Print

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

[Grievous69]

I, and I think a lot of other very nerdy players of RPGs and battle simulators like Starsector, have a really weird hoarding instinct and aversion to items/weapons with limited ammunition/charges/uses/etc.

True, I generally don't like paying for something that's gonna be of super short use for me. Like let's say a strong weapon in an RPG but with very low durability. You're either gonna blow it right at the start or just end up saving it for the perfect opportunity that's gonna stretch out to forever and it'll stay unused until you figure out what has happened to your sanity (I know it's not like this in Starsector with missiles but just for the sake of the argument).

Btw when I meant regenerating missiles, I didn't mean each and every one of them should be like that. I'm fine with some being limited, those that are strong ofc. But look at Annihilators, both small and medium, perfect choice for slow regen. Squall is also weird, large missile that has only 5! uses and it's not even that good (sustained limited kinetic damage). Relying on missiles to do kinetic work is bad from the start so the only time I've used these was in a tournament because fights are short there. Medium Harpoons also strike me as a bit odd with only 3 uses, I think they were changed a while ago (maybe it was 3 fired before?). I fit these only on Falcon(P) and low DP ships, other than that Reapers are better, especially on a flagship. I'd like to see Sabot damage nerfed a bit, but adding a regen because they're essential for some high-tech ships and it seems we maybe not getting an alternative (be in energy or missile).

[TaLaR]

ANY ships uses limited resources, namely PPT/CR. Basically, THE measure of loadout usefulness is how much stuff you can kill before you run out of PPT.

A non-ammo based ship enjoys it's peak performance for whole PPT duration, a missile user gets short burst of higher performance while missiles last followed by down phase.
I don't find most missiles good enough by this metric, at least for player ships - there are usually enough ways to win without resorting to limited missiles that are only somewhat slower.

As exception, Reapers are usually good to have a few, considering that they cost only 2 OP for 4k damage shot. The ship needs to be fast and have right slots to deliver them comfortably though.

Sabots already have only about the same dps as HAC (sure it's flux-free, but also very limited). Imo the primary reason many players praise Sabots is AI's inability to counter them. It's not that hard - just let them hit armor (they don't do that much emp or armor damage (especially with AC1 + IM1), getting emp-ed is not as bad as getting overfluxed even if it happens) or back off (Sabot 1st stage doesn't inherit launcher's speed, is very slow and can't catch up to most ships). Or use skimmer to dodge outright.

[Goumindong]

I don't get how some keep saying that fighters (bombers here) carrying the same exact weapon, with same exact stats as you put on your ships are WEAKER.

Besides the fact that you can control the timing and amount and target much easier with your own ship weapons on fighters are also just weaker.

Missiles benefit from all combat weapon skills

They get +25% damage, +15% damage, +50% hit strength to penetrate armor, +15% damage to shields, +50% damage to weapons and armor, and if you shoot at fighters or missiles (swarmers are a good example) another +50% damage to those.

Missiles on fighters get +20% damage to ships destroyer size and larger or +30% damage to fighters and missiles.

Now lets add up then the damage that a sabot does against shields when fired by a longbow vs a player ship.

Longbow = 1.2

Player Ship = 1.25*1.15*1.15 = 1.6531

When those sabots end up penetrating shields they do 50% more damage with their EMP arcs.

You might notice that this is almost 40% more damage from the player ship(or an officer ship which is why a single harpoon/mirv loaded griffin is really good), which has a much easier time coordinating those missile strikes.

[Grievous69]

@Goumindong

Besides the fact that you're comparing walking up to a ship versus the payload coming on a small hard to hit craft with no risk. I wouldn't care if player did 100% more damage, you still need to grab all those skills. In general it's annoying when someone is just using stats in a vacuum to show something while at the same time ignoring 10 other factors that actually matter. Numbers aren't everything people!

[Goumindong]

Well yes fighters do have some advantages. They would have to wouldn't they?

But you said that they're the exact same stats with the exact same weapon. Its not. Its legitimately stronger in the player version. A lot stronger, both in raw numbers, and in the ability to more easily follow up and capitalize on the strikes. Sometimes this matters, sometimes this doesn't. Sometimes combat doesn't have six cycles of fighter engagements. Sometimes player ships with missiles make you not need that much time in a fight either.

