Print

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

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

[Goumindong]

1) You should fit missiles before you fit the small energy slots.

2). Not every fleet doctrine is your fleet doctrine. Not every ship in a fleet has to be “hard” to push against.

The Odyssey doesn’t seem to be the ship for you. And that is fine, fly the ship that is the right fit for you. But if you buff the odyssey significantly compared to what it is now it’s going to be overly strong when I use it

[Megas]

1) You should fit missiles before you fit the small energy slots.

2). Not every fleet doctrine is your fleet doctrine. Not every ship in a fleet has to be “hard” to push against.

The Odyssey doesn’t seem to be the ship for you. And that is fine, fly the ship that is the right fit for you. But if you buff the odyssey significantly compared to what it is now it’s going to be overly strong when I use it

What missiles would benefit triple lance Odyssey?  Without Loadout Design 3, it has very few OP to spare on luxuries.  I give up one among PD, tactical lasers to help aim three lances and pile more soft flux to kill wimps, or a hullmod that may be vital.  If I try other loadouts like autopulse or plasma cannon, they are seriously short on OP too.

Somehow, I very seriously doubt non-lance Odyssey will be overpowered if it is significantly buffed (provided lance Odyssey does not get buffed with it, which may be too hard).  By itself, non-lance Odyssey cannot deal with capitals or a small fleet of small ships as well as lance Odyssey or other capitals (excluding Astral).  With a fleet... any warship is helped by a fleet, and weaknesses do not matter as much.  The big problem is any buff to non-lance Odyssey would probably make lance Odyssey too strong.

P.S.  I would not use lance Odyssey in the campaign because it is not the most destructive ship, and it competes with Paragon for ultra-rare weapons.  I only find enough lances for one ship, and Paragon still uses them better than lance Odyssey.  Maybe next release, if player can crank out lots of lances, and Odyssey stays as it is, I might use it.

[TaLaR]

Lance Odyssey doesn't really need much buffing. It's good enough, if maybe slightly overpriced in supply/fuel. Just making it convenient to use would be enough for me (in one of ways mentioned in 1st post).

The only goal small and offset sweetspot accomplishes is forcing me to use tank controls, which somewhat reduces my ability to perform precise maneuvers (compared to turn to cursor) and makes me enjoy piloting it less.

[Megas]

The only goal small and offset sweetspot accomplishes is forcing me to use tank controls, which somewhat reduces my ability to perform precise maneuvers (compared to turn to cursor) and makes me enjoy piloting it less.

It also interferes with AI occasionally, when it is on a roll doing what lance Odyssey does best against a lone opponent.  If it wants to move toward the enemy, it rotates a bit before moving, break the seven beam stack, move forward into position, then reacquire aim and resume the seven beam smackdown.

[Goumindong]

Harpoon Pods or Salamander. (Harpoon Pods on errything)

edit: Salamander are better for general defensive because they keep shooting and enemies have to deal with them but Harpoons are generally better, especially in the hands of a player. If you need one volley to kill a ship 3 harpoon pods with no extended racks straight up kills 9 ships.  If you need two then its still 4 ships.

This may not seem like a lot but it adds up really fast.

[Megas]

Salamanders used to be good, but now they are too unreliable unless four or more can be spammed, which Odyssey can do admittedly.  (30 OP for three Salamander Pods is a lot for OP starved Odyssey.  If I do not have Hardened Subsystems, I would get that instead to enable Odyssey outlasting battleships.)  Normally, I would use Converted Hangar and interceptors instead of Salamanders, but that is not an option for Odyssey, who needs fighters for Longbow (if lance) and one other wing of choice.  Maybe they can distract and isolate targets, but I would not use them for EMP because lance Odyssey EMPs enemies easily enough with lances (if they do not die first).

I never liked Harpoons Pods without Expanded Missile racks (or pre-0.8 max Missile Specialization).  Too expensive for so little ammo, and Harpoons are slow and easy to dodge or counter unless enemy is completely helpless (and no one else is nearby to shoot them down).  With lance Odyssey, it is hard to make enemies helpless enough without hard flux.  Lances just simply get through shields all of a sudden and enemy takes a ton of damage or dies outright.  In other words, Odyssey does not appear to benefit very much from a finisher missile.

