Print

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

[Grievous69]

@pairedeciseaux
The RPG classes analogy makes sense but not in comparison to this game. You choose one class and that's it, you have their abilities the whole game. In Starsector you can pick whatever ship you want and add it to your fleet. I agree that some characters will be weaker alone but shine in a party, that's also a thing here. But imagine there being a support class which is worse in all ways than another support class, now that's the thing I've been talking about. Actually SCC said it pretty well in the post above this about Condors. Being able to get it maybe one mission before is not exactly much cheaper in the grand scheme of things.

The chess thing made me laugh honestly. It's a completely different thing where you have a set of predetermined rules and both players MUST have the same exact figures or else the game wouldn't make sense.

@intrinsic_parity
Having to first find specific ships, then destroy them in combat, and then pray to RNGeesus that you'll be able to recover it would get pretty tiresome with rare ships. Save scum awaaaay. Anyways I thought this was already in the game, I mean the limiting access of military ships. You need a commission from a faction first, and the black market is usually a lottery (maybe buying bigger ships from black market should be more punishing?). I'm fine with the suggestion of having to earn ships to add to your fleet, but my problem is that some ships are very hard to get even now. Otherwise I don't think I would ever have a Medusa, Aurora or Odyssey in my fleet.

[Hiruma Kai]

I will point out the condor is cheaper in terms of DP.  If you're running up against a 150 or even 120 DP limit because you're outnumbered, the extra few fighters might matter.

Just to test that theory, I setup a mission with 10 Spark Drovers (2x Sparks, 2x Vulcan, 2x Sabot, 2x Harpoon), expanded deck crew, max capacitors, 2x vents up against 12 Condors with 2x Sparks, Expanded deck crew, Proximity launchers and 9 capacitors.  The Condors won with 0 or 1 losses (I ran it twice).
 
Tried swapping in swarmers for the anti-ship missiles on the Drovers.  Longer fight. 4 dead drovers, 6 retreats.  No condors lost.

Apparently, Proxmity charge launchers with fast missile racks are really good against fighters en mass and an extra 20% fighters work in the condors favor even though the drovers had both PD and a fighter ship system.  Also, I'm not sure how much the Condor 500 Armor and 5,000 hull versus Drover 4,250 Hull and 400 armor matter against spark beams.  The Drovers have a lot more shield strength though (7000 capacity at 0.8 versus 4000 at 1.2), but maybe 25 minimum armor versus 20 minimum armor is signifcant for PD beams?

About the only thing I did was order the condors to gather up at the start, and then deleted the waypoint.  Now its not a real campaign setup, but at least in a head to head fight of mono-ship fleets, configured for anti-fighter work, Condors look like they do better than Drovers.

And, I believe we all know, fleets of pure spark drovers can beat Ordos... So, where does that put Condors?

[Grievous69]

I'm really annoyed when people do these ''tests'' to prove a point, it's like a sim duel vs Onslaught but somehow even worse. You could do the same thing with Converted Hangar Valkyries and they'd probably do better than both if you also filled them with Sparks. Does that mean they're better than Drovers? Hell no, because there's a ton of more variables in real fights unlike in these pointless fleet duels. You have no pressure here, only fighters and long ranged weapons so it's basically who can field most fighters per DP.

So, where does that put Condors?

Into a super niche spot where they're effective only if your whole fleet is filled with them AND also the enemy's. Otherwise trash.

Also I suspect Sparks will get a nerf to prevent these ridiculous ''strats''.

[TaLaR]

Problem is, this is fairly contrived scenario designed with single purpose of countering Drover advantages. PCLs allow Condors to seize initial advantage and snowball from there. Drover speed (can't outrun Sparks) or flux/shield (shield doesn't cover rear) advantages don't matter, neither does better replenishment (since they are never allowed to recover). PCL ammo limit doesn't matter because Drovers can't survive for long enough.

I guess this does prove that Condors are not hopeless, but I'd still take Drovers in actual campaign play.

[Yunru]

I'm really annoyed when people do these ''tests'' to prove a point, it's like a sim duel vs Onslaught but somehow even worse.

The Onslaught is OP! I did a couple of 1v1 Sim duels against an Onslaught, and my Onslaught beat it every time, only losing about 10-20% hull!

