Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 116

Author Topic: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 639275 times)

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #330 on: March 24, 2017, 10:40:08 AM »

Am I the only person who feels carrier distribution between tech levels is backwards? Low-tech now has 3. Midline has 2. High-tech has 1. This is of course discounting not-real-carriers like Gemini and Odyssey.

On the other hand, 6 out of 14 strike craft are high-tech, and it is also the only tech level that fields shielded strike craft.

Yes, the Astral is the pinnacle of carrier design, but high-tech has nothing for fleets smaller than an armada; whereas both low-tech and midline have carriers for most fleet sizes. Unless there are smaller high-tech carriers still under wraps?

Now that fighters can only be fielded with carriers, it would be a damn shame if smaller high-tech fleets either can't field strike craft or must use lower tech carriers (granted the Heron fulfills high-tech's mobility doctrine pretty well, here's hoping the Drover does too).

Hmm - I feel like if one is expecting each tech level to provide complete fleets compositions and ship progressions, one is always going to be disappointed. They're meant to be complementary rather than self sufficient. To put another way, avoiding too much overlap between what niches the ships fill is a design goal, where providing comprehensive ship sets for each tech level is not.

I understand tech levels aren't meant to be factions, and I'm not advocating for a full set of carriers for every tech level. But based on how each time period views fighters, I would've expected high-tech to have the most diversity in carrier design and low-tech to have the least. As it is, it's the other way around.

I mean if high-tech's doctrine is supposed to be "dictate engagements" through speed and mobility, you would expect there to be small, high-tech carriers to support this. Instead it has the complete opposite, a slow, lumbering, overwhelming firepower supercarrier, and nothing else.

.....

To put it another way, I would've expected low-tech to focus on big, lumbering ships-of-the-line and high-tech to focus on speedy, fragile strikers; which includes strike craft (hence fulfilling the design goal of being complementary through different foci). Most of the current line-up fits this except for high tech's carriers (or lack thereof).

I mean all the low-tech carriers fit low-tech admirably (Condor is a slapjob, Mora is beefy, Legion sounds like Mora Plus)... but probably superfluous. I could make do without the Legion if it means a high-tech Destroyer-sized carrier to support those hit-and-run squadrons.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 10:52:57 AM by Embolism »
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #331 on: March 24, 2017, 10:51:56 AM »

I understand tech levels aren't meant to be factions, and I'm not advocating for a full set of carriers for every tech level. But based on how each time period views fighters, I would've expected high-tech to have the most diversity in carrier design and low-tech to have the least. As it is, it's the other way around.

I mean if high-tech's doctrine is supposed to be "dictate engagements" through speed and mobility, you would expect there to be small, high-tech carriers to support this. Instead it has the complete opposite, a slow, lumbering, overwhelming firepower supercarrier, and nothing else.

A couple of things going on here :)

First of all, backstory-wise, what's available in the Sector is just whatever blueprints happened to be there at the time of the gate collapse. If fewer high-tech carrier blueprints happened to be there, well, that's the breaks - but it's not necessarily indicative of the full (and hypothetical) range of high-tech ships found in the Domain at large.

Second, the high-tech "doctrine" is mostly about what makes sense for those ships. Given the nature of energy weapons, mobility and hit and run are what works. Carriers are naturally more about fighters, so I wouldn't expect them to adhere to a doctrine driven by weapons they don't primarily rely on in the first place.

Edit: finally, fighters work in complement with each other as well, and not isolated to a specific tech level, so it's probably not a good idea to think of high-tech carriers as only using high-tech fighters. With some few exceptions, that's not likely to be very effective.

Edit #2: that's not to say that there won't be some future high-tech carrier with good mobility or whatnot, if that happens to be interesting, effective, not redundant, and balanceable. It's just not going to be be because of the "high-tech doctrine", which, per my previous point, really doesn't apply to carriers or fighters.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 10:59:27 AM by Alex »
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #332 on: March 24, 2017, 10:56:36 AM »

Speaking or energy weapons, I'm kind a shocked that a new one isn't going to be added with this patch. But oh well, I favor low-tech ships anyways to bring on the ballistic options! >8D
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #333 on: March 24, 2017, 10:58:14 AM »

First of all, backstory-wise, what's available in the Sector is just whatever blueprints happened to be there at the time of the gate collapse. If fewer high-tech carrier blueprints happened to be there, well, that's the breaks - but it's not necessarily indicative of the full (and hypothetical) range of high-tech ships found in the Domain at large.

Well, I'm happy with that explanation!

Second, the high-tech "doctrine" is mostly about what makes sense for those ships. Given the nature of energy weapons, mobility and hit and run are what works. Carriers are naturally more about fighters, so I wouldn't expect them to adhere to a doctrine driven by weapons they don't primarily rely on in the first place.

