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 [3] 4 5 ... 7

Author Topic: Hammerhead Balance Theories  (Read 11179 times)

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2020, 03:08:47 PM »

Hey, don't bully my Hammerheads! They're great ships, but that's largely in part to how simple they are. They're reasonably durable, reasonably quick, and can supercharge their weapons for a real kick. As individual packages the Hammerhead isn't anything special, AAF doesn't really do anything special, and Assault Chainguns aren't anything special. It's really hard to get into AC range, the ships that are fast enough are too fragile and the ships that are durable enough are too slow. Rather, it is the full combination that comes together and makes it terrifying. A Safety-Overrides Hammerhead has the speed to get into range, enough agility to dance around more lumbering targets, and the extra kick of AAF to give the firepower it needs to win. It's really the perfect storm of up front ass kickery, and you will struggle to find another ship that can fight the same style.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2020, 03:21:16 PM »

Re: Hammerhead without AAF, and Hammerhead balance in general:

Before the Hammerhead had its small mounts changed from energy to energy/ballistic and its system was changed to reduce flux, it was considered the weakest of the destroyers (there was also quite a lot of forum chatter about it, so in a way its documented). Of course this was also before quite a number of other changes: Enforcers could stack 2 different engine booster hullmmods that carried no penalty, fighters were extremely weak so Medusa's had no common predator, the long range high performance medium ballistics (HVD, Heavy Mauler) had higher DPS, and offensive skills were vastly more powerful than defensive skills. It makes it hard to examine the strength of the destroyers across different versions, because the relative strength depends so heavily on the equipment they can use and the foes they face. I believe the Enforcer, Medusa, and Sunder have received no changes in many versions (other than maybe a DP/supply tweak?), but their relative usefulness has changed quite a bit.

The assault chaingun going from 400->600 by getting +50% per shot damage is a lot easier to analyze: it went from a lackluster weapon that was a bit 'meh' even in SO builds to being extremely strong. A Hammerhead with 2 of them and 4 lmgs will 'melee' for 1200HE + 600K, doubled with system with a 1.4 effective average DPS (though frontloaded, so it has 'alpha' compared to average). Its about 1.5 times the firepower of an SO Medusa for comparison, though the Medusa has the mobility and shield advantage (and the weakness to fighters). I also use the new AC on non-SO ships as 'point defense' when I expect to be swarmed by smaller enemies: I have a campaign Legion (recovered) that uses them to great effect. Its also a pretty good weapon against fighters believe it or not by virtue of sheer DPS.

A Hammerhead without AAF would be quite a lot weaker - maybe not as bad as the current Enforcer, but weaker than either the Medusa or Sunder for sure. Its pretty easy to see why: the system is a front loaded 1.4x on firepower at no flux cost. Is the current Hammerhead really 1.4 or more times better than other destroyers? I really don't think so. If it got a good other system to compensate it would be comparable: the base Hammerhead stats and weapons are solid. Maneuvering jets might be an interesting choice, as mobility/being swarmed is one of the current Hammerheads weaknesses, and it would be quite speedy with them.

If people would like to have it out and test to prove their points, I do stream exhibition matches. If people are unfamiliar with the tournament mod, it would be a simple matter for me to set things up if you provide me with variants, and I can make a simple mod to disable AAF on the Hammerhead. You should settle on some rules first though (SO or no SO allowed, allies allowed, total DP, AAF vs no AAF, etc).

And finally, putting on my other hat: So far this thread has been reasonably civil, but its been growing a bit heated. As a general reminder, everyone please continue to be respectful.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2020, 05:17:39 PM »

B-b-but Hammerhead is so weak!? Why is it so difficult to illustrate its weaknes in this simple manner?

Because illustrating its weakness by looking at its greatest strength seems counterproductive. And the hammerhead isnt weak it just isnt OP.

I'm not looking at its greatest strength. I'm looking at the lack of any substantial proof that Hammerhead is weak without AAF.

A 1v1 destroyer match is the hammerheads greatest strength...

