Print

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

[prav]

The challenge level of a 100 FP pirate fleet with three Eradicators is significantly higher than an equally large fleet without.

[Plantissue]

Because pirate Eradicator is borderline overpowered at 17 DP the same way normal Eradicator is at 20 DP, for the same reasons (of powerful, easy-to-use turreted ballistic firepower).  If normal Eradicator gets a DP raise because 20 is too cheap, then 17 is also too cheap for pirate Eradicator.

Your prior reasoning was one of matching percentages of DP. I don't think the pirate eradicator is borderline overpowered at 17 DP, but I don't really mind if it was to be increased to 18 DP either.

IIRC when you include duty cycle AAF comes out to a ~35% increase in total firepower, which is flux free and concentrated at the start of an engagement in most cases. Burn drive has some value for fast hunter cruisers, but the effective flux/firepower advantage is significant.

Right. The fact that it can be used to start the engagement means that a roughly equivalent ship begins on its back foot and never really recovers. The effect this has on the AI is substantial, so much so that it can mean the difference between squeaking out a win (Pirate Eradicator) and not taking any damage at all (standard).

If AAF is considered ~30% boost in DPS, then the standard Eradicator should be about 30% more expensive to field than the Pirate version. Unsurprisingly, this is 22 relative to 17. That's a bit of an oversimplification, of course, but Burn Drive doesn't have the same battlefield impact as AAF by a large margin, in my opinion, at least not on a ship with 70 base speed. You could make an argument that AAF on a Dominator wouldn't necessarily be "better" (I still think it might be) but the Dominator's slow base speed necessitates Burn Drive a lot more than the Eradicator does.

Ackchually, if AAF is considered to be a 30% boost in DPS, the identical defensive properties of the standard Eradicator must be considered. A ship that output twice as much damage is not twice as good afterall. Lanchester square law makes it square root 1.3 which should make the standard Eradictor 14% more than the pirate eradicator. So relatively speaking from 22 DP would be 19 DP. But that's a straight forward mathematical model. In starsector AAF allows a ship to frontload damage, retreat, vent and try again which makes AAF much better than such a simple mathematical analysis.

Maybe nerf the logistical side of it? We could bring it down to burn 8 instead of burn 9.

Logistical changes does not affect combat balance. Especially in this case changing burn speed essentially changes the entire worth of a ship. Burn speed is how I would internally classify ships as fleet speed is the single most important game interaction. Hence in my view how the Eradicators pretty much make every other direct combat destroyer obsolete. I would say both Eradicators should be burn 8, but that is very much detrimental towards me.

[Sly]

The Raddy seems fine to me, imo. The guns and their coverage are nothing to write home about. It's easily flanked and her maneuverability is mediocre at best. A pair of Enforcers do the same job on a battle line, but better - because they have two flux pools, twice the missiles, cost less DP, and have more flexible mounts. Added benefit: You can split the pair in half for tactical shenanigans.

Eradicators aren't even worth discussing in a harassment or pursuit role. Most low-tech ships aren't, and the mold ain't broken here.

They have good utility bursting specialized ballistic firepower into a heavy battle line when backed up by tanker cruisers or a wings of destroyers. Interceptors backing them up is a must for reliable performance. They're perfectly serviceable being a main battle line cruiser in smaller engagements, but the same could be said of virtually all combat cruisers.

Odds are though, if you're cherry-picking which of ten ship slots you're allocating to cruisers, you're flush with cash, salvage, and story points, and it really doesn't matter if you have a large portion of Raddies filling those spots or some other cruiser. You have a stacked deck either way.

If you absolutely have to nerf it, then I recommend narrowing the shield coverage 5-10 degrees. The stats otherwise seem fine.

[Thaago]

... Ackchually, if AAF is considered to be a 30% boost in DPS, the identical defensive properties of the standard Eradicator must be considered. A ship that output twice as much damage is not twice as good afterall. Lanchester square law makes it square root 1.3 which should make the standard Eradictor 14% more than the pirate eradicator. So relatively speaking from 22 DP would be 19 DP. But that's a straight forward mathematical model. In starsector AAF allows a ship to frontload damage, retreat, vent and try again which makes AAF much better than such a simple mathematical analysis.

...

Lanchester's square law works in the opposite way that you applied it, a square rather than a square root. By that analysis (which doesn't take into account most things in SS like regenerating shields), a 30% increase in firepower is a 69% increase in effectiveness. I don't think this is accurate for SS, but its more accurate than taking the square root.

[smithney]

The Raddy seems fine to me, imo. The guns and their coverage are nothing to write home about. It's easily flanked and her maneuverability is mediocre at best. A pair of Enforcers do the same job on a battle line, but better - because they have two flux pools, twice the missiles, cost less DP, and have more flexible mounts. Added benefit: You can split the pair in half for tactical shenanigans.

