Print

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

[Rocksummit]

Because OP is obviously playing with tons of mods...

No. Vanilla. Also I feel like you're trying to be antagonistic for some reason. Could you stop?

Come on, it was such an obvious /s . No need to call me antagonistic just because you didn't get the joke (while it clearly says at the bottom I often joke).

Funniest part tho is saying that Plantissue was trash talking you and throwing ad hominems, you just need to mention the Dunning Kruger effect and you have the whole genius package. Dude was right, you're just giving feedback, we don't need an opening of your background like this is some big speech for an award. Literally no one cares you completed Minecraft on survival mode and got a victory royale 100 times, that doesn't make your feedback any more important that the rest of the community. I just get annoyed at these kind of people. _{inb4 ''you're being antagonistic''}

What is this if not antagonistic? How is it ok to heckle just because it says your joking in your signature? There's nothing wrong with some background and introduction from a player new to the forums and if you don't care for it then I suggest you keep that to yourself.
Link to forum guidelines:
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2668.0

[Plantissue]

Because OP is obviously playing with tons of mods...

No. Vanilla. Also I feel like you're trying to be antagonistic for some reason. Could you stop?

Spoiler

Ignoring that the opening poster spent half the post talking about himself, what does min-max even mean in starsector? Your character points can be used slightly more or less effectively possibly, but this is not character based RPG. It's a pretty freeform game. You have to set yourself artificial goals and even then there are artificial measurments. For instance if you have sufficient income you can sustain 30 Onslaughts flying around in a circle forever. There's nothing to minimise and maximise. That said 7 Capitals and several OX tugs (how many???) seem suboptimal to me, but then again what is optimisation? It's an artificial goal. Can the OP even fight the biggest bounties and the biggest expeditions without losing a ship? That too can also be an artificial goal too.

This is the only response I will make to posts like these. Few things:
- The reason I explain my background is exactly why you do not understand the point of my feedback. If you're not interested in mechanics and enjoy game as-is - why are you even responding? I feel like what you're doing is poor attempt at ad hominem, trying to imply I'm self-centered and therefore what I'm saying is not worth considering. Please don't do that.
- If you have nothing to say about things I'm mentioning, please refrain from responding at all. All you're doing is saying "your point is invalid because I think it is". Everything is artificial goal and nothing matters - how can I even argue against something like this? The answer is that no one can (nor should, and I won't), because your response contains no points, simply trying to tell me that my point of view is wrong "because of reasons".
- I'm here and I can read this... you don't have to call me "OP", I'm Perq, nice to meet you.

As I mentioned - unless you have something to say about actual points I've made, refrain from responding further, as I'm not interested in such borderline trash-talk.

[close]

Grievious69 replied right after Talar, so it is natural to assume he was replying to Talar. I read that as Grevious69 writing that you are playing vanilla as a reply to Talar writing about mods. Seems fairly obvious to me that you are giving feedback as a modless game.


As for your rather unneccesary spoiler, are you just here to stir things up?

I'm sorry but I gave you the opportunity to define min-max so we can have a common basis for discussion. You could had defined it as the maximally powerful fleet for the minimum supply/fuel usage for instance. That would had been acceptable for me and then we could had talked. But I suppose you prefer to label me as a trash-talker.

Why can't you answer what does min-max mean in this game or how many Ox-class ships you have in your fleet? I suppose it is easy to not answer when you label someone else's post as a trash-talk.

5 onslaughts are enough to kill anything and everything.

Then what's the 2 Astrals for? Is that also an example of your "I min-max whenever I can"? Do you know what beats 5 Onslaughts? 6 Onslaughts! *

BTW You can only deploy 4 Onslaughts max in 300 battlesize as the maximum is a 180 DP. Or 3 Onslaughts as you only have 120 DP to deploy because you are fighting when outnumbered in DP.

*Though obviously player piloting and orders and officers can change this, but it's a remarkable statement to make when one can simply put you up against the same fleet you have and +1 the number of Onslaughts against by +1 and suddenly the hyperbole makes no sense.

[Alex]

Cleaned up the thread a bit and send a few PMs. Please keep this on topic and treat other posters with respect.

[Perq]

Why can't you answer what does min-max mean in this game or how many Ox-class ships you have in your fleet? I suppose it is easy to not answer when you label someone else's post as a trash-talk.

I already did, you'd notice that if you weren't busy trying to pick a fight.

I also already addressed your other "+1 beats X" argument, so please read that before responding again.

[Goumindong]

About capital ships being too good. Well they better be *** good since they're so expensive and have bad logistical stats.

Well, not really. A capital ship can cost the same as 4 destroyers to deploy, and they can definitely wipe out far more than 4 destroyers on the field. They also have strictly superior fuel and cargo capacity compared to smaller ships. Fleet size has a hard cap of 30 ships, that can be a swing of several thousand cargo capacity and fuel compared to flying small. It may not be as efficient, but it can keep a fleet going.

