Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 22

Author Topic: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic  (Read 17434 times)

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #120 on: December 05, 2022, 11:58:15 PM »

Woooow can't believe both of those things.

First, Apogee NOW being 20DP. I remember Megas and me (couple others probably) claiming Apogee should be 20DP for like years. And now with many new cruisers, the general opinion is that it's priced appropriately. I'm surprised the change came now, did the new large missiles break it lmao? It just seems so out of place, I remember many even calling Apogee a weak combat ship...

And then second thing, I can't express with words how boring of a change is to make it even cheaper. 17 DP, wuuuut. Yeah I also think it's ridiculous to have Eagle at 17 and then Fury at 20. We got the whole balance thing backwards. I hated the idea of giving it a large mount, but I somehow hate this even more.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #121 on: December 06, 2022, 12:11:06 AM »

I honestly think that the range disparity between its nose-mounted ballistics and its butt-mounted energies is the main problem with the Eagle. Tweaking flux stats and DP costs does nothing to address this. The alternative is to make the Eagle faster, but we already have that and it's called the Falcon.

The upcoming IR autolance is touted as a "solution" to this but by all accounts it seems to be an anti-fighter weapon with negligible effect on anything larger than a frigate.

If the Apex is getting a range boost for its energy weapons with the energy bolt coherer then the Eagle can too. Being able to match pulse laser or heavy blaster range with its ballistics would IMO solve 90% of its problems, and also serves to make the Eagle more "unique".

All other suggestions just makes the Eagle more similar to existing combat ships. Large mounts? Champion. Better flux stats? Aurora, it's starting to get hard to tell which one's high tech and which one's midline if you just look at their flux stats. More speed? Falcon. Less DP? Might as well slap on some mining drones and call it a Venture.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2022, 12:21:20 AM by Embolism »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #122 on: December 06, 2022, 12:16:01 AM »

Even an inferior version of that hullmod would be a fun thing.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4142
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #123 on: December 06, 2022, 01:39:14 AM »

I guess energy mounts ruin not only omega weapons, but Eagle as well.
I think the best comparison for Eagle is to Hammerhead. For long range, E has 3 medium ballistics and 3 medium energies and H thanks to AAF has 3 medium ballistics, 2 small energies. For short range, E has the same, but H has 3 small ballistics instead of 2 small energies. Speed is almost the same, so the difference is a single ion beam, 7/12 DP and E having more flux defensively. I should have pointed this out way earlier, but it never bothered me all that much and Eagle wasn't talked about much

Razakai

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #124 on: December 06, 2022, 04:34:11 AM »

Agree that a cheaper Eagle still doesn't feel great. Giving it large mounts feels a bit weird too (although a large ballistic midline ship would be cool). And while the EBC inbuilt would help, it feels odd that such a "high tech" system is built in to a generic midline cruiser.
Howver If we take inspiration from the world of modding there are some good "Eagles" out there.
Iron Shell has a ship system that acts like a weaker but combined AAF/HEF with a speed boost. Replacing jets with that would give a bit of a firepower boost.
Tahlan adds the Eagle NW which is still an eagle, but is an excellent high power cruiser. As well as a DP increase and stat boost as a "super ship", it alters the mounts to be 4 med ballistics, 2 med energy (centre), and 2 med missile instead of the current mediums and small missile. The system is "weaponry overdrive", aka HEF but also affecting ballistics. It's intentionally high powered but I wonder if some sort of variant of that weapon layout would work?
Logged

vladokapuh

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
  • Cabbage
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #125 on: December 06, 2022, 07:05:48 AM »

i think i would prefer speed going to 60 base over even less dp (or both)
Logged
Cabbage

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #126 on: December 06, 2022, 09:11:00 AM »

And it cuts both ways, if the Eagle gets enough speed to fill that role, then the Falcon gets stepped on.

Such is the nature of the two ships' current design.  They're very similar in weapons loadout, ship system, and even esthetics.  You have to admit, they're basically designed to be compared.  The problem being weapons loadout effectiveness in Starsector is very much tied to the base hull.  Some weapons just work better on some ships than others.  If you don't want them to fill the same role (and I don't think there's a problem necessarily with that), then I think you need to break the symmetry between the two ships much more.

I too would prefer the Eagle to be worth the line cruiser designation as opposed to being a cheap DP blocker.  The 17 DP with the ship 700 flux dissipation seems to work at first glance in a fleet context though, so if that is what we get I won't complain from a balance point of view.  A preferred play experience point of view perhaps, but that is a lot more subjective admittedly.

To expand on what people are saying, given the job description, which includes holding an area but without finishing power (hence the low missile count and poor pursuit capability), about the only direction you can go would be damage absorption/survivability.  I'll note Low tech uses it guns to improve survivability by having long range and fluxing up enemies before they can get too close.  Eagle can't quite do that with only 3 medium ballistics, and beams essentially have no effect at long range since the enemy isn't firing, so 100% of dissipation can be used to bleed of the soft flux.  So if you're not upping the firepower with mount changes or some kind of weapon specific hullmod, that means leaning into passive survivability stats and ship system.