It would seem Sabot pods could be useful though, if I am willing to use spend the OP (unlikely with so little OP).  Create a burst of hard flux (or opening) a few times at a critical moment so that triple lance brutalizes whatever needs to die now.

Aside, I mounted two Sabot pods and two Harpoon pods on Onslaught as a last resort defense against ships at the rear, since Onslaught has limited rear options.  If I put flak in the back, it cannot defend effectively against ships attacking its rear.  If it has normal guns, it cannot defend against incoming Harpoons or Reapers from behind.  The missiles works in taking out Hounds, but it hurt with only three shots.  Eventually, I abandon the missiles for being too limited and gave Onslaught another hullmod instead of missiles.

[Goumindong]

The big advantage of Harpoons over Sabots on capitals is range. You're shooting about 1600 with your primary weapons (1920 on Gauss). Harpoons (and MIRV's) have 2500 range* which mean that any ship in range that is at or close to flux peak is a legitimate target.

On the conquest, for instance, not fitting ECCM, EMR and MIRV/Harpoons is criminal. And its pretty close on the Onslaught and Legion.

*Longer with ECCM and/or missile skills

[Megas]

Tried Lance Odyssey and Conquest with various missiles.

* Odyssey with Salamanders:  They distract an enemy.  Does not seem very useful against a large fleet of small ships, and does not seem to faze Onslaught much, but they are really brilliant against anything with Omni shields.  Enemies without full 360 omni shields will lower shields and raise them at the rear to block Salamanders, leaving the enemy wide open for full triple lance blast.  Even those with full 360 shields can be tricked into lowering shields so they no longer have full 360 when they need it.  Odyssey does not need to wait until Conquest empties Squalls, and it is possible for Odyssey to solo Paragon.  In case of Paragon, Odyssey can move far away until Paragon lowers shields, then wait until Salamanders fire.  Follow Salamanders until Odyssey can hit with lances.  Paragon will raise shield forward at first, then turn shield off to raise shield in the rear.  While Paragon is busy blocking Salamanders, Odyssey zaps Paragon in the front, and Paragon takes big damage.  It is a bit like Hyperion's shield bypass cheese.

* Odyssey with Harpoons:  Maybe they are good in fleet action, but in solo fights, Harpoons are ridiculously hard to connect with because Odyssey has a tough time putting hard flux on enemy (and soft flux dissipates kind of quickly).  The best chance Odyssey has to connect is to time a lance strike shortly before missiles connect.  If everything works as planned, lances will raise flux enough and force the enemy to lower shields and a bunch of harpoons will do big damage.  But it is requires precision timing to pull off.  Simply put, harder to use than alternatives.

* Odyssey with Sabots:  Good against most opponents.  Dump several sabots on enemy shield to either put a bunch of hard flux on shield or create an opening.  Either way, lances will mess up the enemy badly.  Unless the enemy constantly backpedals, sabots will have enough range to go into stage two.  Much easier to connect than Harpoons.  However, it is almost useless against Paragon because Fortress Shields will absorb the Sabots without taking much hard flux.

Regardless of missile choice, I had to strip all six of my LR PD lasers off to make missiles fit, and it hurt more than I realize.  One, I had to use my shield to block Pilums and Salamanders at inconvenient times.  With PD, I can mostly ignore them, but without PD, I had to watch out and I took unnecessary damage for blundering into missiles at a bad time.  Two, frigates like Hounds that managed to flank Odyssey had a clear path to my rear and became a real pain.  With LR PD, they were reluctant to get too close on their own, but without them, they felt comfortable drifting across my flanks toward the rear for easy shooting at my six.

Even if lance Odyssey can afford the minimum with its OP, it is irritating choosing which one or two very useful things I need to sacrifice, let alone luxuries like filling the rest of my weapon mounts.  Odyssey did not get any more OP when it received its second flight deck.  I would not mind another 15 to 20 points to easily afford that second wing of bombers.

* Conquest with Locusts:  My favorite.  It may be labeled anti-fighter, but it is really anti-everything without shields and thick armor.  Dual Locusts from Conquest will utterly destroy frigates without shields.  Does serious damage to destroyers without shields or anything that has taken some armor damage.  The best parts of Locusts is 1) cheap OP cost for its size, 2) high ammo count, and 3) huge missile spam with excellent tracking makes them very reliable.

