Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Amoebka on July 28, 2022, 06:33:25 PM

Title: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on July 28, 2022, 06:33:25 PM
(Did I get you with a flame-provoking title?)

Vigilance is a ship with a major identity crisis. It's likely intended to be a dedicated fleet support frigate, providing cheap missiles for compositions laking in them. However, it fails miserably in this role for a multitude of reasons.

Firstly, it lacks either the durability or the speed to survive late game battles. You need to keep it close to your big hitters to keep it safe from enemy frigates (and let it assist with missiles), but that's also where all the scary capital-grade firepower is. A single barage from something like an autopulse laser will just delete Vigilance outright. The ship is also utterly incapable of protecting itself against fighters, or even surviving them long enough to get help, which is mandatory for late-game frigates. And finally, Vigilance doesn't even have a good missile/DP ratio despite being a missile specialist. You are pretty much never going to use Vigilances over Gryphons or Falcons(P) when you want missile support. The cruisers have better missile/DP ratios while also being able to survive infinitely better.

So can it function in the early game at least? Hell no. It loses to just about any other frigate 1v1, and isn't fast enough to run away from them either. And fighters are going to demolish it even worse than in a late-game setting, because you likely don't have your own interceptors to even try and contest the Talon spam.

The ship demands constant babysitting, and doesn't provide much reward in return. It needs to either be able to survive better on its own, or have some unique benefit to make it situationally better than Gryphons (faster ammo regen for pilums/resonators? a missile HEF for laser missiles?).
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Null Ganymede on July 28, 2022, 08:44:58 PM
Okay but if you use 2x neural linked ones as flagships you can hop between them to constantly reset the ship system. That lets you magdump 2x slow-reload medium launchers (Pilums/Hurricane MIRVs in vanilla, lot of MRM/LRM options in mods) almost as fast as they can fire!

... but you're right
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Jackundor on July 28, 2022, 10:30:37 PM
Okay but if you use 2x neural linked ones as flagships you can hop between them to constantly reset the ship system. That lets you magdump 2x slow-reload medium launchers (Pilums/Hurricane MIRVs in vanilla, lot of MRM/LRM options in mods) almost as fast as they can fire!

... but you're right
>Vigilance
>Hurricane
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 28, 2022, 10:38:51 PM
If it can pop even a single enemy frigate with a harpoon pod then it basically has done all it needs to.

Not everything exactly need to be 'late game viable' and the Vigilance certainly isn't, but it does it's job as a missile carrier just fine.

If it was much better then giving it as reaper torpedo would make it into a fleet killer.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Harmful Mechanic on July 28, 2022, 10:51:46 PM
The Vigilance is not half-bad in a couple of niche roles;
- slap Safety Overrides, a Typhoon Reaper, and an HMG on it and it's a pretty decent suicide torpedo boat,
- slap an Ion Beam or HVD and a Sabot Pod into it and it's a good support ship,
- various boring Grav Beam/HVD and Harpoon/Breach fits that serve unremarkably in a frigate cloud.

I think it could probably use a different ship system, possibly Canister Flak or a similar PD substitute, but it's not a bad ship; just an ordinary one.

EDIT: Really, I think the ur-issue is that the progression curve of the game leaves you with almost no time running a large frigate cloud, which is where Vigilances are the most useful. And even then, a lot of other frigates are better picks simply because they can do what the Vigilance does *and* do other things. The Fleet Size By DP mod does help a bit with making 'wide' fleets of smaller, less high-end ships more viable, but not quite.

So, probably chalk this one up to needing a bunch of the issues around the ship fixed, too.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Grievous69 on July 28, 2022, 11:51:05 PM
For 5 DP the Vigilance need either another mount somewhere so it can have PD with an actual gun OR a much better shield (wider arc, better efficiency). As it is right now it's very bad, it's the slowest most vulnerable frigate that doesn't even bring that much for 5 DP. The only niche there is for it is doing a challenge run forcing yourself to use them.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Schwartz on July 28, 2022, 11:55:08 PM
You mean it's not in the top 5 frigates so nobody uses it late-game. Fair enough. But that's the case for a ton of civvie and pirate hulls also. Vigilance is at least a straight combat frigate. I would take it over a Cerberus, Hound, Mudskipper II, Kite, Shepherd or Wayfarer.

A d-mod skilled player can also likely get good bang for his buck out of a swarm of these.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Grievous69 on July 29, 2022, 12:00:30 AM
But that's not a fair comparison, you said it yourself it's a straight combat frigate. I'd take a Hammerhead over a Mule but that doesn't mean the Mule is a bad ship. Ask yourself if you'd rather have a Vigilance than a Wolf, Centurion, Lasher and so on. Can't believe people are non ironically defending this ship. I devoted a whole playthrough using ships I don't normally use and Vigilance was one of the clearest "don't even bother" cases. You either make a risky build that maybe does something, or a safe long range build that dies anyways to a fart.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Schwartz on July 29, 2022, 12:04:26 AM
If I only had Lashers otherwise, I would probably do Lashers and Vigilances. Wolf can do missiles, and Centurion is just better than all the others.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on July 29, 2022, 12:20:29 AM
Yeah, I'd agree the lore blurb is basically describing an entirely different ship. It's a shame, 'cause the role of a squishy overgunned escort isn't occupied. I would probably slap a built-in ECCM to bring it on par with Omen if I wanted to make it viable. However, my senses tell me that there is probably a good reason why that hasn't happened already (do I hear SPAM?).

Instead, it could probably be optimized for small fleets like Harmful Mechanic suggested. Give it a PD substitute and force it into backline. There would be a lot of tuning to be done with its OP, but there's a fun glass cannon there at the end of the line. If this philosophy can work for Manticore, I don't see how it can't be applied to Vigilance.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Harmful Mechanic on July 29, 2022, 12:24:57 AM
Given the trendline of the ship's design (the turret change to a Hybrid slot especially), it seems to me like the best solution here is making the Vigilance low tech.

