Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Guide to new LAMS

#11
Consider also using a laser combiner turret with a CIWS controller for antimissile purposes! This retains the power of the old LAMS with comparable or greater range to them, though it can't match the range of the new ones without a huge amount of deck space invested.
Reply

#12
(2018-11-07, 02:29 AM)Pastor of Muppets Wrote: I was just using a test platform with 3 Thyr torpedo turrets as a test target because it was quick to set up. My 3 (12 actual) 3-block little interceptors totally dominated those Thyr torpedoes. I think you're justified to nerf them a bit. A 25% damage reduction seems about right.

you can't make a balance decision based on a ship using torpedoes designed under the old system.  Last patch note for the Thyr was pre-missile changes when it got mimics.  The Thyr's torpedoes only have 880 HP on account of being mostly warhead and are extremely slow.  A decision like that should have tradeoffs.  Adding 1 single body boosts the HP to 1060/missile and thus outside the 1 interceptor/1 kill range.  If you're willing to mount almost as many interceptors as the enemy has missiles then the enemy should have to be making some sacrifice to get through that defense. These are 18m long weapons and they're now 4x stronger: the builder has plenty of room to harden them, there's also a good chance they're damaging each other, they have a 32m base blast radius now.

as for 3 block: interceptors are always going to be smaller and cheaper, there's no way to buff the head and frankly trading 1:1 for cost is just off.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply

#13
(2018-11-12, 11:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:
(2018-11-07, 02:29 AM)Pastor of Muppets Wrote: I was just using a test platform with 3 Thyr torpedo turrets as a test target because it was quick to set up. My 3 (12 actual) 3-block little interceptors totally dominated those Thyr torpedoes. I think you're justified to nerf them a bit. A 25% damage reduction seems about right.

you can't make a balance decision based on a ship using torpedoes designed under the old system.  Last patch note for the Thyr was pre-missile changes when it got mimics.  The Thyr's torpedoes only have 880 HP on account of being mostly warhead and are extremely slow.  A decision like that should have tradeoffs.  Adding 1 single body boosts the HP to 1060/missile and thus outside the 1 interceptor/1 kill range.  If you're willing to mount almost as many interceptors as the enemy has missiles then the enemy should have to be making some sacrifice to get through that defense.  These are 18m long weapons and they're now 4x stronger: the builder has plenty of room to harden them, there's also a good chance they're damaging each other, they have a 32m base blast radius now.

Anti-missile defense should be layered. Decoys, interceptors, then LAMS to finish off the weakened missiles.
Reply

#14
(2018-11-06, 11:48 PM)Pastor of Muppets Wrote: Storage-based LAMS falls on its face when pitted against sustained and rapid barrages like the APS spam from the Kobold and SD FBTs. It also doesn't excel against massive barrages of high hp munitions, like from the Thunderclap. The full energy cost combines with the anemic 20% damage output and eats the LAMS' stored energy rapidly and the damage output drops accordingly. At saturation, a storage-based LAMS is about as pointless as waving your weiner at the bullets.

Relying on big reserves of energy which start empty and take dozens of seconds to fill sucks too. Have fun eating that alpha strike with an empty LAMS.

I look forward to spam APS nerfs. That would change the situation a bit.

Spam defeats everything, sadly. But against barrages one should rely on combined measures, such as range, speed, maneuverability, layered anti-missile defenses. I believe that a massibe barrage of a huge battleship should not be just erased by lasers. Either dodge, or withstand.
Reply

#15
I have never once said LAMS should defend against everything.

I am not relying entirely on LAMS and have not been because that would be stupid. The ship has layered shields, a CIWS, torpedo interceptors, and a LAMS.

I have been arguing that LAMS is weaker against high total hp broadsides and spam because it saturates too easily, but it also is now better against small manageable salvoes. This is not ideal because the net result is that the LAMS change has given one more incentive to use spam because a moderate salvo will not get through. I have yet to see conclusive proof that this is incorrect.

Lincrono, the reason I suggested that intercepters should be nerfed a little bit is precisely because an interceptor installation totalling about 10-15 blocks can totally defeat a torpedo barrage costing hugely more. Nowhere did I say 1:1 cost. You said that. I said: "I think you're justified to nerf them a bit. A 25% damage reduction seems about right." You want a suggestion? Missiles with interceptor heads get an HE damage debuff something like APS sabot parts do.

I know spam is the strongest tactic already. Why incentivize it further?
Reply

#16
(2018-11-12, 05:58 PM)Pastor of Muppets Wrote: I have been arguing that LAMS is weaker against high total hp broadsides and spam because it saturates too easily, but it also is now better against small manageable salvoes. This is not ideal because the net result is that the LAMS change has given one more incentive to use spam because a moderate salvo will not get through. I have yet to see conclusive proof that this is incorrect.

You got that completely backwards: LAMS is relatively stronger against burst now and not as silly cheap against damage trickling in.
See my offer in the other thread:
- get huge HP broadside enemy
- build something in 2.16 against it
- win spaghetti if it's better than my LAMS in current version

https://forum.fromthedepthsgame.com/show...#pid385858

Based on your understanding it's an easy win for you, show us.
Reply

#17
As I said in the other thread, I will not waste any more time trying to convince you of anything. You have shown yourself incapable of being convinced of anything. You are too in love with your own ideas.

I don't even know why you're still arguing with me. You already practically admitted you preferred the exact settings I've been advocating when you said this in the other thread:

(2018-11-07, 01:59 AM)draba Wrote: I did all that and more, and some more, and then some more when making this mod(and checking out how it plays with my old missile mod):
https://forum.fromthedepthsgame.com/show...?tid=32092

That exact 50% power draw reduction is actually in the laser mod, but everything has to go through Nick and the LAMS change was already pushing it.

The link in that quote goes to your laser mod thread, which says this (I chopped out the bits irrelevant to this conversation):

(2017-12-12, 03:08 AM)draba (from the laser mod thread) Wrote: - Lasers have a fixed inaccuracy of 0.05° (+-1.75m error at 2000m)
- Laser pump energy output(DPS) reduced to 20% of it's previous value.
- Power cost/energy doubled, so it's 40% of a vanilla system with the same parts.


And now you have chased me into this other thread to advertise your dick-waving contest, which would waste even more of my time and prove nothing useful. I am not interested in continuing this argument further.
Reply

#18
This was draba's thread. You chased him, here, not the other way around.
Reply

#19
(2018-11-13, 02:22 AM)Pastor of Muppets Wrote: I don't even know why you're still arguing with me. You already practically admitted you preferred the exact settings I've been advocating when you said this in the other thread:
(2018-11-07, 01:31 AM)Pastor of Muppets Wrote: Try these scenarios if you have the time:

1.) 0.05 deg. accuracy, 50% damage, full power draw.

2.) 0.05 deg. accuracy, 20-25% damage, 50% power draw.

One is a universal 150% damage buff, the other(40-50% draw, 20% damage that I aim for) a ~10% material/volume discount for storage, ~25% for no storage.
I'm arguing because I know that these are nowhere near similar.

(2018-11-13, 02:22 AM)Pastor of Muppets Wrote: ...

You still say in the thread for my guide that current LAMS can't deal with walls of high-HP lead as well as the old one.
There is a very simple way to demonstrate that, throw both in against the same bigass cannons and see which survives longer.
Time to put your theory to the test, finally just show instead of telling.
Reply

#20
Pastor, Drambor is right. You're the one that brought up the contents of the other thread. Drop it down a notch, please
[Image: BseTIqf.png?1]
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)