"Someone else can do the pasta" edition
FAQ: http://pastebin.com/MhAQAJiw
Here's a dropbox with a LOT of CYOA's:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9ijwopa42ke49q1/AAA40vUS2BzstD9eHyyBLTr8a?dl=0
IRC Chat Channel
https://client01.chat.mibbit.com/?url=irc%3A%2F%2Firc.rizon.net%2Fcyoa
what's the latest version of Slut Life look like?
>>44297610
Updated Stardust romance DLC when?
Stardust DLC for men coming at what time?
>>44297540
>Little Girl
I might as well play by the rules.
>Magical Girl
Magic is fun, right?
>Character Creator
Red hair, green eyes, and freckles, here I come!
>Fountain of Youth
Dunno if people could put up with me forever, but you know what? After long enough that might not even matter.
>Sweets
What can I say? Gluttony is one of my greatest vices.
>Wardrobe
Mostly to confuse my friends.
Wish there was an option that let you still be treated as an adult legally, mostly so I could still pay for my own convention passes, bus/train fare, order my own food, be left alone at home, not have to go back to grade school, that sort of thing.
And my passport and everything. Maybe all the legal stuff just gets taken care of?
Rolled 2, 3, 1 = 6 (3d6)
>>44297730
A
>>44297841
Damn, a terrible roll.
Collar, Youth, Transformation, Invisibility, Defence, Resistance
At least I can make myself an immortal shapeshifter
>bothering to post anything but star dust
Ishygddt
>>44297610
I wonder: do you realize how obvious it is that you are the one who posts slut life?
Also, why? There hasn't been an update, you know this. So you just hope people will post builds if you ask for the CYOA and post it?
Why can't you just post the CYOA normally? Must it seem like someone was requesting it?
Oh, the things that keep me up at night
>>44297577
Last Thread: >>44270994
>>44297540
>"Someone else can do the pasta" edition
That's almost every edition, since almost nobody is autistic enough for it.
>>44297890
Nice post. Odd how there isn't any stardust in it.
>>44298164
>>44297890
https://mega.nz/#!xlVHFJwY!Vm0JTm1z7RYA8g10fODtRa1C7dZhKPWAOodeh05BPew
Here's your bookmarked pdf v2.0.1
>>44298164
I don't care for it, but I'm not a little child. I know what will happen.
Actually, Mega is having hiccups right now. Here's Mediafire version.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/jgo7b7hzaf957c9/Star+Dust+CYOA+2.0.1.pdf
>>44298322
Mega is terrible anyway. Use mediafire or dropbox.
>>44298429
>>44298440
>>44298457
>>44298470
How can other ships even compete?
>>44298502
Well for one thing, if you kept everything different but swapped your spinal mounts with three of the railguns, you'd have a better loadout. There's a reason the railguns are more expensive, they're better.
You could also take more than one antimatter cannon. And you could skip the missile launchers and take torpedoes instead. Tesla overchargers are also very short range weapons while most of your other shit isn't, and your ship is big and slow anyway, so they're not a good choice. I think overcharges are more for figthers, frigates and destroyers desu.
>>44297871
>At least I can make myself an immortal shapeshifter
Ladies and gentlemen, the power creep that's killing CYOAs.
The fun lies in using a mixture of luck (in the case of rolls) and cleverness to think up a good build out of a spread of options that have limitations and drawbacks. The entertainment comes from achieving good results with a limited toolbox. If you reach the point where becoming an immortal shapeshifter is considered a bad result, you know that the CYOA in question has stopped including any element of challenge or imagination and has just become a power fantasy.
>>44298486
Here's one of my NPC builds.
I wouldn't say this is 100% accurate (as I have to abide by CYOA constraints), but this at least gives an idea of what I'm goin' for, for these guys.
Now to get some sleep.
>>44298565
>fun policeI completely agree with you.
>>44297841
I haven't actually done this before.
>>44298560
*teleports behind your ship
*charges triple PBC and Particle Blasters
"Nothing personnel.... kid....."
I wanted to make the most balanced loadout possible. PBCs are powerful weapons, but they're not as unwieldy as AMC (and mind you, I made a build with as many AMCs as possible once or twice). That's why they're in the spinal mounts, to alpha-strike battleships while charging forward. Railguns are in the broadside slots because they already have shitty tracking, and with battleship's bad mobility (I maxed it out with upgrades, but still) would only hit big ships. This way I can also hope to hit slow cruisers. I chose missiles instead of torps because they're pretty universal. You can launch heavy missiles, you can launch cluster missiles. Chemical missiles, EMP missiles, anti-missile missiles, the list goes on. Besides, I already have a shitton of anti-battleship weapons, and missiles are ideal against medium targets. Teslas are for close-range engagements with speedy ships, along with LLCs and Flaks and small missiles.
But yeah, it's sort of a dream build. I'm going back to making NPC builds like this one >>44298581, all with a cool photoshopped layout and stuff.
>>44298560
If you look at the stats the railgun implies it has lower dps, due to abysmal fire rate. Though the improved range could be really good for a spinal mount, due to those weapons naturally being pointed towards any target you a heading towards, and the range letting you get your attacks in earlier. However that's much less useful in a protracted engagement or in one where you are on the defense and are not likely to get to start combat pointed towards your opponent.
>>44298581
SDA, do you have a .psd file for this build? It'd be easier to copy your layot than to make it from scratch.
>>44298589
I fucked up the rolling
Got 5 - 1 - 5. That's easily too much. I could make one armor for myself, with all the enchantments.
But that's boring.
Did you know google can roll for you? It can also flip a coin
>Full plate
>Robes
>Collar
Not for fetishshit reasons, but because the enchantments work when out of your armor
>Living
There's something gross about that "when they become damp", but I can't put my finger on it
>Eternal
>Regenerative
>Resistance
>Defense
>Solar power
>Ley lines
>Password
For defense against angry people. You never know.
So I can make unbreakable powerarmor that heals it's user, can only be destroyed if every last bit is melted, that makes the user unaging, more magically powerful and protected against sword and spell even when outside the armor.
Rolled 1, 1, 1 = 3 (3d6)
Rolling
>>44298704
goddamnit.
-latex, youth, transformation.
-Make a shitload of those and wear them everywhere.
-???
-profit
>>44298704
this had a 1 in 216 chance of happening. Of course it happened.
>>44298774
Every possible 3d6 roll has a 1 in 216 chance of happening.
Also that's nothing, try some of the rolls in quests where it actually matters and people roll 1 1 1 on a 3d20.
>>44298791
Yes, but this was my first roll ever. I have never used the dice feature on /tg/ before i think.
I might have once, but then it's still only my second.
>>44298502
>Year 4XXX AD
>Still using battleships, the ship equivalent of using cavalry against machine guns
>Laughing admirals.webm
Carriers were the deciding factor of every major WW2 naval battle. The bombing of Pearl Harbor, carried out by none other than a carrier strike group, did not affect the USN in any significant capacity, since the IJN specifically targeted their battleships, while their CVs were unscathed. The Yamato class battleships, the biggest and baddest of them all, were sunk with very little effort by USN carriers, while having not sunk a single ship on their part. Even after the war, the mighty Iowa, even when modernized with Tomahawk missiles and modern radar based fire control systems, did absolutely nothing but mine clearing and shore bombardment, a task that's already being passed down to destroyers by the introduction of the Zumwalt class DDs.
TL;DR: Battleshits are useless, carrier strike group pride world wide.
>>44298774
That's what happens when you roll.
You have to take the sweet with the sour
>>44298812
>WW2
>naval
Nice example, m8. Remind me, what's the speed of laser beam compared to the speed of the fighter?
>>44298828
>>44298812
And missile pods, and flaks, and brawler drones, etc.
>>44298804
You can only do better
>>44298812
That's because our anti-air is shit. I doubt railguns and lasers are going to be kind to the "lol i shoot a missile from my fighter jet" tactic that seems to be so popular these days.
Battleships also have the advantage of actually being interesting.
>>44298828
Tell me laddy, how's your laser beam fired from a single ship that's going to be detected first and foremost by smaller, stealthier crafts hold up when dozens of drones and fighters each possessing munitions capable of hitting a vital part of your ship and instantly causing it to implode? No health bars in real life buddy, get hit in your engine room or your ammo rack by a single torpedo bomber out of dozens of others going at you at once, and your expensive flagship's gonna go kaboom, when all the carrier's losing is a few drones and fighters.
>>44298853
You mean, stuff that carriers have more of anyways?
>>44298908
Not even CIWS on the Nimitz can reliably intercept Russian anti-carrier missiles if their missile cruisers get in range. This is where scouting with your planes and destroyers come in play, so all your potential threats are identified and eliminated before they become a problem. And even in stardust, all those fancy laser weapons and railguns are said to have shit tracking anyways, they'd not be able to hit a DD reliably, and certainly not a drone. Even in the case of BBs being successful, like Bismarck sinking Hood, Bismarck had to be sailed back to port for repairs. By being in range to hit the enemy, they'd be in range to hit you back too.
>>44298985
Good luck hitting me through my 25/25 armor from indestructibilium alloys and 24/25 eternium-particle shields. Besides, dozens drones is just dozens shots from laser cannons. And I'm pretty sure they can hit hundreds of targets while those drones are moving in.Besides, battleship are extensively used by all sides of the conflict in Star Dust, and it means they are effective. Your headcanon is one thing, and the established universe is another. And bringing RL naval tech into an autistic space opera universe is just bad taste.
