Print

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

[smithney]

Curious to see the full picture, but the combination of ambient changes and touch-up buffs does sound promising. I'm honestly happy to hear that Eagle feels good in-dev and that it can stay in its niche without warranting major changes. If that's the case, I feel like the cruiser class is pretty rounded off. I could ask if anyone feels like there is still space for a supportive battlecarrier, since there's been quite a few voices calling for it, but that's a topic for another thread, another day.

It's not! But, gotta have some ships like that - "solid performer" rather than "superstar".

With that in mind, are you considering the XIV variant a candidate for potential stardom? Assuming the screenshot in your last blog post is slightly misleading (as in "the PL is still using Eagles and Falcons, I just didn't catch them on camera"), the basic Eagles and Falcons are going to be the solid performers in the two midline-centric armies. Assuming we're gonna see regular Eagles in Hegemony fleets, too, are you considering the XIV hullmod a buff to look out for in midline hulls? Or will you treat it as a touchup to make them fit better in line with the rest of the Heg lineup?

EDIT

SAGE

I thought PL stopped using Eagles, after it got the Champion instead.

Lol I somehow managed to forget that, even though I got it right in this very thread before xD What the hell, me?

[close]

[SCC]

I thought PL stopped using Eagles, after it got the Champion instead.

[Cegorach]

I feel like it's actually in a pretty good place otherwise - I don't want to *change* it very much. FWIW, the way I see its role as ... "fluidly holding an area" might be the best way to put it.

I'm a newer player, so take this with a grain of sand, but I the main thing I found insufficient about the eagle is its comically low speed. The manoeuvre is okay, but the in game description bills it as a the bigger brother to the falcon.  It makes sense for the eagle to lose a chunk of speed, that's alright, but losing almost half the speed isnt very thematically consistent... not to mention it puts the eagle behind a bunch of much more ungainly craft, and barely above the heaviest vehicles in the game. Further the name eagle evokes an idea of a craft that has exceptional flight, and soars. I'd say right now a better name is the ostrich.

What would be more appropriate imho is to lose a small percentage of speed, like 20%, and take most of its lost attributes out of manoueuvre and acceleration. 

Also I love you.

[TaLaR]

I'm a newer player, so take this with a grain of sand, but I the main thing I found insufficient about the eagle is its comically low speed. The manoeuvre is okay, but the in game description bills it as a the bigger brother to the falcon.

Eagle's average speed is slightly below 75 (you won't trigger the system with perfect timing), higher than 60 of Champion or 70 of Eradicator. This small speed advantage is enough due to Eagle also having more long range flux pressure (I wouldn't say exactly dps though, Gravitons have none).

I do agree that Eagle could use maybe 5 more speed. 50 vs 45 base speed of Conquest, both use same system, both have same burn 8, Conquest has far superior range and firepower. Conquest is a better Eagle in every way except AI being less efficient at broadside maneuvers.

[Brainwright]

What I find in most of my battles AI vs AI is that while HVD is less dps then HAC, it's much better at what you actually want to do which is cause enemy AI ships to overload. There's two reasons for this. 1) HVD does more damage per volley then HAC so its more likely to push a ship above max and 2) The AI really really doesn't want to take HVD shots on armor, leading it to shield HVD when it would drop shield against HAC. Also combos super well with HE missiles.

This is why God invented the Ion Beam.  It's the EMP component that makes the NPCs keep up their shields against HVDs.

[Amoebka]

If you want the enemy to keep shields up, just put one tactical laser in the small front turret. For whatever reason AI treats it as a strike superweapon of doom and doesn't armor tank.

[Zironic]

This is why God invented the Ion Beam.  It's the EMP component that makes the NPCs keep up their shields against HVDs.

HVDs are EMP weapons themselves.

[Goumindong]

This is why God invented the Ion Beam.  It's the EMP component that makes the NPCs keep up their shields against HVDs.

HVDs are EMP weapons themselves.

Yes. He is saying that you can get the raw damage if HAC and still force shields up by using an Ion Beam.

[Hiruma Kai]

So, apparently speed 30 Dominators don't mix with speed 45 Conquests and speed 60 Gryphons, because the glass cannon missile launchers get in front of the Dominators in the mad dash for the central objectives, and then can't back up because the Dominators are right behind them, despite the Dominators starting out in front at spawn.  They'd probably be fine with some human intervention setting up a line initially.  Typically means a Grypon dies on the Dominator side in the first exchange.  On the other hand, the range advantage plus 36 Harpoons each is telling as the fight goes on. 

