Print

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

[FooF]

Since we're waiting, why not inspire some different playstyles with familiar ships? Not too long ago, I was introduced to the Broadside Onslaught and it transformed how I see the ship. Hopefully, there are a couple of other unique loadouts to ships that I've written off so that I use them again.

For my contribution: The Destroyer²



An SO Eagle that is below flux parity relative to its dissipation (with skills) and that's with the Shields up. Yes, it has to get close but the Eagle isn't terribly slow and it can take a hit if it has to. I treat the pair of AM Blasters as Reapers: only when I have a clean shot and mostly as a finisher. Unlike Reapers, they're unblockable and if the target puts its shields up, it will still cause a whole ton of flux, which usually I can spare. Ultimately, this ships never. stops. firing...which is a big deal because not only can it sustain both the Assault CG and the Heavy Blaster, but the Phase Lances contribute quite a bit shield and armor damage, while also swatting fighters. The MGs in front can also chew up the occasional missile.

You might ask why the Small Dual MGs but when you compare the Heavy MG to the Dual, you get 65% of the damage for 21% of the flux cost and for half the OP. It's simply about efficiency. The Heavy MG has a slight range advantage (and slightly higher damage/shot against hull) but both are primarily used to break shields and the Dual MG is much more efficient.

I used the XIV variant in the screenshot but the regular Eagle works, as well. This thing will absolutely murder Destroyers, hence the name. While a dedicated Destroyer-killer doesn't seem like a big deal at the end game, what this Eagle can do over a similarly-styled Aurora is punch through armor. Even against Capitals, it has some major armor penetrating power and can make short work of them if it can find an advantageous position. The only downside is the SO timer, even with Hardened Subsystems.

[DubTre6]

This is a really interesting loadout, and while I wouldn't build something like this normally, I will certainly build one based on your rationale. A dedicated destroyer-killer would be useful in niche scenarios and I think its worth exploring based on that alone.

[intrinsic_parity]

This should be able to kill cruisers quite easily. My SO eagle builds always have HMG's rather than DLMG's, I hadn't really even considered it. The rationale makes sense, but my instinct is that shield DPS matters as well. I also would normally not put AM blasters on a ship like this because a heavy blaster + 2x phase lance is a ton of anti armor, but It does seem interesting.

[FooF]

This should be able to kill cruisers quite easily. My SO eagle builds always have HMG's rather than DLMG's, I hadn't really even considered it. The rationale makes sense, but my instinct is that shield DPS matters as well. I also would normally not put AM blasters on a ship like this because a heavy blaster + 2x phase lance is a ton of anti armor, but It does seem interesting.

I think the other thing that goes somewhat unmentioned is that the HMGs cost 10 OP more, which means I have to either drop Hardened Subsystems or switch the AM Blasters out for something else. All that to gain 150 range (SO might even drop this a little), 224 kinetic DPS, and, what hurts the most, an additional 190 flux/sec. That puts me over flux parity and makes me choose between AM Blasters and Hardened Subsystems. Why choose?

I find the range to be a non-issue and I really don't have a hard time breaking shields because even though the Assault CG and Heavy Blasters are woefully inefficient in that role, I can always afford to fire them. All told, I'm dealing 1600+ hard flux/sec, not including the Phase Lances, AM Blasters or the Ion Cannon, and all of it is being dissipated faster than I can generate it.

That's why the AM Blasters are better than missiles, in my eyes. I can absolutely afford to fire them, they can't be shot down, and by virtue of SO, I'm almost always in range. Also, I can be very liberal with shooting them because 20 shots (I usually link them) is still a lot and way more than a few Reapers or Harpoons. They can also be used to overload a target and once that happens, the rest of the guns make short work of everything else. Honestly, I think they're what make the build unique.

[RustyCabbage]

Downsizing HMGs is definitely not something I've considered before, but it sounds very interesting! My initial thought is that the phase lances and second AMB (and to a lesser extent the ion cannon) feel a bit extraneous, especially under AI control, but I don't doubt that it still performs well.

