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)

Poll

Should Odyssey 3 large turret sweetspot piloting awkwardness be fixed?

Make 3 turret sweetspot convenient to use (several variants how)
- 7 (21.2%)
Remove 3 turret sweetspot, compensate elsewhere
- 12 (36.4%)
Fine as is
- 8 (24.2%)
No preference on option 1 or 2, but something needs to change
- 6 (18.2%)

Total Members Voted: 33


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic: Odyssey's piloting  (Read 16013 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2018, 05:24:58 AM »

Before 0.8 when Odyssey was more usable and had more OP, and the good hullmods were more easily accessible, I used Front Shield Emitter all of the time for 360 shields (and better shield efficiency), so I was incentivized to point the nose at enemies and blast enemies with three heavies; unless I went Guardian PD and IR Pulse Lasers (which worked when enemies did not avoid your ships by default), in which case, I got 360 shields anyway and shield tanked small fry.

Today, I need Tri-Tachyon commission to get the hullmod, but even if I got the hullmod, I cannot afford it due to lack of OP.  Only hullmods I get now are Expanded Deck Crew, ITU, and (if I use beam boat) Advanced Optics.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2018, 06:00:32 AM »

I am fine with Odyssey being a beam boat, and it is a bit fun to use.  What is not fun is beam boat being the only safe loadout to use and very hard to obtain due to Tachyon Lance rarity.  I miss being able to wade in with other configurations (assuming I can still afford them with almost no OP to speak of) and maul enemies without shield crumpling so easily.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2018, 12:57:04 PM »

I am fine with Odyssey being a beam boat, and it is a bit fun to use.  What is not fun is beam boat being the only safe loadout to use and very hard to obtain due to Tachyon Lance rarity.  I miss being able to wade in with other configurations (assuming I can still afford them with almost no OP to speak of) and maul enemies without shield crumpling so easily.

Would you be OK with a fuel and deployment cost reduction? Or other strategic benefits which might justify its inability to be a straight brawler?
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2018, 01:57:39 PM »

Maybe.  Aside from being expensive to use for underperformance, it also has only one safe loadout that requires the ridiculously rare Tachyon Lance.  I suppose it would be okay if its deployment costs were lowered to 30 or 35 DP AND its heavy mounts were changed to builtin Tachyon Lances.  Even so, I would miss all of the loadouts that used to be viable before 0.8.

P.S.  If Odyssey is to evolve into sniper that cannot brawl at all, then it needs built-in Advanced Targeting Core like Paragon, plus lock the heavies into Tachyon Lances so that player does not get smart and mount a 700 range hard-flux weapon to match ranges of other ships.  It would also need to keep its three-turret overlap so that it can overcome dissipation at times.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 02:06:43 PM by Megas »
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2018, 02:06:10 PM »

At 30 or 35 DP I think you can deploy it against smaller forces in lieu of another cruiser or two and so you don’t need the tachyon lances
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2018, 02:07:37 PM »

Eh.  If it's 30 OP, it's basically a high-end cruiser (much like the Falcon is basically a destroyer), and it's not in a bad place for that.

Honestly, it wouldn't be in too bad a place now if we stripped sustained burn out of the game; a niche as the fastest capital ship would've been useful back when you couldn't just SB at 20 speed everywhere regardless of fleet composition.  But we do have SB, and it's not going away, and that means it has to be able to compete with other things that have similar logistic profiles.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2018, 02:09:29 PM »

At 30 or 35 DP I think you can deploy it against smaller forces in lieu of another cruiser or two and so you don’t need the tachyon lances
Currently, it is a bit stronger than a cruiser, but not by much.  Aurora seems slightly overpriced, and current Doom is grossly overpriced.  Since Conquest is worth 40 and is close to Onslaught in power, I think 30 or 35 for current underpowered Odyssey seems about right.

