Regarding PD jammer (in lieu of individual replies, since there are so many threads of conversation flying around):
https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/768867505595187200/photo/1Appreciate all the feedback and suggestions
This seems like a better way to go; mechanically plays out the same way, but the visuals really help sell it, especially how the flares almost form a wall.
20 and 30 OP for a single wing of bombers is insane! That's over three full (and one partial) rearms just to MATCH TWO typhoons! And THREE for the tridents! And now that the daggers are using reapers and not hammers!
As someone mentioned, there's the matter of range. Then there are fighter-specific ship systems the magnify the effectiveness of torpedoes. Finally (to build on the range point) these have different bands of effectiveness. Daggers are not super effective up close, while Typhoons etc are. So, for example, on a combat carrier like the new Mora, which 1) has 2 medium missile mounts, 2) can and usually wants to fight up close, and 3) has a non-fighter-related ship system, the Typhoons are probably a better call. But on other carriers, not so much. Will definitely be keeping an eye on the balance, though.
I'm amazed how we still didn't get any patch notes yet so much changes (some pretty damn significant and big) were done since the last build.
There's still some stuff in the running patch notes that I don't want to reveal quite yet. To boot, I'd need to spend a bit of time updating them, but the first is the main point.
Will officer personalities differ significantly in their fighter micromanagement use as well?
A bit, yeah. Aggressive officers are more likely to use interceptors to attack rather than defend allies.
So, if fighters can be "equipped", is there any possiblity that other commodity can be installed?
I am really interested about that.
Nothing specific, though I'd been thinking about "particular hullmod requires item to equip" type stuff. But again, nothing concrete.
- So there is this "replacement rate" attribute to carriers. Is it purely set by the number of flight deck and consumed along the fighters OP costs? Or are they stats that can be manually set on a per hull basis? In the former case I suppose there are mutable stats since you have a less efficient "hullmod" flight deck.
It's just based on which flight decks are busy and which aren't. The rates are constant and not based on the fighter type equipped, though fighters with a longer refit time and bigger wing size naturally suffer more.
I'm thinking about Diable wanzer wings that right now are a bit stronger than vanilla fighters at the cost of very limited replacement chassis. I don't think they need a higher OP cost if we can make them pressure the replacement rate more than usual.
I'd suggest a higher base "refit time" for those. The replacement rate really isn't meant to be a first-class stat that can be influenced in varied ways.
I also have the Scyan Keto that is a carrier with several extra flight decks on a breakable part. The obvious move would be to dramatically cut the replacement rate if that part get destroyed.
There *is* a MutableStat for the refit time, so you could modify that in response, and achieve the same result. Adjusting the replacement rate here wouldn't actually make sense, since it can always recover to 100% if left alone long enough.
- Are fighters burn rate gone? Since they are now attached to a carrier I would guess it is the case, or did they kept it to be able to force an engagement upon a faster fleet? If not, I hope they can't they slow down a fleet?
Yeah, no burn for fighters. Fighters *do* show in the campaign fleet view, and when you interact with a fleet, but *do not* show in your fleet screen, for example.
- Since flight decks are now "weapons", can they be disabled by EMP or damage? That could allow some interesting counter-play strategies and avoid the daggers launch, daggers fire, daggers dock cycle when the carrier is directly under attack.
They can't. I don't think this would be a good idea because 1) flight decks are often "inside" the hull where it's hard to hit them and 2) they're automatically generated on ships that don't have them (i.e. w/ a converted hangar) and the launch points can be outside the hull, so that'd just be weird. It looks ok since the fighters fade in and get bigger as they launch, but wouldn't be so good for damage.
Another modding note: number of "launch bay" weapons defined for a ship does not need to match the number of fighter bays, which is now specified in ship_data.csv. If there are launch bay slots in the .ship file, it'll go through them in order and assign them to the actual bays, rolling over if it runs out. Otherwise, it'll generate one with 4 points set off a bit away from the center of the ship, and then just use that one for all the bays.
I understand the reasoning behind Daggers getting Hammers instead of Reapers but... urgh. A high-tech bomber with shields (assuming it still has them, but either way it still looks high-tech) shouldn't be carrying a hobo-torpedo. Unless there's a massive Reaper shortage in the Sector you would expect a military bomber to carry military ordnance, not home-brewed asteroid poppers.