As combats get bigger, the ability to not die matters a whole lot more than the ability to kill. If you have Hammerheads vs Medusa and the Medusa can reset their shield damage by leaving when they get targeted by hammerheads but the hammerheads cannot; then very quickly it becomes Hammerheads-1 vs Medusa. At which point it very quickly becomes Hammerheads-2 vs Medusa...
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2020, 07:32:06 PM »

While AAF can kill, phase skimmer can save.

Thats "wining" against "not losing".

Antonyms of losing:
(of a game or contest) Opposite of present participle for to fail to win:

winning

“He would win against his opponent, a fitting finale to the hard work and training he had put in over the last few months.”

Oh, nice. Now look up in the vocabulary the meaning of "not".

Anyways, how exactly do you think that removing the AAF from Hammerhead will make it more balanced, Lucky ?

You will no longer be able to press F to win.

It's already pretty weak in terms of firepower considering that both of it's mediums are front facing instead of being turrets, its mobility is average, shields average, not very survivable against anything larger than it that can out-range it or can keep aiming at it.

You are talking about 0.52 era. When firepower was limited by the ammo on the "per gun" basis. This is how Hammerhead earned its fame as a weak ship. Nowdays, firepower is tied with the protection and defined by the flux. Dissipation limits your ability to deal damage without lowering you defence, total capacity shows how much damage you can deal and receive without taking permanent damage and shield efficiency specify that ratio further.

Take Enforcer for example with its five turreted medium mounts. Its x2.5 times more than Hammerhead, yes? Completely op. And lets put those op assault chainguns in all of them. Nothing could go wrong.

Erm... OP Enforcer lost its shield before getting through half of the Hammerhead's. And the later wasnt even firing. How can it be? But the number of mounts! But the arcs! And the burn drive! These are strong points. Or not? Maybe you should look first at the dissipation and compare it to the gun's flux build up? And after that you should check total flux capacity and the shield efficiency? Because this is what really matters for the firepower comparison.

The only time I've seen the AAF be a threat was when I was nearly overloaded and couldn't run away from the Hammerhead.

Please quote me where I'm talking about Hammerhead being a threat to a player? All this time I was talking about Hammerhead being broken in the player's hands.

In comparison, a Medusa's teleportation or a Wolf's phase skimmer allows me to directly jump into the enemy's blind-spot and shoot them from behind while they can't hit me.

And it is broken because you dont need to jump anywhere. You press forward, push the F button and when you win.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2020, 07:33:40 PM »

I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff

What problem? Care to describe?

The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.

Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.

Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.

"design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less"
Logged

MrDaddyPants

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2020, 07:46:15 PM »

I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff

What problem? Care to describe?

The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.

Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.

Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.

"design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less"

To prove what? "Kite is overpowered you can't design stronger ship of 2 dp or less". "Paragon is overpowered you can't design a better capital of 60dp or less?".

And here i thought that finally we'll see some kick ass hammerhead loadouts. But it's just another forumwarrior with made up tales of overpowered ships and stuff.

Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2020, 07:47:17 PM »

Re: Hammerhead without AAF, and Hammerhead balance in general:

...

The assault chaingun going from 400->600 by getting +50% per shot damage is a lot easier to analyze: it went from a lackluster weapon that was a bit 'meh' even in SO builds to being extremely strong. A Hammerhead with 2 of them and 4 lmgs will 'melee' for 1200HE + 600K, doubled with system with a 1.4 effective average DPS (though frontloaded, so it has 'alpha' compared to average). Its about 1.5 times the firepower of an SO Medusa for comparison, though the Medusa has the mobility and shield advantage (and the weakness to fighters).

1.5/1.4=1.07. Hammerhead without AAF is 1.07 times stronger than SO Medusa. This is how weak it is. Literally unplayable.

A Hammerhead without AAF would be quite a lot weaker - maybe not as bad as the current Enforcer, but weaker than either the Medusa or Sunder for sure.

Even with AAF included it must be weaker than ships with higher DP. Right now its stronger than 12 DP Medusa.

Its pretty easy to see why: the system is a front loaded 1.4x on firepower at no flux cost. Is the current Hammerhead really 1.4 or more times better than other destroyers? I really don't think so.

Me too. Its more than that.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2020, 07:52:23 PM »

I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff

What problem? Care to describe?

The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.

Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.

Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.

"design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less"

To prove what? "Kite is overpowered you can't design stronger ship of 2 dp or less". "Paragon is overpowered you can't design a better capital of 60dp or less?".

