Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Raiding for Fun and Profit (11/27/19)

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.  (Read 1721 times)

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 807
    • View Profile
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2019, 06:26:13 AM »

I've played around with several variations of regenerating missiles since 0.6, and it really doesn't hurt balance as much as people seem to have convinced themselves it does.

The single biggest advantage of having regen. missiles is that it is no longer possible to 'game' the game and get the AI to waste it's missiles before you properly commit to an attack. It always has missiles so there is always that pressure, which completely removes this behaviour.
That you also eliminate the 'disappointment' of missing, and the 'too valuable to use' and 'wasted OP' problems are just nice secondary effects.

If you require an in-game rationalisation for this:
Spoiler

Missiles get reloaded (to some degree) after every battle, so you can say that missiles come from supplies.
Either they're packed in neat little crates whole, or as feedstock for a shipboard fabricator.
Whichever. They're then manually loaded by the crew as needed, with larger missiles being almost as above one-at-a-time. And smaller ones being fed into a drum or magazine which then feeds the launcher.

Can't see it being vastly different from submarines, except the seals and overlaps being the opposite way round (higher pressure inside instead of outside).
[close]

The thing I would be really tempted to do if I was in a position to implement regen. missiles into this game, would be to give every missile it's own re-load rate.
And then have a modifier for every ship with a missile weapon, which reduces the re-load rate as CR drops. And like fighters, when it hits 0 everything stops.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
    • View Profile
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2019, 07:48:32 AM »

The only problem with missile regeneration is you need full reload between rounds... which I have no problem with.

Quote
And a common misconception is that missiles need some kind of replenishing. If you get expanded missile racks, a lot of medium and large missiles ammo can easily outlast a fight duration. For instance, 1200 locusts take around 270 seconds just to finish firing if you fired non-stop, every single time it is off-cd. A medium reaper pod with exapnded missile racks would still take 150 seconds to run out of ammo if you fired non-stop every time its off CD. The only medium/large missile that I found to actually be limited by ammo are sabots, and even then its rarely the case with judicious use in fights.
Locusts with expanded missile racks is literally the best case scenario.  Even that runs out during the ten capital spam that is common at endgame fights, and they do not reload between rounds.  At least that will last for most of the fight.  Anything else not named Salamander will run dry too quickly.

I have abandoned Annihilator Pods on Onslaught due to them running out too quickly.  I now put either Typhoon Reapers or Salamander Pods (or even leave them empty) on Onslaught.  Occasionally, I put Swarmers with Expanded Missile Racks for anti-frigate at the rear, but even those do not last significantly longer than Annihilator Pods.


As for missiles...

Harpoons are spent as soon as the first target is vulnerable.  Okay early in the game when there are fewer targets, but by endgame, they might as well not be there.  They are very vulnerable to PD.  Probably needs Missile Specialization to make them decent.

Sabot are great under player use, but not so much under AI use.  AI chucks few here and there, or unloads when it panics.  Either way, AI uses them sub-optimally.

Hammers are cheap, common, and AI is decent with them.  They do not last long, but at least you get what you pay for.  Wished there was a medium Hammer pod.  (Hammer Barrage would be fine if it either had more ammo or costs only 16 OP, ammo runs out too quickly).

Atropos is a tad too weak for its price, and too similar to Harpoons.  Hard to use at times due to narrow range band.  Too close and they bounce.  Too far, they flame out and bounce.  Would like to see 1200 damage.  Stupid Dagger spam ruining it for normal ships (much like Mora ruining Damper Field for frigates during 0.8.x).

Swarmers are decent anti-small ship.  Run out a bit too quickly, though not as fast as Harpoons.

Annihilators are good mostly as a defensive screen and occasional finisher.  They tend to be my missile of choice for smaller ships.  Still runs out somewhat quickly in big fights.

Reapers have their uses.  I use them mostly to cheese kills with Afflictor (now that Harbinger cannot do that anymore).  Not straight forward to use since they are slow and fragile without skills.  AI is conservative with them, and may not run out after a minute of fighting.  Large Reapers are too expensive, take too long to reload, and too few ships can use it effectively.

Salamanders are basically an unlimited homing stun gun that can distract.  Occasionally useful.  Sometimes mounted instead of nothing if I need something to last a whole endgame fight.

Pilums stink bad enough that critical mass is probably impossible without maximum map size and maybe ten officers with Missile Specialization.  I try Pilum spam with missile ships (without skills), and while they blot the screen and look intimidating, they still mostly fail.  Best case, they kill one ship before ships run out and wait to regenerate more.  Usually, nearly all Pilums get shot down, blocked, or flame out.  I had better results with most other missiles.  I think Pilums are bad enough that no weapon is better than Pilums, much like Thumper in earlier releases.

Proximity charges are too slow and burn through ammo fast.  It is like the bomb bay in a missile slot, and it costs 12 OP.  Too hard to use for too little payoff.  Another no-weapon-is-better-than-this weapon.  Flash wings use them to good effect, but they do not have pesky ammo limits.

Locusts are great.  Excellent tracking and lasts long (but not long enough without Expanded Missile Racks).  Murders small ships easily.  Even big ships take big damage if armor is stripped.  Even better, they are cheaper than other large missiles.

Squalls stink.  They track poorly and run out of ammo too quickly.  Worth too much at 20 OP.

