I'd still wait for the patch to actually see their place. Along with the new weapons, fighters, hullmods, ship nerfs, buffs (Eagle pretty much confirmed to get buffed), there's just many changes that could indirectly buff them.Fair enough.
Also something being mediocre in all stats isn't that bad, it's nice to have such ships in a game.
I'd still wait for the patch to actually see their place. Along with the new weapons, fighters, hullmods, ship nerfs, buffs (Eagle pretty much confirmed to get buffed), there's just many changes that could indirectly buff them.Are we here yet ?
Also something being mediocre in all stats isn't that bad, it's nice to have such ships in a game.
But AI doesn't do thisWhat is the point of writing that even? We're discussing choices for the player fleet, someone being able to kite a larger ship has zero impact on what you will bring with you in fights.
Eagle has effective average speed close to 75 and better hard flux range. It totally dominates Apogee in 1v1 fight.I'll save this post in case the game ever becomes a 1v1 gladiator arena.
What is the point of writing that even? We're discussing choices for the player fleet, someone being able to kite a larger ship has zero impact on what you will bring with you in fights.
What? It's my response to the "AI doesn't know how to do that", when we're discussing AI ship choices. Unless the game becomes pvp it's completely irrelevant.What is the point of writing that even? We're discussing choices for the player fleet, someone being able to kite a larger ship has zero impact on what you will bring with you in fights.
Is this sarcasm my detector failed on? Because most of ships in player fleet are AI controlled. All but one in fact.
I can also add that AI is generally terrible with hardpoint mounts and Apogee is no exception.
Just tried it in the simulator.. Apogee has no problem taking apart an Eagle.
I wonder if swapping the Eagle's 'Maneuvering Jets' for a 'Burn Drive' would help with the speed issue? ???
Apogee is slow and short ranged ...Tachyon + 2 Tactical lasers lasers + ITU + Adv. Optics = Gives about 1600 range. (feel free count exact number include pilot bonuses) Thanks to Tachyon "pulse" beam delivers damage over short time period, without need long time target aim.
Hammerhead can defeat it in completely ...
Sim Eagle has incompetent loadout: 3 Heavy Mortars + 3 Gravitons. Gravitons are not shieldbreaking weapons - their role is flux debuff for enemy weapons. Useful, but doesn't actually win the flux war on their own. Eagle has to equip 2 or 3 kinetic weapons (with Tachyon Lances, if all 3. Though AI can't use lances due to too large flux spike).Do you mean phase lances? Because tachyon lance is a large energy and eagle only gets mediums.
Do you mean phase lances? Because tachyon lance is a large energy and eagle only gets mediums.
Also please show me what kind of hammerhead variant can kill an apogee under AI control that isn't an SO build because I genuinely don't see one that could do it.
...but never underestimate the safest cruiser in the game.Sir I think you may be confused, this is an Eagle thread. :P
Also Hammerhead can beat an Apogee if player pilotedWe've been over this, with a Lasher you can kill almost any sim opponent. Such statements have no meaning in balance discussions.
What new support hullmod?"Defensive targeting array" - makes all fighters tethered to the carrier and increases their anti-fighter/missile damage. From Alex's twitter. Straight up stealing user ideas from the official suggestion forum, devs truly have no shame these days. ;D
I think this is mostly going to be good for hybrid ships like Odyssee or Venture, where you can outsource PD to a few wings of cheap fighters. Spending for Converted Hangar AND DTT AND fighters just so they can do PD duty - is PD really an issue for the line cruisers?No, the issue is lack of firepower of the only sensible build (1000 range ballistics + beams). Being able to bolt on additional weapon mounts fixes that, especially if bombers aren't prohibited. The usual 2 HVD + 1 Mauler + 2 Graviton + 1 Ion becomes a lot scarier when you add infinitely regenerating atropos to it.
Again, you people are being too harsh. Just run a simple test, AI Eagle vs AI Eradicator. Matchup that's supposed to be ez pz for Eradicator, since AAF ships are basically 1.5x of their DP when soloing something. Tried Heavy Autocannons with a single Phase Lance, tried Arbalests. Both builds win even though it's a low tech opponent. I used the Assault Eradicator variant since imo that's the most fair, it has plenty of kinetic damage plus a whole day of Harpoons.
I think the reveal of the new support fighter hullmod is a big deal for this topic. Both Falcon and Eagle are excellent CH platforms, brought down by the fact that no good support fighters exist for them (Xyphos is rather pointless with all the beams they already have).
No, the issue is lack of firepower of the only sensible build (1000 range ballistics + beams). Being able to bolt on additional weapon mounts fixes that, especially if bombers aren't prohibited. The usual 2 HVD + 1 Mauler + 2 Graviton + 1 Ion becomes a lot scarier when you add infinitely regenerating atropos to it.
This means nothing. An eradicator is cheaper, hits DP breakpoints better, and has higher range, damage, and consistency which is going to help it a lot more in a fleet battle. Also must've used a redditor Eradicator build for Eagle to win that on AI.Assault Eradicator is a default game build made by Alex sooo... You can just add such variants to the sim, but it seems you're too busy being a smartass.
Back to the old “Eagle should have a flight deck”, that support fighter only costing 12 OP would be huge but that’s probably not in the cards anymore.
An extra 100 dissipation is pretty decent. That’s a bit less direct than a speed or range buff but it would give the Eagle more opportunity to leverage those Medium Energies.
The new Diktat skins play around with the range buff concept, (though not on the Eagle or Falcon, ha!); I think it's more thematically appropriate there since it's basically TriTach doing fairly unsafe but flashy and interesting things on the Diktat's dime.Ooh, teaser on the new version of Lion's Guard's special "upgrade" mod. Unsafe experimental range buff for energy weapons, at least the non-beam ones, seems like a neat thing. Definitely on-brand for Andrada, he is the kind of guy to increase the on-paper usefulness of those fancy energy weapons even if it is not particularly safe or well thought out. Tis a shame the Eagle and Falcon don't get it, but it does make sense as range buffs on fairly slippery cruisers could cause problems.
Just FYI, the current set of changes to the Eagle in-dev is:
1) 20 supplies to recover/for maintenance (down from 22), and
2) 700 base flux dissipation (up from 600)
Just FYI, the current set of changes to the Eagle in-dev is:
1) 20 supplies to recover/for maintenance (down from 22), and
2) 700 base flux dissipation (up from 600)
With the changes to Squalls and Hurricanes, large missile slots potentially won't be as valuable, or at least universally as good.
Yeah - I've seen the suggestion, and I think it's a pretty reasonable idea! But it doesn't fit how I see the Eagle, which is less "jack of all trades" and more just... "a respectably average baseline ship", let's call it. And putting a flight deck on it definitely makes it an outlier among cruisers, so it goes against that, feel-wise. Plus, I'm not a huge fan of small amounts of fighters sprinkled in on too many ships - I think too much of that can make combat feel unnecessarily messy.
Reading this, I wonder how Eagle ends up feeling 'average' without remaining 'mediocre'. I don't think I'm wrong that one of the reason Eagle's coming so often up as a topic is that players want it to feel strong in their fleets. I feel like this is a chance for Eagle XIV to have a strong niche fit for lategame fleets if base Eagle's supposed to be an 'elite mook'. (Itching for LG ships to be the 'elitest' of mooks, anyway :D)
Rather than Eagle better suits to Aurora which also need some buff.Back to the old “Eagle should have a flight deck”, that support fighter only costing 12 OP would be huge but that’s probably not in the cards anymore.
