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 ... 7

Author Topic: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?  (Read 28854 times)

hadesian

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
  • It's been one of those days...
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2012, 12:55:53 PM »

I've actually been running around with Mjolnirs on the basic Elite Onslaught and (Elite?) Conquest. They deal quite nasty damage, but should get a buff. They would be a great weapon
Logged
Changes as of May 24, 2013
  • Reinvented Starsector.
  • That is all.

BillyRueben

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2012, 01:02:34 PM »

Quote
I guess I just don't see what the Mjolnir Cannons are bringing to the table in that build. I would think four HVD would bring down shields faster, have more range, and be more flux efficient.

- glorious EMP damage so that i don't take much return fire.
- shields don't last that long against the 4 weapons, plus once the shields go down, how are you going to damage the hull with 4 kinetics?
- flux efficiency is irrelevant since 1700 dissipation pretty much makes the buildup extremely slow / non existent.
HVDs also have plenty of EMP IIRC. I assumed that the Mjolnir/HVD side was to take down the shields, the other side of your ship was to take out the hull.
Logged

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2012, 01:13:52 PM »

Personally, whenever I use ballistics, if it isn't Needlers, Hellbores, or Heavy Maulers, I'm probably not interested. For me, efficiency is king, and Mjolnirs are lacking in that department. They seem like a fun and interesting weapon, but their current implementation means I have no desire to use them.
Logged

Reshy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
  • White
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2012, 01:25:05 PM »

Maybe make mjolnirs have splash? that would be sorta neat, that or general flux reduction, personally it's as damaging as the heavy blaster, but it uses as much flux as one and most ships that can carry ballistics aren't as flux minded as high tech ships, it just makes the requirements more glaring.

i think the bolded part is part of the problem:

the mjolnir really isn't meant to be mounted on most ships. if anything, it was probably built with it being mounted solely on the conquest since it's the only midline with large ballistics and energy weapons was starting to make headway in that era ( you could probably say the mjolnir was the precursor to the heavy blaster ).

Quote
I guess I just don't see what the Mjolnir Cannons are bringing to the table in that build. I would think four HVD would bring down shields faster, have more range, and be more flux efficient.

- glorious EMP damage so that i don't take much return fire.
- shields don't last that long against the 4 weapons, plus once the shields go down, how are you going to damage the hull with 4 kinetics?
- flux efficiency is irrelevant since 1700 dissipation pretty much makes the buildup extremely slow / non existent.


The guns aren't effective at taking down shields because your ship overloads too quickly.  Seriously any conquest that I've taken off the Mjolnir's and replaced with another weapon wins over it pretty much all the time.  The cannons just aren't very good.  They require more stats than a heavy blaster and aren't even as effective as they are because the ships that can mount them can't support their requirements.
Logged

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2012, 01:28:26 PM »

Maybe make mjolnirs have splash? that would be sorta neat, that or general flux reduction, personally it's as damaging as the heavy blaster, but it uses as much flux as one and most ships that can carry ballistics aren't as flux minded as high tech ships, it just makes the requirements more glaring.

I'd love to see the projectiles pass right through ships, damaging them as they pass through, also perhaps skip armour entirely.

These are micro-singularities we're talking about, they need some kind of unique damage mechanic.
Logged

Catra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2012, 01:39:24 PM »

Quote
I guess I just don't see what the Mjolnir Cannons are bringing to the table in that build. I would think four HVD would bring down shields faster, have more range, and be more flux efficient.

- glorious EMP damage so that i don't take much return fire.
- shields don't last that long against the 4 weapons, plus once the shields go down, how are you going to damage the hull with 4 kinetics?
- flux efficiency is irrelevant since 1700 dissipation pretty much makes the buildup extremely slow / non existent.
HVDs also have plenty of EMP IIRC. I assumed that the Mjolnir/HVD side was to take down the shields, the other side of your ship was to take out the hull.

the mjolnir's fire rate is almost 3 times as fast, so i get a constant stream of EMP rather than an occasional burst, so it helps keeping their weapons suppressed. since the mjolnirs do energy damage(and the HvelD has a rather high per shot damage), there's no need to actually turn my vessel, plus i use MIRVs rather than reapers so they just guide themselves to their target. :P


Quote
The guns aren't effective at taking down shields because your ship overloads too quickly.

i don't know what you mean by overload too quickly, are you using the shield? cause i mean, -any- weapon will make the thing overload if you use the shield.

Quote
They require more stats than a heavy blaster and aren't even as effective as they are because the ships that can mount them can't support their requirements.

like i said in the quote :

the mjolnir really isn't meant to be mounted on most ships. if anything, it was probably built with it being mounted solely on the conquest since it's the only midline with large ballistics and energy weapons was starting to make headway in that era ( you could probably say the mjolnir was the precursor to the heavy blaster ).

