Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21); Blog post: Of Slipstreams and Sensor Ghosts (09/24/21)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic: More Carriers and Destroyers  (Read 19709 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9533
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #60 on: December 16, 2015, 11:20:10 AM »

If the Hammerhead is meant to be sub-par, its market value should be less than Enforcer.
Logged

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #61 on: December 16, 2015, 11:28:17 AM »

i'm not sure that the current meta of builds with super mod stacking are healthy for the game.

i think that is probably a consequence of the skill system more than anything else though

Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #62 on: December 16, 2015, 11:30:38 AM »

If the Hammerhead is meant to be sub-par, its market value should be less than Enforcer.

Oh I did not know that Enforces are close to price. I am sorry but that is one ship I have never gave a chance to prove itself sadly. I would say that the hammerhead seems better to me. But considering a lot of veterans say that they are one of the best, it would be silly for me to say they are not, since I never really used them.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9533
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #63 on: December 16, 2015, 12:57:25 PM »

Enforcer hull costs less than Hammerhead hull.  I guess that is to make up that Enforcers can mount 14 small mounts worth of weapons while Hammerhead only has 10 small mounts worth.  Credit costs suggest that Enforcer and Hammerhead should be comparable in strength.

Hammerhead seems to be designed as the Mario or Jack of the combat destroyers, but it remains as a master-of-none.  While better than it used to be in pre-0.7, enough that it can fight somewhat effectively, it is still not as good as its peers.
Logged

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #64 on: December 16, 2015, 02:44:04 PM »

IMO: The Enforcer costs less because it is old. I do not think there is meant to be a direct ratio of credit cost to effectiveness.
Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9533
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #65 on: December 16, 2015, 03:32:10 PM »

I consider fire support as long-range assault.  The goal is the same - kill the enemy by any means necessary.

Enforcer is better than Hammerhead at fire support too.  Two HVDs and one Mauler for sniping (and two flak for PD) work very well.  This is one reason why I consider Enforcer one of the best destroyers, no other destroyer can kite-and-snipe like it.  Hammerhead is an inferior Enforcer imitator, and neither Sunder nor Medusa can use long-range weapons that can hit for hard flux.  (Needlers have less range than Maulers and HVDs.)

The only useful thing Hammerhead can do that Enforcer cannot do (better) is combine ballistics with disabling ion cannons.  That is not enough to save the Hammerhead.
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #66 on: December 16, 2015, 03:54:37 PM »

The only useful thing Hammerhead can do that Enforcer cannot do (better) is...
Not burn drive into piles of enemies?
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #67 on: December 16, 2015, 06:40:45 PM »

Quote
Enforcer is better than Hammerhead at fire support too.  Two HVDs and one Mauler for sniping (and two flak for PD) work very well.  This is one reason why I consider Enforcer one of the best destroyers, no other destroyer can kite-and-snipe like it.  Hammerhead is an inferior Enforcer imitator, and neither Sunder nor Medusa can use long-range weapons that can hit for hard flux.  (Needlers have less range than Maulers and HVDs.)
yeah, enforcer's better, as long as noone's shooting at it.  Hammerhead can keep up its barrage and still have a decent amount of flux available for defense, between its massively better shield and the ammo feeders.

i mean while the feed is going the two mounts on the hammerhead = 4 mounts, and with less flux expenditure. 

the downside of the hammerhead is not firepower, its the forward mount vs turreted~~
Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9533
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #68 on: December 17, 2015, 05:40:26 AM »

That is the point of Maulers and HVDs on Enforcer.  It does not get shot back much because it outranges many enemies, and flak can take out some things that would otherwise hit shields.

Both Hammerhead and Enforcer have bad flux stats unless you pump capacitors.  Enforcer has OP to spare.  Hammerhead does not (without giving up something).
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #69 on: December 17, 2015, 06:22:49 AM »

I am on Ironclad mod now, so I can't look up the speeds, but I am pretty sure that the Enforcer is slow compared to Hammerhead, making pulling back for the Enforcer harder. Although I said this mostly from battles and seeing how the enemy AI acts towards me attacking them. The Enforcer has a lot of hull, but it stays alive more, while acts as a target. Hammerheads at times back off and hide behind other ships though.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #70 on: December 17, 2015, 07:52:04 AM »

I would love to see more drone tenders.

What are the current ones?

shepherd, tempest (sorta), aemini, and astral right?

Oh heron and prometheus? Huh. I do like the Heron. A lot. Need to play with gemini more.

What I REALLY want is basically a warfighting upsized shepherd. Maybe I just need to get modding.  :p  What I mean though, is a ship whose main weapon is really the drones, and it's own weapons are either vestigial or supportive in nature. Only the shepherd is like that. It is fun to play mass shepherd, though, heh.
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Techhead

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #71 on: December 17, 2015, 10:15:49 AM »

An upsized Shepard? The Gemini is pretty dang close. Drones, cargo space, omni shield, ballistic turret(s), and you probably had a missile in that universal slot. Just add a flight deck for more of that power-projection.

Myself? I'd like to see a Shepard Mk.II that has its weapon systems stripped, the cargo bay gutted, and the drone bay converted into a flight deck. Basically the cheapest piece-of-junk carrier option ever made.
Logged

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #72 on: December 17, 2015, 10:39:49 AM »

Quote
That is the point of Maulers and HVDs on Enforcer.  It does not get shot back much because it outranges many enemies, and flak can take out some things that would otherwise hit shields.
They both outrange everything; that's the whole point. Though if you are looking at range advantage, the hammerhead will always come out on top between its forward mountings and superior engines
Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9533
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #73 on: December 17, 2015, 10:50:31 AM »

I tried both Enforcer and Hammerhead snipers.  Hammerhead is not as good as Enforcer at that role because 1) Hammerhead mediums are hardpoints, making aiming harder, 2) worse PD... and worse firepower without Tactical Lasers, 3) not enough OP to get everything it needs to shine at sniping (at least if you want Tactical Lasers).
Logged

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #74 on: December 17, 2015, 11:05:01 AM »

An upsized Shepard? The Gemini is pretty dang close. Drones, cargo space, omni shield, ballistic turret(s), and you probably had a missile in that universal slot. Just add a flight deck for more of that power-projection.

Myself? I'd like to see a Shepard Mk.II that has its weapon systems stripped, the cargo bay gutted, and the drone bay converted into a flight deck. Basically the cheapest piece-of-junk carrier option ever made.
Eh, the gemini's drones feel more supportive to me. They are pd drones. I guess the borer drones are as well, so maybe I'm nitpicking.  :p  They are very similar, though, I'll give you that.

I do like the pocket carrier idea. It would be nice to be able to support fighters earlier somehow. Back when there was just hangar space I used to rock a hound/talon combo. I guess you still can do it exactly the same way. Maybe I should play with that more.

Maybe there could be a pocket carrier that didn't do full refit in battle like the real carriers, but instead offered some kind of bonus to fighter wings? Like a repair gantry but just for fighters? That might be interesting.

worse firepower without Tactical Lasers
Tac lasers are the solution to all problems. I used to love hammerhead with ir pulses up front, too. I think now that I can do he guns, though that has been subsumed. I think I am one of the few that values the hammerheads speed and manueveravility. Yes you have burn drive on the enforcer, but it's not quite the same.

I do think the enforcer beats the hammerhead in terms of face wreckage, though, in basically every case.
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6