VanguardWhat happens if I try to put Makeshift Shield Generator on the Vanguard? Does it just not allow the hullmod to be added?
Though, to be fair, “this isn’t as powerful as the baseline version of the ship” is unlikely to be much consolation when it’s coming at you full-burn."Ship coming in with Full Burn" means "big, predictable target wide open to Reapers/Doom Mines". So yes, that is, in fact, a consolation ;D.
Bonus: Termination SequenceDoes the AI know how to use this new system? I can already see my officers spamming missile drones against a SO Hound that they're never going to hit and never needed to hit with that kind of ordinance, or spamming the 1K flux option in front of multiple Sabots or something. Beyond that I'm curious to see how the modified Tempest handles, and whether it'll still manage to justify it's 8DP cost. People said it "overperformed" a fair bit, but I don't recall as many people saying it "overperformed for an 8DP frigate"...
I'm not even sure if the tempest is all that nerfed. If the drone missiles deal good damage, it basically gets unlimited missiles which is pretty solid on a frigate. It might even be worth treating it like a battle carrier with bombers and investing in replenishment rate.The flux cost (and loss of PD) makes it an overall nerf compared to HEF.
The problem, however, is that this system very difficult for the AI to use safely. There are just too many factors to consider, but the main problem is that *if it gets it wrong* then this leaves the ship terribly exposed and likely to be destroyed. So, even an AI that got it mostly right – it just takes one mistake, and those are the things that stick in the player’s mind when they see it. The AI, therefore, is very conservative with its use – but this means that Burn Drive is largely not doing the job it was intended for, giving low tech the ability to keep the pressure on when facing technically-faster ships.
So, one key change that supports much of what’s in the rest of this post is making Burn Drive able to be toggled off at any point in the burn. (This can be done either by pressing the system-activation key again, or by venting.)
With this final piece of the puzzle, the new ship – named the “Vanguard” – works! It’s tough and persistent, and if it does fall in a larger battle, then it’s just not a very big deal. And another nice thing here is that this combination of two systems is special, so low tech gets something with a bit of a shine to it that way. Here’s its in-game description:
An ancient and tough heavy frigate featuring robust construction, a combat burn drive, and no modern shields. Instead, the Vanguard is equipped with an integrated Damper Field of archaic design but tuned to modern standards. This allows the Vanguard to allocate 100% of flux buildup to weapon systems, leaving defense to its heavy armor enhanced by the obscure physics of resonant field-dampening.
And here’s a shot of it in action, featuring burn drive and damper field active at the same time:Spoiler(https://fractalsoftworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/vanguard_burn.jpg)[close]
Eradicator, which has Accellerated Ammo FeederI can taste the Safety Overrides, Heavy Machinegun and Harpoon/Reaper/Annihalator spam already. It's going to be glorious.
About the TempestIt's very pleasing to see the amount of effort being devoted to reining high tech back a tad. Looking forward to the tempest and the other High tech frigate changes!
Mmm. Just saying that the Eradicator could make a good choice to add a 14th Battlegroup variation. It's pretty close to being in line with theKantai Kessendecisive battle doctrine that the 14th practiced. Eagle and Falcon XIV variants don't really feel like they fit in the 14th Battlegroup's overall.
Mmm. Just saying that the Eradicator could make a good choice to add a 14th Battlegroup variation. It's pretty close to being in line with theKantai Kessendecisive battle doctrine that the 14th practiced. Eagle and Falcon XIV variants don't really feel like they fit in the 14th Battlegroup's overall.
Indeed, a 14th battlegroup variant of both these new upcoming low tech additions would be very welcome!
Welcome to the forum by the way Luuiscool4567! Stick around ;)
It's very pleasing to see the amount of effort being devoted to reining high tech back a tad. Looking forward to the tempest and the other High tech frigate changes!I would like to not see High Tech dragged down because the whole "Low Tech" philosophy is just faulty by design and therefore unable to compete, though. That said I'm not sure what to make of the Tempest change. It definitely feels like a nerf, since I can't imagine these pseudo-missiles are at all sustainable in an extended fight (if only compared to infinitely renewable HEF Pulsar shots, which would be a very difficult bar to cross). But 2 combined HB shots and 1.25 Ion Cannon worth of EMP at 1K flux is nothing to sneeze at either.
"PhD in starsectorlogy" LUL
but if it had a shield – even a pretty decent one, though not high tech grade – then it would fall short of being useful. It’d start to get close to an enemy, take a bunch of shield damage, back off, and this would repeat itself with no real progress being made.
Well, there are degrees in theology, so I don't see why not."PhD in starsectorlogy" LUL
We've got to ask the real questions here:
Does being a devoted Luddite, follower of the Holy Path count as a Master?
It’s worth noting that the Vanguard isn’t especially great against other frigates. (https://i.imgur.com/uNSK9oN.png)
While we’re looking at low tech frigate performance, it also makes sense to look at some high tech ships that are over-performing. The Tempest isn’t the only one (nor the only one I’ve looked at and made some adjustments to), but for this post, I’d like to talk about it since the changes turned out more interesting than your run-of-the-mill buff or nerf.
If you are still looking at those, I’d like to point a minor underperforming issue with Hyperion. A skill-less non-SO AI Hyperion will hardly ever use its ship system for reasons I don’t fully understand. It seems to be a mix of: 0-flux bonus condition, shield staying raised in threatening situations, AI flux management behaviours (re-engage enemy before passive venting gets flux to 0, does not use active venting). Having omni shield conversion seems to improve things a bit because AI is a bit more confident and then lowers its shield more often, and, uhhh, shield shunt is even “better” (no I’m not suggesting to remove shield from Hyperion!).
Another point worth noting: I’ve increased the range of the Light Autocannons and the Light Assault Gun – small ballistic weapons that the Vanguard can mount.How much extra range? The main point of Railgun and Light Needler is more range, and if the 4 to 5 DP weapons will have (nearly) as much range as the elite weapons, then Railgun and Needler may cost too much for what they do.
QuoteAnother point worth noting: I’ve increased the range of the Light Autocannons and the Light Assault Gun – small ballistic weapons that the Vanguard can mount.How much extra range? The main point of Railgun and Light Needler is more range, and if the 4 to 5 DP weapons will have (nearly) as much range as the elite weapons, then Railgun and Needler may cost too much for what they do.
What would be the difference between an interruptible burn drive and plasma burn?
Would a discharged terminator be effected by strike commander or missile specialization?
Well there goes my idea for a ship pack lol, I had the same idea of swapping out shields on a low tech ship for dampening field and maybe having it regen a little bit of armor so you could be more aggressive on low tech
Really excited about the changes, the new tempest nuke system seems really fun, mixing it with an atlas mkII could make for some crazy firepower
The new low-tech ships look great, and the change to burn drive is, in my opinion, the best of all the suggestions it has gotten.
But did the tempest really need a nerf? I don't think it was overperforming that hard. Thanks to its small shield it was really hard to use in mid-late fights. Sure, it smashes early pirates and pathers, but what doesn't? Most people were already choosing to use the scarab over the tempest, since it has a proper shield, and because small energy slots in general are better than in earlier versions. edit: and why is the Omen left untouched?
On another note, are there any plans to change or rebalance the skill system any further, or is it in a finished state now?
As always i really like the approach that's being taken to solve these issues.
The new frigate looks fun and opens some really interesting design space, and of course i'm really excited to see how the burn drive changes work out (Especially in AI hands).
In general though i'm just excited for "moar ships" in vanilla. God knows we've got a ton of great mods to expand the roster, but i'm happy to see some of the niche's being filled in more and more without it. Really helps keep the flavor right in the base game, and hopefully moves away from "high tech best tech" mentality that it can leave you with.
What happens if I try to put Makeshift Shield Generator on the Vanguard? Does it just not allow the hullmod to be added?
"Ship coming in with Full Burn" means "big, predictable target wide open to Reapers/Doom Mines". So yes, that is, in fact, a consolation ;D.
Actually wait, that's cancellable now. Might have to be more worried in the future ;).
QuoteBonus: Termination SequenceDoes the AI know how to use this new system? I can already see my officers spamming missile drones against a SO Hound that they're never going to hit and never needed to hit with that kind of ordinance, or spamming the 1K flux option in front of multiple Sabots or something.
Beyond that I'm curious to see how the modified Tempest handles, and whether it'll still manage to justify it's 8DP cost. People said it "overperformed" a fair bit, but I don't recall as many people saying it "overperformed for an 8DP frigate"...
Will the existing non-toggle Burn Drive AI be available?
Stealing another name from DR (first Revenant, then Vanguard) is just rude.
QuoteEradicator, which has Accellerated Ammo FeederI can taste the Safety Overrides, Heavy Machinegun and Harpoon/Reaper/Annihalator spam already. It's going to be glorious.
Do you have Luddic Path versions of either of these ships planned by the way? The faction could really benefit from some more good ships :-[
QuoteAbout the TempestIt's very pleasing to see the amount of effort being devoted to reining high tech back a tad. Looking forward to the tempest and the other High tech frigate changes!
Mmm. Just saying that the Eradicator could make a good choice to add a 14th Battlegroup variation. It's pretty close to being in line with theKantai Kessendecisive battle doctrine that the 14th practiced. Eagle and Falcon XIV variants don't really feel like they fit in the 14th Battlegroup's overall.
All these changes/additions are really exciting! The Eradicator especially looks lovely. Guessing the dissipation will be around 300-350? That'll be a lot of fun with 3 AAF-boosted medium ballistics.
High Tech dragged down because the whole "Low Tech" philosophy is just faulty by design and therefore unable to compete, though.
That said I'm not sure what to make of the Tempest change. It definitely feels like a nerf
Alex, what are these Terminator missile things classified as, in terms of skills and hullmods? "Fighters turning into missiles that deal energy damage" is...not clearly accounted for in the skill tree ::). Does Strike Commander's +20% damage to Destroyer+ targets apply to them? That would be lovely, especially as I wouldn't have any reason to pick that skill otherwise...
This AI issue affects most low-tech ships and is one of the factors weakening them severely right now outside of player hands. Low-tech ships overusing their shields like high-tech ships (while ignoring that they have good armour) until they overload or can't use weapons.
The Vanguard looks interesting as a "big fleet" low-tech frigate but hopefully other low-techs ships won't be ignored regarding the above-mentioned problem.
Eradicator looks nice too, like a low-tech Fury. I like that they both have turrets. It always felt like hardpoint guns would be a midline thing (efficient, focused firepower, with the agility needed to make use of it) while low-tech would have turrets to compensate for low agility and to engage multiple opponents. With that in mind, the main low-tech frigate and cruiser (Lasher, Dominator) both being hardpoint gun ships felt strange.
PS: The blog post mentions big engines on the Eradicator but the engines on the sprite and the engine glow FX look kinda small.
Looks pretty nice.
Eradicator look great and Vanguard is interesting even if plain looking. Idea of having Damper field instead of shields is pretty neat.
Mixed on tempest changes but they were really strong before so hope its for the better.
Anything about skill changes?
Hope for some buffs here and there and for some nerfs(especially to Derelict Contingent - hope it go away completely and phase ships).
Hey, new blogpost! A little bit of premature theorycrafting wouldn't hurt to accompany this. The burn drive cancel was removed years ago but is now back, and without the need to vent now! That's a pretty huge buff to all burn drive ships. Moving that Onslaught precisely where it needs to be without accidentally ramming its target is a huge deal. Will it be enough to revive the Onslaught vs Paragon threads of old?
Vanguard seems like a top low-tech pick for frigates, for early and possibly mid game. Late game however? Eh... Maybe as combat objective capping cannon fodder. It seems to be similarly armed to the Lasher, although with AAF, so not as bursty. Unlike the Lasher however, stopping a charging Vanguard is going to be hard as hell. No shield to overload, and very resilient to EMP thanks to damper field. I just hope the pirates or pathers won't field many of those loaded with harpoons/sabots combos.
And the Tempest... Well. I'm not sure about that one. On one hand it did lost HEF. On the other hand, it gained a tachyon lance torpedo. Alright, not quite tachyon lance, but still beefy as hell. I feel this won't change much for most early/mid game combat scenarios. But can you imagine a pack of those for a late game fleet? Handling one or two kamikaze drones is manageable, but dealing with a ceaseless swarm from an entire Tempest fleet seems... Impossible. I guess it'll all depends on the system's cooldown, the drone's range, or its maneuverability if it's affected. But from what i'm seeing, it seems like a moderate early game nerf/side grade and a terrifying late game buff for the Tempest, or at least, for a pack of Tempests.
