Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Raiding for Fun and Profit (11/27/19)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Toning Down coronas  (Read 3513 times)

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
    • View Profile
Toning Down coronas
« on: May 21, 2017, 11:48:31 AM »

It would be nice if the coronas were more gradual. Sometimes for big stars, you can't even see the star and can't clearly see the edge of the corona and then you are suddenly losing 100+ supplies per day.

I have the skill that is supposed to minimize the effect of coronas but it doesn't seem to do much (It might be a bug, I have also noticed since I got it, the neutron star beam thing does nothing to my fleet).

The solar shielding hull mod also seems super useless because you would need to put them on the majority of ships in your fleet to get a significant effect which is not worth the op, even for an exploration focused fleet. Maybe if the hull mod had a fleet wide effect, might be worth throwing on a few ships. Or if you had the option to send a detachment (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12247.0) so you could have solar shielding only on the ships dedicated to going into coronas.
Logged

tinsoldier

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2017, 03:25:33 PM »

It would be nice if the coronas were more gradual. Sometimes for big stars, you can't even see the star and can't clearly see the edge of the corona and then you are suddenly losing 100+ supplies per day.

I have the skill that is supposed to minimize the effect of coronas but it doesn't seem to do much (It might be a bug, I have also noticed since I got it, the neutron star beam thing does nothing to my fleet).

The solar shielding hull mod also seems super useless because you would need to put them on the majority of ships in your fleet to get a significant effect which is not worth the op, even for an exploration focused fleet. Maybe if the hull mod had a fleet wide effect, might be worth throwing on a few ships. Or if you had the option to send a detachment (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12247.0) so you could have solar shielding only on the ships dedicated to going into coronas.

If solar shielding was only like 2 OP for a frigate then I'd probably put it on everything.  At 5, it begins to feel like I'm giving up things that would contribute greater to survivability and TTK than the solar shielding, especially when it is something that needs to be applied *everywhere*.  Of course, for 20 OP at the top-end, it's totally off the table.  The 10% beam damage protection it offers isn't terribly compelling for me.
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1027
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2017, 05:39:55 PM »

Solar shielding is the best hullmod, I put it on every non-combat ship and star-dive when getting chased, it's fantastic
Logged

Ghoti

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2017, 07:12:37 PM »

am I reading this mods description wrong? It says it only reduces combat readiness loss while in combat in a corona. So it won't reduce the supply hit of your fleet. It just lets you CR out your opponent in a fleet battle.
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1027
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2017, 07:43:39 PM »

solar shielding doesn't mention anything about working in combat
Logged

Kwbr

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2017, 09:17:32 PM »

The biggest complaint I have with coronas and really any terrain obstacle is the sheer inaccuracy of their visuals compared to the where they actually effect you. A lot of the time I end up flying into a solar flare because where I'm trying to go isn't visually inside a solar flare at all yet apparently it still affects that region of space. The same happens with hyperspace storms way too often as well.
Spoiler
[close]
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1027
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2017, 10:42:07 PM »

My biggest complaint is that lay in course will fly you straight into the sun if it's in the way and if the angle isn't shallower enough you can get stuck on the sun
Logged

TrashMan

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
    • View Profile
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2017, 03:59:00 AM »

Have Solar shielding work also as a boost of weapon/shield power when you're close to the sun?
OR
have fighting near the sun have negative effect on flux disspation and shield efficiency - solar shielding would negate that. Taht way, equiping your fleet with solar shielding and drawing enemies closer to the sun would be a viable strategy.
Logged

ahrenjb

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2017, 11:11:48 AM »

Good incentive not to drop out of hyperspace in a suns gravity well, and if you do to get out of it as soon as possible.

That said, I would like to see coronas have a pronounced gradient, with a minor effect on the outer fringes that increases in intensity the closer you get to the star. Maybe a better UI indicator for terrain effects as well, so you can have a real-time idea of the per day cost of whatever is being inflicted on your ships.
Logged

tinsoldier

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2017, 09:20:34 AM »

am I reading this mods description wrong? It says it only reduces combat readiness loss while in combat in a corona. So it won't reduce the supply hit of your fleet. It just lets you CR out your opponent in a fleet battle.