(plus other posts to the same effect)
Hmm, yeah, I wasn't really thinking about that, this makes sense. However: weapons are generally speaking not "the same exact thing" but rather "different weapons with roughly the same performance characteristics", as is explicitly mentioned in some weapon descriptions. For the moment, added the following to the Hammer description:
The design was inspired by an original milspec version of the weapon that has roughly the same performance characteristics, and is most commonly seen on torpedo bombers.
But still, it's weird the most iconic torpedo (Reaper) isn't represented on any bomber. Might even be worth giving Tridents Reapers and Daggers Atropos, although I realise the current art wouldn't work well.
I wouldn't mind a super-high-end bomber that carried a Reaper - two or even just one in a wing. But that's more of a content thing. Balance-wise, it's not a good fit for either the Dagger or the Trident, and I don't want to knock the Dagger down to 2 in a wing.
Can you install the extra flight deck on a carrier for even more fighters?
You can't.
As an aside... I find a wing of two strike craft rather odd. I feel like three should be the minimum size for a wing, though I realise that can be a bit difficult to balance.
I don't know, wing leader + wingman is pretty iconic. Plus, yes, balance.
E: also, about the Terminator drone, I think since the phase cloak change it hasn't been in a good spot,
But before the change, it felt like it was way too difficult to actually destroy. Maybe the drone itself just needs a rework.
---------------------------------------------------
Some questions about modability:
- Is range (3-4k atm) easily modable? If yes, will SS native AI make use of increased range or is custom AI needed?
- Will fighter still be easily modable (speed, turning speed, weapons, behavior, formation)?
- Will it still possible to fly a fighter in dev-mode? (via take control over ship/fighter)
Yes on all counts, except for needing to rework AI - you don't.
Are there currently any AI tweeks planned (beside what was already mentioned in the blog-post / thread) concerning:
- Ships / fighters - interaction
- Interceptor / fighter / bomber - interaction ==> Combined formation of several wings
- How does the AI launch successful attacks with mixed fighter/bomber groups? It is just the speed difference (fighters arrive earlier) or something more sophisticated?
If it is just the speed difference this could potentially lead to problems, depending on engagement range or mods.
There were lots of AI tweaks, too many to really list or respond in detail.
Regarding launching successful attacks, it's a combination of speed and bombers hanging out behind their carrier, so they naturally arrive a bit later. Mods will need to be careful in designing their fighters, yes, but matching speeds properly etc is part of creating an effective carrier loadout rather than a problem.
- Could you please explain what the fighter/bomber-wing-symbols in screenshot 1 mean in a bit more detail (AFAIK: symbol=glowing ==> bomber still have ammo / active engagement)
It shows the number of fighters in that wing that are 1) alive and 2) not returning to refit. Basically, if it's not full, that means the bay is working on a replacement.
- In the screenshot it seems that there is only place for 6 wings (maybe 7), that would be enough for an Astral /w "Converted Hangar" hullmod ==> Any idea about mods with more than 7 decks?
Not really supported right now. Might end up going back and making the UI more flexible here (to support more rows, say.) Will have to see.
- When a carrier is lost but the wings escape successfully, how does this impact salvage? (e.g. salvageable LPCs?)
It doesn't impact salvage at all.
- The Astral in the screenshot seems OP starved. Not even all weapon slots are equipped, no hullmod and only a mix between good and mediocre fighters...
I feel like not putting weapons in all slots is ok, especially now that there are nice shiny covers for empty slots
As far as mixing fighters, it's actually more effective than it would be if it put more expensive fighters in instead of Broadswords.
- Trident: I am very glad to see that they are still around since you thought about deleting them a while back
Yeah, I think it was just bugging me when it had those 3 LRPD lasers on it. That didn't really work.
- (Somewhat unrelated to the blog-post): When selecting hullmod(s) the window closes after selecting one. This means opening the menu several times for several hullmods - a tedious process. How is that handled for the carrier wings? Are the boxes working more like weapon-slots?
Same as weapons, along with shift-click to install the same one again and right-click to clear.
