Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 21

Author Topic: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic  (Read 9297 times)

BCS

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #75 on: December 01, 2022, 10:57:44 PM »

Eagles aren’t good at taking on things bigger than themselves

Yes, Eagles are bad. I think that's why this thread exists in the first place.

Quote
An indirect buff to the Eagle would be to make High Scatter Amplifier better.

Unless by "making HSA better" you mean completely remove the range penalty, that still wouldn't achieve anything.
Logged

gG_pilot

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #76 on: December 01, 2022, 11:07:01 PM »

It's with the shield performance, because the AI will auto fire them and firing them into shields is worse for you than the opponent (builds up more flux in your own ship than the enemy). It's fine if you are bullying weaker ships with less capacity, but not for 'punching up'.
At the moment, it looks to me there is AI which controls  each weapon independently, regardless of other weapons on the ship. Therefore, rather than one  weapon "fix"  generalist >>  strike weapon it would be better to ask for  a

Ship weapon AI. This logic should evaluate flux efficiency of each  weapon against current status of  target.  Evaluation should include own ship flux  capabilities and weapon  systems.
e.g. Own ship  has anti armour weapon, anti  shield weapon and is mid flux >> hold anti armour, fire anti-shield and anti shield-rockets. If it doesn't help, another salvo  of rockets include all  rockets  to help overcome shield. Once enemy flux get up to 90% >>> it is  highly likely it goes  down. Start to fire  anti armour weapon.

Also, Ship weapon AI should be able to take advantage  of Helmsman skill, stop flux income to get bonus speed/manoeuvrer to be able to get into/out  of  position  quickly. Especially shield shunt ships wich firing PD at nonsence rocket,   instead of use speed to  get close to enemy. Or Hyperion which AI can not use jumps properly. Or ...

Ship weapon AI can be several levels. So pilot-less ships  use current logic, then   piloted ships get better (efficient) firing logic  as pilot  get levels.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2022, 11:27:25 PM by gG_pilot »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #77 on: December 02, 2022, 09:25:46 AM »

The way the AI works is that it has 'strike' groups that it controls 'manually' meaning it chooses the moments to fire based on enemy state (typically used for weapons like missiles or anti-matter blasters), and then the rest of the groups are handled by the auto fire AI. The auto fire AI is generally just 'if off cooldown and enemy in range, fire'. Auto fire does prioritize the targeted ship, and the AI will also switch auto fire groups off if it is high on flux, but that's about it for complex behavior outside of specific stuff like PD.

My point is that I think phase lance should be controlled manually. It has a significant cooldown, it generates a lot of flux, it's not effective against shields, it's fairly effective against armor/hull... all of those are good reasons to want the manual fire behavior over the auto fire behavior. I really don't understand why it is treated as a generalist/autofire weapon, and it makes the weapon significantly worse in AI hands.
Logged

BCS

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #78 on: December 02, 2022, 09:31:52 AM »

The fire control only applies to missiles, if a weapon is not a missile then it's autofire all the time as long as flux allows. AI controlling a weapon group manually simply means it will lead shots with 100% accuracy and that the weapon will lead the ship(i.e. if it's a hardpoint)
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #79 on: December 02, 2022, 10:00:43 AM »

I'm pretty sure the strike weapon logic is just a flag given to the AI and can be put on any weapon.

The point is that the logic for using the weapon properly already exists and should just be used.
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #80 on: December 02, 2022, 10:34:58 PM »

So I've been trying out the 20 DP Eagle with 700 base flux, starting a fresh game with those stats modded in, and playing my usual iron man run style.

To sum it up, I've been fleet wiping a lot, and getting that free frigate consolation prize.  My assessment of what I can handle appears to be way off at the stage where I have my first cruiser or three.  Eagles are not, say, Furies or even Medusa.  I've come to the realization I've been avoiding Eagles as an early or even mid-game ship for a long time now.

Early to mid-game (which I haven't gotten out of yet in this run, because of a fair number of wipes), the 20 DP vs 22 DP makes no difference.  I didn't mod the Eagle any cheaper in terms of credits, and it's still a burn 8 cruiser which means it slows your entire fleet down when you acquire one.  When it gets destroyed, and assuming it is not a fleet wipe (because I perhaps transferred to a Fury which was under AI control) I'm only saving about 1200 credits on the supplies for a full recovery (less once d-mods are accounted for), and we're talking 200 credits per deployment.

