Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: SCC on March 27, 2021, 02:29:05 PM

Title: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on March 27, 2021, 02:29:05 PM
The setup:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/822063453837590528/825462532529586206/unknown.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/822063453837590528/825472084511424572/screenshot022.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/822063453837590528/825472049975656508/screenshot021.png)


The testing:
Tempest manfighting an Onslaught:(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/822063453837590528/825467416711921724/screenshot013.jpg)
Hyperion's single burst of ion pulsers against an Onslaught:(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/822063453837590528/825467483879505990/bully.jpg)



Single Heavy Blaster shot on Onslaught shields (+92% damage):(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/822063453837590528/825464107494670356/unknown.png)
Single Anti-matter Blaster shot on Onslaught shields (+132% damage):(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/822063453837590528/825475871145590844/unknown.png)
Single 6,4k damage Reaper on Onslaught armour (+60% damage):(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/822063453837590528/825476382842290176/unknown.png)



Alex, what
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on March 27, 2021, 02:54:37 PM
+132% damage: thats a good number. And the Tempest can just straight up 1v1 an Onslaught from the front and win the flux war, while flying around at 233 speed. And the Hyperion can output nearly 17 thousand damage in a full burst.

Impressive.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on March 27, 2021, 03:27:00 PM
To be fair, this is the sim Onslaught with literally no forward kinetics. It's all frag and HE, except for the TPCs which are not going to hit a frigate. You put 2 heavy needlers or even just heavy autocannons on the centre two mediums, and I expect it'll be a very different outcome.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Caymon Joestar on March 27, 2021, 03:32:39 PM
Im gonna be real here

I understand that in 0.9.1 that frigates were rather weak and not really worth using beyond the early game.

But I don't think it's healthy for frigates to be able to handle caps with that much ease.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: TaLaR on March 27, 2021, 03:50:38 PM
Well, Onslaught was always kill-able from behind for any decent frigate.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Schwartz on March 27, 2021, 03:51:57 PM
This is quite impressive.

But don't forget that the player has chosen to pilot a glass cannon. The low supply costs become a non-issue anyway, but flying a high-adrenaline high-reflexes ship with a high skill ceiling remains both fun and very dangerous. You also lose out by putting your 8 officers in frigates instead of, say, 8 cruisers.

That said, I just started with the new version so I can't say how OP this is or isn't. As far as I can tell, fighters got a nerf-stick (most skills are hangar limited) and frigates seem to be the new meta darlings.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: shoi on March 27, 2021, 03:53:32 PM
To be fair, this is the sim Onslaught with literally no forward kinetics. It's all frag and HE, except for the TPCs which are not going to hit a frigate. You put 2 heavy needlers or even just heavy autocannons on the centre two mediums, and I expect it'll be a very different outcome.

this

Officer'd frigates could always destroy SIM Onslaughts, but it looks like its just easier now. It's kinda weird to try using a max level officer vs them as an example.

I'd be a little less worried about what the hyperion can do since its got the DP and logistical costs of a cruiser, but tempest being to go head to head with even a sim slaught seems excessive.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Alex on March 27, 2021, 04:00:33 PM
(The Tempest is basically just too good. I suspect it'll meet a nerf bat in a dark alley some day, and what comes out just won't be the same as what went in.)
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Goumindong on March 27, 2021, 04:08:43 PM
They're good... But not that good? They still have range issues and its very easy to get surrounded. Having a few officers in frigates is super nice but your tempest isn't going to carry you the way the old onslaughts could
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Harmful Mechanic on March 27, 2021, 04:10:43 PM
Returning the Tempest to having one drone and Active Flares for a system would go a long way to making it less egregious. As it stands, it’s got a Swiss Army Frigate role, with no real weaknesses en mass.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Retry on March 27, 2021, 05:55:09 PM
Tempests are among the most expensive frigates in the game, around the level of light Destroyers such as Shrikes.  I'd expect a modified Tempest to be capable of tussling with such light destroyers, at least.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 27, 2021, 06:00:25 PM
SO tempest is really strong, but I'm feeling like maybe that's a consequence of built in SO being overpowered more than the tempest. I have a SO aurora that feels similarly overpowered as well. Maybe SO should not be able to be built in for free.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: rabbistern on March 27, 2021, 06:07:04 PM
building in SO is fine... its not an "all around boost" mod, even the op cost aside the bonkers drawbacks of only 1/3rd of original PPT still means if you want to pilot an SO flagship, you better have a 2nd one to switch in.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Voyager I on March 27, 2021, 06:31:51 PM
(The Tempest is basically just too good. I suspect it'll meet a nerf bat in a dark alley some day, and what comes out just won't be the same as what went in.)

I would argue that Tempests were in a reasonable place in previous patches.  They're indeed head-and-shoulders above other conventional frigates, but they're expensive and rare enough that the player can't field them in meaningful number until late in the game, when they're fighting the kind of large-scale battles where Lashers and Wolves can't keep themselves alive anymore.  At that point the premium edge on the Tempest is just enough for them remain relevant, rather than dominant.

That said, if the new boosts for frigates are enough for mundane hulls to stay competitive, it wouldn't be surprising if the Tempest got pushed over the top.  I haven't had the time to test it out myself yet, but I'll be sure to burn a respec on finding out!
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 27, 2021, 06:48:37 PM
building in SO is fine... its not an "all around boost" mod, even the op cost aside the bonkers drawbacks of only 1/3rd of original PPT still means if you want to pilot an SO flagship, you better have a 2nd one to switch in.

You finish fights way faster when you roll over everything. There are also tons of skills to boost PPT now alongside hardened subsytems. Frigates can get even more on top of that. My SO aurora has been lasting through 200-250k bounties without issue. In the past, if you took SO, that basically meant you would have no other hullmods beyond maybe hardened subsystems. Now you can fit SO + 4-5 hullmods with top tier weapons and full vents. I actually took some vents off my aurora
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/2pGTduN.png?1)
[close]
because my flux wasn't going up enough to take advantage of the energy weapon skill that boosts damage on high flux :P. I also haven't even put on a third free hullmod yet... I think it's too much.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: rabbistern on March 27, 2021, 07:10:29 PM
You finish fights way faster when you roll over everything. There are also tons of skills to boost PPT now alongside hardened subsytems. Frigates can get even more on top of that. My SO aurora has been lasting through 200-250k bounties without issue.
will have to play around with a max ppt build then i guess since im a sucker for 40 minute long station and multicapital fights. the aurora has more than 2 times the ppt of a tempest, keep that in mind. and sure, a 3 minute bounty is one thing, not arguing with that. but when youre picking fights with the hege-subhumans star fortresses and their huge fleets smashing onslaught after onslaught or fight colony defense against LC, pirate, and hegemony capital fleets in a row, youll simply get outlasted by the spam.
i had to have multiple sets of ships to switch out between battles so the cr was manageable, now seeing as having more ships limits your fleetwide skills i guess ill try forging hs into all my cruisers
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 27, 2021, 07:30:20 PM
You finish fights way faster when you roll over everything. There are also tons of skills to boost PPT now alongside hardened subsytems. Frigates can get even more on top of that. My SO aurora has been lasting through 200-250k bounties without issue.
will have to play around with a max ppt build then i guess since im a sucker for 40 minute long station and multicapital fights. the aurora has more than 2 times the ppt of a tempest, keep that in mind. and sure, a 3 minute bounty is one thing, not arguing with that. but when youre picking fights with the hege-subhumans star fortresses and their huge fleets smashing onslaught after onslaught or fight colony defense against LC, pirate, and hegemony capital fleets in a row, youll simply get outlasted by the spam.
i had to have multiple sets of ships to switch out between battles so the cr was manageable, now seeing as having more ships limits your fleetwide skills i guess ill try forging hs into all my cruisers
Don't get me wrong, it will absolutely fall off in very late game, but for reference, I can take that aurora (had a few more vents and a few less caps when I tested) and walk up to the front of an (admittedly unskilled) onslaught and kill it from 100 to 0 without backing off. It's literally more dissipation than a paragon with full vents at 280 speed (while plasma jets are active) with heavy blaster level armor penetration. I think it's also related to the energy weapon buffs in conjunction with how strong built in hull mods are. To be fair, preventing SO from being built in would only hurt the build by like 15 OP, but I feel like it's still a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Demetrious on March 28, 2021, 12:32:24 AM
(The Tempest is basically just too good. I suspect it'll meet a nerf bat in a dark alley some day, and what comes out just won't be the same as what went in.)

I've always felt they're primarily balanced by cost; both credits and deployment. It's a lot to pay for something that fragile. Expensive to field, they cut into your fielded force allotment pretty strongly and if you bump into a carrier heavy force they pop pretty quickly.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on March 28, 2021, 11:20:51 AM
(The Tempest is basically just too good. I suspect it'll meet a nerf bat in a dark alley some day, and what comes out just won't be the same as what went in.)

Might I suggest that the Onslaught might also needs some help? It gets used as a punching bag in these types of "X is OP, watch it beat up an Onslaught" tests.

No one is doing these tests against other capital ships for reasons. Onslaught is basically a meme ship at this point around here.

There are a lot of Low tech ships with the turning ability of a garbage truck for reasons that don't have a thing to do with balance.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Grievous69 on March 28, 2021, 11:22:42 AM
Uhhh did you miss all the Onslaught buffs? It really got some big improvements, along with Enforcers, so I don't know what you guys are about low tech being bad.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: TaLaR on March 28, 2021, 11:50:59 AM
It's not Onslaught is bad (though it isn't best either), but it has easily exploitable vulnerability that neither AI behavior nor standard Onslaught builds address.

I prefer ability to solo a sim Paragon without character skills as the ultimate standard test of ship's worthiness, only a few non-capitals can pass it.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on March 28, 2021, 12:05:10 PM
Speaking of that, is 6-8 AMB shots to kill Paragon in an Afflictor a good or a bad score? I basically never used phase ships before, but I wanted to see how good do they get with all these buffs.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: TaLaR on March 28, 2021, 12:14:41 PM
Speaking of that, is 6-8 AMB shots to kill Paragon in an Afflictor a good or a bad score? I basically never used phase ships before, but I wanted to see how good do they get with all these buffs.

Seems more like 8-9, and that's with stacked character skills.
But Afflictor could do it skill-less in 0.91, and I don't see why it wouldn't be able in 0.95.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Goumindong on March 28, 2021, 01:02:35 PM
You finish fights way faster when you roll over everything. There are also tons of skills to boost PPT now alongside hardened subsytems. Frigates can get even more on top of that. My SO aurora has been lasting through 200-250k bounties without issue.
will have to play around with a max ppt build then i guess since im a sucker for 40 minute long station and multicapital fights. the aurora has more than 2 times the ppt of a tempest, keep that in mind. and sure, a 3 minute bounty is one thing, not arguing with that. but when youre picking fights with the hege-subhumans star fortresses and their huge fleets smashing onslaught after onslaught or fight colony defense against LC, pirate, and hegemony capital fleets in a row, youll simply get outlasted by the spam.
i had to have multiple sets of ships to switch out between battles so the cr was manageable, now seeing as having more ships limits your fleetwide skills i guess ill try forging hs into all my cruisers
Don't get me wrong, it will absolutely fall off in very late game, but for reference, I can take that aurora (had a few more vents and a few less caps when I tested) and walk up to the front of an (admittedly unskilled) onslaught and kill it from 100 to 0 without backing off. It's literally more dissipation than a paragon with full vents at 280 speed (while plasma jets are active) with heavy blaster level armor penetration. I think it's also related to the energy weapon buffs in conjunction with how strong built in hull mods are. To be fair, preventing SO from being built in would only hurt the build by like 15 OP, but I feel like it's still a step in the right direction.

late game is going to fall off pretty hard i think. Doing a 350k bounty with 7 legions and 10 mora its not going to be able to tank long enough before you get to armor.

Ironically i think if any one thing is OP right now its heavy armor. Heavy Armor (especially on certain ships) makes them absurdly tanky. And i put heavy armor on almost everything that is getting a story point. I have Heavy armor on my Aurora. I should put it on my Tempest. Its just huge.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Daynen on March 28, 2021, 01:11:54 PM
It might not be so bad that the balance of power has shifted up so much; now it means the game can shoulder more interesting challenges and we can keep up.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: xenoargh on March 28, 2021, 01:43:36 PM
Quote
(The Tempest is basically just too good. I suspect it'll meet a nerf bat in a dark alley some day, and what comes out just won't be the same as what went in.)
Aww, leave it be; you know this kind of thing's different in the campaign vs. sim, doesn't apply to AIs, and represents maybe 5% of the playerbase; it's much more important to worry about the 30%-50% who probably quit somewhere in the first hour after the Tutorial (if you were on Steam, you'd have those stats, btw, via Achievement tracking).
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 28, 2021, 04:07:11 PM

late game is going to fall off pretty hard i think. Doing a 350k bounty with 7 legions and 10 mora its not going to be able to tank long enough before you get to armor.

Ironically i think if any one thing is OP right now its heavy armor. Heavy Armor (especially on certain ships) makes them absurdly tanky. And i put heavy armor on almost everything that is getting a story point. I have Heavy armor on my Aurora. I should put it on my Tempest. Its just huge.
I've been testing it more, it can sit in front of a paragon and still win the flux battle. I do have the energy weapon damage boosting skill with 10% flux reduction which seems really good to me, and a bunch of combat skills, but the ship is still just so strong. The reason it falls off is just that it takes too long to kill super tanky stuff stuff with 2 heavy blasters, not that anything can stop it in a 1v1. I can even just fly up to tier 1/2 stations, and the jets can get me out, plus it 'vents' in like 1-2 seconds so I barely have any combat downtime. I've been killing fleets with a bunch of dominators and moras without too much trouble. Legions might have too much HP, although I think with a better supporting fleet (I'm running 4 combat cruiser (aurora included), 3 herons and 2 falcons plus some frigates rn), it still might be a good flagship. I might try a 3 blaster version later. I could still fit heavy armor if I cared to, but I never have to use the armor on it, so it seems like a waste.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Warnoise on March 28, 2021, 04:19:28 PM
Killing onslaughts and dominators feels like a hunting squirrels and rats. Those ships are absolute memes...
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Demetrious on March 28, 2021, 11:27:38 PM
No one is doing these tests against other capital ships for reasons. Onslaught is basically a meme ship at this point around here.

That's because no other capital ship is explicitly built, for meta and in-game lore reasons, to bring devastating firepower to bear facing forward while being vulnerable to the rear. So people can look all cool and awesome, "look at me, I outflanked the ship that is expressly designed and described as something not to be used solo, but in a fleet setting!"

The Onslaught is the F-35 of Starsector; the one ship everyone just loves to complain about. I remember a year ago trawling through the forums and marveling at all the people complaining about it. "Guys my Onslaught build is 10 flak cannons 30 Vulcans and 3 offensive guns, OMG this ship is terrible!" This thing is Sajuuk. You bring it to bear. It's not a complicated concept.

And speaking of bringing to bear, the Onslaught has pretty good firing arcs on the sides, or at least it did in 0.91. It doesn't take every gun in the broadside to make a frigate bug out; esp. when it's so fluxed from shield-tanking shots that it hasn't much left to shoot with. The only anti-Frigate tactic you needed in 0.91 is "fire as you bear." The gun arcs were nerfed a little but so was the maneuvering penalty of Heavy Armor, which more than makes up for it. To say nothing of all the other buffs it got. Ballistic Integration and more flux-efficient pulse cannons!?

If this keeps up I'm going to make an Onslaught bingo chart.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Goumindong on March 29, 2021, 12:21:26 AM

late game is going to fall off pretty hard i think. Doing a 350k bounty with 7 legions and 10 mora its not going to be able to tank long enough before you get to armor.

Ironically i think if any one thing is OP right now its heavy armor. Heavy Armor (especially on certain ships) makes them absurdly tanky. And i put heavy armor on almost everything that is getting a story point. I have Heavy armor on my Aurora. I should put it on my Tempest. Its just huge.
I've been testing it more, it can sit in front of a paragon and still win the flux battle. I do have the energy weapon damage boosting skill with 10% flux reduction which seems really good to me, and a bunch of combat skills, but the ship is still just so strong. The reason it falls off is just that it takes too long to kill super tanky stuff stuff with 2 heavy blasters, not that anything can stop it in a 1v1. I can even just fly up to tier 1/2 stations, and the jets can get me out, plus it 'vents' in like 1-2 seconds so I barely have any combat downtime. I've been killing fleets with a bunch of dominators and moras without too much trouble. Legions might have too much HP, although I think with a better supporting fleet (I'm running 4 combat cruiser (aurora included), 3 herons and 2 falcons plus some frigates rn), it still might be a good flagship. I might try a 3 blaster version later. I could still fit heavy armor if I cared to, but I never have to use the armor on it, so it seems like a waste.

I think this is kind of intended. Let’s say you have 8 officers in Aurora. That is 240 DP. A proper lategame fleet. You should be able to defeat sim paragons with one of your 8 super ships.

But you’re not going to solo (and I would wager you would have a hard time in general even with a backing fleet unless it was also quite strong) a 350k bounty. At least not the ones I have fought. Your huge shields won’t matter against 80 broadswords. And it will take a long time to kill targets, which is an issue when there are 7 battleships and 10 cruisers and running out of PPT is a legitimate issue.

I am not saying it’s bad I am just saying I don’t think it’s OP. Or at least as OP as you’re implying.

Like, I can get an onslaught to (I think) ~825 minimum armor. I think I am far more afraid of the 825 min armor onslaught than I am of the SO Aurora.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 29, 2021, 09:02:18 AM
I think this is kind of intended. Let’s say you have 8 officers in Aurora. That is 240 DP. A proper lategame fleet. You should be able to defeat sim paragons with one of your 8 super ships.

But you’re not going to solo (and I would wager you would have a hard time in general even with a backing fleet unless it was also quite strong) a 350k bounty. At least not the ones I have fought. Your huge shields won’t matter against 80 broadswords. And it will take a long time to kill targets, which is an issue when there are 7 battleships and 10 cruisers and running out of PPT is a legitimate issue.

I am not saying it’s bad I am just saying I don’t think it’s OP. Or at least as OP as you’re implying.

Like, I can get an onslaught to (I think) ~825 minimum armor. I think I am far more afraid of the 825 min armor onslaught than I am of the SO Aurora.
Soloing a 350K fleet isn't the requirement for being OP. It feels very much like the SO hammerhead from last patch to me, it just buzz saws through stuff. It's actually really fine against fighters because of the IR pulse lasers with IPDAI plus it being able to easily kite them and you can easily armor tank for a bit while killing them. You can't push through or ignore a swarm of fighters, but you kill them quite quickly, and you won't ever die to them or anything like that.

Also, if you bother to even partially flank the paragon by avoiding the front hard points (which is trivial), you kill it without taking damage (it's much easier than with an onslaught IMO). I was emphasizing that you can fly up to the front of the paragon and still be fine with just a little shield management. I fly up to stations with it. The combination of being fast enough to dodge a lot of stuff (the skill that buffs system recharge rate feels like it gives it a 50%+ uptime on plasma jets), and tanky enough to be fine anyway is just really strong.

It's not 'solves the entire game' OP, it's 'trivializes a lot of interesting interactions in the game' OP. Idk, maybe it's kinda balanced by cost and PPT, and I just don't like the idea of taking a lot of the challenge out of piloting and replacing it with a timer.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on March 29, 2021, 01:52:56 PM
That's because no other capital ship is explicitly built, for meta and in-game lore reasons, to bring devastating firepower to bear facing forward while being vulnerable to the rear.
I'd still suggest that it's a bit excessive a issue.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Eji1700 on March 29, 2021, 02:52:41 PM
(The Tempest is basically just too good. I suspect it'll meet a nerf bat in a dark alley some day, and what comes out just won't be the same as what went in.)
So..here's my thought-

The tempest, as is, is a great player ship (ok maybe still too much but close).  The "endgame" pinnacle of your fleet.  One of your elite ships, and it's neat that it's NOT a cruiser/capital, and isn't as obviously special as the hyperion.

However...obviously, the tempest as is CAN'T exist as something you can have 3+ of in your fleet.  I mean single player game so obviously it could, but it does warp the game to where even people who aren't trying to minmax are going to wind up with fleets full of tempests.

Just food for thought on the upcoming alley mugging.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Anvel on March 29, 2021, 03:06:17 PM
Anyone is a hero vs simulation onslaught, try that trick vs redacted that has at least one capital, your frigates without heavy tanks will melt like paper, I mean old tech ships is not this game final challenge.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Goumindong on March 29, 2021, 03:29:59 PM
It's not 'solves the entire game' OP, it's 'trivializes a lot of interesting interactions in the game' OP. Idk, maybe it's kinda balanced by cost and PPT, and I just don't like the idea of taking a lot of the challenge out of piloting and replacing it with a timer.

Take the SO off
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on April 02, 2021, 02:39:55 AM
It's not 'solves the entire game' OP, it's 'trivializes a lot of interesting interactions in the game' OP. Idk, maybe it's kinda balanced by cost and PPT, and I just don't like the idea of taking a lot of the challenge out of piloting and replacing it with a timer.
That's Safety Overrides in a nutshell. It takes a lot of the challenge out of piloting, like when to vent, how to approach long ranged ships, flux management, etc., and replaces it with a much tighter peak performance timer. I've never liked it, but unfortunately removing it from the game would require redesigning a significant number of weapons and all of the Luddic Path's loadouts.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on April 02, 2021, 03:38:17 AM
It's not 'solves the entire game' OP, it's 'trivializes a lot of interesting interactions in the game' OP. Idk, maybe it's kinda balanced by cost and PPT, and I just don't like the idea of taking a lot of the challenge out of piloting and replacing it with a timer.
That's Safety Overrides in a nutshell. It takes a lot of the challenge out of piloting, like when to vent, how to approach long ranged ships, flux management, etc., and replaces it with a much tighter peak performance timer. I've never liked it, but unfortunately removing it from the game would require redesigning a significant number of weapons and all of the Luddic Path's loadouts.

Also to mention that Safey Overrides used to be heavily reined in by reducing Peak Perfoamance Time by a factor of three but now there are commander skills that add PPT in an additive way, circumnventing the whole thing.

PS: Do try overridden Fury, it's basically an Aurora but with around 60% more weapon concentration at half the Deployment Points; not to mention the fact it goes faster than most non-SO frigade and still manages to have more PPT due to the above mentioned reasons. Ridicolous.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 02, 2021, 08:15:46 AM
The aurora has significantly more converging mounts so I'm not sure how fury could have better weapon convergence. Aurora also has double the dissipation and a better maneuverability system, so it can easily chase down any non-so frigate already.

I had stopped using that aurora a bit when I was fighting lots of capital ships, but then I got some spoilery weapons and now I'm using it again.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Voyager I on April 11, 2021, 12:15:01 PM
The aurora has significantly more converging mounts so I'm not sure how fury could have better weapon convergence. Aurora also has double the dissipation and a better maneuverability system, so it can easily chase down any non-so frigate already.

I had stopped using that aurora a bit when I was fighting lots of capital ships, but then I got some spoilery weapons and now I'm using it again.

Having used both as a Flagship with analogous mounts, it's tough to really recommend the SO Aurora over an analogous Fury.  Doing the obvious loadouts of Heavy Blasters, Sabot Pod, and AM Blasters to taste, the Aurora packs appreciably more punch...but not enough to justify being double the deployment points.  Even accounting for the fact that officers are a limited resource and you really want to make the most out of every ship you put them in, there are absolutely more impactful ways to spend 15 DP on upgrading a ship than going from Fury > Aurora.  On top of all that, the Fury has a significantly more efficient shield (going from 0.7 to 0.8 may not seem like much, but it's substantial) and a capacitor pool that's nearly as deep, meaning that combined with slightly better mobility I've found it to be more durable in practice.  Then you've got to think about the campaign-level differences.  The Fury is much cheaper to acquire, has half the upkeep, and burns fast enough to naturally cruise with Destroyer fleets and be a huge bully in the early game.