Yeah - I've seen the suggestion, and I think it's a pretty reasonable idea! But it doesn't fit how I see the Eagle, which is less "jack of all trades" and more just... "a respectably average baseline ship", let's call it. And putting a flight deck on it definitely makes it an outlier among cruisers, so it goes against that, feel-wise.
Well, to be fair, the Eagle has always been the bog standard cruiser. The reason it doesn't "feel strong" is probably more perception than reality but there has been some definite power creep with the new Cruisers and they kind of just passed the Eagle by. With the proposed changes, it's going to win flux wars a bit better and while it's not fast by any stretch, it can at least disengage better than some of its peers. As Greivous69 has said many times, it's probably one of the "safest" Cruisers out there by a comfortable margin, at least for cost.It's a completely agreeable stance by Alex. Especially since Starsector is a single-player game, it makes sense for it to have its 'mooks'. But as you mentioned, new cruisers set a precedent by having a strong niche in addition to being released generally good. As you correctly picked up, my point was that this opens an avenue for faction variants to be rare, but tiered-up versions of their vanilla selves, designed to double down on their tactical niches. There's a great precedent for this with faction variants, notably with Phalcon. This doesn't mean that all vanilla hulls need an upgraded faction variant, many already do feel premium by themselves and deserve to, e.g. Aurora, Champion.
I think Alex is right in envisioning the standard Eagle as the via media for Cruisers and I don't blame him. Something has to be sort of the plum line for Cruisers (and perhaps the rest of the game) and the Eagle just fits into that "good-not-great" spot. If anything, the the additional flux places it more fully into the Mid-Line M.O. of having generous flux stats for its generalist options.
Just FYI, the current set of changes to the Eagle in-dev is:
1) 20 supplies to recover/for maintenance (down from 22), and
2) 700 base flux dissipation (up from 600)
Interesting. Overall, a 33% increase in base flux dissipation (or about 21% increase in max) over the 0.95a Eagle.
QuoteInteresting. Overall, a 33% increase in base flux dissipation (or about 21% increase in max) over the 0.95a Eagle.
It's 16.6%
Eagle:
Increased flux dissipation to 600 (was: 525)
Increased flux capacity to 11000 (was: 10000)
22 DP might be "identity" but it's also annoying to actually build a fleet around and basically forces you to use the ship in multiplies of 5 so that everything adds up to neat 240(or more realistically 200/220)... then you pick a skill from Leadership line the "Support doctrine" and your plan is ruined again.
QuoteInteresting. Overall, a 33% increase in base flux dissipation (or about 21% increase in max) over the 0.95a Eagle.
It's 16.6%
It's 16.6% for the 0.95.1a Eagle, but 33% for the 0.95a Eagle. To be fair, comparing to the previous release Eagle flux stats is a bit odd, but I was just struck by such large back to back flux stat buffs, on top of the coming 20 DP cost. It's gone from typical middle of the pack cruiser flux stats of it's original design to high tech tier flux stats. I think it had been 525 flux/second since it's inception until the current release, but I only started around 0.7. But being kind of in the slow but shield tanky slot like the Apogee, it's becoming clear it needs it.
From 0.95.1a patch notes:QuoteEagle:
Increased flux dissipation to 600 (was: 525)
Increased flux capacity to 11000 (was: 10000)
My point was the 0.95a Eagle (from the prior release) had only 525 flux dissipation (and 10,000 capacity) and we are discussing 700 flux dissipation and 11,000 capacity here, which means the 0.95a Eagle was that severely under tuned compared to other 0.95a ships like the Champion.
This also separates the Eagle from the Falcon somewhat. Honestly, I think the Falcon is fine for its cost. The Eagle gains a premium on flux stats now for the (significant) loss of speed. 75% more flux for 43% more DP isn’t bad. It’s the Champion that now looks relatively anemic, but Ludd knows it doesn’t need a buff!
I don't agree that phase lances are reasonably flux efficient. 1.2 flux/damage is very much mediocre at best, and honestly kinda low-key bad, even for an energy weapon.They do have perfect accuracy. That's not to be dismissed, when it comes to flux efficiency.
Eagles aren’t good at taking on things bigger than themselves
An indirect buff to the Eagle would be to make High Scatter Amplifier better.
It's with the shield performance, because the AI will auto fire them and firing them into shields is worse for you than the opponent (builds up more flux in your own ship than the enemy). It's fine if you are bullying weaker ships with less capacity, but not for 'punching up'.At the moment, it looks to me there is AI which controls each weapon independently, regardless of other weapons on the ship. Therefore, rather than one weapon "fix" generalist >> strike weapon it would be better to ask for a
stuff
With all these mount change suggestions, we should just split the difference.
Remove all the centerline mounts (1 medium ballistic, 1 small energy, 1 medium energy) and put a single fixed large universal there. :)
Graphically a spinal mount would work better on the Falcon which already has a gap in the middle to fit one.Or Falcon's simply an Eagle that's missing the spinal mount.
(Watching the community try to powercreep a ship when the same criticised a couple of latest ones)
But seriously, can't we just wait and see how it's gonna go in the next version... There's a bunch of things being added and changed, yet people modified one (not even final) stat for a ship and concluded it's trash. Surely you all realise there's much more to ship strength than pure stat adjustments. Weapons, hullmods, skills, other ship changes, new content, new enemies, and so on.
(Watching the community try to powercreep a ship when the same criticised a couple of latest ones)
I'm going to throw my lot in with the Eagle as my least favorite ship. It's got a good balance of energy and ballistic weapons, decent shields and isn't costly for it's class. But the problems sit with the stock variants only changing the missile loadouts and the Flux problems that arise if you put on heavier hitting burst weaponry. It's all using medium hardpoints so it requires a drawn out fight, breaking the shields and beating down on the armor, it's too heavily reliant on missiles and it's so slow that destroyers and fire support will pick apart your targets before you reach them. It requires fleet actions as it can't deal with more nimble Strike Frigates and Destroyers, yet that same fleet renders it useless.
Man people are really so far into this to dig up ten year old forum posts, yikes.
Took me 5 minutes. The forum has a "oldest first" search for some reason ???Well that explains the amount of crazy necros we see often.
(Watching the community try to powercreep a ship when the same criticised a couple of latest ones)
Hard to say it is powercreep when people have been pointing out the same problems with the Eagle for TEN YEARSSpoilerI'm going to throw my lot in with the Eagle as my least favorite ship. It's got a good balance of energy and ballistic weapons, decent shields and isn't costly for it's class. But the problems sit with the stock variants only changing the missile loadouts and the Flux problems that arise if you put on heavier hitting burst weaponry. It's all using medium hardpoints so it requires a drawn out fight, breaking the shields and beating down on the armor, it's too heavily reliant on missiles and it's so slow that destroyers and fire support will pick apart your targets before you reach them. It requires fleet actions as it can't deal with more nimble Strike Frigates and Destroyers, yet that same fleet renders it useless.[close]
Man people are really so far into this to dig up ten year old forum posts, yikes. Yeah let's take it as fact since some random dude said so before. Who cares, we've had countless people claim Conquest is trash tier, Aurora is god tier. Giving a voice to every single person online is both the best and the worst thing that happened.
FWIW, the way I see its role as ... "fluidly holding an area" might be the best way to put it. Something that makes anything weaker back off, and can safely disengage from most stronger opponents after driving up their flux, but lacks finishing power.
