Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

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 - Vanshilar

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39
16
General Discussion / Re: Is the Hephaestus at a good spot?
« on: March 13, 2024, 04:58:05 AM »
I threw together a quick program that simulates armor mechanics, since they're simple and Hellbore is such a thresholdy weapon that you basically kind of have to.
This is what the armor TTK comparison looks for full fire cycle.

Real briefly, no. That's not how armor works. You need to account for how armor works with inner/outer cells. Inner cells take full damage and contribute the full amount toward the armor value, outer cells take half damage and contribute half their amount toward the armor value. The seminal post about how armor works can be found here, though others have extended that work later, such as one of my posts about it here. I'm pretty sure I've covered it more thoroughly later on, that's just what I could find real quick. There's an Excel file that I attached which simulates it accurately for assuming hitting the same spot, but looks like it's been removed since (probably due to how long ago it was or because the forum doesn't accept that file type now? not sure the reason), so I'll have to look on my computer for it.

Even if you're assuming the simple case of shots always hitting the same spot, what happens is that the inner armor cells will get depleted first, so there will be a number of shots where the outer cells are still providing some protection, while the shots are already hitting hull in the middle. Armor basically takes a bit longer to deplete than would be predicted by neglecting inner/outer cells.

17
General Discussion / Re: Is the Hephaestus at a good spot?
« on: March 12, 2024, 07:59:44 AM »
Eh real quick, Hellbore's effective hit strength should actually be 1500, not 500. The plot should look something like attached.

I've derived the analytical time-to-kill formulas for armor before, will have to look for the Excel on my computer when I have time. But I think CapnHector's "probability wave" approach was better since it accounts for hitting multiple armor cells, whereas all the other approaches assumed you were hitting the same armor cell. Will post them when I have time. Nowadays I just rely on Detailed Combat Results though.

18
General Discussion / Damage Bonuses
« on: March 11, 2024, 12:38:52 AM »
Just wanted to make a note of this since I did some testing.

Damage bonuses generally modify the base damage. So if the weapon does 100 base damage, Tactical Drills gives 5% bonus damage, and 100% CR gives 10% bonus damage, then the damage will become 100 * (1 + 0.05 + 0.10) = 100 * 1.15 = 115 damage.

However, certain bonuses modify the whole thing instead of the base damage. For example, if you have the above, and then add Tactical Analysis, say against a capital ship (20% bonus damage), you might think it'd be 100 * (1 + 0.05 + 0.10 + 0.20) = 100 * 1.35 = 135 damage. But instead, it'll actually be 100 * (1 + 0.05 + 0.10) * (1 + 0.20) = 138 damage. It basically added +23% of the base damage since it's also multiplying with the other bonuses.

There are a couple of those types of modifiers, but thus far, they all multiply with each other. In other words, as far as I can tell, the damage boils down to (base damage) * (1 + X) * (1 + Y), where X are some modifiers like the CR damage bonus, and Y are some other modifiers like the Target Analysis bonus. Since X is easier to get, I'm going to call them the "regular" bonuses, while Y is more rare, so I'll call them the "special" bonuses. I could probably call them something more descriptive but this is just to organize it. The mathematically astute reader would notice that I could've defined it the other way too, but there are more in X than Y so I think it'll be easier to think of it this way.

Testing is done via the simulator in version 0.97a-RC10, by looking at the damage numbers of weapons against a target from the Practice Targets mod and against a sim Hyperion, and then calculating out what it needs to be for the given bonuses to match the observed damage numbers.

There's probably a way to just look in the code to see the list of all possible bonuses or something, but this is relying on empirical testing instead.

The "regular" bonuses:
CR (assuming CR > 70%)
Ballistic Mastery (regular and elite)
Tactical Drills
Energy Weapon Mastery
Cybernetic Augmentation
High Energy Focus
High Scatter Amplifier (regular and elite)

The "special" bonuses:
Target Analysis (regular and elite)
Wolfpack Tactics
Advanced Turret Gyros s-mod -- note that this also benefits missiles, not just ballistic and energy

Of particular note is that fighters are not affected by any of the "regular" or "special" bonuses above *except* for CR.

Targeting Feed (shipsystem on Heron) seems to be its own modifier, and thus multiplicatively stacks with everything else. Most damage modifiers don't apply to fighters, though.

