Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hyperspace Topography (10/12/22)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic  (Read 1282 times)

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2022, 05:30:01 AM »

Again, you people are being too harsh. Just run a simple test, AI Eagle vs AI Eradicator. Matchup that's supposed to be ez pz for Eradicator, since AAF ships are basically 1.5x of their DP when soloing something. Tried Heavy Autocannons with a single Phase Lance, tried Arbalests. Both builds win even though it's a low tech opponent. I used the Assault Eradicator variant since imo that's the most fair, it has plenty of kinetic damage plus a whole day of Harpoons.

Seriously, it's not how some make it out to be.

Quote
Also Hammerhead can beat an Apogee if player piloted
We've been over this, with a Lasher you can kill almost any sim opponent. Such statements have no meaning in balance discussions.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6592
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2022, 10:59:20 AM »

I think Eagle vs Eradicator is a nice case for where the Eagle currently works, and a hint about how to fix it for general use: its juuuust fast enough to keep the eradicator in range after they initially close with each other and has the defensive stats to whether the fire, so it can control the engagement and win. As a contrast, when the Eagle is slower than its opponent it can't control when its medium energy mounts are in range and it can be reduced to 3 medium ballistics only for firepower. So I'd really like to see an Eagle speed boost: 50 base speed is too slow for a medium cruiser... with system its 75 (but the system doesn't benefit from navigation boosts so its a bit slower in practice than a 'real' 75 speed ship) which is 'ok', but then the ship effectively has no system!

On the one hand, I'm excited for IR autolance! On the other, I don't like the idea of a ship's weapon mount being pigeonholed into just a few options because the other options don't work well with the ship design.
Logged

Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 989
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2022, 12:13:48 AM »

I think the reveal of the new support fighter hullmod is a big deal for this topic. Both Falcon and Eagle are excellent CH platforms, brought down by the fact that no good support fighters exist for them (Xyphos is rather pointless with all the beams they already have).

If it will be possible, I will experiment with CH support bombers on both.
Logged

BCS

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2022, 12:28:39 AM »

What new support hullmod?
Logged

Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 989
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2022, 12:48:17 AM »

What new support hullmod?
"Defensive targeting array" - makes all fighters tethered to the carrier and increases their anti-fighter/missile damage. From Alex's twitter. Straight up stealing user ideas from the official suggestion forum, devs truly have no shame these days.  ;D
Logged

BCS

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2022, 04:52:16 AM »

So I just put 4 Longbows on a Legion and burn drive into things?
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1391
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2022, 05:26:34 AM »

I think this is mostly going to be good for hybrid ships like Odyssee or Venture, where you can outsource PD to a few wings of cheap fighters. Spending for Converted Hangar AND DTT AND fighters just so they can do PD duty - is PD really an issue for the line cruisers?
Logged

Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 989
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2022, 05:31:38 AM »

I think this is mostly going to be good for hybrid ships like Odyssee or Venture, where you can outsource PD to a few wings of cheap fighters. Spending for Converted Hangar AND DTT AND fighters just so they can do PD duty - is PD really an issue for the line cruisers?
No, the issue is lack of firepower of the only sensible build (1000 range ballistics + beams). Being able to bolt on additional weapon mounts fixes that, especially if bombers aren't prohibited. The usual 2 HVD + 1 Mauler + 2 Graviton + 1 Ion becomes a lot scarier when you add infinitely regenerating atropos to it.
Logged

Lortus

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2022, 06:09:41 AM »

Quote
Again, you people are being too harsh. Just run a simple test, AI Eagle vs AI Eradicator. Matchup that's supposed to be ez pz for Eradicator, since AAF ships are basically 1.5x of their DP when soloing something. Tried Heavy Autocannons with a single Phase Lance, tried Arbalests. Both builds win even though it's a low tech opponent. I used the Assault Eradicator variant since imo that's the most fair, it has plenty of kinetic damage plus a whole day of Harpoons.

This means nothing. An eradicator is cheaper, hits DP breakpoints better, and has higher range, damage, and consistency which is going to help it a lot more in a fleet battle. Also must've used a redditor Eradicator build for Eagle to win that on AI.