And here i thought that finally we'll see some kick ass hammerhead loadouts. But it's just another forumwarrior with made up tales of overpowered ships and stuff.

To make those claimants of the Hammerhead weakness to fail at proving it. If you cant exploit supposed weakness of the Hammerhead in any possible variant of any gun-destroyer of the same or lower DP then Hammerhead is not weak. Case closed.
Logged

MrDaddyPants

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2020, 08:01:04 PM »

I think a big part of the problem with the AC buff

What problem? Care to describe?

The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.

Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.

Well that's awkward since there are no other 10 dp destroyers in vanilla except condor? But i'd gladly indulge your overpowered hammerheads in a show match. I suggest 10 dp vs 10, and 50 dp vs 50dp. I'm sure we can even find a streamer. You bring hammerheads i bring other combination of vanilla ships in equal DP and we'll see how overpowered your hammerheads are.

"design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less"

To prove what? "Kite is overpowered you can't design stronger ship of 2 dp or less". "Paragon is overpowered you can't design a better capital of 60dp or less?".

And here i thought that finally we'll see some kick ass hammerhead loadouts. But it's just another forumwarrior with made up tales of overpowered ships and stuff.

To make those claimants of the Hammerhead weakness to fail at proving it. If you cant exploit supposed weakness of the Hammerhead in any possible variant of any gun-destroyer of the same or lower DP then Hammerhead is not weak. Case closed.

Ok so HH is best 10dp (and under) ship. Medusa is best 12 dp (and under) ship. Paragon is best 60dp (and under) ship. I'm sure community can make a mod for you, where those ships are deleted. No need for spamming suggestions with that kind of nonsense.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2020, 08:05:45 PM »

Ok so HH is best 10dp (and under) ship.

See. It was easy.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2020, 08:39:59 PM »

Re: Hammerhead without AAF, and Hammerhead balance in general:

...

The assault chaingun going from 400->600 by getting +50% per shot damage is a lot easier to analyze: it went from a lackluster weapon that was a bit 'meh' even in SO builds to being extremely strong. A Hammerhead with 2 of them and 4 lmgs will 'melee' for 1200HE + 600K, doubled with system with a 1.4 effective average DPS (though frontloaded, so it has 'alpha' compared to average). Its about 1.5 times the firepower of an SO Medusa for comparison, though the Medusa has the mobility and shield advantage (and the weakness to fighters).

1.5/1.4=1.07. Hammerhead without AAF is 1.07 times stronger than SO Medusa. This is how weak it is. Literally unplayable.

A Hammerhead without AAF would be quite a lot weaker - maybe not as bad as the current Enforcer, but weaker than either the Medusa or Sunder for sure.

Even with AAF included it must be weaker than ships with higher DP. Right now its stronger than 12 DP Medusa.

Its pretty easy to see why: the system is a front loaded 1.4x on firepower at no flux cost. Is the current Hammerhead really 1.4 or more times better than other destroyers? I really don't think so.

Me too. Its more than that.

Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower. The Medusa has other strengths, such as a very efficient shield, higher speed, and a very good system. Your contention that a no-system SO Hammerhead is better than an SO Medusa is... well its just not true. We saw on stream in the tourney before last that the classic SO Hammerhead with AC and lmgs WITH AAF loses to the SO Medusa.

I love the Hammerhead, but I don't think its that much better than the other Destroyers, especially without AAF; except maybe the Enforcer, which is in a truly sorry state, and has a very mediocre ship system.

But why don't we run an actual test instead of just theorycrafting about it? I could be wrong, it happens very frequently, and I'd love to get some data. I'll stream a match, or best of 3 even. Say you submit 6 Hammerheads with SO but not AAF, and someone else submits 5 SO Medusas - thats equal DP at 60, good for a little skirmish. In order to avoid bias from me being able to see your designs before the match, how about someone else can submit the SO Medusas (or I suppose I could grab the variant from 2 streams ago, I might be able to find a DL link or just watch the stream again). You've been accusing everyone else of failing to prove things, how about you do some proving of your own?
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2020, 08:50:43 PM »

Arguing that AAF is the equivalent of having twice the number of ballistic weapons is sorta fine.....

