Having bad ships is absolutely critical. Pirates need to fly clunkers for the early game progression to make sense.I agree, but not every ''bad'' ship is a pirate one. Some just have no excuses, which is my point here.
Having bad ships is absolutely critical. Pirates need to fly clunkers for the early game progression to make sense.
Depends; if the player gets regular injections of rare tech from missions and exploration (complete and with no battle damage), then it's not grindier; it's just that rare stuff is harder to replace.Rare stuff hard to replace happened before 0.8a, and I reloaded games the moment my side took a casualty and replayed until I won without casualties because it was faster to play that way. Easier to reload and replay a fight once or twice (to undo a mistake) than to play on and grind hours for replacements.
I never use them. I enjoy it when the enemy does because I know they're easy to kill. Some people use them once they have a few Destroyers or Cruisers to screen for them but at the end of the day, its a support frigate whose glory days are over within 30 minutes of a playthrough.That is the fate of all conventional fighting frigates (not just Vigilance), except maybe Tempest. They die too easily and low PPT means they die if the cowardly AI succeeds at stalling. Not to mention officers and fleet slots are a valuable resource.
For the Venture: increase its burn speed by 1 and it's in my fleet tomorrow. I think it's a cheap damage sponge but it's too dang slow.Lack of burn speed is a fatal flaw of Venture. If it has faster burn, I probably would use it occasionally. It would also be nice if its flight deck could accept any fighter.
For the Condor: it does need to be faster but I'm still ok with its existence as the lowest-bar carrier option
For the Shrike: I don't think it's terrible but the (P) version is better, which shouldn't be the case.
For the Thumper: It needs to be sustained fire, not burst. Lower the number of projectiles/sec but it's just a constant barrage that fighters/missiles can't get through and ships can't just ignore. Good anti-fighter/missile, otherwise a pressure weapon.
For the Ion Pulser: Its range is too low which is why I never use it. It's half of an Autopulse in terms of damage but it's a knife-fighter when Energy is dying for range. It's also a "premium" weapon at 11 OP, which is counter-intuitive.
Some players like amassing an all powerful death fleet with perfect ships and skills that can crush anything the game throws at you. Their objective is end game, and its a perfectly fine way to play.This is me to a T.
Having bad ships is absolutely critical. Pirates need to fly clunkers for the early game progression to make sense.
Some of the outlying stats, like the Condor's speed, are issues, but I think the short length of the midgame and the high endgame floor on the availability of the best possible tech are bigger problems.
Rare stuff hard to replace happened before 0.8a, and I reloaded games the moment my side took a casualty and replayed until I won without casualties because it was faster to play that way. Easier to reload and replay a fight once or twice (to undo a mistake) than to play on and grind hours for replacements.
We do not need junk that is easily found, most of that can be found in shops or as enemy loot.
Looting good ship types is easy. Restoring them costs an arm-and-a-leg. However, with permamods involved next release, restoration might be the way to go if income is high enough. If not, save-scum like in old versions.
In other thread I saw people defending Vigilance, Buffalo Mk II is a more useful ship.
I would even be a fan of tying the restoration cost to commission/reputation to further make that more nuanced. So you can't just restore a good ship on a lucky find in the early game. You need the connections to reduce the cost enough to make it worth it, OR you can eat a large cost in credits to get it immediately.What kind of connections? With factions? What if I am otherwise self-sufficient with more assets than the core worlds? (I tend to build colonies fast so I can get away from faction politics and be self-sufficient, then annihilate all of the core worlds if they do not stop their feeble bullying, which they never do.)
What kind of connections? With factions? What if I am otherwise self-sufficient with more assets than the core worlds? (I tend to build colonies fast so I can get away from faction politics and be self-sufficient, then annihilate all of the core worlds if they do not stop their feeble bullying, which they never do.)
The thing is if save-scumming is faster than grinding up new replacements (ships, weapons, story points, income, whatever), then I see no problem save-scumming to undo casualties, even if it is annoying (because it is less annoying than spending hours grinding just to recover what I lost).
I like that in the current release, I can shrug off casualties late in the game. I lose Paragon here or three smaller ships there, no problem, just build new ones with my Orbital Works and high income.
