of how much damage a shield can take, and offense can also be a defense by inhibiting the enemy's ability to cause you damage. Armor, shield type and even PD and flight decks are also a factor because it determines that ships ability to tank kinetics with armor instead of shields or inhibit damage from reaching in another way.

Regarding armor...Odyssey might have less armor and armor cells than Onslaught but it's by no means less able to tank kinetics. Most kinetic weapons reach the max 85% damage reduction at armor below 300. To play the devil's advocate to my arguments, hull+armor is the more important factor than just armor. With hull gaining 5% of max armor, big ships with big armor gain an astoundingly huge increase in durability against most weapons. If considering only armor and hull, Onslaught is definitely a class above.

That being said, Odyssey is pretty well equipped in preventing damage from ever breaching shields or armor. But that's just a 'potential' and not as fixed a stat as an Onslaught's outright durability. As far as damage output goes....that's debatable. Odyssey has a similar ability to blow up ships like a Doom, but trading mobility and periodic invulnerability for firepower and durability. Also, the weapons that Odyssey has access to paired with its flux and agility (including weapon agility) grant it a greater potential dps over time. Again, that's just potential, and AI has a much lower capacity for strategy and tactics than players. Legion easily my favorite capital to hand over to AI.

Anyway, no ship can do everything perfectly. All ships are basically are pidgeon-holed (squeezed into a small nest) into roles and specializations. I never claimed Odyssey could do everything better than everything. What I was claiming is that Odyssey has the potential to do a large variety of things with at least a good degree of effectiveness with a single build. Or at least higher than average, while also being fun to pilot.



@Goumindong
Oh interesting, I didn't know that about HE vs hull. I don't suppose you know offhand where that's mentioned by Alex? Not that I don't believe you. I had actually thought that the presumed ineffectiveness of ballistic HE vs hull that I saw in my stats might have looked slightly underbalanced. I just prefer 100% verification, when possible, so I don't need to remember the details of veracity (truthiness).

Aye, I'm aware of the quirks of beams vs reactively degenerative damage reduction (I think I referred to it briefly before), though it's good that you pointed it out more clearly. As to why I didn't mention it further, especially together with the stats table I made, is because many different combinations of weapon traits have some hidden factors, like miss rate for true projectiles, insufficient turn speed for lances or shields but not ship in range (counts as miss), durability of projectiles, loss of dps due to softflux, etc etc... It's quite an exhausting list of unlisted and sometimes very difficult to quantify factors, so by necessity I'm leaving that in the hands of the audience and, austensibly, they'll inquire if our conclusions differ, at which point we can figure out what details they lack.

Reactively degenerative damage reduction is a pretty significant factor though, and I'd love to have a proper metric for it but my calculus is rusty and I'd have to learn how to fit calculus into spreadsheets. The TTK that's often used here is a good metric but I haven't yet figured out a way (or rather, spent the time to do so) to condense it all into a single spreadsheet cell so I haven't added it to my master spreadsheet (designed so you can just paste any weapon from the game files and it will calculate all stats).
Anyway, I'd guestimate that the effect can have up to around a 35% increase in effectiveness, with high damage beams being at the top. But I have no solid math to back that up, so I didn't mention it. By the way, for anyone reading this, take that '35%' with a grain of salt. A more secure estimate would be something like "greater than 15% but less than 35%".



@FaFT
And thank you for the polite reply. Glad we could veer away from disrespectful discourse and get some good communication going.

Ever since I started my spreadsheet, with data pulled from the game files and formulas showing info not displayed in-game or on the wiki, I've been using it pretty much as my sole source of information. I've also memorized a fair bit of the stats so I go by memory unless I'm working directly with the spreadsheet, in which case all data is evaluated from game data. Before I started this thread I was working on the potential of a Paladin on an Odyssey and fixing a series of single complicated formulas which determines weapon type and calculates stats from them based on how damage for those weapons are evaluated. The part for burst weapons is especially frustrating and this whole thing is not as straightforward as you'd think. Chargeless burst beams also isn't done yet so the correct values for Tachyon weren't displayed and I thus ignored it. My end goal is to create a spreadsheet that anyone can use, to paste game data from any weapon, which will give you all kinds of useful stats without the user having to do any fanaggleing. I'm also experimenting with metrics and systems to evaluate the comparitive effectiveness of weapons as well as a 'balance' score so modders can quickly and easily balance their weapons, and so the AI tourney is less prone to meta domination via overpowered designs. Anyway, my head was filled Paladin stuff and lacked a reminder, so I mixed it up. That's my bad. I just wish someone would have pointed that out politely earlier on, it'd have helped cool this thread done some.