You are assuming that every ship is firing for the unlimited period of time. To destroy another Hammerhead you need only from 4 to 5.5 seconds depending on how good the ai will manage to vent in the process. And thats without even single flux point spent on firing back. And no sabots. With them and more typical overload scenario you need only 3 seconds. And all that means that you need a much heavier ship to take all 6 seconds of AAF damage in the first place.

Atlas mk2 is OK or something like that. It has its flux stat reduced to the level of Falcon. Everything else is closer to Hammerhead.

Mmkay, that's a fair argument. I misunderstood your point as meaning it had twice the firepower at all times, my apologies. You're right, AAF does wonders as a situational ability, and five to six seconds is definitely enough time to wreak serious havoc on a target.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2020, 09:19:47 PM »

Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.

Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.

The Medusa has other strengths, such as a very efficient shield, higher speed, and a very good system. Your contention that a no-system SO Hammerhead is better than an SO Medusa is... well its just not true. We saw on stream in the tourney before last that the classic SO Hammerhead with AC and lmgs WITH AAF loses to the SO Medusa.

Not mine. Yours. I was using your numbers.

I love the Hammerhead, but I don't think its that much better than the other Destroyers, especially without AAF; except maybe the Enforcer, which is in a truly sorry state, and has a very mediocre ship system.

It all started like this:

Sabotpod has 9 sec between bursts. Thats heavyac level of op. Typhoon has 15 sec chargedown. Better than heavymortar I guess. But not even in the same universe as the chaingun.

Medium missiles are balanced just fine. Its medium energy mounts what are gimped unless you have a huge dissipation. And since basic Falcon doesnt, its just a "cruiser" with the worse armanent than Hammerhead. Only compared to that, (P) version looks great.

Sounds familiar?

But why don't we run an actual test instead of just theorycrafting about it?

Sure.


The hammerhead is weaker than other destroyers in that it has less mounts, bad arcs, and limited mobility. Also it has pretty middle of the road stats in a lot of other areas. It gets a damage boost to compensate for those weaknesses.

Please, design a variant for a gun-destroyer of 10 DP or less which I wouldnt be able to beat in the Hammerhead, 10 out of 10 and without AAF usage.

And the I part comes from this:

This isn't a problem I've encountered in the campaign. It was only really evident from the Starsector tournament. Let's not balance the game around that, please!

This doesn't come from the tournament. It comes from player-piloting in the campaign. A missile-spamming Falcon P flagship is absurdly powerful and DP efficient. The competing ships, Gryphon and Aurora, both cost more DP (i.e. have less fleet support) and have equivalent or inferior missile-power.


Looks like I'm the only one who still remembers that we are all discussing here.

And, yes, anyone is still welcome to design beforementioned variant for me to fight.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2020, 09:56:52 PM »

Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.

Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.

No, it's not. Firepower-at X range-at Y speed-with Z survivability as whole is what matters. A hypothetical extremely slow and short ranged ship with infinite damage output will lose to everything (unless it also has infinite durability). Survivability matters because as shorter ranged and faster ship with better weapons you still need to survive incoming fire during approach and fight itself.

Hammerhead has more firepower than Falcon, yet it will still lose every single time assuming perfect piloting on Falcon's part.
If both use HVD + Mauler or Needler + Mauler, then Falcon wins by range.
If Hammerhead uses HVD + Mauler vs Needler + Mauler Falcon, Hammerhead loses by firepower (since Falcon has better flux stats and 2 Gravitons to help).
Railguns on Hammerhead never get chance to enter firing range, so ultimately do not matter..

Of course, Hammerhead can still win if Falcon fails at maintaining range ,which is exactly what happens in player Hammerhead vs AI Falcon scenario.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 09:59:03 PM by TaLaR »
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2020, 10:10:42 PM »

Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.

Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.

No, it's not. Firepower-at X range-at Y speed-with Z survivability as whole is what matters.

If its not, take it as zero then.

Hammerhead has more firepower than Falcon, yet it will still lose every single time assuming perfect piloting on Falcon's part.

Both. Its all about ships being overpowered while under player control.

PS I just realized that all-missiles Falcon (P) is a blast from the past of limited ammo days.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7