Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Painting the Stars (02/07/20); Updated the Forum Rules and Guidelines (02/29/20)

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 - Lucky33

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
As far as I know AI it will do that simply because it doesnt treat the incoming fire as a serious threat and have armor/hull to tank it. Something like "if I keep the shields up I overload in 5 seconds but if I lower them I will not die in 5 seonds so its better to lower them tank the damage and refill the refreshed flux bar once again". However these calculations sometimes looks too wild.

Thumper is not cheap in any way.

It has base value of 700, 9 OP and even 600 instantaneous flux cost.

When I said that empty small energy mount is better I wasnt joking.

Remnants can not into Spark spam.

Not only Scintilla's recall system is either useless for fighters or makes things even worse (in mixed groups). Brilliant with its single wing is an awfull carrier. And, more importantly, this single deck acts as an actual debuff due to effect on the officer skills (it is more likely to grab three carrier skills insteed of something really usefull).

You can say that Remannts were already balanced in a way that prevents Spark exploit. Its a thing only in a player fleet. Any changes to Sparks will be neglectable from the Remnants balance point of view.

Suggestions / Re: Tuning fleet composition balance by progression
« on: February 29, 2020, 10:43:16 PM »
That was a nice read, Morrokain.

Now for the more practical things.

1. There is a need of the intel ui overhaul. Reminder of the missions availability should be on the main screen and linked to the main intel screen. There should be a more simple index system for missions.

2. All missions should be tiered by difficulty and tiers are based on "opposition power", "cargo capacity", "time importance" and "secrecy". This is a more systematic approach to the mission generation resulting in easier sorting and indexing. In turn this allows to keep missions of different tiers in abundance since you can simply hide anything you dont want to see and participate in. This way the player can define that progression actually is. Admiral, Smuggler, Trader, Explorer and so on. With the possibility of mixed types of missions and gameplay. This also provides opportunity to control the scale of the player's operations.

3. To spice things up there should be missions with only partial details available.

4. Current system of a single guaranteed sniffer should be more flexible to allow more diverse info stream. Yes, it includes the capability to tap into Redacted comms.

"A gamma-level AI core is capable of supporting most human endeavors, making up for a lack of creativity and problem-solving ability with prodigous computational prowess. Assigning a gamma to aid human overseers in administering a colony-wide industry brings significant benefits.
A rare and valuable independent AI core, the gamma-level is the lowest tier core considered to be truly intelligent under Domain-era AI protocols. A gamma core will employ remarkable judgment and reasoning when assigned to straightforward tasks while using its savant-like data processing abilities to far exceed any individual human's abilities. It is relatively uncreative in problem-solving however, preferring to fall back upon direct, unsophisticated means."

Delta's are used as an engine control subsystem in the Kite and Terminator's delta core is rumored (but unproven) to be above Delta level. And they are limited in operational range anyway.

All sounds a bit high-brow for me. I don't know how you'd explain this to the player in a concise and comprehensive way. I will say I like the idea of ECM reducing unmanned fighter range as well as weapon range, but it's a bit weird and might get noodly, again, when trying to explain that to the player.

Oh, I can easily explain even the full removal of drone fighters from the game...

AI-cores only from Gamma and above are somehow human comparable. But they are not supposed to be mass produced in the widespread nanoforges. Because if they would the whole Sector will be drowning in the advanced ai cores. And without them there is no reason to build drone fighters since they will be too weak in a dogfights.

Doesnt really affect bombers since they are simply two-stage strike muinitions anyway.

Suggestions / Re: Tuning fleet composition balance by progression
« on: February 29, 2020, 11:07:28 AM »
I think that everybody missing a point. There is no reason to force player to run small fleet if there is really nothing there to do with it.

Tried playing with the selfimposed rule of not using anything larger than a destroyer and dont do carrier spam. It gets stale very fast.

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla
« on: February 26, 2020, 12:59:46 PM »
As anyone ever found anything to do with it?

Pilum defence.

You are always better off spending same OP budget on basic PD lasers, even if you fill fewer slots.

Nope. If damage of the single gun is enough to kill a missile, its better to have multiple damage sources.

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla
« on: February 26, 2020, 08:42:02 AM »
As anyone ever found anything to do with it?

Pilum defence.

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla
« on: February 26, 2020, 06:24:22 AM »
Recently I've been trying some weird builds for my ships, like an onslaught with it's mediums being HMGs and only using it's central large slot for a large weapon, the other two being more HMGs.

One thing that I wanted to ask is if any of you have tried builds for ships where the medium or even the large slots are used for the point defence with the other slots being used for the actual weapons? Like a Medusa with two heavy burst lasers and so on?

I did. For the uncontrolled AI ships. They go absolutely nuts when near a missile so you need solid pd to make them relentlessly attack missile spamming ships.

General Discussion / Re: What is everybody's favorite weapon
« on: February 22, 2020, 12:53:45 AM »
Empty Small Energy Mount >>> Thumper.

Sabots, Reapers > everything else.

General Discussion / Re: What do you set the max battle size to?
« on: February 21, 2020, 09:36:09 AM »
Its on the bigger size when you have the bigger impact. Anything you click gets instantly removed by the swarm of fighters and missiles. On the smaller deployment you dont really have the spare firepower.

We have already talked about it. First you fit your fleet for some low dps mid-to-long range fight. When you are forced to corner camp. And so the sad story of the long battles is born. But the reality is that you dont have to do it unless you want it. You can fit a brawler taskforce, break through the lines, go all the way up to the opposite border and blow all the stuff up just as it is being deployed. Fast fights, no need for hardened subsystems, no CR wars, just pure fun.

General Discussion / Re: What do you set the max battle size to?
« on: February 21, 2020, 04:59:37 AM »
Default 300. Higher settings is too easy unless I'm not deploying my share of DP.

Suggestions / Re: Unify fleet points and deployment points?
« on: February 20, 2020, 09:19:17 PM »
The problem is that it looks like the first wave of the current top tier Hegemony bounty. Only weaker due to d-mods. Difficulty wise its a breeze for the standart three battleship deployment at 300 dp battle size. And perfectly doable with two. More importantly, its much more susceptible to the SO rush.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37