Print

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

[SCC]

Here are some things that I feel are worth touching, but don't have enough meat to stand on their own.

Weapon rarity: it isn't reliable enough. It would be better, if weapon rarity was more about how much of these guns can you find on any given colony, rather than checking every single one of them to find a stack of tachyon lances, railguns or whatever. It's annoying, it forces you to go around in a single shuttle on tour de sector in search of weapons that will make a certain ladout work.

Large ballistc weapons are kinda underwhelming. Large energy guns give you a bigger power jump (besides plasma cannon, which is a bit overcosted), while large ballistics are somewhat underwhelming. Hellbore, Gauss and Mjolnor are fine. Mk IX could get 1.0 flux efficiency, but that's mainly because the uneven number is annoying me. Hephaestus doesn't really know what it wants to do; it would be nice, if it had small AoE for anti-fighter utility. Storm Needler is perhaps excessively hard to use and changing it into something that more than a single ship can use would be nice.

Why do Thunders have full ion cannons? Claws have ones that fire half as often, which means that Thunders have nearly as much disabling power, but their extraordinary speed makes them swerve and zoom by at unpredictable angles, making them hard to intercept, then they start to disable your weaponry and unless you had burst pd lasers, it might be too late.

Edit: also, what's up with Heron being faster than Drover? And their speed in general. There isn't any reason for their speed, besides their tan. Fighters already have humongous range. And while I'm here, why is Condor slower than Mora, too? Condor is the more fragile one. It could use a little boost.

[Megas]

Large energy weapons get a big power jump because the medium energy weapons are underwhelming (too weak or inefficient).

My biggest gripe with Storm Needler is range.  700 is not enough.

Mark IX is only useful if I really need the 900 range.  Otherwise, it is too inefficient compared to Heavy Needler.  I guess that is okay because Mark IX is an Open Market weapon meant to be commonly available.

The only complaint I have with HAG is it is a bit too flux-hungry for comfort on ships not named Conquest (and Conquest can use Mjolnir instead).  As for AoE, Devastator is there for that.

If I have a complaint with heavy ballistics, it is that there is no kinetic that is easy to use like heavy needler.  Mark IX has bad accuracy and efficiency, Gauss is a flux-hungry sniper weapon, and Storm Needler is too short-ranged.

Thunders are fragile, only two per wing (Claws have five), and take forever to rebuild.  If they get half delay ion with no other changes, then there is no point to them.  Also, normal ion cannon has been a classic on Thunder since the old days (except one version where they got IR Pulse Laser and became a lame Gladius clone).

[Rocksummit]

Weapon rarity: it isn't reliable enough. It would be better, if weapon rarity was more about how much of these guns can you find on any given colony, rather than checking every single one of them to find a stack of tachyon lances, railguns or whatever. It's annoying, it forces you to go around in a single shuttle on tour de sector in search of weapons that will make a certain ladout work.

I'm curious, how does this work right now? I've only ever seen everything be "common"

Hephaestus doesn't really know what it wants to do; it would be nice, if it had small AoE for anti-fighter utility.

Hephaestus already have the best accuracy of the large HE ballistics, isn't that enough for anti-fighter?

[Plantissue]

I can understand the gripe about how weapon rarity operates, but I suppose it's done that way so there is whole numbers of a weapon being available for rare weapons.

Large ballistic weapons generally have a +200 range over energy weapons. This is massive especially with Integrated Targeting Unit on capitals, giving +320 range. Taken by itself, it's flux efficiency seems bad compared to the other smaller autocannons, but it is an effective weapon. My guess is that its higher damage neccessitates a lower flux efficiency. Afterall on the forums, we all repeatedly write that KE and range is the most important thing in a battle, so it only seems fair that a high shield damage and high range weapons pays for it.

Hephaestus is quite a nice way to make sure an enemy ship keeps its shield up, rather than toggling its shields. I suppose for that role you would prefer a lower dps weapon with correspondingly lower flux cost.

Storm needler range is a bit odd in that heavy needlers are range 800, but most large energy weapons are range 700 anyways. Back when they were range 800, they were the only mount anybody really wanted to mount over the Mark IX Autocannon. I'm fine with it either way.

