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 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)  (Read 26133 times)

DatonKallandor

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #75 on: March 14, 2017, 02:08:11 PM »

The change in armor mechanics might be enough to make the Conquest better as a brawler.
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #76 on: March 14, 2017, 02:15:41 PM »

Related to the maneuverability talk, I plugged in the Omen changes and played the mission where you're up against an Omen, Astral, and fighters in a Dominator with some other ships. Using a level 0 Assault dominator is rough with the Omen around. Ballistics weren't accurate or fast enough to deal with it. If I advanced too much it would just EMP me and I would get mauled by bombers. You could probably trivialize it with a better loadout, but it really highlighted how big an impact skills have.

yeah, i mean it used to be possible to lose dominators and onslaughts to piranhas.

the piranha used to be a competent strike bomber. if that doesn't tell you something about the power scaling, then nothing will.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #77 on: March 14, 2017, 03:03:35 PM »

Eagle is one of the better cruisers in the game.  I include one (or occasionally two) in my endgame toolbox of ships.  It is an effective sniper, and it is great for soloing an endgame-sized fleet of mostly smaller ships a bit more efficiently than Dominator (even though Dominator is more powerful overall).

Dual flak is great, but not every ship needs it.

P.S.  Eagle is also one of those ships the AI can use effectively (as long as it is not the three heavy blaster brawler).
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 03:06:51 PM by Megas »
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #78 on: March 14, 2017, 04:11:10 PM »

(For the Aurora, what I did is make that slot "synergy", so there's an option to put a medium missile in there.)
Just read back through this thread and noticed this comment... that locks out small energy weapons, doesn't it?  Kindof unfortunate, in a way; most of my variants used a small burst PD in that slot; you can't quite get full PD coverage if you leave the rear medium turret empty, and heavy burst PD is overkill there.

...Oh well.  I guess that leaves LRMs or an empty slot.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #79 on: March 14, 2017, 04:15:30 PM »

Yeah, it does. Figure with the change it's still more likely to be used overall, though - or, at least, used as a medium mount.
Logged

Mini S

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #80 on: March 14, 2017, 05:23:24 PM »

(For the Aurora, what I did is make that slot "synergy", so there's an option to put a medium missile in there.)
Just read back through this thread and noticed this comment... that locks out small energy weapons, doesn't it?  Kindof unfortunate, in a way; most of my variants used a small burst PD in that slot; you can't quite get full PD coverage if you leave the rear medium turret empty, and heavy burst PD is overkill there.

...Oh well.  I guess that leaves LRMs or an empty slot.
Yeah, it does. Figure with the change it's still more likely to be used overall, though - or, at least, used as a medium mount.

So that means I can't put 4 tactical lasers
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2017, 05:41:30 PM »

Jets are amazing on the Conquest because they let you switch from blasting with the broadside, to launching 4 reapers, to back again for shield overload before the reapers hit. Something I haven't seen mentioned on the Conquest is its ability to wreck enemy ships that have already had their flux driven up by enemies with its large missile mounts.

I prefer Eagles over Dominators for AI allies to pilot - better mobility and the engines not being so vulnerable makes them very durable. Beam PD is a bit painful, but it still works.
Logged

Toxcity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #82 on: March 14, 2017, 06:24:51 PM »

Related to the maneuverability talk, I plugged in the Omen changes and played the mission where you're up against an Omen, Astral, and fighters in a Dominator with some other ships. Using a level 0 Assault dominator is rough with the Omen around. Ballistics weren't accurate or fast enough to deal with it. If I advanced too much it would just EMP me and I would get mauled by bombers. You could probably trivialize it with a better loadout, but it really highlighted how big an impact skills have.

yeah, i mean it used to be possible to lose dominators and onslaughts to piranhas.

the piranha used to be a competent strike bomber. if that doesn't tell you something about the power scaling, then nothing will.

The bombers in the mission were the Dagger and Trident.