So, making the turret a Ballistic, and giving it Canister Flak wouldn't be out of line for that, along with a sprite refresh in low-tech brown and red. Then it would be a handy-dandy frigate counterpart to the Manticore, and midline could get a different med-slot frigate; something with a med Hybrid and a bunch of smalls, perhaps.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 29, 2022, 12:54:25 AM
I mean make it more of a torpedo boat for sure but if you turn it into a low tech ship that can have a HVD then it's going to always focus more on that.

Honestly a Vigil with a pulse laser and harpoon pod can easily kill most frigates all on it's own, it just can't take a punch which I why I wouldn't use one once cruisers become common.

I personally don't see the issue, won't say no to a buff, but if everything is viable then fleet composition is pointless.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Euphytose on July 29, 2022, 01:04:28 AM
Yeah agreed, I never use this ship. I find it pretty terrible.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on July 29, 2022, 03:15:25 AM
...but if everything is viable then fleet composition is pointless.
Sorry if I'm veering off-topic, but I can't leave this sentence uncontested. I'd argue the opposite: if everything is viable, then you are free to compose within the limits set by the rules without worrying about shooting yourself in the foot. The question is in what way is the element in question viable. I believe you were trying to say that once everything is viable, there's not enough variety to make composition interesting. That is a valid worry, but the causality is opposite: situations like this arise when the developer sacrifices variety for the sake of viability, which sometimes happens in multiplayer games. However, theoretically speaking, you can make a system where all elements are viable provided the circumstances. DOTA 2 is the first on my mind when it comes to multiplayer examples; I'd carefully suggest XCOM 2 as a singleplayer example, but there are probably better ones out there.

Now to make this post relate to Vigilance:
Given the trendline of the ship's design (the turret change to a Hybrid slot especially), it seems to me like the best solution here is making the Vigilance low tech.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far, lo-tech already has the Manticore and as you suggested in the previous post, frigate armadas don't generally happen in a regular playthrough (don't think that's necessarily a bad thing). I'd say there's something intriguing about a frigate-sized Gryphon, but I feel like the only way to not make it broken (spam, lovely spam...) is to double down on its glass cannon-ness. I don't see why midline couldn't sport one such frigate when the other options are all bulky.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 29, 2022, 03:41:20 AM
...but if everything is viable then fleet composition is pointless.
Sorry if I'm veering off-topic, but I can't leave this sentence uncontested. I'd argue the opposite: if everything is viable, then you are free to compose within the limits set by the rules without worrying about shooting yourself in the foot. The question is in what way is the element in question viable. I believe you were trying to say that once everything is viable, there's not enough variety to make composition interesting. That is a valid worry, but the causality is opposite: situations like this arise when the developer sacrifices variety for the sake of viability, which sometimes happens in multiplayer games. However, theoretically speaking, you can make a system where all elements are viable provided the circumstances. DOTA 2 is the first on my mind when it comes to multiplayer examples; I'd carefully suggest XCOM 2 as a singleplayer example, but there are probably better ones out there.

Yeah more along with concerns that if we just buff everything until it's just plan old good, then you can just pick up every ship and use it for whatever with no real concern then we might as well be picking our favourite colour rather then a tool for a job. Which I feel the vigilance might become if it gets too buffed to compete with ships like the Tempest. (High tech frigates are almost like that in a way already, pick the sprite you like and you are done for 90% of the game.)

And Midline in particular, to me, feels like it should be the ships that are the most like tools for a job. Low and High techs can be more well rounded.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Grievous69 on July 29, 2022, 03:44:03 AM
I don't understand the logic behind that. The enemy has access to the same ships you can have, so naturally something getting buffed is not really making the game a whole lot easier unless it's spamable.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 29, 2022, 03:47:35 AM
It's not about difficulty, it's about making the game a little worse by making the choices matter less.

If everything works, then what does the choice matter?
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Grievous69 on July 29, 2022, 03:54:16 AM
If everything works, then what does the choice matter?
Do you play any other games lol? Like that's such a hard contradiction. If stuff works with very varying results, you're going to gravitate towards the best options. Thus reducing the choice in the game unless you're a masochist or a newb. Choices being equally balanced now means the player can do all sorts of different strats and find them fun, instead of underwhelming and infuriating.

Single player games don't have to have perfect made in heaven balance, but it will impact the enjoyment a lot. Either making the experience too easy, or making it a living hell.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 29, 2022, 04:00:10 AM
Lmao yeah I play other games.  ;D

Generally I like it when using different units actually matters rather then just spamming the one or having every choice be pointless.

But I am going in circles at this point, if you don't understand then you don't understand.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Grievous69 on July 29, 2022, 04:03:36 AM
Generally I like it when using different units actually matters rather then just spamming the one or having every choice be pointless.
Precisely what balance attempts to accomplish!!

Can't believe we're saying the exact same thing but somehow disagreeing. *** textual communication. When are we getting voice messages here, cmon it's not the stone age anymore.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on July 29, 2022, 04:21:14 AM
If everything works, then what does the choice matter?
Do you play any other games lol? Like that's such a hard contradiction. If stuff works with very varying results, you're going to gravitate towards the best options. Thus reducing the choice in the game unless you're a masochist or a newb. Choices being equally balanced now means the player can do all sorts of different strats and find them fun, instead of underwhelming and infuriating.

Single player games don't have to have perfect made in heaven balance, but it will impact the enjoyment a lot. Either making the experience too easy, or making it a living hell.
No no, he's got a point. Of course the player's gonna gravitate towards the better tools for the current job. The point Igncom1 is making is that if you streamline the tools to the point where each of them can do the job well enough, then there's no challenge in looking for the right tool for the job. You can just pick the one you enjoy wielding the most and not worry about failing. In other words, you have plenty of choice, but the choice doesn't matter much. Does that sound fun to you?

EDIT: I can believe you two were disagreeing when Igncom1 was emphasizing agency, while you were emphasizing choice. Multiply these two together and you get meaningful choice.