By giving this tonnage to armor and armament you have taken it from other uses; either from increasing her own speed and endurance, or from providing another cruiser. You have in her more cruiser than she ought to have and less armored vessel, or less cruiser and more armored ship.
I'll save that for the patch notes; those aren't too too far off :D
17 DP Eagle? That's great, now we can compare it directly with Eradicator P, wich has:
- base speed as high as Eagle using Maneouvering Jets
- Burn Drive on top of that
- two more small ballistics and three more small missile slots all neatly pointed towards the enemy
- base burn of 9
- red space camo drip instead of Eagle's cheap puke green paint(then if you put Graviton Beams on it... yuck)
And it cuts both ways, if the Eagle gets enough speed to fill that role, then the Falcon gets stepped on.
energy bolt coherer to the Eagle
Unfortunately for the Eagle, it's not a good choice for not-dying; the Falcon's mobility serves it better for the role of a ship that I can give to the AI and be reasonably confident it'll come out the other side of a fight in one piece.
The point about MJ on the Eagle not being super engaging is well taken, though. I suppose I could see something like "faster baseline plus ammo feeder"? But that gets into "bigger Hammerhead" territory. And "a heavier cruiser that can turn very quickly" is a fairly distinguishing feature.
(Probably abundantly obvious, but: the hope is that at a cheaper DP cost, you get enough of these that mutual support helps with this aspect of things.)If I wanted something that does nothing but hold the line and not die, I'd spend my DP on Monitors and use the spare for more backline or frontline damage ships.
So in the interests of nailing down the right DP, I setup a similar fight, but instead of against Falcons, against Champions.
So same core fleet (1 Conquest, 2 Gryphons, 5 Centurions).
This time the difference was:
6 Eagles (3 Heavy Machine Guns, 1 Heavy Blaster, 2 Ion Pulsers, 2 Sabots, Safety Overrides, Hardened Subsystems, Unstable Injector, 8 vents)
vs
4 Optimal Champions (Plasma Cannon, 2 Ion Pulsers, Hammer Barrage, Safety Overrides, Hardened Subsystem, Expanded Missile Racks, 13 Vents)
1 Kite (Hegemony_interceptor variant)
6*17 = 102 DP for Eagles, 25*4=100 + 2 = 102 for Champions + Kite
Basically trying to mirror match it up to Champions in the AI battles mod.
Results:
Eagles win (1 Eagle, 2 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (3 Eagles, 3 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (3 Eagles, 3 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (2 Eagles, 1 Gryphon, 2 Centurions lost)
So not sure if 17 DP is a slight over tune and 18 DP is better, or if I should be using a different Champion build to mirror it up. Perhaps Squalls to mirror the sabots, or at least provide more long range shield pressure, although it removes a fair bit of burst they have. But certainly, Eagles at 2/3 the price of Champions with appropriate backing are good enough to handle a half Champion fleet in the AI battles mod.
I'm not sure why the testing methodology is using Safety Override as standard (the Core fleet isn't using SO, is it?). If it's SO versus non-SO, that's immediately going to skew the results. I'd be much more interested in seeing the results of non-SO variants of the Eagle versus "normal" fleets. SO is covering up the primary liability of the Eagle: speed.
No forward PD? You put a flux distributor and stabilized shields on a ship that has 900 dissipation (660 post shield) and 838 weapon flux before those mods. You are actually dissipating more flux than you can possibly utilize and you’re paying how much in OP for it?
Edit: specifically I tend to like 2 heavy burst in the front and regular PD in the back with swarmers in the launchers but there may be fitting i implications for this without a mods. But I find that dealing with fighters and forward missiles is more important in the types of fights you tend to need to fight and you can generally rotate/prevent flankers with reapers in other ways.
Well, I tend to rear PD simply because AI likes to use Salamanders and the Eagle has fixed forward shields, but yeah I could go heavier on PD it's quite true. Although against Squalls and Hurricanes, you really need to go big or go home in terms of PD. Without officer skills or even the Integrated PD hullmod, two heavy burst PD I fear isn't going to do all that much. Against smaller missiles and fighters, probably worth while. Still, arguably a better use of the 70 excess flux dissipation in this particular example which has no fighters, and provides a little bit of anti-armor when up close.
So for the following results I used an Eagle with 3 HACs, Ion beam, 2 swarmers, 2 heavy burst, 2 pd lasers, ITU, Stabilized Shields, 30 Vents, 23 Caps.
Also took the Elite Conquest and made it double Harpoons, double Hurricanes and dropped the blast doors for both sides, so more HE to follow up on the shield pressure.
I will note watching the first fight, it really does need integrated PD or officer skills, as the heavy burst PD did almost nothing against Squalls and Hurricanes. They did work reasonably against Harpoons, and at least shot some Squalls down when multiple Eagles were shooting at the same Squall stream. The perfect Champion wins were when an Eagle went down relatively early. The extra Hurricane and Harpoons on the Conquest makes it a bit better at securing the kill against high flux ships. Only once the Champions run out of Squalls does the fight start to even out. On the other hand, campaign Champions can be running 3 times the missile capacity (and 50% more missile HP) while the Eagles are perhaps getting better PD setup with Point Defense or S-modded integrated PD.
I'll note I can also simulate S-mods easily by just hand editing the variant files in the mod's data/variants directory if people are interested.
Champions Win (1 Conquest, 2 Champions, 1 Gryphon, 3 Centurions lost)
Champions Win (No losses)
Champions Win (No losses)
Eagles Win (2 Gryphons, 4 Centurions lost)
Eagles Win (2 Eagles, 1 Gryphon, 4 Centurions lost)
Again, the randomness of the battle AI, but does look like a slightly better setup for the Eagles. Again, I'll note this is assuming Eagles are 20 DP and not 22 DP. There's also an argument to be made the backing fleet is missile heavy, and thus throwing even more (i.e. Squalls) into the mix means the Champions are getting slightly more synergy.
4 Champions with:
1 Plasma Cannon, 1 Squall, 2 HACs, 1 Ion cannon, 2 Burst PD, ITU, Stabilized Shields, 30 vents, 21 caps)
(The Eradicator (P) is currently 18 DP in the dev build, btw. I think it was slightly under-costed. Not so sure about the Apogee being 20; it *is* a really good tank and a large missile plus a large energy is not a bad combo, but maybe not worth 20; I'll keep an eye on it. The Fury... could possibly do with being a point cheaper, though I haven't touched it.)
"a heavier cruiser that can turn very quickly" is a fairly distinguishing feature.
If you want an Eagle that will actually deal damage, Phase Lances are by far the best choice. I don't know why some are still so adamant they're a bad pick. Not every Eagle build needs to have HVDs jeez. I already showed how a simple Eagle build can actually pack a punch, even at current cost. Reduce it to 17 DP and I'll abuse the hell out of it.
I'll post videos here after the patch, just so I can stop listening to "phase lance bad".
If you want an Eagle that will actually deal damage, Phase Lances are by far the best choice. I don't know why some are still so adamant they're a bad pick.
I think putting some kinetic damage on the champion would be a pretty clear upgrade. That could be squalls, or a medium kinetic (HMG probably) over one of the ion pulsers. Also, with SO, I would probably invest in more guns and vents instead of EMR personally. Ir pulse lasers are pretty good DPS and efficiency into shields for a SO build. You can even slap IPDAI to get some PD out of them too, although that's probably too much OP without s-mods and unnecessary for a 1v1.
