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); Blog post: Personal Contacts (08/13/20)

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 - Grievous69

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
1
Suggestions / Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« on: September 19, 2020, 10:11:06 AM »
The whole point of small energies being bad is that they suck up dissipation for virtually no gain, and you want to make it even worse? No thank you. OP is not the issue, it's having enough flux to fire your actual guns. Ballistics don't really need much help, and the missile thing just seems like a straight buff to me. Missile saturation > one really strong missile. Besides, these would have to work as different weapons, otherwise it'd be too confusing.

I still think there's no need for a fundamental change that will confuse most players. I'd rather see current ''problematic'' small weapons fixed, or maybe add some new cheap ones.

2
General Discussion / Re: How to counter Carrier spam?
« on: September 14, 2020, 12:00:37 AM »
Probably not, but you're not gonna have AI with a fleet of Drovers with Sparks. And sure you could fight fire with fire but say goodbye to your framerate then.

3
General Discussion / Re: How to counter Carrier spam?
« on: September 13, 2020, 11:50:35 PM »
Tempest swarm counters everything in the game.

4
Suggestions / Re: Overall Dissipation vs Weapon Flux Balance
« on: September 11, 2020, 02:33:20 AM »
Yes, yes and a million times yes. Many ships have so little flux they can barely handle "budget" loadouts with low flux/sec weapons. It's ridiculous to me that you have a ship with let's say a large ballistic mount, and that you can't even dare to put a weapon of your choice there. You HAVE to go with the cheap option and then invest 60 points into vents. Sure you could do the opposite, no one's stopping you, but that ship will die horribly. I'm all for things that help with the mandatory OP taxes, it'll eventually lead to some more interesting builds.

But I can see how this would be incredibly tough to balance, with so many ships we have. Also I don't have a problem with overfluxed ships IF they're using high powered weapons.

5
Suggestions / Re: a few suggestions
« on: September 10, 2020, 08:44:12 AM »
Atlas mk2, have you considered, not putting anything in the mediums?
So you don't think the ship is OP starved but you suggested leaving FOUR MEDIUM slots completely empty, not even downsized, just empty. This isn't even a case as with high tech ships where you don't wanna fill all of the small energy mounts, you literally don't have points here for a "normal" loadout using all mounts, nothing fancy or elite. Tbf designing a capital worth 24 DP was weird to begin with, so now it's just stuck in the weird spot where it's still a cool ship and people like the theme of it, but it's so horribly bad and not worth using it ever. Personally I'd just increase the DP and have it be an actual menacing pirate capital. Instead of a Conquest MkII Pinata edition (it dies faster than cruisers I swear).

Agree with the rest of your counter points to OP.

One thing worth noting is that we're probably gonna have smaller fleets in the future as Alex intends to tone down things a bit, so the fleet size cap shouldn't really be an issue. At least that's the plan I think.

6
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a weapon testing - missile launchers on Shrike
« on: September 06, 2020, 03:15:52 AM »
This may be a teeny tiny bit off topic but I'm curious. Do people put Salamanders on warships? I've done so before because I thought "they're unlimited so it can't hurt", but as time passed by, I realised my ships do way better with just a few extra caps or hullmods. Salamanders are really costly on OP if you take a look what AI gets out of them. Now I'm not saying they're bad as missiles, they certainly have a place, but I can't think of a combat ship that would do equally well as with other missile options.

Actually Doom has a decent benefit from Salamanders due to mines, but that's such a unique thing that doesn't appear anywhere else. Like would you put them on a Dominator, Aurora, Onslaught, Odyssey, Eagle, Apogee, new Fury, or even Enforcer for some reason? I don't think the game would break if the OP cost got reduced to 4/8 honestly. Maybe I'm just using them wrong who knows.

7
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a weapon testing - missile launchers on Shrike
« on: September 05, 2020, 06:46:38 AM »
Which is why I'm not that crazy with tests where the testing side has greater numbers. Some weapons are just ''win more'' or a ''win faster'' button, with Harpoons being the best example of that. In campaign, most of the time you're either fighting with equal opponents, or get ambushed by a bigger fleet. You could say this is the case for every HE missile, but the thing with Harpoons is that every single ships that has them, WILL fire them at anything that's overloaded. So it's no wonder it has better time stats in skewed scenarios. Actually I'd say Harpoons are the closest missile to fighters, where increasing numbers have exponential growth in power, they're just a limited but more bursty version.