EDIT 2: Textual communication is fine. This is just an example of how communication didn't evolve to pass information, but to allow cooperation. You two didn't understand each other, but you accomplished the same goal, so you're happy. I just hope you two understand that meaningful choice is a function of both variety and agency. We're already way past off-topic so I'm leaving it at this.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on July 29, 2022, 08:28:30 AM
I strongly disagree with making ships bad on purpose to allow the players to "skillfully ignore the weak ones". Every ship should at least have a sensible niche where it shines. There are still decisions to make in loadout design, officer skills and choosing the overall fleet composition.

Vigilance isn't the right tool for any job right now. I'm not saying it should be a "do-everything" frigate, but it should at least be worth using in fleet support role. Presently, it's inferior to missile cruisers in that role by an enormous margin, and doesn't have situational upsides over them either.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: intrinsic_parity on July 29, 2022, 08:46:57 AM
I don't mind there being explicitly weak ships, but I feel that's more the role of the pirate ships. It would be nice if vigilance had some niche, which doesn't mean it needs to have overall good value.

Also, having good value does not mean having good applicability. This point would be more salient if the game had combat challenges that really required different approaches to solve. The only thing close is phase ships. Other than that, you can usually find some generalist OP strat that just wins everything. That really reduces the possibility of things having niche value.

edit: I guess some of the mini boss content is maybe moving more in the direction of requiring tailored solutions too
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Thaago on July 29, 2022, 10:35:16 AM
I've had some fun putting Salamanders on them, as they work well with the system. They aren't strong ships though.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Sly on July 29, 2022, 12:07:06 PM
It's gotta have built-in Expanded Missiles by default. It only has the one launcher, and once it's blown through its meager ammo stores it's just a liability. If you equip it with non-regenerating missile ammo, it typically lasts less time than the PPT on a Wolf with a leaky reactor.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: BigBrainEnergy on July 29, 2022, 12:31:03 PM
If the vigilance is underpowered, and meant to be a missile boat, then maybe give it missile racks for free like the gryphon. It would still have the same weaknesses that you would need your fleet to compensate for but it would be a little better at its job. Unless you use a salamander pod, which, hmm.... maybe give it free ECCM instead?
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 29, 2022, 12:45:16 PM
Salamander pods with extended missile racks should fire double. I want top fill the skies with annoying emp missiles!
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on July 29, 2022, 12:45:36 PM
I strongly disagree with making ships bad on purpose to allow the players to "skillfully ignore the weak ones". Every ship should at least have a sensible niche where it shines. There are still decisions to make in loadout design, officer skills and choosing the overall fleet composition.
I'm gonna chime in to this off-topic again to clear something I said up. If something's too weak to be used in a certain situation, then it's basically a reduction of choice by the way of viability. Grievous69 had bad experience with situations where this ostensibly happened. Situations where the player did have agency - the choices they made affected the player's success significantly - but many of the choices were too suboptimal to be worth considering, thus effectively nonexistent.

And again, to say something on topic xD
It's gotta have built-in Expanded Missiles by default. It only has the one launcher, and once it's blown through its meager ammo stores it's just a liability. If you equip it with non-regenerating missile ammo, it typically lasts less time than the PPT on a Wolf with a leaky reactor.
I feel like this might be the only change necessary, possibly offset by a DP increase if too strong. Vigilance is already sluggish and fragile, so it's gonna stay a glass cannon, but this way it might actually carry it's weight as a little Gryphon.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Schwartz on July 29, 2022, 12:46:44 PM
Yep. A free built-in missile hullmod is not gonna make it that much stronger, but it adds to the cool factor. Extra Missiles would be better as Vigilance is supposed to be fleet support, implying longer engagements.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Plantissue on July 29, 2022, 01:02:11 PM
I can't think of a single niche where the Vigilance can be useful. In early game, it has to face frigates and so gets wiped out by other frigates. If ion beam, Wolf does it better. If HVD or Mauler, Hound does it better. Many frigates also have 2 small missiles, so it almost forces you to get Harpoon or Pilum or Reaper or Breach. As personally pilotted frigate, there are plenty of better choices. In later game, not only does it still have to face frigates, but it's greatly outranged and slow. Unlike the brawler it can't maneouvre jet to safety and unlike the Centurion, it cannot damper field and hope for the best. In theory it can still work in mid game, throwing missiles out, but they always seem to be amongst the first to get destroyed for me. Perhaps because it has no missle defence unless you equip the medium turret with a PD for some reason. I wonder if that could be a useful role for a Vigilance? But Centurion and Monitor exists. It did get greatly buffed afterall, but it still seems to be a slow/middling speed frigate without a role.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 29, 2022, 01:08:16 PM
Not many frigates can survive a rapid fire harpoon pod if I am honest. You definitely misunderstand the power of a rapid firing medium missile mount against frigates.

If it killed even one target it has basically paid for it's self.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: intrinsic_parity on July 29, 2022, 01:27:25 PM
If it killed even one target it has basically paid for it's self.

I completely disagree with this assessment you don't get paid out the value of a frigate for every kill. Trading 1 for 1 is horrible value for the player. That's like 30k down the drain unless you are doing zombie d-mod skill shenanigans. Sure you can probably sustain losses, but why would you not just use a better frigate that doesn't die?
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Wyvern on July 29, 2022, 01:34:05 PM
I think Igncom1's notion was that it comes in, kills one enemy frigate, and then retreats, rather than dying...

...But I don't agree that's a good trade. The player is routinely outnumbered, after all.

(What I do find amusing is that, in the ancient days of Corvus, the Vigilance was actually my favorite of the starting frigates. But, uh, that was a time before ship systems, a time when pilums were actually good, and - for reasons that were never entirely clear - a time when the starting Vigilance variant came with 15 flux vents rather than the normal maximum of 10, all of which contributed to it being able to take on groups of three or four pirate frigates on its own. Which. Well. Nowadays, none of those things are true... and you don't generally see enemy groups as small as only three or four frigates, either. Typical enemy fleet sizes are a lot larger now than they were then, and I personally feel that the game's suffered for that.)
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Thaago on July 29, 2022, 01:41:49 PM
(Pilums are actually pretty darn good for 7OP. Very useful long ranged support that can flame enemies out through their shields.)
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Goumindong on July 29, 2022, 01:47:44 PM
I would have figured the buffs to Piliums would make this a much better ship.