I think you may have misread, from the wiki (I assume it's trustworthy?):

Quote
Decreases the effect operating in a solar corona has on combat readiness by 75 percent; also has the same effect against storms in deep hyperspace.
In combat situations, reduces beam damage taken by 10 percent.

It doesn't mention "while in combat" when referring to the CR reductions.  It does refer to combat situations when describing beam damage reduction bonuses.
Logged

ZombieM0ses

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2017, 02:22:06 AM »

It would be nice if the coronas were more gradual. Sometimes for big stars, you can't even see the star and can't clearly see the edge of the corona and then you are suddenly losing 100+ supplies per day.

I have the skill that is supposed to minimize the effect of coronas but it doesn't seem to do much (It might be a bug, I have also noticed since I got it, the neutron star beam thing does nothing to my fleet).

The solar shielding hull mod also seems super useless because you would need to put them on the majority of ships in your fleet to get a significant effect which is not worth the op, even for an exploration focused fleet. Maybe if the hull mod had a fleet wide effect, might be worth throwing on a few ships. Or if you had the option to send a detachment (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12247.0) so you could have solar shielding only on the ships dedicated to going into coronas.

The problem is the UI doesn't do a great job at communicating exactly what is happening when you hit a solar flare/corona/hyperspace storm. Essentially all of your ships start losing combat readiness (CR) at a set rate until they are no longer affected by the terrain in question. The mod decreases the loss over time by 75% by itself and this is potentially multiplied again by the reduction you get from the similar character skill. In other words, while they UI says you're losing 100 supplies per day, the reality is that if you are properly protected, the amount of CR you lost is so tiny that you will regain the lost CR so quickly that a single day won't even pass at the horrific rate of loss advertised. I often see (-57/day) only to lose a total of 15 or 20 supplies to a specific incident. I'm talking about diving into a corona to get at a wreck, not just accidentally grazing the zone for a moment. This is the same reason why doing a transverse jump to leave a system is almost always still an overall net savings in supplies, since you don't waste several days flying over to a jump point. Don't be fooled by the rate per day, actually look at your supply levels before and after the spike in usage.

Also, in regards to how many of your ships need to be shielded to really get serious mileage out of the mod, keep in mind that each ship costs a different amount of supplies per CR recovered.  Further, ships with 'd' mods can potentially receive a huge savings in supplies per CR depending on how many lasting damage mods they suffer from. As long as you are covering your highest maintenance ships with solar shielding, you are pretty safe from hemorrhaging supplies. Most tankers, crew transports and frigates cost a comparatively tiny amount of supplies to restore CR (and frankly, most of your civilian flotilla can be filled out with shoddy, d-class hulls saving you even more supplies), so you're pretty safe leaving those unshielded, unless you intend to use coronas tactically; To weaken enemy fleets and engage them when they're vulnerable.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 02:33:22 PM by ZombieM0ses »
Logged

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1835
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2017, 04:09:35 AM »

Yeah, all space terrain need their effects gradiating.

Complicates implementation somewhat, but would ease the frequent disparity between visual and effective bounds.
Logged

ZombieM0ses

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2017, 02:40:30 PM »

Yeah, all space terrain need their effects gradiating.

Complicates implementation somewhat, but would ease the frequent disparity between visual and effective bounds.

I still don't like the idea of gradient hazard effects. The problem is that art assets are expensive and in order for the gradient to match what you're seeing visually, they would likely have to redo most, if not all of space terrain art. I just don't see that in the cards. I think a better solution would be to add a floating UI element that hovers around the edge of the player's fleet footprint - sort of like the neutrino detector circle - and points roughly towards the nearest hazard(s). They could make the hovering element more or less opaque as you draw nearer to danger and then suddenly change color when you actually enter the danger zone. No danger zone jokes please ;)

Another thing they could do is make the fleet CR meter change appearance drastically when you start taking ongoing CR damage from terrain hazards. This would even further help the player understand exactly what is happening and why they are suddenly spending more supplies per day. Speaking of which, unless I'm mistaken, Transverse Jump doesn't mention a CR loss anywhere even though that definitely happens as a result of making the jump. It's a miniscule loss, but it was still something I was totally unaware of until I used it for the first time.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 02:51:12 PM by ZombieM0ses »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
    • View Profile
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2017, 06:02:33 PM »

I don't think the art needs to be redone. If the corona effects are gradual, then it is not necessary to indicate to the player the strength of the corona via the art. The suggestion of the CR meter changing color along with the steadily increasing supply consumption would be more than enough information for the player to safely avoid the corona without significant supply loss.


