Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dri]

Did Thunders and their Swarmers get the same treatment or is this another one of them unfortunate corner cases?

[Alex]

Thunders are going to see some more changes overall, but yes, this change applies to "fighter swarmers" in general.

[SCC]

Isn't the desired balance basically "upgraded flagship+average sized normal fleet = normal flagship+average sized upgraded fleet"?
The combat skills should allow you to run a smaller fleet and be more efficient, the fleet wide skills in turn allow a higher power ceiling. Seems pretty good to me.

You just said what's the problem! If you call that a problem, that is. What I've meant is that one of the options is going to be stronger. Before it was combat aptitude, now it's leadership and others. I guess when Alex adds end-game or simply more content we'll see more benefits in not going for horribly powerful fleet as a goal.
I've just realised that "combat" aptitude isn't really good conceptually since it all it does is buffing your flagship... But aren't all other ships fighting as well? At least description mentions it's your about your ship. I guess it's nitpicking though.
I wish so much there were some epic hullmods mounted on a basis 1 item - 1 hullmod on 1 ship that gave you feeling of technological progression...

[Megas]

It's not that venting takes longer, it's that weapons don't reload for the first couple seconds of a vent.

What I meant was without all of the dissipation and venting bonuses, venting is slow enough that I do not notice the reload delay caused by venting.  I have not obtained all of the bonuses that make extreme vent spamming possible.  I can fire two or three heavy blaster shots, vent, and proceed as usual without delay; probably because my venting is not fast enough.

[SainnQ]

Out of curiosity is there an ETA on the next I guess "Major" hotfix to 8.1?

[Gothars]

Out of curiosity is there an ETA on the next I guess "Major" hotfix to 8.1?

About a month.

[Sarissofoi]

Some thoughts on cost of restoration D mods.
The price of full restoration is fine in my opinion as that you can only restore it all or nothing.
Thing is that I think there should be some way to patch D-hull mods separately and without fully restoring whole ship(say that it replace D-mod by similar one but only with 50% penalty of original one)
It would be make sense also from realistic point of view and common sense.
>some fresh wreckage is in terrible shape
>but then some repair, fixes and exchanging some parts would bring back some old power
>then you have full restoration of systems but they are costly and systems are connected so its all or nothing.

It would also boost pirates as they are currently rather weak. Pirates would not be flying on complete rusty garbage(instead on patched by duct tape rust trash bins).

[Megas]

Restoration costs too much.  It costs money to repair a recovered ship, and then it costs about twice as much or more as a new ship?  That is too much for most ships.  This is why losing pristine ships of many kinds is still a game reload moment.  I do not bother restoring many ships because they are found everywhere as loot or derelicts.

[Ubik]

A fleet from the Luddic Path intercepted me and demanded a tithe...but the tithe is not getting displayed correctly (as can be seen in the attachment).

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Alex]

Thanks - was reported a bit back, fixed for the next release.

[Allectus]

Fighter Doctrine and Carrier Command are overpowered, and it’s screwing with the AI. The AI wants to hang back and destroy fighters until the replacement rate is sufficiently low then engage when the carriers have a minimal fighter screen, but +50% fighter replacement rate and -50% fighter damage taken means that’ll never actually happen. The two skills compound upon each other; the fighters take 2x as long to kill, and are replaced 1.5x as fast, so it ultimately takes 3x times as long as normal to drive down the carrier’s replacement rate. The enemy AI ends up hanging back forever while the fighters just pick everything apart. This is compounded by the EWar skill reducing enemy ships range, which makes them even less aggressive than they normally are.

Pretty much this.
I know that now carriers manufacture fighters but the old way having limited spare fighters that carrier could easily run off was much better for balance.
Now fighters just run and *** on everything and most of PD do not even scratch them and even if its do there comes another wave.
Reducing buff from skills and increasing replacement rate could do a thing.
Gonna check if I can test it.