Stick an Ion Beam or Grav Beam on it and let it huck piliums or Salamanders. Its not the cheapest pilium or salamander platform but its not an expensive one either. And its got a huge amount of OP letting you stick Unstable, Advanced Optics, ECCM, and ITU on it without compromising the core build. If you stick accelerated shields on it it can also defend against most missiles.

This gives it 135 speed and either 1105 range or 1122 range(or 1135 frankly i have no clue when AO is added to range calcs). Which if you really want the Ion Beam is not quite as good as the wolf, but the wolf is also 20% CR per deployment and has a 180 peak combat time. Whereas the Vigilance is 10% CR per deployment and has a 240 second peak combat time. With Hardened Subsystems that is almost cruiser peak combat time. Given that you may not have Support doctrine and you may still want some long term frigate support that is not an inconsequential consideration.

1100 range is almost more than 700 base range with capital ITU (1120) which points you firmly out of reach of Pulse Lasers, Blasters, Auto Pulse, and Plasma Cannons on anything but a paragon and 135 speed puts you out of range of non-high tech shielded frigates. Unshielded Frigates should get wrecked by the ion beam unless you're outnumbered (which often happens frankly). High tech frigates are a problem.

You're still vulnerable to cruisers (800 x 1.4 is 1120), and ballistic capitals but an avoid command will probably save you from them too until the extra ion beams each frigate brings means the capitals guns don't matter.

The point is that they're just not a bad way to round out a fleet. They have weaknesses but they also provide something pretty unique that its hard to find elsewhere. A Wolf can provide the same range on an Ion Beam but not for as long and not with Pilium Support. A Kite can provide the same amount of Salamanders but not with an Ion Beam. None of them that do provide similar missile support per DP stick around as long as the Vigilance and will be as willing to go into the next fight.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: FooF on July 29, 2022, 01:49:59 PM
+1 to built in Expanded Missile Racks.

I don’t think you can do much for the Vigilance without adding a weapon mount. It has the capability of being a decent support craft but as I found in my latest Midline play through, they die too easily mid-game, even when I play them “safe”.

All that said, I don’t think they’re bad but they aren’t very competitive relative to other choices of equal DP. Maybe they need to be priced like a Kite.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: BigBrainEnergy on July 29, 2022, 02:58:48 PM
All that said, I don’t think they’re bad but they aren’t very competitive relative to other choices of equal DP. Maybe they need to be priced like a Kite.
I could see it dropping to 4 dp and getting a small buff, but 2 dp is probably out of the question. Alex wouldn't give us a medium missile for 2 dp even if it was "balanced" accordingly.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Sly on July 29, 2022, 03:44:38 PM
I agree with the latest sentiments. It's fine for what it is, it just doesn't have any longevity in its missile mount. Pilums are a fine choice, but in general aren't very useful without coordinating with other ships equipped with Pilums. A mass Pilum strike shouldn't be underestimated.

I have a very strange relationship with a Salamander MRM on the Vigilance, because larger ships can usually mount one or two normal Salamanders to give them some versatility and not ruin their firepower. With the Vigilance, that's giving up more than half its available firepower for an occasional chance to knock out engines, maybe a gun, and deal token damage.

Chicken bone has some potential, but right now it's missing half the meat.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: BigBrainEnergy on July 29, 2022, 03:50:57 PM
I have a very strange relationship with a Salamander MRM on the Vigilance, because larger ships can usually mount one or two normal Salamanders to give them some versatility and not ruin their firepower. With the Vigilance, that's giving up more than half its available firepower for an occasional chance to knock out engines, maybe a gun, and deal token damage.
While this is true, I think you're underestimating the sheer volume of salamanders you can pump out with fast missile racks when you don't need to worry about running out of ammo.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Schwartz on July 29, 2022, 04:06:35 PM
Also, it was mentioned that a 1-for-1 trade is never good for the player. The scales tip a bit in that direction when the player goes Industry, embraces d-mods and makes his ships easily recoverable. In such a situation, having a cheap Harpoon or Sabot spewer can certainly pay for itself even if it dies every other time.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Goumindong on July 29, 2022, 05:09:17 PM
+1 to built in Expanded Missile Racks.

I don’t think you can do much for the Vigilance without adding a weapon mount. It has the capability of being a decent support craft but as I found in my latest Midline play through, they die too easily mid-game, even when I play them “safe”.

All that said, I don’t think they’re bad but they aren’t very competitive relative to other choices of equal DP. Maybe they need to be priced like a Kite.

I would prefer ECCM. EMR is just not as good as ECCM for the Vigilance because the Vigilance should tend to be used with salamanders and pilium imo

Anyway I just want you all to know that i just started adding vigilance to my fleet(ion beams, salamanders or pilium) and they're working out pretty well. I've only added 4 but they're pretty survivable against pirates (not tried VS LP yet but LP hits way above their weight). The Ion Beam shuts down pirate phase ships and the main problem i have had with them is just because i do not have advanced optics yet and so this puts them more in range of some cruisers. (wherein they take too much damage). Accelerated shields tends to deal with all but the most significant missile barrages.

One thing that i quite liked was that because they're only 10% CR per deployment i don't feel bad about chasing enemy ships down with them even if I used them in the main deployment.

Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Sly on July 29, 2022, 06:48:24 PM
While this is true, I think you're underestimating the sheer volume of salamanders you can pump out with fast missile racks when you don't need to worry about running out of ammo.

Here's my estimation:

One (or two, in the case of engine/EMP defense) Salamander striking a target in the engines will knock them out and deal token damage. Any striking after that will only deal token damage - there's no benefit to inflicting EMP on already disabled systems. It's more likely to cause a flameout due to a larger volume of missiles, but if one or two don't get through, the rest probably wont either since the Salamander MRM with Fast Missile Racks still just fires in bursts of two.