Wyvern's Falcon comparison is apt.  As Falcon is closer to destroyer despite being in a cruiser chassis, Odyssey is closer to a cruiser despite being in a capital chassis.  Unlike Falcon, Odyssey is outrageously expensive for its underperformance.

a niche as the fastest capital ship would've been useful back when you couldn't just SB at 20 speed everywhere regardless of fleet composition.  But we do have SB, and it's not going away, and that means it has to be able to compete with other things that have similar logistic profiles.
With fleet cap and huge fuel requirements, I feel kind of forced to use Prometheus by endgame, which is tied with Atlas for the slowest burn speed in the game.  If I fight humans to capture a bunch of ships, I cannot load up on a bunch of smaller tankers for fuel, which means Prometheus for fleet slot efficiency.  Similarly, if I want to grind enemies for weapons and other loot, I need Atlas to hold all of the loot I scoop up.  Eventually, burn speed will be whatever Atlas or Prometheus is, which is slower than a battleship (like Onslaught).
« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 02:35:12 PM by Megas »
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2018, 02:33:05 PM »

Well just by comparisons the “best” non-carrier cruisers tend to be the Falcon(15), Eagle(22), and Dominator(25). My preference is for the Eagle > Dominator because it’s speed and shields mean it’s less likely to get surrounded and die like a Dominator is. And Eagle>Falcon simply because 15*1.5>22.

At 45 DP the Odyssey is competing against 2 eagles (44) for deployment points. 6 HVD and 6 Gravitons and +40% range makes that a nasty combo. It’s 280 range over a non-tachyon Odyssey but generally less to even damage*. Weakness being ships that have small profiles because the HVDs miss a lot and also potentially difficult focus firing issues

At 30 DP is 2 falcons, which is only 4 HVD and Graviton. Only 1904 kin DPS

The Aurora and Doom are definitely overpriced, but by the numbers it doesn’t look like 30 is reasonable for Odyssey power. 30 DP is close to being a Dominator level of power... and the current Odyssey looks much more powerful than that to me. To give it that, and built in tachyon lances? Way too strong

*Triple Auto-Pulse will do ~2000 DPS over 10 seconds with just the autopulse if you hit the HEF efficiently with 13500 of that coming in the first two seconds... and then you can 12x Harpoon volley...2 Eagles do about 2800 damage/second to shields (700 to armor) if all their HVD hit.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 02:35:14 PM by Goumindong »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2018, 02:37:27 PM »

*Triple Auto-Pulse will do ~2000 DPS over 10 seconds with just the autopulse if you hit the HEF efficiently with 13500 of that coming in the first two seconds... and then you can 12x Harpoon volley...2 Eagles do about 2800 damage/second to shields (700 to armor) if all their HVD hit.
If I use triple auto-pulse, the Odyssey is flux-locked and dead soon after it gets into weapons range of most capitals, unless I use Claws and get lucky with them disabling enemy weapons.  At that point, better to upgrade to plasma cannons, vent spam, and alpha strike paralyzed enemies to oblivion before they recover.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2018, 02:59:21 PM »

*Triple Auto-Pulse will do ~2000 DPS over 10 seconds with just the autopulse if you hit the HEF efficiently with 13500 of that coming in the first two seconds... and then you can 12x Harpoon volley...2 Eagles do about 2800 damage/second to shields (700 to armor) if all their HVD hit.
If I use triple auto-pulse, the Odyssey is flux-locked and dead soon after it gets into weapons range of most capitals, unless I use Claws and get lucky with them disabling enemy weapons.  At that point, better to upgrade to plasma cannons, vent spam, and alpha strike paralyzed enemies to oblivion before they recover.

Triple auto-pulse uses 750 cap/second... for a -250 cap/second net on base flux dissipation... sure there is a bit of a burst in flux use but not enough to be that worrisome. It’s the best flux/damage energy weapon in the game. You could also use Plasma cannons but again....

you’re replacing cruisers and not capitals. You’re not going to kill a Paragon with two eagles either (the Harpoon Pods for finishing actually give you better power than the Eagles for finishing ships, especially capital ships, than the eagles...) so stop ramming your fast ship into slow tanks. It shouldn’t work! It’s OK that it doesn’t work!

