Print

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

[Hiruma Kai]

To be honest, for my flagship Odyssey, I tend to run Dual Plasma + 12 PD lasers + Locust Launcher + 2 Longbow.  All the damage buff skills (Ordinance Expertise, Target Analysis, Advanced Countermeasure) + Integrated Point Defense AI + Integrated Targeting Unit swat missiles/fighters well enough.  Especially Doom mines.  They just disappear as soon they show up.  Given the 180 degree shields, I find being able to catch fighters/missiles/mines on where the shield isn't to be extremely useful.

Because Odysseys tend to be so rare, if I actually do get a 2nd, its generally configured as a spare flagship to swap in rather than for AI control.

[SCC]

The reason to use two plasma cannons on Odyssey is because if you go full on dissipation, autopulse lasers simply won't use it all and small energy guns aren't worthwhile for dealing damage without any gimmicks. If you were to make APL into a brawling gun like PC, then that defeats the point of those weapons being different. I personally prefer APL + HIL or TL combo, but that's because I'm mainly a Conquest man and Odyssey is just a faster, weaker Conquest to me.

The difference between IR Pulse Laser and normal Pulse Laser is that the former does about equal damage to similar ballistics (it deals about as much damage as Dual Autocannon, before DAC even has kinetic bonus to shields applied to it!), whereas Pulse Laser does 50% more damage than equivalent ballistics, making up for the energy type. It's more bursty.

High-tech ships have the most obvious reasons to leave many mounts empty (good shields), but it occasionally happens to other ships, too. Standoff Falcon and Eagle get ballistics, an ion beam, rear PD... You can get some tacticals, but you're more likely to do it because it's weird not to have guns, rather because it's better. If Onslaught wants to use TPCs, it can use also one of its large ballistics and 3-4 mediums, but the rest is better off with flaks (including downsizing side larges) or nothing (the smalls).
From more petty stuff, Conquest can go for an asymmetrical build. I don't even bother with side small energies and one of the mediums, because smalls aren't good for anything and I need an ion beam only for one side. The only of Dominator's smalls that always get filled are the rear ones (though, admittedly, that might be because I don't trust a low-tech ship without flak cannons). Paragon's medium or small energy turrets are mostly optional if you don't go for an all tachlance loadout. Larges and needlers are for dealing with ships and everything else is for dealing with fighters and maybe missiles, but you don't really need much of either.

[intrinsic_parity]

If you were to make APL into a brawling gun like PC, then that defeats the point of those weapons being different.

APL is unique because of its good efficiency (for energy) that it pays for with lower armor penetration and low sustained DPS. Plasma cannon has super good armor penetration that it pays for with mediocre efficiency and high flux cost. I  don't think that a moderate increase in sustained DPS (I'm talking like 400-450 sustained DPS instead of 300 which is still way less than PC at 750 DPS) would move them into the same niche. You would still vastly prefer PC for anti-armor and DPS but auto pulse would help more with shield breaking which is the role it already has. It would just be a bit less of liability in extended engagements.

The difference between IR Pulse Laser and normal Pulse Laser is that the former does about equal damage to similar ballistics (it deals about as much damage as Dual Autocannon, before DAC even has kinetic bonus to shields applied to it!), whereas Pulse Laser does 50% more damage than equivalent ballistics, making up for the energy type. It's more bursty.

Ballistic weapon damage multipliers and range bonuses still make pulse laser very bad in comparison. The HAC has ~33% more shield dps than pulse laser while having ~50% less flux cost and 200 extra range. Then against hull where raw DPS might be a plus, PL and IRPL still get gimped by residual armor and aren't much better than kinetics against decently armored targets (i.e. you want another weapon for hull dps in either case). Pulse laser is definitely better than IR pulse laser, but it still doesn't make up the difference between ballistics and energy. Hard flux energy weapon selection is like if your only options were the arblest (pulse laser) and assault chaingun (heavy blaster). I guess beams are sort of like HVD/Mauler builds too, but that's sort of a different thread. Basically, I think energy weapon slots lack options to brawl effectively (because of efficiency) so you kinda have to go for 'quasi SO' builds that are all in on dissipation, and those builds work best by focusing on a few weapons. 