I often see (-57/day) only to lose a total of 15 or 20 supplies to a specific incident. I'm talking about diving into a corona to get at a wreck, not just accidentally grazing the zone for a moment.

With an endgame fleet and no solar shielding you can easily lose hundreds of supplies from a very short trip into the corona. I even had the industry skill that was supposed to reduce the effects of coronas (although I suspect it may have been bugged).

As long as you are covering your highest maintenance ships with solar shielding, you are pretty safe from hemorrhaging supplies. Most tankers, crew transports and frigates cost a comparatively tiny amount of supplies to restore CR (and frankly, most of your civilian flotilla can be filled out with shoddy, d-class hulls saving you even more supplies), so you're pretty safe leaving those unshielded...

The issue here is that the ships you've said don't need shielding (d-hulls and civilian ships) are the ones that can afford to give up some OP since they are either expendable or they don't see combat. The high maintenance ships are the going to be the combat focused ships that need all the OP they have and more. 20-30 OP on a capital or cruiser is just not going to be available most of the time if you want a good combat focused load out.
Logged

ZombieM0ses

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Toning Down coronas
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2017, 01:16:46 AM »


With an endgame fleet and no solar shielding you can easily lose hundreds of supplies from a very short trip into the corona. I even had the industry skill that was supposed to reduce the effects of coronas (although I suspect it may have been bugged).


You're taking what I said out of context. I didn't explicitly describe my fleet, so I'll do so here: I had a Dominator, two Hammerheads, two Drovers, a Wolf, a Lasher and two Kites for combat ships The Hammerheads, Drovers and Dominator were all protected by Solar Shielding, plus I had the industry skill. That means that my CR loss for the protected ships would be y = x * .5 * .75. That means that the percentage of CR I was losing was a mere quarter of your percentage and only 12.5 percent of the standard. Obviously, in absolute terms, we're comparing apples to oranges, but in your case if the capital ships had been protected by solar shield, you might have lost fewer than one hundred supplies if you found yourself in a corona.


The issue here is that the ships you've said don't need shielding (d-hulls and civilian ships) are the ones that can afford to give up some OP since they are either expendable or they don't see combat. The high maintenance ships are the going to be the combat focused ships that need all the OP they have and more. 20-30 OP on a capital or cruiser is just not going to be available most of the time if you want a good combat focused load out.


Sure, if you spend 30 OP worth of Battlecruiser on solar shielding, you probably couldn't beat another BC one-on-one; Not without sustaining terrible damage - all other things being equal. But that's not really a realistic application is it? To be frank, I don't generally use solar shielding unless I am doing survey missions out on the fringe. I see it as a very specialized hull mod which is appropriate for that and not much else. And out on the fringe, there isn't much reason to bring an end-game fleet unless you want to waste a fortune in supplies and fuel. Specifically, the reason I don't use solar shielding on my eight or nine fuel tankers and three or four freighters is because they are hauling surveying equipment, which saves me boatloads more supplies than the shielding ever would, and insulated engines, because otherwise all those civvy hulls would be like running in the night, waving the Olympic Torch around, blowing beautiful sonatas on a vuvuzela.

And sure, occasionally you will locate a heavily fortified Remnant contingent, but in that case, you could stealthily survey the system and come back later with a strike force specifically outfitted for clearing that system; Much later when you aren't expecting to spend a whole cycle out there.  For almost any other threat, a single cruiser, a pair of light carriers and some escorts - and really the escorts ending up carrying the majority of the engagements - can massacre just about anything else you could possibly run into out there and most of the time, you'll return home with more supplies than you started with.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2017, 08:19:46 PM by ZombieM0ses »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2