Regarding EMP: True. 'Pointless' was a bad statement. The measure is not an absolute one. It'd be much more appropriate to say that I believe that the EMP on Tachyon is of low value for the Paragon, Odyssey and Apogee.

Regarding Burst vs Sustained: I'm a rather at fault in the way I addressed that since I was also replying to other people's comments via that big wall-of-text.

Regarding Armor Calcs: Higher damage just means less reduction, it's not an overall score of a weapon's effectiveness vs armor. Other factors affect the actual dps, flux efficiency can be important, and the nature of burst and charges combined with the scenario can also affect the actual effectiveness in battle. Chargeless burst against armor can be good if you have many weapons (and therefor a confluence of flux) that are highly ineffective against armor, giving them earlier access to hull, but that can also work against it if you don't full penetrate the armor. Burst can also suffer from a ship turning fresh armor at you.

That's why I like HIL so much. Even if it's 66% dps @ 66% damage compared to the burst of Tachyon, the actual sustained DPS is hugely supperior and even more flux efficient. It only takes like, what...2-ish seconds before HIL is outperforming vs armor? And it's a constant beam, so hitting fresh armor isn't as big a deal. Also...if what Draba says about HE using armor damage to calculate hull 'armor', HIL actually has a fairly substantial lead even against hull.

Regarding My Mistakes: I usually use vague descriptors to show that I'm rounding things out or guessing. I can't remember if I did in that case, but if I didn't, I admit that that's my mistake. I also come from the mechanical engineering field so offhand estimations and approximations when just discussing things (when exact figures may take time to gleen) is a habit of mine. Spherical cows, and all that. When entertaining others, I also often teach random science stuff and exact figures aren't important for that. Heck, even when writing proofs or designing parts there's a thing such as significant digits, insignificant factors, allowable deviation and etc, so approximation is practically a way of life for me....which is ironic considering I'm mildly autistic and used to struggle with doing things perfectly. "Work smarter, not harder" was a challenge for me to overcome. I guess I now go by the motto "If the cost of reducing the approximation isn't worth the loss risk, just leave it and do something better with your time". (note that I said loss risk)

That being said, that 400% and 100% I threw out was based on an incorrect value so it doesn't really apply to my philosophy of approximations, except that I rounded up (and said so).

Regarding Armor and Hull Table: I didn't include shield dps since it's straightforward (except hardflux vs softflux, which is highly relative to the target) and there didn't seem to be much if any confusion about it. All listed DPS except for HIL is true vs shields, and it's no labor to figure out HIL.

Regarding The Little Thug: Not you :) But thank you for taking the time to read that far! I appreciate it.

14
General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build
« on: January 09, 2019, 01:26:43 AM »
@FaFT
Meh I mixed up sustained dps of Tachyon and Paladin. So sue me, I made a single mistake. At least I'm using proper arguments, not this "ITS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS" cultish nonsense that many have been using, and I'm willing to correct my mistakes and agree with others. I made the correction one of my latest comments, although I admit it's my mistake to not have clearly stated that I made the mistake and reiterate the related arguments in light of that. However, if you want to point out a mistake a made, just do it. No need for all the rude fanfare. Just say "Hey, I think you made a mistake here" and I'll reply "Well ***, you're right. Let me fix that".

