Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets  (Read 2918 times)

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« on: January 15, 2022, 11:40:02 PM »

I wanted to provide some feedback on the different campaigns I've done in 0.95.1a, each with a different skill focus.

Run number 1: Hyperions and the Personal Radiant Run (started prior to RC6, but continued through)
Combat 5: Combat Endurance, Impact Mitigation, Field Modulation, Target Analysis, Systems Expertise
Leadership 2: Wolfpack Tactics, Crew Training
Technology 8: Navigation, Gunnery Implants, Energy Weapon Mastery, Electronics Warfare, Flux Regulation, Cybernetic Augmentation, Neural Link, Automated Ships

End game fleet: Radiant (Flagship), Hyperion (Flagship), 2x Odyssey, 4x Hyperion, 3x Alpha Core Glimmer

Summary:  Doesn't really come together until level 13 (Systems Expertise + Neural Link + Automated Ships) but when it does, it feels totally worth it.  System Expertise Radiants are just that good.

"Long comments"
For 0.95.1a, for my first run, I decided on a general playthrough, going with the flow, but with the aim to try out at least one new mechanic.  Which I decided was going to be neural link plus Radiants.  Early on I found a Hyperion on sale, and shortly after, 2 more.  Eventually got a 300k ship building mission offer, and bought 3 more.  This was before the hotfix came through raising the prices, so they were 80k a pop at the double price.  The price increase definitely felt warranted.

So anyways, if the game hands you 6 super frigates, you go Wolfpack Tactics.  Started with a bit of exploring, a bit of Galatia missions, and bit of bounties.  Grabbed some Herons with Daggers to provide some extra HE oomph behind the 6 Hyperions.  Eventually took down a Paragon and salvaged it with 3 d-mods.  By this point was finishing up the Galatia story line, got the Zig and stashed it, and finally got the red planet mission.  Lucked out and salvaged the Radiant from that, and was off and running with a Neural Linked Radiant.  Which initially wasn't as awesome as I expected.  Colonized a cryosleeper system in the farthest corner of the sector (-28% isolation penalty, plus -13% for pirate/pather hostilities), and started to farm mid-tier bounties (200-300k).  Finally hit level 14 and System Expertise which started to make piloting the Radiant feel really good.  The extra speed and manueverability provided by more and faster charges makes it handle just about right to me.

Went through a number of fleet iterations, trying different combinations with the Radiant.  Paragon, Herons, Hyperions.  Swap in some Furies.  Swap in some Apogees.  Swap out Paragon and carriers for Odysseys.  Trade Hyperion for 3 alpha core Glimmers.  They were all Ordo capable, and values at least felt in the ballpark.  Things still might need some tweaking, but from a top level overview, overall DP valuations seem OK and not enough to prevent good performance in late game campaign fights.

By the way, Heavy Blaster SO Glimmers have a nasty damage output for their 5 DP (rivaling that of 15 DP Hyperions), but they do have a much higher rate of destruction than Hyperions, generally see one blown up each Ordo fight.  Did all the end game fights. While I took some losses against the Ordo + super redacted mission, I still felt comfortable in final margin of victory with the neural linked Radiant, 2 Odysseys, 5 Hyperions and 3 alpha Glimmers.  Basically the only order I gave during the fight was harass the super redacted ship.

Overall, despite the 50 OP neural integrator and two Tier 5 skill tax, the Radiant still felt worth it, and was typically dealing 40% of the fleet's damage, and more than triple an Odyssey's prorata DP contribution according to the Detailed Combat Results mod.
[close]

Run number 2: Iron man spacer start with Hull Restoration and Best of the Best (aka "Who needs Technology and Combat Endurance?")
Combat 5: Impact Mitigation, Field Modulation, Target Analysis, Ballistic Mastery, Missile Specialization
Leadership 5: Tactical Drills, Crew Training, Carrier Group, Officer Training, Best of the Best
Industry 5: Field Repairs, Ordiance Expertise, Polarized Armor, Containment Procedures, Hull Restoration

End game fleet: 2x Onlsaught (XIV), 2x Legion (XIV), Eagle (XIV), Fury, Afflictor, 2x Scarab, 2x Omen (no officers)

Summary: Officers feel like level 7 or 8, getting +15% CR on top of an extra hullmod.  Ordinance Expertise on all officers is probably better than Flux Regulation.
Also, ballistics with +5+10+10+20=+45% damage against capitals feels nice.

"Long comments"
Next run was to test out the iron man spacer option and see if the Industry tree was up to the task of keeping me going.  First mission I took in my trusty kite (S) was a spy satelite mission offered in Corvus.  2 minutes later success earned me a high importance military contact on Jangala.  Prioritized them and kept stopping by for cheap ships.  Eventually got offered Dominator (XIV), Onslaught, and eventually an Onslaught (XIV) through them.  Best contact ever.

