Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); In-development patch notes for Starsector 0.98a (2/8/25)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: The currant character sheet discourages and nerfs players flying their own ship.  (Read 6061 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12640
    • View Profile

If there was a reason for me to take Support Doctrine, it would be to have a fleet without (inflexible) officers because raising them to fit a ship (then firing and raising more when I change the fleet) is tedious and painful.  However, the flagship costing full price because fleet commander cannot be dumped hurts if I want to pilot one of the two 60+ DP ships, Paragon or especially Ziggurat.

If I want to fit more ships, I am probably better off taking BotB to start with 200 DP instead of 160 DP.

You can already take other tier 1 skills to skip those.
Tier 1 in Tech and Industry are campaign-only skills.  (Field Repairs is useful for healing armor and hull between rounds in multi-round combat, though.)  You need to take Navigation or Sensors for Gunnery Implants or Energy Mastery, and one of the three tier 1 Industry skills for Ordnance Expert or Polarized Armor.

It seems like eert5 does not want to take any campaign QoL skills at tier 1 for the tier 2 skills, especially when officers do not need to.
Logged

kenwth81

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile

You pick a build that doesn't help you to fly the flagship at all and complain it doesn't help you to fly the flagship at all ...
You could but you don't want to.

More accurately combat build encourage you to fly your flagship (unless you are terrible pilot), being significantly more effective. Fleet build don't.

Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12640
    • View Profile

Player needs a fleet unless he pilots the few overpowered cheese ships like some phase ships, but even those are not as optimal as a good fleet.  Fleet should be boosted too.
Logged

kenwth81

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile

Player needs a fleet unless he pilots the few overpowered cheese ships like some phase ships, but even those are not as optimal as a good fleet.  Fleet should be boosted too.


It's okay to play "sub-optimal" builds.

Or Are people all fighting 5x Ordos Fleet that they absolutely need the most optimal build? :-\
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile

For the first question, mercenaries are a repeated skill point investment, and I frequently need those points elsewhere, even when I'm grinding ordos for skill points. Likewise, I frequently use 1 mercenary on a civilian grade hull ship to act as a reinforcement. What that ship is depends on the run.

Fair enough.  Everyone values story points different based on their in game goals.

For BOTB, you need the 240 DP limit for fighting ~1,000,000 bounties and multiple ordos. The exception is five capital fleets specifically designed to fight at 200DP. Even then you can only fight two ordos max, or you need auxiliary ships to cap points.

Can a support doctrine ship handle double its DP in everything? As that is my requirement for good loadouts for OM fleets. From everything I've seen, the answer is no, losing the third s-mod, or paying 8 skill points kills fleet effectiveness.

Why do you need 240 DP and BotB to fight Tesseract bounties?  I just slapped together a support doctrine fleet and beat one with only 220 DP deployed on the very first try (although, I did lose an Omen and a Medusa - on the other hand, they are cheap to restore).  See attached screenshots.  The fight was never in doubt, given 8 officered Monitors as the front line.  Just base 8 level 5 officers with 1 elite skill (field modulation), plus player with 7 combat skills in a Doom (mostly for clearing the fighters at the end).  Support doctrine is almost tailor made for frigate/destroyer wolfpacks.   Although, I need to remember to change Doctrine aggression to 3 or 4 when using SO ships, since they defaulted to Steady in this particular fight, which is less than optimal for SO ships.  But still worked fine.


Here we go.
DO costs five skill points, while this is fine for a capstone, and it is a capstone, but it is locked behind 4 skills, only two of which may be useful for a rather limited number of builds. While yes 340 DP deployed all at once is huge, it weakens the ships massively to the point where it can't handle 240 DP or more of enemy ships that have level 6+ officers and three S-mods, i.e. a ~1,000,000 bounty.
Which means on average you lose three skill points for it, in return for a fleet that is far weaker than SD or OM.
It's not worth it unless you are using 1 or 2 ships for niche story point farming builds.

I'm pretty sure there are also examples of derelict operations fleets beating stuff here.  CapnHector even has a derelict operation fleet with only 66 DP deployed killing a double Ordo.  You can see it in: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=27808.0.  I'm pretty sure if you scale that up to 240 DP, it will have no problem farming a double Ordo or farming Tesseracts.