[SCC]

The Condors vs Drovers scenario seems too specific, but I'm not going to judge it, because single-carrier spam isn't something that I do or have experience with. Going by my own experiences with more balanced fleets, though, Condors are kinda there (if they aren't dying), whereas Drovers kick ass. It doesn't really matter that I can get 1 or 2 Condors more in my fleet, if each Drover performs like a Condor and a half.

[Megas]

Re: Shrike
Shrike needs more turning speed if it keeps Plasma Burn.  Without Auxiliary Thrusters or skills, it cannot turn fast enough to plasma burn away from enemies when it is time to get out.  Shrike does not have the OP to spare for Auxiliary Thrusters; it is one of the more OP-starved ships.

I would not consider it a strong "need" on Shrike. I put Auxiliary Thrusters on many ships, but almost never on Shrike. If you anticipate a 90 degree right turn before you need to get out, medium turret will still fire while the ship is in position to perform an instant escape. Obviously not a satisfying solution if you want to fire reapers at your targets.

Without Auxiliary Thrusters, characters skills (EA1 + Helm1) or SO Shrike isn't maneuverable enough to get behind most DE or Falcon/Eagle. Since Shrike is weak and can only win by doing this or spamming missiles, saying that Shrike needs Auxiliary Thrusters is not wrong.
But AI doesn't use PB to get away or behind the enemy, so it's kind of moot point unless Shrike is player-piloted.

When I tried to pilot unskilled Shrike, it is so sluggish that it cannot outmaneuver enemies, and by the time flux gets high, it is too late to turn and burn away because Shrike turns too slowly.  With skills, its maneuverability is adequate enough to outmaneuver enemies and burn away from enemies when flux gets too high.

And medium turret firing when I need to turn, burn, and escape is not what I want after Shrike is ready to flux out (because another hit on shield will overload).

[Megas]

Having to first find specific ships, then destroy them in combat, and then pray to RNGeesus that you'll be able to recover it would get pretty tiresome with rare ships. Save scum awaaaay. Anyways I thought this was already in the game, I mean the limiting access of military ships. You need a commission from a faction first, and the black market is usually a lottery (maybe buying bigger ships from black market should be more punishing?). I'm fine with the suggestion of having to earn ships to add to your fleet, but my problem is that some ships are very hard to get even now. Otherwise I don't think I would ever have a Medusa, Aurora or Odyssey in my fleet.

This is why I raid a lot before I have all blueprints, and why I bring a pure phase fleet to Culann to avoid patrols, raid, and steal high-tech blueprints.  (It is what drove me to request for a phase transport a while back since phase warships have terrible capacity, worse than even conventional warships!)  With that said, I agree that high-tech warships are too rare.  Only Tri-Tachyon has them, but their warship doctrine is 1 while the other two are 3, for carrier and phase spam.

At least ship recovery is much better than boarding from 0.6a to 0.7.2a.  Boarding was random and stacked against you (37.5% for the riskiest best-case option), and it could take more than a hour of ruthless save-scumming to get a ship, especially after Alex added mild prevention that forced the player to save (at least two) in-game weeks before a (named bounty) fight to enable save-scumming again.  Even then, it was still much faster than waiting in-game months and spending millions of credits to empty shops hoping that fresh stock included that ultra-rare ship or weapon you want.  Then after I boarded the ship, I reloaded the instant that ship died in combat, because it was so rare and hard to replace.

Starsector has progression of some sort - money!  Maybe it is too easy to earn some, which I guess is why Alex made ships more expensive (and now named bounties scale faster than player can keep up just by killing some of them).  I like that I can buy good ships in Open or Black Market.  Shops with only bad clunkers means there is no reason to buy from shops.

Come to think of it, maybe I would enjoy a game that rejected the notion there must be progression, kept grinding to a minimum, and gave the good stuff from the start.  I think early game in Starsector is hell, and midgame is not much better.  Endgame when I have everything is when it is most fun.  I probably spend more time playing endgame than I do progressing from start to end, which I guess is easy if most of the sector is still unexplored by the time I reach endgame strength.  However, I suspect too many people want their progression or grinding (because grinding can be addictive), and it would be bad for revenue if it was not given it to them.