I agree, Thunders should not have full ion cannons. I think they shouldn't have ion cannons at all. They can already destroy frigates and destroyers with relative ease. They don't need to be able to disable every ship without 360 degree sheild as well.

Mark IX is the easy to use kinetic. It's accuracy might be bad, but it's more than enough to ward off and flux out the outranged frigates. Not every weapon can be good against everything the railgun or light/heavy needlers. I'd rather see every KE weapon shift to be more like Mark IX since KE dps weapons are the most equipped weapons. Light/heavy needlers are too flux efficient and accurate for how effective they are. They should be inaccurate like the heavy autocannon is.

It bothers me how inaccurate the light autocannon is. There's no real reason to take it over the dual version. It's like kicking someone whilst they are down.

Bothers me how weak Wasps are. They die faster than talons. Wasps should be renamed flies so I can make a joke about them dying like flies. I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate for wasps. Though the argument could be made that fighters should be more fragile like wasps.

[Igncom1]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate for wasps.

I can if you'd like? They are my go to choice of interceptor. (Outside mod and remnant AI choices.)

[Megas]

Storm needler range is a bit odd in that heavy needlers are range 800, but most large energy weapons are range 700 anyways. Back when they were range 800, they were the only mount anybody really wanted to mount over the Mark IX Autocannon. I'm fine with it either way.

They were good until Mjolnir was buffed and maximum armor absorption percentage was raised higher (used to start at 75%).  Also, Storm Needler (along with Thumper) had long wind-up before firing.  There was a time in the releases before 0.8a when Storm Needler was king (who cares about armor when its DPS cut through it like butter back in the day), then toppled by Mjolnir.  Also, Hellbore was very powerful with double modern fire rate and longer lasting ammo.

Light/heavy needlers are too flux efficient and accurate for how effective they are.

They better be for the OP they cost.  I still do not use Light Needler because its OP cost of 9 is too high and railgun seems to perform better for less OP cost.

Light autocannon is handy for 1) being common as dirt (dual is not Open Market), 2) want low cost kinetic (OP and flux)

[SCC]

My gripe about weapon rarity is that if you miss it, you will spend a lot of time looking for it again. It also is unfair towards newcomers in a bad way, because they might not to know to grab a stack of railguns or whatever as soon as they can. I'd rather have 1 railgun on most bigger planets, than a dozen of them in some armpit of the sector.

The only complaint I have with HAG is it is a bit too flux-hungry for comfort on ships not named Conquest (and Conquest can use Mjolnir instead).  As for AoE, Devastator is there for that.

Fair enough. Haphaestus just seems not to really have a niche it can be good at.

Hephaestus is quite a nice way to make sure an enemy ship keeps its shield up, rather than toggling its shields. I suppose for that role you would prefer a lower dps weapon with correspondingly lower flux cost.

I prefer Mjolnir for that, actually. Damned if you raise the shield, damned if you let it down.

It bothers me how inaccurate the light autocannon is. There's no real reason to take it over the dual version. It's like kicking someone whilst they are down.

If I recall correctly, light autocannon is going to be more accurate in the next version.

[Megas]

HAG is not completely useless.  For a ship that wants to brawl with only two heavy weapons plus token PD, Mark IX and HAG is simple but decent enough with matching ranges.  I sometimes use that combo on Legion (and Conquest if I have HAGs on hand but not Mjolnir).

[Plantissue]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate for wasps.

I can if you'd like? They are my go to choice of interceptor. (Outside mod and remnant AI choices.)

Good. Someone should. They'll feel lonely otherwise.

What do you use them for? They don't hang around the ship when under AI use. Their proximity mine seem near useless for their intended role. They die near instantly when engaging enemies. they also die if hanging around the carrier to random passing shots. Talons are tougher. When personally piloted for anti-missile or fighter type fighters or against bombers, they are outclassed by Talons, Xyphos and Sparks. I've even seen Longbows on their bombing run blast away Wasps near instantly. They can't even face up against Longbows as a missile defence either.

