Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

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.

Topics - Grievous69

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Bug Reports & Support (modded) / AI firing at empty space
« on: October 31, 2020, 07:12:09 AM »
So ugh, while making build variants for the tournament, I came across this weird thing.

I've never encountered this before, especially the Dual flaks hitting blank space at less than half range of my ship. And it couldn't have been a ghost missile or something because my ship has no missile weapons. Xyphos were chilling waaaay back in the meantime too.

2
Suggestions / What if the Onslaught was a real battleship?
« on: July 11, 2020, 10:58:36 AM »
I just want to clarify something, I don't think it's bad, I've definitely used it numerous times in my campaigns. But I was thinking, it's classified as a proper battleship, and it's 40 DP, meanwhile battlecruisers usually cost the same, Odyssey is even more expensive. Now I know it's perfectly okay for it to work like that, obviously there's more to factor in that just firepower. So my idea was to make it actually terrifying and up it's DP cost accordingly, 45 or 50 maybe idk. I think it's fair to let its 3 large turrets all converge forwards, it's a ship with a Burn drive after all, not a broadside ship. Perhaps add some more small mounts on it to really match the word Onslaught, and give it some more flux stats because even now you're barely able to fire your low flux guns, let alone something stronger, and I think battleships should be able to do that.

Hopefully it could also help with these ''problems'' a bit. It already has huge crew and fuel costs, this way it'll be worth it at least (it's actually more expensive than the Paragon weirdly). And since capital spam is a thing that's trying to get resolved maybe this would reduce the number of capital ships in some fleets. So it's no more a 5-6 Onslaught fleet but maybe 3 or 4 of them. Finally, this could potentially leave place for a low tech battlecruiser of some sort.

So would this be a good/bad thing and why? Or maybe it won't change much in the grand scheme of things so it's unnecessary?

EDIT: Actually I shouldn't have said ''real battleship'', it would imply it is weak right now. Let's then say a ''proper battleship''.

3
It's been happening here as well as on the subreddit (probably on Discord too but I don't read stuff there that much), and it's the exact opposite thing of what I've been used to in most games. Usually people defend OP stuff so they can play with them longer (especially if it's a multiplayer game), and I can understand that mindset. But I've come across people defending bad ships and weapons and instead of acknowledging that they clearly underperform, they call them ''niche'' or straight up tell others that they just don't know how to use them properly. Now I understand that game balance is very tricky, not everything can be perfect, and in some cases it's good to have a few worse options (for example here, easier early game enemies). But what is the point of being in denial that a certain ship or weapon isn't bad? I just want someone to explain that to me. Is it a challenge thing? Or maybe something that makes you feel superior to others since you use options  most people say are inferior?

Whatever the reason may be, it's just annoying having every other discussion end up with ''no you're wrong, x thing is just niche'' or ''it's just a matter of playstyle'', playstyle being fast-dying-ships fleet. I feel like it's super lazy and doesn't contribute anything to the subject.

In other thread I saw people defending Vigilance, Buffalo Mk II is a more useful ship. I've seen people praising Shrike as the essential ship to have in your fleet at all times. Same with Venture, same with Condor and so on...

And the argument is always the same, ''it just has a very specialized role''. In this case, specialized role can mean: dying super fast, suicing into whole enemy fleets, Salamander spammer, sitting brick of a duck...

If the same arguments were made for OP ships, half of the community would lose their mind, but apparently it's ok to have totally useless ships that are just there for visual stimulation. I care about balance, it's true that broken ships are a priority but it's also frustrating when a large number of ships are inferior in every way possible than some others.

4
Suggestions / A kinetic torpedo?
« on: July 02, 2020, 11:37:00 PM »
Writing about Sabots in a different post got me thinking, there really should be a different (maybe more common) kinetic missile but I don't want it to be too similar to Sabots. Now the biggest thing for me is seeing if it would work well on high tech ships that really need kinetic help. Most of these ships have mobility systems that can really close in on fast. So why not have a slower missile that synergizes well with those same fast ships.

I was thinking somewhere along these lines:
''Potential kinetic torpedo pod''
Range: 1200 900
Damage: 1500
Ammo: 10
Speed: Fast
Tracking: None
Refire delay: 10

I think the damage is reasonable for an unguided torpedo with the same speed as Reapers. You could drop shields to take a hit but not multiple times or with exposed hull so it's not too easy to counter (other than just dodge it). Small version would have 2 ammo. Thoughts?

5
General Discussion / Cursed builds
« on: June 22, 2020, 04:15:27 AM »
I've been a bit bored so I tried to come up with some truly ''wrong'' builds that can still work. Obviously these can't compete with the optimal ones, so don't start with ''well if you replace x with y the build can be a lot better''. The whole point is having fun and giving the meta a middle finger.