The game isn't so hard that you need the absolute strongest possible fleet to beat the end game challenges, at least in this iteration.

About Support Doctrine, I think its biggest issue is that you start with 8 officers. You can avoid putting your officers on your biggest ships where they will have the most impact, but SD is not a good enough reason to do so. Your average officered ship only needs to be of 15 DP to comprise half of your force at max deployment cap of 240. If you use stronger ships, don't start with 240 DPs or have more officers, there's even less of a reason to use SD.

Well, that just makes it encourage fleets with less than 15 DP average per ship.  Like destroyer/frigate wolfpacks, which you don't generally see otherwise, because of that base line set of officers.  A high tech pack of Medusa, Omens, and Monitors will be well below that average, for example.  But it is a perfectly workable setup with Support Doctrine.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12640
    • View Profile

It's okay to play "sub-optimal" builds.
I highly disagree with this if the player is not intentionally building a challenge fleet.

It is annoying that Leadership is a must for a standard or conventional fleet (similar to what a human NPC faction might use).
Logged

eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
    • View Profile

You pick a build that doesn't help you to fly the flagship at all and complain it doesn't help you to fly the flagship at all ...
You could but you don't want to.

More accurately combat build encourage you to fly your flagship (unless you are terrible pilot), being significantly more effective. Fleet build don't.
The problem is that if you don't need Ordnance Expertise or Polarized armor, you can get the optimal 11 commander fleet loadout. 5 combat, 6-7 leadership, 3-4 technology.
If you need either of the above two skills, you can't get the optimum due to them costing two skill points. Which means most low tech and midtech 11 commander fleet loadouts suffer because of this. I always fly my own flagship and play fleet commander.

Player needs a fleet unless he pilots the few overpowered cheese ships like some phase ships, but even those are not as optimal as a good fleet.  Fleet should be boosted too.


It's okay to play "sub-optimal" builds.

Or Are people all fighting 5x Ordos Fleet that they absolutely need the most optimal build? :-\
Late game you start fighting near 1,000,000 credit human bounties from high importance contacts. Thier fleet comps are actually decent, frequently have 10 pure level 7 officers, and three s-mods on their ships. Thier fleet compositions range anywhere from okay, to very good. They're typically not as dangerous as the tesseract ordo, but sometimes are more dangerous. Also, for ordo hunting purposes.
Changing skill arrangements so that other fleet compositions are equally as powerful as my above response to you makes the game more fun for those of us that play well into the late game, and for those that mod their game to be harder as it opens up the number of viable builds. All while having either no effect, or beneficial effects on players that want to play with "sub-optimal" builds.

Spoiler
For the first question, mercenaries are a repeated skill point investment, and I frequently need those points elsewhere, even when I'm grinding ordos for skill points. Likewise, I frequently use 1 mercenary on a civilian grade hull ship to act as a reinforcement. What that ship is depends on the run.

Fair enough.  Everyone values story points different based on their in game goals.

For BOTB, you need the 240 DP limit for fighting ~1,000,000 bounties and multiple ordos. The exception is five capital fleets specifically designed to fight at 200DP. Even then you can only fight two ordos max, or you need auxiliary ships to cap points.

Can a support doctrine ship handle double its DP in everything? As that is my requirement for good loadouts for OM fleets. From everything I've seen, the answer is no, losing the third s-mod, or paying 8 skill points kills fleet effectiveness.

Why do you need 240 DP and BotB to fight Tesseract bounties?  I just slapped together a support doctrine fleet and beat one with only 220 DP deployed on the very first try (although, I did lose an Omen and a Medusa - on the other hand, they are cheap to restore).  See attached screenshots.  The fight was never in doubt, given 8 officered Monitors as the front line.  Just base 8 level 5 officers with 1 elite skill (field modulation), plus player with 7 combat skills in a Doom (mostly for clearing the fighters at the end).  Support doctrine is almost tailor made for frigate/destroyer wolfpacks.   Although, I need to remember to change Doctrine aggression to 3 or 4 when using SO ships, since they defaulted to Steady in this particular fight, which is less than optimal for SO ships.  But still worked fine.


