Scout MkII (Combat Refit)

This topic contains 9 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Rakaydos 2 weeks, 4 days ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32940

    Nhaima
    Participant

    The current iteration of the Scout has extremely poor offensive capability and terrible staying power. It’s more of a in system scout craft than one meant to be attached to a light division. Combat data taken from a recent sortie of the TSN Hunter has lead to the following conclusions, relative to the current incarnation:
    – Increased turn rate
    – Drastically improved ship efficiency
    – Slightly improved warp efficiency (still below current TSN baseline)
    – Primary Beam:
    — Decreased damage
    — Slightly increased range
    – Added rear point defense beam
    – Added second torpedo tube
    – Increased homing storage to 8
    – Increased PShock storage to 8

    Scout beam diagram

    This concept can be tested via the following:

      <vessel    uniqueID="1"    side="0"       classname="Scout MkII" broadType="player">
        <art     meshfile="dat/artemis-scout.dxs"    diffuseFile="dat/artemis_diffuse.png"
                 glowFile="dat/artemis_illum.png"    specularFile="dat/artemis_specular.png" scale="0.2" pushRadius="150"/>
        <internal_data file="dat/artemis-scout.snt"/>
        <!-- Weapons and Shields modified (1/4)-->
        <shields front="15" back="15"/>
        <performance turnrate="0.008" topspeed="0.8"  shipefficiency="0.1" warpefficiency="0.6" jumpefficiency="1.0"/>
        <beam_port x="0" y="17.8" z="289.0" damage="0.25" playerdamage="2" arcwidth="0.4" cycletime="6.0" range="1100"/>
        <beam_port x="0" y="-37.23" z="-273.50" damage="0.25" playerdamage="2" arcwidth="0.1" cycletime="6.0" range="500"/>
        <torpedo_tube x="0" y="8.35" z="258.74"/>
        <torpedo_tube x="0" y="8.35" z="258.74"/>
        <torpedo_storage type="trp" amount="8"/>  <!-- Homing"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="nuk" amount="0"/>  <!-- LR Nuke-->
        <torpedo_storage type="min" amount="2"/>  <!-- Mine"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="emp" amount="2"/>  <!-- EMP"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="shk" amount="8"/>  <!-- Plasma Shock"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="bea" amount="8"/>  <!-- Beacon"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="pro" amount="8"/>  <!-- Probe"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="tag" amount="8"/>  <!-- Tag"-->
        <engine_port x="0" y="-9.22" z="-300"/>
        <engine_port x="0" y="29.64" z="-300"/>
        <long_desc text="TSN Scout, 2239 refit^Long range scout vessel of the TSN.^1 forward beam, 1 rear point defense beam^1 Torpedo tube^Stores for 8 homing, 2 mines, 2 ECM, 8 PShock."/>
      </vessel>
    #32943

    Rakaydos
    Participant

    The addition of the second tube and significant Pshock stores effectively makes it Horizon Lite, with most of it’s combat capability taking the form of “one and one” salvoes. I disagree in principle with having ships be better or worse versions of each other, and would prefer to cut off my nose to spite my face by giving it only a single Pshock, but an extra mine. The homing missile spam at FCS is effective, though not as effective as homing+pshock.

    The warp efficency isnt quite what it should be, either. I guess I was wrong about that.

    #32944

    Nhaima
    Participant

    Updates from today’s discussion:
    – Pshock count dropping to 1, to prevent the Scout Mk2 from turning into Horizon-lite. Plus it still has plenty of beacons (and the second tube) to serve as an anti-biological platform when such a need arises.
    – Changing the rear point defense beam to a ~300 degree, forward facing beam. I was originally concerned this might be perceived as “too powerful” and that the rear-facing beam could be used to help peel drones away from friendly ships and then offer some measure of safety while destroying them, but Xavier suggested a “[r]apid fire, but low damage” beam instead so making that alteration.
    – Improving warp efficiency further to 0.3. Rakaydos reported that the previous 0.6 didn’t feel right even with 0.1 ship efficiency, so Matisyan suggested bringing it in line with the main line of TSN vessels. With this change, all systems 100% and shields down results in an average gain of 1 energy per ~5 seconds at warp 2, the loss of a less than a point of energy per second at warp 3, and about two points per second at warp 4. This should hopefully feel more comfortable and do better to achieve the “Energizer Bunny” feel which has been mentioned.