* Conquest with MIRV:  Not sure what to make of this.  AI wastes MIRVs like idiots but I will ignore that here since this is for playership.  MIRVs seem finicky and unreliable.  They seem so... clumsy.  Enemy frigates seem to have an easy time dodging them after they split even if they are relatively helpless.  If MIRVs fully connect, they do a ton of damage to just about anything, so they have that going for them.  They also seem to last longer than Harpoons (if player is piloting), but not Locusts.

* Conquest with Harpoons:  Eh, too few shots, but effective enough.  The main advantage of this is availability.  Locusts are rare.  MIRVs are somewhat rare.  Harpoon pods are relatively common.  Unfortunately, I do not have enough OP left to afford more hullmods like Expanded Missile Racks that make missiles better without giving up something I want more, and I am already giving up something to afford missiles in the first place.

[Goumindong]

Did you also have ECCM and Expanded racks on the conquest? 40 MIRVS and 48 Harpoons is a sight faster at killing ships than heavy maulers plinking away at them. Though it also helps to put a point into +missile speed which is hard to do in simple testing. My ideal fit is 2 Gauss on one side, 2 Mark IV Autocannons on the other side, 4 flack in the medium slots, 2 MIRV, 2 Harpoon, ITU, ATG, ECCM, EMR + 20 vents and the rest in point defense

Edit: Sometimes i like devastaror cannons + HVD as well if i expect to fight loads of fighters.

[Megas]

I did not use missile hullmods because I did not have enough OP left to afford them.  I already had to leave the two medium energy mounts (which could have taken Ion Beam for shield pierce or more burst PD) empty to get everything else I wanted, and if I wanted the hullmods, I would either had to give up all of my burst PD or Hardened Shields, which probably would have hurt Conquest defenses too much.  Conquest wants some PD to avoid overusing its shield, and Conquest needs either Hardened Shields or high capacitors for its shields to withstand some damage.  Conquest with Hardened Shields and/or high capacitors can shield tank decently enough despite terrible efficiency, enough to match and trade blows with Onslaught or the like.  It probably wants Resistant Flux Conduits to speed up venting too because venting speed is not quite fast enough with max vents alone.  Deep flux pool plus inefficient shield is not a good combination for venting.

That is a reason why I like Locusts, at least as good as finishing off ships as MIRVs, but cheaper, easier to use, more reliable, and more ammo.  It cannot strip armor of bigger ships very well (although it will strip armor of small ships well enough due to overwhelming damage despite fragmentation), but I have guns for armor stripping, and then Locusts can pile on the hull damage very fast.  If I had enough OP to afford Expanded Missile Racks, I would use it for Locusts and nearly spam them for most of the fight.  Locusts are the Needlers of missiles.

If I think I would give Conquest to AI, I would not mount MIRVs because AI wastes them frivolously.  That would leave quad Harpoon Pods (if Locusts were not an option).  At least AI is a bit wiser in their use.

Speaking of AI stupidity, I probably would not mount Sabots on lance Odyssey if I might give it to the AI.  AI tends to use Sabots sub-optimally.

Remember, I am testing with unskilled ships.  In campaign, I am well aware that Loadout Design 3 is a top pick precisely to mitigate stingy OP totals, and it is very close runner-up to Electronic Warfare #1 as the best perk in the game for everyone, not to mention other skills that make ships better.

Neo Missile Specialization is kind of mediocre, a pale shadow of old Missile Specialization, nothing to be more afraid of than unboosted missiles.  Most of all, it is a classic case of pay one point in Officer Management to get two more goons who can get it and more instead of you.  If player will rely on a fleet for most fights, better to spend one point for two guys who can spam missiles instead of wasting three points yourself.

As for Conquest weapons, Gauss Cannon seems more useful against small ships than Mark IX.  Sometimes, AI does not bother enough to dodge, and Gauss will hit and put a ton of hard flux on frigates (or overload outright).  If Conquest would fight only big ships (and no Paragon), mark IX would be better for efficiency (or for AI use), but Gauss (on one side only, used by player) seems more versatile despite being a pig (but that means no Ion Beam because that is too much of a flux load with other flux hogs).

