Print

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

[Megas]

If all Pather ships have Ill-Advised Modifications, you can forget about using them to fight.  Weapons *WILL* break and go offline permanently, often before you score your first kill.  The only ship that can get away with Ill-Advised Modifications is the Mudskipper II due to its lone heavy mount.

As for destroyers:
I would not use Safety Override on Medusa.  It is too fragile and lacks ballistic firepower to crush shields as quickly as more heavily armed Enforcer or Hammerhead.  Medusa has two useful endgame weapon configurations:  two heavy blasters plus possibly two railguns (light needlers are too expensive, must have enough OP for flux stats), or two phase lance (with Adv. Optics) and two light needlers.

Variation of the Elite Enforcer is a top-tier endgame destroyer-class ship.  Safety Override with HMGs and Assault Chaingun is okay.

I still think Hammerhead is rubbish, if player does not want a Safety Override ship, due to being an inferior Enforcer knock-off.  The best it can do is two LAGs and two medium kinetics of your choice.  Two Vulcans for PD is no substitute for Enforcer's two (dual) flak.  Because of that, Extended Shields hullmod for 360 shields is almost mandatory for Hammerhead, and due to lack of OP, it hurts when I have to choose between that or another option, such as enough capacitors to not self-destruct with the ammo feeder system.  I do not need to make such vital decisions with either Enforcer or Medusa.  If Hammerhead had more OP, it can use Mauler-and-HVD combo backed by two tactical lasers, but it does not have enough OP to make it work without sacrificing more important hullmods to keep up with its peers.  For Safety Override, HMG, Assault Chaingun, and two Ion Cannons are brutally effective.  Finally, while I have no problem fitting two to four missiles of my choice on an Enforcer, I have so few OP with Hammerhead that I usually put two 0 OP singletons on the Hammerhead.

Assuming fleet burn speed of 9, I prefer Gemini over Condor because it has good cargo capacity and can standoff somewhat decently with Mauler and HVD even without ITU.  (One of the few ships I do not use ITU on due to crushing OP shortage.)  Condor's only use is if you want a carrier with burn 10.  Even with obsolete fighters, bringing a Gemini is still tempting due to cargo capacity and viable combat ability.  Yes, it eats quite a bit for a destroyer, but that is often not a problem due to the change from Logistics to 25 ship limit.

EDIT:  Harbinger - I think it is too expensive to be worth using, at least for energy weapon beatdown.  I get more out of two Sunder or Medusa for similar cost.

[woodsmoke]

It's interesting to see the loadouts you come up with for each ship. Not a one of 'em is anything remotely close to any of my own so far. 'Course, I'm generally not a big fan of SO/UI builds. They're certainly effective when played right, just not my cup o' tea; I prefer a less aggressive, more balanced approach.

I've found the Kite (A) retains conditional usefulness even into the late game as an objective capper, especially during pursuits. Stick it with a couple swarmer racks and a light (dual) machine gun in the ballistic slot, deploy one on each side and tell 'em to cap the nav bouys while you clean up the remnants of the opposing fleet. Same for the Wolf, which is the ship I use to do said clean up.

[Aeson]

Strangely, its description describes its shield as "powerful" despite its very weak 1.2 efficiency.

For what it's worth, the Sunder does actually have one of the best destroyer shields if shield strength is rated by theoretical maximum absorbable damage, at least if comparing to all destroyer-scale vessels - if looking at base flux capacity and shield efficiency, the Sunder is second only to the Medusa in terms of how much damage its shields can absorb and can take about 20% more damage on its shields than the destroyer with the next-toughest shields, at least in theory. Restricting the field and adding flux capacity bonuses into the mix tends to hurt it a bit, though.

Practice might be a bit different, of course.

[Megas]

In practice, Sunder is a flux hog (blasters and plasma cannon eat too much flux), and it cannot shield-tank at all.  I probably would prefer Sunder with old flux stats and shield efficiency with new agility.  The biggest problem with the old Sunder was clumsiness due to terrible acceleration.  The new Sunder is agile and fun to pilot, but it cannot shield tank like it used to.

Sunder is one of those fun ships capable of trick configurations, but I would not put it as a tourney-level/top-tier option.  Medusa is safer for energy weapon beatdown.

It's interesting to see the loadouts you come up with for each ship. Not a one of 'em is anything remotely close to any of my own so far. 'Course, I'm generally not a big fan of SO/UI builds. They're certainly effective when played right, just not my cup o' tea; I prefer a less aggressive, more balanced approach.

I am not fond of Safety Override, usually.  I prefer to solo fleets with one ship (to expend the least resources per fight), which can be tedious, meaning I need all the peak performance I can get.  Safety Override is more useful for pursuit, and few ships desperately need more speed, namely Lasher with mostly machine guns (which it should use anyway due to ammo feeder and mediocre flux stats).

[TJJ]

I still rate the Sunder as complete garbage; it presents too big of a target, is slow, unmanoeuvrable, has a terrible shield, paper thin armour, and an awkward selection of mounts.

Glass cannon is a legitimate archetype, but the Sunder doesn't pack nearly enough of a punch to achieve it, and compromises itself in almost every other regard.

Mudskipper mk2's with Hellbores are far more threatening when it comes to glass cannons, as are anything fielding Reaper torpedoes; burst HE damage is king.