    Updated beam diagram

    New draft of vessel implementation:

    <vessel    uniqueID="1"    side="0"       classname="Scout MkII" broadType="player">
        <art     meshfile="dat/artemis-scout.dxs"    diffuseFile="dat/artemis_diffuse.png"
                 glowFile="dat/artemis_illum.png"    specularFile="dat/artemis_specular.png" scale="0.2" pushRadius="150"/>
        <internal_data file="dat/artemis-scout.snt"/>
        <!-- Weapons and Shields modified (1/4)-->
        <shields front="15" back="15"/>
        <performance turnrate="0.008" topspeed="0.8"  shipefficiency="0.1" warpefficiency="0.3" jumpefficiency="1.0"/>
        <beam_port x="0" y="17.8" z="289.0" damage="0.25" playerdamage="2" arcwidth="0.4" cycletime="6.0" range="1100"/>
        <beam_port x="0" y="17.8" z="289.0" damage="0.25" playerdamage="0.75" arcwidth="0.83" cycletime="3" range="500"/>
        <torpedo_tube x="0" y="8.35" z="258.74"/>
        <torpedo_tube x="0" y="8.35" z="258.74"/>
        <torpedo_storage type="trp" amount="8"/>  <!-- Homing"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="nuk" amount="0"/>  <!-- LR Nuke-->
        <torpedo_storage type="min" amount="2"/>  <!-- Mine"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="emp" amount="2"/>  <!-- EMP"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="shk" amount="1"/>  <!-- Plasma Shock"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="bea" amount="8"/>  <!-- Beacon"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="pro" amount="8"/>  <!-- Probe"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="tag" amount="8"/>  <!-- Tag"-->
        <engine_port x="0" y="-9.22" z="-300"/>
        <engine_port x="0" y="29.64" z="-300"/>
        <long_desc text="TSN Scout, 2239 refit^Long range scout vessel of the TSN.^1 forward beam, networked point defense beam^1 Torpedo tube^Stores for 8 homing, 2 mines, 2 ECM, 1 PShock."/>
      </vessel>
    #32960

    Xavier
    Keymaster
      <vessel uniqueID="18" side="0" classname="Scout MkII" broadType="player">
        <art     meshfile="dat/artemis-scout.dxs"    diffuseFile="dat/artemis_diffuse.png"
                 glowFile="dat/artemis_illum.png"    specularFile="dat/artemis_specular.png" scale="0.2" pushRadius="150"/>
        <internal_data file="dat/TSN/Player/artemis-scoutII.snt"/>
        <!-- Weapons and Shields modified (1/4)-->
        <shields front="12" back="12"/>
        <performance turnrate="0.0064" topspeed="1.0"  shipefficiency="0.1" warpefficiency="0.2" jumpefficiency="1.0"/>
        <beam_port x="0" y="17.8" z="289.0" damage="0.25" playerdamage="2" arcwidth="0.4" cycletime="6.0" range="1000"/>
        <beam_port x="0" y="17.8" z="289.0" damage="0.14" playerdamage="0.6" arcwidth="0.83" cycletime="3" range="500"/>
        <torpedo_tube x="0" y="8.35" z="258.74"/>
        <torpedo_storage type="trp" amount="8"/>  <!-- Homing"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="nuk" amount="0"/>  <!-- LR Nuke-->
        <torpedo_storage type="min" amount="1"/>  <!-- Mine"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="emp" amount="4"/>  <!-- EMP"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="shk" amount="3"/>  <!-- Plasma Shock"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="bea" amount="8"/>  <!-- Beacon"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="pro" amount="10"/>  <!-- Probe"-->
        <torpedo_storage type="tag" amount="8"/>  <!-- Tag"-->
        <engine_port x="0" y="-9.22" z="-300"/>
        <engine_port x="0" y="29.64" z="-300"/>
        <long_desc text="TSN Scout Mk.II^Designed for long-range scouting operations.^1 forward beam. 1 short-range defense beam array.^1 Torpedo tube^Stores for 8 Homing, 1 Mines, 4 EMPs, 3 PShock."/>
      </vessel>

    Some tweaks – 2 additional EMP and 2 additional PShocks to lend support to other ships in engagements. Reduction to 1 mine increases vulnerability to fighters. Turn rate performance has been reduced for stability. It turns slightly slower than the Nemesis class. Top speed has been increased to emphasise rapid redeployment or evasion. Removed additional torpedo tube to limit ordnance deployment (harder to get homing/pshock combos off). Reduced damage caused by short defensive beams so they are not effective in engagements, other than for drone defense. Shields reduced to increase scout vulnerability. SNT file has also been modified to make it more fragile.