Light/heavy needlers are too flux efficient and accurate for how effective they are.

They better be for the OP they cost.  I still do not use Light Needler because its OP cost of 9 is too high and railgun seems to perform better for less OP cost.

Light autocannon is handy for 1) being common as dirt (dual is not Open Market), 2) want low cost kinetic (OP and flux)

I prefer Railgun over Light needler as well. Heavy needler on the other hand, I don't see any reason not to take them over Heavy Autocannon. The do much more damage. The +5 OP cost is already refunded in flux efficiency. ( -50 flux is equivalent to 5 Flux Vent). And it's better burst damage and more accurate. And does more DPS if medium mounts are limited. The only disadvanage is that it would do less damage to armour/hull, but its way undercosted.

If you wanted low OP kinetic, in most circumstances it is better to go for less of dual light autocannon than multiples of light autocannon. Or simply replace the light autocannon. They are 1 OP difference and it is most likely a better use than whatever that OP was going to be used for. Can you give an example circumstance? Even the colossus MK II/III will be better off going for dual type instead of single type.

If I recall correctly, light autocannon is going to be more accurate in the next version.

Do you have a link for that? That's good news. It deserves to have a role.

[Megas]

Heavy needler on the other hand, I don't see any reason not to take them over Heavy Autocannon. The do much more damage. The +5 OP cost is already refunded in flux efficiency. ( -50 flux is equivalent to 5 Flux Vent). And it's better burst damage and more accurate. And does more DPS if medium mounts are limited. The only disadvanage is that it would do less damage to armour/hull, but its way undercosted.

I do not agree with it being underpriced.  With its OP cost, I can only mount two needlers instead of three HACs for the OP spent.  In effect, I trade DPS and steady suppression for better accuracy, efficiency, and getting a flux spike at a bad moment.  I think Heavy Needler is in a good spot now.  The only anomaly with Heavy Needler is it has 800 range while other needlers have 700 range.  (If Heavy Needler gets 700 range with no other changes, I will drop it for Heavy Autocannon in a heartbeat, unless I really need to match Heavy Mortar's 700 range.)

If you wanted low OP kinetic, in most circumstances it is better to go for less of dual light autocannon than multiples of light autocannon. Or simply replace the light autocannon. They are 1 OP difference and it is most likely a better use than whatever that OP was going to be used for. Can you give an example circumstance? Even the colossus MK II/III will be better off going for dual type instead of single type.

Either if I have a single mount and hurt for OP (like Shrike), the mounts do not cover each other, or I cannot support all mounts with 140+ flux weapons.  Yes, it is niche, but not useless.  Light Autocannon could be boosted somehow.

[Igncom1]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate for wasps.

I can if you'd like? They are my go to choice of interceptor. (Outside mod and remnant AI choices.)

Good. Someone should. They'll feel lonely otherwise.

What do you use them for? They don't hang around the ship when under AI use. Their proximity mine seem near useless for their intended role. They die near instantly when engaging enemies. they also die if hanging around the carrier to random passing shots. Talons are tougher. When personally piloted for anti-missile or fighter type fighters or against bombers, they are outclassed by Talons, Xyphos and Sparks. I've even seen Longbows on their bombing run blast away Wasps near instantly. They can't even face up against Longbows as a missile defence either.

They are 5op interceptors armed with PD lasers, which happen to have the same DPS as a tac laser. They require no pilots and rebuild quickly. Their proxy mines are nice to have, but require you go back to reload at your carrier which isn't ideal but it's still nice.

Longbow bombers have the advantage of dropping sabot missiles which are difficult for any PD weapon to intercept just because of how they work.

But ultimately? They are just cheap mobile PD lasers that don't require much thought to their use. In swarms their energy weapon damage can absolutely shred smaller ships and they are decent enough for their OP while not having a pilot.

Am I going to argue that they might be better then other craft? Nah (personally I dislike talons as they just feed crew to the enemy.) But are they a cheap interception option that deploys a mobile set of PD lasers for much less OP then ACTUAL pd lasers cost? Hellz yeah!

They are worse sparks that you can buy and build for everyone of your ships. I choose them over other interceptors for cost effectiveness alone.

