Let's go.Im using good as a measure of how much I want them in my fleet not some objective measure of combat power. The 10% OP bonus takes some ships from unusable/bad to maybe good and it takes other ships from good to good+. Thats more the issue. I would not use a shrike without the OP bonus but I would think about it with one. I would happily take a paragon either way. The point is more that these extra OP have a very different effect on different ships, and some ships are really getting hurt by this change because there are OP thresholds that allow good load outs to work.
Thank you for clarifying, that makes a lot of sense!
I'd love to have some more detailed feedback about the various ships that might be in this position - just increasing the OP across the board doesn't make sense to me (because at that point, we're just moving what "normal" is), but if this is an issue for specific ships, then that's totally different. This probably isn't the thread for it, but if someone wanted to take a stab at it, I would greatly appreciate it.
(And, ahem, to discourage buffing everything: if the majority of ships were in the "needs more OP" category, that would probably be an argument for reining in the other ships...)
But almost any ship gains more from integrating 2 free hullmods with story points in next version than 10% we have now. Could take ITU+Hard Shields as reference point valid for majority of ships.I think it's unfair to compare it like that. You could get 10% bonus OP just by spending 3 skill points out of 52, while story points will be a precious resource that'll have a ton of other uses. You could hoard them just for that and eventually have your whole fleet full of built in hullmods but I think that's not what Alex had in mind. I'd rather ships have build variety without any bonus things, than invest something just to make the ship feel adequate.
Integrated SO would be particularly ridiculous, as the single most expensive hullmod.
I think that instead both Enforcer and Medusa getting a buff, it's the Hammerhead that should get a nerf instead.
My personal list:Personally I don't agree with most of these suggested ship specific OP increases (presuming this is on top of the the current +10% OP value). In my opinion, not every ship in a class is meant to be equal in combat and that basically seems to be the goal of these suggestions. Here are a few I especially disagree with:
Lasher, Shrike, Omen, Heron, Enforcer, Medusa, Hound, Brawler, Buffalo Mk. II, Centurion, Cerebus, Gremlin, Gryphon, Kite, Mule, Wayfarer, Venture, Falcon
Per this:Im using good as a measure of how much I want them in my fleet not some objective measure of combat power. The 10% OP bonus takes some ships from unusable/bad to maybe good and it takes other ships from good to good+. Thats more the issue. I would not use a shrike without the OP bonus but I would think about it with one. I would happily take a paragon either way. The point is more that these extra OP have a very different effect on different ships, and some ships are really getting hurt by this change because there are OP thresholds that allow good load outs to work.
Thank you for clarifying, that makes a lot of sense!
I'd love to have some more detailed feedback about the various ships that might be in this position - just increasing the OP across the board doesn't make sense to me (because at that point, we're just moving what "normal" is), but if this is an issue for specific ships, then that's totally different. This probably isn't the thread for it, but if someone wanted to take a stab at it, I would greatly appreciate it.
(And, ahem, to discourage buffing everything: if the majority of ships were in the "needs more OP" category, that would probably be an argument for reining in the other ships...)
Lasher, Shrike, Omen, Heron, Enforcer, Medusa, Hound, Brawler, Buffalo Mk. II, Centurion, Cerebus, Gremlin, Gryphon, Kite, Mule, Wayfarer, Venture, Falcon
Except the Heron is actually the worst dedicated carrier in the game (the other choices being the Drover, Astral, and Legion). It's better than converted carriers certainly, but that doesn't say much. Definitely a ship I think needs a buff somehow, because I feel like the Heron should be an "attack" carrier capable of both fighting and fielding fighters, similar to how the Legion is supposed to work. The Astral and Drover are both fine as just fighter platforms. Looking at the Heron's op next to the Drover's, it seems to be pretty heavily lacking there. If there's ONE ship I would like to see with more OP, I'd say Heron. There are plenty of other ships I think are hot garbage, but the Heron is probably my number one pick for "I would use this if I could just equip it better"Per this:Im using good as a measure of how much I want them in my fleet not some objective measure of combat power. The 10% OP bonus takes some ships from unusable/bad to maybe good and it takes other ships from good to good+. Thats more the issue. I would not use a shrike without the OP bonus but I would think about it with one. I would happily take a paragon either way. The point is more that these extra OP have a very different effect on different ships, and some ships are really getting hurt by this change because there are OP thresholds that allow good load outs to work.
