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); New blog post: New music for Galatia Academy (06/12/24)

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks  (Read 16715 times)

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3034
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2014, 06:53:19 AM »

I think the number of hangar decks is highly disparate, currently. The Astral has 6 decks and the next best carrier, the Heron, has 2. That does not add up.

I think the Condor should have 2 decks to distinguish it more from the Gemini. It's kind of ridiculous that the Gemini is nearly as good a cargo ship as a Tarsus, and just as good a carrier as a Condor. But if the Condor got extra decks, then the ships above it with decks should get more, too. The Venture, Atlas, and (maybe) the Odyssey should have 2 decks, and the Heron, being a cruiser-sized Fast Carrier, should have 3 decks.

This would take things from Destroyer: 1, 1; Cruiser: 1, 2; and Capital: 1, 1, 6; to Destroyer: 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3; and Capital: 2, 2, 6 (1, 2, 6 if the Odyssey stays at 1 deck). I imagine a Cruiser-sized dedicated carrier and a Capital-sized Fast Carrier would both get 4 decks. A Destroyer-sized Fast Carrier would of course only have one deck. So with those three hypothetical ships included in this change, there would be Destroyer: 1, 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3, 4; and Capital: 2, 2, 4, 6 (or 1, 2, 4, 6).

I guess the Condor could be the Destroyer-sized Fast Carrier w/ 1 deck. It would need a speed boost, since it's currently slower than the Tarsus, but that could work. Since the Condor is a stripped down Tarsus, making it go faster is not unreasonable. Then put in something else as the Destroyer-sized dedicated carrier with 2 decks.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7326
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2014, 07:45:11 AM »

I think the number of hangar decks is highly disparate, currently. The Astral has 6 decks and the next best carrier, the Heron, has 2. That does not add up.

I think the Condor should have 2 decks to distinguish it more from the Gemini. It's kind of ridiculous that the Gemini is nearly as good a cargo ship as a Tarsus, and just as good a carrier as a Condor. But if the Condor got extra decks, then the ships above it with decks should get more, too. The Venture, Atlas, and (maybe) the Odyssey should have 2 decks, and the Heron, being a cruiser-sized Fast Carrier, should have 3 decks.

This would take things from Destroyer: 1, 1; Cruiser: 1, 2; and Capital: 1, 1, 6; to Destroyer: 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3; and Capital: 2, 2, 6 (1, 2, 6 if the Odyssey stays at 1 deck). I imagine a Cruiser-sized dedicated carrier and a Capital-sized Fast Carrier would both get 4 decks. A Destroyer-sized Fast Carrier would of course only have one deck. So with those three hypothetical ships included in this change, there would be Destroyer: 1, 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3, 4; and Capital: 2, 2, 4, 6 (or 1, 2, 4, 6).

I guess the Condor could be the Destroyer-sized Fast Carrier w/ 1 deck. It would need a speed boost, since it's currently slower than the Tarsus, but that could work. Since the Condor is a stripped down Tarsus, making it go faster is not unreasonable. Then put in something else as the Destroyer-sized dedicated carrier with 2 decks.

I think this is a good idea - it would certainly allow for much bigger fighter fleets though. The repair times for fighters might want to be tweaked upwards a bit to compensate, though that introduces its own problems (not really that fun for fighters/bombers to take forever).
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7326
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2014, 08:08:17 AM »

Uhh, sorry - somehow I posted a reply in the wrong thread? My bad.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 08:10:02 AM by Thaago »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2014, 09:35:25 AM »

I like to see what kind of fighter skills get added before decks get added.  Fighter wings have a frigate's worth of guns.