A few small mount Salamanders in my fleet makes a difference, but dedicating a medium missile mount on a frigate to Salamanders is wasteful, imo. There's simply less PPT available compared to larger ships, where it can see use later into a battle.

In the end, I'd rather just sink the target or force them to retreat. The kind of high damage alpha strike a Vigilance can put out with damage dealing missiles outweighs its usefulness as a middling fire support gunship. Taking a destroyer or cruiser off the board quickly can turn the tide in ways temporarily flaming out engines can't.

Can a ship with disabled engines be easily attacked and destroyed? Yes, sometimes.

I'd rather the confirmed kill, where I don't need to rely on the selective initiative of the AI.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on July 29, 2022, 07:25:50 PM
Adding a free ECCM and/or EMR is basically another meaningless buff that doesn't fix the core issues the ship has. The ship already can have those as s-mods. It's just adding ~10 OP (the two next most expensive hullmods). We've had two pretty big (on paper) buffs to Vigilance these last patches, and the ship is still bad. While I understand the appeal of changing a single number in a spreadsheet and calling it a day, OP/DP is not the end all be all of balance. There are problems it can't fix.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Brainwright on July 29, 2022, 08:15:48 PM
The primary issue is the Vigilance has a specific fleet role, but the combat script does not allow specialized roles.  A Vigilance will act like any other ship equipped with its weapons, even though its flux stats mean it never wants to be anywhere near the front lines.

It's just a behavior problem.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Grievous69 on July 29, 2022, 11:19:45 PM
People talking about buffs when along with those buffs it received a very serious nerf for a frigate. Top speed is currently 110, think it was 130 before. No amount of tweaking and bonus built in hullmods will help out a poor squishy slow ship that either gives up all defenses to mount normal guns, or becomes an overpriced PD platform.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: SCC on July 30, 2022, 01:42:41 AM
give it a bubble shield and active flares
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on July 30, 2022, 02:04:56 AM
give it a bubble shield and active flares
Yeah, personally I would love that. Active flares double down on the support aspect, and give it much needed PD. The shield could simply have its arc increased (again..) to 180, so that frontal conversion makes it 360. Right now you need both frontal AND extended to get full coverage, which is unreasonably pricey for a shield with mediocre ratio and tiny capacity.

EDIT: Perhaps to make it less boring (changing systems to active flares is a meme at this point) and give the ship more survivability against fighters, it could be some "active flak canisters" instead. The projectiles could track missiles/fighters and explode on proximity.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: SCC on July 30, 2022, 02:59:15 AM
But Omen is the anti fighter escort already, why make Vigilance the same thing?
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 30, 2022, 03:19:11 AM
It does feel like people want the Vigilance to be not the Vigilance.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on July 30, 2022, 03:39:05 AM
I think there's a bigger discussion to be had on the role of flare systems. I don't think there's something inherently wrong or uncool with them, they are just ubiquitous. It's basically the go-to defensive system for every non-tanky hull. On the other hand, what other options are there in this situation? I can imagine a system which would make the ship dip into p-space for a short amount of time, but it would have to be justified lore-wise and it still probably wouldn't be a good fit for most of these cases. That said, I suppose flare systems can be diversified so they feel more natural for the ships that use them. With that in mind, Active Flare Launcher does sound like a natural choice for the squishy Vigilance.

It does feel like people want the Vigilance to be not the Vigilance.
Considering they have trouble even agreeing on what Vigilance is I'd say people want Vigilance to be at least something :^
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Grievous69 on July 30, 2022, 03:57:14 AM
Although Vigilance might become a cool choice if the upcoming laser missiles are going to be strong. For example the kinetic missile that's basically a Grab beam couple with IR Autolance gives Vigilance nice pressure and defense against fighters. It's still vulnerable to missiles tho.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on July 30, 2022, 03:58:27 AM
But Omen is the anti fighter escort already, why make Vigilance the same thing?
Why does Monitor has 2 flak cannons if Omen is the anti-fighter escort already? Fleet support frigates need to be able to fend off fighters somehow. Vigilance doesn't have weapon mounts to do that, so the system has to take care of it. You could give it a built-in heavy burst laser or something, I guess, but that's a more invasive change.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: SCC on July 30, 2022, 04:06:13 AM
Flares, ubitiquous? If combat ships (why do you even take non combat ships into consideration, you will never see them in combat on your side lol), only Hound, Wayfarer (iirc) and Apogee use them.
It does feel like people want the Vigilance to be not the Vigilance.
Vigilance would have to be 3 DP, if it remained as it is. It's a kite that trades mobility and so survivability for more firepower, except this firepower isn't enough to make them competitive with Gryphon or Falcon P.
But Omen is the anti fighter escort already, why make Vigilance the same thing?
Why does Monitor has 2 flak cannons if Omen is the anti-fighter escort already? Fleet support frigates need to be able to fend off fighters somehow. Vigilance doesn't have weapon mounts to do that, so the system has to take care of it. You could give it a built-in heavy burst laser or something, I guess, but that's a more invasive change.
Ironically,  Monitor doesn't need any PD at all, since it can just tank fighters,  and missiles... I haven't used Monitor much and I never really cared for its flak. It's there to tank damage, not kill anything.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on July 30, 2022, 04:18:47 AM
Although Vigilance might become a cool choice if the upcoming laser missiles are going to be strong. For example the kinetic missile that's basically a Grab beam couple with IR Autolance gives Vigilance nice pressure and defense against fighters. It's still vulnerable to missiles tho.
I fail to see the logic. Even if the new missiles are powerful (they won't be), you could mount them on better ships. None of them are regenerating/infinite, so FMR gives no amazing synergy.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Üstad on July 30, 2022, 04:22:08 AM
It would help to have request artillery button from escorts, AI missile logic is far from good enough, manual request would both partly fix the AI issue and make Vigilance useful.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on July 30, 2022, 04:24:05 AM
Flares, ubitiquous? If combat ships (why do you even take non combat ships into consideration, you will never see them in combat on your side lol), only Hound, Wayfarer (iirc) and Apogee use them.
Why do I take non-combat ships in consideration? Dunno about you, but to me having a "default" ship system is a big nerf to cool factor. Do you think the Flare Launcher meme would exist if this wasn't a thing?
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: SCC on July 30, 2022, 04:49:27 AM
Manjets are similarly bland, yet also a thing.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on July 30, 2022, 05:32:58 AM
Manjets are similarly bland, yet also a thing.
Funny that you mention them. Another "default" system, yet I don't hear people complain about it as much. One of the reasons might be that it feels integral to the battleships that use it rather than as an afterthought. Another might be that it feels "at home" in midline as much as other mobility systems do in their respective tech schools. I would take an inspiration from mobility systems if flare systems were to be given a look at.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: SCC on July 30, 2022, 07:55:37 AM
Ships with manjets, such as Conquest, Eagle, hold up in spite of having manjets as the ship system. Most ships with flares, though, are lame, such as Hound or expdrones. Apogee has active flares, and yet it's hailed as one of the better high-tech ships. Regular flares suffer from finite charges and from poor flare launcher placement.
You can place lots of flare launchers and achieve better coverage than a Buffalo Mk II
In case you are wondering, this is a picture from an old mod, on an old Starsector version. This is the first example that came to my head, though.
(https://i.imgur.com/SWhOBRr.png)
[close]
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Schwartz on July 30, 2022, 08:07:04 AM
Apogee is just too good despite. Give it a proper ship system and it would have to be nerfed some other way - probably by making it at least 25 DP. Mobility system is a perfect fit for the Conquest because it's overgunned, so the value of the ship system increases dramatically in ships that need it. Flares are a close-to-nothing system. I can't decide if I would like to see them buffed or just gone and replaced.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on July 30, 2022, 08:21:59 AM
Regular flares are already mostly phased out in favor of flak canisters on newer low-tech ships. Active flares are pretty nice for a low-impact system for support ships, don't think there's anything wrong with them. Just don't put them on premium combat ships like Tempest.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 30, 2022, 08:24:08 AM
Well, older low tech ships  ;D
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Goumindong on July 30, 2022, 10:31:45 AM
Vigilance would have to be 3 DP, if it remained as it is. It's a kite that trades mobility and so survivability for more firepower, except this firepower isn't enough to make them competitive with Gryphon or Falcon P.

