Print

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

[FooF]

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.

The problem I have with "heavier cruiser that can turn very quickly" is that even if the Eagle can turn on a dime, what net effect does that really have? The lion's share of its firepower is fixed forward and the meta-game currently favors long range ballistics and beams. Even if it could catch a ship that underestimated its maneuverability, it's not like the Eagle can bring heavier guns or missiles to bear. Putting a Heavy Blaster or the like in the Medium Energies would help in this scenario but that gimps the overall usability of the ship because of Energy's low range, the weapon mounts being recessed, and the hull itself being too slow. The "Assault Eagle" just has too many things working against it (Hiruma Kai elaborated on this earlier in this thread) and it ends up chasing Frigates or Destroyers it can't hope to catch.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Eagle isn't "heavy" in any way, except for its speed. It's not that tough and it doesn't hit that hard so being able turn quickly doesn't seem like enough of an upside to favor it over a Falcon, even in a multiples scenario. If it could reliably use a Heavy Blaster, a pair of Phase Lances, etc. (which its flux stats allow for!), I would agree that a nimble bruiser is a role unto itself but as it is, those weapons are poor fits for the Eagle.

My ideal Eagle would be one that can exploit the advantages of having both Ballistic and Energy weapons. It has the flux to support some pretty Energy-heavy loadouts but it just can't get into range to use them. 2x Ion Pulser or 2x Phase Lance with a HB with 3x HMG is fairly strong! Way stronger than a Falcon can support, but the Eagle just can't cover the ground necessary to take advantage of that extra flux profile or by the time it does, its shields have already taken a beating.

[ForestFighters]

(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.)

If I wanted something that does nothing but hold the line and not die, I'd spend my DP on Monitors and use the spare for more backline or frontline damage ships.
Anything that costs more DP than a Monitor needs to do more than just tank, because they will always be outclassed by one in that department, especially with how the AI likes spamming everything into the Monitors.

[Hiruma Kai]

So in the interests of nailing down the right DP, I setup a similar fight, but instead of against Falcons, against Champions.

So same core fleet (1 Conquest, 2 Gryphons, 5 Centurions).

This time the difference was:
6 Eagles (3 Heavy Machine Guns, 1 Heavy Blaster, 2 Ion Pulsers, 2 Sabots, Safety Overrides, Hardened Subsystems, Unstable Injector, 8 vents)
vs
4 Optimal Champions (Plasma Cannon, 2 Ion Pulsers, Hammer Barrage, Safety Overrides, Hardened Subsystem, Expanded Missile Racks, 13 Vents)
1 Kite (Hegemony_interceptor variant)

6*17 = 102 DP for Eagles, 25*4=100 + 2 = 102 for Champions + Kite

Basically trying to mirror match it up to Champions in the AI battles mod.

Results:
Eagles win (1 Eagle, 2 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (3 Eagles, 3 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (3 Eagles, 3 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (2 Eagles, 1 Gryphon, 2 Centurions lost)

So not sure if 17 DP is a slight over tune and 18 DP is better, or if I should be using a different Champion build to mirror it up.  Perhaps Squalls to mirror the sabots, or at least provide more long range shield pressure, although it removes a fair bit of burst they have.  But certainly, Eagles at 2/3 the price of Champions with appropriate backing are good enough to handle a half Champion fleet in the AI battles mod.

[FooF]

So in the interests of nailing down the right DP, I setup a similar fight, but instead of against Falcons, against Champions.

So same core fleet (1 Conquest, 2 Gryphons, 5 Centurions).

This time the difference was:
6 Eagles (3 Heavy Machine Guns, 1 Heavy Blaster, 2 Ion Pulsers, 2 Sabots, Safety Overrides, Hardened Subsystems, Unstable Injector, 8 vents)
vs
4 Optimal Champions (Plasma Cannon, 2 Ion Pulsers, Hammer Barrage, Safety Overrides, Hardened Subsystem, Expanded Missile Racks, 13 Vents)
1 Kite (Hegemony_interceptor variant)

6*17 = 102 DP for Eagles, 25*4=100 + 2 = 102 for Champions + Kite

Basically trying to mirror match it up to Champions in the AI battles mod.

Results:
Eagles win (1 Eagle, 2 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (3 Eagles, 3 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (3 Eagles, 3 Centurions lost)
Eagles win (2 Eagles, 1 Gryphon, 2 Centurions lost)

So not sure if 17 DP is a slight over tune and 18 DP is better, or if I should be using a different Champion build to mirror it up.  Perhaps Squalls to mirror the sabots, or at least provide more long range shield pressure, although it removes a fair bit of burst they have.  But certainly, Eagles at 2/3 the price of Champions with appropriate backing are good enough to handle a half Champion fleet in the AI battles mod.

