Print

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

[Hiruma Kai]

For anybody in the "it is fine" gang.

Would you be so kind as to provide the Enforcer variant capable of completely dominating this thing here:

"Completely dominating" will be "winning three fights on autopilot in a row without taking hull damage".

No mods. No officers. No built-ins. No Weapon Drills. 70 % CR. Flux regulation and +10 caps/vents is OK.

Yup, missile spam works really well.  Heavy Autocannon + 2x Sabot + 2x Harpoon linked plus Xyphos (why not?) and a pile of hull mods.  Expanded Missiles + ECCM is key, but I tried an armor tank with Shield Shunt, Resistant flux conduit, Converted Hangar, Armored Weapon Mounts and Automated Repair unit.  Not sure any of that is really necessary given how quickly the Fulgent just overloads.  Probably would be better to throw on more actual guns and leave the shield, but shrug, this works.  And was literally the very first thing I threw together.  Worked 3 times in a row as well.

This was via mission so no skills for either side, just hand edit 30 vents/caps for the Fulgent.

Edit: Ran it 7 more times.  Not all engagements are 100% clean hull apparently, so I got lucky with the first 3.  But enough of them are that I certainly can get a streak of clean wins 3 in a row.  Poorly placed asteroids can impact it's performance as well.  Replacing automated repair unit with solar shielding will likely up the percentage of perfect no hull damage runs (for obvious reasons), since a number of them were very low amounts of hull damage (like 5856 hull left out of 6000).

Edit2: Better setup is probably Heavy Needler + light mortar for weapons, and swap Automated Repair unit for Solar shielding.  In a test run of 10, 50% of fights were no hull damage.
5525, 6000,6000,6000,5984,5326,6000,6000,5980,5290 hull remaining.  Seems more reliable than I expected to be honest.  Note, I was using the eliminate command as soon as the enemy ship was on tactical map.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Lucky33]

For anybody in the "it is fine" gang.

Would you be so kind as to provide the Enforcer variant capable of completely dominating this thing here:

"Completely dominating" will be "winning three fights on autopilot in a row without taking hull damage".

No mods. No officers. No built-ins. No Weapon Drills. 70 % CR. Flux regulation and +10 caps/vents is OK.

Hmm... 24,444 effective shield strength.  So, 12 sabots?  Maybe 8 Harpoons for the hull?  I would expect an Expanded Missile Racks + ECCM + 2x Sabot (12 total) +2x Harpoon (12 total) + long range weapon of your choice (Heavy Autocannon maybe) all linked together in one fire group would have a solid chance of alpha striking the thing down. Certainly such an Enforcer build would likely one shot the HVD kiting build that can handle that Fulgent.

I may have to try that out.  Also, Enforcer could possibly include some cheap fighters to draw fire in the initial exchange as well.

2xSabots, 2xHarpoons, 2xHeavy Needlers, 1xHVD (as a trigger for the Sabots). EMR. It creates overload at the end of the run. Or not. Even if I stopped the run any time Enforcer hit an asteroid it is still inconsistent. To feel the difference you can try Hammerhead with two HVDs and two Sabots. It works like a clock.

[Lucky33]

I'm claiming that game lacks the universally accessible brawling mechanic as opposed to kiting.

I believe that's called "the opponent running out of space."

For that you need numerical superiority.

No, just enough to surround your foe. Doesn't matter how many you trap in your net as long as they're all actually in it.

You can't "surround your foe" when you have only single entity. And if you have more it becomes numerical superiority.

Uh... No?
I have, say, 5 ships. I face a Fleet of 15. I clearly don't have numerical superiority, being outnumber 3:1, and yet I can surround them to negate kiting attempts.

You will block only part of them. While others will proceed to surround your forces. If the enemy will attempt to move all its ships in one direction than you will block only single ship who will act as a frontal bait while other envelops. But more realistically speaking they will simply crush that ship head on and will be on their merry way.

[Hiruma Kai]

2xSabots, 2xHarpoons, 2xHeavy Needlers, 1xHVD (as a trigger for the Sabots). EMR. It creates overload at the end of the run. Or not. Even if I stopped the run any time Enforcer hit an asteroid it is still inconsistent. To feel the difference you can try Hammerhead with two HVDs and two Sabots. It works like a clock.

I agree, EMR by itself isn't quite enough to get reliability.

Further testing, as I indicated in my last post, suggests 1xHeavy Needler,1x Light Mortar, 1x Xyphos, Expanded Missile Racks, ECCM, Converted Hangar, Shield Shunt, Resistant Flux Conduits, Armored Weapon Mounts, Solar Shielding, 1 vent works fairly robustly.  Sabots, Harpoons, Heavy Needler linked.  Light mortar in it's own group.  As noted, I did 10 runs, it won all of them, five at 100% hull, 2 more with trivial hull damage.  And 3 more with less than 20% damage.