Thank you for clarifying, that makes a lot of sense!
I'd love to have some more detailed feedback about the various ships that might be in this position - just increasing the OP across the board doesn't make sense to me (because at that point, we're just moving what "normal" is), but if this is an issue for specific ships, then that's totally different. This probably isn't the thread for it, but if someone wanted to take a stab at it, I would greatly appreciate it.
(And, ahem, to discourage buffing everything: if the majority of ships were in the "needs more OP" category, that would probably be an argument for reining in the other ships...)
Lasher, Shrike, Omen, Heron, Enforcer, Medusa, Hound, Brawler, Buffalo Mk. II, Centurion, Cerebus, Gremlin, Gryphon, Kite, Mule, Wayfarer, Venture, Falcon
OK so you think the Lasher, Brawler, Hound, Centurion, Cerberus, and Omen need OP buffs... That is every non-phase frigate except the Tempest, Scarab, Hyperion, kite, and wolf. The Wolf is 5 OP and is generally considered weak at the moment. The Tempest is 8 OP and very strong. And the Hyperion and Scarab are almost never used... So like why do these ships need more OP instead of nerfing the tempest?
I really don't understand why the Heron, one of the best carries in the game, or the Gryphon, one of the better finishing cruisers for the AI need more OP
DP per fighter bayDrovers are 6 DP per fighter bay (12 dp total), Heron is 50% damage from fighters only, so similar effect to the drover except without the ability to prevent fighter replacement loss. Drover is also not simply +1 fighter, it adds +2 fighters for wings size 4 and up, in addition to immediately replacing all destroyed fighters or out of ammo bombers. Drovers are MUCH better than Herons, but of course Drovers are ridiculously OP.
Drover 7
Legion 10
Astral 7.6
Heron 6.6
Speed
Astral 30
Legion 30
Drover 75
Heron 80
Ship System
Astral (OK recall is the best)
Legion- none
Drover +1 fighter for fighters only
Heron +50% damage
Heron's wreck. They should be the backbone of your bomber force until you get an Astral and maybe even after since they scale better(edit: In the sense that you can more easily apportion them to the threat, not in the sense that they're necessarily more valuable for the DP though they may be)
Drovers are 6 DP per fighter bay (12 dp total), Heron is 50% damage from fighters only, so similar effect to the drover except without the ability to prevent fighter replacement loss. Drover is also not simply +1 fighter, it adds +2 fighters for wings size 4 and up, in addition to immediately replacing all destroyed fighters or out of ammo bombers. Drovers are MUCH better than Herons, but of course Drovers are ridiculously OP.
I wouldn't mind if the +10% OP was made the new standard and the skill was removed entirely.Best idea of the thread IMO, the +10% is what everyone's understanding of ship balance has been based on for a long time.
I would like to see Herons get about 10 more OP though, as I often find myself leaving multiple light energy mounts blank. That said...Same here. Weapon loadout is spartan and capacitors and flux are minimal. Unlike Mora, it cannot use cheap but effective ballistics in the smalls. Heron is a high-tech ship disguised as a midline ship.
I think that instead both Enforcer and Medusa getting a buff, it's the Hammerhead that should get a nerf instead.Hammerhead is good where it is, maybe Sunder too. Enforcer can be buffed a bit. Medusa may be okay, could either have a bit more OP or maybe have its DP cost lowered to 10 or 11.
I wouldn't mind if the +10% OP was made the new standard and the skill was removed entirely.Best idea of the thread IMO, the +10% is what everyone's understanding of ship balance has been based on for a long time.
As a bonus, it makes the early game slightly easier and the late game slightly harder.
AI Medusa can't even approach a decently build Hammerhead (2 rail + HNeedler + either HE / 2 rail + HVD + HMauler). It needs to actively dodge shots with skimmer to win against that, which AI is not capable of.
Of course assuming a fair skill-less fight. A skilled Medusa can kill officer-less Hammerhead alright.
AI Medusa can't even approach a decently build Hammerhead (2 rail + HNeedler + either HE / 2 rail + HVD + HMauler). It needs to actively dodge shots with skimmer to win against that, which AI is not capable of.
Of course assuming a fair skill-less fight. A skilled Medusa can kill officer-less Hammerhead alright.
That's very specific build for the Hammerhead and seems a weak basis for declaring Medusa weak. The AI won't use the optimal builds and in fleet battles Hammerheads are awfully fragile due to their lacking mobility and weak shields.