I'm not sure why the testing methodology is using Safety Override as standard (the Core fleet isn't using SO, is it?). If it's SO versus non-SO, that's immediately going to skew the results. I'd be much more interested in seeing the results of non-SO variants of the Eagle versus "normal" fleets. SO is covering up the primary liability of the Eagle: speed.

[Thaago]

That is something that comes to mind: Currently with SO the Eagle is pretty useable (as FooF said, it covers the Eagles primary weakness which is speed to get its medium energies into range). With more base stats to get doubled and a large DP reduction, SO Eagle is going to be downright good except for its burn speed.

[Hiruma Kai]

I'm not sure why the testing methodology is using Safety Override as standard (the Core fleet isn't using SO, is it?). If it's SO versus non-SO, that's immediately going to skew the results. I'd be much more interested in seeing the results of non-SO variants of the Eagle versus "normal" fleets. SO is covering up the primary liability of the Eagle: speed.

It was mostly an interesting data point for myself.  People are of course free to run their own tests and present their data, as well as come to their own conclusions from the data I present.  The setup is pretty straight forward, and Thaago has nice instructions for the AI battles mod.

Mostly, I had not done an SO test with this setup yet, and thought it would be interesting.  Given Lortus's recent compendium of ships, I thought I would take his presented SO Champion from that thread and see how a similarly setup Eagle would perform.

I will note, because we have had this discussion a number of times this year alone, that I've already run the non-SO Eagle vs non-SO Champion at the 20 DP mark (and no +100 flux) back in August (so a 5 Eagle vs 4 Champion setup), which came out pretty darn close 2/5 to Eagle vs 3/5 for Champion.  Although people might take issue with my fits.  But given it was nearly dead even at 5 vs 4, I expect 6 vs 4 to be a clearly decisive in the Eagle's favor given similar fits.  I can re-run those old tests if people really want, but it'd probably be better if they have fits they want to suggest, or even better, run themselves so they don't need to take my word for it.  There's also something to be said for the fact that AI battles is nothing like a campaign battle, so it's possible to argue none of these tests are really valid.  I certainly wouldn't expect Alex to base the final DP value purely on test results I present here, but presumably take it as a data point to be correlated with other playtesting.

Anyways, an non-SO example with a 20 DP Eagle, from August:

No forward PD? You put a flux distributor and stabilized shields on a ship that has 900 dissipation (660 post shield) and 838 weapon flux before those mods. You are actually dissipating more flux than you can possibly utilize and you’re paying how much in OP for it?

Edit: specifically I tend to like 2 heavy burst in the front and regular PD in the back with swarmers in the launchers but there may be fitting i implications for this without a mods. But I find that dealing with fighters and forward missiles is more important in the types of fights you tend to need to fight and you can generally rotate/prevent flankers with reapers in other ways.

Well, I tend to rear PD simply because AI likes to use Salamanders and the Eagle has fixed forward shields, but yeah I could go heavier on PD it's quite true.  Although against Squalls and Hurricanes, you really need to go big or go home in terms of PD.  Without officer skills or even the Integrated PD hullmod, two heavy burst PD I fear isn't going to do all that much.  Against smaller missiles and fighters, probably worth while.  Still, arguably a better use of the 70 excess flux dissipation in this particular example which has no fighters, and provides a little bit of anti-armor when up close.

So for the following results I used an Eagle with 3 HACs, Ion beam, 2 swarmers, 2 heavy burst, 2 pd lasers, ITU, Stabilized Shields, 30 Vents, 23 Caps.

Also took the Elite Conquest and made it double Harpoons, double Hurricanes and dropped the blast doors for both sides, so more HE to follow up on the shield pressure.

I will note watching the first fight, it really does need integrated PD or officer skills, as the heavy burst PD did almost nothing against Squalls and Hurricanes.  They did work reasonably against Harpoons, and at least shot some Squalls down when multiple Eagles were shooting at the same Squall stream.  The perfect Champion wins were when an Eagle went down relatively early.  The extra Hurricane and Harpoons on the Conquest makes it a bit better at securing the kill against high flux ships.  Only once the Champions run out of Squalls does the fight start to even out.  On the other hand, campaign Champions can be running 3 times the missile capacity (and 50% more missile HP) while the Eagles are perhaps getting better PD setup with Point Defense or S-modded integrated PD.

I'll note I can also simulate S-mods easily by just hand editing the variant files in the mod's data/variants directory if people are interested.