Again, the argument here is not that the Fury is individually superior to the Aurora (it isn't) or that an SO Aurora won't pull its weight in a fight (it will) - it's that the SO Fury is an absolute monster for what it costs and upgrading it to an Aurora doesn't justify the investment.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Chthonic One on April 11, 2021, 12:44:26 PM
(The Tempest is basically just too good. I suspect it'll meet a nerf bat in a dark alley some day, and what comes out just won't be the same as what went in.)
...They're indeed head-and-shoulders above other conventional frigates, but they're expensive and rare enough that the player can't field them in meaningful number until late in the game...
Tell that to my factory. The historian told me where to find a blueprint almost immediately.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 11, 2021, 12:45:29 PM
Aurora has waaaay better mobility IMO, its system is so much better because you can use it for engagement and disengagement just as easily. I also don't think blaster aurora is best anymore. IR pulse lasers and ion pulsers are actually incredibly good now on SO builds for shield DPS and big ion damage. I don't have any sabots on SO auroras and one or two heavy blasters at most. Once you get the new weapons, it just becomes so much stronger too. With new weapons, aurora can solo capital ships which is what I need in a late game fleet. If fury can do that I would be very surprised.

As an AI ship, sure fury might be better value, but for a flagship no way. Player aurora is worth way more than player fury + AI fury.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: q-rau on April 11, 2021, 12:52:58 PM
No one ever told me the Tempest is an endgame ship. I've managed to collect five of the things in my first three hours. That much is unusual, but I usually have at least two or three long before I have a colony.

That said, I don't use SO except on Lashers and so far I've been going full red/blue and not taking Wolfpack or Crew Training so mine aren't quite as egregious.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Igncom1 on April 11, 2021, 01:03:28 PM
It's an all game ship. When you're high on them like me, there is no better!  ;D
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: q-rau on April 11, 2021, 01:38:14 PM
It's an all game ship. When you're high on them like me, there is no better!  ;D

Yet your signature says otherwise!
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Igncom1 on April 11, 2021, 01:39:31 PM
 ;)

True but I do have at least 1 in my current game! Just not my usual 8.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Maethendias on April 11, 2021, 02:12:34 PM
building in SO is fine... its not an "all around boost" mod, even the op cost aside the bonkers drawbacks of only 1/3rd of original PPT still means if you want to pilot an SO flagship, you better have a 2nd one to switch in.

You finish fights way faster when you roll over everything. There are also tons of skills to boost PPT now alongside hardened subsytems. Frigates can get even more on top of that. My SO aurora has been lasting through 200-250k bounties without issue. In the past, if you took SO, that basically meant you would have no other hullmods beyond maybe hardened subsystems. Now you can fit SO + 4-5 hullmods with top tier weapons and full vents. I actually took some vents off my aurora
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/2pGTduN.png?1)
[close]
because my flux wasn't going up enough to take advantage of the energy weapon skill that boosts damage on high flux :P. I also haven't even put on a third free hullmod yet... I think it's too much.

instead of the ion suppressor use another heavy blaster, or, well, anything else

the ion suppressor really underperforms because of its "magazine" based ammo
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 11, 2021, 02:16:55 PM
Heavy blaster would put me way over flux budget. Ion pulser is great upfront burst to get shields down and knock enemy weapons offline. Burst damage is very valuable, and Ion damage is also very valuable. My build now uses a bunch of tesseract weapons so it's kinda irrelevant now though.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Maethendias on April 11, 2021, 02:18:31 PM
Heavy blaster would put me way over flux budget. Ion pulser is great upfront burst to get shields down and knock enemy weapons offline. Burst damage is very valuable, and Ion damage is also very valuable. My build now uses a bunch of tesseract weapons so it's kinda irrelevant now though.

could use phase lances too, or a big pulse laser and swap 2 of the smaller ones for ion cannons
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Amoebka on April 11, 2021, 02:22:12 PM
My build now uses a bunch of tesseract weapons so it's kinda irrelevant now though.
Could you tell which ones? I've recently got a bunch and was trying to refit my Aurora, but I pretty much came to the conclusion that ion pulsers are straight up better lol.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 11, 2021, 02:40:09 PM
Spoiler
I think 3 mini pulsers in the small turrets, one cryo flamer, and one cryo blaster in the two medium turrets, one ion pulser in the hardpoint (can't fit any of the new weapons because it is hybrid or I would probably consider a second cryoflamer). And then 3 or 4 anti matter blasters in the hardpoints. The cryo blaster is insane hull dps and once the am blasters crack the armor, ships die incredibly quickly.
[close]
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 11, 2021, 03:34:40 PM
Heavy blaster would put me way over flux budget. Ion pulser is great upfront burst to get shields down and knock enemy weapons offline. Burst damage is very valuable, and Ion damage is also very valuable. My build now uses a bunch of tesseract weapons so it's kinda irrelevant now though.

could use phase lances too, or a big pulse laser and swap 2 of the smaller ones for ion cannons
IR pulse lasers are better against shields than any medium weapon (ignoring range because SO). New tesseract weapons are even better. Heavy blaster is miles better than phase lance for armor/hull damage if I wanted more of that, but I don't. I've spent lots of time optimizing my builds, and I'm pretty happy with my loadouts. A big burst of reasonably efficient shield damage with some ion utility is exactly what I want, which is why it's on my ship. Nothing is alive long enough for sustained DPS to matter:
Spoiler
https://youtu.be/1RQcwVLvBe0
[close]
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on April 11, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
Sim Conquest is a rough representation of a remnant cruiser without officer or a remnant destroyer with it.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 11, 2021, 08:55:08 PM
I can assure you it does the same thing to alpha core remnant cruisers. I've farmed remnants pretty extensively, and while the destroyers pack a punch, they go down pretty easily. Radiants are the only thing I'm seriously scared of while flying it, but if my fleet gets them high on flux, I can usually dash in and finish the job, or at least do a bunch of damage and get out, and I can easily kite them.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Flet on April 12, 2021, 02:14:10 AM
I kind of like the idea.
In reality big ships are threatened by little ships (the entire destroyer class was invented to protect battleships from annoying little torpedo boats which could very cost effectively obliterate them). The purpose of big ships is for things that can not be on little ships.

In practice in this game i think its good how range scales with the range hull mods. Maybe this should be a built in feature, where cruisers and capital ships just get an innate range bonus over frigates and destroyers.

Anyway encouraging more mixed fleets is good, but going from pure cap spam to pure frigate spam would not be good. I think the ideal of having about as much dp in frigates and destroyers as you do in capitals and cruisers however might be a good target to balance around.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on April 12, 2021, 02:30:13 AM
I can assure you it does the same thing to alpha core remnant cruisers. I've farmed remnants pretty extensively, and while the destroyers pack a punch, they go down pretty easily. Radiants are the only thing I'm seriously scared of while flying it, but if my fleet gets them high on flux, I can usually dash in and finish the job, or at least do a bunch of damage and get out, and I can easily kite them.

This is my point. Aurora is 30 dp. Since new version tend to force you to fight underdeployed, you are supposed to be capable to punch above your weight. 40 dp for the target is a good measure. But the target itself doesn't represent the remnant 40 dp ship. And that would be Radiant. While Fulgent is 11 dp only.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on April 12, 2021, 02:45:24 AM
I can assure you it does the same thing to alpha core remnant cruisers. I've farmed remnants pretty extensively, and while the destroyers pack a punch, they go down pretty easily. Radiants are the only thing I'm seriously scared of while flying it, but if my fleet gets them high on flux, I can usually dash in and finish the job, or at least do a bunch of damage and get out, and I can easily kite them.

This is my point. Aurora is 30 dp. Since new version tend to force you to fight underdeployed, you are supposed to be capable to punch above your weight. 40 dp for the target is a good measure. But the target itself doesn't represent the remnant 40 dp ship. And that would be Radiant. While Fulgent is 11 dp only.

Fulgent also has a tie with the Scintilla for the worst Remnant ship you can get for yourself. It's got the same mobility and ship system as the Sunder but has terrible flux dissipation, too many weapon slots to properly fill and too little OP to do anything with them. The Sunder beats it on every metric apart from shield stats and hull integrity  :'(

About the Aurora, I love it as an AI-driven ship. I also Overriride it, Integrate SO, Hardened Shields, Hardened Susbsystems and give it
-Front shields+Accellerated shields
-4x IR Pulse lasers
-1x Ion beam in the front medium hardpoint
-2x heavy blasters
-6 PD lasers, the back medium slot is empty
I end up the setup by getting enough flux dissipation thru vents to fire all weapons and keep the shield up a the same time, then dump it all into capacitors

A 2x Sabot MRM, 2x Blaster, 4x Ion Cannon version also works amazingly well if you integrate SO, hardened Shields, Expanded missile racks and not give it accellerated shields (cause it gets short on OP), It probably works even better than the first interation but I sadly did not go up the technlogy tree twice in the campaign when I ran my Aurora Fleet.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on April 12, 2021, 03:03:58 AM
The strongest point of Fulgent is a shield with basic efficiency of 0.6. Under player it can be boosted to less than 0.26 against energy weapons. That's over 50K effective max flux capacity. Sim Conquest has less than 20K.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Amoebka on April 12, 2021, 03:32:46 AM
Fulgent is a missile boat. 90 sabots/harpoons for 11 dp is a decent deal, and it doesn't become useless when it runs out because of the HEF medium.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on April 12, 2021, 05:16:33 AM
Fulgent is a missile boat. 90 sabots/harpoons for 11 dp is a decent deal, and it doesn't become useless when it runs out because of the HEF medium.

That's one of my main gripes with the Fulgent really, the ship ability is has makes no sense. Imagine how much better the ship as a whole would be with Missile Autoforge or Fast Missile Racks as a skill, maybe even expanded missile racks as a built in Hullmod, effectively making it a high tech counterpart of the Gryphon.
I wouldn't mind it being boosted up to 13-15 Deployments Points as a result if that meant making it useful in a players hands.

The strongest point of Fulgent is a shield with basic efficiency of 0.6. Under player it can be boosted to less than 0.26 against energy weapons. That's over 50K effective max flux capacity. Sim Conquest has less than 20K.

Isn't having a 0.6 efficiency shield a strong point across all remnants or does the Fulgent actually have a better shield than the rest? Wait let me check the stats of the two Brilliants I got in my fleet real quick...

The Brilliant for one has the same 0.6 damage ratio which I've lowered to 0.37 with both Hardened Shields and Shied Modulation from the Beta Core at the helm of it. I can guess the Fulgent has just more flux capacity per deployment point compared to that weaponized gaming mouse of a Cruiser, but the flux dissipation on the Destroyer is horrible, meaning it's going to be a much worse long term tank than the brilliant if both cores on their respective droneships have Shield Modulation since the skill uses 15% of flux dissipation as a base for hard flux dissipation.

Side note: we're getting way off the OP's topic by the way. I may just create a thread under suggestions to talk about the remnant ships as a whole...
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on April 12, 2021, 06:55:14 AM
intrinsic_parity was testing sim Conquest with its 1.4 eff shield. Every remnant ship has 0.6 base shields. You can boost it further with skills and mods. Resulting in much higher efficiency especially against energy weapons (coz Solar Shielding now works on shields too). Since you have mentioned Fulgent usage by the player I've provided data for a maxed out variant of it. Also you are correct at assuming that Fulgent has better flux stats per DP.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 01, 2021, 05:24:37 AM
Uhhh did you miss all the Onslaught buffs? It really got some big improvements, along with Enforcers, so I don't know what you guys are about low tech being bad.

There are detailed threads explaining in detail their problems. The new skills also support high tech ships better. Midline and High tech have the best Frigates that outclassed even low tech destroyers and the new skills buff them even more.

Low tech getting buffs doesn't make them still not the worst.

I guess we're pretending that there isn't a video in this thread of a High tech frigate killing the king of Low Tech. Are we pretending the enforcer would do better in that fight? Maybe try it against a Dominator? Either High and to a lesser extent midline are OP or the low tech is grossly UP.

All the insane 3 special mod builds are on High Tech ships, why is that?

But you were saying these punching bags got buffed so everything is fine.

edit:
Just so you can check what I'm talking about.
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=21291.0
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: v4l0rus on May 01, 2021, 09:07:39 AM
But isn't the point of more advanced technology to be better than old technology? High tech being weaker, or even on par with low tech wouldn't make sense at all imo
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Igncom1 on May 01, 2021, 09:21:04 AM
It's a style of shipdesign.

Low tech is tried and tested technology, simple to build and use but without the convenient automation and AI systems other ship types use.

High tech uses bleeding edge technology that sometimes comes at the cost of the crew who have to use them (like when dealing with phase or time manipulating designs) and present ships that simply can't operate for long periods of time before needing to withdraw. But are obviously absolute monsters who don't need ammo.

Midline presents a style of ship design to mix the less atrocious advances of hightech with the reliable technology of low tech, making rather specialised ships that do their roles really really well, but lack the adaptability of other design types. (Other design types don't have missile boats as they usually all have a decent selection of missiles, but Midline missile boats pack by far the largest and most.)

As food for thought the original Onslaught designs were said to have lacked shields and the hyperspace engines in use today. And so have likely been updated again and again over the years to meet the current standards of the fleet. With the 14th battlegroup still using these 'modern' Onslaughts when the gate system crashed.

But personally, I'd prefer if rather then low/mid/high tech they just refer ships to the in universe designers who created them. With Tri designs like the Paragon being one obvious example. (Frankly the Paragon doesn't really fit in their fleet doctrine anyway and should be in use by the Hegemony who use primarily gunboats, but whatever.)
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 01, 2021, 09:28:19 AM
I would not mind tech levels being left behind and replaced with something else.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 01, 2021, 10:18:15 AM
But isn't the point of more advanced technology to be better than old technology? High tech being weaker, or even on par with low tech wouldn't make sense at all imo

Then Low tech is there to suck. Does that feel good from a strictly gameplays stance? 

I get what you are saying, but at the same time lower tech would be vastly cheaper or something since old stuff is easier to make. They have no advantage at all. We don't get them cheaper, they aren't better at anything and they can't even bring more firepower.

Low Tech isn't faster/cheaper or easier to build, as it should be, despite being "tried and tested technology, simple to build and use" as Igncom1 correctly points out, it has no in game mechanics that reflect this.

You know what the down side should be aside from greater costs, all costs but crew, Peak operational time should be substantially lower then low tech ships.

Alex has given the Low Tech ships their weaknesses, higher crew, weaker/worse shields, terrible turn/top speed. Where is the High tech downside? There is none. They are just better ships with lower costs, as if Phase ships were the only thing needing Peak operational time limit changes. In longer fights High/midline should start suffering CR losses WAY sooner.

Low Tech gets downsides for Thematic/Lore reasons and High/Midline tech get none, because I guess Alex likes those ships more? Explain it to me. I don't get it.

edit:
Major game changes like SO being removed from special mods was done because of High tech ships. Does anyone think Lashers or Enforcers were breaking the game with SO special mod lol. But hey lets include them in the nerf.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Igncom1 on May 01, 2021, 10:25:35 AM
To be fair low's higher operating costs due to crew and fuel costs I think were kind of unexpected/unplanned.

I'm not even sure they are supposed to be, pound for pound, more expensive then high tech. Especially considering how some high tech ships have hull mods that are supposed to be making them more expensive.

Might be one that just fell through the cracks!
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 01, 2021, 10:41:52 AM
I'd say low tech ships are the hardest to design and fly. Partially because they are somewhat weaker in the current balance, partially because they rely on limited resources and decisive engagements to win which the AI is not very good at. They have high PPT which is handy, but are not endurance fighters like high tech as both armor and missiles run out, while the whole point of high tech is to use an unlimited resource (shields) repeatedly.

On the other hand, they tend to have very flexible weapons once the player gets some good builds. Being able to configure the HE:Kinetic ratio of both guns and missiles is handy and the large ballistic mounts have 3 nice specialist options (Gauss for range/anti-paragon, storm needler for anti-remnant/omega, hellbore for anti-armor and general flux savings). Missiles is again ratio of sabots:HE and the type of HE - Reapers for anti-large ship, harpoons for anti-small ship.

Of course mid tech also has nearly the same level of flexibility with more specialist options on top, so its not like its a unique benefit.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Vanshilar on May 01, 2021, 10:49:42 AM
Bit of a topic drift but thus far (admittedly RC12) SO Aurora handles endgame fleets just fine. Soloing a 350k bounty isn't what makes something OP (and besides, that title goes to Doom which can solo even the Tesseract fights). The SO Aurora pretty much does everything I want it to do as my flagship for me to control the battle the way I want.

Obvious spoilers.

Currently my loadout is 4 antimatter SRM's, 3 minipulsers, 2 cryoblasters, and an ion pulser. Built-in are SO (I know, can't do it in latest version), hardened shields, and expanded missile racks. Also have expanded magazines, front shield, and solar shielding.

With skills, I basically have 4x9x1000 = 36k damage of alpha damage that I can lob on demand from the missiles. That's useful for forcing overloads/punching holes in armor, rescuing ships in trouble, or simply convenience -- remnant frigate teleported too far for my regular weapons? No problem, launch a volley and move on. Especially in early game when I'm getting one of the objective points.

The minipulsers with expanded magazines means 3x30x50 = 4500 kinetic damage to shields very quickly. They also handle fighters very well. The ion pulser is mostly for additional damage (was either that or pulse laser in the synergy slot) but it also contributes to anti-fighter.

The cryoblasters each basically do 3x the damage to hull as heavy blasters, at 2/3 the flux usage. In vanilla 0.9.1a, I basically relied on cobras since nothing else could do damage to capitals quickly enough. Nowadays, I just go up next to a radiant and unload with the cryoblasters; my carriers are relegated to broadsword/spark to help kill fighters.

The rest of the fleet is 4 SO medusas and 4 broadsword/spark drovers, until I find something better.

I've tried putting these weapons on tempest (and SO medusa) but I find it really needs to be on something like the Aurora for that overwhelming punch, since it has the weapon slots and the OP for it. Because of the high flux from SO, my limiting factor is really just the buildup of hard flux and my PPT. Soft flux drops away really fast. I haven't gotten the most updated version yet but without built-in SO it just means built-in something else with less OP to spend, likely getting rid of expanded magazines or something. At any rate it's a really fun build and it leads fleet battles just fine; I've done 4-radiant fights netting 4 mil XP (mostly because my small fleet gives me ~300-400% bonus XP, plus the story XP on top of that), though usually it's been 1-2-radiant fights for 2-3 mil XP.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: v4l0rus on May 01, 2021, 10:52:47 AM
Perhaps it's like this as a means for a sense of progression (and probably other things), but that's just my guess of course

You've got a point that low tech should be cheaper to build. IMO they should require less supplies to deploy and repair, faster CR recovery but less peak performance time IF strength-wise things stay like this.

Also higher tech ships should give a max number of ships penalty to max fleet size, while low tech ships should give a bonus to it, but it can't drop below 30 of course, and I have no idea at what number it should cap, but it would look like this (just a very raw example):
- If each Cerberus adds a +0.5 max fleet capacity, while a Tempest adds a -1 max fleet capacity, then with 25 Cerberi and 5 Tempests you'd have a max fleet capacity of 38 (rounded up). Only the first 30 ships in your fleet can give positive modifiers, and past 30 only negative modifiers are active.

Of course, this could be broken as hell, but as I said, it's just a very quick example with a massive lack of refinement, but this would live up to the idea of quantity over quality, i.e just throw hunks of metal with guns and thrusters attached to it until the enemy breaks.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: shoi on May 01, 2021, 11:39:40 AM
I guess we're pretending that there isn't a video in this thread of a High tech frigate killing the king of Low Tech.

new drinking game: take a shot whenever anyone tries to use SIMslaught getting dunked on by a ship with officer skills as a measuring stick for anything

(not that the rest of what you said is wrong  ;D)
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 01, 2021, 11:40:55 AM
To be fair low's higher operating costs due to crew and fuel costs I think were kind of unexpected/unplanned.

I'm not even sure they are supposed to be, pound for pound, more expensive then high tech. Especially considering how some high tech ships have hull mods that are supposed to be making them more expensive.

Might be one that just fell through the cracks!
High fuel and crew costs were put there because of thematic reasons, but from gameplay standpoint, it just serves to kick low-tech while it's down already. When looking at DP, low-tech isn't much worse than midline or high-tech, but once you realise ongoing costs are a thing in the campaign, low-tech gets worse the bigger it gets, with Onslaught and Legion being 50% more expensive to run than all other capitals.

Perhaps it's like this as a means for a sense of progression (and probably other things), but that's just my guess of course
It doesn't really work from this perspective, because it's easy enough to have mostly high-tech fleet right from the start and keep it that way. A single Tempest is 40k or so, but it's the best investment you can make.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 01, 2021, 12:02:40 PM
I guess we're pretending that there isn't a video in this thread of a High tech frigate killing the king of Low Tech.

new drinking game: take a shot whenever anyone tries to use SIMslaught getting dunked on by a ship with officer skills as a measuring stick for anything

(not that the rest of what you said is wrong  ;D)

I don't have enough shots for that.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Igncom1 on May 01, 2021, 12:06:01 PM
Name one ship that isn't weak to being shot up the tail pipe!
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 01, 2021, 12:29:31 PM
Name one ship that isn't weak to being shot up the tail pipe!

Are you being serious? Every ship with omni directional shields or 360 shields, basically everything not low tech. They don't get shot up the tail pipe. Also most of those same ships would be impossible to get behind in the matter presented.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Igncom1 on May 01, 2021, 12:33:18 PM
Name one ship that isn't weak to being shot up the tail pipe!

Are you being serious? Every ship with omni directional shields or 360 shields, basically everything not low tech. They don't get shot up the tail pipe. Also most of those same ships would be impossible to get behind in the matter presented.

LOL  ;D
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 12, 2021, 12:32:42 AM
Just two cents on the SO tangent -

They don't make any sense (hmm, I wonder what happens when I disable the safeties on this, maybe I could squeeze out a bit more performance. Hey I have double the power output! Guess those regulations are a tad excessive).

They throw the whole combat balance totally off by suddenly making cruisers outperform capitals in raw flux while flying like frigates.

The drawback of 'it doesn't last long' doesn't apply in 90% of situation and in the other 10% you just use something else - 'drawback' bypassed. Putting overpowered things on timers has never been a good way to balance anything in games I have found.

Basically they should be removed or kept on as in-built only on certain specific ships (Luddic Path). Jmo of course  :)
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SonnaBanana on May 12, 2021, 12:38:00 AM
No, we need weapons and systems which attack CR!  :P
Perhaps EMP and overloads should do for that?
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 12, 2021, 01:13:41 AM
I don't think that would solve much. First you would need to hit armor or overload the ship and that is made much more difficult by the ship having SO in the first place. Only other way would be to have some kind of magic-wand CR reducer that penetrated shields which would be OP and boring in itself. Landing a hit and 'reducing CR' is not really too satisfying compared to hitting for damage. I suspect it would rarely be worth doing in preference to damage. You could add it as a side-benefit to weapons like EMP but I don't think CR reduction makes sense as something separate from damage. I am not sure what a weapon with this property would be supposed to be doing lore wise.

I think the problem is with SO itself. When you put SO on a ship, you are not so much customizing it as making a different ship. Just my personal preference but when I see a capital ship I want to be quite confident that it has more power output and is tankier than a cruiser, and not less so because the captain of the cruiser has 'overridden the safeties'.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 12, 2021, 02:29:25 AM
They throw the whole combat balance totally off by suddenly making cruisers outperform capitals in raw flux while flying like frigates.

