Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: The Ion Pulser & Development Process  (Read 24048 times)

ANGRYABOUTELVES

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
  • AE ALTADOON GHARTOK PADHOME
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2016, 08:07:46 PM »

I'm really going to miss being able to have a Locust SRM mounted on the Aurora. That made it the perfect cruiser to obliterate carrier-centric fleets, being fast enough to chase down everything but a 2-Nav-Bouy Heron and with enough energy firepower to break through even an Astral's shields to deliver a 4-Annihilator payload. It's also great at scything through anything cruiser-sized or smaller that it can get in range of. I didn't play it like a hang-back missile boat at all.

That Phase destroyer looks mean. I can't wait to get my hands on it, though ideally I'd prefer a few front-mounted small energy slots for AM blasters. I'll just wait and see, I guess. The Ion Pulser looks very interesting, especially when you consider putting it on that new phase destroyer. The low per-shot damage means it'll be bad at punching through armor, but I can see a phase destroyer with 2 Ion Pulsers and 1 Typhoon Reaper being the scourge of low-tech ships everywhere, especially the Onslaught.
Logged

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2016, 09:20:26 PM »

I'm really going to miss being able to have a Locust SRM mounted on the Aurora.

That Phase destroyer looks mean. I can't wait to get my hands on it, though ideally I'd prefer a few front-mounted small energy slots for AM blasters.

I am pretty sure the new synergy mount is energy/missile. So that possibility has not been removed.

It would be somewhat wasteful to put three amblasters on the front, but one of the pictures suggests it sports three medium universals, so it should be possible. At any rate three forward facing universals is  amazing and I need it.

EDIT: Oh no ballistics in the pics. Silly brain. So maybe 3 synergy mounts. Still awesome.
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Achataeon

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • ~stare~
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2016, 09:58:22 PM »

I am pretty sure the new synergy mount is energy/missile. So that possibility has not been removed.

Unfortunately the Locust SRM is a large missile weapon. It can't be loaded onto a medium Synergy slot. That same change effectively killed one of the few missile-heavy loadouts I actually use in-game. That kinetic missile launcher (I forgot the name, but it was the large, blue thing) coupled with four annihilators and 3 AM blasters up the nose just wrecks piles and piles of fleets. It's a shame that it is gone now.  :(
Logged
"On average, a human has one breast and one testicle"
- Vsauce, Michael here

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2016, 12:18:07 AM »

That said, perhaps the new Ion Pulser will make a Safety Override configuration for Medusa a good idea, and expand the number of competitive endgame configurations.
definitely wanna try that as well! would you still put Needlers into the univerals with SO, despite the range penalty?

The Ion Pulser looks very interesting, especially when you consider putting it on that new phase destroyer. The low per-shot damage means it'll be bad at punching through armor, but I can see a phase destroyer with 2 Ion Pulsers and 1 Typhoon Reaper being the scourge of low-tech ships everywhere, especially the Onslaught.
i think low damage against armor is a reasonable prize to pay, seeing as how that is where ion weapons are most useful. i imagine taking a full burst of that weapon to your armor will still be quite painful, even if it doesn't do a lot of actual damage. ^^

It would be somewhat wasteful to put three amblasters on the front, but one of the pictures suggests it sports three medium universals, so it should be possible.
multi-type mounts are restricted to their own specific weapon size, though. as in, it's not possible to slot a small weapon into a medium univeral or hybrid mount. i imagine synergy will be the same. :/

Unfortunately the Locust SRM is a large missile weapon. It can't be loaded onto a medium Synergy slot. That same change effectively killed one of the few missile-heavy loadouts I actually use in-game. That kinetic missile launcher (I forgot the name, but it was the large, blue thing) coupled with four annihilators and 3 AM blasters up the nose just wrecks piles and piles of fleets. It's a shame that it is gone now.  :(
since we've got the Gryphon as dedicated missile cruiser now, i like that the Aurora (which is kinda the archetypical high-tech cruiser) becomes more energy focused. and while the lack of a large missile mount will make some current loadouts impossible, being able to slot up to 5 more energy weapons should open up quite a few interesting new loadouts.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 12:20:12 AM by Sy »
Logged

Steven Shi

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2016, 01:46:29 AM »

I hate to say it but after playing Starsector since v0.43, I'm not really interested in anything combat related. Actually, I've only spent maybe an hour or so for each of the the last 3 updates.

I need to see a living universe that I can interact with and react to my presence. I want to start seeing progress being made in manufacturing, mission, quests, economics, over arching AI etc. Considering it took months just to get a feel for the weird food shortage exploit, custom inspection and the obtuse faction relationship, I can't imagine the game being ready until at least mid-2017.   :-\
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2016, 05:35:14 AM »

@ Sy: The point of Needlers, and beams for that matter, is to hit things at long-range.  If I use Safety Override on Medusa, and I use the new Ion Pulsers, I would not use Needlers, and I might use IR Pulse Laser, Light Assault Gun, or some sort of missile (Safety Override does not affect missiles) on the hardpoints instead.

Currently, Aurora is just a MK ninja color swap of the Gryphon.  Changing missile mounts to something more versatile is nice, though I miss it losing the large mount.  I was looking forward to mounting a plasma cannon on Aurora.  Now, with only seventeen light weapons worth of weapons, it is barely more armed than the Falcon or Doom, and matches Apogee.  I would like to see a high-tech energy version of the Dominator, and none of high-tech cruisers fit.  Currently, Dominator is the most powerful cruiser overall, and it is my go-to choice for cruiser.

