Print

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

[Linnis]

Sabot needs to have a delay on subsequent shots. Maybe even harpoons to stop AI from wasting their whole load on one target.

Sabot spam can be fully unloaded to easily win a fight or neuter large ships. Frightfully the AI abuses this when equipped too. Unlike the harpoon counterpart sabot is much much harder to counter.

[TaLaR]

Sabot are quite scary, sure - properly equipped sabot-using Buffalo Mk2 can defeat most other DEs when player piloted (skill-less). It even has decent chance in AI vs AI, although this gets very random due to AI unwillingness to fire Sabots against full health and zero flux enemy.

But saying that AI is proficient at using them is a huge overstatement. It makes major mistakes in both directions:

• Not using sabots, when they are the only trick ship in question is capable of (and dying with full stockpile).
• Not pushing hard enough after AI uses them. Relying on sabots means dealing with even more extreme resource limits than Safety Override. Letting enemy retreat and vent is death - even if preventing that will cost 90% of hp, that's a good trade.
• Misjudging attack distance - sabot 1st stage is very slow. They pretty can not be used by pursuer other than at point blank. On the other hand, if enemy is actively coming at you at high absolute speed (note, not relative), they are safe to launch from afar.

- 3rd point is how you easily counter sabots by the way. Just don't push a ship that uses sabots to defend itself too aggressively.

Still, Buffalo Mk2 is pretty much the best platform for sabots - as all missiles they just don't have much synergy with good base stats. So best way to use them is to spam cheapest platform that can use them.
The more capable ships(in terms of base stats) are engaging each-other, the less Sabots are worth using.

Anyway, I consider Sabots fine where they are. Make them weaker and they would be just useless. They already require level of tactical proficiency that AI is not capable of to make full use of their potential.

[Tartiflette]

For the Ship Building Tournaments I made a bunch of very light balance adjustments to shave some power spikes, most notably to the Sabots and to a lesser extend to most guided missiles. As a result they were both more reliable (you don't get a bunch of stray missiles flying in the wrong direction) and less abusable thanks to the halved EMP, wider spread and reduced salvo size for the Pod.

Here is the complete list if some are curious.

VANILLA ADJUSTMENTS:
Light Needler:
- Fires burst of 8 shots from 10 (125dps/100fps from 145dps/118fps)

Atropos (both):
- Fire delay raised to 3s from 1

Harpoon (smalls):
- Fire delay raised to 3s from 1

Hurricane:
- Fire delay raised to 10s from 5

Pilum:
- Flight speed raised to 150su/s from 100

Sabots (smalls):
- Fire delay raised to 3s from 1

Sabot Pod:
- Reduced volley to 2 missiles from 4

Sabot (all):
- EMP arching reduced to 200 damage from 400
- Split range reduced to 400su from 500
- Split spread raised to 30deg from 15
- Acceleration raised to 100su/s^2 from 50
- Launch speed reduced to 25su/s from 50
(Overall less bursty but more reliable.)

Fortress Shield ship-system:
- Chargeup and chargedown raised to 1.5s from 1

Damper Field ship-system:
- Does not dissipate hard-flux while active
- Reduce incoming damage by 66% from 50%

Talon wing:
- Cost raised to 2op from 0

Claw Wing:
- Has 3 fighters from 5

Kopesh wing:
- Rocket ammo reduced to 2x5 from 2x7

Terminator Drone:
- Switched to Ion Cannon instead of Ion Pulser
- Added PD Laser

The tournament participants were usually satified with the changes.

[MajorTheRed]

Interesting changes, hope they will be considered in the future for a release.
A philosophical question: in regards of the changes, are the weapons balanced to each other in terms of OP? One thing I fear is that the changes are considered in a tournament point of view, where there is no limit to hte amount of weapon you can "buy". But in the standard way to play the game, for me it's okay to have some weapons just better (not overpowered) than other making their rarity realistic and looking for them to buy or scavenge interesting.

[Tartiflette]

Actually the point of the changes was to make the weapons efficiency more in line with their OP cost (like the light needler being the best small KE weapon, even competing with medium ones) and to clamp the worst cases of exploits.