Unfortunately, early spending on "relatively cheap" capitals and maybe a mistake or two in a combat caused significant cash flow issues, so I had to sign up with a Hegemony commission for a time to make ends meet.  While the Field repairs plus Hull Restoration combination at level 5 helped a lot, it still didn't solve the issue of getting half your fleet blown up and paying for supplies and crew to get back up to nominal CR.  Normal game probably wouldn't have been an issue, but a difference of a free 15,000 credits a month versus a 30,000 credit debt per month (at mid levels) can be significant early on.

The eventual combination of Best of the Best, Hull Restoration, and Level 6 officers felt like level 7 or 8 officers because I was able to take Ordinance Expertise instead of Combat Endurance, plus the extra hull mod being worth something like a skill (Hardened Shields is like Field Modulation, Auxilliary Thrusters is like Helmsmanship for capitals ships, etc).  And the fact I didn't really care too much if a ship blew up let me play much looser and risky.  It still hit the wallet, but 20,000 credits to restore CR on an Onslaught (XIV) is a lot cheaper than 1,000,000 credits to restore d-mods.

Containment Procedures made adding a buch of Ox tugs to increase burn speed relatively painless, allowing me to compensate partly for the lack of Navigation.  The fleet sensor profile is crazy large by default, but even so was still able to separate Remnant fleets with the base 10 burn speed.  Also spending a few story points let me grab insulated engine assembly and efficiency overhaul on the tugs, which makes it about as bad as just having Capitals in general. 

Top end of the fleet ended up being two Onslaught (XIV) and two Legion (XIV), although the later took a bit of exploring though.  Was using basic Legions prior to those finds.  That combination seems to work well for me, and typically each is doing 15-18% of the damage dealt in the fleet, along with 13-20% of the prorata DP.  The Onslaught personally piloted was around 40% damage dealt.  Frigates used mostly have been Scarabs and Omens, along with a token Afflictor.  Middle of the grouping has been switched a lot, trying a Dominator (XIV), Eagles (XIV), Falcon (XIV), Furies, and Eradicators. 

This testing was post flux bump on the Eagles and Falcons, but still haven't really found a nice punchy build I'm happy with on them.  They can stall and distract with long range beams + hypervelocity + heavy mauler, but I generally feel that's better done by frigates.  Eradicators feel solid through the middle game, I think start to lose some of their shine when up against late game foes, which perhaps makes sense for a "light" low tech cruiser.  SO Furies still feel the same, if a bit more expensive.

Overall, I liked this run, and felt the synergy was cool and powerful, and happily proved Technology isn't a must have.
[close]

Run number 3: Neural link test with  Afflictor and Onslaught
Combat 5: Combat Endurance, Impact Mitigation, Field Modulation, Target Analysis, Missile Specialization
Leadership 2: Wolfpack Tactics, Crew Training
Technology 5: Navigation, Gunnery Implants, Flux Regulation, Phase Coil Tuning, Neural Link
Industry 3: Field Repairs, Ordinance Expertise, Polarized Armor

Fleet: Afflictor (Flagship), Onslaught XIV (Flagship), Onslaught XIV, 2x Legion XIV, 2x Hyperion, 2x Medusa, 2x Scarab

Summary:  I wanted to like Neural link on it's own, but the skill is clearly a late addition to the game, and doesn't neatly fit into the overall game experience.  There are a host of minor but annoying interactions that keep it from being good, on top of what seems like penalities this skill has that no other skill does, presumably to keep it in check.  Overall, trying to use it in campaign actually feels like it makes the fleet weaker, as opposed to even simply doing no net harm and merely being a skill pick opportunity cost.

Side note: This was also my first run in 0.95.1a using Medusas, and realizing they may have been power crept by their nearest competitors.  I feel like 360 degree shield capable ships used to be speical back in the day, but now we've got Shrikes, Scarabs, Hyperions, Furies, Auroras, and Odysseys which are all fast with manueverability systems and can get 360 degree shields.  Omens, Apogees, Astrals, and Paragons naturally have 360 degree shields.  The only things in the high tech lineup that can't are Wolves, Tempests, and Medusa.  I wonder if the Tempests and Medusa might be due for a shield arc increase, especially now that AI controlled Tempests can throw away their PD.  Medusas do drop their shields when they skim, so I probably wouldn't go with a front shield on AI Medusas, but would it hurt to bump the Medusa's shield arc from 120 to 150 to match the rest of the line up these days?

