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.

106

General Discussion / Re: Bombs away! (your homework for tonight)

« on: September 09, 2012, 01:47:56 AM »

Less spectacular but more effective: four cluster bomb launchers on an Afflictor. You'll almost feel bad, watching your enemy spin around in frustration as he gets chewed apart one bite at a time. Almost.

107

General Discussion / Re: Favorite of Each Class!

« on: September 09, 2012, 01:43:58 AM »

Fighter: the Thunder's crazy speed still makes it my go-to for point capture and interception assignments.

Frigate: really, my favorite is probably the Tempest (even cooler now with that drone), but since everybody's saying Tempest, I'll go with my new second-favorite, the Afflictor. It's the most fun of the phase ships to fly, in my opinion, and also the one that the AI handles best (I seem to lose a Shade every second battle I fight). The hardpoint ordnance is awesome—has anybody tried mounting four cluster bomb launchers and an AM blaster? Surprisingly effective (though it's only enough bombs, even with expanded magazines, to take down one cruiser, maybe two destroyers).

Destroyer: I'm finding the Sunder, since the recent patches, an absolute blast to play. Did it always have such strong flux capacity and dissipation? I remember it being really fragile, but outfitted properly now (lots of capacitors, hardened shields), it's like a little tiny Paragon. You barely even notice when a Sabot hits the shield. The autopulse laser finally being a decent weapon helps a lot too; I find the Sunder, in human hands, can beat pretty much anything up to an Aurora one-on-one (certain Eagle configurations are hard, though).

Cruiser: I actually always kind of liked the Falcon (it's a cool silhouette, it's cheap for a cruiser), but with maneuvering jets I really like it. Being able to get +35% range from an ITU on a ship that basically profiles as a destroyer (in terms of FP cost, armament, speed, and maneuverability) is just unfair. In the early campaign, I stick a couple heavy maulers on mine and go to town on all those big, fat, unshielded pirate Buffaloes from halfway across the map. Even setting the range advantage aside, the Falcon can outslug just about any destroyer and outrun any other cruiser.

Capital: Odyssey, hands down. Some things never change!

108

General Discussion / Re: Questions: Kinetic Damage, Shield Practice, Campaign Fleet battles

« on: March 26, 2012, 08:33:24 PM »

The armor formula is:

actual damage = base damage * base damage / (armor value + base damage)

Damage is also modified by type (kinetic does 50% damage vs. armor), but I don't know where that goes in the equation. If "base damage" incorporated that reduction, you'd expect the needler against an undamaged Lasher to do 25 * 25 / (250 + 25), or a little over 2.27 for the first shot (assuming they all hit the same cell of armor, each would do a little more than the one before it, but I'm too lazy to do that math; I'm pretty sure it'd be under 50 total). If the 50% penalty is applied after armor mitigation is calculated, we'd get (50 * 50 / (250 +50))/2, or a little over 4.17 for the first shot. Again, not going to do the math; I think if every shot landed on the same spot you'd get ~80 damage. That's assuming the Lasher had perfect armor to start with, though—I think 93 damage is well within reason if the Lasher's armor were somewhat damaged.

The gauss cannon, though, should be either 375 * 375 / (250 + 375), which comes to 196, or (700 * 700 / (250 + 700))/2, which comes to 257.89—unless that wasn't again a Lasher? Against, say, a Dominator (1500 armor), 375 damage would be reduced to 75. If you use 700 as the base, I don't think you can get below 200 even against an Onslaught. Maybe if you're firing just beyond your maximum range.

So, in conclusion, I have no idea how armor works.

109

General Discussion / Re: Campaign Questions

« on: March 24, 2012, 08:00:59 PM »

It affects map size for sure (attack vs. attack being the smallest, defend vs. defend the largest—I think), and I think it might also affect the number of FP you get for your initial deployment?

110

General Discussion / Re: Energy Weapon Balance

« on: March 23, 2012, 11:04:08 AM »

Yeah, the Guardian... it's been a bit of a struggle. It either seems to end up too good, or not nearly good enough. Plus, the graphics for the beam look a little weird if you set it up in certain ways (such as a rapid-fire burst - may have to try that again, though - it did to just that at one point). Ultimately, though, the problem it faces is this: if you've got a large energy slot, why on earth would you be spending it on PD?