I'd just like to note that if you wait until a carrier has either expended all of it's fighters (in a limited fighter world) or has a seriously degraded replacement rate (in an unlimited world) then you've basically allowed the enemy to extract full utility from that carrier.  I'd contend that the optimal approach for the AI (discounting the difficulty in actually accomplishing it) should be to kill the carriers ASAP so that it's not dealing with an infinite stream of damage.  This is both practical (in that it doesn't let the enemy expend all of its ordinance), and thematic in that it can provide some structure to the battlefield where defensive lines to protect carriers form and flanking can be a meaningful endeavor rather than just the deathballing that seems quite common in this version.  Sitting back and waiting should, in a normative sense, very rarely be a good idea.

I'm not sure what levers need to be tweaked on the design side (both in terms of balance, as well as AI design) to accomplish that, though.

[Allectus]

Fighter Doctrine and Carrier Command are overpowered, and it’s screwing with the AI. The AI wants to hang back and destroy fighters until the replacement rate is sufficiently low then engage when the carriers have a minimal fighter screen, but +50% fighter replacement rate and -50% fighter damage taken means that’ll never actually happen. The two skills compound upon each other; the fighters take 2x as long to kill, and are replaced 1.5x as fast, so it ultimately takes 3x times as long as normal to drive down the carrier’s replacement rate. The enemy AI ends up hanging back forever while the fighters just pick everything apart. This is compounded by the EWar skill reducing enemy ships range, which makes them even less aggressive than they normally are.

Pretty much this.
I know that now carriers manufacture fighters but the old way having limited spare fighters that carrier could easily run off was much better for balance.
Now fighters just run and *** on everything and most of PD do not even scratch them and even if its do there comes another wave.
Reducing buff from skills and increasing replacement rate could do a thing.
Gonna check if I can test it.

I'd just like to note that if you wait until a carrier has either expended all of it's fighters (in a limited fighter world) or has a seriously degraded replacement rate (in an unlimited world) then you've basically allowed the enemy to extract full utility from that carrier.  I'd contend that the optimal approach for the AI (discounting the difficulty in actually accomplishing it) should be to kill the carriers ASAP so that it's not dealing with an infinite stream of damage.  This is both practical (in that it doesn't let the enemy expend all of its ordinance), and thematic in that it can provide some structure to the battlefield where defensive lines to protect carriers form and flanking can be a meaningful endeavor rather than just the deathballing that seems quite common in this version.  Sitting back and waiting should, in a normative sense, very rarely be a good idea.

I'm not sure what levers need to be tweaked on the design side (both in terms of balance, as well as AI design) to accomplish that, though.

Maybe something like this could work in terms of meta-balance?

• Fighters need to remain strong--if they're not a threat there's no reason to go after the carrier
• Carriers need to be more vulnerable (this is the part I don't know how to resolve without breaking other design goals, like making carrier flagships fun/viable).  Maybe extreme flux generation when building replacement fighters, and make that rebuilding pausable?  This could be extended by allowing for one backup wing to be pre-built so you can do one combat re-up, but a second would mean you either need to pause production or extract to safe area to continue production?

[Thaago]

I like the idea of carriers being vulnerable, and the AI targeting/protecting them aggressively. At present the Condor and Drover are pretty squishy, but they don't get focused down very well (AI too focused on killing fighters). The Mora is quite tough, but its actually a bit weak offensively (only 3 wings for a cruiser, no fighter boost system) so I think that it alright. I haven't piloted a Heron too much this version so can't speak to it.

[Megas]

Heron has limited offense, but it can mount long-range ballistics (like HVD) and it can kite despite speed cut to 80.  It is a very good ship, and is my current flagship.

As an enemy, Heron is at least as annoying as Mora because it kites with its HVD.  Mora can be pinned down and beat up for a while until it finally dies.  Heron just runs away while plinking with HVD.  I wish I can pull the enemy Heron over and yell "Get over here!" like Scorpion from Mortal Kombat.

[Cosmitz]

- 0 crew (dumped into space), but the prompt shows it's removing crew. https://snag.gy/PUMsFL.jpg

- No crew, no supplies. 2147483647 days? https://snag.gy/0ioXr5.jpg