Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

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 - naufrago

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 35
31
General Discussion / Re: Newbie Guide Thread/ FAQ
« on: June 16, 2013, 09:44:23 PM »
Don't really have any experience with the Brawler, but how I deal with Salamanders in other ships is take advantage of the fact that it aims for engines initially. After they think they can hit your engines, Salamanders stop caring where they hit and just try to hit you.

If your ship is facing up (for the sake of keeping directions clear) and the missile is coming at you in a clockwise direction, strafe right when the missile is to your right (viceversa for counterclockwise). This will cause it to miss your engines and swing around in a tight circle. As soon as the missile passes by your engines, go reverse and/or to the left (reverse and/or to the right for counterclockwise). This will cause it to swing around your left side (right side for counterclockwise) and hit you in the face, where hopefully you have shields.

That should allow you to deal with most Salamanders without turning away from your target. Bit of a tricky situation if you have Salamanders coming at you from both sides, though- one I don't think the Brawler has the maneuverability to get itself out of.

32
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 15, 2013, 10:54:29 PM »
Hah, I just found the old thread made by Reshy where he suggested the exact same thing. I even posted in it. A lot of the arguments here have been made before. We're reliving the past. @.@ But seriously, I suggest reading it, and Alex's responses in particular.

I think I've made a strong enough case that beams deserve a slight change, but I have no idea whether I'm even close to convincing the person that can actually make the change. >.<


And just a fun fact, in order to completely negate the flux dissipation on my Paragon with .3 shield efficiency, 2500 flux dissipation, Stabilized Shields, and Front Shield Emitter, the enemy would need to focus 39 Graviton Beams at it (26 grav beams with +50% damage bonus from flux). To negate the flux dissipation of a Standard Onslaught, you only need 5 Graviton Beams. (If you ignore shield efficiency, it would only take 12 Grav Beams to negate my Paragon's dissipation)

33
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 15, 2013, 02:42:07 PM »
Beams need at least a fraction of their damage dealt as hard flux, just like every other non-beam "close support" weapon such as needlers.

Needlers have limited ammo and can't be fit on most high-tech ships (and as much as I hate to admit it, they could probably do with having less ammo). If you give high-tech ships a weapon that can kite low-tech ships indefinitely, it becomes the optimal strategy. It may take a while, but it's almost always advantageous to do so if it means you almost never risk taking hull damage.

You can't just focus on weapon stats, you have to think about the weapons in conjunction with the ships that can equip them.

If beams are not supposed to be used against high-tech ships, why do high-tech fighters use them?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. There's no obvious logical link between the two statements, or how its supposed to support your argument that they should deal hard flux.

34
Suggestions / Re: Give active flux venting a (very small) CR cost
« on: June 15, 2013, 11:46:34 AM »
This change could actually exacerbate the situation you're trying to fix. Consider the Sunder, Medusa, Falcon, or Eagle with grav beams (and a HIL in the sunder's case) and some range increasing hullmods. Those ships are all capable of kiting low tech ships, driving their flux high, and forcing them to vent while not having to vent themselves. I know I've been a bit harsh on beams recently, but this is the kind of situation where they don't really need a buff.

I do agree that it makes good sense from a lore perspective, though. Well, it'll probably be fine since low-tech ships will probably recover CR faster than high-tech ships anyway.

35
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 14, 2013, 05:12:01 PM »
All this, because we're so worried about kiting?  Why not fix the core issue, by changing the range bands?

The core issue is that beams become ineffective against high-tech ships with efficient shields. Aside from that, they're mostly fine. Xenoargh, what you're suggesting is completely changing their role. Beams are designed to be support weapons, to allow ships (smaller ones in particular) to provide some utility from a safer range without being the optimal weapon choice for killing things. Changing them to be barely different from pulse weapons is boring.

Of course it's very possible for soft flux to cause overloads, just point 1-3 Graviton Beams at almost anything short of an Apogee. It seems like you don't really understand how beam weapons work, or are supposed to work. The whole "beam dps > flux dissipation can cause overloads" thing is something you should have known from the start before firing out suggestions that completely change how beams fundamentally work.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that Alex stated somewhere that beams dealing soft flux was not likely to change. What I'm doing is operating under the assumption that beams will always deal soft flux, and trying not to force beams outside of their intended role.

36
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 13, 2013, 09:47:38 PM »
If you make beams deal hard flux and then make them have the same range as non-beam weapons, that really would be the definition of homogenization. At that point, the difference between beams and other energy weapons is almost purely cosmetic. The only real difference would be accuracy and tracking speed. They'd also cease to be support weapons.

Frankly, your suggestions more drastically change beams than mine.

37
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 13, 2013, 08:13:30 PM »
Non-beam energy weapons are shorter range than their ballistic counterparts to force high-tech ships into range of the enemy's weapons, else the high-tech ships would just kite them to death. The range of beams is similar to or longer than ballistic weapons. If you give hard flux to beams, it'll make kiting the optimal strategy, which is something to be avoided. Pretty sure that's the primary reason they do soft flux damage, to keep that sort of thing from happening while allowing high-tech ships to have long-range weapons of their own.

