Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Small Paragon nerf  (Read 3968 times)

Mordodrukow

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2020, 03:51:45 AM »

Quote
For a ship that has 50% more deployment cost
It is not quite correct to compare proportions, imo. But yeah, i m not a big fun of huge nerfs, so may be it will be enough.
Logged
Spoiler
[close]

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2020, 04:10:51 AM »

Imo nerfing individual capitals is not the point. 10 officers limit encourages using only few big ships. You'd have to nerf every capital and cruiser into the ground before using massed frigates + DEs becomes the better option despite not being able to leverage officers as much.
Logged

Mordodrukow

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2020, 04:34:04 AM »

I understand. My point was: fleet with few Paragons and small ammount of cruiser support deals way easier with same threats the other fleets (of the same deployment cost) do. May be it is just me, i dont know honestly...

And yes:
1. For me it was a huge con to use Paragon because of 7 burn. Then i found Ox, lol...
2. I dont care about frigates, they are OK for me. I care mostly about entire game system. Imo, problem "capitals vs small ships usage" exists because there is no reason to use small ships. May be if burn levels for every ship will be reduced by 2 AND there will be strategic reasons to be faster than enemy, we will get one.

May be some ability to choose which ships enemy deploys if you are faster than he (he is still free to choose reinforcements when he gets enough DP).

And 2x speed mod for global travels, lol.
Logged
Spoiler
[close]

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2020, 05:30:59 AM »

Longest range hard flux energy weapons are Autopulse and Plasma at 700. With 80% ATC this means 1260.
Typical large ballistic weapon has 900 range. With 60% ITU this means 1440.
Oops, now Paragon is significantly(at capital speeds) outranged by every ballistic capital and essentially becomes an oversized punching bag.
During 0.7.x, Dominator could easily score flawless victory against AI Paragon.  Tank lances, then pound with whatever.  (Dual Mjolnirs were good enough at the time.)  Eagle did not have enough firepower, but Paragon could not do anything to it.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2020, 10:26:26 AM »

I think the range boost is critical to the Paragon's performance. If it needs to be nerfed, then shaving off a few OP (say 10) would be a good start. I don't really agree that the Paragon needs a nerf though - maybe some logistics tweaks, but its performance is pretty reasonable for 60 DP.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2020, 11:14:06 AM »

Every other thread so far: ''capitals are too good, i want to feel good using smaller ships'', I make a thread to see which idea would be best to tone down the strongest capital and the most annoying one (yea I know it's 60 DP, I'd still rather face 2 Onslaughts): ''nah it's fine, it's fine''... It really do be like that. I'm the last guy who wants to see capitals nerfed because I think they're in a good spot, but obviously something's gonna get changed so I'd rather see ships nerfed in a way that it doesn't gimp their strengths too much (if it comes to that).

@Thaago
Funny thing you mentioned logistics, I can't go over tha fact that Paragon uses 10 fuel/ly but Onslaught burns 15!! I know high-tech = efficient engines but cmon, one is 40 DP and the other is 60. It would make sense the biggest and strongest beast requires more cargo ships AND tankers but no it's a sailboat to a Onslaught.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2020, 11:38:45 AM »

Funny thing you mentioned logistics, I can't go over tha fact that Paragon uses 10 fuel/ly but Onslaught burns 15!! I know high-tech = efficient engines but cmon, one is 40 DP and the other is 60. It would make sense the biggest and strongest beast requires more cargo ships AND tankers but no it's a sailboat to a Onslaught.
Since Paragon is 60 DP, it should eat about 50% more supplies than the 40 DP competitor.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2020, 11:40:20 AM »

And it does exactly that? DP is the same as supplies/month.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2020, 11:55:47 AM »

@Grievous69
Agreed - the low tech fuel costs are flavorful, but a bit annoying to deal with. I'd be happy with Enforcer 2 f/ly, Dominator 4 f/ly, Onslaught 10 f/ly.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2020, 12:32:35 PM »

