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]

Author Topic: Doldrums Chat: Unorthodox Loadouts  (Read 3108 times)

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Doldrums Chat: Unorthodox Loadouts
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2020, 08:25:35 AM »

I doubt leaving mounts empty will ever stop being a thing, unless sufficiently cheap (OP and flux wise) weapons are introduced, which is unlikely. At least it's more likely than the other way to deal with it, infinite flux!

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Doldrums Chat: Unorthodox Loadouts
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2020, 08:55:23 AM »

The “fix” would be to have weapons that are inactive not cost OP (and then you could power them up in combat if enough OP was free by powering down other weapons/systems). But that is probably too complicated for Starsector in general let alone for the AI. So long as weapons can be fit to use up all your flux and fitting has choices this will happen

That being said I find that depending on the behavior type overfluxed fits that are range delineated are quite good. Steady officers will set the target range just inside their longest range guns. As a result you can have dedicated anti-frigate/fighter flux dump weapons like Phase Lances and Assault Chainguns even if this pushes your full non-PD flux usage far over normal. The AI will only dump when enemies pressure them and flux dumping to kill a frigate/fighter is generally an optimal setup.

Like... say you have a non-SO dominator. What should you put in the meds? A: assault chainguns. So long as you have Vulcans in the smalls with IPDAI you dont need the flak and you cannot run a “proper” gun there anyway while still utilizing the large slots. (And if you’re going to put a HN or HVD there you can put it in the hard point anyway). But ACs will shred fighters and frigates who decide they can get close. And this far more effective than eating their damage against shield

Edit: think of this like an asymmetric loadout but the asymmetry is the range
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Doldrums Chat: Unorthodox Loadouts
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2020, 09:47:52 AM »

I doubt leaving mounts empty will ever stop being a thing, unless sufficiently cheap (OP and flux wise) weapons are introduced, which is unlikely. At least it's more likely than the other way to deal with it, infinite flux!
I do not mind few mounts being empty.  What I do not like is something like unarmed Drover, unarmed Astral (with six high-end bombers), no-missile Aurora with two heavy blasters and nothing else (rest of OP is locked in max flux stats and hullmods), plasma Odyssey with two plasma cannons, two fighter wings, and nothing else (bigger no-missile Aurora).  Basically, the better or best loadouts that leave all mounts empty aside from one or two main guns and maybe token PD.  If I try to fill all the mounts on some ships, I do not have enough OP for max flux stats and/or vital hullmods.

In the pre-0.8a skill days, skills were stronger and player had enough OP to fill all the mounts of many ships and can still solo fleets.  Sacking mounts was mostly optional back then.  Today, player probably needs to sack mounts.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 09:50:33 AM by Megas »
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Doldrums Chat: Unorthodox Loadouts
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2020, 10:28:40 AM »

I've heard of those kind of fits working, but personally I don't think they perform very well compared to those with more guns. There are serious weaknesses, especially when AI piloted, that I think are more important than saving OP.

There's an argument to be made that those very lightly armed loadouts can work because of the number of OP that are spent on flux and hullmods, but I think that points more to the diversity of viable loadouts that can be made, rather than a lack of diversity.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Doldrums Chat: Unorthodox Loadouts
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2020, 11:44:54 AM »

Mainly for high tech it works because high tech PD is often very pointless. If you have shields its almost cheaper to take the harpoon on the shields than spend flux to shoot it down. If you have a .6 shield a harpoon does 225 dmg (180 hardened! 135 Advanced Countermeasures 2! 108 all skills!) and most high tech ships have good omni shields and the maneuverability to bail when flux gets high.
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Doldrums Chat: Unorthodox Loadouts
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2020, 12:27:38 PM »

@ Thaago

It's just taking a min/max specialization to its logical conclusion, which is a playstyle but not one I would want to proliferate. They "work" but Starsector is dynamic enough that one-trick-pony builds don't tend to be optimal. If they were optimal, I'd say the balance needs to be fixed but I don't believe that to be the case.

Personally, I've always gravitated toward fleets of generalists so the ultra-niche specialization that I see presented at times don't appeal all that often. However, like the Broadside Onslaught, I see that as a form of specialization but not at the cost of everything else (hence, this thread!). It's more of an outside-the-box approach that bends the rules more than breaks them.

Mainly for high tech it works because high tech PD is often very pointless. If you have shields its almost cheaper to take the harpoon on the shields than spend flux to shoot it down. If you have a .6 shield a harpoon does 225 dmg (180 hardened! 135 Advanced Countermeasures 2! 108 all skills!) and most high tech ships have good omni shields and the maneuverability to bail when flux gets high.

Agreed and High-Tech usually has deep flux capacity, to boot. It's not just that the Harpoon is only doing 225 dmg (or less) but relative to its overall flux profile, it's a drop in the bucket. I still say this is balanced against Low Tech/Mid-Line because Energy weapons are inefficient and low ranged but your point still stands. I like PD on some of my high-tech ships for fighters, though. A wing of Broadswords can wreck even an Aurora if it keeps its shields up.

Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Doldrums Chat: Unorthodox Loadouts
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2020, 12:38:21 PM »

The only mostly empty loadouts that I've found effective enough to use are the 2x plasma odyssey (mostly because it has 10 billion small energy slots but only needs like 4 for decent PD, and small energy assault weapons are a waste of OP) and the astral (because bombers + astral ship system are better than pretty much any weapon). I think generally, there are good uses for the majority of slots on ships.

The AI backs away from you at max speed as soon as you try to approach it?

No. As soon as i am within its gun range. If you know of any non-SO cruisers that have an as fit range of non-pd weapons under 450 then they might continue to advance but as far as i am aware none exist.
They start to back off when they are within gun range, but they have acceleration so they aren't actually going at max reverse speed for a while after they make that decision (and might even be trying to flak you instead of run). In my experience, good piloting lets you mostly avoid the 'chase scenario' where the enemy is out of range and running at max speed unless they already have a significant acceleration and speed advantage. I just tested it in the sim: I fought a falcon with a SO eagle and no speed skills. All I did was bait out the enemy maneuvering jets by backing up and then full forward with my own maneuvering jets. I recorded a video https://youtu.be/sEWufRV-xA0 and the time between when my AC started firing and my DLMG started firing was ~.7 seconds. I was only going my top speed of 173 so it should have taken 1.5 seconds if the falcon was in full reverse, .87 seconds if the falcon was stationary meaning the falcon must have been moving towards me slowly. Even if my timing wasn't perfect (it's hard to see exactly when shooting starts with the shield effects, although I was going frame by frame), the falcon was definitely not in full reverse, the engines make it look like it was close to stationary which is consistent with the timing.

It's pretty easy to play around range disadvantages in this way, at least for the player and the raw speed difference between ships is not a good indicator of the actual time it will take to approach ships.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]