Print

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

[Talkie Toaster]

There's no lore justification why the Hammerhead should have to be so unremarkable, though. It's one of a very small number of dedicated combat destroyers. The description states something like "midline destroyer respected for its firepower and staying power in battle". Pretty much a description of an Enforcer, save for the midline part, ironically. Definitely not a good description of what the Hammerhead is.

The staying power in particular really suffers from it having missiles as a primary armament. It's way too common for the AI to dump more harpoons than necessary into a target, even when for the sake of continued performance it could probably get away with using 1 to strip armour and then hit the exposed hull with AAFed kinetics

[Mass Driver]

I, for one, don't hate Hammerhead. What I really hate is its default loadout (2 assault chainguns and 2 sabots, seriously?). Disregarding that it's pretty mediocre but solid ship, and every space game needs mediocre ships.

[Xanderzoo]

I'm with Mass Driver. I don't think the Hammerhead needs a buff, I think its loadout does. A loadout I like is Heavy Autocannons/Hypervelocity Drivers in the ballistic turrets, and Harpoons in the missile turrets. It becomes reasonably effective when you do this.

[Megas]

Hammerhead needs more OP for configurations comparable to what I can put on the other three combat destroyers.  Even with +30% OP and Optimized Assembly, I struggle to get everything to my satisfaction.

[TaLaR]

I'm with Mass Driver. I don't think the Hammerhead needs a buff, I think its loadout does. A loadout I like is Heavy Autocannons/Hypervelocity Drivers in the ballistic turrets, and Harpoons in the missile turrets. It becomes reasonably effective when you do this.

Why bothering with visual symmetry? Obviously best use for the only 2 med ballistic slots is HE+Kinetic combo.
- Energy slots can't replace either and are needed for PD.
- Just 2 small missiles are really lacking as the only HE source, and completely fail as Kinetics (neighboring topic about sabots).
=> It's the only way to get proper HE+Kinetics on Hammerhead. Otherwise you get pure support ship which can't do anything worthwhile on it's own. (Too hard to efficiently use for AI, too low impact on battlefield to be worth Player piloting)

Anyway, as is, even best configuration of Hammerhead isn't remarkable for either AI or Player use.

[TheHengeProphet]

Prior to this discussion, the Hammerhead was my go-to frigate benchmark.  If an AI, in my frigate, could take out a Hammerhead on its own, It was configured well enough for me.  That might emphasize how low my opinion of this ship is.

Anyways, because of this discussion, I decided to buy one for once and mess around with it to see if I could get it usable as is.  And by usable, I mean usable in AI hands, as I benchmark everything under AI control (I find it increases the survivability of my fleet).  I had a very hard time with this...  And this is WITH all of the OP from the tech tree being maxed.

Anyways, I found that it fit well in a support role if I loaded up dual Heavy Needlers, or especially well if I used Hyper Velocity Drivers (due to the EMP).  In end, though, I found the best use was with one HVD (or HN) and one Mauler, giving me good range kinetic power, and decent long-range HE damage.  This allowed me to dump Salamanders in the missie slots and have Burst PD in the energy slots.  These weapons fired slowly and strongly enough that the ship could actually leave flux management for its shields instead of worrying about overloading all the time, and at a distance where shield management was much more reasonable.

What I'm trying to say is that I had a hard time kitting it usefully with the OP given.

While this made the ship relatively usable, it still couldn't muster being much more than a support ship in my opinion.

With the upcoming adjustment to the AAL, more aggressive weaponry will be able to be loaded, which should make a huge difference.

[Harmful Mechanic]

I think part of the problem is that, with the flux bonus removed, the Hammerhead, which ran hot at the best of times and skirted overload a lot, no longer has the option of using the forward energy slots (or all, if you're running Tac Lasers) to convert that high flux into extra damage in tight spots. So you end up stuck with solid fits like Mauler/Needler, which don't benefit at all from the ship system, or you close in, hit F, and either drop shields and take it on the chin (which you don't have the armor to do) or keep your shields up and risk overload, with no easy way to back out fast if things go down the toilet.

[Dri]

I don't think the flux energy bonus was all that big a deal on the Hammerhead. Hell, light energy weapons other than the tac lasers are easily outranged by the better medium ballistic weapons and wouldn't even see that much action.

[Xanderzoo]

Well, sometimes I switch the Harpoons for Annihilators. That way I have what is essentially a flux-free assault gun with a reasonable amount of ammo.

[Linnis]

You see that naked spine? Well your missing part of your ship there, at least it looks kinda cool.

 Maybe we could get some extra op and get a medium missile slot there.

[Sproginator]

Long though I have loved the Hammerhead, I agree that it needs a buff. What I would like to see: a mini-conquest! The ship has a system that could potentially be very powerful, but everyone agrees doesn't work. What if we build around the system?

