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)

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: New player  (Read 10352 times)

Seth

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2016, 12:50:09 PM »

Since thread is already exists, I wanna chime in with related question:
as with the original question in this thread, missiles that 1) have tracking, 2) are fast, 3) deal good damage and 4) aren't severely limited by ammo just don't really work, balance-wise. missiles with high or even unlimited ammo are generally only for support, not for dealing reliable damage.

vanilla Squall (large) is maybe closest to what you're looking for, but it currently has some issues (that should be fixed in 0.8). BRDY Quills (small and medium) are pretty good, but are unguided rockets. vanilla, Shadowyards Reconstruction Authority and Dassault-Mikoyan Engineering all have ammo-limited but otherwise powerful anti-shield missiles.
I'd gladly stick with missiles which have smaller mags, but problem is, most of combats I participate currently are pretty long. In fact I don't think anyone can get into any quick fight starting from the mid-game, like when you get your first big bad battleship. I really don't get the idea when you can shoot 1-3 missiles in the battle with few dozens of ships, like yes, I can cripple one or two enemies with good timed hits, but then what?...
Logged

Elaron

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2016, 03:29:09 PM »

I think the principle there is for the limited-use missiles will help you take out enough enemy ships early on in such fights that you will achieve a sufficient advantage that you can bring the battle to victory afterwards. I think it works better in smaller battles, though.
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2016, 04:39:07 AM »

I can cripple one or two enemies with good timed hits, but then what?...
that's the point, though: you're generally not supposed to rely on missiles for damage in the first place. with a few exceptions like dedicated missiles ships (like Gryphon), if your assault loadout requires missiles to take out enemies, it's probably not a good loadout.

ammo-limited missiles are meant for
  • exploiting an enemy's temporary vulnerability.
  • providing a short burst of power to take on an otherwise superior enemy.
  • finishing off a wounded enemy that would otherwise get away.
  • getting an early advantage by taking out initial enemies quicker than you would otherwise be able to, as Elaron mentioned.

so unless your loadout is built for a support role (which means it's not designed to reliably take out enemies by itself anyway) or strike role (which means it's only designed to take out a very small number of high value targets), the loadout should be dangerous even without using (guided/high-damage) missiles. if you're having issues taking out enemies after you've fired your low-ammo missiles, it probably means you either should rethink your loadout and try to build it in a way that is less reliant on missile burst, or you're trying to take on enemies that are currently too powerful for you.

it's worth noting that although there are a few vanilla variants that rely heavily on low-ammo missiles to do damage, those are generally not well suited for an assault role, but rather for strike or fire-support roles.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2016, 05:26:13 AM »

The only standard missile that can deal damage and last long enough in long fights is Pilums with max Missile Specialization.  They will stack, overload ships with high flux, and kill them.

Salamanders do not deal enough damage if that is all you want.

The rest go empty too quickly.

For long battles, go cheap, go regenerating, or leave the missile mounts empty and use the OP for more sustainable options.
Logged

Seth

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2016, 11:22:25 AM »

I can cripple one or two enemies with good timed hits, but then what?...
that's the point, though: you're generally not supposed to rely on missiles for damage in the first place. with a few exceptions like dedicated missiles ships (like Gryphon), if your assault loadout requires missiles to take out enemies, it's probably not a good loadout.

ammo-limited missiles are meant for
  • exploiting an enemy's temporary vulnerability.
  • providing a short burst of power to take on an otherwise superior enemy.
  • finishing off a wounded enemy that would otherwise get away.
  • getting an early advantage by taking out initial enemies quicker than you would otherwise be able to, as Elaron mentioned.

so unless your loadout is built for a support role (which means it's not designed to reliably take out enemies by itself anyway) or strike role (which means it's only designed to take out a very small number of high value targets), the loadout should be dangerous even without using (guided/high-damage) missiles. if you're having issues taking out enemies after you've fired your low-ammo missiles, it probably means you either should rethink your loadout and try to build it in a way that is less reliant on missile burst, or you're trying to take on enemies that are currently too powerful for you.