All things considered I don't think the current balance between Hammerhead and Medusa is off that much.
I get your point, but to nitpick: Conquest isn't quite that helpless. Conquest loses to decently built and aggressively Burn driving Onslaught. But should Onslaught lack kinetics or just play too passively it loses alright.
FTR, Tempest has TWO Terminator drones now. Each with a PD Laser and IR Pulse Laser.
Wolf: This might not need more OP it could also use more flux dissipation and/or an omni shield. More OP makes it easier to fit those hull mods though.Either more OP and/or better flux stats. As it is, I need to sacrifice almost everything to get almost enough dissipation to support a pulse laser. With only more flux stats, Wolf may still be OP starved, but at least it may not need to grab multiple hullmods to make pulse laser usable.
It also just got a pretty significant nerf (50 flux dissipation and 1,000 capacity).That really did hurt for something that costs 30 DP to deploy. If I do not want to go the Sabot/Expanded Missile Racks route, then I outfit it like mini-Odyssey. Two Heavy Blasters, four or five burst PD, and nothing else for weapons. Everything goes to vents, and flux and shield hullmods. Just so it can fight decently with two heavy blasters.
In general most ships seem to have a fixed amount of OP based on a rough formula of (appropriate OP for all the weapon mounts) + (a fixed amount of OP for the Hull class). This means that ships with loads of weapon mounts that can be left empty for the flux available, often feel more powerful, becuase they have more OP available. Some ships like Hammerhead and Shrike absolutely have much more or less OP than the rest of their ship class.If I were designing the system I wouldn't account for weapon mounts AT ALL for OP, except in rare cases where the ship has some exceptional mount setup (eg oversized mounts for the hull=OP penality, very few/small weapon mounts = op bonus). I'd start with a flat value per hull class, then modify that value to account for DP, shields, speed, armor, and ship system. Because you can (and should) leave mounts empty, more mounts just means more OP relative to exactly the same ship if those empty mounts were deleted. The majority of OP on any strong build goes into flux and hull mods anyway.
In general most ships seem to have a fixed amount of OP based on a rough formula of (appropriate OP for all the weapon mounts) + (a fixed amount of OP for the Hull class). This means that ships with loads of weapon mounts that can be left empty for the flux available, often feel more powerful, becuase they have more OP available. Some ships like Hammerhead and Shrike absolutely have much more or less OP than the rest of their ship class.If I were designing the system I wouldn't account for weapon mounts AT ALL for OP, except in rare cases where the ship has some exceptional mount setup (eg oversized mounts for the hull=OP penality, very few/small weapon mounts = op bonus). I'd start with a flat value per hull class, then modify that value to account for DP, shields, speed, armor, and ship system. Because you can (and should) leave mounts empty, more mounts just means more OP relative to exactly the same ship if those empty mounts were deleted. The majority of OP on any strong build goes into flux and hull mods anyway.
The type and placement matters a lot more than the quantity. Remove all 5 small energies from the same Medusa and it probably won't make any difference at all.In general most ships seem to have a fixed amount of OP based on a rough formula of (appropriate OP for all the weapon mounts) + (a fixed amount of OP for the Hull class). This means that ships with loads of weapon mounts that can be left empty for the flux available, often feel more powerful, becuase they have more OP available. Some ships like Hammerhead and Shrike absolutely have much more or less OP than the rest of their ship class.If I were designing the system I wouldn't account for weapon mounts AT ALL for OP, except in rare cases where the ship has some exceptional mount setup (eg oversized mounts for the hull=OP penality, very few/small weapon mounts = op bonus). I'd start with a flat value per hull class, then modify that value to account for DP, shields, speed, armor, and ship system. Because you can (and should) leave mounts empty, more mounts just means more OP relative to exactly the same ship if those empty mounts were deleted. The majority of OP on any strong build goes into flux and hull mods anyway.
Just change Medusa's small hardpoints from universal synergy and you've already ruined it. Clearly mounts do matter too.
DP per fighter bayCondor: 5
Drover 7
Legion 10
Astral 7.6
Heron 6.6
Nah, AM blasters instead of Railguns variant struggles even against sim Medusa (which doesn't make such trade). Player probably could win anyway by skim shield bypass, but it would take most of CR time. In comparison, player piloted Railgun Medusa can kill sim Aurora.