Personally, I would rather see carriers (especially destroyer-sized) get more OP than more decks so my Combat/Technology character can turn them into better brawlers.  The only carrier worth using now is the Heron.  (Capitals are usually too expensive, Venture is too slow, and the rest do not fight well and are slow also.)
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2014, 10:49:30 AM »

The Venture, Atlas and Odyssey aren't meant to be dedicated carriers, I think they're fine at 1 deck. The Condor is low-tech, developed/modified during a time when strike craft were not that prevalent, so I think it's fine at 1 deck too. My preference is to see a new Cruiser-sized, high-tech carrier with 3 decks, IMO that will be enough to bridge the gap between Heron and Astral (plus it will make the Heron's "fast Carrier" designation mean more if there is a "slow" Carrier of equivalent tonnage to be compared to).

Carriers in general shouldn't be good brawlers... in terms of Destroyer-sized carriers, both the Condor and the Gemini are (derived from) freighters, so I don't think it makes sense for them to be even decent at "brawling".
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:00:16 AM by Embolism »
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3806
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2014, 11:37:32 AM »

I still want to see a ship where mounting a Mjolnir cannon isn't a terrible idea.  Used to be you could use them on a conquest with max tech skills... but you don't get as much bonus ordnance points now, and it just doesn't quite work anymore.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Aeson

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2014, 12:10:55 PM »

I wouldn't call the Venture a low-tech carrier however, for starters it's not a dedicated carrier and for another it's more of a civilian vessel.
To me, the Venture feels like a military ship that the military decided they didn't need and which they therefore permitted to be used for civilian purposes, rather than being a civilian ship from the start. It feels a lot like the compromise cruiser/carrier hybrids that were experimented with in the real world and soon discarded in favor of dedicated carriers with dedicated escorts - a ship with inadequate firepower for its size, if it's to be used in the battle line, and a carrier with inadequate fighter capacity if it's to be used in the support role that dedicated carriers fill. In short, a flawed concept that is nevertheless useful as a combat-capable civilian vessel.

I think the number of hangar decks is highly disparate, currently. The Astral has 6 decks and the next best carrier, the Heron, has 2. That does not add up.

I think the Condor should have 2 decks to distinguish it more from the Gemini. It's kind of ridiculous that the Gemini is nearly as good a cargo ship as a Tarsus, and just as good a carrier as a Condor. But if the Condor got extra decks, then the ships above it with decks should get more, too. The Venture, Atlas, and (maybe) the Odyssey should have 2 decks, and the Heron, being a cruiser-sized Fast Carrier, should have 3 decks.
I disagree with the Condor receiving two flight decks if the Gemini sticks with only one. In my opinion, the Gemini feels much more like a purpose-built military escort carrier than the Condor does, with a significantly better defensive armament, a military-grade shield generator for a mid-tech vessel, and fairly decent flux stats given its armament. The only part about it that says "I'm not a military ship" is its description, but even if that doesn't change, it would hardly be unique in history for a military vehicle to be misrepresented in this way. If either of the light carriers is to receive a second flight deck, my feeling is that it should be the Gemini.

That said, I also disagree with either of the light carriers receiving an additional flight deck, as unless the second flight deck comes with an increase in logistical costs sufficient to cause the light carrier to count for about as much as a cruiser in the fleet, the two-deck light carrier will be by far the most logistically-efficient carrier available, with a flight deck for roughly 2.75 logistics. Compare this to the Astral, the most logistically-efficient carrier currently, which costs at least 3.625 logistics per flight deck (3.917 logistics per flight deck with standard skeleton crew). The way it works now is fairly good - if you buy a bigger carrier, you pay more logistics per carrier and have a generally more expensive carrier (in terms of absolute purchase costs, absolute operating costs, and absolute deployment costs; deployment cost relative to the number of flight decks deployed is a slightly different matter, as the Heron is the least efficient at 18 supplies per flight deck, but the Gemini and the Condor are tied for most efficient at 10 supplies per flight deck, which is much better than the Astral's 16.7 supplies per flight deck) and lose more if you lose that carrier, but you gain logistical efficiency, durability, and perhaps firepower. Giving a light carrier two flight decks greatly changes the question of logistical efficiency and takes away one of the only real reasons to use a larger dedicated carrier, unless there are changes to the logistical costs of or the number of flight decks on all the carriers in the game.