What is the range of the Tempest's drone-missiles? You didn't say in the blogpost, and it should probably say so in the system description.
So I was basically almost spot on with my guesses, an elite low tech frigate plus a smaller than heavy cruiser with AAF system, I was just wrong on the cruiser mounts. Really looks like a low tech Fury and I like it. But come on where are the most important details, what are the DPs chief? I assume it's 7-8 DP for the baby bowling ball and 20 for the Eradicator.
EDIT: Thank god I'm going to fight something other than Ventures in pirate fleets, this might actually be the biggest thing for me in the whole blog post.
If you are still looking at those, I’d like to point a minor underperforming issue with Hyperion. A skill-less non-SO AI Hyperion will hardly ever use its ship system for reasons I don’t fully understand. It seems to be a mix of: 0-flux bonus condition, shield staying raised in threatening situations, AI flux management behaviours (re-engage enemy before passive venting gets flux to 0, does not use active venting). Having omni shield conversion seems to improve things a bit because AI is a bit more confident and then lowers its shield more often, and, uhhh, shield shunt is even “better” (no I’m not suggesting to remove shield from Hyperion!).
QuoteAnother point worth noting: I’ve increased the range of the Light Autocannons and the Light Assault Gun – small ballistic weapons that the Vanguard can mount.How much extra range? The main point of Railgun and Light Needler is more range, and if the 4 to 5 DP weapons will have (nearly) as much range as the elite weapons, then Railgun and Needler may cost too much for what they do.
The LAC & LAG range buffs are curious. IMO they risk crowding out the premium small ballistics in terms of role, as well as potential balancing connotations associated with having inexpensive, small, and relatively long-range guns. If they're considered underperforming it may be best to approach other avenues of enhancements, such as flux efficiency or damage.
I'm eager to try the range-buffed ACs and LAG. The current low base range makes them difficult to use for AI frigates and destroyers, and on larger ships they don't benefit enough from % increases from DTC/ITU to justify mounting alongside other weapons.
Never before I thought I would be EXCITED to see something I love being nerfed. The tempest solution is promising! I don't know if it will make the ship less powerful or not, but it does FEEL good to use this system. This change literally made the game more interesting to me, and I think changes like this are rarely made in videogames, they rather "fine tune" a boring statistic than making a interesting change.
That the Eradicator (P) is getting a DP discount compared to the base model is quite interesting and also somewhat unusual, given that the other pirate direct downgrades (Wolf (P)'s loss of OP & side turrets & degraded skimmer, Afflictor (P)'s loss of OP and side hardpoints, etc) do not benefit from that. Presumably this isn't implemented via .skin as those lack the ability to change DP costs. Is the Eradicator (P) kind of an outlier in that regard or is this part of a new, upcoming trend for Pirate downgrade variants?
A shieldless superfrigate is conceptually interesting, to say the least. I've never had real issues dispatching shieldless ships thanks to various available EMP and anti-armor options available, bug I guess I'll have to see how it works out ingame.
I don't agree that current Tempest overperforms for its light cruiser grade Deployment Cost, but I'll just leave it as that for now.
Overall, most excited for the introduction of the Eradicator and Eradicator (P)!
Quite elegant solutions to the "Low Tech Problem" but I'm afraid you've set a precedent that makes thematic sense across all Low-Tech: Rugged Construction and Damper Field instead of shields. I know that probably goes too far (and you'd have to give the Mora Burn Drive!) but what a different style of play Low Tech would be given those base parameters. That's all I'll say about that but my mind is going in a lot of directions about how that could work.
Anyway, I love the Vanguard already not only because it's novel but because it looks like it already has a solid role in my fleet. How would you compare it to the similar Centurion? That, too, is an underrated ship that tends to stay in my fleet even mid-to-late game.
The Eradicator is a strange-looking ship. At first I though it was a kitbashed Fury but seeing them next to one another, maybe not so much. AAF is nice and I look forward to seeing this in action, especially with all the pew-pew it's going to do. I do agree that we need a Large Ballistic cruiser somewhere but this wasn't it.
The Tempest change is very outside-the-box and I like it. I don't think the drones regenerate all that fast so they're not going to be a reliable source of extra damage. It also makes one consider boosting the Replacement Rate, which was never an issue on the Tempest before. I'm just very glad the drones didn't go away. They're a unique addition to the line-up and gives the ship some character.
Buff to the Hound?! Praise Ludd!!
Oh yes, the Paragon. *pats nerf bat* I think replacing its ship system with a flare launcher - not active, mind, just the regular kind - would be an interesting sidegrade as well.I'm sorry but WHAT? Please PLEASE tell me that is a joke! Fortress shield is a MAJOR part of the Paragon's identity. And replacing it with flares seems like a double barrel "F*** YOU!!" to it and those that like it. The ships would have to be COMPLETELY changed in order for the system change to be even remotely worth it
Indeed! I'd love to see it and the Cerberus see more combat use. And, heck, I suspect it might see more early game use in general, since the easy-to-acquire recoveries from pirate fleets will now be worth something.Thank you for answering my next question! I like to watch 'Necromunda' runs where you only keep what you kill. The Cerberus, Hound and Vanguard are going to do more for that playstyle. The old Recovery Operations used to have +25% chance to recover disabled ships after battle. Nothing really filled that space except the SP.
(Half-thinking of a low-tech destroyer build around a large slot - sort of a Sunder in that sense, but with some things that make it a different concept...)Just do it!
Put the pitchfork down, that was a joke :)Oh yes, the Paragon. *pats nerf bat* I think replacing its ship system with a flare launcher - not active, mind, just the regular kind - would be an interesting sidegrade as well.I'm sorry but WHAT? Please PLEASE tell me that is a joke! Fortress shield is a MAJOR part of the Paragon's identity. And replacing it with flares seems like a double barrel "F*** YOU!!" to it and those that like it. The ships would have to be COMPLETELY changed in order for the system change to be even remotely worth it
I'm sorry but WHAT? Please PLEASE tell me that is a joke! Fortress shield is a MAJOR part of the Paragon's identity. And replacing it with flares seems like a double barrel "F*** YOU!!" to it and those that like it. The ships would have to be COMPLETELY changed in order for the system change to be even remotely worth it
Removing Fortress shield from the Paragon and giving it flares instead would equal to Removing the Thermal Pulse Cannons from the Onslaught and swapping them out for Mining Blasters.
BTW, I'm still hoping that you pulled out L5 and I5 tier, to make a different thing with them.
A ballistic+missile ship above Hammer that doesn't handle like a brick was a great addition.
Damper Field on an Onslaught... I don't even want to imagine how long that would take to destroy! It'd be a real beast, though. And yeah, that's a fun combination of things to imagine. Still... "flux doesn't matter for defense" is, I think, a bit much to do to a broad swath of ships.Hm, could we make Shield Shunt replace the shield with Damper Field?* (It'd probably need Shield Shunt to be a more expensive hull mod, and it'd probably need to be a nerfed version of the Damper Field, but I think that'd make that hull mod a lot more viable without needing to rely on the current implementation of Derelict Contingent.)
To be fair, if we're talking about the Eradicator, it handles more like a half-brick. One thrown at a pretty good velocity, but still.The step up from Hammerhead was a Dominator, so will take the ~70(-ish, maybe) speed half-brick any day of the week :)
(Half-thinking of a low-tech destroyer build around a large slot - sort of a Sunder in that sense, but with some things that make it a different concept...)
Oh thank Ludd! Don't scare me like that!I'm sorry but WHAT? Please PLEASE tell me that is a joke! Fortress shield is a MAJOR part of the Paragon's identity. And replacing it with flares seems like a double barrel "F*** YOU!!" to it and those that like it. The ships would have to be COMPLETELY changed in order for the system change to be even remotely worth itIs joke
(Sorry ;D)
Apologies :( The "cool ship name" space is, sadly, somewhat crowded.
I wish the new damper shield stuff would also be equipped to the onslaught and the domknator. Or perhaps could be added as a hullmod
(Half-thinking of a low-tech destroyer build around a large slot - sort of a Sunder in that sense, but with some things that make it a different concept...)
Full-think it! Vanilla needs a couple more large ballistics imo and upgunned destroyer is a lot of fun for the player.
I'd love to try the damper-shields on a couple of low tech ships. It might be a bit much on an Onslaught like you said, but on a Dominator? That definitely might make the 25 DP seem more worth it! Very excited about the changes.
Hm, could we make Shield Shunt replace the shield with Damper Field?* (It'd probably need Shield Shunt to be a more expensive hull mod, and it'd probably need to be a nerfed version of the Damper Field, but I think that'd make that hull mod a lot more viable without needing to rely on the current implementation of Derelict Contingent.)
* Edit: or install a damper field right-click on ships like the Hound that don't have a right-click system already.
Flares are far too powerful for a D-tier ship like the Paragon.
Full-think it! Vanilla needs a couple more large ballistics imo and upgunned destroyer is a lot of fun for the player.
Oh thank Ludd! Don't scare me like that!
Edit: IS it even possible to add a ship system as a Right Click System via a normal hullmod?
Why not name ship classes after elements in the game's lore? While a lot of video games fall into the trap of only giving generic "cool-sounding" English words as names for spaceships, real ship classes are usually named after iconic things - places, events, people of renown and so on.
Let's make use of Starsector's lore! For example, whatever "Hegemony"-style ship classes are added in the future could be named after things in the Domain's history, with a small explaination about the origin of the name in the ship class description.
Fixes the issue of limited name space and can be an organic way of adding/detailing lore in the game.
Really liking the low tech changes. Every time I try a low-tech playthrough I end up adding some mid or high in there to balance it out.
If I might add some 2¢, given the low-tech's "decisive confrontation" idea, perhaps some sort of ballistics weapons that utilizes actual charges like the Autopulse. Currently the only time I've ever used Expanded Magazines is for my Autopulse Paragon and my antimatter harbinger.
It could even eject a little magazine on empty for extra visual flair.
It isn't afaik. Tried to go from phase to shields for a week before figuring out (well, being told) that wasn't actually possible. Unfortunate, 'cause I thought I found a way to get it to work in a way that was fun while not breaking the balance (well, more so than any given phase ship might already do)Oh thank Ludd! Don't scare me like that!I'm sorry but WHAT? Please PLEASE tell me that is a joke! Fortress shield is a MAJOR part of the Paragon's identity. And replacing it with flares seems like a double barrel "F*** YOU!!" to it and those that like it. The ships would have to be COMPLETELY changed in order for the system change to be even remotely worth itIs joke
(Sorry ;D)
Edit: IS it even possible to add a ship system as a Right Click System via a normal hullmod?
Low tech heavy frigate, finally, a blessing from our lord. Everything suggests it just must be used while heavy d-modded to get bonuses from I4R.I4R is being taken through the shredder, haven't you heard?
I was thinking some kind of heavy-duty scattergun (scattercannon?) that fires lots of rounds somewhat inaccurately for high damage and moderate flux. Think mortar to scatter-thing like autocannon to needler. Problem is it'd make sense for it to be a magazine in the true sense, where instead of adding 'charges' gradually, it has to reload the whole magazine at once. I don't think it'd be worthwhile to have a dedicated reload key for one weapon (or a very small handful in the future), so perhaps it could 'reload' after not firing for an amount of time. Thus Expanded Magazines would extend the amount before having to cease fire, but wouldn't affect the delay between bursts, and if you and re-engage after retreating/murdering you'll still start with a full magazine.Really liking the low tech changes. Every time I try a low-tech playthrough I end up adding some mid or high in there to balance it out.
If I might add some 2¢, given the low-tech's "decisive confrontation" idea, perhaps some sort of ballistics weapons that utilizes actual charges like the Autopulse. Currently the only time I've ever used Expanded Magazines is for my Autopulse Paragon and my antimatter harbinger.
It could even eject a little magazine on empty for extra visual flair.
Hmm, that could be interesting, yeah. The light and heavy needler already kind of do that, minus charges, though. I guess... by itself, this isn't enough to base a weapon on. I could see perhaps something like the Storm Needler using that approach, but it finally seems like it's in a pretty good place now, and I don't want to mess with it. Still, I get what you're saying, and will keep this in mind! (Equally, though, one might argue that charges/burst damage is good for the high tech "dart in and do damage, then back off" approach.)
