What's a Prometheus? Is it a mod ship or do I have a memory blank?This is the Prometheus:
Either way, the Conquest because when you have the speed advantage of any opponent that poses a threat, you are completely in control of the outcome.
What's a Prometheus? Is it a mod ship or do I have a memory blank?I think it is the capital class version of the tankers.
Either way, the Conquest because when you have the speed advantage of any opponent that poses a threat, you are completely in control of the outcome.
What's a Prometheus? Is it a mod ship or do I have a memory blank?This is the Prometheus:
Either way, the Conquest because when you have the speed advantage of any opponent that poses a threat, you are completely in control of the outcome.Spoiler(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130902022921/starfarergame/images/a/a7/PrometheusShipIcon.png)[close]
This is a straightforward thing to work out, requiring just a tiny bit of math.
Obviously you don't understand how the Onslaught works.
The vast majority of its firepower is focused to the front. Its turning speed is very poor. The Conquest can maneuver and STAY behind the Onslaught, gut its engines, and reduce it to scrap whilst taking minimal damage. Only the opening volleys from the Onslaught do any considerable damage.
it's like the worst part of World War II wrapped in an iron shell of hate and launched into space.
Good grief... BrickedKeyboard where to start.
Have you considered the % of weapons that the ship can fire simultaneously at a single target? Factors include but are not limited to:
Range, Projectile speed, yaw speed of the ship, slot size, weapon arc, hard points, damage/flux ratio on shields, flux capacity, OP total, OP total relative to weapon slots allowing for hull mods.
Have you considered the longevity of the ship over the course of a long fight? Factors include but are not limited to:
Weapon type, ammo consumption of various slot types, shield factors including ratio as well as type, flux capacity, PD potential, hull mods, armor.
Have you considered alpha strike damage? Ability to absorb large bursts of damage? Ability to engage multiple large targets simultaneously? The total value of a hangar deck?
The list really goes on and on.
Not only that but this isn't the place for you to wave around lazy theory. Feel free to make a forum post all of your own for that.
I really enjoy the Odyssey. With the Front Shield Emitter I'm able to have a complete bubble shield and my assortment of PD lasers the Odyssey becomes easily defensible while still having great offense because of the three large energy mounts + High Energy Focus. Add the defense and offense with a flight deck and the ship suddenly becomes a great fit for any fighter fleet as it provides great cover for fighters coming to land/repair, while still being able to put large amounts of pressure on the enemy ships.
I really enjoy the Odyssey. With the Front Shield Emitter I'm able to have a complete bubble shield and my assortment of PD lasers the Odyssey becomes easily defensible while still having great offense because of the three large energy mounts + High Energy Focus. Add the defense and offense with a flight deck and the ship suddenly becomes a great fit for any fighter fleet as it provides great cover for fighters coming to land/repair, while still being able to put large amounts of pressure on the enemy ships.
I'm going to have to take a deeper look into the Odyssey, seems like a good mix for my play styles
Good grief... BrickedKeyboard where to start.
Have you considered the % of weapons that the ship can fire simultaneously at a single target? Factors include but are not limited to:
Range, Projectile speed, yaw speed of the ship, slot size, weapon arc, hard points, damage/flux ratio on shields, flux capacity, OP total, OP total relative to weapon slots allowing for hull mods.
Have you considered the longevity of the ship over the course of a long fight? Factors include but are not limited to:
Weapon type, ammo consumption of various slot types, shield factors including ratio as well as type, flux capacity, PD potential, hull mods, armor.
Have you considered alpha strike damage? Ability to absorb large bursts of damage? Ability to engage multiple large targets simultaneously? The total value of a hangar deck?
The list really goes on and on.
Not only that but this isn't the place for you to wave around lazy theory. Feel free to make a forum post all of your own for that.
Most of those factors are not relevant. What is relevant is that the onslaught gets enough ordinance points that if you fill it to the gills with flux vents, it actually has a reasonable amount of dissipation. And the extra armor and HP on the onslaught seem to make it survive quite a few more hits, as I found out the hard way when I took on the system defense fleet that has 3 onslaughts.
I had 2 Conquests, nicely equipped, and while I did beat all 3 onslaughts, I lost the AI controlled conquest and it took help from other ships. The frontal damage on the onslaught is pretty nasty, and even when you shoot them in the back, they take forever to die.
Obviously you don't understand how the Onslaught works.
The vast majority of its firepower is focused to the front. Its turning speed is very poor. The Conquest can maneuver and STAY behind the Onslaught, gut its engines, and reduce it to scrap whilst taking minimal damage. Only the opening volleys from the Onslaught do any considerable damage.