On the conquest, for instance, not fitting ECCM, EMR and MIRV/Harpoons is criminal. And its pretty close on the Onslaught and Legion.

For Onslaught, this is a case where I prefer Converted Hangar and some fighter wing in place of missiles if I want regenerators.  If I want burst damage, I gravitate toward Annihilator pods due to less all-or-nothing nature of Harpoons.

As for Legion, I think it is almost criminal if it does not use at least three of its composites for flak, at least if it is configured for brawling.  No flak and Legion's defenses are very poor.  At least with flak, it can stop things in front of it (less dependence on shield) or the sides, and I do not need to fill all small mounts with Vulcans.  Besides, if I really want missiles, I can use bomber wings on Legion (although Astral is better at bomber spam).  If Pilum spam was still as effective as it used to be, I could see keeping Legion away from battle and lob Pilums non-stop.  Aside from flak, any remaining composites go either to Heavy Mauler or (more likely) Heavy Needlers.  Light Needlers in smalls would be ideal, but they are too rare, and Legion can substitute those with much more common Heavy Needlers in a pinch.

[Schwartz]

I like the design as-is. What it could use is a wider arc overlap and supply/OP cost adjustment to match its power level. Either by making it a little bit cheaper or giving it some more OP. Otherwise it's fine. The offset sweet spot is an interesting feature and I'd rather see the AI become more clever at using it rather than seeing it removed.

[Megas]

I would like either an OP raise or free ITU (and easier three turret overlap if little else changes).  Despite the effectiveness of lance Odyssey, I find myself cutting out more than I do with other capitals (except maybe Astral).  With Conquest or Legion, I may sacrifice no more than the equivalent of two medium mounts.  With Odyssey, I find myself sacrificing the equivalent somewhere between four to five medium mounts.  For Onslaught or Paragon, I barely need to sacrifice anything that is not a luxury.

[ahrenjb]

This is a pretty long thread, and I have to admit I didn't read every post in its entirety. So please forgive me if I say something that's already been addressed or is redundant.

That being said, I'm inclined to believe a large part of the issue most of the people here are having with the Odyssey is they're expecting the wrong things out of it. The perspective most of the posts in this thread are from is one of using the Odyssey as a player flagship. Very understandable, as using a ship as your player ship is by far the most "intimate" way to interact with any ship in Starsector. You get the most personal view of its relative capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses when you're at the helm. The Odyssey however is one of those ships that, in my opinion, shines brightest as an NPC officer-ed capital.

It's a bit of a weird bird, there's no doubt about that. Middling hard stats, a variety of oddly distributed turrets with awkward angles, and a general sense that it's certainly not easy to "minmax" the way that a Paragon or Onslaught is. It's not a ship that I would call a "bread-and-butter" must have, or even necessarily a go-to for most people. It has a few things going for it though that can make in an invaluable fleet asset for CERTAIN player fleets.

- High burn speed (8, matched only by the Conquest)
- Mobility (FAR higher base speed than other capitals, which is useful in ways a mobility system isn't)
- Large reserve crew capacity (400 skeleton, 800 max gives you 400 spare fleet crew)
- A large variety of hardpoints pointing in every which direction, AND two flight decks.
- Benefits from high-tech fuel efficiency.
- Far and away the easiest to find high tech capital.
- Cargo capacity
- Fuel capacity

While the awkward mix of hard points, flight decks, and ship stats might add up to a capital that doesn't quite provide the satisfaction of some of the others, it also happens to make an EXCELLENT fleet support ship. Paired with cruisers, or even a good mix of destroyers and frigates, the Odyssey takes on new life. It keeps pace with the pack. It shines in it's ability pour fire out in multiple directions and maintain pressure on opponents at any range. While everyone is right in claiming it's not a phenomenal 1v1 vessel, it's hard to assign a metric to how well it performs in support of other ships. It's a force multiplier, and you'll see your fleets smaller vessels doing most of the heavy work thanks to the breathing room granted by the Odyssey being able to handle a whole mess of smaller problems for them (while exploding less often). The AI flies... differently than the player, and the same characteristics that make it somewhat awkward for the player can play into its strengths when used by the AI. Better ability to multitask and use all its capability, while the human player is better at tackling more difficult but narrower tasks.