>>44298985
>>44299016
>>44298581
>>44298502
Check out this dank carrier
Citizen
940 mil
Diplomacy, Mercantile, adv combat training, adv piloting
The Hellraiser, The Demigod
PRIMARY SHIP
"Asmodai" Carrier
POWER:
Anti-Matter Core, Nuclear Fission
SHIELDING:
Aegis Shielding
COMMAND MODS:
BH Command VR
MI520 "Visage"
HULLMODS:
Teleport Jammer, Shield Extender, Hanger Bay X2, Nano Armour Coating
WEAPON SYSTEMS
SPINAL: Ragefire Railgun
BROADSIDE: Ragefire Railgun X8
POINT DEFENCE: Flak Cannon X8
DRONES:
10 Combat Drones with Auto Cannons
5 Brawler Drones with Spinal Mana Blaster
3 Hull Repair Drones
INDUSTRIAL MODULES:
Composition Scanner, Tractor Beam
E-WAR:
Warp Jammer, Honey pot Module, MITM module
ROOMS:
Crew Quarters Upgrade, Officers Quarters, Captain's Quarters, Advanced Infirmary, Standard Mess Hall+Tavern, Lounge+rec+obs, Laboratory, Cargo Space+Engineering Bay, Hypercomms Room+Digital Security Room, Advanced Arsenal, Training Room, Holding Cells, Secure Vault, Stasis Cell, Cryosleep Chambers, Teleporting Platform
CREW:
Co-Pilots: "Hailey"
Engineers: Troy Hall, Amy mccartney
Doctors: Kelly Moss, Bethany Parks, Tina Wei
Gunners: "Comet"
Combat/Security: Rooks King, Scot Shephard, Patch Newton, Pierre Mikisugi, Gregorz Gregzrolka
Cyber Security: "Slash Singer"
Scientsits: Lauren L. Lazuli, Sarah Escher
Chefs & Bartenders: Jorgen Masterson, Hal
Other: 1000 Civilian Workers. 500 Mercs, 100 researchers
SECONDARY SHIPS-59 mi (total 177)
3X Viper Class Frigate
Fuel Cells
Shield:Advanced Shielding
Pilot: Lieutenant
Weapons: Spinal Artillery Cannon X1
Broadside Autocannon X6
PD Autocannon X2
Shield Drone
TOTAL:938 mio
>>44298985
>ou mean, stuff that carriers have more of anyways?
Doesn't matter that the carriers have more of it, because flaks don't do shit against things like railguns and antimatter cannons.
All the battleship needs is enough PD to protect from torpedoes that the carrier's bombers launch and it's over.
>>44298985
Lasers might have shit tracking in stardust, but stardust is a setting with healthbars. In real life their tracking will end up far better than any missile, and chances are those dozens of torpedo bombers are going to be shot down by dozens of lasers coming from the battleship and its supporting fleet.
>>44299084
Oh, so you think I'm going to park my carrier next to your battleship, sit still in range of your weapons, and let you blast me with your broadside, and when you're content with that, move your bow over towards me, in range of your antimatter cannon, and let you take a potshot at me?
Good luck, I'm behind 1,000 drones, fighters, DDs and CLs, all of which will always make sure any threat is detected before they detect their flagship. Get too close and I'll Herald teleport away. Enjoy getting withered to death by torpedo bombers and my lesser ships while I sustain zero damage.
>>44299134
>>44299084
Bruh.
I haven't seen this level of 'muh special snowflake can't be touched too good for you' since the chatboards on an anime streaming website.
>>44299134
Good luck with that m8, my battleship can teleport past your drones right up next to you :^)
But seriously. Unless you loaded up on bomber drones you are no threat to a battleship. Your 20 bombers are the only thing you have, and that's if you only took bombers.
And if you did load up on bombers? Yeah, then you're only good for fighting battleships. Good luck with everything else.
>>44299134
>my lesser ships
Wow, it's almost like an entire fleet would win against a single battleship. Everybody is so fucking shocked.
>>44299134
I made a carrier build. Carriers don't have enough offensive capabilities to warrant any sort of "carrier best girl" bullshit.
It's true they're basically impenetrable and the build i made basically has a carrier that can take a head-on antimatter blast from a dreadnought tier ship without flinching. Not to mention the ability to teleport the fuck away, and generally be invisible thanks to active cloaking. But a carriers offensive capabilities stem from the drones, and those can be shot down with enough point defense.
>>44297540
Little girl catgirl
Enjoy life as some rich weebs plaything.
>>44299134
Mmm, those Virginia classes out front make my dick rock hard.
>>44299227
> a carrier that can take a head-on antimatter blast
No it can't. Nothing can, thats the point.
>>44299312
>no one ship was supposed to have shields that are literally off the charts though
No one can. They're capped at 25.
>>44299296
>>44299227
If you had your carrier sit through the 5 minute charge time on the AMC's firing cycle just to get blasted then it was a massive pilot error to begin with.
>>44299134
"nuh uh I hide behind my force field but I can kill you easily" are the worst role players
I saw that. I know your sins.
>>44299338
I don't care if you say the shield was at 200/25 (which it wasn't, 25 is max), it still isn't surviving that AMC.
>>44299330
>>44299328
>>44299296
I was talking about the 1.0.1 version.
with this dlc
Anyone have the Fate / Stay Night CYOA?
>>44299371
>>44299368
I had frigate extremely high shields added t carrier extremely high shields.
Anti matter blasts are not ultimate doomsday devices.
They are inanely powerful. But they're not the deathstar.
>>44299352
AMCs are also off the charts, though. That's the problem.
>>44299388
It doesn't matter how inane your shields or your posts are. You aren't surviving and AMC shot.
>>44299388
Anon... High shields + high shields /=/ infinite shields.
>>44299405
>>44299390
The antimatter canon has the highest damage and is unsurvivable for anything of thesame tier, and pretty much unsurvivable for anything in upper tiers.
But it was not intended to be a completely trump-all "win the game" card. And not only because of the long chargetime.
Ask SDA if you don't believe me.
>>44299433
anon, super high damage =/= infinite damage
>>44299188
It's not even me, the original poster.
Come on, people, I just wanted to make the hottest ship possible. Of course it's going to get swarmed by well-balanced fleets, but come now, we're talking Space Battleship Yamato level of space opera protagonists, not LoGH 9999999 vs 9999999 ship battles.
>>44299451
>But it was not intended to be a completely trump-all "win the game" card.
Yes it is. That's why it has that retardedly long and obvious charge time, the huge price, the battleship or bigger ship limitation, and the spinal mount only limitation.
>>44299371
Oh, it's really old. I gotta remake that and other stat charts sometime.
>>44299451
>>44299477
Honestly, AMC can totally kill any mid-tier (read, typical Federation patrol) battleship, but high-end stuff will survive, although it's surely going to be crippled. That's what SDA said at least.
And you'll probably only hit battleships+ targets with it, as cruisers can easily evade it.
>>44299502
The entire point of the AMC is that it kills anything it hits well. Otherwise it's completely useless.
So, are Heralds cyborgs? Ancient Controllers who fused with their ship? Ayylmaos? I don't follow Star Dust questsorry, SDA,
>>44299519
No, otherwise anything slower than a Destroyer is completely useless because it'll just eat an AMC shot and that will be that.
>>44299519
KV-2 tactics, wooo!
>>44299519
>it's either OHK or completely useless
Look at this teenage maximalist and laugh.
>>44299535
No, that's why the charge time of the AMC is 5 minutes and obvious. That's the balancing factor.
Both Battleships and Carriers are useless -poi
None of them can do jack shit without a proper Destroyer escort-poi
And they're such a resource drain no one in their sane mind would use it on any situation short full scale fleet combat-poi
Destroyers are much more flexible and useful-poi
>>44299373
It's in the dropbox.
>>44299557
So what you're essentially saying is that dreadnaughts are useless?
>>44299557
MY GOD, we have SDA's take on this already >>44299502. You can use your interpretation as your personal headcanon, but stop making it the official setting fact.
>>44299502
If it can't take out a high end battleship, then it's literally the worst gun in the game and I need to rethink my build. It's ridiculously expensive, hard to aim, incredibly obvious, energy intensive, and so slow to charge that any battle you find yourself in is likely to be over by the time it's ready.
>>44299579
>That's what SDA said at least.
That's not how that works at all. Saying "he totally said this" isn't exactly proof.
>My shields can block your gun!
>Nuh-uh, my gun can blow up you and your shields!
>Nuh-uh!
>Yuh-huh!
>>44299535
Again: 5 minute charge up time, 10 minute cooldown, then another 5 minute charge up time.
If a ship isn't taking evasive maneuvers to evade or take out the ship carrying the AMC and manages to get hit after a 15 minute cycle time (with a weapon that travels in a straight line, the ship housing the cannon has to face the target the whole time or it wont hit anything) then they really had no chance in space.
Unless FTL/Warp takes awhile to spool up, or you can't disable the AMC/it's ship before it fires I dunno.
>>44299591
Maybe that's why it's mostly used to bombard planets and slow ships, right?Do whatever you want, anon, it's your world.
>>44299579
Hey, I can do it too, look:
SDA said that nothing can survive and AMC shot.
Is it a paradox? How can it be both at the same time?
>>44299560
DESU cruisers are the best ship, and always were.
>>44299607
SDA said that CYOA was a mistake. Here, I have proof.