4 destroyers by cr, 7.5 by fuel. Only the Odyssey brings enough fuel to compare to destroyers logistics profile. An Onslaught has 7.5 months of supplies and 26.6 ly of fuel. A hammerhead has 10 months of supplies and 30 ly of fuel. Adding Onslaughts to your fleet will lower logistics range compared to an even DP of Hammerheads.

True, but I think that this difference is too small. While using Hammerheads there is quite a lot bigger chance to lose one of them, which leads to far bigger costs.
In general, having your units "centered" in one means there is lower probability of losing parts of it. Especially when shields can pretty much render them immune to damage (with enough flux/shield efficiency). And that is fine if there is a counter-play for that.

Well its true that concentrating firepower has advantages. But it also has disadvantages. Those 4 hammerheads? They have more flux dissipation (and therefore more dps) than that onslaught.

As battle size increases to infinity its true that battleships certainly become optimal. But at lower battle sizes theyre not. The onslaught probably loses to 4 hammerheads (even if the hammerheads might take losses) and definitely loses to an equivalent deployment of frigates. Its only when battle sizes get so large that battleships can easily cover each other that they reach sufficient density.

To contrast: In my mind falcons are kind of the gold standard fleet ship. Theyre fast, they do long range damage, they dont die. They can he deployed relatively granularly. I would guess that 10 falcons and 2 heron (or 2 gryphon or 1/1) would smash 5 onslaughts. And its not necessarily because they have better concentrated damage but because theyre more modular and able to handle more threats

[Perq]

they do long range damage

Sorry for quoting little bit out of context, but that reminded me of another issue with capitals - they have far longer range due to available mods. "Kiting and sniping" isn't really an option because if you can hit them, they most likely can hit you as well.

Brainstormin':
While I understand what is the intention of that (capitals being "siege" core of the fleet), the problem is that these weapons are effective against everything.
Maybe if big guns in general had bigger range, with no bonuses for ship size, and having big guns slow rotation, big'guns'toting ships could become "siege", while being vulnerable to, well, something. D:

[Plantissue]

Why can't you answer what does min-max mean in this game or how many Ox-class ships you have in your fleet? I suppose it is easy to not answer when you label someone else's post as a trash-talk.

I already did, you'd notice that if you weren't busy trying to pick a fight.

I also already addressed your other "+1 beats X" argument, so please read that before responding again.

I guess your non-answer answers the question of whether you are just here to stir things up.

[Goumindong]

they do long range damage

Sorry for quoting little bit out of context, but that reminded me of another issue with capitals - they have far longer range due to available mods. "Kiting and sniping" isn't really an option because if you can hit them, they most likely can hit you as well.

Brainstormin':
While I understand what is the intention of that (capitals being "siege" core of the fleet), the problem is that these weapons are effective against everything.
Maybe if big guns in general had bigger range, with no bonuses for ship size, and having big guns slow rotation, big'guns'toting ships could become "siege", while being vulnerable to, well, something. D:

If small ships could kite big ships then capitals would have no use case. Ive played medusector and much prefer capitals as they are now.

I dont like pulling rank but its worth noting that i have played a long time and dont find capitals overly powerful. The cruiser doctrine is still going strong

[Perq]

they do long range damage

Sorry for quoting little bit out of context, but that reminded me of another issue with capitals - they have far longer range due to available mods. "Kiting and sniping" isn't really an option because if you can hit them, they most likely can hit you as well.

Brainstormin':
While I understand what is the intention of that (capitals being "siege" core of the fleet), the problem is that these weapons are effective against everything.
Maybe if big guns in general had bigger range, with no bonuses for ship size, and having big guns slow rotation, big'guns'toting ships could become "siege", while being vulnerable to, well, something. D:

If small ships could kite big ships then capitals would have no use case.

Why? They'd still be effective against cruisers, as they have longer ranges (at least assuming they can have more large guns than cruisers) and are tougher than cruisers.

[Goumindong]

they do long range damage

Sorry for quoting little bit out of context, but that reminded me of another issue with capitals - they have far longer range due to available mods. "Kiting and sniping" isn't really an option because if you can hit them, they most likely can hit you as well.

Brainstormin':
While I understand what is the intention of that (capitals being "siege" core of the fleet), the problem is that these weapons are effective against everything.
Maybe if big guns in general had bigger range, with no bonuses for ship size, and having big guns slow rotation, big'guns'toting ships could become "siege", while being vulnerable to, well, something. D:

If small ships could kite big ships then capitals would have no use case.

Why? They'd still be effective against cruisers, as they have longer ranges (at least assuming they can have more large guns than cruisers) and are tougher than cruisers.

Cruisers would kite them. And frigates would kite the cruisers... The Falcon and Eagle already are good at kiting capitals.