Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic: Hammerhead Balance Theories  (Read 4182 times)

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5220
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2020, 10:27:49 PM »

Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.

Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.

The Medusa has other strengths, such as a very efficient shield, higher speed, and a very good system. Your contention that a no-system SO Hammerhead is better than an SO Medusa is... well its just not true. We saw on stream in the tourney before last that the classic SO Hammerhead with AC and lmgs WITH AAF loses to the SO Medusa.

Not mine. Yours. I was using your numbers.

...


I reject that more firepower is the same as being stronger. Thats an artificial definition - one which you need some pretty twisty logic to justify - that flies in the face of, well, every other statistic in the game. You are twisting what was from me a cut and dry mathematical statement of weapon firepower into a complete value judgement on the ship. I don't particularly like having my words twisted. This is what I wrote:

Quote
The assault chaingun going from 400->600 by getting +50% per shot damage is a lot easier to analyze: it went from a lackluster weapon that was a bit 'meh' even in SO builds to being extremely strong. A Hammerhead with 2 of them and 4 lmgs will 'melee' for 1200HE + 600K, doubled with system with a 1.4 effective average DPS (though frontloaded, so it has 'alpha' compared to average). Its about 1.5 times the firepower of an SO Medusa for comparison, though the Medusa has the mobility and shield advantage (and the weakness to fighters). I also use the new AC on non-SO ships as 'point defense' when I expect to be swarmed by smaller enemies: I have a campaign Legion (recovered) that uses them to great effect. Its also a pretty good weapon against fighters believe it or not by virtue of sheer DPS.

Note that the subject of this paragraph is the AC and its DPS, not relative ship strength. You responded with:

Quote
1.5/1.4=1.07. Hammerhead without AAF is 1.07 times stronger than SO Medusa. This is how weak it is. Literally unplayable.

You make the contention that a Hammerhead without AAF is "stronger" than a Medusa. When I told you that this is wrong, you responded with:

Quote
Not mine. Yours. I was using your numbers.

Which is frankly rather insulting. My own words spoke ONLY of dps numbers, and even mentioned the other mitigating factors of mobility and shield in the same sentence. Trying to cover up your own wrong statements by saying I said it first is a poor dodge.

I have video evidence to back up my claims on balance, and am offering to spend my time doing an unbiased experiment to get real data.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2020, 11:00:29 PM »

I reject that more firepower is the same as being stronger.

Bold move but unsubstantial.

Thats an artificial definition - one which you need some pretty twisty logic to justify - that flies in the face of, well, every other statistic in the game.

The game is fine. I was able to recreate the Napoleonic era rating system while using game's stats. And it all led to firepower being first, defence being second and mobility acting as some minor adjustment for the cases strongly above or below median.

And any system where you have to destroy something by dealing damage to it will end up like this.

You are twisting what was from me a cut and dry mathematical statement of weapon firepower into a complete value judgement on the ship. I don't particularly like having my words twisted.

I didnt twist any of your words. If I see matter as "firepower equals strength" this is it. Thats my point. You can disagree with it but it have nothing to do with me twisting your words.

Which is frankly rather insulting. My own words spoke ONLY of dps numbers, and even mentioned the other mitigating factors of mobility and shield in the same sentence. Trying to cover up your own wrong statements by saying I said it first is a poor dodge.

This is how you measure firepower. DPS = firepower.

I have video evidence to back up my claims on balance, and am offering to spend my time doing an unbiased experiment to get real data.

And how exactly did you get a video evidence of me not being able to hadle some destroyer variant while piloting Hammerhead? Oh, you dont. You are talking about championship. What have nothing to do with my claims or topic in question.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2020, 11:26:48 PM »

Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.

Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.

No, it's not. Firepower-at X range-at Y speed-with Z survivability as whole is what matters.

If its not, take it as zero then.

Which would be just as useless as having infinite firepower, but:
- having zero range
- OR zero speed with less than infinite range = shot from safe distance
- OR significantly lower speed & shorter range than assumed opponent = kited to death
- OR higher speed & shorter range & no survivability = killed on attempt to approach
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2020, 11:56:48 PM »

Well, since we are being semantic, note that I didn't say stronger. I said more firepower.

Thats "being stronger". Firepower is the capability to enforce your will. If you can just outright destroy the target then you dont need anything else. If you cant... well... this is when you find yourself in need of other stuff like "defence" and "mobility". Firepower was always a number one priority.

No, it's not. Firepower-at X range-at Y speed-with Z survivability as whole is what matters.

If its not, take it as zero then.

Which would be just as useless as having infinite firepower, but:
- having zero range
- OR zero speed with less than infinite range = shot from safe distance
- OR significantly lower speed & shorter range than assumed opponent = kited to death
- OR higher speed & shorter range & no survivability = killed on attempt to approach

No, its simplier than that. Having firepower, as your ability to deal damage, set strictly at zero will leave you without zones where destruction of anything is still possible.

With zero range you still can destroy the target if it is upon you. It is probable.
With zero speed you still can destroy targets if they came or were brought into range or you have infinite range.
With zero defence but infinite firepower you still can destroy targets if you hit first or they have zero firepower.
And so on.