I don’t know if you can say that about Medium Energies relative to Ballistics. Ballistics are far more efficient in their respective roles and regardless of OP cost and range, most ships can’t support the flux profile of a single HB. The Eagle wouldn’t have the equivalent of “6 Ballistics” because 3 of those “Ballistics” cost 2-3x the flux to fire to achieve the same effect.
That is to say, yes, the Eagle would punch harder if the Energies had more range but it’s also paying for it flux-wise. It’s not like Medium Energies are cheap to fire.
DP % dam Ship
75 37.1% 3 Champions (Squall, Plasma Cannon, 2 HVD, 2 Tac Lasers, with Xyphos, EMR, and ECCM)
68 31.8% 4 Eagle XIV (3 HVD, 3 Phase Lances, 2 Tac Lasers, LR PD Laser, 2 Breach, with Xyphos and AO, base flux 700, 17 DP)
70 31.2% 5 Falcon XIV (2 HVD, 2 Phase Lances, Tac Laser, LR PD Laser, 2 Breach, with Xyphos and AO)
That's why I don't think the IR auto lances are going to fix anything either, they sound like low output weapons, and eagle is lacking output.
This should make it terrible against shields(1/4 damage and no hard flux) and even worse against armor(1/40 the damage I believe since beams "tick" ten times per second)
I'm not your mate, buddy.I'm not your buddy, pal.
"Its flux generation is extremely low, and it deals fragmentation damage, making it virtually useless against shields (in fact, when set on autofire, it’ll only fire a small fraction of its charges into shields), and poor against most armor. It can deal crippling hull damage, though, and wipes out most fighters easily. Its high range – the standard 1000 units for beam weapons – makes it especially effective at that job, as does its burst nature – enemy fighters usually come in waves, letting it regenerate charges."
Sounds pretty PD to me.
A new and terrifying thought just occurred to me: is the Eagle the new Conquest? ;DWe're still 4 pages short of that. Soon enough my brethren.
(1/40 the damage I believe since beams "tick" ten times per second)Beam damage for armour reduction is calculated using the half of its continuous DPS. To use HIL as an example - it deals 500 HE damage. HE doubles the damage to 1000, then the damage is halved to 500, and this 500 is used as the hit strength. Or, HIL has the armour penetration of a heavy blaster.
A new and terrifying thought just occurred to me: is the Eagle the new Conquest? ;DI don't know. Conquest is more fun to fly.
The obvious solution is indeed to swap the ballistic and energy mounts. That would mostly solve the problem, along with some other issues like the ballistic/energy range disparity, etc.
A central Large Ballistic (or Hybrid?) would be interesting, perhaps even good, but that’s a pretty strong departure from stat changes. (This is assuming the other central mounts are removed) I don’t think it’s in the cards. Maybe a cool variant? It would definitely be more of a line cruiser at that point. It would also really distinguish it from the Falcon. Hmm.Well I'd wager a built-in unique weapon tailored for the mount could solve Eagle's issues, too. Is that too odd of an idea? Not a design choice I'd see Alex use often, it's an option taken from the player, but I'd say it would be justified considering the amount of discussion Eagle kicks up. I mean better to have Eagle fit into few fleet roles smoothly rather than have it be grudgingly hamfisted into any role it's acceptable in, right?
I had a similar idea to increse the power of beam Eagle relative to Falcon, which was to increase number of medium energy mounts from 3 to 4 or 5 (still keeping the radial or V layout), with enough OP and flux to use them. The good non-beam energy weapons would still be gated by range and total flux dissipation (I hope, but maybe this would break SO builds) but it wouldn't punish you for taking them.Oh hell yeah, let's embrace the medium mount package. 6 MEDIUM ENERGIES! It fits the ship, it's dumb, let's make it a midline Enforcer. And yes I am absolutely serious about this suggestion.
But Eagle already struggles to make use of all its energy mounts that it currently has. Adding more would only make it even more obvious.Only when we let go of fear, are we truly free. But nah it could be fun, beam builds only getting better, projectile pretty much the same but with more flux.
My issue with such drastic hullmods is that they force you to use certain weapons.
You ideally want to have a situation where giving up something has an actual payoff. For example that hullmod would make sense on a very speedy ship that can just use projectiles easily. Here I'd just continue using Phase Lances and Gravitons. Doesn't change the ship in any way except making it more punishing when deviating from the "intended" build, and sure more damage.
This is also why I feel forced to use Heavy Blasters and Ion Pulsers on high tech ships without large mounts.
I mean you bring up good points, but in my latest post I said that having 6 medium energies would do the same for beams (with a flux and OP increase of course, but current DP).
Biggest counter argument for that hullmod is "why not make weapons less crap, instead of artificially making them good on ONE ship". You know, can't we just make them more interesting? Even if they become a smashing success on Eagle, that's still 2-3 weapons used only on one ship across the entire roster. That's dumb.
I’ve suggested a built-in spinal weapon for years (even an Aquila Cannon in this thread). Built-ins are finicky though and you really have to get them right. I.e. build a ship around them rather than shoehorn them into something existing. I mean, a big particle cannon would be awesome (I’m thinking BRDY Nevermore’s built-in) but would that be a good fit on an Eagle? Eh, probably not.
The current 17 DP proposal we have is effectively increasing the overall DPS of an Eagle contingent by about 30% by simply having about 30% more Eagles, which means 30% more beam spam along with 30% more ballistics.
Eagle is always going to be stepping on some other ships toes no matter which direction it goes. If we make it faster, its stepping on the Falcon. If we give it a large mount its moving closer to the Champion.
Is this replacing the 3 small energies, or adding on top of the existing mounts? I think you'll be running out of sprite space to be honest if it is just adding. If can fit 3 more, then I guess it's pretty close, but then you're not doubling the small beams (tactical lasers or beam pd), which I thought was nice touch to make the ship more defensive.I meant replacing the small energies with mediums, you'd still be free to use small beams there, just with bonus OP left.
As terrible as it sounds, I hope Alex doesn't listen to anyone in this topic. :D Unique hullmods? New built-in weapons? Please don't turn vanilla into a mod for itself.We're pretty much on the same page here, as I was initially only suggesting stat changes. But with so many drastic and wild ideas I had to suggest some tamer things just so we don't end up creating a new ship lol.
Very interesting read. Although I'd still want that hypothetical large ballistic Eagle to be 22 DP. It's only natural when it's getting more flux (and more OP possibly).
Suddenly having a cruiser with a large ballistic turret that's not slow is a big deal, one that should cost more than 20 DP. Something that can shoot Gauss shots and HVDs while kiting backwards will be a first in the game for cruisers. Only other ship that can do that is Conquest, and it's very different.
Yeah you're right about it being 20 DP worth with just the large ballistic change. Did that myself just to see how it works (no other stats modified) and is for sure an interesting thing now. But it just feels so awkward to use. AI can fly almost anything, albeit with performance issues. It just bugs me that the largest gun on the ship is free to target anything, and you have those 2 ballistics as hardpoints on the nose, where turn rate actually matters. So it ends up feeling backwards, like before, only in another way. Oh well, this was a fun little experiment, don't see it happening for real though.
I intensely dislike the aesthetics of giving the Eagle a large. The weapon layout is already cool, it just needs the stats to back it up.