[Goumindong]

Downsizing HMG is very good if you have a large speed advantage.  The range starts to matter a bit more vs faster ships (especially if they have good shields or good kin dmg) as the natural tendency is to back away from a charging SO ship.

If I were you I would drop the HB for another AC and Phase lance.

The HB is less efficient against shield than the AC (500 for 720 =.69 vs 300/400 = .75) and you will have enough hard flux out of the ACs and MG in the front that the fact that the phase lances are soft doesn’t matter. And since the phase lances are also more efficient (vs shield and armor) than HB you’re overall better off.

To save a bit of space you can run 2 ion cannons and one AMB or you can dump some cap/dissipation

[DubTre6]

Downsizing HMGs is definitely not something I've considered before, but it sounds very interesting! My initial thought is that the phase lances and second AMB (and to a lesser extent the ion cannon) feel a bit extraneous, especially under AI control, but I don't doubt that it still performs well.

This definitely seems to be a player-controlled design, at least based on how he talks about using the AM Blasters.

[intrinsic_parity]

If I were you I would drop the HB for another AC and Phase lance.

You're losing a big chunk of raw shield dps as well as hard flux. You gain some armor dps from the AC (although the HB has way better penetration, so the gain is maybe less impressive than it seems), and your hull dps is pretty much the same (also probably skewed towards HB by armor mechanics). You actually don't really save much flux/sec (about 90) because you swapped a DLMG for an AC which cancels out the savings from dropping the HB. I think if you worked out the overall efficiency of your total shield DPS vs total flux/sec (assuming you fire everything into shields), you're actually losing efficiency because dropping the one DLMG for the AC hurts more than the small benefit of phase lance over HB. You have the dissipation to fire all the weapons in either case, so the efficiency is really not super important. There's a tradeoff of shield DPS vs armor DPS but I think I still prefer the HB load out.

[Goumindong]

You're losing a big chunk of raw shield dps as well as hard flux.

Not if you add another AC. You might “lose” kin damage on the front but the extra range will make up for that.

Hull and armor DPS must be higher because HAC and Phase Lance are both more efficient than HB vs hull and armor. The only loss is a bit of Hard shield DPS. Buuut hard shield DPS doesn’t matter as much when you have three phase lances and 1200 Hard shield DPS elsewhere. If the enemy turns their guns off to use their soft flux dissipation to counter your phase lances you barely even care(it might even be an advantage for you*)

*when facing a non-SO ship it’s mainly its kinetic dmg that pushes your hard flux up you have to worry about. A well put together ship will always want to keep firing in the hopes to push you over the line that you cannot fire your high flux weapons.

[intrinsic_parity]

I don't think the range really matters, your whole strategy is to face hug the opponent, and you move very quickly so it's not like it's saving you a ton of damage on the approach. It should be about 150 range difference in a ship with a huge speed bonus, that definitely not making up for ~400 dps difference vs shields, especially since you can shield flick to mitigate damage on approach.

You're suggesting replacing HB + DLMG (916 shield dps (all hard flux) for 745 fps) for AC + Phase lance (516 shield dps (300 hard flux) for 661 flux sec) unless I am mistaken? You lose about 400 overall shield dps (soft + hard) and about 600 hard flux dps and your total efficiency for the weapon pair goes from 1.2 to .78 damage per flux. Maybe you are forgetting that the DLMG does a whopping 416 dps to shields for 25 flux/second? That's a lot, and it will make a significant difference in winning flux wars quickly. You're just doing a lot less damage (~20% less total shield dps, ~40% less hard flux dps) with AC + PL, and your overall shield damage efficiency is going down because you're dropping all the kinetic dps. Against pirates, it probably doesn't matter a ton. Against remnants and high tech ships, or even officered ships with buffed shields that's a very significant downside.

