Print

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

[Arakasi]

Just a note r.e. Vanilla balance - Sabot missiles are too strong. They are not only the most efficient missiles for taking down an enemy's shields (especially as-mounted on Longbows), but they also completely avoid most PD systems due to their flak implementation.

What I recommend:
1. Nerf the shield damage of Sabots - I modded this into my game by reducing emp dmg from 400 to 300, and regular dmg from 200 to 150, and they still work great.

2. Introduce a new shield-damaging missile which does not flak but also does more shield damage than the Sabot.

[outdated]

I disagree. Second stage triggers really close to the ship, any decent PD will shut down sabots just like any other missile unless you shoot them point-blank.

[Arakasi]

I disagree. Second stage triggers really close to the ship, any decent PD will shut down sabots just like any other missile unless you shoot them point-blank.

Most mid/lower PD systems miss them in my experience - the window for hitting them is really short and they have a decent amount of HP still.

[Megas]

2. Introduce a new shield-damaging missile which does not flak but also does more shield damage than the Sabot.

This used to be the case, and the Sabot was even stronger because it had better anti-armor and anti-hull.  Single shot with more damage has better armor penetration.  You cannot make sabots or its replacement do more shield damage without also making them do more armor or hull damage.

Sabot went through many changes.

First version was a single 750 damage slug.  Slow enough that AI usually dropped shields to armor tank it.  This made it only good either as anti-hull (where you want them to drop shields and eat 750 hull damage, and it was more reliable than harpoon) or to force AI to drop shields for another attack, like plasma cannon salvo.  Of course, AI still used them as anti-shield, while player was better off using them as finishers like slower but more reliable Harpoons.

Second version was a wide shotgun spray.  In theory, more damage to shield and less suitable for anti-armor/hull.  In practice, AI always dropped shields and most of the burst missed because it was too wide, and what little that did hit the ship did negligible armor damage.  Second version was totally useless aside from forcing the enemy to drop shields (so something like plasma Sunder can fire sabot, then blast with plasma cannon on unshielded ship - too much work for so little ammo)

Third version was back to first version, except speed was sped-up so fast that it was nearly unavoidable.  It became the reliable anti-everything missile.

Fourth version is the current version.  Not quite as devastating to armor as the third, but still powerful.

I would not want Sabots weakened without more ammo or less OP cost to compensate.  I think Sabots are fine as a player weapon.  AI is too stupid to use them to full effect.

[outdated]

Also there's no really other strictly anti-shield weapon with exception of maybe that zappy thing that shrike has.

[Thaago]

Sabot is strong, but not overpowered. If the enemy takes it on the shield, they can vent it away: Sabots used in that way require other weapons to actually get the kill. If taken on strong armor only the EMP counts: very very useful, but again requires other weapons to get the kill. The actual armor damage is low for being ammo limited. They are decent against exposed hull, but not great, instead primarily contributing EMP.

Long range PD such as LRPD or burst PD on a cruiser+ will kill sabots in the first stage most of the time. So will interceptor/fighter cover swarms such as sparks or wasps or even talons if they happen to be in the right place.

But perhaps the best reason why sabots are not overpowered: I don't use them for every missile slot anymore. On my Dominator they are only 1 of the 3 medium missiles, I don't use them at all on mid tech ships (I prefer torpedoes), and they are part of a balanced breakfast on something like a Gryphon. The only ship I really think relies on them to be a super killer is the Aurora, but thats because they are literally the only anti-shield weapon the ship can mount.

[Arakasi]

I would not want Sabots weakened without more ammo or less OP cost to compensate.  I think Sabots are fine as a player weapon.  AI is too stupid to use them to full effect.

The history you provided for the missile is very interesting - I can see how it evolved like that, and I didn't think of it that way. However, I still think Sabots in their current state are too powerful - they should do decent shield damage, but the amount they do is crazy.

If the enemy takes it on the shield, they can vent it away: Sabots used in that way require other weapons to actually get the kill. If taken on strong armor only the EMP counts: very very useful, but again requires other weapons to get the kill. The actual armor damage is low for being ammo limited. They are decent against exposed hull, but not great, instead primarily contributing EMP.

Yes, and most shield-damaging weapons also require other weapons to get the kill - except they can't lower shields nearly as fast as a good sabot can, and usually can't do as much emp damage either. And the limited ammo argument I cannot accept until Longbows are no longer a thing. Again - I modded my game so that they do 25% less damage, and they were still very much viable strong weapons.

Long range PD such as LRPD or burst PD on a cruiser+ will kill sabots in the first stage most of the time. So will interceptor/fighter cover swarms such as sparks or wasps or even talons if they happen to be in the right place.

In my experience only Burst or better has much of a chance of actually dealing with a sabot strike, and those are largely systems for late-game ships, whereas a Sabots are strong at any point in the game. If we're also taking happenstance into account, r.e. fighters and so on, those PD systems are often focused on other things and often can't turn in time, or don't focus enough upon them before it's too late.