Regarding EMP: The reason I say it's useless is not because the EMP amount is small but because people are pairing that with 'sniping', ie: shooting from beyond the target's ability to retaliate, as well as one-shotting targets. In both cases, EMP to weapons is pointless. Either the target is dead and can't retaliate, or it's out of firing range, and can't retaliate. It's only when out of range that disabling engines is useful, but even that is very situational. It's only useful if the target were otherwise capable of getting to safety before reaping additional punishment. Besides that, however, my other argument is on the basis that weapons are balanced based on costs and benefits, and the addition of EMP tacks on costs that you don't necessarily need. If want EMP there are plenty of other sources, none of which would impinge on the potential of a large weapon.

Regarding Burst: Basing the core of an outfit on such an unreliable situation as taking advantage of mistakes isn't a very effective design choice. At least, not for a ship like the Paragon. For a much more economical and comparitively flightly ship like the Sunder, sure. Especially considering that the AI will tend to keep it away from big targets with plenty of shields and pounce of vulnerable ships(of course the AI isn't perfect), chewing through armor and hull at a great speed and quickening the targets destruction and thereby making it worth the space it takes up when fellow ships are all vying for line of fire. For a ship like the Paragon, though, with its immense range and ponderous speeds, it is more suited for laying down a constant output of damage at whatever target is infront of it, regardless of whether it is vulnerable or not. As to my previous argument about HIL being nearly as effective against shields as Tachyon, that point is dead since it's been shown that Tachyon does, in fact, have a substantially higher sustained shield dps. My other arguments about HIL, however, are not. ie; overkill, waiting for rate of fire, and substantially higher armor and hull dps.
I will concede that I undervalued the effect of overwhelming shields in a quick burst and causing armor/hull damage, even if the target isn't one-shot, against ships with whom that's possible. Such an effect is capable of causing lasting damage faster than alternatives. Still, I don't believe that this effect is a clear advantage above Plasma and HIL. It is a point in it's favor, however, that I didn't previously count.
A related point that I can't remember if I've mentioned yet, is that Plasma Cannon also counts as a burst weapon (though obviously not beam), shooting a burst of 3 every 2 seconds. I haven't imported 0.9 stats to my spreadsheets so I don't know the exact duration of the burst, I'll assume 1second. This burst is 1500 damage in total, so it has comparable burst potential as  Tachyon (though obvious with the proj vs beam traits) but the amount of potential overkill is less than the Tachyon's 2250. The rate of fire of its burst is also only 2 seconds, so you don't have to suffer quite as long before being able to retaliate. The flux efficiency is also quite a bit higher, especially considering it causes hard flux. This gap in flux efficiency closes vs very high armor, but is insignificant vs hull.

Regarding Armor Calculations: I've already pointed this out in previous replies. But to make things perfectly clear as well as to correct my previous mistakes, here is the math:
Tachyon - 346 sustained dps @ 750 damage:
vs 1500 armor: 346 * ( 750 / ( 750 + 1500) ) = 115 dps
vs 1500 armor hull: 346 * ( 750 / ( 750 + 75) ) = 314 dsp
HIL - 500 sustained dps @ 250 damage (1000 @ 500 vs armor)
vs 1500 armor: 1000 * ( 500 / ( 500 + 1500) ) ) = 250 dps
vs 1500 armor hull: 500 * ( 250 / ( 250 + 75 ) ) = 385 dps

I'll forgo doing every calculation and assume you all can make the rest of the calculations for yourselves; Against higher armor targets, the gap shrinks, but against lower armored targets or targets whose armor has been lowered, that gap widens by a VERY substantial amount. If you're too lazy to do the math, just think about it like this; Tachyon tops out at 346 dps vs armor, but HIL tops out at 1000 dps vs armor.
That is why I touted HIL as being the superior choice, especially against smaller ships which can't handle the shield pressure of all the beams, and you don't have to wait 6 seconds to get to the next ship, or wait 6 seconds to finish off the sliver of HP remaining. HIL can also be supplemented with Autopulse, giving you even better burst vs shields, against large targets.
To round things up, I'll admit that my claim of 400% superiority vs armor and 100% vs hull was hasty and in error. I'll also admit that calling me out on that is 100% deserved. I got angry. Up until that point, people weren't rude to me. I'm tired of communities being dominated by bullish idiots, so I sometimes bite back to show that not everyone will accept their ***.