I would've expected ship design to follow doctrine though, as alluded to in the Mora and Heron's backstories (particularly the Heron being a result of the fighter school gaining traction over the cruiser school). A lumbering carrier like the Astral would need something more like the Dominator to hold the line, rather than an Aurora that plasma jets away and leaves the flagship wide open. The Paragon exists of course, but my impression of the Paragon is it's creation is more about Tri-Tachyon ego than an actual battlefield necessity.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #334 on: March 24, 2017, 11:14:08 AM »

Speaking or energy weapons, I'm kind a shocked that a new one isn't going to be added with this patch. But oh well, I favor low-tech ships anyways to bring on the ballistic options! >8D
It would be nice if energy weapons in general had something over ballistics.  The only two things I can think of is chain-EMP from a few weapons and exploiting shield AI with a cheap long-range beam, and the latter might not work anymore.  As is, at least for unmodded game, hybrid mounts are basically ballistic, and universals are composite because energy weapons are usually bad, something to use if your ship cannot use ballistics.
Logged

cjuicy

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Figuring out how the hell to wear heels (She/it)
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #335 on: March 24, 2017, 11:32:32 AM »

There used to be a flux overcharge for higher energy-dps at higher flux levels. Maybe bring it back as a hullmod.
Logged
It's been a long time, but I still love ya!

- Pfp done by Sleepyfish!

orost

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #336 on: March 24, 2017, 11:38:18 AM »

Yes, it's a bit strange how high-tech weapons are, in practice, mostly inferior to "crude" ballistics. Makes you wonder why did the Domain switched in the first place. But maybe we Sector savages are just missing something important about them.

Also, what's with the poor Sabot? Is it doomed to oscillate between single warhead and multiple forever?  :'(
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 11:40:39 AM by orost »
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #337 on: March 24, 2017, 11:46:47 AM »

I would've expected ship design to follow doctrine though, as alluded to in the Mora and Heron's backstories (particularly the Heron being a result of the fighter school gaining traction over the cruiser school). A lumbering carrier like the Astral would need something more like the Dominator to hold the line, rather than an Aurora that plasma jets away and leaves the flagship wide open. The Paragon exists of course, but my impression of the Paragon is it's creation is more about Tri-Tachyon ego than an actual battlefield necessity.

Getting deep into theorycrafting the backstory here, but it's fun :)

Looking at it from the point of view of whoever (or whatever) was designing the Astral: if it *didn't* pair well with designs already in wide use - the Onslaught, the Dominator, etc - that would be a problem for its adoption, wouldn't it?

On the flip side, I can see it pairing well with something like the Aurora, too. Instead of absorbing punishment, it could use its alpha-strike capability to make enemy ships more vulnerable to the waves of fighters, and then use the breathing room gained for it by the fighters to back off and recover.

Speaking or energy weapons, I'm kind a shocked that a new one isn't going to be added with this patch. But oh well, I favor low-tech ships anyways to bring on the ballistic options! >8D
It would be nice if energy weapons in general had something over ballistics.  The only two things I can think of is chain-EMP from a few weapons and exploiting shield AI with a cheap long-range beam, and the latter might not work anymore.  As is, at least for unmodded game, hybrid mounts are basically ballistic, and universals are composite because energy weapons are usually bad, something to use if your ship cannot use ballistics.

I may at some point rebalance things so that energy weapons have lower flux costs (more in line with ballistic) and high-tech ships have worse flux stats but better shield efficiency (leaving them basically as-is in terms of both defense and firepower). That'd help out with the hybrid/universal mount issues. Not a big priority, though, since energy weapons already offer some utility in those slots, and I don't want to make them on-par with ballistics in overall quality regardless. The advantage of energy weapons lies in the hulls that mount them, so to speak.


Yes, it's a bit strange how high-tech weapons are mostly inferior to "crude" ballistics. Makes you wonder why did the Domain switched in the first place. But maybe we Sector savages are just missing something important about them.

I think it's clear gameplay-wise, and it's more a backstory question, right?

If so: the high-tech hull designs focus on mobility and shields/flux stats. Let's say there's something intrinsic about that design that doesn't work well with ballistics. Maybe there just isn't room for magazines and ammo conduits. Maybe the design can't handle the amount of recoil. Maybe there isn't room for enough crew to service the more maintenance-intensive low-tech gear. Maybe a bunch of other things.

Thus you end up with weapons that are more or less designed to be used on these hulls - worse in theory, but allowing the use of better hulls.

(Energy weapons also tend to have better alpha-strike capability - and their downsides are offset by the improved stats of the hull - so despite being "worse" on paper, they can work quite well anyway. Plus, there are a number of good utility options there, too - beams, EMP weapons, the AM blaster, etc - that can be situationally good on any ship.)