"Long comments"
I went into this run wanting to try neural link by itself, and grabbed an afflictor early.  The problem was, I could really justify using neural link to switch to other frigates or destroyers early game.  And switching between two Afflictors didn't feel helpful because of the setup and positioning requirements.  Might as well just sit in one, and not bother spending the skill point and losing 600 flux capacity on two afflictors.

I will say I did use the new neural reset feature, but the times when a double burn drive on an Onslaught felt actually meaningful as opposed to simply amusing were few.  I mean, sure I could catch a fleeing frigate on occassion, but typically it's better simply to issue a Hyperion or Scarab an eliminate order, and focus the firepower of a capital on the front line.  You're still not winning any manueverability battles with an Onslaught.  As for the Afflictor, the anti-matter blasters and needing to vent in between each attack run set the cadence more so than the ability.  There were times when I'd switch in when the ability was already running, and need to vent to stop it (potentially while at high soft flux from the AI using the anti-matter blasters) and then switch out/in back again to do the reset in order to then use it on the target I wanted.  So I was able to use the reset in that case, but it wasn't quick.  When that happens, it kills any sense of responsive coordination.  Now this didn't happen every time, but it happened occasionally enough that it was a minor irritation.

Overall, it feels like the neural link skill and the nature of the game seem to be fighting:
1) I see no way to change the aggressiveness of the AI controlled neural linked ship.  Which I think means it defaults to steady, which makes it not a great choice for SO ships, for example, and tends to make it backoff where I'd want it to push forward.  Similarly, I typically prefer at least aggressive on my capital ships.  Despite being able to switch, I can't actually control both ships simultaneously.  If I try to switch rapidly to force both, I wind up with ships basically moving forwards (when I'm in control) and backwards when I'm trying to get the other ship into an too aggressive position for the AI.  It's even worse if my ships go over the 50 DP limit, at which point I can spend a variable number of seconds each transfer in control of neither ship.

Suggestion: Add an ability to set the player's autopilot aggressiveness on the officer screen, similar to how we choose officer aggressiveness.  Bonus if that same choose an aggressiveness screen also applies to alpha/beta/gamma core ships.

2) Different ship types want different skills, but it's hard to have enough points everywhere to pick optimal for distinctly different ships.  Afflictor and Onslaught are both armor tankers, and benefit from more flux, but I had to choose between Gunnery Implants (Onslaught) and Energy Weapon Mastery (Afflictor).  Similarly, Field Modulation is a must have for a phase ship, while I might have preferred Ballistic Mastery for the Onslaught (typically I'm maxing soft flux, not hard flux from the shield).  So peak capability for each ship is lowered compared to specializing in just one.

3) If the AI gets the other ship killed (generally the Afflictor) it feels *terrible*.  Now I'm stuck with an Onslaught which is down a hullmod, and no in battle benefit left.  And said loss of ability isn't even necessarily my fault (although it probably is).  I could pack additional ships with neural link, but then that means having excess over 240 DP in case a ship dies, diluting fleet skills, and it's a sub-optimal ship if I deploy it because some other ship got destroyed, since it's down a hull mod (or flux stats).

4) If I order the Afflictor to escort my Onslaught to keep it out of trouble, it does so, but when I take control of it, the AI will assign a different ship to escort, which is something I don't actually want.  And then when I switch back to the Onslaught from the Afflictor, the escorting ship (which likely didn't even reach me) will reverse direction and try to go back to what it was doing, which feels really inefficient.  And micromanaging the Afflictor/Onslaught combination with engage command points just feels unfun compared to my more hands off combat style.  It forces me to pause more and pay more attention to the command map, since if I don't, there's the posibility of the AI being way out of position when I want to use it.  It also eats command points rapidly.

5) Interaction with transfer command at the beginning of battle has anti-synergy, because now you've got ships with the inverse of best of the best (i.e. down a hull mod equivalent) applied but no compensating benefit.  Unlike any other skill in the game, this one doesn't transfer with you or apply to your whole fleet.  You have to pre-prepare at a dock (or else eat a bunch of CR hit, which is arguably just as big or even larger penalty right before combat).

6) If you are running iron man and actually lose a fight, and one of the neural linked ships goes down, you're out of luck on using your skill until you get back to dock, or take an even further CR hit to add the hullmod.  It's just extra penalty on top of the penalty of losing the ships in the first place.

7)I'm curious what the idea behind the switch delay for ship combinations over 50 DP is?  Encourage you to use small ships with the skill?  As it stands, if you're just using it for a spare officer, the jump delay doesn't really prevent that, and well, the steady AI typically prevents real close coordination for time sensitive combos.  It certainly kills any ability associated with the neural reset, as having zero player input for 10 seconds (from switch in and then out - or worse, the ability is in use so you have to switch two more times for like 20 seconds down time) feel like a way higher cost than reseting an ability on even a 60 second cooldown (like from a carrier).

