Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

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.

Messages - DaShiv

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
When fighting/farming full-strength Ordos (not the baby Ordos initially encountered the first time in a system), it's frustrating to run into arbitrary limits when fleets refuse to engage via assisting each other: for example, if your fleet is too small (such as flying a solo Ziggurat with only logistics ships), nearby Ordos won't even assist at all. You're forced to either engage one Ordos at a time or add a lot of bloat to your fleet just to entice them into assisting each other. Likewise, once you have a large endgame fleet, you can transverse jump right next to a Remnant nexus into a huge pile of spawning Ordos and still only have ~1.2-1.5k DP worth of Ordos actually willing to engage at once.

This mechanic appears to be based on an evaluation of your fleet strength vs enemy fleet strength (for example, full-powered Ordos seem to avoid assisting when they're all rated at 5 stars difficulty due to fleet point difference), possibly to protect players from stumbling into "impossible" battles too early, and there's a limit to how many are willing to fight you even when you have a very strong fleet. However, with warning beacons and the recent story point disengage mechanic, these guardrails for Ordos fleets feel completely artificial, unnecessary, and prevent the player from seeking out epic endgame battles in a sandbox game. It's especially jarring and a complete let-down when going from huge fights with many thousands of DP against human faction fleets that have no problems assisting each other (such as Nexerelin invasion or defense fleets) only to go into so-called "high danger" systems and fight puny Ordos battles, and this also frustratingly slows down Alpha Core farming with lots of unnecessarily small battles.

IMO Ordos fleets are supposed to be endgame challenges and should always assist each other to pile-on the playerfleet, regardless of fleet strength evaluation and how badly the odds are stacked against the player - this is exactly what high danger systems (and story point disengage) are supposed to be for! Until there's such an update, if there's a way to make Ordos always assist each other either via editing settings or mods, I would love to find out where/which changes need to be made, or if a modder has already solved the problem. Thanks!

Mods / Re: [0.95.1a] Detailed Combat Results v5.2.1 (2021-12-23)
« on: January 27, 2022, 02:31:45 AM »
One significant discrepancy is that the combat results refer to "Deployment Points", but is actually using the fleet points value instead. For example:

Total destroyed ships were 11 Radiants, 20 Brilliants, 15 Fulgents, 14 Glimmers, and 14 Lumens. You can see at the end of the video that the combat results report "1054 deployment points" (which is the fleet points total of the destroyed ships per ship_data.csv), but the destroyed ship deployment points is actually 1451. This is confirmed by the Clean Disengage window:

The discrepancy comes from the variance between DP and FP: for example, Radiants are worth 60 DP but only 30 FP, while Lumens are worth 4 DP but 8 FP. Fleet points aren't actually used by the player in any way (since the game uses them internally for things like autoresolve and combat difficulty/XP) while deployment points are critical to players as a measure of odds during live combat.

Would it be possible to update the report using actual deployed DP instead of the FP from ship_data.csv? I noticed that Alex has started to display actual deployment points in the Fleet and Refit screens for players as well, so it seems much more consistent to use player-facing DP than the internal FP measure in the results. Thanks!

Suggestions / Re: Wolfpack Tactics: Small Problem and Proposed Change
« on: January 21, 2022, 11:08:31 PM »
I like the DP pool idea as well, since it also helps curb officer limit bypass via mercenaries and AI cores. If we're talking purely frigates, then 20-30 DP is plenty since most frigates have such low DP to begin with.

However, destroyers also benefit from Wolfpack Tactics and they take up quite a bit more DP than the average frigate, and a handful of destroyers would completely hog the DP pool away from frigates. Separate DP pools seems like a rather clunky workaround - there should be a better way to make frigates and destroyers play nice with the DP pool.

