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]

Author Topic: Vayra surfaces briefly from the depths to comment on every Starsector ship  (Read 5443 times)

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile

The enforcer can't actually use its weapon slots though. It has terrible dissipation. Ultimately flux stats limit fire power as much as mounts do if not more. It's mediocre at best, although I agree it would be more useful if the hammerhead weren't so good. I don't necessarily think it's too good other than SO assault chain gun shenanigans though. I'd rather see the enforcer buffed a bit in the flux department (or double down on the armor).
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 07:09:20 PM by intrinsic_parity »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile

I also think there is something to be said about OP balance vs. combat strength. Some ships are very tight on OP even though they are very strong (for other reasons). I think astral is a good example, it is one of the strongest ships (because of it's system) while also having to routinely leave a large portion of its weapons empty if you want to fit high end fighters like tridents or daggers. I find this to be unsatisfying. I would prefer the system to be nerfed and more OP to be added because gutted load outs feel bad even if they are very strong. I think many of the carriers suffer from this a little, although this might indicate that fighters are too good necessitating carriers to be weakened by a lack of OP.
Logged

Cycerin

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • beyond the infinite void
    • View Profile

The enforcer's 5 medium mounts are a way to say "I can use the best PD in the game and still have medium weapons for offense" (flak cannons)

A classic enforcer that doesn't downsize is 1 frontal flak, 4 HVDs/arbalests + finisher missiles, which I think is the max amount of firepower it can reliably support. It's also great as an SO ship with 2 HMG, 1 ACG and 2 vulcans.

Really, the Enforcer is one of the most balanced ships the game has, and I don't think it needs much tweaking - the Hammerhead could do with a nerf to turn rate so it's easier to flank it, if the mounts are to remain the same. Alternatively make its shield arc worse so it can be hit from the sides. After it got hybrids it opened up builds that increased its power level to a massive degree.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 07:03:37 PM by Cycerin »
Logged

MesoTroniK

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • I am going to destroy your ships
    • View Profile

Hammerhead's ability to point 2 med ballistic and 4 small ballistics all at one target that are also boosted by AAF, and then a pair of small missiles too? Is pretty much absurd, and so many things evaporate instantly in front of it while it also is not a glass cannon like the Sunder is.

Enforcer stats are fine, just make 2 of the med turrets PD and it gets by just OK. Then it pointing 3 offensive med ballistics and 4 small missiles at the target is fine... Except for the fact the Hammerhead basically does the ballistic part even better than the Enforcer.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile

I mean the enforcer can point a lot more guns in one direction than the hammerhead can but it's not anywhere near as good as the hammerhead because the flux stats prevent it from actually using them. I often use small ballistics in the medium slots to lighten the flux load on the enforcer (and I always use 2 if not 3 PD weapons). Maybe the hammerheads ship system or flux stats are over tuned but its weapon compliment is definitely not the issue.

edit: I would almost go as far as to say the specific weapon mounts almost don't matter very much unless there aren't enough to use the dissipation which is the actual measure of fire power.

edit: ballistic vs energy matters but number of mounts and size of mounts matters less. Usually you can just use stronger weapons with less mounts and achieve a similar amount of fire power. Obviously within limits, but at the end of the day, dissipation/capacity is firepower and everything else is the lens it gets viewed through.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 07:25:28 PM by intrinsic_parity »
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile

Enforcers have always seemed effective to me.

IIRC, Hammerheads used to have flux problems while using AAF, but now AAF gives flux reduction. Four forward small hybrids on top of that has made it silly, IMO, so I support Meso's/Vayra's proposed adjustments.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile

Hammerhead is fine.  Enforcer needs either a bit more flux or a better shield.  Enforcer is not that bad of a ship, though.  Not the best destroyer, but gets the job done of tanking and killing early-game threats.

Medusa is annoying.  It is good, but only with rare weapons (that player will have by endgame when it is too late).  Loss of 800 range needlers hurt Medusa a little too.  A bit too expensive to do what it does.  Could have its OP raised a little, or its DP cost cut down to 10 or 11.

I also think there is something to be said about OP balance vs. combat strength. Some ships are very tight on OP even though they are very strong (for other reasons). I think astral is a good example, it is one of the strongest ships (because of it's system) while also having to routinely leave a large portion of its weapons empty if you want to fit high end fighters like tridents or daggers. I find this to be unsatisfying. I would prefer the system to be nerfed and more OP to be added because gutted load outs feel bad even if they are very strong. I think many of the carriers suffer from this a little, although this might indicate that fighters are too good necessitating carriers to be weakened by a lack of OP.
Same here, except for the nerf of Recall Device.  (If Astral was much stronger than Paragon like it was in 0.8a, sure.  But right now, Astral is fine except for no OP to use anything except bombers.)  Nearly all carriers are very OP starved even if they can kill things with fighters.  I groan when I read "raise OP cost" of fighters, when carriers are already giving up almost everything (weapons, flux stats, hullmods) just to do their job of using fighters.  Nearly all of my dedicated carriers are unarmed or nearly so (with Drover and Astral being the worst cases).  0 OP should not be the baseline for using fighters.  8 OP should be (or 12 for obvious bomber ships like Astral).

Come to think of it, I like to see something like Heavy Ballistics Integration that shaves OP off of all weapons (or make them free), or at least all PD weapons, on dedicated carriers, so they can put some weapons instead of leaving every mount empty just to put fighters on the hull.

Not sure what to make of Legion.  The game considers it a dedicated carrier, though it feels more like a warship that can use fighters decently, and fights better as a warship with (its own) fighter support.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 05:08:22 AM by Megas »
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile

Nearly all carriers are very OP starved even if they can kill things with fighters.  I groan when I read "raise OP cost" of fighters, when carriers are already giving up almost everything (weapons, flux stats, hullmods) just to do their job of using fighters.

Agree. My preferred fix would be to make fighters cheaper and (in some cases) weaker.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile

I forgot to mention the OP starvation comment was with Loadout Design 3.  This is a major reason why I consider Loadout Design 3 must-have.  Carriers tend to be the most OP-starved ships.  I tried loading out carriers as warship-lite with Talons, but they are not very effective (except Legion, where I skimp on light mounts instead).  Went back to building mostly unarmed carriers with better fighters.

For similar reasons, I often put only Mining Pods on Odyssey because Odyssey is designed for close-range brawling (with plasma cannons or mass IR Pulse Lasers) and has a lean OP budget (with Loadout Design 3).  Putting even a single wing of Longbows or Xyphos, let alone two, costs too much OP for Odyssey.

Mora is not as starved as much as others, due to more OP than Heron and being able to use cheap but effective weapons like Light Mortars and Vulcans.  Sometimes, I skimp combat stuff on Mora to squeeze in campaign boons like Surveying Equipment.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile

For the odyssey, I sometimes skimp on actual PD and use sparks which are essentially 5 burst PD for 8 OP. It seems to work well. Saves lots of OP to leave a lot of the small slots empty.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]