Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General Discussion / Re: Atlas MK2 compares to cruisers

« on: March 25, 2023, 12:56:51 AM »

From my perspective of an armchair admiral, Atlas Mk. II is a ship that absolutely does work, but only after you've invested in it heavily. It's absolutely not a frontline cruiser in AI hands. As an artillery it gets outvalued by Gryphon and Heron.

In the end the ship feels like owning a vintage car: You feel like an absolute bad*ss for making it kick gum, as long as you don't care how much of your resources it's been chewing through. That said, it would make sense for it to get a logistics buff to put in on par with its cruiser peers, it's not gonna make NPC Pirates any more formidable after all.

2

General Discussion / Re: Your One Ship

« on: March 21, 2023, 01:16:01 PM »

sorry, missclicked

3

General Discussion / Re: Your One Ship

« on: March 21, 2023, 12:24:02 PM »

For some reason I have always ended up using the Heron, even if only as a sideboard ship for sieging. It's surprisingly practical for a pure carrier with its 8 burn and relatively high speed. They work wonders as glass cannons even outside of siege scenarios, granted you pair them with a strong frontline. Wouldn't recommend them against the [REDACTED] or Pathers, though.

4

Suggestions / Re: Hybrid Mounts Should Buff Energy Weapons

« on: March 19, 2023, 01:51:54 AM »

In practice, small and mediums are usually filled with a ballistic weapon, often kinetic, with Afflictor being the obvious exception (AMBs).  Large mounts, at least on Prometheus II, I used Tachyon Lances to compliment the kinetics.  In previous pre-0.8 releases with stronger skills, I used Heavy Blaster on Heron and Mule with universal mount, but I doubt that works well today.

I really like this rundown, but I think it needs to be contrasted with the ship-oriented PoV. I think it comes down to the fact that in ships with large Hybrids, Energy has options that complement Ballistics well. In medium slots, Energies are outclassed by Ballistics except in cases where Heavy Blaster substitutes for the whole Ballistic package (which doesn't happen in ships with medium Hybrids). Neither effective (DPS) nor supportive (EMP) energies provide enough value to be considered besides the Ballistics. I think the situation in small Hybrids comes down mainly to the fact that Ballistics usually fare better as PD than Energies, otherwise it's similar to the situation with the mediums.

5

Suggestions / Re: Rename stars when you own the system

« on: March 17, 2023, 11:37:05 PM »

things like Delta Sonora or Alpha Chad or Beta Cuckoo

I see what you did there, bubba. You got my support anyway, but I think the suggestion is already on airboss' radar.

6

General Discussion / Re: if you could pay IRL $ to purchase a figurine of a SS ship, which would it be?

« on: March 17, 2023, 04:28:17 AM »

Gotta be Invictus for me. Can't wait for the ship to hit live ^_^ Can you imagine its figurine having activable "Lidar array" lasers? How can you get more bad*ss than that?

7

Suggestions / Re: Hybrid Mounts Should Buff Energy Weapons

« on: March 17, 2023, 02:58:47 AM »

Yeah but we can't really blame Alex for not taking into account modded content, can we? Especially since dual and universal slots are so ingrained in individual hull designs, they are much more of an outlier than a rule.

I think if Alex starts adding more Energy options that bring value Ballistic weapons can't, they might become competetive. I was looking through vanilla hulls which sport Hybrid slots and besides small Hybrids meant specifically for PD, most indeed make sense to be fitted with a supportive side-weapon.

8

Suggestions / Re: Hybrid Mounts Should Buff Energy Weapons

« on: March 16, 2023, 05:26:38 AM »

The original sin of most Energy weapons is that they are usually generalist weapons designed to be used by ships with superior statistical profiles. Which means they can't get too strong on their own lest they make hi-tech overperform. I see a potential for Hybrid slot rivalry in cases where a support weapon would be appreciated. I'll probably make a full rundown if I find the time for it.

9

Suggestions / Re: Gryphon prioritazing point defense range over missiles

« on: March 12, 2023, 12:29:53 AM »

Could it perhaps be a hullmod? I feel like that might be the most simple and the most transparent way for the player to tell the game "use this ship's PD as a shanker". Thought a systemic solution would surely be better in a long run.

