Print

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

[intrinsic_parity]

There's a couple different angles here lol. You can optimize based on different things. Soloing might be optimal from a pure supply cost minimization perspective assuming you execute perfectly, but if you try to account for the risk of mistakes due to your own piloting ability, then I do not personally find it to be the most effective (there's a pretty high chance I mess up and lose my flagship personally). I also personally avoid strategies that are effective because they circumvent interesting game mechanics (carrier spam, phase assassination, endless kiting). I enjoy the flux mechanics and all the associated gameplay so I usually avoid strategies that circumvent 'conventional' shield/flux mechanics completely (maybe the doom is an exception, but I think it engages a lot more with the shield mechanics than the smaller phase ships). I would use those strategies if they were necessary to win, but if I can have more fun piloting while achieving (approximately) the same results and risk level, I prefer to not use those strategies.

I also do enjoy trying new things because it is exciting to find out how well they work, but I don't enjoy doing things that I already know don't work as well just for the sake of doing them.

[Arcagnello]

(I would suppose I am on the other end of most players, as I generally play whatever the meta of a game isn't. For the most part.)

Well, from my perspective, everyone else isn't playing meta, because you people aren't soloing everything you can, so don't feel so special.

I usually play "themed campaigns" meaning I pick a tech level and a faction and try making it work, trying to avoid most of the meta-broken stuff (Sparks, Drovers and carrier spam in general, overridden Hammerheads and so on, I'm happy they're all getting nerfed by the way) aswell since I find the effort of trying to make things work with limitations coming with "faction roleplay" is both challenging and refreshing every time and with the boon of finding out new strategies and ways to make otherwise disappointing units work.

This is ironically how I finally realized the Conquest was good a year or so ago. It was in my third ever campaign (the last vanilla campaign I played since I think) and having already played Tri-tachyon (first campaign) and Hegemony (second campaign) I tried midline and I was stuck with the Conquest as a capital so I had to squeeze all my brain cells in an attempt to make it work, until I inevitably realized that incredible mobility, massive flux dissipation combined and more burst damage than most enemy ships could possibly handle make for an absolutely lethal ship that can be customized to fill a staggering variety of roles.

Ultra long range asymmetrical sniper? It can do that.
Disgusting Hurricane vomit? Yep.
Symmetrical brawler and frigade-destroyer-cruiser bully? Oh yeah.
Mjolnir spam for the greater good of dakka? It's going to be pretty.

The beautiful double log of absolute pain also called Conquest is up there with both Odissey and Legion as the best vanilla 40FP capitals in the game, no doubts. It's just a caesarean section to figure out for new players.

[Igncom1]

(I would suppose I am on the other end of most players, as I generally play whatever the meta of a game isn't. For the most part.)

Well, from my perspective, everyone else isn't playing meta, because you people aren't soloing everything you can, so don't feel so special.

I refuse. I AM special! 

[OmegaMan]

I really don't agree with that, the ONLY thing forgiving about Midlines is their systems. Notice how the Sunder is one of the worst ships in vanilla, backed by tier lists of the forums and most players. It lacks a mobility system, and like the conquest has bad shields and paper thin armor. The actually good Midline ships either have forgiving systems and/or 0.8 shields.

Are we playing the same game?

[OmegaMan]

Sunder is powerful per DP, yet almost unusable in campaign. By the time you can outfit proper AI-compatible Sunders with ITU+Adv Optics, destroyers just aren't core of the fleet anymore due to officer limit. It needs ITU even for player plasma cannon build, unlike Medusa(agile close combat can be done without ITU), Hammerhead (SO build) or Falcon(P)[just uses DTC].

I can destroy 20 ships with zero damage with one player controlled Safety override Sunder.....  Just let the AI control everything else and go hunting.   Only in late game against capitals does Sunder lose it's effectiveness.  Even then it's still good but fragile.     

[brekmehrkus]

Player controlled everything is strong. It doesn't matter what ship player pilots, I'm fairly sure if someone is skillful enough they can solo Paragon in a Hound. Saying "But I did X with Y ship!" is not an argument towards one ship being better than others.

Ship itself is decent, but the problem is that AI can't play it well. AI actually has problems with many things, and staying out of range of chonkier but lower ranged ships is one such thing and where other ships can take the hurt - Conquest can't. I think if AI was amended Conquest could rapidly advance from ***-tier waste of money and space in your fleet to an absolute OP artillery platform, but it is what it is.

[Megas]

AI seems to handle Conquest passably well, except for Gauss Cannon loadouts.  It will maintain sufficient distance and bombard the enemy with heavy gunfire.  I trust the AI to pilot Conquest competently enough (as long as it does not have Gauss Cannons).

The one ship that I see AI cannot handle is Odyssey with mostly hard-flux energy weapons.  That will imitate Onslaught burn stupidity but with much worse defenses.

[Arcagnello]

AI seems to handle Conquest passably well, except for Gauss Cannon loadouts.  It will maintain sufficient distance and bombard the enemy with heavy gunfire.  I trust the AI to pilot Conquest competently enough (as long as it does not have Gauss Cannons).

The one ship that I see AI cannot handle is Odyssey with mostly hard-flux energy weapons.  That will imitate Onslaught burn stupidity but with much worse defenses.