Also I like to think that "rarity" is a meaningless balancing factor because it doesn't change the efficiency of a given weapon, but only increase the amount of grind required to get the desired number of them. Unless of course we are talking unique items, then anything is possible.

[Megas]

I would not want most of those changes merged into standard, at least not without OP reduction to make the weapons cheaper.

[TaLaR]

Same as Megas.

Missile nerfs may make some sense for AI vs AI. Because AI is nowhere near as good at using or countering missiles as player. But it also reduces profit to be had from excelling at these tasks, which is less fun for me as player.

Dps reduction makes Light Needler quite dubious. Railgun already contests 1st place with Light Needler in vanilla depending on which ship you put them, with this nerf Railgun becomes strictly superior.
AI is just nowhere near good enough at range management for a minor range advantage to cost that much.

Damper field change is not fun too - it's more reliable, but becomes even easier to counter by intelligent opponent. I already vent vs damper, so them being unable to dissipate hard flux makes my win only easier.

[Megas]

Light Needler:  It costs as much as a medium weapon, it is okay for it to perform like one.  I guess it (and Railgun for that matter) competes with other mediums because it is not as slow and inaccurate as Arbalest and Heavy AC.  In some cases, I may prefer Railgun over Light Needler.

Harpoon:  I usually unload two or three at a time because one missile is unreliable and even if it connects, it will not kill most ships at full hp in one hit.  Harpoons are not very useful to begin with unless spammed against a relatively defenseless target.

Sabot:  Maybe it is a bit strong, but it better be for the OP cost and low ammo I put up with.  Unfortunately, AI does not use them optimally like the player can.

Hurricane:  I have no problem with how fast it fires.  If anything, I am annoyed with how the AI wastes them.  Hurricane is simply large Harpoon.  That said, I would not mind slowing down rate if the missiles regenerated like its second iteration.  Even as it is, I prefer Locusts over MIRVs anytime - just as lethal against small or armor-stripped ships, but much more reliable, and enough ammo that the AI can spam Locusts if it wants (which it does not always do).

Fortress Shield:  The change seems unnecessary.  Especially since Fortress Shield can build up more hard flux than tanking a few hits if left on for too long.

Damper Field:  Like TaLaR, I see no reason to use this with the changes, except maybe on Mora, who can be built unarmed aside from fighters, and probably benefit from the change.  Mora might be unaffected by no dissipation since fighters can do all of the work while the Mora chills out in its shell.  For frigates, venting seems like the superior option either way.  Aside, Mora has clearly hijacked Damper Field from Centurion, and Brawler should get its original Ammo Feeder System back, and Centurion should get a different system.

Talon wing:  This is one change I can agree with.  With the current fighter costs, Talons are too strong for 0 OP, but they clearly are not 8 OP strong.

Claw wing:  Claws are not overpowered, and I see no reason to change this.  The only reason I can see to change Claws is Xyphos looks horrible in comparsion.  (I think Xyphos is underpowered for its cost.)

Kopesh wing:  I think current Kopesh is fine.

Terminator:  No problem with Pulser Terminator either.  Sure, it is annoying, but it merely uplifts Tempest a bit from simply being a fancy Wolf with omni shield but no skimmer.  However, I would not mind the change if the Tempest could deploy two or three Ion Cannon drones at a time.  Only one, keep the Ion Pulser.

P.S.  Tartiflette's changes may be fine for a tourney where the fleet only needs to fight one battle against an equal-strength opponent, and can afford to gamble on a missile spam to sweep the other side away if unprepared.  We do not have that luxury in the campaign.  At best, we fight an equal strength opponent at max CR.  At worst, we can fight against superior opponent or a gauntlet of multiple encounters and suffer CR attrition.  Oh, and we have resources to deal with (but the AI does not care), and we do not always want to go all out in every fight.  In cases when we have the advantage to begin with, they run and we can auto-resolve for free spoils.

[Thaago]

Just a note on the light needler: the issue stems from mod ships tending to be faster and more maneuverable than vanilla while still retaining ballistic slots. So the light needler is the optimal kiting weapon.

[Megas]

This is kind of the mod ship's fault.  Some features in unmodded game are overpowered when new content gets to use it.  That said, original Damper Field was fine until Alex added the Mora.