Amusingly, I have in current versions had to deliberately prioritize Broadswords as kill targets. Making them PD magnets makes sense for trying to slip torpedos through against low or mid tech targets, but for any high tech ship with primarily shield-based defenses, prioritizing killing Broadswords is actually what I want. Plus, y'know, the insanity of strapping pilots into flying decoys.
In short, I don't think they're the right ship for that. If we're going to have EW decoys, I'd expect to see those as either zero-crew drones, high tech EW platform ships with decent shields, or maybe even specialized dagger-E bombers that fire a decoy missile (make it look like the Reaper, but white rather than red).
They're not exactly the same ship now, though. No swarmers, much lower sustained kinetic DPS, more sturdy. Still decent vs shields, though, so your point still mainly stands. But at any rate, I think the decoy flares take care of all the concerns here.
I'm also a little bit concerned how this will impact the smaller carriers. If an Astral works well with, say, four wings of daggers and two wings of EW fighters... what do you do with the poor little Condor that can only fit two wings? Fitting in EW fighters costs half your firepower.
I'm not sure that's the way to look at it - you fit "tanky" figthers to increase your actual firepower. Bombers tend to have obscene firepower that's mitigated by most of it not actually getting through.
No! No no no no. While that would be a potent complement to the Tempest's weapon loadout, the Tempest (especially assuming it's keeping the terminator drone as a built-in LPC) does not need a strong ship system - I don't want to see another Hyperion where a previously good ship gets itself elevated to god-tier and then balanced by becoming too expensive to ever actually use. That's why I suggested giving it the Missile Autoforge - it fits well with the terminator drone, giving the ship a feel of "this thing has an advanced internal factory, capable of replicating munitions on the fly" - but with only a single small missile point for it to synergize with, the autoforge isn't going to make the Tempest vastly more powerful.
Duly noted. I just want to give it something... Tempest-y. As in, fitting the ship's name.
Did you consider having different sized fighterbays? Large/Medium/Small, just like weapons?
Thought about it, but it seems too messy, and it feels like it might pigeonhole carriers into specific roles. Plus, it's not exactly clear which fighters should be which size, there's no clear visual distinction like there is with weapons.
I do see what you're saying re: fighter sizes, but, well, fighters are just a bit oversized compared to other ships.
Could you share any info about the new Khopesh rocket bomber? I'm guessing it has an Annihilator rocket launcher on it - does it fire a single salvo of 5 rockets or what?
Yeah, but from two launchers. The idea is that it has an easier time hitting moving targets than something like the Piranha (and is safer, since it can fire from a distance and break off quickly), but has a lower damage potential.
This is super cool, now it'll be possible I imagine to find ancient fighter plans or something during salvage!
That would be neat, wouldn't it. Hmm.
* The old meta in vanilla vs fleets that had multiple carriers seemed to always be "Find and kill the fighter hoses ASAP". Do you feel like it now plays differently in this scenario?
Probably about the same, but the carriers tend to hang around combat ships, so it's probably not going to be as easy.
* Since all crew, fuel and supplies are the same, would it perhaps make more sense to represent them as a slider rather than something in inventory? Fuel, Crew and Supplies always struck me a something that should be represented and interacted with differently since it's not so much cargo as the cost of doing business, and usually at a scale that's 10-100x everything else.
I don't think so. That's just too many sliders. Plus, other resources are becoming more important with the next update (e.g. machinery used for salvage and surveying), so I think these lines that seem clear now will blur.
Oh yeah, about that crew level removal: any new thoughts on specialized crew types beside marines (engineers, medics)?
... not particularly. Possibly for things that are not tied to specific ships, but only if they're a good solution to a specific problem. It's not something I'm keen on adding otherwise.
(Oh man, good luck answering this avalanche of questions!)
Thanks
*wipes sweat from face* Almost there!
Definitely a step in the right direction! Still not convinced the broadsword is the proper fighter to turn into an EW specialist, but so be it I suppose.
I think the solution is to not think of it as an EW specialist
All things considered, that's a pretty low-tech approach to the problem - "burn this chunk of futuristic magnesium equivalent, it's real bright". Much more low-tech than the PD jammer was, at any rate.
EDIT: Also are we getting any other (D) type ships besides the Afflictor in that picture?
Maybe? Honestly not sure off the top of my head.
