Print

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

Yes.

8 (16%)

No.

38 (76%)

Let the paragon be the best ship for shield tanking, and no armor/hull regen for onslaught for armor/hull tanking.

4 (8%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[Sinigr]

Look, some remnants fleets, paragons with cool capacitors and shield ratio damage flux can tank with it's, also conditionally recovering shield, it can tank, kill enemies, use it's shield fortress tank and tank more with shields, it can vent at right moment, tank one time, vent, tank again, vent, and again and again, so it can hunt strong enemies without losses.
Onslaught, it has bad shields and bad capacitors, so it can not tank with shields, so it tank with armor and hull, but, if it can not regenerate it can tank first, second time, and for third time it explodes because there is no armor or hull regeneration.
While such ships like onslaught will not have some hull regenaration or something other solution, we have just paragon for good game without losses, we should just play, making some money, trading, explorering, for one hour, than we can take paragon and play without those annoying losses and hunt all what we see, and just paragon is applicable for such game, no one other ship can tank like paragon and hunt 100% without losses.

Or some thing like capacitors, vents and shield, which should be bad on high tech ships, and good on low tech ships, so, on mid tech ships should be possibility to use average shields with average capacitors/vents, and average ship repairing system. Completely new thing like capacitors/vents and shield efficiency, look, add some base repairing system, whish should use flux like shields, but, for low tech ships it should be effective because of simple old ship design, while high tech ships should get bad effectiveness of that system because of sophisticated modern ship design (delicate machinery  ) so it needs to be shut down for fast repairs to prevent critical failure, like low tech ships have bad shields, but hith tech ships get the benefits from shields.

Some more information. Goal is that low tehch has good armor and hulls, but are very slow, while high tech has cool shields and speed, or more unuque like paragon, so compare some ships.

Enforcer vs meduse, what we will get: medusa harasses enforcer, does some armor/hull damage, than fast retreating, venting, and again, with new shields harassing enforser, and repeating such procedure while enforcer blows up. Okey, enforcer can use berndrive, medusa just as easy evoinds such enforcer or feeds it's hull by damage.
Dominator vs aurora, same situation progress.
Onslaught vs odyssey, same situation progress.
So, while high tech retreating for shield renewal, and repeatedly engaging ship it has same tanking feature like before while low tech ship has damaged unregerable armor and hull.
Take some fleet vs fleet you will see same condition, high tech is harassing low tech, by rotation retreating and renewing their shilds and harassing again, gradually tearing pieces of low's armor/hull.

What about Paragon? That boy should just smash those ships like paper.

Which ship can tank that? I made some video, but while recording i have very bad perfoformance, but it is done) So, here you can see how paragon can tank, put there some other ship and look what seems to happen (At least without moded officers). Do not say anything about vanilla AI's without officers and low level, it is eeeeeeeeeeeasy mod, no fun, i think one day Alex should add legal difficulty setting by officers in ai fleet. Set speed x2.
And vanilla video.

[mvp7]

Paragon is more expensive to purchase, maintain and deploy so one would expect it to perform better than Onslaught. Personally I'd still take 3 Onslaughts over 2 Paragons any time.

With right hull-mods and skills an Onslaught can choose to armor tank a lot of damage and use its full flux for firepower. Paragon doesn't really have to durability to rely on armor even for a short period and is more flux sensitive. Venting Paragon is also much easier to take down quickly than a venting Onslaught.

Post battle the free-repair skills will greatly reduce the supply cost of returning an Onslaught to full readiness.

edit. My Onslaughts have never suffered hull damage and rarely even significant armour damage even when fighting against overwhelming capital spam fleet stacks. I don't think the cost of damage they typically take in really bad situation is much worse than a Paragon would suffer in similar situation.

[Megas]

Hull regeneration in combat is too powerful.  It was the biggest enabler of the player soloing fleets back before 0.8a when the final perk of Damage Control added hull regeneration.  It would encourage more kiting and make edge-camping even better than it is now.

For Onslaught the biggest problem with it is horrible dissipation, with slow speed as a close runner-up.  Onslaught looking to kill Remnants needs a mostly needler loadout to crush their shields fast and support from other ships to prevent the enemy from focus-firing at Onslaught to do well.

Paragon is overpriced at 60 DP.  Its former cost of 50 DP is more accurate under AI use.  Paragon is better than playable battleships, but not by very much.  AI Paragon is a sitting duck if its flux gets too high, which is not hard when Remnants focus-fire on it and/or Paragon fires weapons for too long.

[mvp7]

Regarding the main topic of mid-battle repairs: I don't think having such a mechanic would necessarily be a problem but I also don't think it's necessary.

Both Paragon and Onslaught can use shields to defend themselves, the Paragon is just much better at this. Paragon's offense is very much limited by its defense while Onslaught can better trade defense for offence without being obliterated in seconds. Paragon can restore and maintain more of it's defense than Onslaught but Onslaught can survive relatively larger amount of damage while still committing all of its flux to offence. Shields use flux that can be regenerated indefinitely but armor still reduces damage of all weapons types even after it has been stripped away.

If armor could be repaired then the question is how would it work? If it was really slow and passive it would have little effect on the battle. If it was relatively fast and passive it would work outside the flux mechanics. If it was fast and used flux then how would it really differ from shields? Would the mid-battle repairs have no supply-cost? If so, this would encourage unnecessarily prolonging battles just to repair as much of the armor for free as possible.

One interesting option could be a specialized ship like the Celestra from Battlestar Galactica Deadlock. It can add applique plating on top of other ships' normal armour whether that armor is damaged or not. The applique armor only lasts during the battle and has no effect on the post battle repair cost of the normal ship armor. The maximum amount of applique armor is limited and fixed so it can be used to further beef up an important area or to add some small level of protection to exposed hull.

