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)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Hyper Velocity Driver  (Read 26392 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2016, 08:46:37 AM »

(Very insightful. And this is making me want to look at raising the maximum armor reduction, probably around the same time as looking at skills etc... <goes back to lurking thread>)
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2016, 08:56:53 AM »

I like the HVD a lot. It feels perfectly balanced.; not strong enough to seriously threaten shields or armour on its own, but the range, accuracy and EMP give it a niche. And yes, I know it's a decent DPS kinetic, but the alternatives simply crack shields faster. Needlers are very much worth it IMO if you can fit them, and the autocannon is great for hardpoints and OP-starved hulls. HVD however is extra dangerous to shieldless ships, so in that sense it's a 'universal kinetic' more so than the others. OPs point is valid, even if he confused the damage types.

I also consider Resistant Flux Conduits mandatory on most ships. AI however does not, so HVDs against AI are more dangerous than an AI fleet with HVDs.

Raising max armour reduction... there was a thread about what works against high-armour ships some time ago, and it's already difficult and time-consuming to wear an armour buffed low tech boat down to hull if you're not packing burst damage. Does burst damage really need another buff? It already feels overpowered, considering that the AI can't deal with burst vs. shield and it's the single most effective way to crack armour.
Logged

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2016, 09:34:18 AM »

I never did do math, but I started replacing hvd in my builds with maulers a while ago. They punch hard enough to overload shields, albeit with less haste, but they expressly threaten shields so the chance to overload is higher. And if they do lower shields? More's the better for my big boomers.  ;D

I do still like hvd, but the emp damage is slow enough to be irrelevant usually, and the ability to overload faster doesn't usually payout for me with how much longer it'll take to actually kill the guy.

Nice to see that HMG spam is still my favorite tactic, heh.  ;p
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2016, 10:50:28 AM »

I agree with much of what Schwartz said.

Heavy Needler is good if you want the DPS and can afford the cost.  Many ships struggle to afford it, and often give up something to do so, even with max OP.  The ships that have plenty of OP to spare have other means of shield-cracking, namely weapons with high energy DPS, and can use either Heavy Mauler or Dual Flak Cannon instead of Heavy Needler.

I use Heavy Autocannon frequently on ships with medium ballistic hardpoints.  For non-beam Falcon or Eagle, I usually put Heavy Autocannons in the hardpoints.  Hammerhead, I go back-and-forth between Arbalest and Heavy Autocannon.  Cannot decide if the extra OP (for more capacitors) or range/DPS is better - Hammerhead is annoyingly OP starved even with max OP.

I agree with Resistant Flux Conduits... for the reason of multiplying vent speed, which is critical for vent spam.  Half EMP damage is a nice bonus on top of faster venting.  Must admit that Resistant Flux Conduits and high Damage Control skill makes ships mostly immune to EMP.

As for wrecking armor.  I already would not want to use kinetics (or continuous beams for that matter) to break armor unless I have Target Analysis 10.  Player needs Target Analysis 10 to do to armor what player used to do when maximum reduction was lower.

Schwartz is right on burst.  AM blaster has worse numbers than IR Pulse Laser, yet the AM blaster is more effective at killing things.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2016, 01:22:39 PM »

and it's already difficult and time-consuming to wear an armour buffed low tech boat down to hull if you're not packing burst damage

How is it any more difficult and time consuming than dealing with a high-tech ship with shield buffs and lots of vents/capacitors? Armor needs help - it has always been largely inferior to shields due to its non-renewable nature. Now that we have math that proves weak, rapid-fire shots like the Heavy MG are better at breaking armor, we've got a problem.
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3784
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2016, 01:31:03 PM »

Now that we have math that proves weak, rapid-fire shots like the Heavy MG are better at breaking armor, we've got a problem.
Not quite.  We have math proving that weak, rapid-fire kinetic weapons are better at breaking armor than slow-firing thumpy kinetic weapons.  What's missing from this analysis is the fact that even the weak, rapid-fire kinetic weapons aren't very good at breaking armor at all, especially compared to things like heavy blasters or maulers.

Edit: I'd be much more concerned if, say, it turned out that the assault chaingun was better anti-armor than the heavy mauler; I'm pretty confident that that's not true, but will admit I haven't run the numbers.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 01:32:43 PM by Wyvern »
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

SierraTangoDelta

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Who could it be?
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2016, 01:48:04 PM »

I agree with much of what Schwartz said.

Heavy Needler is good if you want the DPS and can afford the cost.  Many ships struggle to afford it, and often give up something to do so, even with max OP.  The ships that have plenty of OP to spare have other means of shield-cracking, namely weapons with high energy DPS, and can use either Heavy Mauler or Dual Flak Cannon instead of Heavy Needler.