I hope permamods does not mean building ships is a one-and-done event because permamods will be so good and relatively hard to come by.
(and salvaged fleets built wide on destroyers would be more viable)These fleets are actually surprisingly good when combined with d-mods, reinforced bulkheads, and industry skills, and used to prey on opponents with good ships but low numbers. It's a very fun way to play, except that outfitting thirty different destroyers on salvaged weapons is a huge timesink.
For the Shrike: I don't think it's terrible but the (P) version is better, which shouldn't be the case.I shudder to think how you must feel about the Falcon (P) in that case. I think it's fine if sometimes the pirates luck into legit improvements.
Medusa has universal mounts for kinetics which is a huge difference that isn't represented in the stats.
or give it a special script to ignore minimum armor damage (i.e, does full 100% damage to hull).Megas, that would be obscenely OP... You would have armor stripped ships, taking salvos from Thumpers that are equal to torpedoes in effect more or less.
I shudder to think how you must feel about the Falcon (P) in that case. I think it's fine if sometimes the pirates luck into legit improvements.
or give it a special script to ignore minimum armor damage (i.e, does full 100% damage to hull).Megas, that would be obscenely OP... You would have armor stripped ships, taking salvos from Thumpers that are equal to torpedoes in effect more or less.
Emm, 5% minimum armor is a relatively recent change. I don't remember Thumper being considered OP at any point. It would still be a ballast until you get through shield and armor.It got changed to dump a really fast and heavy burst, in the same update that the min armor damage change happened in if I recall correctly. While before it was a slow constant fire.
I do not think so. It is the payoff for putting up with worse anti-shield and anti-armor damage (from the opportunity cost of mounting Thumper instead of another kinetic or HE weapon) and waiting longer before armor is stripped. I saw what Thumper did to hull before minimum armor damage was in and while fun, it was a chore getting that far with one ship. (I do not remember if it was the burst version or the old stream.) There were more powerful options than Thumper spam.or give it a special script to ignore minimum armor damage (i.e, does full 100% damage to hull).Megas, that would be obscenely OP... You would have armor stripped ships, taking salvos from Thumpers that are equal to torpedoes in effect more or less.
And a quick mod away removing the min armor fraction stat...
Whew, Fair and Balanced™. Exactly as I predicted.
Well if its hitting pure hull with no reduction, thumpers deal 2k damage per spike at ~500 dps. A heavy mortar against a residual onslaught is going to do 157 dps, give or take a point or two, so the thumper with no armor reduction is doing about 3.2 times more damage, with a heavy alpha spike to speed things up further.
Needing stripped armor and no active shields is a big downside, though.Current Thumper is still is doing a 500 damage burst against shields which is pretty good, and is a nasty thing to fire into a swarm of fighters, while nuking stripped armor ships pretty good up until you get into very heavy armor categories. Note I went back and did that same canned test again but with the 0.05 min armor fraction variable restored. And paired Thumpers was doing 850ish damage per burst against the armor stripped Onslaught. That isn't exactly weak unless you are comparing to large ballistics, or alpha strike based energy weapons (and missiles heh).
The Thumper dumps that burst *fast* and is highly accurate allowing you to slip a burst in between shield activations etc etc, it can take advantage of opportunities.
Current Thumper is still is doing a 500 damage burst against shields which is pretty good, and is a nasty thing to fire into a swarm of fighters, while nuking stripped armor ships pretty good up until you get into very heavy armor categories.
Venture - use them as bigger Shepherd, either when you can't get Shepherd or when you reach a stage when you want to consolidate on bigger ships and you still need to do exploration. Unless I'm mistaken it as the same logistic profile as a Falcon, a good point for a utility ship that you can bring in battle. Indeed burn speed is an issue, fortunately Augmented Drivefield or Militarized Subsystem fix that easily. I don't use it often, because I usually do a quick transition from Shepherd to several logistic ships with Surveying Equipment for my exploration needs, but on a few occasions Venture appeared as the solution at hand.Venture doesn't offer the combination of good cargo efficiency and utility hullmods like Shepherd does. So you aren't getting it for the cargo, because at cruiser speed you want a Colossus; you aren't getting it for utility hullmods, because you already have Shepherds and you aren't getting it for combat capability, because Falcon is just as cheap, without committing you to cruiser burn level.