The Odyssey doesn’t have to be a cruiser speed capital killer that is DP free and has 800 OP. It, like other ships, gets to generally be one thing. Eagles and Falcons are ships of the line. They’re not also frigate hunter killers and phase flankers. That is OK!  The Paragon is a tank. It not also a kiter. That is OK!  The Astral is a strike carrier and *** with interceptors! It doesn’t also have to be the best defensive carrier in order to be valuable.

The Odyssey is a near destroyer speed capital ship. It’s maybe a little expensive. It probably doesn’t fit your fleet doctrine. That is OK. Not every ship has to
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2018, 03:07:24 PM »

The Aurora and Doom are definitely overpriced
Doom is, Aurora isn't.  One Aurora under player control can pretty much dominate the battlespace; much like the Odyssey, it's not going to win a slugging match with a battleship... but anything short of that is fair game.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2018, 04:24:25 PM »

Quote
so stop ramming your fast ship into slow tanks.
Why not when I can with Conquest (only 5 or a little more slower than Odyssey after Jets spam, and with better shot range that can hit for hard flux), or have Legion or Astral send enough fighters to do it for their motherships?  As I wrote before, anything Odyssey can do, other capitals can do better, or more precisely, can be just as effective at neutralizing small threats in addition to standing up against an enemy capital.  To me, this is a no brainer, pick the capital that can kill small things and big things, and possibly cheaper than Odyssey can do it.

Also, Conquest is not much of a slow tank (unless player does not use Jets enough).  It used to be about as... performing as Odyssey before 0.8.  Classic battlecruiser, could not stand up against Onslaught or Paragon.  Today, Conquest can stand up to Onslaught and Paragon, but now Odyssey cannot even stand up to Conquest (but it used to).

If Odyssey was between cruiser and every other battleship, I would not have much problem with how weak it is (although I would still be annoyed with the loss of what it used to be able to do since the 0.5x days).  But it is more expensive than Conquest and is roughly equal in cost to others other than Paragon.

As for autopulse, it is relatively flux efficient, but that does not matter because the things I want Odyssey to be able to fight - big things - will put too much flux on Odyssey's shield before it can get into range to fire in the first place unless something else prevents the enemy from firing back.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2018, 06:02:10 PM »

Just because you want the Odyssey to fight big things doesn't mean it should. And the Conquest is 30 slower than the Paragon before the fact that it has significantly worse effective flux(due to increased weapon cost) and maneuverability. Its only 10 faster than the Odyssey after using its active ability and it only gets the active ability 1/3 to 1/4 of the time. Its much more vulnerable to fighter and frigate strikes due to its lack of fighters and more reliant on its missiles because its effectively kinetic limited in a number of ways.

I have played a significant amount of proper campaign with both and the Conquest requires more skills to be properly effective, was on a much thinner margin of survivability, was much, much slower in play, and was not as effective at clearing chaff (though it was indeed better at killing large ships)
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2018, 06:07:45 AM »

Base speed of Conquest is 45 (not 50 as I thought), and with perfect Jets spam it adds about an average of 25 to top speed (Jets seem to recharge as long as it can be used).  Conquest moves 45 at times and 95 at other times.  However, player will not always use Jets perfectly, so he will not always have his average of 70.  So, at least 10 less than Odyssey, which is significant enough that Conquest is not that close to Odyssey (as I thought).

As for Odyssey's speed, it is fast enough to avoid getting surrounded by smaller ships, but if it gets surrounded, it is not fast enough to escape.  With proper hard flux loadout (i.e., no triple lance), it needs to get uncomfortably close to enemies that it can surrounded, and there is a narrow range where Odyssey can attack cowardly enemies before they can swarm the Odyssey before it escapes.  With triple lances, Odyssey has much more range to attack effectively and can avoid getting surrounded.

Previously, I tried test battles with unskilled ships against a capital or a very small group of smaller ships.  Lately, I tested some battles of unskilled flagship against a fleet of three cruisers, seven destroyers, and seven frigates to put some theories to the test.

