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 - Eji1700

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15
46
General Discussion / Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« on: June 10, 2020, 07:54:35 AM »
PD not being able to shoot over friendlies and having generally very short ranges means dedicated PD escorts isn't really a thing. The most effect way to use them is wild weasel-esque, on a fast ship that runs upfront and attracts all the missile fire. That's not really the classic PD escort though.
I don't know what to say.  I do it all the time and it works fine.  Yes you generally need two pd escorts so they'll cover both sides, but the AI does quite a good job and defends well.

47
General Discussion / Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« on: June 09, 2020, 07:07:48 PM »
I would prefer dedicated PD slots since the concept of not building PD in a fighter/missile dense environment is too far fetched. Even coked-out raiders would strap something on when their self-preservation instincts kicked in.

Honestly, sometimes OP limits design. It encourages heavy offense but rarely offers a meaningful trend to defense especially during your first playthrough. Would it make sense to have PD use its own OP system as a hard nudge to teach people the glories of not dying to one reaper volley?
I'm heavily against this simply because I think one of the cool "ah ha" moments of star-sector is when you kit out one ship to the gills with weaponry and then kit out one or two more with a bunch of defensive stuff and have it escort the first ship.  That's arguably more realistic, but it should be demonstrated better (tutorial/skirmish thing?).

48
Suggestions / Re: NPCs should salvage/recover derelicts
« on: June 09, 2020, 07:02:00 PM »
I think there's a lot of worse case scenario thinking here.

Again, i don't know how hard some of this is to code, so it really depends on what they have setup/feels i the effort, but you could do things like "placebo" salvaging for wrecks that are over a certain "value" (basically anything unique).  I just think it'd be nice if they were out and active cleaning up the corpses of pirate invasion 55. That's hardly some huge value issue. 

Have them "placebo" salvage anything that was prespawned (stations and the like), and maybe even let that reflect by them having cargo that you would normally find there.  Let them actually salvage fleet wrecks post fight after X seconds maybe?  And even then have the results of that salvage in their hold if possible?

So you explore a system with a mostly full hold, see a research station that you plan on coming back for.  Notice a salvage fleet hit it.  It doesn't affect the research station at all (still there any everything) but if you're feeling nasty you can now attack the salvagers and expect to find a small amount of whatever you could've gotten on the station (so it's easier to fit in your hold).  You probably want a "nice" option to interact as well (but that strikes me as more of a hailing thing and that's a separate subject) but I think something like that adds a ton of life to the game and some neat emergent behavior.

49
Suggestions / Re: NPCs should salvage/recover derelicts
« on: June 06, 2020, 08:16:05 PM »
so, is this feather exist yet?
Yes but it only happens outside the core sector with pre-generated derelicts.
I lost severals promising derelicts to scavenger fleets while exploring

Wait what. :o This was added?

Yeah i've never seen it either.  But if it is in they should absolutely be salvaging lower tier junk at a higher frequency.  It very quickly becomes not worth the players time to even look at them and it'd add some much needed life to the sectors if after a huge battle you saw all the scavengers looting the corpses.  Maybe a small line to make sure there's always one wreck left just in case the player is low on fuel/supplies, but seeing ships salvage adds a lot of "life" to a system (since you've only really got going to planet, orbiting, leaving, partrolling, and combat otherwise).

50
General Discussion / Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« on: June 01, 2020, 04:24:31 PM »
I agree that Warthogs are undertuned. IIRC, there was a bug that somehow tripled their damage output when skills were applied. I suspect that was more responsible for their feeling OP, and nerfing them from 9 light mortars per wing to 4 light mortars per wing was a bit much.

For warthogs, I can see 3 approaches to fixing them:
1) Bring them up to Broadsword speed, reduce OP to 8, and have them be HE heavy fighters. This is a rather boring approach, but at that speed they would be fine 2/wing IMO, because they would be easy to pair with a kinetic source.

2) Bring wing size to 3, lower HP/armor a small amount.

3) Increase damage output of each Warthog by adding back the third light mortar.

I mean I know how crazy this sounds but an assault chaingun gives thematic sense given the name.  Maybe just balance around very short bursts (also thematic).

As for the rest-

It seems silly if fighters can't do decent damage to something like a destroyer.  There's no obvious reason that should be the case an it makes sense that they're not large enough that weapons shouldn't be able to damage them.

51
General Discussion / Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« on: May 29, 2020, 10:19:34 AM »
My only thought is i've always felt it was somewhat weird that any ship with a hanger can run any fighter/bomber.

I get that on some level that's intended so you don't just wind up with small/medium/large hangers and have it be identical to weaponry, but at the same time I can't help but wonder if some limitation should be used.