Also, what's with the poor Sabot? Is it doomed to oscillate between single warhead and multiple forever?  :'(

Let's hope not! It seems pretty nice right now - not a free kill, but definitely useful in opening up a window of opportunity.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 11:49:18 AM by Alex »
Logged

Toxcity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #338 on: March 24, 2017, 11:58:46 AM »

Any changes planned to the Vigilance? With the Buffalo Mk.II change the Vigilance is no longer the cheapest way to get a medium mount. Sure the Vigilance has a shield and Fast Missile Racks, but it doesn't have that much more survivability when confronted by a combat ship. Missile racks is only useful in marginal situations, and there are other ways to get large amounts of burst damage if needed.
Logged

Cyan Leader

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #339 on: March 24, 2017, 12:11:44 PM »

Bounty changes are interesting.

Are their fleet compositions any different than what they are now? To be honest it gets tiring when the vast majority is just pirates with low tech ships.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #340 on: March 24, 2017, 12:13:55 PM »

What I'm hearing is it's not the cheapest, followed by a list of minor ways in which its better than the cheapest, but only by a bit :)

Also, let's not forget its lower crew requirement, higher burn level, and substantially higher combat speed, which frankly is a big deal. Or the fact that it can mount a medium energy weapon, which has some nice support options. And the lower potential for crew losses and additional repair costs.


Are their fleet compositions any different than what they are now? To be honest it gets tiring when the vast majority is just pirates with low tech ships.

Same at the moment - really hadn't touched that. Once you do about 10, about half of them should be proper faction-fleet compositions rather than pirates, though.
Logged

Mini S

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #341 on: March 24, 2017, 12:30:55 PM »

I may be late for the ballistics vs energy party but I expect in the future the ballistics will regain the ammo limitation and(hopefully) a ship that can rearm friendly's(some ting like suply drones).
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #342 on: March 24, 2017, 12:32:48 PM »

...
Speaking or energy weapons, I'm kind a shocked that a new one isn't going to be added with this patch. But oh well, I favor low-tech ships anyways to bring on the ballistic options! >8D
It would be nice if energy weapons in general had something over ballistics.  The only two things I can think of is chain-EMP from a few weapons and exploiting shield AI with a cheap long-range beam, and the latter might not work anymore.  As is, at least for unmodded game, hybrid mounts are basically ballistic, and universals are composite because energy weapons are usually bad, something to use if your ship cannot use ballistics.

I may at some point rebalance things so that energy weapons have lower flux costs (more in line with ballistic) and high-tech ships have worse flux stats but better shield efficiency (leaving them basically as-is in terms of both defense and firepower). That'd help out with the hybrid/universal mount issues. Not a big priority, though, since energy weapons already offer some utility in those slots, and I don't want to make them on-par with ballistics in overall quality regardless. The advantage of energy weapons lies in the hulls that mount them, so to speak.


Yes, it's a bit strange how high-tech weapons are mostly inferior to "crude" ballistics. Makes you wonder why did the Domain switched in the first place. But maybe we Sector savages are just missing something important about them.

I think it's clear gameplay-wise, and it's more a backstory question, right?

If so: the high-tech hull designs focus on mobility and shields/flux stats. Let's say there's something intrinsic about that design that doesn't work well with ballistics. Maybe there just isn't room for magazines and ammo conduits. Maybe the design can't handle the amount of recoil. Maybe there isn't room for enough crew to service the more maintenance-intensive low-tech gear. Maybe a bunch of other things.

Thus you end up with weapons that are more or less designed to be used on these hulls - worse in theory, but allowing the use of better hulls.

(Energy weapons also tend to have better alpha-strike capability - and their downsides are offset by the improved stats of the hull - so despite being "worse" on paper, they can work quite well anyway. Plus, there are a number of good utility options there, too - beams, EMP weapons, the AM blaster, etc - that can be situationally good on any ship.)
...

I would like such a rebalancing. Energy weapons work nicely on ships built around them (Tempest, Medusa), but are just inferior on everything else. For example on an Eagle, in terms of usefulness I would put all three of those medium energy mounts combined at about the same net benefit to the ship as 1 more medium ballistic. If the energy weapon flux was more reasonable, then they would give the ship a good close range option to repel frigates/fighters. The "special" thing about energy weapons could be that they have good damage/OP and damage/flux, at the (very high) cost of range. "Hit and Run" for mobile ships and "Get Away" for big ships against smaller enemies.
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #343 on: March 24, 2017, 12:36:14 PM »

  • Added Drover-class midline carrier, destroyer-sized with 2 fighter bays
yes! o_o

Quote
  • Added Legion-class low-tech battlecarrier
YES! O_O

It's capital-sized, with 4 fighter bays.
YES!! @_@

You'll have to see it to get all the details
NOOOOOOOooooo....... Q___Q
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #344 on: March 24, 2017, 12:55:32 PM »

NOOOOOOOooooo....... Q___Q

Alright, let me post a screenshot of it on Twitter...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 116