Also, just for the record: while I made the large-ballistic-in-center Eagle as a meme, I now unironically thing it's the best solution. It basically solves all of the firepower issues, it has no fitting/flux issues(all the pictures I posted were flux neutral fits with the exception of the last one which was very close, but that was SO), it has no range mismatch issues, it follows from the design of Falcon, it is unique in its own way and it looks cool. What else do you want?
Cool yes, but not good/effective... those recessed medium energies on a slow hull are a big problem, and the lack of missiles is a serious handicap compared to other ships that it needs something to make up for!
That is actually my point. is there another ship in the game that actually does well with Gravitons as party of it's primary armament as opposed to an afterthought support weapon?
Forget all these DP changes and weapon mounts and stuff - just give 0.95.1a Eagle a hullmod that boosts vent rate by like 50% and make it more aggressive about venting. Maybe match its rotation stats to Falcon. You can back away from it easily, sure, but it will reset its flux before your buddy can move in. Riding the edge of when to vent makes it more fun to fly, too.
-Change the 2 small missiles to 2 small universal for both Eagle and Falcon:those 2 small slot usually the most useless slot on the base eagle/falcon.Most people just abandon it outright for more point on dissipation or slap in missiles for PD(which the eagle is not lacking) or maybe some salamander(which is also not helping cause eagles don't have the finishing power beside SO).Swapping it to universal means you can ultilize it for 2 extra small balistics(or if you're beam connoisseur,2 tac laser) while still keeping it close to the midline theme of versatility in mounts
I think you could just as easily point to cruiser SO (or SO in general) being the problem thereAmen. I hope more poeple catch on how broken and dumb of a hullmod it is, so it eventually gets either reworked or removed. It's not healthy for a discussion that someone goes "just put SO xD, it solves all problems". No it doesn't. And this goes for more ships than just Eagle.
I think you could just as easily point to cruiser SO (or SO in general) being the problem thereAmen. I hope more poeple catch on how broken and dumb of a hullmod it is, so it eventually gets either reworked or removed. It's not healthy for a discussion that someone goes "just put SO xD, it solves all problems". No it doesn't. And this goes for more ships than just Eagle.
small missiles for non SO cruiser in such small quantity is a waste of potential.You can get like what, 6 sabot/harpoon,maybe 10 breach for alternating shots,which is still far lower than PPT of the cruiser,and high chances are it's gonna waste it on smaller ships instead of important target.It's just more beneficial in the long run to spend that point on more dissipation or cap if you want consistent performance.You could argue about putting officer with missile skill on it,but then you're just wasting potential by not putting him/her on other ship that can utilize that missile skill more,i.e ship with better missile slot.It's just really not appealing on the eagle,and i'll rather have 2 tac laser or maybe balistic with long range on it.But the slot i'm proposing is universal,so if you want you can still use the missile?-Change the 2 small missiles to 2 small universal for both Eagle and Falcon:those 2 small slot usually the most useless slot on the base eagle/falcon.Most people just abandon it outright for more point on dissipation or slap in missiles for PD(which the eagle is not lacking) or maybe some salamander(which is also not helping cause eagles don't have the finishing power beside SO).Swapping it to universal means you can ultilize it for 2 extra small balistics(or if you're beam connoisseur,2 tac laser) while still keeping it close to the midline theme of versatility in mounts
bruh what, they are small missiles, missiles are literally the strongest mount type. why would you even consider not using them instead of just putting some sabots
also, they are very far apart and far back so you could hardly ever utilize them with energy or ballistics
DP #deploy DP used Time TotDam DPSeach Ship
14 14 196 448 --- --- Falcon XIV, FM, GI, OE (elite), 2 HVD, 2 Phase Lance, 2 Tactical Laser
18 11 198 362 1039582 206.7 Apogee, MS (elite), GI, OE, Plasma Cannon, Squall, 2 IR Pulse Laser, Breach
18 11 198 --- --- --- Eagle XIV (new), FM, GI, OE (elite), 3 HVD, 3 Phase Lance, 3 Tactical Laser
20 10 200 330 1019617 231.5 Eradicator, MS, GI, OE (elite), 2 HVD, Heavy Mauler, 4 Railgun, 5 Annihilator
20 10 200 408 1028035 171.4 Fury, MS (elite), GI, OE, Heavy Blaster, Sabot, Prox, AM Blaster, IR Pulse Laser
20 10 200 271 970582 333.5 Gryphon, FM, MS (elite), GI, Squall, 2 Harpoon, 3 Breach, HVD
@Vanshilar, Thanks for doing those tests - I'm really surprised the tac lasers did so much damage! I suppose stacking the stacking range extenders end up giving them a big reach to poke things.
Did you find that the Xyphos were a big contributor? I ask because they are very OP expensive and the new support fighter looks like its going to be incredible at anti-missile.
EDIT: Can't wait for the patch notes to drop so we stop having threads that keep going in circles for the 10th time.
Let me just try to understand everything here. You piloted a XIV Onslaught and the rest of your fleet consisted of a single cruiser spammed until you hit the DP cap? And then you let us know Gryphons were the winners? Just, why man, you could've saved so much time... There's just so much questionable stuff here, I really don't get the point of these tests, yet you put way too much effort. I feel bad reading it all. Just let Hiruma Kai do any testing if need be.
1. Mono fleets are always going to favour missile ships, zero surprise there.
2. Testing specifically against Ordo fleets favours certain ships more.
3. The choice for every single ship to have CH Xyphos wings "because you like it" is also questionable, and also unfair to certain ships which are tight on OP.
4. Player piloting skews results more since player behaviour swings much wilder than simple AI.
5. That Eagle build is sad.
6. I seriously cannot stress enough how silly is putting a fleet of Gryphons into a speedrun test to see which ships suck.
With all due respect, I appreciate the effort, but can you not spend so much time and words on "tests" like these.
Large Ballistic ideaI had a more conservative idea for the large ballistic Eagle in mind, replacing all three medium ballistic hardpoints with a large and two smalls. This would open up the 900 range bracket with ballistic rangefinder, and would have the side effect of completely killing off boring HVD builds
Still not a big fan of the DP decrease fix. Just feels weird to have a slow, heavy military ship be that cheap. I guess part of this will come down to how effective the IR autolaser is at helping with beams. I think I'd rather see the Eagle get some firepower increases though. I tried tweaking it so that it gets 4 ballistics, 2 energies and 2 med missiles, plus the flux boost and increase the speed to 55. Definitely felt like a much more powerful ship, although the energies still felt vestigal.
The Graviton change will also help most of my Tempest builds since I tend to pair an Assault Medium Energy with a Graviton. 5% damage to shields isn’t a huge change but everything helps. Overall, I think this a good change, albeit still not enough for me to want to field an Eagle over another Cruiser.
Second of all, I assume it's 5/7.5/10% but it rounds to 8 in the middle. Awkward...
Third of all, seems like an awfully complex solution to the Eagle. Adding an entire new game mechanic instead of just fixing one ship? Well, I guess Graviton Beams did need some help regardless.
To be honest I think the Graviton shouldn't have an onhit. Alex really is turning into his own modder. It seems a bit bloated. I think a small numbers buff like bringing it up to 125 or 150 or something dps and increasing the push so it affects ships could be good. The extra push would make it actually usable as a support distraction ship, and would somewhat make up for it's bad speed. If Gravitons become good enough to apply shield damage you could run HE medium ballistics.