I can perhaps see it on a carrier - but there aren't any back-line carriers with large energy slots. I suppose I can see it on the side turrets of the Paragon, too, if it was good enough, though. Either way, though, it's a very niche weapon just because so few ships have a large energy slot to spare.

I envisioned it, when I first read the weapon description, as some kind of AoE-ish weapon—I thought it could hit five missiles at once or something like that. Not sure if that's possible (can one weapon track multiple targets?), but it'd be an interesting way to set the Guardian apart from other PD weapons. It warms up, maybe with a little glow effect, and then ZAP, takes out a whole barrage of torpedoes in one burst. Alternatively, what about a weapon (again, one that has a cooldown and a little warm-up time) that simply does X damage to everything within range Y, a 360-degree pulse of fragmentation damage?

As to the second point, I'd mount the Guardian on an Odyssey if it were a better weapon (and cheaper—that it costs substantially more OP than a HIL or autopulse laser is another big downside). In combat, I generally don't have the single large turret on the starboard side pointed at the enemy; it'd be good to have a big, cheap weapon there to guard the ship's unshielded side from strike craft. As it is, I usually mount an autopulse laser, which is cheap, low-flux, and versatile, but not particularly good at anything (and incapable of PD, of course).

111

Suggestions / Re: Current Stuff that needs looked at

« on: March 19, 2012, 11:18:01 AM »

Honestly, balancing Broadsword would make the biggest and most positive change to the game that I can think of right now.

How about just bumping their FP cost up to, say, 8? I think a big part of their strength right now is that they're the cheapest proper fighter (sorry, Talons and Wasps).

112

General Discussion / Re: Hammerhead thoughts

« on: March 19, 2012, 11:13:53 AM »

Realistically there isn't a lot of different energy weapons you can viably put in there.

You can fit a Hammerhead with four IR pulse lasers and have enough OP left to mount two heavy machine guns, the missiles of your choice, and 20 vents. Inferior to a beam-based setup in most respects, and not recommended for AI captains, but it works well against bigger ships, especially in support of cruisers and/or bombers.

113

General Discussion / Re: Hammerhead thoughts

« on: March 18, 2012, 07:55:22 PM »

Ha, yeah, in one of my games, I got a Brawler. I lost my second or third battle and ended up in a Dram—sold everything, bought a Hammerhead, and only had enough left over to fill out the crew and buy three tactical lasers. As it turns out, a Hammerhead can kick a lot of ass with just three tactical lasers.

114

Suggestions / Re: AI: Dodging Isn't Always The Right Thing

« on: March 18, 2012, 04:00:32 PM »

Yeah, I think we remember the times we've seen the AI screw up with missiles much more readily than the times it's used them really well. Or if we remember those times, it's because we got totally schooled, and it's sort of embarrassing, and we don't want to talk about it. I know every now and then I lose focus, get overloaded by Sabots and then blown apart by Harpoons/Hurricanes/Reapers, and then quickload while muttering something about what cheap ass *** that was.

But in my heart I know I got my ass kicked fair and square.

115

Suggestions / Re: Current Stuff that needs looked at

« on: March 18, 2012, 03:54:07 PM »

1) More Strike Weapons, including some sort of ballistic non-bomb Strike Weapon.

4) Some sort of AoE Energy PD weapons, similar to Flak.

5) Some "Fast" Low-Tech and Midline ships that can match Hyperions and Tempests in speed, if not efficiency.

6) More, better armed Low-Tech Frigates that have firepower to rival Hyperions and Tempests.  Currently the only Low-Tech ships that field Medium hardpoints are the Brawler and Hound, and the only Midline is the Vigilance.  We need low-tech and midline ships that are as known and feared as the Hyperion and Tempest.  Some definitively purposed "Strike" and "Assault" ships would be ideal.

7) More "Slow, but powerful" High-Tech ships.  Currently they're all about hit and run.  They need some that are about staying power and endurance.