MIRVs are too expensive.  They need more than 25 OP to do well.  They need ECCM and Missile Specialization for payload to converge properly.  Probably needs Expanded Missile Racks to last long enough too.  If player can get all of that, MIRVs are probably good.  In any case, AI does not conserve MIRVs at all, and fires them at every opportunity.  Without all of the support mods and skills, MIRVs are just something to use if they are available but Locusts are not.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 07:51:32 AM by Megas »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
    • View Profile
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2019, 08:07:38 AM »

Sabot have 2 uses:
- Hitting above your weight category in SO-like manner. You can kill some ships otherwise impervious to you, but very few of them. (AI is not persistently aggressive enough and too wasteful for such builds)
This is my biggest problem with Aurora.  Aurora costs too much to be used for this purpose (and needs to be piloted by player, when I have better ships to pilot), and it is underwhelming for its cost in any other role (aside from killing off survivors in a pursuit).  At least Shrike is cheap and disposable enough for that purpose.

Using Sabots against more or less equal opponents is waste - you could optimize your flux profile and win without relying on limited ammo instead.
They also lose some efficiency in large battles (accidentally hitting fighters, getting hit by projectiles, enemies being able to hide behind allies when fluxed out) compared to 1v1 duels.
I guess by equal opponents, you mean one-on-one against enemy cruiser or one against two destroyers and so on.  Against multiple cruisers, I find Aurora without missiles has difficulty winning because it does not have enough flux to deal with two or more cruisers at the same time (and AI will deathball except maybe enemy Aurora).  If I do not use Sabots, the only other way I can win cleanly is to grab PPT extensions and wait until peak performance of the enemy times out first.  That is not really an option in campaign fleet battles (unless player tries to solo fleets).

In case of Shrike, it has no equal opponents except itself.  It is either against frigates it can bully, or against destroyers (or bigger) that can outgun it.  What else can Shrike use in medium missile that is good?  (I occasionally consider small Salamander.)  Its firepower without missiles is on par with Wolf!
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2019, 10:40:09 AM »

Sabot have 2 uses:
- Hitting above your weight category in SO-like manner. You can kill some ships otherwise impervious to you, but very few of them. (AI is not persistently aggressive enough and too wasteful for such builds)
- Stalling when you begin to lose flux war. (what AI uses them for)

Using Sabots against more or less equal opponents is waste - you could optimize your flux profile and win without relying on limited ammo instead.
They also lose some efficiency in large battles (accidentally hitting fighters, getting hit by projectiles, enemies being able to hide behind allies when fluxed out) compared to 1v1 duels.

I disagree with this - using them against equal opponents can be very valuable when you have the followup DPS for a quick kill (either on ship or in fleet with harpoon spam). Speed is the most important thing in taking down large enemy fleets. Taking down several ships of the same size category quickly also shifts the numerical balance of battle - not being as outnumbered makes every following action by the fleet more powerful. For really good hunter ships like an SO Dominator or an Aurora, quickly killing an enemy cruiser by using sabots can also mean that that particular area of the enemy line now has nothing that can stand up to the hunter, so any escorts or carriers in the area that were hiding behind the cruiser will die as well.
Logged

Shad

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2019, 02:56:42 PM »

The first part of the problem with missiles is thee human mind aka loss aversion. Many players avoid "limited" things subconsciously. No matter the benefits.

The second issue is that limited missiles enourages cheese tactics like reaper harbinger.

Third is that the AI is much worse than the player at using missiles and can easily be baited into wasting them.

The fourth is that as ship sizes get bigger, ppt get bigger, fights go longer, player skills grow better. Limited ammo missiles with some rare exceptions (like reaper) grow increasingly pointless.

The fifth is that there is weird inconsistency in-game. Why can a cheap fighter craft like talon regenerate its swarmers, but ships cannot?

The sixth is that bombers exist. Bombers provide the same missiles as missile mounts, again and again and again.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2019, 03:23:14 PM »

Bombers being the same as missiles is a myth - its near impossible to control their exact timing, the bombers themselves are easy to shoot down, they cost far more OP, and they need specialized ships which have other inherent weaknesses. Don't get me wrong, bombers are good, but they are entirely different in use and role than the limited ammo missiles.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2019, 03:42:36 PM »

Even if they are not the same, fighters are still a good argument for making missile reload. If that makes missiles overpowered... Well, fighters already were so, and even now they remain a very strong option. While I would prefer to have fighters reigned in instead, until then, reloading missiles have a convincing excuse.

Chaos Blade

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2019, 07:48:34 PM »

Hmmm... maybe tie the regeneration rate to the CR? so the lower CR is, the slower missile regen is, and further modify it per type

But, yeah, it makes sense to make missiles as fighters
Logged

Nighteyes

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2019, 07:07:04 AM »

Why not tie missile amount to the size of the ship? Larger ships carry more. It always seemed strange that a big battleship carried the same amount as a tiny frigate. This way if you want a designated missile boat, run a cruiser with several missile hardpoints and it could carry enough to fill that role.
Logged

Ranakastrasz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
  • Prince Corwin of Amber
    • View Profile
Re: Missile cooldown rahter than ammo.
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2019, 07:31:18 AM »

Why not tie missile amount to the size of the ship? Larger ships carry more. It always seemed strange that a big battleship carried the same amount as a tiny frigate. This way if you want a designated missile boat, run a cruiser with several missile hardpoints and it could carry enough to fill that role.
Generally the implication is that the size of the weapon slot, and the OP behind it, determines how much internal space it takes up. So larger ships can fit more, but its already built in, since they can equip more missiles or invest in expanded missile magazines.

Hmmm... maybe tie the regeneration rate to the CR? so the lower CR is, the slower missile regen is, and further modify it per type

But, yeah, it makes sense to make missiles as fighters
That was one thing I thought of a while back. Main issue mod wise was that regeneration doesn't seem mutable. But it is certainly a reasonable approach.
Logged
I think is easy for Simba and Mufasa sing the Circle of Life when they're on the top of the food chain, I bet the zebras hate that song.

Cigarettes are a lot like hamsters. Perfectly harmless, until you put one in your mouth and light it on fire
Pages: 1 [2]