The Vanguard, I really wanted to make it 8, but I'm not sure it holds up as good value at that point. So right now it's 6, but I'm not 100% set on whether it'll stay there.
If a false sense of tiering is the main problem, the main offender is probably Low Tech. It draws the direct comparison with High Tech and looks like the inferior option. If it was called something else, High Tech would have nothing to be superior too, and appear more as a sidegrade, while still conveying its relative recency. Also, if modern day Earth is any comparison, people would be euphamizing the category as "classic" or "vintage" to sell more ships.
High tech has some of the best long range weapons. 1 small, 1 medium, 2 large energy weapons with 1000 range. So high tech gets to control the range against low tech ships and does not need to close to do damage. It just takes some time to burn through the armor.
Low tech heavy frigate, finally, a blessing from our lord. Everything suggests it just must be used while heavy d-modded to get bonuses from I4R. I hope it will have enough OP to make various builds even in the cost of increased DP. Tempest change looks interesting, i even fear it can be more powerful in some situations than it already is. And oh that grandfather of an aurora looks very promising for the low tech fleets, never before i was so scared of hegemony inspection as now.
I'm not sure how the tracking on the Tempest's suicide drones is, but it sounds like to me the Tempest just got an Antimatter SRM launcher strapped to it for free, since both deal the same damage for the same flux cost, and both have a 20-second reload. Compared to the AM SRM, Termination Sequence has 1 less ammo, gains 500 EMP damage, and your ammo fights back while it's not being used! Granted, it consumes a drone, but that can be well worth it as a strike weapon to crack armor and then chew up the squishy insides with regular weapons.
I was thinking some kind of heavy-duty scattergun (scattercannon?) that fires lots of rounds somewhat inaccurately for high damage and moderate flux. Think mortar to scatter-thing like autocannon to needler. Problem is it'd make sense for it to be a magazine in the true sense, where instead of adding 'charges' gradually, it has to reload the whole magazine at once. I don't think it'd be worthwhile to have a dedicated reload key for one weapon (or a very small handful in the future), so perhaps it could 'reload' after not firing for an amount of time. Thus Expanded Magazines would extend the amount before having to cease fire, but wouldn't affect the delay between bursts, and if you and re-engage after retreating/murdering you'll still start with a full magazine.
Could be fun adding a small element of thinking when to use what weapons other than just not overloading, like do you stop your HE scatter-nameinprogress early to reload sooner, allowing you to strike the *moment* they take their shields down, or use your remaining charges/bullets to attempt an overload?
I was thinking something in the lines of Armour Shrapnel the ship has additional plating in the front and the sides and it ejects them at very high speeds, could be a last resort to do additional damage against an enemy that is up close or destroy some pesky reapers/bombers before it is too late.
For the low tech frigate the right click damper field is interesting to say the least... I wonder if it could do effective ramming moves with burn drive + damper? Its a bit small, but I just know its something a lot of people are going to try.
If I may, because I sorta brought it up, I wasn't intending we just go swapping ship systems willy-nilly. I was specifically talking about Damper Field replacing shields on Low-Tech (and only Low-Tech) ships. Damper Field reminds me of some kind of precursor to proper shields: some mitigating force field that reduces shot velocity before it hits armor. When true shields were introduced, it kinda made the damper field obsolete (after all, you can fire through shields but damper fields shuts your offense down) but certain "traditionalists" (read: the "Low Tech School") balked at the possibility of overload and leaving your ship completely vulnerable and stuck with the old-school Dampers. Why put flux toward shields when they could all go to guns (I think this could explain Low Tech's generally poorer flux stats: it's all going to guns so you have balance off of that).
Where the tuning levers come in is defining the Damper Field strength of the individual ships, kind of like shield efficiency. If an Onslaught was too tough at 50% mitigation, you lower it somewhat to find the right balance. It gets "boring" to take down such ships, true, but there isn't a ship in the game that only has Damper Field and no shields. If you can't mitigate damage via shields, Damper Field ships might not be that hard to take down. But I digress.
Re: Expanded Magazines
I've always chuckled that the hull mod that was originally intended to boost Ballistics way back in the day now only boosts Energy weapons. Should be called "Expanded Charges!" I mean, not to bring it up for the 10th time but a Medium Assault Gun would be a great candidate for this. Since we can't balance such a weapon around traditional ranges and damage (because it'd make everything else obsolete), make it burst-y with ammo considerations and sustained fire that is inferior to the Heavy Mortar. Sure, it's strong, long-range, and accurate but it can't do so indefinitely. I think having a specialized gun that uses ammo like an even larger Hellbore or a pure EMP weapon could also work.
The Roider Union's shieldless super frigate compromises on this by being 6 DP and having High Maintenance. 12 su/mo is expensive early game while 6 DP makes it easier to deploy later on.
It occurred to me that Tempest will be benefiting a fair bit more from fighter buffs now.
Related to comparisons of Low Tech and High Tech: Alex, do you remember this thread (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16560)?
I liked this proposal the most:If a false sense of tiering is the main problem, the main offender is probably Low Tech. It draws the direct comparison with High Tech and looks like the inferior option. If it was called something else, High Tech would have nothing to be superior too, and appear more as a sidegrade, while still conveying its relative recency. Also, if modern day Earth is any comparison, people would be euphamizing the category as "classic" or "vintage" to sell more ships.
High tech has some of the best long range weapons. 1 small, 1 medium, 2 large energy weapons with 1000 range. So high tech gets to control the range against low tech ships and does not need to close to do damage. It just takes some time to burn through the armor.
Beams definitely aren't the best long range weapons.
They're really quite awful unless you mass an extreme amount of them, their only redeeming quality *is* their range.
While ballistic weapons are very good at what they do, and happen to have range on top of that.
I don't think something with burn drive for speed and damper field is going to play like high tech. High tech is all about getting back out to vent to replenish their infinite hitpoints after delivering their strike (or just wolfpacking something down with numbers, but thats not unique to tech levels its just something small ships do). If they can just dart in and do a little damage, but the enemy is denied venting due to other enemies etc, then dart out with speed, then high tech is winning even against superior enemies. Even though wolves are pretty lackluster, 2 of them will comfily take down any isolated destroyer because of that strategy for example.
This thing doesn't have infinite hitpoints - it has more hitpoints than would be expected because it can turn on and off the damper field, but every hit it takes is a permanent step towards exploding: playing it like a high tech ship isn't going to be good I don't think (haven't playtested, but thats what theorycraft says to me at least). It also is going to be difficult to run away after a strike because burn drive is forwards only and has a cooldown.
It's still a kind of high tech philosophy, which is my point.
What happened? I'm in a middle of a run using d-modded ships with thisQuoteLow tech heavy frigate, finally, a blessing from our lord. Everything suggests it just must be used while heavy d-modded to get bonuses from I4R.I4R is being taken through the shredder, haven't you heard?
I agree strongly with this.
I get the conceptual appeal of this, I really do! The main sticking point is that I don't think having an entire range of ships not engage with core mechanics like "using flux for both defense and offense" and "being able to be overloaded" is a good idea.
A smaller but still non-starter issue would be stuff like beams, which all of a sudden become capable of chewing these ships up with impunity, albeit slowly. The game is really built around normal ships having shields. An exception here and there is good, but I think it's important to avoid getting carried away!
Ah, ... no? A bunch of low tech ships have burn drive; per the blog post, it's literally meant to be a crucial piece of what makes them work. And "having better than usual non-replenishable toughness" is also a core low-tech hull property.No worries. Now, the thing is that you've basically defined a frigate's role as practically synonymous with the high tech doctrine. Just because you've given it a burn drive, a signature subsystem of low tech, doesn't change this. By your own admission low tech frigates are bad (at least in fleet combat) because they don't play to low-tech strengths. It feels like instead of designing a heavy or elite tier frigate that actually does play to low tech strength you've tried to assemble the frigate style. Giving them ways to sidestep those weaknesses is just denying they fit the doctrine, and that's fine. Outliers don't have to fit the doctrine but that needs to be admitted.
(Edit: I apologize for the borderline snark, there, btw. I'm just genuinely confused.)
Gotcha! As you say, though, adding a reload button is a bit of a no-go, and a reload after not firing... it'd need an indicator, AI awareness of this, etc. It gets pretty messy rather quickly. Still, just a basic with-regenerating-ammo ballistic could be interesting, no argument there.Hmm. Maybe it could regenerate in 'chunks'? So say it has ~100 rounds at the start, but instead of regenerating 1 at a time every 1/4 second like pulser weapons, it generates 25 at a time every ~5 ish seconds.
Will Eradicator be the new SO cruiser? :D
No worries. Now, the thing is that you've basically defined a frigate's role as practically synonymous with the high tech doctrine. Just because you've given it a burn drive, a signature subsystem of low tech, doesn't change this. By your own admission low tech frigates are bad (at least in fleet combat) because they don't play to low-tech strengths. It feels like instead of designing a heavy or elite tier frigate that actually does play to low tech strength you've tried to assemble the frigate style. Giving them ways to sidestep those weaknesses is just denying they fit the doctrine, and that's fine. Outliers don't have to fit the doctrine but that needs to be admitted.
The fact is as far as I can see this might not play precisely like Tempest but it's still trying to fill the role of one in the same way of being a "premium frigate" by the given definition (which is basically HT doctrine), rather than being something that actually fits with low tech doctrine. Hopefully this makes it more clear.
Now, the thing is that you've basically defined a frigate's role as practically synonymous with the high tech doctrine.
Hmm. Maybe it could regenerate in 'chunks'? So say it has ~100 rounds at the start, but instead of regenerating 1 at a time every 1/4 second like pulser weapons, it generates 25 at a time every ~5 ish seconds.
Alternate idea, you could have 'charge burst' weapons that have a multi-shot burst but stores in charges over time. So it could have 5 charges/magazines of however-many round bursts. You could instead use total bullet count, but then if it has, say 20 round bursts and 100 max, adding expanded magazines would give you an odd count at 150 max so your last burst would only be half.
I personally think either (or both) could make interesting charge/magazine based ballistics weapons, especially on faster ships like the Falcon or new Eradicator. Could finally be the gateway to a new medium ballistic weapon that isn't either a blitzkrieg chaingun or a long-range siege mortar
The tracking is quite good! But, I think this analysis is a bit backwards - it's not ammo that can shoot, but, since the Tempest already had the drone, it's *using something that could shoot for ammo instead*. How much damage could the drone do in 20 seconds? (In theory, well over 1000. In practice, with armor and positioning, it really depends.) How much value would it have as point-defense? Also, 20 seconds is optimistic - it'd literally never be that short, since if you're down a drone, the replacement rate is ticking down.Well, once you start cutting down fighter replacement time through high CR and character skills, it'll be consistently lower than 20 seconds. Anyhow, I'm not saying that you should be firing these things off as soon as they leave the hangar - they are, of course, very good at shooting things - but their functionality (and, to a certain extent, their purpose) is very similar to that of the AM SRM - send one or both off to their doom at the right moment, which is obviously the intent, as you said, to use it in another way.
I think the way to think about this is it's letting you take an existing capability and use it in another way. Whether it's worth it at any given point is situational.
I actually *have* been thinking about a built-in hullmod to give small ballistics a bit more range - not for the Vanguard, but for the Lasher. One could advance the same argument against it, though, I think - that it's sidestepping the "inherent weakness" of small ballistics, and so on.Short range isn't an inherent part of small ballistic weapon design; the Railgun has quite a respectable range. Weapons have different ranges, it's not an inherent weakness. It's a weakness but it's not inherent. The railgun doesn't feel like "not a small ballistic weapon" because it's got superior range.
Ooooh! Say hello to flameout, though. Not sure how practical it'd be but it could be rather spectacular.I recall one instance where I was testing a Fury in simulation, and after causing my Hammerhead opponent to flame out I rammed it with whatever micro burn system the Fury has. End result? The hammerhead was send flying off in the opposite direction at over 400 speed, up until it's engines finally turned back on. Nice opportunity for me to vent, all things told.