To be fair, Graviton beams currently have had an on-hit which disrupts missile motion and moves fighters around for a long time. Which interestingly has moved to the Ancillary data section in the new screenshot.That info is there even in the current patch. I suggested that obviously a while ago since many players didn't even know it was a thing and they thought missiles were bugged.
Cutting the Gordian Knot? (https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1604946081166532616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1604946081166532616%7Ctwgr%5E25647d79a9275af7c710720f765b1333e7115dcd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.somethingawful.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Fnoseen%3D0threadid%3D3570400perpage%3D40pagenumber%3D638pti22)Interesting solution which shows out_of_box_thinking in current endless topic. Anyway the static diminishing return rule 5/8/10 percent bonus damage sounds not good. I would rather see plain math rule, a an endless limit curve. e.i. it is posible to stack up 10 beams for 15% perhaps 20 beams for 18% or 100 beams for 22%.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkXppuiXgAAyHqF?format=jpg&name=medium)
To be fair, Graviton beams currently have had an on-hit which disrupts missile motion and moves fighters around for a long time.
Almost every weapon has an impact stat, Graviton is just the only one it is really noticeable on.
(It's unused for everything except beams, iirc.)
Almost every weapon has an impact stat, Graviton is just the only one it is really noticeable on.
(It's unused for everything except beams, iirc.)
After skimming pages from a long absence...Why is it weird? It's not like DP is a limit that puts a hull in a weight class. I prefer to take DP as a reflection of its potential in combat
I agree that Eagle feels as slow as a heavy cruiser, and it seems... weird that the main fix is lowering its cost to nearly that of a light cruiser.
Why is it weird? It's not like DP is a limit that puts a hull in a weight class. I prefer to take DP as a reflection of its potential in combatEagle used to be the standard for a cruiser, standing alongside Dominator and Aurora, but after various gameplay changes (more ships, more missiles, skill changes) over the releases, it has not kept up.
Eagle used to be the standard for a cruiser, standing alongside Dominator and Aurora, but after various gameplay changes (more ships, more missiles, skill changes) over the releases, it has not kept up.I get it, it's something that I've been bringing up in these discussions. That Eagle doesn't live up to the expectations players have for it. With that said, I'm not a fan of sacred cows. Better for Eagle to thrive in a different spot in the new ecosystem than to make it struggle for its old spot. I'd wager most players would prefer a clear way to put the hull in their fleets to having to justify it against superior competition.
TL;DR: Keeping the Eagle as a chump basic "bad" ship is fine, but at least make it do it in an interesting/engaging manner.I rather see a new warship designed as the designated punching bag than the classic Eagle turned into one. Probably too late as factions are getting their ship rosters set.
Asuming a Starsector univers fallows same law of Physics then Mr. Newton says:(It's unused for everything except beams, iirc.)I think one conspicuous exception could be made for the Hellbore. That’s a massive round with, I’m assuming, a ton of kinetic energy. It would be kind of fun if Hellbore shots knocked Frigates around if they impact hull. 8)
In more "outside-the-box" thinking, Alex (again) indirectly buffed the Eagle via the new Missile Autoloader (https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1607515951469330432).I think you are right, "Reload capacity" need to be divided by "Reload cost". 15/2 = 7 reloads.
If I'm interpreting this correctly, the Eagle would get 15 "Reload Capacity" points for its 2 Small Missile Mounts.
12 Reapers. I think that changes things significantly for the Eagle.instead of two miss by Reapers, Now AI can achieve up to 12 misess. Spectacular :o
So, for all us Eagle lovers out there, is having significantly more missiles to throw at enemies worth 20 OP for the Eagle?
So, for all us Eagle lovers out there, is having significantly more missiles to throw at enemies worth 20 OP for the Eagle?
No because you can use the Falcon and get the same amount of missiles for 14 DP.
@ Alex
Do Small Missiles in Small Universals, Composites, or Synergies get to use this? The tooltip says "small missile mounts" so I can't tell if that means exclusively Small Missile Mounts or just "small missiles" in general.
I generally didn't like the feel of encouraging the use of less weapons so the bonus is based on the number of small missile slots and doesn't change based on the actual loadout. It did in an initial version, and evolved towards this.)Game Designer Ideas might differ from players. From my point of view, creating ship builds, trying variants, test in combat sim, save different loads patterns for different missions, is important part of game. Therefore, make rules universal, make hull-modes universal, make wide options to combine various things adds game value.
Re: Missile Autoloader
There are other ships I like to see this on, like Paragon.
Destroyers with 2+ small missile mounts only get 4 reload points. So EMR is a superior choice almost always.As I wrote 3 posts before, >>> Narrow design usage. When I would like to be salty I would say, the new Autoloader hullmode is one-trick-pony. It is tailored for stopping this thread "eagle/falcon anemic".
You could argue the same for phase or carrier hullmods, it's fine.Destroyers with 2+ small missile mounts only get 4 reload points. So EMR is a superior choice almost always.As I wrote 3 posts before, >>> Narrow design usage. When I would like to be salty I would say, the new Autoloader hullmode is one-trick-pony. It is tailored for stopping this thread "eagle/falcon anemic".
It did make conspicuous how few Small Missiles aren’t on bigger ships, especially Capitals.
Yep, and - for a reason, right - but I'm excited about the possibilities that open up. Even if modders are likely to beat me to the punch there :)I use that small mount on Apogee early. Later on, the OP crunch forces me to empty it.
I'm not sure how good this is for the Paragon. It certainly has the OP, but it's slow and long-ranged - it feels like Sabots, Reapers, and Atropos (Atropi?) are not going to match well with that. Harpoons might be the best bet? It'll be interesting to see. But yeah, both the Apogee and the Venture have an interesting option there, too. That Apogee mount really is easy to forget!
Edit: Actually, do we even need the chart to be something that gets presented in-game? I don't think we do; it's not like the player has the option to uninstall missile slots to make the mod grant more reloads. A simple UI displaying "This ship gets X many reloads" would be plenty, and then you could potentially have one-off ships that just work better (or worse!) with the hullmod than the strict chart would imply.
The point was to de-confuse it. A hullmod that says "This ship gets X reloads" is much simpler to understand than one that says "This ship gets some number of reloads, see the following chart and then count small missile mounts, but not mounts that can mount small missiles."Edit: Actually, do we even need the chart to be something that gets presented in-game? I don't think we do; it's not like the player has the option to uninstall missile slots to make the mod grant more reloads. A simple UI displaying "This ship gets X many reloads" would be plenty, and then you could potentially have one-off ships that just work better (or worse!) with the hullmod than the strict chart would imply.
The hullmod is confusing enough without hiding what it does and adding secret special cases.
...Feels like there ought to be an intermediate value in there for destroyers with exactly two small missile mounts; the value skipping directly from 4 to 9 feels a bit extreme. (Capitals do the same thing, with going from five small missiles to four small missiles more than doubling the mod's benefit.
I'm not sure how good this is for the Paragon. It certainly has the OP, but it's slow and long-ranged - it feels like Sabots, Reapers, and Atropos (Atropi?) are not going to match well with that. Harpoons might be the best bet? It'll be interesting to see. But yeah, both the Apogee and the Venture have an interesting option there, too. That Apogee mount really is easy to forget!Your comment Sir says, you are aware that proposed autoloader cause balance issue all across the game. Wyvern also highlight weakness of current proposal. Read rest of my comment for better Autoloader mechanic.
do we even need the chart to be something that gets presented in-game? I don't think we do; it's not like the player has the option to uninstall missile slots to make the mod grant more reloads. A simple UI displaying "This ship gets X many reloads" would be plenty, and then you could potentially have one-off ships that just work better (or worse!) with the hullmod than the strict chart would imply.Clean and understandable rules and wording is a weak point of whole game. When I try to understand what Rangefinder hllmode does, then my brain try escape thru my ears.