Maybe do S/M/L hangers, or some sort of definition, but have it be more flexible.  You can still put almost any ship in any hanger, but your wing sizes/replen rate might be smaller...maybe call it logistical capability or tech level or something.  Just something to push across the idea that mass producing sparks takes more than just OP when compared to talons.

Maybe that's not the answer, but some sort of handle/limitation would really help balance the entire weapon type, and probably help promote more varied builds as well.

52
Suggestions / Re: Antimatter Blaster rant
« on: May 26, 2020, 09:11:13 AM »
Make it deal hard flux by default, that's all it needs.
I could get behind this.  I don't think the weapon is weak at all as is, more just the small energy slot in general(as has been discussed many times).  For what is, essentially, a torpedo with double digit shots and immunity to PD, i think a lot of people in this topic are just underrating them.

53
General Discussion / Re: T3 Orbital stations
« on: May 25, 2020, 11:57:40 PM »
Of note I found the midlines somewhat easier to defend with a smaller fleet, assuming i'm actually present at the battle.  My general strat for any station defense is to position my fleet on the left and right side of the station, preventing the enemy from surrounding it and giving the various modules time to drop flux before coming back around and blasting.

The midlines focus on overwhelming, if brief, firepower tended to mean that it'd just nuke a few ships each pass, thus making the battle easier, and then cooldown, while the other stations generally were a more sustained barrage.

That said the low techs insane PD tended to support larger fleets well which was kinda nice in the end game, but this is all just looking for flavor in what's otherwise a pretty meaningless distinction.  They'll all murder anything but the strongest fleets, and do even more with fleet backup.

54
Suggestions / Re: Niggles/Annoyances from a playthrough
« on: May 25, 2020, 03:44:38 PM »
No mods, 0.91a-RC8

Great job on this. I originally bought it when it was Starfarer, played it for an hour or two in 2016 (0.7.2!), but now it's much more playable in a campaigny sense.
I just did a playthrough and have some niggles/annoyances. I.e. things that were detrimental to enjoying the game.


* UI Consistency - Some maps left click is set destination. On others it's right. This is really confusing and even after 10+hrs playing it still gets me. A core tenet of any good UI is consistency. Free-look should be a keyboard thing, not a mouse-interface-changing thing. This was still getting me occasionally after 20+hrs of play.
I always forget to mention this when changes are discussed but YES.  Especially given that I personally always want free look on, I really dislike that it's on right click.

* Two Galaxy maps. I find it confusing flitting between them. One good map would be so much better. Merge them.
I've been mostly ok with this, but it is odd that there's differences between how you interact with an use the bounty map (E) and the normal map (tab).  Could probably use some cleanup/standardization. 

* I'm playing on "easy" and I've been playing spacey games for decades (and am not too shabby at them as a general rule), but I still keep losing whatever ship I'm piloting with great ease, even if it's a cruiser and the rest of my ships are destroyers (against destroyers/frigates). I transfer into another ship in the fleet and shortly thereafter I'm dead again while the rest of my fleet goes on with no loses. I'm not that aggressive either. Now, for one thing this is a testament to the great AI, and obviously I'm doing lots of things wrong, but apart from this balance issue, I *have* to participate in the battles otherwise I'm just spending 10 minutes watching a (admittedly pretty) space combat happen. I can't micro my fleet (which I'd be more than happy to do) because I have a piddly amount of command points. So what am I /meant/ to do during the combat? I can't micro my shields/weapons like the AI does, I'm more of a strategist than a tactician but the game design decisions means that the space combat portion can be quite not-fun against anything except an inferior force.
I grew up on things like EV and this game beat the hell out of me.  You're meant to pilot your ship and shoot stuff down because you're generally better than the AI, but at the same time you really need to understand the combat to not be dead weight.  Feels like there should be a dedicated combat tutorial, and that easy should start you in a better ship (maybe just give the head start ship options) because flying something smaller while learning the game is punishing.

Heck thinking about it this strikes me as a great game for one of "customized start" systems, where you can pick from some presets or just toggle individual factors (starting cash/income/rep/ship).  Would need to be done carefully to not get too finicky, but could help with roleplay aspects (start out with a specfic kind of fleet or with a certain faction) and difficulty.

* Further to this, in big fleet battles there simply aren't enough command points in the first place, even without microing. Reinforcements eat them all up alone, if I were to bother retreating that'd eat a bunch more. Didn't get the command-point upgrades because spent my levels on non-combat stuff (not that +3 points would have done much).
I believe a stated goal of the creator is that this is NOT an RTS game and by extension that's intentional.  I could be wrong, and I know you can spend skill points to buff that playstyle, but it's been awhile since i tried it.  That said I suspect there's already a mod to fix this, and if not it shouldn't be too hard to make/do so that those who want that kind of playstyle can get it.  Again though, a better tutorial for these systems (seperate of the main game) would help a lot.  They're deep and complicated so it's never going to be easy to teach them in some scripted main campaign thing.