[Megas]

I tried additional weapons on two plasma odyssey like locusts and burst pd, but ended up not having enough OP left to go all in on flux stats to brawl very well.  Locusts in big fights are a waste without Expanded Missile Racks (they do not last long enough without it, and Odyssey cannot afford EMR), and putting more than a few PD eats too much OP from caps.  Odyssey with both max caps and vents (and the shield and extra flux hullmods) can fire plasma for a long time and outgun just about anything, then burn away to flee.  (But to get that, Odyssey is left mostly naked aside from the two plasma and two fighters.)  Odyssey with no caps cannot sustain double plasma long enough.

[Goumindong]

Autopulse is little more than a more flux efficient pulse laser in the biggest fights - not good enough.  Autopulse is for alpha-striking weaker targets.  (Against a battlestation, mining blaster is better.)  There is no substitute for the plasma cannon.  Plasma cannon has excellent DPS, more penetration than a pulse laser, and better efficiency than mining/heavy blasters, and more range than both (700 vs. 600).

Same idea with unarmed carrier.  I could use guns and Talons, but they are suboptimal compared to unarmed carrier.

Autopulse is efficient enough for shields. The main issue is that if you don't crack the shields on your initial volley you're out of damage because the weapon only does medium mount DPS once its charges are used up. Additionally its recoil makes it much harder to kill smaller ships once they start to realize they're overwhelmed*. So if you're running them as primary damage you've got huge range issues. What do you do if you don't get close enough for IR pulse? Well you die is what happens

An IR pulse/Autopulse Odyssey is not bad (12 IR pulse, 2 Auto Pulse, Extended Mags, Longbow, Xyphos, Hardened, 50 caps, 38 vents) its just not as good as the plasma version and a TL/HIL version like that is probably better in general for the same type of thing

*Plasma Cannon also has an advantage in that it has a very long weapon falloff

[intrinsic_parity]

Plasma cannon has the same armor penetration as the heavy blaster with the efficiency of the pulse laser and a much higher DPS than both.

I think the autopulse laser should be a shield breaking specialist, but it's sustained dps is a bit too low for that role. For pure burst damage against smaller ships, the tach lance is just so much better than APL. I think it should be focused on the efficiency aspect since that's the biggest unfilled niche for large energy weapons IMO.

I tried additional weapons on two plasma odyssey like locusts and burst pd, but ended up not having enough OP left to go all in on flux stats to brawl very well.  Locusts in big fights are a waste without Expanded Missile Racks (they do not last long enough without it, and Odyssey cannot afford EMR), and putting more than a few PD eats too much OP from caps.  Odyssey with both max caps and vents (and the shield and extra flux hullmods) can fire plasma for a long time and outgun just about anything, then burn away to flee.  (But to get that, Odyssey is left mostly naked aside from the two plasma and two fighters.)  Odyssey with no caps cannot sustain double plasma long enough.

Were you testing with skills? 2x Plasma odyssey with dissipation skills is a pretty big difference. I don't feel like I need caps much to fire 2x plasma cannons with skills (I guess I still take hardened shields which is sort of like caps).

[Thaago]

Hmm, I just built a fully kitted plasma odyssey with no skills - all mounts filled including a hurricane to stress test the OP - and it can still brawl down the sim (not the best but ok) Onslaught and can fire its plasma cannons for a very long time. With skills its going to have another 262.5 flux or so (effective) dissipation and more OP, even without using the (mildly innefficient) flux hullmod. Can't it just continuously fire the plasmas?