We don't know precisely what, but I4R will not be existing as it is in the next update. Turns out Enforcers casually eating a dozen or two Reapers is a bit excessive.What happened? I'm in a middle of a run using d-modded ships with thisQuoteLow tech heavy frigate, finally, a blessing from our lord. Everything suggests it just must be used while heavy d-modded to get bonuses from I4R.I4R is being taken through the shredder, haven't you heard?
The terminated terminator drone, will bring a tear to little John Connors eyes after dispatching numerous buffalo for it's carrier commander I am sure.No, just an electrified grappler cable. Great for stopping those pesky little frigates.
However, in an attempt to repel the pressure you exert on the 'burn-drive' being a tactical success, I suggest a 'tractor beam' would perform the same function inversely applied as the burn drive, but I would presume to consider it a high tech weapon more likely applied in an energy weapon mount. However, a low-tech ship system that could be deployed in a 'tractor-like' manner in the combat simulations may possibly be a magnetised hull?
Well, once you start cutting down fighter replacement time through high CR and character skills, it'll be consistently lower than 20 seconds. Anyhow, I'm not saying that you should be firing these things off as soon as they leave the hangar - they are, of course, very good at shooting things - but their functionality (and, to a certain extent, their purpose) is very similar to that of the AM SRM - send one or both off to their doom at the right moment, which is obviously the intent, as you said, to use it in another way.
One thing I noticed about some of the movement enhancing ship systems like plasma burn is that they usually disable the 0 flux boost by generating miniscule levels of flux. This makes the movement "choppy" and unnatural because after you use plasma burn the ship slows down to the base speed and then immediately speeds up as the 0 flux boost activates. It's nothing serious but it would make it visually more pleasing (at least to me) if the 0 flux boost stayed on during the burn.
Good changes, but I think you should go even further. Shields will ALWAYS be superiror to armor, so problem with LT vs HT is still there, esp in lategame. IMO there is not enough difference between HT and LT where it is considered a decision, you always go for HT ships for lategame.
Suggestions:
1) Remove shields from LT ships, raplce with DF, balace around charges/duration/cooldown/damage reduction/flux generation for every ship separately. When DF is active you cant use weapons/DF generates alot of flux, but its not affected by amount of damage taken.
2) Nerf shields of HT ships to the point when 1 SF/D is considered good shield. Values like 0.6 SF/D is not achievable without combination of dedicated ships (shield tanks)+hullmods+officers and you cant go past 0.6 (unless you have fortress shield) coz its just silly at this point with 0.4 SF/D. Now HT will need to make a choice between vents for damage or caps for HP.
After that you will have a choice between "decisive battle" of LT or hit-and-run duels of HT.
You have a unique opportunity to implement extreme changes without alienating fanbase, coz everyone can just mod the game to their hearts content, game is still in development, so more bold changes are welcome. Changes in this blogpost are good, but not enough to really affect lategme of HT vs LT balance. As of now LT ships are for early game and target practice, every lategame encounter is HT ships vs HT ships if you ok with that then sure, good patch inc, if you tried to make LT viable and force players to chooes between equal (in terms of viability and efficiency) playstyles, then it will change nothing.
Faster ships generally have worse armour, but shields can stay the same.
I wonder how the game would play, if moving or just accelerating increased the damage you take to shields. You could tank damage only if you stood still.
What if Damper field actually allow shooting weapons?
So you essentially you trade flux from using it for reduced damage but still can blow your guns? Yes it would be strong but whole idea of it to make Low Tech ships to shoot a lot of dakka.
I think small weapons should really get some range increase. Heck maybe even all weapons especially this on lower range end. But it would really help smaller ships especially with their Aim at the centre of the target issue.
Some thoughts about skills
>what if combat/personal skills have no Tiers(pick and choose) but you still follow tier progression for Industry/Leadership and Tech?
I feel that this way combat picks would be actually somewhat attractive to pick at any moment instead of going either full spec or ignoring them.
However, in an attempt to repel the pressure you exert on the 'burn-drive' being a tactical success, I suggest a 'tractor beam' would perform the same function inversely applied as the burn drive, but I would presume to consider it a high tech weapon more likely applied in an energy weapon mount. However, a low-tech ship system that could be deployed in a 'tractor-like' manner in the combat simulations may possibly be a magnetised hull?
A Large Ballistic on a destroyer is going to make the ship specialized because under most circumstances (barring the Mjolnir), you'll only have access to a Kinetic or HE weapon. I'd imagine the secondary armaments will all be Small Ballistics (or 1-2 Small Missiles thrown in) and mostly PD coverage at that, so what you choose for the Large Mount will essentially determine its role. The ship system for such a thing is what I'm most intrigued about.
Point taken on Damper Field vs. Shields. I hadn't thought about Beams basically being a hard-counter, and they would be, especially something like the HIL or Tachyon Lance. If there was an opportunity to try something like this on a larger ship, an XIV Onslaught or Dominator might be the place. You already know you're getting a variant and kind of like the Legion XIV, it operates a little different than standard. Sort of a "relic of a bygone era" -feel. But I'm done promoting the idea at this point. :)
I get the conceptual appeal of this, I really do! The main sticking point is that I don't think having an entire range of ships not engage with core mechanics like "using flux for both defense and offense" and "being able to be overloaded" is a good idea.
A smaller but still non-starter issue would be stuff like beams, which all of a sudden become capable of chewing these ships up with impunity, albeit slowly. The game is really built around normal ships having shields. An exception here and there is good, but I think it's important to avoid getting carried away!
So a thought in this, because I like the concept being presented. Could those game mechanic goals be addressed but in different ways for low tech ships? The first thing that comes to mind is that ships can only be overloaded via damage to shields. There’s room for other means of causing overload. In the case of damper fields, maybe there’s a chance of overload that increases with damage absorbed?
To the point of flux being both defensive and offensive, I think perhaps this mechanic doesn’t hold up to scrutiny when one entire line of ships is based around poor flux management and high armor. Why would anyone design a low tech ship with shields, knowing that having shields puts the ship at great risk of being overloaded? I feel like a competent low tech designer would focus on armor and systems that improve armor without trying to jerry rig on a system that works poorly for the ship, introduces the risk of being overloaded, and only has a marginal benefit of absorbing light fire, while simultaneously limiting damage output?
I see what you're saying, but I don't see it the same way, I guess? To me it looks natural - one mode of engine use cools down, there's a switch-over, and it picks back up. Makes it feel like a real thing working behind the scenes. It's also a bit easier to balance if there's something modifying the zero-flux bonus; I think in particular for these systems being able to predict how far it'll go is important. Well, for Plasma Burn it still is, for Burn Drive it's less so, now that it can be cancelled.I think he's referring to the sort of pattern on Burn Drive ships:
I think he's referring to the sort of pattern on Burn Drive ships:
-Ship begins at 0-flux cruise speed, heading towards ex: an Objective
-Ship activates Burn Drive, receiving a big temporary speed boost
-Burn drive period ends, ship slows down to normal max speed. If not in a combat situation, ship will also have the 0-flux booost activate immediately afterwards, which means the ship must accelerate back up to the speed it was initially at
Regenerating ammo ballistics were very good, and I think they got given up on *way* too quickly. It provides so many interesting levers for balance and ways to differentiate ballistics more than the current stats. You run into a lot of "what is even the difference between these small kinetics" without it.Yeah. I support idea. I must admit that I just love dakka weapons.
And they happen to also combo very nicely with damper fields and provide a good outlet to stop the traditional low-tech face-hugging technique from being unstoppable.
If the destroyer only has small mounts alongside the large mount, and people only have access to vanilla guns, players invariably use large kinetics there (Mjolnir usually excluded due to OP/flux) as kinetics are always useful, while HE is only useful when enemy shields are down which won't be achieved reliably (small guns won't have the range, sabots will only be available in small amounts, friendly ships can't be counted on due to haphazard AI)....What? Medium kinetics are, uh, really not all that. And the hellbore is cheap, both in terms of OP and in terms of flux load. I'd expect to see exactly the opposite of what you describe: a hull with a large and some smalls would tend towards hellbore + railguns or light needlers (or, flux permitting, Mjolnir), while ones with medium slots or good numbers of missiles would be able to consider kinetic large options.
Thirded. The original implementation of regenerating ammo on ballistics was bad, yes, but that's because it was (with very few exceptions) applied in a broad fashion that mostly boiled down to 'ballistic weapons deal half dps after a short time'.Regenerating ammo ballistics were very good, and I think they got given up on *way* too quickly. It provides so many interesting levers for balance and ways to differentiate ballistics more than the current stats. You run into a lot of "what is even the difference between these small kinetics" without it.Yeah. I support idea. I must admit that I just love dakka weapons.
And they happen to also combo very nicely with damper fields and provide a good outlet to stop the traditional low-tech face-hugging technique from being unstoppable.
Wish that Thumper was actually usable and something like this.
On destroyers with a large ballistic, there are interesting lessons that can be learned from mods that have had such ships in them for some time.
If the destroyer only has small mounts alongside the large mount, and people only have access to vanilla guns, players invariably use large kinetics there (Mjolnir usually excluded due to OP/flux) as kinetics are always useful, while HE is only useful when enemy shields are down which won't be achieved reliably (small guns won't have the range, sabots will only be available in small amounts, friendly ships can't be counted on due to haphazard AI).
If the destroyer has at least one medium mount that changes everything - as the ship gains reliable ability to create its own opportunities for a large HE gun (even if limited to vanilla weapons).
Using destroyers with a large ballistic mount as fire support ships usually doesn't work out well as they don't have access to cruiser/capital-grade range increases (ITU bonus much lower on DDs) - when trying to support a large ship they don't have the range to shoot the same targets reliably. If supporting smaller ships their aim gets blocked by allies frequently (causing AI to rarely fire). In player hands they can work well however, but normally don't make full use of Ranged Specialization (difficult to achieve max bonus threshold).
I'm excited to see the Starsector team tackling this ship concept and see how different it may end up from how it's been done so far.
Regenerating ammo ballistics were very good, and I think they got given up on *way* too quickly. It provides so many interesting levers for balance and ways to differentiate ballistics more than the current stats. You run into a lot of "what is even the difference between these small kinetics" without it.
And they happen to also combo very nicely with damper fields and provide a good outlet to stop the traditional low-tech face-hugging technique from being unstoppable.
These are really cool, I'm looking forward to using and fighting them! Starsector is the best, no contest, I do attest.
Hopefully those side turrets on the new frigate can aim behind it, else Salamanders gonna have a fun time with it.
And the hellbore is cheap, both in terms of OP and in terms of flux load. I'd expect to see exactly the opposite of what you describe: a hull with a large and some smalls would tend towards hellbore + railguns or light needlers (or, flux permitting, Mjolnir), while ones with medium slots or good numbers of missiles would be able to consider kinetic large options.
I think what you're describing is generally true but that's where the ship system comes in.
If the Sunder is any indicator, longer-range Destroyers are still quite welcome in late-game fleets as fire support.
To the point of flux being both defensive and offensive, I think perhaps this mechanic doesn’t hold up to scrutiny when one entire line of ships is based around poor flux management and high armor. Why would anyone design a low tech ship with shields, knowing that having shields puts the ship at great risk of being overloaded? I feel like a competent low tech designer would focus on armor and systems that improve armor without trying to jerry rig on a system that works poorly for the ship, introduces the risk of being overloaded, and only has a marginal benefit of absorbing light fire, while simultaneously limiting damage output?
Well - beam weapons and HE missiles/torpedoes exist, and are extremely well countered by even weak shields, while also countering armor. If we're talking vs high-tech, energy weapons are also countered by weak shields reasonably well, which is particularly important vs large hits. So, I really can't agree here. Shields on low-tech are obviously less universally useful, but they're also *critical* when they are, since they extend the life of armor by absorbing high-damage hits. The decision for when to use them is more complicated than it is for high tech, so if anything, the mechanic produces more interesting decisions for low tech.
Not actually sure about the small kinetics - to me they're all very distinct. There's the pretty bad one, the one that'd be ok if its accuracy wasn't terrible, the solid reliable one, and the burst one. (And, hopefully, the first two will be more usable now. I forget if I mentioned it, but the Light ACs got a flux efficiency boost, too.)With 700 range, sounds like two light ACs may be better than railgun or needler on ships with more mounts than flux can support. (Sort of like two light mortars are better than one LAG, when both had 600 range.)