>>44299519
It's well worth it so long as it does something like 50 damage. Because at that point the only way to survive is to have either a dreadnought with good shields, or something else really powerful and bulwark.
We had this discussion back when the description said "it can blow holes in planets"because it was inspired by WMG from SB Yamato. And it was, what, 3 years ago?I'm really bad with years, so maybe it was 2.Stop, please.
>>44299628
No it's not, because a regular weapon in the same slot would have done thousands of damage by the time it fires.
The only way the AMC is worth it is if it doesn't follow regular damage rules.
Which it doesn't, that's the entire point of its damage indicator.
>>44299607
>>44299607
>Hey, I can do it too, look:
>SDA said that nothing can survive and AMC shot.
>Is it a paradox? How can it be both at the same time?
To be honest that's entirely possible.
The entire thread and SDA called me a fucking sperglord last year for daring to ask why carriers couldn't be dreadnoughts.
And now we have "the mothership".
People can change their opinions and that's alright.
>>44299655
Damage was said to not work that way.
Sufficiently high shields can block damage completely and not be worn down. there are not startrek shields
>>44299689
>Damage was said to not work that way.
>Sufficiently high shields can block damage completely and not be worn down. there are not startrek shields
Well yeah, that's why the AMC doesn't do "damage", it just obliterates whatever it hits.
This is ignoring how retarded it is to create a situation where permanent invulnerability is possible which no game designer in their right mind would do.
>>44299689
>Sufficiently high shields can block damage completely and not be worn down.
Their description contradicts this, it says they need to be recharged if hit instead of repaired like armor.
Destroyer best ship.
>sneaks up behind your back
>all your shields are belong to tesla overchargers
>suddenly torpedoes
>if that doesn't work use elusive and ridiculous fighter-like 23/25 speed to turn 360 degrees and walk away
Nothing personnel..... kid
Also 24 hangar slots seems ridiculous to have on a destroyer, but I'll take it.
>>44299607
This anon gets it. Cruisers are big enough to dish out and take damage, but small enough to run like a little bitch if you find yourself outmatched. They also don't attract too much attention. Truly the best ship.
>>44299813
truly the most beta ship
>>44299802
Well that is their niche. Destroyers are meant to be the wolves, they hunt alone or in small groups and use their speed and intelligent strikes to take down larger ships. Battleships and Carriers, but especially Carriers, are meant to be completely fucked against a good Destroyer or Destroyer squad.
>>44299867
Battleships and carriers both tend to be dogshit without a capable support fleet anyway. They aren't meant to go it alone.
>>44299723
It's not permanent invulnerability. It could be worn down.
Just not with one shot.
Don't forget that the herald tier things are supposed to be night invincible anyway. And this is the largest ship-class of the herald tier, AND supported by another ship with heraldic technology.
And it's a completely valid point in game design to not make things out of paper.
Otherwise a battle is immediately decided once the strength of the other fleet is known.
That was something that was supposed to be avoided as far as i remember so people can't make "ultimate best i conquer everything builds" but will actually have to imagine strategies and adventures.
>>44299746
aegis:
>this anti-matter powered shield will neutralize anything that tries to penetrate it. it will take very potent weaponry to crack.
heraldic:
>Just as powerful as aegis shielding, however even more powerful, when on systems with mana energy cores
add this to the fact that >>44299371
>a carrier basic shielding will deflect almost everything a frigate can mount, because it's an equivalent to the frigates heraldic shielding.
The recharging is done by the mana core.
so yes, most smaller guns get deflected, which is precisely the reason why one can't just equip a carrier with a shitton of tiny laser drones and kill a battleship. You need a minimal amount of DPS done to actually decharge the shields enough for them not to recharge immediately.
In other words your DPS output needs to be higher than the shield recharge rate of the enemy. And since the heraldic mana core and shields offer the best energy supply t the best shields and have a combo-bonus, it's gonna e pretty tough to wear it down.
Okay, so question. Basically, why drones and not fighters? I can see cost is an issue, but is complexity also a part of it? Because the bomber drone doesn't look like it would fight near as well as even the low-tier fighters and it can't pack near the punch. The S92-TMC's base chassis is cheaper than the bomber drone, but then you have to get into reactors and weapon systems and shit. Brawler drones carry a lot less weaponry, but you also get a free weapon, so you don't have to buy it, and takes half the hangar space.
u w0t m8
>>44299927
>Don't forget that the herald tier things are supposed to be night invincible anyway
No they're not. They're supposed to be the elite, which is marginally better but a lot more expensive than the standard. SDA even talked about this concept in the previous thread.
>And it's a completely valid point in game design to not make things out of paper.
Yes, that's true. But you're arguing that things are impossible to wear down.
I have a feeling that you just don't like the thought of a trump card existing. But guess what, the entire point of the AMC is that it trumps turtle builds. That's the only thing it does, it's useless in other applications.
>>44299935
Drones are basically budget fighters. They take care of most strike craft duties while the human pilots are reserved for priority tasks.
>>44299746
>>44299723
It IS however possible to wear it down:
If you have small enough ships that can effectively evade and target the carriers drones, you can essentially concentrate the firepower on the carrier once you have fought off the drones and thus disabled the carrier's offensive abilities.
This would run into the problem of the carrier cloaking and teleporting away, and to counter this you would need to actively pursue it and try to get in another shot with the AMC before the chields have completely recharged or you would have to somehow board the carrier and fight your way to the command center to stop it from jumping away.
In other words: If someone does NOT want a confrontation, it's gonna be pretty tough to still kill them.
Which is a great idea for a system that is not exclusively space combat focused.
Because remember, that by making the carrier night impenetrable i lost all the fancy offensive capabilities it could have had, because i spend literally all the money on defense.
I called it the "cozy build" for a reason.
It will not be able to stay anywhere where people don't want it to be, because it can't really defend itself, but it won't just be blown to smithereens if someone with high attack power attacks it.
>>44299935
No pilots you have to house/feed/pay, and no bitching if they get killed.
>>44299967
>elite
The heralds themselves are stuff of legend and actually acquiring one of their ships with energy tech you can't even reverse engineer is a feat in itself. They're pretty far out.
>I have a feeling that you just don't like the thought of a trump card existing. But guess what, the entire point of the AMC is that it trumps turtle builds. That's the only thing it does, it's useless in other applications.
Yes because trump cards inherently make a system bad. It's selecting a single thing that you absolutely need to have otherwise you'll be inherently inferior. Which is the opposite of what SDA was going for.
It's the specific purpose of the SD CYOA to make ALL SORTS OF BUILDS viable.
If there was a trump card in one, it would be possible to just "win" the CYOA which defeats the purpose of having a CYOA.
>>44299952
You can't add hull mods to dreadnoughts
>>44300031
B-but my 10 AMC!
>>44299967
And no, amc-s are pretty useful if you actually want to attack say a dreadnought. OR an offensive focused carrier. OR other battleships. OR space stations. OR anything not specifically built to disengage from combat, turtle in and flee.
>>44299982
A 25 shield and 25 armor ship can be destroyed in one hit. This wouldn't necessarily even be just by an antimatter cannon, for example ramming into an asteroid would do the same thing.
The shields aren't unpiercable until they get hit X times. Such an unintuitive fact would be present in their description. Instead we have a description that says that a shield value of 25 is equivalent to an armor value of 25, which shows us that there isn't some kind of magic number of hits they need to take before they can fall.
If shields get hit by something that overwhelms them in one hit, then they're going down in one hit, period.
>>44300019
>Yes because trump cards inherently make a system bad.
No, they inherently make a system good when used properly, as long as they're balanced against other trump cards. Which the AMC for example is, because it's so extremely unwieldy that it's useless in most situations.
You yourself are arguing that maxing out shields is a trump card in itself. This is an example of why the system is better with the AMC working the way it does. If the AMC didn't trump your "impenetrable" shields then there wouldn't be any point for anyone to take any other kind of build. Everyone would just max out shields and nobody would be able to ever hurt anyone. Which is dumb and obviously against the fluff.
>>44300012
I feel like there's usually more bitching when the pilots are alive than when they're dead.
>>44300019
Nah mate. It's a trump card against turtles and space stations. Nothing else. Teleportation (which you have), destroyer kill teams, massed cruisers, destroying the AMC before it can strike and putting a cheaper ship between yourself and the cannon are some of many ways to counter it.
>>44300055
>shield 25
I'm still talking about the 1.0.1 version which you people seem to conveniently ignore.
>Which the AMC for example is, because it's so extremely unwieldy that it's useless in most situations.
It is absolutely not uselsss. Most special powers in ships have a recharge time that's comparable or longer to the amc-s
I'm arguing that maxing out shields AND having transfer shield strength, AND building your entire build around defense will be DIFFICULT to just obliterate with your amc trump card.
The same goes for the amc. A ship built entirely around having offensive power will be extremely DIFFICULT to defend against. but not impossible.
Saying that the ONLY WAY one could do x-y (obliterate something or defend against something) goes against the very idea of CYOAs, which is why i am very happy that SDA did not do that.
And again, you seem to be ignoring the latter part of my post.
NO people would not just max out their shields, because then they would basically have NO defensive or offensive capabilities and could not defend a territory. This is all exactly as it should be.
>>44300087
>Nah mate. It's a trump card against turtles and space stations.
That's simply wrong. That would completely invalidate turtle builds.
>>44300087
>>44300055
Besides if we want to get really sperged out: you have an antimatter reactor in your own ship. If you couldn't defend against antimatter because it obliterates everything no matter what, you could not make a reactor for it.