[Megas]

Were you testing with skills? 2x Plasma odyssey with dissipation skills is a pretty big difference. I don't feel like I need caps much to fire 2x plasma cannons with skills (I guess I still take hardened shields which is sort of like caps).

Some, but not full combat because I had nine sunk into Industy (for Industrial Planning and Colony Management), and some others unspent because I could not decide which combat skills I want.  I also had no points in Officer Management, though I wanted one for six officers.

I think I had the dissipation skill, at least up to faster venting (which I think is 2).  Might have had it at 3, but I do not remember.

If I play another game, I would ignore Industry and go full combat.  If Pather bug was fixed and made babysitting from core use intolerable, I... probably would sink nine into Industry and three into Planetary Operations for full colony skills because I like having lots of big colonies, but it would gimp my combat power too much, which I do not like.  Thus, the Pather bug, which enables free unlimited core use, is great because player can sink everything into combat for the best combat and still rule lots of worlds like a proper space lord.

[pairedeciseaux]

Duh, looks like I'm in the minority here WRT to small guns on Odyssey. 

When I have an Odyssey, I also use dual Plasma Cannon, but... I never ever leave small mounts empty: these get a mix of IR Pulse Laser, LR PD Laser and Burst PD Laser. Which are all fine guns AFAIC.

IIRC I use 4 IR Pulse Lasers, 2 on each side, so the ship gets a good anti fighter coverage. Those small guns do a decent job against small targets and do not contribute damaging large targets because large targets are kept close to the maximum range of the Plasma Cannons. This is my "optimal" Odyssey doctrine.

Other than managing distance, a key thing here is proper weapon group setup, but I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain this to experienced players.

(though I don't use the ship often because it's so rare)

Warships should be able to equip lots of weapons though.

All warships are able to equip lots of weapons. When some weapons mounts are empty it's either lack of guns, or player choice. Nothing in the game design actually prevent equipping lots of guns. I know it's obvious but at the same time reading this conversation while not having in game experience could lead someone to get a false impression, IMO.

I think most of the empty mount set ups on warships (particularly high tech ships) are a result of energy weapon balance and the fundamental nature of the flux mechanics. Energy weapons pretty much universally have efficiency 1:1 or worse meaning that it's actively bad to fire into shields (you build more flux in your own ship than the enemy) unless you have enough dissipation to fire without generating flux in your own ships (or very close to that point).

Sure. But if you look at the big picture, shield efficiency and flux pool play an important role in combat. And mobility. And armor piercing weapons. And nearby allies.

I've played half my current campaign piloting a Shrike: Pulse Laser + Ion Cannon on autofire, dual Antimatter Blaster on manual fire. Empty mount on this build: no missiles, my choice. Do I need to explain the kind of flux you build when you fire two AMB? I had no issue whatsoever WRT to flux management, because dissipation, flux pool, shield efficiency, mobility, nearby allies. Mostly player piloted build TBH, I'm not sure how AI manages it.

In other words, designing a ship loadout around main guns vs ship's dissipation is important, yes, but it should not be the only criteria. Especially on high tech ships.

That reality of these mechanics naturally leads to 'empty loadouts' because you need to have enough dissipation to fire your weapons, otherwise you're hurting yourself (or treading water/not making progress in the fight).

Not only with high tech ships. In my fleets I would usually put a single Heavy Blaster on midline cruisers : which translates into 2 empty medium energy mount on Eagle and 1 empty medium energy mount on Falcon. My load out choice, I'm pretty comfortable with this and do not consider this a problem at all. If I wanted to use beams on Eagle, I would be happy to have 3 medium energy mounts. See?

So AFAIC empty mounts are not a problem to solve, and so far, from what I have read in this conversation, I have not found any compelling reason to consider them as a problem.

Last part is a bit blunt and is not directed at intrinsic_parity or any specific person. Putting this under spoiler:

Spoiler

I don't know, maybe people should learn to make loadout design decisions they are comfortable with ... knowing that trade-offs have to be made in the process.

