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

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 29, 2023, 04:15:38 AM »

By making the heavy armor debuff apply only if smodding, means most lowtech ships are effectively short 20-40OP now, lowering build diversity

20-40 OP? I think you're missing the fact that you still get to s-mod another hullmod, potentially the most expensive non-s-modded hullmod. So you're only losing 5/15 OP (cruiser/cap), since the built-ins will be balanced around providing ITU-level value (15/25), which seems like a fair trade for the base heavy armor buff.

I guess the question is if a 5/15 OP nerf for these lowtech ships will be a good change or not. In an ideal universe people will just try to come up with a new wacky non-HA build, but I think it's more likely that players cut corners to afford HA anyway. Hard to tell at this stage though.

2

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 09, 2023, 03:40:35 PM »

... for the OP difference that S-point hull mods are supposed to ignore...

Ah - they're not supposed to! In the current version, it's meant to be balanced out by you getting more bonus XP for building in hullmods that cost less OP. To put it mildly, though, that doesn't work out in practice. (In the new system, you get a flat 75/50/25/0% bonus XP per hullmod, depending on the size of the hull.)

That's true, I forgot about that. I do like the new/upcoming incentive to S-mod frigates and smaller ships, that'll create some potentially interesting choices early on.

3

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 09, 2023, 06:42:00 AM »

At the risk of not being very constructive, I don't love the S-point Hull mod system. The enemy AI generally doesn't use it (at all? I know some mods change that though), so you end up with objectively stronger ships than the opposition. This makes me question whether my ships are actually good or if I've just stacked enough S-point power boosts to overcome most weaknesses.

It would probably be easy to just not use the S-point hull mod system, but it's in the game so I've tried to understand and enjoy it. But then you immediately run into the same issue that these buffs/debuffs try to solve: You always S-mod the most expensive hull mod that you want installed, so that you free up points for other hull mods that you can then add normally. That was rarely an interesting choice.

Well, now we are getting these extra buffs/debuffs that are there to compensate for the OP difference that S-point hull mods are supposed to ignore... which seems like a solution to a self-inflicted problem. It's probably an improvement to the system overall, although I'm not sure it'll be a dramatic difference. Instead of saving 30 OP points and getting a penalty, we'll probably save 25 OP points on a slightly cheaper alternative without a penalty, or 20 OP points with some nifty advantage that may provide great value with the ship's loadout. At best some ships get indirectly nerfed by a handful of OP points.

Wouldn't it be neat to scrap the S-point hull mod system and instead implement these extra hull mod options into the basic ship system? Imagine choosing between pristine heavy armor, or heavy armor with a penalty but for a lower OP cost. Some of the buffs could be turned into their own standalone hullmods, like the high resolution sensors that provide extra vision. Others could just be integrated completely, and have the OP cost increased to compensate.

Ah well, I look forward to trying out the new things.

4

General Discussion / Re: Fun fact: Moras are faster than Condors! (Speed Chart)

« on: September 11, 2022, 05:53:27 PM »

I assume the speed chart is not including speed abilities? Some ships look misleadingly slow... Until they decide to close in with their ability.

On the Heron debate, love the Heron, the best pure carrier by far. Most hangars per OP, and the fastest dedicated carrier. I want to like the Drover, but it could use an extra 5-10 speed to make it the fast light carrier option that it deserves to be.

5

General Discussion / Re: Vigilance is bad

« on: August 06, 2022, 10:05:33 AM »

Add expanded missile racks built-in, this encourages using ammo-dependent missiles but doesn't actually improve the Pilum/Salamander

Salamander doesn't use ammo, but Pilum does.
Expanded Racks does help Pilum as it gives them a longer time until the missiles become rate-limited and can only fire as fast as they are reloaded.

True, didn't think of that. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't seem to be very good at using the Fast Missile Racks with the Pilum anyway. It stays at 2 charges, sometimes it even remains at 3 charges for a prolonged time. This behaviour makes sense if you're reserving your firepower for the right moment to unleash a volley of devastating Harpoon missiles, less so if you're trying to provide sustained Pilum pressure. It'll run out of peak active performance time before it gets even halfway through its Expanded Missile Racks. There's some benefit there with the right skills and if the engagement goes on for long enough, but it seems fairly marginal.

6

General Discussion / Re: Vigilance is bad

« on: August 06, 2022, 12:09:59 AM »

Interesting thread, I gotta agree that the Vigilance feels pretty disappointing. If you want support missiles in the later game, the Gryphon is an amazing option. Early game, the Vigilance is just too slow and vulnerable.

Some thoughts from me:
Vigilance can't be too fast, or else it becomes a kite machine. Long range graviton or ion beam in combination with high speed is a potentially nasty (and safe/boring) combination.
If the Vigilance is a fleet support ship then running out of missiles early in the battle is a major downside, so infinite ammo missiles are preferred.
On the same note, unguided missiles are generally not great since the Vigilance is not much of a frontline ship.
The above two points means that the Vigilance will favour low-impact support missiles, like the Pilum or Salamander, maybe someone can make the Breach missiles work with the Vigilance.
The Vigilance should be weak to fighters, this seems like a core part of its identity to me. Giving it ship systems that counter fighters would shore up one of its weak points, yes, but also take away something that makes the Vigilance into the Vigilance.