But neither the gryphon nor Falcon P can be in four places at once which four frigates can nor can they bring four ion beams.

The thing is that a ship does not have to be as good as other ships to have a value. Not all fleets or ships need to be good against remnant to have a place in the game and the main problem with vigilance against the main threat in the system (Pirates and bounties) is that it’s hard to find ion beams and advanced Optics.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on July 30, 2022, 10:37:47 AM
I mean they also have hybrid mounts so you can just put a HVD on there as well.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Goumindong on July 30, 2022, 10:56:40 AM
I mean they also have hybrid mounts so you can just put a HVD on there as well.

True but there is no HVD equivalent of advanced optics and the extra 200 range is really huge in getting the vigilance out of the range of destroyers.

Without AO and with UI(which is pretty necessary) the vigilance is in range of 800 range weapons on an ITU destroyer. With AO the vigilance is outside of 800 range weapons on a ITU cruiser (though juuust barely and enough that you don’t really want them to engage a cruiser)

The margin of error against frigates is also very important because it takes time to turn around. If you start turning around at 1050 because you’re in range (1135) and want to hold like 1050 that is a lot different than turning around at 850 because you’re in range (935) and want to hold 850.

At 850 your margin until you hit the kinetics/HE of something like a lasher is pretty low. You will start to take shield damage and then your shields will have to prioritize between the missiles and the primary guns of the enemy. And since they’re probably faster than you always lose this.

But you may not win but can actually still kite if you start backing up 200 units earlier. Ion beams are also pretty essential to dealing with the majority of truly fast pirate frigates since those tend to not have shields. (You will still get wrecked by pather cruisers and destroyers though.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Thaago on July 30, 2022, 11:00:22 AM
Trying hard to think of possible advantages for the Vigilance... I suppose in the early game, a Vigilance with Wolfpack Tactics (taken for other hunter ships most likely) to get +20% damage to their missiles to anything destroyer or above is interesting (I might give that a try with ECCM Pilums) (but using an officer on such a small ship is a waste later in the game unless the advantage it brings is truly huge, like an officer on an omen is). Vigilances have 110 speed so the +40% speed from a leadership build helps them more than it does the Gryphon (60 speed base) or Falcon P (80 speed base) - the +40% does not act on the bonus from unstable injector, only base speed. Fast missile racks combos well with Pilums and Salamanders for saturation. They can do ion beam or HVD kiting on top of missiles? Not a bad way to build them but not unique. I think thats all I've got haha.

For spam fleets, they don't benefit quite as much from the support doctrine DP reduction as some other ships do from "good" rounding. The Shrike at 8 DP gets a better reduction (1.6 rounded up to 2, for a 25% reduction)... considering the 30 ship limit Vigilance for 4 is hard to justify over Shrike for 6, which is a decent skirmisher with good shield hitpoints on top of their medium missile.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: mr. domain on July 31, 2022, 08:30:19 PM
I think that the best route to make the Vigilance have a clear identity as a midline support frigate in service of the Persean League is for it to be the best option for cheap and effective deployment of missiles in general and DEM missiles in particular. To aid this goal, one or more missile benefitting hull mod should likely be added to the ship. EMR is almost certainly needed to increase the staying power of the ship. Additionally, ECCM could be built in if it gains a new benefit relevant to DEMs, or a new DEM-oriented hull mod that, for instance, slightly extends the duration or range of their beams. I don't think that a change to the ship system is necessarily needed, but this depends entirely on DEM cooldown times. If a change to the ship system is needed, the best option for the ship system is likely something like HEF, but which applies to beam weapons as well as active DEMs. Survivability should also be improved, so I think at least one of the earlier thread suggestions like a small PD mount, shield arc to 180, or a speed increase should be added.