Since I'm putting out real numbers, I might as well do everything. Feel free to correct any mistakes you see.

[Weapon]  -  [DPS @ Damage @ flux load]
[vs armor (flux efficiency) ]  -  [vs hull (flux efficiency) ]  -  [burst duration]  -  [burst reload (including burst) ]  -  [total burst damage]

(assuming 1500 armor ship, including 5% max armor to hull. assuming max potential. assuming no hullmods or talents)

Tachyon - 346 dps @ 750 dmg @ 462 f/s
115 dps (0.25) - 314 dps (0.68) - 1.5s - 6s  - 2250 dmg
HIL - 500 dps @ 250 dmg @ 500 f/s
250 dps (0.5) - 385 dps (0.77) -  -  -
Plasma - 750 dps @ 500 dmg @ 825 f/s
188 dps (0.23) - 653 dps (0.79) - 1s - 2s - 1500 dmg
Autopulse - 1500 dps @ 150 dmg @ 1250 f/s
225 dps (0.18) - 1000 dps (0.8 ) - 3.7s - 15s - 5550 dmg
' (sustained) - 375 dps @ 150 dmg @ 313 f/s
56 dps (0.18) - 250 dps (0.8 ) -  -  -
Paladin - 667 dps @ 500 dmg @ 1000 f/s
167 dps (0.17) - 579 dps (0.58) - 8.6s - 20s - 5778 dmg
' (sustained) - 267 dps @ 500 dmg @ 400 f/s
67 dps (0.17) - 231 dps (0.58) -  -  -

Anyone know the syntax to create tables in comments with csv format? Also, I included Paladin because it's interesting, and not as any kind of silly argument like that you should go 4x Paladin on a Paragon

Points of Note:  - The damage reduction is not perfectly linear. weapons with smaller damage will see a greater change in damage reduction % as the armor varies, and while weapons with large damage will see negligible change to hull dps against ships of all sizes, the damage reduction increases near exponentially as the weapon damage decreases. This effect is more eggregious with ballistic weapons, but as you can see even Autopulse is losing a whole 500dps of its dps vs hull.
- Burst stats and considerations are important because their overall performance changes depending on the situation. For a ship that will only periodically attack, burst is great because it takes ALL the damage from the reload duration and squeezes it into the burst duration. On the other hand, this is much less useful for ships who'll spend a greater % of their time shooting since the weapon's actual output will shrink down to the "sustained" stats.
- To relate the previous point to our discussion, the Paragon (with its ponderous speed and enormous range), once in battle tends to stay in combat until the battle is over, only taking breaks to activate Fortress. To the nickpickers: although this isn't an absolute truth, if you were put grade this with a sliding scale, no other ship in the game would exceed a Paragon in this regard. Therefor, in most cases it's best to select from the "sustained" stats. A Player piloted Paragon with Autopulse or Paladin (not necessary 4x) is an exception, since the player can save weapon charges for the most appropriate targets and manage Fortress shield to take better advantage of time and target.