P.S.  I sort of do this in old arcade games that have difficulty or level select, like pick the green circle in Tempest and play max difficulty and speed right from the start.  I guess that is counter to staying alive as long as possible, but that was compensated by score bonuses that gave you a shot at the high score list, and I did want to be at the top of the list back when I was young.

[Hiruma Kai]

I'm really annoyed when people do these ''tests'' to prove a point, it's like a sim duel vs Onslaught but somehow even worse. You could do the same thing with Converted Hangar Valkyries and they'd probably do better than both if you also filled them with Sparks. Does that mean they're better than Drovers? Hell no, because there's a ton of more variables in real fights unlike in these pointless fleet duels. You have no pressure here, only fighters and long ranged weapons so it's basically who can field most fighters per DP.

So, where does that put Condors?

Into a super niche spot where they're effective only if your whole fleet is filled with them AND also the enemy's. Otherwise trash.

Also I suspect Sparks will get a nerf to prevent these ridiculous ''strats''.

I was actually surprised by the result.  I was expecting I'd have to keep decreasing the number of Drovers until the Condors started winning, producing an X% effectiveness.  I figured the reserve deployment on the Drovers should have overcome the 20% deficit, but apparently AoE proximity charges in bulk are kinda good against fighters.  I learned something by doing that test.  Previously, I'd never used the launchers.

As for the declaration that Condors are trash, what is your metric?  How do you, personally, measure balance?  Or another way, what does "trash" mean to you?  Can you explain it in a way that could be translated directly into buffs?  When I hear trash, in my head, I hear worse than nothing.  Something you leave on the ground and don't bother taking with you.  Not worth the deployment points, supplies, and fuel spent on them.  But that is clearly not the case here, so what do you mean?  Is it in comparison only to the Drover, or in comparison to the game at large?

After getting buffs, what kind of situation or measurement would make you go, "Condors are now balanced"?  If you don't define how you measure balance at the outset, is it surprising different people come to different conclusions in a discussion?  Would a 9 DP Condor with current stats be balanced? 6 DP? 3 DP?  Why?  What concrete example or something that everyone can see and test for themselves to make it apparent that its now balanced?  Or would you rather see a stat change like a 70 speed Condor? 90 speed to make up for the low OP and lack of fighter centric ability compared to a Drover?  Or are we comparing them to non-carriers?  Calling them trash makes it sound like they need some drastic, huge number change like that.

I will point out, Alex stated in the Low Tech Non-viability thread, that the Drover has an appointment with the nerf bat while the Condor feels not too bad.

So clearly, you're not saying it is trash because of 1 on 1 sims, since you're annoyed by sim comparisons.  Its not tournament fights, given that is essentially that is what I just did, with mono-fleets between the best and worst destroyer class carriers armed with identical end game fighters in a hand crafted mission.  Is it being usable in the campaign?  Well, at that point there's a lot of variables, including the player, and how they play is the largest variable of all.

I think a player can prevent his carriers from getting pressured by appropriate waypoint, designated fast distraction ships, and escort orders assuming a mixed fleet and taking appropriate engagements (i.e. not 5 Ordos simultaneously - which depends on how they play at the campaign layer).  So are Condors balanced with Drovers if they are not pressured?  Perhaps a better question is, do you consider Drovers balanced and a good reference point?  Are Condors balanced with other non-carrier ships?  And does that balance depend on play style?  Mono-fleet? 50/50 Mixed?  Just a spot of fighter support?

If no one provides a hard, quantitative, and testable statement of what balance is for a ship, I'm not surprised to see variation in what people think of a ship's balance.

Edit: P.S. Just for kicks, I tried 12 Hammerhead Elites versus those same 12 Condors with proximity launchers/sparks.  Complete wipe of the Hammerheads.  Also tried it with the much more obtainable broadswords/khopeshes.  Same results.  SO Hammerheads might work I suppose, but there are AI issues with the Hammerheads getting distracted by all the fighters.  The Elites never get close to the Condors despite their superior speed.

[Megas]

Proximity Charges are effective against fighters, the one thing they are good at.  That seems like a bad trade, trading your finite missiles (proxy bombs) with their infinite missiles (fighters).  Proximity Charges are considered PD, and will spray bombs at missiles in range, but they are so slow that they are not very effective at the job, and the bombs do not regenerate!