[Megas]

If I wanted to add a ship with in-combat armor repair, I probably do it either 1) as its only defense, no shields allowed or 2) ship system with limited charges similar to Gryphon's nanoforge system.

[TaLaR]

Paragon is overpriced at 60 DP.  Its former cost of 50 DP is more accurate under AI use.  Paragon is better than playable battleships, but not by very much.

I'm not so sure about that. AI Paragon can (but not reliably) defeat 2 other capitals in skill-less sim at least in some match-ups, like 2 standard Onslaughts. Other capitals just always lose.

Plus, Onslaught isn't that much cheaper at 40/15 supply/fuel vs 60/10 of Paragon.

[sotanaht]

Paragon is overpriced at 60 DP.  Its former cost of 50 DP is more accurate under AI use.  Paragon is better than playable battleships, but not by very much.

I'm not so sure about that. AI Paragon can (but not reliably) defeat 2 other capitals in skill-less sim at least in some match-ups, like 2 standard Onslaughts. Other capitals just always lose.

Plus, Onslaught isn't that much cheaper at 40/15 supply/fuel vs 60/10 of Paragon.

Fuel generally being the bigger issue of the two as well.  Not considering the deploy cost, I'd take -5 fuel per ly over -20 supply per month any day.  A month in hyperspace at 5f/ly adds up to hundreds to thousands of fuel units.

But yeah, on terms of reliability, AI usage, and versatility, the Paragon is easily worth 3 onslaughts.

[Megas]

DP cost is more annoying for deployment limits, not campaign costs.  Especially at smaller map sizes.  Eating more supplies is not the problem.  Deploying fewer ships at one time is.

I'm not so sure about that. AI Paragon can (but not reliably) defeat 2 other capitals in skill-less sim at least in some match-ups, like 2 standard Onslaughts. Other capitals just always lose.

I wish it was that good in huge endgame fights.  Well, it often is if I pilot it, but if AI pilots it, it just flux caps a bit later (no matter what loadout I give it) then falls about as quickly as the other battleships when its shields are breached.

[Sinigr]

No no no, to hunt very large fleets onslought can not tank so mush as paragon, and it blows up because of it. No problem, for me there can be just paragon, ship that can tank 3+ radiants and win it, while onsaught should blow up in such situation.

[Sinigr]

Hull regeneration in combat is too powerful.  It was the biggest enabler of the player soloing fleets back before 0.8a when the final perk of Damage Control added hull regeneration.  It would encourage more kiting and make edge-camping even better than it is now.

For Onslaught the biggest problem with it is horrible dissipation, with slow speed as a close runner-up.  Onslaught looking to kill Remnants needs a mostly needler loadout to crush their shields fast and support from other ships to prevent the enemy from focus-firing at Onslaught to do well.

Paragon is overpriced at 60 DP.  Its former cost of 50 DP is more accurate under AI use.  Paragon is better than playable battleships, but not by very much.  AI Paragon is a sitting duck if its flux gets too high, which is not hard when Remnants focus-fire on it and/or Paragon fires weapons for too long.

AI paragon is a promblem, yes, but if you understand it you will make right loadout for ai paragon, and it will smash all what it see, try such loadout for AI paragon, and you will see how indestructible it is. All of you, just try such loadout for ai pargon, and look! With steady officer with Combat Endurance, Ordnance Experience, Target Analysis, Defensive System, Advanced Countermeasures, Gunnery Implants, Power Grid Modulation, if you play with 29 lvl officers, and officers in all ai ships (that is more harder than vanilla) add Damage Control, Impact Mitigation and Helmsmanship. Just try it! And do not put orders to it, let it do what it wants, orders will interrupt it.

[mvp7]

That build is very shields focused. What kind of Onslaught builds are you comparing it to?

[Sinigr]

That build is very shields focused. What kind of Onslaught builds are you comparing it to?

No, used different onslaught builds, it can tank with armor and hull, but not conditionally unlimited amount times like paragon with it's  shields. It's shields, capacitors and vents can not tank such long like paragons, also with shield fortress, paragon can tank, use fortress, vent soft flux, shoot, and again. If onslaught is in danger situation it needs turn of its shields, shoot taking damage to hull and armor, or vent under fire, so it is losing it's unregeneranble armor, and some time it has not enought hull to tank so blows up. I talk about 2++ big fleets. 1 fleet it is enought to tank with onslaught, but mor game when you are fighting 5+ big fleets at once, onslaught is not good option. I want to have different ways to play, now i can play that just with paragon, Oh, or it is just differences low or high tech, you see, low or high, high means modern and much better technology than low.  But it is game, i want to have onslaught with regenarating armor and hull to rank huge amount om enemies by armor like paragon with shields!

[Sinigr]

Problem is just that paragon have recoverable resource for tanking, and onslaught does not have it.

[Ranakastrasz]

What if you only let Armor regenerate?
What if you only allow regeneration of ~80% of lost armor/hull?
What if regeneration required flux?

Doesn't work in combat doesn't much matter, because you would disengage anyway.

The issue is that Shields regenerate in combat, but armor/hull does not.
The reason it doesn't is that regenerating anything encourages the whole "Solo entire enemy fleet" thing, where you disengage until you fully heal.
However, shields do that already, and people don't want to remove shields.

So the key is to, however you allow armor/hull regeneration, it must not exceed the effectiveness of shields in that way.

I think.

[bobucles]

There is no need to give unique healing to armor style ships. Every ship has a limited combat resource, peak performance time. Armor focused ships tend to be low tech, so they should have fewer problems with long term deployments. An armor ship stops being combat viable when their armor is depleted, after all. Shield ships tend to be higher tech, which implies a more sensitive type of equipment. Ship performance would degrade when shield systems and such wear down from fatigue.