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 - TaLaR

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 149
1
Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework
« on: September 29, 2020, 02:31:57 PM »
Only Plasma has full pass-through.
Hellbore/Gauss pass only missiles. Which is still very useful, but means they aren't anywhere as good at swarm clearing.

2
Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework
« on: September 27, 2020, 09:26:43 PM »
I also don't agree that weapons like the plasma cannon are actually amazing against fighters. Sure they shred bombers flying slowly in a straight line right at you, but fighters that are moving quickly in strange directions are not reliable to hit with PC, unless there are simply so many of them that it is hard to miss. PC also costs a ton of flux to fire which is not what you want from PD. Accurate beam weapons are much better in that scenario (agile fighters moving evasively) IMO.

Fighters are only a real threat to big ships when there is a lot of them. Which is exactly when Plasma is good. Beams and PD are for mop up against the few fighters that survived approach vs Plasma. Unless we are talking about 4xTL Paragon, which is comparable to Plasma against fighters.

3
Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework
« on: September 27, 2020, 07:52:52 PM »
Or fighters could just dodge like bullet hell players. Most fighters are small enough and have sufficient acceleration to do so, they simply don't try to.

Also PD != anti-fighter. PD is mostly anti-missile.

4
General Discussion / Re: How do we make small ships useful?
« on: September 11, 2020, 07:33:10 AM »
As long as frigates are crippled by lack of officers and to lesser extent PPT (having officer effects for every frigate would already alleviate that), they don't have a significant place in late game combat (maybe a handful for distraction, but that's all). AI piloted ones anyway.

5
Suggestions / Re: Overall Dissipation vs Weapon Flux Balance
« on: September 11, 2020, 07:27:23 AM »
But dissipation doesn't actually equal damage output, while flux capacity doesn't equal tankiness. These assumptions come anywhere close to being true only under sub-optimal AI piloting. Player can keep shields up for much smaller portion of time and use every little opportunity for short vents, at which point dissipation contributes more to both damage output and tankiness.

But... Yea it does? And venting doesn't work like you think it does?

OK so lets assume for a weird reason that the player isn't being shot at (because the AI does prioritize shooting the player). They shoot over their dissipation and vent. While they're venting they're not shooting but are dissipating twice as much as normal. If we assume that they can shoot infinity over disspiation without overloading then DPS = Dmg/Flux * dissipation * 2 because they spend 100% of the time venting and you vent at dissipation*2. If we assume they shoot 0% over dissipation then DPS = dmg/flux x dissipation. For any amount over dissipation they can shoot we just have a different multiplier which is a function of the amount over dissipation they can shoot and the amount of capacity they have both of which increase the multiplier (because you're venting a higher proportion of the time)

We might note that because this is a flat multiplier its just like having more efficient weapons... which do not modify the fitting considerations because they do not modify the percentage amounts of dmg that adding flux or capacity add...

Now lets assume the player is being shot at. Well then extra capacity lets them absorb more damage, dealing more damage before they have to vent. This increases the amount of time they are venting in proportion to not venting and so increases the final effective DPS by a flat multiplier... which... oh

Incoming fire is not evenly mixed stream in absolute majority of cases. There are usually small windows of opportunity enough to drop shield for a few seconds. You can also vent in short bursts, as long as you maintain low (10-30%) flux levels.
You also don't have to catch every projectile on shield. Selectively allowing kinetics through goes long way.
Then there is accuracy. Quite often a projectile would hit the shield, but not ship's hull - that's invitation for short shield drop as well.

6
Suggestions / Re: Overall Dissipation vs Weapon Flux Balance
« on: September 10, 2020, 09:21:45 PM »
But dissipation doesn't actually equal damage output, while flux capacity doesn't equal tankiness. These assumptions come anywhere close to being true only under sub-optimal AI piloting. Player can keep shields up for much smaller portion of time and use every little opportunity for short vents, at which point dissipation contributes more to both damage output and tankiness.

7
General Discussion / Re: My personal vanilla Starsector ships Tier-list
« on: September 04, 2020, 02:45:28 AM »
Can we talk more about the Conquest being F tier? It's probably my favorite ship: obviously can't beat a Paragon 1v1

Not only can Conquest beat a Paragon 1v1, it does so on autopilot with the right build. 2xGauss, 2x Squall (separate groups for staggered fire), 2x Harpoon, max out hullmods and flux.