Also shield-related, if you are considering a minor nerf to high tech hardened shields hullmod might be part of that.
Something like 15-20% would probably still make it an automatic builtin choice for most ships, but makes armor bricks comparatively stronger.
Related to HE, wanted to mention shield modulation's special effect in case it's not on your radar.
The AI is prone to firing HE missiles into shields and it feels real bad when they do practically nothing.
Extra penalty does reward skill both in handling shields and explosive weapons but IMO HE hitting shields is punishment enough.
Could be better to give the AI a hand by changing it.
Also shield-related, if you are considering a minor nerf to high tech hardened shields hullmod might be part of that.
Something like 15-20% would probably still make it an automatic builtin choice for most ships, but makes armor bricks comparatively stronger.
With 700 range, sounds like two light ACs may be better than railgun or needler on ships with more mounts than flux can support. (Sort of like two light mortars are better than one LAG, when both had 600 range.)
If there was a specialized low tech destroyer with a large weapon slot I would give it a ship system that adds ion damage to its shots. Something like Ionized ordnance which adds X% of weapon damage per shot as ion damage that spreads through target's engines and weapons if high on flux
Some theorycrafting about weapon range and ship speed,SpoilerIncreasing range of LAC, LDAC and LAG to 700 means +16.7% range increase. Compared to 0.95, assuming non-ITU frigate builds, low tech and midline ships will have:
- without Unstable Injector : that +16.7% range boost for those guns (700), unchanged max speed
- with Unstable Injector: almost the same range as non-UI in 0.95 (595), together with +25% max speed boost
So overall in 0.95.1 (or whatever next version will be) you get either longer range (baseline) or higher max speed (if spending OP on UI hullmod). In both cases it shall help compete with the highly mobile high tech frigates using 600-range medium guns.
Lasher with 1 LDAC + 2 LAG or Centurion with 2 LAC + 2 LAG:
- without Unstable Injector : 700 range and 120 max speed
- with Unstable Injector: 595 range and 150 max speed (similar to Wolf)
Kite with 1 LAC:
- without Unstable Injector : 700 range and 140 max speed
- with Unstable Injector: 595 range and 175 max speed (similar to Tempest)
So I could see Unstable Injector becoming a high priority hullmod for some low tech and midline ships/builds in next version, especially for people looking for fast non-SO frigates alternatives.
For reference: having UI in 0.95 lowers 600-range guns to 510.[close]
the change to the vanguard sounds nice.
but as someone already pointed out the possible problem in using "a lot" of Vanguard to alpha away a lot of ships i thought about a "little" Countermeasure to this...
why not give a replacement penalty by using that ability. not the normal penalty for loosing the drone and replacing it what gradualy reduces the replacement rate, but a straight -x% the moment the drone explods, or the skill is used to "arm" the bomb...
this will allow for an alpha strike right at the first encounter with enemies, but the repeatable usage of it will dwindle in the heat of the fight where the drones get shot down more frequently.
next to the change of the BD System.
first of all i like the idea to cancel it somewhere allong its duration. as a new player i am still hiting F instead of V sometimes ... :-X :o
i think the moment the duration is canceled, the CD will start befor i could reuse it?!
what i would like is a "steady refill" approach. that would enable the skill to be "switched on and off" every time. but from zero to full it would still take as long as it takes now. it still prevends ship to permanently use it as the ship has to gain speed to make use of it, fast on/off shouldn't be a problem.
the overall activation time should be the same.
will there any extra considerations needed for letting the AI understand how to use 2 ship systems from a modding perspective?
Hmm, why? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, btw, just in general, the "why" of an idea is... basically more important than the idea, really! A random idea is just a random idea, you know? But if there's a line of thought behind it, then that can help clarify whether it's a good or a bad idea, or perhaps lead to a discussion and something even better coming out of it.
If you're going to nerf hardened shields, would you consider reducing its OP cost as well? Right now it's a near-automatic choice for installation as an s-mod simply because it's one of the most expensive hullmods that's generally-useful. For a cruiser or capital, it's hard to go wrong with integrating hardened shields and ITU, where in 0.9.1-and-earlier the high OP cost of hardened shields made it more of a decision.Related to HE, wanted to mention shield modulation's special effect in case it's not on your radar.
The AI is prone to firing HE missiles into shields and it feels real bad when they do practically nothing.
Extra penalty does reward skill both in handling shields and explosive weapons but IMO HE hitting shields is punishment enough.
Could be better to give the AI a hand by changing it.
Also shield-related, if you are considering a minor nerf to high tech hardened shields hullmod might be part of that.
Something like 15-20% would probably still make it an automatic builtin choice for most ships, but makes armor bricks comparatively stronger.
Thank you! Both of these are already on my radar, one's actually done and the other one is on the TODO list :)
Hmm, so could a ship be set up from a mod to return a new custom ship.getPhaseCloak()? Assuming the system passed back was written for the purpose. Having custom ship systems on right click instead of shields would be wonderful from a modding perspective.
Since the main problem of a destroyer with large mount is the extreme specialization, giving it extra emp damage as ship system would make it useful regardless of what large weapon it is equipped with.
So it becomes a destroyer that provides a two layered support: Large mount (i.e range) + EMP damage to harrass/disable stronger ships.
That makes it useful even in late game against redacted and other strong fleets.
If you're going to nerf hardened shields, would you consider reducing its OP cost as well? Right now it's a near-automatic choice for installation as an s-mod simply because it's one of the most expensive hullmods that's generally-useful. For a cruiser or capital, it's hard to go wrong with integrating hardened shields and ITU, where in 0.9.1-and-earlier the high OP cost of hardened shields made it more of a decision.
A small nerf to hardened shields will just push it further into the corner of 's-mod this or don't use it', while a small nerf combined with a reduced OP cost should, hopefully, open up the field to it being reasonable to consider other choices for s-mods.
For some existing takes on destroyers with large ballistics, you can check out Legacy of Arkgneisis's Burke and Burke (P) and the Roider Union's Bombard.
The Bombard backs its large hardpoint with a medium missile mount and a medium ballistic turret. Its raw stats are underwhelming except for its cruiser-grade weapon range, but its weapon mounts allow it to effectively use a variety of weapon combinations.
The Burke also has cruiser-grade weapon range, but has its large in a turret. Even with reduced weapon rotation speed, it's still substantially better than a hardpoint at focusing its fire on vulnerable enemies. Its reasonable stats, turret coverage, and PD ship system give it decent survivability even when attacked directly.
The Burke (P) is some crazy thing with TWO large ballistic hardpoints and not much else. I've never used one, but my understanding is it tends to flux-lock itself.
Really, "balance" seems to be a lost cause because the only way you'll ever achieve true "balance" is to make everything exactly the same. Which is not fun.
I do think a form of balance that is fun can be achieved by leaning into the differences of various elements rather than making them more similar, but this is a tact rarely taken by game devs.
I also want to point out here that a small nerf to high-tech and a small buff to low tech can cumulatively be the same as a big nerf to high tech or a big buff to low tech. Which I think is pretty unwarranted.
Finally, there is an element that is completely absent from this discussion: Mid-line. If midline vs high-tech is "balanced" and midline vs low-tech is "balanced, but low-tech vs high-tech is "unbalanced" then what is actually going on here? Not claiming to know exactly how "balanced" midline is versus anything here, just pointing out that leaving it out of the discussion seems an oversight. I mean, if you nerf high-tech to the point where mid-line just does what high-tech used to do, and everyone stars complaining about how "op" midline is then you end up stuck in the "nerf-loop" I mentioned.
...No? I mean, I guess that does depend on how much cheaper and how much you nerf it, but my aim with this suggestion was to bring it back to where it was in 0.9.1-and-earlier where it was basically just the Paragon that literally always got hardened shields installed, and everywhere else it was at least somewhat situational and something that you might just not use because you needed the ordnance points for other things.If you're going to nerf hardened shields, would you consider reducing its OP cost as well? Right now it's a near-automatic choice for installation as an s-mod simply because it's one of the most expensive hullmods that's generally-useful. For a cruiser or capital, it's hard to go wrong with integrating hardened shields and ITU, where in 0.9.1-and-earlier the high OP cost of hardened shields made it more of a decision.
A small nerf to hardened shields will just push it further into the corner of 's-mod this or don't use it', while a small nerf combined with a reduced OP cost should, hopefully, open up the field to it being reasonable to consider other choices for s-mods.
I'm not sure that "s-mod it or don't use it" is any worse then "always pick this but don't s-mod it", which a nerfed + cheaper hardened shields would be. In fact, the former seems like it's probably better, since there's more of a choice there - if it's worse than now, then another hullmod might compete with it for being s-modded in, no? Where if it's cheaper, it's just going on there no matter what.
For example, a nerf to hardened shields isn't going to suddenly make midline great - this one actually affects all tech levels.In theory, but in practice I'm expecting a different outcome. Compare a a Tempest to a Vanguard - which of these two is going to care more about a Hardened Shields nerf? Or a Paragon compared to an Onslaught, even if the latter isn't a Shield Shunt variant, or a Conquest. High Tech lives and dies on it's shields, they don't have the armor to do anything but take the occasional stray hit without exploding (hopefully), and with energy weapons they need every flux war advantage they can get. Midline can afford to lose their shields briefly, they're not designed to armor tank but they stand a chance of survival if they have to and have access to ballistic weapons. And Low Tech is Low Tech, we know their armor tanking strategy by now.
I'm not actually personally convinced it needs a nerf in the first place, but if I were going to nerf it, I'd start with changing its OP cost to 4/8/12/20 and then reduce the damage reduction to 10% (but keep the boost to defense against shield-piercing effects the same.)
In theory, but in practice I'm expecting a different outcome. Compare a a Tempest to a Vanguard - which of these two is going to care more about a Hardened Shields nerf?
I absolutely love these additions/changes.Thanks Alex :D.
On that subject,is it correct to assume more similar mechanics/tools are coming in following patches?Obviously,the next patch is far off,but from things like the Breach missile,and the Vanguard uniquely possesing 2 systems,and the new Tempest system,I am getting the feeling that the gameplay is shifting towards more tactical tools and fewer stat boosts.
Can we get a few numbers on current changes to weapons/hullmods? Quite a few of us would be interested in testing a few of these changes.
I suppose if the most expensive hullmods were all highly specialized? That might be worth thinking about, but, again, it's a broader topic than just one hullmod.Broader topic, yes, but I would just like to mention that S-modding Operations Centre, one of the most expensive hullmods in the game (most expensive in some cases - for Frigates it costs twice as much as SO!), is not something that practically anyone does...
didn't say they had the *same* impact on all tech levels! Just that it affects most ships and so its relative impact on high-tech is somewhat mitigated.Fair point, and something like the Termination Sequence change is definitely more than just "ship's too good, maybe reduce it's flux stats". That said I am concerned about things getting nerfed that don't need to be, or things getting nerfed beyond what's needed. Tempests are good, sure, but they're good for premium frigates in a patch that heavily pushes a frigate meta. If those skills change, suddenly Tempests are less good, and if they get nerfed on top of that suddenly they might be plain awful (for their cost). Basically what happened to Drovers in 0.95 - once there was Drover Spam, now there is Herons trying to justify hauling carriers around.
Stepping back to address the broader point: I don't think the argument that one shouldn't try to balance things because they *might* become imbalanced in some other way makes much sense. Balancing is an iterative, incremental process. When there are changes - especially with a bigger release - the balance will be disturbed, and needs more adjusting. But, yeah, like... might as well not add new ships because they might be overpowered, not add new mechanics because they might be exploitable, and so on. Balancing things is just an ongoing part of dev work.
Fair point, and something like the Termination Sequence change is definitely more than just "ship's too good, maybe reduce it's flux stats". That said I am concerned about things getting nerfed that don't need to be, or things getting nerfed beyond what's needed. Tempests are good, sure, but they're good for premium frigates in a patch that heavily pushes a frigate meta. If those skills change, suddenly Tempests are less good, and if they get nerfed on top of that suddenly they might be plain awful (for their cost). Basically what happened to Drovers in 0.95 - once there was Drover Spam, now there is Herons trying to justify hauling carriers around.
Of course we'll have to see how all the skill changes, ship additions/adjustments, etc., ultimately add up. I'd just hate to see Tempests (or High Tech in general) become the next Drover and me moving on to the next "overtuned" fleet composition because the overnerfed ones just can't justify their costs.