I've somewhat copied an Odissey loadout from a youtube video from Low Settings and I actually consider it the best AI controlled flagship in the game because of it.

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/Jhpllydlrdo

[close]

In short: 2x Autopulses, 3x Sabot MRMs, Hurricane MIRV, 3 antimatter blasters (I'm actually surpised by the fact he did not put any PD) and 2 sparks. Don't forget to set all sabots as "linked" for the to be properly vomited in the face of the enemy.

My version (as far as I remember) actually axes the blasters for PD and the sparks for other fighters (since they're disgusting right now) and works with an aggressive AI. I would probably cut both efficiency overhaul and solar shielding for better flux capacity and PDAI but that's just me wanting my capitals to be as tanky as possible.

My guess is that the AM blasters force even the steady AI to get in close wich makes all the other weapons on the ship basically "shotgun" the enemy with no chace for it to evade.

Edit: There's also this version by Friendly Rough AI that also works wonders and that I remember using more often since it's more versatile and has better staying power.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IUiK4eNsM4&t=53s

[close]

I'm personally quite the sucker for 360 shields  but i'd personally also axe resistant flux conduits and try and squeeze in Hardened Shields no matter what.

[Megas]

I remember that last one, the so-called "shotgun" loadout when it was posted some time back.  It is primarily a beam-and-missiles loadout with one autopulse.

[Retry]

Both builds appear to be quasi-missile boats and heavily rely on their triple Sabot Pods, Hurricane launchers, and EMRs.  Nearly no guns in the small slots.
 The twin Autopulse build doesn't even have vents, which makes me irrationally sad.

[intrinsic_parity]

I mean small energy weapons are generally pretty weak. There's really not much reason to put anything in those slots when you can spend your flux on large energy weapons that are better in almost every way.

Also, pretty sure two auto pulse lasers is only 500 flux/sec sustained, and the odyssey has 1000 base dissipation, so there's actually no need for vents either if you're just using two auto pulse. You are wasting some dissipation (although arguably the burst flux generation of auto pulse is high enough to warrant having some to spare, but that can be better for the AI on this release. Hopefully that will change with the AI improvements in the next patch.

[TaLaR]

Player controlled everything is strong. It doesn't matter what ship player pilots, I'm fairly sure if someone is skillful enough they can solo Paragon in a Hound. Saying "But I did X with Y ship!" is not an argument towards one ship being better than others.

No, there is a limit to what player piloting can do. Paragon doesn't have any weapon coverage blindspots that Hound could survive in, too squishy. Neither does Hound have any means to bring down or bypass Paragon's shield. I very much doubt even max combat skills character player piloted Hound vs no officer sim Paragon could overcome the disadvantage.

[Flying Birdy]

Both builds appear to be quasi-missile boats and heavily rely on their triple Sabot Pods, Hurricane launchers, and EMRs.  Nearly no guns in the small slots.
 The twin Autopulse build doesn't even have vents, which makes me irrationally sad.

I've played a similar variation of that build before. It works reasonably effectively. Something that's not shown is that if you fire Sabot while you are plasma burning, the Sabots are accelerated and instantly reach stage two. This makes them more or less guaranteed to hit their target and hit simultaneously. Getting hit with 6 sabots simultaneously instantly max out flux for most ships. Obviously the AI can't take advantage of this, but its powerful in the player's hands.

Twin autopulse build also doesn't actually need vents; the amount of flux used while burst firing your 30 ammo isn't enough to use up Odyssey's flux. The build is shockingly not nearly as reliant on the triple Sabots as you might imagine, the autopulse flux efficiency allow you to bring done enemy shields without using the Sabots (though Sabots do help).

Main problem with the twin autopulse build is, surprisingly, gunning down heavily armored targets. Autopulse can't really chew through armor alone; A full 30 clip from autopulse doesn't have enough damage to chew through armor and then through hull. You have to backoff and reload which is incredibly annoying and it does limit how effective an Odyssey can be. You really have to land the Hurricane MIRV in order to be able to kill anything with armor.  Figuring out when to back-off to reload the 30 clip autopulse and timing the MIRV aren't issue for the player. But, in the hands of AI, they won't ever be able to kill anything with armor because they rarely time the MIRV correctly.

[Grievous69]

That's not really surprising, it's well known Autopulses aren't great vs armour. This is why most builds either have HIL or a Tach lance, or just good ol' double Plasma. Honestly with that build, I'd scrap the Hurricane and get some torpedoes, and might even swap out that back Sabot for a Harpoon pod.

[Flying Birdy]

That's not really surprising, it's well known Autopulses aren't great vs armour. This is why most builds either have HIL or a Tach lance, or just good ol' double Plasma. Honestly with that build, I'd scrap the Hurricane and get some torpedoes, and might even swap out that back Sabot for a Harpoon pod.

I've only ever used Hurricane for the large synergy mount. The way the firing arch on that mount is setup makes it crazy hard to aim; I'd have to rotate my ship and in order to fire a torpedo from that mount. Piloting broadside ships is hard enough as it is

The front medium missile mounts are actually much better for putting up two reaper torpedos (or even just one) as well. The rotating firing arch of those pods make them amazing for aiming double reapers.