As a player you know the rules, you cannot have on a single ship: high end guns + high end missiles + high end fighters + high end hull mods + top of the line flux stats + no empty mount. You know the rules, right?

As a player you evaluate intended role for the ship in your fleet, how you fulfil the role/missions through guns/missiles/fighters/empty mounts choices, how you balance ship's strengths and weaknesses through flux stats and hull mods.

This, by the way, is conscious gameplay. My point of view on the matter is: player should assume responsibility on his choices. Not doing so can lead to player frustration, which clearly is self inflicted pain in this case.

Two solutions if you find yourself at odds with the current game design: (1) change vanilla game design, (2) modding. Reading Alex's first reply in this conversation I wouldn't be optimistic about convincing him of doing (1), though discussions sure can lead to changes. On the other hand with (2) the sky is the limit, so... what are you waiting for? 

As far as managing player expectations go, one thing that could be done in the game is adding some/more explicit messages along the line of "trade-offs have to be made" on refit screen and other appropriate places if any. And maybe add a load out design tutorial.

[close]

[SCC]

Ballistic weapon damage multipliers and range bonuses still make pulse laser very bad in comparison. The HAC has ~33% more shield dps than pulse laser while having ~50% less flux cost and 200 extra range. Then against hull where raw DPS might be a plus, PL and IRPL still get gimped by residual armor and aren't much better than kinetics against decently armored targets (i.e. you want another weapon for hull dps in either case). Pulse laser is definitely better than IR pulse laser, but it still doesn't make up the difference between ballistics and energy. Hard flux energy weapon selection is like if your only options were the arblest (pulse laser) and assault chaingun (heavy blaster). I guess beams are sort of like HVD/Mauler builds too, but that's sort of a different thread. Basically, I think energy weapon slots lack options to brawl effectively (because of efficiency) so you kinda have to go for 'quasi SO' builds that are all in on dissipation, and those builds work best by focusing on a few weapons.

Thank you for noticing that ballistic weapons and energy weapons are not, in fact, the same.
2 Pulse Lasers will have 606 DPS against shields and armour, for 666 FPS, with perfect accuracy.
HAC and Heavy Mortar will have 538 DPS against shields, 374 DPS against 100 armour, for 394 FPS. More range, less accuracy. HAC and Heavy Mauler combo would have 347 DPS against shields, 231 DPS against 100 armour, for 364 FPS. Again, more range, less accuracy.

Though this got kinda off the track, because I was complaining about IR Laser not being good enough, when Pulse Laser is (though it's still fairly mediocre).
If there's an issue with (almost) all energy weapons, I'd say there could also be an issue with high-tech ships not being good enough to make up for their bad weapons.

So AFAIC empty mounts are not a problem to solve, and so far, from what I have read in this conversation, I have not found any compelling reason to consider them as a problem.

"As far as I cnow"?

[intrinsic_parity]

2 Pulse Lasers will have 606 DPS against shields and armour, for 666 FPS, with perfect accuracy.
HAC and Heavy Mortar will have 538 DPS against shields, 374 DPS against 100 armour, for 394 FPS. More range, less accuracy. HAC and Heavy Mauler combo would have 347 DPS against shields, 231 DPS against 100 armour, for 364 FPS. Again, more range, less accuracy.

2x Pulse lasers actually have 303 total DPS against 100 armor if you want a fair comparison. Also HAC + Mauler is 494.5 DPS to shields.

Pulse laser gives 12% higher shield dps (but worse efficiency) and 19% worse armor dps for nearly 70% higher flux cost compared to HAC + HM. I don't see how that's even close. Also, 100 armor is like heavy fighter armor, or the absolute squishiest frigates. Against 500 armor which is a heavy frigate/destroyer, 2x pulse laser do 101 dps to armor while HAC + HM do 150.5, so the gap worsens as you go to more common scenarios. Pulse laser isn't strictly worse than medium ballistics (there are situations where it has a small edge), but it's very clearly a big step back in most cases as far as I can't tell.

