Print

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

Yes.

8 (16%)

No.

38 (76%)

Let the paragon be the best ship for shield tanking, and no armor/hull regen for onslaught for armor/hull tanking.

4 (8%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[Plantissue]

If hull repair was fast, it wouldn't be too much different from flux/shield mechanics. If it was slow, it would almost be pointless, except to cause an odd juxtaposition that hull and armour damage in combat costs no supply to repair, but outside of combat it does, unless repairing also degrades CR at the same time, which is something the player may not want in a middle of a battle. If a middle ground was reached, then it would essentially mean that large and well armoured ships would become completely immune to a level of weaponry that smaller ships will be equipped with.

Heavy armour hullmod is a good alternative already to this.

Also Paragon is perfectly fine. It is slow and boring, but it is well worth its DP. If anything its DP should rise. A no combat skill piloted Paragon can destroy a fully operational remnant battle Station, but it'll take 4 Onslaughts to do the same.

[Sinigr]

There is no need to give unique healing to armor style ships. Every ship has a limited combat resource, peak performance time. Armor focused ships tend to be low tech, so they should have fewer problems with long term deployments. An armor ship stops being combat viable when their armor is depleted, after all. Shield ships tend to be higher tech, which implies a more sensitive type of equipment. Ship performance would degrade when shield systems and such wear down from fatigue.

whan combat resource, peak performance time run out, you can make full retreat and re engage into battle, and what we see, all ships are loosing some combat readiness for last deploument, but, armored ships are mooving in battle with damaged armor and hulls. so it can not tank like it was first time, okey, with Damage Control 2 lvl and Field repairs 2 lvl it repairs 75% of damaged armor and hull, but if you re engage more times armored ships will have less and less tank potential, while paragon can tank as usual.

[Megas]

@ Sinigr:  Tried your loadout with minor modifications against some Ordos fleets.  It is effective.

Against one Ordos, five Paragons rolled them over.  First fight did not have officers (forgot to move them to Paragons), but they still did most of the fighting.  Second fight (with officers in Paragons) against single Ordos was easy enough.  Against two Ordos at the same time, my fleet won, but lost two Paragons, although one of the casualties was me getting too greedy, so casualties should have been one Paragon.  The biggest problem with multi-Ordos is peak performance.  I would need multi-round combat to fight two or more with four or five Paragons.

With huge capacity, it takes a quite a while before Paragon gets high flux, and by the time it happens, most things nearby are dead or backing off.

I do not know if the loadout would work if capacitors got sacrificed for campaign mods or Hardened Subsystems.  Paragon without capacitors gets flux capped not much later than other capitals.  One with near 40k capacity takes a while.

If it was slow, it would almost be pointless, except to cause an odd juxtaposition that hull and armour damage in combat costs no supply to repair, but outside of combat it does, unless repairing also degrades CR at the same time, which is something the player may not want in a middle of a battle.

Not really if player attempts to solo an entire fight like during the 0.6.x and 0.7.x days.  Since AI after 0.8.x is usually deathly afraid of the edge (to defeat cheese like Onslaught camping at corner and killing everything with superior range and firepower), all player needs to do is run to the edge, let the enemy run away toward the middle, and wait until hull or armor regenerates before hunting more enemies to kill.  Peak performance does not tick down if no enemies are present.

It would not work well with fleet combat, which would mean player will solo the whole fight, or chain-deploy flagships one at a time, if his ship is sturdy enough to not die in one hit.

[bobucles]

whan combat resource, peak performance time run out, you can make full retreat and re engage into battle,

When the clock runs out on a ship, its CR falls like a rock. Paying a flat 15-20%'ish CR to get a full recharge sounds like an exploit. At the very least it is slanted in favor of shield style ships (and maybe torpedo boats?), since their losses are superficial.

Peak performance does not tick down if no enemies are present.

Field Combat repairs definitely sounds like something that demands peak performance. It's a hostile and high stress environment, even if no enemies are immediately shooting at them.

[Megas]

One more thing:  In later 0.7.x, in-combat hull repairs were lost after end of battle.  They were reset to the lowest hull reached in battle.

