Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic: More Carriers and Destroyers  (Read 17848 times)

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2015, 09:50:26 AM »

Large or small fleet is just a question of relativity. If vanilla had fleets that didn't exceed your fleet limit, they would feel far better. Anyways talking about mods is fairly pointless as you can always reply to virtually every disatisfaction with modding. Want faster burn speed Atlas's? Why don't you just mod the burn speed? Want a cruiser freighter. Mod one in. Want a larger fleet limit? Why don't you just mod it. Obviously we are talking about the base game, as it is the very thing we want to affect.

As it is in the game, Buffalos are burn speed 9. Is that not fast enough? As it is, the only possible reason for a "medium" size freighter in real life is for a military freighter of a very specific military role. There really isn't a reason for a civilian one.

I did not mean that with mods you can get a better fleet size. I meant that 35 felt better that the vanilla that is trying to keep it more capped. This is why I said, be it we had the old system or the new, the limit would still remain capped. So it does not matter if the old system returned, they would still keep it low as it was, if not slightly higher and only mods or the played editing the number himself would change that. I definitely am happy with the new ship limit, but that is because I like  the idea of using a lot of capital ships in some playthroughs.

Buffalos are fine as they are, but the fact is that Atlas' speed is 6 and Buffalo's 9. It would be nice to have something in between these, rather than going straight from 6 to 9 and 300 to 2000. A cruiser class freighter with 8 speed and 600-650 cargo size and higher maintenance in total would be nice because with just augmented engines they would be able to keep up the 9 speed.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

DeMatt

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2015, 10:07:29 AM »

With the change to "Hybrid" small mounts, I think the Hammerhead is almost to the right power level, as that lets you slot in more ballistics to take advantage of your Ammo Feeder.  I think, if I was going to make any changes to it, it'd be to tweak up its Ordnance Points.  85, I think, would be about right.

The Venture needs more of a buff, I'd say, to make it stand out in the cruiser range.  In this case, I'd increase the size of the cargo hold - 750 would seem to be in the right range, and would make it more of the "mobile base" I think it's intended to be.  Bumping its burn speed would be too much of a buff.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8555
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2015, 10:38:46 AM »

I view Atlas as effectively having 1000 cargo, since a tug has no cargo.  Tug is mandatory for the Atlas (or else you are dragging along at an even slower burn 7 - totally unacceptable!)  Destroyer-sized freighter can get burn 9 or 10 by themselves, and tugs cannot go faster than burn 9.

As for mods, if I need to resort to mods to "fix" something, I would give myself a "Give me everything, give me 'UNLIMITED POWER!', kill all enemies, I win!" button.
Logged

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2015, 10:46:51 AM »

Quote
Buffalos are fine as they are, but the fact is that Atlas' speed is 6 and Buffalo's 9. It would be nice to have something in between these, rather than going straight from 6 to 9 and 300 to 2000. A cruiser class freighter with 8 speed and 600-650 cargo size and higher maintenance in total would be nice because with just augmented engines they would be able to keep up the 9 speed.
There's already a choice for a burn 9 freighter though, so what does it add? Either it's better than the Buffalo, or worse than the Buffalo, or effectively identical.  

The only reason I can see is designing ships around the fleet limit which is bad practice IMO.  That exists to keep things sane; it should not be determining ship roles.
Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2015, 11:08:05 AM »

As for mods, if I need to resort to mods to "fix" something, I would give myself a "Give me everything, give me 'UNLIMITED POWER!', kill all enemies, I win!" button.

To each his own I guess. Modding a game to me just gives it a potential to be liked by people with different views, likes and dislikes and playstyles. If a person wants to change the ship limit of his fleet to match the ship limit of the fleets of the PC, for some it might look ok, since now he can have the same fleet size as the biggest one the AI can have and for others it will be an overkill, since the player ships are usually OP compared to the AI in both logic and weapons. Definitely to each his own.


Quote
Buffalos are fine as they are, but the fact is that Atlas' speed is 6 and Buffalo's 9. It would be nice to have something in between these, rather than going straight from 6 to 9 and 300 to 2000. A cruiser class freighter with 8 speed and 600-650 cargo size and higher maintenance in total would be nice because with just augmented engines they would be able to keep up the 9 speed.
There's already a choice for a burn 9 freighter though, so what does it add? Either it's better than the Buffalo, or worse than the Buffalo, or effectively identical.  

The only reason I can see is designing ships around the fleet limit which is bad practice IMO.  That exists to keep things sane; it should not be determining ship roles.

I am sorry that I do not see it like you do. Sure if you add augmented engines to what I said it will give it 9 burn speed, but comparatively the buffalo with augmented engines reaches 10. Maybe I am just weird that I do not feel that comparing 2 ships with different hullmods is just not fair.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8555
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2015, 12:25:47 PM »

Quote
I am sorry that I do not see it like you do. Sure if you add augmented engines to what I said it will give it 9 burn speed, but comparatively the buffalo with augmented engines reaches 10. Maybe I am just weird that I do not feel that comparing 2 ships with different hullmods is just not fair.
I add Augmented Engines to everything (except Hyperion and the few rare ships with too few OP, like tugs).  It is just that good.  I have no problem taking hullmods into account.  For example, you want to play with Gryphon, you will get Missile Specialization and Expanded Missile Racks because that ship is all about missiles.
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2015, 12:41:21 PM »

I add Augmented Engines to everything (except Hyperion and the few rare ships with too few OP, like tugs).  It is just that good.  I have no problem taking hullmods into account.  For example, you want to play with Gryphon, you will get Missile Specialization and Expanded Missile Racks because that ship is all about missiles.

