Print

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

[Killer of Fate]

yeah, that's what I meant when I said "dont stack into a blob". The NPCs ironically enough tend to be really bad at forming a combat formation, I think it's probably cause they use Defend (allied ship, not control point, but that too) order instead of letting ships naturally coagulate to capture a control point.

Battlecruisers have shields set to 0.2 higher what they should be. Retribution has a low tech shield which should be 1.0, but it's 1.2. On top of that it has a small shield profile. Conquest is a flux rich ship, so it pays for it with a 1.2 shield like a Sunder does. Except it's a Battlecruiser, so it gets 1.4... Odyssey is a High Tech ship like a Tempest. Meaning it has a lot of missiles, fighters and a lot of mobility. So, it should have 0.8, but instead it has 1.0

But imo they shouldn't have these shield nerfs. They already have weaknesses to give them weaker durability. Which compared to normal slow moving ships make them weak in non-kiting combat.

Conquest has weak armour and extremely small hull durability. It's PD grid has a poor angle, meaning it won't immediately snipe missiles from all directions. Standard for Battlecruisers. Its shield profile is also small, which paired with its low armour makes it very easy to kill if surrounded. Even if it had higher shield strength.

Odyssey costs 45 DP, doesn't have that much flux, standing only at 15k, (Onslaught 17k), and 1k flux dissipation (Onslaught 600, here the difference is more severe). Its shield profile is better, but it has even less armour. More importantly its firepower is tied to short range weapons, because they're energy. I mean, beam weapons are long range, but they need something to be supported with. And putting 2 Tachyon Lances on an Odyssey feels like a mistake.

You have to also understand that both Conquest and Odyssey have really inconveniently placed weapons, which means they will always waste time positioning themselves properly to open fire. Giving the enemy time to respond. This can be especially painful if you are using low turn rate weapons.

Whilst you could make the argument that Conquest's firepower is superior to that of an Onslaught due to flux and missiles. It's important to note that Onslaught's firepower is made up mostly of highly flux efficient long range pulsers, 4 medium missile launchers. Bla bla bla... We talked about Onslaught vs Conquest million times.

Just pointing out that Conquest isn't really superior in firepower.

Retribution on the other hand is already really squishy, standing at 800 armour. It has a really small shield profile. And on top of that it is given 1.2 shields. It's so bad, it makes the Harbinger look good.

(referring to a video I saw in which someone wanted to show off Harbinger being good, so they personally piloted with Phase Lance build. And instantly sniped a Retribution which died at 0 flux, because it didn't even manage to deploy its shields. And the funniest thing was that it was attacked from the front at long range. Okay, it managed to deploy its shield. But because of how small the profile is. You just have to strafe a few units to the right and it just dies...)

The most ironic thing about Battlecruisers is that they are so bad in their current balance state. That when the Dev wanted to create an overpowered Remnant ship that was meant to be a Battlecruiser, they accidentally made it average. Because an overpowered Battlecruiser is on the power level of a normal Battleship. Even if you include mobility into the equation.

[Killer of Fate]

turns out I was wrong about fleet warfare. NPC commanders are actually quite competent at capping control points. It's just the fact that I had too many things going in my favour. I've nerfed the player a bit... I set mercenary time from 730 days to 180, made fleets generate as generally larger and XP gain smaller. And allowed fleets to deploy more frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc. etc. Without suffering huge PTS issues. As well as made a tsunami of buffs to various ships in order to allow escort vessels to be effective again. Obviously far more testing is needed... But the general end result seems like this... If you give the AI a good hand. It'll play it well... Ngl... Kinda cool...

Spoiler

[close]

[Beep Boop]

Retribution on the other hand is already really squishy, standing at 800 armour. It has a really small shield profile. And on top of that it is given 1.2 shields. It's so bad, it makes the Harbinger look good.

But the Harbinger IS good, as it is basically the hard counter to any single opponent.

(referring to a video I saw in which someone wanted to show off Harbinger being good, so they personally piloted with Phase Lance build. And instantly sniped a Retribution which died at 0 flux, because it didn't even manage to deploy its shields. And the funniest thing was that it was attacked from the front at long range. Okay, it managed to deploy its shield. But because of how small the profile is. You just have to strafe a few units to the right and it just dies...)

Yeah, that's typical of phase lance vs. slow-deploying shield in general, you can always just stab them where their shield hasn't finished deploying yet.

The most ironic thing about Battlecruisers is that they are so bad in their current balance state. That when the Dev wanted to create an overpowered Remnant ship that was meant to be a Battlecruiser, they accidentally made it average. Because an overpowered Battlecruiser is on the power level of a normal Battleship. Even if you include mobility into the equation.