The way I see it, there are three viable changes:
Increase the speed back to 130, this will increase the ship's survivability at the risk of making it too good at kiting.
Add expanded missile racks built-in, this encourages using ammo-dependent missiles but doesn't actually improve the Pilum/Salamander Vigilance. Maybe it opens up some room for a Harpoon/Sabot Vigilance though.
Reduce DP to 4. If a ship isn't very good, then maybe the solution is just to make it cheaper to field it.

I thought a little bit about turning the hybrid turret into a ballistic turret and sidestepping the Graviton/Ion beam shenanigans that way, then you could safely increase the speed of the Vigilance to something respectable. Maybe that's more of a Vigilance (P) idea though.

7

Blog Posts / Re: Uniquifying the Factions, Part 2

« on: May 01, 2022, 05:25:48 AM »

Great blog post. Really enjoying the lore and environmental storytelling for Sindria, definitely a bold choice.

Gameplay-wise I have some concerns (why would I want to use one of these LG ships myself, beyond maybe the paintjob?), but I love the idea of the Supreme Executor's paper tiger military and blowing them up to put their fancy guns to proper use.

8

Suggestions / Re: Officer portraits and the matching bithday problem

« on: January 31, 2022, 06:48:28 PM »

Yes please. Duplicate portraits makes it harder to identify my officers and to care about them, which is a real shame.

If for whatever reason forbidding duplicates isn't viable or wanted, then a "customise officers" option to change the portrait and name of our officers would be great.

9

General Discussion / Re: Zig is ridiculous

« on: January 18, 2022, 03:40:36 AM »

I used 3 Herons and 3 Gryphons and then some other supporting ships (a Conquest, Fury, Eradicator, some Hammerheads, some frigates) and the Ziggurat wasn't too bad. I think the amount of missiles available meant that the Ziggurat AI was too scared to stay in realspace, so it mostly just kept itself phased until it was full on flux, and then it died.

10

Suggestions / Re: Wolfpack Tactics: Small Problem and Proposed Change

« on: January 18, 2022, 01:46:48 AM »

Something like what Thaago is suggesting would be very welcome. I want to use Wolfpack Tactics, but the Hyperion is just a really good frigate for this skill and I feel compelled to ignore the other ships in favour of giving what is effectively a light cruiser in disguise 20% more damage.

I'd honestly be fine with just making the Hyperion into one big exception that only gets 10% more damage, maybe with the Shrike as a second exception with 20% damage, but that is perhaps not a very elegant solution and wouldn't get the full benefit of Thaago's suggestion.

11

General Discussion / Re: Vanguard is terrible

« on: January 13, 2022, 09:54:28 AM »

Vanguards are not bad at all, I'd say. They're tough, have lots of room for missiles and torpedoes, one of the faster frigates (and very fast when burning forward, which is useful for capping points), and the lack of shields means that you can safely overflux them with lots of dakka
The dampener also more or less acts as a safe flux vent for the ship.

In addition to all of that, they have lots of OP for hull mods, so you can stack armor, add missile racks, or SO, or whatever you might fancy without sacrificing much.

It's overall solid, and doesn't die as often as I first thought it would.

12

Suggestions / Re: Balance of the Vanguard

« on: January 09, 2022, 09:58:37 AM »

I have one Vanguard in my fleet and it has been pretty useful. Three missile slots isn't bad at all, and the ship has more than enough OP for expanded missile racks. Add in an officer with the missile skill, and suddenly you have a torpedo boat. It's also fast and tough, so survivability hasn't been too awful despite the lack of shields.

I've been pleasantly surprised by its performance. Better than a Wolf, better than a Lasher. Probably not as good as one of the 8DP frigates, but it's not supposed to be.

13

General Discussion / Re: Need some advice

« on: January 06, 2022, 10:08:00 AM »

I think the Shepherds are really solid early game freighter/scavenger/explorer ships. If you're not using them in battles I strongly recommend getting the Hull mod that removes the hangar bays and replaces it with more cargo space.

14

General Discussion / Re: How to make a profit with tariffs so high?

« on: December 31, 2021, 02:52:18 PM »

Find extreme shortages and exploit them. Who will have extreme shortages? People who are losing wars. Who are losing wars? The Luddic Path and the Pirates.

Sell heavy weaponry to the terrorists and pirates, and you'll be rich.

Also, the black market is your friend.

15

Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 3.0 (0.53.1a with campaign)

« on: September 16, 2012, 12:29:20 PM »

Great mod, love to see that you are still working on it. The feeling of trying to attack a lone alien ship with your fleet, and getting wrecked without getting a single hit is pretty badass...