Graviton Beam's effect is a damage taken modifier by the target ship, as opposed to the above which are damage dealt modifiers by the firing ship, and thus will multiplicatively stack with all of the above.

Since the "special" bonuses multiply all the other bonuses (except each other), and they're more rare, they are in some sense better than the "regular" bonuses. Note also that if the ship is a capital, then with elite Target Analysis and s-modded Advanced Turret Gyros, the ship is basically doing +20% against all targets, multiplying with the "regular" bonuses. On the other hand, frigates with elite Target Analysis and Wolfpack Tactics get +5%/+30%/+35%/+40%, multiplying with the "regular" bonuses.

19
Suggestions / Re: Colony building that gives SP
« on: March 10, 2024, 12:58:41 AM »
High passive credit gain requires building colonies

Once a player reaches level 15, if they have a commission then they gain over 1 million credits every cycle just for sitting around. They could go out exploring for a while and come back rich even if they don't find anything.

Having two currencies when one of them is supposed to act as universal currency for anything tangible is more complicated than it needs to be.

Again, one of them is starter currency so the player can always get going even after a wipe, while the other is gated behind actually doing something within the game. This is not that different from RPGs where you can buy some weapons/armor from the shoppies, but to get the best weapons/armors you have to go out and kill some difficult monster or boss or otherwise actively fulfill some mission. This is a pretty common approach in games and is not at all unique to Starsector. In fact in many such games, money becomes essentially worthless later on because it's so plentiful.

If the two currencies stay as they are, the Story Points ought to be renamed to something more apt like "Action Points" or "Upgrade Points".  Do not record every use of SP on History, only those that are accomplishment worthy and not mundane stuff like character or fleet upgrades.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this many times before. Oh yes I did, here for example. Regardless of their name, the main source of gaining Story Points is via XP which is mostly from fighting, and their main use is upgrading your fleet (through smods and through elite skills). So they're basically just another way to level up or improve your fleet, but gives bonuses that you can't really get any other way. Thus, passive SP gain is a bad idea. They should be from actively doing something within the game.

20
General Discussion / Re: Is the Hephaestus at a good spot?
« on: March 09, 2024, 11:30:30 PM »
Not sure why this topic seems to come up a lot lately. The Heph has been in a good spot for a long time; even when I started testing weapons and optimal builds in 0.95.1a, it and the Mjolnir generally performed the best for large ballistics. I don't know why Alex keeps buffing it, although he's mentioned before that he feels like players keep sleeping on it.

It's not really an armor-stripper per se, it's basically a DPS weapon geared more toward anti-hull rather than anti-armor. But winning in combat tends to favor the ship that can put out more DPS, in addition to flux efficiency, especially against hull when the enemy ship is backing off and you're trying to finish it off before it gets out of range and/or retreats behind another enemy ship, so you have a very limited time window. So it should be your general go-to large ballistic if you already have other weapons doing anti-shield, and Mjolnir instead if you don't. That covers most cases, with the other large ballistics essentially getting niche use for particular circumstances or builds.

Having said that, as I've mentioned elsewhere, when looking for what weapon set makes a ship the best in combat (as measured by what minimizes battle time against the same double Ordos test fleet), thus far it's always ended up being Mjolnir or Heph. Even the Manticore, which I thought would be a poster child for using another weapon (due to its low base flux), ended up performing best with Mjolnir or Heph.

21
General Discussion / Re: What is SU?
« on: March 09, 2024, 08:40:35 PM »
There's also the picture of the Abandoned Terraforming Platform by Asharu, of the Hermes.

22
General Discussion / Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« on: March 09, 2024, 08:32:58 PM »
I haven't seen any evidence that the Onslaught is so substantially stronger than other capitals that it would be deserving of a nerf. Testing against double Ordos in 0.96a, under AI control it was pretty much on par with the Conquest, Legion XIV, Executor, etc. on a per-DP basis. I personally prefer piloting an Onslaught XIV and then having Conquests under AI control since I the human player am better at gauging when to take incoming damage on shields or armor than the AI, and since I'm diving into the middle of the enemy fleet, it allows the AI Conquests to just sit there and unload on the enemy ships. But that's what I've found works for me; there are plenty of other valid ways to go about it.