When the clock runs out on a ship, its CR falls like a rock. Paying a flat 15-20%'ish CR to get a full recharge sounds like an exploit. At the very least it is slanted in favor of shield style ships (and maybe torpedo boats?), since their losses are superficial.

It does, which is the reason to edge-camp if player anticipates multi-round combat, so that ships leave the field almost immediately after a Retreat command.

It may be an exploit, but unless ships get much longer PPT or fights get shorter, PPT resetting between rounds is good.  PPT times were set during 0.6.x, when endgame fights were much shorter.

The biggest problem with Onslaught (and Conquest) is not armor tanking, but missiles.  Since missiles no longer reload between rounds after 0.9.x, ships that need missiles to do well are hurt by multi-round combat.

[bobucles]

It may be an exploit, but unless ships get much longer PPT or fights get shorter, PPT resetting between rounds is good.  PPT times were set during 0.6.x, when endgame fights were much shorter.

PPT resetting doesn't sound like a feature worth designing combat around. PPT serves a very important purpose of pacing out the battles and inflicting a time limit on the player to encourage aggressive fun action. If the battle takes too long then either
A) The player screwed up by picking a fight way bigger than themselves, or
B) The game is creating individual battles that are too large or too slow paced.

I do like that battles are mostly short and sweet. Anything that evolves into a larger scale battle (multiple deployments/waves/etc.) might be better served by being broken up into more individual battles.

[Sinigr]

@ Sinigr:  Tried your loadout with minor modifications against some Ordos fleets.  It is effective.

Against one Ordos, five Paragons rolled them over.  First fight did not have officers (forgot to move them to Paragons), but they still did most of the fighting.  Second fight (with officers in Paragons) against single Ordos was easy enough.  Against two Ordos at the same time, my fleet won, but lost two Paragons, although one of the casualties was me getting too greedy, so casualties should have been one Paragon.  The biggest problem with multi-Ordos is peak performance.  I would need multi-round combat to fight two or more with four or five Paragons.

With huge capacity, it takes a quite a while before Paragon gets high flux, and by the time it happens, most things nearby are dead or backing off.

I do not know if the loadout would work if capacitors got sacrificed for campaign mods or Hardened Subsystems.  Paragon without capacitors gets flux capped not much later than other capitals.  One with near 40k capacity takes a while.

If it was slow, it would almost be pointless, except to cause an odd juxtaposition that hull and armour damage in combat costs no supply to repair, but outside of combat it does, unless repairing also degrades CR at the same time, which is something the player may not want in a middle of a battle.

Not really if player attempts to solo an entire fight like during the 0.6.x and 0.7.x days.  Since AI after 0.8.x is usually deathly afraid of the edge (to defeat cheese like Onslaught camping at corner and killing everything with superior range and firepower), all player needs to do is run to the edge, let the enemy run away toward the middle, and wait until hull or armor regenerates before hunting more enemies to kill.  Peak performance does not tick down if no enemies are present.

It would not work well with fleet combat, which would mean player will solo the whole fight, or chain-deploy flagships one at a time, if his ship is sturdy enough to not die in one hit.

Okey, some additions, also i use sone astrals, and now i will show loadout of paragon that i am personally piloting, and look attentively, if ai paragon is in trouble you should help it, with such command wark that loadout is best, i am hunting 5+ big remtats fleets, full of officers, as you see. Peak performance, learn Fleet Logistics to have more rerounds and better performens in first battle, make rerounds as you said, and do not use Hardened Subsystems, it does not helps in contact fight. So, i will put here my unbeatable loadouts, but remember, loadouts are first thing, second thing is literate use of it.
Load out of my paragon

Spoiler

[close]

Paragon for ai, as i showed before

Spoiler

[close]

And ai astral

Spoiler

[close]

As you see, we have command wark, if ai paragon is in trouble, player should help it, also astrals asists while paragons are tanking, and do not shoot all weapons from your paragon all the time, do not use tachyons against targets with full shields, tachyons are yours lasthits against small targets whan their shields are close to overload. Try it.

In such loadout that fleet is unbeatable, because of paragon's shield tanking and astral fire support, no other ships can give such invincibility.