Pilums used to be literally current fighters, but they're kinda useless now. Only thing they do is confuse AI.

8
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a weapon testing - missile launchers on Shrike
« on: September 05, 2020, 06:18:02 AM »
Well yeah obviously, but I still think the results wouldn't change too much with an actual skirmish battle (using the same builds). Now it might make a difference in a giant battle with capitals, but at that point you're not using Shrikes anyway.

9
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a weapon testing - missile launchers on Shrike
« on: September 05, 2020, 05:39:45 AM »
Smh when Thaago constantly kept saying how Harpoons are equally as good as Sabots on Shrikes. The numbers don't lie.

One slight complaint I have is, who the hell uses IR Pulse lasers when you already have a Heavy blaster. It would make sense on a Pulse laser build (which goes better with HE missiles), but here only Ion cannons and PD are enough. Putting even more flux on the poor thing never goes well in actual battles.

10
General Discussion / Re: My personal vanilla Starsector ships Tier-list
« on: September 01, 2020, 08:37:33 AM »
Why Lasher is so low? It's OP thanks to low cost, Feeder and many weapons mounts. SO playership it's brutal.
The whole list is so cursed that most people missed Lasher being in E tier.

11
Suggestions / Re: Smaller fighters and friendly weapons bypass
« on: August 27, 2020, 01:33:58 AM »
Your points are kinda contradicting each other. You want the ships to have an easier time vs fighters but at the same time you want to make them smaller. Which isn't just a cosmetic change as you said, it's a balance one too, and a big one. The whole point of fighters having current size is so they can be hit with ship weapons easily. If they were smaller only beams would be able to hit them, or you'd need to rebalance every single weapon in the game which isn't happening.

12
Discussions / Re: Starsector PvP
« on: August 27, 2020, 12:22:11 AM »
Sooo tournaments?

13
Suggestions / Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« on: August 26, 2020, 10:56:58 AM »
@intrinsic_parity
Agree with everything you said. Worth noting is that I think IR pulse laser may actually get an efficiency buff, I vaguely remember seeing a part of balance changes from Alex that were implemented into the previous tournament (everything is subject to change I guess). Small energy weapons truly are traps on bigger ships, you either get PD or not bother at all. Maybe Tac lasers if you're going for a beam loadout or something weird. And as you said, Pulse laser ain't much better, it's just used on ships that can't use Heavy Blaster easily.

Well Plasma Cannon is really the only reliable sustained dmg weapon. HIL is a beam that requires kinetics to be good (which most high-tech ships don't have), and other options aren't that crazy unless massed. It's only logical that people go all in with Plasma cannons and focus on doing as much damage as they can with them.

14
Suggestions / Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« on: August 25, 2020, 12:39:43 PM »
Sorry I didn't go through all of the previous posts but I just want to say I agree it's dumb when the optimal build for a ship is to leave it almost naked and focus everything into flux and hullmods. Of course there's nothing terribly wrong with that, it just bothers me it's a thing on multiple ships. That said, I disagree with the OP, having any sort of arbitrary bonuses or punishing a player for doing something unique is bad and should be avoided. Honestly I don't know if there even is a way you could "fix" this.

0 OP weapons that don't cost flux is hilarious, you'll just end up in the same place as before, only now those weapons will replace empty mounts. Again, there's not much choice there. What I would like is more granularity between weapons. Currently if you want some token PD, it'll add up pretty fast on OP. And only ballistics have decent cheap assault options. Missiles are fine imo, you can leave them empty if you want but you lose a fair bit of punchyness for relatively low OP cost. Ballistics are also mostly fine, although I'd like to see a 1-2 OP option, because some ships just have waaay too many small mounts. And now energy mounts, dear god they desperately need something. Most of the ships with optimal "naked" builds have energy mounts that hurt more to fill than leave empty.

I'd still like to see some cool niche builds with few weapons but hopefully not as many as now. Actually now that I think about it, a huge amount of ships are horribly underfluxed and really need all the OPs spent on that just so they don't explode in a normal fight. I feel like even when you go with efficient weapons, you still end up being way over your initial stats.

15
General Discussion / Re: Gemini stole Conquest's name
« on: August 24, 2020, 02:30:15 PM »
As much as it makes more sense for it to have the name "Gemini", at the same time I'm glad it doesn't, since then even more players would think of only doing symmetric builds. Thus not uncovering the potential of the true best player ship. (I'm glad we're all settled here that it's the best, I can't imagine anyone not thinking that way HAHAHA)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63