While I think that the idea of the Vigilance fits best into midline thematically, I find the suggestion made by Harmful Mechanic early in the thread interesting, perhaps there's room for a Vigilance (P) along those lines?
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on August 01, 2022, 12:30:20 AM
@mr. domain
I don't think DEMs are gonna change much for the Vigilance, but the HEF-like system does sound interesting considering the hybrid mount. With that said, I don't think Vigilance would be a good fit for it, the hull is not well built for using beams atm. It does open up an interesting path if Vigilance got a speed boost and kept its squishiness, though. It could be seen as a precursor to Tempest, one not nearly as reliable, but almost as spiky.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Brainwright on August 01, 2022, 07:06:32 AM
I think a key point for the Vigilance is that it shares a flaw that a lot of ships with weak point defense and an omnishield : they can't reliably vent hard flux.

Maybe at some point in the past, you could use an omnishield as a makeshift point defense, but the balance of the game has moved on from that.

Ships built like this either need to be able to vent very fast or have some kind of defense against overloading.

Maybe give Accelerated Shields faster vent speed?  A bonus to dissipating hard flux while the shield is down?
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Candesce on August 01, 2022, 08:07:40 AM
I think a key point for the Vigilance is that it shares a flaw that a lot of ships with weak point defense and an omnishield : they can't reliably vent hard flux.
Hmm.

How well does Vigilance with Heavy Machine Gun or Flak work?

It should always be acting in support of a ship with either longer range or higher speed, so being kited shouldn't be too much of a threat. And a medium missile + point defense is a decent combination for an escort.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Brainwright on August 01, 2022, 10:15:50 AM
Hmm.

How well does Vigilance with Heavy Machine Gun or Flak work?

It should always be acting in support of a ship with either longer range or higher speed, so being kited shouldn't be too much of a threat. And a medium missile + point defense is a decent combination for an escort.

Poorly.  There's no problem with the Vigilance being kited.  None at all.  The problem is it can't kite.

So if it is closing to ranges where the PD weapons are useful, it's taking damage to its shield.  The shield isn't too impressive to begin with, so something like a Shrike can destroy it in one pass.  Place PD weapons in the main mount, and other frigates will bully it.

Another issue is behavior.  When surrounded by allied ships, the weapons will determine its behavior, and a standoff loadout will have the ship acting in a standoff fashion, but as frigates spread out over the course of combat, the standoff behavior matters less.
 The ship is being pressed by multiple opponents, so it more or less acts like every other frigate, where speed is all that matters.

I've had good experience assigning the Vigilance as an escort to ships that are also supposed to serve as fire support.  More aggressive ships are a no-go, as the escorts get isolated or tangled up with opposing ships, where they don't want to be.

Maybe the new DE missiles will make fire support more valuable?  It seems the reason fleets spread out so much is avoiding the firing arcs of allies, and missiles can pass over allies to strike opponents.  Great way to allow the Vigilance to sit behind other ships, where it wants to be.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on August 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
What do you lot think of the idea that Vigilance's make for good second line ships as opposed to frontline ships like Tempests or Centurions?

Working with them recently armed with heavy blasters and a verity of missiles they are obviously incapable as one on one duellists, hell my tempests can frequently duel enemy destroyers and win, but I often find them stuck behind otherships when ganging up where normal guns obviously are of no help. In those situations missiles and carriers work because they can fight over friendlies.

Been a while since I have used Pilums too, they are interesting to say the least, not sure if they are much stronger then the old ones though. Not needing the extra missile mod is a nice for the infinite missile weapons.

Breach missiles are interesting due to their number as very light armour stripping missiles which can work well.

Heavy blasters are.... not the worst on the Vigilances honestly, as it's not like being shot by anything else is any better with a less fluxy weapon. HVDs are also nice fire support but plenty of craft can pack at least one of those.

At the moment trying to work out situations where a vigil and a centurion might be better then two centurions in a fleet battle. But yeah they could probably do with a buff if they are at least supposed to match brawlers in carrying more then a frigate is generally supposed to.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on August 05, 2022, 04:29:30 AM
Heavy blaster is the absolute worst weapon you could put on a slow frigate with 130 effective dissipation and 2000 capacity. It literally overfluxes itself in 5 seconds, not to mention it has to somehow get within 600 range without taking a bunch of shield damage.

I've been using HVD + Pilum with 5 shield boosting hullmods, and while it doesn't die too much, it also doesn't really do enough to be worth using. Missile ships really want officers, and dedicating one to a budget frigate is just not a good choice. If I could put a gamma core into it, the ship would be decent, but the game doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on August 05, 2022, 04:35:55 AM
Heavy blaster is the absolute worst weapon you could put on a slow frigate with 130 effective dissipation and 2000 capacity. It literally overfluxes itself in 5 seconds, not to mention it has to somehow get within 600 range without taking a bunch of shield damage.

I've been using HVD + Pilum with 5 shield boosting hullmods, and while it doesn't die too much, it also doesn't really do enough to be worth using. Missile ships really want officers, and dedicating one to a budget frigate is just not a good choice. If I could put a gamma core into it, the ship would be decent, but the game doesn't work that way.

My AI's seem to make the HB work, dunno how, but then again you aren't always being shot at in practice, as in fleet battles.

I've got mine with the Hardened Subsystems, Reinforced Bulkheads, ECCM Package and Expanded Missile Racks mods.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Amoebka on August 05, 2022, 04:41:39 AM
Yeah that basically means your Vigilances never come into range to shoot their blaster or shoot at one third of the normal rate. Might as well leave the mount empty then, or give it PD. As soon as a fighter wing flies by, the ship will overload itself missing blaster shots, which is worse than doing nothing. Again, a single shot is 720 flux, the ship has 2000. AI doesn't magically change that.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on August 05, 2022, 04:45:57 AM
Yeah half my fleet can be described as shooting at one third of the rate really. I don't see it being as that big of a deal, the numbers don't really matter when the AI does what it wants anyway.