WARNING: The following images may be shocking for some, open at your own risk!
Spoiler

The Battlecarrier Astral - Note how even with only Talons, Astral lacks OP to do anything decent
[close]
Spoiler

The Aurora Wannabe Eagle - A cheaper alternative of the mighty destroyer crusher
[close]
Spoiler

The Lawnmower Conquest - Say goodbye to those pesky fighters and missile clouds
[close]
Spoiler

The REAL Burst Paragon - When you just can't seem to find those Plasma Cannons
[close]

Feel free to post your own abominations

6
Suggestions / Tutorial is weird with some starts
« on: June 05, 2020, 11:57:31 AM »
I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere or is being worked on but currently the tutorial assumes you chose either the first or second starting option. I payed no attention to this since obviously I know how to play the game so I just skipped it. But a friend of mine just got into the game, and he chose the randomized option. What happens in the end is that pretty much everything in the tutorial runs away from you, he was kinda confused on what was going on. And then you get asked to recover even more ships which then makes a small-ish fleet pretty damn big for just starting out. Managing logistics is hard for new players, it's even harder when you just came in Corvus with 3 destroyers and some frigates.

No idea what would the ideal solution be here, locking some choices for first time players, tutorial adjustments based on what start is chosen, idk. It just makes the first experience weird if the player chooses a start that's not a single combat frigate.

P.S. I almost forgot the hilarious interaction where he tried to ''sneak in'' the pirate base with a big fleet and couldn't get close without being detected. When he closed in the pirates just ran away... so much for the sneaking part of the game.

7
Thaago just reminded me about this feature that even I sometimes completely forget. It's not a crazy knockback which is easily observable but just try loading a carrier with Perditions, and then running a sim vs the default Eagle. Third of the shots usually miss which is pretty substantial for a torpedo, and this isn't even mentioned when you hover over the weapon in the stat card.

8
General Discussion / Yet another fighter balance post
« on: May 28, 2020, 11:16:12 PM »
Even better if fighters became ships again so carriers can spend OP on guns and warship hullmods like they used to.  I am tired of the optimal carrier being the unarmed one that runs from everything while elite fighters do everything.  Also, commanding fighters to do stuff if player wanted.
Yep. That's one popular community suggestion that I have not seen bring any improvement to the game. May be pointless to argue against it now, but the game is worse off than it was before the change was introduced both concerning balance and combat depth.
I really wanna talk about this. I always knew some preferred the old fighter system but I thought those people were rare. Because personally I think the new system is miles better than the old one. I'm not gonna spend time convicing you since Alex already wrote a blog post about that. What I want to discuss is how some things remained the same after the rework and how it might be improved to reduce the ''spend all OPs on fighters and leave mounts empty'' problem I and a few others clearly don't like.

First, the goal of the fighter rework, among others, was to make the fighters feel more useful and stronger (well that's clearly achieved). But the problem I have is them having the exact same weapons as the ships many times bigger than them. This obviously has balance issues where it's hard to nerf/buff one without messing up the other but also having the same weapon being limited on one platform, but then absolutely unlimited on the other. Yea I know there's a thread for that, I'm just stating there could be a way to solve that logical obstacle. High delay type weapons of existing ones is a good start, more fighter weapons should be ''this weapon but weaker''.

Second thing, the OP going all into one basket. I reread the blog post just to get into the mindset of Alex again and there seems to be something that's bothering me. Originally, you have a decision on carriers between having almost free fighters with weaponry, and being virtually naked but with mean little bastards around. The base cost should've been 0 OP, but since Talon was obviously worth more it was buffed to 2 OP so I'm gonna use that as a baseline (it's hard to count Mining pods into this, having 0 enagement range and all that). So the caveat is, you should theoretically end up with same relative strength using both ''playstyles''. Now try having a Mora with nothing but Talons. Sure they still end up doing something and you have more room for weapons, but the difference between 3 wings of them and 3 wings of anything decent is astronomical. That's one less filled small mount on a Mora having the impact of a 4 times stronger fighter wing. You could do the same with Mining pods just to prove my point. Same with Drover, no point in having cheap fighters (I know that's a whole other can of worms). Sadly there's no 0 OP bombers or close so you can't really test Astral or Heron with those but I'm sure you would end with same differences in power.

And the last thing that's making the current meta annoying: AI
The cursed state of limbo where they just have to keep smacking fighters at 0 speed over and over again almost as they have been punished by the gods. I know going Leeroy Jenkins into a carrier immediately isn't a solution but this part is what makes fighters ultra annoying to deal with. I don't know how AI should exactly react in each situation so probably someone smarter than me has an idea.

As for those who swear by the old system I say, take off your nostalgia glasses. I completely agree that there was more depth because of the extra commands but as the whole package, the current system beats it out of the water. I just can't see it coming again because of the numerous problems already addressed by the Big Kahuna himself.