And going SO is bad for Medusa - it can easily secure close combat vents already, SO doesn't give it that much extra flux. You just trade finesse opportunities for short term brute force.
Medusa without Railguns is an opportunist scavenger at most, and can't fight any proper DE builds (without massive skill advantage, SO or Sabots for just 1 kill).
DP per fighter bayCondor: 5
Drover 7
Legion 10
Astral 7.6
Heron 6.6
I tests regarding this(all without LD3).
The only carrier that cant support only tridents + EDC and still have enough weapons to be what I consider good enough was condor(with LD3 it only has 49 OP which isn't enough for 2 tridents), heron and legion were sub-par but acceptable, and drover and astral were good.
Condor can comfortably fit 2 of the 12 OP bombers + EDC and fill all weapon mounts.
Going by the standards I set the only carrier that would need more OP is condor while heron and legion could use more but they would still be ok at their current OP.
Now usually the only ship I put tridents on is Astral and even then 2 slots are typically used for longbows, sometimes I'll put 1 trident on a heron but usually it'll have 3 daggers or khopeshes.
As for drover condor and legion I mostly stick with the 8/10 OP fighters or xyphos(legion only).
Overall I'd say the carriers are only OP starved if you only ever use tridents(at least the way I use them).
Also: medusa with mining blasters, that is all.
Railguns duel better yes. But they don't necessarily kill better in actual combat. So its not a surprise that the stand off kinetic damage medusa beats a non-standoff non-kinetic damage medusa. 1v1
And SO Medusa is really really good! It gives you 1200/1080 dissipation which almost lets you consistently run 2 heavy blasters. The extra speed makes it even easier to catch and kill fast frigates when they could otherwise kite you even with the phase skim.
There was an excellent SO medusa build in the tourney, I should find that and see how it ticked...
Overall I'd say the carriers are only OP starved if you only ever use tridents(at least the way I use them).Aside from Legion, they seem OP starved if I use 8-10 OP fighters and I want enough guns and ITU to trade shots effectively. The only time I have enough OP to outfit them like warships is if I use only Talons (or Mining Pods), which I tried, and they are not as a effective as a carrier with good fighters and no guns.
...
Excellent in that particular matchup. SO Medusa may win against SO Hammerheads used there, but shamefully loses against standard standoff build of Hammerhead.
...
Excellent in that particular matchup. SO Medusa may win against SO Hammerheads used there, but shamefully loses against standard standoff build of Hammerhead.
It shouldn't. Were you doing a default Sim? Because thats a standard personality (and if using autopilot, thats standard personality even if the ship has a different one). SO ships require Reckless, maybe aggressive if you want a cowardly ship, and then they do extremely well.
...
Excellent in that particular matchup. SO Medusa may win against SO Hammerheads used there, but shamefully loses against standard standoff build of Hammerhead.
It shouldn't. Were you doing a default Sim? Because thats a standard personality (and if using autopilot, thats standard personality even if the ship has a different one). SO ships require Reckless, maybe aggressive if you want a cowardly ship, and then they do extremely well.
I used eliminate order (can't change personality in missions...well without mods). It doesn't seem to be a matter of aggressiveness, they just lose flux war against Hammerhead most of the time.
Rarely Medusa does win, but at significant armor/hp cost and having fully spent CR. Hardly an achievement, considering that it's a one-off duel build fighting a fleet workhorse.
What the heck build are you using? I just put together like 4 variations of simple SO Medusa's and all of them crush the default hammerhead with or without an eliminate order... from the mission menu, so no skills or officers.
Sim builds ARE however representative of what AI fleets can do. I'm pretty sure most sim builds are straight copies of normal AI faction builds. and even if they are "unique" they are still more similar to how the AI builds ships compared to the player. This isn't a PVP game.What the heck build are you using? I just put together like 4 variations of simple SO Medusa's and all of them crush the default hammerhead with or without an eliminate order... from the mission menu, so no skills or officers.
Better question is what build of Hammerhead I compare against. Sim ones are crap and not representative of what Hammerhead can do.Spoiler(https://i.imgur.com/bJpsfaW.png)
It's too obviously vulnerable to Salamanders. If Medusa uses Salamanders, then Hammerhead build changes by -8 caps + 2 Vulcans.[close]
It's too obviously vulnerable to Salamanders. If Medusa uses Salamanders, then Hammerhead build changes by -8 caps + 2 Vulcans.
