Print

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

[Megas]

If Pegasus needs more missile power back, maybe it can have some of the small or medium turrets changed to synergy or universal.  If Pegasus will keep medium missile hardpoints, maybe the mounts could be changed to universals.  (People would probably still put missiles in them.)

Hopefully, Pegasus will not lose max OP from the mount downgrade.

[Alex]

But, like I said, nerf its attributes is also a choice!

It is, but I don't think it can do very much by itself without dropping to absurd levels. If a ship can pump out like 20 Reapers - or 20 Hurricanes at range - the base stats just don't affect that very much. And I don't want to make it too slow; a slow capital without a mobility system is something I want to be sparing with.

Hopefully, Pegasus will not lose max OP from the mount downgrade.

No OP change, no.

[CapnHector]

I really don't understand the point of the Pegasus with forward-facing medium missiles. The AI is bad at using fast missile racks, so isn't this just a worse Conquest for 50 DP now?

Edit to elaborate:
Pegasus vs Conquest:

50 vs 40 DP
Fast Missile Racks (AI barely uses) vs Maneuvering Jets (AI is great with)
17000 hull and 1500 armor vs 12000 hull and 1200 armor
50 vs 45 top speed (but maneuvering system that makes it actually better than cruisers)
500 vs 1200 flux dissipation
14000 vs 20000 flux capacity
0.6 vs 1.4 shield efficiency
2x medium hybrid, 2x medium missile, 2x large missile, 4x medium energy, 4x small energy, 4x medium ballistic vs 2x medium missile, 2x large missile, 4x large ballistic, 4x medium ballistic, 8x small energy
365 op vs 315 op and heavy ballistics integration

The Pegasus basically has better shields and more armor and hull and in exchange is less mobile and has bad flux stats, and has no large ballistics but has forward facing medium but not large missile mounts. And remember, it costs 10 DP more so you could have a Conquest and a destroyer instead. So I do not think it is that great of a ship with this change, much as I grew to love it.

It would have been preferable to make it 60 DP or give it any other system or even no system at all.

[Amoebka]

Medium missles on hardpoints look ugly as hell. Couldn't it at least be the other way around, with large hardpoints and rear mediums?

Glad I got to enjoy the ship for whole 3 days before it got gimped into utter trash. The mercurial scythe doesn't favor moderation, it would appear. Serves me right for writing about how much I enjoy something, I guess.

[Originem]

It is, but I don't think it can do very much by itself without dropping to absurd levels. If a ship can pump out like 20 Reapers - or 20 Hurricanes at range - the base stats just don't affect that very much. And I don't want to make it too slow; a slow capital without a mobility system is something I want to be sparing with.

You could also tweak the 9 medium slots, these slots seem to tell players that you should use Pegasus as a long-range capitalship, which is somewhat conflict with the FMR which indicates the ship is good at burst damage.

Now it's away from its description: a ship with heavy missile-focus loadout. Now it seems to have everything, but nothing.

[Lawrence Master-blaster]

I never planned to use Pegasus in the first place, but in my opinion FMR is not an issue because it doesn't really affect Squalls. All other missiles are not really a problem(Hurricane was just nerfed and is explosive, Locust already fires almost continuously, torpedoes have short range and comparatively limited ammo) and the AI can only use FMR effectively with Pilums. Pegasus may be strong in player hands but show me a capital that can't... I don't think that alone warrants a nerf.

I'm also surprised that of all things the nerf targeted missiles - wasn't the design goal of the ship to have four large missile slots? If I were to nerf Pegasus I'd start with shaving off the three hardpoint medium ballistics.

On the other hand I think Invictus nerf is spot-on. Seems like the way to use the ship is to alternate between LIDAR and venting, and lowered flux stats should push people towards using more low tech weapons instead of Mjolnirs or Gauss. It will also leave more OP to actually use side mounts, Vast Hangar and the missiles.

[Wyvern]

While I haven't actually used a Pegasus yet, I'm going to agree with others that I'd rather it keep the large missile slots and lose the ship system.

The question, then, is what to replace the system with. Borrowing the Gryphon's reload system is certainly an option, and having built-in extra ammunition would support the league's preference for laser warheads, with the laser torpedo ammo being so limited...

...But then again, I don't think the Gryphon's system is a good one in the first place. It should just be a hull mod like the Drover's B-Deck or the Missile Autoloader. (I mean, really, it's basically just an up-scaled missile autoloader, isn't it?)

Accelerated Ammo Feeder would be functional. So would Fortress Shield or Damper Field.

But I think what I'd suggest is a Remote Guidance system that adds maneuverability & speed to all launched missiles for a short duration. Because applying even a little bit of guidance to your reaper torpedos sounds like fun.

[prav]

Personally I would've preferred 4 larges over 2L + 2M and FMR.

Medium missles on hardpoints look ugly as hell. Couldn't it at least be the other way around, with large hardpoints and rear mediums?

Then you have double Cyclone plus FMR, in five system charges (3 base, +1 from Systems Expertise, +1 from recharge during the salvo) you can fire twelve reapers per mount, 96k explosive damage - close to 10k DPS sustained for a little over ten seconds.

Now I'm wondering how a single-charge capital-grade FMR with four larges would work out.

