Print

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

[intrinsic_parity]

Helmsmanship gives top speed and turning bonus no? That's one of my highest priority picks, ships are very sluggish in this game.

[Megas]

Aurora is a pain to use.  I need to max out flux stats (more so now that its flux stats were nerfed in 0.9a) and use short-ranged weapons.  Great for bullying weak ships, but not so great against a tough fight.  If I want to use missiles (sabots), then I cannot pass it off to AI (if I suddenly want to switch and chain my Afflictors in mid-battle) because AI is not competent enough with them.  Moot when finding Aurora is hard, and by the time I get it, I have a capital or Doom already.  I suppose I could use it for beam spam, but I do not need Aurora for that.

Combat Endurance is nice, but I do not have skill enough points left to get that all the way up to 3.  Also, 3 is not much use if I swap from my flagship to other ship without an officer.  (Late game, I often swapped from capital to a chain of Reaper Afflictors before battle.)  Plus, if I am really desperate, I get more Officer Management instead (which is also a chopping block skill with a skill point crunch) and steal one of the extra officer's ships for 100% CR.  Admittedly, I would rather get CE3 myself than constantly swap a ship to get the same benefit and more officers, but if I wanted to do min-max cheese, more Officer Management is better than Combat Endurance for the purpose of getting max CR from another ship, plus getting more officers.

I really like the perk from Damage Control 2 (and want to get 3 too for less hull damage), but it is not as useful as campaign benefits of babysitter mitigation skills.  It really pained me to give that up for Navigation or Planetary Operations.

I really want to have enough skills to match level 20 officers, but unless I want to completely ignore Industry and abuse alpha cores (and the Pather cell bug), or forsake vital fleet skills like Loadout Design, Fighter Doctrine, or some Officer Management, I see no way to do it and still have an enjoyable experience with colonies without so much aggravation with harsh limits and constant babysitting.

The industry limits and harsher colony demands means Industry colony skills are must-have without cores.  But, with the bugs, slap-on-the-wrist punishments (sticky jealous alphas, money-grubbing inspectors) that are easily circumvented, and steady alpha drops from a stream of massive Ordos fights, alpha core abuse is clearly king in this release.

@ intrinsic_parity: Helmsmanship is one of the earlier combat skills I get.  Many ships are too slow without those perks even with doubled game speed of 2f.  (I wished Starsector could handle 3f speed flawlessly.)

[Thaago]

I would try to fit in Target Analysis 2, and 3 is really good as well, if you can manage it. Its a really good skill: I'd say better than Gunnery Implants, Power Grid Modulation, or Helmsmanship. And while it sounds stupid, Combat Endurance 3 is worth it as well: I'd drop Helmsmanship to get those 2 points. Yes, Logistics does every ship in the fleet and is really really good. But, the 5% damage done and 5% less damage taken and better autoaim are worth it (and it does top speed too? I forget). And allows for 1 more chain deploy in emergencies.

In terms of the simple metric of damage dealt/damage received vs shields, I think you are currently at
(Logistics +15% cr included): 1.2/.76 = 1.579

Swapping over helmsmanship for Combat Endurance 3 and Power Grid Modulation for Target Analysis:
1.4/.72 = 1.944

A significant improvement in the "flux war"! Of course this is shield damage so is not anything remotely like full combat performance, but I think there is a similar effect from the +50% penetration from target analysis.

[Megas]

I prefer Ordnance Expert because 15% applies to all.  Not just against ships, but missiles too.  Also, 1 is nice for IPDAI bullet weapons.  If it works for beam weapons, then IPDAI Tactical Lasers is easier to use too.  I see Ordnance Expert as a mish-mesh of Target Analysis and Advanced Countermeasures.  Plus, faster shots feel good even if it only matters for IPDAI weapons.

I always take Power Grid Modulation 2 because venting is too slow without it.  I would not care about 3 except Defensive Systems 3 is useless without it.  It really needs super fast dissipation for me to notice the hard flux dissipation benefit.  Of course, Harbinger playership really benefits from Defensive Systems 3, but I do not use that ship much now that Afflictor does most of the job it used to do (of one-shotting large ships and battlestations with Reaper spam).

I have considered leaving Combat at 2 and pick stuff here and there.  But I like Defensive Systems 3 if I want to try to solo Remnant Nexus with a Paragon.

I would get more combat skills, but the only way to get that is to forsake all of Industry, Navigation, and Planetary Operations.  I do not want to forsake Fighter Doctrine if I want to switch to a pure carrier fleet on short notice.

P.S.  Speaking of fighter skills, there are some I like to get too if I want to use Odyssey or Legion, or put Converted Hangar on the flagship.  Or if I need to take over Astral for some reason.  But lack of points means Fighter Doctrine is all I can get, and I rely on one or two officers to pick up the slack.

P.P.S.  Not giving up mobility perks either.  Piloting Conquest or any big low-tech ship without them was a terrible experience.  Evasion Action 1 and Helmsmanship 2 later, Conquest feels good to pilot.  Not giving up Gunnery Implants either if I want long-range combat, and you know what I think about engagement ranges of Starsector in general - way too short.  Enough to give a big red minus/malus/con if I review Starsector.  Paragon is one of the few ships that actually use guns instead of melee weapons calling themselves guns.