Quote
Personally, whenever I use ballistics, if it isn't Needlers, Hellbores, or Heavy Maulers, I'm probably not interested. For me, efficiency is king, and Mjolnirs are lacking in that department. They seem like a fun and interesting weapon, but their current implementation means I have no desire to use them.

why pick on just the mjonlirs? is it because that's what we are discussing here?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 01:42:52 PM by Catra »
Logged

blamatron

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2012, 02:55:41 PM »

I've actually been running around with Mjolnirs on the basic Elite Onslaught and (Elite?) Conquest. They deal quite nasty damage, but should get a buff. They would be a great weapon

I also use the Mjolnirs on my Conquest, mostly because I can disable an enemy ships systems while doing a load of damage. I would be psyched if they got a buff, but still see them as a secondary weapon to the Heavy Maulers I also put on the Conquest, because they outreange the Mjolnirs and do more damage to unshielded targets.
Logged

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2012, 02:59:24 PM »

why pick on just the mjonlirs? is it because that's what we are discussing here?

"Pick on"? Yes, I'm being critical of just Mjolnir Cannons since that's the topic, but even still, the other ballistic weapons all have their uses. The Mjolnir Cannon is unique in how inferior it is to all of the alternatives, and how it doesn't seem like it's supposed to be as inferior as it is. You may like it, but that doesn't mean it's a good weapon.

If you can mount a Mjolnir cannon, you would be better off mounting just about any other weapon instead.

EDIT: Let me put things this way- if you can mount 2x Mjolnirs, you could mount a Storm Needler and a Hephaestus Assault Gun and it would do more dps to armor and shields than the Mjolnirs, but for ~2/3rd the flux cost. Even replacing the Storm Needler with a Mark IX Autocannon, it would still be better in just about every way.

EDIT2: I think it would need about a 100 dps increase, a 300 range increase, or 100 flux/sec reduction for me to even consider it.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 03:38:26 PM by naufrago »
Logged

Reshy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
  • White
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2012, 03:08:23 PM »


the mjolnir's fire rate is almost 3 times as fast, so i get a constant stream of EMP rather than an occasional burst, so it helps keeping their weapons suppressed. since the mjolnirs do energy damage(and the HvelD has a rather high per shot damage), there's no need to actually turn my vessel, plus i use MIRVs rather than reapers so they just guide themselves to their target. :P


Quote
The guns aren't effective at taking down shields because your ship overloads too quickly.

i don't know what you mean by overload too quickly, are you using the shield? cause i mean, -any- weapon will make the thing overload if you use the shield.

Quote
They require more stats than a heavy blaster and aren't even as effective as they are because the ships that can mount them can't support their requirements.

like i said in the quote :

the mjolnir really isn't meant to be mounted on most ships. if anything, it was probably built with it being mounted solely on the conquest since it's the only midline with large ballistics and energy weapons was starting to make headway in that era ( you could probably say the mjolnir was the precursor to the heavy blaster ).

Quote
Personally, whenever I use ballistics, if it isn't Needlers, Hellbores, or Heavy Maulers, I'm probably not interested. For me, efficiency is king, and Mjolnirs are lacking in that department. They seem like a fun and interesting weapon, but their current implementation means I have no desire to use them.

why pick on just the mjonlirs? is it because that's what we are discussing here?



Heavy blaster is 60 RPM while Mjonlir is 80, not that much.  They also have the exact same damage except the Mjonlir has EMP.  But even with that in mind it's not as accurate, requires ammo, and is only capable of being mounted on ships with poor flux dissipation. The Mjonlir costs 600 flux per shot so it's a bit more flux efficient than the heavy blaster's 720 per shot.  BUT this gun costs twice as much as the heavy blaster in terms of OP and can fit into medium and large slots, meaning the heavy blaster is pretty much superior in any situation.  What I think is that it needs a cost reduction since ships with it tend to be unable to vent even one firing much less two or three. 


Basically the problem with the Mjonlir is a 'Mario' gun with no special niche in terms of kinetic or explosive damage, but with the flux cost of a burst damage weapon.
Logged

Aleskander

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2012, 03:40:24 PM »

I use it on mod ships, since they are often better than vanilla. I normally do however, reduce the flux to about 600/s, and reduce the range some.

So yes, they need a buff
Logged

Catra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2012, 04:56:19 PM »

Quote
Let me put things this way- if you can mount 2x Mjolnirs, you could mount a Storm Needler and a Hephaestus Assault Gun and it would do more dps to armor and shields than the Mjolnirs, but for ~2/3rd the flux cost. Even replacing the Storm Needler with a Mark IX Autocannon, it would still be better in just about every way.

@ flux cost

unless you're using it on one of the low tech vessels(which you really shouldn't), it's fairly moot since you can augment the conquest to dissipate far faster than it can generate, even with the mediums firing i have very little buildup in my setup, so i don't see why cost should be a consideration factor when it can be made moot.



moot.