I just feel like it needs to be said that doing this on a low tech Cruiser does not do this. This entire safety override problem is one engineered by making nearly all high tech overtuned/overpowered.

Put SO on a Hyperion as compared to a Lasher. Which of those is suddenly able to kill everything. Again Fury vs Dominator, same thing again. Dominator with SO lol. The entire problem with SO is it buffs everything High tech is already overpower in. High tech specifically is the problem, not SO. SO is being blamed for making overpowered ships excessively overpowered, I mean it does scale existing numbers.

I have no clue why the actual issue doesn't get addressed.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Warnoise on May 12, 2021, 03:10:15 AM
They throw the whole combat balance totally off by suddenly making cruisers outperform capitals in raw flux while flying like frigates.

I just feel like it needs to be said that doing this on a low tech Cruiser does not do this. This entire safety override problem is one engineered by making nearly all high tech overtuned/overpowered.

Put SO on a Hyperion as compared to a Lasher. Which of those is suddenly able to kill everything. Again Fury vs Dominator, same thing again. Dominator with SO lol. The entire problem with SO is it buffs everything High tech is already overpower in. High tech specifically is the problem, not SO. SO is being blamed for making overpowered ships excessively overpowered, I mean it does scale existing numbers.

I have no clue why the actual issue doesn't get addressed.

This +1000

Since the AI is good at using Speed and Maneuverability, it feels even more OP. Usually ships which lack the aforementioned features, usually have something that makes up for it, for example, Paragon has Very good shield and range buff ship system.

Meanwhile ships like Dominator and Onslaught are supposed to rely on Armor to make up for their weaknesses, but the problem here is that the AI isn't good at armor tanking.

Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 12, 2021, 04:13:22 AM
I just feel like it needs to be said that doing this on a low tech Cruiser does not do this. This entire safety override problem is one engineered by making nearly all high tech overtuned/overpowered.

Put SO on a Hyperion as compared to a Lasher. Which of those is suddenly able to kill everything. Again Fury vs Dominator, same thing again. Dominator with SO lol. The entire problem with SO is it buffs everything High tech is already overpower in. High tech specifically is the problem, not SO. SO is being blamed for making overpowered ships excessively overpowered, I mean it does scale existing numbers.

I don't really agree but I am very new so feel free to point out any errors. I'm not saying high-tech being too strong (or low-tech being too weak) is not an issue, but SO can be considered in isolation. The SO hullmod being imbalanced and nonsensical doesn't depend on what it is fitted in. Obviously you will get more bang if you put in in a Hyperion compared to a Lasher (I would hope so for something like triple the DP), but if a ship is overpowered SO will make it super OP, and if a ship is junk SO is a way to make it much less junk.

Obviously some ships are more suited to installing it than others, but I still think a mod that doubles your power output when power output is THE stat in the game shouldn't be a thing at all.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 12, 2021, 06:32:42 AM
The drawback of 'it doesn't last long' doesn't apply in 90% of situation and in the other 10% you just use something else - 'drawback' bypassed. Putting overpowered things on timers has never been a good way to balance anything in games I have found.
I think the problem is with SO itself. When you put SO on a ship, you are not so much customizing it as making a different ship. Just my personal preference but when I see a capital ship I want to be quite confident that it has more power output and is tankier than a cruiser, and not less so because the captain of the cruiser has 'overridden the safeties'.
Obviously some ships are more suited to installing it than others, but I still think a mod that doubles your power output when power output is THE stat in the game shouldn't be a thing at all.
Agreed, for me SO feels out of place and is just a source of cheesing.
It was fun to try some of the more outlandish setups, but feels too cheap so I do not use it.
Note that SO gives +100/+80/+70 effective speed in combat, IMO that's at least as important as the flux.


Put SO on a Hyperion as compared to a Lasher. Which of those is suddenly able to kill everything. Again Fury vs Dominator, same thing again. Dominator with SO lol. The entire problem with SO is it buffs everything High tech is already overpower in. High tech specifically is the problem, not SO. SO is being blamed for making overpowered ships excessively overpowered, I mean it does scale existing numbers.

I have no clue why the actual issue doesn't get addressed.
Ships that can mount HMG paired with some armor cracking are the poster boys for SO, Eagle/Hammerhead/Brawler probably being the best examples.
No way something that's married to high tech being on the strong side.

SO lasher vs Hyperion is a really poor comparison.
Hyperion is 30 DP with 120 sec base PPT,lasher 4/240.
SO lasher with machine guns+LAGs+ammo feeder is really scary for the cost.

Fury in general is very strong for 15 DP, it doesn't need SO to smash everything so IMO it's a Fury problem.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: KDR_11k on May 12, 2021, 06:53:27 AM
They throw the whole combat balance totally off by suddenly making cruisers outperform capitals in raw flux while flying like frigates.

I just feel like it needs to be said that doing this on a low tech Cruiser does not do this. This entire safety override problem is one engineered by making nearly all high tech overtuned/overpowered.
In part that's just because high-tech relies on speed and shields, both things that get buffed by SO while a low tech ship's armor won't be any tougher with SO.

Though I do agree that high-tech frigates especially are just OP by default, they have the speed to avoid being caught out and using shields for defense means they don't attrition from taking the occasional hit. With officers in them I rarely ever lose a high-tech frigate and I don't even run SO.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: TaLaR on May 12, 2021, 09:19:32 AM
Though I do agree that high-tech frigates especially are just OP by default, they have the speed to avoid being caught out and using shields for defense means they don't attrition from taking the occasional hit. With officers in them I rarely ever lose a high-tech frigate and I don't even run SO.

More like low/med tech frigates are fodder on wrong side of "outrun what you can't outgun" principle. What's the point of being a frigate when any DE/Cruiser with decent mobility system (or even Odyssey, a capital) can easily catch and crush you.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 12, 2021, 02:35:59 PM
I don't really agree but I am very new so feel free to point out any errors. I'm not saying high-tech being too strong (or low-tech being too weak) is not an issue, but SO can be considered in isolation.

You can't assess in isolation because it scales existing values. The ship mechanics and stats are required variables to gauge it's effect.  It's not flat bonuses by size, like Heavy armor mod, it's scaling existing stats on a multiplier. Now that I think about it, SO shouldn't be a multiplier, it should be a flat value based on size.

SO is balanced on all Low tech ship, most midline and nearly no high tech ships. That is the order of weakest performance to highest performance without SO, this is not a coincidence.

High tech is overpowered
Low Tech is underpowered
SO is OP for High tech
SO is balanced for High tech

High tech needs nerfs, SO isn't the problem. Although I think the mechanics of the Mod should change. If Heavy armor mod worked like it then it would be OP for Low tech ships.

SO lasher vs Hyperion is a really poor comparison.
Hyperion is 30 DP with 120 sec base PPT,lasher 4/240.
SO lasher with machine guns+LAGs+ammo feeder is really scary for the cost.

The point is that one turns into an unstoppable killing machine and the other just gets better performance. DP doesn't matter, it's the effect it's having relative to before it had it.

Anyone who thinks the Lasher is getting the same punch from SO isn't looking very hard. That disparity needs to be addressed.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Sutopia on May 12, 2021, 02:55:33 PM
I think it would be more appropriate to put a tempest against two lashers, not a cruiser pretending to be frigate. Hyperion is just terrible example due to how it’s ship system benefit from SO.


It’s also another issue by having officer limit that you can’t just field infinite officered frigates but need to put them in high value ones. If both sides are fully officered I doubt there is much disparity.

That said we either need a heavy low tech frigate or remove officer hard limit.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 12, 2021, 05:10:36 PM
It’s also another issue by having officer limit that you can’t just field infinite officered frigates but need to put them in high value ones. If both sides are fully officered I doubt there is much disparity.
I feel there's a bit of a deviation from the "sector in decay" theme right now.
The baseline for power are pristine superships with S-mods and officers, anything that's not a disposable POI runner or distraction feels dead weight without them.
If that is a problem skills would need a nerf, or officers made unlimited/sharing their bonuses to chaff in some way.


DP doesn't matter, it's the effect it's having relative to before it had it.
The "Which of those is suddenly able to kill everything" comparison you made does factor in DP.


Anyone who thinks the Lasher is getting the same punch from SO isn't looking very hard. That disparity needs to be addressed.
You are handwaving instead of trying to form an argument, and adding insults in the process.

LP Lasher with machine guns and LAGs has tons of OP to spare even without building in anything, and runs around at ~230 even without an officer/CM.
Paired with ammo feeder it's good at the initial captures, and can clean up some frigates/destroyers after. 4 DP, completely disposable.

AI can't use teleport properly, without that Hyperion is pretty bad for the cost so needs the player to pilot it.
With the player, wolfpack tactics (means you didn't get Coordinated maneouvers), reliability engineering (effective cost is 2 points), crew training(ok, you need this anyway) and hardened subsystems is ~130s PPT.
Without WT and RE ~70s.
In return it sucks at bruteforcing brilliants/radiants and absolutely hates fighters.

I'd take some SO lashers over using an SO Hyperion any day of the week.


A proper comparison is an eagle, still much cheaper than Hyperion.
3 HMGs are ~960 kinetic DPS, 3 phase lances smash armor, and the entire thing runs around at ~150-200 with CM and injector.
Give it to the AI and it'll plow over enemies. Stock Eagle is too slow and lacks venting to do that, it's all SO doing the heavy lifting.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Hellya on May 12, 2021, 05:22:00 PM
I don't really agree but I am very new so feel free to point out any errors. I'm not saying high-tech being too strong (or low-tech being too weak) is not an issue, but SO can be considered in isolation.

You can't assess in isolation because it scales existing values. The ship mechanics and stats are required variables to gauge it's effect.  It's not flat bonuses by size, like Heavy armor mod, it's scaling existing stats on a multiplier. Now that I think about it, SO shouldn't be a multiplier, it should be a flat value based on size.

SO is balanced on all Low tech ship, most midline and nearly no high tech ships. That is the order of weakest performance to highest performance without SO, this is not a coincidence.

High tech is overpowered
Low Tech is underpowered
SO is OP for High tech
SO is balanced for High tech

High tech needs nerfs, SO isn't the problem. Although I think the mechanics of the Mod should change. If Heavy armor mod worked like it then it would be OP for Low tech ships.

SO lasher vs Hyperion is a really poor comparison.
Hyperion is 30 DP with 120 sec base PPT,lasher 4/240.
SO lasher with machine guns+LAGs+ammo feeder is really scary for the cost.

The point is that one turns into an unstoppable killing machine and the other just gets better performance. DP doesn't matter, it's the effect it's having relative to before it had it.

Anyone who thinks the Lasher is getting the same punch from SO isn't looking very hard. That disparity needs to be addressed.

Why not just remove SO? seems like way less work. Pretty sure Hyperion would be not nearly as good without it, from my test it is not OP without it. Neither would Doom or the host of other ships that are OP with it.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 12, 2021, 05:27:15 PM
Hyperion with extended shields just ignores or kites fighters. Nothing poses a threat except radiant, tesseract and zigg. The only reason radiant poses a threat is because it can instantly turn with phase skimmer, otherwise it would be easy to kill.

Also, AI does just fine with tele as long as it has SO, and will happily jump in behind things and murder them. Sometimes it takes a little chip damage from the wind-up vulnerability but it's usually not an issue since it is behind the enemy 90% of the time. If you're claiming the AI doesn't know how to use tele, you haven't tried it on this patch, or have used some insufficiently aggressive AI, because it does work just fine in my experience.

Also, eagle is 22 DP, hyperion is 15 DP. Falcon is the best DP comparison, but tele is a much stronger system than maneuvering jets.

The reason SO is so strong on Hyperion though is because of how it interacts with the teleporter, not the stat boosts. If you couldn't tele on raised flux, SO hyperion would not be good IMO.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 12, 2021, 06:40:47 PM
Also, eagle is 22 DP, hyperion is 15 DP. Falcon is the best DP comparison, but tele is a much stronger system than maneuvering jets.
Fair point, cost of actually putting it on the field is much more important than maintenance.

Hyperion with extended shields just ignores or kites fighters. Nothing poses a threat except radiant, tesseract and zigg. The only reason radiant poses a threat is because it can instantly turn with phase skimmer, otherwise it would be easy to kill.
Didn't mean it's fragile or dies too often, 0.6 shields and flux stats make it very durable.
Problem is it has an abysmal base PPT and only 3 mounts, 2 those M energy so will take some time to chew through ships.
Being swarmed by fighters and getting clipped by ions (both likely in big ordo fights) also don't help with killing fast while PPT lasts.

I use mostly aggressive officers, against the hard multi radiant fleets AI hyperions were nowhere near pulling their weight for me.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/dvhQOINh.jpg)
[close]
Granted, they didn't have SO and seen enough to throw them out after 2 battles.
I don't think 130s final PPT ships in a big remnant fight work well enough(300 battlesize).
90 if you don't gimp your bigger ships by taking wolfpack tactics instead of CM.

The reason SO is so strong on Hyperion though is because of how it interacts with the teleporter, not the stat boosts. If you couldn't tele on raised flux, SO hyperion would not be good IMO.
Helmsmanship's elite bonus is often almost as good for teleport, one of the few cases where it's useful.
Slightly easier to catch some ion beams though.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Warnoise on May 12, 2021, 09:14:50 PM
High-tech ships shouldn't be able to equip Safety override.

Thinking of it logically, high-tech ships are the cream of the crop in terms of technology so they shouldn't  be modified via "crude" hullmods like safety override.

I think instead of tweaking numbers (which most of the time goes wrong), making hullmods that can only be equipped on Low-tech ships is a good step towards a balanced gameplay between different techs.

Also, Alex, please, do something about burn drive, that thing is simply way outdated in the current meta.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: slowpersun on May 12, 2021, 09:52:26 PM
High-tech ships shouldn't be able to equip Safety override.

Thinking of it logically, high-tech ships are the cream of the crop in terms of technology so they shouldn't  be modified via "crude" hullmods like safety override.

I think instead of tweaking numbers (which most of the time goes wrong), making hullmods that can only be equipped on Low-tech ships is a good step towards a balanced gameplay between different techs.

Also, Alex, please, do something about burn drive, that thing is simply way outdated in the current meta.

This suggestions is actually pretty legit, would be cool to limit certain hull mods to ship type (so no SO for high-tech ships, but they get access some cool shield and/or flux efficiency mods instead).  I guess then mid-grade ships get some mod overlap between the two, and maybe some extra unique armor mod (or I guess access to Legion XIV mod would be lazy solution).  Although maybe SO not the best example, since it's apparently going to get a complete overhaul/change at some point in the near future... but still like the idea.  Especially now that SP can add permanent hullmods, would be nice to create better variety between ship types.

Regarding OP, I don't agree with what was changed regarding frigates in the latest patch (especially how frigate use related to DP and waypoint capture), but at least Alex is trying something... even if it's the wrong thing.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Null Ganymede on May 13, 2021, 12:06:19 AM
High vs low tech isn't a technology level, but a design philosophy.

Overly-complicated shield and weapon systems, vs armor plating around a big cannon. Innovation versus fundamentals. Complexity versus elegance.

If it was truly high-tech, it would have access to better damage types than just varying amounts of Energy.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 13, 2021, 01:56:07 AM
High-tech ships shouldn't be able to equip Safety override.

Thinking of it logically, high-tech ships are the cream of the crop in terms of technology so they shouldn't  be modified via "crude" hullmods like safety override.

I think instead of tweaking numbers (which most of the time goes wrong), making hullmods that can only be equipped on Low-tech ships is a good step towards a balanced gameplay between different techs.

Also, Alex, please, do something about burn drive, that thing is simply way outdated in the current meta.

That seems very logical and would be a balanced solution.

Burn drive also needs to be updated to something the AI can effectively use.

Great post, great ideas.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Argentj on May 13, 2021, 04:30:46 AM
Please don't do anything at all about Safety Overrides.  If anything, thanks to the double nerf bat bigger hulls got this patch, it needs a buff on them.  Better would be tweaking how and why frigate spam is good, however.

The reason I say this is that most of the posters here are missing a key point about Starsector:  it is a single player game.  We do not need to parrot the foolish behavior of AAA overlords that ruin their own games.  Thus, anything that improves the FUN people have playing it with the key caveat that it doesn't impede other forms of fun, is a wholesale win.  SO is a wholesale win for players who enjoy it. 

On the topic of this post:  the frigate meta is the opposite.  It does improve the fun of frigate players, but for those who don't care for them or enjoy one of the myriad other ways to play, the AI uses it against you and reduces your fun.  You are pushed to embrace this against other forms and thus it is a bad thing. 

The guilty party here is things like Target Analysis[combat].  Why?  Every AI ship has it, thus all capitals now take +20% more damage, period.  And why do you take a capital flagship?  At least one of the primary reasons is to be more tanky and feel more powerful.  Getting ripped apart by a half dozen gnats doesn't feel powerful or tanky. 

I like the direction .95 is going:  more quests, more story, more versatility.  But it is a first draft, and needs a polish round.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 13, 2021, 05:24:21 AM
Show of hands, who thinks safety overrides are not high impact on the following ships:
- Eagle
- Falcon
- Sunder
- Hammerhead
- Brawler
None of those are high tech, all of them smashes face.

The reason I say this is that most of the posters here are missing a key point about Starsector:  it is a single player game.  We do not need to parrot the foolish behavior of AAA overlords that ruin their own games.  Thus, anything that improves the FUN people have playing it with the key caveat that it doesn't impede other forms of fun, is a wholesale win.  SO is a wholesale win for players who enjoy it. 
No, most posters didn't miss it's singleplayer.
Safe to say most people also saw your "it's a sandbox, powercreep is fun, don't touch my overpowered things" post a million times already.

Just describe why you like it, and that you prefer having it the game.
That's what we did, the other way around. Kinda moot since it's very unlikely to be removed, but posting an opinion doesn't hurt.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Argentj on May 13, 2021, 05:33:37 AM
Spoiler
Show of hands, who thinks safety overrides are not high impact on the following ships:
- Eagle
- Falcon
- Sunder
- Hammerhead
- Brawler
None of those are high tech, all of them smashes face.

Quote from: Argentj on Today at 04:30:46 AM

    The reason I say this is that most of the posters here are missing a key point about Starsector:  it is a single player game.  We do not need to parrot the foolish behavior of AAA overlords that ruin their own games.  Thus, anything that improves the FUN people have playing it with the key caveat that it doesn't impede other forms of fun, is a wholesale win.  SO is a wholesale win for players who enjoy it.

No, most posters didn't miss it's singleplayer.
Safe to say most people also saw your "it's a sandbox, powercreep is fun, don't touch my overpowered things" post a million times already.

Just describe why you like it, and that you prefer having it the game.
That's what we did, the other way around. Kinda moot since it's very unlikely to be removed, but posting an opinion doesn't hurt.
[close]

Those in glass houses . . . you just did exactly what you accuse me of doing and imply is bad behavior.  Shame.  And if they didn't miss it(single player and fun):  why would this(so) ever be a point of contention?

And you dodged the main thrust of my post:  Safety Overrides does not impact other play styles.  The only opportunity cost of not using safety overrrides is:  not using safety overrides.  As such removing it or 'nerfing' it is actually of net detriment to the game as a whole.  You took away some not insignificant % of the player base's fun but gave them nothing in return.

But lets hit up on SO in general:  is it actually 'power creep'?  In short:  no.   It does exactly what the label says:  for a 30 second or so window, you'll be strong.  After that, you'll be fodder.   And if you think you'll just slap on hardened subsystems, oh, and that skill that gives extend operating time, oh another  . . .  Before you know you, you're angling a large portion of S-mods, OP, and skill points all to making it work 'well.' 

Because if you don't, you're a paper tiger.  You get 1, short deployment.  Screw up on a strategic scale and you're dead because the second Ordo or full stack pirate group is going to wipe the system with your feeble, 0 CR self.

Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Megas on May 13, 2021, 05:46:07 AM
On the topic of this post:  the frigate meta is the opposite.  It does improve the fun of frigate players, but for those who don't care for them or enjoy one of the myriad other ways to play, the AI uses it against you and reduces your fun.  You are pushed to embrace this against other forms and thus it is a bad thing. 
I felt pushed to Wolfpack Tactics (and maybe more Leadership) to use frigates well since the game favors frigates.  The only reason I could resist the pull is phase ship cheese (and my endgame fleet was nearly all phase ships) and Alex changing ECM.

If I had to get Leadership to compete, that meant giving up Industry and/or Combat 4 and 5 just to fit Wolfpack Tactics.  My build was 5/0/5/5.  If I wanted to dump Industry later, I would consider 5/0/10/0.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 13, 2021, 06:05:57 AM
SO could be impacting other players negatively, if the game is balanced around it, so you have to use it or perish. I will have to play a non-high-tech campaign to see if it's generally the case, but for high-tech, I didn't really feel the need to use it.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 13, 2021, 06:06:52 AM
I don't really agree but I am very new so feel free to point out any errors. I'm not saying high-tech being too strong (or low-tech being too weak) is not an issue, but SO can be considered in isolation.

You can't assess in isolation because it scales existing values. The ship mechanics and stats are required variables to gauge it's effect.  It's not flat bonuses by size, like Heavy armor mod, it's scaling existing stats on a multiplier. Now that I think about it, SO shouldn't be a multiplier, it should be a flat value based on size.

Last time I checked the speed bonus is a flat value? Also ships of a certain DP tend to have similar flux venting stats which SO doubles. It's not like maximum flux vent for similar class ships varies widely, outside mods like Scy nation which is a very exceptional case. Low-tech has slightly lower venting which, in a vacuum, you can say generally get less benefit from this portion of SO. However they are slower and the speed boost is flat, so they get more benefit, again in a vacuum, from this part.

SO seems to have a particularly broken interaction with the Hyperion due to the ship's system (I wouldn't know because I don't abuse SO). However the Hyperion is ridiculous without SO too. I think this kind of analysis is a red herring. SO is broken and gives an unexplainable magical ultra performance boost which enables you to outpower ships of higher classes and outspeed ships of lower classes at the same time.

Shouldn't be in the game, jmo.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Argentj on May 13, 2021, 06:09:32 AM
SO could be impacting other players negatively, if the game is balanced around it, so you have to use it or perish. I will have to play a non-high-tech campaign to see if it's generally the case, but for high-tech, I didn't really feel the need to use it.

Strong point!

I have a couple hundred in .9 and above, and as far as I can tell:  the game is not balanced around it.  Midline is crazy strong in zone of control builds/fire arc style fleets.  I deleted juuuust as hard using them without SO.  I think low tech is . . . .in a weird place over all.  I had a lot of real hit and miss attempts.  This to me would suggest Low Tech needs a little love (or I'm not grasping the key strategy of fleets in the low tech group).
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Argentj on May 13, 2021, 06:11:12 AM
Spoiler
I don't really agree but I am very new so feel free to point out any errors. I'm not saying high-tech being too strong (or low-tech being too weak) is not an issue, but SO can be considered in isolation.

You can't assess in isolation because it scales existing values. The ship mechanics and stats are required variables to gauge it's effect.  It's not flat bonuses by size, like Heavy armor mod, it's scaling existing stats on a multiplier. Now that I think about it, SO shouldn't be a multiplier, it should be a flat value based on size.

Last time I checked the speed bonus is a flat value? Also ships of a certain DP tend to have similar flux venting stats which SO doubles. It's not like maximum flux vent for similar class ships varies widely, outside mods like Scy nation which is a very exceptional case. Low-tech has slightly lower venting which, in a vacuum, you can say generally get less benefit from this portion of SO. However they are slower and the speed boost is flat, so they get more benefit, again in a vacuum, from this part.

SO seems to have a particularly broken interaction with the Hyperion due to the ship's system (I wouldn't know because I don't abuse SO). However the Hyperion is ridiculous without SO too. I think this kind of analysis is a red herring. SO is broken and gives an unexplainable magical ultra performance boost which enables you to outpower ships of higher classes and outspeed ships of lower classes at the same time.