Unfortunately I'm running into a problem where the total fleet points ("fleet pts" in ship_data.csv) are so small that nearby [REDACTED] fleets refuse to assist, making it difficult to do multi-fleet testing for the full +500% XP bonus. Sigh. I know this is purely a fleet point issue since if I change the fleet points of the Monitor from 5 to say 15 and make no other changes, or if I change the fleet points of the Ziggurat from 40 to say 400 and make no other changes, then the other fleet will join just fine. (Doing so does not affect the XP bonus, since this is fleet points, not deployment points i.e. DP.) Not sure how the "nearby fleet assist or not" code works, so I don't know if frigate fleet points is reduced or something making this fleet considered too "small", even though my regular fleet of say Odysseys/Apogees for example can attract multiple fleets just fine.

I've been running into this same problem for a long time now - it's weird that I can't fight 2k+ battles against Remnants even though I could get mega-battles against human factions (especially with Nex invasions), and the problem is even worse in 0.951 since running d-mods with Derelict Operations lowers the fleet FP for assistance thresholds even more. I wish there's a modder who could make an "always assist" mod that negates these fleet restrictions for the playerfleet, assuming one hasn't been made already.

General Discussion / Re: Phase Anchor is absurdly overpowered.
« on: January 21, 2022, 09:39:20 PM »
I mean, even PA itself is ridiculous. It's like SO, give you x2 vent, but also x2 weapon recharge, and it doesn't have any penalty like PPT or range.

A Ziggurat bullying non-Remnants while somehow still needing to be propped up by a supporting fleet? Eh, I don't know what that's supposed to show, but it's the opposite of noteworthy.

This has very little to do with with Phase Anchor: the Ziggurat has always been more or less a cheat ship long before Phase Anchor was added this patch, and people have been soloing everything in the game using the ship since the day it was introduced. (The only debate has been whether it's more cost effective than the Doom, before the recent Mine Strike nerf anyway.) The Ziggurat is the quintessential "noob cannon" that's never seriously considered when it comes to discussions about balance or comparative builds, and a person would be laughed out the door if they tried to use the ship in one of the community AI fleetbuilding tournaments.

Just for fun, I dusted off the Ziggurat from storage, slapped on some weapons, respecced some skills, and visited a high danger system to hunt some Radiants:

Took out 11 Radiants and over 1k DP without taking a single point of hull damage. Clearly the Ziggurat is a non-serious cheat ship, and a crutch to help new players defeat content they don't yet have the skill and experience for. It's not a useful basis of comparison for how Phase Anchor should function with phase ships collectively, other than noting that the Ziggurat is already so ridiculous that just as with Safety Overrides, capital ships shouldn't even have access to Phase Anchor to begin with.

Re: Phase Anchor

Setting aside the Ziggurat, I think Phase Anchor is reasonably well-constrainted by the mount limitations of phase ships. Afflictors, Shades, and Gremlins only have access to small mounts, and AMB is the only non-missile small weapon that has the combination of long recharge and strong finishing ability to take advantage of Phase Anchor. Of course, AMB's tiny range and the weakness of frigate armor also makes these ships extremely impacted by the mobility restrictions from the recent Phase Field nerfs and thus they also really want the competing Adaptive Phase Coils, so this is a pretty fair tradeoff.

Harbingers and Dooms have more weapon options (up to mediums), but Phase Anchor doesn't really break either of them because the larger phase ships have such lower base speed that it can be hard for them to rush in and out of danger to take advantage of Phase Anchor - they tend to put themselves at risk doing so by running their hard flux up too high. It's really only with the large weapon options (Tach Lance, Autopulse, large Omegas, etc) where Phase Anchor's cooldown reduction boosts weapon performance to an oppressive extent, and weapon range also becomes long enough that there's not as much risk to hang out in-range and brawl with Phase Anchor; however, large weapons aren't generally available on phase ships.