I can solo some intel bounty fleets in an Odyssey for example, but I can't duo them with this skill.  The partner is just generally going to get killed, so I'm not seeing how this could have high end duo applications.  You're always going to need a fleet to help the AI of the ship you are not piloting at the moment, so it doesn't really push the boundries of what a "solo" player can do.  Chain deploying is going to be better.  Or maybe it requires a higher level of player skill than I can muster to get that benefit.

Overall, I don't see why the skill warrants say, losing 50 OP spread over two capitals and potentially negating the best part of the skill (neural reset) which isn't even that strong, when used with over 50 DP worth of ships.  With the improvements to mercenaries (1 story point every 2 years) and the fact that Automated ships is literally the other side of tier 5 technology selection which provides one or more elite level 8 officers on good to amazing ships, means the extra, potentially high level officer doesn't feel worth it assuming you don't bother switching.  Neither your neural linked ship, nor the cored ships help with officer DP determination at the start of combat, for example, so might as well go the automated ship route and grab an Alpha Radiant.

I'll also note you are incentivized to stick a Combat Endurance officer in the other neural linked ship, and pull them out every time you're about to enter combat because Combat Endurance from your character doesn't apply to that ship.
 
Perhaps others have had better results with it, but mostly it felt frustrating to try and leverage it to actually improve the strength of the fleet.  I like the concept, but I'm not sure how to make it actually work in such a way as to actually be a significant benefit.  I can't justify a 5-10% OP penalty on any ship you might even want to try to use it on, which is unlike any other skill in the game, since they don't actually cost power off of ships.  At worst, all other skills might take other resources (credits/story points) and raise the peak power of ships, but none of them actively require you to lower it.  The cost to even try to use it effectively a negative skill (5000 flux on an Onslaught is roughly the same as non-Elite field modulation in terms of damage absorption), which implies it needs to be at least twice as good as any personal skill - which it doesn't feel like to me.

Except maybe in the case of self piloting a Radiant, like my 1st play through.  But I feel a good skill should be able to stand on it's own merit.
[close]
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4142
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2022, 12:59:06 AM »

Other people's comments make it seem like the only worthwhile application of Neural Link is piloting a Radiant. I haven't gotten around to using it yet, I'm not playing SS a lot lately. The inability to tailor skills to different ships discourages you from using different ships - but if you're going to use only a single ship, you might as well just not use Neural Link at all, right? Otherwise, it's just a 7 skill steady officer on one of your ships, for the price of Neural Interface/Integrator hullmod.

pairedeciseaux

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2022, 02:51:13 AM »

Summary:  I wanted to like Neural link on it's own, but the skill is clearly a late addition to the game, and doesn't neatly fit into the overall game experience.  There are a host of minor but annoying interactions that keep it from being good, on top of what seems like penalities this skill has that no other skill does, presumably to keep it in check.  Overall, trying to use it in campaign actually feels like it makes the fleet weaker, as opposed to even simply doing no net harm and merely being a skill pick opportunity cost.

I haven't yet played with Neural Link, so can't share hands-on experience. Ability to quickly switch from one ship to another sounds great to create and "multiply" the effects of tactical opportunities.

My understanding is it's more like an extension of the old "lone hero ship" paradigm, where player's flagship is the star of the show and does all/most of the work. With Neural Link player does not "solo" ennemy fleet, player has a pair of ships that both benefit from most of his player skills.

So I guess in order to make the most out of Neural Link, with a min-maxer mindset, one should use a lot of skills among red/combat skills (in addition to Gunnery Implants, Energy Weapon Mastery, Ordnance Expertise and Polarized Armor). This is something I would like to do in a future run, though it would then mean I won't go the Hull Restoration route this time, ha!

Note: uhh, I need to check, but I think Missile Specialisation's ammo bonus is not shared with neural linked ship.

Side note: This was also my first run in 0.95.1a using Medusas, and realizing they may have been power crept by their nearest competitors.  I feel like 360 degree shield capable ships used to be speical back in the day, but now we've got Shrikes, Scarabs, Hyperions, Furies, Auroras, and Odysseys which are all fast with manueverability systems and can get 360 degree shields.  Omens, Apogees, Astrals, and Paragons naturally have 360 degree shields.  The only things in the high tech lineup that can't are Wolves, Tempests, and Medusa.  I wonder if the Tempests and Medusa might be due for a shield arc increase, especially now that AI controlled Tempests can throw away their PD.  Medusas do drop their shields when they skim, so I probably wouldn't go with a front shield on AI Medusas, but would it hurt to bump the Medusa's shield arc from 120 to 150 to match the rest of the line up these days?