Most of the time (in a 1v1 simulation anyway) by the time you manage to get behind the Onslaught with your Conquest you will be clinging to life. Though the Conquest is indeed more manuverable, it isn't so much of a difference that you can loop around outside of the Onslaught's range and then cut in behind it. No, you have to burn past it at point blank range and THEN use maneuvering thrusters and cut in behind it hard. That will work, but most of your weapons will be offline from the pounding you took in getting there. This assumes a 1v1 in a sim where the Onslaught isn't distracted by anything else of course. Real battles are totally different and the Conquest is great for the mobility it offers. As Gunnyfreak said, it's great for controlling the battlefield vs smaller ships. I voted Onslaught though; being able to tank hits on the armor with no need for shields is very satisfying. Not to mention the firepower.
Most of the time (in a 1v1 simulation anyway) by the time you manage to get behind the Onslaught with your Conquest you will be clinging to life. Though the Conquest is indeed more manuverable, it isn't so much of a difference that you can loop around outside of the Onslaught's range and then cut in behind it. No, you have to burn past it at point blank range and THEN use maneuvering thrusters and cut in behind it hard. That will work, but most of your weapons will be offline from the pounding you took in getting there. This assumes a 1v1 in a sim where the Onslaught isn't distracted by anything else of course. Real battles are totally different and the Conquest is great for the mobility it offers. As Gunnyfreak said, it's great for controlling the battlefield vs smaller ships. I voted Onslaught though; being able to tank hits on the armor with no need for shields is very satisfying. Not to mention the firepower.
Right. That, and all things being equal with both the Conquest and Onslaught outfitted with ITU, the built-in Thermal Particle Cannons have extraordinary range that'll prevent the Conquest from getting behind the Onslaught without first taking large amounts of damage and/or disabling many of its weapons. In a capital v. capital 1-on-1 fight, the Onslaught is tough to match, even with it in AI hands. That said, its extraordinarily slow speed, low maneuverability, and high deployment cost make it pretty tough to deploy economically.
Nevertheless, I voted for the Onslaught.
I also think the Conquest beats a Paragon because the only weapons the Paragon can use that would reach the Conquest are the High Intensity Laser and the Tachyon Lance, both of these choices are rather useless if that's all you can hit your target with, dealing mediocre soft flux damage to a Conquest with extremely good dissipation.
I also think the Conquest beats a Paragon because the only weapons the Paragon can use that would reach the Conquest are the High Intensity Laser and the Tachyon Lance, both of these choices are rather useless if that's all you can hit your target with, dealing mediocre soft flux damage to a Conquest with extremely good dissipation.
I forgot about the optics, although a Paragon with HILs and Gravitons is a Paragon specifically fit to 1v1 a Conquest. A Conquest with Storms and Maulers is an extremely versatile fit that also happens to be a huge threat to a Paragon (and everything else). The fortress shield is a non-factor as it prevents the use of weapons and a Conquest with Expanded magazines has a lot of ammo. Depending on the Paragon's setup, perhaps the Conquest would run out of ammo eventually and have to leave.
Firing storm needlers vs Paragon means you are within range of it's 2 heavy needlers
You don't shoot while the Fortress Shield is up, you dissipate your flux while the Paragon generates hard flux.
I wouldn't use HILs on a Paragon in every day usage. I'd definitely go for Autopulses, otherwise I'll die to the first enemy Paragon I run into because I can't scratch his shields.
Actually Paragon feels too good in 0.6. Combination of heavy needlers + tachyon lances seems unbeatable 1 vs 1 except by another Paragon that has maxed shield efficiency/flux cap & vent/good hard flux weapons (tachyon lances obviously don't qualify as such). Onslaught/Conquest/Odyssey will have to drop shields much earlier than Paragon and will be instantly crippled by emp, transforming further combat into one sided beating.
Actually Paragon feels too good in 0.6. Combination of heavy needlers + tachyon lances seems unbeatable 1 vs 1 except by another Paragon that has maxed shield efficiency/flux cap & vent/good hard flux weapons (tachyon lances obviously don't qualify as such). Onslaught/Conquest/Odyssey will have to drop shields much earlier than Paragon and will be instantly crippled by emp, transforming further combat into one sided beating.
Nothing changed to make the Paragon any better apart from the coasting changes. You can trivially outrange a paragon's needlers and autopulse lasers, or simply tank the needlers, wait for a tach shot, vent ect till needlers are out of ammo and then go to town.
I agree that technically Paragon didn't change, tachyon lances however did. And Paragon is the only ship capable of combining kinetics with it.