The main outliers are Omega missiles, and not because of raw DPS: AMSRM and Resonators have great burst DPS but poor sustained DPS. Rather, it's because Omega missiles have such long range that there's no required exposure to danger for enjoying the flux/recharge bonuses of Phase Anchor, compared to the short range of other small/medium weapons with long recharge + strong finish. As I previously posted, this means that even the AI can easily pilot a phase ship to stay out of danger while milking Phase Anchor, completely risk-free:

The solution seems obvious: Phase Anchor should only boost ammo replenishment (reload) of non-missile weapons. (IMO, missile ammo reload shouldn't be affected by phase, Temporal Shell, or any other effects.) Note that I'm referring to the ammo reload and not to the refire delay - I think it's perfectly fine for Phase Anchor to burn through limited ammo faster on missiles like Typhoons. Of course this will also impact Pilum and Salamander use with Phase Anchor which... is not really a thing anyway. Yet.

General Discussion / Re: We need weapons that counter fast ships
« on: January 13, 2022, 05:24:50 PM »
The window of opportunity isn't much shorter than other ships - PPT time is vastly outweighed by CR decay time, especially for SO ships.

...The recent Wolfpack Tactics nerf to PPT was clearly aimed at Hyperion, without considering how minor the impact is when post-PPT CR decay rate is so easily countered by Combat Endurance + Hardened Subsystems without Delicate Machinery.

Against that 537 seconds, an SO Hyperion losing 20 seconds of peak time from the recent Wolfpack Tactics change was basically chump change. In the attached graph, you can imagine the blue line being shifted to the right by 1/3 of a square; that was the effect of the change.

Thanks for illustrating with the actual numbers! I think it clearly demonstrates how ineffective the current PPT/CR constraints on Hyperion really are. IMO if we want both the "window of opportunity" idea that TaLaR alluded to and the "hangar queen" per the Codex description, then Delicate Machinery and a reduction to daily CR recovery would be consistent. Despite all the Hyperion spam fleets being posted here (and on Reddit) lately, I still don't think Hyperions are actually overperforming - they're just insufficiently CR-constrained.

General Discussion / Re: Support doctrine, wolfpack and frigate armor
« on: January 13, 2022, 05:13:01 PM »
Support doctrine
Lots of situational picks on the way: 2 carrier skills you might not want and 3 tied to officers(2 boosts+wolfpack) that aren't that good with support doctrine. CM also needs officers, but plopping 3-4 in kites already maxes the boost. Means that if you do not want carriers just reaching it already can have duds, and getting both Best of the Best and Support Doctrine includes tons of waste.

I agree that there's a lack of synergy between officered skills in the Leadership tree being required for non-officered Support Doctrine. If we want to encourage players to use Support Doctrine for cheaper small ships so they can reserve their officers for more important ships, perhaps Coordinated Maneuvers could be changed to "All ships with officers and unofficered ships with Support Doctrine, including flagship" so that it'd still be useful to take as a prerequisite for Support Doctrine.

I would suggest that this does not apply to the damage from Wolfpack Tactics, since that would scale very dangerously with potentially huge numbers of unofficered frigates.

My problem with it is similar to support doctrine.
I'd like to include more Lashers, Centurions, Brawlers but they are pretty squishy and an officer for a 4-5 DP ship is just not that good.
Wolfpack bonus also being tied to officers pushes eco options out for the high DP, high impact ships that are pretty good at staying alive(and doing damage) anyway.
Would open up more options and make the cheap frigates more attractive if the bonus didn't need officers (reduce the bonus damage if needed).

I'd imagine that the design intent behind the officer requirement is to prevent the damage bonus from Wolfpack Tactics from scaling too much, since frigates are so easy to mass and deploy.  IMO it's currently pretty fair - it's compensation for "wasting" your officers on smaller, lower-impact ships, not a reward simply for using smaller ships at all.

That said, I wouldn't mind if non-officered frigates/destroyers with Support Doctrine and Wolfpack received the PPT bonus (but not the damage bonus) so they can better keep up with larger officered ships.

General Discussion / Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« on: January 13, 2022, 04:39:20 PM »
I'll just add that I've got a note to make rugged construction start recovered ships off with some hull and CR; I think that should help it along nicely.