I get that energy weapons are supposed to be a bit worse to compensate for High tech having better base stats, but I feel like the gap between an average energy weapon like the pulse laser and an average ballistic weapon is too big. The pulse laser feels like the commonly available weak weapon that needs to exist in the game, but there aren't the other good options as alternatives. Maybe I just prefer decent ships with good weapons rather than super powerful ships with crappy weapons. I find the latter very unsatisfying.


@pairedeciseaux I'm more interested in understanding why empty mount loadouts tend to perform better because I enjoy understanding the relationship between underlying mechanics and loadout performance. Of course there are other factors at play in combat, and the player can make almost any ship and loadout work to some extent, but being able to break the enemies shield is one of the most fundamental requirement of combat in starsector and the dissipation and efficiency balance is the core of that capability so it should be one of the most important considerations, especially for the AI that can't reliable leverage maneuverability and allies to overcome enemy shields.

Also, I was maybe a bit too extreme in saying certain things were 'never useful', but all I meant by that was that I couldn't think of any scenario where I wouldn't prefer something else (IR pulse laser). That doesn't mean those things wouldn't work, just that there is a better choice in my experience. I personally would not use a loadout if I knew there was a better one available, but that doesn't mean that loadout can't effectively kill things, or that other people might like it.

[SCC]

2x Pulse lasers actually have 303 total DPS against 100 armor if you want a fair comparison. Also HAC + Mauler is 494.5 DPS to shields.

Yeah, sorry, I went "eh, it's energy, it's the same" and then changed my mind to include armour damage reduction. And I probably should have caught up to HAC + Heavy Mauler combo's incorrect value faster, it's lower than just HAC alone... Either way, the idea is that comparing a single weapons against another single weapon is pointless with energy weapons.

Maybe I just prefer decent ships with good weapons rather than super powerful ships with crappy weapons. I find the latter very unsatisfying.

Too bad that's basically the entire concept of high-tech ships.

[Megas]

The pulse laser feels like the commonly available weak weapon that needs to exist in the game, but there aren't the other good options as alternatives.

Such weapons at medium size generally cost 7 or 8 OP (Arbalest, Heavy Mortar, single Flak, Pilums), but Pulse Laser costs 10 OP and is unavailable at Open Market like a mid-grade medium weapon (even if it does not feel like one).  Mining Blaster is the commonly available weapon at Open Market, but has awful range and efficiency, and costs 10 OP.

Too bad that's basically the entire concept of high-tech ships.

Not all are elite ships.  Wolf is crappy, not enough flux stats to support even a Pulse Laser, let alone Heavy Blaster.  Shrike is a cheap ship.  Next release will bring the Fury.  Then there is Apogee, which seems to be intended to be a high-tech Mule/Falcon blend, but ends up being overpowered for its price after it gets Plasma Cannon and Locusts.

Then, there are those that seem to be meant to be elite but fail at it.  Scarab (it was good in 0.7.2a, but not since 0.8a), Hyperion (capital spam and other subtle changes since 0.9a made it obsolete thanks to insufficient PPT), Aurora (overpriced, and requires Sabots or empty hull to do well).

Then there is Medusa which is decent or good, but it is no Drover; and Paragon, which is good (it better be for 60 DP).  Both can use ballistics.

[Hiruma Kai]

How much does damage to Hull matter in the HAC/Mauler vs Pulse Laser match up?  Pulse Laser is 606 DPS to hull, at 0.9 efficiency.  Heavy Autocannon is 214 DPS to hull at 1.0 efficiency and Mauler is 133 DPS at 0.89 efficiency - for a combined 347 DPS at 0.95 efficiency.

So 2x Pulse laser give 74% more hull DPS for 82% more flux.  It certainly falls into the spend more flux to get more damage in that comparison.