Here we go.
DO costs five skill points, while this is fine for a capstone, and it is a capstone, but it is locked behind 4 skills, only two of which may be useful for a rather limited number of builds. While yes 340 DP deployed all at once is huge, it weakens the ships massively to the point where it can't handle 240 DP or more of enemy ships that have level 6+ officers and three S-mods, i.e. a ~1,000,000 bounty.
Which means on average you lose three skill points for it, in return for a fleet that is far weaker than SD or OM.
It's not worth it unless you are using 1 or 2 ships for niche story point farming builds.

I'm pretty sure there are also examples of derelict operations fleets beating stuff here.  CapnHector even has a derelict operation fleet with only 66 DP deployed killing a double Ordo.  You can see it in: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=27808.0.  I'm pretty sure if you scale that up to 240 DP, it will have no problem farming a double Ordo or farming Tesseracts.

The game isn't so hard that you need the absolute strongest possible fleet to beat the end game challenges, at least in this iteration.

About Support Doctrine, I think its biggest issue is that you start with 8 officers. You can avoid putting your officers on your biggest ships where they will have the most impact, but SD is not a good enough reason to do so. Your average officered ship only needs to be of 15 DP to comprise half of your force at max deployment cap of 240. If you use stronger ships, don't start with 240 DPs or have more officers, there's even less of a reason to use SD.

Well, that just makes it encourage fleets with less than 15 DP average per ship.  Like destroyer/frigate wolfpacks, which you don't generally see otherwise, because of that base line set of officers.  A high tech pack of Medusa, Omens, and Monitors will be well below that average, for example.  But it is a perfectly workable setup with Support Doctrine.
[close]
It's for the near 1,000,000 human bounties. I've only seen 960,000 personally, but I've seen other players fighting more. Most of them are around 240DP, ten level 7 officer, and three s-mods.
Even so most of them are weaker than the tesseract bounty. Key phrase here, most of them.
Some are optimal enough that they will kill player fleets that can perfectly beat the tesseract bounty.

As for derelict operations, you just posted the niche for it. Yes, they can kill double ordos, but they will struggle against anything more than that as it will not expand efficiently. The video you are talking about makes use of mercenary officers to get around the issue of not having officer training. Furthermore, the d-mods are hand picked to be optimal. While save scumming works it is far more costly than save scumming for optimal officers as you pay crew, and supplies for every new d-mod.
The only place it has a niche outside of this area is with a fleet of pure capitals, but hull restoration typically outshines it due to HRs CR boost.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2023, 01:10:02 PM by eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef »
Logged

JanJan

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile

For some of the logistics skills like Makeshift Equipment (percentage maintenance cost reduction), Containment Procedures (percentage fuel cost reduction) and the leadership skills, I've got two thoughts:

Option 1: think it would be pretty convenient if those could be hullmods, or better yet built-in hullmods like salvage gantry's; there's already the Ox-class tug that gives a fleet-wide bonus to speed, so a dedicated logistics hull ship that affects things like that could be neat.

Maybe a similar concept to an Ox but a larger hull size with a built-in hullmod that streamlines the drive bubble (lore-wise) and adds a percentage fuel cost reduction?

And a larger salvage-rig-like logistics vessel (a dedicated fleet tender vessel perhaps) that has a built-in hullmod which reduces your maintenance costs by a percentage, with hull-size and stacking considerations taken into account in the calculations.

A change could also be made to the command-center hullmod (one that improves command point recovery), since that is somewhat anemic in my opinion; maybe hullmods that implement some of the leadership skills could be moved there, or to similar alternate hullmods?

For sensors phase-ships exist, and High-resolution sensors also exists for improving your sensor range, which works more or less as intended imo.

Option 2: Logistics officers and Bridge Staff. Essentially officers you can have in your fleet who can pick those skills or variants of those skills, letting you spec into other things. Not sure if they should be part of the existing officer limit or have a different count though.

To summarise, moving those "affects your entire fleet tremendously and only you can do it" skills and de-centralizing them, so that if you still want those you have to invest in it somewhere else, freeing up your character to be the unkillable super god-warrior with all elite combat skills you dreamed of without being annoyed remembering your other character's Wish.com-tier maintenance costs.

I understand there is a story-telling idea to it; 'will you choose to be the fleet's commander and logistician, or it's ace?'. There's also an element of promoting multiple play-throughs I guess, so that you aren't doing everything on one character. But as it is you could have 8 combat aces in your fleet as officers if you want who can do almost everything your god-warrior with max elite skills can, but not a single one of them can figure out how to use less toilet paper to save on supplies.