That sounds like a nice buff! A reduction to crew lost (a la Recovery Shuttle) would also help make those ships more economically feasible as well.

It also feels kind of wrong to see SO hyperions fight for what I believe in real time is 14+ min? When I tried to use SO with my hyperions they straight up didn't last long enough to finish the fight.

There's no real mystery to it - Starship Legends gave his ships all kinds of bonuses, including CR decay reduction. 14+ minutes with SO Hyperions is, indeed, comically different than the vanilla experience and nowhere close to comparable.

As someone else noted in another thread, when he tried fighting Remnants without the mods, he took huge losses. There's nothing special here.

General Discussion / Re: We need weapons that counter fast ships
« on: January 12, 2022, 01:59:05 AM »
SO Hyperion is a 15DP ship that barely has any PPT. If it wasn't OP during it's short window of opportunity, why would you ever use it?.

The window of opportunity isn't much shorter than other ships - PPT time is vastly outweighed by CR decay time, especially for SO ships.

The simple oversight is that Hyperion is missing the Delicate Machinery hullmod that phase ships also have to make CR decay time meaningfully different. The recent Wolfpack Tactics nerf to PPT was clearly aimed at Hyperion, without considering how minor the impact is when post-PPT CR decay rate is so easily countered by Combat Endurance + Hardened Subsystems without Delicate Machinery.

Without Delicate Machinery, the SO malus is simply not significant enough to outweigh the disproportionate gains for Hyperion compared to other ships with SO.

The other issue is that despite being described as a "hangar queen" in the Codex, Hyperion actually takes the same to recover CR as high tech ships like Astral or Apogee (5 days to recover from a single deployment, compared to 17 days for Ziggurat). In fact, Hyperion recovers from being reduced to 0% CR far faster than those ships as well, which only further rewards running the Hyperion deep into CR-decay territory. To be more consistent with the Codex description, IMO Hyperion's daily CR recovery rate should be reduced to 5% (8 days to fully recover), which would still be much closer to other high tech ships than to Ziggurat.

I don't think the performance of the Hyperion is a problem at all - it's just not being properly constrained by CR mechanics right now.

General Discussion / Re: [REDACTED] weapons discussion
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:58:44 AM »
Reality Disruptor: The mother of all EMP weapons. It's basically the ultimate support weapons since you must sacrifice 30 OP and a large weapon mount for it, so I'm not sure where this would be a good pick. I've been thinking about making one Apogee a shield tank that also EMPs everything in front, other than that I'm kinda iffy with spending so much on a weapon that doesn't deal damage (ok it does very very little). This thing would probably be great against stations, but I'm yet to try it out there. Overall I like what it does and how it looks in combat, but I think it's yet another "looks broken on Doritos, kinda meh on player ships" situation. Now that I think about it, Radiant has large mounts to spare and it could work well there due to Phase skimmer system, but my current run doesn't have the skill to recovers them so it'll be a plan for another playthrough.

A criminally underrated weapon IMO. Very few enemy ships have 360 shields, so Reality Disruptor basically shuts down enemy weapons/engines at will. This greatly reduces the damage you receive and prevents the enemy ship from escaping once it gets into flux trouble, which means a much higher rate of actually finishing off an enemy, especially fast enemies with mobility systems. Also has a surprisingly low flux overhead for a large weapon - great for ships that are more limited by flux than mounts, and works in missile mounts for builds where it's not as cost effective to fully invest in Missile Spec + EMR + ECCM etc. For example, you could use it on the large missile mount of a Champion and focus on using the large energy + medium mounts for damage.

Also: doubles very well as PD, zapping entire waves of incoming missiles (completely neutralizes Squalls) and paralyzing fighter swarms.

Rift Cascade Emitter: The buffs made it much better, but as others have previously said many times, this thing has an identity crisis. It's a 1000 range beam that murders everything in close range, but your ships will mostly use it a near max range where it does like one explosion and that's it. That's a waste of flux and it feels bad. You could probably put it on a reckless officer with lower range weapons but I'm not a fan of my fleet having kamikaze ships. It's perfectly made for Doritos who come in your face to deal damage, less so for player ships. I mean I'm still going to continue using it since it looks so sexy.