First, i assume we are talking about Paragon vs not-Paragon scenario.
1)Out-ranging needlers leaves you with Hyper-Velocity drivers + Gauss Cannons as only kinetics and as single shot weapons they are easily blocked by fortress shields.
2)Tanking the needlers on shields is also impossible - both Onslaught and Conquest fail so hard on shield efficiency that they can't do it even having much higher dps than Paragon, and Odyssey can't use ballistic kinetic weapons.
3)And as soon as you drop shields your ship is almost completely disabled by tachyon lances.
Now of course, having huge combat/tech skills advantage + good player piloting might make it possible for Onslaught. But that's still huge change from 0.54 where well outfitted (no combat/tech advantage) player-piloted Conquest or even auto-piloted Onslaught could win quite easily...
I agree that technically Paragon didn't change, tachyon lances however did. And Paragon is the only ship capable of combining kinetics with it.
First, i assume we are talking about Paragon vs not-Paragon scenario.
1)Out-ranging needlers leaves you with Hyper-Velocity drivers + Gauss Cannons as only kinetics and as single shot weapons they are easily blocked by fortress shields.
2)Tanking the needlers on shields is also impossible - both Onslaught and Conquest fail so hard on shield efficiency that they can't do it even having much higher dps than Paragon, and Odyssey can't use ballistic kinetic weapons.
3)And as soon as you drop shields your ship is almost completely disabled by tachyon lances.
Now of course, having huge combat/tech skills advantage + good player piloting might make it possible for Onslaught. But that's still huge change from 0.54 where well outfitted (no combat/tech advantage) player-piloted Conquest or even auto-piloted Onslaught could win quite easily...
#1 Out-ranging heavy needlers can be done with Graviton and High Intensity lasers as well. Also Mark IX autocannons.
Oh and technically Mjonir cannons but they're awful.... Oh and TPCS trivially outrange them
#2 Tanking needlers involves not having your shields up, that's not overly complicated. Raise for the Tach, drop for the needlers, raise for the tach, drop for the needlers. If they synch up? Raise shields, vent. Not only that but both Conquest and Onslaught can take MULTIPLE volleys from two heavy needlers. It's not as though they overheat the second they're shot at
#3 You're making the assumption the Tachs are only fired while your shields are down.
#4 I just absolutely rolled a Paragon with a Conquest using Autocannons, Maulers, and the tactic I just described using the Random Battle mission ergo no skill points.
#4 Autopulse lasers have incredibly short range
#5 Thanks for using a point by point list, it's incredibly helpful :D
Oh also missiles are a thing so the Paragon is not the only ship capable of combining Tach lances and kinetic hard flux damage.
Ok, let's continue:)
1a) Gravitons & HILs are soft flux - even another Paragon can't produce enough soft flux damage to make it matter
1b) Mark IX leave only few meters of range superiority and are also fairly easy to block by fortress shield.
1c) Mjolnirs don't out-range Needlers as far as i rememeber. And would be horrible choice even if they did...
1d) TPC might reasonably work, agreed here.
2+3+4) Well, i guess it might be possible in 1 vs 1 against AI-piloted default Paragon layout. Still, requires perfect execution, and trivial changes to Paragon design like making needlers alternating group make it even harder. Could go even further by adding Gravitons to front energy mediums & HILs to turret large slots + optics (assuming lances are in front hardpoints).
4?) Since Paragon can't force closer distance against Onslaught autopulses are out, agreed here.
5) Same here:)
6) The only kinetic missile is sabot - medium version doesn't have enough ammo to matter in capital fight, large lacks both rate of fire and ammo. + Burst pd with targeting core can intercept them quite reliably. MIRV is kind of ok despite being HE, but no ship has more than single slot for it, and ones that do lack other slots - so not really an option either...
UPDATE: ok, considering how slow both ships are 100 m range difference on Mark IX is enough, and TPCs alone are sufficient for a trivial win anyway...
The Onslaught and the Conquest are born to not use their shields. Hook them up with Mjolnir cannons and heavy needlers and targeting core and maximum vents (ignore capacitors, they are worthless when not using shields) and the DPS is silly even before the enemy weapons get in range. Also they never overload if they never use their shields. And they vent quickly with all those vents.
The Paragon does not have enough DPS to compete.
The only way a Paragon can win against them is EMP from its Tachyon lances but the problem is that the Tachyon lance is so weak it never bulids up its soft flux at all on the enemy. So the Onslaught and the Conquest should use shields to block the tachyons, then when in range drop shields and slam huge DPS. And use Resistant Flux Conduits if necessary.