* I "resisted" an AI inspection and took a -50 hit to rep! Ok, I get that they *really* don't like that, but it should have told me that the consequences would be so bad then I would have simply bribed instead. That's a *huge* rep hit with no warning; no way I'm going to bother grinding that back. If I click on the event after the fact it actually says "relationship reduced by 59". :-/
Yeah stuff related to colonies in general is in a very "alpha" state only having been recently added, and it's missing some core interactions.  I think this sort of thing is known but it never hurts to have another data point.  As it stands the end game colony management is fun, but a little flat.

* Forced manual combat against tiny fleets when I'm orders of magnitude more powerful.
Another one I always forget to bring up. More pre combat options in general would help.  Being able to "let my second in command handle it" just like any cleanup op when you're vastly stronger should be a thing, but i'm also hoping we get things like "ambush" or "flank" one day that allow different engagements depending on the conditions when you bumped into them (thus giving more reason to go dark and the like).

* Chasing the last frigate or two down (and it's not decided I've "won" yet). Gah! Especially when they have that jumping ability.
Yeah i forgot how annoying this was when i was learning.  Putting your fleet on eliminate helps a lot, but I absolutely build fleets now with this sort of thing in mind.  Carriers in general are great at this but i tend to always have some fast attackers.  Not sure what the goal should be here because there's absolutely a state, especially early game, where the AI shouldn't just give up, but also has 0 reason to rush you down, so you wind up playing tag all day.

* Given that (again) I can't micro my fleet, it would be nice if there was a "keep away from all other ships" option for my carriers. I've tried various things (assigning escorts, placing them "behind" where I think the combat will be, assigning them as escorts, etc) but they're glass cannons. I don't have enough command points to keep repositioning them away from the combat (which is always moving fluidly).
They should mostly do this by default and I believe there's a dedicated option for it.  I generally just group my carriers into one blob and let them have at it.

* I managed to miss a delivery mission for independents. It was the only mission I failed. I got -5 rep. Fine, I deserve that. Several cycles later I'm hit by a ginourmous fleet (battlecruiser, 6*superfreighters, 4*assault carriers, 15+ cruisers...) which the comms is telling me is in retribution for failing the delivery. Can you say: Disproportionate. (That was about 6* more powerful than my fleet. Lvl 46)
Yeah....Disproportionate might be one off the key words to summarize areas where star sector still needs polish.

* Some listed missile ammo's cover the multiples they split into, others do not. This can be confusing when trying to work out what to equip. I get that this is because of the different types (some missles launch as one and split, some launch as many), but maybe it should say "limited volleys" with the number being how many times you can fire? (With the damage still showing the multiples as applicable).
Yeah # of volleys is probably a needed metric.

* If you use the starmap to set a destination by clicking on a star, it should navigate to a jump point for the star if there is one, not the star itself. I ended up in a blackhole that way! :-/
I'm still torn on this.  I like that, in theory, jumping right next to the star is possible.  In practice there's basically never any reason to do it, although I think several could be added.

* One of my colonies in particular keeps getting raided (by various factions). Eventually they took down the starbase, and now all the raids succeed because there is no starbase and they raid while it's still "disrupted". This has happened at least 5 times in a row now! Starfortress, heavy batteries, patrol, size 7, 270% fleet, me administrating with all 3 colony perks.
Basically a known issue.  Again colony related stuff just got added last patch and is still very much a work in progress.  There's some ways to mitigate this but it can absolutely get annoying.
 
* The pirates keep setting up next to one of my colonies in particular. Then I go there and destroy them, then a few months later they're at it again... :-/ Happened at least 4 times. Colony has patrol, surely they should, you know, patrol known pirate places. (Another colony has High Command).
Yeeeup.  Same as the previous one.  Very annoying, known issue, some ways to mitigate.

55
General Discussion / Re: Starsector on raspberry pi?
« on: May 25, 2020, 03:25:24 PM »
This is somewhat baffling to me as I've got 16gb of Ram and ss is one of the only games I worry about performance on. 

Granted i'm not great at this sort of thing but it seems that, especially modded, SS LOVES to eat ram, so running it on a pi strikes me as a pretty large ask.  Sure it's graphically simple in comparison to a AAA game, but there's a lot going on at any given moment.