No I mean if you compare a ship that with an augmented engine, you should compare it to another one with an augmented engine. That means Buffalo would have burn level 10 and the one I suggested would be 9. I mean if we compare ships like that and say "since that burn level has already a freighter". Why we need any other freighter? Like adding a capital ship with normal 8 burn speed and with the augmented engine 9 and then comparing it to the vanilla speed of buffalo, I can say why we need for example a tarsus? Atlas with an augmented engine and a tug can go to 8 like the tarsus and it definitely has more cargo size.

This is why I do not see why the buffalo having 9 burn speed automatically makes that burn level covered and no other freighter is needed.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4882
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2015, 12:49:00 PM »

Quote
I think, if I was going to make any changes to it, it'd be to tweak up its Ordnance Points.  85, I think, would be about right.
I'm in agreement about this change for the Hammerhead; that would fix it, more armor would fix it, more speed would fix it; it's just on the wrong side of the Useful cusp.  Really close to good now, though; the Hybrid slots really helped quite a lot, by making it a halfway-good shield-wrecker up close.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Plantissue

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2015, 02:32:30 PM »

I think the Hammerhead has the right amount of OP. Enought to fully equip it with weapons with an expected amount of OP left over. it could be that the Medusa has an obscene amount of spare OP though. I'm not too sure what it is about the Hammerhead that doesn't make it seem useful. It has a reasonably good shield with reasonably good armour and HP. Yet it doesn't seem that survivable.  The Enforcer with its omnishield deals with missiles well and with its armour and burn system can vent and run away from difficult situations. The Medusa not only take massive shield damage on its omnishield but has the excellent phase skimmer system. They both appear to be extremely survivable. Perhaps it is a perception bias since it is somewhat easy to kill with certain frigates by shooting its rear, but those same frigates can take out similar cruisers with the same tactics as well as the Sunder. Perhaps it is the perception that the Sunder is meant to be easily killed that it gains a free pass.

Or perhaps it is that the Hammerhead doesn't seem to have very many weapons. 2 medium ballistic mounts appear excellent, but most of the time, if you do fight with Hammerheads, it appears to be equipped with trash weapons. In theory the Hammerhead can be used as a long range kiting ship bombarding from afar like the line ship it is supposed to be, taking damage on it's 300 degree shields. But if you really wanted medium range ballistic mounts, the Hound and Cerberus do exist, though on not as tough hulls as the Hammerhead. The Hammerhead feels like it lacks firepower compared with the other destroyers, so perhaps it needs an additional 2 small ballistic mounts on the front or something more drastic like replacing the missile mounts with more medium ballistic mounts or replacing the entire frontal layout with 8 small ballistics. In the end, there is something wrong with the Hammerhead and I am not quite sure what it is.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8555
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2015, 02:40:54 PM »

Hammerhead feels a bit OP starved like the current Gryphon.  If you maximize OP skills, you have enough if you stick with only the basics.  It does not have enough to afford luxuries such as elite weapons or an extra hullmod or two like a standard Enforcer, let alone Enforcer XIV.

Hammerhead has flux stats nearly as bad as Enforcer.  The flux discount on the Ammo Feeder system helps a bit, or at least it does not kill itself so easily.

Currently, hybrid mounts helped in that you can mount cheaper yet superior ballistics (that synergize with ammo feeder system) or ion cannon or tactical laser.  Vulcan is more efficient PD than beams, though no match for Enforcer's flak.

All Hammerhead needs is +5 OP and maybe a bit more flux.
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2015, 02:50:18 PM »

I do wonder. Is it bad that within good fighter choices, there are some worse ones? As in when you go to buy something, in all games, there is something worse and something better. Rather than altering the Hammerhead itself, wouldn't it be better if there was a MKII or somehow a different variant. To me it just feel more realistic for there to be a ladder when it comes to choices.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8555
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2015, 03:01:13 PM »

As a dedicated combat ship, the Hammerhead should be competitive, not be much worse than its peers.  It is better than before, but not quite at peer level.

An elite variant would be nice.  The Enforcer has one.
Logged

harrumph

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #42 on: December 15, 2015, 05:21:57 PM »

You can deploy three Hammerheads for the same cost as two Medusas. I think people overlook that.

I tend to gravitate towards destroyer-heavy fleets (one capital ship, one carrier, maybe a dozen destroyers, plus a few frigates, fighters, and auxiliary ships). Mostly Medusas and Enforcers, but I always keep a few Hammerheads around—to fill in the cracks when deployment points are tight, as second-string combatants when other ships have diminished CR, as backup flagships, etc.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8555
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2015, 05:30:56 PM »

They are overlooked because the costs are not that significant late in the game.

The biggest problem with Medusa is the most powerful flagship configurations use rare weapons (e.g., Heavy Blaster, Railgun, and/or Light Needler).  Replacing them can be harder than replacing some ships.  Enforcer and Hammerhead, on the other hand, are more common, and they do not need rare weapons (except possibly HVDs) to fight well.
Logged

harrumph

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #44 on: December 15, 2015, 05:39:25 PM »

They are overlooked because the costs are not that significant late in the game.

Depends on your playstyle. I know many people prefer to chain-deploy single ships, and it's true that the Hammerhead is basically useless for such a strategy. If you prefer to actually deploy up to the limit, however, those costs matter. The limit can be as low as 80 points, even in the very late game. Say you're piloting an Onslaught—choosing between three Medusas and five Hammerheads for the rest of your deployment isn't totally obvious (I'd take three Medusas and a Lasher over five Hammerheads, but I'd at least think about it).
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6