This ship gets this many reloads... why? And what happens if I stick it on that ship instead?1. Amount of Reload points consumed is ALWAYS equal to OP of the weapon, therefore it do not create some balance issue.
Defines the size of the hullmode AND his fair size of the loading power, WITHOUT CREATING BALLANCE ISSUE FOR ANY SHIP.
Alex's currently proposed design is aimed to be useful in situations where EMR is highly inefficient for the OP cost, hopefully resulting in much less stacking.This is the key point around the autoloader hullmod imo, it costs the same as EMR (i think) and most ships you'll be able to look at their missile options and go "yeah it's clearly better to install one of these two hullmods" the two ships alex showed in his tweet are perfect examples of this, eradicator gets more out of EMR, while Eagle gets more out of Autoloader.
Unless Alex is willing to make expanded missile racks and the autoloader mutually exclusive.I think this would be for the best, preventing missile stacking and turning everything into "DP efficient Gryphon clones." is a good move.
Please reduce Missile Autoloader's OP cost to same range as Hardened Shields or increase reload capacity, it's currently too niche to be worth as much as Heavy Armor.
Please reduce Missile Autoloader's OP cost to same range as Hardened Shields or increase reload capacity, it's currently too niche to be worth as much as Heavy Armor.
Hah, this is kind of funny, actually! The initial design for the autoloader started with the idea of using its ordinance point cost as the pool of reload points and using the OP cost of the weapons for their reload cost.great minds think alike 8) Why did you drop clean math relations and replaced with current artificial table style ?
idea of using its ordinance point cost as the pool of reload points creates significant balance problems because the underlying assumptions about weapon OP costs and how that relates to the "worth" of their ammo just don't hold up.I have read some dev diary when they implemented destruction model based on physics for buildings. Surprise came, all buildings on the map fell down in the very first second. Devs find out that destruction model works properly, but buildings has wrong design.
I like your test cases. So I carefully read your analyse.Defines the size of the hullmode AND his fair size of the loading power, WITHOUT CREATING BALLANCE ISSUE FOR ANY SHIP.While you may not see a balance issue, I do. For me, balance is partially determined by the number of missiles available. With Missile Specialization, missiles are generally the highest DPS and highest burst weapons, but only as long as they hold out. Expanded Missile Racks + Missile Specialization already increases missile capacity by +200%.
The only thing keeping missiles in line is limited ammo and point defense.YES! ... sort of.
idea of using its ordinance point cost as the pool of reload points creates significant balance problems because the underlying assumptions about weapon OP costs and how that relates to the "worth" of their ammo just don't hold up.I have read some dev diary when they implemented destruction model based on physics for buildings. Surprise came, all buildings on the map fell down in the very first second. Devs find out that destruction model works properly, but buildings has wrong design.
Perhaps those "the "worth" of their ammo just don't hold up" need a fix.
It also gives new decision - downsize med missile slot to small missile weapon to get autoloader functionality.The description of the hullmod says "...small missile mounts". Taking it at face value, autoloader would work only for actual small missile mounts. Medium missile or small synergy/composite/universal mounts do not apply.
Please reduce Missile Autoloader's OP cost to same range as Hardened Shields or increase reload capacity, it's currently too niche to be worth as much as Heavy Armor.Interesting that you can determine the exact value of a hullmod before using it, especially when alex has made/will make changes to it.
I didnt say a word about changing ammo numbers for OP unit. But rather make a fix. Which means, OP price has proper relation to dmg potential, then whole system is straight. Your solution of current table-base autoloader is like a build roof over shaky walls, then support the roof by various wooden poles. Then call it a safe house. :oidea of using its ordinance point cost as the pool of reload points creates significant balance problems because the underlying assumptions about weapon OP costs and how that relates to the "worth" of their ammo just don't hold up.I have read some dev diary when they implemented destruction model based on physics for buildings. Surprise came, all buildings on the map fell down in the very first second. Devs find out that destruction model works properly, but buildings has wrong design.
Perhaps those "the "worth" of their ammo just don't hold up" need a fix.
Ah - a missile weapon has more properties than just its raw ammo, so, I don't think so. I did consider this possibility, btw :)
I am talking about BETTER autoloader with more options to play with. I am not talking about current Alex's stiff proposal.It also gives new decision - downsize med missile slot to small missile weapon to get autoloader functionality.The description of the hullmod says "...small missile mounts". Taking it at face value, autoloader would work only for actual small missile mounts. Medium missile or small synergy/composite/universal mounts do not apply.
A similar thing happens for ballistic mounts and Ballistic Rangefinder. There were times I wanted to use Ballistic Rangefinder for ballistics in small hybrid or universal mounts, but since that does not work, I need to resort to ePD+IPDAI to get a range boost for light ballistics in such mounts. Those with medium hybrids, like Champion, are out of luck - no Ballistic Rangefinder for them.
I mean what is the point of anything when all things have a common destiny under the sun, and all is vanity anyway?Boy do I love when people act like this in discussions /s
Putting a 500 range weapon on the Eagle's butt-mounted energy weapons is the opposite of viable. Putting 600 range Kinetic Blasters on the Eagle's butt mounts when it can mount actual, nose-mounted kinetics is also the opposite of viable...If an Eagle can kill an onslaught with 450 ranged HMG, then a 500 ranged mining blaster is absolutely viable and a 600 ranged kinetic blaster even more so. Just no promises on how good it is.
If an Eagle can kill an onslaught with 450 ranged HMG, then a 500 ranged mining blaster is absolutely viable and a 600 ranged kinetic blaster even more so. Just no promises on how good it is.
The medium energies don’t need to be better than ballistics, just good enough that they make the ship noticeable better. Say that because the mining blasters are good enough that they’re better than one chaingun which is good by itself but also means that you can have another HMG.If an Eagle can kill an onslaught with 450 ranged HMG, then a 500 ranged mining blaster is absolutely viable and a 600 ranged kinetic blaster even more so. Just no promises on how good it is.Remember that the energy turrets are ~110 range behind the ballistic hardpoints, so if we minus 100 (to make it neater than 110) from the range of those energy weapons, we get:
- 400 range mining blaster
- 500 range kinetic blaster
Not so appealing now are they.
(though i guess he's using Ion pulsers, with 500 base range, so he's already dealing with short range guns)
And to further this: ballistics will always be more flux efficient than energy (HMG is one of the most flux efficient weapons in the game for anti-shield purposes)
And while kinetic blaster is likely going to be very flux efficient for an energy weapon, it will fall short of any ballistic option, of which there are many.
Why Auxiliary Thrusters on SO?
The medium energies don’t need to be better than ballistics, just good enough that they make the ship noticeable better. Say that because the mining blasters are good enough that they’re better than one chaingun which is good by itself but also means that you can have another HMG.
Or have them primarily use 3 autocannons and the mining blasters are more for punishing over extension or bursting through weak shields they’re cheap enough for that.
Having kinetic blasters might similarly mean that you can ditch HMGs and just have 3 chainguns or 1HMG, 2 GC, 2 KB and 1 MB.
The short range is not great but it’s not new. There’s ways of dealing with it.