Also, IMO, thinking about this only in terms of balance or meta-game is preciselly missing the one point that matter. Think of it in terms of gameplay, "there is a purpose for this and for that". Please note I didn't write niche, as the word seems to convey poor value to what has the highest value here: gameplay. I would even go as far as claming: the meta-game viewpoint here can be dangerous as it might restrict one's view to "I want the best", which is indeed an issue in several video game community, especially where PvP fight is involved - and the balance viewpoint is dangerous as is encourage to level everything to a similar playing field."The only reason I'm using X is because I want to go with the worst option available" significantly limits enjoyment I get from using X and makes my gameplay experience worse. It's better for me to actually have reasons to go with a more difficult playstyle, other than because I want to increase my e-schlong length.
It does indeed not bring any kinetic damage while the Medusa can bring two LN's. And it does indeed have a slightly worse mobility system. But its still just as fast and with a heavy blaster is bringing better armor damage/DP than a Medusa does. And its less likely to take damage due to its larger shield.
Literally the first thing i mentioned after the stats... But two small kinetics do not kill ships. Flux into blasters does.It's more likely to take damage, because its shield is worse, its mobility backwards is worse, the ship system is likely to put it at risk and heavy blaster's utility is greatly diminished. Using heavy blaster to overcome the enemy shields is inefficient by default, whereas it takes 0,45 efficiency shields for railgun to deal more flux to you, than hard flux to the enemy. And if you want to use heavy blaster anyway, Tempest is way better at it. Shrike is okay, Shrike (P) is very much decent, but they can't stand up to Medusa.
I shudder to think how you must feel about the Falcon (P) in that case. I think it's fine if sometimes the pirates luck into legit improvements.It's hilariously overpowered, only somewhat tempered by its rarity. The moment the player finds a blueprint for it, it can replace everything in player's fleet.
Have you all like... played with shrikes in fleets??I could ask the same question to the people defending them. I just don't understand how people can see them as useful when they die faster than fighters. Do you have lvl 20 officers on them or something? That might explain a few things.
Shrike is kinda killy with its missiles, until it isn't.This is the issue with Shrike (and a few other ships). It tends to get itself into situations it can't easily get out of with alarming regularity, and as a result is frequently in the recovery list at the end of the battle.
Shrike is kinda killy with its missiles, until it isn't.This is the issue with Shrike (and a few other ships). It tends to get itself into situations it can't easily get out of with alarming regularity, and as a result is frequently in the recovery list at the end of the battle.
Whew, Fair and Balanced™. Exactly as I predicted.If you are being serious, then I agree on being balanced. Especially since Thumper costs more than Arbalest and Mortar.
I think for player piloted Odyssey getting Plasma Jets would be a nerf.
I kind of want to try a Reaper next and see what the stats show!
Venture - use them as bigger Shepherd, either when you can't get Shepherd or when you reach a stage when you want to consolidate on bigger ships and you still need to do exploration. Unless I'm mistaken it as the same logistic profile as a Falcon, a good point for a utility ship that you can bring in battle. Indeed burn speed is an issue, fortunately Augmented Drivefield or Militarized Subsystem fix that easily. I don't use it often, because I usually do a quick transition from Shepherd to several logistic ships with Surveying Equipment for my exploration needs, but on a few occasions Venture appeared as the solution at hand.
Venture doesn't offer the combination of good cargo efficiency and utility hullmods like Shepherd does. So you aren't getting it for the cargo, because at cruiser speed you want a Colossus; you aren't getting it for utility hullmods, because you already have Shepherds and you aren't getting it for combat capability, because Falcon is just as cheap, without committing you to cruiser burn level.
Also, IMO, thinking about this only in terms of balance or meta-game is preciselly missing the one point that matter. Think of it in terms of gameplay, "there is a purpose for this and for that". Please note I didn't write niche, as the word seems to convey poor value to what has the highest value here: gameplay. I would even go as far as claming: the meta-game viewpoint here can be dangerous as it might restrict one's view to "I want the best", which is indeed an issue in several video game community, especially where PvP fight is involved - and the balance viewpoint is dangerous as is encourage to level everything to a similar playing field.