Besides powerful single shots are good for taking away armour, which can be useful for poking down enemy frigates and destroyers. I'm pretty solid that the HD or Phase Lances are decent enough on them in AI hands, they just aren't comparable at all to Tempests which can solo destroyers on their own.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Grievous69 on August 05, 2022, 04:51:05 AM
Heavy blasters are.... not the worst on the Vigilances honestly, as it's not like being shot by anything else is any better with a less fluxy weapon.
Well if Mining Blaster didn't exist, they'd take the first place, so you're technically right. Still, I have major doubts such a build can work in any capacity in any stage of the game. If 1000 range low flux builds don't seem to do well survival wise, I don't see how your 600 range extremely overfluxed build works in practice.

Just saw the latest post and you said HBs and Phase Lances are good AI weapons... Alright another lost thread.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: smithney on August 05, 2022, 05:09:14 AM
Just saw the latest post and you said HBs and Phase Lances are good AI weapons... Alright another lost thread.
I remember having success spamming AI Tempests with Phase Lances and Graviton Beams back in HEF age. A squad of these could bully a squishy target to death and pressure bulkier ones without being threatened by pretty much anything. I wonder how would this strategy hold up these days. Could a similar setup work with TT Brawlers or Hyperions? Can you imagine Vigilance being rebuilt into a small Sunder with a side-dish of DEMs?
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Igncom1 on August 05, 2022, 05:12:17 AM
ANOTHER SUNDER!?!?

Oh well I mean..... if everyone else would want that I guess I could be persuaded.  ;D
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: BigBrainEnergy on August 05, 2022, 11:48:06 AM
I remember having success spamming AI Tempests with Phase Lances and Graviton Beams back in HEF age. A squad of these could bully a squishy target to death and pressure bulkier ones without being threatened by pretty much anything. I wonder how would this strategy hold up these days. Could a similar setup work with TT Brawlers or Hyperions? Can you imagine Vigilance being rebuilt into a small Sunder with a side-dish of DEMs?
Phase lance/Graviton might work with High-Scatter. A tempest can easily get into 400 range, but I don't know if the AI will just drop their shield between phase lance shots. If it does you could bring more ships with ion weapons, or maybe the threat of termination sequence alone will be enough.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Embolism on August 05, 2022, 08:39:02 PM
I think the Vigilance needs a full rebuild like the Hyperion got. I don't think it can be fixed with its current mount setup, and to be honest it's a pretty awkward ship visually.

It should either dig down on the missile specialist and get some small missile slots, or become more generalist with other slots.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Haresus on August 06, 2022, 12:09:59 AM
Interesting thread, I gotta agree that the Vigilance feels pretty disappointing. If you want support missiles in the later game, the Gryphon is an amazing option. Early game, the Vigilance is just too slow and vulnerable.

Some thoughts from me:
Vigilance can't be too fast, or else it becomes a kite machine. Long range graviton or ion beam in combination with high speed is a potentially nasty (and safe/boring) combination.
If the Vigilance is a fleet support ship then running out of missiles early in the battle is a major downside, so infinite ammo missiles are preferred.
On the same note, unguided missiles are generally not great since the Vigilance is not much of a frontline ship.
The above two points means that the Vigilance will favour low-impact support missiles, like the Pilum or Salamander, maybe someone can make the Breach missiles work with the Vigilance.
The Vigilance should be weak to fighters, this seems like a core part of its identity to me. Giving it ship systems that counter fighters would shore up one of its weak points, yes, but also take away something that makes the Vigilance into the Vigilance.

The way I see it, there are three viable changes:
Increase the speed back to 130, this will increase the ship's survivability at the risk of making it too good at kiting.
Add expanded missile racks built-in, this encourages using ammo-dependent missiles but doesn't actually improve the Pilum/Salamander Vigilance. Maybe it opens up some room for a Harpoon/Sabot Vigilance though.
Reduce DP to 4. If a ship isn't very good, then maybe the solution is just to make it cheaper to field it.

I thought a little bit about turning the hybrid turret into a ballistic turret and sidestepping the Graviton/Ion beam shenanigans that way, then you could safely increase the speed of the Vigilance to something respectable. Maybe that's more of a Vigilance (P) idea though.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Serenitis on August 06, 2022, 01:45:19 AM
I think the Vigilance needs a full rebuild like the Hyperion got.
Quote
dig down on the missile specialist and get some small missile slots
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/pb3McEp.jpg)
[close]

Add expanded missile racks built-in, this encourages using ammo-dependent missiles but doesn't actually improve the Pilum/Salamander
Salamander doesn't use ammo, but Pilum does.
Expanded Racks does help Pilum as it gives them a longer time until the missiles become rate-limited and can only fire as fast as they are reloaded.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: prav on August 06, 2022, 09:10:42 AM
As a frigate that can launch 16 harpoons in a few seconds I think the Vigilance has pretty solid offense already. A larger problem is how easy it is to kill.

Part of it is an AI issue - it's a hardcore support ship, but the AI tends to say "hey, fast frigate - send it out to kite something" - and then it gets killed by fighters or frigates that aren't specialized in support. Maybe some hull hint to discourage this, SUPPORT_LARGER or similar? And when it does stick with its bigger buddies it sometimes gets caught in the crossfire a bit too easily - I think a little extra flux cap could be good here, surviving an extra second or tanking one more harpoon can be plenty.
Title: Re: Vigilance is bad
Post by: Haresus on August 06, 2022, 10:05:33 AM
Add expanded missile racks built-in, this encourages using ammo-dependent missiles but doesn't actually improve the Pilum/Salamander
Salamander doesn't use ammo, but Pilum does.
Expanded Racks does help Pilum as it gives them a longer time until the missiles become rate-limited and can only fire as fast as they are reloaded.

True, didn't think of that. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't seem to be very good at using the Fast Missile Racks with the Pilum anyway. It stays at 2 charges, sometimes it even remains at 3 charges for a prolonged time. This behaviour makes sense if you're reserving your firepower for the right moment to unleash a volley of devastating Harpoon missiles, less so if you're trying to provide sustained Pilum pressure. It'll run out of peak active performance time before it gets even halfway through its Expanded Missile Racks. There's some benefit there with the right skills and if the engagement goes on for long enough, but it seems fairly marginal.