271
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: July 04, 2014, 08:54:42 AM »
All your mods breaking is about the only thing we know for sure right now.
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 25, 2024, 04:23:56 AM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More (04/10/24)
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.
272
General Discussion / Re: Balance Question
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:15:03 AM »Nice to meet you Gothars
"The cargo capacity of one individual ship is mostly irrelevant,"
Its not irrelevant because its a balancing issue and the capabilities of the frigate class haulers are clearly disproportionate to that of the haulers of other classes.
"you can just use multiple ships."
I can just use multiple Hounds, and multiple Hounds will still be superior cargo haulers than multiple Hermes.
You do understand that there is a limit on the maximum size of your fleet, right?
273
General Discussion / Re: Which freighter to use
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:07:11 AM »"The Hermes is by far the best freighter for a very fast fleet, superseding the Hound. The Cerberus is kinda rubbish."
Not by a long shot. The hound has a superior burn speed and superior cargo cap (not to mention better armor, combat speed, and firepower). Your fleet is only as fast as its slowest member and I don't want a shuttle slowing me down.
Unless your fleet is pure Hounds the burn speed difference won't be relevant because the Hermes already has the same burn speed as most frigates. They're also comparing storage capacity per point of logistics used, since that's what affects your overall ability to carry stuff. A Hound carries more than one Hermes, but you can have two Hermes to each Hound and together they haul harder.
274
General Discussion / Re: Mjolnoir Cannon
« on: February 28, 2014, 06:16:41 AM »
Eh, there's really not that much to it. It has monstrously inefficient flux use and a huge OP cost for unexceptional performance and the EMP/Energy damage gimmick doesn't begin to make up for the deficit. It has a 'niche' only in that a few ships with the right upgrades and bonuses can actually afford to mount and use one without crippling themselves, though that's still a far cry from making it a good idea.
On the other hand, the rest of the Large Ballistics line offers some of the healthiest weapon diversity in the game, so one toaster out of the bunch isn't so bad.
On the other hand, the rest of the Large Ballistics line offers some of the healthiest weapon diversity in the game, so one toaster out of the bunch isn't so bad.
275
Suggestions / Re: Ballistics are weak: here's how you fix them
« on: February 13, 2014, 01:56:44 PM »
Counterpoint: range is one of the best statistics in the game, right up there with ship speed.
276
Suggestions / Re: Ballistics are weak: here's how you fix them
« on: February 13, 2014, 08:45:25 AM »
I honestly love the thing. The raw numbers on it aren't great, but it's not overbearing to use or fit, does well against shields, and will still punish you for letting it hit your armor. Per-shot damage frankly counts for a lot more than people give it credit for, even aside from the obvious importance against armor. Being able to put a huge pile of damage all in one location very quickly is a big deal.
277
General Discussion / Re: Time limit on frigates is bad.
« on: February 13, 2014, 08:00:33 AM »
A lot of this really does come down to the fact that AI pilots can't lead shots or fan out fire against moving targets.
That said, you can roll the SDF fleet over with just about anything these days even without going all Top Gun on it. Hull mods and skill bonuses are kind of a big deal, and many of their ship loadouts are markedly suboptimal anyways.
I still want to know whose cruel idea of a joke it was to outfit pirate Enforcers with Thumpers, at the very least.
That said, you can roll the SDF fleet over with just about anything these days even without going all Top Gun on it. Hull mods and skill bonuses are kind of a big deal, and many of their ship loadouts are markedly suboptimal anyways.
I still want to know whose cruel idea of a joke it was to outfit pirate Enforcers with Thumpers, at the very least.
278
Suggestions / Re: Ballistics are weak: here's how you fix them
« on: February 13, 2014, 07:55:42 AM »
Mega's analysis is correct.
On a more general sense, Ballistic weapons tend to have even or slightly positive flux:damage ratios, while non-beam energy weapons are generally negative, often heavily so, and are also prone to being short ranged. There is some compensation for this in the damage boost they receive for high flux and the fact that energy mounts tend to be on mobile high-tech hulls (looking at weapons in a vacuum really isn't the best analysis). Between Heavy Maulers, Heavy Needlers, Hypervelocity Drivers, and Flak, I would say that medium ballistics are the most powerful overall weapon slot. Small Ballistics have some excellent options as well but are limited by mediocre options for HE damage.
Heavy Blasters and Plasma Cannons can offer devastating per-slot damage in exchange for their inefficiency and poor range and can offer tremendous burst damage, but they're definitely not the weapons to put on every ship.
Related: I am disappointed that Megas has no love for the Hypervelocity Driver, a weapon with 1000 range against which there is no correct answer.
On a more general sense, Ballistic weapons tend to have even or slightly positive flux:damage ratios, while non-beam energy weapons are generally negative, often heavily so, and are also prone to being short ranged. There is some compensation for this in the damage boost they receive for high flux and the fact that energy mounts tend to be on mobile high-tech hulls (looking at weapons in a vacuum really isn't the best analysis). Between Heavy Maulers, Heavy Needlers, Hypervelocity Drivers, and Flak, I would say that medium ballistics are the most powerful overall weapon slot. Small Ballistics have some excellent options as well but are limited by mediocre options for HE damage.