But perhaps the best reason why sabots are not overpowered: I don't use them for every missile slot anymore. On my Dominator they are only 1 of the 3 medium missiles, I don't use them at all on mid tech ships (I prefer torpedoes), and they are part of a balanced breakfast on something like a Gryphon. The only ship I really think relies on them to be a super killer is the Aurora, but thats because they are literally the only anti-shield weapon the ship can mount.

I mean, not using them on every missile slot is not exactly an argument that they're not overpowered, if my ship happens to have a lot of armor-damaging weapons I'll definitely prioritise sabots, and if primarily shield-damaging, some other missiles. However, I suspect one of these setups (given ample missile ammo) is better than the others - which is part of the reason why I think Longbows are problematic (completely bypassing the only downside r.e. ammo).

[intrinsic_parity]

Sabots are ok in their current state because they have so little ammo. Vs AI, you can just let it expend all its ammo and then actually engage. The player can abuse them more, but IMO, if they were not so strong they would be useless with such low ammo.

[Igncom1]

The only major problem I find with them is how well they seem to punch through armour.

If anything sabots should be largely useless against low tech ships, past temporally disabling them because of their terrible shields.

[Harmful Mechanic]

Halving the per-submunition EMP and reducing the arc chance marginally (if it's 0.6 now, say, to 0.4) would go a long way towards making Sabots less insane.

[xenoargh]

I can see the argument re: Longbows; I'm sure it sucks seeing an endless stream of them coming at your ship. 

However, Longbows can be reasonably countered with anti-fighter ship loadouts and / or interceptors.

On my end, I currently have Sabots spraying 5 fragments at 250 Kinetic apiece; this gives the full-burst alpha 2500 Hard Flux... if it all lands.  That's pretty overwhelming against smaller ships; 3 Sabots managing to land all their fragments is overwhelming against practically anything in the game that doesn't have Hard Shields and character buffs. 

However, they're slow enough right now that they often take hits from ITU'd Flak and die, or get dodged, though, so it kind of works out.  Up close, they're utterly devastating, and they probably should be.

[Thaago]

Longbows are certainly effective; an excellent component of a mixed wing, or as a sabot spewing source for a Legion/Mora. I think they need a small OP cost increase to 15.

They suffer from the same problem as all bombers though: they are easy to shoot down or interdict. The AI doesn't really build fleets that are murderously good against fighter/bombers, but the player sure can.

Converted Hangar stuff

Converted hangar math on an Enforcer. Stuffed to the brim with sabots and expanded racks, it costs 28 OP for 24 sabots. A converted hangar longbow wing costs 34 OP and provides infinite sabots. However, those sabots only come (maybe) 2 at a time, they come at intervals of "whenever the bombers feel like it", and with +50% damage taken the bombers are particularly vulnerable.

If I'm running a very fighter heavy fleet where there will be enough fighters to protect the Longbows, I might run the converted hangar. But its a large investment and certainly not a given - I wouldn't do that trade if I expected the Enforcer to do much heavy fighting itself.

Medium missile mounts shift OP costs further in favor of the pods over the hangar: 50 OP for a Dominator to have 72 Sabots, fired in groups of 6, vs 39 OP for the wing. I think a mixed missile set is better tbh, but if the ship absolutely positively needs to crack shields, its a good option!

[close]

[Harmful Mechanic]

The problem with the present version is that it could and should be split into two weapons; a MIRVing EMP bomb (and, hey, the Gorgon/Hydra MDEM graphics are still in the game files and not being used by anything...) that does the same level of EMP damage + arcing chance, but has trouble making it through shields, and Sabots with lower EMP and less EMP arcing that can bend a ship's shields over a barrel but do supplemental rather than devastating EMP damage.

Having one weapon do both tilts Sabots as they are now towards being a perfect pick for the player on most larger ships; 'press fire to win the flux war/disable most of your enemy's weaponry' in such dramatic fashion is too powerful. If high-tech ships like the Aurora need such powerful weapons to stand a chance, I would suggest adjusting the hull, not overdriving the weapon.

(When I suggested adding EMP to Sabots, I was thinking HVD-style point EMP, not arcing.)

[Thaago]

Well Aurora's don't need sabots, they just help it in its best role as a burst killer. Even a 0 missile Aurora (after its murdered a whole bunch of ships) is still sporting extremely high speed and 1000 DPS (in armor piercing packages). Its just not quite the gleefully laughing death machine it is with sabot pods in the mediums and Reapers in the smalls.

[TaLaR]

Well Aurora's don't need sabots, they just help it in its best role as a burst killer.

No, that's Afflictor. Reaper variant + skilled character one-shots any non-omni Capital (or brings omni Capital close to death, to be finished off by AM variant). AM variant one-shots frigates/DEs and two-shots cruisers.