The Onslaught gets better armor, but it also can't maneuver as well, so it has to tough it out; the Conquest can simply move away. Also, armor is a finite resource, which affects the Onslaught more in longer battles. So it's a tradeoff of the Onslaught.

Have you ever tried to kill an Onslaught with like a Fury? Or maybe just a frigate or a destroyer? It's a nightmare. On the other hand once you flank the Conquest, its squishy enough and has such poor shield durability, that it will have trouble venting hard flux. And will just easily die. In fact, I would be able to deter a Conquest with a Dominator. Not kill, cause Dominator is too slow, but deter. Which, like... If you put up a Dominator against an Onslaught. Good luck.

Huh? People using frigates and destroyers to kill the sim Onslaught is practically a meme on the forums. The Conquest can simply turn around, it has omni shields and manjets.

That all said? I'm not much a fan of the Onslaught myself. But claiming its value is limited to four mediums and no shield is absolutely the sort of thing that's going to get you called out.

Yeah methinks someone was basing their opinion on spending too much time in the sim.

23
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.97a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: March 08, 2024, 10:12:05 PM »
Awesome! Yeah usually I test various stuff while hotfixes are going on, and then wait until the final hotfix before I start a full playthrough. So it's good to know that I can now start a full game. (Going to be trying out immediately putting some colonies in the core worlds at the very beginning, and see if I can fight off saturation bombings, colony crises, etc. when I do it "wrong".)

24
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.97a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: March 07, 2024, 10:51:41 PM »
Just wondering, is it looking like there will be another hotfix, or is the current 0.97a-RC11 sort of "it" for a while?

25
The thing is that it's not going to be just two fleets by their lonesome, since they're very consistently surrounded by fleets patrolling the jump point, and by extention the supply fleet which never moves from there.

Don't know what you're talking about, I'm having no problems finding the supply fleets on their own. In fact without really studying the AI for the fleets, it seems like the other fleets will go off and pursue pretty much any random fleet they find to harass them, while the supply fleets just stay by the gates, so if you're seeing the blockade fleets hang around at the gates, chances are there's not enough "activity" (i.e. other fleets) around for the blockade fleets to chase. You just need to wait until some other fleet saunders by and the blockade fleets go away to chase them. Since each fleet has their own detection range, it's easy to see them running off one at a time as each sees a different fleet to harass.

You aren't wrong about that, but they should probably have toned down the amount, since if you don't have a lot of jump points (<3) you'll have to slowly peel them off one by one to avoid being dogpiled.

Okay so let's talk about the actual amount. People keep saying a bunch of death fleets or whatever. In my case, I got 15 fleets, which consists of:

* 1 Grand Armada fleet (319 FP), which consists of 6 capitals and 5 cruisers, among other junk.
* 6 Detachment fleets (245-273 FP), each of which consists of 1-2 capitals, 3-5 cruisers, among other junk.
* 1 smaller Detachment fleet (142 FP), which consists of no capitals, 3 cruisers, among other junk.
* 2 Patrol fleets (92 and 79 FP, respectively), which consists of 1-2 cruisers and smaller ships.
* 3 Fast Pickets (12-15 FP) which are just several heavily d-modded frigates.
* 2 Supply Fleets (262 and 257 FP, respectively), each of which consists of 1 capital, 4 cruisers, among other junk.

Unless the poster is counting d-modded frigates as death fleets, it should be pretty obvious that there's not *that* much to handle; only around half the fleets are actual fleets to contend with. Level 10+ intel deserter bounties are roughly 300 FP or so (haven't done the stats yet on 0.97a, but that's what they averaged in previous versions). They can easily have multiple capitals. So these fleets in general are at or below the difficulty of a regular level 10+ intel deserter bounty.  So the player gets multiple deserter bounties (or easier) delivered to their front door without having to travel for them. I have no trouble isolating them as they run around either.

In terms of just tanking the 60% accessibility, I mean it's 60% accessibility, that isn't exactly nothing.

So just what are you losing by -60% accessibility? Some credits, some colony growth, what else? If you've spent the past two years just building up your colony and never making a combat fleet, you should have enough credits to absorb that.

In terms of incentives, it's just two bad options. I went through this in more detail in the same comment you took that section from, but here's it paraphrased. 60% accessibility isn't a small amount, and the marginally better alternative of capitulating and joining the league is essentially pigeonholing all the new players in a game that's supposed to be open-world.

