My highly-optimized Onslaught build is back to storm needlers and no hardpoints. All my attempts to add hardpoints weakened the design, despite the fact they let you overlap three large mounts instead of two.
Isn't the point of hardpoint buffs to avoid this situation? Does Alex &co think avoiding the hardpoints is a failure of design, or is it just a valid strategy?
I wonder why exactly the hardpoints aren't worth the vents and hull mods I can otherwise get.
Partly, it's because they are hardpoints - the arcs are small, which means it is hard and therefore rare to keep them trained on a target.
---Which means OP spent on hardpoints doesn't get to fire as often as OP spent on turrets.
---Which also means I'm taking all the fire on one point of the armour if I want the hardpoints in the fight.
Partly it is because mediums are more flux-efficient than larges.
---This is important because the Onslaught runs through its flux capacity in seconds, especially with the shield up. Burst is not important in an even fight; sustained is very important. In uneven fights, you win anyway.
---I can't fire the heavy forwards anyway, because the mediums are spending all the spare flux, and more efficiently.
-the storm needler is so powerful that two of them is plenty, both because of their high raw damage and their excellent dps/flux.
---Also, means the variant is equally if not more effective on hi-tech.
---The burn drive has negated the effect of the needler's range disadvantage.
-annihilators. Vastly more effective than other missile options. Since my design beats another Onslaught without hull damage, I'm now measuring how much of a pod it uses up. Currently: one half. Theoretically that means my Onslaught can kill two Onslaughts in a row without taking hull damage, plus it's a capital, so it wrecks anything smaller. (Which the hardpoints would be useless on anyway.)
---between annihilators and the maulers, the design doesn't need more explosive damage, and once the armour is gone, the storm needlers can really shine.
...I think. Starfarer is sufficiently complex that solid theorycrafting is impossible. The only means to be sure a way is effective is to build a ship and then see how well it sinks other ships.
For example, I just tried mark 9s instead. Huge OP gains, small decrease in killing power. Sadly, not enough spare flux to use that extra OP on more weapons.
Edit:
-using the hardpoints means you're using at most 3/5ths, 60%, of your large mounts and the OP spent there. Using only the turrets means using 2/3rds, 67% most of the time, and doesn't risk using only 2/5ths.
---Perhaps this would be better put as: with the hardpoints, you're not using at least two large mounts, possibly three, on any particular target. With just the turrets, you're not using, at most, one.
---I think that one may be the most important. I can't remove the side large mounts without crippling the Onslaught, because it turns slow - it needs heavy firepower available on both sides. I can't remove the middle mount, because then I can't get three large mounts overlapping. Which means putting the hardpoints on gets me a little more burst (not very important) in exchange for effectively mounting a gun I won't normally shoot.
------Maybe this matters more because capitals are overabundant? If my Onslaught wasn't expected to normally see other capitals, the ability to fire in multiple directions is more important, and I'm not likely to end up letting weapon slots idle.
------However, the Onslaught doesn't need the hardpoints to kill cruisers anyway.
------I guess my question is; what are the hardpoints for? I don't seem to need them for anything.