The RCE buff wasn't as earth-shattering as people make it out to be: at max rifts (5), its total damage increased from 5250 to 6500, a 23.8% damage increase. Very sizable, but the previous version was already quite usable. It's actually a bit of a sidegrade since at long range (1-2 rifts) RCE does less damage than before; however, because the rift damage was changed to be much more back-loaded, RCE now has a lot more potential to utterly wreck targets when it successfully wraps around shields, especially against smaller ships.

I'm not sure why people say RCE has an identify crisis: you can use it where you'd normally use Tach Lance and receive extra hard flux damage (much more valuable now that HSA is borderline unusable again) + close range "insurance" for when ships get too close to a long-range ship. It's a bit flux-intensive when used this way, but quite worth it IMO. You can also use it where you'd normally use Plasma Cannon and receive extra long range sniping damage before your ship closes into range to use all its other weapons, and it has better stats to boost when you can proc all 5 rifts. In this scenario, it's actually quite flux-efficient:
  • Rift Cascade Emitter (5 rifts): 6500 damage at 4500 flux per 6.5s = 1000 DPS (769 hard flux), 1.44 damage/flux, 500 beam hit strength, 750-1250 rift hit strength.
  • Plasma Cannon: 750 DPS, 0.91 damage/flux, 500 hit strength.
Because of its multi-range versatility, RCE really shines on ships that are very mount-limited where a single large energy has to carry a lot of water in all situations. For example, it's far and away the best choice for the large energy on an Apogee. It's also completely broken on the Ziggurat, but that ship is a noob cannon anyway.

Rift Torpedo Launcher: I had crazy RNG that I'm yet to see this thing drop for me in 2 runs. Tested it a bit outside campaign and it seems like a super Antimatter SRM Launcher, 1.0 efficiency regenerating missile, but one that outright deletes everything it comes into contact with. Travels very very slowly but has high hitpoints so it appears balanced. I need to get this thing in campaign and properly use it to have a concrete opinion.

Because of how highly the AI prioritizes blocking the Rift Torpedo with its shield (rightfully so), it's primarily an anti-shield weapon for high tech - it'll hit shields 90%+ of the time unless used in linked pairs. Basically the same 1.0 flux efficiency as a Pulse Laser, but with 2000 range and a long delay before impact. The real value IMO is how you can use it to influence enemy AI behavior:
  • Completely shuts down enemy venting in a wide radius.
  • Locks enemy shields into the torpedo's approach trajectory to expose back for flankers.
  • Protects vulnerable ships, discourage swarming, and creates space for venting since enemies are very hesitant to approach an active torpedo and want to back off out of its range.
  • Creates openings by causing frequent overloads.
I think people who want to use it as a finisher to instantly delete ships are going to be disappointed at how badly it works in that role due to the terrible projectile speed, but it's actually a very tactically flexible and effective weapon when leveraged correctly.

Rift Cascade Emitter: I use this on the front 2 large slots for Paragon, in place of the Tachyon Lances I had. It's not strictly better, but it does have considerable advantages when mounted on the paragon on a beam build. The rift distance is based on the weapon current maximum range AFAICT. On the Paragon, the beam's range is over 2000 units, with advanced optics.

RCE has very strong synergy with all range extension (Gunnery Implants + Advanced Optics are basically required for max DPS) so it's strictly better than Tach Lance on the Paragon due to its ATC. That said, the Paragon isn't the most exciting or DP-efficient ship to use.

Because it's a short-range brawler, I didn't worry too much about shield killing; by the time anything gets close to the Paragon, the other ships in the fleet have stripped shields.  I very much built the fleet to work as a group, which is sort of what this thread was all about; my inability to keep the fleet together because the game AI is so hell-bent on sending ships out on their own.