Shouldn't be in the game, jmo.
[close]

Pretty sure my previous post dismantled this strawman pretty hard.  Would you care to elaborate in light of that address?
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 13, 2021, 06:25:21 AM
Pretty sure my previous post dismantled this strawman pretty hard.  Would you care to elaborate in light of that address?

Not sure what you are referring to. Stuff can work without SO, therefore SO is balanced?
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Argentj on May 13, 2021, 06:30:20 AM
That's just one part:  many ships work better without it, yes.  The others are that it comes with user opportunity costs, situational difficulties, and really suffers in protracted engagements of any sort (be it a long 1 map battle or consecutive battles).  If you want to use SO and not blunder into death frequently, you've got to orient your character, ship design, fleet composition, and strategic engagement choices.  If SO hasn't killed you, you aren't playing ironman.


In other words, its not just an 'I win' button.  There's real drawbacks that make it internally feel good as well as externally.  Further, removing it deletes fun/a playstyle from the game and doesn't give any back leading to a net detriment.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 13, 2021, 06:47:34 AM
We can agree to disagree.

Having an overpowered mechanic in a game that a player must arbitrarily avoid if they don't want to destroy the balance detracts from the enjoyment of the game. It's like having a big flashing 'Double power?' button on the refit screen at all times for example. 'But you can just not use it, no drawback!!' isn't really a convincing argument. It destroys immersion even if it is intentionally not used. Similarly with storypoint disengage ('magic your way out of this battle?'). It hurts the game even if you don't use it.

The drawbacks to SO are comparatively minor and can be bypassed. PPT by just retreating when it's low and bringing something else in, no biggie, and in many instances this doesn't apply because things are dead. Range by building short range setups (which you always do) that don't care about range penalties. The whole point of SO is to get right up in the face of the enemy with your broken flux and speed and smash them, so a range penalty is lul.

My issue with SO is that it completely changes the stats and capabilities of ships in an arbitrary and senseless way. If you are happy playing with that great but I can't agree it's a good addition to the game.



Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Argentj on May 13, 2021, 09:35:56 AM
Spoiler
We can agree to disagree.

Having an overpowered mechanic in a game that a player must arbitrarily avoid if they don't want to destroy the balance detracts from the enjoyment of the game. It's like having a big flashing 'Double power?' button on the refit screen at all times for example. 'But you can just not use it, no drawback!!' isn't really a convincing argument. It destroys immersion even if it is intentionally not used. Similarly with storypoint disengage ('magic your way out of this battle?'). It hurts the game even if you don't use it.

The drawbacks to SO are comparatively minor and can be bypassed. PPT by just retreating when it's low and bringing something else in, no biggie, and in many instances this doesn't apply because things are dead. Range by building short range setups (which you always do) that don't care about range penalties. The whole point of SO is to get right up in the face of the enemy with your broken flux and speed and smash them, so a range penalty is lul.

My issue with SO is that it completely changes the stats and capabilities of ships in an arbitrary and senseless way. If you are happy playing with that great but I can't agree it's a good addition to the game.
[close]

Again:  I've laid out how it is NOT overpowered, repeatedly, taking most of your points and not getting many answers back.   

The new one is 'story point disengage'.  To that I say:  go ahead.  Then you won't have that story point for s-mods, better rewards, mentoring officers, AI inspections, etc.  It in an of itself is a good system because the opportunity cost is innate.  If you blow your story points saving yourself from SO mistakes you're behind the curve otherwise.  Good.  And if you have to blow story points to not die, maybe . . . SO isn't as hype as people claim?
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 13, 2021, 10:20:32 AM
And you dodged the main thrust of my post:  Safety Overrides does not impact other play styles.  The only opportunity cost of not using safety overrrides is:  not using safety overrides.
This is a very commonly made argument for SP games, and the counterpoints are always the same.
Even those games need to have some kind of balance, some options being clearly better than others take away interesting decisions and reduce overall variety.
Note that I didn't write that SO is overpowered, but I do not think it fits into the game well. The "it's a SP/sandbox game, anything goes no nerfs" sentiment does lead to powercreep and things being overpowered.

Enemies do use SO
Ships can punch harder and move much faster for the same DP.
Suddenly lots of hulls that would be fine otherwise are too slow, or their defenses can't hold up anymore. Can shrink the pool of ships that are generally useful.
Enemy doesn't really care about the logistics downside, and you either have to fight against them with their big bonuses or wait PPT out if you have the fleet for it (boring).

Enemies have to be prepared for SO
Since it's in the game the ships you are fighting against have to be adjusted with SO in mind.
Otherwise the higher peak power overridden ships just roll them over and the game is boring with a clear solution.
Depending on implementation that can possibly dk over some "conventional" setups.


Keep in mind your very first post on the forums was essentially "they obviously forgot about this here argument everybody have seen a million times".
You also use your own preference as an absolute measure for fun.
That'll obviously rub some people the wrong way, nothing wrong with simply stating you prefer having it the game because for you it gives variety.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 13, 2021, 02:47:50 PM
Last time I checked the speed bonus is a flat value? Also ships of a certain DP tend to have similar flux venting stats which SO doubles. It's not like maximum flux vent for similar class ships varies widely, outside mods like Scy nation which is a very exceptional case. Low-tech has slightly lower venting which, in a vacuum, you can say generally get less benefit from this portion of SO. However they are slower and the speed boost is flat, so they get more benefit, again in a vacuum, from this part.

SO seems to have a particularly broken interaction with the Hyperion due to the ship's system (I wouldn't know because I don't abuse SO). However the Hyperion is ridiculous without SO too. I think this kind of analysis is a red herring. SO is broken and gives an unexplainable magical ultra performance boost which enables you to outpower ships of higher classes and outspeed ships of lower classes at the same time.

Shouldn't be in the game, jmo.
Hyperion shouldn't be a frigate, I have no clue what Alex was thinking with that.

You are correct about speed, I should have mentioned that. I was mainly speaking of flux dissipation scaling, since Midline/High tech have far stronger flux abilities. I agree with you on the rest. SO I think has a place but how it's interacting with the ships needs to be more controlled. In it's current form it's extremely likely to create imbalance or amplify it.

The Tempest is also another outlier.

Pretty sure my previous post dismantled this strawman pretty hard.  Would you care to elaborate in light of that address?

His statement, directed in a response towards my post, isn't a strawman in any way.

Again:  I've laid out how it is NOT overpowered, repeatedly, taking most of your points and not getting many answers back.

You seem to think your opinions should hold as much weight with strangers as they do with you.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 13, 2021, 04:54:43 PM
Again:  I've laid out how it is NOT overpowered, repeatedly, taking most of your points and not getting many answers back.

And (again) I've laid out how it is overpowered, repeatedly, as have others. If you disagree that's fine, but I have addressed your points re no drawbacks to ignoring it if you don't like it (there are), and supposed drawbacks to using it (there aren't, or they are relatively very minor / easily rendered irrelevant).

This is a very commonly made argument for SP games, and the counterpoints are always the same.

Yup.

You seem to think your opinions should hold as much weight with strangers as they do with you.

 ;D
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: HUcast on May 13, 2021, 04:55:02 PM
To throw my hat into the ring, I think safety overrides is too game changing for a single hullmod. Think about it, everyone has been arguing about if or not it breaks the balance of the game over it's knee. That's not what the argument should be about. It's a single hullmod, which SHOULD just partially increase or modify a single aspect of the ship. Heavy armor is far more expensive, and all it does is increase armor by around 20-30%, boosting a single attribute in exchange for dp, thus allowing a player to fine tune their ship closer to their playstyle. Safety overrides is not a hullmod in this manner, it completely redefines a ship in it's entirety. For this reason, I think the obvious choice would be separating it's effects into several other hullmods.

1. Increased dissipation for reduced range
The dissipation increase would be halved and split with number 2 below and reduced with ship size, something like 50/35/25/15% increase in dissipation for a max range reduction of 500/650/800/900 units.

2. Increased dissipation for reduced peak active time and cr degradation

This would be the second half of the dissipation increase, spread over two hullmods for how obviously strong it is. Dissipation increase would be the same as 1. With the penalty of nearly halfed or more peak time.

3. No venting for Increased speed.
These effects are the least game changing, in my opinion, and would be better off separate.

I think dividing up safety override in this manner though my own suggestions may not be perfect, is the optimal solution. As it stands SO is unlike any other hullmod for how MUCH it does, making balance very difficult.


EDIT: said cr instead of peak active time and cr degradation.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 13, 2021, 05:12:50 PM
I could get behind something like this idea ^, assuming tuning for balance, if the bonuses weren't huge to the extent they allowed the ship to outperform higher/lower ship classes in power/speed if the base ship didn't already. Good suggestion.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 14, 2021, 02:30:18 AM
To throw my hat into the ring, I think safety overrides is too game changing for a single hullmod. Think about it, everyone has been arguing about if or not it breaks the balance of the game over it's knee. That's not what the argument should be about. It's a single hullmod, which SHOULD just partially increase or modify a single aspect of the ship. Heavy armor is far more expensive, and all it does is increase armor by around 20-30%, boosting a single attribute in exchange for dp, thus allowing a player to fine tune their ship closer to their playstyle. Safety overrides is not a hullmod in this manner, it completely redefines a ship in it's entirety. For this reason, I think the obvious choice would be separating it's effects into several other hullmods.

Couldn't agree more with this thinking.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Satirical on May 14, 2021, 12:47:15 PM
just make safety overrides turn ur ship into a pather ship (which has random malfunctions) rename it to pather modifications and disable it on high tech ships

make a new safety overrides for high tech with less attributes (maybe only 30% instead of 50% dissipation and no constant 0 flux boost) and name it safety overrides
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Warnoise on May 14, 2021, 09:01:53 PM
just make safety overrides turn ur ship into a pather ship (which has random malfunctions) rename it to pather modifications and disable it on high tech ships

make a new safety overrides for high tech with less attributes (maybe only 30% instead of 50% dissipation and no constant 0 flux boost) and name it safety overrides

Nobody would you use it if that happens because the pather debuff is brutal. I am now doing a pather playthrough and when half of your weapons get disabled (sometimes a permanent disable means the weapon is gone for the whole battle) you lose the battle
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 15, 2021, 06:55:20 AM
I think others could more easily chime in to the discussion, if you made a new thread to discuss SO.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 15, 2021, 09:07:02 AM
I think others could more easily chime in to the discussion, if you made a new thread to discuss SO.

I think the problem every thread is having is that too many of these issues are intersecting. An SO thread will end up talking about Frigates being OP now.

Put bluntly Alex conflated multiple overlapping problems with balance in this patch.

1. Frigates skill Wolfpack is too strong
2. High tech ships are too strong
2a. Hyperion is a cruiser (I don't care what he tagged it) getting all 1/2/3/4
3. SO is too strong
4. Smaller ship captain bonuses are too strong
5. 1/2/3/4 all create the conflation

It's impossible to address any of this in depth without getting into those issues. It's a total mess.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: slowpersun on May 20, 2021, 03:54:01 AM
I think others could more easily chime in to the discussion, if you made a new thread to discuss SO.

I think the problem every thread is having is that too many of these issues are intersecting. An SO thread will end up talking about Frigates being OP now.

Put bluntly Alex conflated multiple overlapping problems with balance in this patch.

1. Frigates skill Wolfpack is too strong
2. High tech ships are too strong
2a. Hyperion is a cruiser (I don't care what he tagged it) getting all 1/2/3/4
3. SO is too strong
4. Smaller ship captain bonuses are too strong
5. 1/2/3/4 all create the conflation

It's impossible to address any of this in depth without getting into those issues. It's a total mess.

I think we should all assume that a REAL balance patch will be dropped in the near future (ie, 0.95b at a minimum), so some of this will change.  But yeah, won't change without airing grievances.  Still, dunno how much of these complaints are valid on their own, and how much of the many issues with Frigates cannot be severed from the DP changes linked to tactical objectives that essentially force frigate use to capture the flag first...
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Drazan on May 20, 2021, 04:40:19 PM
I dont think it is a problem that you have to use frigates to capture point at the begining of the battle, i think its a good mechanic, beacuse you shall use all the shiptypes in a battle. But the problem is that frigates do more than this, they absolutely wreck destroyers and cruisrers, and sometimes even capitals, this should not be.
Comparing the logistical profile of a capital and a frigate, a capital should be equal to about 5 frigates (or perhaps even more, as they also have slower max burn, more crew, etc.)
Frigates should be fast and good at point capture, capitals should be good at wrecking face
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Warnoise on May 20, 2021, 07:10:33 PM
I think it is a decent balance to see frigates being able to swarm and kill capitals. However, a frigate shouldn't be able to outdamage or outflux a capital in 1v1 face to face fight.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: torbes on May 20, 2021, 07:41:45 PM
I dont think it is a problem that you have to use frigates to capture point at the begining of the battle, i think its a good mechanic, beacuse you shall use all the shiptypes in a battle. But the problem is that frigates do more than this, they absolutely wreck destroyers and cruisrers, and sometimes even capitals, this should not be.


Also...why? i don't think it's bad to have an early game ship class fall off in end game.

i'd rather see the DP bonus be removed from capture points and the bonuses for the points be more varied and powerful. I.E CR recovery, defensive bonuses, even ammo/missle regen. Lots of possibilities outside of the current system which is always deploy 3-4 frigates to cap for 40+ extra DP. could make certain points have range limits, give bonuses for capturing multiple points or scaling over time. again, lots of cool stuff is possible imho.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 21, 2021, 04:42:44 AM
One thing implied by how good (some) frigates are with wolfpack tactics is that frigates don't lack damage, but rather the PPT to stay on the battlefield.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 21, 2021, 10:12:46 AM
One thing implied by how good (some) frigates are with wolfpack tactics is that frigates don't lack damage, but rather the PPT to stay on the battlefield.
Wolfpack gives major boosts to both damage and PPT, so it's kinda hard to draw that conclusion IMO. Honestly, I think wolfpack could get split into two individual skills for damage and PPT. That would work well in a 3 skill/tier system IMO.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2021, 10:30:59 AM
Wolfpack is strong, and conventional fleets almost need frigates, which I dislike (because I am forced to take Leadership skills to make them viable, or at least have enough PPT to last long enough).  The game almost forces frigates on the fleet, just to cap points while having enough PPT to last in fights.  I can exclude most other ship types (destroyers, capitals, carriers) and not miss them, but not having frigates in a conventional fleet will hurt.  I guess Furies can substitute for them, since they are somewhat cheap.

Being forced to get Leadership just for Wolfpack Tactics means I need to give up high Combat or high Industry to make it fit, which I really do not like.  The only reason this is tolerable is because overpowered Doom (with high Combat) bypasses the need for conventional fleet, and thus Leadership.  (I want Combat, Tech, and/or Industry, and I want Industry for Field Repairs and colonies, not Derelict Contingent.)  At least piloting Doom and Ziggurat are fun.  Too bad Ziggurat is a huge hangar queen.

The skill system is not kind if player needs frigates in his fleet, but wants non-Leadership skills more than Leadership skills.

Quote
i'd rather see the DP bonus be removed from capture points and the bonuses for the points be more varied and powerful. I.E CR recovery, defensive bonuses, even ammo/missle regen. Lots of possibilities outside of the current system which is always deploy 3-4 frigates to cap for 40+ extra DP.
I like to see DP bonus removed because the current way forces frigates in the fleet (but frigates are not good enough without skills), and if the player can hold those points, the fight was easy enough for your victory to be a foregone conclusion.  If the fight is not trivial, the enemy will steal your points and hold them for the rest of the fight, cutting off your reinforcements, leading to a vicious death spiral once player loses ships.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 21, 2021, 10:52:59 AM
Frigates aren't required to capture enough points for a full deploy tbh. Unless I'm mistaken there's always one point right next to the player, and something like a destroyer squadron or the player's battleship can push another point. Frigates are quite useful/powerful depending on which are taken so I think good fleets should have some, but having played without they aren't required.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2021, 10:58:20 AM
Frigates aren't required to capture enough points for a full deploy tbh. Unless I'm mistaken there's always one point right next to the player, and something like a destroyer squadron or the player's battleship can push another point. Frigates are quite useful/powerful depending on which are taken so I think good fleets should have some, but having played without they aren't required.
I tried using somewhat slower bigger ships, but what happens is the enemy frigates arrive at about the same time my slower ships do (or a little late, but early enough to distract my cappers and move them off the point), and I usually fail to capture the point.  Instead, either the point remained uncaptured, or the enemy deathball arrives and claims the point first, then I lose the fight due to DP disadvantage.

The only way I could reliably capture points on my side or halfway is to use fast ships, which meant Tempest or phase frigates.  I do not know if Fury is fast enough to be good enough.  I tried Shrikes, but they are too fragile.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 21, 2021, 11:42:22 AM
In my experience, most high tech cruisers/destroyers will reliably cap friendly side points (and capitals like odyssey can also get the job done). You only need frigates to contest enemy side points.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 21, 2021, 02:04:57 PM
Haha, Destroyers, funny people.

Who is using Destroyers when Frigates stole their role on the battlefield and do it cheaper and better? Carrier destroyers don't count.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 21, 2021, 04:48:54 PM
AFAIK there are 2 common layouts, 2 close/2 far or 1 close, 2 middle, 1 far.
For close practically anything is good enough, for middle CM+Medusa/Shrike are plenty if you have no phase and aren't piloting something fast.
For 2/2 if the 2 on player side aren't both comms is the hairy one. I go with an Odyssey for 1 and the other fast ships (with CM+officers) for the other. One of those should be easy(-ish) to take as a 3rd.
Or if you want to be on the safe side you can just get 2 kites with injector+SO, 4 DP total for ~300/350 speed with CM and no officer.

Haha, Destroyers, funny people.

Who is using Destroyers when Frigates stole their role on the battlefield and do it cheaper and better? Carrier destroyers don't count.
Medusa/Shrike are still great all around, Sunder probably best cheap fire support. Hammerhead/new Brawler is a tossup, speed is very good but so are feeder+extra PD/OP/range.
XIV Enforcer is kinda decent, just don't like the way AI handles burn drive and being missile-heavy.

Really not convinced wolfpack is the end-all-be-all, plenty of no frigate/no redacted weapon fleets work and murderize the worst enemies just fine.
Not counting Zig had the easiest time consistently avoiding losses with various cruisers+Medusas, the only frigate far above anything else is the Monitor IMO.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 21, 2021, 07:43:34 PM
Haha, Destroyers, funny people.

Who is using Destroyers when Frigates stole their role on the battlefield and do it cheaper and better? Carrier destroyers don't count.
I think this is only true if you take wolfpack tactics, otherwise destroyers hold up better in endgame because of PPT (and frigates having 20% less damage without wolfpack).
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: torbes on May 21, 2021, 07:50:45 PM
AFAIK there are 2 common layouts, 2 close/2 far or 1 close, 2 middle, 1 far.
For close practically anything is good enough, for middle CM+Medusa/Shrike are plenty if you have no phase and aren't piloting something fast.
For 2/2 if the 2 on player side aren't both comms is the hairy one. I go with an Odyssey for 1 and the other fast ships (with CM+officers) for the other. One of those should be easy(-ish) to take as a 3rd.
Or if you want to be on the safe side you can just get 2 kites with injector+SO, 4 DP total for ~300/350 speed with CM and no officer.

Haha, Destroyers, funny people.

Who is using Destroyers when Frigates stole their role on the battlefield and do it cheaper and better? Carrier destroyers don't count.
Medusa/Shrike are still great all around, Sunder probably best cheap fire support. Hammerhead/new Brawler is a tossup, speed is very good but so are feeder+extra PD/OP/range.
XIV Enforcer is kinda decent, just don't like the way AI handles burn drive and being missile-heavy.

Really not convinced wolfpack is the end-all-be-all, plenty of no frigate/no redacted weapon fleets work and murderize the worst enemies just fine.
Not counting Zig had the easiest time consistently avoiding losses with various cruisers+Medusas, the only frigate far above anything else is the Monitor IMO.

Dusa is solid, sunder is hit or miss survivability, endgame hammerhead either needs to be SO or 1 hvd/1mauler because at 700 range he's gonna get eaten by larger enemies/phase ships. funny cause HH was always so fun in previous versions.

honestly outside of dusa and maybe shrike i feel like most destroyers now are too fragile and too slow in the current meta, they're not terrible at escorting a cap ship but for the DP cost i'd rather have tempests/omens/monitors harassing or escorting and keep my cruisers and above clumped around a cap/defend point.

not surprising that huge buffs to frigates place upward pressure on destroyer class.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 22, 2021, 04:57:42 AM
Haha, Destroyers, funny people.

Who is using Destroyers when Frigates stole their role on the battlefield and do it cheaper and better? Carrier destroyers don't count.
I think this is only true if you take wolfpack tactics, otherwise destroyers hold up better in endgame because of PPT (and frigates having 20% less damage without wolfpack).

Why would you take the other choice? I mean it results in having a smaller logistics footstep, less Crew/supplies/fuel/repair time/sensor profile in addition to the combat bonuses. PPT on the high tech frigates, the brokenly OP ones which is all of them at this point thanks to power creep, get double or more.

I mean why would you even take Coordinated Maneuvers over Wolf pack? Both skills favors frigates anyways.  I guess destroyers might be valid if you didn't take anything from the leadership tree, but that seem silly since it's just a 2 point investment.

It's funny now that I think about it, why is Wolfpack tactics tier 2 and not tier 5? Name any other skill that has this massive an impact on playstyle and power of a any type of ships fleetwide. Even the tech tier 5 don't have this sweeping an impact on the game. Why is this skill the only one of this type without CP limits or maxes with diminished returns like Carrier Group/Fighter Uplink or Auxiliary Support which Alex deemed acceptable to limit it to uselessly low maxes before huge drops in effectiveness.

Alex is pushing a single playstyle to the detriment of others in this patch and the skills/ships/logistics changes all push you hard in that one direction.

Frigate based fleet
Small numbers of fighter wings
All high tech ships

Anyone doing anything different will be punished by harder gameplay and less effective skills. This is the game now.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 22, 2021, 05:16:27 AM
Why is this skill the only one of this type without CP limits or maxes with diminished returns like Carrier Group/Fighter Uplink or Auxiliary Support which Alex deemed acceptable to limit it to uselessly low maxes before huge drops in effectiveness.
It works only for officers, like Derelict Contingent, which is the limiting factor. You get 8 officers base, 10 with a skill, and mercenaries are sustainable only if you get 2-3 of them (assuming you even find that many with good skills).
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Megas on May 22, 2021, 05:18:46 AM
Two points for Wolfpack is too many when I already have fifteen planned elsewhere.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: shoi on May 22, 2021, 05:51:05 AM
Why would you take the other choice? I mean it results in having a smaller logistics footstep, less Crew/supplies/fuel/repair time/sensor profile in addition to the combat bonuses. PPT on the high tech frigates, the brokenly OP ones which is all of them at this point thanks to power creep, get double or more.

I mean why would you even take Coordinated Maneuvers over Wolf pack? Both skills favors frigates anyways.  I guess destroyers might be valid if you didn't take anything from the leadership tree, but that seem silly since it's just a 2 point investment.

It's funny now that I think about it, why is Wolfpack tactics tier 2 and not tier 5? Name any other skill that has this massive an impact on playstyle and power of a any type of ships fleetwide. Even the tech tier 5 don't have this sweeping an impact on the game. Why is this skill the only one of this type without CP limits or maxes with diminished returns like Carrier Group/Fighter Uplink or Auxiliary Support which Alex deemed acceptable to limit it to uselessly low maxes before huge drops in effectiveness.

Alex is pushing a single playstyle to the detriment of others in this patch and the skills/ships/logistics changes all push you hard in that one direction.