I really like everything I read in that blogpost but what I really, really adore is how the new hulls neatly fit into the low-tech Domain design doctrine.
...
Overall these sound like great changes; I can't wait to play with them. :)
:D Thank you, glad you're into the changes/additions! <3
And the Tempest... Well. I'm not sure about that one. On one hand it did lost HEF. On the other hand, it gained a tachyon lance torpedo. Alright, not quite tachyon lance, but still beefy as hell. I feel this won't change much for most early/mid game combat scenarios. But can you imagine a pack of those for a late game fleet? Handling one or two kamikaze drones is manageable, but dealing with a ceaseless swarm from an entire Tempest fleet seems... Impossible. I guess it'll all depends on the system's cooldown, the drone's range, or its maneuverability if it's affected. But from what i'm seeing, it seems like a moderate early game nerf/side grade and a terrifying late game buff for the Tempest, or at least, for a pack of Tempests.
But that's a broader topic re: s-mods. You'll usually s-mod the most expensive mods, regardless, and some of the mods will be the most expensive ones, so reducing the impact and cost of the hullmods *currently* in that category just re-arranges what's in it but doesn't actually *change* things more broadly. I suppose if the most expensive hullmods were all highly specialized?"Most expensive" isn't actually the only priority there, though. At least for me, I want 'most expensive hull mods that are always going to be useful' - I'm not going to s-mod, say, expanded missile racks into something unless I'm absolutely certain that I'll always want EMR on that ship.
Fair enough! (The Drover, there may be some sort of bug that's currently tanking its performance - I forget the details, but I seem to recall seeing some report. It's written down in a TODO sheet so I'll have a look eventually.)Replacement rates were tanking because Reserve Deployment losses counted as actual losses, or some such, IIRC? Of course that combined with the Remnant LPC nefs, carrier nerfs and the (since fixed, I believe?) bug where shielded fighters would stay permanently overloaded make Drovers a thoroughly underwhelming package.
QuoteFair enough! (The Drover, there may be some sort of bug that's currently tanking its performance - I forget the details, but I seem to recall seeing some report. It's written down in a TODO sheet so I'll have a look eventually.)Replacement rates were tanking because Reserve Deployment losses counted as actual losses, or some such, IIRC? Of course that combined with the Remnant LPC nefs, carrier nerfs and the (since fixed, I believe?) bug where shielded fighters would stay permanently overloaded make Drovers a thoroughly underwhelming package.
That said I'm still not sure whether Herons or Astrals are worth using either. Carriers just ate so many nerfs and want player skills that conflict with other important stuff (Carrier Group over Crew Training? In what universe?) that it seems better to just cut them out entirely and focus on finding a replacement. Maybe focussing on a carrier fleet would be more effective, but mixing fleets seems very much against the meta this patch.
That said I'm still not sure whether Herons or Astrals are worth using either. Carriers just ate so many nerfs and want player skills that conflict with other important stuff (Carrier Group over Crew Training? In what universe?) that it seems better to just cut them out entirely and focus on finding a replacement. Maybe focussing on a carrier fleet would be more effective, but mixing fleets seems very much against the meta this patch.Maybe make carriers warship-lite like they were before 0.8a.
(Carrier Group over Crew Training? In what universe?)
... hmm. Right, yes, that's (not always wanting racks) kind of what I meant by having the most expensive mods be specialized. Still, this is a good point. On the other hand, it seems like a 10% Hardened Shields would be way too good if it was the same cost-tier as Flux Distributor... and going below 10% would just feel bad.Huh. I (obviously) don't agree there - the cost tier of the flux distributor is only slightly cheaper than the current hardened shields - and the current hardened shields is 25% reduced damage, not 10%. I picked the values I did specifically to be something that I'd use sometimes-but-not-all-the-time.
QuoteFair enough! (The Drover, there may be some sort of bug that's currently tanking its performance - I forget the details, but I seem to recall seeing some report. It's written down in a TODO sheet so I'll have a look eventually.)Replacement rates were tanking because Reserve Deployment losses counted as actual losses, or some such, IIRC? Of course that combined with the Remnant LPC nefs, carrier nerfs and the (since fixed, I believe?) bug where shielded fighters would stay permanently overloaded make Drovers a thoroughly underwhelming package.
That said I'm still not sure whether Herons or Astrals are worth using either. Carriers just ate so many nerfs and want player skills that conflict with other important stuff (Carrier Group over Crew Training? In what universe?) that it seems better to just cut them out entirely and focus on finding a replacement. Maybe focussing on a carrier fleet would be more effective, but mixing fleets seems very much against the meta this patch.
When I first played the latest version I thought carriers were dead as well, though I've moderated my opinion since then. The biggest impact to me is the dearth of carrier-relevant skills; to really build a fleet around them you'll need some battle-carrier fits mixed with pure carrier fits. Haven't tried that yet so I can't speak to it, though.
So a captain that mixes in carriers with a balanced fleet will have great carriers, but a captain that specializes in carriers will have (relatively) inefficient ones? I can see the logic RE: gameplay balance, but beyond that I'm not sure how that's supposed to make sense.(Carrier Group over Crew Training? In what universe?)
(That should become easier to manage in the future. But, right, I'll hold off on talking about skills changes until I'm actually ready to go more in-depth. I'll just say that the *goal* is to have carriers be very useful, but in small numbers, and to have that usefulness drop off (not off a cliff, just so they're considerably less efficient than in small numbers) if you go for a full carrier fleet.)
Small question.
How far away is the ship patch release?
Thank you! And, yeah, for the next update - 0.95.1a, which is basically a huge tweaks, polish, fixes, etc pass over the current version.Suggests there's a pretty solid patch-note written already. It should not be long. Then again we might want to not ask him too much or the legends may very well be true and he purposefully delays Patch Day for another 24 hours every time he's asked when the new update releases :P
he purposefully delays Patch Day
Small question.
How far away is the ship patch release?
I'vestalkedfollowed Alex's comments on the forum and, judging by ones like this oneThank you! And, yeah, for the next update - 0.95.1a, which is basically a huge tweaks, polish, fixes, etc pass over the current version.Suggests there's a pretty solid patch-note written already. It should not be long. Then again we might want to not ask him too much or the legends may very well be true and he purposefully delays Patch Day for another 24 hours every time he's asked when the new update releases :P
he purposefully delays Patch Day
Can a man who likes cats can be THAT EVIL?
I don't think so.SpoilerDon't prove me wrong.[close]
Could some armor friendly hull mods get added that are geared to low tech? I mean we have a rather powerful mods to enhance shields on ships that already have the best shields. Give armor resistance traits or something. Some hull mods specifically designed to most benefit Low tech. Every hull mod seems to be Generalized or clearly just better for High tech and a lesser extent Midline.I do like the idea of having hullmods to better specialize what your armour protects against. Impact Mitigation before the last couple of hotfixes was very strong, but that was because it was extremely common on Officers and never had a cost for the ship. Hullmods that offer similar armour specialization would be pretty nice, doubly because using them would take away OP the ship might use elsewhere (and so likely wouldn't be ubiquitous picks).
Hmm, why does Enforcer need Auxiliary Thrusters? It has a decent turn rate and all its guns are turrets. Similarly I've never installed it on the Dominator or Onslaught so I don't think its an OP tax.
What Enforcer need is AAF and inbuilt Safety Overdrive.
Are there going to be API hooks to detect if a second ship system modifies the default combat HUD?
The Hammerhead is still a better ship by a clear and noteworthy margin. The power systems relative to weapons is a glaring issue alone assuming the control of when engagements happen is resolved, which still wouldn't put them at par. It's only actual advantage is the number of missiles slots. Because those extra medium Ballistic slots will run out of flux fast in a head to head.
The missile advantage fades in longer fights which should be when Low tech ship shine in theory by doctrine at which you are left with a Low tech ship without power systems to support it's guns or inefficient shields.
It's competitive because of missiles, not because of the rest of the ships design or performance. The missile slots are a crutch for the enforcer, the hammerhead continues to remain a real fighting force the entire fight because of it's performance, system and flux generation.
...
... I find the downplaying of the problems specifically engineered for low tech extremely frustrating in this thread in general...
... Does 1 point of armor on a Low tech block more then 1 point on a High tech/Midline? No. ...
... hmm. Right, yes, that's (not always wanting racks) kind of what I meant by having the most expensive mods be specialized. Still, this is a good point. On the other hand, it seems like a 10% Hardened Shields would be way too good if it was the same cost-tier as Flux Distributor... and going below 10% would just feel bad.
They do because the higher the armor, the more damage is mitigated, and low tech has more armor. At 900 armor instead of 500 for example for example anything thats large enough to not be at minimum vs both does more damage to the Hammerhead (anything over 88 penetration to start, and then less as armor gets worn away). And then they have more residual armor, so each point of hull blocks more.
I'm not going to claim low tech is overpowered or more powerful: its not, its a bit weaker! But really only a bit. It can still be used from early game to endgame and win all fights.Yep, "low tech isn't THAT bad" is often read as "low tech is just as strong as high". Late game high is a bit better, didn't see much argument there.
Armor doesn't do much unless you are getting beat down and is useless when you have the advantage.With high armor shields can be dropped in the middle of a fight and weapons still work at full output.
...
Dampener field, while a welcome addition is as others have clearly stated an effort to bypass the corner Low tech has been painted into.
In that other thread where there were people who didn't use high tech frigates in a good way and claimed that they weren't extremely powerful: you use them in a much better way and know that they really are. The same kind of thing applies here: you aren't getting success with low tech, but that doesn't necessarily mean that low tech is awful and completely broken, just that you haven't gotten success with them yet.To be fair there was still no example for some of the stronger claims.
And they blow easily and run out of timer fast.Both of which don't matter if you're only bum-rushing the escape zone.
With high armor shields can be dropped in the middle of a fight and weapons still work at full output.
Paired with how it can ignore a good chunk of kinetics it's a big advantage, right now just not as good as speed+better shields.
Hmm, why does Enforcer need Auxiliary Thrusters? It has a decent turn rate and all its guns are turrets. Similarly I've never installed it on the Dominator or Onslaught so I don't think its an OP tax.
AI isn't very keen on tanking without shields, but it definitely drops them to avoid hits that won't damage armor too much.With high armor shields can be dropped in the middle of a fight and weapons still work at full output.
Paired with how it can ignore a good chunk of kinetics it's a big advantage, right now just not as good as speed+better shields.
Right now the problem is the AI can't do that.
People talk like we are on a razors edge with balance and High tech would because D list if Low Tech stopped being w/e it is currently.There is a lot of hyperbole about low tech/destroyers/whatever being useless, a good portion from you. Compared to that any position will look conservative :)
How does the new shieldless ship deal with Omega weaponry with all their armor eating and whatnot?And Breach missiles for that matter?
How does the new shieldless ship deal with Omega weaponry with all their armor eating and whatnot?
And Breach missiles for that matter?
@Lucky33
Why would expect such Enforcer variant to exist? Enforcer is one of weaker 9DP ships, I would be very surprised if it could do that much on auto-pilot.
Plus, "not taking hull damage" pretty much disqualifies Enforcer against all but weakest DE builds. Taking armor/hull damage in controlled manner is exactly how even a player piloted Enforcer would need to fight to defeat a decent opponent.
For anybody in the "it is fine" gang.
Would you be so kind as to provide the Enforcer variant capable of completely dominating this thing here:Spoiler(https://i.imgur.com/wje0cSo.png)[close]
"Completely dominating" will be "winning three fights on autopilot in a row without taking hull damage".
No mods. No officers. No built-ins. No Weapon Drills. 70 % CR. Flux regulation and +10 caps/vents is OK.
Fulgent-class Droneship Destroyer
(https://i.imgur.com/v0xmVMW.png)
Codex EntryFulgent's Stats (above) compared to a Sunder's (below)Spoiler(https://i.imgur.com/nYd1DJV.png)[close][...]Spoiler(https://i.imgur.com/14wvB8n.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tLnagcw.png)[close]
Assault Personal Rating: Why Does This Exist
Armament: 1x Heavy Blaster, 2x Ion Pulser (Linked), 2x Sabot SRM (Alternating), 4x PD Laser (linked), 2x Tactical Laser (linked)
Hullmods: Auxiliary Thrusters, Integrated Targeting Unit
Capacitors: 12 Vents:4
I just can't with this variant. I don't know who I need to have their location forwarded to the nearest Pather Cell for this unholy heresy. Does Vanilla Starsector unironically field a ship with 300 base flux dissipation armed with the most flux intensive continuous fire medium energy in the game plus two Ion Pulsers, no vents to speak of and without even overriding it?