"The only reason I'm using X is because I want to go with the worst option available" significantly limits enjoyment I get from using X and makes my gameplay experience worse. It's better for me to actually have reasons to go with a more difficult playstyle, other than because I want to increase my e-schlong length.
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.
Plasma Burn is a problem system for AI. AI kills itself too easily with it. With Shrike, it may be okay because it is cheap. With Odyssey, it is unacceptable. AI cannot use the good Odyssey brawling loadouts because it will burn into a mob and die.
So if a ship is better than having nothing it's balanced? Well thank god some people aren't developers. But the thing I see mentioned a lot that doesn't make sense to me is this ''early game option''. Some seem to have an idea to solve problems of bad ships by gating decent ships behind grind, and just making them harder to get in general, instead of, you know, making bad ships less bad. I mean what's the point in designing a ship that's only ever gonna be useful in the first 10% of the game, if that even. It's the same as if an RPG has a spell tree with lots of cool and amazingly designed spells to use, but there's no scaling. Early game spells get replaced by stronger ones and eventually you end up with similar build all the time. Isn't it better to just level everything so the player has as many possible choices in the game, improving the fleet diversity by a ton?
I don't get how some don't get this, they're essentially saying less choice is good. You have to have bad ships in the early game and good ones in late game.
Another bonus analogy: A weapon in an action game that has a fun moveset, but gets outclassed by everything else. You COULD use it, but only to upload meme gifs or videos.
Honestly I think you are overly obsessed with this whole grind thing. I think any kind of progression you consider grind when that is not what defines it. If choices are meaningful along the way, and the early part is still fun, then it's not grind. If anything, player/officer levels and skills are far more "grindy" than anything else in the game.I don't know why are you putting so much emphasis into the grind sentence, it wasn't even the point I was trying to make, merely a thing that other people suggested that I think wouldn't help the gameplay. Btw grind to me can be fun, if the gameplay loop is good enough, I really don't mind it (hey I like roguelites after all), but of course it's not always the thing. The biggest point I tried to make is that some of these cool and fun ships are getting the short end of the stick and because of that they get labeled as ''early game budget choices'' and then ignored and left as such. Again, I don't have a problem with objectively worse ships, it's just that some are so sad yet people still defend them.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I really think all games have progression of some kind or they get boring very quickly. You can make a case that strategy games don't, but even then only to a point. When they took away base building in Dawn of War II I stopped investing in the series. It was the one source of progression and they axed it to be more like Mobas. If I wanted to play a Moba I would have bought one. Dawn of War fans were not Moba fans and the devs made a serious mistake in thinking that they were or that they would cross over genres.
I don't think less choice = good, as a default. But I also don't think equal ship accessibility is fun either. It's fun to have those carrots that you look forward to. At least for me, personally. And I think we can disengage from the idea that progression = boring, crappy early game ships.
It can solely be flavor, if needed, not purely based upon function alone.
So if a ship is better than having nothing it's balanced?
Well thank god some people aren't developers.
But the thing I see mentioned a lot that doesn't make sense to me is this ''early game option''. Some seem to have an idea to solve problems of bad ships by gating decent ships behind grind, and just making them harder to get in general, instead of, you know, making bad ships less bad. I mean what's the point in designing a ship that's only ever gonna be useful in the first 10% of the game, if that even. It's the same as if an RPG has a spell tree with lots of cool and amazingly designed spells to use, but there's no scaling. Early game spells get replaced by stronger ones and eventually you end up with similar build all the time.
Isn't it better to just level everything so the player has as many possible choices in the game, improving the fleet diversity by a ton?
Another bonus analogy: A weapon in an action game that has a fun moveset, but gets outclassed by everything else. You COULD use it, but only to upload meme gifs or videos.
The original Halo comes to mind... except even then, there is development in terms of what vehicles are available in what levels: the player tends to get the tank and/or attack aircraft only after doing a few levels where they slogged it out on foot or in a jeep, and thats intentional game design. The player's game enjoyment with the later equipment is changed by their earlier experiences.