Frigate based fleet
Small numbers of fighter wings
All high tech ships

Anyone doing anything different will be punished by harder gameplay and less effective skills. This is the game now.

(AI) Wolfpack'd Frigates are still going to get popped like an overripe pimple when facing larger ships with officers of a similar quality. Tempest/Omen/Time Dilation Ship I can't remember the name of are exceptions, not the rule.  That said, the skill choice itself feels like a no-brainer when the other option is coordinated manuevers
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 22, 2021, 06:54:28 AM
Why would you take the other choice? I mean it results in having a smaller logistics footstep, less Crew/supplies/fuel/repair time/sensor profile in addition to the combat bonuses. PPT on the high tech frigates, the brokenly OP ones which is all of them at this point thanks to power creep, get double or more.

I mean why would you even take Coordinated Maneuvers over Wolf pack? Both skills favors frigates anyways.  I guess destroyers might be valid if you didn't take anything from the leadership tree, but that seem silly since it's just a 2 point investment.

It's funny now that I think about it, why is Wolfpack tactics tier 2 and not tier 5? Name any other skill that has this massive an impact on playstyle and power of a any type of ships fleetwide. Even the tech tier 5 don't have this sweeping an impact on the game. Why is this skill the only one of this type without CP limits or maxes with diminished returns like Carrier Group/Fighter Uplink or Auxiliary Support which Alex deemed acceptable to limit it to uselessly low maxes before huge drops in effectiveness.

Alex is pushing a single playstyle to the detriment of others in this patch and the skills/ships/logistics changes all push you hard in that one direction.

Frigate based fleet
Small numbers of fighter wings
All high tech ships

Anyone doing anything different will be punished by harder gameplay and less effective skills. This is the game now.

(AI) Wolfpack'd Frigates are still going to get popped like an overripe pimple when facing larger ships with officers of a similar quality. Tempest/Omen/Time Dilation Ship I can't remember the name of are exceptions, not the rule.  That said, the skill choice itself feels like a no-brainer when the other option is coordinated manuevers

Hyperion the cruiser frigate & Scarab are included in those non pop ships too. Hell even the Wolf and it's the weakest of that lot doesn't pop much. That's a hell of a lot of exceptions. The phase ships die more then the Wolfs vs Remnant, I got a mixed fleet of these ships in an open game right now farming them (no mods) and the Wolfs are filling in for the better stuff in the meantime, Brilliant heavy fights see way more phase deaths. As I tab back into the game seeing the only ship dying in auto control was an Afflictor lol.

Everything high tech frigates. So ya what I said is basically the rule, unless we are pretending I meant to include high tech civilian shuttles. High tech don't pop.

Try it with Low or Midline frigates and suddenly they become costly battles. So as I said, a very specific playstyle is being jammed down our throats.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 22, 2021, 07:29:38 AM
Dusa is solid, sunder is hit or miss survivability, endgame hammerhead either needs to be SO or 1 hvd/1mauler because at 700 range he's gonna get eaten by larger enemies/phase ships. funny cause HH was always so fun in previous versions.

honestly outside of dusa and maybe shrike i feel like most destroyers now are too fragile and too slow in the current meta, they're not terrible at escorting a cap ship but for the DP cost i'd rather have tempests/omens/monitors harassing or escorting and keep my cruisers and above clumped around a cap/defend point.
Yeah, the Hammerhead is the weakest of the bunch mentioned because new Brawler does a similar thing and is good at it. Only downsides are fixed mounts+OP being a bit low for 1000 range ballistics, HH is still better in some cases.
Sunder isn't a good standalone ship but having 1-2 energy focus HILs (or maybe tach lances) sitting in the back are gamechangers for tanky or kinetic heavy lineups. Can even make use of ranged spec.
I think that's the most practical AI Destroyer by far, just don't bring too many.

Name any other skill that has this massive an impact on playstyle and power of a any type of ships fleetwide
Below T5 Derelict contingent and Crew training are both huge jumps in power.
Neither comes at the expense of a good universal skill.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 22, 2021, 09:31:21 AM
Even high tech frigates die against the thought targets. Stations, radiants and tesseracts notably. You can still beat those things while using frigates, but heavily concentrated firepower will absolutely delete frigates. Wolfpack does not increase survivability. Without wolfpack, those frigates are just as survivable, they just don't last as long or do as much damage.

Also, centurion and monitor are both solid mid-tech frigates with good survivability. Not quite to the same extent, but they are cheaper DP wise and would do just fine capping objectives and harassing flanks in a larger fleet.

Also, I don't really see how it's being jammed down anyones throat. There are ton's of ways to play the game that don't involve wolfpack that are effective. I didn't use the skill on my first play through and I still managed to kill all of the big end-game threats.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 22, 2021, 04:18:08 PM
I'm with intrinsic_parity on this - wolfpack is great, but it doesn't make other playstyles ineffective. I played a game with wolfpack (did a leadership 9 wrap like the recent video, though I went heavier on carriers and didn't do automated ships, used a bunch of centurions with SO for non-officered blitz frigates) and it was fun and effective. But I've played a couple other games not using frigates past the midgame, or only using a few un-officered ones as escorts/distraction, and that was also effective. Destroyers are great: with officers they can use brawling weapons all the way to endgame for good DPS. Without officers they can be built for range (1200, or 1400 for sunders) and still survive and contribute against the toughest enemies. I'd say Medusas get a bit left behind there: nice ships with officers, but being without an officer and close to the enemy like they need to get is dangerous.

(I feel like officered artillery sunders deserve a special mention... they aren't that fast, but they are fast for having 1550 range, and they can stack ship system, ranged spec, target analysis, and the CR damage boost for good damage numbers. A bit fragile even with hardened shields and the shield skill, but thats ok.)
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 22, 2021, 05:13:49 PM
Wolfpack overshadows the other choices, that's the point. It doesn't have to make them ineffective. I'm going all High tech frigate in my current run, I have zero salvage ships and only the cargo space industry skill because I don't want to militarize my support ships and lower bonuses. I have unlimited fuel & nearly unlimited supplies while exploring and can take on basically anything I run into. This playstyle is easy mode compared to everything else I've tried.

People need to stop conflating something being overpowered with it being unbeatable. Ya they will take losses vs the bleeding edge of content, they can easily afford those losses and restoration however and blow through normal enemy fleets in record time. Everything they do is cheaper and faster the entire game, they do it faster for less. If your bar for something being fine is simply, the fleet can take losses, then nothing needs nerfs.

Wolfpack isn't just more military might, it changes the logistics profile of your entire fleet making you more deadly while expending less resources. I like a fool look to the industry tree for this and find nothing even close to it. This one skill improves your logistical situation more then 10 points in the industry tree. But it also makes you more dangerous too. And it's a tier 2 skill.

Name any other skill that has this massive an impact on playstyle and power of a any type of ships fleetwide
Below T5 Derelict contingent and Crew training are both huge jumps in power.
Neither comes at the expense of a good universal skill.

Derelict contingent is getting nerfed, Alex already said so.
Crew training suffers from the limits/maxes I mentioned in the rest of that post and isn't really game changing. It's just generally good. People aren't building a playstyle around Crew training. It is most certainly not a huge jump in power.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: torbes on May 22, 2021, 08:12:09 PM
Correct, it's the combo of certain ships with certain skills that are too strong. Last playthrough I went from 8-10 frigates 1 apogee doing exploration and bounties until end game bounties and radiants. Hell I found a hyperion and didn't even bother because temp/scarab/omens were just fine until bounties got to 4+ caps. I bought a few destroyers and light cruisers and didn't touch until I had colonies and transitioned into endgame fleet pre zig - 1 paragon, 1 legion xiv, 1 dominator, 1 SO aurora, 1 champion, 2 gryphons.

The point is while I certainly could have transitioned the way I would have in earlier versions, I didn't need to and didn't feel like I needed to at all. There was no sense of progression, it was steamroll for 3-5 game years, immediately switch to end game.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 23, 2021, 03:34:24 AM
(I feel like officered artillery sunders deserve a special mention... they aren't that fast, but they are fast for having 1550 range, and they can stack ship system, ranged spec, target analysis, and the CR damage boost for good damage numbers. A bit fragile even with hardened shields and the shield skill, but thats ok.)
Yep, Sunders are great from start to finish.

Crew training suffers from the limits/maxes I mentioned in the rest of that post and isn't really game changing. It's just generally good. People aren't building a playstyle around Crew training. It is most certainly not a huge jump in power.
To sum it up:
+5% damage, -5% damage taken, +5% speed for the entire fleet is nothing serious.
+20% speed for the entire fleet is bad.
+20% damage for officered frigates breaks the game.
Don't see why this is so obviously true, wolpack isn't even top 5 for me (and it competes with a very solid universal boost). DP without officers is generally DP wasted, need the +120 to reach lowish PPT, frigates often pop to nasty radiants, the usual.
CT only starts losing some effectiveness after 240, in practice it doesn't have a limit.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 23, 2021, 06:51:46 AM
Crew training suffers from the limits/maxes I mentioned in the rest of that post and isn't really game changing. It's just generally good. People aren't building a playstyle around Crew training. It is most certainly not a huge jump in power.
To sum it up:
+5% damage, -5% damage taken, +5% speed for the entire fleet is nothing serious.
+20% speed for the entire fleet is bad.
+20% damage for officered frigates breaks the game.
Don't see why this is so obviously true, wolpack isn't even top 5 for me (and it competes with a very solid universal boost). DP without officers is generally DP wasted, need the +120 to reach lowish PPT, frigates often pop to nasty radiants, the usual.
CT only starts losing some effectiveness after 240, in practice it doesn't have a limit.

Do you want to have a conversation or make a straw man? Don't put words in my mouth, I never said any of that was bad and I never said it breaks the game. Don't reduce/dumb down my points into for and against extremes so you can lazily counter them.

Every fight isn't a Radiant fight, every fight isn't an bleeding edge of content fight. I said that already. I clearly explained the overall effect of this single skill which is rather sweeping and you claimed Crew Training has a huge impact, which is supported by nothing you or anyone else said. Go back and read the explanation about the impact on logistics that you clearly ignored. Fact that everyone acknowledges how powerful the frigate builds are, Wolfpack being their backbone, that is what this thread is about. Why it even required a thread in the first place. I'm not dancing around with you on side issue where you want to pretend a +20% speed boost is better then Wolfpack when Wolfpack with high tech ships makes that unnecessary.

I can't help you if my explanations and 10 pages of posts about how this 1 skill changed the landscape of the game for Frigates aren't doing it.

FYI if you use 90% Frigates, Wolfpack is a "universal boost" with no diminished returns for using more, I already said this of course. My current fleet has 14 captained Frigates +me for 15, 4 redacted captains, all getting the full Wolfpack bonus without diminished returns unlike every other specialized skill in the game. Oh noes 3 got destroyed in 1 really terrible fight, I'll just have to reach into the giant pile of credits I've saved from only using frigates (again I outlined how they save tons of money) and restore them without a second thought.

https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=21707.0

Because, anecdotally at least, videos presented like this wouldn't be happening without Wolfpack. This btw matches my experience. But this skill isn't in your top 5, I guess congratulations on being unique, I'd rather be common and not pretend Crew Training is "huge".

Seriously why did you quote the only part of my post that had nothing to do with your response?
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 23, 2021, 11:20:44 AM
I'd say crew training is not as good as wolfpack: 5% offense, defense, speed, maneuverability, acceleration, better autofire aim, faster fighter rebuilds, lasts just a bit longer in combat/can deploy an extra time in endurance situations. Thats a potent set of bonuses, but 20% damage to ships bigger than frigates is huge, and the PPT increase is apparently useful too. Crew training is probably about... I'd estimate 2/3 as powerful. 5% offense/defense is about as good as 10% offense, and then the other lesser benefits are good for a few points as well.

On the other hand, crew training applies to every ship and doesn't require an officer. I don't think the diminishing returns is a good argument to criticize it for this comparison - even 14 hyperions (light cruisers really) is only 210 DP.

Its not really that important a comparison though, is it? Wolfpack doesn't compete with crew training, so a wolfpack captain is going to take both and stack the bonuses anyways.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on May 23, 2021, 11:50:54 AM
I'd say crew training is not as good as wolfpack: 5% offense, defense, speed, maneuverability, acceleration, better autofire aim, faster fighter rebuilds, lasts just a bit longer in combat/can deploy an extra time in endurance situations. Thats a potent set of bonuses, but 20% damage to ships bigger than frigates is huge, and the PPT increase is apparently useful too. Crew training is probably about... I'd estimate 2/3 as powerful. 5% offense/defense is about as good as 10% offense, and then the other lesser benefits are good for a few points as well.

On the other hand, crew training applies to every ship and doesn't require an officer. I don't think the diminishing returns is a good argument to criticize it for this comparison - even 14 hyperions (light cruisers really) is only 210 DP.

Its not really that important a comparison though, is it? Wolfpack doesn't compete with crew training, so a wolfpack captain is going to take both and stack the bonuses anyways.

Wolfpack tactics adds a whole 120 seconds of Peak Performance time to frigades with officers on them. Combined with Reliability Engineering (+60 seconds), Elite System Expertise (+30 sconds) we reach the total of 210 seconds, or three minutes and a half.

This value is also divided by three by Safety Overrides, meaning that a frigade with normally low PPT like a Hyperion (with its 120 seconds of Peak performance time) would get (120+210)/3=110 seconds of peak performance time, only 10 less than the stock value, despite being overridden.

Hardened Subsystems pushes its PPT up to 137 seconds by the way,  meaning Wolfpack Tactics makes it possible for Overridden Frigades to have a higher Peak Performance time than their stock value. This also means that some Overridden frigades (looking at you Glimmer) also manage to get a PPT value that's higher than not only Destroyers, but also Cruisers. Think about that for a moment.

Oh, and there's also the fact these hypothetical frigades can also have 100% CR with Crew Training and Reliability engineering, which combined with Hardened Subsystems realistically makes them stay on the field for minutes even after they run if their PPT before even getting all the way down to under 41% Combat Readiness. Really useful if you want to settle a hard fight in only one engagement.

Crew training is a good Commander Skill, but it's not that good.

Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 23, 2021, 12:00:00 PM
Hmm thats a good point, I hadn't considered SO because I didn't use it in my frigate run. That kind of PPT boosting is worth a lot if its making SO usable on frigates for endgame fights. Do you find that thats enough time? In general I think fights are faster this version than last so I'd imagine it is, especially with how deadly SO Hyperions are.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on May 23, 2021, 12:21:59 PM
Hmm thats a good point, I hadn't considered SO because I didn't use it in my frigate run. That kind of PPT boosting is worth a lot if its making SO usable on frigates for endgame fights. Do you find that thats enough time? In general I think fights are faster this version than last so I'd imagine it is, especially with how deadly SO Hyperions are.

Oh, Ludd yes.

Anything that's overridden and (more or less, no accurate data is allowed in what I write) can last 4 minutes into a fight without even having malfunctions is bound to meatgrind double its own worth of Deployment Points, which is being fairly pessimistic since not only the Hyperion but also the Tempest, Scarab, Glimmer even even the Wolf, the Brawler and the Monitor exist.

Why would you put an Officer into an Overridden Monitor you ask?
The ship system dissipates hard flux at 50% the rate of soft flux (I think? Could be lower), effectivelv turning it into the tankiest ship in the entire vanilla game when Officered, Overridden and sporting 20 vents thru the help of Special Modifications, plus of course Solar Shielding, Hardened Shields and the Shield Modulation Officer Skill (which I'm pretty sure also stacks with the ship's hullmod).
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 23, 2021, 01:33:58 PM
Hmm thats a good point, I hadn't considered SO because I didn't use it in my frigate run. That kind of PPT boosting is worth a lot if its making SO usable on frigates for endgame fights. Do you find that thats enough time? In general I think fights are faster this version than last so I'd imagine it is, especially with how deadly SO Hyperions are.
On standard battlesize, against strong enemies Hyperion and Scarab constantly got into crit malfunction range for me (despite having every possible boost).
Don't think it's practical.

Why would you put an Officer into an Overridden Monitor you ask?
Monitor with an officer is already very close to unkillable, SO doesn't add that much IMO.
Speed is always nice if the rest of the fleet won't last longer anyway ofc.

I'd say crew training is not as good as wolfpack: 5% offense, defense, speed, maneuverability, acceleration, better autofire aim, faster fighter rebuilds, lasts just a bit longer in combat/can deploy an extra time in endurance situations.
Yes, the paper bonus itself might not be as strong (definitely the same ballpark though).
Applying to every over-the-top setup is what makes it comparable, for the people who don't think anything but Hyperion/Scarab/Glimmer/Tempest is pointless.
It does work with things like Doom, Ziggurat, Radiant, Fury, DC, helps Monitor where it matters, ...

Seriously why did you quote the only part of my post that had nothing to do with your response?
The rest described how a frigate fleet makes supplies and money a non-issue, and why you think that's important.
Never had a problem with supplies or restoring keepers myself so not much to add.

There being a video about wolfpack means that somebody liked it enough to make a video.
It certainly works, that wasn't a question.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 23, 2021, 02:07:22 PM
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong: crew training is an every game pick unless I'm doing a challenge no leadership run because it is a great set of bonuses for any kind of ship. Wolfpack tactics is only good for doing frigate only runs - its strong but specialized, and even a lightly mixed fleet is going to want coordinated maneuvers instead. But its a very strong skill for frigate only runs.

I'm a big defender of all of the 'non-meta' current playstyles: low tech, carriers, non-SO,  none of them are as bad as people say and every one can support themselves through the whole game on combat alone without having any industry, colonies, or commission. When it comes to heavy enemies a bunch of compositions are better than frigates, capable of taking enemies down faster and with fewer DP. But currently frigate runs are close to the cheapest (in terms of credits, fuel, supplies, etc) ways to play that is still very effective, with maybe solo phase ships scaling up to Doom being cheaper. They are fun to fly and self sufficient, barely needing logistics support ships unless doing salvage/exploration, and also easy to build decent fits for (the main choice is SO or not SO: the actual gun choices flow from there depending on flux budget and are hard to mess up.).
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 23, 2021, 02:31:51 PM
I'm a big defender of all of the 'non-meta' current playstyles: low tech, carriers, non-SO,  none of them are as bad as people say and every one can support themselves through the whole game on combat alone without having any industry, colonies, or commission.
Yep, just doing relay bounties was plenty to keep up with supplies/money with any setup.
The 1 thing I can't get to work later are carriers, they can do bounties while I'm AFK but some remnants seem impossible (and crew losses were a PITA the entire run).

When it comes to heavy enemies a bunch of compositions are better than frigates, capable of taking enemies down faster and with fewer DP. But currently frigate runs are close to the cheapest (in terms of credits, fuel, supplies, etc) ways to play that is still very effective, with maybe solo phase ships scaling up to Doom being cheaper. They are fun to fly and self sufficient, barely needing logistics support ships unless doing salvage/exploration, and also easy to build decent fits for (the main choice is SO or not SO: the actual gun choices flow from there depending on flux budget and are hard to mess up.).
I can see how battles themselves play out faster, but don't think something like fuel-efficiency is an important consideration.
Fuel is practically free, and on fighting-heavy expeditions I'm usually throwing hundreds away even with 0 industry fleets.
Supplies are more important, but I usually just grab a hegemony Buffalo then an Atlas ASAP an forget about it.
Definitely easier to accumulate frigates at the very start, so that's nice.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 23, 2021, 04:04:41 PM
Seriously why did you quote the only part of my post that had nothing to do with your response?
The rest described how a frigate fleet makes supplies and money a non-issue, and why you think that's important.
Never had a problem with supplies or restoring keepers myself so not much to add.

Logistics is important. It's not that I think it's important, it's that it is important. You are pretending it's not.

Hmm thats a good point, I hadn't considered SO because I didn't use it in my frigate run. That kind of PPT boosting is worth a lot if its making SO usable on frigates for endgame fights. Do you find that thats enough time? In general I think fights are faster this version than last so I'd imagine it is, especially with how deadly SO Hyperions are.
On standard battlesize, against strong enemies Hyperion and Scarab constantly got into crit malfunction range for me (despite having every possible boost).
Don't think it's practical.

You clearly are doing it wrong then. If you were not just past the PPT but into crit malfunction range then you failed on a grand scale. Which makes think everything you are saying should be in question in regards to these specific skills.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 23, 2021, 07:44:32 PM
Logistics is important. It's not that I think it's important, it's that it is important. You are pretending it's not.
Note that I specifically ignored that part at first, and later mentioned it's just my experience.
You say supplies were somehow important to me with absolute certainty.
No, if you just get a friggin hauler and don't get half the fleet shot to hell in bounties they genuinely aren't a big deal.
Cost is low compared to bounty payouts and you salvage a decent chunk even without skills, you actually have to throw away supplies or weapons after the easier battles.

On standard battlesize, against strong enemies Hyperion and Scarab constantly got into crit malfunction range for me (despite having every possible boost).
Don't think it's practical.

You clearly are doing it wrong then. If you were not just past the PPT but into crit malfunction range then you failed on a grand scale. Which makes think everything you are saying should be in question in regards to these specific skills.

Entirely possible, after checking a few loadouts removed SO from Scarabs since they feel better without it. That and the Hyperion suffer more than the rest from SO, and really don't need it to work.
Thankfully you are here to demonstrate, a video against a 400-ish radiant/brilliant ordo with 2 or more radiants would be nice (300 battlesize ofc, and not the useless paladin or HIL radiants).
Curious about a way to consistently kill them with SO Hyperion/Scarab mix, without losing ships or tanking CR on the entire fleet.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on May 24, 2021, 03:16:41 AM
SO frigades more or less assume you augment them with Wolfpack tactics, Reliability Engineering, Elite System Expertise and most likely have the Hardened Subsystems HUllmod integrated into the ship with a story point aswell.

That said, even with all these augments, SO Frigades very much function with a snowball effect.

The more you have in your fleet, the easier it will be for each one of them to do their job while the less of them you have compared to the rest of your combat flotilla and the more you'll have to cycle them in and out of combat in drawn out engagements.

As an example, a high tech fleet "just" using two Overridden Hyperions with officers and 6 Gamma Core Glimmers (speaking from personal experience here) will have a much easier time simply deploying half of the frigate force at a time and retreat it to replace it with the other half as the Combat readiness alerts start popping up.

Deploying all the 6 Glimmers first for the initial Buoy grab and swiftly retreating them to deploy the Two Hyperions once they get the PPT alert is a sound strategy, deploying 3 Glimmers and 1 Hyperion at a time also works and even makes sure you can immediately get an identical frigade out into battle as soon as one gets disabled.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 24, 2021, 04:03:53 AM
As an example, a high tech fleet "just" using two Overridden Hyperions with officers and 6 Gamma Core Glimmers (speaking from personal experience here) will have a much easier time simply deploying half of the frigate force at a time and retreat it to replace it with the other half as the Combat readiness alerts start popping up.

Deploying all the 6 Glimmers first for the initial Buoy grab and swiftly retreating them to deploy the Two Hyperions once they get the PPT alert is a sound strategy, deploying 3 Glimmers and 1 Hyperion at a time also works and even makes sure you can immediately get an identical frigade out into battle as soon as one gets disabled.
They do get in each other's way quite a lot, and once they reach the top they wasted too much time blobbing on the reinforcements.
Partial deployment or letting enemies get away from the edge might work better.
Having all reckless officers would almost definitely work better but I do not have a save above all aggressive.

It certainly is possible to kill most fleets with SO Hpyerions/Scarabs, just seemed pointless to force since the non-SO ones do not struggle against the same enemies.
SO adds a stricter timer and didn't solve the main annoyance for me, some ships still manage to get themselves blown out of nowhere.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on May 24, 2021, 04:13:57 AM
As an example, a high tech fleet "just" using two Overridden Hyperions with officers and 6 Gamma Core Glimmers (speaking from personal experience here) will have a much easier time simply deploying half of the frigate force at a time and retreat it to replace it with the other half as the Combat readiness alerts start popping up.