Power creep indeed.   ;D

Hmmm, let me check my current ~240 DP fleet composition where player character is at level 14...

1 officered Tempest with an empty missile slot and: Heavy Armor (S), Reinforced Bulkheads (S), Flux Distributor, Accelerated Shields, Extended Shields, Stabilized Shields

1 flagship Medusa with 2 small energy slots left empty and: Heavy Armor (S), Reinforced Bulkheads (S), Extended Shields - though since I usually switch to Conquest when deploying fleet for those large 300K+ bounty battles, this Medusa is effectively a non-officered AI ship

2 Wolves with 1 small energy slot left empty and: Reinforced Bulkheads, Flux Distributor, Flux Coil Adjunct

... and they are all doing really well (with a fair amount of OP budget spent on defensive hullmods)! Yes, Medusa benefits greatly from Extended Shields as it allows it to stay longer on target while being lightly pressured on one side. I guess one could say the same for Wolf and Tempest, but since they are so small and mobile, they are not that endangered until quite late in a campaign.

Another way to boost Medusa would be to give it a bit more OP rather that just improving its shield.

(note: this is a "Support Doctrine run", so I deploy around 18 ships and generally have numerical superiority, I think this plays a significant role in one's assessment of shield arc requirements for high tech ships)
Logged

MrTwister

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2022, 04:00:58 AM »

I never controlled my own ship after the tutorial I played 2 years ago ;D, so the whole "Neural" thing is just an amusing quirk for me.

Leadership tree on the other hand is extremely good this time and I've taken the majority of the skills there, both officer and both final perks especially!!!
Leadership seems the best category this time around (for the fleet admirals anyway).

Technology and combat trees are mostly unchanged and are just as useful as before, unfortunately I wasn't able to spare much for the combat tree, only picked field modulation this time around.

Combat - only Field modulation.
Leadership went for Tact Drills, Coord M., Crew T., Carrier G., Officer T., Officer M., Best of Best, Support Doctrine.
Technology I went for navigation, gunnery and electronic warfare
Industry had some changes but old good ones are still there - bulk transport, ordnance expertise and makeshift equipment this time around.

So most of my points went to leadership and then technology with a handful left for industry and least of all combat.
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2022, 01:16:39 PM »

Other people's comments make it seem like the only worthwhile application of Neural Link is piloting a Radiant. I haven't gotten around to using it yet, I'm not playing SS a lot lately. The inability to tailor skills to different ships discourages you from using different ships - but if you're going to use only a single ship, you might as well just not use Neural Link at all, right? Otherwise, it's just a 7 skill steady officer on one of your ships, for the price of Neural Interface/Integrator hullmod.

That is certainly a large portion of the feeling I'm having.  I'd rather just spend a story point every two years on a level 6 mercenary and put the character point and OP in better spent locations.  Or go Automated ships for a level 8 officer (or more in frigates).

I haven't yet played with Neural Link, so can't share hands-on experience. Ability to quickly switch from one ship to another sounds great to create and "multiply" the effects of tactical opportunities.

My understanding is it's more like an extension of the old "lone hero ship" paradigm, where player's flagship is the star of the show and does all/most of the work. With Neural Link player does not "solo" ennemy fleet, player has a pair of ships that both benefit from most of his player skills.

So I guess in order to make the most out of Neural Link, with a min-maxer mindset, one should use a lot of skills among red/combat skills (in addition to Gunnery Implants, Energy Weapon Mastery, Ordnance Expertise and Polarized Armor).

Tthat was my thoughts as well before really trying to use it.  Theoretically, you should use the player's superior sense of positioning and timing to take advantage of out of position enemies on two ships instead of just one.  That is essentially working under the assumption that human control is significantly better than AI control (which is highly dependent on player skill and play style). 

The problem is, you are only applying that superior control a portion of the time to each ship.  Unless you can get a significant improvement out of the ship's performance over equivalent AI control in just a few moments (maybe using a ship system or venting at just the right time), it generally averages to 50% AI control and 50% player control between the two ships (and more like 60% AI/40% player if you're switching heavily over the 50 DP limit).  Which you can do just by piloting one ship.  If you're already in the "lone hero ship" play style, and close to always engaged in combat, you're better off just piloting one ship and spending the OP on making both ships better.

And even to get that timing right for a momentary switches to swing an engagement means paying close attention to both ships.  If the other ship is off the main view, you have to be constantly pausing and checking the other ship to see if it needs that quick, momentary jump over, which breaks the flow of combat for the "lone hero ship" play style.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a real net improvement in battle outcomes versus simply not using it.  And it's significantly behind the Best of the Best + Hull Restoration setup with similar ships. 