This is litterally like mashing a Space Coconut into a glass without adding water, giving an Asthmatic Luddite a straw and then telling him "Go ahead, it's for you, drink!". Don't even get me started on why it even has Aux Thrusters or I might space myself out the airlock and into the nearest Blue Giant.
@Lucky33
Why would expect such Enforcer variant to exist? Enforcer is one of weaker 9DP ships, I would be very surprised if it could do that much on auto-pilot.
Plus, "not taking hull damage" pretty much disqualifies Enforcer against all but weakest DE builds. Taking armor/hull damage in controlled manner is exactly how even a player piloted Enforcer would need to fight to defeat a decent opponent.
It is not about DP. Try it yourself. The main reason for failure is the burn drive. And not because AI misjudges the distance, it is the opposite, distance and timings are perfect. For the Enforcer to take the whole burst on its shields. After that it is the whole downward spiral of doom. Overloads, disables and AI's inability to use Sabots while rotating. I somehow managed to make it win a fight but it all comes down to random.
On the other hand, Hammerhead with the HVDs is not even breaking the sweet. Disproporsion in capabilities is very dramatic, have absolutely nothing to do with DPs but only with the design principles.
And the whole thing is completely rethoric.
Why do the low-tech users have to suffer in this manner?
That Fulgent is just one of the things I shoot at in the Sim. And it is not the point. It being the whole mess you need to do with the Enforcer to make it win in the same clean manner as the very basic Hammerhead. Like really boringly basic. As I said it was rhetorical stuff.That Fulgent is 56 OP over the limit, and the player side is kneecapped by losing 27-39 OP (heavy armor-extended missile racks-hardened shields builtins).
That Fulgent is just one of the things I shoot at in the Sim. And it is not the point. It being the whole mess you need to do with the Enforcer to make it win in the same clean manner as the very basic Hammerhead. Like really boringly basic. As I said it was rhetorical stuff.That Fulgent is 56 OP over the limit, and the player side is kneecapped by losing 27-39 OP (heavy armor-extended missile racks-hardened shields builtins).
Builtins are part of the game and a very important buff to player side.
Your example just says that against a massively inflated ball of stats having the speed+range advantage(+more DP) is more important.
Fleet doctrine to aggressive or reckless, toggle search&destroy on spawn, Enforcer still more often than not wins by just burning in and dumping 6+6 linked sabots+harpoons.
Little damage taken, ~10 sec total. It's not what happens in a real battle, but the setup isn't exactly realistic either :)
(IIRC S&D doesn't need doctrine, dunno I always use aggressive)
Again, low can use a buff but you did nothing to demonstrate why, or what.
2 sore spots for me are durability being a bit lower than what feels right, and missiles of all kinds being wasted too often.
For missiles I love the omega style, IMO a higher cooldown and a little extra ammo would make them much more AI-friendly.
What mod is actually adding Remnant Variants like that into the sim by the way? Did you add them yourself? I might want to get that too considering my future plans regarding writing up remnant content and possibly working on Remnant-focused mods in the future...Dunno if it's a mod, but you can just add a variant yourself:
What mod is actually adding Remnant Variants like that into the sim by the way? Did you add them yourself? I might want to get that too considering my future plans regarding writing up remnant content and possibly working on Remnant-focused mods in the future...Dunno if it's a mod, but you can just add a variant yourself:
- \starsector-core\data\variants has the stock ones, take a look and create one yourself
- \starsector-core\data\campaign\sim_opponents.csv add your variant's ID to this file
Very nice for testing, just don't read too much into it.
That Fulgent is just one of the things I shoot at in the Sim. And it is not the point. It being the whole mess you need to do with the Enforcer to make it win in the same clean manner as the very basic Hammerhead. Like really boringly basic. As I said it was rhetorical stuff.That Fulgent is 56 OP over the limit, and the player side is kneecapped by losing 27-39 OP (heavy armor-extended missile racks-hardened shields builtins).
Builtins are part of the game and a very important buff to player side.
Your example just says that against a massively inflated ball of stats having the speed+range advantage(+more DP) is more important.
Fleet doctrine to aggressive or reckless, toggle search&destroy on spawn, Enforcer still more often than not wins by just burning in and dumping 6+6 linked sabots+harpoons.
Little damage taken, ~10 sec total. It's not what happens in a real battle, but the setup isn't exactly realistic either :)
(IIRC S&D doesn't need doctrine, dunno I always use aggressive)
Again, low can use a buff but you did nothing to demonstrate why, or what.
2 sore spots for me are durability being a bit lower than what feels right, and missiles of all kinds being wasted too often.
For missiles I love the omega style, IMO a higher cooldown and a little extra ammo would make them much more AI-friendly.
That Fulgent is just one of the things I shoot at in the Sim. And it is not the point. It being the whole mess you need to do with the Enforcer to make it win in the same clean manner as the very basic Hammerhead. Like really boringly basic. As I said it was rhetorical stuff.That Fulgent is 56 OP over the limit, and the player side is kneecapped by losing 27-39 OP (heavy armor-extended missile racks-hardened shields builtins).
Builtins are part of the game and a very important buff to player side.
Your example just says that against a massively inflated ball of stats having the speed+range advantage(+more DP) is more important.
Fleet doctrine to aggressive or reckless, toggle search&destroy on spawn, Enforcer still more often than not wins by just burning in and dumping 6+6 linked sabots+harpoons.
Little damage taken, ~10 sec total. It's not what happens in a real battle, but the setup isn't exactly realistic either :)
(IIRC S&D doesn't need doctrine, dunno I always use aggressive)
Again, low can use a buff but you did nothing to demonstrate why, or what.
2 sore spots for me are durability being a bit lower than what feels right, and missiles of all kinds being wasted too often.
For missiles I love the omega style, IMO a higher cooldown and a little extra ammo would make them much more AI-friendly.
I did not notice that Fulgent was 56OP over the standard amount until I did the OP math. You're correct.
Extra sins and no hot tea with us on local bars for you Lucky33 >:(
Just kidding.To everyone its own!
What mod is actually adding Remnant Variants like that into the sim by the way? Did you add them yourself? I might want to get that too considering my future plans regarding writing up remnant content and possibly working on Remnant-focused mods in the future...
Yes. It is exactly my point. Speed+range is not some mere advantage. It is a definitive one.An example to illustrate the point: if you spawn a special enemy with 300 range infinite damage weapons then everything slower than it loses.
I'm using it mostly for the skills effect imitation. Hence inflated stats.Don't need to imitate skills if player doesn't get them and the builtin mods every keeper ship will have.
Kiters gonna kite. But brawlers don't really exist apart from the Harbinger. They were balanced out of the game.Could you elaborate on this point? I don't consider Harbinger to have its playstyle be any different to phase frigates, which is just unphasing, using the ship system, unloading guns, then phasing again, like a really big bomber.
Kiters gonna kite. But brawlers don't really exist apart from the Harbinger. They were balanced out of the game.Could you elaborate on this point? I don't consider Harbinger to have its playstyle be any different to phase frigates, which is just unphasing, using the ship system, unloading guns, then phasing again, like a really big bomber.
It is not about specific builds. It is about the fact that kiting is implemented fully, without limits and a ship with range and speed advantage is guaranteed to win even against way more powerful enemy. But brawling is limited. There is no specific "brawling build" responsible for the same level of absolute advantage as the kiting one. It is all about stats. Even the Safety Overrides. No specific weapon, hull mod or system what guarantees victory if the ship with it managed to close the range.
Kiters gonna kite. But brawlers don't really exist apart from the Harbinger. They were balanced out of the game.
I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."
I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."
No, just enough to surround your foe. Doesn't matter how many you trap in your net as long as they're all actually in it.I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."
For that you need numerical superiority.
AI isn't very keen on tanking without shields, ...
For the sake of the example, imagine all lowtech ships got 500000 armor. Suddenly they smash everything so it's not a concept that fundamentally can't work.
...but it definitely drops them to avoid hits that won't damage armor too much...
There is a lot of hyperbole about low tech/destroyers/whatever being useless, a good portion from you. Compared to that any position will look conservative :)
High tech wouldn't become bad with a nerf or if low got a buff, nobody said that.
I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."
I think we have to see how the new burn drives play out against kiting.
Lumen is the king of annoying kiting ships that make your fleet have to chase it around the map btw.
I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."
But there already are many accessible mechanics to stop kiting: fighters or fast frigates to bog a kiter down (or just blow it up) and the 0 flux boost on the brawler, or EMP weapons like salamanders or ion beams to knock out engines, or ship acceleration on a closing course, or systems like plasma burn, burn drive, phase teleporter, maneuvering jets... There are probably others that let a close range brawler get in close that I'm not thinking of. In this very blog post it talks about why burn drive is supposed to be a tool to do exactly this, why it currently fails, and the proposed solution to make it better at the job. "Hit the enemy when they can't hit back" is a core strategy sure, but there are other strategies that work just fine. There's been a lot of attention on ships that I'd label as "brawlers" being dominant this patch: high tech frigates that just take all fire on the shield and don't even need to maneuver away to vent most of the time; SO ships with the new PPT increasing skills to make them last longer; Omegas and Radiants don't kite either, they close in and overwhelm!
When I did my low tech playthrough the fleet was absolutely vulnerable to ships that were fast and/or longer ranged because of the lack of elite frigates, so I used interceptors for the same role and missiles for quick kills. The tools were there, I used them, and the fleet kept winning.
No, just enough to surround your foe. Doesn't matter how many you trap in your net as long as they're all actually in it.I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."
For that you need numerical superiority.
Uh... No?No, just enough to surround your foe. Doesn't matter how many you trap in your net as long as they're all actually in it.I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."
For that you need numerical superiority.
You can't "surround your foe" when you have only single entity. And if you have more it becomes numerical superiority.
For anybody in the "it is fine" gang.
Would you be so kind as to provide the Enforcer variant capable of completely dominating this thing here:
"Completely dominating" will be "winning three fights on autopilot in a row without taking hull damage".
No mods. No officers. No built-ins. No Weapon Drills. 70 % CR. Flux regulation and +10 caps/vents is OK.
AI isn't very keen on tanking without shields, ...For the sake of example you go to an insane extreme no one in this thread has suggested is required. More crazy armor also has nothing to do with what I said and is an attempt to change the subject to something absurd you can easily counter.
For the sake of the example, imagine all lowtech ships got 500000 armor. Suddenly they smash everything so it's not a concept that fundamentally can't work.
The AI can't do armor tanking. Your argument about armor tanking only applies to player control, which isn't the point at all.
For anybody in the "it is fine" gang.
Would you be so kind as to provide the Enforcer variant capable of completely dominating this thing here:
"Completely dominating" will be "winning three fights on autopilot in a row without taking hull damage".
No mods. No officers. No built-ins. No Weapon Drills. 70 % CR. Flux regulation and +10 caps/vents is OK.
For anybody in the "it is fine" gang.
Would you be so kind as to provide the Enforcer variant capable of completely dominating this thing here:
"Completely dominating" will be "winning three fights on autopilot in a row without taking hull damage".
No mods. No officers. No built-ins. No Weapon Drills. 70 % CR. Flux regulation and +10 caps/vents is OK.
Hmm... 24,444 effective shield strength. So, 12 sabots? Maybe 8 Harpoons for the hull? I would expect an Expanded Missile Racks + ECCM + 2x Sabot (12 total) +2x Harpoon (12 total) + long range weapon of your choice (Heavy Autocannon maybe) all linked together in one fire group would have a solid chance of alpha striking the thing down. Certainly such an Enforcer build would likely one shot the HVD kiting build that can handle that Fulgent.
I may have to try that out. Also, Enforcer could possibly include some cheap fighters to draw fire in the initial exchange as well.
Uh... No?No, just enough to surround your foe. Doesn't matter how many you trap in your net as long as they're all actually in it.I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."
For that you need numerical superiority.
You can't "surround your foe" when you have only single entity. And if you have more it becomes numerical superiority.