Deploying all the 6 Glimmers first for the initial Buoy grab and swiftly retreating them to deploy the Two Hyperions once they get the PPT alert is a sound strategy, deploying 3 Glimmers and 1 Hyperion at a time also works and even makes sure you can immediately get an identical frigade out into battle as soon as one gets disabled.
They do get in each other's way quite a lot, and once they reach the top they wasted too much time blobbing on the reinforcements.
Partial deployment or letting enemies get away from the edge might work better.
Having all reckless officers would almost definitely work better but I do not have a save above all aggressive.

It certainly is possible to kill most fleets with SO Hpyerions/Scarabs, just seemed pointless to force since the non-SO ones do not struggle against the same enemies.
SO adds a stricter timer and didn't solve the main annoyance for me, some ships still manage to get themselves blown out of nowhere.

I tend to solve the "grouping" issue with both reckless Officers and "Engage" orders on most of the enemy ships to equally spread my fleet around and not have them get in eachother's way. I've got enough command points (due to Wolfpack tactics massively boosting Command Point recovery speed) to easily switch the engage orders into "Eliminate" ones against isolated enemies too.

I find SO frigades to be a lot more survivable with a reckless officer, as they tend to only briefly retreat when their flux is very high/they start taking hull damage and the extra speed usually ensures they're not "caught with their flux pants down". It's also a good idea to put "Avoid" orders on some particularly annoying ships sometimes so that SO frigades will operate out of their range and focus on enemies outside it.

I can tell you from experience that a ship of yours still won't engage an enemy you have an "engage" order on if there's an enemy ship near it with the "Avoid" one. It very much seems like a Global order that overrides the other one if they clash.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Drazan on May 24, 2021, 04:52:29 AM
This discussion got extremly siderailed.
It started as a post saying that frigates are too strong, and went -> hyperion too strong-> high tech is too strong -> low tech is too weak -> high tech is too strong -> SO is too strong

I think we should focus on one thing we should all agree on, and that is a FRIGATE. SHALL. NOT. 1v1. A. CAPTIAL.
Perhaps not even a cruiser.
t really is a good thing that they are usefull on the battlefiled now, but this is far too much. Frigates are for capturing comand points and harassing enemy, not to kill everything. Wrecking stuff is cruiser and capital business.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 24, 2021, 05:20:22 AM
It started as a post saying that frigates are too strong, and went -> hyperion too strong-> high tech is too strong -> low tech is too weak -> high tech is too strong -> SO is too strong

Everything you listed is 100% on topic, even if people disagree about why specifically.

- SO is a major factor
- Low/Midline Frigates need a carve out to not be included in this power problem
- Low tech specifically is underpowered even with the frigate buffs and nerfs to fix the High tech need to not make the low tech frigates worse

I think we should focus on one thing we should all agree on, and that is a FRIGATE. SHALL. NOT. 1v1. A. CAPTIAL.
Perhaps not even a cruiser.
t really is a good thing that they are usefull on the battlefiled now, but this is far too much. Frigates are for capturing comand points and harassing enemy, not to kill everything. Wrecking stuff is cruiser and capital business.

I will state that you are correct and that shouldn't be happening at all. But it is clearly not just a general frigate problem, because they can't all do it.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Igncom1 on May 24, 2021, 05:27:11 AM
I mean what is a torpedo frigate supposed to be good for if it can't torpedo a capital ship ;D

I mean, it is ok for some ships to the worse then others but perhaps not to this degree?

I suppose at least it's a breath of fresh air from when frigates used to be utterly useless.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on May 24, 2021, 05:33:50 AM
AH, Locklave (named you Draba for some reason, sorry  :P) and Igncom1 beat me to making a similar response. It's all connected really
(https://i.imgflip.com/2x2jm9.jpg)

Something as simple as "stopping frigades from being so good" does carry a lot of unexpected nuance with it.

Take Safety Overrides as an example, it got an easy Duct Tape Fix which prevented it from being Integrated into ships, but that did not stop High Tech (and Midline to a degree) Frigades (Scarab, Wolf, Glimmer, Hyperion...), Destroyers (Fury, Medusa, Hammerhead, Fulgent...) and Cruisers (Aurora, Champion, Brilliant...) from abusing it anyway since most of them had higher-than-average Ordinance Points for their own respective class in the first place.

What it did do on the other hand was pushing a lot of Low Tech ships that instead had very low OP into either irrelevancy, heavily cutting on their SO variants (and requiring 2, even 3 other integrated hullmods to make everything fit) or attempting to stay useful without the hullmod entirely.

We risk these hypothetical "pinpoint rebalances" aimed at frigades to have the same amount of unwanted effects. There's a high risk of nerfing something with the purpose of pushing a specific ship from "broken" down to "overperforming" that also ends up dragging ships which used to be "situational" down to "useless".
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Drazan on May 24, 2021, 05:47:41 AM
Everything you listed is 100% on topic, even if people disagree about why specifically.
Yeah, yeah its all connected to some degree I agree. Comparing tech levels, and the role of safety override definitely have place in this discussion, but the arguents sometimes strayed too far from the original post.

I mean what is a torpedo frigate supposed to be good for if it can't torpedo a capital ship ;D

I mean, it is ok for some ships to the worse then others but perhaps not to this degree?

I suppose at least it's a breath of fresh air from when frigates used to be utterly useless.

A torpedo frigate shall be good aganist capitals, just not in a 1v1 fight.
I agree that it wasn't good when frigtes were totally useless lategame, but i dont think that this is better.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Drazan on May 24, 2021, 05:54:12 AM
I think the problem is that the overpowered frigates have too shields and good flux stats (especially with SO). This is what allows them to stay close enough to a capital ship to destroy it. Scarab, tempest, and hyperion should have worse shields, and worse flux stats. So if they get tto close to capital level weapons, they have no chance to survive.
SO perhaps should give a flat increase to dissipation, depending on hull size. You pay OP depending on hull size, so the bonus you get should be the same.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on May 24, 2021, 08:36:22 AM
Let me help you to get back on the rails.

Frigates are noticeably better in 0.95 because build-in hull mods exist now. And it has the most effect with the high-tech ones because energy weapons were balanced by the OPs needed to vent all the flux they generated. That's no longer the case since there are alot of spare OP now. But low-tech needs it to mount weapons and thus leaving high-tech in the leaders.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Warnoise on May 24, 2021, 08:56:13 AM
Currently speed>>>>anything else.

The game now is all about speed. You have fast ships with decent shield? GG enjoy your easy mode.

Even the AI behaves way better when piloting a fast ship. That's easy to observe when fighting remnants.

Currently the balance is in a very bad position. I have a feeling that it reached a point where changing numbers can't fix it anymore.

Frigates feeling strong is due to the speed meta the game is promoting now. Why have a dominator when you can have a bunch of scarabs which not only can tank better thanks to their shield+speed, they also can dish out some nice sustained energy damage to harrass and disable strong enemy ships. Who needs an Onslaught when you can an army  tempests or TT brawlers which can swarm anything and destroy it?

The worst part is, the skills Alex introduces made things even worse. They pushed the meta even more towards speed.

There is simply no counterplay against speed and that imo should change if we want a more balanced game.

PS: Energy weapons are also more powerful than kinetics weapons.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 24, 2021, 11:01:08 AM
Currently the balance is in a very bad position. I have a feeling that it reached a point where changing numbers can't fix it anymore.
Changing numbers is how we got here, so I wouldn't be so pessimistic.

I wonder if there have been any AI changes that affect mainly fast ships or swarming behaviour.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 24, 2021, 11:57:27 AM
I think we should focus on one thing we should all agree on, and that is a FRIGATE. SHALL. NOT. 1v1. A. CAPTIAL.

I disagree with this statement.  :)

Especially if if that frigate is player piloted with s-mods and skills, and the capital is AI run with a terrible default fit and no skills.  If I can solo an entire 10 capital/10 cruiser/10 destroyer-frigate intel fleet in a single capital (Odyssey), more than a ratio of 14 in DP, I don't see why a player frigate shouldn't be able to overcome a 5 DP ratio (8 vs 40).

The fact is, many capitals are explicitly designed not to work well when isolated.  In a fleet line up or with an escort or two, they work much, much better.

For example, when I used Onslaughts in 0.9.1a as line holders, I always gave each a cruiser carrier escort which seemed to up their killing and survival efficiency a lot.  In 0.95a, I've been using a pair of Luddic Path restored Lashers, a Mora, or a Legion XIV.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 24, 2021, 12:07:05 PM
Yeah many capitals are pretty trivial to 1v1 with any moderately maneuverable ship because they are susceptible to flanking. I would more take issue with a frigate that can beat a capital from the front/in a slug fest. Frigates should be squishier and have less firepower, but I think that is already pretty universally true.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 24, 2021, 04:16:08 PM
Yeah, yeah its all connected to some degree I agree. Comparing tech levels, and the role of safety override definitely have place in this discussion, but the arguents sometimes strayed too far from the original post.

We all kinda slide back and forth over the primary issue. But I do feel most of the most off topic elements fed back into the main discussion.

I think we should focus on one thing we should all agree on, and that is a FRIGATE. SHALL. NOT. 1v1. A. CAPTIAL.

I disagree with this statement.  :)

Especially if if that frigate is player piloted with s-mods and skills, and the capital is AI run with a terrible default fit and no skills.  If I can solo an entire 10 capital/10 cruiser/10 destroyer-frigate intel fleet in a single capital (Odyssey), more than a ratio of 14 in DP, I don't see why a player frigate shouldn't be able to overcome a 5 DP ratio (8 vs 40).

The fact is, many capitals are explicitly designed not to work well when isolated.  In a fleet line up or with an escort or two, they work much, much better.

For example, when I used Onslaughts in 0.9.1a as line holders, I always gave each a cruiser carrier escort which seemed to up their killing and survival efficiency a lot.  In 0.95a, I've been using a pair of Luddic Path restored Lashers, a Mora, or a Legion XIV.

This is about AI controlled frigates with a captain outclassing Capitols. Player pilots are basically cheating the AIs limitations. Player control breaks the game and shouldn't be included in any discussion but those specifically about that.

And to be clear we aren't talking fleet vs fleet and capitols needing support when outnumbered. It's just getting a spanking 1v1, which is absurd when done by the AI. It's layers of imbalance and failure.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 24, 2021, 05:34:39 PM
Yup, can confirm watching an AI controlled tempest with all its bonuses just fly up and gun down a conquest head to head is silly. Sure its a non-officered, D mod conquest with a mediocre build, and I'm going down the leadership 9 Tech 5 route, but thats some serious powerup on the frigate!
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 24, 2021, 07:27:18 PM
And to be clear we aren't talking fleet vs fleet and capitols needing support when outnumbered. It's just getting a spanking 1v1, which is absurd when done by the AI. It's layers of imbalance and failure.

Serious question, can you clarify the parameters of the 1v1?  So I was wrong to assume human players in the equation.

Is this fleet skilled vs no fleet skills?  Both sides have officers, or just the frigate?  S-mods on both sides, or s-mods on one side and d-mods on the other?  Player fitting for both, or player fit for one side and autofit for the other?

Any one of those on it's own might be shifts of factors of 50% in terms of expected power and effectiveness.  Combined, that adds up quick.  I'm fairly certain I can build an AI Legion (presumably considered the weakest capital ship at this point), which when given the option of having the same officer level, fleet wide skill choices, and s-mod additions, will beat an AI Tempest 1 on 1 every time. 

Now I agree it probably won't handle 5 of them, but I'm willing to bet the 1 v 1 is quite doable.  So I'm not saying frigates with skills are not over tuned, but I don't think they're over tuned to the point people seem to be claiming generally.

At the end of the day, Wolfpack Tactics is a single skill which shifts damage by 20%.  Target Analysis is at most another 20% in the frigate's favor.  Frigates were at best OK as distractions or escorts in end game 0.9.1a fleets, while the fundamental base numbers on the ships have not changed.  Without skills, assuming player builds, a Tempest is going to lose 1 on 1 with a capital.  And I'm fairly certain that holds when both ships are benefiting from skills/s-mods and player curated builds.

I'm merely objecting to general statements which makes things sound factors of 2 or 3 worse than they really are.

Yup, can confirm watching an AI controlled tempest with all its bonuses just fly up and gun down a conquest head to head is silly. Sure its a non-officered, D mod conquest with a mediocre build, and I'm going down the leadership 9 Tech 5 route, but thats some serious powerup on the frigate!

This for example is something I can comment on.  I'd be very curious to see that same experiment repeated with instead a Tempest, a Shrike, Medusa, or Aurora.

Seems to me the only skill that might not apply to those ships would be Wolfpack tactics.  A lack of officer, unequal fleet skills, and the presence of s-mods and d-mods can be seen as massive shifts in power.  Especially when you've got bonuses which multiply each other.

Lets consider a simple model where you multiply offensive power by defensive power (i.e. I can shoot X% harder because of offense, and I can shoot Y% longer because of my defense letting me tank longer), with and without Wolfpack tactics.


Target Analysis (+0.2), Energy Weapon Mastery (+0.15), Reliability Engineering (+0.05), Crew Training (+0.05), Weapon Drills (+0.1).  Roughly 1.55 multiplier for offense.  Three s-mods and flux regulation is likely a factor of 1.4 in terms of flux/second, allowing it to fire longer.  Similarly, probably an extra factor of 1.25 capacity.  Which multiplies defensive skills and hull mods like Hardened shields (0.75), Shield Modulation (0.8 ), 100% CR (0.9).  And say Helmsmanship lets you dodge 10% more shots (0.9). 1/(0.8*0.75*0.9*0.9) = 2.05. 

1.55*1.4 * 1.25 * 2.05 = 5.5 increase in damage spent in a single attack cycle of moving in and then out for a Tempest.  But that's also roughly the improvement I would expect for a Shrike.  Or a Medusa.

Wolfpack tactics bumps that 5.5 up to about 6.3 (i.e. 1.55 goes to 1.75).  My guess is even without Wolfpack Tactics, you'd still see that Tempest coming out on top.  But you might also be seeing a Shrike, Medusa, or Aurora coming out on top as well.  I'd love to see controlled testing on that.

I guess my point is, take a pile of ten to fifteen 10% bonus skills, and if they compound each other, can quickly result in large differences in damage output when ships clash. 

The poor fit Conquest likely doesn't have hardened shields, and d-mods might be Faulty Power Grids (-8% health) and Compromised hull (-15% total health).  So like a factor of 0.77 ish in terms of how long the Conquest lasts.

If this is the type of scenario people are objecting to (full fleet skills, full officer skills, full s-mods against no officer, no s-mod, with d-mods), you need to tone all skills down to shifts of like 5-8% instead of 20%, which I'm not sure if that is what people are advocating for.

Essentially, I view it to boiling down to 1.2^10 = 6.2 and 1.08^10 = 2.2.

Keep in mind, frigates were buffed because they weren't usable for offense in 0.9.1a late game.  And fighters could be spammed agains the AI and it couldn't do anything.  If you want to avoid another overcompensation, I feel people need to be very clear on what situations they would like to see be balanced against each other.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Vanshilar on May 25, 2021, 12:04:17 AM
Okay there are a lot of issues here, I think they're getting a bit muddled. I think they get muddled because people are conflating various issues at work and also because these issues do turn out to be inter-related. It's not a matter of low tech vs high tech, or frigate vs capital, or SO. Those are roleplay/storytelling/immersion concepts for the more fundamental gameplay design balance between weapon range vs ship maneuverability/speed, or if you prefer, offense vs defense.

Ships that are faster tend to be weaker, both in terms of offensive capability (weapons) and in terms of defensive capability (hit points). Faster ships are able to engage and disengage at will, so they need to create the opportunity to go in and do damage before being shot to pieces. It's a high risk vs high reward playstyle. Additionally, the game is set so that the onus is on the person taking the risk to create the opportunity; the longer they wait, the more the advantage goes to the slower ship. So they need to be more aggressive, but that comes with the risk of overextending themselves and getting destroyed. This can be seen in multiple ways:

1. Frigates are faster but have less flux/armor/hull than capitals. They also have fewer weapons and shorter-range weapons, plus shorter range bonuses, as well as a lower PPT. Additionally, capitals will reduce the PPT of frigates, but frigates may not reduce the PPT of capitals unless there are many of them. So the onus is on the frigate to create an opportunity to take out the capital, and if they wait too long, then they start getting weaker due to PPT and capitals get relatively stronger. Frigates have less flux/armor/hull than capitals, so they can't afford as many errors.
2. High tech ships are faster than low tech ships, but have worse weapons, lower PPT, and take longer to recover after battle. High tech ships have more flux, but energy weapons are less efficient than ballistic weapons, plus have lower range, so some of the ship's flux is used up in absorbing attacks on its way in before starting to do damage. They also tend to be more expensive DP-wise, so fewer of them can be deployed per battle.
3. SO gives twice the flux dissipation, but means the ship has only 1/3 the PPT. So the ship has to get their damage in quickly enough to turn the tide of battle, or they'll be forced to withdraw. Also, SO is a very expensive hullmod, meaning less points remaining for other stuff.

Faster ships having less weapon range means that they have to absorb some fire on their way in to attack a target. It also means that enemy ships can focus fire more easily on them -- they have to get within the range of multiple enemy ships to do their damage.

The reason why I'm getting into this, is that I think it's a lot more useful from a feedback standpoint to talk in terms of whether or not the changes skewed the risk vs reward ratio a bit too much toward one side or the other. Engaging in hyperbole etc. might be cathartic but it isn't useful, in the sense of, explaining the validity of your position.

Alright, getting into some of the specifics:


The initial post. Take for example the Hyperion getting ~17k damage in a single ion pulser burst. Sounds impressive, but let's look at it a bit more closely. It comes from:

10% CR
20% Target Analysis
10% Weapon Drills
20% Wolfpack Tactics
~30% Energy Weapon Mastery (it varied as flux increased)
-----
+~90% damage


So (hopefully I'm not forgetting any other bonuses) the bonus was roughly 90% to the overall damage. I assume this was a 30-shot burst for each ion pulser (expanded magazines), so that's 90 shots, so the Hyperion used up 8100 flux (9000 flux but -10% due to Energy Weapon Mastery) to achieve this. A bit more than double the damage.

The punching bag was the sim Onslaught. No officer, no skills, etc., resulting in shield efficiency of 1.0. Hence the high number. But what if it were similarly equipped as the Hyperion? Then we would have:

-10% damage from CR
-20% damage from Shield Modulation
-25% damage from Hardened Shields
-20% damage from Solar Shielding
-----
-56.8% damage


These are all multiplied (not added) together, so it ends up being -56.8% damage. In other words, properly equipped, the Onslaught would've taken 43.2% of the damage. That comes out to 7249 damage. So against an equally equipped Onslaught, the Hyperion would've expended 8100 flux to do 7249 flux damage to the Onslaught. Less than 1:1 ratio.

Sure it's fun to post some huge numbers (reminds me of when AD&D players would post their huge crit numbers), but it's not really indicative of typical play. Also, the Hyperion is now nearly fluxed out; it seriously risks overloading due to a stray hit, if only the sim Onslaught had any anti-shield weaponry to speak of. (This is what balances out Energy Weapon Mastery: as your damage bonus goes up, your margin of error for taking incoming damage decreases.) Overall though the damage bonuses and damage reduction between equally equipped forces still roughly balances out. So, I don't see what's the issue here.

That's because no other capital ship is explicitly built, for meta and in-game lore reasons, to bring devastating firepower to bear facing forward while being vulnerable to the rear. So people can look all cool and awesome, "look at me, I outflanked the ship that is expressly designed and described as something not to be used solo, but in a fleet setting!"

I agree, beating the sim Onslaught isn't really particularly exciting or difficult, nor indicative of if the subject ship is too "powerful". Just for fun I took a Pather Lasher, no officer, regular CR, with a couple of Reapers to punch a hole in the armor and then killed it using vulcan cannons. (Attached is the screenshot.) Obviously Lashers and vulcan cannons need to be toned down. (Side notes, I don't think the AAF did anything since vulcan cannons are already firing at the game's max rate of 20 shots per second, and yes it was an obligatory overload since I had to hug the Onslaught to be in range for the vulcans.)

I had stopped using that aurora a bit when I was fighting lots of capital ships, but then I got some spoilery weapons and now I'm using it again.

When I first saw the 0.95a changes, the SO Aurora with the spoilery weapons was the first thing I went for. The spoilery weapons (4 spoilery missiles, 3 spoilery small hybrids, 2 spoilery medium frag hybrids...I just left the middle medium synergy blank because it's tight on OP and because I didn't really need it) makes killing capitals a cinch. Then I found the Doom and man...with 6 spoilery missiles and 2 spoilery medium frag hybrids, I straight-up kill Brilliants in 2 weapon volleys (thanks to mines redirecting shields), and regularly do 60% of the damage of the whole fleet even if the rest of the fleet is radiants or frigates or whatever. I don't get why this much focus on high tech or frigates or whatever when phase ships are the strongest right now but...oh well.

Also higher tech ships should give a max number of ships penalty to max fleet size, while low tech ships should give a bonus to it, but it can't drop below 30 of course, and I have no idea at what number it should cap, but it would look like this (just a very raw example):

The game already has this, it's reflected in the DP of the different ships. What matters is not how many you can have in your fleet, but how many you can have on the battle map, and since high-tech ships tend to have greater DP, you can put more low-tech ships than high-tech ships in battle.

I think the problem is with SO itself. When you put SO on a ship, you are not so much customizing it as making a different ship. Just my personal preference but when I see a capital ship I want to be quite confident that it has more power output and is tankier than a cruiser, and not less so because the captain of the cruiser has 'overridden the safeties'.

Exactly, but that's the whole point of SO. It makes it into a very different ship with a different playstyle, etc. That's why it's there, it opens up the options for the player. If you only do the initial small battles then the shortened PPT doesn't matter, but it *does* matter later on when you fight bigger, more extended battles. Then it really does become a tradeoff at that point. Generally speaking in 0.9.1a I started the game off with SO but then gradually took it off as I started encountering bigger fleets that you couldn't just roll over so easily.

However the Hyperion is ridiculous without SO too. I think this kind of analysis is a red herring.

This. SO's main benefit for Hyperion is to give it the ability to teleport out with flux. Otherwise Hyperion can teleport in, but becomes vulnerable and can't get out. Sure, the double flux vent is nice, but Hyperion isn't a ship that stands there and melees, it's a hit-and-run. Well, elite Helmsmanship gives the same ability to Hyperion. My Hyperions did better without SO (but with elite Helmsmanship) than with, simply because they could last a lot longer in fights, long enough to actually make it through without losing a lot of CR.

My issue with SO is that it completely changes the stats and capabilities of ships in an arbitrary and senseless way. If you are happy playing with that great but I can't agree it's a good addition to the game.

This is an example of Chesterton's fence. Somebody spent the time to think about what might be an interesting hullmod to put on ships, coded it in, played around with different values, playtested it, debugged the code, etc. All that took a lot of effort to get it into the game. If you just wave that off as "arbitrary and senseless" then it means you haven't bothered to understand why it's there and thus aren't in a position to evaluate its merits.

Hyperion shouldn't be a frigate, I have no clue what Alex was thinking with that.

No, frigate is the right ship size for the Hyperion.