it's worth noting that although there are a few vanilla variants that rely heavily on low-ammo missiles to do damage, those are generally not well suited for an assault role, but rather for strike or fire-support roles.
You do realize that in late game battles there are SO many ships that one or two you'll take out, doesn't make any difference, right? I don't know, maybe missile clips should be balanced around hull size rather than having pre-set quantity. With ballistic/energy loadouts even on small ships, I can do ridiculous damage to enemy ships, even most torpedos can't come close to those numbers with direct hit to hull. I have tried various rocket/missile loadouts on many different ships, it works very well in early game or small fights, but when there are 2x large fleets vs 2x large fleets or more, it's just useless. You either run out of ammo very quickly (most likely without any impact because tons of PD/Shields/etc) or just shoot infinite rockets that basically do nothing at all compared to other types of weapons.
System seriously needs some rethinking, plus having infinite ammo like on Salamanders, no matter how weak they are, doesn't make any sense to me not gameplay wise, not on immersion/realism level.

The only standard missile that can deal damage and last long enough in long fights is Pilums with max Missile Specialization.  They will stack, overload ships with high flux, and kill them.

Salamanders do not deal enough damage if that is all you want.

The rest go empty too quickly.

For long battles, go cheap, go regenerating, or leave the missile mounts empty and use the OP for more sustainable options.
I never use Pilums, they are extremely slow and have terrific tracking, max missile spec don't help much. You have to be face to face with enemy for it to have desired effect. I'd rather have Flaks for that OP which obliterates enemies in CQC plus works as great PD.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 11:24:15 AM by Seth »
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2016, 12:54:31 PM »

You do realize that in late game battles there are SO many ships that one or two you'll take out, doesn't make any difference, right?
like i just said: missiles generally aren't designed to reliably take out enemy ships by themselves in the first place. they are designed to provide some burst damage for when you need it. in return for their limited ammo, their burst potential is often far higher and/or usable at longer range than that of ballistic and energy weapons, not to mention completely flux-free. firing a Reaper or 4 at an overloaded/venting battleship, or finishing off a few near-death cruisers or destroyers with a small salvo of Harpoons certainly can make a difference.

and larger ships already indirectly have more ammo by having significantly more and/or larger missile mounts, on average. a Lasher frigate can mount a total of 6 Harpoons (without Expanded Missile Racks), whereas a Dominator heavy cruiser can mount a total of 36 (again without EMR).

if missiles weren't designed as ammo-limited burst/finisher weapons, their other stats would have to be much worse: lower damage, lower range, worse tracking, etc. and at that point, they kinda lose most of what differentiates them from ballistic and energy weapons. there are mod missiles with very high, quickly regenerating, or even unlimited ammo, but those are mostly support weapons rather than intended to deal reliable damage by themselves.

if you want to kill enemies with unlimited-ammo missiles so badly, maybe you'll enjoy the revamped carriers & fighters in 0.8. bombers are sort of like unlimited, extended range missile salvos (but they do of course have their own weaknesses to compensate). :]
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2016, 07:34:56 PM »

Quote
I never use Pilums, they are extremely slow and have terrific tracking, max missile spec don't help much. You have to be face to face with enemy for it to have desired effect. I'd rather have Flaks for that OP which obliterates enemies in CQC plus works as great PD.
Pilums are not great as a strike weapon.  They are most effective at overloading ships with high flux because you pinned said ship with ballistics fire.  Ship will either shield tank and overload when some Pilums hit, then take damage when the rest hit, or they all hit when shields go down.  Pilums need the extra speed from max Missile Specialization to reach enemies soon enough, and the extra damage so that overlapping Pilums hurt more.