If the design concept of the game is every ship needs to stand on its own then a) that's terrible design and b) good to know, I'll stop playing and stop posting about my problems, since the game won't ever make sense to me.

It should be the other way around - the Paragon with its superior range is better suited for hitting shields before enemy ships enter the range of your other ships. Hence the others' suggestions for weapons that can output significant hard flux damage at range, such as Heavy Needlers, HVD, Autopulse Lasers, and Plasma Cannons. Of course, all these weapons have varying other performance considerations, such as flux usage, performance vs armor, etc.

HSA (in its current iteration, in RC6) actually decreases a beam's base range to less than that of comparable weapons, which is why people are telling you it's a poor choice for Paragons.

Ships don't necessarily have to be self-sufficient, but they should be assigned roles that are synergistic with their strengths and weaknesses and outfitted accordingly.

I swear every time there's a post with someone saying AI is broken and bad and can't do a thing in combat, it's ALWAYS due to people throwing random stuff on a ship or using autofit. There really should be a quick course or tutorial in game that's mandatory, that explains how to make a decent build in general. That's the single hardest thing in the game with a crazy steep learning curve, and imo the biggest reason why new players get frustrated and quit the game since they think it's too hard (I mean it is honestly).

Agreed. Often when people complain about poor AI performance, it's because the AI is struggling to do what it can with the loadout that the player has assigned it, and a lot of newer players also have little understanding of issues like weapon range and weapon group assignments when implementing their loadouts. A basic sanity check for loadouts is a great first diagnostic step when it comes to addressing AI performance issues. That said, I'm not sure if there's a better way to understand loadouts other than a lot of trial and error in the simulator.

Have you tried using smaller ships? Capital spam is not really the best strat and it's no wonder your ships are derping out when they have to fight 10 ships at once.
I have. Smaller ships tend to sublimate on contact with enemy battleships which is not really a survival strategy, so I try to deploy two, and sometimes even three, capital ships per battle, with cruiser escort.  I save my destroyers and frigates for a mop-up pursuit fleet, usually - early in the game they had some survivability but by 211 or 212 the game world had ramped up enough that those smaller ships just couldn't hang in the fight long enough to matter, and 30 deployment points of destroyer/frigate invariably did less than one heavy cruiser or two light cruisers.

This here is the problem: fleet composition. You need more smaller ships to break up enemy formations and give enemies more targets to shoot at so that the enemy isn't swarming you and dictating the terms of engagement. If you're having issues with frigate survivability, start by adding a few Monitors into the mix. Then after that, see if you can work out builds for Hyperions, Omens, and/or Afflictors that keep them alive - any of these will add a ton of valuable disruption against enemy ranks, and it's pretty straightforward to make them endgame-capable.

If you try turtling with only capitals/cruisers, then the fleet AI and giving orders can't save your ships from being outnumbered, separated, and picked apart when you're fighting decent enemies like Ordos (and IMO they're much weaker this patch than in 0.95, due to Radiant/shield nerfs). It's a numbers game. To illustrate: take one of your caps and one of your cruisers and let them both autopilot in the simulator against an equivalent DP number of frigates (for example: Onslaught + Champion vs 65 DP of frigates, roughly 12-15 or so.) It doesn't matter what orders you give for your cruiser to cover the Onslaught's back - the raw number of enemy targets simply work against them tactically.


it's not that my ships aren't good enough [...] There has to be some way to keep my speed-boosted Paragon from going off on its own and getting torn to shreds by three cruisers

A Paragon is roughly the same DP value as 3 cruisers, so if your Paragon can't handle that on its own, then it might be the case your loadouts actually aren't good enough. Remember that capitals are very DP-intensive and it's completely expected that they should, at minimum, be able to handle an equivalent DP of reasonably-numbered enemy ships. For example, a well-built Radiant should at least be able to solo 3 of the SIM capitals at the same time on autopilot, and up to all 5 with some optimization.