I use Heavy Autocannon frequently on ships with medium ballistic hardpoints.  For non-beam Falcon or Eagle, I usually put Heavy Autocannons in the hardpoints.  Hammerhead, I go back-and-forth between Arbalest and Heavy Autocannon.  Cannot decide if the extra OP (for more capacitors) or range/DPS is better - Hammerhead is annoyingly OP starved even with max OP.

I agree with Resistant Flux Conduits... for the reason of multiplying vent speed, which is critical for vent spam.  Half EMP damage is a nice bonus on top of faster venting.  Must admit that Resistant Flux Conduits and high Damage Control skill makes ships mostly immune to EMP.

As for wrecking armor.  I already would not want to use kinetics (or continuous beams for that matter) to break armor unless I have Target Analysis 10.  Player needs Target Analysis 10 to do to armor what player used to do when maximum reduction was lower.

Schwartz is right on burst.  AM blaster has worse numbers than IR Pulse Laser, yet the AM blaster is more effective at killing things.

To be fair, the AM Blaster just puts out so much damage that it doesn't even matter. If you can mount 2+ of them on a ship, nothing can really last against it.
I'm using the Sthenos in SS+ and I have two phase lances and two AM blasters on it, it annihilates everything in it's weight class of Destroyer or lower, plus it does a stupid amount of damage to Cruisers with some support.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2016, 02:00:51 PM »

That is the nature of burst weapons - they can have worse DPS than continuous firing weapons with superior DPS (and other stats) yet can outperform them because Starsector's game mechanics favor burst weapons more.  AI's mediocre flux management makes it vulnerable to overload from high spikes of damage.  Player can vent-spam (or activate phase cloak or fortress shield) between shots.  And perhaps other things I failed to mention.

Another mild example is Mjolnir vs. Storm Needler.  Storm Needler has better DPS, but Mjolnir is much easier to use.  Playership with Mjolnir can fire instantly and vent spam between shots.  Storm Needler has windup, fires continuously, and builds up flux faster than can be dissipated, and if you try to vent spam, you lose so much DPS.
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2016, 03:45:44 PM »

How is it any more difficult and time consuming than dealing with a high-tech ship with shield buffs and lots of vents/capacitors? Armor needs help - it has always been largely inferior to shields due to its non-renewable nature. Now that we have math that proves weak, rapid-fire shots like the Heavy MG are better at breaking armor, we've got a problem.

Hmm.. I had a whole post written agreeing with the premise that rapid fire weapons should not be as good vs. armour. But then I got to thinking - why not? Assuming you're able to hit the target, what advantage does a high RoF gun have? Not necessarily better at cracking shields - that's entirely determined by DPS. Shields don't care if a boulder or a bucket full of sand is thrown at them. High RoF has two minor advantages: You can spray vs. small targets, and you can spray while turning or with bad aim - usually hitting with only a fraction of the shots. It also has one disadvantage vs. armour that we have not brought up yet: They're rarely very accurate and will not all hit the same square of armour. If your goal is to crack armour, you're going to be weakening several squares. A high-damage slug won't.

The math honestly came as a surprise to me, because I base my opinion on how things feel in-game. Numbers don't tell the whole story. I've never felt high RoF kinetics to be good against armour, but I do fear burst. I would never worry about taking Needlers or even Railguns on blank armour, but I'd probably tank a Sabot on shields if I was able to get away with it. Numbers aside, have you ever felt your armour threatened by low-damage kinetics?
Logged

ANGRYABOUTELVES

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
  • AE ALTADOON GHARTOK PADHOME
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2016, 03:55:08 PM »

How is it any more difficult and time consuming than dealing with a high-tech ship with shield buffs and lots of vents/capacitors? Armor needs help - it has always been largely inferior to shields due to its non-renewable nature. Now that we have math that proves weak, rapid-fire shots like the Heavy MG are better at breaking armor, we've got a problem.

Hmm.. I had a whole post written agreeing with the premise that rapid fire weapons should not be as good vs. armour. But then I got to thinking - why not? Assuming you're able to hit the target, what advantage does a high RoF gun have? Not necessarily better at cracking shields - that's entirely determined by DPS. Shields don't care if a boulder or a bucket full of sand is thrown at them. High RoF has two minor advantages: You can spray vs. small targets, and you can spray while turning or with bad aim - usually hitting with only a fraction of the shots. It also has one disadvantage vs. armour that we have not brought up yet: They're rarely very accurate and will not all hit the same square of armour. If your goal is to crack armour, you're going to be weakening several squares. A high-damage slug won't.