Also a slight shout-out to Hull Restoration in the logistics tree as well; maybe when you store ships at a world that has an orbital works with a pristine nanoforge on it, there can be a chance of said repairs being done to them every month? Oh and, I really think Automated Ships should be a storyline unlock the way gate travel is :X

I've looked at seeing if I can do Option 1 through modding (by looking at MakeshiftEquipment.java, and DriveFieldStabilizer.java to figure out how a hullmod affects campaign layer stuff), and so far the api seems like it might work, but I'm curious to see if there are any changes to the officer system before I throw myself into fiddling with it.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile

Support Doctrine: It is my favorite skill thematically, but it lost a little power in the last patch because of how powerful custom tailored S mods are. It is still a good skill imo, especially in the early game for a more commandery type player to rush, because it gives all of its benefits without a single story point needed, and because it significantly raises the power of the player fleet without raising its apparent size for bonus XP calculations. (I believe a 'level 3' officer counts as 18.75 DP worth of ships? Its been a while and the last reference I found was a few years old on the calculation).

I feel like this is what Support Doctrine was designed for, no?  Now it is possible support doctrine isn't strong enough to support this playstyle generally, but it doesn't strike me as that much weaker than an officer centric style.
To be fair, you have to go against the intent behind the majority of the Leadership skills (which either buff officers specifically, or all ships (including officers)) to get the most out of SD. I also don't think relying on SD is as good as regular officer usage, simply because you get so many officers for free.
...

I agree that its value would be higher if there were fewer default officers. Especially with mercenaries (and possibly AI ships) it is not hard to fill a fleet out completely with officers.

In terms of the synergy behind Leadership and SD though for deploying un-officered ships, I don't see a conflict. Crew Training of Tactical Drills buff everything; Coordinated Maneuvers want enough officers to max out the bonus and then buff everything; Carrier Group and Fighter Uplink are better with officers, so there is a strike against using unofficered ships there, but they are still pretty good without officers on them.

Wolfpack Tactics is special because it relies on officers in small ships. This both helps to max out the Coordinated Maneuvers bonus faster and leaves more DP free for unofficered ships to be boosted by SD. It only takes 3 frigates + 1 other officer and the player in any ships to max out the bonus though, so going 'all in' on Wolfpack + SD is not needed. Having fewer officers available would make this combo better (in general coordinated maneuvers is too easy to max out imo).

So for a Leadership build going for using a bunch of unofficered ships, something like Crew Training, Coordinated Maneuvers, Wolfpack Tactics, Officer Training, then Support Doctrine would work well. The officers go in high performance frigates and turn them into murder machines, the unofficered ships get the full suite of leadership bonuses (+40% speed, +60% maneuvering, +10% damage done, -10% shield/armor damage taken, -35% hull damage taken, +50% repair rate on weapons/engines, top accuracy, -10% fighter refit time (and other 100% CR bonuses on the fighters themselves), more CR/slower degredation, and -20% DP).
Logged

Candesce

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile

(in general coordinated maneuvers is too easy to max out imo)
... Really?

I've found Nav Relays easy enough to fit into my fleets, and making Coordinated Maneuvers harder to trigger would make it that much more tempting to just do that and save the skill point. Not like Command doesn't have a whole bunch of other interesting options to choose from.
Logged

kenwth81

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile

It's okay to play "sub-optimal" builds.
I highly disagree with this if the player is not intentionally building a challenge fleet.

It is annoying that Leadership is a must for a standard or conventional fleet (similar to what a human NPC faction might use).

Your build is suboptimal. It is like disagreeing with yourself.  ???


Late game you start fighting near 1,000,000 credit human bounties from high importance contacts. Thier fleet comps are actually decent, frequently have 10 pure level 7 officers, and three s-mods on their ships. Thier fleet compositions range anywhere from okay, to very good. They're typically not as dangerous as the tesseract ordo, but sometimes are more dangerous. Also, for ordo hunting purposes.
Changing skill arrangements so that other fleet compositions are equally as powerful as my above response to you makes the game more fun for those of us that play well into the late game, and for those that mod their game to be harder as it opens up the number of viable builds. All while having either no effect, or beneficial effects on players that want to play with "sub-optimal" builds.