How independent and pirate factions keep their battleships, carriers and dreadnoughts? It seems to me that for those the maintenance cost is the biggest enemy, not other vessels. Federation has a strong economy (an entire nation) behind it to bank it, though.
SDA, you still wanting someone to comb through and find all the small spelling errors and all that? I vaguely remember you saying something to that effect.
>>44300139
>I'm arguing that maxing out shields AND having transfer shield strength, AND building your entire build around defense will be DIFFICULT to just obliterate with your amc trump card.
Well at this point all we can do is agree to disagree. I still think your build is probably somewhere on the order of hundreds of times too weak defensively to take a direct AMC hit and survive.
>The same goes for the amc. A ship built entirely around having offensive power will be extremely DIFFICULT to defend against. but not impossible.
See, this is what you're not getting. Yes, a *ship* built for offense is going to be difficult to defend against, but not impossible. Why? It's difficult to defend against because it can kill you in a single hit, no save, if you let it get away with it. It's not impossible to defend against because you can do countless things to prevent it from firing and hitting you with its impossible-to-survive weapon, as the weapon has a huge weakness in how long it has to charge and how difficult it is to aim.
Do you see the difference? You're saying that a *ship* should be possible to defend against, which is absolutely true. That doesn't mean that the AMC needs to be survivable if you let it hit you, because you had hundreds of chances to prevent it from hitting you. That's why it's balanced, and why it would be useless if it wasn't an autokill.
>>44300139
It would invalidate turtle builds dumb enough to rely solely on turtling and nothing but turtling. Clever use of blink would make your ship able to deal with AMCs anyway.
>>44300139
>Besides if we want to get really sperged out: you have an antimatter reactor in your own ship. If you couldn't defend against antimatter because it obliterates everything no matter what, you could not make a reactor for it.
It takes a, what, 70 million credit device to be able to handle reactor scale amounts of antimatter, which is somewhere around micro- or milligrams at a time. I don't think that's comparable to a big ass cannon.
>>44300165
its stated the pirates have their own sizable shipyards and mining operations
>>44300165
The pirate factions are more like space pirates from Metroid than regular pirates. They're entire nations that happen to do a lot of piracy.
>>44299373
I do.
>>44300165
There isn't anything stated about maintenance being so difficult. Considering you can have ore processing, a factory, engineering, a laboratory, and mining and repair drones. It seems that a ship should be able to be self sustaining. Besides the fact that the pirates are themselves large factions holding a lot of space where they could produce such things as shown on the map.
>>44300201
Hell there were real peoples like the Phoenicians who had piracy as an official part of their government and way of life, instead of it being something for outlaws. And when you get right down to it, Vikings did something similar. And then, more recently, you have cities like Tortuga and Port-au-Prince that were essentially small pirate nations.
>>44300171
>the only way you can defend against it is to prevent it from hitting you
That's like saying that the only way you can destroy that defensive build is to board the carrier and disable it from the inside. Which would be pretty fucking stupid.
Things invalidating certain strategies are just not fit to be a part of a CYOA. Because it's a CYOA. And remember that SDA specifically set out to NOT make a player versus player CYOA, so actually HAVING to enter conflict against another player even if you don't want to, is just nuts.
You're saying that it's balanced to have something that obliterates everything and nothing that can withstand everything.
You're trying to shift the focus of the CYOA to combat.
It should be optional to enter battle if you don't want to and have literally done everything permitted to do so.
>>44300176
That clever use of blink would make the blink system overpowered if it could be used in such a way. Because in that case blink would be impossible to counter.
>>44300185
And in my interpretation it would take about 200 million credits to make a system that can defend against a large batch of antimatter without controlling it.
You in your reactor are not just trying to not get killed, you're trying to micromanage and manipulate antimatter precisely on the atomic level.
You can make a wall that will withstand a direct nuclear blast for a couple million dollars, but to build a nuclear reactor you'd also need several million dollars.
>>44300260
>Things invalidating certain strategies are just not fit to be a part of a CYOA.
Why not? This is the dumbest thing I've heard all thread.
Absolutely every strategy should have something that invalidates it.
>>44300271
No strategy should have anything that completely invalidates it is what i meant.
The most important thing (that i lieft out accidentally) being COMPLETELY.
There have to be things to counter every strategy, but if something completely invalidates a strategy it's not really a CYOA any more, it's a game of tic tac toe. = solvable.
>>44300260
Dude blink is fine as it is because it can only be used once every five minutes, it's not like you can use it to dodge everything all the time.
>>44300260
>And in my interpretation it would take about 200 million credits to make a system that can defend against a large batch of antimatter without controlling it.
Well in my interpretation it's completely unfeasible to create such a device, because the only reason why the reactor itself works in the first place is because it's handling minute amounts of completely stable antimatter in a completely controlled environment.
A cannon shooting a large batch of unstable antimatter at you at massive speed is completely incomparable to that.
>>44300283
blink catapults you far out of range and you can basically instantly enter hyperspace after it and just completely and with the press of a button evade all combat. Which would be too overpowered, so i don't think that it can immediately be used. the recharge time should be a charge time instead in which case it's precisely NOT a valid defence against an all obliterating weapon.
>>44300260
How would blink be impossible to counter? Once you dodge the shot, that's 5 minutes before you can teleport again. It's good for countering AMCs, but everything else is able to shoot you several times within those 5 minutes.
>>44300282
>No strategy should have anything that completely invalidates it is what i meant.
Yes it should. Absolutely every strategy should have something that completely invalidates it. That's why you're not supposed to put all your eggs in one basket.
For example, the AMC strategy has hundreds of ways to completely invalidate it.
>>44300307
Like another AMC on two ships at once.
>>44300286
>Well in my interpretation it's completely unfeasible to create such a device,
in my interpretation it's completely impossible to create something that can defend against an atomic blast
>because the only reason why the reactor itself works in the first place is because it's handling minute amounts of completely stable antimatter in a completely controlled environment.
because the only reason the nuclear reactor works is because it's handling minute amounts of not chainreactioning radioactive material in a completely controlled environment
>A cannon shooting a large batch of unstable antimatter at you at massive speed is completely incomparable to that.
>a bomb exploding a large batch of supermassive chain reacting radioactive matter at you at massive speed is incomparable to that.
>>44300301
Once again, blink doesn't just move you a bit to the side, it moves you out of range and out of combat so you can just enter warpspeed and get away. It it can be activated at ANY time it is thus overpowered.
If it can only be activated after initially CHARGING for 5 minutes it's not a valid defense against an AMC
>>44300307
>>44300317
>amc
>how to counter it?
>uuuh more amc
If there is no way to survive an amc shot it's not balanced. That's it. No amount of "but but long cooldown" changes that.
With the AMC being absolutely incounterable the only defense against it would be OFFENSE.
And that basically completely and utterly invalidates all defensive builds. So no, that is not balanced.
Once again StarDust is not supposed to be a "combat is the only solution" thing.
>>44300300
Read the CYOA, it's a cooldown. If it didn't work that way smaller ships wouldn't stand a chance against bigger ships.
Don't bring outdated versions and your own headcanon into this when it's explicitly stated to work a certain way.
>>44300301
>Range: Very Long
>a far distance
If the range is long enough, which it sounds like it is, the attacking ship won't be able to catch up with the blinking ship before the cooldown is complete.
>>44300317
More like flying away, flying out of the firing arc, counterattacking the ship while it's charging for a long ass time, using e-war to prevent the charge from happening, misdirecting them so they fire at someone else other than you, various cloak and dagger shit that doesn't even touch on weapons and shields in the first place, etc. etc.
>>44300330
Well yeah, lots of things can survive nuclear blasts by not being directly in the blast itself, or shielded by large amounts of dirt. That doesn't mean that they can survive a direct hit.
So if you want to fly your ship behind an asteroid with precise timing so the AMC shot is blocked by the asteroid, then that's a valid strategy. So nice that you came up with it I guess. Now we can agree that the instakill AMC is valid.
>>44300367
But two AMCs is by far the easiest and most assured way to solve the problem. We're playing fleet-level value/counter-value strikes. Why risk a chance of failure on a strategic-level target when you can have assured victory?
>>44300362
>If there is no way to survive an amc shot it's not balanced.
There's plenty of ways to survive an AMC shot. They all amount to not getting hit. There's no way to survive getting hit however. But that's fine and balanced because it's very easy to not get hit by it if you try.
>With the AMC being absolutely incounterable the only defense against it would be OFFENSE.
Well yeah.
Assuming the AMC is impossible to survive if you get hit. A ship that spent 1000m credits on being a good battleship versus a ship that spent 1000m credits on being a good battleship with an AMC.
Which one wins? Probably the first one, because its offense is better and it can get more damage done while the second one is busy charging its cannon.
>And that basically completely and utterly invalidates all defensive builds.
No, it only completely and utterly invalidates the builds that *only* rely on soaking up every hit that gets sent their way. Those aren't "defensive" builds, they are suicide builds. Every rational defensive build is going to have ways to escape, evade, or prevent the AMC from charging up.
>Once again StarDust is not supposed to be a "combat is the only solution" thing.
Well yeah, but this is besides the point. An exclusively defensive build as a build exclusively geared for combat.
Anyone have the stardust romance one?
In case anyone has the old page 1 of Monster Hunter, would they mind posting it?
There's an effect that I'd like to replicate.