Also, from a logistical efficiency perspective, the Gemini is a significantly worse freighter than the Tarsus is, as the Tarsus carries at least 2.65 times more cargo per logistics unit. This isn't nearly as bad as the Condor, which carries nearly 2.2 times less cargo per logistics unit than the Gemini does, but it's still not a good freighter from a fleet efficiency perspective. The Gemini also isn't a particularly efficient freighter in terms of operating cost efficiency, as it carries only ~70% of the cargo of the Tarsus per supply expended per day of noncombat and nonrecovery operations.

Since the Condor is a stripped down Tarsus, making it go faster is not unreasonable.
I disagree with describing the Condor as a stripped-down Tarsus. The Condor is a heavily-modified Tarsus, having gained a completely new weapons mount in a location where there previously was no weapons mount and having had a fairly significant amount of hull reinforcement, as well as receiving significantly improved armor. A stripped-down Tarsus would be more along the lines of the Tarsus you purchase from the shipyard - a hull with the essential equipment intact, but carrying more or less nothing else.

This would take things from Destroyer: 1, 1; Cruiser: 1, 2; and Capital: 1, 1, 6; to Destroyer: 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3; and Capital: 2, 2, 6 (1, 2, 6 if the Odyssey stays at 1 deck). I imagine a Cruiser-sized dedicated carrier and a Capital-sized Fast Carrier would both get 4 decks. A Destroyer-sized Fast Carrier would of course only have one deck. So with those three hypothetical ships included in this change, there would be Destroyer: 1, 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3, 4; and Capital: 2, 2, 4, 6 (or 1, 2, 4, 6).
I think you really need to take logistical efficiency into account, as it and durability and perhaps firepower are all that the larger carriers have going for them, and a carrier's firepower can largely be replaced by well-managed fighter wings, especially since carriers tend to want to stay out of fights with anything approaching their own weight class.

Code
Flight Decks per Logistics Unit
Carrier   Efficiency (Half Skeleton)   Efficiency (Standard Skeleton)   Efficiency (Max Crew)
Condor              5.330                           5.650                       6.50
Gemini              5.180                           5.350                       6.20
Heron               4.875                           5.250                       5.75
Astral              3.625                           3.917                       5.00

As you can see from the table, any destroyer-scale carrier that carries two flight decks is either going to have to have such terrible statistics as to be useless to a fleet (e.g. burn-2, consistently loses fights against lone asteroids, etc) or is going to cost something more appropriate for a cruiser - a minimum of ~7 logistics if you want it to stay roughly in line as a flight deck provider with the Astral, which is already about what a medium cruiser like an Eagle costs - if you don't want it to significantly outclass existing dedicated carriers as a supporting flight deck for your fleet. A cruiser-scale carrier with three flight decks is going to have to cost in the neighborhood of 11 or 12 logistics to avoid outclassing the Astral as a dedicated carrier, and maybe a little more to avoid outclassing the Heron - though since the Heron is already an unusually fast cruiser both in and out of combat and has an armament that could let it work as a (very) light cruiser, there's a bit more room to play with logistical efficiency than there is with the destroyer-scale carriers, which are slow in combat and of typical speed outside combat and lack the combat power to take on most dedicated warships without escorts or a good pilot. A four deck cruiser-scale carrier is going to have to cost in the neighborhood of 15 logistics to avoid outclassing the Astral as a dedicated carrier, which borders on what a capital ship costs.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3034
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2014, 01:48:01 PM »

My main reasoning for buffing the Condor is that the Gemini is a completely superior choice currently. Same logistics cost, same carrier capability, but better cargo capability. Why ever use a Condor when the Gemini is "a common freighter"? Why does the Condor even exist if the Gemini is so much better? The Condor is literally inferior in every stat except Armor and Hull, but who cares about Armor/Hull when you have a good Shield. If you look at the CR/deployment, the Condor actually costs more than the Gemini to use. The Condor needs to be either faster than or have more decks than the Gemini to justify its existence.