Can't agree with this assessment, an Enforcer is also easier to burst down. They really can't do the same job in big battles because they won't stand up to the big guns, at least in my experience. In fact, I don't think comparing different hull categories makes sense because the expectations for each of them are different.

That said, if you wanted to compare Eradicator to smaller ships, imo the closest relative would be Lasher - a mobile, versatile and threatening hull in its class, both are also defensively lackluster. Or at least should be, which is my main gripe about Enforcer, that it's still pretty safe for the affordable firepower it offers.

[BigBrainEnergy]

Lanchester's square law works in the opposite way that you applied it, a square rather than a square root. By that analysis (which doesn't take into account most things in SS like regenerating shields), a 30% increase in firepower is a 69% increase in effectiveness. I don't think this is accurate for SS, but its more accurate than taking the square root.

This. If you have the same ship but it deals twice as much damage, all else being equal (including flux generated), I think it's fair to say it's worth at least twice the value of the original ship.

[Sly]

Can't agree with this assessment, an Enforcer is also easier to burst down. They really can't do the same job in big battles because they won't stand up to the big guns, at least in my experience. In fact, I don't think comparing different hull categories makes sense because the expectations for each of them are different.

Don't see why you can't compare them. They both move around and shoot things, they don't usually have any other function. You'll probably find a different opinion on what each ship can be used for if you ask every user on the forums.

The Enforcer's just an example, anyway. Replace it with other combat destroyers (sadly, a shorter list than other sizes) and you'll get a similar result up until a Capital bullies its way across the field. Then, if you absolutely must hold a line of battle, you will need at least Cruisers. Any Combat Cruisers will do, though. If you want to sink the opposing line at that point, there are many options available aside from a battle of attrition.

In my experience, you can get a lot more done with a smaller, faster, more flexible fleet. You deploy less tonnage, save more supplies, and walk away with surplus salvage.

But, like I said before, if you're past the point where resources matter, then you have bigger and badder options to deploy than Eradicators.

[Vanshilar]

Lanchester's square law works in the opposite way that you applied it, a square rather than a square root. By that analysis (which doesn't take into account most things in SS like regenerating shields), a 30% increase in firepower is a 69% increase in effectiveness. I don't think this is accurate for SS, but its more accurate than taking the square root.

Actually if I'm understanding the wikipedia article on it correctly, Lanchester's square law should be a square root in this case. The law is that twice as many troops represents 4 times as much effectiveness (or firepower). Since the number of troops you can have is based on your DP, then yes, 30% more firepower represents 14% more DP.

However, I'm not sure if Lanchester's square law can be directly applied in this case, due to Starsector's game mechanics, and due to AAF's burst nature. AAF's damage is front loaded, meaning that during (roughly) the first 6 seconds it does double damage, then during (roughly) the next 11 seconds it does normal damage. (I'm ignoring the whole chargeup/chargedown thing for simplicity here). So the average damage dealt is basically 200% for the first 6 seconds, then gradually tapering down to 135% at the end of a duty cycle. So it only ends up averaging 35% more damage at the exact end of a duty cycle, right before the next burst starts; if the enemy ship dies before that, i.e. in the middle of the cycle (which is virtually always, unless you have really bad luck), then the average damage dealt is actually greater than this.

Also, it does roughly half of the total damage per duty cycle during those 6 seconds, meaning there's basically a 50% chance that the enemy ship dies during those 6 seconds, and a 50% chance that the enemy ship dies during the 11 seconds where AAF is on cooldown. So yeah, on average, when the enemy ship dies will skew heavily toward while AAF is active; it's not evenly distributed throughout the duty cycle.

Thus, in actual combat use, chances are AAF does more than the +35% more damage that the duty cycle implies; the +35% is actually just a minimum bound on AAF's effectiveness. The max would be +100% of course (if all ships die during AAF's burst). So, even if Lanchester's square law applies in this case (and I'm not convinced it does), all you can really say is that it means the ship would be somewhere between sqrt(1.35) ~ +16% and sqrt(2) ~ +41% more in DP than if it didn't have AAF, depending on where in the duty cycle the average ship it faces dies. (And you'd have to take this averaging across multiple duty cycles into account versus harder targets.) That means that if the normal AAF version changes to 22 DP, then the pirate, non-AAF version would be between 15.56 to 18.93 DP, depending on your assumptions of where in the duty cycle the average ship dies, and how much you feel burn drive improves the ship compared with not having a system at all.

[smithney]

Don't see why you can't compare them. They both move around and shoot things, they don't usually have any other function. You'll probably find a different opinion on what each ship can be used for if you ask every user on the forums.