All other fleets which are not remnants we can beat just with one paragon under players control.

[Plantissue]

@ Sinigr:  Tried your loadout with minor modifications against some Ordos fleets.  It is effective.

Against one Ordos, five Paragons rolled them over.  First fight did not have officers (forgot to move them to Paragons), but they still did most of the fighting.  Second fight (with officers in Paragons) against single Ordos was easy enough.  Against two Ordos at the same time, my fleet won, but lost two Paragons, although one of the casualties was me getting too greedy, so casualties should have been one Paragon.  The biggest problem with multi-Ordos is peak performance.  I would need multi-round combat to fight two or more with four or five Paragons.

With huge capacity, it takes a quite a while before Paragon gets high flux, and by the time it happens, most things nearby are dead or backing off.

I do not know if the loadout would work if capacitors got sacrificed for campaign mods or Hardened Subsystems.  Paragon without capacitors gets flux capped not much later than other capitals.  One with near 40k capacity takes a while.

If it was slow, it would almost be pointless, except to cause an odd juxtaposition that hull and armour damage in combat costs no supply to repair, but outside of combat it does, unless repairing also degrades CR at the same time, which is something the player may not want in a middle of a battle.

Not really if player attempts to solo an entire fight like during the 0.6.x and 0.7.x days.  Since AI after 0.8.x is usually deathly afraid of the edge (to defeat cheese like Onslaught camping at corner and killing everything with superior range and firepower), all player needs to do is run to the edge, let the enemy run away toward the middle, and wait until hull or armor regenerates before hunting more enemies to kill.  Peak performance does not tick down if no enemies are present.

It would not work well with fleet combat, which would mean player will solo the whole fight, or chain-deploy flagships one at a time, if his ship is sturdy enough to not die in one hit.

All this is a bit of a silly metric. Where is the point of comparison that Paragon DP should go from 60 to 50? Did you compare other Capitals with solo an entire fight? What about comparing other DP equivalent Capitals with Ordos fleet? You know that a Paragon is worth much more than 1.11-1.25 of an Odyssey/Conquest/Onslaught.

Anyways, Ordos varies from 200-350 DP. If 5 Paragons rolls over an Ordos, or 2 ordos with 1/2 lost, then clearly the Paragon is worth well more than 50 DP.

[Sinigr]

@ Sinigr:  Tried your loadout with minor modifications against some Ordos fleets.  It is effective.

Against one Ordos, five Paragons rolled them over.  First fight did not have officers (forgot to move them to Paragons), but they still did most of the fighting.  Second fight (with officers in Paragons) against single Ordos was easy enough.  Against two Ordos at the same time, my fleet won, but lost two Paragons, although one of the casualties was me getting too greedy, so casualties should have been one Paragon.  The biggest problem with multi-Ordos is peak performance.  I would need multi-round combat to fight two or more with four or five Paragons.

With huge capacity, it takes a quite a while before Paragon gets high flux, and by the time it happens, most things nearby are dead or backing off.

I do not know if the loadout would work if capacitors got sacrificed for campaign mods or Hardened Subsystems.  Paragon without capacitors gets flux capped not much later than other capitals.  One with near 40k capacity takes a while.

If it was slow, it would almost be pointless, except to cause an odd juxtaposition that hull and armour damage in combat costs no supply to repair, but outside of combat it does, unless repairing also degrades CR at the same time, which is something the player may not want in a middle of a battle.

Not really if player attempts to solo an entire fight like during the 0.6.x and 0.7.x days.  Since AI after 0.8.x is usually deathly afraid of the edge (to defeat cheese like Onslaught camping at corner and killing everything with superior range and firepower), all player needs to do is run to the edge, let the enemy run away toward the middle, and wait until hull or armor regenerates before hunting more enemies to kill.  Peak performance does not tick down if no enemies are present.

It would not work well with fleet combat, which would mean player will solo the whole fight, or chain-deploy flagships one at a time, if his ship is sturdy enough to not die in one hit.