Obviously all the ships in question would have to be rebalanced to compensate for the added flight decks, that is without question. But you are somewhat cherry-picking by choosing the Logistic Cost. It makes sense for the Gemini-to-Tarsus comparison, but I could easily choose the Deployment Cost to point out that the Astral is by far the superior choice over anything else. Even a straight change of just giving the Condor two decks still doesn't make it more efficient per Deployment Point than an Astral.

I'm sure the carriers are currently balanced (or at least very close), but the number of decks on each ship seems gamey and not to scale with the ships themselves. I highly doubt the ships couldn't be rebalanced with higher deck counts, and it would make the Astral less of such a ridiculous jump from the lower carriers.

I mean seriously? 1 deck for all but two ships, one of which has 2 decks and the other has 6! There is a definite lack of progression there.


As a side-note, giving the Destroyer-sized dedicated carrier 2 decks would allow a Frigate-sized dedicated carrier with 1 deck to make more sense. I'm not really interested in a carrier frigate, but I've seen other people express interest.
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2014, 01:55:33 PM »

I don't see a problem with the Gemini being superior to the Condor (although why it has great cargo capacity when the Condor has to sacrifice most of the Tarsus's capacity for its flight deck is a mystery). The Condor after all is a manual conversion for fleets that can't get a real carrier, in that I see it as being similar to the Buffalo Mk.II conversion.
Logged

Aeson

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2014, 05:38:13 PM »

If you look at the CR/deployment, the Condor actually costs more than the Gemini to use.
Actually, no, it doesn't. The Gemini takes 2 days to recover from deployment, same as the Condor does, and since the ship consumes the same number of supplies per day, the cost of deploying a Gemini is exactly the same as the cost of deploying a Condor. The Gemini is better suited to multiple deployments because it loses less CR per deployment, but the cost of deployment isn't any less. The Gemini does cost less to operate because it requires roughly half the crew of the Condor.

Why ever use a Condor when the Gemini is "a common freighter"? Why does the Condor even exist if the Gemini is so much better?
Why does the Buffalo Mk II exist? That ship's a piece of refuse by almost any rational comparison to any real combatant out there, including most frigates. It exists because the better ships aren't necessarily available in sufficient numbers, or at all. Same reason for the Condor, although the Condor is a much better military conversion of a civilian freighter for combat than the Buffalo II is unless you need the missile spam more than you need shields. Also, if the bit in the Condor's description about being used during the Domain period is true, there is a chance that the Condor could predate the Gemini and would thus represent an experiment in carrier design.

But you are somewhat cherry-picking by choosing the Logistic Cost. It makes sense for the Gemini-to-Tarsus comparison, but I could easily choose the Deployment Cost to point out that the Astral is by far the superior choice over anything else. Even a straight change of just giving the Condor two decks still doesn't make it more efficient per Deployment Point than an Astral.
True, but the deployment costs for the Condor/Gemini/Heron/Astral are 9/9/14/22, which gives 9/9/7/3.67 deployment points per flight deck, which is basically the same pattern though a bit more extreme. 2 flight decks on the Condor would reduce it to 4.5 deployment points per flight deck, nearly as good as what the Astral has, much better than what the Heron or the Gemini offer, and for less logistics per flight deck than anything else out there if nothing other than the flight deck count changed. That it isn't quite as good as the best currently-existing carrier doesn't strike me as a strong argument for why it'd be fine when it's also significantly better than both other existing carriers. You could up the deployment point cost of the Condor slightly, but the Condor is at 9, the highest destroyer is at 11, and the smallest cruiser is at 12, and 11 deployment points for 2 flight decks at burn-4 is still way better than what the Heron offers, especially in combination with its much lower logistical footprint.