[BaBosa]

The Pegasus nerf is really odd. Why not just reduce the FMR to only 1 or 2 charges instead of 3. Then you still have both 4 large missiles and FMR.

Edit: and increase DP and decrease speed to be in line with paragon and Invictus which it very comparable power to.

Damn me and Prav had the same idea at the same time.

[Alex]

I'll keep an eye on the Pegasus; want to see how it goes. One thing I might need to do is re-implement the Executor as a separate ship rather than a Pegasus skin; that's making some things unnecessarily complicated.

(That said, 2 large forward-facing mounts + FMR is just a no-go, unfortunately. Not sure why I hadn't considered it during the initial design. And yeah, you can try to nerf FMR, but either you make in uninteresting, or it still gets + charges from Systems Expertise etc... I mean, an option, for sure, but with some downsides, too.)

[glorygal]

Well guess I'm shelving my Pegasus for now and putting a 2nd Executor in my fleet. At least it has 2 forward facing large energy mounts.

[Hiruma Kai]

If I were to try changing the Pegasus for more balance, I probably would have leaned on the DP lever rather than the missile lever.  Making it 60 DP might have been worth trying, and clearly signals it as in the Radiant and Paragon tier.  Radiants can basically go in and kill anything they want, and then get out, while under player control.

With the changes to Squalls and Hurricanes already in 0.96, a 60 DP price point might work (20% increase), although I'm going to need to do some testing.  As noted by others, I don't think the AI is nearly as good as a player at using Fast Missile Racks, or at least ruthless as a player can be, so I think you're potentially nerfing the AI ship in order to reign in potential player uses.

One thing I might need to do is re-implement the Executor as a separate ship rather than a Pegasus skin; that's making some things unnecessarily complicated.[/quote[

(That said, 2 large forward-facing mounts + FMR is just a no-go, unfortunately. Not sure why I hadn't considered it during the initial design. And yeah, you can try to nerf FMR, but either you make in uninteresting, or it still gets + charges from Systems Expertise etc... I mean, an option, for sure, but with some downsides, too.)

I think separating from the Executor is a good idea.  If forward facing firepower is the problem (are we mostly talking unguided torpedoes here?), the alternative to forward mediums is angled larges.  If it's OK on the back side, then rotating the forward missile rack outwards by 45 degrees.  So instead of 0 degrees, 45 and -45 degrees, so all the missiles are in an X pattern.  Limits you to the guided large missile options, or only a single unguided option at a time.  This of course would only work by breaking the link to the Executor of course.

[Megas]

Fast Missiles Racks seem like new Reserve Deployment or especially original Damper Field.  Fine on some ships but overpowered on others.  Original Damper Field made Mora too durable, so the system got nerfed and made Centurion, the first user of the system, too fragile (system just made it stop firing while it took damage anyway).  Now, we have Damper Field that works better on small ships than on large ships.


P.S.  Yes, it would be nice if Diktat had a distinct hull instead of only a reskin of another.  Would not mind Executor being a new hull while current Executor gets renamed to Pegasus (LG) and be like the other custom reskins like the infamous Falcon (P) pirates use.

[Alex]

Hmm. Well, I'll definitely keep an eye on it for .1; some good points!

[CapnHector]

If I were to try changing the Pegasus for more balance, I probably would have leaned on the DP lever rather than the missile lever.  Making it 60 DP might have been worth trying, and clearly signals it as in the Radiant and Paragon tier.  Radiants can basically go in and kill anything they want, and then get out, while under player control.

With the changes to Squalls and Hurricanes already in 0.96, a 60 DP price point might work (20% increase), although I'm going to need to do some testing.  As noted by others, I don't think the AI is nearly as good as a player at using Fast Missile Racks, or at least ruthless as a player can be, so I think you're potentially nerfing the AI ship in order to reign in potential player uses.

One thing I might need to do is re-implement the Executor as a separate ship rather than a Pegasus skin; that's making some things unnecessarily complicated.[/quote[

(That said, 2 large forward-facing mounts + FMR is just a no-go, unfortunately. Not sure why I hadn't considered it during the initial design. And yeah, you can try to nerf FMR, but either you make in uninteresting, or it still gets + charges from Systems Expertise etc... I mean, an option, for sure, but with some downsides, too.)

I think separating from the Executor is a good idea.  If forward facing firepower is the problem (are we mostly talking unguided torpedoes here?), the alternative to forward mediums is angled larges.  If it's OK on the back side, then rotating the forward missile rack outwards by 45 degrees.  So instead of 0 degrees, 45 and -45 degrees, so all the missiles are in an X pattern.  Limits you to the guided large missile options, or only a single unguided option at a time.  This of course would only work by breaking the link to the Executor of course.

I really do not understand the fuss about Fast Missile Racks.

I re-ran that combat I posted of Pegasus taking out 3 sim Onslaughts under AI control twice (note: this is not particularly powerful, you can make a Conquest take out 2 sim Radiants too under AI control), keeping my eye on the FMR system the entire time. Do you know how many times the AI used this system? Twice. In three combats.

Now note that most of the ships in the game are under AI control. I don't think the Pegasus should be made a bad ship for the AI just because the player can exploit the system. If the player wishes to play an undefeatable deathbringer ship that can solo several capitals they already have Onslaught with PCLs and Ziggurat, or Radiants for that matter. So just make it 60 or 70 DP and it's fine, or change the system.