Print

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

[Selfcontrol]

Storm Needler/Heavy Needler - it's a anti-shield shotgun with way too high flux use and short range. Range is too short for harrasing and flux usage too high for brawling - I don't understand this weapon and rather go for Hypervelocity Driver instead. Light needler is ok since it's role to overflux or scare off small ships, and it works ok on long-range escort Hammerheads with Heavy maulers.

Storm needler is ridiculously flux efficient and the dps is out of control. Expanded mags lets it dump 150 shots before running out of ammo, 7500 kinetic damage before any modifiers. Gets even more insane if you actually build in mags, jumping up to 270 shots. Very little has the flux capacity to tank that. Stomps shield heavy ships which are going to get in close to you anyway because energy range. Same for heavy needler. HVD is a completely different role and honestly I think HVDs kind of suck. Low dps and bad efficiency which makes them bad at the flux war unless you're fast enough to kite forever.

HVD are great support weapons imo. They bypass residual armor quite easily and their EMP damages massively increases its chances of disabling weapons. And they have perfect accuracy.

It's not a do-it-all weapon, sure, but its good for what it's designed for.

[eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef]

I use Pulse Lasers all the time. The OP and flux decrease, hit strength, DPS , and range increase make it so I favor putting EMP damage elsewhere.

Can't think of any ship where I would want them over Ion Pulsers. Can you share any example?

More dps and efficiency than ion pulser. Also more range and 1 less op. You can get ion from the small energy slots. For hit and run though, ion pulser is better yeah.

500 vs 600 range isn't that different and with such short range it's better not to engage into flux efficiency battle and just unload everything you have and break away. Small ships like Wolf or Tempest can't handle those 240 flux/sec from a singe gun, and bigger ships that can extend it's range still would have much better options for flux damage/tank ratio (like phase lance or heavy blaster).  Don't know, I just can't see it

Not gonna argue about needlers cause i was completely disappointed in every kinetic/explosive guns since I discovered a high tech "in your face" bully loadouts They are very fun to pilot.

SD Nova. My current built makes use of 1 HIL, one Autopulse Laser, one Cryo Blaster, one Kinetic Blaster, one Pulse Laser, one IR AutoLance as I had a bit of OP but not enough flux, and four Pilums which is where I get my Ion damage from. The Pilums are required as they force the enemy to keep their shield up, even when the Nova is backing off, as well as screws with the enemy shield AI in general.
Alongside two support Herons that have a wing each of Claws it's more than enough EMP.

Other places I have used it are on Medusas. The sustained damage alongside a Phase Lance tends to be more effective than a Pulser. I also have used them on endurance Aurora builds, I.E. no limited ammo weapons or SO. However, I've never been able to find an endurance Aurora build that I'm satisfied with. They just have too little range, and their system tends to cause them to pull away from enemies too much even with aggressive AI.

As for frigates, the Hyperion, Brawler LG, and Tempest all have enough flux to mount at least 1 and are fast enough or have enough bonus range to actually make use of it. The Hyperion has enough room to mount other weapons alongside it, the Brawler LG barely has enough flux to mount a Phase Lance with it, and the Tempest would have to take an IR Autolance but has its drones for HE damage. That being said the Ion Pulser would in general be better as none of them can fight in a sustained manner, so a burst weapon will end up dealing more damage.

[DownTheDrain]

Don't play enough vanilla to judge, but I like that we got a one man's trash is another man's treasure situation going on in the comments.
That really speaks for the design and balance.

[Vanshilar]

Okay I think about a quarter of this is spot-on, about a quarter is debatable depending on situation, and roughly half of it is just dead wrong. It'd take too long to go through it in detail, but I'll just point out for example the Squall, for which nearly every sentence is incorrect:

Squall - a missile launcher that the AI happily spams, usually achieving nothing, until it runs out. Mandating the usage of ECCM and Expanded Missile Racks for nothing more than some additional shield damage. Usually it's better to have something like Locust covering you I suppose. Though missile options recently have been just kinda awful.

The Squall is one of the most powerful large missile weapons. If you have a large missile slot and aren't sure what to put in it, I'd recommend putting in a Squall by default. Not only does it do decent shield damage at very long range (2500 su), but it sends the enemy fleet in disarray and puts them on the defensive, which is one of the most important battle objectives a weapon can achieve. It also overwhelms enemy PD which allows your other missiles and fighters to get through.

The Squall is able to do shield damage before the fleets engage each other, which is critical for driving up enemy flux and therefore disabling the enemy offense. It's not just "some additional shield damage", it basically softens up the enemy for you to finish them off and serves as a form of EMP.