Why is that a bad thing? I'm not an expert on faction lore, but far from "expect most other factions to be in the red with you", the Persean League is hostile basically only to the Hegemony. (The player is likely already hostile to pirates and Luddic Path anyway in most regular playthroughs, especially new players.) The game itself sort of hints at the player to get a Hegemony commission at the start, which makes even more enemies. I don't see how offering to join the League as an option counts as pigeonholing, especially when commissions are easy money and they're generally recommended. (Fun fact: in this test run, the PL 20% membership fee amounts to 38903 credits per month, but my PL "forced" commission is paying me 95000 credits per month. So if I'm having trouble with money or if I don't know what I'm doing, it's actually better to just take the commission.)

I could understand that if we were talking about someone on their 4th run, where they know what they're getting into, but my issue was with how this crisis isn't good for new players. The ones who are on their first run.

Sure seems like the game already gives the player multiple outs. If the player doesn't have a fleet that can taken on regular bounties yet, then taking a commission is actually a pretty good option -- not only will it give you extra credits for fighting, but you also get access to their military markets. If the player ragequits from seeing fleets which run around and don't do much, that's on the player. Are you saying that a first-time player to any game should expect to beat any challenge the game throws at them, first try, without understanding how the game works and/or without preparing for them? If I'm trying out a game for the first time, I expect to do a lot of things wrong and get caught by surprise a lot. That's just part of being a new player to any game, that's part of the learning curve. I don't expect to throw ten strikes my first time bowling.

You aren't wholly wrong, but I think the issue is the difference in fleet size compared to the others, rather than people completely failing to prepare. For my pirate crisis at 300 I got two fairly small raiding parties which immediately died to the patrols and that was it. I'm not entirely certain, but I think the largest ships they had were cruisers. I can see that being enough for someone to get a capital and look into getting more, but it's not exactly telling someone to build a multicapital, 30-ship nuke fleet which seems to be what is necessary to beat the league crisis (what I needed to use, anyway...).

That's not the "real" pirate fleet, that's just a warmup fleet at Colony Crises 300 to tell the player to expect fights to happen, as far as I can tell. The "real" pirate fleet (for Colony Crises 600) consists of 10 fleets, 5 of them being pirate Armadas (4 of them are 272-278 FP, the 5th is 228 FP). As far as I can tell, unlike the PL, there is no "shortcut" combat-wise to make the fleet go away, you have to kill all 5 Armadas. In my test run, the fleets total 1832 FP, compared with the PL's 2765 FP, so while the PL is the biggest, it's not like it dwarfs the others, and it offers several combat shortcuts.

I think the issue is less with the detachments and normally with the larger fleets that often have 1, normally 2-3 capitals. They aren't rare and they compose a significant fraction of the blockade.

The Detachments I'm talking about *are* the blockade fleets.

26
There's the option of directly fighting, which is what most people seem to take if they don't want to larp as the persean league. This option has already been discussed in detail on this thread as to why it's not ideal for new players.

Eh direct fighting just means taking on two fleets, separately if the player wants, each of which consists of one capital, four cruisers, and then random junk. After something like 1-2 in-game years, more likely 2 years unless you rushed colonies. I don't think expecting the player to have a fleet that can handle that after 2 years is all that onerous.

I'll agree that there's some shock value in seeing so many fleets, but the reason why there are so many fleets is so that the player can separate them and take them one at a time, or lump them together for more of a challenge, whatever the player chooses. The player isn't forced to fight them, so they can be defeated on the player's own time.

Now if you spent the first two in-game years trading goods, making colonies, etc., and never bothered to build a fleet, then yes you'll have trouble with this, so you'd have to wait it out or join the League or whatever. But that's entirely of the player's choosing. So it's another one of those problems where it's not a really a problem, it's that if the player doesn't prepare for it nor plan around it, then of course the player will be caught flat-footed. That's just part of the learning curve of any game. So as I mentioned elsewhere and as Alex concurred, it'd be nice to have some sort of heads-up about it (such as when the player first founds a colony, or when a colony reaches size 4, etc.) to expect some combat in the future. Apparently the Colony Crises meter slowly building up to 600 isn't enough of a heads-up for players to realize that they should make a combat fleet. So hopefully that'll be there for the next version of the game.