As for anti-ship, they are actually bad at it if the target is large enough, because the bombs do not always detonate close enough to the target, and the damage is much less than the 500 or so you see on paper.  When Harbinger had hybrids last release, I tried Proximity Charges as a flux-free heavy blaster substitute, but it did less damage than the blasters against hull, and more-or-less equal to armor despite HE being stronger against armor!

[Yunru]

Maybe Proximity Charges shouldn't be finite then (ala Pillum iirc).

[Grievous69]

@Hiruma Kai
I've said multiple times their super low speed is unjustified, 40 is really weird when another carrier size larger than it has more speed. I'd like to see their speed buffed and maybe a bit more OP. Then I'd call them balanced. I've never said Drover is balanced. If you want to take a look at balanced carriers there's Herons and Moras. And my point of balance is campaign ofc, that's what we're all playing. I don't care about tournaments or 1v1 duels because they ignore bunch of other stats that may make something feel better or worse.

I still don't understand what are you trying to achieve with these fleet tests. Hammerhead, a ship which is notoriously bad at dealing with fighters dies to fighter spam? No way. Not to mention the fact that AI can't really deal with a lot of fighters in general. Their speed doesn't matter since AI is not aggressive enough to pressure the carriers. You can do these tests all day if you want but it's not going to change anything.

[SCC]

Spoiler

Drover has

• a much better ship system that makes its 2 fighter bays sustain 3 wings worth of fighters, including increased durability
• 55% more OP
• 88% more top speed
• roughly twice as many effective shield health points
• lower chances of being destroyed and needing a replacement
• similar armaments
• roughly 50% higher up-front price
• only 11% higher maintenance (including crew salary)

Heron has

• a much better ship system
• 48% more OP per fighter bay
• 100% more top speed
• roughly thrice as many effective shield health points
• better strike coordination
• lower chances of being destroyed and needing a replacement
• similar armaments
• 23% higher maintenance per fighter bay (including crew salary)
• lower burn level
• 10 times higher up-front price

Mora has

• 70% more OP per fighter bay
• a ship system that doesn't affect fighters, but is better than Condor's
• way too much durability for it to be legal
• better strike coordination
• lower chances of being destroyed and needing a replacement
• better armaments
• 13% more top speed
• 40% higher maintenance per fighter bay (including crew salary)
• lower burn level
• 11 times higher up-front price

I'd say that the only thing Condor has over these is up-front cost and, in comparison to cruisers, burn level.

[close]

My point of view is a balanced or low carrier fleet campaign. Condor's bad stats matter way less if you're spamming fighters, but I am not, so it is likely to die unless I babysit it and it runs out of fighters faster than other carriers, DP for DP. They'd be fine at 8 DP, like Colossus Mk III (which is a terrible carrier, but its ground support package is why you want it). Drover would be just 24% more expensive in maintenance still, but at least you could have 50% more Condors on the field, like other carriers are 50% better ships than Condor is.
Is it usable in the campaign? I can't say I ever run phase-focused or shieldless ship-focused campaigns, but other than that, I tried most combinations, with and without skills, on spacer mode or not, and I can make all of them work. Not all of them are as fun as others and whether I can make them work against odds or not doesn't change how balanced they are.

Not to mention the fact that AI can't really deal with a lot of fighters in general.

I've tried out a Condor spam (with sparks and proximity charge launchers) and that's it, really. Every time a Remnant ship got near a Condor, it pulverised it in no time. The only thing stopping Remnants from winning after losing some frigates and destroyers is that they won't recklessly push, push, push towards my forces, because they get scared. Condors can't outrun anything that Remnants have, not even capital ships.

[Hiruma Kai]

@Hiruma Kai
I've said multiple times their super low speed is unjustified, 40 is really weird when another carrier size larger than it has more speed. I'd like to see their speed buffed and maybe a bit more OP. Then I'd call them balanced. I've never said Drover is balanced. If you want to take a look at balanced carriers there's Herons and Moras. And my point of balance is campaign ofc, that's what we're all playing. I don't care about tournaments or 1v1 duels because they ignore bunch of other stats that may make something feel better or worse.