The Squall shouldn't run out unless you're taking on really big fleets or your fleet is ineffective at killing the enemy fleet. Against double Ordos, with elite Missile Spec (so the missiles fire 25% faster), I'm seeing a bit more than 200 fired per Squall throughout the fight. With Missile Spec giving it 320 ammo, it should last through about triple Ordos. If you're using both Missile Spec and Missile Racks, it should last through quad/quintuple Ordos. Obviously the player never needs to fight fleets that big.

Squall vs Locust -- if you have one large missile slot, generally use Squall. If you have two, generally use one of each. Locust is useful for generally sweeping the nearby space clear of fighters, smaller ships, and some PD (they'll take out quite a few missiles just from sheer number of projectiles). But it's usually better to make sure the enemy fleet doesn't endanger you in the first place, in which case the Squall is one of the best weapons to use.

The missiles are arguably the strongest slots in the game, particularly large and medium. They are flux-free so they can be used even when under pressure, and most of them track so they can shoot through allies (don't need to worry about line of fire). Larges have Squall and mediums (and smalls) have Harpoon, both among the best in the game. It's no coincidence that when I try out and compare different ships/fleet setups, Squalls (and Harpoons) nearly always form part of the best fleets. The Squall is simply one of the most useful weapons the player can use, in one of the most useful weapon slots.

[Killer of Fate]

Hmmmmmm... I guess the different in perspective might be caused by you being able to perfectly tune your fleet in accordance to an enemy fleet. And executing a neatly planned strategy. But as someone who tests a lot of builds and tries to fight enemies without excessive forces... And without using too optimised compositions, I feel like Squall is somewhat suboptimal in generic encounters. Though in perfectly executed scenarios, both Harpoon and Squall most likely feel very powerful...

I understand your perspective and I agree. But the way I imagine the lack of viability of Squall is how you get an NPC fleet to equip it. In most scenarios its ability to deal damage to an enemy is too unfocused. But if it hits, it does do a lot. The issue to me though is that it takes too much work to make it work that way. Which is I guess why it qualifies as "stroke-inducing".

Reading your statement, I realise Squall isn't a bad weapon. Neither is probably Harpoon. It's just that you need to really concentrate your entire existence around it to understand their purpose I suppose. And you will never be able to make a simple randomised NPC fleet utilise it properly. Therefore, a recommendation to a new player would be to simply avoid it and utilise a far more simple option... Which in the case of large missiles is to simply not use them. And prioritise something more reliable like a Paragon.

Which brings me to my next point. Your build, from what I think I remember, sorry, I am slightly drunk. You fight optimised fleets and execute DPS calculations. Therefore is Squall really that good along with the Harpoon, or are you just saying it's good because it's the most effective weapon at punching down?

[Vanshilar]

Hmmmmmm... I guess the different in perspective might be caused by you being able to perfectly tune your fleet in accordance to an enemy fleet. And executing a neatly planned strategy. But as someone who tests a lot of builds and tries to fight enemies without excessive forces... And without using too optimised compositions, I feel like Squall is somewhat suboptimal in generic encounters. Though in perfectly executed scenarios, both Harpoon and Squall most likely feel very powerful...

Uh, I test all sorts of builds. It's just that I have a quantitative perspective on evaluating which ones are better, i.e. "better" is defined as "if the battle completion time against a standard enemy is shorter". In other words it's not based on "well I think this" or "well it feels like that" but I have an objective basis when comparing weapons and/or ships and/or player fleets; there's hard evidence to back it up.

My ability to actually play, i.e. control my flagship and give commands to other ships, is never perfect nor optimal; it's easy to see in all the videos that I post. So no, it's not about perfect execution, it's about trying out different loadouts and quantitatively comparing their performance in a "real world" situation.

I don't buy the argument of "the Squall is bad because it performs badly in bad loadouts". Any weapon (or ship) can be ineffective if used incorrectly. The Squall in particular puts the enemy fleet on the defensive which makes it easier for the player fleet to win, so it's one of the best weapons for punching up and punching down. So telling new players not to use it is simply bad advice.

[Daynen]

It's interesting how often weapons like the HVD are decried for their "inefficiency."  You have to remember that range is a HUGE factor in a weapon's effectiveness, not simply for its own sake but because that range gives the firing ship room to dodge return fire, dramatically easing the strain on its flux reserves.  A standoff weapon might seem flux inefficient and low damage, sure, but consider that a ship loaded with weapons like that isn't going to be overfluxing because it's not getting hit so much.

Incidentally, long range weapons also help prevent your fleet AI from crowding in on a target and blocking each other as they muscle in for a front row seat to the grand explosion.  So while they may not win out on paper stats, they have lots of indirect value.