    These variations would make it very much a ship for manoeuvring around targets rapidly, and keeping out of intense engagements. Tackling things head on would not be the tactic used, but grabbing enemy fleets attention and holding it for others to attack would be the focus.

    One additional modification could be adding a second defensive beam to increase its ability to destroy multiple drones quickly. I could see this ship being used primarily as a support in the Kappa fleet orders.

    #32968

    Rakaydos
    Participant

    Do you know how many nodes are left in the .snt file? I seem to recall Starry having a tool for that.

    Also, is there a good way to share .snt outside discord?

    #32969

    Nhaima
    Participant

    Best is probably to host it on Google Drive (or similar) and link it here.

    #32979

    Rakaydos
    Participant

    The Cataphract tested point defense beams with slightly more power and range but the same cycle rate. They are total energy hogs… But the scout should be able to handle that. Very good at disabling systems once enemy shields are down.

    #32981

    Rakaydos
    Participant

    Proposed internal layout:

    #32985

    Rakaydos
    Participant

    Saving discord discussion for future reference:

    RakaydosToday at 4:44 PM
    @nhaima is it part of the scouts concept to have half even horizon’s beam damage? Or is it just supposed to reflect being a small, efficient chassis?
    NhaimaToday at 4:51 PM
    A scout in Artemis has “traditionally” been half of a light cruiser’s firepower. I had originally intended for the scout to have two tubes so it could supplement its damage output in the short term with missiles but Xavier removed the second tube in his most recent proposal.
    My aim was for it to have enough damage output that it could meaningfully contribute, but not so much that it would be perceived to be as combat capable as the current four ships.
    RakaydosToday at 4:57 PM
    Would you say Horizon’s “tickle beams” have the same intent, compared to the base Missile Cruiser that lacks any beams at all?
    NhaimaToday at 5:02 PM
    I’d ignore the base missile cruiser since it isn’t a mod ship and I don’t think would really work well at all within the context of the TSN.

    I think that Horizon’s beams are supposed to be distinctly weaker than Viper’s or Lancer’s, for example. They should also be weaker than Sabre’s, but that is a different conversation. These are all ships which are designed around and defined by their beams. The problem with Horizon’s beams are that they have been in the past, including recently, so weak that they disincentivize general use unless fleet/battlegroup command orders Horizon in with a Charlie.
    RakaydosToday at 5:15 PM
    Would you say the same arguments would apply to the energy efficient but not Torp heavy scout?
    NhaimaToday at 5:17 PM
    I think it would especially apply to a scout which doesn’t have the ability to notably supplement with torps. If you don’t have some kind of offensive ability, then you won’t be inclined to use it.
    RakaydosToday at 5:17 PM
    Anyone on Horizons regular crew, feel free to chime in, even after this conversation.
    I’m not supposed to be pushing the scout until I’m done with the Cataphract, but it sounds like the Scout’s beams should be comparable to Horizons, overall.
    Impudence At ArmsToday at 7:03 PM
    If the scout were to continue having only a single tube with fairly harshly limited magazine, I could possibly get behind the scout having a pair of Horizon tickle beams (i.e. the recent 2 damage per shot era). In the interests of maintaining a clear delineation of combat efficacy between the albeit fuzzy class designations, I would be extremely cautious about giving them any more than that.
    RakaydosToday at 8:46 PM
    Or equivilant firepower to two tickle beams.
    XavierToday at 8:53 PM
    The trick is to make it feel like the current scout, but improve its capabilities to keep pace with the division and be useful/ enjoyable for crews
    RakaydosToday at 9:26 PM
    The trick is that the TSN equivilant to the basic light cruiser is actually Viper these days. Everything else is fairly well balanced against that happy medium