Since we're on the topic of the Paragon, maximizing the benefit of the Targeting Core is not necessarily the sole key to success. Picking the longest range weapon on any other ship is not necessarily the best choice. It all depends on the roles available to the ship based on its stats, and likewise with the Paragon.
The Paragon is exceedingly slow, has a huge range boost to all weapons (excl PD), and has enormous defensive potential. What one can glean from that is that previously shorter ranged weapons now become viable against a greater number of targets, and rather than kiting and sniping as most fragile ships have to do in order to survive combat, the Paragon can just sit there and take the hits. Staying out of enemy range isn't necessary. In fact, it's desirable to have the Paragon advance as fast as it can so that it can tank for the rest of the fleet.
Meanwhile, due to the range buff to ALL weapons (excluding PD of course), there are few ships that can outrange it, and even those that outrange it won't necessarily stay out of range, nor does it preclude your fleet from assisting in that regard.
Now keeping all that in mind, range is actually one of the least concerns (except with Paladin) when selecting weapons. Most important are the sustained stats, and the fact that you can point an absurd amount of firepower at a single target, for long periods of time (thanks for flux stats). Very few ships can do this, so rather equip your Paragon do deal with ships that other ships can also deal with just as efficiently, if not moreso, why not equip your Paragon to do what no other ship can do?
What that is, is wield a shitload of Plasma Cannons. No other weapon in game has as high a combined sustained damage potential against shields, armor and hull. And the efficiency is actually above average (lots of math...I'll post my spreadsheet at some point in the near future). There's a reason our lord and savior, Alex, has balanced the Plasma Cannon to the overarching cost of 30 OP.
If you want EMP, there's a very efficient little tool called the Ion Cannon. Although its range is half as much as Tachyon, a single Ion Cannon outputs over three times as much EMP over time, and the turret speed is vastly higher, allowing you to use it on the quick and small ships that Tachyon beam can only hit at range. A full loadout of Ion Cannons is even pretty useful during one of the few situations that can destroy a Paragon, which is when it's surrounded and overwhelmed. Combine that with the turret speed of your side-mounted Plasma Cannons and you'll be able to quickly eliminate those threats too. This turret speed also grants you the benefit of much more quickly retargeting your side large slots to the target infront of you, making the transition from zapping small-fry on the side to starting a barrage on a main target a lot faster. The Plasma Cannons will also render moot the need for kinetic ballistics to shore up the weaknesses of Tachyon, so you can opt for Dual Flaks instead, giving you fantastic PD, which is fantastically more OP efficient than a host of Burst PD.
As far as hitting fighters...so what? Fighters are going to have to die at some point anyway, and the overkill isn't too significant. The flux efficiency isn't bad either. Fighters still have shields and armor which reduces the effect of most PD, not to mention miss rate. Comparitively, fighter-intercepted Plasma shots have a 100% hit rate in the PD department. Besides that, bompared to the increased DPS that Plasma has over Tachyon, the loss of dps to your main target is negligible. Even Plasma shots being intercepted by opposing projectiles aren't that bad. Plasma projectile has a fairly high HP, so it actually tends to absorb shots as well. Even if the Plasma projectile gets destroyed, it takes with it a fair amount of hard flux you otherwise would have taken, so you're essentially just trading hard flux for soft flux. Although not the most efficient of trades, it's still easier to deal with than hardflux.

Regarding My Commentary: Quoting someone out of context has always been a popular logical fallacy. That being said, thank you for calling me out on those nonetheless. I was losing patience and made rude, generalized and absolute comments that don't accurately reflect what happened. While it was true that many people don't and weren't replying with proper arguments, and it's true that being rude and insulting to me, my comments were nonetheless unreasonable and I should be better than that.  Harmlessly appreciating any weapon you want is completely reasonable. The onus is also partially on me for not specifically requesting for people to respond with quantifiable arguements rather than casual discourse, so losing my patience about not getting the replies I was hoping for is my bad. And although I'm not sorry about responding rudely to rude comments, I will endeavor to also reply with the same standard of argument as with polite conversationalists so that I don't cause further confusion and am still able to progress the debate.

@the little thug pridefully gossiping to others within the crowd:
Regarding your invocation of the argument fallacies of hypocrisy and reductio ad absurdum, by nature, our limited, linear and alphabetic communication medium takes a great deal of time and effort to perfectly model all possible permutations of a combat situations....and at a certain point we just don't give a ***. Leaving ones audience with the onus to have the intelligence to make a certain amount of conclusions regarding relating matters is a matter of course that's been present in human socializing since time immemorial. This 'gap' can be made smaller with effort, for the purpose of making ones arguments clearer and/or making the argument more accessible to those with less knowledge or overall intelligence. This is used in schools and with children or adults who can't or won't labor themselves over the gap for whatever reason. And I'm neither your teacher or entertainer.
Another option, especially in situations where a gratuitous amounts of background knowledge may be required and the speaker wishes to focus on higher level topics, is to describe only what's necessary and rely on the audience to either have the required background to fill in the blanks, to seek out they're missing themselves, or to ask questions. This is a very efficient discussion method and see's use in any field which requires gratuitous technical documentation.