So here's some brainstorming towards that end, namely having it be worth a line cruiser's DP as opposed to a light cruiser's without upping finishing power.  These are not all intended at the same time, but just ideas that could be changed to make the ship worth more DP and also highlight the use of the ship as a tanky blocker to new players.

1) If the ship isn't intended to be fast compared to other cruisers, remove Maneuvering Jets.  I think it is sending the wrong message to players and is almost like a tax which is limiting the potential design space.  And Maneuvering jets invites comparison to the Falcon.  Essentially it isn't a "choose this moment to use it" ability on the Eagle, but more of I need to keep hitting F every 10 seconds to keep up with the other ships.  Which feels like busy work as opposed to engaging gameplay.  Think of it as a quality of life feature that you don't need to constantly remember to keep pressing F.  Bump the base speed and maneuverability up to compensate.  Say to base 70 or 75 speed, and maybe 50% more turn rate?

2) Consider defensive ship systems such as Fortress shield or Damper Field. Or a brand new ship system.  If you want to keep the "press every 10 seconds" nature, maybe something that has 50% up time and gives 50% more shield efficiency while up, but doesn't affect outgoing weapons fire in any way (unlike Fortress shield or Damper field).  A shield AAF if you will.  Or perhaps more engaging, a short duration charged system which when activated blocks 100% shield damage for 2 seconds or the like (again without preventing return fire) with a fairly long recharge time for the charges.  So like a shield plasma burn - instead of dodging that bomber wave, you just tank the missiles.  Gives a reason to have Eagles go first, to tanking the initial enemy fleet alpha strike.

3) Just straight up improve the shield efficiency down to 0.6 (so 33% more shield tanking) and extend the shields to 300 degrees or even 360, or alternately switch to a 180 degree omni-shield.  Effectively give it a high tech flux/shield package.  Or go crazy all the way down to 0.5 efficiency.  Make the ship stats make it obvious it is a really tanky shield based ship.

4) Make it more obvious it's intended for fleet situations.  Build in Nav Relay and ECM Package, which indirectly buff survivability (shorter range for the enemy means more time to drive flux up before they start firing) as well helping to protect the other ships.  All that extra tonnage that is slowing it down is used as a command suite to coordinate better.  5 Eagles providing 20% speed and 15% ECM might have interesting large fleet implications that make up for the mediocre individual performance, although probably drops off heavily against Ordos.  Perhaps a unique built in hullmod that improves fleet performance in another way?

Of course, I'm not the developer and the more extreme the departure from the current version, the more work involved, both in coding, graphics, and balancing.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7214
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #127 on: December 06, 2022, 09:22:32 AM »

I came here to post, read Hiruma Kai's message, and realized he'd said nearly exactly what I was going to say already. So... +1! I especially second improving the base speed and giving it a different ship system.
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #128 on: December 06, 2022, 09:36:48 AM »

A boring alternative to giving the energy bolt coherer to the Eagle (which I agree doesn't make sense thematically) would be to give it advanced optics. This doesn't really affect the 1000 range beams, but it does make phase lances more viable and as a bonus buffs the Eagle's PD capabilities - since the Eagle is apparently meant to be a defensive line cruiser, buffing it's PD net (as opposed to giving it a high tech grade shield) makes sense.

Plus there's already precedent in the Astral getting built in advanced optics so it's not too out of place.
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #129 on: December 06, 2022, 10:34:52 AM »

Lots of good ideas.

Bumping base speed and replacing the ship system is definitely my preferred route. Even at 75 speed, it won’t encroach on the Falcon’s role because the Falcon would still have the speed and maneuverability advantage nor would it cramp the Champion because the latter has way more punch.

Damper Field is interesting if only because it would be on a ship with relatively good shields but only average Cruiser Armor. It would make the Eagle more well-rounded defensively. Fortress Shield seems a bit strong but a pseudo-shield wall system (that you can continue to shoot through) would also be good.

I’m ok with the Eagle not intending to be the “killing blow” type ship but it needs something else to compensate. Some base speed and a defensive ship system would make it more of an anchor-type ship.

Edit: It might also be worth making the XIV and/or Pirate Variants a little different, too. Pirate might still have old stats and Maneuvering Jets at 17 DP. Standard could be at 20 with proposed changes and XIV could have even more but be 22 DP. Probably too much variety but the levers are there to pull.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2022, 10:38:49 AM by FooF »
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7214
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #130 on: December 06, 2022, 10:54:49 AM »

I like the idea of the different variants having different systems and DP! There's a ton of variety that can be opened up by increasing the base speed and getting rid of the jets (in addition to differentiating it from the Falcon).
Logged

Spacer Heater

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #131 on: December 06, 2022, 11:35:50 AM »

energy bolt coherer to the Eagle

I like the idea of giving the eagle the ability to use its medium energies for something other than support beams, but I think that this hullmod would pigeonhole (ha) the Eagle into "use pulse lasers" or otherwise we're back at this thread again.