Edit3: Forgot to list the 2x Sabot, 2x Harpoon, sigh.

The Xyphos are actually quite important it seems in the cases where the initial burst isn't enough, as the constant EMP damage pressure forces the Fulgent to keep its shields up. Even with them up, because there's hard flux build up, it eventually shuts the engines down, allowing the 60+50 speed Enforcer to catch up (since it's running 0 flux and the Xyphos are never sent to attack).

However, such an Enforcer build also seems more flexible, given it also beats a 2x HVD, 2x Sabot Hammerhead build 5/5 times with no hull damage.  Even with Sabot linked to the HVDs.  If I swap to linked Harpoons with EMR on the Hammerhead, the Enforcer still seems to come out on top in the 5 runs I just did, although it is close in some cases.

Edit:  Looks like it wins about 9 out 10 times vs a long range /w HE missile Hammerhead.

Edit2: Although perhaps if we want to continue this discussion, we should make a new thread.  I feel like's we've wandered a fair bit from Alex's blog post.

[Yunru]

You will block only part of them. While others will proceed to surround your forces. If the enemy will attempt to move all its ships in one direction than you will block only single ship who will act as a frontal bait while other envelops. But more realistically speaking they will simply crush that ship head on and will be on their merry way.

I can see there's no reasoning with you, what with the arbitrary declarations that support your side with, well, no evidence. You can't envelope a force that is already enveloping you!

And don't get me started on "you will block only part of them"! According to what? You spread out, they retreat backwards as they kite, grouping up in doing so, you move forward tightening the net. Boom, all blocked.

It's a simple result of the fact that a kiting ship will try and maintain maximum distance from the ship it's kiting, and try and avoid other ships. Kiters between two opponents will move towards the middle of those two, as it's furthest away from both. The flanks then move up, channelling said kiters further into the middle. Once in the middle, they move up in uniform, trapping the kiters against the back of the map.

[Lucky33]

2xSabots, 2xHarpoons, 2xHeavy Needlers, 1xHVD (as a trigger for the Sabots). EMR. It creates overload at the end of the run. Or not. Even if I stopped the run any time Enforcer hit an asteroid it is still inconsistent. To feel the difference you can try Hammerhead with two HVDs and two Sabots. It works like a clock.

I agree, EMR by itself isn't quite enough to get reliability.

Further testing, as I indicated in my last post, suggests 1xHeavy Needler,1x Light Mortar, 1x Xyphos, Expanded Missile Racks, ECCM, Converted Hangar, Shield Shunt, Resistant Flux Conduits, Armored Weapon Mounts, Solar Shielding, 1 vent works fairly robustly.  Sabots, Harpoons, Heavy Needler linked.  Light mortar in it's own group.  As noted, I did 10 runs, it won all of them, five at 100% hull, 2 more with trivial hull damage.  And 3 more with less than 20% damage.

Edit3: Forgot to list the 2x Sabot, 2x Harpoon, sigh.

The Xyphos are actually quite important it seems in the cases where the initial burst isn't enough, as the constant EMP damage pressure forces the Fulgent to keep its shields up. Even with them up, because there's hard flux build up, it eventually shuts the engines down, allowing the 60+50 speed Enforcer to catch up (since it's running 0 flux and the Xyphos are never sent to attack).

However, such an Enforcer build also seems more flexible, given it also beats a 2x HVD, 2x Sabot Hammerhead build 5/5 times with no hull damage.  Even with Sabot linked to the HVDs.  If I swap to linked Harpoons with EMR on the Hammerhead, the Enforcer still seems to come out on top in the 5 runs I just did, although it is close in some cases.

Edit:  Looks like it wins about 9 out 10 times vs a long range /w HE missile Hammerhead.

Edit2: Although perhaps if we want to continue this discussion, we should make a new thread.  I feel like's we've wandered a fair bit from Alex's blog post.

Why not? The sole reason for making my argument in the form of an experiment is to provide the answer to the question what a brawler really needs to succeed. I mean abstract debate about kiting is good but this here is much more helpful. It clearly shows just how intricate the current "brawling" is. Anti-shield strike, disables, finishers, anti-disable ruggedization. And everything is important. Great stuff really.

[HiddenPorpoise]

The enforcer is ill suited for winning duels with fast ships and so it's not surprising it's losing. It's effective in battlelines and squadrons where its extremely good pd options and safety net of armor are most useful.

[Locklave]

AI isn't very keen on tanking without shields, ...
For the sake of the example, imagine all lowtech ships got 500000 armor. Suddenly they smash everything so it's not a concept that fundamentally can't work.