• Change the front small missiles to ballistics for synergy with the ship system.
• Boost OP by 15.
• Make the flux stats: Capacity: 10,000, Dissipation: 600
• Nerf the shield efficiency: 1.6? 1.8? Nerf the shield so that the ship's survivability is the same as now with the higher flux stats.

Two medium mounts + 2 smalls going at double fire rate (and not driving the ships flux through the roof in 2 seconds) is a tremendous amount of firepower for a destroyer. Basically, when the Hammerhead gets something in front of it and opens up, that thing is in serious trouble. If it is flanked it is in trouble, as now.

Completely agree with this

[CopperCoyote]

I can't wait to try the buffed AAF!

In the meantime i use Hammerheads as missile shield walls. I give them 360 shields and merely 2 PD lasers on the rear energies. On the front i give them tac-lasers if their ballistics are kinetic and pulse lasers if explosive. The missiles are either all salamanders or annihilators depending on the percentage of ships with HE ballistic mounts. I group up 6 or so and have them mob targets.

Yes massed anything does pretty well in Starsector, but hammerheads have enough tank, and enough bite that massed like that they feel every bit as potent as 6 enforcers and more potent than 6 medusas. They're less likely to take damage massed like that than enforcers too (though they just die if something gets them instead of damaged like enforcers). The last aspect that i like them for (when massed) is they hold control points very well. Their large bubbles of shields keep the stray shots and missiles from pounding the ones that fall back to vent. So long as the attacking enemy ships aren't strong enough to just outright kill a hammerhead they can keep this up for quite a while.

The last aspect of hammerhead i like is they benefit from basically every part of the tech tree. Their armor is good enough that the armor skills feel useful and they have enough OP and enough flux and enough venting that all my favorite tech skills will noticeably help them. I frequently stop at 5 ranks in the command point skill and only put ranks in the fleet size skill so i have 25 ranks to funnel back into tech so i can get most of the tech skills making my hammerheads better in every way.

Having said all that if i could buy and fit 6 Enforcers then i'd still buy them instead. Having independently viable ships is better because it allows me more flexibility in the size of fleets i attack. I also like the missiles in this game, a lot, and having 2X as many makes the enforcers more desirable than combat potency alone would suggest.



If the buff to AAF doesn't end up helping the hammerheads enough to make them a viable choice at low levels then I'd say making the hammerhead more tanky would be good enough to bring more of them to a fight. They go from 0 to dead too fast, and while doing so they don't even have the ability to assassinate something like sunders can. Though trading 1:1 in this game means you're going to starve to death.

You see that naked spine? Well your missing part of your ship there, at least it looks kinda cool.

 Maybe we could get some extra op and get a medium missile slot there.

Maybe in those cubbies you could nestle drone control stations instead of the AAF. It would admittedly need a change of the sprite. But just a little fattening for room for the drone control and maybe a couple antennas and i'd buy that that's supposed to be a drone command module. Depending on the drones you could use it to make up for the lackluster PD and use those small mounts more aggressively. Or use them for added flux free shield pressure. Or use them to do HE to ward off the fighters (like broadswords) that are frequently the biggest threat to their flux pool. Drones are pretty neat, and there is a lot of things they could do. It might actually be neat to use the new reskin system to have 3 or 4 flavors of hammerheads. Each with their own optimal role. That'd kind of fit with the other core ships (except eagle and gemini). Do one thing very well.

Another Meh ship I don't currently have time to elaborate on is the Eagle. Basically it suffers the same fate as the hammerhead. It doesn't tank well enough to keep up pressure like the aurora nor does it smash things like the dominator. It also suffers from hyper wobble when the AI panics. There's also the placement of the weapons. I'd want the ballistics to be the turrets and the energies to be the hard points, but currently it just extenuates the range disparity between the two weapon types. Also not enough missiles, but that's just a personal preference.

[Xanderzoo]

I personally find Eagles to be reasonably powerful. 

[Thaago]

I like Eagles quite a bit - 3x tac laser and 3x graviton is downright nasty to destroyers and below if you have a mauler on the bow to crack armor. I usually put another 2 kinetics also, but 2 maulers would be better against low tech. Its not as good as a Dominator against capitals, but its downright scary against swarms and the maneuvering jets get it out of tight spots.

[Megas]

Eagle is good.  It can mount a nice combination of assault and PD guns, and it can kite very well (though it requires unlocked hullmods to do so).  The only thing it really lacks is many missile mounts, so it cannot kill fleets with Reaper spam like Aurora or Dominator can.

Falcon, on the other hand, seems mediocre too.  It feels like a Hammerhead that trades Ammo Feeder for Maneuverability Jets.  Falcon is a destroyer in a crusier chassis, and that is more of a liability than a benefit.