The math honestly came as a surprise to me, because I base my opinion on how things feel in-game. Numbers don't tell the whole story. I've never felt high RoF kinetics to be good against armour, but I do fear burst. I would never worry about taking Needlers or even Railguns on blank armour, but I'd probably tank a Sabot on shields if I was able to get away with it. Numbers aside, have you ever felt your armour threatened by low-damage kinetics?
I haven't. Then again, the AI doesn't use 5x HMG enforcers.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2016, 04:04:07 PM »

It'd be great if Aeson did a data table for the actual HE weapons anti-armor DPS. So the Assault Chaingun, Mauler, Hellbore, Hephaestus Assault Gun and thow in the Mjolnir if you would. :)
Logged

sycspysycspy

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Translator of the Council of AL
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2016, 06:14:13 PM »

he did the math

Really cool.

He did not take the range into consideration. If you can have 10 enforcers to form a circle with 450 radius(HMG range), you can have at least 20 of them to form a circle with 1000 radius(HVD Range). That is some extreme condition though. Long range weapons are easier to focus fire on the target and the ship with long range weapons would have less chance to interrupt the friendlies' line of fire.
Logged
Please report any translation error to me with PM.
- I just went over to my bank account and figured out I can live comfortably without working for the rest of my life as long as I die on next Tuesday.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2016, 06:46:07 PM »

If you want to deploy 25 ships, you probably want long range weapons to minimize your AI ships slamming into each other when they decide to focus on one target.

Back in 0.65, beam and missile Wolves were very useful when I could deploy more than twenty.  They, along with a few other different frigates, tore up everything after the enemy fleet commander with Combat 10 was dead.
Logged

Copperwire

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2016, 09:53:53 PM »

Frigates can still do that.  Making that happen has kind of been an obsession of mine.  

What Wolves excel at currently is hit and run.  If other frigates can do the shield killing, enough Phase Lances will crack armor - eventually.  AI Wolves with Heavy Blasters tend to get themselves killed from poor flux management .... while Lancers tend to dance.  I want the option to paint them with yellow and black strips....

The only things that forces me to use things besides Frigates are BS's/some BC's.  For that, you need at least 1 "Tackle" capable ship to take the Alpha and 1 "Cracker" capable ship to break the armor.  Destroyers can "Crack", but have a hard time "Tackling" safely.

Currently, I am grinding planetary invasions in Nex with 1 Apogee and a swarm of frigates.


On the primary subject at hand, I think a chart that showed Armor Reduction Values - modified by Target Analysis (and the Defensive Skills as well) - would be interesting.  

Against the AI, it can be taken as a given that shields will drop.  The question becomes does your swarm have the ability to breech armor and finish the deal before they come back up.  If no, then your ships tend to continue to focus which makes them vulnerable - both to the target actually getting some shots off and to other ships arriving.  If yes, being outnumbered does not matter significantly.

Against Frigates, the minimum seems to be one Mauler - for which I use a Cerberus or two in the early game.  Against Destroyer's one HB with enough Cap somewhere in the swarm will do the job - I use a single Mule with a HB through mid game, because it is the cheapest platform with a large enough Cap pool to get enough shots off quickly.  Against C's one Plasma Cannon will do it - Sunder can work, but I tend to skip it and get an Apogee because the Sunder's cap well is not quite big enough, it tends to suffer from sudden death syndrome, especially when piloted by the AI, and the Apogee gets +25% more range.  As a rule of thumb, these weapons finish one size class larger fairly efficiently - but it will take more then one "shield breech".
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 10:36:47 PM by Copperwire »
Logged

Aeson

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: Hyper Velocity Driver
« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2016, 04:49:46 PM »

if, say, it turned out that the assault chaingun was better anti-armor than the heavy mauler; I'm pretty confident that that's not true, but will admit I haven't run the numbers.
You might be surprised.

For those who are curious, attached is a spreadsheet (*.xlsx format) containing the damage done to selected armor values from 100 to 2500, theoretical DPS against that armor value assuming constant armor, minimum shots to break that armor value using a single weapon, and minimum time to break that armor value using a single weapon for each non-beam weapon (unless I missed one). Note that I ignored ammunition constraints (for example, the minimum time to break some armor values given for the Autopulse Laser are not attainable due to insufficient charges even with Expanded Magazines), range, accuracy, and flux costs in computing these, that the number of shots given is the minimum number which will reduce armor to a non-positive value (i.e. armor is fully penetrated rather than reduced to the point where the next shot will begin damaging the hull; all of the weapons are likely to do some amount of hull damage if each fires the given number of shots and each shot hits the same point), and that the times given can be a little weird because I computed the time as [full bursts]*[burst interval] + [charge up] + ([remaining shots] - 1)*[burst delay], which means that there are a couple of weapons which only need to fire for "0" seconds in order to penetrate armor.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4