I made a fleet of my usual flagship Onslaught XIV, 2 Gryphons, and 4 Conquests, with no officers and no smods, using Support Doctrine. That's 200 DP even though I could use 240 DP. Took on 3 PL detachments (plus a Fast Picket) with that fleet. Killed it first try in around 5.5 minutes. The same fleet, against a single Ordos, takes around 4 minutes, and against a single PL detachment, around 2.5 minutes, and against a 271.5k intel deserter bounty (Sindrian Diktat), about 3 minutes. So I would roughly rate each PL detachment as "about half an Ordos" in difficulty, and a bit easier than a regular level 10+ intel deserter bounty. Seems about right to me for the minimum bar of a player's combat fleet after 2 years of a colony. Obviously if you go for the two easy fleets to make it a quick end, the bar is that much lower, and obviously after two in-game years the player's fleet should have some smods and officers if the player bothered to make a combat fleet of any kind.

27
Suggestions / Re: More threats and rewards in the Orion-Persean Abyss
« on: March 05, 2024, 12:07:03 AM »
You'll just have to spend more time exploring the Abyss to find out!

28
Suggestions / Re: More threats and rewards in the Orion-Persean Abyss
« on: March 04, 2024, 09:43:19 PM »
Well, once you hit enough lights, you do get a [VERY REDACTED] buff which comes in handy if you comes across a planet with a [SUPER REDACTED] fleet, which can drop [SUPER REDACTED] weapons. It's pretty rare though -- the planets are random and I've only had it happen twice -- but the weapons are well worth it. I happen to set the "campaignSpeedupMult" in settings.json to 10 which makes exploring the Abyss (and general campaign movement) go much faster.

Other than that, I think the Abyss in the current version is basically just making sure the Abyss coding framework works, and we'll probably see some further development of it in the future.

29
Suggestions / Re: Colony building that gives SP
« on: March 04, 2024, 07:13:31 PM »
No. By and large SP is based on XP which is based on the player actively doing something, the vast majority of which comes from fighting battles (and a small amount from trading, quests, etc.). In other words, the reward is based on the player actively playing the game. Not coincidentally, the biggest use of SP is on improving the player fleet, which allows the player to fight battles more effectively.

The player being able to gain SP passively from sitting in some corner somewhere and sticking a heavy paperweight on the shift button is bad game design. The player should have to actually *do* something within the game to gain SP that is then used to improve the player's fleet. The player shouldn't be able to wait things out and then suddenly have a fleet of fully smodded ships and fully elited officers.

The obvious counterargument is credits, which colonies can passively generate. But credits are a totally different animal. Credits help the player get an initial, "starter" fleet (ships, weapons, etc.), which the player then improves over time via SP (s-mods, officer skills, etc.). So credits should be more abundant in case the player has a fleet wipe or would rather not get involved in heavy fighting just yet (i.e. spends their time trading), i.e. as they're learning the game. So in some sense credits are the "starter" currency while SP are the "later" currency". So it's fine for the player to passively generate credits, and credits are pretty worthless later on anyway because it becomes so easy to get. But SP is totally different in how it works within the game.

30
Huh, I am surprised that the needler has twice the uptime of the railgun.That implies that the average engagement time roughly is the cycle time of the needler + 1 extra burst (IE the needler fires, fires again, and then the ships are disengaged). Interesting.

(Perhaps the needler is firing at every passing fighter, giving lots of uptime on paper while missing many of those shots, but then vs actual ships it has a much higher accuracy than the railgun? That's a quite hard thing to test, but I'm just trying to imagine how a manticore is having an average of like 7 second engagements vs remnants.)

Yes it's hard to tell. Every time the Light Needler fires, it commits 15 shots at once, even if the target was only briefly in range, or a hulk gets in the way, or if it's a fighter, or the target dies after the first few, etc. The latter reason leads to more misses for fast fire rate weapons like the HAG -- when the target dies, the shots that are already en route basically automatically count as misses, lowering their hit rate.

Regardless of reason, flux is expended on those shots, so they should properly count in a weapon's combat statistics, so I include all of that.

I've tested no-fighters before, simply by removing the fighter bays from Scintillas (and Brilliants at the time), and yes, the weapon hit rates were much better. But I didn't notice any proportional difference between weapons, so I just test including fighters nowadays.