The current skill system was created with intention of discouraging people picking the "best" build and allowing more diversity. That didn't work. As expected, people who pick the "best" build would continue to do so.

I don't consider elite bounties or tesseract ordo a threat. They might kill one or 2 ships but they can't possibly win vs my fleet. On a good day, I don't lose anything.
Another victory! My fleet is still standing, while theirs is gone. Hooray!
Since I don't see how it couldn't be done, it is not even a proper excuse.

You need to win battle but it doesn't matter how you do it.  ;)

How would players of non-optimized or sub-optimal builds win battle if the game doesn't allow other viable playstyle? A harder game doesn't mean a no in most cases.
Logged

Kohlenstoff

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile

Quote
The current skill system was created with intention of discouraging people picking the "best" build and allowing more diversity. That didn't work. As expected, people who pick the "best" build would continue to do so.

Actually the current system has multiple "best" builds depending on tactics and ships. And all of these do work with only small differences. During my current playthrough i changed my skills and focus several times on different ships and weapons. Despite my maximized flagship focus i still know several good skillsets to use. Others with command and officer focus know other sets. I think this game has a quite balanced skill three with only few "a bit better than the others" options.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12640
    • View Profile

Your build is suboptimal. It is like disagreeing with yourself.  ???
Yes, I played with suboptimal build before.  No, I did not intentionally want a challenge build.  If I wanted to get any Leadership like nearly every top-performing build posted, I need to dump either the high-tier special campaign skills (Tech/Industry) or flagship stuff (Combat).  Combat/Tech/Industry is suboptimal, and I do not like it.
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile

Hi JanJan, welcome to the forums. 

For some of the logistics skills like Makeshift Equipment (percentage maintenance cost reduction), Containment Procedures (percentage fuel cost reduction) and the leadership skills, I've got two thoughts:

Option 1: think it would be pretty convenient if those could be hullmods, or better yet built-in hullmods like salvage gantry's; there's already the Ox-class tug that gives a fleet-wide bonus to speed, so a dedicated logistics hull ship that affects things like that could be neat.

I'd point that those skill effects already are in hullmod form on a per ship basis.  The Efficiency Overhaul hullmod does both.  And indirectly in the form of Expanded Cargo holds and Auxiliary Fuel Tanks (needing only 1 logistic ship instead of two because of more capacity also saves resources).  A built-in hullmod for global less supplies is mostly a reskin of Salvage Gantry already.  One decreases how much you spend, while the other increases how many you earn.  I feel like there isn't a need for both since at the end of the day, after you've spent a month salvaging or fighting, you'd be at the same amount of supplies with either method.

A hullmod that makes a logistic ship into a better Ox, i.e. more speed for less fuel, seems like it would obsolete the Ox itself, which seems not ideal.  Also, I'm guessing Alex intends the high fuel cost and ship slot of the Ox to offset the benefit of higher fleet speed.  Otherwise everyone would be running around with 10 of the things.

In general, if you're moving global campaign skills to logistic ships, and one wants to keep the same level of difficulty, that means reducing the maximum number of skills.  So if all the leadership skills are just ship slots, then the player only gets 5 or 10 skill points to keep the same difficulty curve.  Also, since ship slots and credits are much available than skill points right now, a player would typically include all these logistic ships in every fleet, no?  Would you be decreasing the ship slots along with these changes?  Down to something like 15 or 10?  Or would every player fleet simply include 1 of each of these leadership replacing logistic ships, since there are not any significant downsides?  I'd worry some variety in fleet builds would disappear.

And a larger salvage-rig-like logistics vessel (a dedicated fleet tender vessel perhaps) that has a built-in hullmod which reduces your maintenance costs by a percentage, with hull-size and stacking considerations taken into account in the calculations.

In some sense, Salvage Rigs can be viewed as reducing your net cost by finding more supplies in per fight and per exploration, and naturally scales with fight size.  A global supply reduction, which is based off a logistics ship, while thematic, I think overlaps a bit too much with the currently existing Salvage Rig concept.  It would have to be like the Ox or Salvage rig, bringing little but it's global bonus.  And it would be presumably designed to work only for large fleets, because any global percentage discount that was worthwhile in small fleets would be excessive for a large one for the effort involved.  Basically every end game fleet would have to have one or more, or else you're being inefficient.