All that matters is if the missiles hit and cause damage.  It does not matter if you have an easy opening and then tag an enemy with a fast missile or if the enemy gets pinned and a stack of Pilums slam into a pinned enemy.  Sure, the style is not the same, and you do not get your big damage spike on demand with Pilums, but they are effective.


As Sy wrote above, fighters in the next release will effectively be missiles by another name, and will be unlimited.
Logged

Seth

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2016, 06:06:04 PM »

@Sy
Well, if you jammed Battleship so hard to make it drop shields or vent, that means it's already dead, but doesn't know it yet... Using torps in that case will just kill it faster, no less. Yes, I agree on range and 0-flux, but in very big fights with wings and *** flying all over the space, when you shoot guided ammo, especially in long range, it has VERY little chances to reach destination. Anyway, that's what I've seen in my time with SS.
If you try to equip ship with only rocket/missile/torpedos, it will be as defenceless as a puppy, which annoys me, because I can't really spec towards this kind of ship, other flux-reliant weapons are pretty much essential to have on any ship. Rebalancing current system would be some serious pain, I know, but the main difference is that other ammo types can't be taken down, only deflected with shield, that's the biggest disadvantage launch weapons have, so balancing them around that wouldn't be such a bad idea. My main point is that we don't fight one-on-one most of the times, in that case changing current weapon system would be dangerous, sure, but in massive fights, there's too much interference going on, so it happens very often when you saving up your precious torps for good opening and it just never comes, it's much more effective to just slam enemies with ordinary flux weapons.

@Megas
Yes, I read carefully full blog article on carriers revamp, it was very interesting read, since I basically main and particularly enjoy controlling carrier. It looks great on paper, but I fear for them not to become even more gimped than they are now, endless fighters sounds good, but considering OP limit, if we will be forced to get stuck with only low tier wings to be able to outfit ship so you can send it in combat and not get ripped to shreds in seconds if cornered by the few destroyers... Also curious how supercarrier role will be presented after these changes.
But aside from that it still doesn't seem to tackle launch weapon issues with fighters as it is now. It doesn't make sense to me how my bomber wing can pummel ships with torpedoes, for example: 2 bombers = 4 torps = 6-8 frames = 24-32 torpedos for the entire battle!
With update there won't be frames, so that means endless torps? Even if I have just 2 bomb wings available for the ship, it is still ridiculous in comparison that my carrier can sport maybe 2 or 4 launchers, which equals like 8 torps in best case scenario, and doesn't have bomber versatility for charge delivery.

I'm not a big fan of missiles, as it may seem from my posts, I just would like more variety and effectiveness in my loadouts and carrying missiles or rockets not only as occasional fireworks, lol. My original question was based on the attempt to build Destroyer with Energy + 2x High Explosive flux guns and 2x shield overload missiles, which I scrapped and just went 2x Kinetic + High Explosive and 2x Anti-Fighter SRMs, works great. More roles for launchers would be more welcome tho.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2016, 07:29:40 PM »

@ Seth:  Yes, I am concerned about OP.  Even today, with +30% OP and Optimized Assembly, many ships have a tight budget of OP to get everything they need to perform their job optimally (and this is without the giant OP sink called Miniaturized Vents - if you get that perk, you never have enough OP).  Without skills, the OP you get is so puny you cannot afford much of anything fun.  With low OP, you basically mounted cheap and effective (sometimes using good lighter weapons in heavier mounts), and if you have excess mounts, they will probably not get filled.  With low OP, leave the right mounts empty so that you have enough OP left for what you need and still have decent coverage is an artform, and it was and still is awful.  More OP from skills mostly fixed that nonsense.

Kinetic missiles and high-explosive ballistics was the classic Hammerhead configuration, and it was awful to the point that it was replaced.
Logged

Seth

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2016, 12:56:24 PM »

Kinetic missiles and high-explosive ballistics was the classic Hammerhead configuration, and it was awful to the point that it was replaced.
I'm kinda torn right now, in those big battles I keep mentioning, every other ship has some missiles, when all of them start shooting at you, it's pretty spectacular, but constantly dodging it during entire fight would be extremely tedious and will break balance real hard, so there are certain advantages of current system. I see that some improvements could be made in this regard, but honestly I have no slightest idea how exactly it can be improved...
Logged

snooze

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2017, 02:22:24 PM »

Welcome dude!