Low-tech ships burning more fuel does put a damper on their "less powerful, but cheaper" philosophy, because you can burn a lot of fuel in a short span of time. If you spend more than 1/3rd of your time in hyperspace, Onslaught becomes more expensive in fuel, than in supplies. Then there are salary costs...
...well, some quick calculations show that Onslaught is actually the most expensive capital ship. Assuming spending half the time in hyperspace, it's 3% more expensive than Legion (not counting expanded deck crew), 25% more expensive than Paragon and ~50% more expensive than Conquest and Odyssey. Without taking fuel into account, then Onslaught is just 10-20% more expensive. For Paragon to be more expensive, it has to be deployed at least two times a month, in addition to maintenance.
I actually forgot if it was low-tech that was supposed to be cheap on the upkeep and expensive to deploy, or if it was high-tech.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2020, 12:43:00 PM »

Thx for running the actual numbers but I'm now even more mad. The whole thing with high-tech ships is that they're delicate and so they're expensive and lose more CR to deploy but it seems if you try to go ''big hunks of metal slapped together'' route, you're actually gonna end up losing more money in the long run. Don't forget that low-tech ships are much more likely to get damaged in combat so there's repairs also. Onslaught even requires more crew than Paragon...
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Plantissue

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2020, 06:34:05 AM »

Are low tech ships supposed to be less power but cheaper? Were do you guys get that from? Thematically they are supposed to lose less CR per deployment and so recover faster so you can deploy them more often in a row with better CR. I thought everybody knew that low tech ships are supposed to cost more to maintain as they have higher crew requirements and have higher fuel per LY.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2020, 06:38:21 AM »

Are low tech ships supposed to be less power but cheaper? Were do you guys get that from? Thematically they are supposed to lose less CR per deployment and so recover faster so you can deploy them more often in a row with better CR. I thought everybody knew that low tech ships are supposed to cost more to maintain as they have higher crew requirements and have higher fuel per LY.
No one in this whole thread said they're less powerful. The thing where they cost more even without taking ANY damage in combat is a bit silly. Why would you ever use high-tech ships then? I've seen a lot of people hating on them because they're meh so why make them expensive...
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2020, 06:58:06 AM »

The tradeoff between crew costs and supply costs seems a bit off. High tech ships don't actually have inflated upkeep costs, in fact every ship has the exact same supply upkeep as its combat value (in a well balanced world). So you get 60 DP worth of paragon, which costs 60 supplies to deploy, and pay 60 monthly upkeep as well. An onslaught on the other hand is less ship total, deploy 40, cost 40, upkeep 40 so the same ratios. However the low tech ship must pay for extra crew AND they have worse fuel efficiency per value as well. Low tech ships definitely get shafted in the upkeep department.

I'm not a fan of high tech ships having better fuel economy. All ships generally operate on the same hyperspace system. Bigger ships need bigger drive bubbles, which uses more fuel, and the speed of the ship doesn't change fuel economy in hyperspace. So why would a Paragon burn 1/3 less fuel than an Onslaught? They both need the same gigantic size drive bubble, and antimatter generally doesn't shy away from 100% annihilation into energy. Is the paragon bubble more streamlined somehow? If anything, the Paragon is a bigger ship! I think that fuel economy is an advantage that high tech ships can live without.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2020, 07:00:49 AM by bobucles »
Logged

Plantissue

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
Re: Small Paragon nerf
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2020, 07:14:18 AM »

Are low tech ships supposed to be less power but cheaper? Were do you guys get that from? Thematically they are supposed to lose less CR per deployment and so recover faster so you can deploy them more often in a row with better CR. I thought everybody knew that low tech ships are supposed to cost more to maintain as they have higher crew requirements and have higher fuel per LY.
No one in this whole thread said they're less powerful. The thing where they cost more even without taking ANY damage in combat is a bit silly. Why would you ever use high-tech ships then? I've seen a lot of people hating on them because they're meh so why make them expensive...

The quotes are right there:
Low-tech ships burning more fuel does put a damper on their "less powerful, but cheaper" philosophy
Thx for running the actual numbers but I'm now even more mad. The whole thing with high-tech ships is that they're delicate and so they're expensive and lose more CR to deploy

Where do you get the impression that low tech ships are supposed to be less powerful but cheaper? Only DP comparisons are a good measure of power comparisons and there is nothing to indicate that low tech ships are supposed to be less powerful, as in less DP efficient. There is nothing to also indicate that low tech ships are supposed to be cost less to maintain either.

I don't know what you are talking about about high tech ships either. The type descriptions exist, but it makes no sense to regard a Lasher and a Legion as the same category of ships simply because they both got the label of "low tech" on them. I consider each ship individually rather than your enclosing them in those categories.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3