Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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 - ANGRYABOUTELVES

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 40
16
Blog Posts / Re: Uniquifying the Factions, Part 2
« on: April 30, 2022, 08:41:42 PM »
Yeah it's certainly not important. Like I said before I think most of the discomfort with LG ships being equal to or slightly worse than default ships(depending on how much one values Solar Shielding) stems from expectations built up out of a modded experience of the game. And the easiest solution to that is downloading the mod that will likely appear a day after or perhaps the same day as the patch, refunding the OP cost of Solar Shielding to the ships and leaving everyone interested with the de facto mod LG experience almost 1:1; with the remaining trade off of having to remove a D-Mod in exchange for prettier looking ships being a fair one.
The expectation for the LG to be elite comes from their doctrinal statline in the current version of the game, which is 5 officer quality, 5 ship quality, 1 size; 4 more points than the player and most other factions get to spend. Most players won't go digging through the faction files to find those numbers, but they'll definitely notice that the LG is a stronger opponent than most other factions. If that's changing, and the LG is now a pushover, fine; but the impression that they are strong is built on the fact that in the currently released version of the game, they are strong.

17
Blog Posts / Re: Uniquifying the Factions, Part 2
« on: April 30, 2022, 05:57:50 PM »
- Sindria developed Solar Shielding.
- Sindria (with TT help) developed Kinetic Blaster and G I G A C A N N O N.
- Sindria-exclusive ships are straight worse than base.
- Luddic Path ships get SO for free when nobody else can.

One of these things doesn't hold up.

(You're right, #4 is factually incorrect :D As to the implied contradiction between these items, I honestly just don't buy it; imo you don't even have to try hard to have it all make sense in-fiction.)
No, it's correct. LP ships have built-in SO, which can't be built-in anymore. It also doesn't take up a story point built-in slot. You can find their blueprints and build them yourself, and after restoration they're straight up better at being SO ships than the same hull in non-LP form. Religious nutters who hate technology have better engineers than a dictator who fetishizes high technology. Lions Guard ships have been designed with no redeeming qualities compared to the base hull, whereas LP ships have an obvious and very large redeeming quality.

18
General Discussion / Re: New vanilla DREADNOUGHT
« on: March 12, 2022, 05:07:20 AM »
Also it's yet another ship which will have Heavy ballistics integration. So what's the deal with large ballistics, do they suck, are they too expensive? You wouldn't even dream of a ship with Heavy energy or missile integration since that would be nuts. 3 capitals will have that hullmod, there has to be a reason. You could say it makes for more meaningful decisions with hullmods or other weapons but it honestly just pigeonholes those mounts. You HAVE to use a large weapon there, and leaving it empty is literally a loss of 10 OP.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice thing to have on a ship but why do 3 ships that primarily deal damage with ballistic weapons need to have it?
Capitals with HBI all have it because they have limited large turret arcs and prefer to only engage with part of their guns at a time. The Conquest can only reasonably fire one broadside at once; the Onslaught has separate forward, left, and right batteries; and now the Invictus has a heavy forward battery and a bunch of side mounts that only exist so it has something to shoot at flankers. Players would usually only put large weapons in the gun batteries on the angles they want to engage with to save OP, resulting in single-sided Conquests and only forward gunned Onslaughts. HBI exists so these ships can mount large weapons in all their large slots without either being OP-starved if they do, or massively over-OP when using loadouts that don't.

19
General Discussion / Re: New vanilla DREADNOUGHT
« on: March 12, 2022, 01:58:05 AM »
The very interesting part is that the large missiles are only on the one side, with what looks like fighter bays on the other. I could be wrong about this, but low-tech ships don't do asymmetry, and the blurb about large internal spaces being easily converted to fighter wing housing implies something. Could those large missile mounts be swappable for fighter bays, so you could choose to have anywhere from 4 large missiles and 0 fighters to 4 fighter wings and 0 large missiles?

20
Mods / Re: [0.95a] Diable Avionics 2.64rc1 (2021/12/11)
« on: January 03, 2022, 12:50:09 PM »
The Chinook is a combat tanker it can fight back compared to a Phateon It have better combats stats (Hull, armor, speed, Flux and Vent), Its gun arc and system allow to support the front line and fight other small ships, It is closer to a cheapper Mule, 6 OP instead of 7 but made for Fuel. For me the ship is okay but suffer of a smaller OP pool than most 6OP destroyer, a Buffalo mk2 has 70 and cost 4 OP. 40 OP is a bit too shoprt for a semi fighting ship...( lets say we put 2 LAC and one LAG one vulcan in the back , that already 17OP half of the ship OP pool, you will have a hard time maxing its vent/capcitors or put any hullmod on it!
The Mule is genuinely strong ship. It has 650 armor, 5500 hull, 1.0 shield and 3000 flux capacity, 60 speed and Maneuvering Jets, and a medium composite turret on top of the small ballistics and missiles. It is leagues above the Chinook, which in-combat is basically a slightly more durable Phaeton. 400 armor, 3000 hull, a 1.1 shield with 2750 flux capacity, 50 speed with no mobility system, and worse armament than a frigate does not a combat ship make. It is genuinely an awful idea to deploy the Chinook as a support ship just because it has Active Flares.

