Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More (04/10/24)
add another tab in sim menus to deploy player saved buildsThe simulation once again proves itself to be an unreliable testbed for... anything?
... hmm, I wouldn't take that from this. If the admiral AI gave commands in the simulation, *that* would be a problem.(this is a cry for help please rework it Alex)
(Guess what I'm doing *right now*.)
Quite often telling burn drive ship to retreat will make it burn drive forward first, not always, but quite oftenuntil burn drive retreat order is fixed (never)
(I have no idea what you're talking about)
I think he ment long range support rather than beams + ballistics combo specifically, and only named that as its the one specific thing these ships can do.As it stands now, both ships seem to favor a long ranged Beam + Ballistic setup which makes them hard to justify taking them over anything else because everything else does that role better.
What other ships do beams+ballistics at this DP price?
One fun fact was the Mark IVs on fixed mounts with Armored Weapon Mounts and Gunnery Implants have like no spread. It is kind of impressive watching 4 hits lands on a frigate out beyond 1000 units.I do really love hardpointed mk9, i tried different weapons on the larges, but kept coming back to those.
Yet again making a lot of (wrong) assumptions rather than responding, so im not gonna continue this.Nope, my dom is not getting flanked, its in the middle and supported by other ships.Let's step back a bit and think about that one.
...
You are literally paying 30op for two railguns and acting like thats some sort of godsend to make ship not struggle with mobility. Giving it aux thrusters is both less points, and better value letting it shoot front guns at target if its getting flanked, instead of a single railgun and a mauler, but its not getting flanked that is the issue.
You are getting aux thrusters to buff Mark IX or whatever you are using, for a ship that's already in the middle.
It can already shoot forward, and it can't reliably hit smaller ships with hardpoints anyway.
On top of that it already has at least 50% turnrate/turn accel buff from impact mitigation or maybe helmsmanship, ~10% from CR so another additive on top isn't that big.
2 L ballistics+aux is ~65 DP (61 for mark IXs).
For 29 you get what's essentially a much better 3rd L ballistic: great accuracy and projectile speed, fast turnrate and ~100% time on target, better efficiency than mark IX. It's also plain higher DPS that actually helps when a Radiant jumps in.
Protip for "overfluxing": even if the Dominator keeps firing EVERYTHING(including vulcans and hardpoints) continuously, with shields up that's still ~30s to flux out. AI tones down weapon use earlier, but soft buildup on line Domi just isn't a thing to worry about.
There is no excuse to not have at least light autocannons or rangefinderless railguns in the 2 front S mounts, S kinetics are really good and there is plenty of OP to support even more.On that note, i also tried your dominator build, and it kept doing worse than mine, or doing worse and dying.Very confident that in a full fleet aux thrusters and no kinetic in front is just bad, especially if the worst case aux thrusters helps most in (being surrounded) doesn't happen.
As expected, you overfluxing that ship only made it so after initial engagement, the additional weapons are just dead weight.
In the long range shootouts Dominator excels at the high efficiency high hitrate turreted kinetic is always better, once enemies jump in more power is obviously better, in neither case is soft flux buildup a concern.
That's just a bad test, a bad fleet or bending over backwards to make aux thrusters look decent for 25 OP.Executor is double DP of champion, and also a lot faster than a dom.Reading comprehension again:Sure, Onslaught is generally better for the DP/officers than Dominators, just like Executor is generally better than Champions (and Legion is a step above both).Executor comparison to Champion was relative to cost already, wasn't compared to Dominator at all so kinda pointless to bring up which has more orange paint (it's Dominator though).
Lots assumptions made here. All wrong.Isn't there something about the Dominator's size/layout that also gives it an unusually high number of armor cells, too? I have a vague memory of that.I thought armor cells have finite size, not relative to the ship they're on. Maybe I'm mistaken but it's the first time I've heard of that.Might be just that a big brick has lots of frontal cells to spread damage over?
Often wish it didn't do that though, the wiggling takes hardpoints off target a lot.Because at the point of using 2 onslaughts vs 4 dominators, its 80dp, 2 ship slots, 2 officers, heavily outperforming 100dp, 4 ships slots, 4 officers, so why would anyone use these other than "looks cool" or "dont want to cap spam"Silly comparison, Eagle was actually really bad and maybe 1 or 2 people thought it's not. Look at one of the threads, as close to unanimous agreement as you'll get on the internet.
It is just a worse investment, with no redeeming features.
We had this same exact argument about eagles, with people fiercely defending them, giving same arguments about needing better fleet setup or builds, showing proof of them working as line ships etc, when it was mostly rest of their setup doing the work and not them.
This is the same exact situation.
Here we have somebody filling Dominator with vulcans and complaining that Apex can turn towards flankers so fast it has none of Dominator's problems.
Apex has much worse turrets, much worse hardpoints and the same turnrate so that should've been it already (ok, Apex turn acceleration is better).
Sure, Onslaught is generally better for the DP/officers than Dominators, just like Executor is generally better than Champions (and Legion is a step above both).
Among the cruisers it's actually good, only held back by the hardpoint quirks.
... I feel like you're still too harsh on the ship. ...I usually sound more harsh than i intend to.