You have to evaluate efficiency and dps separately since flux cost factors into efficiency but not dps. Just add up the dps and you will see, hull dps is only about 100 dps higher (raw without minimum armor), armor dps is significant higher as I mentioned (~35% increase). Of course armor mechanics will swing things and DLMG probably sees the 85% reduction in hull dps (175 damage reduction), but the AC also gets hit pretty hard by minimum armor reductions. It has 120 damage hit strength, so against 1000 armor (eagle) it's seeing a 30% reduction in hull dps (180 dps reduction), so its not clear to me that the AC + phase lance combo is actually that much better against hull. I think minimum armor marginally increases the hull dps advantage for the AC + PL combo, but its still gonna be like on the order of 5% more hull dps.

You're trading off a lot of shield dps for a bunch of armor dps and a little hull dps (~20% less shield dps, ~35% more raw armor dps, 5% more raw hull dps). It's definitely not a clear decision IMO, but I prefer shield dps. I prefer to have overwhelming shield dps and enough armor dps, rather than overwhelming armor dps and enough shield dps, especially on a ship that's planning on sitting at sub 450 range most of the time.

[FooF]

For many of the reasons intrinsic_parity points out, I still like the HB over a second AC+PL. Taking down shields is paramount when you have to be in knife-fighting range and the HB deals good hard flux and has extreme armor penetration once it gets through. I do love the ACG but I wouldn't sacrifice the raw efficiency of the DLMG for getting through the shields. Also, the ACGs do tend to get their damage truncated some by heavy armor and minimum hull armor. The HB is rarely affected much due to high damage/shot.

Also, somewhat unmentioned, the HB one-shots most fighters and is fairly accurate. A 3rd Phase Lance isn't quite as good at anti-fighter and the 2nd ACG would be of no use in that role because it's in a hardpoint. The DLMGs do fire at fighters and missiles as they come in. The HB is just better as an all-rounder.

I have not given this build to the AI yet. It would likely need an aggressive/reckless officer and even then might not use the AM Blasters as they're supposed to.

[Thaago]

Using DLMGs is a great move for a face hugger, I'll have to remember that! I used to run my played medusa with DLMG's instead of railguns for the same reason.

I think if I were going to give this to the AI I'd think hard about losing 1 AM blaster for the extra capacitors, and tuning down the dissipation a bit for more capacitance (or putting more flux hungry guns on, like going 2x HB and dropping both phase lances). SO AI builds really shine with more capacity because it gives them enough shield hitpoints to reach the target and start doing damage before they retreat.

IMO it doesn't do the AI any good to have excess dissipation over the upkeep + (non-strike) guns because it keeps its shields up so much: any time the AI spends with its fluxed pegged to the hard flux bar is wasted combat potential.

[intrinsic_parity]

I will say there's value in the 300-450 range increase in that it lets you stay out of range of enemy kinetic PD which can be a really big deal. I think that's why I prefer HMG to DLMG. I would probably drop the AM blasters tbh, or maybe the ion cannon to fit the extra kinetic damage/range on a player ship.

[FooF]

Re: Range

The extra 150 range I've found to be a wash. I don't have enough precision when playing to exploit the difference. Likewise, the Eagle isn't that nimble, though it's decent for a Cruiser. I guess what I'm saying is that there is an objective superiority to the range but I personally can't make it work any better than the DLMG, so again, my logic is to go with the more efficient weapon rather than the longer range one.

The Ion Cannon is my personal preference. I don't think there's another weapon I could put in there that would make much of a difference either way. IR Pulse raises my flux, a single PD Laser is a drop in the bucket and Burst PD OP expensive for only a little gain. EMP damage silences enemy guns and that mitigates hard flux in an indirect way vs. say more capacitors. I'm in agreement with Thaago that more capacitors is probably better with the AI but I still haven't tried that yet. I'll get a trip report soon.

[Goumindong]

150 range at 50 speed difference is 3 seconds. 3 seconds at 320 dps is 1920 shield damage. The 2x DMLG will make that up sure but it will be 13 seconds after the single HMG makes contact.