Print

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

[SCC]

I am pretty sure people still use Paragons and consider them strong, even if they benefit from neither tier 5 combat skill.

[Yunru]

I think this came up earlier in the Part 1 thread - it's an interesting idea, but I think it'd make you feel forced to use ships with fighters just to make the most out of the bonuses. And that'd likely be the "optimal" way to go.

While I feel this is definitely true, I also feel the pendulum's swung too far the other way:
I feel disincentivised to use carriers because they're not an optimal way to go.

[Alex]

I am pretty sure people still use Paragons and consider them strong, even if they benefit from neither tier 5 combat skill.

(Hmm - not sure if you're responding to something I said, or not? If so: I'm not clear on how it relates.)

While I feel this is definitely true, I also feel the pendulum's swung too far the other way:
I feel disincentivised to use carriers because they're not an optimal way to go.

I think 1) the reduction of the anti-fighter bonus from the Point Defense skill to 50% (from 100%) and 2) rolling some of the personal-skill bonuses into the fleetwide fighter ones will help shift it a little bit. I don't think they're actually *too* far off from where they need to be - it probably did swing too far, but not by a whole lot.

(Also, I did fix up the Drover/Reserve Deployment bug that was causing returning bombers not to relaunch quickly if the system was used. Doesn't affect carriers as a whole, but should un-squash the Drover somewhat.)

[Sutopia]

it definitely does, i literally wont take an officer on who has any carrier skills just bc i dont want to pigeon-hole myself into always having to have a carrier. if some combat skills gave a benefit to a combat ship and also gave a benefit to fighters, it would be great.

Isn’t that the same with current Phase Mastery?
Ships with decks are way more than ships that can phase.

Well both skills are gone for good so aint gonna complain.

Nah lemme complain the last bit:
Phase has everything it needs packed in one single tech skill (fleet-wide), why are carrier skills split into two?

[SCC]

(Hmm - not sure if you're responding to something I said, or not? If so: I'm not clear on how it relates.)

The player monkey realises that even if a given ship benefits more from skills than other ships, it doesn't make it automatically a better pick over other ships.

[Deshara]

Isn’t that the same with current Phase Mastery

i also dont take officers who have phase mastery lol altho i dont know if ive ever seen one

[Alex]

The player monkey realises that even if a given ship benefits more from skills than other ships, it doesn't make it automatically a better pick over other ships.

Ah - if skills were that way and the Paragon (or whatever) was still better, I think this would be more of an argument about the balance of the Paragon, and not the general design logic of having a bunch of skills all also affect fighters.

I am pretty sure people still use Paragons and consider them strong, even if they benefit from neither tier 5 combat skill.

Also, someone piloting the paragon probably wouldn't have a skill point spent on either of those two skills. But consider if at game start, one of the top-tier combat skills was already given to you for free, so using a ship that didn't benefit (much) from it had an opportunity cost. That'd be more like we're talking about here.

Nah lemme complain the last bit:
Phase has everything it needs packed in one single tech skill (fleet-wide), why are carrier skills split into two?

They're not anymore; both carrier fleetwides are in Leadership.

[Sutopia]

Nah lemme complain the last bit:
Phase has everything it needs packed in one single tech skill (fleet-wide), why are carrier skills split into two?

They're not anymore; both carrier fleetwides are in Leadership.

I mean, I feel being taxed an additional skill point to use carriers(need 2 points in leadership) comparing to using phase(only need to take the phase coil one).

[Alex]

I mean, I feel being taxed an additional skill point to use carriers(need 2 points in leadership) comparing to using phase(only need to take the phase coil one).

Hmm, I'm not sure that logic works - you might as well feel taxed 10 points in combat to "be able to personally use combat ships", you know? Or you might as well feel that phase ships are underpowered because they don't have multiple fleetwides. And besides, these skills have their most concentrated effect at different thresholds of fighter bays/combat phase ship deployment points. It's just an apples and oranges comparison.

[Thaago]

Knowing for certain will have to wait for everything to be settled and released, but it looks to me like this incarnation of skills is more fighter friendly than the last, just with an emphasis on fleetwide skilled carriers as opposed to officered carriers.

The last leadership tree had a hard choice between replacement rate and 15% CR: the CR was better for fighters in most circumstances meaning that the only time I took the replacement rate was in wrapped leadership games. If the 15% CR skill (Crew training) is still around (and I see its icon, no idea if unchanged) they can both be taken so they will stack. And with both of the fighter boosters being in leadership now (cool!) they serve as handy prereqs for support doctrine, which gives combat endurance for another 15% means that unofficered carriers can be at 100% (while being at a DP discount!). If I understand the skill structure correctly, that means that a carrier centric playthrough is only going to need 1 noncarrier skill in leadership to reach the first peak.

This current version I was already using non-officered ships for interceptor support, and I think they are going to get a decent power boost. Bombers I was using an officer (for basically 3 skills: CR, strike, and missile spec. Then some defensive ones to keep the ship alive better but those were more luxury). Bomber damage might take a bit of a hit, but they are going to be replacing faster than they were previously and not require an officer, which is a plus. Reduced damage from skilled enemies stacks on top of that so I suspect bomber uptime is going to be getting better, though as always just throwing bombers at an undistracted enemy will lead to high casualties.

[Sutopia]

I thought support doctrine doesn’t give 15% CR?

[Thaago]

It gives combat endurance, which has 15% CR as one of its effects. I might be way off base, but I think support doctrine might be low key but very strong.

[Sutopia]

It gives combat endurance, which has 15% CR as one of its effects. I might be way off base, but I think support doctrine might be low key but very strong.

Okay I was wrong. I’ve found the conversation and Alex said support doc doesn’t apply to NL/NI ships, but according to OG blog post it does for all others.
That actually sounds very solid for brilliant spam.

[Alex]

If the 15% CR skill (Crew training) is still around (and I see its icon, no idea if unchanged) they can both be taken so they will stack. And with both of the fighter boosters being in leadership now (cool!) they serve as handy prereqs for support doctrine, which gives combat endurance for another 15% means that unofficered carriers can be at 100% (while being at a DP discount!). If I understand the skill structure correctly, that means that a carrier centric playthrough is only going to need 1 noncarrier skill in leadership to reach the first peak.

Yep! Crew training lost the +30 seconds peak time effect, so it's now just +15% max CR.

[Argentj]

I am pretty sure people still use Paragons and consider them strong, even if they benefit from neither tier 5 combat skill.

As one of the random schlubs that only picked up the game about two years ago, I actually have a different position. 

The standard capitals feel altogether weaker over the last series of patches with the last one cementing them into a 'station buster only' slot in most of my fleets.  Enemy AI and builds have improved, and they'll ram that down any captial's throat pretty hard(though your own AI is still a potato).  I'd rather field an Aurora, Griffon, or Doom than any capital. 

As a caveat a shield shunt onslaught with toughness hull mods and good PD is an exception to that rule.  The AI loses its mind trying to shove missiles and fighters at that boat and its a wonderful anchor for that reason, but still a touch underwhelming.  Paragons just get swarmed and explode, and the others are even worse.

I suppose this logic could extend to 'line ships' in general but a lot of what Alex has posted gives me hope that a line ship doctrine will be solid again.