This is something I would like to do in a future run, though it would then mean I won't go the Hull Restoration route this time, ha!

I'd love to hear your (and other player) feedback when you do get around to it.  Perhaps I've missed it, or don't spend enough time on the various discords, but I haven't heard interesting combos that felt amazing to run - which is what you kind of need to do when up against Automated Ships, Best of the Best, Hull Restoration, Support Doctrine and Derelict Operations.  Automated Ships is amazing because Radiants are amazing.  Best of the Best is just makes your ships 5-10% better everywhere (unlike Neural Link which makes two ships 5-10% worse).  Hull Restoration significantly lowers the bar for success. I tried a 10 SO Hyperion/15 Scarab/5 Reventant support doctrine fleet by respecing my first campaign file (I happened to have blueprints for both ships), and that was kinda silly (11 burn and 175 sensor profile with end game killing power!) and highly effective with 25 high tech death frigates.  And there's plenty of posts showing off the power of Derelict Contingent fighter or missile spam.

The concept is fun and cool to play with, but I'm mostly looking at it from an overall effectiveness perspective and annoyance factor right now.

I also appreciate Hull Restoration on Iron man.  Certainly my Missile Specialization, Best of the Best, and Hull Restoration run felt much stronger than my Neural link run, despite having a very similar fleet composition.  If I felt I needed cheese some stuff early in the fight with an Afflictor, I just used the option to change flagship at the start of the fight (putting my afflictor officer in my Onslaught), used the Afflictor until done with it, and just got back in the Onslaught with the X (transfer flagship) command.

Note: uhh, I need to check, but I think Missile Specialisation's ammo bonus is not shared with neural linked ship.

You are correct, Missile Specialization's ammo bonus is not shared with the neural linked ship.  Nor is the Combat Endurance CR bonus.  My Afflictor was running anti-matter blasters instead of reapers or the like, so I just started in the Onslaught, providing more reapers.  I will say a burn driving in on an enemy capital ship to point blank range at high flux, and then dropping 4x 5600 HE damage Reapers is quite satisfying (and generally leaves nothing behind).  It also doesn't give it enough time for enemy ships to shoot down the reapers since they spend less than a second not under the Onslaught's shield.

(note: this is a "Support Doctrine run", so I deploy around 18 ships and generally have numerical superiority, I think this plays a significant role in one's assessment of shield arc requirements for high tech ships)

Could be.  Swarms of high tech have less of a need to cover their backside. :)

In summary, I'm not sure being able to switch between two ships under a 50 DP cap instantly can be the primary power benefit from the skill, as it's just not that powerful because of how the AI acts when it's not the active ship.  I just don't feel amazing synergy.  I'd love to be proven wrong, however.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2022, 01:20:35 PM by Hiruma Kai »
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4142
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2022, 01:58:26 PM »

Two most obvious (to me) combos for NL is anything + Radiant (because Radiant) and Doom + Afflictor. I'm not sure either of those can prove you wrong, and even then - Doom and Afflictor are plenty strong on their own, whereas a Radiant requires one skill point to get already, and now you have to pay another to pilot it. Solo Doom can really be that good, but can Radiant? I will see, eventually.

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2022, 02:13:59 PM »

Well just staring up my second playthrough, planning to get Automated ships and Neural link (2 skills I completely ignored in the first one), it makes me kinda sad to hear that it's considered weak. And woweee I somehow missed that the hullmod that just allows you to pilot the second ship costs 50 OP! That is bonkers.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2022, 02:21:25 PM »

Two most obvious (to me) combos for NL is anything + Radiant (because Radiant) and Doom + Afflictor. I'm not sure either of those can prove you wrong, and even then - Doom and Afflictor are plenty strong on their own, whereas a Radiant requires one skill point to get already, and now you have to pay another to pilot it. Solo Doom can really be that good, but can Radiant? I will see, eventually.

Actually, I did run Neural Link with Hyperion or Fury + Radiant on my first run, and it feels powerful enough to me, even with the 50 OP hit to be worth the 8 point technology and 5 point combat investment.  But the thing is you don't switch in that case.  You spend 5 seconds at the beginning of combat getting into the Radiant, and then just stay there.  The power isn't coming from the ability tactically switch between ships.  It's coming from being able to simply pilot the single most offensive ship in the vanilla game which can't be piloted in any other way.  The switching in and of itself has no value for that use case.

If the skill which is designed to make you hop between ships is only useful sitting in one very specific ship the entire combat, that suggests to me that the skill did not reach it's design intent.

In any case, I do look forward to reports from other people on how it feels to them and how they used it.  I'm only one player with a particular play style, so it may mesh better for others.