38
Suggestions / Re: Impoving Armor
« on: June 13, 2013, 04:24:41 PM »
It might make strike weapons more desirable, too, if it weren't quite as easy to chew away at armor with small guns.

39
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 13, 2013, 12:51:31 PM »
That could potentially be a problem with the new CR changes. Disabling weapons decreases that ship's CR, which could lead to kite and run tactics for beam ships.

From the patch notes:
  • CR reduction due to combat, occurs after combat:
    • Per-ship deployment cost (higher of base deployment cost, or CR used up after peak readiness has passed)
    • Extra CR lost by retreating ships, but only if the engagement was lost
    • Extra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remaining
    • Extra CR cost for suffering a flameout of [sic] weapons being disabled by damage

EDIT: The more I think about the hullmod suggestion, the more I like it. It solves my issues of wanting beams to be useful against high-tech targets and it gives a convenient way of explaining the mechanic. The description for the hullmod could be as simple as "Makes beams ignore shield efficiency." Potential drawbacks could be reduced efficiency or damage output, if necessary, but I think it would be fine just as a straight change.

I'm thinking the hullmod could be the 7 point reward for Applied Physics (bump down Advanced Optics to 5 points), or maybe a 10 point reward for Flux Dynamics. It should definitely be obtained from investing in a skill, though.

40
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 13, 2013, 11:35:21 AM »
What I don't like is the idea of a general rule change for them. But thinking about it, it might actually work as a hullmod. There the game would have adequate room to explain what is happening differently. And you had the choice of equipping the mod against high tech fleets or disabling it against low tech.

Mh, now I thought of a beam that does nothing but actively reducing the targets shield efficiency against all weapons as long as it hits. That would really be a pure support weapon.

I'm fine with that as well. A hullmod that changes the nature of beams is actually a nifty little way of handling it.

More specifically @FloW, I think we have a different idea of "support" when it comes to beams. Most of them are decent at punishing ships that drop shields, but I feel their primary use is against shielded targets (EDIT: in addition to unshielded/overloaded targets, as you mentioned). They're meant to efficiently reduce the amount of flux the enemy has for firing their weapons.

I've held off on posting for a few day to think about this one. Summary: I don't know if this is absolutely necessary, but I think this is a good suggestion that would improve the game.

I completely agree that beams are disproportionally ineffective against high shield efficiencies and decent flux dissipation. It makes it so that even though they are supposed to be support weapons that little ships can use against big ships, long range kinetics are vastly superior as support. If you simply increase beam damage then they get overpowered against low tech (which they are pretty good against) while still sucking against high tech. I see three options.

1) Live with it. Beams will just suck against high tech shields. I'm ok with this, but its unfortunate because beams are cool. Also other people apparently really disagree with me on their other uses *shrug*.

2) Implement this suggestion. My gut reaction was strongly negative, but in retrospect I think that was mostly because I've read so many suggestions that are for homogeneity. I'm sorry that in a previous post I thought that was what you were saying; I get it now that you are trying to maintain the beam support niche. I don't like more special case rules, but it does address a problem.

3) Make beams deal hard flux. Then they get worse against high shield efficiency ships, but not disproportionally worse. This is the simplest rules wise, but I believe Alex tested it (and it worked this way early) and didn't like it. It also strongly encourages kiting because beams are long range and accurate. Kiting Tempests already annoy the crap out of me.

Thoughts on some other suggestions:
Gothars:
Quote
Mh, now I thought of a beam that does nothing but actively reducing the targets shield efficiency against all weapons as long as it hits. That would really be a pure support weapon.
I like this a lot. I worry just a bit about abuse, but as long as it doesn't deal any damage then it would be pure support... Can we do this via script? I think it would be possible.

Leak damage: This I don't like at all because its too much of a high tech killer, makes beam kiting ridiculously powerful, and is another special case rule. I also think that this would be an absolutely miserable thing to fight against as a player and would ruin a lot of the exciting finishes that happen. Who hasn't had that fight where they get dragged through the mud, but survives with like 12 hp? If the enemy has beams this will never ever happen.

I agree with a lot of what you said here, particularly the stuff at the bottom about kiting and leak damage.



Anyway, it's funny to me that some people defending beams keep saying that Graviton Beams need a buff. When I'm trying to craft arguments that beams need a buff against efficient shields, I have to craft them around the existence of the Graviton Beam because it's the best at what it does. No other beam comes close to its ludicrous efficiency. If I wanted, I could only focus on the Tac Laser or HIL because they're horrible against efficient shields in most circumstances, but the Graviton Beam almost always generates more flux in the enemy than the ship firing.

Imo, the Graviton Beam might even be too good at what it does, and would almost definitely need a nerf (probably increase flux cost to ~100f/s) with my suggestion (or with Gothars' suggestion). EDIT: Also, Tac Laser and maybe Phase Beam should also take a slight hit to their efficiency with the suggestions here. I think 7:8 damage to flux ratio would be best (EDIT: although with Gothars' hullmod suggestion, the retuning of the Tac Laser and Phase Beam probably wouldn't be necessary). HIL might actually need a slight buff to its efficiency even with this change, tbh (reduce flux generation to 200f/s, imo).