Even with the fighter changes, Piranhas will still probably be niche due to how large of a window they need to be effective. Piranha bombs also have the most trouble hitting due to having to overcome shields, PD, and mobility. I'm guessing they will be useful vs. a station module that has been EMP'd, but not against much else.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #83 on: March 14, 2017, 06:35:20 PM »

Well, do bear in mind that everything is going to be moving more slowly due to hull mod and skill changes. Also, unless you're willing to dump OP into Aux Thrusters, you ain't gonna be spinning your ship around like a top either! So, Piranhas might actually be able to line up a nice bomber run like they used to be able to...
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #84 on: March 14, 2017, 07:09:21 PM »

well, even back in the days piranhas suffered a little against their preferred targets due to burn drive. a well-timed burn drive could get you out of the way most of the attack run.

usually it put you in hot water somewhere else though, so at least there was that. of course, if they couldn't burn drive for whatever reason they were pretty devastating. a few wings could easily one-run an onslaught. they would be better if the mines they dropped had a very limited homing ability or if they did a one-pass-haul-ass attack, rather than a terribly low lineup ---> release wait release wait release allowing themselves to get picked off by flying a perfectly straight line right at their targets at a glacial speed.

.8 will probably make them usable again at the least though. the slower everything is, the better piranhas will be.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 07:15:04 PM by Cik »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #85 on: March 14, 2017, 07:55:18 PM »

Maneuverability Jets on Conquest means I do not need to waste OP on Auxiliary Thrusters.  If I needed to get that hullmod, I would have to give up something important for it.  Unlike Onslaught and Paragon, Conquest does not have plenty of OP to waste.  Its OP budget is a bit tight.

Jets are amazing on the Conquest because they let you switch from blasting with the broadside, to launching 4 reapers, to back again for shield overload before the reapers hit. Something I haven't seen mentioned on the Conquest is its ability to wreck enemy ships that have already had their flux driven up by enemies with its large missile mounts.
I tried dual Cyclones, but I found that a bit too inconvenient.  The biggest problem with Reapers is one or both broadsides need to stop firing for a while as it spins, aims, and fires torpedoes.  It hurts when my Conquest is on a roll with optimal positioning and both broadsides are already firing and killing ships.  Why stop to use torpedoes when I can use killer homing missiles like MIRVs instead?  They wreck ships too, and Conquest does not need to stop firing broadsides to fire them unlike torpedoes.

Missiles wrecking ships that are flux-locked are why Pilums (with high Missile Specialization) are so good for Dominator, Onslaught, and even Conquest to use in grueling endurance matches.  Ships that get forced to shield tank missile stacks overload and die, and Pilums are unlimited.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #86 on: March 15, 2017, 08:00:43 AM »

I don't do simulator clearing battles like you do, so I find the large ammo reserves of the Cyclones big enough. I like using them as an alpha strike when moving in to close against a target - if fighting an enemy cruiser that has been distracted/has flux, it is often enough to vaporize/cripple without even needing to swing a broadside to bear.

It was a version or two ago so I don't know if it would still work, but my preferred Conquest was one sided (left side so I could fly it like a Odyssey) with heavy blasters in the front medium energies. A lot of the time they wouldn't fire, but they made for excellent "point defense" against frigates/destroyers, and also let me not lose all firepower when I spun the ship around for a torpedo barrage.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: What sort of ship would have engines like this? (David's Twitter)
« Reply #87 on: March 15, 2017, 08:24:37 AM »

I used to not clear simulator until extended battles were introduced.  When that happened, I thought the easiest way to prepare for a seven or more fleet pileup is to find ship builds that can handle the entire simulator.  I have fought few battles that had more ships than the whole simulator, and simulator does not have officers, unlike campaign.

If I build ships for only one fight against another fleet that cannot have more than 25 ships, it probably is a good idea to use missiles other than Pilums.  Campaign is an environment where endurance is generally more useful than total domination over a single normal-sized fleet.

Cyclone Reapers are enough against a normal battle.  With Expanded Missile Racks, you generally have enough to use them as primary weapons.  I used to use them as a primary weapon with Aurora when it had large missile.  Only when building for those grueling simulator battles is when there are not enough torpedoes.

Heavy blaster on a brawling Conquest is good, especially if it has flak mounted in some of the ballistics.  In that case, got to make up for lost firepower, and heavy blasters are good at that.  Similarly, if I need a brawler Conquest to really kill quickly, I use IR pulse laser plus IPDAI.  Mjolnirs and Heavy Blasters are good for Conquest if it needs to get closer to hit things with PD weapons.  I would not use Heavy Blaster on a Conquest built for long-range sniping (with 1000+ range weapons).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]