It's too obviously vulnerable to Salamanders. If Medusa uses Salamanders, then Hammerhead build changes by -8 caps + 2 Vulcans.
Again, this kind of min-maxing is not something that's relevant to the main game or to the balancing. You don't overhaul your ships on the fly to optimize them for a duel against single enemy ship.
It's too obviously vulnerable to Salamanders. If Medusa uses Salamanders, then Hammerhead build changes by -8 caps + 2 Vulcans.
Again, this kind of min-maxing is not something that's relevant to the main game or to the balancing. You don't overhaul your ships on the fly to optimize them for a duel against single enemy ship.
It's too obviously vulnerable to Salamanders. If Medusa uses Salamanders, then Hammerhead build changes by -8 caps + 2 Vulcans.
Again, this kind of min-maxing is not something that's relevant to the main game or to the balancing. You don't overhaul your ships on the fly to optimize them for a duel against single enemy ship.
Point is trying to find a Medusa that can defeat a Hammerhead no matter what it does with it's build. Which is why exploiting easily fixable flaws doesn't count.
From what I've seen Hammerhead usually wins.
Could be nice if there was even lower cost version of point defense weapons at least. Like PD Laser with the damage of LR version or machine gun with limited burst length.So just buff Mining laser, simple.
Currently the cost of mounting even the most basic 4 OP weapons to sub-optimal weapon slots quickly eats up a significant amount of points but if there were 1 or 2 OP options it would become much smaller investment while the low base damage would keep them useless against larger enemies.
So just buff Mining laser, simple.Remove PD Laser, give Mining Laser current PD Laser stats. Done!
Yeah pretty much. The damage is too low for even the puniest missiles and its range is also inconveniently long. If left on auto-fire it will end up pointlessly shooting at larger ships. The OP cost of 2 rather than 1 also feels a bit unnecessary considering how much more practical use the 2 and 1 OP missile weapons have.Could be nice if there was even lower cost version of point defense weapons at least. Like PD Laser with the damage of LR version or machine gun with limited burst length.So just buff Mining laser, simple.
Currently the cost of mounting even the most basic 4 OP weapons to sub-optimal weapon slots quickly eats up a significant amount of points but if there were 1 or 2 OP options it would become much smaller investment while the low base damage would keep them useless against larger enemies.
Most, if not all, carriers are like that, not just Astral. It's just that carriers are supposed to use fighters, so it's logical to spend everything on them, and you can spend a lot on them.That used to be not the case. I almost want to go back to fighters-as-ships just so carriers can arm themselves like warships like they used to. I would be totally on fighters-as-missiles if it did not mean carriers give up their guns just to do their job of being a carrier.
Carriers are strong, but it stinks that in order for carriers to be their best, they need to focus on fighters and nothing else. If carrier needs to eschew guns to do its job, then that is what gets done. Before fighters became missiles, player could not do that, nor needed to do that if he could. (Of course, fighters had no skills back then and were no match for warships with skills.)Drop OP cost for guns as well.
For something like Astral, I would like to put pulse lasers or heavy blasters on the medium energy, put missiles in the large mounts, and beam PD in the smalls. Instead, I may put few burst PD in the medium mounts, maybe salamander pods for missiles. Or just put nothing but high-end bombers and use no guns on Astral.
However, adding OP will probably do little good. Carrier will just get bigger fighters or get more hullmods or vents. That is one reason why I suggested hangar space. Have OP be for guns and hullmods, and something else for fighters, or just drop OP costs from fighters altogether (and do something about Converted Hangar so it is not auto-pick for warships).
It's too obviously vulnerable to Salamanders. If Medusa uses Salamanders, then Hammerhead build changes by -8 caps + 2 Vulcans.
Again, this kind of min-maxing is not something that's relevant to the main game or to the balancing. You don't overhaul your ships on the fly to optimize them for a duel against single enemy ship.
Point is trying to find a Medusa that can defeat a Hammerhead no matter what it does with it's build. Which is why exploiting easily fixable flaws doesn't count.
From what I've seen Hammerhead usually wins.
Take sim Condor with Talons as example: Hammerhead can win on autopilot with moderate armor damage using standard build. Medusa needs either SO (and takes tons of damage) or specialized anti-fighter build (extended, accelerated, front-conversion) that isn't good against other ships.
Medusa may be better at surviving single overwhelming bomber strike (if it reserved skimmer charges, which AI often doesn't), but that's about it.