@ the DPS

2x mjolnirs = 1066

1x Storm Needler = 1498 (shields)
1x Hephaestus = 960 (armor)

combined(armor) = 1049

1x mark 9 = 696 (shields)
1x assault gun = 960 (armor)

combined(armor) = 1001

1x hellbore = 1000 (armor)
1x gauss cannon = 700 (shields)

combined(armor) = 1042


so yeah, the only weapon that really beats it is the storm needler. :P but they are so close together that unless you -really- need that extra few damage, you can pretty much go with any combination you'd like.


now, as for my take:

every other weapon (minus the assault gun) offers expediency, which is extremely valuable in large ship combat since it vastly lowers the damage your fleet takes thus letting you be more aggressive in the field. i think this is why the mjolnir feels bad, as it's basically a "chip away at the enemy" weapon on either a relatively fragile platform (the conquest) or being used on vessels that really can't use the thing (all the low tech ships).
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 05:00:36 PM by Catra »
Logged

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2012, 05:51:44 PM »

Sure, the damage is fine - but the flux/cost is ridiculous.

Every 10 flux/second generated costs you atleast 1 OP to negate it. (more if you generate so much flux you have to rely upon Flux Distributor)

So cost wise in Effective Ordnance Points (EOP = OP cost + fluxPerSecond/10):

mjolnirs = 24+80 = 104 EOP
Storm Needler = 28+50 = 78 EOP
Mark IX = 18+40 = 58 EOP
Heph = 20+48 = 68 EOP
Hellbore = 16+55 = 71 EOP
Gauss = 25+40 = 65 EOP

Applied to your suggested combinations:

Mjolnir + Mjolnir = 1066 shield + 1066 armor + 1066 hull + 208 EOP

Storm Needler+Hephaestus = 1738 shield + 1335 armor + 1230 hull + 146 EOP

Mark IX+Hephaestus = 936 shield + 1134 armor + 828 hull + 116 EOP

Hellbore + Gauss = 950 shield + 1175 armor + 850 hull + 136 EOP

For an even starker representation, here's dmg/EOP:

Mjolnir + Mjolnir =  5.125 S + 5.125 A + 5.125 H
Storm Needler+Hephaestus = 11.904 S + 9.144 A + 8.425 H
Mark IX+Hephaestus = 8.069 S + 9.776 A + 7.138 H
Hellbore + Gauss = 6.985 S + 8.640 A + 6.25 H

In my mind it's indisputable how numerically inferior Mjolnirs are.

Admittedly this analysis is somewhat flawed, as it ignores many important factors:
- Range
- Accuracy
- armour damage reduction Vs weak projectiles.
- EMP dmg
- Kinetic+HE combo can be selectively fired to dramatically increase efficiency.
- Combat tactics (hit&run tactics for instance can reduce the accuracy of the EOP simplification)

However, in regards to the first 3 unaccounted for factors the Mjolnirs are unspectacular; having only average range, above average accuracy, and above average projectile damage.

Their only saving grace is the EMP damage, but I honestly don't see how that can compensate for them being statistically 50-100% less efficient than the alternative weapons.
Especially when you're also sacrificing the ability to selectively fire your weapon types for greater efficiency.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 05:55:04 PM by TJJ »
Logged

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2012, 05:55:52 PM »

i don't see why cost should be a consideration factor when it can be made moot.

That's why you can't grasp why Mjolnirs are bad. In vanilla Starfarer, there's almost much no such thing as making flux costs moot. Flux efficiency is one of the most important stats for a capital ship. It gives you more flux to fire your guns and keep your shields up for longer. Having efficient weapons is both an offensive and defensive choice.

The only way for flux cost to be moot is if your dissipation is greater that your upkeep. 2 Mjolnirs on their own use up almost all of a Conquest's theoretical max dissipation, and uses that flux less efficiently than any other large ballistic weapon. (And so you know, every point of flux dissipation is more valuable than the last, since it dissipates a greater percentage of the remaining flux buildup than the last)

Even if you go for some combination other than Storm Needler and Hephaestus, it would give you more OP to spend on hull mods or additional capacitors. No matter how you look at it, Mjolnirs are bad.
Logged

Catra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2012, 07:07:49 PM »

i don't see why cost should be a consideration factor when it can be made moot.

That's why you can't grasp why Mjolnirs are bad. In vanilla Starfarer, there's almost much no such thing as making flux costs moot. Flux efficiency is one of the most important stats for a capital ship. It gives you more flux to fire your guns and keep your shields up for longer. Having efficient weapons is both an offensive and defensive choice.

The only way for flux cost to be moot is if your dissipation is greater that your upkeep. 2 Mjolnirs on their own use up almost all of a Conquest's theoretical max dissipation, and uses that flux less efficiently than any other large ballistic weapon. (And so you know, every point of flux dissipation is more valuable than the last, since it dissipates a greater percentage of the remaining flux buildup than the last)

Even if you go for some combination other than Storm Needler and Hephaestus, it would give you more OP to spend on hull mods or additional capacitors. No matter how you look at it, Mjolnirs are bad.

i'd like to think i can't grasp why they are bad because i don't quite believe in this nonsense that you just presented to me.
Logged

BillyRueben

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: Mjolnir Cannon: Anyone Use It?
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2012, 07:10:52 PM »

I'd like to think that a weapon should have more than one viable ship to be mounted on. You can say that it isn't bad, and you may be right, but I still find it to be inferior to ALL of my other options in the Large Ballistic category. It needs something.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7