Once again if we compare it to the Mule its smaller and cost less OP 5 against 7. Its size+system+gun placement mean it can hold the line with the boys while spamming flares. Once again for me its problem is OP pool for a combat freighter. 40 is very small for a ship that will need guns and capacitor and vents... with so little except if you build in mods it won't survive above the early game...on the other side very few cargo ship come without the civilian hullmod and not at this price range.
The Stratus's stats are even worse than the Chinook's. Less armor, less flux, fewer slots, slightly higher hull and speed. It's just not a combat ship. I don't know why you think it is. It can't stand up to any combat frigate that isn't d-modded pirate trash.

For the Cyrus its problem is it ridiculously small OP pool the rest of the ship seing its size, shield and gun placement that is easier to exploit than the Valkirie(almost fully pointed forward on a very long ship), but I understand why its this way , Its a Condor and Valkirie in one ship for 6 OP hard to get this kind of stuff any cheaper. its very cheap battle carrier for ground support and raids. Hard to find reason to ever make it better if its DP price doestn go up to 10 Supply or more.

Conclusion, I would not change the Cyrus or he would make stuff like Condor pointless. As I said it is a ship that fill multiple role in the fleet, if he was anyn stonger it would invalidate both the Valkirie and the Condor, no possible change here except if the ship get costlier to use...
The Cirrus can point a whole two small hybrid slots forward. It does only have 3 small weapon slots, so I suppose saying that it can almost fully point its whole armament forward is technically correct, but I think that's a bit misleading. The Condor is the most efficient fighter bay per DP carrier in the vanilla game, at 1 bay per 5 OP, and brings a medium missile with fast missile racks on top of that. The Cirrus has 1 fighter bay for 6 DP, efficient but not amazing considering the ship system is Active Flares, has a forward armament of 2 small hybrid slots, and is generally not good.

But the Stratus and Chinook a pure shooty boat, personally 50-55 OP would be a bit better of a deal. They have good stats , form and gun arcs but they cant exploit them because they are so OP starved, but they should not end up superior to a Mule or Mule (P) that are costlier to use.
As you have said, the Stratus and Chinook are OP starved. They're also undergunned, underarmored, underfluxed, and not good combat ships. The Mule is a solid combatant with heavy armor, high missile strike potential, and plenty of OP. It is in no danger of being worse than any of Diable's logistical ships.

21
Mods / Re: [0.95a] Diable Avionics 2.64rc1 (2021/12/11)
« on: January 03, 2022, 07:03:47 AM »
Diable's logistical ships need a numbers rework, in light of vanilla changes.

The Chinook is destroyer sized, has 400 fuel capacity and 9 burn with no civilian hull. It eats 1.75 fuel/ly and 6 supplies/month. The Phaeton is destroyer sized, has 800 fuel capacity and 8 burn with civilian hull, 9 burn with Militarized Subsystems. It eats 2 fuel/ly and 4 supplies/month. The Chinook has half the fuel capacity of the Phaeton and eats half again as many supplies; if you want as much fuel capacity as a Phaeton, you need to have 2 Chinooks for 3.5 fuel/ly and 12 supplies/month. That's a lot to pay for an additional logistics slot. Despite not having civilian hull, the Chinook is helpless in combat, so it's best compared directly with civilian tankers. I'd increase it to at least 600 fuel, probably 700. It can theoretically hit 11 burn with Augmented Drive Field, but so can the Phaeton and the Phaeton with MS and ADF is still a more efficient fueler than a Chinook with Auxiliary Fuel Tanks and ADF. (800 fuel, 2 f/ly, 4 s/m compared to 520 fuel, 1.75 f/ly, 6 s/m)

The Stratus is best compared to the Mule. They have comparable stat lines, both being militarized freighters having 250 cargo, 2 fuel/ly, and nearly the same maintenance and DP cost (7 for the Mule, 5 for the Stratus), but the Mule is combat-capable and the Stratus is very much not. The Mule has more than twice the base armor, much better mounts, and has a pirate version with shielded cargo holds. If you'd rather compare it to the Buffalo, well, the Buffalo has 400 cargo capacity and again has a pirate version with shielded cargo holds. Given Diable's stance towards the governments of the rest of the sector, I think the Stratus should have shielded cargo holds. A little more cargo capacity or supply/fuel efficiency would be nice, given that it isn't combat capable, but Diable offering a reliable source of shielded cargo holds would make the Stratus much more competitive.