I don't know why are you putting so much emphasis into the grind sentence, it wasn't even the point I was trying to make, merely a thing that other people suggested that I think wouldn't help the gameplay. Btw grind to me can be fun, if the gameplay loop is good enough, I really don't mind it (hey I like roguelites after all), but of course it's not always the thing. The biggest point I tried to make is that some of these cool and fun ships are getting the short end of the stick and because of that they get labeled as ''early game budget choices'' and then ignored and left as such. Again, I don't have a problem with objectively worse ships, it's just that some are so sad yet people still defend them.
Good that you mentioned RTS games (also a fan of the first Dawn of war). If a unit is useful only a small part of the game, eventually gets replaced by a clear superior choice, but has flavor and sense, is it really that bad? I'd say no, even tho I prefer games where each unit has a role in the entire match (Starcraft for example). But the thing is, progression in RTS games is super fast, matches last maybe half an hour (wildly depending on the game, I know), meanwhile a playthrough in Starsector probably lasts more than a dozen hours. Gameplay >> flavor
I agree that not every ship should be equally accessible. Not sure I even said that somewhere but just trying to clear it up.
Like imagine if you could unlock Jinpachi in Tekken 5 (not sure on the name, been ages since I played it), the final boss, that would be bonkers. Sometimes progression can make the gameplay boring, contrary to its whole reason it's there.Yes, it would be bonkers. No, I would like it (in a single-player game). Seeing the unfair SNK boss powers he had (hard-to-avoid two-hit kill fireball, ultimate priority or unblockable stun move that opens victim up to everything including said 2HKO fireball), I want him! At least there were codes in some games to play overpowered bosses (even if somewhat depowered). A single playable SNK boss that is not banned would be bad in head-to-head because they degenerate the game to a single mirror match. I have seen this for Tekken 4, where Jin was better than everyone else by a wide margin.
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.
Let us reason together, and not talk past one another, please. Not using the best does not necessarily translate into using the worst. And by the way, what does worst mean? Or best?The issue is that Condor isn't actually all that more available early game. Want a Condor? Buy it, or get it from tutorial graveyard. Want a Drover? Buy it for about twice the price. The issue comes up when you compare them. You can get a Condor one bounty earlier, but Drover is going to give you way more bang for your buck, is less likely to die for a myriad of reasons (costing you more credits in the long run), is more capable for a couple of reasons (increasing your profit in the long run) and is barely any more expensive in maintenance. And you can't just go anywhere to buy it, but have to look for it in Persean League, Sindrian Diktat, Tri-Tachyon or Independent colonies, or over half the colonies in the sector, but that is an issue only if you don't know who sells Drovers and don't leave Hegemony or Luddic space.
Condor vs nothing? What's the worst? Condor brings 2 fighter wings, nothing brings 0 fighter wings. If player's requirement is to bring fighters in battle early-mid game, then Condor is a valid solution, sometimes the only available solution. Obvious gameplay benefit: player gets fighters early if he so choose! This is not "worse experience", this is "better experience" and "early game option".
You want a small&fast ship that can rush/flee with shield up and wield decent fire power? Shrike is the best... well it's the only ship that can do that. So it allows a specific piloting gameplay, not necessarily more difficult for players used to pilot high tech frigates. Players shall use said gameplay to distract, damage and destroy enemy ships. Obvious yet not so obvious gameplay benefit: new gameplay!
And you know what both Condor and Shrike have in common? Both are easily available a the start (or any point) of a campaign, at a low price, with standard logistic profiles. That can't be said of their respective alternatives / closest siblings.
Now can we let our disagreements aside and petition to have Medusa leave it's hideout and be more generally available? I can't remember the last time I used one.Yeeeees.
In the context of starsector, this might mean limiting your access to military tech or big ships, which might allow for interesting and difficult missions that would never happen if you could get any tech you wanted (stuff like the campaign missions). Wouldn't it be way more fun to be required to beat a fleet of paragons (without any of your own) to get a paragon blueprint, or assassinate a TT admiral in the middle of a defended system to get access to hegemony cruisers? Maybe that's just me, but that sounds like a much more fun game, even though your access to tech is 'gated' and you have less ships to choose from at most points in the game.I wouldn't mind faction relation having more meaning that free expedition bribes and access to the mostly skippable military market.