So using 4 shield pressure + Ion Dominators with: 2 Mark IX, 2 Hypervelocity driver, 3 Harpoon Pods, 5 Vulcans, Xyphos, Converted Hangar, Integrated Targeting Unit, 30 Vents, 1 Cap

Dominators win (Conquest, Gryphon, 2 Centurions lost)
Dominators win (Gryphon, Centurion lost)
Dominators win(Dominator, Gryphon, 2 Centurions lost)

So, to try to make it fairer, I switched over to a Hypervelocity Driver Eagle:
3x Hypervelocity Driver (provides ion already), 3x Graviton Beams, 2x Harpoons, 2x PD, ITU, Stabilized Shields, 25 Vents, 24 Capacitors

Eagles win (2 Eagles, 1 Gryphon, 5 Centurions lost)
Dominator pyrrhic victory (4 Dominators, 2 Gryphons, 5 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (3 Centurions lost)

Again, the core fleet and the Dominators really don't mix, but this time the Dominators didn't have a range advantage, so the speed of the Eagles was much more telling.  Essentially, Dominators and Eagles can't quite fill the same role I think, and here the backing fleet is favoring a more mobile front line, since it is so mobile itself.  Probably backing with 2 Astrals or Paragons would provide a different outcome.

So seeing the impact maneuverability had on the AI, I decided to try the obvious substitution, Falcons.  So going back to the original HACs, Ion, Heavy burst, swarmer Eagles, I then setup Falcons similarly:

2 HACs, 1 Ion Beam, 1 Heavy Burst PD, 2 PD lasers, 2 Swarmers, ITU, 30 Vents, 23 Caps
Also, 1 kite_Starting, to make 7 Falcons + 1 kite = 100 DP.

Falcons win (2 Falcons, 1 Centurion lost)
Falcons win (1 Falcon, 3 Centurions lost)
Falcons win (1 Falcon, 3 Centurions lost)

Pretty consistent encounters.  1 on 1, Falcon will typically lose if the Eagle's Ion beam disables the Falcons engine, but the sheer number of ships is eventually telling, not to mention a very consistent encircling pattern by the AI eventually means you've got a big ball of Eagles/Conquest in the middle without any where to back up to and vent.  At least in this configuration, with a relatively speedy core fleet, the Falcons seem to "hold" better than the Eagles.  Again, this is just a 20 DP Eagle change.

So trying the 0.75 shield tweak for Eagles, and doing the rematch with Falcons:

Falcons win (3 Falcons lost)
Falcons win (1 Falcon, 1 kite - kite was friendly fire when overloaded and got run over by a Falcon's shields when the Falcon was trying to get to the enemy)
Falcons win (1 kite lost)

Doesn't look too good for the Eagles, even considering the vagaries of the AI.  If you want a shield tanked line that fluidly holds, you're probably better off with the Falcons, as they give you more options for ships to cycle in and out to vent, and are much faster at doing it, despite having about 2/3 the shield tank individually.  In this case the Eagles are giving ground and getting surrounded by the superior numbers of ships, with roughly the same weapons loadouts.  Now in theory, the Eagles are better concentrated for officers, so that might matter in a full 240 DP fleet.  Assuming a 100 DP cruiser core, you need 2 more officers for the Falcons than the Eagles, for example.  7 officers in Falcons is a pretty hefty investment, although it does mean if you're willing to burn story points on mercenary officers, the Falcon fleet likely has a higher power ceiling.  It's also not too bad if you're running 3-4 Capitals plus the +2 officer skill, so 10 officers plus player spread amongst 3 Capitals, 7 Falcons, and a some frigates, for example.

[Dri]

(Maybe? But as much fun as those are, they can also make for a ship with fewer loadout options, so that's something I want to be sparing with.)

Isn't the Onslaught the sole ship with a unique built-in weapon? Monitor has built-in flaks but those aren't unique and a Ship System doesn't count.

So I think it is safe to say that you have been extremely sparing, what with a single ship having a unique built-in weapon after years and years of development.

[Plantissue]

In terms of using an Eagle in a fleet, I found they work well with Conquests. They are about the same speed so they tend to be able to retreat and vent or be used themselves to prevent Conquests being chased when they retreat and vent. Falcons can fulfil a similar role too.

Ion beams on Eagles isn't a case of the ion beam being particularily special on an Eagle, but more of that ion beams are plain useful to have in a fleet to punish any ship that drops their shield or is at near overload flux level, and it just so happens the Eagle has the flux and plenty of energy turrets and are going to be right in the thick of the fighting instead of chasing or being chased by frigates. Mmedusa and Falcons and some frigates can be better ion beam mounters, but less likely to be pointing an ion beam at cruisers and capitals, which where you want them to be shooting at.

If general opinion is that Eagles are weak, I rather Eagles be made worth the 22 DP instead of simply being placed as 20 DP. An extra two thousand flux would be quite the significant buff I think, and equivalent to 10 "free" OP.

[Alex]

Spoiler

So, apparently speed 30 Dominators don't mix with speed 45 Conquests and speed 60 Gryphons, because the glass cannon missile launchers get in front of the Dominators in the mad dash for the central objectives, and then can't back up because the Dominators are right behind them, despite the Dominators starting out in front at spawn.  They'd probably be fine with some human intervention setting up a line initially.  Typically means a Grypon dies on the Dominator side in the first exchange.  On the other hand, the range advantage plus 36 Harpoons each is telling as the fight goes on. 

