Print

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

[Grievous69]

Well since this is now an Astral thread, I'll just say that a simple revert on the system cooldown nerf would do well to bring it back into relevance. Perhaps even tone down that DP cost but baby steps.

[Ptirodaktill]

 Astral relevance is tied to bombers relevance. And bomber relevance is tied to amunition relevance and the effectiveness of enemy PD. With current state of PD most bombers do nothing, or close to nothing. Litteraly 0 dmg unless the target is overloaded or has most of it pd disabled.

[Killer of Fate]

Astral relevance is tied to bombers relevance. And bomber relevance is tied to amunition relevance and the effectiveness of enemy PD. With current state of PD most bombers do nothing, or close to nothing. Litteraly 0 dmg unless the target is overloaded or has most of it pd disabled.

yeah, but as soon as you make them not tied to that, they can just blow up anything they want and dominate the game. The Astral's lack of viability can only be fixed by changing how bomber AI behaviour works which Alex, I think, is aware of.

But even then I just feel like that for a giant brick that can't move and costs 50 dp, its weakness comes from being OP starved and extremely fragile. If those two aspects are solved, even with the current state of bombers, it becomes kinda... Cool to use. Definitely easier to defend.

[FooF]

Heavy Fighter Integration (built-in hullmod): Reduces all Fighter LPC costs by 8 OP.

Fixed. 

[Killer of Fate]

Heavy Fighter Integration (built-in hullmod): Reduces all Fighter LPC costs by 8 OP.

Fixed. 

I just increased general OP of all carriers by 5 per hangar bay. Including stuff like Odyssey. And then also gave Warthog ammofeed.

[AdamLegend]

Will we get the next patch later this year?

[2_Wycked]

My money is on September... let the betting begin!

[Amoebka]

Still no patchnotes, so no sooner than 3 months away.

[TK3600]

My money is on September... let the betting begin!

Isn't this game consistently on yearly release?

[Vanshilar]

And would be even more useful if Squalls weren't so bad nowadays (please give them as much as ammo as Locust has).

Eh the Squall has 160 ammo and fires 20 of them every 19.5 seconds. So that means 8*19.5 = 156 seconds to get rid of them. (Technically, 146 seconds since we don't care about the cooldown after the final burst.) The Locust has 600 ammo and fires 30 of them every 7.9 seconds. So that means 20*7.9 = 158 seconds to get rid of them. (Technically, 153 seconds.) So they get used up at pretty close to the same rate.

The Squall does have much longer range, at 2500 instead of 1400 range, so it does tend to fire more often. But that's more because it's actually being used more, not because it lacks ammo. This is pretty obvious if they're linked to the same weapon group so that the Locust fires whenever the Squall fires. And with its long range the Squall fulfills a pretty unique role in the player fleet, that of softening up the enemy fleet before the two get within weapon range, making it one of the best large missiles.

[Killer of Fate]

And would be even more useful if Squalls weren't so bad nowadays (please give them as much as ammo as Locust has).

Eh the Squall has 160 ammo and fires 20 of them every 19.5 seconds. So that means 8*19.5 = 156 seconds to get rid of them. (Technically, 146 seconds since we don't care about the cooldown after the final burst.) The Locust has 600 ammo and fires 30 of them every 7.9 seconds. So that means 20*7.9 = 158 seconds to get rid of them. (Technically, 153 seconds.) So they get used up at pretty close to the same rate.

The Squall does have much longer range, at 2500 instead of 1400 range, so it does tend to fire more often. But that's more because it's actually being used more, not because it lacks ammo. This is pretty obvious if they're linked to the same weapon group so that the Locust fires whenever the Squall fires. And with its long range the Squall fulfills a pretty unique role in the player fleet, that of softening up the enemy fleet before the two get within weapon range, making it one of the best large missiles.

hmmmm, i guess i didn't really think about it. I guess I was so involved with Astral's lack of OP, that I didn't notice that Squall is actually sane ammo-wise. Thank you for pointing that out.

In that case can we lower attack range of Squall to a more logical number then? So, that it isn't fired so haphazardly without achieving much? Or do you need it to be long-ranged?

[Vanshilar]

In that case can we lower attack range of Squall to a more logical number then? So, that it isn't fired so haphazardly without achieving much? Or do you need it to be long-ranged?

Well the Squall being long-ranged is part of what makes it so strong. It suppresses the enemy fleet and prevents them from mounting an effective offense even before the fleets close in to weapon range. So if you decrease its range, it really changes the fundamental nature of the weapon. However, I think it comes down to how you're using it.

The Squall has a period where it's firing continually and a period where it's on cooldown and thus the enemy fleet can recover from the barrage (or make their counterattack). So if you have just one or a couple of Squalls in your fleet, then they won't really do much; the enemy will just recover during the Squall's cooldown, or simply move around the line of Squalls.

If you have multiple Squalls in your fleet though, chances are they'll be firing at different times, and so their cooldowns will also be at different times. And thus what the enemy fleet sees is a continuous stream of incoming Squalls coming in from different directions and crisscrossing the fleet, which prevents them from recovering and thus makes the Squalls that much more effective. Putting multiple Squalls on one ship won't have that effect, because chances are those Squalls will have the same or similar timing, so you wind up with the same problem. So it's better to put Squalls on different ships. That's why I recommend, if the ship has 2 large missile slots, to use a Squall and Locust (linked in same group to have the Locust fire more often) instead of 2 Squalls.