Of course, nothing is preventing you, the player, from comparing whichever setup fits you better. That's a welcome interaction and you prove to be aware of it. However, when we're asking whether Eradicator does sport some quality that makes players pick it over other similar options even when they would like to consider the alternative, we need to compare it with those closest alternatives.

You said it yourself: "...if you absolutely must hold a line of battle, you will need at least Cruisers. Any Combat Cruisers will do, though." The question is if that's true, and if it is, does each competitor have anything else to offer besides being able to hold the line? If both you and Plantissue are right,...

Logistical changes does not affect combat balance. Especially in this case changing burn speed essentially changes the entire worth of a ship. Burn speed is how I would internally classify ships as fleet speed is the single most important game interaction. Hence in my view how the Eradicators pretty much make every other direct combat destroyer obsolete.

...then Eradicator's burn speed is so much of a benefit that it makes any inferiorities to its competitors a non-issue.

I don't think that's necessarily true, but I do have a hard time justifying a Falcon or a Fury in my fleet when Eradicator can do most things they can and the important ones better. Tbh the two at least have some valuable niche in comparison, but I find Eradicator to be outcompeting Eagle, which shouldn't be happening given the "weight" difference.

[Grievous69]

Bruh it's not some science fiction, people here doing mathematical equations to know how to balance a ship when you can just look at the game xD.

@smithney
Eagle is getting dropped to 20 DP, so no more difference. And I don't understand how someone can say it has no competitors. Did you all forget that Gryphon, Heron, Mora, Apogee exist? If I just need pure damage I might take something else, if I need something to tank hits and be in front, then I'd choose something else especially. Eradicator just fits in that flexible sweetspot where it's almost never a bad choice in a fleet. But same can be said about other ships, being reliable doesn't mean being overtuned.

And let's for a moment pretend Eradicator is 22 DP, that's really not that far off the Dominator. Yeah different ships and all that but at the end of the day you're picking cruisers for their usability on the battlefield. It wouldn't seem right that Eradicator would be just 3 DP cheaper than a Dominator. 22 DP probably wouldn't ruin it, still a solid pick I guess. But why screw with already good balance...

EDIT: I know sim tests are a meme but just put an AI Apogee versus an Assault Eradicator variant which has lots of kinetic firepower for high tech (so I don't get sued for cherry picking builds). Both semi close range builds, one doesn't even have a proper ship system and that ship wins easily, with barely a scratch. And that's a 2 DP cheaper ship, which isn't even a proper combat ship considered by some players.

[smithney]

@smithney
Eagle is getting dropped to 20 DP, so no more difference. And I don't understand how someone can say it has no competitors. Did you all forget that Gryphon, Heron, Mora, Apogee exist? If I just need pure damage I might take something else, if I need something to tank hits and be in front, then I'd choose something else especially. Eradicator just fits in that flexible sweetspot where it's almost never a bad choice in a fleet. But same can be said about other ships, being reliable doesn't mean being overtuned.

Just a to make myself clear: I don't think Eradicator has no competitors. As you pointed out, Eradicator is almost never a bad choice atm and that becomes a problem when the competitors have comparatively little to offer. I emphasize that currently it's mainly Eagle's problem, but I also think losing a couple DP isn't going to help it if it also doesn't gain a niche to shine in. In short: Eradicator is the best generalist cruiser and it eclipses the other generalist cruiser, Eagle.

In other words, you're probably right that Eradicator isn't overtuned ^^ /thread

[Grievous69]

I'm not sure I'd call Eagle a generalist, because with the inability to finish kills, you immediately lose the status of a generalist. Eagle is more like a safe support ship, doesn't deal much damage but it shoots at long range and can backpedal with system. I'd honestly say ships like Champion and Apogee are more of a generalist.

[smithney]

I'm not sure I'd call Eagle a generalist, because with the inability to finish kills, you immediately lose the status of a generalist. Eagle is more like a safe support ship, doesn't deal much damage but it shoots at long range and can backpedal with system.

Which is in contradiction with its lore blurb, meaning either lore or gameplay is in for a rework. *shrug* Anyway, no need to turn this into a back-and-forth Eagle thread. We already had that one.

Btw I think Champion should swap speed with Eagle and be a frontline specialist like Dominator

[Amoebka]

Eagle is like the opposite of a generalist - instead of doing everything it does nothing at all. Can't punch down multiple smaller ships because all real weapons are on hardpoints, can't punch up a larger ship because no heavy mounts or missiles. It's a cruiser that's exclusively good against slow (but somehow also unarmored) cruisers and destroyers.

It's not the sort of issue 20 dp (or any amount) will fix. You lower it too much and the ship becomes overpowered in it's niche use case, while still being generally bad in most other cases. The design is just bad, it needs different weapon mounts.

[Igncom1]

Just massacring my boy the Eagle 

He's not bad, everyone else is just too good!