All this is a bit of a silly metric. Where is the point of comparison that Paragon DP should go from 60 to 50? Did you compare other Capitals with solo an entire fight? What about comparing other DP equivalent Capitals with Ordos fleet? You know that a Paragon is worth much more than 1.11-1.25 of an Odyssey/Conquest/Onslaught.

Anyways, Ordos varies from 200-350 DP. If 5 Paragons rolls over an Ordos, or 2 ordos with 1/2 lost, then clearly the Paragon is worth well more than 50 DP.

5+ ordos at one time, first thing. Conquest does not have 360 shield, and it has 1.4 flux/damage shield, it is eating damage from frigates, Conquests says that reapers are the most delicious  , odyssey are fastest battlecruisers, but their fire power is some doubtful, their armor and hull is very low. Onlaught has best armor and hull, but very bad capacitors and vents, so it can not keep cool susteined fire, also Onslaughts says like Conquests that reapers are most delicious cakes) While Paragon is just laughing at them (adysseys, conquests, onslaughts) turning on shield fortress with it's 0.54 damage/flux without skills and modifications shiels (0.32 with full boost) and shooting enemies from long range using it's high tech anvanced targeting core, using it's plasma cannons nourished by impressive vents!

[Megas]

I tried the flagship Paragon for AI (with lances and plasma), and it has trouble when overwhelmed, unlike the loadout with two plasma, tons of capacitors and hullmod, and little else (similar to plasma Odyssey).  The time I tried five flagship Paragons, a single Ordos slaughtered at least two ships because AI Paragons got flux capped then died almost as quickly as Onslaught/Conquest.  Four lances do not work - AI caps in two bursts.  Two plasma and two lances work fine if not overwhelmed, but if it caps, it is in trouble.  I tried autopulse/pulse lasers.  It too flux capped and died.

@ Plantissue:  The soloing was done during the releases that had hull regeneration, from 0.5.4 to 0.7.2.  Of course, gameplay was different, and skills were much stronger.  If I had a combat-skilled character with old-fashioned hull regeneration, I probably would try to play like I did during those old releases.

As for Paragon, I just tried Sinigr's stripped loadout with empty heavy mounts and saw what it can do.  Before, all of my AI loadouts were similar to two lance/two plasma.  (All four heavy mounts used.)  The main difference is low or no capacitors due to campaign hullmods.  If Remnants focus-fired on a Paragon with flagship loadout, what happens is Paragon fires, flux gets high fast (either from weapon fire, or taking too many hits on shield), then takes damage because hard flux is high.  With the stripped loadout (two heavy weapons instead of four, and monster flux stats), it takes significantly longer to get flux capped, and sustained plasma cannon crossfire from two or three Paragons will wear down anything fast.

For AI, it seems Paragon should be treated like plasma Odyssey or carrier, which is few guns, and most OP into flux and hullmods.

[Serenitis]

If you want to repair in battle, the way to go about it is to look at adding that ability to the Automated Repair Unit hullmod.
That way you're at least paying some price for it, and have to give up some firepower/other ability to use it.

It might still need some kind of nerf to be acceptable though. Like can't repair past 50% or reduces peak time or something.
Or an awkward choice like the ARU reducing the ship's shield efficiency/stats or burn/combat speed.

[SCC]

There's a bug with Field Repairs 2, and possibly Damage Control 1, where the ships get repaired between the rounds in the same engagement. Not entirely, but still significantly.

[Sinigr]

If you want to repair in battle, the way to go about it is to look at adding that ability to the Automated Repair Unit hullmod.
That way you're at least paying some price for it, and have to give up some firepower/other ability to use it.

It might still need some kind of nerf to be acceptable though. Like can't repair past 50% or reduces peak time or something.
Or an awkward choice like the ARU reducing the ship's shield efficiency/stats or burn/combat speed.

If that repairing will be so low, it will not give that we need.

[bobucles]

The armor system gives extreme damage mitigation at high values, and loses all its defense after being worn down. Armor repair would only be meaningful as long as armor stays close to perfect health, since patching up 1495 => 1500 is a much more powerful restoration than patching up 195=>200.

[DatonKallandor]

Armor doesn't lose all it's defense after being worn down. It is always effective at 5% of max, regardless or the armor state on the location hit.