And that makes missiles still really really good.

[Grievous69]

But you said that they're the exact same stats with the exact same weapon. Its not. Its legitimately stronger in the player version. A lot stronger, both in raw numbers,

So you're saying they are better but ONLY if you take all the combat skills you mentioned, gotcha, because yes every single Starsector player picks those skills. Not to mention we're getting a new skill system so maybe they'll be even less powerful next update.

[SCC]

ANY ships uses limited resources, namely PPT/CR. Basically, THE measure of loadout usefulness is how much stuff you can kill before you run out of PPT.

This is the reason why, even with bloated fights sometimes happening, I still use missiles. I don't have infinite time to defeat the enemy, even if I can greatly extend it. However, the time it takes to win some battles still makes me hesitant to use some missiles, which get used up too fast to be really useful. Locusts are amazing, because they're so versatile and last so long.
Presumably, these concerns will be taken care of by decreased scale of battles. Alex said he reigned the capspam in. We will see how it goes.

[Goumindong]

But you said that they're the exact same stats with the exact same weapon. Its not. Its legitimately stronger in the player version. A lot stronger, both in raw numbers,

So you're saying they are better but ONLY if you take all the combat skills you mentioned, gotcha, because yes every single Starsector player picks those skills. Not to mention we're getting a new skill system so maybe they'll be even less powerful next update.

And fighters arent that good if you dont take the three/four fighter skills? There are actually more fighter skils than missile damage ones (3 primary ones).

But i dont think that matters. Not every loadout has to be good with every skill set.

[Megas]

@ Grievous:  About missile pods, they still had 12 ammo, but only fired two at a time, for six bursts total.  They were weaker racks with more ammo.  Later (possibly during 0.6.x), they became four-shot.  Recently, Sabot pods were reverted back to the original two-shot burst again due to how AI is incapable of defending against them, while Harpoons retain the four-shot burst.

Four shot Harpoons were deadly with old Missile Specialization 10.  Now, I do not know good Harpoons are with modern Modern Spec, but without the skill, Harpoons are far too unreliable (too slow and easily shot down) and low ammo, not to mention AI squanders them at insignificant targets at times.

The only missiles I bother with are Hammers, Reapers, Sabots, Salamanders, Annihilators, and Locusts.  Some of those are only good as player-only weapons.  Hammers and Reapers are cheap, Sabots are life for high-tech, Annihilators are life for low-tech, Salamanders can be good in one-on-one duels, and Locusts are reliable, effective, and can get enough ammo (with Expanded Missile Racks) to be useful in a long fight (which is every fight late in the game).

[Thaago]

Harpoons are killers, especially with missile skills - they have a hard time hitting frigates without any boosters at all, but will reliably pop overloaded destroyers+.

I extensively use Harpoons in my fleets, though I will put Reapers on ships I know are going to be right up in the enemy's face (Hammerheads, close range frigates like omen, Tempest (though Tempest moves so fast the horizontal velocity can cause the reaper to miss...)), and also sabots on ships that I think need some shield breaking help. I did comparisons on the same battle with missiles on my ships and with the OP spent on caps/hullmods using combat analytics: The missile versions performed better, having higher damage output over the course of the fight. The combats were also quicker and easier.

(Fun aside: I had two P Shrikes, railgun and heavy blaster, but I didn't have enough sabot pods, so 1 got a sabot pod and 1 got a harpoon pods. Overall they tied for damage output: sometimes the harpoon shrike did better, sometimes the sabot shrike, but they mostly averaged out.)

There's a fallacy going on when people say something akin to 'quick kills are nice but don't matter when the AI outnumbers you by a lot': its ignoring how the enemy enters the battlefield. They burn in just like the player, coming in in a massive wave outnumbering the player 3:2, then trickle in as they die. A huge part of the fight is just breaking that initial 3:2 wave. After that the AI never has the same concentration of force: their fighters are depleted and on recharge, or at least aren't coordinated anymore; their caps coming in are slow (barring Radiant) and take a long time to reach the battle; they have less and less overall forces as the DP balance shifts.

An aggressive strategy - no matter how its accomplished - hinges on breaking the enemy wave and then locally overpowering them over and over again. I do that with a combat skilled player ship and with missiles all over the place, and I find it to be effective. Its not the only way to go, but it works.