And yet many of the maligned battlecruiser hulls are popular player flagships. Because, like their real historical counterparts, battlecruisers are a rather controversial ship design you either love or hate.

[Phenir]

Retribution on the other hand is already really squishy, standing at 800 armour. It has a really small shield profile. And on top of that it is given 1.2 shields. It's so bad, it makes the Harbinger look good.

But the Harbinger IS good, as it is basically the hard counter to any single opponent.

(referring to a video I saw in which someone wanted to show off Harbinger being good, so they personally piloted with Phase Lance build. And instantly sniped a Retribution which died at 0 flux, because it didn't even manage to deploy its shields. And the funniest thing was that it was attacked from the front at long range. Okay, it managed to deploy its shield. But because of how small the profile is. You just have to strafe a few units to the right and it just dies...)

Yeah, that's typical of phase lance vs. slow-deploying shield in general, you can always just stab them where their shield hasn't finished deploying yet.

The most ironic thing about Battlecruisers is that they are so bad in their current balance state. That when the Dev wanted to create an overpowered Remnant ship that was meant to be a Battlecruiser, they accidentally made it average. Because an overpowered Battlecruiser is on the power level of a normal Battleship. Even if you include mobility into the equation.

And yet many of the maligned battlecruiser hulls are popular player flagships. Because, like their real historical counterparts, battlecruisers are a rather controversial ship design you either love or hate.

A ship being good in player hands does not mean it is good overall, because you have like 200 other dp you can't personally control. I like piloting retribution but I wouldn't put it in my fleet outside my control. For 35 dp, I could have a handful of frigates do the same job it does better without requiring so much micro or if I really wanted to only spend one slot on a flanker, aurora exists.
Similarly for harbinger. It does poorly in fleet setting because of the phase AI and the mismatch on its system range and weapon range and inability to time the system well..

[Beep Boop]

A ship being good in player hands does not mean it is good overall, because you have like 200 other dp you can't personally control. I like piloting retribution but I wouldn't put it in my fleet outside my control. For 35 dp, I could have a handful of frigates do the same job it does better without requiring so much micro or if I really wanted to only spend one slot on a flanker, aurora exists.
Similarly for harbinger. It does poorly in fleet setting because of the phase AI and the mismatch on its system range and weapon range and inability to time the system well..

Yes, and conversely, a ship being bad to wretched in AI hands does not make it a bad ship. Battlecruisers are very much a player ride, although not to the same degree as phase ships are, where phase ships are just hopeless wastes of DP in AI hands as they completely shut down the moment they encounter anyone with a tacticool lazor.

[Phenir]

A ship being good in player hands does not mean it is good overall, because you have like 200 other dp you can't personally control. I like piloting retribution but I wouldn't put it in my fleet outside my control. For 35 dp, I could have a handful of frigates do the same job it does better without requiring so much micro or if I really wanted to only spend one slot on a flanker, aurora exists.
Similarly for harbinger. It does poorly in fleet setting because of the phase AI and the mismatch on its system range and weapon range and inability to time the system well..

Yes, and conversely, a ship being bad to wretched in AI hands does not make it a bad ship. Battlecruisers are very much a player ride, although not to the same degree as phase ships are, where phase ships are just hopeless wastes of DP in AI hands as they completely shut down the moment they encounter anyone with a tacticool lazor.

You see, you misunderstand. I said good overall. As in, a ship being good in player hands does not make it good in the ai hands. Which was the point being made originally which you seemingly countered with

The most ironic thing about Battlecruisers is that they are so bad in their current balance state. That when the Dev wanted to create an overpowered Remnant ship that was meant to be a Battlecruiser, they accidentally made it average. Because an overpowered Battlecruiser is on the power level of a normal Battleship. Even if you include mobility into the equation.

And yet many of the maligned battlecruiser hulls are popular player flagships. Because, like their real historical counterparts, battlecruisers are a rather controversial ship design you either love or hate.

Whether you love or hate them, it does not change that they are a poor choice to give to the ai generally.

[Killer of Fate]

Whether you love or hate them, it does not change that they are a poor choice to give to the ai generally.

insert video of an NPC-controlled Odyssey rushing in first and dying to concentrated fire

[Beep Boop]

Whether you love or hate them, it does not change that they are a poor choice to give to the ai generally.

And as I previously argued, being bad in AI hands does not make the ship itself bad. It just means it's not a very spammable ship.

[Phenir]

Whether you love or hate them, it does not change that they are a poor choice to give to the ai generally.

And as I previously argued, being bad in AI hands does not make the ship itself bad. It just means it's not a very spammable ship.

It's not even about spamming it. Like I said, I'd rather any other "flanker" ship than a single retribution, even handful of frigates or other equivalent dp.