[Plantissue]

Thank you Igncom1. Would I be right in assuming you are personally piloting when using Wasps as a mobile set of PD lasers for a ship, as otherwise the AI would sends them out to attack other ships?

Longbow bombers have burst PD. I've witnessed Longbows on their bombing runs out-fight wasps along the way to the targeted ship. That is what I meant by blasting away wasps. I wasn't talking about their sabot missiles at all. I'd rather have Longbows for PD than Wasps. Not quite a fair comparison as Wasps are cheaper, but losing to a bomber on its attack run is just how weak wasps are. They seem to die to 1 hit to the longbow burst PD in my recollection in the chaos of combat.

For their OP, I regard Talons as better for everything Wasps can do, but with Talons having lower OP as an additional advantage. Vulcans cannons are a much better PD and Talons are a better anti fighter and talons are tougher. Though I suppose it is true that Wasps do not lose you crew, I find that losing crew is not usually a concern unless you are farming remnants.

[Igncom1]

Thank you Igncom1. Would I be right in assuming you are personally piloting when using Wasps as a mobile set of PD lasers for a ship, as otherwise the AI would sends them out to attack other ships?

Longbow bombers have burst PD. I've witnessed Longbows on their bombing runs out-fight wasps along the way to the targeted ship. That is what I meant by blasting away wasps. I wasn't talking about their sabot missiles at all. I'd rather have Longbows for PD than Wasps. Not quite a fair comparison as Wasps are cheaper, but losing to a bomber on its attack run is just how weak wasps are. They seem to die to 1 hit to the longbow burst PD in my recollection in the chaos of combat.

For their OP, I regard Talons as better for everything Wasps can do, but with Talons having lower OP as an additional advantage. Vulcans cannons are a much better PD and Talons are a better anti fighter and talons are tougher. Though I suppose it is true that Wasps do not lose you crew, I find that losing crew is not usually a concern unless you are farming remnants.

LOL no... I've never personally piloted even a single serious battle in the game ever. I'm entirely at the mercy of the AI! The AI certainly does force feed talons to the enemy the same as it does with almost all fighters, so in that regard I guess I just find force feeding talons to be more distasteful then drone wasps? Not sure.

And yes they are very weak unless you are lucky enough to have them use their proxy mines properly! But I suppose that's just how it goes for the flimsy wasps. I suppose I could argue that tanking PD shots from longbows can help other fighters/missiles but that might be a stretch. They do die fast and quick, but are easily replaced and at no crew cost so it's honestly fine from an 'ablative armour' point of view where they being killed is basically good because it means somthing actually important is getting shot at instead.

Vulcans are very good PD but are limited by their range and accuracy, although mostly made up by making a wall of bullets. That said fragmentation damage from vulcans is very ineffective vs shield and armour, but devastating vs hull. I've had vulcans on my star ships struggle vs heavy fighters. But all of that is also kinda a moot point as the talon has swarmer SRM missiles which do HE damage!

So I'd guess in the end talons might be superior but I'm probably going to stick with wasps all the same and would definitely encourage their use! I've had battles many time sin the past where fighter attrition has left me after the battle with understaffed ships across the fleet, which just means more supplies spend on CR recovery and so on. But that can and can not be an issue depending on where you are in your game.

I'd say that wasps are still better then PD lasers mounted on a ship, and have surprisingly good energy DPS if you swarm small pirate ships, but otherwise there certainly is a trade-off for not having a pilot when compared to talons or any of the better interceptors and fighters.

[TaLaR]

When your side has really a lot of interceptors they double up as ablative armor(since carriers strongly prefer to escort). Wasps with super low hp are horrible at that.

[Plantissue]

Heavy needler on the other hand, I don't see any reason not to take them over Heavy Autocannon. The do much more damage. The +5 OP cost is already refunded in flux efficiency. ( -50 flux is equivalent to 5 Flux Vent). And it's better burst damage and more accurate. And does more DPS if medium mounts are limited. The only disadvanage is that it would do less damage to armour/hull, but its way undercosted.