It's one of those weapons (which is a general characteristic of many missiles, actually) where one or a few won't do much (i.e. you won't really see how well it performs in the sim), but if you start amassing multiple ones for full fleet-on-fleet action, it'll really start overwhelming the enemy fleet.

[Megas]

It's one of those weapons (which is a general characteristic of many missiles, actually) where one or a few won't do much (i.e. you won't really see how well it performs in the sim), but if you start amassing multiple ones for full fleet-on-fleet action, it'll really start overwhelming the enemy fleet.

This is what the effect of the hp reduction of Squalls did.  Before, Squalls were hardened enough that one Squall could mostly penetrate PD of ships that have it.  In the SIM with unskilled ships and old high HP Squall, Gryphon could solo a ship about 10 DP above its weight with linked Squalls and Harpoons in a one-on-one duel more easily than other warships.  Now, with less squall HP, if the enemy ship has moderate PD, about third or half the Squalls get eaten by PD, and Harpoons will not do much when too many Squalls are shot down before they hit the shield.  Now, given what you wrote about current Squalls, it seems Squalls are a critical mass weapon now, or at least use it against something with no PD if Squall cannot be critical massed.

[Killer of Fate]

It's one of those weapons (which is a general characteristic of many missiles, actually) where one or a few won't do much (i.e. you won't really see how well it performs in the sim), but if you start amassing multiple ones for full fleet-on-fleet action, it'll really start overwhelming the enemy fleet.

This is what the effect of the hp reduction of Squalls did.  Before, Squalls were hardened enough that one Squall could mostly penetrate PD of ships that have it.  In the SIM with unskilled ships and old high HP Squall, Gryphon could solo a ship about 10 DP above its weight with linked Squalls and Harpoons in a one-on-one duel more easily than other warships.  Now, with less squall HP, if the enemy ship has moderate PD, about third or half the Squalls get eaten by PD, and Harpoons will not do much when too many Squalls are shot down before they hit the shield.  Now, given what you wrote about current Squalls, it seems Squalls are a critical mass weapon now, or at least use it against something with no PD if Squall cannot be critical massed.

Remnants...
I'm assuming they're talking Remnants.
Because of the state Spark and energy PD is in, their ability to fend off missiles is entirely linked to their shields.

In that case can we lower attack range of Squall to a more logical number then? So, that it isn't fired so haphazardly without achieving much? Or do you need it to be long-ranged?

Well the Squall being long-ranged is part of what makes it so strong. It suppresses the enemy fleet and prevents them from mounting an effective offense even before the fleets close in to weapon range. So if you decrease its range, it really changes the fundamental nature of the weapon. However, I think it comes down to how you're using it.

The Squall has a period where it's firing continually and a period where it's on cooldown and thus the enemy fleet can recover from the barrage (or make their counterattack). So if you have just one or a couple of Squalls in your fleet, then they won't really do much; the enemy will just recover during the Squall's cooldown, or simply move around the line of Squalls.

If you have multiple Squalls in your fleet though, chances are they'll be firing at different times, and so their cooldowns will also be at different times. And thus what the enemy fleet sees is a continuous stream of incoming Squalls coming in from different directions and crisscrossing the fleet, which prevents them from recovering and thus makes the Squalls that much more effective. Putting multiple Squalls on one ship won't have that effect, because chances are those Squalls will have the same or similar timing, so you wind up with the same problem. So it's better to put Squalls on different ships. That's why I recommend, if the ship has 2 large missile slots, to use a Squall and Locust (linked in same group to have the Locust fire more often) instead of 2 Squalls.

It's one of those weapons (which is a general characteristic of many missiles, actually) where one or a few won't do much (i.e. you won't really see how well it performs in the sim), but if you start amassing multiple ones for full fleet-on-fleet action, it'll really start overwhelming the enemy fleet.

This conceptually is just kinda dumb. You're basically just spamming missiles. Squalls shouldn't work like that. You shouldn't be using them as a spam suppress weapon, but as a prep weapon to expose the enemy for an attack. This is just, imo, I could be wrong, the result of the AI overrating the threat Squalls pose, and because of it is choosing to absorb the shield damage instead of just letting the hull take it.

For an Astral... The way how Squall is supposed to work is that as missiles approach, the enemy rises their shields and then they receive a rapid burst of anti-shield damage and a conclusive amount of anti-armour damage. That's how logically it is supposed to work. Not... Oh, the enemy is braindead, so they choose to eat 25k of kinetic damage, even though in exchange they could just take 136 hull damage.

[Megas]

Remnants...
I'm assuming they're talking Remnants.
Because of the state Spark and energy PD is in, their ability to fend off missiles is entirely linked to their shields.

Remnant ships likely have elite PD, so that mitigates some of the weaknesses.  Burst PD is not bad at anti-missile as long as it has charges.  That said, I do not remember if Remnant ships are loaded with burst PD.