Obviously all the ships in question would have to be rebalanced to compensate for the added flight decks, that is without question.
...
I mean seriously? 1 deck for all but two ships, one of which has 2 decks and the other has 6! There is a definite lack of progression there.
My issue is that I don't see a good reason to undertake the rebalancing that you're asking for. I think that the "issue" of 1 deck, 1 deck, 2 decks, 6 decks is overstated, and could be adequately solved by adding an intermediate cruiser-scale or capital-scale carrier with three or four flight decks at an appropriate cost. I also feel that a ship such as the Heron which is a good ~50% larger by hull image file area than the Condor probably shouldn't have merely the same number of flight decks as it does if they're both dedicated carriers, especially when one was purpose-built and the other is a conversion job. I further don't see why the Condor's limitations relative to the Gemini are a bad thing; I've already explained that I feel that the Gemini is not really a civilian vessel despite the claim within its description text that it is. You may disagree, but the Gemini is awfully heavily armed for a civilian freighter, it has a shield generator whose statistics are entirely normal for a midline combatant with an omni shield, it has fairly decent flux statistics, and it has a fairly nice ship system for combat. At the very least, it was intended to be an easy conversion for military use if it wasn't a military vessel, or perhaps a Q-ship, from the drawing board.

I also disagree about the 'lack of progression.' There is a very clear progression in logistical and deployment point efficiency as the dedicated carriers grow larger. There is a reasonably clear progression of durability.

Also, "1 deck for all but 2 ships" sounds kind of misleading - there are only four dedicated combat-capable carriers in the game, and two of them have more than 1 flight deck. The two that don't are much smaller than the other two - by sprite image dimension, the Gemini and Condor each have roughly two-thirds the cross-sectional area of the Heron, while the Astral's sprite dimension puts its cross-sectional area at about 4 times that of the Heron (~6 times that of the Gemini or Condor). The three non-dedicated carriers are a freighter that dies to just about anything in the game and a pair of hybrid warships. That those three ships have 'only' one flight deck is more about how much of their other role you want to sacrifice to pay for the flight deck, and the answer for ships whose primary roles are 'battlecruiser' and 'medium cruiser' and 'superfreighter' seems to have been along the lines of 'not much' (it should also be noticed that the Odyssey sprite has slightly less than half the cross-sectional area of the Astral sprite, or slightly less than double the cross-sectional area of the Heron sprite, going by the pixel dimensions of the image files; Odysseys are the smallest capital ships in the game by sprite area).
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3034
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2014, 07:51:42 PM »

Actually, no, it doesn't. The Gemini takes 2 days to recover from deployment, same as the Condor does, and since the ship consumes the same number of supplies per day, the cost of deploying a Gemini is exactly the same as the cost of deploying a Condor. The Gemini is better suited to multiple deployments because it loses less CR per deployment, but the cost of deployment isn't any less. The Gemini does cost less to operate because it requires roughly half the crew of the Condor.

I misinterpreted CR/deployment's relation to Supply use. Apologies.

True, but the deployment costs for the Condor/Gemini/Heron/Astral are 9/9/14/22, which gives 9/9/7/3.67 deployment points per flight deck, which is basically the same pattern though a bit more extreme. 2 flight decks on the Condor would reduce it to 4.5 deployment points per flight deck, nearly as good as what the Astral has, much better than what the Heron or the Gemini offer, and for less logistics per flight deck than anything else out there if nothing other than the flight deck count changed. That it isn't quite as good as the best currently-existing carrier doesn't strike me as a strong argument for why it'd be fine when it's also significantly better than both other existing carriers. You could up the deployment point cost of the Condor slightly, but the Condor is at 9, the highest destroyer is at 11, and the smallest cruiser is at 12, and 11 deployment points for 2 flight decks at burn-4 is still way better than what the Heron offers, especially in combination with its much lower logistical footprint.