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.
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! :P
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.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.
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.
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.QuoteSo, 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''.
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
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.
@intrinsic_parityYou'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)
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.
@Hirfuma Kai
Bruh if you're just gonna ignore everything that was said in the previous pages then I won't bother replying since this will go in circles.
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.
@Hirfuma Kai
Bruh if you're just gonna ignore everything that was said in the previous pages then I won't bother replying since this will go in circles.
I didn't think I was ignoring anything, but I'm looking at it from my view point, so maybe I missed something. It wouldn't be the first time.
I did appreciate the discussion though, as I've learned a couple things out of it. Condors aren't as bad as I originally thought and proximity launchers massed do actually work for heavy anti-fighter cover. Its also inspired me to try a vanilla spacer start and go for Condor carrier spam and see how smoothly (or not) that plays out. I'd been meaning to do an Industry skill focused run anyways so salvaging Condors from pirates might be interesting.
Anyways, I can certainly drop the discussion. My apologies if I ended up not contributing anything.
You look at the speed and see its lower, and then make the statement that it is both unbalanced and trash.Other than me, multiple people have stated why the ship is bad, and everyone agreed it's more than one reason. Yet you said I claimed it was bad simply because of its speed. No, I said its speed could use a buff, to make it less bad. I appreciate you willing to drop it since we could go on like this forever. And you certainly have contributed, I wanted to hear as many opinions as I could. It's just that I'm not a fan of stats in vacuum and weird experiments that don't factor in what's actually important.
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.
So is there a test you'd like me to do to demonstrate that Condors are trash?
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.
Is it worth starting a new thread dedicated to general simulation questions and results, if only for a more logical place to look for this kind of more systematic balance investigation? I feel a bit guilty about derailing this one.Honestly it's not a huge deal about derailing, more the fact that it will be shown after 7 or so pages of this abomination of a subject. I'd also guess that more people will see the results if a thread has a precise title, rather than digging through here and accidentaly stumbling upon it.
My personal gripe against the Condor is its out of combat stats... why does it have such low cargo and fuel storage?Lore. (Specifically implied lore.)
Commonly cited "bad" stuff:
For the Venture: increase its burn speed by 1 and it's in my fleet tomorrow. I think it's a cheap damage sponge but it's too dang slow.
For the Condor: it does need to be faster but I'm still ok with its existence as the lowest-bar carrier option
For the Shrike: I don't think it's terrible but the (P) version is better, which shouldn't be the case.
Yep, the Condor's conversion is a steep price, but if I want carriers for cheap, eh, not going to complain about that so long as I use the right LPCs as a force projector. I have considered the Tarsus for destroyer/cruiser speed fleets, but I use Pirate/Hegemony Buffalos because I don't expect to run from a battle. Pirate for shielded cargo holds, Hegemony for built in militarized subsystems and able to keep up to even frigate fleets with augmented drive field.My personal gripe against the Condor is its out of combat stats... why does it have such low cargo and fuel storage?Lore. (Specifically implied lore.)
Condor is a converted Tarsus and the original conversion process is described as "involved and complex", with the implication that the ship in question has sacrificed almost all of its previous abilities in order to do something it was not originally intended to do.
The implication itself comes from the statement that the conversion process was originally created by scavangers and pirates looking for a way to field fighters. And neither group would have the means to perform such a conversion without some manner of significant compromise.
The process itself is no longer "complex" because of access to nanoforges, but there's nothing to say the process was improved in any way from the original.
This is also a partial explaination for the low speed.
Tarsus has a speed of 45. And Condor, which is basically a gutted Tarsus, has a speed of 40.
Personally, I don't see a problem with this. It's all fluff, but its consistent fluff.
Condor is "good enough" (for me) to use for a while, but its not something I'd want to use past a certain point if I had any other alternatives.
So I checked the subreddit
So I checked the subreddit
Ah, I see your problem..