Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Updated the Forum Rules and Guidelines (02/29/20); Blog post: GIF Roundup (04/11/20)

Show Posts

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.

Messages - Wyvern

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 167
1
General Discussion / Re: The most imba weapon?
« on: Today at 09:45:51 PM »
Wolf doesn't really have the flux stats to support a single pulse laser, nevermind a heavy blaster.  Shrike's debateable.  Tempest?  A tempest with a single heavy blaster (and literally no other weaponry) performs very well indeed; in my experience, much better than one that uses other vanilla weaponry.

As for medium universals?  Well, yeah, if you've got more than one such, or other medium weapon slots, then specialized ballistics (or -maybe- missiles) are the way to go (for a ship with sane flux stats, at least).  I mean, that's obvious.  Not a good 'litmus test' there.

Now, consider instead a hypothetical destroyer with one medium universal and a handful of small slots.  What do you want there?  Well, if you're looking for a specialized role, then a ballistic or missile weapon will work nicely.  If you want something that's just generally going to kill things?  Heavy blaster has no serious competition (short of maybe an SO build with an assault chaingun).  And this is what I mean about the HB constraining design space: a ship that would be reasonable with other weaponry becomes very quickly unreasonable when it's suddenly doing 500dps with high armor penetration instead of the tradeoffs you'd have to have with literally any other weapon.

There are no destroyers with that weapon layout in vanilla, so it's not a vanilla balance issue.  But it's a good example of what I mean about the heavy blaster's existence skewing what's safe to design when you're modding.

2
General Discussion / Re: The most imba weapon?
« on: Today at 08:34:29 PM »
I don't think the heavy blaster is unbalanced at all. If a ship has the dissipation to use a heavy blaster, it could easily use multiple other weapons to get much higher dps and efficiency.
This... does not match my experience; you're overlooking the heavy blaster's vastly superior armor penetration.  If you've got a ship that can reasonably support one or two pulse lasers (but doesn't have a large energy slot), it's likely to perform better with a single heavy blaster, even if that means leaving one of its medium energy slots empty.  This doesn't change until you get up to the Aurora, where you can reasonably install a heavy blaster alongside other more efficient guns.

3
General Discussion / Re: The most imba weapon?
« on: Today at 07:27:00 PM »
For it to be imbalanced would mean that the pros vastly outweigh the cons, and that is not the case.
You're using a different definition - and that's why I clarified my statement to add that I don't think the Heavy Blaster is overpowered.

It is, however, an extreme outlier that is very difficult to balance around; a weapon whose mere existence can cause an otherwise reasonable ship hull to be overpowered.

4
General Discussion / Re: The most imba weapon?
« on: Today at 03:59:48 PM »
I'd say the most imbalanced vanilla weapon is the Heavy Blaster.  It's an extreme outlier for its slot size and type - essentially a large weapon that fits into a medium slot - and that distorts any attempt to mod in ships that can mount medium energy weapons, since you have to always stop and ask yourself "Okay, but is this reasonable if someone sticks a heavy blaster on it?".  All too frequently, the answer is "No."

This is not to say that the heavy blaster is overpowered, mind you.  But imbalanced?  Oh so very much.

5
General Discussion / Re: Tactical laser vs PD laser
« on: June 24, 2020, 10:40:47 AM »
Hm, that's an interesting question - I believe that the Choir Emitter's ability to EMP missile engines is a scripted effect, rather than something inherent to EMP damage, so the skills won't naturally improve it... on the other hand, it could be scripted to check skills and then adjust the effect?

That said, boosting the Choir Emitter's damage isn't useless, even if it doesn't boost the EMP effect - the more damage it does, the faster it'll actually kill an EMP'd missile, and the sooner it can move on to shooting at the next missile.

6
General Discussion / Re: Speculation of the new phase Capital Ship
« on: June 08, 2020, 01:26:49 PM »
I mean, there's an obvious compromise here: make a phase capital that's a combat freighter.  Then the "effectively plus one size step" from being a phase ship is countered by the step down from being a combat freighter, and the end result is scaled at about a conventional capital ship's power level.

7
Unfortunately, the answer is "probably, but I don't know what."  Even a relatively normal save file is likely to be over 400,000 lines...

...Actually, come to think of it, there is one way to easily see at least if my diagnosis is correct.

Start a new game (to minimize the amount of stuff in the save file).  Let the initial setup stuff finish, pause, save.

Load up that save, don't unpause, hit 'save a copy', load up that save, and maybe repeat this a few times to make sure you can see any trends in save file size.  Possibly shut the game down entirely inbetween saving and loading the save - I know that can have an impact on some stuff if someone's got a buggy mod.
Since the game's paused, it shouldn't be generating any new data or increasing the size of the save files.  If it is, then you can compare one of the larger save files with one of the smaller save files and see where the differences are.  (There are programs that will let you do a nice visual comparison.  Or if you're on linux you can use diff.)