So using 4 shield pressure + Ion Dominators with: 2 Mark IX, 2 Hypervelocity driver, 3 Harpoon Pods, 5 Vulcans, Xyphos, Converted Hangar, Integrated Targeting Unit, 30 Vents, 1 Cap

Dominators win (Conquest, Gryphon, 2 Centurions lost)
Dominators win (Gryphon, Centurion lost)
Dominators win(Dominator, Gryphon, 2 Centurions lost)

So, to try to make it fairer, I switched over to a Hypervelocity Driver Eagle:
3x Hypervelocity Driver (provides ion already), 3x Graviton Beams, 2x Harpoons, 2x PD, ITU, Stabilized Shields, 25 Vents, 24 Capacitors

Eagles win (2 Eagles, 1 Gryphon, 5 Centurions lost)
Dominator pyrrhic victory (4 Dominators, 2 Gryphons, 5 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (3 Centurions lost)

Again, the core fleet and the Dominators really don't mix, but this time the Dominators didn't have a range advantage, so the speed of the Eagles was much more telling.  Essentially, Dominators and Eagles can't quite fill the same role I think, and here the backing fleet is favoring a more mobile front line, since it is so mobile itself.  Probably backing with 2 Astrals or Paragons would provide a different outcome.

So seeing the impact maneuverability had on the AI, I decided to try the obvious substitution, Falcons.  So going back to the original HACs, Ion, Heavy burst, swarmer Eagles, I then setup Falcons similarly:

2 HACs, 1 Ion Beam, 1 Heavy Burst PD, 2 PD lasers, 2 Swarmers, ITU, 30 Vents, 23 Caps
Also, 1 kite_Starting, to make 7 Falcons + 1 kite = 100 DP.

Falcons win (2 Falcons, 1 Centurion lost)
Falcons win (1 Falcon, 3 Centurions lost)
Falcons win (1 Falcon, 3 Centurions lost)

Pretty consistent encounters.  1 on 1, Falcon will typically lose if the Eagle's Ion beam disables the Falcons engine, but the sheer number of ships is eventually telling, not to mention a very consistent encircling pattern by the AI eventually means you've got a big ball of Eagles/Conquest in the middle without any where to back up to and vent.  At least in this configuration, with a relatively speedy core fleet, the Falcons seem to "hold" better than the Eagles.  Again, this is just a 20 DP Eagle change.

So trying the 0.75 shield tweak for Eagles, and doing the rematch with Falcons:

Falcons win (3 Falcons lost)
Falcons win (1 Falcon, 1 kite - kite was friendly fire when overloaded and got run over by a Falcon's shields when the Falcon was trying to get to the enemy)
Falcons win (1 kite lost)

Doesn't look too good for the Eagles, even considering the vagaries of the AI.  If you want a shield tanked line that fluidly holds, you're probably better off with the Falcons, as they give you more options for ships to cycle in and out to vent, and are much faster at doing it, despite having about 2/3 the shield tank individually.  In this case the Eagles are giving ground and getting surrounded by the superior numbers of ships, with roughly the same weapons loadouts.  Now in theory, the Eagles are better concentrated for officers, so that might matter in a full 240 DP fleet.  Assuming a 100 DP cruiser core, you need 2 more officers for the Falcons than the Eagles, for example.  7 officers in Falcons is a pretty hefty investment, although it does mean if you're willing to burn story points on mercenary officers, the Falcon fleet likely has a higher power ceiling.  It's also not too bad if you're running 3-4 Capitals plus the +2 officer skill, so 10 officers plus player spread amongst 3 Capitals, 7 Falcons, and a some frigates, for example.

[close]

Very interesting, thank you for running all these tests!

[Sly]

(Replying to general mixed feelings about Ion Beams on Eagles)

The only reason Ion Beam is desirable on an Eagle is for the utility against small, fast craft like frigate, fighters, and phase ships. If you expect to have other means to do so, there's no reason to mount it. HVD can have excellent range and punch, but it's easily evaded even at just about mid-range. Once the beam is painting you, that's it - barring teleporter systems and phase coils.

In a straight fight against other "slow" ships, just deal damage instead, and enjoy the infrequent EMP provided by HVDs.

[prav]

I think Eagles are fine, but a few overpowered cruisers and caps could use a nerf.

Fine here means that sure, you could drop the Eagle's DP by 10% or give it 5% improved shield effiencency or some extra OP without causing any problems, but equally you would not be addressing the underlying problem.

[Cegorach]

Eagle's average speed is slightly below 75 (you won't trigger the system with perfect timing), higher than 60 of Champion or 70 of Eradicator.

If you're including the jets of the eagle then the speed of the eradicator is like, 135, not 70... and the champion is a heavy cruiser, the eagle should be much faster, not slightly faster.  By comparison that's the difference I think it ought to have to the falcon... and comparing it to the falcons characteristics gets even worse if you include manoeuvring jets.