General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the latest skill changes
« on: January 02, 2022, 01:58:56 PM »
First of all, I think it's appropriate for Systems Expertise and Missile Specialization to remain top tier skills - they're niche but very loadout-enabling for the targeted builds. If the Combat tree were completely flat, I think it would funnel players toward flagships with missile/Sabot spam and/or systems spam (such as Doom/Radiant) without the need to significantly invest into Combat. Keep in mind that players already use missiles and ship systems much more intelligently than the AI does, and if the skills enhancing them weren't gated behind Combat tiering, then it'd actually reduce flagship diversity since those ships/builds would become no-brainer flagship choices requiring only minimal investment.

I think it'd also be a bad idea to make higher-tier "combination" skills since officers use the same Combat tree, and again it'd become no-brainers to only use officers with higher-tier combo skills, reducing officer diversity.

I think one way to make player investment into Combat more impactful is actually by moving a portion of the base bonuses into the elite portion of the skill. (For example: instead of +10/15/20 for Target Analysis, make Target Analysis only +5/10/15 with an additional +5/5/5 for elite, on top of the other elite bonuses.) Officers have very limited choices in elite skills, whereas the player will have access to elite versions of every personal skill they choose, so a player investing into the Combat tree and having all elite skills will be rewarded with a noticeable edge over officers with only 1 elite skill (before additional bonuses). This would also provide more incentive for players to pilot the most powerful ships in their fleet instead of assigning them to officers, and also provide better synergy with skills providing more elite skills to officers (Officer Training and Cybernetic Augmentation) since IMO those are a bit underpowered right now. It would be nice for elite skills to be actually "better" at their core bonuses and not just provide some random semi-related bonuses.

Lastly, I also think it would be a mistake to simply buff the entire Combat tree - officers are already very strong, and improving the entire Combat tree is just going to make non-officered ships obsolete. The goal should be to reward the player for investing into Combat themselves.

General Discussion / Re: The State of Derelict Contingent
« on: December 29, 2021, 09:40:27 PM »
10% less range on a Paragon doesn't matter that much, it's still never getting outranged by anything but another Paragon. The cr penalties aren't very meaningful, they give the Paragon a slightly worse operating time than a pristine cruiser.

CR penalties decrease performance across the board - damage inflicted, damage taken, etc.

You seem to be fixated on how Paragons can ignore a lot of d-mods and still be effective, which says more about the Paragon than about d-mods or Derelict Contingent. As was brought up earlier, different d-mods are going to impact different ships very differently, which is reasonable given the diversity of ship strengths and weaknesses in the game.

First of all, I should have made it more clear in my first post that current dmod mechanics make derelict contingent an overpowered skill when run optimally or close to optimally. If you get ships with good dmods, you basically get to deploy 30% more ships.

The real question is: overpowered compared to what?

Compared to the previous iteration of the skill, which rendered sufficiently d-modded ships effectively immortal, I don't think the current Derelict Operations is anywhere close to that level of "broken" or "overpowered". I also believe that reduction in deployment cost is a better lever to pull than d-modded ships being able to withstand immensely more damage. Of course, one could quibble with whether -6% per d-mod is the right number - I'm sure Alex would appreciate feedback on that.

Compared to other current top tier skills: I think the jury's still out on that. Is -30% DP with varying penalties to combat performance depending in ship/d-mod combination too powerful? I'm not sure if it's any more powerful than access to Radiant/Glimmer/officers with 8 elite skills, or +1 s-mod and being able to completely negate enemy officer spam and still be able to deploy all your ships in combat, etc. Unofficially, out of the skill layouts I've seen shared on Discord, Hull Restoration has been much more popular as the Industry pick. The point is that all the top tier skills are supposed to be special and very impactful, and Derelict Operations is no exception. I'm personally not seeing Derelict Operations as "lul must pick or ur dumb" right now, but it's still pretty soon after a major skill revamp and perhaps sentiment will evolve over time.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4