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.

46

Suggestions / Re: Salvaging

« on: February 27, 2020, 07:24:11 AM »

Ships not recovered already contribute to supplies and fuel gained.

Whatever the problem you think is, being able to recover a capital ship seems a reasonable reward for defeating a capital ship. If you can defeat a capital ship and its fleet, you would realistically expect to have enough crew to recover one. You can mothball ships anyways, so you don't even need to crew them.

47

Suggestions / Re: Tuning fleet composition balance by progression

« on: February 27, 2020, 07:14:12 AM »

I don't understand where this idea of an overabundance of easily acquirable capital ships come from. The only easily acquirable capital ship is the conquest and that's because the sole independent military colony produces it, so you don't need a commission, only reputation. Everything else is gated behind commissions and reputation. There's also black markets, but that's hardly an overabundance if you have to search for the ship you want.

Not against the idea of gating ships further, but there should be some awareness of its side effects, namely accelerating the desirability of a colony that can produce of blueprints and of blueprints itself.

I do find it a bit odd that you can go to the market and pick up a pristine Conquest, just like that. Who's selling these ships? I just checked the Sindrian market and found 3 pristine Prometheus ships. Wow.

Yes, tell us who is selling these ships? What open market is selling pristine Conquest? Should be only Sindria to my recollection and it should have d-mods. Maybe Kazeron theoretically as well though I've never seen it. So it's pretty rare and you can't buy in bulk. Prometheus ships are a civilian ship. To be honest I would expect 6-8 size colonies to have them available.

48

General Discussion / Re: Simple question

« on: February 27, 2020, 06:52:13 AM »

You can ask any questions you have here. I feel like a pinned "Simple Questions, Simple Answers" thread would work well for this forum so new players would feel comfortable asking questions.

49

General Discussion / Re: Idea for a faction mod: Fury Road theme.

« on: February 27, 2020, 06:44:21 AM »

Why write this here? Aren't there mod threads for this where modders would be paying attention?

It doesn't sound like you are making a statement of intention to create this or offering money for others to create this for you. Why would anybody follow your direction?

50

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla

« on: February 27, 2020, 06:39:03 AM »

I don't see why anyone would try to use the antimatter blaster as a general purpose weapon and compare it to such weapons. There are plenty of other energy weapons to fulfil that role. Not to mention antimatter blaster is limited by ammo so you can't use it as as general purpose weapon anyways. Surely as a weapon instead of proclaiming it overcosted, you could increase its cost to see where the tipping point where you would stop using it. lets see. For antimatter Afflictor, it'll have to be something ridiculously high like 20 OP.  There aren't any alternatives for that afflictor playstyle of repeatable spike damage so that playstyle will simply disappear for the Afflictor. For Harbinger, as it has three other good alternatives in Heavy Blaster, Mining Blaster and Phase lance, it'll depend on preference, but lets say 12 OP. Underpriced the anitmatter blaster is not.

I say it is overpriced because outside of strikes from phase ships or overloading shields with it, I see no reason to use it.  Has ammo (no good for multi-round fights), horrible range (400), horribly slow rate-of-fire (missing hurts), massive flux spike(s), and even minor windup (no good for Hyperion with maybe a single frame to act between teleports without getting shot).  It is an awkward weapon that is the best at some special teams stuff (likely flagship only too) and bad at nearly anything else.  It is nearly as expensive as mining blaster.  I probably would not put it at 5, though.  It feels at the level of burst PD, so maybe 7 OP.  I do not think it is as versatile as mining blaster.  Can the AI use AM Blaster well?  AI seems incompetent with smaller phase ships.  Is there a good reason to use AM Blasters on more conventional ships the AI can use better, like say maybe Medusa or Aurora?

The only other viable small energy hard-flux option is IR Pulse Laser, which is mediocre except maybe on capitals.  (Aurora can use lots of IR Pulse Laser, but it is not as good as two heavy blasters and nothing else).  AM Blaster is even worse for brawling, and I certainly would not want to use it as PD if that is even possible.

I would only use AM Blaster on non-Doom phase ships, mostly because they cannot brawl.  (I would prefer old cloak to come back so phase ships can brawl with autocannons and assault guns, something AI can do.)  I guess I would use it on Scarab flagship, except Scarab stinks in 0.9a.  (It was great in 0.7.2a, though.)  Ever since invulnerability frames were removed from decloaking, I am not fond of AM Blaster on Afflictor because low range and health gives little room for error, and Afflictor can cheese fights with Reapers (for now).  For now, Harbinger flagship is the only ship I use AM Blasters with.  Mining Blaster and Phase Lances are options on Harbinger, but they are not as good as AM Blasters.  Phase Lance is competitive, but AM Blaster might be a bit better.