Odyssey without triple lances was dead meat.  Although it had the speed advantage, it was of no use because it needed to get almost too close to enemies to attack, and it was too easy to get surrounded by everybody and unable to escape.  Odyssey with triple lances did much better.  It could attack without allowing enemies to surround it.  Triple lance plus occasional help from a Dagger wing allowed Odyssey to pick off isolated targets.  However, it lacked peak performance to kill everyone (although it killed all but three ships).  However, burst damage from HEF and triple lance was high enough to overcome dissipation and do serious damage to smaller ships before they can back off.  But without enough OP to afford more than the bare minimum, it could not afford Hardened Subsystems and outlast enemies.

Odyssey with triple lance is on another level compared to any other Odyssey loadout.  Triple lance configuration is worth 35 or 40 OP.  Anything else, including the likes of stock variant, is laughably weak and probably worth 30 OP.

Conquest was a bit tricky.  Generalist loadouts that can kill Paragon and everyone else will make it suffer.  For this test, I eschewed Gauss Cannons (because I would not use them in the campaign if I did not plan to attack Tri-Tachyon or Independents).  Mark IX and Heavy Mauler is great against big targets, but too inaccurate against small targets, so I used dual Mjolnirs (another weapon at least as ridiculously rare as Tachyon Lance) and dual single Flak instead.  As for fighting, Conquest was slower, but thanks to better shot range (and AI reluctance to avoid getting into range), was still fast enough to avoid getting surrounded.  However, the biggest problem Conquest had was lack of burst damage aside from missile.  Conquest needed dual Locusts to finish some frigates off.  Eventually, without Hardened Subsystems, it could kill all but about six ships before CR decayed too much.  Another fight, and this time, with Hardened Subsystems, Conquest could outlast everyone, and whatever it could not kill earlier due to AI cowardice, it could after they hit zero CR first, and Conquest swept them up.

Legion was interesting.  It was armed with relatively common or uncommon stuff (main weapons were two Hellbore, two Heavy Needlers, and three dual flak; fighters were Warthogs, Broadswords, Claws, and Talons), with ITU hullmod being the rarest item.  It lacked enough burst damage to kill anything, although its fighters could pick off few frigates here and there.  Although Legion was slow, it was able to barely keep enemies away with guns and fighters.  But the enemy was unusually aggressive.  There were crowding as close as they can without getting much into Legion's weapon range.  What this meant was everyone was ticking peak performance down, and Legion had more of it.  At first, Legion could not kill anything beyond a few frigates, but once CR decayed, smaller enemy ships timed out first and Legion and fighters ate them up.  Without Hardened Subsystems, Legion was on a fast timer too.  Eventually, Legion was able to kill everyone (by outlasting them), but its CR was critical.  I had the less trouble killing this fleet than with Odyssey or Conquest.

Paragon.  Here, slow speed is a liability, but not necessarily total.  If player does not know the enemy is coming and does not move to the wall until seconds after the enemy appears and move into position, it is too late.  Paragon gets surrounded by more than a dozen ships, and dies.  However, thanks to predictable AI, Paragon in the open can prepare for this before the enemy appears.  If it moves to the wall before the enemy approaches, it has a chance.  The enemy will appear, and attempt surround Paragon.  Eventually, they will surround, but not soon enough (since Paragon is fairly durable) before Paragon hits the wall.  If Paragon reaches the wall, then enemy cannot surround it, and Paragon can kill things.  Enemy will back off, but not before taking losses.  Paragon creeps forward to draw the horde back, moves back to wall, and repeat the humiliation, and Paragon has the peak performance advantage to outlast the enemy.  Only when Paragon attempts the entire simulator that it does not work due to so many ships and limited peak performance (enemy ships do not send everyone at once.)

Unskilled Astral is dead.  Too slow, and unlike Paragon, not enough durability or burst power from fighters to kill frigates before Astral can make it to the wall.  It needs skills to do great, but since this test is with unskilled ships, solo Astral is out of luck against a modest fleet of smaller ships.

Have not tried Onslaught.

More commentary (and recommendations) to come later.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 08:53:16 AM by Megas »
Logged

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2018, 08:38:23 AM »

Re speed; a simple average is not at all representative of actual effectiveness. What matters in combat is maximum speed.

Even a momentary speed boost is enough to steal the initiative, allowing you to chase down a fleeing enemy, out-flank, dodge incoming ordnance, or win the flux battle with a quick retreat+vent.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5