I'm happy that so many others are finding this little rough gem.

 ;D
Logged

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2017, 04:20:07 PM »

@ Seth:  Yes, I am concerned about OP.  Even today, with +30% OP and Optimized Assembly, many ships have a tight budget of OP to get everything they need to perform their job optimally (and this is without the giant OP sink called Miniaturized Vents - if you get that perk, you never have enough OP).  Without skills, the OP you get is so puny you cannot afford much of anything fun.  With low OP, you basically mounted cheap and effective (sometimes using good lighter weapons in heavier mounts), and if you have excess mounts, they will probably not get filled.  With low OP, leave the right mounts empty so that you have enough OP left for what you need and still have decent coverage is an artform, and it was and still is awful.  More OP from skills mostly fixed that nonsense.

Kinetic missiles and high-explosive ballistics was the classic Hammerhead configuration, and it was awful to the point that it was replaced.

I agree low OP(Ordnance Points) leads to many useless hull mods, and empty mounts; this is both visually & mechanically jarring, and unfun.
However just increasing OP allotment leads to drastically reduced time-to-kill. (as is demonstrated end-game with 0.7.2a perks)

Thus I feel Starsector would be in a much better place (balance wise), if OP were increased (across the board), and weapon lethality was decreased to compensate (again, across the board).
The OP cost of most Hull mods would be left unaltered; with the exception of mods that directly impact combat lethality. (armour, shield, range, and flux dissipation boosting mods would need adjusting so they didn't become overpowered)

The AI might also benefit from an across-the-board reduction in weapons DPS, as one of its big weaknesses atm is its inability to react fast enough to spikes in flux.

To summarise:

I want ships to have lots of guns; it's fun & looks cool!
I want ship construction to have lots of flexibility & diversity; it's interesting!
BUT I also want manoeuvring to matter; it's fun, interesting, and skill-oriented!

With the end-game power levels as they are at the moment, time-to-kill is far too quick, relegating tactical manoeuvres into irrelevance.

Nerf DPS; Buff OP allotment -> Better gameplay and (probably) more competent AI behaviour.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 04:22:07 PM by TJJ »
Logged

Seth

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: New player
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2017, 01:30:14 PM »

I agree low OP(Ordnance Points) leads to many useless hull mods, and empty mounts; this is both visually & mechanically jarring, and unfun.
However just increasing OP allotment leads to drastically reduced time-to-kill. (as is demonstrated end-game with 0.7.2a perks)

Thus I feel Starsector would be in a much better place (balance wise), if OP were increased (across the board), and weapon lethality was decreased to compensate (again, across the board).
The OP cost of most Hull mods would be left unaltered; with the exception of mods that directly impact combat lethality. (armour, shield, range, and flux dissipation boosting mods would need adjusting so they didn't become overpowered)

The AI might also benefit from an across-the-board reduction in weapons DPS, as one of its big weaknesses atm is its inability to react fast enough to spikes in flux.

To summarise:

I want ships to have lots of guns; it's fun & looks cool!
I want ship construction to have lots of flexibility & diversity; it's interesting!
BUT I also want manoeuvring to matter; it's fun, interesting, and skill-oriented!

With the end-game power levels as they are at the moment, time-to-kill is far too quick, relegating tactical manoeuvres into irrelevance.

Nerf DPS; Buff OP allotment -> Better gameplay and (probably) more competent AI behaviour.

Completely agree with all point in this post. Plus it will also somewhat increase survivability of some vessels (like Carriers or Freighters) which will allow them to actually participate in combat, even if very carefully, and not just cower in the back as a dead weight.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]