>>44300427
No, two AMCs is exactly the same as one in a 1v1 engagement, since they charge at the same speed and have the same result as one.
>>44300446
Here ya go.
>>44300363
>Read the CYOA, it's a cooldown.
I know it says it's a coooldown, but that doesn't make any sense because then it's compeltely imbalanced in favor of herald ships.
>>44300367
There are things that can withstand a direct nuclear blast without tons of dirt. few meters of heat shielding, reinforced carbon nanofibre, some meters of steel concrete, and another meter of steel, some lead plus shock dampening
And that would survive a nuclear blast without dirt.
It's possible to defend against shit like that and that's one of the reasons why people would employ bunker busters before trying a direct nuclear attack on a bunker.
>>44300432
>There's no way to survive getting hit however. But that's fine and balanced because it's very easy to not get hit by it if you try.
>it's easy to survive if you do things my way and enter combat
how about no.
>Assuming the AMC is impossible to survive if you get hit. A ship that spent 1000m credits on being a good battleship versus a ship that spent 1000m credits on being a good battleship with an AMC.
Yeah but with your idea of unsurvivable AMC blasts, someone that spent 800m credits on shielding and being able to withstand shit could easily be killed by someone that spend 150m credits on the cheapest fucking hull with a reactor and an AMC.
And that means that the system would inherently favor aggressive builds.
Which is shit, and not what SDA was going for.
>>44300481
Thanks.
>>44300449
Awoo, my brother.
>>44300488
>few meters of heat shielding, reinforced carbon nanofibre, some meters of steel concrete, and another meter of steel
No it wouldn't. That would survive an overhead airburst. It wouldn't survive if the bomb was sitting on top of it directly while going off.
If that's your answer, then I'll point you to all the times people have said that you can just evade the AMC shot, since you're arguing in the same vein here.
>>it's easy to survive if you do things my way and enter combathow about no.
Sure. You don't need to enter combat. You can also leave combat or make sure that combat doesn't start.
>Yeah but with your idea of unsurvivable AMC blasts, someone that spent 800m credits on shielding and being able to withstand shit could easily be killed by someone that spend 150m credits on the cheapest fucking hull with a reactor and an AMC.
Yes, this is true. In a fight between an AMC and nothing else versus a bunch of shielding and nothing else, the AMC is going to win.
>And that means that the system would inherently favor aggressive builds.
No, this isn't true. That means that the system inherently favors well rounded builds.
You're focusing on only the aggressive approach to get around an AMC, even though the suggestions you've been given have mostly been non-aggressive ones. Why?
>>44300458
Its not a 1v1 engagement. The point is to bring more AMCs than your foe. If a ship is big enough to have an AMC it is also big enough to almost certainly be unable to avoid an AMC. Its simple application of nuclear deterrence theory.
The stalemate can really only be broken with an effective ABM-like system that would force the evolution of MIRV-like applications.
In a fleet-like setting it can also be compared to the ship-building considerations of the USN and fleet structure at a doctrinal level dating to the cold-war. Soviet concentration of overwhelming force in single vessels compared to a distribution of overwhelming assets over a larger number of vessels to reduce risk of tactical and strategic annihilation to act in concert. In this case heavy ASM's taking the role of ACMs. This is however extremely simplified as there are effective counters to ASMs but they favour a distributed approach even further due to the munition and redundancy of 3 to 1 interception launches, sensor coverage, airborne elements, and munition limits.
>>44300488
Unfortunately all considerations point towards aggressive action being almost always the preferable action in a combined arms or nuclear environment.
>>44300488
>that doesn't make any sense because then it's compeltely imbalanced in favor of herald ships.
Again, read the CYOA. Any ship can take any command mod.
>>44300502
Thank you!
And oh wow, the intro certainly changed. It's a lot more grimdark "survival of the fittest" versus the "let's go kill some monsters with mythology-tier powers"
I personally prefer the images being behind the lines under the "skills", and not the other way around line in the later versions.
I started watching RWBY again thanks to this CYOA, and I must say that I really like Neptune's weapon.
>>44300564
Large scale confrontations where a lot of battleships appear on both sides likely would look that way, yes.
I don't think most people whoeffectuatthe stardust CYOA think about that sort of thing though. It is a good argument for having battleships with multiple AMCs, maybe even four of them.
>>44300573
Well, while I do prefer the 'you're a hunter go hunt some stuff in your world' over 'asshole god gives you powers!', the danger is really the same. The third page still has the yearly murder-rape festival everyone has to take part in.
>>44300539
no, that would survive the pressure and heat wave of the blast at ground zero
http://sc-ems.com/ems/blastICT/blastICT.htm
As an example the hoover dam may get cracks if a nuclear device exploded directly on the side of it, but it would only be destroyed if the device was inside of it.
>Sure. You don't need to enter combat. You can also leave combat or make sure that combat doesn't start.
That doesn't work that way. If the umbra thing isn't changed and the 5 minutes is just the cooldown, it would be waaaayy overpowered, because that would put YOU in an impossible position because no matter how hard you try to catch me i can always just jump the fuck away and enter warp.
>In a fight between an AMC and nothing else versus a bunch of shielding and nothing else, the AMC is going to win.
>so you think that someone spending 150m on offense should be able to kill someone that spent 800m on survivability.
and you think this is balanced?
>suggestions i've been given
The only suggestion given is to hide behind a planet.
any other suggestions were either not possible or agressive.
I don't think that a weapon against which the only defense is either to kill it before it kills you or to run the fuck away, is balanced.
>>44300564
Bringing more AMCs than your foe only works when that foe can't kick the shit out of your AMC ships with their other weapons before you manage to fire. Trying to charge an AMC immediately makes you a priority target for fucking everybody in the battle.
>>44300564
You can get up to 10 navigation with a ship that can carry an AMC, though that does require getting two hull reductions and five afterburners. Though with how the thing works I can't imagine you want low navigation if you have an AMC, because that number is likely to work out to be how fast you can aim the thing, and you likely can't hit anything with a higher navigation than you have.
>>44300564
>Unfortunately all considerations point towards aggressive action being almost always the preferable action in a combined arms or nuclear environment.
That is if the conflict is stationary.
The nice part of this whole cyoa for me was that conflicts here don't have to be stationary.
I can just move my carrier away if smeone doesn't want me there. And i just need enough survivability to do this. But noooo, that's not valid because your AMC is best girl and can kill everything and doesn't afraid of everything.
>>44300569
Then it's completely imbalanced against that command mod. The point is that there should be no system that is completely IMPOSSIBLE to counter.
I shouldn't be able to get away no matter what. and the AMC shouldn't be able to obliterate me no matter what (because a slow moving carrier can't just go hide real quick)
>>44300481
>only females
absolutely horrifying.
>>44298429
Origins
Fairlight
Skills
Advanced Piloting, Advanced Combat, Diplomacy, Mind Link, Mercantile, Mechanics,
Cyber Security, Medical, Nuclear, Ship Weapon Specialization
Titles
The Hellraiser +400m
The Demigod +420m
Contracts
Mining King Steve - Tier 1
All Aboard - Tier 2
Heat - Tier 2
The Acheron Tier 3
Escalation - Tier 3
The Twin Fangs - Tier 3
And The Fire Grows - Tier 4
Search & Rescue Tier 4
Ace - Tier 4
Rogue Drones - Tier 4
This Land - Tier 4
Final Credits: 1,4m
>Carrier
Asmodai (Crimson Lady)
>Energy Subsystems
Anti matter core/ Fission
>Shield Subsystems
Aegis Shielding
>Command Mods
Herald Blink
>Hull Mods
Teleport Jammer, Nano Armour Coating, Vehicle Bay x2
>Ship Weapons
Spinal Weapons - Anti Matter Cannon
Broadside Turret - Heavy Laser Cannon x4 -20m, Tesla Overcharger x2
Point Defence - Missile Launcher x5, Flak Cannon x5
Hangar Space 3
>Drone Hulls
Science Probe x2, Combat Repair Drone x2, Mining Drone x2, Combat Drone x12,
Bomber Drone x4
Railgun x1, Torpedo Silo x1, Missile Pod x1
Vehicles & Mechs
Drop Ship, Submarine, APC x2
Industrial Modules
Mining Harvester, Salvage Harvester, MK3 Frequency lens, Tractor Beam,
Composition Scanner
E- War Modules
MITM Module, Honey Pot Module, Comm Scrambler
Rooms & Compartments
Advanced Infirmary, Captains Quarters, Officer Quarters, Crew Quarters, Standard,
Mess Hall, Tavern, Laboratory, Terraforming Bay, Holding Cells, Teleport Platform,
Lounge, Observatory, Engineering Bay, Factory Wing, Ore Processing Facility,
Advanced Arsenal, Evacuation Room, Hypercomms Room, Digital Security Room,
Hydrophonic Garden, Aquaculture Room, Training Room
Ship Crew
Co-Pilot Hailey, Mikayla Stone
C&S Archangel, Rooks King
Cyber Security Arachne -6m
Chefs & Barters Patricia Cooper, Laurie Parsons
Production Ty Piper
Gunner Comet
Doctors Kelly Moss, Tina Wei
Engineers Amy McCartney, Troy Hal
Scientists Lauren, Sara Escher -3m
Captain -9m
Researchers x1000
Explorers x1000
Industry Workers x500
>>44300627
I think he was being pedantic about the two ships. If you have one with 800m in shields and one with 150m and an AMC there is only one ship there that has any weapons.
>>44300599
What exactly is it?