Champions Win (1 Conquest, 2 Champions, 1 Gryphon, 3 Centurions lost)
Champions Win (No losses)
Champions Win (No losses)
Eagles Win (2 Gryphons, 4 Centurions lost)
Eagles Win (2 Eagles, 1 Gryphon, 4 Centurions lost)

Again, the randomness of the battle AI, but does look like a slightly better setup for the Eagles.  Again, I'll note this is assuming Eagles are 20 DP and not 22 DP.   There's also an argument to be made the backing fleet is missile heavy, and thus throwing even more (i.e. Squalls) into the mix means the Champions are getting slightly more synergy.

For reference, the champion was:

4 Champions with:
1 Plasma Cannon, 1 Squall, 2 HACs, 1 Ion cannon, 2 Burst PD, ITU, Stabilized Shields, 30 vents, 21 caps)

[FooF]

Ah, I forgot that you ran similar tests earlier in the year. Devoid of that context, it just struck me as odd that SO was being put forward as the typical loadout. SO Eagle has been used as a "budget-Aurora" in some of my early fleets. I think it's actually pretty decent since it's flying around at base 100 speed with MJ. Of course, even as a Cruiser, its CR isn't going to hold out in long pitched battles and it doesn't have finisher missiles really to keep that time-to-kill factor at a minimum. I just didn't want us arguing balance around SO, 17 DP or otherwise. No offense was meant

[intrinsic_parity]

I think putting some kinetic damage on the champion would be a pretty clear upgrade. That could be squalls, or a medium kinetic (HMG probably) over one of the ion pulsers. Also, with SO, I would probably invest in more guns and vents instead of EMR personally. Ir pulse lasers are pretty good DPS and efficiency into shields for a SO build. You can even slap IPDAI to get some PD out of them too, although that's probably too much OP without s-mods and unnecessary for a 1v1.

[BCS]

Can someone remind me why can you put SO on cruisers given that a major balancing point of SO is supposed to be PPT reduction which cruisers laugh at? Anyway...

(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.)

Does that mean stock Eradicator gers more expensive too? AFAIK Accelerated Ammo Feeder results in 33% higher DPS on average. Now not all of that DPS will be applied but still, I'd say any ship with AAF is worth 25% more than a ship without it.

"a heavier cruiser that can turn very quickly" is a fairly distinguishing feature.

I have to say I never thought of turning speed when looking at the Eagle. I guess it does technically have three forward hardpoints, but cruisers are nimble enough as it is(except for Dominator) and have long enough range as it is that turn speed never really comes into play. You'd have to make Eagle a LOT heavier for the MJ to matter for turning...

[Grievous69]

If you want an Eagle that will actually deal damage, Phase Lances are by far the best choice. I don't know why some are still so adamant they're a bad pick. Not every Eagle build needs to have HVDs jeez. I already showed how a simple Eagle build can actually pack a punch, even at current cost. Reduce it to 17 DP and I'll abuse the hell out of it.

I'll post videos here after the patch, just so I can stop listening to "phase lance bad".

[Embolism]

If you want an Eagle that will actually deal damage, Phase Lances are by far the best choice. I don't know why some are still so adamant they're a bad pick. Not every Eagle build needs to have HVDs jeez. I already showed how a simple Eagle build can actually pack a punch, even at current cost. Reduce it to 17 DP and I'll abuse the hell out of it.

I'll post videos here after the patch, just so I can stop listening to "phase lance bad".

And part of the reason why it's a good choice is because of advanced optics letting it match range with 700-800 range ballistics, which is why the real problem with the Eagle is its range mismatch.

[Vanshilar]

Yeah testing vs double Ordos, I'm seeing Eagle vs Falcon effectiveness at roughly 4 Eagles ~ 5 Falcons. This is with the Eagle's base vents being raised to 700.

Fleet is 2 Conquests (2 Squall, 2 Mjolnir, 2 HVD, 2 Harpoon), 4 Eagle XIV's, and 5 Falcon XIV's, all with level 6 officers. Testing with HVD vs HAC for the medium ballistics showed that HVD did roughly 45% more overall damage than HAC, so HVD was chosen. Testing with Heavy Blaster vs Graviton vs Phase Lance for the medium energies showed that Graviton, while doing around 50% more overall damage than Phase Lance, concentrates its damage on shields, while Phase Lance does a lot of damage toward armor and hull instead. Heavy Blasters did low damage relative to the others. Advanced Optics was used. So, Phase Lances were chosen, since the ships already have HVD for anti-shield, but they needed some finishers (and the burst damage from Phase Lance is good for that). For the small energies, each ship had 1 LR PD Laser to encourage the AI to not freak out over stray missiles, but the rest were tactical lasers. Then, Breach on the small missiles to round out the slots. The Eagles and Falcons also have Xyphos because I like it.

Points were put into vents such that it matched shields + non-phase lance + phase lance * 30%, then rest into capacity. This way there were a lot of points put into capacity for tanking.