If we ignore the Graviton Beam, the other beams fare much, much worse against high-tech ships. 2-3 Tactical Lasers can shut down a stock Enforcer hull, but 5-6 are required against a Medusa. Not only that, but the Tactical Lasers will generate about 60% more flux in the ship firing than in the Medusa. 3 Tactical Lasers (!) can shut down a Dominator, but 6-7 are required against an Aurora and 7-8 are required against an Apogee. The gap only increases with more vents and/or stabilized shields.


41
Suggestions / Re: Impoving Armor
« on: June 13, 2013, 10:28:27 AM »
I think armor could do with a slight buff as well. Could be as simple as lowering the minimum damage armor takes to 20 or 15 (currently it's 25, before kinetic/explosive/frag modifiers, I believe?)

42
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 12, 2013, 02:17:04 PM »
Just like you guys have been saying, beams should be useful as support weapons. I agree with that.

What I've been saying repeatedly is that they're unable to fill their role effectively against ships with high shield efficiency because those ships also have high flux dissipation. High tech ships are already more resistant to the effects of beams because they're better at dissipating soft flux. Factor in shield efficiency and beams become impotent.

This change wouldn't suddenly make beams lethal. In fact, their dps against many low-tech ships will drop. What this WILL do is make them more useful against things like the Apogee and Paragon. Can you honestly say that beams are useful against those ships?

You may not notice the problem now, but what about once the enemy fleets can get skills? If they have lots of tech skills, they'll need somewhere to put all that extra OP. Once the AI learns to dump some OP into vents and/or hardened shields, you might realize that there really is a problem to be fixed.

Since I know one of you will say, "What's so amazing about ships getting stronger with skills?", I'd like to reiterate that beams become disproportionately weaker than other weapons against ships with efficient shields. The player can already make beams almost useless against them from the get go, without sacrificing dps or survivability against other weapons. AI fleets getting skills will just level the playing field.

43
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: June 11, 2013, 07:09:50 PM »
I like surprises, myself.

Oooooooo, the teasing, it stings so. Does this perchance warrant rampant speculation?

44
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 11, 2013, 03:52:55 PM »
I commend your persistence naufrago :)

A question: Have your made your experience with beams in the sandbox in connection with skills? Here you can indeed specialize so much on defense that you become virtually immune to beams. That's not a good base for balancing considerations though, not as long as the AI doesn't get to use (offensive) skills, too.

Without skills I find e.g. the three Gravs of an Eagle quite threatening, also the HIL of a Sunder or the Phase beams of a Xyphos wing.

It's been like this since before skills. But yes, I've accounted for skills in all my arguments by assuming no skills. To factor out skills, I've either used codex entries, existing variants, or specifically designed ships with skills factored out. Well, I say that, but it's not possible to get Hardened Shields before you have 10 points in Technology and Applied Physics anyway. I've also made sure damage is set to Full, not Half. =p

Funny thing is, maximizing vents and efficiency isn't purely defensive, it provides a lot of offensive utility as well. Having extremely high dissipation means you can run your guns for much longer without having to back off or vent. It lets you stay on the offensive more and apply more constant pressure. If your dissipation is high enough, it's possible to run less efficient, high dps weapons constantly.


You mention the Eagle being threatening at low levels. Try a Medusa with 2x Light needlers, 2x Pulse lasers, 20x vents, and Stabilized shields. You can dump the rest of the OP into whatever you want, just bare in mind that additional non-PD weapons are a bad idea since they'll tax the flux vents too much. Stabilized shields only requires 1 skill point and should be easy to get for even a low level character. Needlers can be hard to find, so Railguns or autocannons are acceptable alternatives in a pinch. Don't expect miracles from the AI if you go with anything other than needlers, though.

Even in the hands of the AI with regular crew, that Medusa can kill the Eagle. How long and how much hull damage it takes depends on how many bad decisions the Medusa's AI makes, but it can kill it. It's pretty simple in the hands of the player. It is a destroyer against a cruiser, though, so it takes a while to kill without any assistance.

That same Medusa is actually good against the Sunder, too. They happen to have very similar loadouts, but the Medusa still wins easily enough, especially in the hands of the player. EDIT: I should mention, that's the most generally deadly, durable loadout for the Medusa I've come up with. Hullmods, skills, and crew bonuses just make it better. If you get two of them, you can fairly easily kill any pirate fleet without taking hull damage. Burst PD takes care of any pesky fighters you can't kill with your other weapons.

45
Suggestions / Re: Beam Weapons
« on: June 11, 2013, 11:46:23 AM »
It's not just low dps, the fact that beams have low dps is fine. I'm not arguing that. Beams just do disproportionately low dps against ships with efficient shields compared to other weapons because they also have to contend with the other ship's flux dissipation rate.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 35