I have, say, 5 ships. I face a Fleet of 15. I clearly don't have numerical superiority, being outnumber 3:1, and yet I can surround them to negate kiting attempts.
2xSabots, 2xHarpoons, 2xHeavy Needlers, 1xHVD (as a trigger for the Sabots). EMR. It creates overload at the end of the run. Or not. Even if I stopped the run any time Enforcer hit an asteroid it is still inconsistent. To feel the difference you can try Hammerhead with two HVDs and two Sabots. It works like a clock.
You will block only part of them. While others will proceed to surround your forces. If the enemy will attempt to move all its ships in one direction than you will block only single ship who will act as a frontal bait while other envelops. But more realistically speaking they will simply crush that ship head on and will be on their merry way.I can see there's no reasoning with you, what with the arbitrary declarations that support your side with, well, no evidence. You can't envelope a force that is already enveloping you!
2xSabots, 2xHarpoons, 2xHeavy Needlers, 1xHVD (as a trigger for the Sabots). EMR. It creates overload at the end of the run. Or not. Even if I stopped the run any time Enforcer hit an asteroid it is still inconsistent. To feel the difference you can try Hammerhead with two HVDs and two Sabots. It works like a clock.
I agree, EMR by itself isn't quite enough to get reliability.
Further testing, as I indicated in my last post, suggests 1xHeavy Needler,1x Light Mortar, 1x Xyphos, Expanded Missile Racks, ECCM, Converted Hangar, Shield Shunt, Resistant Flux Conduits, Armored Weapon Mounts, Solar Shielding, 1 vent works fairly robustly. Sabots, Harpoons, Heavy Needler linked. Light mortar in it's own group. As noted, I did 10 runs, it won all of them, five at 100% hull, 2 more with trivial hull damage. And 3 more with less than 20% damage.
Edit3: Forgot to list the 2x Sabot, 2x Harpoon, sigh.
The Xyphos are actually quite important it seems in the cases where the initial burst isn't enough, as the constant EMP damage pressure forces the Fulgent to keep its shields up. Even with them up, because there's hard flux build up, it eventually shuts the engines down, allowing the 60+50 speed Enforcer to catch up (since it's running 0 flux and the Xyphos are never sent to attack).
However, such an Enforcer build also seems more flexible, given it also beats a 2x HVD, 2x Sabot Hammerhead build 5/5 times with no hull damage. Even with Sabot linked to the HVDs. If I swap to linked Harpoons with EMR on the Hammerhead, the Enforcer still seems to come out on top in the 5 runs I just did, although it is close in some cases.
Edit: Looks like it wins about 9 out 10 times vs a long range /w HE missile Hammerhead.
Edit2: Although perhaps if we want to continue this discussion, we should make a new thread. I feel like's we've wandered a fair bit from Alex's blog post. :)
AI isn't very keen on tanking without shields, ...For the sake of example you go to an insane extreme no one in this thread has suggested is required. More crazy armor also has nothing to do with what I said and is an attempt to change the subject to something absurd you can easily counter.
For the sake of the example, imagine all lowtech ships got 500000 armor. Suddenly they smash everything so it's not a concept that fundamentally can't work.
The AI can't do armor tanking. Your argument about armor tanking only applies to player control, which isn't the point at all.
Spawn a sim onslaught and shoot it, it will often drop shields when it's not escaping.
AI is not very good at tanking with armor, but it does try to do it.Spoiler(https://i.imgur.com/87jMa2n.jpg)[close]
The 500000 armor example is there to demonstrate that there is a point where armor+hardflux range advantage on ballistics (lowtech) is definitely better than high (shields+speed), even with current mechanics.
I think that's relevant, don't see the need to go off the handle about it.
AI does drop shield occasionally, but this isn't done in any meaningful way.Had me fooled, it does just drop shields at low flux in the middle of a fight and take full volleys to the center without trying to raise them (seems decent against reapers though).
- AI doesn't prioritize which shots are ok to land on armor (kinetics except Gauss, low damage per shot energy) and which are not.
- AI doesn't evaluate projectile/beam time to reach it vs shield re-raise time.
- AI doesn't consider exact attack trajectory for anything that isn't a missile (corner hits during shield re-raise or missed opportunities to dodge by strafing a bit).
- AI doesn't evaluate what trying to armor-tank in given scenario actually buys it (whether opportunity to inflict armor/hull damage is present or enemy can disengage unscathed anyway).
AI does drop shield occasionally, but this isn't done in any meaningful way.
- AI doesn't prioritize which shots are ok to land on armor (kinetics except Gauss, low damage per shot energy) and which are not.
- AI doesn't evaluate projectile/beam time to reach it vs shield re-raise time.
- AI doesn't consider exact attack trajectory for anything that isn't a missile (corner hits during shield re-raise or missed opportunities to dodge by strafing a bit).
- AI doesn't evaluate what trying to armor-tank in given scenario actually buys it (whether opportunity to inflict armor/hull damage is present or enemy can disengage unscathed anyway).
This is a mechanic used for retreating by the AI and it's trading armor to avoid overloads. It isn't used aggressively so bringing it up has nothing to do with my counter to your original incorrect statement.
This. The only time the current AI drops shields while in range of enemy weapons is when it is at high hard flux and desperately trying to win the flux war / avoid overload. And often failing at that because this shield-lowering behavior usually kicks in too late to be really helpful.Double-checked to make sure I'm not going insane, AI does drop shields in "normal" circumstances. Also does it when it has a flux advantage.
To me it always seemed like it also does its best to avoid direct reaper hits and in some way does know the difference between a hellbore and a railgun.
AI starts reasonably armour tanking when it gets to high flux, when it should shield flicker right from get go.
@DrabaThe claim the 2 people I've quoted made was that AI dropping shields is always escape/overload avoidance (or some shield speed fluke/Onslaught magic).
That's a build with ONLY kinetic weapon. AI will armor tank that. But no real build should be like this.
It does actually track high-damage projectiles individually, which includes the Hellbore.Good to know, was starting to think I'm seeing a pattern where there is none.
With high armor shields can be dropped in the middle of a fight and weapons still work at full output.
I would like to not see High Tech dragged down because the whole "Low Tech" philosophy is just faulty by design and therefore unable to compete, though.
One way to help with attrition could be to give low tech ships old impact mitigation's 90% max damage reduction in a hullmod ("Time-tested armor design" or the like).AI starts reasonably armour tanking when it gets to high flux, when it should shield flicker right from get go.
Should it, though? My guess is that if it did, there'd be complaints about it taking unnecessary damage. And, it's a hard decision to make. Continuing a stalemate - get fluxed, back off, come back in, etc - is a "safe" option that gives the player the most time to make a difference. On the other hand, if it starts the "I'm losing armor and hitpoints, and may or may not be actually getting anything for it" clock right off the bat...
I'd like to see interruptible Burn Drive in action before asking for more low tech buffs.I think Dominator and Enforcer could definitely use some help.
If anything, issues with low tech at this point could be mostly resolved by AI changes (not saying it would be an easy thing to implement). Aggressive and actively armor-tanking low tech with interruptible Burn Drive could be a menace.
This whole does armor tanking exist in any form even it's not helpful/useful/optimal is a red herring.You wrote that current low tech design fundamentally can't work with the current AI, and that AI literally can't use armor to gain an offensive flux advantage.With high armor shields can be dropped in the middle of a fight and weapons still work at full output.
The AI can't use it with existing mechanics. It's only helpful for Player piloted ships. That's what this was was about.
Not a red herring, and you brought up "AI literally can't trade armor for flux" to begin with.
This is a mechanic used for retreating by the AI and it's trading armor to avoid overloads.
Generally speaking it's one thing to say, it's viable, it's another thing to ask is it desirable.
You abandon your original argument to this armor tanking exists in a useless but it technically exists form because that was an argument you felt could be won.My original argument:
You wrote that current low tech design fundamentally can't work with the current AI, and that AI literally can't use armor to gain an offensive flux advantage.
AI can use armor, and the numbers can be massaged to make high armor+ballistics/missiles as strong as you want (see the 500000 armor example).
The shield-dropping behavior existing is important for the big picture. Not a red herring, and you brought up "AI literally can't trade armor for flux" to begin with.
...but it definitely drops them to avoid hits that won't damage armor too much...This is a mechanic used for retreating by the AI and it's trading armor to avoid overloads. It isn't used aggressively so bringing it up has nothing to do with my counter to your original incorrect statement.
Also if the Onslaught is your only example and it still rarely does it then you are still wrong because the AI doesn't armor tank. One single rare (possibly a case of the AI making bad choices because the Onslaught doesn't seem to understand how long it takes to re raise shields) exception doesn't make your incorrect statement correct.
Dunno why this has to be life or death, deny every mistake to the last.
You were wrong, happens to everyone.
One place where this balance might break down, I think, is the following. When a High-Tech ship attacks a Low-Tech ship of similar strength, it often happens that the Low-Tech ship needs to drop its shields and take some armor/hull damage, while the High-Tech ship can usually retreat to safety before its shields need to be dropped, thanks to better mobility. The result is an asymmetric situation where High-Tech can steadily whittle away at Low-Tech's non-renewable hitpoints without receiving non-renewable damage in return.Longer range means more ships can focus the one trying to jump in, it's just hard to make the ships form a line/not get in each other's way in battle.
To stop this being a problem, Low-Tech needs tools that help it mitigate High-Tech's ability to kite with superior mobility. Burn drive could be one such tool. Burst kinetic damage from Needlers/Sabots and the like could be another. As could generally longer range of ballistics compared to energy weapons. But I wonder if in the current state of the game these advantages are sufficient to level the playing field. They might not be.
Observation: Energy weapons are most effective against poorly shielded targets, as very few of them do kinetic damage but plenty of them are effective against armor.
The paladin Brilliant makes me doubt if you are being sarcasic. I case you aren't, both your examples (Brilliant and Eagle) would be much better if you used other slot types for anti-armor (large energy and medium ballistic, respectively) and medium energies for other roles (pd and long-range supression, in these cases). Even if you insist on wasting good slots on meme weapons, I'm still not convinced phase lances are worth using. Your HMG Eagle would be better off just using one heavy blaster instead of two lances.It wasn't a joke, I also like phase lances a lot.
The paladin Brilliant makes me doubt if you are being sarcasic. I case you aren't, both your examples (Brilliant and Eagle) would be much better if you used other slot types for anti-armor (large energy and medium ballistic, respectively) and medium energies for other roles (pd and long-range supression, in these cases). Even if you insist on wasting good slots on meme weapons, I'm still not convinced phase lances are worth using. Your HMG Eagle would be better off just using one heavy blaster instead of two lances.It wasn't a joke, I also like phase lances a lot.
They are extremely good for phase ships and still nice for everything else IMO.
AMB I mentioned in my post. It has many drawbacks and is extremely AI-unfriendly. Mining blaster is a strictly worse heavy blaster that exists for flavour reasons and shouldn't ever be used by players. Phase lance fails hard against anything that's not a frigate or a Sunder. Go into sim right now and try to kill an Enforcer using a phase lance.
Would it be a stupid question to ask when these will be implemented in the game, or are they already present?
I wouldn't call 2 medium + 2 small missiles with FMR and 3 more medium weapon slots "frigate level firepower". Given how we are getting premium armor/hull tanking skills and the ability to reduce DP by up to 50%, spamming Ventures might become a very oppressive strat.
The main problem with venture is speed. The burn is so low, and the ship is also slow in combat. The flux stats are also destroyer level which I think is a better representation of firepower. The missiles probably give it overall light cruiser firepower for the beginning of the fight, but with terrible mobility, that doesn't really work if anything in the enemy fleet has significant firepower. No way to run and too weak to win. It's at best an early game bully, but has the campaign stats of a late game ship.
I'm fine with the Venture's combat performance, being an armed freighter and not a warship. It gains a lot of value with mods that make military ships much harder to acquire, being one of the few bigger armed ships sold on the civilian market. That's even supposed to be a trait of the Venture according to its description (usually the flagship in a civilian fleet).
Though that's lost in vanilla where full-on warships are as easy to acquire as buying a bicycle.
For the Tempest, I always expected the Tempest to be weaker than the Scarab, since the Tempest is a regular high tech frigate and the Scarab is supposed to be a super-speshul prototype ship. The Scarab really shouldn't be as common as the Tempest considering that though.