Option 2: Logistics officers and Bridge Staff. Essentially officers you can have in your fleet who can pick those skills or variants of those skills, letting you spec into other things. Not sure if they should be part of the existing officer limit or have a different count though.

To summarise, moving those "affects your entire fleet tremendously and only you can do it" skills and de-centralizing them, so that if you still want those you have to invest in it somewhere else, freeing up your character to be the unkillable super god-warrior with all elite combat skills you dreamed of without being annoyed remembering your other character's Wish.com-tier maintenance costs.

Mechanically, what do you see as the difference between using a limited set of points to pick certain pictures on the skill screen to get certain permanent bonuses, and having a limited pool of bridge officer slots, and picking a picture on the bridge officer hiring screen to get certain permanent bonuses?  Isn't this just a different way of splitting skill points into personal and fleet pools, and reducing the ability to swap points between them?  So would you have like 8 bridge slots and limit the player to 7 combat skills, to maintain the same level of difficulty?

The suggestion of sharing these bridge slots with the current officer pool I haven't seen before.  I have heard the suggestion of having an officer be the ship captain instead of the player, and using said officer ship bonuses, but converting an officer slot to a fleet wide bonus is new to me.  Not sure how it would work out.  Probably would depend on stacking effects and how strong the individual effects were.  I need to think about the ramifications more.

I've looked at seeing if I can do Option 1 through modding (by looking at MakeshiftEquipment.java, and DriveFieldStabilizer.java to figure out how a hullmod affects campaign layer stuff), and so far the api seems like it might work, but I'm curious to see if there are any changes to the officer system before I throw myself into fiddling with it.

I'd look at the Efficiency Overhaul hullmod for the equivalent of Makeshift Equipment and Containment Procedures, for a ship specific version.  As for global bonuses, yeah looking at the skills themselves is probably the way to go.
Logged

eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
    • View Profile

I'm pretty sure at this point you're just trolling, but I will nevertheless respond to you like you aren't.
The current skill system was created with intention of discouraging people picking the "best" build and allowing more diversity. That didn't work. As expected, people who pick the "best" build would continue to do so.
Between the way that officers and s-mods work, it appears it was based on long term planning. As in the player is supposed to look at what ships and skill are available and plan their build from the start. The issue is, some builds are flat out worse for no reason, my suggestions are all centered around making those worse builds better to bring them inline with the current optimums. That is how you actually allow more diversity.

I don't consider elite bounties or tesseract ordo a threat. They might kill one or 2 ships but they can't possibly win vs my fleet. On a good day, I don't lose anything.
Another victory! My fleet is still standing, while theirs is gone. Hooray!
Since I don't see how it couldn't be done, it is not even a proper excuse.
Right up until your fleet hits a 1,000,000 credit pure carrier bounty. You lack PD, and despite how powerful the monitor is, it's not going to be able to save your Medusas from fighter spam. The only real means you have of dealing with fighters is your flagship, and the Omens. Omens are poor PD even with officers due to their short range and poor hull and armor, and you can't be everywhere.
The Tesseract Ordo you fought was an easy one, it lacked carriers, and it lacked a Radiant. Had it had either, you would have sustained serious losses, and had it had both, you probably would have lost or nearly lost.
Beyond this, if you fought a heavy Paragon bounty that spammed Tachyon Lances, or a Phase ship bounty that had a large volume of Harbingers (even as bad as they are) you would sustain extreme losses.
This is what I'm talking about. There are major drawbacks in your fleet composition, and if you run into a well designed enemy fleet that counters them, you will lose or nearly so. You need every advantage you can get when going against such fleets.
Your skills are part of the problem, you require helmsmanship even though it's barely useful. If it wasn't required for system expertise, and or officer management and best of the best was swapped, you would be able to afford to get BOTB, s-mod one of you hullmods, and have enough OP for more PD, Hardened shields if the Medusas already don't have them, or reinforced bulkheads so that the monitors don't get instantly popped when their shields go down.

How would players of non-optimized or sub-optimal builds win battle if the game doesn't allow other viable playstyle? A harder game doesn't mean a no in most cases.
This is why I think you're trolling. I'm trying to increase the total number of viable or efficient builds, not decrease it. Likewise, I never said to make the game harder.
It could just be your grammar making me mistake why you're trying to say, however.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6