Short version: Make fighter less stronk, carrier great holy machines of war again

EDIT: Another great example of a weapon that shouldn't be the same on a fighter >> Xyphos

9
General Discussion / The new high tech light cruiser - Fury
« on: April 26, 2020, 01:16:44 PM »
https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1254488553066844162

Seems like it'll be a decent player ship with the option to put 2 medium missiles on it. Although I think that path will leave it weak after the missiles run out. For Shrike it isn't a big deal since it has destroyer PPT but a cruiser will easily spend those missiles. And since it's light, I'm not too sure if it's gonna be possible to fit Missile racks comfortably.

@Megas
Told ya it's gonna be another ship useless without Sabots, you owe me 10 bucks  :P

10
Suggestions / Recoil reduction on hardpoints
« on: April 09, 2020, 05:52:31 AM »
I think that explanation should be visible somewhere in the game. Lots of times I've seen people talking about that and then a big part is surprised that's an actual mechanic. Hell I've seen it mentioned multiple times yet occasionally I forget about it when outfitting ships.  Maybe when hovering over mounts display something like ''small ballistic hardpoint (50% recoil reduction)'', I don't know the actual numbers tho.

11
General Discussion / It's that time of year again
« on: April 08, 2020, 10:53:02 AM »
Now I hate being the one asking this but the boredom has really gotten to me. Instead of the ol' usual update when?? and ''is it soon™?'', I'm just curious, are you still adding major changes to the next version, or is it mostly just ironing out bugs, polishing and playtesting? My Spidey sense started tingling after all those Twitter teases so I had to satisfy myself with some rough answer.

And in the event that it's still long ways to go could we maybe get some in-dev patch notes? I'm interested in what has been currently added/changed. Thank you for your time.

12
So I thought I knew how all of that worked, but now I'm more confused then ever. It says clearly in the game, if an item needs more credits than the monthly production can give, it'll require more months, makes sense. And as long as you have money coming in (meaning you don't go in the negatives since each month it deducts the production cost of your current capacity) you get your shiny new ship. Correct me if I said anything wrong.

Now for an example with actual numbers. I tried building a Niagara in my playthrough (it costs 325 000 credits) and my monthly production capacity is 150 000 credits. Everyone with a pair of eyes and a functional brain can see that this would take 3 months. NOPE. I've now spent 10 bloody months waiting for this cursed piece of metal. Only one single month I dropped to 1 credit, any other month is was deducting 150k credits as it should. And when I get that intel report saying what the production cost was, I click on it to see the details and it says something like ''a total of x credits has been invested into the current production order''. I saw that number jump up and down like crazy, it went to 279k credits, meaning it should be almost complete, but next month it said 42k credits, and then a completely different number somewhere in between, it's crazy. I've been losing out on my colony income for a whole year while the ship is still in this production queue.

Either:
A) I'm an idiot and missed something crucial
B) There a possible bug causing this loop
C) The information the game gives me is just weird and doesn't make sense (on that note why don't we see the progress on the custom production tab? it seems to me like a logical place to show it instead of digging through intel)

13
This has been a thing for a long time but just recently I noticed again in the simulator. Although I have to admit, getting hit by something coming out of just a piece of ship is hilarious.

EDIT: Forgot to add it goes on until it fires the whole 20 clip/magazine

14
Suggestions / Small Paragon nerf
« on: February 24, 2020, 12:51:01 AM »
All the talk about capital spam and how they're strong now got me thinking about the strongest ship in the game. It has amazing firepower, amazing defenses but it's weakness is speed. What if that was even more prominent by making Fortress shield shut down its engines. It makes sense to me that ''divert all energy to shields'' takes away everything else. I believe it could be explained easily and it would make Paragon even less mobile.

Feel free to give any other ideas on how would you tone down the mighty beast.

15
Suggestions / More ballistic anti fighter options
« on: January 31, 2020, 04:37:08 AM »
Currently there's a ton of weapons that are accidentaly good vs fighters as in it's not their intended purpose (lots of energy weapons for example) but it's hard to put something good on a ship with no energy mounts. You have machine guns which are super low range, flak cannons which don't do *** vs anything with a shield, thumper which doesn't even deserve to be called a weapon and Devastator. Ignoring the problems of the Devastator, it's on a freaking large mount. The only ship where I sometimes use those to prevent being overwhelmed with annoying little flies is on a Conquest, everywhere else it's a waste of a large slot (and flux). HVD kinda can kill fighters when they're coming straight to the ship but it's way too slow and not reliable so I would hardly call that anti fighter.

Kinda related, there's no medium missile weapon that's good vs fighters, yet every second ship has medium missile slots.

Pages: [1] 2 3