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 - Lucky33

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 60
526
Suggestions / Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« on: January 16, 2020, 10:22:02 AM »
B-b-but Hammerhead is so weak!? Why is it so difficult to illustrate its weaknes in this simple manner?

527
Suggestions / Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« on: January 16, 2020, 09:37:48 AM »
I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff

What problem? Care to describe?

The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.

Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.

528
Suggestions / Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« on: January 16, 2020, 06:21:04 AM »
I meant the phase skimmer, sorry.
AAF sucked with limited ammo, too. Ballistics were limited by ammo and flux, more so by the latter. It wasn't until it got a discount on flux that it was useful.
AAF doesn't break any rules, because there are no rules saying that a ship system can't be strong, only that ships can't be overly strong. You have a valid point (that a Hammerhead might be too strong), but you are derailing it with an unnecessary claim (that a ship system "cheats", by allowing the ship to do things it normally cannot, which is completely in line with every single ship system in the game).

"Phase skimmer": Wolf and Medusa pay for extra mobility. Remnants dont. While they are unavailable for the player I dont really care.

Sucked = was balanced.

Creating damage out of thin air is a cheating. Even extra mobility is a less of a problem. But damage kills. Sorry for being too obvious but you clearly need to make your priorities straight.

529
Suggestions / Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« on: January 16, 2020, 06:02:15 AM »
Arguing that AAF is the equivalent of having twice the number of ballistic weapons is sorta fine... Except that it only gets that for effectively half the time in combat. Less than, in fact: The system has about 6 seconds of active duration and a 10 second cooldown. So (since you want to bring math into this) if you're spamming AAF off cooldown, a Hammerhead has double guns for two fifths of its active combat time. Or, on average 1.4x guns.

One last thing @Lucky33: The Hammerhead isn't the only ship with Accelerated Ammo Feeder as its system. Given your opinion of it so far, what are your thoughts on other ships with AAF?

You are assuming that every ship is firing for the unlimited period of time. To destroy another Hammerhead you need only from 4 to 5.5 seconds depending on how good the ai will manage to vent in the process. And thats without even single flux point spent on firing back. And no sabots. With them and more typical overload scenario you need only 3 seconds. And all that means that you need a much heavier ship to take all 6 seconds of AAF damage in the first place.

Atlas mk2 is OK or something like that. It has its flux stat reduced to the level of Falcon. Everything else is closer to Hammerhead.

530
Suggestions / Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« on: January 16, 2020, 04:21:07 AM »

You just said that indeed its a leftover and it was pushed into the new system for no reason apart from keeping already existing assets. First version after infinte ammo was a straighforward balancing attempt (no cheating) and who would guessed that it wouldnt work. Cheating worked because sure it did. Thats all.

I don't know what you mean by 'leftover' but it is not the conventional meaning of the word. A system would be leftover if it was balanced around a previous state of the game, and the rest of the game changed while the system stayed the same. This version of AAF never existed while limited ammo existed so it can't be left over. It's only ever been balanced around infinite ammo. It was implemented because the hammerhead was too weak to compete with other destroyers without it, not for 'no reason'.

I never said anything about current version of AAF being in existance in the times of limited ammo. The whole system (doubling the rate of ammo spending) was invented in those times. And it was balanced by the ammo being limited. You can destroy something faster but you cant destroy more than you have ammo. When it became infinite, AAF became a leftover. And the diffrence of the current realization is limited to flux reduction. The very thing that is supposed to balance unlimited ammo.

AAF was introduced in 0.53a.

Also, calling it 'cheating' is silly. Does the aurora cheat when it doubles its speed? Or does the paragon cheat when it reduces incoming damage by 90%? They are unique ship systems that make the ships more powerful. The ships are balanced around having those special abilities. It is likely that the hammerhead is a bit over tuned and should be balanced, but there is no reason why a ship can't be balanced while also having systems that don't follow the normal rules.

Aurora pays for its mobility in DP. Same goes for the Paragon's system. However its more like Paragon trades its FS for its lack of mobility and its DP is a price for the sheer amount of flux and mounts.

Any rule breaking system will only result in inevitable tactical exploitation. You cant balance it. You either follow the rules (by paying the universal price for the given combat capabilities) or you dont. What makes you simply stronger. No amount of blah-blah-blah in the system's description can hide that simple fact.