Could a few of the small mounts on Aurora be upgraded to Medium (if Aurora has no large mounts)?  For instance, the one near the back and to the left.  The one on the right is medium, the one on the left is small.  Also, maybe one of the small hardpoints upgraded to Medium, like the one furthest out forward?
Logged

Achataeon

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • ~stare~
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2016, 06:35:08 AM »

@ Megas: With these recent changes, surely the Aurora would now have a dual frontliner/missile support use. Pretty different compared to the Gryphon. Gryphon is useful for alpha strike damage and heavy missile support. Now the Aurora can close in and bring the hurt. Besides, them Synergy and Energy mounts are now going to play nice with its ship system.

What would be nice would be some more new ships. The incoming ones are the Scarab and the yet-unnamed-phase-destroyer. I would like to see how these spice things up a bit more, in addition to the new ion weaponries we're about to get.

Let us have those patch notes already!
Logged
"On average, a human has one breast and one testicle"
- Vsauce, Michael here

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2016, 07:07:50 AM »

I do not mind Aurora is losing large missile, though I was hoping it would be replaced by large energy or hybrid.  I was hoping it would evolve into an high-tech energy version of Dominator, but it seems it will morph somewhere between Falcon and Eagle.

For missile boat, I currently prefer Aurora over Gryphon because it can move and shield tank better and fire four small front missiles instead of three.  That said, I would like a high-tech cruiser that is somewhere between Medusa and Paragon, but none of the current high-tech cruisers fill that niche.  Unless I want to use Aurora as missile boat, I am better off with two Medusa or an Eagle instead of any high-tech cruiser.

I think a Tri-Tachyon version of the Gryphon with more speed, better flux and shield stats, and a blue paint job, at the cost of downgrading ballistic mounts to energy, would make a fine pre-0.7.2 Aurora replacement.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 07:10:04 AM by Megas »
Logged

Vind

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2016, 08:35:49 AM »

   Large or another medium energy slot for Aurora will create best ship in its class. Dominator is slow to rotate and got fixed inefficient shield with fixed large slots to balance its weapon power. I understand desire to buff high-tech ships but really do we need all "best" ships be simply high-tech energy based ones? Aurora is fine as it is compared to awful shield efficiency on conquest :)
Logged

ANGRYABOUTELVES

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
  • AE ALTADOON GHARTOK PADHOME
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2016, 09:52:35 AM »

@ Megas: With these recent changes, surely the Aurora would now have a dual frontliner/missile support use. Pretty different compared to the Gryphon. Gryphon is useful for alpha strike damage and heavy missile support. Now the Aurora can close in and bring the hurt. Besides, them Synergy and Energy mounts are now going to play nice with its ship system.

What would be nice would be some more new ships. The incoming ones are the Scarab and the yet-unnamed-phase-destroyer. I would like to see how these spice things up a bit more, in addition to the new ion weaponries we're about to get.

Let us have those patch notes already!
I already used the Aurora as a frontliner though, and downsizing the Large Missile Slot is going to kill that build because it now it won't be able to deal with massive fighter swarms nearly as well.

Large or another medium energy slot for Aurora will create best ship in its class. Dominator is slow to rotate and got fixed inefficient shield with fixed large slots to balance its weapon power. I understand desire to buff high-tech ships but really do we need all "best" ships be simply high-tech energy based ones? Aurora is fine as it is compared to awful shield efficiency on conquest :)
High-tech ships should be the best in their class because they cost more supplies to maintain and deploy. You can also deploy fewer high-tech ships at once than you can low-tech ships. E.g. you can deploy 5 Enforcers for fewer supplies and fewer battle points than 4 Medusas, so the Medusa should be at least 25% better than the Enforcer. The Aurora costs 35 supplies to the Dominator's 25, so even if it can't take a Dominator in a straight up fight it should be better than a Dominator at something, most preferably at killing everything else.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 10:35:24 AM by ANGRYABOUTELVES »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2016, 11:18:29 AM »

Currently, Enforcer competes with Medusa for best-in-class for destroyers; player controlled Medusa is probably best, but it is a hard call for AI.  For cruisers, Dominator is best-in-class, although Eagle can sometimes handle smaller threats more efficiently.  For capitals, Onslaught and Paragon are about equally effective.  If anything, midline suffers.
Logged

harrumph

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2016, 11:19:29 AM »

Shouldn't it "synergetic" or "synergistic" rather than "synergy"?

(All the new stuff looks awesome, by the way!)
Logged

ANGRYABOUTELVES

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
  • AE ALTADOON GHARTOK PADHOME
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2016, 12:52:32 PM »

Shouldn't it "synergetic" or "synergistic" rather than "synergy"?

(All the new stuff looks awesome, by the way!)
Spoiler
It's a pun. Sy-energy
[close]
Logged

SpacePoliticianAndaZealot

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • The Show Stopper
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2016, 02:29:20 PM »

Shouldn't it "synergetic" or "synergistic" rather than "synergy"?

(All the new stuff looks awesome, by the way!)
Spoiler
It's a pun. Sy-energy
[close]

Methinks that's not supposed to be a pun.

Speaking of which, what would be the name for the ballistic-missile mount? Kinetomacy? ;D
Logged

Aeson

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Re: The Ion Pulser & Development Process
« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2016, 02:57:36 PM »

Speaking of which, what would be the name for the ballistic-missile mount? Kinetomacy? ;D
Composite, according to a post by Alex on page 2 of this thread.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5