I still don't understand what are you trying to achieve with these fleet tests. Hammerhead, a ship which is notoriously bad at dealing with fighters dies to fighter spam? No way. Not to mention the fact that AI can't really deal with a lot of fighters in general. Their speed doesn't matter since AI is not aggressive enough to pressure the carriers. You can do these tests all day if you want but it's not going to change anything.

I'm trying to answer your opening question with these fleet tests.  Why do people think that some ships that are good when you think they're trash.  I'm arguing under some situations, they perform better than other ships.  And trying to provide data and examples.  I've been picking destroyers I think most people consider good.  Drovers and  Hammerheads.  And letting the AI pick targets and handle it.  A human player could of course magnify the effectiveness, either through direct piloting or setting priority targets.

Weird is not necessarily unbalanced.   Different is also not necessarily unbalanced.  They can be, and maybe it is true in this case.  I certainly haven't tested Condors in all potential situations.  But you've yet to provide any other argument other than their speed is too low.  Slow doesn't necessarily mean trash.  Paragons are slow, yet other factors make them one of the best ships in the game.

If you are a developer and only can imagine ships with the same numbers across the board as being balanced, your limiting your design space.  If you're saying smaller ships should always be at least as fast or faster than bigger ships, you're limiting your design space.  If any ship can be balanced as a slow destroyer, it is a cheap carrier since fighters are the longest range weapons in the game.

You look at the speed and see its lower, and then make the statement that it is both unbalanced and trash.  I don't see the jump as being obvious, given the complex interactions in the game.  Especially given it is a carrier and its low DP cost relative to all the other carriers.  33% more fighters per DP than Herons and Moras has to come into the balance equation somewhere.

I think you have to consider the entire ship, not just one or two numbers, as well as its place within the game.  And I can't really do that in my head for a Condor because of the strength of fighters.  So I do tests.  And I find the deployment cost of a Condor does in fact matter.  And because of how fighters scale, it can potentially matter more than its speed.

The Condor is the most spamable carrier in the game because its easy to find, cheap in terms of credits, and cheap in terms of DP.  It certainly has a place in the game, and is usable as is.

So is there a test you'd like me to do to demonstrate that Condors are trash?  To make it crystal clear to me?  I can also change ship stats to test other things as well (adding speed and OP).  If not, in the absence of testing, I'm suggesting people having different opinions on a ship is to be expected and not weird.

[intrinsic_parity]

@intrinsic_parity
Having to first find specific ships, then destroy them in combat, and then pray to RNGeesus that you'll be able to recover it would get pretty tiresome with rare ships. Save scum awaaaay. Anyways I thought this was already in the game, I mean the limiting access of military ships. You need a commission from a faction first, and the black market is usually a lottery (maybe buying bigger ships from black market should be more punishing?). I'm fine with the suggestion of having to earn ships to add to your fleet, but my problem is that some ships are very hard to get even now. Otherwise I don't think I would ever have a Medusa, Aurora or Odyssey in my fleet.

You've misunderstood what I was saying, I do not want there to be any RNG involved with this sort of mission. If you win the fight then your reward is given to you by the person who offered you the mission (presumably when you go back to report your success). In the paragon example, maybe a TT admiral has allowed a rogue AI to take over a TT facility, and they offer you some rare blueprints if you can liberate it quietly without the TT leadership finding out about it. The idea is that there is no loot or recovery involved. (just spitballing here)

Personally I would prefer that the military market have a much better selection of ships but also require a lot more effort to get access to (and maybe some more tiers of access even after you get access to the market). I agree with you that the RNG involved in getting rare ships now is frustrating and this is how I would fix it. I think it would be more satisfying if you could get reliable access to any ship you wanted via series of difficult missions, and IMO, that also makes low chances for loot drops more justifiable. On a hegemony play through, I should have very good access to hegemony ships and blueprints but very limited access to enemy tech via salvage. That just seems natural.

I think the existing commission system is clearly a place holder and nowhere near what the final game mechanic should be. I think your starting rep at the beginning of the game is good enough that you can just click a button and you will be given monthly income and full access to military tech with no strings attached for the entire game. That just doesn't make sense to me. In some sense this is a fleshing out of commission mechanics.