[Gothars]

Glass cannon is a legitimate archetype, but the Sunder doesn't pack nearly enough of a punch to achieve it, and compromises itself in almost every other regard.

Wow, that's so different from what I've seen! For example, with Phase Lances and using HEF it one-shots frigates and two-shots destroyers (without any skills). Even Enforcers.

And I'd say it has a fantastic mount layout. Every one serves an important function: three (4.5 with HEF) frontal energy mounts for brutal direct firepower, two forward kinetics to whittle down shields, one backward kinetic to keep the engines safe, two missiles to either specialize it further (Reaper/Harpoon) or mitigate a weakness (Salamander/Swarmer).

[HELMUT]

The Mudskipper would have been a good glass cannon if it could reach the frontline without spontaneously explode because the mechanic's wrench fell a bit too hard on the floor. Same things for torpedoes, they are theoretically amazing, until the AI start missing its shots, wasting a precious missile slot.

The Sunder on the other hand, is fast enough (second fastest destroyer, tied with the Hammerhead, with high acceleration/deceleration values) to disengage from aggressors, making it reasonably survivable if backed up by other ships. As for its firepower, a HEF boosted HIL/Tachyon lance shot to the face hurt a lot, provided the target's shield is down (which is probably is, thanks to the numerous kinetic boats i'm fielding).

Is it top tier? Probably not, like many of the loadouts i'm trying in this campaign. But so far it have been a very good support ship in my fleet.

[Harmful Mechanic]

Sunders are one of my favorite destroyers in vanilla; I favor a really exploity Autopulse/AM Blaster rig with a pair of Needlers to back it up. Hit X, get in range, hit X again, hit F, then pump a couple of blaster shots in when the bursts finish. Even without Ex Mags, it'll ruin most cruisers.

[FooF]

It's funny to hear that Sunders don't have enough firepower. My experience has been Autopulse + Expanded Magazines + HEF = Dead Destroyer. Yes, it's burst-y but no other destroyer can alpha-strike like a Sunder. That doesn't even take into consideration the other two medium energy mounts or small forward ballistics. Personally, I find that an Ion Cannon or Ion Beam mitigates enough of the enemy ship's firepower that I don't have to immediately retreat. In a fleet situation, I usually use Sunders as the tip of the spear to assassinate important targets.

I also don't even consider any other weapon besides the Autopulse. Its damage/flux is off the charts and it doesn't strain a Sunder's flux reserves. In fact, the wait to let the Autopulse recharge gives the Sunder a built-in "breather" to let the flux levels drop and if you don't overtax the medium mounts, it can continue dishing out respectable firepower in-between Autopulse bursts.

The only thing I find it really lacks is effective PD. Missiles overwhelm it pretty easily and fighters eventually get through. But as for "glass cannon," it defines it pretty well.

[King Alfonzo]

I also don't even consider any other weapon besides the Autopulse.

if you're rolling mods I heartily suggest the Shadowyard Heavy CAS Beam. It's a strong 'blast' type strike beam that stops anything from moving when you shoot it. I find that ability to paralyze something infinitely more useful than it's damage output, enabling you to take out just about anything faster than you. Excellent for pursuit, and brilliant at cracking de-shielded enemies. Only let down by long recharge time, but pulse lasers should help with that.

[HELMUT]

Updated the OP with part 3 for some cruiser action!

[Megas]

I view Falcon as a Medusa substitute, and the main reason to use Falcon is I want a Medusa that uses 1000 range ballistics and beams but cannot because, well... Medusa cannot use medium ballistics.

[Thaago]

That Aurora build is terrifying. I'm kind of surprised you get in range of enemies without dying, but if it works...

[Midnight Kitsune]

The fact that the Aurora needs a specific SO and AM Blaster build to work is sad, laughable and it shows that it needs some SERIOUS help.
Also, the Aurora's alpha potential was actually NERFED in this last update due to the loss of the large missile
Red fist of death aurora:
4 single shot reapers (16K w/o increased yield, 24K with)
1 cyclone reaper (2x4K w/o increased yield, 2x6K with)
So 24,000 damage without increased yield, 36,000 with, all for around a THIRD as much OP (34 OP versus 91!OP without Optimized Assembly, 26 OP versus 80 op with), doesn't rely on the ship system, and costs NONE of the flux of the blaster build. Its only weakness is the lack of staying power which could be mitigated by the +1 missile skill and many times you never needed to delete more than one or two ships (mainly caps) per fight.
Edit: Fixed Reaper damage numbers

[Megas]

Cyclone Reaper Aurora playership built for Reaper spam was evil and effective.  If it was not for that stupid Paragon, it could solo the 0.7.1 simulator about as easily as Dominator could.  44 or so Reapers that hits for 6,000 damage each shot by an agile ship was a lot of BOOM!  During my attempts to solo 0.7.1, Aurora could solo all eighty-something ships in the 0.7.1 simulator except the Paragon with about a minute left before CR decayed to malfunction level.  Unfortunately, a minute was not enough time to carefully chip the Paragon's shield until a big Reaper strike could be launched.  (Meanwhile, Dominator with long-ranged weapons outranged and slaughtered the Paragon and everyone else.)

Now, the 0.7.2 Aurora lost that.  Being able to spam three blasters is not worth paying costs rivaling an Onslaught, one of the big two that will erase anything with disgusting ease.