Would replacing maneuvering jets with a new ship system that temporarily generically increases weapon range be too ridiculous? What mounts it would be enabled for (only energies, all mounts) how much (flat or percentage based), when it applies (base range or post modifiers), etc, is all up in the air but I'd like at least pulse lasers to be viable picks with normal ballistic.

Throwing in a speed down while active might not be a bad idea to prevent player abuse, if it would occur.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2022, 11:39:11 AM by Spacer Heater »
Logged

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #132 on: December 06, 2022, 12:44:43 PM »

Giving the Eagle Fortress Shield would make midline fleets obnoxious to fight(since they can have ~5 Eagles at a time, yay at total over half a million EHP to chew through) and wouldn't improve its combat performance in any way - Fortress Shield actively makes ships worse in AI hands because they keep interrupting their own guns with it. Damper Field is less obnoxious but still doesn't ultimately achieve anything.

0.6 shield efficiency is ill-fitting on a midline ship since that's highest of high tech territory. 0.5 is Omega territory so it's even worse.

Built-in ECM/Nav Rating is an interesting idea, though it's still stepping on high tech toes(Omen, Odyssey)

Most importantly, none of these would make Eagle worth using. A ship whose only defining feature is that it doesn't die or "holds the line" or whatever is worthless and the very idea is fundamentelly flawed. You don't win battles by not losing ships, you win battles by destroying enemy ships - and the best way to not lose ships is to simply kill enemy ships faster than they kill yours. Monitor kind of gets a pass because it's only 6 DP but even the Monitor is mostly a meme for cheesing the AI with(and you'd be far better off by paying premium for an Afflictor instead) But no one is going to spend XX DP on a cruiser that "doesn't die" when they can spend XX DP on one that can actually kill things.
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3803
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #133 on: December 06, 2022, 12:52:31 PM »

As a general rule, my primary question for an AI ship is, in fact, "Is this ship going to get itself killed?"

Now, yes, given a ship that doesn't die but doesn't kill things, versus one that doesn't die but does kill things, I'll take the second one. But not dying is, on its own, sufficient; this tends to come up most noticeably relatively early game where, say, a deployed Kite or Mule is worthwhile, even when it's not going to get any kills itself.

Unfortunately for the Eagle, it's not a good choice for not-dying; the Falcon's mobility serves it better for the role of a ship that I can give to the AI and be reasonably confident it'll come out the other side of a fight in one piece.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24118
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #134 on: December 06, 2022, 12:56:18 PM »

(The Eradicator (P) is currently 18 DP in the dev build, btw. I think it was slightly under-costed. Not so sure about the Apogee being 20; it *is* a really good tank and a large missile plus a large energy is not a bad combo, but maybe not worth 20; I'll keep an eye on it. The Fury... could possibly do with being a point cheaper, though I haven't touched it.)

For the Eagle - right, yeah, boosting its defenses would be a natural way to go given its "job description", but I'm really hesitant to add something like Damper Field - or another defensive system - to a ship with an already middling-to-poor offensive potential. (DF in particular might not even be that effective, since it interrupts firing and the Eagle is *really* dependent on firing continuously for what damage it has.) But I'd want to be careful about making a fairly common ship that much more difficult to take down.

The point about MJ on the Eagle not being super engaging is well taken, though. I suppose I could see something like "faster baseline plus ammo feeder"? But that gets into "bigger Hammerhead" territory. And "a heavier cruiser that can turn very quickly" is a fairly distinguishing feature.

FWIW, I think the Eagle - considering it aside from the cost - is a reasonable ship and its weapon slots make you do some things you might not normally do. It's not a ship that screams for player piloting, but not all ships do, and that's alright. I think making it cheaper opens up an interesting niche for it - it still costs enough DP that you could get a bunch of them with officers and make a middle-heavy fleet with, say, 4-6 of these as a core.

Something like a Pegasus (for the missile support!), a bunch of Eagles, a few smaller support ships - where if you're going for heavier cruisers, you'd likely opt for more of the smaller ships instead. This sounds interesting to me; I think I might just aim for that kind of build when I start playtesting and see how it feels.


Unfortunately for the Eagle, it's not a good choice for not-dying; the Falcon's mobility serves it better for the role of a ship that I can give to the AI and be reasonably confident it'll come out the other side of a fight in one piece.

(Probably abundantly obvious, but: the hope is that at a cheaper DP cost, you get enough of these that mutual support helps with this aspect of things.)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 22