What this means is that outside of Phase Lance range, the ships are using HVD and tac lasers. Since there are more vents than what's used, the ship will actually be draining its flux during this part (and/or absorbing enemy damage), so its flux levels stay low, as it approaches its target. Once in Phase Lance range, then the Phase Lance burst damage will hopefully be hitting armor/hull (since enemy ship will already be fluxed up from HVD/tac lasers), and the burst damage will hopefully kill off ships before they can back out of range.

I'm not claiming that this is the best possible build for the Eagles and Falcons, but this seems to work, and common weapons and a relatively effective weapon loadout allow them to be compared.

Doing several runs of this, in general, each of the ships (Conquest/Eagle/Falcon) end up contributing about 1/3 of the overall damage. An example screenshot from Detailed Combat Results is attached.

So if an Eagle contributes about 5/4 of a Falcon's damage, then yeah in terms of battle effectiveness it seems like Eagle would be around 17 or 18 DP. I don't know if the changes will make SO Eagle that much stronger though but I guess I can compare that with SO Falcon next.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[BCS]

If you want an Eagle that will actually deal damage, Phase Lances are by far the best choice. I don't know why some are still so adamant they're a bad pick.

Even if you use Advanced Optics, it puts Phase Lance range at around 700 effective range(600 base +200 AO -100 because of how far back they are), probably slightly less.

So you now have a base 700 range "main battery" on a ship that barely moves. What are you going to do with it?

[FooF]

That goes back to the recessed Medium Energies being doubly hurt by both short range and placement. Granted, even if the Energies didn’t have a placement disadvantage, they’d still be mismatched with most medium ballistics. Still, I think it would be nice if the Eagle’s mount setup had a reason beyond the rule of cool. A built-in hullmod that extends Medium Energies by 100 range could easily be handwaved away “Though most tacticians initially hated the idea of recessed Energy mounts, they loved that the output boost due to proximity to the engine core made up for the loss of range, and then some.”

Lol, just give the Eagle Advanced Targeting Core and call it a day

Edit: Oddly, what if the Eagle got the Capital bonus from ITU/DTC? It could remain slow but have a range advantage over other Cruisers?

[Hiruma Kai]

I think putting some kinetic damage on the champion would be a pretty clear upgrade. That could be squalls, or a medium kinetic (HMG probably) over one of the ion pulsers. Also, with SO, I would probably invest in more guns and vents instead of EMR personally. Ir pulse lasers are pretty good DPS and efficiency into shields for a SO build. You can even slap IPDAI to get some PD out of them too, although that's probably too much OP without s-mods and unnecessary for a 1v1.

Ran some tests with something along the lines of your suggestion last night.

I modified the SO Champions build as follows: 1 Squall, 1 Heavy Machine Gun, 1 Plasma Cannon, 1 Ion Pulser, 2 IR Pulse Lasers, Saftey Overrides, Hardened Subsystems and 24 Vents

Results of SO champion (Squall/HMG) vs SO eagle
Champions win (1 Kite lost)
Eagles win (1 Eagle, 1 Gryphon, 3 Centurions lost)
Champions win (2 Champions, 2 Gryphons, 3 Centurions, 1 Kite lost)
Eagles win (1 Eagle, 1 Gryphon, 2 Centurions lost)

Really comes down to who goes down in the initial clash of fleets, but looks like a much more even fight.  Long range flux-less kinetic damage on an SO platform is pretty strong.  In regards to Expanded Missile Racks, Hammer Barrage really needs them as it can through all the missiles in about 30 seconds without it, and PPT on a Hardened Subsystem SO Champion is like nearly 4 minutes.  Squalls last about 160 seconds, and so I agree not needed there.  Might want ECCM though for the Squalls in hindsight.  I might have shifted a bit too much towards anti-shield, but they are still packing a Plasma cannon so I don't.  Certainly more effective, the question is can it be optimized further?  And is specific optimization the right thing to do in a general comparison trying to figure out the DP value of a ship?  Are Squalls skewing the value of the baseline hull?

In regards to the range issue on medium energy, the thing is, as soon as you even up the range bands between projectile energy (i.e. Heavy Blasters/Ion Pulsers/Pulse Lasers), they're no longer the equivalent of medium energy weapons, they're the equivalent of ballistic mounts.  So it becomes like 6 ballistic mounts instead of 3, which is a significant boost to offensive power.  Making Heavy blasters range 800 is not that far from simply putting a recessed large energy mount on the Eagle.  It's 2/3 the DPS of a Plasma Cannon at -100 base range for 12 OP instead of 30.

I certainly think it would make the Eagle much more viable at higher DP point, but it is breaking from the stated design intent.