You say Antimatter Blaster is overpriced because it works very well in situations intended for its use and performs in cases outside of that? In that case every weapon is overpriced.

Wtf is brawling? Is that different from general purpose? Why would you see a weapon with massive 1400 damage, shoots once every 6 seconds, range 400 and then complain it's not like an IR Pulse laser and not a good PD? It's not even a PD weapon. It has an obvious use case and performs successfully within that usage as a strike weapon. It even has limited ammunition just to make sure you don't think of it as a general purpose weapon. Would you also say that Assault Chaingun is overpriced because it can't be used successfully outside of safety override builds? Or Tachyon lance because it can only produce soft flux? Or all the Kinetic weapons because they are poor at damaging armour? No of course not, as you can only compare them with the weapons within their own use. And so you must consider, does antimatter blaster in afflictor or in harbinger or in any other ship deserve to be cheaper? No it does not. Its cost can be risen in comparison.

51

General Discussion / Re: Whats your favorite capital ship

« on: February 26, 2020, 10:35:05 AM »

Just like with weapons I can't really say I have a favourite. More of that every capital has features I don't like. Astral and Paragon are boring and slow, but powerful. Conquest is awkward to personally pilot and AI Conquest fights funny. Onslaught is a contradiction of oscillating design philosphies. It wants to face forward with its fixed mounts but also do a Conquest to fight with its turrets. At the same time it is designed to have a vulnerable rear to be fun to fight against. AI Odyssey has a tendency to suicide as it is relatively short ranged. Legion presents a legion of choices so in that manner it is nice. Favourite can mean many different things anyways. I suppose it is a triumph of design that I cannot say there is a capital that I definitely prefer and think is overwhelmingly best to use.

52

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla

« on: February 26, 2020, 10:26:11 AM »

Mining laser could be theoretically useful if you have many small energy mounts with poor arcs but not enough OP to fulfil a full PD coverage. Perhaps on Shrike or Odyssey, though you can get full coverage with less weapon mounts. I place mining laser in the same category of proximity charge launcher/bomb bay. A weapon that exists so a fighter can use it. It also "characterful".

Devastator can be useful on the side of an Onslaught. I suppose it can have the role of thumper to make ships easier to beat, though you can do that by fixing in a medium weapon in the mount.

I can't see a good use for Ion Pulsar either. I suppose it is intended as an Safety Override energy weapon or for phase ships.

The more ships with more high ranged weapons you have, the less likely the enemy (or your AI) closes into short range anyway. It's not just fighters and missiles which can cause a warding off effect. I don't see why anybody would put an aggressive officer on a gauss cannon conquest anyways. Seems to defeat the point of the build, like putting an aggressive officer on a dedicated carrier.

I don't see why anyone would try to use the antimatter blaster as a general purpose weapon and compare it to such weapons. There are plenty of other energy weapons to fulfil that role. Not to mention antimatter blaster is limited by ammo so you can't use it as as general purpose weapon anyways. Surely as a weapon instead of proclaiming it overcosted, you could increase its cost to see where the tipping point where you would stop using it. lets see. For antimatter Afflictor, it'll have to be something ridiculously high like 20 OP.  There aren't any alternatives for that afflictor playstyle of repeatable spike damage so that playstyle will simply disappear for the Afflictor. For Harbinger, as it has three other good alternatives in Heavy Blaster, Mining Blaster and Phase lance, it'll depend on preference, but lets say 12 OP. Underpriced the anitmatter blaster is not.

What's your problem? Why act so hostile and then repeat exactly what I wrote? The range of Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler make all other medium non-PD ballistic not favoured. That'll require a discussion on what the difference between broken and simply favoured is. Are they broken? Of course not, the other medium weapons are still useful, just that they aren't favoured in most configs since range 1000 is so much better.  For instance is the railgun broken? No it isn't it is just undercosted.

I wasn't being hostile. And what did I repeat when you just said ''disadvantages''? That can mean literally anything. I'm just telling you they're fine, to say that any other non PD option is bad in most configs is a lie. I mean you might be using them everywhere but I know not everyone is like that.

I've got bad news for ya. Why pretend I wrote that they are broken when I did not? There is no need to pretend I wrote soemthing I did not, when it is just you.