A frigate does not mean "weak" or "ineffective". Generally speaking, the "effectiveness" of a ship is roughly measured by its DP cost, not by its ship size. Hyperion is 15 DP (and has the High Maintenance hullmod making it twice as expensive to carry around). That means its effectiveness is actually roughly that of a cruiser. But, "downsizing" it as a frigate instead of a cruiser is actually to weaken it, because a cruiser -- with cruiser weapon range, OP, number of weapon slots, etc. -- teleporting around would simply be too strong. Similarly, the Monitor is set to be a frigate because a bigger ship with the Flux Shunt hullmod would simply be too strong.

In the 0.95a update, the Hyperion's stats were extremely buffed; it went from 3300 to 8000 flux capacity, and it went from 280 to 500 flux dissipation. Its armor and hull were also increased by 2.5x. Its DP cost stayed at 15 however. So the real issue is "the Hyperion was too severely buffed", not "frigates are too strong and Hyperion is a prime example". It's an extreme outlier of frigates, and made even more so with the update; it's not representative of frigates in general.

Safety overrides is not a hullmod in this manner, it completely redefines a ship in it's entirety. For this reason, I think the obvious choice would be separating it's effects into several other hullmods.

No, SO should be a single hullmod, to force the player to take the bad with the good. That's what keeps its power in check. Splitting its effect into separate hullmods just means the player can pick and choose the one(s) least detrimental to the ship, basically min/maxing out the bad part. It's the most expensive hullmod (double that of Heavy Armor), meaning the ship gives up a lot of other potential benefits to get it. It also locks the ship into a short-range fighting style, meaning the ship has to get in close (and take more damage) to make use of that additional flux dissipation. And of course PPT is cut to 1/3 so that the player has to make use of it quickly (spending time circling around the enemy fleet trying to find an opening is not a good use of the hullmod). All these for the sake of doubling the flux dissipation, because doubling the flux dissipation is a very strong effect, and you need these drawbacks to make sure it doesn't get too overpowering.

Wolfpack gives major boosts to both damage and PPT, so it's kinda hard to draw that conclusion IMO. Honestly, I think wolfpack could get split into two individual skills for damage and PPT. That would work well in a 3 skill/tier system IMO.

I think it'd be better to simply put a DP cap on Wolfpack, and/or decrease the PPT that it gives. Though I still don't quite see what the hubbub is about; other than the Hyperion, the frigates didn't really do much, even with the 20% damage bonus, compared to what I get out of other ships like Medusas or Champions or Radiants. It's pretty funny watching Hyperions take on ships, but non-SO Hyperions didn't really need the extra PPT from Wolfpack, and elite Helmsmanship lets them teleport around, removing the main benefit of SO for them. In many cases Coordinated Maneuvers was better because having extra speed to chase down targets or getting from point A to point B faster is more important.

I'm going all High tech frigate in my current run, I have zero salvage ships and only the cargo space industry skill because I don't want to militarize my support ships and lower bonuses. I have unlimited fuel & nearly unlimited supplies while exploring and can take on basically anything I run into. This playstyle is easy mode compared to everything else I've tried.

Wait, you're saying you use only frigates as your fleet in your current run and it can take on multiple Ordos fleets, Tesseracts, etc.? Without taking losses nor needing high amounts of CR recovery? What's your fleet composition/loadout?

Do you want to have a conversation or make a straw man? Don't put words in my mouth, I never said any of that was bad and I never said it breaks the game. Don't reduce/dumb down my points into for and against extremes so you can lazily counter them.

Um, I think you're the one who was claiming that Alex was trying to shove a certain playstyle down the players' throats. I don't know how that can be interpreted as anything but game-breaking.

My current fleet has 14 captained Frigates +me for 15, 4 redacted captains, all getting the full Wolfpack bonus without diminished returns unlike every other specialized skill in the game. Oh noes 3 got destroyed in 1 really terrible fight, I'll just have to reach into the giant pile of credits I've saved from only using frigates (again I outlined how they save tons of money) and restore them without a second thought.

Um let me get this straight -- so you're saying that Wolfpack makes frigates too strong and yet you sometimes lose 20% of your frigate fleet in a single fight and you think that represents it being too strong?

Hardened Subsystems pushes its PPT up to 137 seconds by the way,  meaning Wolfpack Tactics makes it possible for Overridden Frigades to have a higher Peak Performance time than their stock value. This also means that some Overridden frigades (looking at you Glimmer) also manage to get a PPT value that's higher than not only Destroyers, but also Cruisers. Think about that for a moment.

Eh maybe I'm not doing my math right, but I get that a SO Glimmer with Reliability Engineering, Crew Training, and Systems Expertise comes out with 257 seconds of PPT. The only destroyers with a shorter PPT are Buffalo, Buffalo Mk. II, and Nebula, and the lowest PPT cruiser has 360 seconds of PPT (Heron). Am I missing something?

This is about AI controlled frigates with a captain outclassing Capitols. Player pilots are basically cheating the AIs limitations. Player control breaks the game and shouldn't be included in any discussion but those specifically about that.

And to be clear we aren't talking fleet vs fleet and capitols needing support when outnumbered. It's just getting a spanking 1v1, which is absurd when done by the AI. It's layers of imbalance and failure.

You're saying that an AI-controlled frigate can outclass a capital one-on-one? Is this against an equally equipped capital? And this is due to the 20% damage bonus of Wolfpack (keeping in mind that ships get a variety of damage bonuses from other sources, additive, so this ends up being more like a 10-15% overall damage bonus) and the extra PPT that it gives?
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: ElPresidente on May 25, 2021, 12:08:04 AM
Personally, you only need to look at what roles in a fleet frigates/gunships have in RL and go from there.

they were never supposed ot be the main thrust, the core of a fleet. They are scouts, pickets, escorts.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: slowpersun on May 25, 2021, 12:23:57 AM
Personally, you only need to look at what roles in a fleet frigates/gunships have in RL and go from there.

they were never supposed ot be the main thrust, the core of a fleet. They are scouts, pickets, escorts.

Yeah, but to be fair, there generally aren't any support ships to hunt down that normally spawn with a fighting fleet.  Just when you get run down by someone/something (ie, you generally avoid deploying support ships, since they don't heal damage/CR or reset PPT).  Plus, CP usage/refill rate is... too variable.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 25, 2021, 12:36:48 AM
My issue with SO is that it completely changes the stats and capabilities of ships in an arbitrary and senseless way. If you are happy playing with that great but I can't agree it's a good addition to the game.

This is an example of Chesterton's fence. Somebody spent the time to think about what might be an interesting hullmod to put on ships, coded it in, played around with different values, playtested it, debugged the code, etc. All that took a lot of effort to get it into the game. If you just wave that off as "arbitrary and senseless" then it means you haven't bothered to understand why it's there and thus aren't in a position to evaluate its merits.

Not really. People often put a lot of thought and effort into things that don't turn out and you don't need to understand every aspect of the reasoning to evaluate the effects, though that often helps.

In this case I understand the idea behind SO fine - let ships do something powerful and cool while balancing with time and fitting limitations. The issue is it's too powerful and undermines ship classes and roles, doesn't make any sense from a conceptual standpoint (suddenly having power capabilities exceeding that of larger ship classes from 'overridden safeties'), and the drawbacks are uninteresting in that they either don't come into play at all or it's a no-brainer to approximate optimal usage.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: TotenKopf on May 25, 2021, 04:26:38 AM
Nobody here is unclear on the intent of SO. But...

It gives significant buffs without any real downside other than relegating you to one play style. Balancing through OP cost isn't possible at the moment so you just get the same ship with crazy speed and flux dissipation.

I think it can be said uncontroversially that it wasn't Alex's intent for me to fly my eagle heavy cruiser with the speed of a frigate (190 with UI and the jets on!) and nearly 2000 flux dissipation. I mean, I've got problems, but getting into, and fighting at, close range in my eagle ain't one of em.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Igncom1 on May 25, 2021, 05:17:01 AM
I wouldn't consider the names of "frigates" "Capital ships" and so on to have any meaning in this game, or even real life lol, beyond cool sounding titles that are vaguely applied.

Frigates used to be the some of the biggest ships in the fleet behind ships of the line (of battle).... now look at em!
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: garter_snake on May 25, 2021, 07:39:34 AM
I don't think frigates are much biased at all; to be honest I think the wolfpack build you show here is on the weak side(though it looks fun).  Yeah, soloing a battleship with a frigate looks cool, but it's kind of an unrepresentative test as you're committing your char to it.  Killing isolated line ships is what frigate wolfpacks are /supposed/ to be good at anyway.

I've tried frigate heavy fleets, but I've found them underwhelming past early game.

1. Can't kill stations without niche builds/heavy micro. 
2. Get shredded by fighters/interceptors.
3. Not particularly fuel or maintenance efficient per deployment point, especially as you don't want to spend fitting on Efficiency Overhaul or Solar Shielding.
4. Frigs will tend to take casualties in bigger fights, meaning you either need to put officers in them(which is expensive) or give them bulkheads(which is ***, as frig fitting is tight) if you don't want to play reship bingo a lot before you have production.
5. It's kind of a pain to build a 'good' frig fleet pre-production, as many of the high end frigs like the Tempest/Hyperion/Afflictor are fairly rare.  Even the mid tier ones like the brawler are kind of uncommon, and a lot of frig builds have fairly specific weapons loadouts, as they tend to rely on short range high damage guns.
6. I've been very unimpressed with frigate AI.  Larger ships have enough range and spare missile ammo for it not to matter as much, but I've seen a lot of stuff like three frigs feeding in one by one from the same direction instead of flanking and moving in at the same time.  And a lot of bad missile use.

I think frigs fleets are good for core world stuff, with their high burn and low sig being nice for chasing merchant convoys and running from the cops.  For stuff in the outer constellations, their inefficiency begins to drag. 
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on May 25, 2021, 09:14:55 AM
Hardened Subsystems pushes its PPT up to 137 seconds by the way,  meaning Wolfpack Tactics makes it possible for Overridden Frigades to have a higher Peak Performance time than their stock value. This also means that some Overridden frigades (looking at you Glimmer) also manage to get a PPT value that's higher than not only Destroyers, but also Cruisers. Think about that for a moment.

Eh maybe I'm not doing my math right, but I get that a SO Glimmer with Reliability Engineering, Crew Training, and Systems Expertise comes out with 257 seconds of PPT. The only destroyers with a shorter PPT are Buffalo, Buffalo Mk. II, and Nebula, and the lowest PPT cruiser has 360 seconds of PPT (Heron). Am I missing something?

You're missing something because I forgot to write it myself, so that's on me  :P

What I meant  to say write is that Safety Overrides Frigades using an officer and wolfpack tactics (plus al the thingmagigs and thinkabobs) can reliably get close to or even suprass the Peak Performance Time of Overridden Destroyers and Cruisers. The Glimmer is one of the most infamous Frigades able to do this since Automated Ships have a rather high PPT in the first place :) 
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 25, 2021, 02:54:09 PM
edit: Self Redacted.

You're saying that an AI-controlled frigate can outclass a capital one-on-one?

Tempest can. 2 posts above you saying the same thing. I'll post it below. edit: That is a cruiser below but w/e same point.

Yup, can confirm watching an AI controlled tempest with all its bonuses just fly up and gun down a conquest head to head is silly. Sure its a non-officered, D mod conquest with a mediocre build, and I'm going down the leadership 9 Tech 5 route, but thats some serious powerup on the frigate!
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 25, 2021, 03:08:05 PM
1. I played a game on the weekend where frigates were eating stations including redacted ones. No micro, no nothing. Full assault On, aggressive captains. This one point tells me you have nearly zero actual playtime with these builds and shouldn't be commenting on their balance.
Come on.... I've spent lots of time using officered frigates because they are definitely really strong, but killing a full strength nexus is not something they are good at. Maybe against the weak unshielded ones, but the full alpha core nexus in a red ping system?... There's no way you don't lose multiple frigates on approach, and they have no where to back off to for venting because stations have such absurd range. You probably could kill one but you're gonna take heavy loses. Even certain radiant builds require micro because 5x autopulse or 5x tac lance will delete a frigate in one burst and you need to ensure that you coordinate against them.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 25, 2021, 03:37:11 PM
1. I played a game on the weekend where frigates were eating stations including redacted ones. No micro, no nothing. Full assault On, aggressive captains. This one point tells me you have nearly zero actual playtime with these builds and shouldn't be commenting on their balance.
Come on.... I've spent lots of time using officered frigates because they are definitely really strong, but killing a full strength nexus is not something they are good at. Maybe against the weak unshielded ones, but the full alpha core nexus in a red ping system?... There's no way you don't lose multiple frigates on approach, and they have no where to back off to for venting because stations have such absurd range. You probably could kill one but you're gonna take heavy loses. Even certain radiant builds require micro because 5x autopulse or 5x tac lance will delete a frigate in one burst and you need to ensure that you coordinate against them.

Low tech, Midline, High tech max level ya. All were no issue. I didn't say a max level Nexus, just that they didn't have issues with ones I came across.

He just said they can't handle stations generally. As in any stations, which is absurd.

edit:
Why would you kill a max level one anyways? I need them to spawn stuff to farm.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 25, 2021, 03:41:22 PM
 @Locklave please tone down the hostile language. Everyone has different amounts of experience with different builds, and telling people not to comment at all because they lack playtime is extremely toxic. If their experience is struggling with stations for example, sharing your builds with pre/post battle pictures and an explanation of why that strategy works would be a much more productive way to get your point across while building group knowledge.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 25, 2021, 04:04:01 PM
I was out of line, apologies garter_snake.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: ElPresidente on May 26, 2021, 01:48:51 AM
I wouldn't consider the names of "frigates" "Capital ships" and so on to have any meaning in this game, or even real life lol, beyond cool sounding titles that are vaguely applied.

Frigates used to be the some of the biggest ships in the fleet behind ships of the line (of battle).... now look at em!

The name is not important, the role is.
In this context, frigate refers to small, cheap warships - you can call it escort, destroyer, gunboat, whatever. Troughout history they have always been applied to roles that are best for their attributes (speed, mobility, small size, cost) - patrol, escort, pickets.

If you look at WW2, for example, destroyers were never a core of any force, they were always support. The cases in which they directly engaged enemy fleets without backup by bigger capital ships are rare and usually the result of circumstances or desperation.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Vanshilar on May 26, 2021, 04:18:46 AM
Keep in mind, frigates were buffed because they weren't usable for offense in 0.9.1a late game.  And fighters could be spammed agains the AI and it couldn't do anything.  If you want to avoid another overcompensation, I feel people need to be very clear on what situations they would like to see be balanced against each other.

Yeah that's the main issue I'm having with this thread. People making all sorts of claims but not really giving specifics (i.e. test situations that they feel justify their position). Or the numbers given are cherry-picked and one-sided, i.e. showing the strongest of one side vs the weakest of another, which will of course lead to lopsided results without really illuminating the situation nor the context. For example, a heavy blaster shot (500 damage) could do as much as 2100 vs shields under the right conditions (+10% from CR, +20% vs capital ship, +10% weapon drills, +20% wolfpack, +30% energy weapon mastery, +50% high energy focus, then all that vs a Conquest (shield eff 1.4) with 0% CR and degraded shields for a shield eff of 1.75), or as little as 117 (-10% firing ship at low CR, 0.6 base shields, -10% from CR, -20% shield modulation, -25% hardened shields, -20% solar shielding)...or really, down to 11.7 if you consider fortress shields. So damage dealt can be increased to as much as 420% or decreased to as low as 23.3%, a range of 18x from the smallest possible to the greatest possible (180x if you consider fortress shields) for the same shot. (Note that 420% * 23.3% = ~98%, so actually, possible damage augmentation almost exactly matches possible damage reduction.) Picking either extreme isn't really going to be relevant for normal play.

For me it's fairly simple. If you want to claim something is overpowered, then you justify it by showing that it does significantly better than other fleet compositions/loadouts against the toughest fights in the game, at a lower cost (i.e. least DP used for example). To me those would be the Tesseract fight, the Tesseract bounty, multiple Ordos fleets, and Star Fortresses. For me personally the most relevant one is tackling multiple Ordos fleets, since the others are essentially one-offs whereas farming for alpha cores is something my fleet will spend a lot of time doing repeatedly in any given playthrough -- so it's the fight that's the most important to optimize against. Right now my Ordos "test fleet" (just a random fleet that I saved before the encounter, that I use now to try out different fleets) consists of 4 Radiants (including one with 5 tachyons) and 7 Brilliants, totaling 368 FP.

Claims about fleet effectiveness against almost any other fight (pirate fleets, faction fleets, etc.) are more or less irrelevant since those fights are going to be easier and thus by definition can be done with more types (i.e. not-as-good) of fleets. Sure the player might feel good using those fleets to kill pirates, but pirates are more or less designed to be stomped on by whatever the player has in the first place -- so they're not a good measure of what's overpowered (i.e. what is too strong).

Thus for example when I say Doom is overpowered, the justification is that I can pilot a Doom solo to single-handedly defeat the Tesseract fights, and as the flagship with 6 spoilery small missiles and 2 spoilery medium frag hybrids, it two-shots Brilliants (with mines to redirect their shields in the opposite direction), which makes the Ordos fleet pretty easy to defeat. I haven't found any other ship that can defeat those fights as easily.

Against the Ordos test fleet, the frigates even when using Wolfpack don't contribute as much as other fleet compositions (using Medusas, Furies, Champions, Auroras, Radiants, or any combination of those) that I've tested, so I don't see why Wolfpack makes frigates too strong. Frigates without SO are simply too weak, and with SO simply don't last long enough and start suffering from CR (which ends up increasing the overall supply to recover). So I'm not really seeing the argument for why frigates are supposed to be overpowered.

Not really. People often put a lot of thought and effort into things that don't turn out and you don't need to understand every aspect of the reasoning to evaluate the effects, though that often helps.

Perhaps but calling it "arbitrary and senseless" is what I'm talking about. It is not arbitrary and it is not senseless, and calling it such doesn't drive the discussion forward (doesn't raise any points to persuade nor refute). It's more productive to say "it doesn't work out and here are my reasons why".

In this case I understand the idea behind SO fine - let ships do something powerful and cool while balancing with time and fitting limitations. The issue is it's too powerful and undermines ship classes and roles, doesn't make any sense from a conceptual standpoint (suddenly having power capabilities exceeding that of larger ship classes from 'overridden safeties'), and the drawbacks are uninteresting in that they either don't come into play at all or it's a no-brainer to approximate optimal usage.

It changes ship classes/roles, but doesn't undermine them -- it's effectively a new role. An SO Aurora does not play the same as a non-SO Aurora. Conceptually there's no reason why the next class up needs to have more than double the power capabilities (i.e. why SO can't mean a ship has more power than the next class up); in fact a Sunder (destroyer) has 500 base dissipation, the same as a Legion (capital), even though the Legion is two sizes up. So there is plenty of variation in power capabilities even before SO. Not sure how you can say the drawbacks don't come into play at all or are no-brainers; other than trivial fights, running out of PPT is always a concern, forcing the player to take more risk and be more aggressive (and means switching out of SO once the lack of PPT means more supplies needed to recover), and the short weapon range means the player has to create opportunities and gauge potential enemy fire a lot more effectively.

I think it can be said uncontroversially that it wasn't Alex's intent for me to fly my eagle heavy cruiser with the speed of a frigate (190 with UI and the jets on!) and nearly 2000 flux dissipation. I mean, I've got problems, but getting into, and fighting at, close range in my eagle ain't one of em.

I disagree. Seeing as how people have been able to do this for a long time without Alex seeing fit to change it, I'd say Alex intends for this to be a possible build choice. 190 with jets on means 140 without jets, and you've given up a big chunk of OP, weapon range severely limited past 450 units, plus 15% weapon range reduction on top of that. Those are pretty severe drawbacks on top of the PPT, but if the player wants to do this, I don't think he sees it as a problem.

What I meant  to say write is that Safety Overrides Frigades using an officer and wolfpack tactics (plus al the thingmagigs and thinkabobs) can reliably get close to or even suprass the Peak Performance Time of Overridden Destroyers and Cruisers. The Glimmer is one of the most infamous Frigades able to do this since Automated Ships have a rather high PPT in the first place :)

That's more a matter of the PPT ranges inherently overlapping between the different ship sizes. Sure larger ship sizes generally means longer PPT but there's a lot of variation within each ship size. Frigate PPT varies from 120-360 seconds, destroyer PPT varies from 240-420 seconds, cruiser PPT varies from 360-540 seconds, and capital PPT varies from 600-720 seconds. So yes a high-PPT frigate lasts longer than a shorter-PPT destroyer. It has nothing to do with SO though. An Enforcer destroyer (420 seconds) also lasts longer than a Heron cruiser (360 seconds). Wolfpack does make frigate PPT more like destroyer PPT.

Tempest can. 2 posts above you saying the same thing. I'll post it below. edit: That is a cruiser below but w/e same point.

Yup, can confirm watching an AI controlled tempest with all its bonuses just fly up and gun down a conquest head to head is silly. Sure its a non-officered, D mod conquest with a mediocre build, and I'm going down the leadership 9 Tech 5 route, but thats some serious powerup on the frigate!

That's against a non-officer d-mod Conquest, hardly the stuff of nightmares. So you're basically taking the very strongest of one ship and pitting it against the weakest of another. This is not a strong support for "frigates are overpowered because frigates can defeat capitals 1 vs 1" because while technically true (i.e. it is possible to construct such a case), it will never occur nor be relevant in any non-trivial fights, and as such isn't a situation that balance decisions should be centered around. (To wit: you can also have a frigate kill an Atlas but no one is going to say that justifies the position either.)

The other time you used this argument in this thread was back on page 5:

I guess we're pretending that there isn't a video in this thread of a High tech frigate killing the king of Low Tech. Are we pretending the enforcer would do better in that fight? Maybe try it against a Dominator? Either High and to a lesser extent midline are OP or the low tech is grossly UP.

I know I'm beating a dead horse to death here but a ship being able to kill the sim Onslaught has nothing to do with if it's high tech or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not the ship is fast enough to get to the Onslaught's rear. If it is, then that's where the AI will go and then it's a slow (or not so slow) death for the Onslaught. To wit, I attached a screenshot of a Pather Lasher under AI control (autopilot) killing the sim Onslaught.

If you look at the upper right of the screenshot, you'll see that it's...under version 0.9.1a! Yes that's right, ships could do this even before the update, and it has nothing to do with Wolfpack Tactics, or the new Target Analysis, or Energy Weapon Mastery, or whatever other changes the update brought that supposedly made frigates overpowered. But I don't recall many "frigates are overpowered they kill capitals too easily" complaints back in 0.9.1a. (Side note: The reapers were a disappointment, 2 got shot down by PD, 1 hit shields and barely did any damage to the Onslaught, and only 1 actually hit successfully. The majority of the damage was from the light assault guns. And yeah if you look closely you'll see that I didn't even bother to take off the malfunctions d-mod from the Lasher.)

Low tech, Midline, High tech max level ya. All were no issue. I didn't say a max level Nexus, just that they didn't have issues with ones I came across.

Are you saying that your frigate fleet can handle star fortresses? Under AI control i.e. without input from the player? On a whim I took 8 Hyperions up against Coatl's battlestation (i.e. level 2), and with or without SO, they only took out 1 of the PD bastions before dying. Meanwhile 2 stock Paragons or 3 stock Onslaughts ("stock" meaning I addship'ed them and made no modifications beyond adding officers), i.e. the same amount of DP, were each able to kill the battlestation. So the Hyperions did worse than an equivalent amount of Paragons or Onslaughts and neither of those capitals were "purpose-built" for the task. And you're saying that your frigates can handle star fortresses (i.e. Chicomoztoc), with the mines and so forth? And you previously said the fleet could handle anything that you ran into (which presumably includes Ordos fleets, and presumably also under AI control). What fleet composition and loadouts are you using?
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: ElPresidente on May 26, 2021, 04:29:40 AM
Remove the fleet limit to players can REALLY swarm with frigates.