For the sake of example you go to an insane extreme no one in this thread has suggested is required. More crazy armor also has nothing to do with what I said and is an attempt to change the subject to something absurd you can easily counter.

The AI can't do armor tanking. Your argument about armor tanking only applies to player control, which isn't the point at all.

Spawn a sim onslaught and shoot it, it will often drop shields when it's not escaping.
AI is not very good at tanking with armor, but it does try to do it.

Spoiler

[close]

The 500000 armor example is there to demonstrate that there is a point where armor+hardflux range advantage on ballistics (lowtech) is definitely better than high (shields+speed), even with current mechanics.
I think that's relevant, don't see the need to go off the handle about it.

So I clearly didn't say anything hyperbolic, or that low tech is useless. You're just going to walk away from those claims now I guess.

500000 armor is not a razors edge difference I was talking about, that's not a razors edge.

Also if the Onslaught is your only example and it still rarely does it then you are still wrong because the AI doesn't armor tank. One single rare (possibly a case of the AI making bad choices because the Onslaught doesn't seem to understand how long it takes to re raise shields) exception doesn't make your incorrect statement correct.

Are we going to go on for pages now with you trying to prove armor tanking is a AI mechanic that's impacting the battle outcome? Or maybe just prove it exists in some useless and detrimental form so you are technically sort of correct to save face?

1. AI can't armor tank
2. I don't care about your 500000 armor scenario
3. Onslaught is a terrible example for everything

[TaLaR]

AI does drop shield occasionally, but this isn't done in any meaningful way.
- AI doesn't prioritize which shots are ok to land on armor (kinetics except Gauss, low damage per shot energy) and which are not.
- AI doesn't evaluate projectile/beam time to reach it vs shield re-raise time.
- AI doesn't consider exact attack trajectory for anything that isn't a missile (corner hits during shield re-raise or missed opportunities to dodge by strafing a bit).
- AI doesn't evaluate what trying to armor-tank in given scenario actually buys it (whether opportunity to inflict armor/hull damage is present or enemy can disengage unscathed anyway).

[Draba]

AI does drop shield occasionally, but this isn't done in any meaningful way.
- AI doesn't prioritize which shots are ok to land on armor (kinetics except Gauss, low damage per shot energy) and which are not.
- AI doesn't evaluate projectile/beam time to reach it vs shield re-raise time.
- AI doesn't consider exact attack trajectory for anything that isn't a missile (corner hits during shield re-raise or missed opportunities to dodge by strafing a bit).
- AI doesn't evaluate what trying to armor-tank in given scenario actually buys it (whether opportunity to inflict armor/hull damage is present or enemy can disengage unscathed anyway).

Had me fooled, it does just drop shields at low flux in the middle of a fight and take full volleys to the center without trying to raise them (seems decent against reapers though).
If it's just random that's my bad, didn't check the code.

[SafariJohn]

I had a reckless Paragon armor-tank with terrifying efficiency in the 7th tourney.

[Delta_of_Isaire]

AI does drop shield occasionally, but this isn't done in any meaningful way.
- AI doesn't prioritize which shots are ok to land on armor (kinetics except Gauss, low damage per shot energy) and which are not.
- AI doesn't evaluate projectile/beam time to reach it vs shield re-raise time.
- AI doesn't consider exact attack trajectory for anything that isn't a missile (corner hits during shield re-raise or missed opportunities to dodge by strafing a bit).
- AI doesn't evaluate what trying to armor-tank in given scenario actually buys it (whether opportunity to inflict armor/hull damage is present or enemy can disengage unscathed anyway).

This. The only time the current AI drops shields while in range of enemy weapons is when it is at high hard flux and desperately trying to win the flux war / avoid overload. And often failing at that because this shield-lowering behavior usually kicks in too late to be really helpful.

[Draba]

This is a mechanic used for retreating by the AI and it's trading armor to avoid overloads. It isn't used aggressively so bringing it up has nothing to do with my counter to your original incorrect statement.

This. The only time the current AI drops shields while in range of enemy weapons is when it is at high hard flux and desperately trying to win the flux war / avoid overload. And often failing at that because this shield-lowering behavior usually kicks in too late to be really helpful.

Double-checked to make sure I'm not going insane, AI does drop shields in "normal" circumstances. Also does it when it has a flux advantage.
It's not very good at it and might as well be mostly random, didn't dig too much so a modder can tell you more.
To me it always seemed like it also does its best to avoid direct reaper hits and in some way does know the difference between a hellbore and a railgun.

[SCC]

AI starts reasonably armour tanking when it gets to high flux, when it should shield flicker right from get go.

[Yunru]

It's just anecdotal, but I've found ALWAYS_PANICS causes them to armour tank from the getgo too.