53

Suggestions / Re: Small Paragon nerf

« on: February 26, 2020, 09:37:06 AM »

It makes no sense to arbitrary follow those tech labels for comparing ships. There's nothing to really indicate that the whole thing with "high-tech ships are delicate and so they're expensive and lose more CR to deploy". They cost more to deploy because Tempest and Medusa and Aurora and Paragon are simply more powerful than their peers and so need to be measured by DP. But that is not true across the ships. Patterns and trends are not hard rules. Lasher for instance is faster than fellow size mid-line Brawler. Legion has less large ballistic mounts than Conquest.

Wherever you got that philsophy from, it hasn't been apparent for years. For instance we now have Shrike a low DP high tech Destroyer. Apogee is also a low DP high tech Cruiser. The lowest DP non-civilian cruiser is mid-line. Those labels of tech can be removed with no detrimental effects on the game whatsoever. We can call the Drover as thematically a low-tech ship and the Venture or Monitor as a midline ship and nothing will change.

54

Suggestions / Re: Small Paragon nerf

« on: February 26, 2020, 07:14:18 AM »

Are low tech ships supposed to be less power but cheaper? Were do you guys get that from? Thematically they are supposed to lose less CR per deployment and so recover faster so you can deploy them more often in a row with better CR. I thought everybody knew that low tech ships are supposed to cost more to maintain as they have higher crew requirements and have higher fuel per LY.

No one in this whole thread said they're less powerful. The thing where they cost more even without taking ANY damage in combat is a bit silly. Why would you ever use high-tech ships then? I've seen a lot of people hating on them because they're meh so why make them expensive...

The quotes are right there:

Low-tech ships burning more fuel does put a damper on their "less powerful, but cheaper" philosophy

Thx for running the actual numbers but I'm now even more mad. The whole thing with high-tech ships is that they're delicate and so they're expensive and lose more CR to deploy

Where do you get the impression that low tech ships are supposed to be less powerful but cheaper? Only DP comparisons are a good measure of power comparisons and there is nothing to indicate that low tech ships are supposed to be less powerful, as in less DP efficient. There is nothing to also indicate that low tech ships are supposed to be cost less to maintain either.

I don't know what you are talking about about high tech ships either. The type descriptions exist, but it makes no sense to regard a Lasher and a Legion as the same category of ships simply because they both got the label of "low tech" on them. I consider each ship individually rather than your enclosing them in those categories.

55

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla

« on: February 26, 2020, 06:55:49 AM »

I don't know bobuncles, I don't use gauss cannon conquest as an AI ship, so you tell me. It can go either way from your post. What is a disco range? Some sort of mod weapon? The point stands. Range is important to contribute to create a warding away zone and so those two medium ballistics are favoured over other non-PD ballistics. There may be a point before capital range and large ballistic weapons to help contribute to, where you may favour higher dps and better flux efficiency..

Anyways, an Onslaught with the large ballistic slot essentially has 3 frontal large weapons. Since the two sides can't converge the front anyways, there isn't as much of an overriding need to make use of the two large mounts. 3 Large weapons which have 900+ range is more than enough firepower for the most part. Legion and Conquest can concentrate 2 ballistics. Odyssey can concentrate 2 large energy. Paragon can conetrate 4 large energy, but they are energy weapons and paragon costs 60 DP. Ballistic medium slots being used for PD is pretty normal I would say, especially when large slots are the main damage dealers.

Edit:

The real elephant in the room is Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler. Range is important and those two weapons have the extraordinary range of 1000. Those two weapons in combination are generally favoured over every other non-PD medium ballistic weapons even with all their disadvantages.

What elephant? You just described the lowest possible DPS weapon combo. People favour them because they have range, and people like having range on ships. If you seriously think they're broken for their OP cost I've got bad news for ya.

And instead of making railgun more expensive just further increase the delay before it starts firing. Then lower Light needler to 8 OP and it's all good. There's really no reason to be lower than that, it's a pretty rare weapon after all.

What's your problem? Why act so hostile and then repeat exactly what I wrote? The range of Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler make all other medium non-PD ballistic not favoured. That'll require a discussion on what the difference between broken and simply favoured is. Are they broken? Of course not, the other medium weapons are still useful, just that they aren't favoured in most configs since range 1000 is so much better.  For instance is the railgun broken? No it isn't it is just undercosted.

56

Suggestions / Re: Small Paragon nerf

« on: February 26, 2020, 06:34:05 AM »

Are low tech ships supposed to be less power but cheaper? Were do you guys get that from? Thematically they are supposed to lose less CR per deployment and so recover faster so you can deploy them more often in a row with better CR. I thought everybody knew that low tech ships are supposed to cost more to maintain as they have higher crew requirements and have higher fuel per LY.