Heavy Blasters and Plasma Cannons can offer devastating per-slot damage in exchange for their inefficiency and poor range and can offer tremendous burst damage, but they're definitely not the weapons to put on every ship.
Related: I am disappointed that Megas has no love for the Hypervelocity Driver, a weapon with 1000 range against which there is no correct answer.
279
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6.2a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: January 21, 2014, 07:12:10 PM »
You can throw my hat in there with the other people who were wondering why what is basically a Hound with an extended cab costs more than combat-grade Destroyer.
280
General Discussion / Re: Feedback on CR and sector space and the forums
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:36:56 PM »
One thing to keep in mind with the CR imposed downtime between fights is that right now, time is not a resource. There's nothing to do but cruise around bashing fleets into each other until you get bored with the latest version/mod. Alex has stared pretty directly that this will not be the case in more developed versions of the game. Trying to fight three+ fleets in a row won't be as much of an issue because most sectors won't have three fleets on top of each other to burn through, and you will have time-sensitive priorities that you will have to weigh against your need for recovery time.
Also keep in mind that this is in part a survival game, meaning conservation of limited resources is a deliberate game mechanic. You could probably ask Alex for an arcade mode (or create it yourself with a fairly minor amount of effort) if that part of the game doesn't interest you, but at least be mindful of what kind of game it is trying to be when providing feedback. It's fine to make the point that you aren't interested in survival mechanics (Megas) since it helps the developer know what his audience is looking for, but don't address them like design flaws when they are working as intended.
Also keep in mind that this is in part a survival game, meaning conservation of limited resources is a deliberate game mechanic. You could probably ask Alex for an arcade mode (or create it yourself with a fairly minor amount of effort) if that part of the game doesn't interest you, but at least be mindful of what kind of game it is trying to be when providing feedback. It's fine to make the point that you aren't interested in survival mechanics (Megas) since it helps the developer know what his audience is looking for, but don't address them like design flaws when they are working as intended.
281
Suggestions / Re: A way to maintain mobility after winning a fight
« on: October 16, 2013, 10:30:39 PM »Hrrm, you're right! Skirmishers, but that has the connotation of hit and run against larger forces - not winning, just doing disproportional damage. Maybe Blitz?I like this - it has a very 'raider' feel where all you care about is the destruction of enemy forces.
From where I'm from, raider carries a heavy looting connotation with its meaning. Kinda like Welsh raiders, viking raiders, or cossack raiders where taking stuff back home with you for profit is why they are named raiders in the first place.
Perhaps a better word for it would be commando, or storm troopers (ships)?
Given that they're making an opportunistic strike against one part of a larger overall hostile presence and then running for the metaphorical hills before they can suffer retaliation from forces that outmatch them I think that's pretty much the definition of what this would be.
282
Suggestions / Re: Boarding: remove ships escaping
« on: October 16, 2013, 10:04:38 PM »
Nothing ruins your early game quite like having that first Buffalo power up and run away!
283
General Discussion / Re: Buffalos, what're they good for?
« on: October 11, 2013, 12:55:46 PM »
You should never have a Hound that close to a Buffalo.
284
General Discussion / Re: Killing me softly (Soft vs Hard flux weapon test)
« on: October 07, 2013, 06:17:00 PM »
If there's one thing I'd like to see done, it would be better DPS for the larger beam weapons with correspondingly higher flux and perhaps OP cost adjustments as well (although Phase Beams already have a high OP cost). Small beams seem to be in a pretty good place, especially since just putting more of them on the ship is often a reasonable option, but the Phase Beam really doesn't do enough damage for a 12-op medium mount. I'm fine with the efficiency and soft-flux; I just need more.
285
General Discussion / Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« on: October 07, 2013, 06:13:07 PM »That's already a thing, except that if you have really low CR (<10% I think) your ship isn't ready for combat and can't be deployed.
Problem is, a ship is never unable to be deployed. Deploying constitutes simply pointing the ship in the general direction and firing the engines (which every ship has active, btw)
I don't mind if they can only squeeze a shot off once every OTHER minute, and their shields flicker in and out of existence, just let us point her in the right direction, and fire the engine.
inb4 that'll be useless anyway: That's for the player (or the AI) to decide. If I want a barely functioning ship on the field because we absolutely need every gun that we can get on the enemy, I don't think we should be denied that option
Once you're in a situation bad enough you're allowed to deploy your useless ships - when you're down to non combat worthy and being pursued. Run away more if you want to fight with useless ships I guess.
Those ships aren't properly deployed, though. They're attempting to flee and can't do anything other than trundle towards the top of the map.
If the situation is so bad that I'm trying to send barely-functional ships into battle, I'd like to be given the option and the malfunctions we already have are plenty severe to ensure that this is only a course of last resort.