    #32986

    Rakaydos
    Participant

    more discord discussion

    XavierToday at 5:21 AM
    Originally, all the ships were variations of the Artemis class. Over time, they have been tweaked based on feedback. The Sabre’s beams for example, were reduced because someone said they were too powerful (not sure who, but I do recall it being mentioned).
    Matthew VajToday at 6:14 AM
    Personally, I don’t see an issue with scouts being significantly less combat effective relative to light cruisers. I do think that they should have better efficiency in general, but the real challenge is how it’s used along with the other ships. I don’t see a scout being tasked with handling a whole fleet on its own, while the currently active ships in the division usually can (to a point). It might be capable of directly combating a few kraliens, but it will take longer and be more difficult. I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing.
    Its real strengths would lie in taking tango and the ability to redeploy and quickly respond to new threats, usually in defensive action.
    I think it’s also important to remember that the gm takes individual ships’ capabilities into account. We’ve been seeing a lot of larger fleets lately, since our current ship roster can handle them. If we had a scout or other lighter ship used more often, we’d see more variation in enemy fleets, giving the scout opportunities to contribute.
    RakaydosToday at 7:08 AM
    If the idea is to make it feel like the existing scout, why is everything combat related getting a Nerf except for Pshock count? Reduced shields, reduced beam output, reduced mine count, reduced hull node count…
    Matthew VajToday at 7:42 AM
    Relative to thur existing scout?
    RakaydosToday at 8:34 AM
    Yes.
    XavierToday at 9:14 AM
    Was the beam made weaker?
    Some of the changes were to make it more fragile, but quicker to manoeuvre
    RakaydosToday at 9:44 AM
    The original scout beam was .5 DPS. (3 damage every 6 seconds) Each of horizons tickle beams are .33 DPS. The quicker to maneuver aspects were already part of the scout concept- the TSN leapfrogging it doesn’t mean the scout needs to trade away capability to leap back into proper position.
    XavierToday at 11:34 AM
    The main beam could be increased to 0.33 or even 0.4. the shorter beam is only for drone defense, so 0.14 should (I think) be sufficient to destroy a drone
    If we increased the cycle rate of the drone defense, or overlapped two, then it would make them better at drone defense, but too weak to deal any significant damage to an enemy ship
    RakaydosToday at 1:46 PM
    You mean decreased to .33 or .4? The base scouts beam is stronger.
    RakaydosToday at 1:53 PM
    Cataphract is already using paired rapid fire beam arrays for fighter interdiction. One of the same arrays could work fine for drone defense on the scout.
    For comparison, each of Vipers beams is .75 DPS, for 1.5 DPS total. Lancer has 4 beams averaging .5 DPS each, for 2.0 DPS.
    Lt. Jr. Thomas AvirsonToday at 2:02 PM
    @rakaydos Those numbers for Lancer’s DPS don’t quite line up.
    NhaimaToday at 2:05 PM
    Lancer’s beams have an average damage of .44 damage per second per beam. 2×1.5 and 2×2.5, all cycling at 4.5 seconds base. 0.5 DPS does make for a nice round number though, so I could see him using it for that purpose.
    Lt. Jr. Thomas AvirsonToday at 2:08 PM
    I can see the appeal of “cleaner” numbers, but imo we’re dealing with small enough amounts that rounding can distort the apparent comparative results.
    EG Viper doesn’t have 75% of Lancer’s DPS, it’s closer to 84%.
    NhaimaToday at 2:13 PM
    That’s true, but I don’t know if the correct ratio between Viper and Lancer’s beam output makes much of a difference when discussing a ship that fits much more in Sabre’s and Horizon’s output bracket.

    That said, you won’t get any disagreement from me that precise and correct numbers are better. In that respect, I completely agree with you Avirson. :thumbsup:
    RakaydosToday at 2:40 PM
    I misremembered Lancers cycle time, and remembered an earlier calculation that must have been off, thank you for the correction.
    So it’s 1.5 for viper, 1.76 for Lancer, 1.31 plus point defense for Cataphract (barring further changes), for the beam heavy ships of the fleet or in development. Horizon’s old .66 DPS, that was deemed too weak to be a secondary armamant on a missile cruiser, should be about right for a combat-refit scout.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.