Some kind of grenade laucnher / assault rifle / electrified trident?
And I love the CYOA, it got me to watch the show.Same with space hobo and Fate/Stay Night.
>>44300624
I can't say which I prefer more.
The new one is all "it's you dumped into a fantasy setting, and you get powers for no real reason". It's *you*, not a character that you play.
The old one is "you are playing a character that has trained all his life to get his powers". I like the old one for the same reason I like battlemage: There's an actual reason for the player having powers plus there are other battlemages/hunters far more powerful.
But it's still not *you*. It has less of the whole "you are the most interesting man in the world" that's so generic and dull.
>>44300624
There were only two pages the first time around.
>>44300641
How are they going to stop you? At the extreme ranges of an AMC and on a battle-ship class hull you'd easily last at least five minutes. Let alone considering that if you're bringing these forces there is likely a fleet of support craft in the battle group dedicated to point-defence and fighter elimination.
The grand majority of casualties would be inflicted in the first five minutes of a fleet battle, then with the large threats of the secondary systems aboard the battleships eliminated, the cruisers and down are free to act with near impunity to rout the enemy. Sincerely the best form of defense in such a scenario would just to have a fleet-wide retreat before they can bring the ACM's to their target.
>>44300620
Yes, multiple AMCs on a ship would effectively act as a MIRV in this scenario. Allows for multiple target annihilation in a shorter span of time and redundant single-target annihilation if the target has a fractional chance of surviving the first shot. There'd likely be a cut-off point for the amount you'd want to have on a hull before it becomes overly-redundant and prohibitive on a fleet scale however.
>>44300723
The promised, mythical third page was always a thing, and I have an older version of such running off of guild points.
>>44300717
My biggest problem with both is and always will be the third page, honestly. I prefer one over the other but it's not a dealbreaker. Only the murder-rape and the three years and your done aspect bothers me.
>>44300712
>Fighters (3)
S97-TRN x3
>Command Mods
Cool Paint Job
FDN Control zrt3
X38 TDNK
>Hull Mods
Overdrive Afterburner x5, Point Defence Upgrade x2, Nano Armour Coating
>Energy Subsystems
Power Capacitors x6
>Shield Subsystems
Advanced Shielding x3
>Ship Weapons
Spinal Weapons - Rail Gun x2 / Light Laser Cannon x2
Broadside Turret - Artillery Cannon x4
Point Defence - Missile Pod x6
Ok don't know about this one, first one I managed to finish.
Its meant to focus on exploration and not that much on battle per se but when its necessary.
>>44300717
http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/Neptune%27s_Gun
>>44300627
>no, that would survive the pressure and heat wave of the blast at ground zero
That's not what ground zero means in an airburst situation, anon. Ground zero is the ground several hundred meters below where the nuke is detonating. This is done to spread the blast out and cover more area, as well as concerns such as limiting fallout. Something in the middle of the fireball would be completely vaporized no matter what you made it out of.
>That doesn't work that way. If the umbra thing isn't changed and the 5 minutes is just the cooldown, it would be waaaayy overpowered, because that would put YOU in an impossible position because no matter how hard you try to catch me i can always just jump the fuck away and enter warp.
It's a powerful ability, but that's how it works. You're SUPPOSED to be able to get away with it. It's one of the simplest ways to avoid the AMC and anything else for example.
But I wasn't talking about the Umbra. You can leave combat without it too you know. The only way someone could prevent you from doing so while training an AMC onto you for five minutes is if they used lasso drones or frigate interdictors or something like that.
Which would be an example of a well rounded build including an AMC. See why being well rounded is important?
>and you think this is balanced?
Yes. If defense was untrumpable it would be a boring game. All of those weapons in there would be pointless along with 50% of the CYOA.
>any other suggestions were either not possible or agressive.
Why were they not possible? Because you didn't bring an E-War room? Because you didn't spend money on a cloaking system? Because you don't want a teleport escape system? Because you're unwilling to just go away?
It's impossible because you're unwilling to address the glaring weakness in your build.
>>44300743
>I have an older version of such running off of guild points.
Post that sucker, man. I've never even heard of it.
>>44300785
Sorry anon, I save all of my images on one folder, unsorted, so it'd take me all morning to sort through 50,000 images.
>>44300775
That's the funny thing. It isn't even a glaring weakness in his build. Tanky carrier has cloaking and blink, both of which are good for fucking with AMC users.
ACMs are effectively the nuclear option in setting it appears. There's a very strong chance there's a hefty diplomatic consideration to using them. Using an ACM in a fleet battle would be like using a nuclear-armed ASMs/torpedoes in the old cold war plans for fighting opposing CBGs.
It'd be a distinct escalation of force beyond the conventional and likely cause a rapid escalation between the parties involved. Possibly ending with planetary/orbital relativistic or warp-capable singular weapons being launched by the involved parties.
If you have an ACM on your ship you're probably a rogue state scenario waiting to happen. I don't think you'll have many friends.
>>44300717
And by the way Bliss, I know you're still here. That picture was not what I thought it was about.
It wasn't about headpatting, it was about adopting a girl and doing horrible things to her. At least that's what I got from reading a thread on it.
My point is that with an AMC you only need to distract the enemy for 5 minutes and keep it pointed at him for you to win the entire thing instantly. Any combat would be over and decided in 5 minutes. No real planning involved. Just one core ship that you need to defend for 5 minutes.
Any fight between battleships would just get a "mission time remaining" timer, and the person who damaged the other persons anti matter canon more in that time would automatically win once that time runs out.
And that's if the encounter is not immediately decided by the turnrate of the ship that has the AMC spinal mounted.
>>44300713
Yes so?
If i have an million dollar armored car and you have a 100k$ rpg and are on a bike, i will still survive in the armored car and get away.
And if i'm in a million dollar blast shelter you can fire at it with the rpg until you get smoke poisoning but i'm still gonna survive easily.
It being any other way would not be balanced.
>>44300775
ground zero in a zero altitude detonation. that's what we were talking about.
besides even meters away from the epicenter things aren't a million degrees hot any more.
>You're SUPPOSED to be able to get away with it.
But that's not fair and then i will have to complain about that ability being way too overpowered. Because there's no way to effectively catch a ship with that ability.
You know you CAN move while still aiming the AMC. It has no tracking and is spinal mounted, but your SHIP can still move. Not very fast but fast enough to track a carrier with abslutely horrible maneuverability.
If super expensive defense was nigh untrumpable it would simply mean that you can't enter combat against someone that doesn't want to. THAT IS ALL.
Which would be a super good thing.
It wouldn't mean that people can stay whereever they want because as long as the shields are up no activity outside the ship is possible, plus shields can be worn down. pacifism would be more possible and new attack strategies necessary.
>>44300832
I don't understand what he expect, honestly. I mean, there's a battleship coming at him guns blazing. It's either fight or flight, what else could there logically be?
I mean, if a guy came at you in real life and started shooting at you, what would your options be besides flight or fight? Because apparently neither of those are good enough for him.
>>44300844
>There's a very strong chance there's a hefty diplomatic consideration to using them.
I find this unlikely. All starship weapons would be WMD-scale when used against a world, and the only reason why real life nukes are so diplomatically significant is because they're WMD.
>>44300844
Nice fanwank.
>>44300864
this whole argument can be solved by you not replying and believing what ever you believe is true, that nothing can harm your ship ever.
>>44300846
Which image?
>>44300812
Work on it a little at a time. Make subfolders to organize stuff, start saving new things in the appropriate spot. A couple minutes here and there everyday and you'll get it sorted before you know it.
>>44300898
I really should but I am incredibly, amazingly, impossible lazy.
>>44300870
Yes but ACMs are WMD to fleet-assets. They're an inherently unbalancing force for conventional assets and should be considered as such. When the defense mechanism for protecting against naval artillery is your own navy, then the definition of WMD is likely changed to what will devastate that mechanism.
Tactical nuclear weapons exist and do have a place in several doctrines of escalating force but they all have very dangerous lines to cross when considering use for diplomatic reasons and when the opposition side dos not share the doctrinal delineation of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
>>44297841
>Full plates
>Defence
>Eternal
>Regenerative
>Living
>Resistance
>Solar Power
>Lingering
>Transformation
Whoever wears the armour instantly transforms into the opposite sex.
>>44300864
Dude don't bring up real life into it, you can blow a hole in an armored car with under $100. Why do you think improvised explosive devices are such a concern?
>>44300904
I understand.
>>44300870
>>44300890
>It's either fight or flight,
That's the point a carrier isn't able to get away. If a guy shoots at you with a gun you need cover or a bullet proof vest to get away and out of range. Especially if you can't use your legs because they're broken (carriers are FUCKING slow)
There is no fight or flight against an AMC if you have a carrier.
It's only fight or be fucking pulverized.
I still have not seen anything to disprove this.
Cloaked ships can still be detected with a good enough electronic warfare room.
The only option would be the umbra (which i did include in my build) but i think THAT on the other hand would be unbalanced in MY favor too much if it wasn't nerfed.
>>44300864
>Because there's no way to effectively catch a ship with that ability.
Sure there is. I can think of a few right now.
1) The most obvious. Bring your own Umbra.
2) Disable the engines of the ship while it's still in range, since if it's fleeing something probably happened.
3) Cloak and ambush the ship.
4) Social engineering. Pretend you're not an enemy. Only works if there wasn't a fight already, but eh, it would be useful in some situations.