57

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla

« on: February 26, 2020, 06:23:35 AM »

That you can compare railgun to medium sized weapons says it all really. Most ballistic small weapons look terrible compared to ballistic medium weapons. Railgun is great because it is undercosted. Light needler looks bad against railgun because all small kinetic weapons look bad against railgun.

Antimatter Blaster is fine. It has a use and if it was cheaper it would be even more favoured as a weapon of choice for phase ships and as a strike weapon. It's good that weapons that can fulfil different roles exist, otherwise all loadouts will look the same.

The real elephant in the room is Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Mauler. Range is important and those two weapons have the extraordinary range of 1000. Those two weapons in combination are generally favoured over every other non-PD medium ballistic weapons even with all their disadvantages.

58

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla

« on: February 25, 2020, 11:10:02 AM »

You can find exact needler parameters in "weapon_data.csv". Its burst is 0.7 seconds. It doesn't have a wind up time.

Quick appraisal of graph - railgun waits 0.6 seconds before firing, as opposed to immediately or near immediately as you have in the graph. X-axis unit in seconds, but that just a quibble. Also you should try to extend the X-axis greatly, the graph will look totally different 0.7s later, trust me.

59

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla

« on: February 25, 2020, 10:11:01 AM »

If the proxy mine launcher had an autoloader like the pilum I could see myself using it as a fighter denial system. As it stands it's limited ammo vs unlimited fighters makes it less desirable.

I could give it a go on my next run however, putting it on my low tech ships as the anti-fighter to a vulcans anti-missile.

My vague memories of trying out the Proximity Charge Launcher as a ship weapon was that it was slow and can even get shot down and so realistically speaking never seems to be in the right place. It's good on the unlikely chance it does hit.

9 OP for 700 range Light Needler is too high, maybe 8 at most, provided something is done to Railgun.  If not, 7 OP so that is it a choice between damage and accuracy (railgun) or speed and flux efficiency (needler).  Railgun has been unchanged for a long time, and it was not broken.  Light Needler was worth 9 OP when it had 800 range (and lots of ammo when ballistics had ammo).  7 OP may be less than Arbalest's 8, but Arbalest is a basic Open Market weapon (like Thumper and Mortars) while Railgun and Needlers are elite weapons that require high rep and commission to buy (until player steals the blueprints).

Proxy bombs are terrible for PD.  They are too slow and run out of ammo too quickly.  To add insult to injury, they cost 12 OP instead of the standard 10.  If proxy bombs cost 7 OP or gained ammo regeneration, they could be worth using.  As they are, they are only good on flash wings.

The cost of the Light Needler is appropriate compared with Light Dual Cannon. Light Needler does about the same amount of dps, with a "free" inbuilt 3 OP worth of flux vents. That's already worth 8 OP. It has faster projectile speed with better accuracy and +100 range. Another +1 OP for that seems very reasonable for all those advantages especially when that extra range is worth +1 OP all by itself.

Compared with Arbalest Autocannon, it does the same dps for the same flux, but has faster projectile speed and better accuracy. +1 OP for its advantages seem reasonable, though one could argue that it does less damage to armour. But one is a medium mount and one is a small mount. Medium mounts are more precious than small mounts especially for dealing dps. So compared with the 8 OP Arbalest Autocannon which is, saying that Light Needler is worth maybe 8 at most, provided something is done to Railgun is ridiculous.

Same with the Railgun. It's is easily worth at least 9 OP compared with Dual Light Autocannon and about 8 OP compared with Arbalest Autocannon, nevermind its projectile speed and pin point accuracy.

Sure you might claim that neither the Light Needler nor Railgun doesn't do as much dps per OP, but when configuring a ship, useful weapon mounts are normally the limiting factor.

60

Suggestions / Re: Making the Hyperion Useful

« on: February 25, 2020, 09:21:31 AM »

Taking your faulty logic of comparing player capability with AI capability, the Dominator would be a good use of DP as its capabilites when under AI control matches closely with when player control. Why would you compare player controlled with AI controlled?

As I keep telling you the AI knows to teleport behind other ships. It also knows when to teleport away. What other AI ship has that capability? You keep insisting that the AI uses Hyperion as same as any other ship, but the AI does not. Is it as intelligent as the player? No, but why even compare with a human? Nobody calls the AI Doom bad because it isn't as intelligent as the player. It remains just as useful as AI controlled, irrespective of how well the player can use it. That a ship can be greatly boosted in power when personally piloted does not diminish its worth as an AI controlled ship in any way.

AI controlled ships should be compared with other AI controlled ships. Player controlled ships should be compared with player controlled ships. On both accounts the Hyperion does well. Oustandingly well in the case of player controlled.