In less abstract systems (without all those zeroes and infinites) it typically ends up with "firepower counters firepower" so you have to destroy enemy's firepower faster then it destroys yours. But the fundamental reasoning for that is still the defining role of the firepower. You need it if you want to do something and everything else acts to support it.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2020, 12:10:34 AM »

A weapon-less brick with unreasonable durability and mobility could still be useful to body-block for carriers or currently venting ships. Pushing enemies away from carriers/snipers would also be an option.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #50 on: January 17, 2020, 12:17:45 AM »

Mobility and range both can 'counter' firepower... thats why a dominator dies to a wolf/tempest or a sunder dies to a falcon. Is it really that hard to see that the combat in this game is multi faceted and no single capability or stat is sufficient to determine how good a ship is...?

It's also why the Hyperion got nerfed into the ground. You could literally solo kill every ship in the game at once because it had such insane mobility with only two medium energy mounts and two small energy mounts. CR was added to prevent strategies that abused mobility excessively because they were so strong that it wasn't worth using any other strategy.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2020, 12:23:24 AM »

A weapon-less brick with unreasonable durability and mobility could still be useful to body-block for carriers or currently venting ships. Pushing enemies away from carriers/snipers would also be an option.

It doesnt destroy anything. You are talking about protecting your sources of the firepower. Which you still have. As I said, to set your minds straight you should assume zero firepower. Like nothing, nil. No, ramming damage is not allowed also. Neither is target's self-damage. After that you will realize what is primarium here.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2020, 12:30:13 AM »

Mobility and range both can 'counter' firepower... thats why a dominator dies to a wolf/tempest or a sunder dies to a falcon. Is it really that hard to see that the combat in this game is multi faceted and no single capability or stat is sufficient to determine how good a ship is...?

It's also why the Hyperion got nerfed into the ground. You could literally solo kill every ship in the game at once because it had such insane mobility with only two medium energy mounts and two small energy mounts. CR was added to prevent strategies that abused mobility excessively because they were so strong that it wasn't worth using any other strategy.

Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2020, 12:41:51 AM »

Mobility and range both can 'counter' firepower... thats why a dominator dies to a wolf/tempest or a sunder dies to a falcon. Is it really that hard to see that the combat in this game is multi faceted and no single capability or stat is sufficient to determine how good a ship is...?

It's also why the Hyperion got nerfed into the ground. You could literally solo kill every ship in the game at once because it had such insane mobility with only two medium energy mounts and two small energy mounts. CR was added to prevent strategies that abused mobility excessively because they were so strong that it wasn't worth using any other strategy.

Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.

The dominator doesn't turn fast enough to track the wolf and a huge amount of its firepower is in hard points or forward facing turrets, no matter who is piloting. The sunder does not have enough range or speed to hit the falcon regardless of how much damage it would do if it did manage to hit it. The only reason a sunder can ever kill a falcon is because the AI fails to use its range and mobility correctly when piloting the falcon.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2020, 12:48:49 AM »

Mobility and range both can 'counter' firepower... thats why a dominator dies to a wolf/tempest or a sunder dies to a falcon. Is it really that hard to see that the combat in this game is multi faceted and no single capability or stat is sufficient to determine how good a ship is...?

It's also why the Hyperion got nerfed into the ground. You could literally solo kill every ship in the game at once because it had such insane mobility with only two medium energy mounts and two small energy mounts. CR was added to prevent strategies that abused mobility excessively because they were so strong that it wasn't worth using any other strategy.

Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.

The dominator doesn't turn fast enough to track the wolf and a huge amount of its firepower is in hard points or forward facing turrets, no matter who is piloting. The sunder does not have enough range or speed to hit the falcon regardless of how much damage it would do if it did manage to hit it. The only reason a sunder can ever kill a falcon is because the AI fails to use its range and mobility correctly when piloting the falcon.

Are you trying to say that human will not be able to kill the Wolf in the Dominator or Falcon in the Sunder? Thats not funny.

Its the examples of ai being unable to use its firepower. Failure to command.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2020, 01:23:12 AM »

Jesus Christ what the hell has this thread become... Everyone please take a break and look how stupid you look. ''1v1 me bro or else you dumb'' > ''no i'm not, my clearly scientific data i got from playing alone suggest otherwise'' > ''i have proof you dumb'' > ''no u (u being everyone else who has a different opinion)'' - basically the last 3 pages. Not only is it a massive derailment that has more posts than the actual topic but it's just childish bickering in circles. And I thought mods were starting to be more active...
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1711
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2020, 01:31:14 AM »

I agree with Grievous, and should have probably said something sooner. This thread has turned into a pointless shouting match about something completely apart from the original topic.

Y'all who are arguing: I think it's been going on long enough for you to realise that you aren't going to change each other's opinions. Probably best to agree to disagree and leave it there. The "discussion" is no longer productive, informative or interesting.
Logged

Plantissue

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2020, 06:03:13 AM »

Did you know, make your font size and bolding your words does not make you right? What's wrong with people arguing with each other. It's an interesting read.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5220
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2020, 11:48:06 AM »

I agree that this is a derailment and have split the thread off. So far this thread has remained mostly polite, lets everyone keep it that way moving forward.

In the interests of fairness I'm going to recuse myself from the thread.
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hammerhead Balance Theories
« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2020, 11:52:48 AM »

I'll start this off by saying that the Hammerhead's ability, Accelerated Ammo Feeder, is the main thing the ship has going for it.

Without it the ship would be a largely under-gunned and under protected basic destroyer when compared to the Enforcer and Medusa. Having Hybrid mounts isn't much of an advantage when it's ability only works with ballistic weapons.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7