5) Use warp jammers creatively. If you're really worried you could combine this with a support frigate that has the Umbra that you stubbornly refused to bring on your main ship.
>Not very fast but fast enough to track a carrier with abslutely horrible maneuverability.
Your fault for not putting any points into maneuverability. This is just compounding your weaknesses.
Anon, please tell me why you expect this CYOA to have some kind of third option to the fight or flight dilemma. I mean, this just doesn't make sense to me. What else could there be once someone is already attacking you? There is fight, there is flight, and there is lay down and die. I've never heard of anything else.
>>44300892
Don't ask why, but I ended up on /a/ and there was a thread about a game about adopting a girl and giving her a sandwich.
And this was posted, so I'm assuming there's a connection.z
>>44300864
5 minutes is a long time to keep someone confined, especially if they can just teleport away and fuck off at a moment's notice (which you can do since you've got blink).
A ship with a couple of Ragefires could do the same thing to you in 5 minutes as one with an AMC could.
>>44300844
I doubt it. It's not even enough to destroy a decent sized moon, and there are more than enough moons to go around.
>>44300960
Oh, Teaching Feeling? That game isn't about abusing her at all. You get her as an abused slave from some shady asshole whose life you saved, and if you DO abuse her, which is only available right at the start, you get a bad end. If you don't, then the game is about head pats and taking her out to buy clothes/sweets until she starts to open up to you. You're not doing horrible things to her, I mean you don't even have sex until she specifically asks for it. All in all pretty innocent.
>>44300959
>Your fault for not putting any points into maneuverability. This is just compounding your weaknesses.
Why are you so much against turtle builds? This whole thing just seems to come from you not wanting lengthy drawn out battles with shields being slowly worn down.
>Anon, please tell me why you expect this CYOA to have some kind of third option to the fight or flight dilemma
I'm expecting this CYOA t HAVE a flight option in the first place.
See my post above.
>>44300958
>That's the point a carrier isn't able to get away. If a guy shoots at you with a gun you need cover or a bullet proof vest to get away and out of range. Especially if you can't use your legs because they're broken (carriers are FUCKING slow)
If you have broken legs no vest is going to save you. He'll just walk up to you and shoot you in the head.
>It's only fight or be fucking pulverized.
No. There is flight. You just *go* *away*. Battleships are almost as slow as carriers. The five minute charge up is a lot more than enough for you to enter warp.
Also, since you're a carrier, why aren't your drones covering your withdrawal?
>>44300971
>if they can just teleport away and fuck off at a moment's notice (which you can do since you've got blink).
as >>44300959 said, you can just teleport right after him with your own umbra.
>>44300998
>No. There is flight. You just *go* *away*. Battleships are almost as slow as carriers.
But they can turn considerably faster and that's all they need to keep the AMC pointed at you. Plus, everyone with an AMC would be using warp jammers anyway.
So tell me how am i supposed to get away again?
>>44300979
Well I'll be darned.
>>44300971
>A ship with a couple of Ragefires could do the same thing to you in 5 minutes as one with an AMC could.
I really want to do that with a frigate.
SDA, please make it so that it's possible to take bigger weapons on smaller ships but they can only be mounted as spinal weapons and take +1 weapon slot for each class the ship is below the lowest class the weapon is for.I'm mostly joking, but wouldn't it be fun?
>>44300958
>carriers are fucking slow
No they aren't. The fastest fleet assets short of the aircraft around are usually carriers. In part because NUCLEAR POWER but also because power output efficiency scales with size. Only a select few ships that were designed purely for speed and are nowhere near the utility, crew complement, or utility of a carrier can beat them in a dead sprint. Since WW2 a lot of ship design is simply built around with having the carrier escorts keep up with the thing they're supposed to protect. Main reason why the fast-battleship classes exist, conventional battleships would have been too slow to fight an engagement with carriers involved.
Maneuverable that'd be true, CVNs have abysmal turning. Better than you'd expect since they can take on some serious lean when they need to, but give them a wide berth in the turns to be safe.
>>44300998
>>44300971
>>44300959
Just give me a way to actually get away from an AMC ship.
A way where the enemy would need actual creativity and lots of dedication to counter it.
>>44300987
>Why are you so much against turtle builds?
I'm not. I'm against exclusively defensive builds. Those never work out in video games for example, and there's a good reason for that. You need to do other things than defend if you want to win.
Do you know what turtling actually is? It's a strategy that tries to win. Therefore, it's a type of offense.
The way you made it sound your build isn't a turtle build, it's a build so mired in defensiveness that it has become paradoxically defenseless.
>>44301041
>But they can turn considerably faster
They can't, actually, it's all just Navigation in the current version.
>So tell me how am i supposed to get away again?
Well, okay, apparently you have only one trick up your sleeve: moving around.
Meanwhile your enemy can move around, stop you from moving around, and also it can kill you.
Sorry, but your ship which can only move around is defenseless in this situation. Maybe bring a ship that can do more things next time.
>>44301099
Anon, we're talking spaceboats in Stardust, not waterboats in reality.
>>44301081
I sorta want that just because it'd let me build Spike's ship the Swordfish.
>>44301130
Square Root Law don't change.
>>44301054
You should play it if you like the art style.
>>44301115
Cloak and go away.
>>44301099
>The fastest fleet assets short of the aircraft around are usually carriers
we're still talking about StarDust.
>>44301124
>I'm not. I'm against exclusively defensive builds. Those never work out in video games for example, and there's a good reason for that. You need to do other things than defend if you want to win.
I played fallout 3 and NV without once killing a sentient being.
>They can't, actually, it's all just Navigation in the current version.
oh that's news then
And no anon, if i don't want to enter combat with someone i should have the option to do so.
Damnit can't you get it into your heads that StarDust was not exclusively a spacecombat simulator? Hence all the origins the terraforming bays, the interesting challenge choices, the elaborate crew system.
It's more than just who can shoot the other person better and fuck anyone who wants to turn it into that.
>>44301172
Still not relevant to the cyoa, where we have set speeds for various ships. You can complain it's not realistic all you like, that's not what people are talking about.
>>44301196
Cloak can be quite easily countered with electronc attack dishes and e-warfare room. Things that almost everyone is going to have. It's really only effective against smaller ships and ragtag pirates.
Any other ideas?
>>44301172
But ship stats given in the CYOA do.
>>44301221
Actually its well supported by the cyoa. Navigation covers maneuverability and acceleration. Larger ships can likely accelerate proportionally better, but they suffer maneuverability to slow that mass and redirect it. Smaller vessels are a mix of over-sized engines intended to keep up with accelerating larger fleet assets but maintain tactical maneuvering.
>>44301174
I can't shake the feeling you're somehow trying to trick me.
>>44301199
Then don't enter combat. Warp jammers don't have a particularly long range. If you get ambushed by a battleship with decent navigation, Umbra, cloaking, cloaking detectors, a warp jammer and an AMC, then you might be a bit fucked. But you'd be similarly fucked going up against a battleship with decent navigation, Umbra, cloaking, cloaking detectors, a warp jammer and several other big guns.
>>44301311
Up to you man. I'm not your porn dealer.
>>44301224
No they can't. Nothing in E-War can counter cloak.
>>44301327
If I asked nicely, would you be my dealer?
>>44301199
You're the one who framed this entire situation in a sense where the fight was already happening. It's true that stardust isn't just about combat, but this discussion was.
I mean, if a fight isn't going to happen because you didn't take any enemies and aren't antagonizing anyone, then why are you worried about the AMC in the first place?
>>44301313
No because the several other big guns literally cannot penetrate carrier tier overcharged herald shielding reinforced with transfer shield strength from an overcharged heraldic frigate.
That's my entire point.
I want to NOT be fucked if i encounter someone with a setup that literally everyone can have, because every battleship will have decent navigation, e warfare room, and a warp jammer. The only thing they need to bring me down is umbra.
...
>>44301353
I checked again and that's actually true.
In this case cloak is overpowered, because there is literally no way to counter it. Someone combines umbra and cloak and they can't be found.
Although i guess it's a rare enough combination to actually be okay.
>>44301389
Nope, it's a sticky business and I wanna stay clean.
>>44301405
>AMC is overpowered!
>Umbra is overpowered!
>Warp Jamming is overpowere!
>Cloak is overpowered!
So basically everything is overpowered.
That's my favorite kind of situation actually, it keeps things exciting.
>>44301432
Eh, I prefer the lower end. Rocket tag is too hectic to get invested in.
>>44301399
If i am peacfully mining away at an asteroid and a bunch of red daggers warps in and says that the asteroid is theirs and because i was mining there my ship also belongs to them now, i'm in a combat situation where i would need to get away and no amount of sweettalking can get me out of that.
But as i said>>44301405
It's okay because cloak is also overpowered.
>>44301432
I don't necessarily agree. Overpowered things usually keep engagements short and only decided by raw powerlevels.
If someone finds a way to somehow board my ship and disable my cloak i'm dead in one hit.
If they don't i'm out of combat in one button press.
>>44301431
piss
>>44301405
>No because the several other big guns literally cannot penetrate carrier tier overcharged herald shielding reinforced with transfer shield strength from an overcharged heraldic frigate.
If they cannot do that, you are literally invincible to anything but AMCs, and that's retarded. By big guns I mean triple spinal ragefires or broadsides covered in torpedoes. If an umbra battleship replaces their AMC with triple spinal ragefires, you're just as fucked. The only difference is that it might take seven minutes to destroy you instead of five.