My issue is that I don't see a good reason to undertake the rebalancing that you're asking for. I think that the "issue" of 1 deck, 1 deck, 2 decks, 6 decks is overstated, and could be adequately solved by adding an intermediate cruiser-scale or capital-scale carrier with three or four flight decks at an appropriate cost. I also feel that a ship such as the Heron which is a good ~50% larger by hull image file area than the Condor probably shouldn't have merely the same number of flight decks as it does if they're both dedicated carriers, especially when one was purpose-built and the other is a conversion job. I further don't see why the Condor's limitations relative to the Gemini are a bad thing; I've already explained that I feel that the Gemini is not really a civilian vessel despite the claim within its description text that it is. You may disagree, but the Gemini is awfully heavily armed for a civilian freighter, it has a shield generator whose statistics are entirely normal for a midline combatant with an omni shield, it has fairly decent flux statistics, and it has a fairly nice ship system for combat. At the very least, it was intended to be an easy conversion for military use if it wasn't a military vessel, or perhaps a Q-ship, from the drawing board.

If the Condor was bumped up to 2 decks, then it seems like a decent balancing point would be 7 Logistics. The Heron would be changed to 3 decks and 11 Logistics. Deployment points would stay the same. This would come out to the Heron being slightly inferior per Logistic point and Deployment point in regards to flight decks, but the Heron gets a huge bump up in survivability. The Heron is over twice as fast and all around tougher than the Condor. I would change the Condor's designation from Light Carrier to Carrier in this case, to reflect its superior deck capability.


I suspect that a lot of my issues with how decks are distributed comes from, as you pointed out, the fact that there are only 4 dedicated carrier classes in the game. I think that if we had more carrier classes to cover all the intermediate areas, then my idea would become irrelevant.

Given the backstory, I would expect the Sector to have possibly hundreds of different base hull designs available to varying degrees. I can hear David screaming, "Nooooooo!!!!" from here though. :P

---
I guess I'll concede that if it aint broke, don't fix it.
---

Though I find the Condor's speed very odd. Since the Condor has less surface area than the Tarsus, which means a significant reduction in armor weight, and it doesn't carry anywhere near as much weight in cargo, the Condor should have a higher speed than the Tarsus. Perhaps 50 or even 55. It doesn't seem particularly logical for it to be slower than the freighter it's based on when it has an entire section of hull removed. And honestly, how often does the Fast Missile Rack really come in handy? Looking at the sprite, the Condor has two less engines, but all its engines are bigger than on the Tarsus, so I think its ability should be switched to Burn Drive to match the Tarsus. This would change the Condor from just being a poor man's Gemini to being a durable carrier that can easily escape a battle gone wrong.

There, nicely differentiated. Coincidentally in a similar way as the Tarsus is differentiated from the... holy crap the Buffalo is bad. I see it's a little cheaper to run due to crew costs, but you'd think it would have at least slightly more cargo space than a Tarsus. Yeesh. I wonder why the Buffalo doesn't have 350 or 400 cargo space. Or at least better fuel efficiency.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7326
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2014, 08:48:09 PM »

I actually think the Fast Missile Racks gives the Condor a significant edge as a missile support ship over the Gemini. The Gemini you kind of want engaged in combat because of its ballistic mounts, speed, and drones - The Condor wants to stay back and bombard, and the AI does a good job with that.

