Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Deshara]

There are niche ships that can never be utilized without a specific hullmod on every single loadout, and I think those ships could just have those hullmods made built-in, especially if they're not the base hull. For example: The Kite_A needs built-in expanded missile racks. There is no loadout that doesn't hinge on that, unless you're a mad person deploying an entire ship just for a salamander when every ship in the game can mount salamanders. Also, the Mudskipper MK2 needs the Paragon's targeting supercomputer to make it viable as a defenseless artillery piece

[TaLaR]

Also, the Mudskipper MK2 needs the Paragon's targeting supercomputer to make it viable as a defenseless artillery piece

It's a joke ship/large weapon pinata. I don't think making truly viable was ever intended.
Plus it's immersion breaking proposal, where would a trash ship modified by pirates get state-of-art targeting system?

[AxleMC131]

... every ship in the game can mount salamanders.

Lies. 

[DatonKallandor]

It's really not good in terms of design that salamanders don't benefit from missile ammo buffs. They're missiles. Having an extra shot at the start of combat (and after significant lulls) would hardly make them overpowered.

[Megas]

It's really not good in terms of design that salamanders don't benefit from missile ammo buffs. They're missiles. Having an extra shot at the start of combat (and after significant lulls) would hardly make them overpowered.

If that means Salamanders get a clip like Pilums, I do not want that because then, ships with Fast Missile Racks cannot spam them three or four times in a row if clip gets emptied after one or two shots.

[Deshara]

Also, the Mudskipper MK2 needs the Paragon's targeting supercomputer to make it viable as a defenseless artillery piece

It's a joke ship/large weapon pinata. I don't think making truly viable was ever intended.
Plus it's immersion breaking proposal, where would a trash ship modified by pirates get state-of-art targeting system?

Doesn't mean it wouldn't make the game more fun by adding another ship to the player's arsenal that fulfills a role no other ship does.
Also, the pirates wouldn't have gotten a state-of-the-art targeting system, they found a LPC for one that auto-factured one that's barely compatible with an extremely modified Mudskipper whose entire frigate freighter cargo bay was gutted and reworked to look, to the computer, like a paragon's processing bank housing center

[DatonKallandor]

If that means Salamanders get a clip like Pilums, I do not want that because then, ships with Fast Missile Racks cannot spam them three or four times in a row if clip gets emptied after one or two shots.

The fact you can do that is just another weird quirk resulting from Salamanders not being missiles in some ways and being missiles in others. A weird and unintuitive fast missile rack interaction is hardly a good reason to keep them that way.

[Megas]

The fact you can do that is just another weird quirk resulting from Salamanders not being missiles in some ways and being missiles in others. A weird and unintuitive fast missile rack interaction is hardly a good reason to keep them that way.

It is a good reason for the ships with Fast Missile Racks.  Their interaction with Salamanders was probably why that system got charges in the first place.

[TaLaR]

The fact you can do that is just another weird quirk resulting from Salamanders not being missiles in some ways and being missiles in others. A weird and unintuitive fast missile rack interaction is hardly a good reason to keep them that way.

You've got a point. There are 3 mechanically different weapon sub-types within missile group.

Clip-based Pilums.
Reload-based Salamanders.
And finite everything else.

Maybe Extended Racks should affect all 3 but in different ways? Faster reload for salamanders and combination of faster reload and stored amount for pilums. Of course these stats are boosted only by lesser value, for example 25%. Not 100% that finite missiles get to their capacity.

Also, the Mudskipper MK2 needs the Paragon's targeting supercomputer to make it viable as a defenseless artillery piece

It's a joke ship/large weapon pinata. I don't think making truly viable was ever intended.
Plus it's immersion breaking proposal, where would a trash ship modified by pirates get state-of-art targeting system?

Doesn't mean it wouldn't make the game more fun by adding another ship to the player's arsenal that fulfills a role no other ship does.
Also, the pirates wouldn't have gotten a state-of-the-art targeting system, they found a LPC for one that auto-factured one that's barely compatible with an extremely modified Mudskipper whose entire frigate freighter cargo bay was gutted and reworked to look, to the computer, like a paragon's processing bank housing center

Mudskipper mk 1 doesn't have much of a cargo bay in the first place (and is not diminished for mk2...). If 70 is enough to fit ITC, I'd gladly gut any DE and above to do the same. As would any competent military force. I'd rather not want starsector world be populated only by combination of ingenious pirates and bumbling fools in all other factions.

Gameplay-wise Mudskipper mk 2 that is not a joke approaches dangerously close to ultimate kiter archetype for something so ubiquitous. Speed + range + hard flux. And it can double vent rate for no cost, since there is only 1 weapon anyway. It's not that expensive to restore to remove Ill-Advised modifications either.

[Megas]

Re: Mudskipper II
If not for Ill-Advised Modifications, I would use it over Brawler in 0.7x.