I think it finally struck home when I was trying to catch and kill a mule with a non-SO build.  The mule is baseline slightly faster, pulls away when its flux gets high, and tanks long range kinetics just fine on its armor.  Even if an Ion beam arc knocks its engines out, it's moving away at speed 60 (plus whatever skills it was benefiting from - might have had UI as well).  I was using a sniper setup, using 3 Hypervelocity Drivers, an Ion Beam, and 2 Phase Lances with ITU and Advanced Optics built in. The Phase Lances, which were my anti-armor, took forever to get into range, all the while I'm moving away from my fleet for like 30 to 60 seconds, which feels terrible.  However, when I was changing focus from ship to ship to stay with the fleet however, none of the enemy would die, since they had plenty of time to back off, and I just couldn't close the distance to phase lance range quick enough, or alternatively stay there.  Overloading and then ignoring the Mule just means it comes back tried to launch those Salamanders again from behind.

Even though I was personally piloting the Eagle, I was typically not top damage scorer.  I just spent too much time trying to close into things.  Not only was the Fury out damaging me, it was typically twice the damage of the other AI Eagle when I had all 3.  One fight against 6 pirate cruisers and 12 smaller ships, for example was Fury with 32% of the damage, my Eagle 28%, followed by an Eagle that was destroyed at 13%.  Rest to 4 high tech frigates.  Apparently, my personal piloting can't make up the difference in actual ability kill between the two types of ships (Fury had Heavy Blaster + Ion cannon + Anti-matter blaster + 2 Proximity launchers).

If I go SO, then there a number of ships which are just hard counters to the Eagle, like hypervelocity/mauler hounds (1000 range on 180 speed > 450 range on at max 175 speed and on average 145), beam Tempests, even Wolves can typically out speed an Eagle with phase skimmer, and once the percentage bonuses from skills start getting added in, you can forget it.  +10% on a Wolf is +15 speed, +10% on an Eagle is +5.  An SO Eagle's closing speed is just not high enough, so my flux is higher than I'd like by the time I get to actual firing range on most enemy cruisers.  SO Furies, SO Hyperions, SO Medusa can eliminate that distance in the blink of an eye.  I'd argue even the 17 DP burn drive Eradicator is better than the Eagle, simply because it has a "go fast forward" button, and just as many medium ballistics, plus small ballistics and missiles to back them up.  It can at least seal the deal, while tanking with its armor, but the Eagle doesn't really have that option.  However, I will reiterate, dropping the Eagle's DP cost doesn't actually help early to mid-game.  You could make it 10 DP early game, and I still won't be able to make it work well, assuming it was the same credit cost, burn speed and fuel usage.

You need a frigate or two as escorts you can order to go kill that frigate you just got to high flux, but then you have to do that for every single one.  And as mentioned earlier, Eagles are bad at fighting capitals, lacking any long range hard hitting weapons other than the Heavy Mauler, which has pretty bad DPS.  But they're also pretty bad at dealing with smaller ships I'm finding in the early game.  Where as a Medusa or Fury can get in close, drop a bunch of burst damage, and get out while destroying at least one frigate, an Eagle ends up needing 2 or 3 times the amount of time, and just cannot reduce the enemy fast enough to not get surrounded.  It's a tanky line cruiser which really does need a full battle line, backed up by things like large missiles and bomber wings.  I think, even with the current stats, it is a mistake to try and acquire early game for me, unless I'm getting it for "free".  Even then, I'm not sure it's worth the burn drop compared to grabbing, say, 2 more destroyers, or a Fury or Falcon (P or not).

I'll note Maneuvering Jets is poorly supported by Systems Expertise (+25 average speed becomes +30 average speed bonus, which is like the effect of basic Helmsmanship).  The other high tier combat skill, Missile Specialization, feels extremely weak when combined with only two small missiles on a 20 DP ship.  Compare to the crazy buffs Phase Skimmer and Plasma Burn get with System Expertise, or the missile benefits a Champion, Eradicator, Fury, or Dominator get with Missile Specialization.  So there's no good high tier combat skill to take with them that obviously gives them a big push in effectiveness.  The fact that Manuevering Jets is a temporary bonus to it's average speed means Helmsmanship and Coordinated Manuevers are 33% less effective than if it just didn't have a ship system and had a base speed of 75.

It's like every part of the design of the game just interacts poorly with the Eagle's design.  Skills treat it as weaker or apply to only half the ship.  Its loadouts are split.  It's got medium energies but not the speed to use the high DPS options.  Low DPS beams in general are a weaker choice, especially early to mid-game when you can't mass them.  It's medium long range mount options are low DPS, so poor against capitals.  It's seems to me to be intended as line cruiser as part of much larger fleet, and to be designed to have other ships do the killing blow (long range missile ships, bomber wings).  Eagle really needs a selling point to entice me to buy it at this point.  As it stands, I'm going to be spending the credits on 2 or 3 destroyers or even a Falcon instead.