>>44301467
>I was mining there my ship also belongs to them now
WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF EVE-ONLINE. YOUR ASS IS FUCKED LITTLE HULK. THERE'S A REASON LOW-SEC MINING OPS ARE DONE IN A FLEET.
>>44301467
>If i am peacfully mining away at an asteroid and a bunch of red daggers warps in and says that the asteroid is theirs and because i was mining there my ship also belongs to them now, i'm in a combat situation where i would need to get away and no amount of sweettalking can get me out of that.
I don't know what to tell you, anon. I already know and accept that the CYOA has a combat focus. If you have trouble dealing with this there's actually plenty of other CYOAs out there that have non-combat focuses.
>>44301518
>By big guns I mean triple spinal ragefires or broadsides covered in torpedoes
Oh those.
Well yes.
But for that i have point defense. The build was really stable, the only thing that worried me was that i wouldn't be able to get away from an AMC if i couldn't blink away in time.
>>44301537
>WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF EVE-ONLINE. YOUR ASS IS FUCKED LITTLE HULK. THERE'S A REASON LOW-SEC MINING OPS ARE DONE IN A FLEET.
i lol'd
>>44301545
nonono it's okay now, the active cloak is pretty much an easy way to get out of a fight that has just begun, so it would be difficult to actually force me into an engagement.
>>44297540
Why is this being posted. Slut life is so much better in terms of content and I actually update that.
>>44301518
I don't think he considered that his enemy might use multiple guns. There's also the fact that we only have a baseline score that, depending on mounting point, tier and type can result in weapons with the same stats dealing radically different amounts of damage and we have no idea what kind of armour/shielding each of them can penetrate.
>>44301605
Oh?
Please go ahead and post it then.
>>44301596
I'm not sure point defence is going to work well against a battleship. Luckily, any battleship with triple ragefires or an AMC is going to be rare as fuck, and probably not going to be bothered hunting your noncombatant ass.
>>44301605
hey, would you mind answering my question? >>44298023
At the time, there were 8 posts and 4 IP's. It's pretty strange how the CYOA was posted immediately afterwards, in less than three minutes, with only 4 IP's in the thread, no?
>>44301691
I don't know, I didn't post it, and haven't for a few weeks. I just make it.
>>44301605
Different focus and tone. Being a little girl is a lot different than getting fucked in all holes for money.
>>44301641
It would work against the broadside torpedos you mentioned and i have never actually seen the ragefires so imma check those out first....
well yes it seems they are quite powerful indeed and could wear the shields down with time, but i just need three dedicated drones to constantly float about in the path of the railgun to effectively block every single shot.
And it would take a long time to destroy all 40 drones.
Plus the energy and shield systems of the drones the frigate and the carrier are combined because of the pulsar passive trait and the shield extenders.
In effect the probability of me taking significant damage before blinking out is marginal.
>>44301704
I believe you.I actually do. I'm just tired of seeing this same faggot, right at the start of a thread, asking for slut life to be posted, and sixty seconds later it's posted.And now I've jinxed myself. Shit.
>>44301754
I'm not sure railgun slugs are going to give much of a fuck about small drones. In fact, sending out a bunch of drones or a frigate to block a shot seems like it would work better against an AMC than a ragefire.
>>44301845
not aginast a bunch of small drones, but against drones with extreme overcharged powersystems that are shared between all my ships and heraldic shielding.
It would be difficult to penetrate the shielding and then the projectile would still easily cut through the drone itself, but because of the shielding it would be less of a threat for the main ship and its heraldic+ shields.
>>44300960
Pat Head
>>44297619
Oh here it is
>Each penis has its own set of testicles
oh 4chan you make me giggle
Holy shit, what did I wake up to.
I do recall saying that something -can- survive an AMC blast, but it would require maximum shields, a well-placed Bulwark activation along with the assistance of another ship with maximum shield using a shield extender mod AND activating Leviathan. And even after all of that is said and done, your ship is not coming out okay and you are most likely disabled anyways.That's not a bad thing though; look up BR-5RB.
Battleships are supposed to be anti-carriers in this setting, but they aren't much good for much else other than conventional fleet warfare against each other or structure siege. The whole point in ship classes is escalation; if your enemy brings cruisers, you're gonna bring your cruisers. If they bring battleships, then you either bring more destroyers/cruisers or your own battleships. When they bring a fuckton of battleships then you have to bring either a huge fuckton of destroyers/cruisers or a fuckton of battleships.
>>44301405
In the context of the CYOA, everyone can have that stuff. But you have to remember that Umbra is ultra-rare Herald tech, and AMCs are usually only owned by the most powerful groups.
All T3 weapons, especially the Ragefire and Torpedo Silos, are meant to skull-fuck big hulls. In context, they're meant to eat away at your shields/armour faster than anything else, so I don't know where that's coming from.
>>44301878
No drone would be able to take more than one shot of a T3 weapon, boost or not. Remember that they usually have trouble with T1 weapons.
>>44300960
>>44301884
Now I want to make a Star Dust build about a doctor/mechanic that receives a destroyer in bad shape.
>>44302042
Oh i know that. They would be completely obliterated, but the carrier behind them would be not. And since it has a production line it can rebuild them after it got away.
>>44302052
destroyer best girl?
>>44302041
>shield extender
Exactly how do those work anyway? Do all ships in range other than the one with the range extender get +2 to their shields? It isn't specified in the CYOA.
Honestly, the best ship is probably either a destroyer or a cruiser. Frigates are too small and you'd end up not spending all your cash, the bigger ships are too big and you're forced to buy the plebeian T2 weapons instead of only using T3 and T1 in PD slots like a patrician.
>>44302041
How would 3-4 destroyers fare against a battleship or carrier?
>>44302071
Why not? They're bloody lovely.
>>44302108
>How would 3-4 destroyers fare against a battleship or carrier?
Destroyers would probably rek the big ship. Fact is that weapon mount numbers are proportionately much higher on the destroyers given their size.
>>44302081
Now that I think of it, I actually have no idea... I'll have to reword it a little. I'm thinking sacrificing 10% of your shields to give 20% to all other ships in range.
>>44302108
A good destroyer with a good pilot easily fucks over a meh battleship/carrier with meh pilots. One on one it'll be tough, but believe it or not a destroyer will be able to do a lot before getting blown to bits, if not destroying the battleship outright.
Destroyers have the largest amount of spinal weapon mounts in the CYOA; you're supposed to put your hardest hitting weapons on them.
I'm considering allowing destroyers to equip any T3 weapon on spinal mounts only.
>>44302159
>I'm considering allowing destroyers to equip any T3 weapon on spinal mounts only.
Is this better or worse?
Does anyone have the stardust infantry DLC?
>>44302071
Destroyer second best girl. Cruiser-chan will always have my heart.
>>44302159
>I'm considering allowing destroyers to equip any T3 weapon on spinal mounts only.
I'm ambivalent towards this. On one hand it makes sense, on the other hand this limitation really makes overchargers and torpedoes shine more than usual.
>>44302179
Better, they can't do that now.
>>44302159
>Destroyers have the largest amount of spinal weapon mounts in the CYOA; you're supposed to put your hardest hitting weapons on them.
Ahem, I mean pre-dreadnaught.
>>44302099
What if you buy a swarm of frigates?
>>44302179
The only T3 weapons destroyers can equip are tesla overchargers and torpedo silos. If you look at all the other T3 weapons (tachyons, pulse beams, ragefires), they all can only be equipped on cruiser or larger. I really think destroyers should be able to utilize these, but only on their spinal mounts.
>>44302200
>On one hand it makes sense, on the other hand this limitation really makes overchargers and torpedoes shine more than usual.
I'm a little reluctant as well in this regard, but those can stay effective in drones, fighters, and frigates.
>>44302159
>>44302200
Speaking of which, what's the point of the distinction between T2 and T3 anyway?
>>44302238
From the CYOA it looks to be mostly a case of what drones can use them.
>>44297619
Sooo in slut life.... there's a mistake.
>>44302234
>What if you buy a swarm of frigates?
I don't like the thought of having multiple similar sized ships desu.
>>44302099
That's probably because stardust is geared towards building single ships/small fleets, and classes above cruiser need a sizeable support fleet that the CYOA simply doesn't have the points for. Which is fine, because that isn't the focus of the CYOA itself, and if you wanted to build a bigger fleet just up the credits you gain/earn by like 5-10 and pretend you're an established bigshot or something.
>I'm considering allowing destroyers to equip any T3 weapon on spinal mounts only.
A good way to balance that would be to just make them take up multiple slots, that way you have to choose between big boom, more dakka, or a compromise between the two.
>>44302159
That's good to hear, I prefer a something more... simple, like a flotilla of federation navy destroyers with or without a cruiser, than a a herald battleship or carrier.
About the T3 weapons limitation, I think it's fine. I think an average destroyer would have torpedo as spinal, missile launchers as broadside and Machine Gun/Flak/Light Laser as point defense. Filling it's broadsides with torpedo or tesla charger sounds silly.
>>44302181
I don't disagree, Cruisers are beautiful too.
>>44302304
The 'average' destroyer only having one build is pretty trash honestly.
>>44301884
I'm going to play this and pretend it's about making Bliss feel better after people bullied him.
>>44302323
Variety and flexibility are nice things, but I think an organization big as Federation Navy would prefer mass production to reduce cost, so they would find a nice build for their doctrine make it their bulk and have a smaller number of specialized destroyers.