[intrinsic_parity]

Thaago, I'm curious, how often do you fly ships without SO?

[Thaago]

@Megas
I agree that if you have to choose between Ordinance Expert and Target Analysis, Ordinance Expert is the better because its universal. But Target Analysis is still really good, and I'd swap out Helmsmanship for 2 points (even when I go all in on combat I do not take Helmsmanship).


@intrinsic_parity
Depends on the ship, and if it can mount assault chainguns, though I've stopped doing that because really they are just overpowered (I have a mini mod that just changes their fire rate down by 25%, it works nicely but I'm still tweaking). I happily fly non-SO Auroras, Medusas, Tempests - ships that already have good mobility and flux stats and can overwhelm targets on a burst. I also really like the no-SO Hammerhead and Sunder in the early game, as they have high enough firepower to not need it: in .9 these were my go to early game ships (2x heavy mortar + 2x railgun hammerhead is a solid ship). In previous versions SO destroyers didn't have enough PPT just because the enemy was throwing 50+ ships in waves at the player and the "trickling" added lots of time even if the player is slaughtering left and right. With the AI (usually) respecting the 30 ship limit and AI fleets in general being more top heavy even for mid/early game pirates, the PPT is less of an issue and SO destroyers are more viable. SO Hammerhead/Sunder will happily kill pirate cruisers, so having a few cruisers rather than many frigates is A+.

Unfortunately, at present nothing early game beats an SO Hammerhead because of how ridiculously good ACGs are. Its... 800 kinetic DPS and 1200 HE DPS, doubled when pressing F, plus a pair of torpedoes or sabots for laughs. Of course to get all that kinetic DPS you need to drive literally within touching distance of the enemy... doesn't work well late game. But early/mid game it kills entire pirate deathballs with cruisers in under its PPT (+ combat endurance 1), with some allied ship support.

It also depends on the stage of the game. Late game against big fleets I tend to take SO off because a lot of ships just can't get into close range without being beaten back by massed fire - SO Hammerhead just can't get close enough to massed cruisers/capitals without being fluxed out or killed. Dominator and Eagle are exceptions and performs well against all targets, but SO Eagle is weaker because 4xACG + 5 dlmg is better than 3x HMG + 2x Heavy blaster (or was it 3? I forget but that build needed a special tweak for the AI to use it and it might have been replacing 1 heavy blaster with an ion pulser... I'd have to check an old save).

So its not that I always fly SO, its that I always try to fly a build with burst potential that can overwhelm a vulnerable target (may be vulnerable due to an ally of mine firing at them, or them being weak, or me expending missiles). SO is a potent tool on certain builds that let me accomplish the high DPS goal, but isn't required or sometimes even good.

Before this version though I didn't fly SO very much at all other than a starting Lasher in Nexelerin. My hyper-aggressive stance is kind of a new development: I started doing it just to see how the new ACG is, and then branched out to builds that don't include it because of how effective they are; the aforementioned change in enemy fleet numbers makes a big difference as well. While I very much like it and have fun, I acknowledge its not the only way to go at all. The carrier spark deathballs that have been posted are more effective than my fleets once they get up to a big critical mass, for example.

The playstyle also locks me heavily into combat skills to really work - the offense skills are critically important to get the kill time even quicker, and then the defense skills once the enemy has overlapping fire regions and I need to start taking armor damage to get a good approach. Like you pointed out, its an "all in" style of play.

[Goumindong]

You can always transition that type of play into an Odyssey too. Which is basically like an SO cruiser except it also has 1120 range.

[intrinsic_parity]

I was just noticing that the skills you suggested dropping generally don't matter if you have SO. Range boost is almost irrelevant for SO, dissipation and speed are already super boosted by SO. It is possible I overrate them, but extra dissipation and vents makes a really big difference on a lot of ships (I like odyssey a lot since I've found one, but it really need all the dissipation it can get to run good plasma cannon loadouts). And speed perks matter a lot for capitals being able to turn and engage smaller ships. I always felt like range made a big difference because you get a head start in the flux war (since your enemies have to fly through your fire before they can begin dealing damage) and that effect is exaggerated by speed since you can kite to increase the time when they can't fire back, but it's really hard to calculate how much of an advantage that is. I guess it seems to me like losing range and speed will also disadvantage you in the flux war, and losing dissipation and vents is directly losing the flux war since dissipation is essentially negative damage (assuming you are firing weapons and accruing soft flux). Perhaps I need to experiment more with just raw damage output, but it's definitely not a straight improvement in the flux war swapping those skills (unless you're using SO). Playstyle also probably affects exactly how important these things are.

If I only take 2 tiers of combat skills, I take 2 levels of defensive systems, target analysis and helmsmanship and then 1 or 2 levels of impact mitigation, combat endurance 1 and evasive action 1. I often feel like I am wasting skill points on level 2 skills to get some of the level 3 skills that are good so I just cut them out and take other things. I take multiple level 3 skills in technology anyway so I usually grab gunnery implants and power grid modulation 3 it felt like a more natural way to get combat boosts. I have to give up a lot of the best armor skills, but I fly high tech mostly so shields are way more important for me. The only thing I really miss is ordnance expertise 3, but it feels like its not worth essentially 4 skill points since I don't care about the level 1 and 2 that much.