I do not agree with it being underpriced.  With its OP cost, I can only mount two needlers instead of three HACs for the OP spent.  In effect, I trade DPS and steady suppression for better accuracy, efficiency, and getting a flux spike at a bad moment.  I think Heavy Needler is in a good spot now.  The only anomaly with Heavy Needler is it has 800 range while other needlers have 700 range.  (If Heavy Needler gets 700 range with no other changes, I will drop it for Heavy Autocannon in a heartbeat, unless I really need to match Heavy Mortar's 700 range.)

Of course you would think think Heavy Needler is in a good spot now. It is a much better choice and is more OP efficient than Heavy Autocannon. You did not point to a build where you would prefer to use Heavy Needler over Heavy Autocannon.


Lets us see what the cost of a Heavy Needler should be using the Heavy Autocannon as a baseline.

The Heavy Autocannon is 10 OP for a 214 DPS and 214 Flux/second.
The Heavy Needler has 250 DPS at 200 Flux/second.

In terms of proportionate DPS, the Heavy Needler is 250/214 so is +16% better DPS, and so the proportionate OP cost of the Heavy Needler should be 11.6 OP.

However, a Heavy Autocannon, taken to that proportionate DPS would use 250 Flux/second. As the Needler uses 200 Flux a second it has essentially has -50 Flux/second than it would do proportionately.

-50 Flux/second is equivalent to 5 inbuilt Flux Vents, which costs 5 OP.

11.6 + 5  = 16.6 OP

So the Needler is worth 16.6 OP.

This is not even taking into account that the Heavy Needler is more accurate, and sharp bursts of fire is generally more desirable than steady dps. Or that medium weapon slots are a limited resource make the heavy Needler worth more than that. We can say that as the Heavy Needler is less effective against Armour, they equalise. They don't as the far greater accuracy and burst fire is better than a slightly lesser ability to affect armour for KE weapons but we will do so as it is hard to quantify.

Let us take another avenue of approach.  You have 3 medium weapon slots. 3 Heavy Needlers is 750 dps for 600 flux/s. 3 Heavy Autocannons is 642 dps for 642/s. If somehow taken proportionately its clear that the 3 Heavy Needlers are the more OP efficient cost. For the 3 Heavy Autocannons to be worth the same dps as the 3 heavy Needlers, they will cost 35 OP, but then uptake 750 flux/s, costing an extra 15 OP to reduce the flux cost down to 600 flux/s. The 3 heavy needlers are much better.

Or let us compare your approach. 2 Heavy Needlers with 3 Heavy Autocannons. 500 dps for 400 flux against 642 dps and 642 flux. Looking this the 2 heavy Needlers already look superiour to the 3 Heavy Autocannons, but let us analyze it anyways. Firstly the 2 Needlers have a spare medium ballistic weapon slot. Taking the 3 Heavy Autocannons down to 400 flux cost will cost 24.2 Flux Vents. That's enough to fill that empty spare medium weapon slot with an additional Heavy Needler and 9.2 Flux vents. For 750 dps and 508 flux. Those Heavy needlers are looking so much more cost and mount effective than Autocannon.

Again I'm not even taking into account that the Heavy Needler is more accurate and has better burst fire. So it's worth far more than that.

If you wanted low OP kinetic, in most circumstances it is better to go for less of dual light autocannon than multiples of light autocannon. Or simply replace the light autocannon. They are 1 OP difference and it is most likely a better use than whatever that OP was going to be used for. Can you give an example circumstance? Even the colossus MK II/III will be better off going for dual type instead of single type.

Either if I have a single mount and hurt for OP (like Shrike), the mounts do not cover each other, or I cannot support all mounts with 140+ flux weapons.  Yes, it is niche, but not useless.  Light Autocannon could be boosted somehow.

Or, just take that single dual light autocannon over the light autocannon? It's 1 OP more and for that you are gaining +42 KE dps. It's a mistake to take a light autocannon rather than the dual light autocannon under the impression that you cannon support the flux. Post your shrike build and then I'll make it better by removing 1 OP somewhere else. The Shrike is a fast destroyer with massive flux stats and a ship system suited for building and dumping soft flux.