I do think the Gemini is a better ship, but for me its entirely due to its out of combat freight capacity, rather than in combat.
Logged

Aeson

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2014, 09:33:38 PM »

Though I find the Condor's speed very odd. Since the Condor has less surface area than the Tarsus, which means a significant reduction in armor weight, and it doesn't carry anywhere near as much weight in cargo, the Condor should have a higher speed than the Tarsus. Perhaps 50 or even 55. It doesn't seem particularly logical for it to be slower than the freighter it's based on when it has an entire section of hull removed. And honestly, how often does the Fast Missile Rack really come in handy? Looking at the sprite, the Condor has two less engines, but all its engines are bigger than on the Tarsus, so I think its ability should be switched to Burn Drive to match the Tarsus. This would change the Condor from just being a poor man's Gemini to being a durable carrier that can easily escape a battle gone wrong.
I could go either way on Fast Missile Racks or Burn Drive. As Megas says, Fast Missile Racks is a very useful ability for improving the Condor's performance in the missile support role, but on the other hand Burn Drive would give the Condor a halfway decent chance at running away from something that engages it, at least long enough for its escorts to respond. But then again, the Condor is a fairly tough carrier and if it's being threatened by a frigate or a destroyer rather than a heavier ship, its escort probably has time to respond anyways.

As far as explaining the speed drop goes, all I can guess is that whatever went into reinforcing the hull from 4250 to 5000 and bumping the armor from 400 to 500 was sufficient to counteract the removal of the starboard pylon. The apparent changes to the power systems, as indicated by the differences in flux capacity and venting, may also have contributed to the degraded performance, as might control issues arising from its no longer symmetrical mass distribution (though based on the apparent size of the thrusters, it looks like they tried to balance that out at least partially with the thrust distribution).

Coincidentally in a similar way as the Tarsus is differentiated from the... holy crap the Buffalo is bad. I see it's a little cheaper to run due to crew costs, but you'd think it would have at least slightly more cargo space than a Tarsus. Yeesh. I wonder why the Buffalo doesn't have 350 or 400 cargo space. Or at least better fuel efficiency.
Yes, that is a bit odd. It looks like between this version and the last version Alex standardized fuel consumption rates; I'm fairly certain that there used to be a great deal more variability there, with high tech ships being generally more fuel efficient than midline ships, and midline ships being generally more fuel-efficient than the low-tech ships. Not sure that I'd say that the Buffalo is bad, if we're referring to it acting as a freighter, since it's (barely) more logistically efficient as a cargo hauler, but it's certainly not something you want going into combat and is much less capable of surviving if it should find itself drawn into a fight.

I suspect that a lot of my issues with how decks are distributed comes from, as you pointed out, the fact that there are only 4 dedicated carrier classes in the game. I think that if we had more carrier classes to cover all the intermediate areas, then my idea would become irrelevant.
More appropriately-costed carriers won't meet any objections from me; there's a hole for a burn-3 carrier at cruiser scale or at the light end of the capital scale to explain why the Heron is a 'fast' carrier rather than just a carrier, unless the 'fast' designation refers to its combat speed rather than its burn speed.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3034
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2014, 09:53:00 PM »

I could go either way, too. On one hand, FMR gives it a decent combat ability. On the other, BD gives it a decent chance to escape, especially in a pursuit scenario. And remember, if one carrier makes it out alive, so do all your fighter squadrons.

Well, yeah. The Buffalo's not actually bad, but you would think it would stand out from the Tarsus a tiny bit more. The Tarsus is, of course, very survivable, so you'd think the Buffalo would be more than a little bit better on the logistics end, but it's not. :(
The Pirate Buffalo gets shielded cargo bays and a ballistic turret instead of an energy one, for what it's worth.
Logged

Kipcha

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • CORE
    • View Profile
Re: Ship Roles StarSector Still Lacks
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2014, 08:48:09 AM »

Missing a Fast Carrier too.

Fastest in the game is either the condor or the gemini at BurnSpeed 4.

Medusa (also a destroyer class like the above two) is BS5.

im suprised the shepard didnt get a token flight deck :<

Id love for a BS6 frigate carrier that was little more than a flight deck with engines. maybe a single PD. Delicate, but fast.

Also the Brawler, what i probably consider the least 'niche filling' ship in the game would probably do alot better with a burn drive. As it stands the wolf can brawl better than it since the Brawler is so slow, it cannot close to brawl. Less of a brawler, more of a sniper platform.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3