More versatility in the tech levels in general.  For example, low-tech lacks a "Fast attack" frigate, high-tech lacks any carrier but the Astral, any frighters/tankers whatsoever, and any Destroyer but the Medusa.

I like some of your ideas, but I strongly disagree with this push towards homogenization. I like that there are things ballistic weapons can do that energy weapons can't, and vice versa; I like that the ship designs from different eras follow different design principles. If you want a big ship that's about staying power and endurance, you get a Dominator or an Onslaught. You seem to be treating the different sets of ships as though they're from mutually exclusive factions, which they're not.

IN GENERAL, Tri-Tachyon ships are the best right now and not much can match them.  Adding some more useful Low-Tech and Midline ships is probably needed.

The high-tech ships aren't the sole property of the Tri-Tachyon Corporation; TT just prefers to use them and has the resources to build and maintain them (the fluff text for the Astral, for instance, says that they serve in the Hegemony fleet, albeit in limited numbers). The way the placeholder campaign is set up, yeah, Tri-Tachyon gets all the techy blue stuff and the Hegemony mostly the hulking low-tech gear, but I'm sure there will be more variation in the eventual 1.0 release (plus, you know, more ships in general, and more factions, including the Cult of Lud).

The high-tech ships are the most recent designs, and they are, explicitly, the most technologically advanced. That doesn't make them the best in all circumstances, though, and it does make them (or will make them in the final game) the rarest, most expensive, and hardest to come by. In fact, right now the Hyperion and Tempest cost as much as the midline cruisers.

Also, take a look at the first three points on your list, following "Tri-Tachyon ships are the best"—criticisms of three of the five high-tech fighter wings, all of which Tri-Tachyon use. You then call for two of the midline fighters to be nerfed. So, you know, the high-tech/low-tech disparity isn't so bad across the board.

116

Suggestions / Re: How Boarding Actions Should Work

« on: March 18, 2012, 02:28:36 PM »

And as for gases, how would go to teleport such if it only teleports organic matter?

How about some horribly virulent disease? Ebola!

117

General Discussion / Re: Fleet Composition

« on: March 18, 2012, 08:02:03 AM »

I'm trying the "two ship challenge" somebody proposed. Traded up to an Odyssey and captured an Aurora, and I've got two Gladius Wings and two Thunder things.

Even the biggest pirate fleets are a piece of cake, so I've moved on to fighting Tri-Tachyon. Which is much, much harder. Kind of surprisingly so. I can beat their mid-size fleets (though sometimes with grievous casualties), but the big ones (anything with a Paragon and an Astral) are too much to handle. I should probably swap one or both Gladius wings for Broadswords, might want to reconfigure my armament too. You can't really dance around the edge of your weapon range and pick off TT ships like you can against pirates; most of them are faster than the Odyssey and the ones that aren't have pretty serious long-range firepower.

118

General Discussion / Re: Xyphos and other thoughts

« on: March 18, 2012, 07:53:49 AM »

The Xyphos is the only fighter that can beat a Thunder wing handily, which is a point in their favor (too bad they can't catch them). They actually perform reasonably well against everything but the Broadsword, in my experience, and they have better staying power against bigger ships than most fighters. Not bad for 7 FP, even if they're not the be-all and end-all of fighters. You'd think they'd be faster, though, being high-tech and all.

They're certainly more useful than the Longbow! Anybody ever use those things?

119

Lore, Fan Media & Fiction / Re: The Lore Corner

« on: March 18, 2012, 07:44:30 AM »

Got another one—how do hull conversions work?

Is the Condor, for example, built in an autofactory from a modified Tarsus blueprint, using similar components to a Tarsus? Or is it launched as a Tarsus and then cut up and reconfigured by human workers?

120

General Discussion / Re: Rockets...

« on: March 18, 2012, 07:42:20 AM »

I don't think it's as bad as all that, it's just suited for a different role. You don't get the same volume of fire (not so good for suppressive fire, or for delivering one big punch to a venting ship), but you get steadier, more accurate fire a long time. It's like a slightly wobbly mauler that costs 0 flux—try it on a Vigilance against a Dominator or an Eagle, you can pump rockets into their engines all day long.