What is the uptime stat in your table? And how is it calculated? The way I usually think about uptime (time firing/total time) it can't be greater than 1, so there must be some difference in definition.

Oh my mistake, I didn't define what it was. Uptime is simply the number of shots fired divided by how many shots per minute the weapon fires. So it's how often the weapon was firing during the battle, in minutes. In this case, since there were 10 Manticores per fight and I ran it 2 times, it's that number divided by 20. So it's the average amount of time in minutes that the weapon was firing per battle across each ship. In general, even though the battle may last for 4 or more minutes, the uptime is usually only a minute or two. Ships actually spend a lot of the time not firing, but moving into position, venting, etc.

Then flux is simply the number of shots fired multiplied by the amount of flux per shot, so it gives the total flux expenditure caused by the weapon.

So from the number of shots fired, I can take the ratio of hits/fired to get the weapon's average hit rate, and I can also look at the total damage/flux to get the weapon's average damage/flux ratio. In this way weapons are treated sort of as a "black box" where what goes in is the OP that you spent on the weapon (and any other stuff like hullmods, skills, vents, etc.), and its flux cost, and what comes out is the damage that it dealt. Anti-shield weapons tend to have a better damage/flux ratio since their damage is doubled against shields (although the [REDACTED] have good shield efficiencies). So this helps me understand the "real world" effectiveness of weapons more easily.

This tells me that the needler is firing a significantly higher % of its shots into hull, rather than armor. Theory: In the refire delay after a ship lowers its shields (however many bursts that took), other weapons break the armor before the needler fires. 6 seconds under HAG fire with harpoons flying about will do that. The needler then ends up firing less against armor?

I think it has more to do with when the AI chooses to lower its shields. In theory the AI can lower its shields at any time, including right before or during the burst (and thus the Light Needler hits armor). In practice though, the AI only decides on lowering shields etc. once every few combat frames (to mimic human reaction times). So it's more likely that just after a burst -- when it suddenly sees a lot of flux -- is when it decides to lower shields because of high flux, and that's when the other weapons do their damage, during the Light Needler's cooldown. Thus Light Needler ends up doing less damage to armor.

What's also interesting is that the Light Autocannon had the same hit rate as the Railgun (despite being slower and having weapon spread) and thus has the best damage/flux efficiency, and it also did a greater percentage of its damage to hull. I don't really have a good explanation for this but it was consistent across both runs.

By the way, there's a much easier way to get ammo data now, and thus look at hit rates, etc., yourself. The new mod System Marker, among other things, shows your (friendly) target's remaining ammo when you target them via the "R" button. So you can go into weapon_data.csv, take all the weapons that don't have ammo and modify their ammo to be a high amount, i.e. 4000 (as far as I know, the AI does not change based on "infinite ammo" versus "a really high amount of ammo remaining" so this shouldn't really affect anything), and then, just before the last enemy ship dies, target each of your ships and take screenshots of their ammo remaining. Subtract that from 4000 and you'll get the total number of shots fired. From there you can easily do all the other analysis with the Detailed Combat Results mod. It doesn't work for weapons that regenerate ammo, like Thumper or IR Autolance, but it works for other weapons.

Previously, to get ammo data, I had to console command "traitor" the last enemy ship and "god all" so that projectiles don't do further damage, then transfer shuttle to each ship individually to take screenshots (one screenshot per weapon group), which is not only time-consuming, but still counts toward the battle time so the battle time reported by Detailed Combat Results for that run is essentially inaccurate. Now I can get ammo data much more easily and preserve battle time at the same time. It doesn't work when I modify the ship to stack weapons to do side-by-side weapon comparison testing like I did here (the numbers end up being stacked on top of each other), but it works for general use.

DPS % examples for the 50 hit strength damage values didn't include skills, meant those.
Skills generally favors lower hit strength weapons, point of 50 not being some magical cutoff still stands ofc.

Yeah there's no magical cutoff for weapons, they just gradually slide to irrelevance. It's further complicated by the fact that it depends on the target (such as Target Analysis), the firing ship (such as Wolfpack Tactics or HEF), etc. So I see them more as relevant to get a conceptual understanding of the game mechanics, but I rely more on the actual combat results when comparing weapons.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39