This is exactly why AC is too strong in SO loadouts. It already has 450 range so the downside of SO doesn't effect it at all, but the upsides still buff it by a huge amount. AC fits well into the range/flux balance of normal ships, but SO gives it a huge dissipation boost with no range reduction (since SO reduces all weapons range to 450) which breaks the flux/range balance. SO also gives a big speed bonus letting the ship close range much more easily. AC is too strong in SO loadouts, but fine in normal loadouts.

SO doesnt buff guns. It only ails them. SO gives you extra dissipation to spend. You can utilize it by mounting more guns. Or by shooting for longer periods of time. AC already gimped to 450 range. By design. SO doesnt make it any stronger. All guns with the range below combat standard have higher dps compared to op costs.

Why it even should be a problem? HB, mounted on the Medusa, can get that extra dissipation without SO. HB has more dps against shield and the same dps against anything with noticable armor.

Generally speaking, AC is the lowtech version of the HB.

Its the AAF what makes a difference.

531
Suggestions / Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« on: January 16, 2020, 02:59:40 AM »
If AAF decreasing flux usage is cheating, is High Energy Focus, too? Is flux skimmer? I don't think it's a meaningful statement.
What can be said instead is that AAF is an overpowered ship system,  which is something I would necessarily disagree with. It also has to be kept in mind that ship systems should be judged with ships that use them. At the moment, Hammerhead's firepower is disproportionate, if compared to that of Falcon or Eagle, but not so towards other cruisers.

Yes. HEF too. Its less pronounced but it still is.

I know nothing about "flux skimmer".

Hammerhead is not a cruiser in the first place. Its a 10 DP destroyer. You shouldnt even be comparing these ships. The fact that you are is doing it provides the best illustration just how broken Hammerhead is.

532
Suggestions / Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« on: January 15, 2020, 11:01:37 PM »
SO hammerhead is only super good because the assault chaingun is very over-tuned right now. Without that, it is nowhere near as good.

AC is fine. AAF is broken. Double dps free of charge. It turns destroyer into heavy cruiser. I think its something rudimental. Leftover from the times of limited ammo. And therefore not affecting dp costs.

AAF is not left over from the times of limited ammo. A while ago (long after ammo changes) it used to double flux cost as well as damage and the hammerhead was considered a low tier destroyer because it would immediately flux itself out when it activated its system. AAF got buffed to its current state because it was useless for the AI and situational at best for the player. It could probably be a 50% damage boost without being underpowered, but 'heavy cruiser' is a massive overstatement. It's basically 4 medium slots instead of two while the system is activated, which is definitely more light cruiser territory. It also doesn't give the increased range, capacity, and hull/armor of a cruiser so I wouldn't even claim it raises the hammerhead to the level of a light cruiser, but it definitely gives it more firepower than other destroyers.

AC is definitely over-tuned. It has much much better efficiency than any other HE weapon along with an absurd 600 dps: better than any large HE weapon (I think plasma cannon is the only weapon with better hull DPS but that has almost double the flux cost). The only downside is the terrible range, but SO already kills range, so there is no downside on SO ships and a bunch of extra dissipation to handle the high flux cost. It's like a heavy blaster but with good efficiency and better dps. Any SO ship will be way way better with AC than with any other HE weapon.

You just said that indeed its a leftover and it was pushed into the new system for no reason apart from keeping already existing assets. First version after infinte ammo was a straighforward balancing attempt (no cheating) and who would guessed that it wouldnt work. Cheating worked because sure it did. Thats all.

No, "heavy cruiser" is not an overstatement. You just forgot 4 small mounts. At the press of the "F" buton railgun's 167 DPS turns into 334. Mark IX has 348.

We dont have any other shipborne HE weapons with 450 range. And yes all weapons are balanced in terms of range/flux. Compare HMG-Arbalest-HAC-HVD-Gauss. Range costs flux. This is exactly why SO gives you double dissipation at the cost of range.

Comparison with the energy weapons should take into account that it can be mounted only on midline and hitech ships and they already have more dissipation without SO. Compare Shrike/Medusa and Enforcer. Thats double dissipation built-in.