[Linnis]

Missile nerfs may make some sense for AI vs AI. Because AI is nowhere near as good at using or countering missiles as player. But it also reduces profit to be had from excelling at these tasks, which is less fun for me as player.

This is precisely the point. An AI cruiser or destroyer with sabots will win vs a similar one without most of the time. The AI is better at using the missiles then defending against it. Because the best defense is never allowing the window to appear.

While harpoon just makes AI kill the enemy faster in a fight they have already won. Very rarely it is warranted.

Simply put, is most situations sabot works well for AI, in a way that guarantee a win in a 1v1 scenario with similar size ships.

Hell, all missles are energy damage is ok too.

[TaLaR]

This is precisely the point. An AI cruiser or destroyer with sabots will win vs a similar one without most of the time. The AI is better at using the missiles then defending against it. Because the best defense is never allowing the window to appear.

While harpoon just makes AI kill the enemy faster in a fight they have already won. Very rarely it is warranted.

Simply put, is most situations sabot works well for AI, in a way that guarantee a win in a 1v1 scenario with similar size ships.

Hell, all missles are energy damage is ok too.

But game's primary purpose is not providing fair ground for AI tournaments - it's entertaining the player.

Also a ship having stable flux advantage over it's opponent can win several fights in a row, Sabot user will be dry after 1st win against similar sized opponent. If Sabots don't give advantage even for that single fight - what's the point?

Sabots are pretty much obsolete at Capital level (unless used by Longbows), and not that strong in Cruiser fights.
When used by AI they are also not that good against fast frigates/DEs like Tempest/Medusa. Even if your ship itself is fast enough to keep following, sabot 1st stage is not (unless fired point blank).
Slower ships are not much of solo combatants either way and can counter Sabots by hiding behind allies when high on flux.

[Thaago]

Uhhh, Sabots are amazing in cruiser/capital fights. A Dominator with triple sabot pods will absolutely wreck face, and it has the OP for extended missile racks.

[ANGRYABOUTELVES]

But game's primary purpose is not providing fair ground for AI tournaments - it's entertaining the player.

Also a ship having stable flux advantage over it's opponent can win several fights in a row, Sabot user will be dry after 1st win against similar sized opponent. If Sabots don't give advantage even for that single fight - what's the point?

Sabots are pretty much obsolete at Capital level (unless used by Longbows), and not that strong in Cruiser fights.
When used by AI they are also not that good against fast frigates/DEs like Tempest/Medusa. Even if your ship itself is fast enough to keep following, sabot 1st stage is not (unless fired point blank).
Slower ships are not much of solo combatants either way and can counter Sabots by hiding behind allies when high on flux.

An Onslaught with 4 Sabot Pods can dump 16,000 Kinetic damage (4x4x5x200) on an enemy capital. That's enough to overload anything that's not a Paragon, and with EMR it can do it six times. A Legion can bring that up to 20,000 KE damage and follow up with a bombing run against an overloaded or EMP-crippled target. Proper use of Sabots will 100% decide capital fights, and the proper way to use Sabots is to use as many of them as possible as quickly as possible. On the cruiser level a player-piloted Aurora with 2x Sabot Pods 4x Annihilators 2x Heavy Blasters and EMR will absolutely massacre 6 cruisers or 12 destroyers, and has the speed to do it extremely quickly. That'll decide entire fleet battles on its own.

If every ship in your fleet can instantly win 2-6 engagements, and you have a roughly equal number of ships as your opponent, you've already won. Actually fighting is just a formality.

[Megas]

If every ship in your fleet can instantly win 2-6 engagements, and you have a roughly equal number of ships as your opponent, you've already won. Actually fighting is just a formality.

For that, you probably need to chain-flagship.

Did the Sabot Aurora need skills to kill that many?  Unskilled, I can take out about three cruisers relatively safely before running out.  Relatively because I had to take risks to finish off one overloaded cruiser while the others try to flank and trap my Aurora.

and the proper way to use Sabots is to use as many of them as possible as quickly as possible.

Only the playership (and Longbow spam) do this.  AI does not use sabots optimally like this.  And if you use as many as possible, that implies only one-shot before they are gone.  For that, I do not mind Sabots being powerful, because that is a lot of OP spent for a one-shot.