Perhaps what might be a better metric is, how long does it take 2x Pulse lasers to kill 1) a fighter, 2) a frigate, 3) a destroyer, 4) a cruiser, and 5) a capital compared to a HAC/Heavy Mauler?

I mean, you still actually need to destroy the hull eventually, so you can't really ignore it. Take a base Onslaught, no mods.

Shields - 17000
Armor - 1750 (87.5 minimum)
Hull - 20000

2x Pulse Laser takes 28 seconds (and ~18,648 flux) to get to overload.  HAC/Mauler takes 34 seconds and ~12,376 flux.
Assuming you're hitting 1 spot, 2x Pulse laser takes about 101 total shots, or 16.6 seconds and ~11,100 flux to get through armor.  HAC/Mauler takes roughly 12 mauler shots and 36 HAC shots, for a total time of around 18 seconds and 6552 flux.
Lastly, it takes 2x Pulse lasers about 375 total shots (61.8 seconds and ~41,212 flux). HAC/Mauler takes about 107 seconds and 38,945 flux.

Total time (assuming you go through shields only once):
2x Pulse laser = 106 seconds and ~71,000 soft flux.
HAC/Heavy Mauler = 159 seconds and ~58,000 soft flux.

Onslaught is probably an extreme case, but still.  It also raises the question, how much flux damage did you take from the Onslaught during that extra 53 seconds.

If High Tech ships are intended to have superior speed, then arguably you in fact want more damage more quickly, then pull back to vent for a hit and run play style.

When trying to compare weapons, I personally like to look at the total OP cost on weapons assuming the flux were converted to vents.  So a Pulse laser is effectively 10 OP + 33.3 OP = 43.3 OP.  A Heavy Autocannon is 10 + 21.4 = 31.4 OP.  And a Heavy Mauler is 12 + 15 = 27 OP.

In which case 86.6 OP versus 58.4, or 48% more OP cost for the Pulse lasers.  So the hull performance (75% more damage for only 48% more OP) is quite good.  The shield performance (22% more damage for 48% more OP) is not as good.  The armor performance is hard to say, since it really depends on if you're hitting the same spot over and over, having the damage spread, and what the actual armor values are.  However, just looking at raw DPS, the armor performance (62% more damage for 48% more OP) is actually reasonable.  Keeping in mind, this is assuming you can buy enough vents.

[FooF]

I'd say we've gone off-track but we've identified (again for the 50th time) that Energy weapons, and by extension High-Tech ships, are the worst offenders as for the empty-mount spam.

It's odd, I've defended the High-Tech doctrine for years now because if, for example, you converted an Aurora to all-Ballistic mounts, it would be the most OP ship in the game by a huge margin. Even a few Universals/Hybrids that allowed you to throw a few Small or Medium Ballistics on there would quickly make it ridiculous. High-Tech needs the inefficient Energy weapons to bring them back down to Terra. Yet, I'll be darned if Energy Weapons aren't among the most griped-about things in the game.

@Hiruma Kai

The comparison is useful but a.) The HAC+Mauler combo also has +200/+400 range advantage which is hard to understate and b.) personally, I think the HAC+Heavy Mortar combo is a more useful comparison. The Mauler is a bit more "elite" than the Pulse Laser and is exchanging DPS for range. The Mortar is significantly better than the Mauler in terms of overall DPS and efficiency and isn't far behind the Mauler in terms of armor penetration. Range becomes less of a point of contrast, as well, if comparing against the Pulse Lasers.

Also, while the High-Tech ship is killing faster, it also used ~22% more flux overall to do the same thing. Most High-Tech ships have better flux stats (22% better?) but during certain phases of the fight, it's spending literally 50% more flux to get through shields and 70% more to get through armor. Against lighter targets than an Onslaught, and switching to the Heavy Mortar, my guess is that HAC+Mortar combo would widen the flux gap considerably and also reduce the time-to-kill for the Ballistics combo.