Well just staring up my second playthrough, planning to get Automated ships and Neural link (2 skills I completely ignored in the first one), it makes me kinda sad to hear that it's considered weak. And woweee I somehow missed that the hullmod that just allows you to pilot the second ship costs 50 OP! That is bonkers.

Well, that's only for Radiants.  Onslaughts and other normal capitals it "only" costs 25 OP.  9/6/3 for lesser non-automated ships.  As noted, I think the 50 OP is kinda fair.  Even down 50 OP, a Radiant is still a monster in player hands.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2022, 02:36:12 PM by Hiruma Kai »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2022, 02:41:58 PM »

I think automated ships is incredibly strong on its own, but spending extra points for neural link is kinda lower value because a reckless radiant get like 80+% of the value of a human pilot IMO. It's pretty much a ship where you can fly forward and shoot and everything will die, so the AI does well with it, and eliminate orders work well enough to keep it in the right area. Plus you need to take one of cybernetic augments, the phase skill or sensors/nav and none of those are super impactful for radiant build, except maybe cybernetic augments, but only if you can pay the story point cost which is very large, so a required wasted/low value skill on top of that feels pretty bad.

I've been leaning towards max fleet power with personal combat power sprinkled in as available. I've been running double officer skills from leadership (10 tailored level 6 officers with 2x elite skills is a lot), and you can get that with 3 decent fleet wide skills for 5 points. I almost feel like double officer skills is better than BotB, 10 skills and 10 elite skills seems at least comparable to 1 extra s-mod on every ship, particularly if you are only running ~10 ships anyway, but I think 6 points in leadership tp get both also seems like a really good option. Then you can go full personal combat if you want (could get 5 in combat + OE and GI/EWM), or you can go 5 in tech for automated ships + flux regulation + GI/EWM +EW, and then pick a few good combat skills.

I think the second option might be the most powerful fleet I've been able to build.

Something like:
5 tech: navigation+ Gunnery Implants or EWM + Electronic Warfare + Flux regulation + Automated ships
6 leadership: wolfpack + crew training + coordinatinated maneuvers + both officer skills + BotB
and then for combat skills I would probably run
ordinance expertise + field modulation + targeting analysis + bad t1 industry skill
or
combat endurance + impact mitigation + field modulation + targeting analysis

In that case you get 10 level 6 officers, and a beta radiant + 5-6 gamma remnant frigates which is so much fleet power and you also get huge electronic warfare value from the remnant frigates stacked with EW (enough to compete with even full alpha ordos). Your flagship won't be crazy strong but I think you still have enough skills where you can be very impactful.

Alternatively, you could drop the remnants and probable EW for a couple extra combat combat skills. I might even consider dropping BotB for a combat skill, particularly early on when you might not have the story points to really take advantage of it anyway.
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2022, 07:48:01 PM »

I want more concurrent linkage, more than the current pair linkage.
Otherwise make support doctrine's DP reduction apply to ships with Neural Interface/Integrator hullmod.
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12156
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2022, 07:36:10 AM »

My experience with Neural Link last release was the Neural Link hullmods were an OP tax.  It was not worth losing OP on those ships just for the equivalent of an AI core on another ship unless maybe one of them was an Automated Ship.  And Tech 8 plus Hull Restoration does not work because not enough skill points left for combat skills.  If I have OP to burn on frivolities (the Neural Link hullmods), I rather spend it on a campaign mod like Efficiency Overhaul, not Neural Link.  Most ships have a tight enough OP budget as-is.  I tend to s-mod in Expanded Missile Racks on a lot of ships.

Without Combat skills, Radiant felt like a slower Paragon with less range, and I needed to save the skimmer as an escape button to compensate for bad mobility caused by lack of mobility skills from combat.  Once skimmer charges run out, Radiant is a sitting duck.  The Neural hullmod means I need two s-mods to make up for lost OP.  Radiant wingman is probably better when player does not have Combat skills.

If I want to use NL Radiant, I have to give up Hull Restoration.  That does not feel good.  Hull Restoration is massive QoL like Navigation.

Re: Tempest
Now that Tempests throw away their drones, I have replaced the beam or attack weapon on the right with a burst laser (burst PD with Ion Pulser, or heavy burst laser with 600 range weapon).
« Last Edit: January 17, 2022, 07:38:23 AM by Megas »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2022, 04:47:18 AM »

Well just staring up my second playthrough, planning to get Automated ships and Neural link (2 skills I completely ignored in the first one)
Aaaand I finally did what I said, pretty much agree with most of the stuff that was concluded here before. Automated ships is a very strong skill on its own, getting access to forbidden ships with FREE OFFICERS is crazy, I'm basically always winning the ECM war now. Thankfully it seems different combinations of automated ships are viable, and not only for Radiants as I feared initially.