56
Suggestions / Re: Nerf the Thunder via...
« on: May 23, 2020, 11:22:17 PM »
Thunders aren't supposed to solo enemy fleets, even when massed, but for their cost/ease of acquiring (say compared to sparks) they're pretty insane.

Once you hit critical mass you get to the point where anything under a thunder swarm is disabled for all practical purposes and waiting for someone to pull up and finish them off.   

57
I've been thinking about it and it seems to me like every buff I would give the AM blaster to make it better on conventional ships would be met with 'but then the afflictor is too strong' which is very sad to me since I find afflictor cheese super boring.

Even ignoring the phase options I use the AM blaster on quite a few ships.  At the end of the day if I want missile/torp like damage, but don't have a missile slot, the AM is getting a look over.

I'd say it's almost certainly fine as is, and certainly not one of the weapons that would need tweaking right now.

58
Suggestions / Re: Tactically damageable hangars
« on: May 22, 2020, 08:10:01 PM »
Instead of disabling nanoforges why not "wrecking the hull enough they can't land there".  I don't know if the code supports it, but disabling the launch ports, and thus limiting ability for fighters to land/launch could be interesting .
See intrinsic_parity's answer, unless you're fighting multiple Moras, this won't change a thing. Carriers are min-maxed around the fighters so once you get close enough, it dies like a fly.
1.  It strikes me as absolutely a factor when i'm sending my own carrier wings at theirs and probably didn't do enough to finish them off and need to wait for my bombers to rearm or my fighters to whittle them down.  And stations are a thing

2. Even if not then at worst it's a neat flavor change that might open up new options for weapons/balance/mod factions?

I mean obviously dev time isn't free but just because it wouldn't do that much now doesn't mean it can't be tweaked if it were implemented.  Seems like an intuitive and logical way to give some more interaction with fighters (which could use it since they already get around so many of the normal ones).

59
Suggestions / Re: Tactically damageable hangars
« on: May 22, 2020, 11:36:56 AM »
Make hangars damageable and repairable just like engines. While they're disabled, they stop replacing and rearming. They should also benefit from Automated Repair Unit and skills which make engine repairs faster.

This requires fighter bays to have a definitive single location on a ship's hull. Currently in-game, a single fighter bay can have multiple "launch ports" anywhere on the ship's hull, and it doesn't make sense that if just one of those is hit hard enough the whole bay gets taken out, since that very much depends on the way the ship is laid out.

For a ship with an especially large flight deck area - say, the Astral - where do you determine is the point damage needs to occur at to hurt the nanoforges? Obviously you can't just make it a wide area, that would be ridiculous and wholly unfair to those big carriers, since if they're taking general fire like that they're probably already screwed enough.

While I like the idea in a vacuum, this is something that will be confusing for combat carriers and just plain cruel to dedicated carriers. Yes, I know carriers and fighters are very strong right now, but I'm not convinced this is the best way to help that.

At the very least, perhaps instead of "disabling" nanoforges, damage taken near a fighter launch port could merely incur an immediate penalty to the fighter replacement rate (like, 1-3% based on damage taken). That might still be overcomplicated, but I think would have a better result.


Instead of disabling nanoforges why not "wrecking the hull enough they can't land there".  I don't know if the code supports it, but disabling the launch ports, and thus limiting ability for fighters to land/launch could be interesting .

60
General Discussion / Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« on: May 19, 2020, 09:39:58 AM »
See i'm a little sad to see the buffalo on that list.  One of my most memorable moments of feeling like I was getting "good" at the game was when I was using those to really punch way above my weight.  It took some clever fleet/character design, and still was hard to manage due to all the other reasons i mentioned, but it's a good feeling to feel like you're mastering the games mechanics vs just "buying the good ship".

Granted it's not like I have any complaints with the balance in the grand scheme.  This game still avoids many common land mines that other devs just faceplant into and ruin games with, so more just food for thought i guess.

To be fair, if the Buffalo Mk.II wasn't basically a joke ship, it wouldn't have been as satisfying to actually make it work :) So, this is by definition not a situation that can be "balanced" around.

Not to get lost in this, but it could be easier and still be rewarding?  It's sort of what i'm hoping we get from story points, just more avenues to alternate playstyles.  At any point you can self impose limits to try and achieve things, but "make low tech work" isn't exactly something that's encouraged either.  To be fair i'm not sure how you do it elegantly, but so meting along the lines of "low tech ships get a free hull mod", "Low tech ships have a % chance to take no dmod on destruction", or just something along those lines to even nudge players in that direction. 

Obviously it shouldn't be the only style, but it's quite a rewarding one when it works.

On the other hand i'm pretty hype for the next patch by all means ditch this nonsense if it gets it out faster.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15