I keep saying that for a long time, and I'm so proud to see Alex use that same response on Twitter. Someone unironically said that the Mining Blaster will make Falcon and Eagle overbuffed since SO exists.The medium energies don’t need to be better than ballistics, just good enough that they make the ship noticeable better. Say that because the mining blasters are good enough that they’re better than one chaingun which is good by itself but also means that you can have another HMG.However I also agree with whoever here said "just add SO is not a valid balance argument" because SO can be added to anything less than a Capital and by its very nature throws balance out of the window. Without SO there's no way a 400 range weapon on the Eagle could ever work.
Or have them primarily use 3 autocannons and the mining blasters are more for punishing over extension or bursting through weak shields they’re cheap enough for that.
Having kinetic blasters might similarly mean that you can ditch HMGs and just have 3 chainguns or 1HMG, 2 GC, 2 KB and 1 MB.
The short range is not great but it’s not new. There’s ways of dealing with it.
Where did you get those values for kinetic blasters? Have I missed something?The medium energies don’t need to be better than ballistics, just good enough that they make the ship noticeable better. Say that because the mining blasters are good enough that they’re better than one chaingun which is good by itself but also means that you can have another HMG.Kinetic Blasters have an anti-shield DPS of 500 for 400 flux/second, at a range of 500 for the Eagle. That's not bad DPS wise but is pretty atrocious flux efficiency and range wise for any ship that can mount kinetics. It even says right in the blog post that Kinetic Blasters might be good on high tech ships but are pretty poor on the midline ships Andrada insists they be mounted on.
Or have them primarily use 3 autocannons and the mining blasters are more for punishing over extension or bursting through weak shields they’re cheap enough for that.
Having kinetic blasters might similarly mean that you can ditch HMGs and just have 3 chainguns or 1HMG, 2 GC, 2 KB and 1 MB.
The short range is not great but it’s not new. There’s ways of dealing with it.
That was me, with the DP reduction, burst armour damage from mining blasters, HMG for shields and SO for speed and missile autoloader for more sustainable burst damage. Swarming an enemy in falcons and eagles might work really well. Probably not new meta worthy but it’ll push players to use eagles like that rather than line holders as they’re designed for.I keep saying that for a long time, and I'm so proud to see Alex use that same response on Twitter. Someone unironically said that the Mining Blaster will make Falcon and Eagle overbuffed since SO exists.The medium energies don’t need to be better than ballistics, just good enough that they make the ship noticeable better. Say that because the mining blasters are good enough that they’re better than one chaingun which is good by itself but also means that you can have another HMG.However I also agree with whoever here said "just add SO is not a valid balance argument" because SO can be added to anything less than a Capital and by its very nature throws balance out of the window. Without SO there's no way a 400 range weapon on the Eagle could ever work.
Or have them primarily use 3 autocannons and the mining blasters are more for punishing over extension or bursting through weak shields they’re cheap enough for that.
Having kinetic blasters might similarly mean that you can ditch HMGs and just have 3 chainguns or 1HMG, 2 GC, 2 KB and 1 MB.
The short range is not great but it’s not new. There’s ways of dealing with it.
DP #deploy DP used Time DPStot DPSshi DPSarm DPShull DPS/DP config
14 14 196 351 142* 82* 20* 40* 10.2* Falcon XIV, FM, GI, OE (elite), 2 HVD, Phase Lance, Pulse Laser, 2 IR Pulse Laser, 2 Swarmer, HS
17 11 187 351 193* 121* 24* 49* 11.4* Eagle new, FM, GI, OE (elite), 3 HVD, 3 Phase Lance, 3 IR Pulse Laser, HS
17 11 187 353 193* 117* 23* 52* 11.4* Eagle XIV new, FM, GI, OE (elite), 3 HVD, 3 Phase Lance, 3 IR Pulse Laser, AO
17 11 187 304 227 128 34 65 13.4 Eradicator (P), MS, GI, OE (elite), 2 HVD, Heavy Mauler, 4 Railgun, 4 Annihilator, Breach, EMR, BRF
18 11 198 287 253* 138* 36* 79* 14.1* Apogee, Helms, MS (elite), GI, Squall, HIL, Swarmer, 4 Tac Lasers (2 on side mediums), EMR, ECCM, AO
20 10 200 284 290 158 46 87 14.5 Eradicator, BM, GI, OE (elite), 2 HVD, Heavy Mauler, 4 Railgun, 4 Annihilator, Breach, EMR, BRF
20 10 200 248 372 185 59 128 18.6 Gryphon, FM, MS (elite), GI, Squall, 2 Harpoon, 3 Breach, HVD, HS, ECCM
25 8 200 346 309* 194* 39* 76* 12.4* Champion, MS (elite), GI, OE, Squall, HIL, 2 HVD, 4 Tac Laser, EMR
25 8 200 364 261 147 37 77 10.4 Dominator XIV, BM, MS (elite), OE, Mjolnir, Mark9, HVD, Heavy Mauler, 3 Harpoon Pod, 3 Railgun, EMR
DP DPStot /12.5 Ship
14 142* 11.4* Falcon XIV
17 193* 15.4* Eagle new
17 193* 15.4* Eagle XIV new
17 227 18.2 Eradicator (P)
18 253* 20.2* Apogee
20 290 23.2 Eradicator
20 372 29.7 Gryphon
25 309* 24.8* Champion
25 261 20.9 Dominator XIV
weapon total shield armor hull hits fired hitrate
squall 332162 280699 15884 35578 1583 3640 0.435
HVD 195176 147014 12175 35988 1032 1428 0.723
plasma 117689 32752 25847 59090 325 408 0.797
weapon total shield armor hull hits
squall 317271 275767 9609 31896 1294
HVD 165082 127446 5327 32309 693
HIL+tac 225542* 41007* 73827* 110707*
weapon total shield armor hull hits
squall 437794 350244 23419 64130 2116
plasma 190251 58907 40556 90790 569
IRpulse 24700 14181 2862 7657 1169
breach 6614 744 4576 1293 67
weapon total shield armor hull hits
squall 365422 305232 15259 44929 1628
swarmer 4218 2194 1148 876 91
HIL+tac 262361* 37657* 72951* 151755*
weapon total shield armor hull hits count
HVD 265217 169479 15963 79776 1210 2
railgun 199983 148204 11471 40307 3348 4
h.maul 103364 17944 42677 42744 713 1
anni 64035 17955 20286 25793 547 4
breach 17981 824 11667 5491 189 1
weapon total shield armor hull hits count
squall 253808 205403 9320 39085 1115 1
harpoon 297736 81806 47583 168347 568 2
breach 93306 20350 51285 21669 1108 3
HVD 54103 40540 1909 11655 248 1
weapon total shield armor hull hits count
HVD 378324 306352 20062 51911 1827 3
h.blast 137929 54904 31642 51382 447 1
pulse.l 63016 34078 8294 20639 1275 1
ion.pul 40690 21149 6692 12848 1045 1
What we can see is that for the most part, if we take the ships' DPS calculated in this way and then divide by 12.5, the results are actually remarkably close to Alex's upcoming DP values for many ships. The Champion is better than the Eradicator, which is better than the Apogee, which is better than the Eradicator (P), all at a pretty close ratio to their upcoming DP values. From this, the Apogee's change to 20 DP is pretty well-deserved, as is the Eradicator's change to 22 DP and the Eradicator (P)'s change to 18 DP.
stuff