Having been playing with it, I feel like the Eagle's greatest sin when compared many other ships is they're just not that fun to fly.  Eagles are a basically a pile of mis-matched stats, with an ability on top which doesn't viscerally feel faster.  It is technically faster, but it just doesn't have the same feel or effect on combat as a burn drive dive for the kill or a plasma burn dodge of a wave of incoming ordinance.  Manuevering Jets on the Eagle certainly doesn't let me dodge a Gauss shot or catch that retreating Hound, for example.  It's effect in play doesn't feel significant or noticeable.  Even at 20 DP and 700 flux dissipation, I believe you're going to get a number of reports that the Eagle is still too weak.
Logged

ForestFighters

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #81 on: December 02, 2022, 11:32:16 PM »

Honestly, "line holding ship" probably isn't a good role to end up pushing the Eagle to unless that includes giving it more ways to use its medium energy.
Yeah, it may be able to hold the line, but so can a Monitor. And with that you have 14 DP free DP which coincidentally is how much a Falcon costs. Said Falcon is able to provide fire support for the frontline itself or go off on the flanks better than an Eagle ever could have, especially with a Monitor attracting ridiculous amounts of fire.
It's not like the Eagle is going to be able to do anything better than those two ships can.
Logged

BCS

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #82 on: December 03, 2022, 02:29:53 AM »

stuff

Wow, it's almost like good ships are always good and bad ships are always bad despite the artificial "roles" people in this forum try to shoehorn them into.
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1114
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #83 on: December 03, 2022, 09:33:46 AM »

Hiruma Kai said I’m so many words what I was going to post: the Eagle is a support ship, and not a particularly good one even at that. Its most obvious use-case is a stand-off pseudo-artillery platform. 3x HVD/Mauler with beams in back. Its upside is that it actually has decent shields and armor. Any kind of “line cruiser” variant ends up being too slow or too under-gunned.

At least with the Champion, the Large energy can hit hard and at range. With the Eagle all Energy weapons either have range or hit hard, but never both. The Eagle has the worst of both worlds and no speed to boot. I agree, the game’s mechanics actively work against almost every aspect of it.

In a clustered fight where the enemy can’t just back up, the Eagle is decent but fights have to reach a critical mass before the Eagle’s lack of range and speed aren’t such massive liabilities. If it can get in close and can use all its weapons, it probably is worth 20 DP but how often does that happen? It could end up chasing a Mule across the map…

Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3706
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #84 on: December 03, 2022, 03:00:23 PM »

If some mount changes are going to happen, I think I would much upsize one of the ballistics, rather than energies.

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #85 on: December 03, 2022, 04:18:07 PM »

With all these mount change suggestions, we should just split the difference.

Remove all the centerline mounts (1 medium ballistic, 1 small energy, 1 medium energy) and put a single fixed large universal there. :)
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1114
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #86 on: December 03, 2022, 06:50:09 PM »

With all these mount change suggestions, we should just split the difference.

Remove all the centerline mounts (1 medium ballistic, 1 small energy, 1 medium energy) and put a single fixed large universal there. :)

Since we’re talking craziness: spinal-mounted (remove all middle mounts), built-in Aquila Cannon. 1000 Energy damage, 800 range, 3 sec cooldown, perfect accuracy. Medium shot speed. :)
Logged

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #87 on: December 03, 2022, 09:38:15 PM »

Graphically a spinal mount would work better on the Falcon which already has a gap in the middle to fit one.

How about giving the Eagle the upcoming Energy Bolt Coherer hullmod? Thematically doesn't really fit but it would solve the short energy weapons range issue.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3706
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2022, 01:13:15 AM »

I don't think there's a point to fix issues that were created by giving Eagle energy mounts and not enough speed, but then again, there's precedent for that with Paragon. I still don't like it and would rather prefer Eagle to get more ballistics or missiles.
Graphically a spinal mount would work better on the Falcon which already has a gap in the middle to fit one.
Or Falcon's simply an Eagle that's missing the spinal mount.

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2022, 01:27:19 AM »

(Watching the community try to powercreep a ship when the same criticised a couple of latest ones)

But seriously, can't we just wait and see how it's gonna go in the next version... There's a bunch of things being added and changed, yet people modified one (not even final) stat for a ship and concluded it's trash. Surely you all realise there's much more to ship strength than pure stat adjustments. Weapons, hullmods, skills, other ship changes, new content, new enemies, and so on.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 21