533
General Discussion / Re: Income problem.
« on: January 15, 2020, 10:10:35 PM »
3500 crew is an endgame fleet capable of glassing entire sector without breaking a sweat. Why it should be free of charge?

534
Suggestions / Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« on: January 15, 2020, 09:45:41 PM »
SO hammerhead is only super good because the assault chaingun is very over-tuned right now. Without that, it is nowhere near as good.

AC is fine. AAF is broken. Double dps free of charge. It turns destroyer into heavy cruiser. I think its something rudimental. Leftover from the times of limited ammo. And therefore not affecting dp costs.

535
General Discussion / Re: Income problem.
« on: January 15, 2020, 08:21:37 PM »
And why do you need 3500 crew as an explorer/surveyor?

536
Suggestions / Re: Falcon (P) - Missile Malus
« on: January 15, 2020, 02:23:50 AM »
Falcon (P) has no built-in missile rack.

537
Suggestions / Re: Falcon (P) - Missile Malus
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:42:46 AM »
Thats tactics. I'm pretty much sure that player's ability to kill that op Falcon (P) in a frigate not even up for the discussion.

That's very basic tactic exploiting objective speed+range advantage. Not doing even this much can only be classified as AI being not good enough.
While player piloted Hammerhead can win vs Falcon in skill-less fight too, it's never as one-sided (you need to trade away quite decent amount of armor vs properly built Falcon).

Yes, any rear-vulnerable ship can be killed by humble Wolf in skill-less fight. SO or not depending on whether you need more mobility or PPT (SO against Falcon). But it's more difficult tactic, so I don't expect AI to be able to properly and reliably execute it. Trying to do it under wrong conditions is suicide. In comparison, Falcon kiting is safe and simple.

Any amount of destroyer's armor for a cruiser is a fair deal.

My point is that if there is a way to exploit an advantage, then player will make it work. In the end it all comes back to the simplest  "who has more dakka" question.

538
Suggestions / Re: Falcon (P) - Missile Malus
« on: January 14, 2020, 11:43:47 PM »
And since basic Falcon doesnt, its just a "cruiser" with the worse armanent than Hammerhead. Only compared to that, (P) version looks great.

Basic Falcon has less firepower than Hammerhead. But it's still a much stronger ship in 1v1 scenario. It has more range and more effective mobility (same average, but burst is better for timed distance corrections). With enough hard flux firepower to kill Hammerhead from that range. A well piloted(which AI can fail at, admittedly) and properly built stand-off Falcon would always defeat a Hammerhead in completely one-sided manner.

And since Falcon is 9 Burn it doesn't really compete with other Cruisers anyway. Falcon is mostly an over-sized DE.
It still has very bad firepower to DP ratio though.

Thats tactics. I'm pretty much sure that player's ability to kill that op Falcon (P) in a frigate not even up for the discussion.

Firepower to DP is ok. Its Hammerhead's ratio not ok.

539
Suggestions / Re: Falcon (P) - Missile Malus
« on: January 14, 2020, 10:40:33 PM »
Sabotpod has 9 sec between bursts. Thats heavyac level of op. Typhoon has 15 sec chargedown. Better than heavymortar I guess. But not even in the same universe as the chaingun...

Medium missiles are balanced just fine.

I think you're underestimating instantaneous damage potential. Missiles of those kinds deal IMMENSE amounts of damage in a single burst. Gauging their power from DPS is a red herring.

All ships are balanced in the terms of managing instantaneous damage potential. With four sabot pods you have 16K potential damage to shields. Thats enough to overload Dominator and Outventure but both can survive two reapers. Every gun-cruiser can survive a single reaper. And every cruiser has flux capacity to take six sabots. Only carriers and freighters (including certain modified one) are vulnerable. And, obviously, destroyers.

Here goes DPS.

540
Suggestions / Re: Falcon (P) - Missile Malus
« on: January 14, 2020, 08:35:15 PM »
Sabotpod has 9 sec between bursts. Thats heavyac level of op. Typhoon has 15 sec chargedown. Better than heavymortar I guess. But not even in the same universe as the chaingun.

Medium missiles are balanced just fine. Its medium energy mounts what are gimped unless you have a huge dissipation. And since basic Falcon doesnt, its just a "cruiser" with the worse armanent than Hammerhead. Only compared to that, (P) version looks great.

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 60