Quote
I think the reveal of the new support fighter hullmod is a big deal for this topic. Both Falcon and Eagle are excellent CH platforms, brought down by the fact that no good support fighters exist for them (Xyphos is rather pointless with all the beams they already have).

Eagle is not a good CH platform. Falcon is alright, but there are definitely better CH platforms. However, this changes nothing. Spending so much OP on 1 sub par fighter wing is a bit suspicious in the first place. But they will remain just as bad, and other ships can run CH to equalize everything.

Quote
No, the issue is lack of firepower of the only sensible build (1000 range ballistics + beams). Being able to bolt on additional weapon mounts fixes that, especially if bombers aren't prohibited. The usual 2 HVD + 1 Mauler + 2 Graviton + 1 Ion becomes a lot scarier when you add infinitely regenerating atropos to it.

You can already do that. And there are other ships that can already do that for cheaper.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2022, 06:27:43 AM »

This means nothing. An eradicator is cheaper, hits DP breakpoints better, and has higher range, damage, and consistency which is going to help it a lot more in a fleet battle. Also must've used a redditor Eradicator build for Eagle to win that on AI.
Assault Eradicator is a default game build made by Alex sooo... You can just add such variants to the sim, but it seems you're too busy being a smartass.

My point was never damage or whatever metric you seem to favour. It was survivability against tough opponents. Of course if we're comparing effectiveness, Eradicator comes on top and is probably a better choice in your fleet. But too many people in this thread last time used the Eagle in 2019 or so, and act like it's a meme ship.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 20991
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2022, 03:53:22 PM »

Just FYI, the current set of changes to the Eagle in-dev is:
1) 20 supplies to recover/for maintenance (down from 22), and
2) 700 base flux dissipation (up from 600)
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2022, 05:40:55 PM »

An extra 100 dissipation is pretty decent. That’s a bit less direct than a speed or range buff but it would give the Eagle more opportunity to leverage those Medium Energies.

I will say the new support fighter would help a CH Eagle a lot. That’s a lot of free kinetic damage and PD and would allow the Eagle to focus a bit more on HE. Back to the old “Eagle should have a flight deck”, that support fighter only costing 12 OP would be huge but that’s probably not in the cards anymore.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 20991
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #42 on: November 26, 2022, 06:22:59 PM »

Back to the old “Eagle should have a flight deck”, that support fighter only costing 12 OP would be huge but that’s probably not in the cards anymore.

Yeah - I've seen the suggestion, and I think it's a pretty reasonable idea! But it doesn't fit how I see the Eagle, which is less "jack of all trades" and more just... "a respectably average baseline ship", let's call it. And putting a flight deck on it definitely makes it an outlier among cruisers, so it goes against that, feel-wise. Plus, I'm not a huge fan of small amounts of fighters sprinkled in on too many ships - I think too much of that can make combat feel unnecessarily messy.

An extra 100 dissipation is pretty decent. That’s a bit less direct than a speed or range buff but it would give the Eagle more opportunity to leverage those Medium Energies.

I think it also gives it more flexibility! I am personally fine with a lot of the medium energies being suboptimal on the Eagle; a lot of that is just the breaks for midline (though: HBL is buffed some!). The new Diktat skins play around with the range buff concept, (though not on the Eagle or Falcon, ha!); I think it's more thematically appropriate there since it's basically TriTach doing fairly unsafe but flashy and interesting things on the Diktat's dime.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #43 on: November 26, 2022, 07:37:16 PM »

tbh I'd rather see Eagle as a 22 DP bruiser than try to put it in line with the 20 DP cruisers.
Logged

ForestFighters

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #44 on: November 26, 2022, 08:43:52 PM »

The new Diktat skins play around with the range buff concept, (though not on the Eagle or Falcon, ha!); I think it's more thematically appropriate there since it's basically TriTach doing fairly unsafe but flashy and interesting things on the Diktat's dime.
Ooh, teaser on the new version of Lion's Guard's special "upgrade" mod. Unsafe experimental range buff for energy weapons, at least the non-beam ones, seems like a neat thing. Definitely on-brand for Andrada, he is the kind of guy to increase the on-paper usefulness of those fancy energy weapons even if it is not particularly safe or well thought out. Tis a shame the Eagle and Falcon don't get it, but it does make sense as range buffs on fairly slippery cruisers could cause problems.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5