15
General Discussion / Re: Neat Oddysey Build
« on: January 09, 2019, 01:01:04 AM »
@Megas (God bless you for being a respectful debater)
For the whole duration of this thread I had somehow mistaken Tachyon sustained dps with Paladin sustained dps, and I was basing many conclusions on that erroneous stat. Now that I've realized that, assume that my stance against Tachyon has decreased by an equivalent amount.

Regarding HIL, I agree that that's true, to a certain extent. Certainly with targets it can one-shot, but rather than considering a single-target basis, you should look at the battle as a whole. How much time do you lose to recharge delay and overkill, or the AI shooting Tachyons at the wrong target. Overkill with Tachyon isn't simply just flux inefficiency, it's also up to a 6 second segment of time in which it isn't doing anything.
Hmm, perhaps going both HIL and Tachyon would be a good medium, either 2:2 or 1:3. They'd help shore up each others' weaknesses. Rather than wasting Tachyon on overkill, you could save it for the next target and let HIL finish your current target off. And if you put the HILs in the side slots, if you know a single HIL is enough, you could start turning your ship to the next target. 2:2 might also be more efficient for AI control, especially since it has a tendency to swing its hair back and forth, so to say. The side HIL would stay on target at the very least.

Odyssey can sort of manage 3xTachyon, under player control, but it's not really worth the effort IMO. 3x Autopulse...maybe.

As far as countering shields, this can be done via kinetic missiles, either on the ship or in the fighters. The weakness of kinetic missiles is counteracted by ECCM and the fact that you can put a Locust in a large slot, now. Use those barrages as a PD shield for your sabots and/or bombers. The sabots don't even need to get all the way to the ship, just close enough to detonate, so even against an Onslaught there's a fair chance to make it through the PD. Or instead of Sabots and Locusts you can go with Annihilators and Squalls. That'd be a decent combo for 2x Plasma.

Regarding dueling and etc, what I was talking about before is not so much rare case of 1v1 while separate from the fleet, but rather than charging through the middle into the enemy fleet, you take them on one at a time as they leave the protection of the deathball, such as fast ships that get ahead of the fleet or isolating a ship via various means;
I using Salamanders a lot in my fleet, which tends to throw the enemy fleet into some amount of chaos. Sometimes it'll cause a ship to drift away from the deathballor sometimes it'll send a ship retreating while it deals with them and leaves another ship vulnerable.
I also employ a fair amount of support ships, meant simply for taking up enemy focus, dealing with fighters, and/or driving up flux. Fluxed up ships, of course, tend to retreat from the front lines, giving me the opportunity to safely blow up a ship or two. Or, if a nearby ship is in danger, when the enemy drives forward aggressively I can take advantage of their forward position.
I also tend to use a "roll-up-the-rim" tactic, where I force the enemy fleet to stretch sideways and take advantage of that to flank the thinned-out wings. There tends to be much less fighters there, and the ships are usually the smaller, faster ones so I can chew through them at a great speed, with much less pressure. Eventually I'm just outright flanking the main part of the enemy fleet who are otherwise busy with the rest of my fleet, or the enemies who retreat from my front line end up coming right to me, or visa versa.
I can often also use my target itself to shield me from other enemies. This is very doable with "roll-up-the-rim" tactics since I'm tackling the enemy line from the side.
Or, if I'm faced with a few ships, I'll flux out the slowest so they'll retreat, then I'll back away and pull the faster ship(s) with me, and turn on them once I know I have enough room to blow them up before they retreat back to safety.
Faster ships can be lured by letting them approach before turning on your weapons and using Plasma Burn to further close the gap.

etc etc...there's all that and more, as methods to thin out what you're facing. By the time we get to the big scary capitals we have overwhelming numbers. I don't mind taking longer to accomplish these tactics. So long as it's done before CR takes a substantial hit, I'm happy.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10