8
While the More Officer Skills mod is very spammy in the log - I suspect it's logging any time a level gets applied to any officer anywhere including in generated AI fleets - I doubt it's actually the cause of your issues.  And I believe Starsector uses a rolling log file setup, so log files at about 50MB should be expected - that's not a log for one run of the game, necessarily.

I'd suggest, instead, opening up the save xml file and seeing what you can find in there.  This sounds much more like some mod accidentally saving a copy of the current game state to permanent data, which would compound each time you save and then reload the game.

9
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Tahlan Shipworks 0.3.16
« on: June 03, 2020, 09:56:14 AM »
No more GH Castigator?  ...But that was the fun one to fly!

(As a personal thing, I'm not much of a fan of burn-drive-like systems.  The GH Castigator's mobility system was fun to use.)

10
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Dassault-Mikoyan Engineering v.1.18a
« on: May 29, 2020, 12:12:38 PM »
RE: Deserter-refit Tempest: Yeah, these can be more fragile than the regular Tempest; their drones are much more attack drones than defense drones.  I usually solve this by installing flak cannons on them; I don't consider this to be a serious loss of firepower compared to a regular Tempest, since my regular Tempest builds are typically single-heavy-blaster builds.

One of these days I'm going to try refit Tempests with long-range kinetic ballistics and the medium energy slot dedicated to PD instead.  Ought to make for a decent swarm.

11
General Discussion / Armor Skill Interactions
« on: May 27, 2020, 03:46:40 PM »
From This Thread over in bug reports, it was observed that, if you have Impact Mitigation 1, the "+150 armor" completely replaces the normal 5% of base armor minimum value for armor strength.
Hmm. Looking at the code, it's going to be whichever is higher - 5% of the ship's max armor (without the +150), or the modified effective armor rating at the point of impact (150 with IM, 0 otherwise). I'm still not 100% sure what I'm looking at as far as the pictures, but does this explain it?
This makes some sense to me - even with an Onslaught XIV with Armored Weapon Mounts and Heavy Armor, your base armor is still "only" 2425, and you'd need over 3000 base armor for the 5% minimum to be greater than 150.
(Even if I would have - like the people who reported this as a bug - have expected the minimum armor to be 5% of base + 150.)

What I'm curious about is how this interacts with Evasive Action 3.  Would that Onslaught end up with a minimum armor strength of 225 (150 * 1.5), or 182 (2425 * .05 * 1.6)?

(And, posting this over here in discussion, because this question doesn't belong in the bug reports forum.)

12
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Dassault-Mikoyan Engineering v.1.18a
« on: May 27, 2020, 03:19:11 PM »
I'm getting back into it now and pushing forward on a few last pieces of content.
Well, one, take your time... but two, I'm definitely looking forward to the next update and seeing what you've come up with this time.

13
The range markers stay, but the weapons should autofire.
Note that this is a feature, not a bug; it means you can select your primary weapons, toggle off to an empty group, and still see what your guns' range is.

14
Suggestions / Re: Bring back fleet size capped by logistics
« on: May 27, 2020, 10:32:26 AM »
Honestly, imo I'd be best if there were no caps at all. No matter which system we will end up with, there's always gonna be an optimal strat. So why not just get rid of arbitrary numbers and let actual logistics be a thing that dictates how many ships can you field before draining supplies/fuel/credits like crazy.
And the optimal strat for "no caps" is the same problematic "fill your fleet with capitals" that I'd like to see the game move away from.  Plus with colony income, limiting the player by only what they can afford to support would lead inevitably to even bigger fleets.  Your suggestion doesn't fix anything - it would actually make the problem worse!

15
Suggestions / Bring back fleet size capped by logistics
« on: May 27, 2020, 09:13:43 AM »
A couple of versions ago, we had a soft-limited fleet size, based on the logistical footprint of the ships in our fleet.  This wasn't set up perfectly - there was a basically-mandatory skill to boost the cap, since at default you could just barely field one capital ship - but it did have a number of advantages over the current fixed limit by number of ships.

The big one, though, the one that prompts me to actually write this suggestion: I believe that this change was the underlying driving force for the current game's inflated fleet sizes.  When an endgame player can field a dozen Paragons, the sorts of fleets that can pose a challenge to that are, uh, kinda boring and tedious to fight.

I don't like slogging through a pirate expedition multi-fleet blob that's thirty-plus Atlas IIs and supporting chaff.  I don't like having to fill my fleet with capital ships to have even a chance at taking on some Tri-Tachyon deserter bounty that's packed full of paragons and astrals and dooms.

And the thing is... as long as the player's fleet is limited by number of ships?  Those massive battles have to stay, because otherwise the player will still end up with a fleet full of capitals and cruisers and be able to just steamroll over anything smaller.

So please, bring back fleet cap by logistics.  Don't make a skill for it - that was a mistake last time around.  Maybe have it scale up by level if you need to?  80 at level one (plenty of room for game start, but you might have to pick and choose carefully if you luck into a salvageable capital ship), up to maybe 300 at max level - enough to accommodate a handful of capital ships, but not enough that you can just give every officer their own Paragon.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 167