It isn't really the capital of choice for combat focused fleets, and admittedly hard-hitting system defense fleet / battlestation clashes are all the "end-game" or "capital phase" really has to offer right now. We all know this isn't the long term picture for Starsector though. The Odyssey I think will find a niche with the salvager/explorer/scientist player who builds their fleet not strictly for butting heads with superpowers, but for the player who spends more time digging into the corners of the sector and finds themselves in combat from time to time. The extra cargo capacity and fuel capacity over other capitals help alleviate some of the demand for extra tankers and freighters. The extra crew quarters and burn speed play perfectly into this and definitely feel intentional.

Of course... I'd still not be opposed to a bit of tweaking. To really help the Odyssey fit into this niche, I'd like to see it get some default hull mods. Surveying Equipment would be my first choice, as well as maybe High Resolution Sensors much like the Apogee. Maybe even a new hull-mod that fits into what I'm talking about, possibly related to upcoming features? I know the maintenance and fuel costs have become pretty standardized with the recent releases, but maybe even marginally better fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs as compared to other high tech capitals. A boost to available OP wouldn't hurt, but I think this would need to be offset by some other nerfs to its combat capability which I think is actually in a good place right now. Changing on of the large hardpoints to hybrid is something worth considering, and I like the idea of a Mjolnir or Devastator on an Odyssey, but I don't know if it feels right.

Give the player reasons to use it besides its strength in combat, and I think it'll become a mainstay of non-combat focused late game fleets in future releases.

[Megas]

What the Odyssey is capable of radically changed in late 0.8, and I am not happy with that.  It pigeonholed Odyssey into triple lance sniper while killing off the other builds that used to be effective or viable.

Odyssey will need much more capacities in both supplies and fuel to be a viable hybrid.  As it is, its capacities are close enough to standard dedicated warship levels.  As for burn speed, you need tankers, and if you need Prometheus for capacity, then the burn speed of every other ship in your fleet is irrelevant because Prometheus is tied with Atlas as the slowest ship in the game.

Built-in exploration mods are not a big deal.  Well, maybe for Odyssey if it gets them for free, but other ships can probably afford them too.  Those explorer hullmods are available in Open Market.  Player with money to burn will get the hullmods eventually.

As for free hullmods, I would love to see Odyssey get free ITU while OP remains unchanged.  That would be a big help in affording things.  It would still be hard to fight with unless it mounts triple lances or maybe skills to boost shot range more.

Actually, Paragon is just as easy to find as Odyssey.  In one game, I found nothing but Paragons when I wanted to test drive Odyssey for the first time in 0.8.  Eventually, I had to resort to recovering one from an endgame bounty.

[ahrenjb]

The idea of built-in hullmods isn't to give the Odyssey something other ships can't or something that's difficult to get, but to give it those bonuses without cutting into the available OP. The extra fuel and cargo capacity isn't necessarily to remove the need for any other tankers and cargo ships, rather to reduce the logistical load enough to accommodate smaller support vessels. A small bump to these wouldn't hurt though, maybe an additional 50 cargo and 50-100 fuel. Operations Center as a built in might be ok, but only with a small reduction in free OP.

I really don't see the Odyssey as being pidgeonholed into be a triple lance sniper at all. If anything, it's pigeonholed as a fire support ship. Not a ship-of-the-line. The types of fleets I would field an Odyssey in are not the types of fleets I would want an Atlas or Prometheus for, I'd be using Drams / Phaetons and a mix of combat-freighters instead.

Experience varies here obviously, but I haven't had much success finding Paragons while I've always been able to find Odysseys. At least not without accepting a Tri-Tachyon commission, which sometimes just isn't an option.

Then again, my whole post focused on the strengths of the ship outside of its capability as a player-piloted combat capital, which seems to be your laser focus here. A case of differing priorities I'm afraid. While I can only guess at this point, I'd say the arrival of 0.9 and beyond will give the Odyssey new life as something more than a pure bludgeoning tool for battle-frenzied warmongers.