But Neural link, oh boy does this skill seem to exist only for one thing. For it, you need to get to the top tier Tech skill, so naturally Automated ships together seems like a natural choice. And then get what little personal skills you manage to get, with the main one obviously being Systems expertise. So you spend your whole 15 points just to be able to pilot a Radiant... I mean don't get me wrong, it's insanely strong and fun to pilot, but there's like 10 sacrifices you have to make along the way. And yeah yeah I can also have a few automated ships on the side with this playstyle, though I could've gotten that with only 5 skill point investment, and I wouldn't need to nerf one of the ships with a 50 OP cost hullmod. You're still piloting a god ship, and for that price you need to nerf two of your ships.

I still don't know how to feel about this. It seems to me like it's an alternative playstyle if you don't like flying the Ziggurat, but for this path you have to invest a loooot. That is, if you prefer piloting a strong offensive ship. Guess it's probably fine in the bigger picture since there's a couple of very different playstyles, I'm just a bit disappointed every "Radiant flagship" build is going to be exactly the same every time.

Also it's funny to me that a skill made for rapidly switching between flagships is mostly used just to switch to a god ship and then ignore the first one. Which is what I'm doing with my Odyssey flagship. I'm sure the Radiant would do fine on its own but I paid so much for it, I'm going to use it selfishly damn it.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2022, 04:49:00 AM by Grievous69 »
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12156
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2022, 07:13:22 AM »

There is one other use for Neural Link that seemed promising when I tried it recently, double flagship SO Hyperion and put them on autopilot.  SO Hyperion is a micro-Radiant.  Double Hyperion (flagship and double) may not be necessary, just get linked SO Hyperion with your skills to roam and break stuff.

If player is not interested in Automated Ships, but already has four Tech skills, he can get Neural Link and set up a link with SO Hyperion and let it wreck stuff with the player's elite combat skills.

Instant transfer is not necessary for this application, just getting the equivalent of a beta or alpha core on SO Hyperion is the main point.



P.S.  @ Grievous69:
The two skills I consider mandatory on Radiant flagship are Helmsmanship and Impact Mitigation (elite).  Without those, Radiant is extremely sluggish.  Without enough combat skills, Radiant is a more sluggish Paragon with less shot range.  If it can get mobile enough, it can do sick things, like spam large missiles and plasma, or, if player min-maxes flux stats, support quad plasma cannon.

However, Ziggurat with Phase Anchor is crazy strong as a flagship.  If I do not care about Ziggurat's CR drain or auto-ID, I can have a flagship stronger than Radiant (Tachyon Lances, Needlers, and Phase Anchor are an overpowered combination, more so than plasma cannons) and without locking in too many of my skills solely for Radiant use.

You're still piloting a god ship, and for that price you need to nerf two of your ships.
Not to mention that AI does a good enough job piloting Radiant, and it does not need to suffer the 50 OP tax.  If I want Tech 8, I get Energy Mastery, which is only good for the -10% flux use at elite, Phase Corps which may or may not get used by AI (I would not use it since I go for Radiant with Tech 8 ).  In other words, skills I do not really want.  Sensors is useless to me, as is Cybernetic Augmentation.

With Radiant, I almost want Missile Specialization instead of Systems Mastery.  With double or triple missiles, I can spam Hammers, MIRVs, or Squalls for a while.  That said, if I want Hull Restoration, I will never get Combat 5, so I need to get the mobility skills to make it more useful than simply getting Paragon.  If Radiant is mobile enough without skimmer, then it does not need to save the skimmer for emergency escapes constantly.

After I get the basic mobility skills, I want to get Field Modulation for harder shields, but if I have Hull Restoration and Tech 8, I cannot because I have no skill points left.  Basically, going for Radiant flagship requires too many sacrifices.  I can settle for Onslaught or Paragon, or if I really must have a godship, use Ziggurat.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2022, 07:57:16 AM by Megas »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2022, 12:19:29 PM »

You'd never be able to fully take advantage of Missile spec since the extra ammo doesn't carry over with transfer.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12156
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95.1a play through comments on a few different skill sets
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2022, 12:24:48 PM »

You'd never be able to fully take advantage of Missile spec since the extra ammo doesn't carry over with transfer.
Ah, yes!  That hurts!  So that leaves Systems Expertise, or another lower tier skill, then for Combat 5 for Radiant flagship.

I have exploited Missile Spec. for Radiant wingmen, and Squall spam has been a nice budget option when using Radiants with enough d-mods that it has trouble brawling with reduced stats.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2022, 12:30:17 PM by Megas »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2