Finally, the Cirrus having a fighter bay ironically makes it worse than the Valkyrie as it now reduces the performance of the skill that boosts actual combat carriers. It's not going to mount a Wanzer, so it might as well just have Arbitrators built-in. This would both allow it to use the Converted Fighter Bay hullmod, allowing players to use it as a logistical ship without hurting their carrier capabilities, and make it more viable as an early game hybrid logistical carrier option, as you don't have to buy a fighter wing to put in it.

22
I've been running 5 dual Spark wing Scintillas and they're better than I expected.  Sparks are still really good, and the only skills a Scintilla needs is Combat Endurance, Point Defense, and maybe Missile Specialization, so Gamma cores are completely fine. The ship isn't anything special, the benefit comes from having 10 Spark wings all with elite PD, 100% CR, and boosted by 1.5x Carrier Group (60% at 10 bays) without having to spend human officer slots on them. They rip up any human fighter cover and compete against Remnant fighter cover just fine. I still think the Scintilla needs any other ship system, even a non-fighter one like Active Flares or Fast Missile Racks would be fine, just because Recall Device does nothing for any vanilla drone wing, but everything else about them works great.

23
Suggestions / Afflictor (P) is undercosted DP-wise
« on: December 27, 2021, 11:07:26 PM »
The Afflictor was nerfed from 8 DP to 10, but the (P) version is still 6 DP. The (P) version loses the 2 universal hardpoints and 15 OP (55 -> 40), but the majority of the Afflictor's value in AI hands comes from the ship system, and that's still completely intact. It can still run 2 AMB or 2 Light Needlers, just not both at once. It can't do torpedo assassinations but that's always been a player thing with chain-deployed Afflictors anyway; the DP of a single Afflictor at a time isn't nearly as much of an issue. Given that an AI piloted Afflictor (P) is about 85% of a regular AI piloted Afflictor, and you can deploy 3 in less than the amount of DP that 2 normal Afflictors take up (18 vs 20), I think the Afflictor (P) needs a bit of a nerf. I'd suggest either increasing its DP to 8, or giving it a worse version of Entropy Amplifier.

24
When switching between a phase ship variant with Phase Anchor and one with Adaptive Phase Coils, the incompatible hullmod on the switched-to variant will not be applied. If the starting variant has PA, and is switched to APC, the ship will not equip APC. Same for switching from APC to PA. Stripping the ship before applying the variant will correctly apply the hullmod.

25
Suggestions / Harvested Organs Production mission is impossible to complete
« on: December 23, 2021, 05:08:47 PM »
The mission asks for production of 4 units of Harvested Organs, which is an impossible amount for a player colony to produce. The maximum is 3; 1 from base production at size 6, 1 from Industrial Planning, and 1 from an Alpha Core on the Population and Infrastructure industry. Story point improvements cannot help, as improving P&I only increases stability. The Cryosleeper industry does not produce Harvested Organs, IIRC. The mission should only require 3 units of production.

26
Suggestions / Re: be a good game instead of scientifically incorrect
« on: December 22, 2021, 07:37:45 PM »
Do you have an explanation for the lasersaber-like behaviour of tactical and pd lasers as well?
Combat is not to scale. In-lore, distances between ships are much larger relative to ship size, small ships are much smaller than large ships than they appear, and combat takes place over multiple days and at significant fractions of c. Lasers still move at the speed of light, except for phase-space related non-laser beams like the Phase Lance and Tachyon Lance which activate instantaneously at all points in their path.

27
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: December 21, 2021, 02:35:41 PM »
Reinstalling the game fixed the audio issue, false alarm.

28
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: December 21, 2021, 02:28:25 PM »
The order confirmation audio bleep seems to have disappeared. I don't get any audio feedback when I order ships to escort, or to capture a control point.

As has the audio cue for picking up and putting down inventory items. Lemme reinstall real quick and see if that fixes it.

29
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: December 20, 2021, 03:32:30 PM »
If HSA was a bad idea then just get rid of it. It's better then having it be useless except for niche situations where it's maybe overpowered. Is 10 Glimmers with HSA and full beams broken right now, will it be broken in a future patch, will any new beams be broken with HSA in the future? Leaving a potential landmine lying around for the sake of keeping a bad idea is bad praxis, imo.

30
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: December 20, 2021, 03:02:56 PM »
Well, guess HSA is useless again. Oh well, too bad.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 40