10

Suggestions / Re: Toning down the Monitor Menace >:)

« on: March 12, 2023, 12:02:41 AM »

Afflictor can do bigger distraction  plus dmg  plus debuff plus has higher survivibility. Price is the same. Dont understand why you asking nerf  second best kiting frigate while the first best kiting machine is left untouched.

Yeah but can you actually save your fluxed cruiser from a Radiant with it? Furthermore do you have something to keep the other hypothetical Radiant occupied while you go on your Afflictor hijinks? Because Monitor is something that can reliably do just that for mere 6DP

11

Suggestions / Re: Builtin hullmod for reduced OP cost for bombers on Astral

« on: March 10, 2023, 11:20:45 PM »

I really like this. It would also be an absolutely brilliant idea for the midline Capital carrier thread. I think it word thematically with a large “traditional” carrier. The Astral being super high tech makes me lean toward a more cutting-edge solution but this could also work really well.

I don't think we're getting a capital midline carrier anytime soon, if ever. Current factions don't really need one for various reasons, while Astral sits in the uncomfortable position of being a pure carrier in a tech school that can't really support it, used by a faction with a fleet doctrine that doesn't use its full potential.

But back to the point. Astral being an archetypical carrier deserves a hullmod that would encourage different fighter setups like this. I support that.

12

General Discussion / Re: What would a midline capital carrier be like?

« on: March 09, 2023, 11:27:47 PM »

Could even be a modification of the Conquest, just put large ballistics where large missiles are and replace broadside large ballistics with fighter bays.

Hey, I really like that! Would feel less awkward as the third capital in the PL fleet, but still like at home in Midline.

13

General Discussion / Re: What would a midline capital carrier be like?

« on: March 09, 2023, 11:25:53 AM »

It could be designed as a support ship. Those 2 large energies could be intended for paladins, which not only protect the ship itself but can shoot over allies to protect them as well. It could still use those slots for offensive weapons, but if it's not a battlecarrier it wouldn't have the stats to go toe-to-toe with other capitals. Another way to encourage paladins would be giving the large energies very wide firing arcs, then have a few medium ballistic hardpoints (offer some offensive power but as hardpoints can't really be used for pd), and like 4 small energy turrets with smaller arcs that only cover the sides of the ship.

In a similar vein, the fighters launched are not just for chasing down frigates (although they would still be good at that), but rather are for supporting your other ships and the carrier's system could reflect that. Maybe it significantly increases the range of non-missile weapons on fighters, but that by itself would probably not be strong enough as a system.

I really don't like funneling players into picking optimal weapons. Might as well make them built-in if the hull can't exist without them. Aside from that, the idea sounds basically like a large Champ with extra seasoning fighters. I personally wouldn't like a carrier where fighters feel like an afterthought or a token component. I also wonder if a design like this wouldn't just steal the spotlight from Champions and Eagles, undermining the identity of the "cruiser school" Midline is supposed to follow.

Still, a Capital-sized support cruiser does sound like something Midline is missing. Trying to make it big for perfectionism's sake just feels off when Midline is cemented to be built around firepower and tactical mobility. I'd prefer if it was instead designed as a plus-sized cruiser, kinda like the Conquest or the Retribution. What do you think?

14

General Discussion / Re: What would a midline capital carrier be like?

« on: March 09, 2023, 10:09:07 AM »

I suspect this hypothetical carrier would bring 2 large energies instead.

So... an Odyssey? :^) I think we made this joke here already

I'd say it's not as much the top-down design that makes a hull what it is, but rather the bottom-up. Think about how Falcon looks like it's supposed to be a downsized Eagle, but in practice plays rather differently. A carrier with 2 large energies makes sense if it plays different enough from Odyssey and finds a strategic niche it can thrive in. What kind of niche do you have in mind?

15

General Discussion / Re: What would a midline capital carrier be like?

« on: March 09, 2023, 04:49:00 AM »

A capital-sized Midline carrier would be shoehorning in something that the tech-school doesn't really need...

Anyway, a half-carrier, half-rocketship, all-support interceptor-oriented beeg ship is something Midline doesn't have and could make use of