But frigates don't need to be more powerful. They are NOT and SHOULD NOT be there for unsupported offense. A full frigate fleet SHOULD be butchered by a normal fleet. The ONLY time a frigate should be able to take out a capital is by swarming or attacking while it's distracted by another capital (basically torpedo runs). Their job is to control space - to zip around, harass supply lines, take out support ships, capture points. In other words, to be annoying as F***.

I know frigates are the prototypical hero ship, but those hero ships are usually doing side mission and stealthy stuff, not attacking capitals. In in a few rare cases wherey they do (and win), it's either terrible writing or some ancient super-tech asspull that saves them.

Some are basically asking for a handgun to as useful in a military engagement as a assault rifle.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Megas on May 26, 2021, 04:39:47 AM
The hero ship in this release is (or should be) the Ziggurat.  Very powerful and unique.  Once the player gets his hands on it, it practically becomes his signature ship (whether or not the player actually uses it).  Too bad it is a huge hangar queen.

Ziggurat is Starsector's Vindicator (from Star Control 2).
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Badger on May 26, 2021, 04:50:47 AM
It's more productive to say "it doesn't work out and here are my reasons why".

I just did, and also previously in the thread.

In this case I understand the idea behind SO fine - let ships do something powerful and cool while balancing with time and fitting limitations. The issue is it's too powerful and undermines ship classes and roles, doesn't make any sense from a conceptual standpoint (suddenly having power capabilities exceeding that of larger ship classes from 'overridden safeties'), and the drawbacks are uninteresting in that they either don't come into play at all or it's a no-brainer to approximate optimal usage.

It changes ship classes/roles, but doesn't undermine them -- it's effectively a new role. An SO Aurora does not play the same as a non-SO Aurora. Conceptually there's no reason why the next class up needs to have more than double the power capabilities (i.e. why SO can't mean a ship has more power than the next class up); in fact a Sunder (destroyer) has 500 base dissipation, the same as a Legion (capital), even though the Legion is two sizes up. So there is plenty of variation in power capabilities even before SO. Not sure how you can say the drawbacks don't come into play at all or are no-brainers; other than trivial fights, running out of PPT is always a concern, forcing the player to take more risk and be more aggressive (and means switching out of SO once the lack of PPT means more supplies needed to recover), and the short weapon range means the player has to create opportunities and gauge potential enemy fire a lot more effectively.

There is a both a conceptual and balance issue with a hullmod doubling flux dissipation. For the former it doesn't make sense that 'overriding safeties' should accomplish anything like this. Gameplay-wise it is an overpowering (and overpowered) effect.

Yes it's a new role - a run up and smash things with your overpowered hullmod role  ;).

Sunder v Legion is not really a good example for the claim that flux dissipation varies unpredictably in relation to ship classes / size. One is a (missile-heavy) carrier, the other is a specialist ship specifically built to be a glass cannon and leverage an oversized, flux-hungry energy mount. On the whole, bigger ship bigger power.

Most fights are trivial (and many can be rendered so by SO). Having to swap out for some minor end-game content doesn't really affect the dynamic afaics, particularly because it takes no particular insight to do so.

More supplies is kind of moot given the extremely low difficulty of the economic side of the game. I play with Ruthless Sector (very good) and even then I couldn't care less about maintenance outside the very early game. That's not a combat drawback.

Re PPT as I argued previously it doesn't seem very interesting because while it lasts there is no drawback to having SO active and the ship is overpowered during this period, and it's quite easy to know when it's not going to last or when to switch out SO ships. It's just personal preference, I like ships to behave somewhat predictably i.e. within a reasonable range for the kind of ship they are, and then you can differentiate with interesting modifications, without having the option to suddenly change the ship into one much stronger without any kind of real explanation of why this can be done and (for me) undermining the game's careful and interesting balance with weapons, flux capacity etc.

Re range - again, as mentioned previously, range limitations on SO is kind of a joke since what you want to be doing with a SO ship is get right in the enemies' face anyway.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 26, 2021, 08:10:38 AM
The punching bag was the sim Onslaught. No officer, no skills, etc., resulting in shield efficiency of 1.0.
Yeah, this is exactly the reason why I test against it, if I want to get shield damage numbers without shield efficiency affecting them.

Right now my Ordos "test fleet" (just a random fleet that I saved before the encounter, that I use now to try out different fleets) consists of 4 Radiants (including one with 5 tachyons) and 7 Brilliants, totaling 368 FP.
Could you send it to me? Thanks.

the flagship with 6 spoilery small missiles and 2 spoilery medium frag hybrids
You don't even need omega weapons. 4 AMB, 2 Ion Pulser Doom is probably enough to defeat everything in the game.

Radiants
I'll give you that Radiant isn't as busted as DC or phase ships, but it's still a step above all non-DC, non-phase ship fleets.

That's against a non-officer d-mod Conquest, hardly the stuff of nightmares. So you're basically taking the very strongest of one ship and pitting it against the weakest of another.
I have done some quick tests. Against simulator Conquest, Glimmer feels a lot stronger now.
Heavy Blaster, 2 IR Pulses, 2 Sabot Racks loadout: In 0.9.1 on its own, with many skills and my piloting, it wasn't really a threat on its own to the Conquest. In 0.95, I was able to flux it out fairly easily, with the best run getting it down to 50% hull.
Ion Pulser (which got buffed in 0.95), 1 Anti-Matter Blaster, 1 IR Pulse, 2 Sabot Racks: In 0.9.1, while I can disable the Conquest's weapons, I cannot deal any permanent damage to it. In 0.95, I was able to destroy it while using 4 of 12 sabots, so I probably could do it again once or twice.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on May 26, 2021, 09:04:34 AM
Stop bullying ancient Onslaughts.

Use this for actual combat testing:

(https://i.imgur.com/tjuYlTF.png)

For calculation purposes there is a Practice Targets mod.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: garter_snake on May 26, 2021, 09:44:26 AM
I think I got flamed but the post got edited out lmao

Anyway, yeah, post your station killing frigate fleet.  If it's generalist/easily obtainable stuff I'll eat crow, but if it's a bunch of sp buffed tempests/hyperions you have to treasure hunt the hulls for, captained by a bunch of officers you have to treasure hunt the natures for(though I guess mentoring is a thing now, which I didn't realize before today), then I think your midgame efficiency argument falls on its face vs just grabbing an onslaught and pulling it out of storage anytime you need to crack a pirate spawn.

Frankly I don't see how you're killing t3 at all.  They throw out a shitton of fire.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: SCC on May 26, 2021, 10:04:03 AM
Tempests are very easy to get. Just check Tri-Tachyon, League or Independent colonies. It's easy enough that I don't get Tempests early only because I choose to willingly not to buy them, not because I can't.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on May 26, 2021, 10:50:14 AM
...Why does that Radiant have 4 Gravitons in SYnergy slots that could very well fit harpoons or sabots? Even 4 Ion BEams would be a better investment....
Wait, why does it have no PD and uses the 5 Cheapest to fire large energy weapons where it could very well use 5 Tach Lances as a starting option anyway?
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Locklave on May 26, 2021, 01:46:22 PM
Tempests are very easy to get. Just check Tri-Tachyon, League or Independent colonies. It's easy enough that I don't get Tempests early only because I choose to willingly not to buy them, not because I can't.

Omens too, pretty common, gotta have that anti fighter/missiles tank frigate that disables everything in sight constantly. They don't even need captains.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on May 26, 2021, 02:44:38 PM
...Why does that Radiant have 4 Gravitons in SYnergy slots that could very well fit harpoons or sabots? Even 4 Ion BEams would be a better investment....
Wait, why does it have no PD and uses the 5 Cheapest to fire large energy weapons where it could very well use 5 Tach Lances as a starting option anyway?

Sabots on the un-officered ship create bad reflex (8 sec interval between shots instead of 4) - not good for training purposes. Harpoons will not fire unless you are close to overload or Radiant already close to death. 800 instantaneous, sustained and very long range dps against shields is pretty decent. But I do replace them from time to time with the Ion Pulsers. However disproportion in range is noticeable and it is useful mostly for the SO tests.

It has kill zone in the frontal arc just as Onslaught. Destroys all incoming missiles/fighters. Autopulse Laser is the most burstiest weapon for the Large Energy apart from the Omega arsenal. 33750 hardflux energy damage (from x5) in 4,5 sec.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 26, 2021, 02:53:54 PM
I would probably prefer 4x am blaster in the forward small slots over 4x grav beams. Or 2x am blaster and 2x Ion pulser.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on May 26, 2021, 03:18:33 PM
AMB's have the same problem as Ion Pulsers. Good only for SO training. In normal one you simply keep the range open.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Thaago on May 26, 2021, 03:19:27 PM
I'm a fan of ion beams, though 4 of them are a bit flux intensive.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Draba on May 26, 2021, 03:30:30 PM
Yup, can confirm watching an AI controlled tempest with all its bonuses just fly up and gun down a conquest head to head is silly. Sure its a non-officered, D mod conquest with a mediocre build, and I'm going down the leadership 9 Tech 5 route, but thats some serious powerup on the frigate!
Hiruma Kai already addressed how much the different buffs matter, that capitals aren't necessarily good in solo fights, and sim loadouts are not the best.
Would like to second that, and emphasize that the Conquest isn't for brawling (90°/1.4 shields are mostly there to protect from beams/chip damage, armor is mediocre for a capital).

Faster ships having less weapon range means that they have to absorb some fire on their way in to attack a target. It also means that enemy ships can focus fire more easily on them -- they have to get within the range of multiple enemy ships to do their damage.
...
I think it's a lot more useful from a feedback standpoint to talk in terms of whether or not the changes skewed the risk vs reward ratio a bit too much toward one side or the other.
IMO most "OP" ships are relatively strong because they are fast (in the "can pick their fights" sense).
Ziggurat, Doom, Fury, ...

Slow ships obviously can't keep weapons on the target, and trying to coordinate even groups of 2-3 seems very hard.
They are constantly bumping into each other, small ships block some weapons with a very wide safety margin, movement orders are really unreliable so it's mostly escort or eliminate ...
Paired with how tough shields are it's really hard to simply batter down enemies with slow ballistic/beam ships.
Paragon is good because it has enough range and naturally focuses enough power to hurt things before they can escape.

Missiles could be a very nice solution, burst enemies down when they are close or finish them when they try to pull out at high flux. ECCM missiles are great and with skill+builtin racks the limit is extremely generous for "standard" use.
I think that's a sore spot, AI just seems to *** them off like there is no tomorrow.
Some lone fighters? SABOT! Lone hound? SABOT! Overloaded Brilliant with full armor? SABOT! 0 flux lone Lumen 1000 units away? MIRV!
Missiles fall off a cliff in tough fights where my fleet isn't bumrushing the enemy. A massive portion gets spammed at long range against the wrong targets.

So I feel speedy things are on the strong side now in general, not frigates or wolfpack specifically.
High tech frigates are mostly used simply because low and midline don't have a good high-DP option, and pop too easily (low DP is obviously weaker to start with AND there aren't enough officers to go around).
Usual exception, Monitor is still the best frigate in the game :)

I think I got flamed but the post got edited out lmao
Didn't miss out on much, more of the same you can see earlier in the thread :)
Welcome to the forums!
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: WeiTuLo on May 26, 2021, 03:39:14 PM
Hmm... maybe Hurricanes should stop targeting frigates. And maybe fast destroyers too, unless they are high on flux/really close/have no shields.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Vextor on May 26, 2021, 05:54:14 PM
A massive portion gets spammed at long range against the wrong targets.
Or when a ship dies without firing single missile... while facing directly its killer with 4x reaper torpedoes at about 300 range
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: WeiTuLo on May 26, 2021, 07:23:49 PM
Yeah, panic dumping missiles is reasonable behavior.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: TaLaR on May 27, 2021, 12:05:29 AM
...Why does that Radiant have 4 Gravitons in SYnergy slots that could very well fit harpoons or sabots? Even 4 Ion BEams would be a better investment....
Wait, why does it have no PD and uses the 5 Cheapest to fire large energy weapons where it could very well use 5 Tach Lances as a starting option anyway?

It's designed to duel capitals with maximum efficiency without relying on limited resources. So anything irrelevant to this goal is traded for hullmods/vents/caps.
It was tested in unskilled combat in 0.91 (which is more or less same as skilled in 0.95 in regards to armor), 5xAutopulses eat through Onslaught's armor is seconds, there simply is no need for a specialized anti-armor tool at that point. Though I suppose trading one of them for Plasma may be an improvement overall (would need to be tested).
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Vextor on May 27, 2021, 08:45:17 AM
I do it always in FPS games if I have a grenade left though, or a rocket, it just makes sense to make the most of your equipment before guaranteed death
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 27, 2021, 09:04:13 AM
My radiant build is 2 autopulse, 2 plasma, 1 paladin PD and a bunch of sabots. Honestly, I don't really get the argument for not using sabots. With 4 pods, you would have to 1v1 duel like 6+ capitals to run out, they make you MUCH better at fighting capitals while you have ammo, and if you invest in extra ammo, you probably won't even run out in any reasonable fight.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Arcagnello on May 27, 2021, 11:21:09 AM
My radiant build is 2 autopulse, 2 plasma, 1 paladin PD and a bunch of sabots. Honestly, I don't really get the argument for not using sabots. With 4 pods, you would have to 1v1 duel like 6+ capitals to run out, they make you MUCH better at fighting capitals while you have ammo, and if you invest in extra ammo, you probably won't even run out in any reasonable fight.

This.
Do you really want to skip the opportunity of giving your Radiant 128 Sabots and 120 Reaper Torpedoes with Expanded Missile racks/Missile Expertise (not to mention the absurd 50% increase in both fire rate and reload speed)? I don't think we need to do the math to realize how much murder that many missiles will cause, even assuming only a third of them hits. The Ludd-forsaken abomination is litterally going to run out of enemies to blend before the missiles run dry 90% of the time.

The ship even gets 3 large energy slots to play with after that's installed. More than enough to fully use the flux dissipation with a combination of autopulses and plasma cannons, with maybe a single Paladin PD.

Addendum: While I do see the reasoning behind using a Radiant without an officer and all that for the sake of testing, virtually every encounter with the ship is accopanied by an Alpha core, which boosts missile ammunition, health and reload times/rates of fire by absurd amounts most of the time. You can get 300% ammo on 90 Ordinance Points worth of weapons. If that's not value then I really don't know what is.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on May 27, 2021, 04:37:19 PM
My radiant build is 2 autopulse, 2 plasma, 1 paladin PD and a bunch of sabots. Honestly, I don't really get the argument for not using sabots. With 4 pods, you would have to 1v1 duel like 6+ capitals to run out, they make you MUCH better at fighting capitals while you have ammo, and if you invest in extra ammo, you probably won't even run out in any reasonable fight.

Because this is not yours Radiant. It is SIM Radiant. It doesn't have skills. And exploiting the 8 sec interval between sabot shots is too easy. And it doesn't work against real Radiant.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 27, 2021, 04:47:30 PM
Are we specifically talking about making variants to test player controlled builds against in the sim? I guess that's fine then since player knows how to waste sabots and it's mostly just a waste of time. I personally don't care enough to try and make 'sim opponent' builds though. They're never going to be realistic representations of the enemies you will face without skills. As long as everything get's tested against the same opponents and you understand the tactics you're using to win, you can get relative comparisons of your builds, which is all I care about, although I will admit I stole someone elses sim builds mod just to get some slightly stronger builds to test against.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on May 27, 2021, 09:35:33 PM
Yes, I'm talking specifically about sim test dummy to train against. All those "I destroyed sim Onslaught head on" happening against ship variant what was considered obsolete even from the game's lore perspective. And yet it comes as an argument for the balancing debate. Again and again.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 27, 2021, 09:42:15 PM
Idk, most cruisers and destroyers cannot kill the sim onslaught head on, and most frigates under AI control will not kill it either. I think it's a reasonable measuring stick, you just have to understand when you're beating it by exploiting it's weaknesses vs beating it in-spite of its strengths (i.e. head on). You can always test against paragon too. Testing against a radiant is going to be useless for 90% of ships because they will just die without achieving anything.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Lucky33 on May 27, 2021, 11:59:40 PM
I've already shown my measuring stick. Obviously I'm using it to build ships what will not die to Redacted in general and the Radiant in particular. From that I can downgrade to optimize builds against easier targets. And this is my logic: from top to bottom. "Good ships" = "ships capable of standing up to the Radiant". Everything else are "those other ships".
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Vanshilar on June 07, 2021, 02:50:00 AM
There is a both a conceptual and balance issue with a hullmod doubling flux dissipation. For the former it doesn't make sense that 'overriding safeties' should accomplish anything like this. Gameplay-wise it is an overpowering (and overpowered) effect.

Why not? *All* ships are capable of doubling their flux dissipation -- when they're actively venting. Just that normally, active venting disables shield and weapons, whereas SO means the ship is able to use its shield and weapons while actively venting.

From a practical perspective, it's also difficult to get actual double flux dissipation due to the high cost of SO. There simply isn't enough OP left over in most cases. And most SO builds pretty much require Hardened Subsystems, which is an additional OP cost (or takes up one of the s-mod slots, which is effectively OP cost). For example, my SO Aurora (with spoilery weapons) ends up with 15400 flux capacity and 2100 dissipation, due to limited remaining OP; but without SO, it would have 16200 flux capacity and 1450 dissipation, so SO really just means 45% more dissipation. Even if I put all remaining OP to dissipation, it would only have 2320 dissipation (60% more dissipation), but at the cost of about 19% of its flux capacity.

Additionally, in practical play, without SO, my gameplay strategy is usually to run up my flux bar killing a ship, then vent as I move on to the next target, thus resetting my flux bar. (So yes, I use very over-fluxed builds.) Thus my average flux dissipation is somewhere between regular and double dissipation. So SO meaning double flux dissipation again doesn't mean double flux dissipation in practice.

Sunder v Legion is not really a good example for the claim that flux dissipation varies unpredictably in relation to ship classes / size. One is a (missile-heavy) carrier, the other is a specialist ship specifically built to be a glass cannon and leverage an oversized, flux-hungry energy mount. On the whole, bigger ship bigger power.

The point however is that while on the whole, bigger ship means more flux dissipation, there is nothing odd about a particular smaller ship having more dissipation than a larger ship size. The spread of dissipation within a ship size is much bigger than the increase from moving a ship size up.

Most fights are trivial (and many can be rendered so by SO). Having to swap out for some minor end-game content doesn't really affect the dynamic afaics, particularly because it takes no particular insight to do so.

More supplies is kind of moot given the extremely low difficulty of the economic side of the game. I play with Ruthless Sector (very good) and even then I couldn't care less about maintenance outside the very early game. That's not a combat drawback.

If you're at the point in the game where fights are trivial and you don't care about supplies, then all this discussion about frigates, SO, balance, etc. is really sort of moot anyway. Might as well as just roll in with a dozen Paragons and not have to worry about any of this stuff.

Re range - again, as mentioned previously, range limitations on SO is kind of a joke since what you want to be doing with a SO ship is get right in the enemies' face anyway.

Short range means you expose yourself to greater enemy fire, meaning you start off with some flux buildup before you do any damage, and meaning it's harder to pull out of a fight (i.e. you're going to be taking damage while you're disengaging), so you need to leave a reserve margin after you stop doing damage. Short range also means you yourself can't snipe a retreating target trying to take cover behind enemy ships (without exposing yourself to additional danger) and it means it's easier for you to get flanked by enemy ships. It's stupid to *want* to fight short range -- whenever possible you should only get as close as you need to for your weapons -- rather short range is a *forced* limitation on SO ships, so that they're forced to take additional risks to make it worthwhile, and with much more time pressure than normal. That's what makes it an interesting tradeoff to make.

Could you send it to me? Thanks.

Sure, how do I sent it? I don't use google files or whatever.

You don't even need omega weapons. 4 AMB, 2 Ion Pulser Doom is probably enough to defeat everything in the game.

Yes, but if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing :) In my case, it's to do as much damage as I can in as little time as possible, preferably during the unphase delay, then re-phase as soon as I can to not take damage. So without spoilery weapons I use 8 AMB on my Doom. However, its short range (and inability to fire through allies plus lack of targeting) means it's a bit harder to position myself, and I sometimes get too close and get hit myself from when the Radiants explode, etc. 8 AMB is enough to kill Brilliants in one volley by the way when aimed right; but spoilery weapons gives me more flexibility to take on smaller targets as well without such a long cooldown.

Anyway, yeah, post your station killing frigate fleet.

(To return this thread to somewhat on-topic...)

I still don't see how frigates are supposed to be too buff in 0.95a, when testing against my "test" [REDACTED] fleet. Even Tempests put out middling amounts of damage, which may be in the ballpark of larger ships like Auroras and Champions on a per-DP basis, but they can't tank and die more frequently. They don't have the persistence to control the battle and basically are just there for harassment and chasing down enemy frigates (and sometimes destroyers). Thus far the only frigate that's worthwhile is non-SO Hyperion, because Elite Helmsmanship means it can still teleport away, so that it can harass but is "slippery" enough to get away when needed. (It also really does have the flux stats of a cruiser, which helps with its damage output and persistence.) This is while using Wolfpack Tactics which means the fleet doesn't benefit from Coordinated Maneuvers, which is a lot more helpful at keeping a battle under control. So it's useful to have a couple of Hyperions, but it's still better for the rest of the fleet to be something else.
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: IonDragonX on June 07, 2021, 07:12:40 AM
Sure, how do I sent it? I don't use google files or whatever.
ufile.io
MEGA
github
all free
Title: Re: The Frigate Bias
Post by: Vanshilar on June 07, 2021, 12:07:05 PM
My radiant build is 2 autopulse, 2 plasma, 1 paladin PD and a bunch of sabots. Honestly, I don't really get the argument for not using sabots. With 4 pods, you would have to 1v1 duel like 6+ capitals to run out, they make you MUCH better at fighting capitals while you have ammo, and if you invest in extra ammo, you probably won't even run out in any reasonable fight.

Oh man I just tested out using Falcon P's with 4 sabot pods, 2 IR pulse lasers, and 2 annihilators, and...man that really wrecks [REDACTED] fleets. They do nearly twice the damage as Hyperions based on Combat Results, and they cost the same DP (but without High Maintenance). With expanded missile racks (s-mod since it's expensive) and Missile Spec, it's starting off with 144 Sabots firing them in 8-shot bursts. By the end of the fight (once it was down to the last [REDACTED] capital), I shuttled to each Falcon P and they had between 0 and 6 left, so all of those really were needed and used throughout the fight, but not to the point of them ending without any left (only 1 Falcon P had some racks that were completely empty). So it can last through an entire [REDACTED] fleet.

The Sabots really do a lot of damage to capitals since capitals can't get out of the way. Anything smaller tends to overload. They're also not too shabby vs armor and hull; against SIMslaught, I'm seeing roughly 840 damage vs full armor, and roughly 6.4k damage vs hull, for each volley. Against shields it's 4x200x2x5 = 8k kinetic damage per volley of course. With missile spec these damage numbers are every 6 seconds, with zero flux buildup on the firing ship.

The IR pulse lasers and annihilators/breach are really just there to do some armor/hull damage; I might change the small missiles but annihilators/breach seemed like a good compromise between damage and battle persistence (keeping in mind that they start using missiles against the earliest targets, i.e. the initial frigates/destroyers, so stuff like reapers may not work well; there needs to be enough ammo to last until the end). Breach also works well as armor-breaker in this case. Since the only flux weapons were IR pulse lasers, all remaining OP went to capacity. So with extended shields, this was enough to tank most threats, including capitals, and the Falcon P could just jet away when needed.

Fleet was 2 SO Auroras (me piloting one of them) using heavy blasters and IR pulse lasers, 3 Hyperions using heavy blasters and an ion pulser, and 4 Falcon P's.