...But in a fleet setting AI Conquest is guaranteed to waste Squalls on unimportant targets or fail to pursue Paragon on high flux. So being able to defeat Paragon on autopilot applies only to duel scenario.

8
General Discussion / Re: My personal vanilla Starsector ships Tier-list
« on: September 01, 2020, 10:30:57 AM »
why do people like Bowling Ball Ship so much; flux shunt is cool but I never thought of the monitor as an S-tier ship

It was fun when it could defeat enemies by shield bumping.

9
General Discussion / Re: Gemini stole Conquest's name
« on: August 24, 2020, 02:00:24 PM »
That's surprisingly apt.

10
Suggestions / Re: Multiple currencies
« on: July 28, 2020, 11:51:41 PM »
TT can use a "Tri-Tachyon company shares".

That are transported in containers by tons?... Well, I suppose with right flavor text it could work as joke on absurdity of world we live in.

11
The test case given by TaLaR shows one limit: AI carrier prioritize following the other ship, while the first human decision probably would have been "put yourself to safety ASAP".

Yeah, it's matter of priorities. Staying close to allies is nice and all, but not at cost of trying to facetank an Onslaught.
Disengaging to the best of it's ability may (or may not) eventually put the carrier in position vulnerable to other threats, but that still trumps getting killed in next few seconds.

It's just annoying and somewhat 4th-wall-breaking that a single Drover would survive without a problem, but addition of an ally kills it.

12
Which they obviously shouldn't.

Examples:
1) Enemy Onslaught vs Drover + a frigate. A frigate is too small to follow, so Drover just keeps distance as I'd want it to. Both are fast enough to never be caught, so the only threat is death by PPT/CR.
2) Enemy Onslaught vs Drover + a fast DE. DE avoids Burn Driving Onslaught, Drover lags behind and tries to follow even through the death zone right in front of Onslaught, eventually dying in few passes.

13
ITU can be used on Frigates and Destroyers too.

But it not always worth of it. Frigates does not get much range from it (IIRC +10%), so not always worth OP spent. Ans there are some SO builds, where ITU bonus effectively useless.

ITU on frigates is near worthless. 4 OP for 10% range is extremely expensive and in the end you aren't likely to out-range anybody. For few things you do out-range (mostly other frigates), it's by very small margin which AI is not precise enough with range management to utilize.

14
General Discussion / Re: What's the best battle fleet to have?
« on: July 26, 2020, 11:52:21 AM »
Conquest is effectively 70 SU, 45 base + 25 from having 50 boost half the time (which is actually better than flat 25).

There are also other factors, and for new players, the conquest is effectively base 45, since new players are advised not to use combat skills and as such can't have Helmsmanship 3 skill needed to use the zero flux boost, which is why Conquest is a advanced player ship, unfit for a new player.

I'm not talking about ZFB, but ship's system (Maneuvering Jets). Even AI can use that.

15
General Discussion / Re: What's the best battle fleet to have?
« on: July 26, 2020, 09:46:54 AM »
The Paragon is the type of ship he does not like to fly, for the Conquest, it is fast, but it's not fast enouth, I cut the fast ships at 70 SU for non catitals and 50 SU for capitals, and that's the reason I did not include it nor the Gryphon on the flagship line, because they are faster than the alternatives that use their weaponry, but they are too slow because of their weaponry, as for why I did not include the Falcon on the list, it is simple, the variant that's worth to use as a flagship, the XIV Battlegroup, is at 62 SU.

Conquest is effectively 70 SU, 45 base + 25 from having 50 boost half the time (which is actually better than flat 25).

Falcon XIV is a downgrade - it trades what really matters (speed) for very minor boosts in OP/flux/armor. XIV hullmod is for ships like Onslaught - so slow that losing a few more speed units doesn't matter. It's mobility is more about Zero Flux Boost and Burn Drive rather than base speed anyway.
Either way basic Falcon is not a top pick for player ship - very easy to pilot (for AI as well), but simply doesn't have much impact on flow of combat. Falcon(P) is good option for early-mid game though.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 149