[Thaago]

Hmm, interesting. I think you are right and that I value more highly the skills that work with SO. Does Helmsmanship help with turning or just side to side/front to back acceleration? I had thought that it was only Evasive Action that helped turning. Maybe I should try Hemsmanship 1 and see if it helps for dodging and the like, but I'm not very impressed by the other skills.

I think because I habitually overgun, I'm not too concerned with range. I'm often holding fire on some weapons until the right moment to apply burst damage. The longer range would help my kinetics to run up the enemy flux faster, which is great of course, but it doesn't really help the 'killing blow' because I've already gotten close enough by the time that the situation is right for the strike. I do still get gunnery implants 3, but its less important for overgunned player ships than it is for the AI I think. Its a priority skill for my AI captains (less so on the Reckless SO bound ones).

For 2 tiers of combat only, I think your choices are great - the combo of Target Analysis 2 + Defensive Systems 2 shifts the flux war from 1:1 to 1.15:.8. A 44% improvement for only 6 skill points!!! In .9 those 6 points were my opening, then I'd shift into tech for navigation and more OP, then I'd pick up a few more combat or leadership. Now I stick with combat a little longer, picking up ordinance expert 3 and target analysis 3 as well before thinking about what to do next.

The defensive skill thats grown on me the most lately is defensive countermeasures. Rank 1 makes early game ships immune to kinetics for the crucial initial charge, Rank 2 is kind of 'meh', but every bit helps and it is a serious bonus against bombers, and Rank 3 makes enemy carrier fleets easy prey.

[Megas]

@ Thaago:  I agree Target Analysis is good, but I could not get it, and even if I could, it is lower priority.  If I had two more points, it would be a choice between Combat Endurance 3 or Damage Control 2 for me.  Also, I would like to get either Damage Control 3 or armor skill because it makes Doom more resilient, and Doom is very good.

If I scrapped Power Grid Modulation 3 and Officer Management 1, I could get either Combat Endurance 3 or Damage Control 2.  But as I said earlier, hard flux dissipation tends to be really lack luster unless the ship has crazy high dissipation, especially if the ship is shield tanking HIL.

[intrinsic_parity]

Yeah range and speed are good for a play style where you sit back and try to run up the enemies flux from at the edge or outside of their range so that you can minimize/dodge damage taken while dealing damage. If you win the fight easily even when the enemy is firing all weapons at you, then it doesn't really matter.

I'm not actually sure if helmsmanship affects rotational acceleration or only translational acceleration, or even just forward/backward. I still like being able to change directions more quickly especially on capital ships which are soooo slooow.

[Thaago]

Going waaay back to the IPDAI discussion: Tac Lasers are 100% a trap option because of their "re-targeting" behavior (which may be a bug).

I just watched 4 Harpoons, not boosted by an officer, manage to close within shield distance (and hit the shield) of my (officered) isolated Paragon with 4 forward firing Tac Lasers, boosted by IPDAI, turret gyros, and Advanced Countermeasures (no advanced optics). The Tac Lasers kept flickering on and off, trying to repeatedly switch targets and failing: the extend speed is so slow that the beams never reached the harpoons.

LRPD does not have this problem: its extend speed and turn rate are fast enough that they spend nearly 100% time on target, as opposed to this case where the Tac Lasers had 0% time on target for 2000 range. The flux efficiency is also very nice.

Maybe once the bug gets fixed and the tac lasers stay on target they will be a good option again, but as of now they are unreliable at best and crippled at worst.

[Megas]

It (and maybe Mining Lasers for that matter) could be a trap for AI ships.  Player who is aware of the problem could prevent the re-targeting that kills beam PD.  I think I had proper beam PD re-target like tac lasers if I used Advanced Optics but no Turret Gyros, but it was not as bad due to beams extending faster.

[TrashMan]

I never take Helmsmanship (useless) and I always take all of the Officers, because having 10 maxlevel officers on your sides is big, BIG boost in power

[billi999]

Going waaay back to the IPDAI discussion: Tac Lasers are 100% a trap option because of their "re-targeting" behavior (which may be a bug).

I just watched 4 Harpoons, not boosted by an officer, manage to close within shield distance (and hit the shield) of my (officered) isolated Paragon with 4 forward firing Tac Lasers, boosted by IPDAI, turret gyros, and Advanced Countermeasures (no advanced optics). The Tac Lasers kept flickering on and off, trying to repeatedly switch targets and failing: the extend speed is so slow that the beams never reached the harpoons.

Just want to say I have had the same experience, though my assumption was this was by design. I can't remember the exact stats but I believe the base turn rate of Tac Lasers is well below that of PD and LR PD lasers, to the point where even with a 100% increase in turn rate they couldn't match the turning speed of PD lasers. I think this is what is responsible, rather than switching targets, but I didn't test if there was any improvement with the turn rate of Tac Lasers set the same as PD lasers and giving them the PD tag by default.