Print

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

[Megas]

@ TaLaR:  Minor nitpick.  Helmsmanship 3 is also good on gunships that use Converted Hangar either for aggravating hidden frigates from much further distances (meaning more time to run back to the corner before enemy can swarm) or as a regenerating missile substitute... although you can say that is a carrier pick too.  I guess Helmsmanship 3 could be theoretically useful for a missileship that wants shields up before launching missiles (only ship I can think of that applies is Gryphon, but it is sub-par).

[AxleMC131]

Double damage to engines mean nothing to a UI-powered carrier that can outrange and maybe outspeed the enemy enough that the enemy cannot engage effectively.  

Ah, I suppose that's true. The benefit directly outweighs the consequence, in other words.

As for engagement range, -15% of 4000 is 3400, still far more range than the longest ranged gun (accessible to player), which is probably Paragon with Gunnery Implants 3 and Advanced Optics hullmod for 2350 range.

Hmm, true. In that case could you get away with a more severe penalty to engagement range? Say, -50%? That would drop most fighters to 2k (outside the range of a common capital with 1k base range guns and ITU, but not by much). Would that be too crushing, or closer to the mark for a balanced penalty?

[Megas]

As for engagement range, -15% of 4000 is 3400, still far more range than the longest ranged gun (accessible to player), which is probably Paragon with Gunnery Implants 3 and Advanced Optics hullmod for 2350 range.

Hmm, true. In that case could you get away with a more severe penalty to engagement range? Say, -50%? That would drop most fighters to 2k (outside the range of a common capital with 1k base range guns and ITU, but not by much). Would that be too crushing, or closer to the mark for a balanced penalty?

Well, it would make fighters feel more like guns than fighters.  What is the point of interceptors if they cannot travel far from the mothership and stop hostiles?  Also, what would be the point of bombers if they cannot travel far enough for an effective run except against adjacent ships?

Aside from that, -50% of 4000 would be 2000, and Thunders go from 8000 to 4000.  Only few ships have shot range greater than 2000, namely Paragon with beams and HVDs and capitals with Gauss Cannons and Gunnery Implants 3 (and no penalties from ECM).  Cruisers with HVDs and Maulers top at 1600 and sub-capital high-tech ships with only medium energy weapons still cannot break the 1000 barrier (except with underpowered beams only).  That means even with only 2000 range, fighters still outrange the vast majority of enemy targets.  However, if player still really needs range at that point, he may just spam Thunders.  Thunders may be relatively fragile, but they can hit any defense, and they are deadly when many are stacked and carrier skills min-maxed.

[AxleMC131]

Well, it would make fighters feel more like guns than fighters.  What is the point of interceptors if they cannot travel far from the mothership and stop hostiles?  Also, what would be the point of bombers if they cannot travel far enough for an effective run except against adjacent ships?

Forgive me, but weren't we trying to find a way to balance UI being gratuitously installed on carriers since they suffer such a small drawback? 

[Megas]

Giving carriers a huge range penalty on fighters is not only much more than what other ships suffer (i.e., unfair), but also destroys much of the point of fighters; despite probably still outranging most high-tech ships.  Would you pilot a gunship that lost -50% to shot range for just a simple speed increase, instead of just going with Safety Override?  (I would not with just -25%, but -15% is more tolerable thanks to Gunnery Implants 3, but even then I might ignore UI on gunships since OP budget is tight.)  Would you be satisfied with all fighters and bombers with such a short leash that they are all feel like escorts like mining pods and Xyphos?

But carriers need Expanded Deck Crew and Fighter Doctrine 3 minimum to use some fighters effectively late in the game when big things may eat them like popcorn.  Want to hit carriers where it hurts?  Kill replacement rate.  Not only replacement rate when fighters recover, but also how fast the rate drops when too many fighters are gone.  Skills speed up the former, but only Expanded Deck Crew speeds up the latter (and former too).  This is why Expanded Deck Crew is practically mandatory on carriers; and if gunships with Converted Hangar could use Expanded Deck Crew, I would install it on them too, OP permitting.

Peak performance penalties could be an alternative.  Some carriers lose peak performance regardless who the enemy is.  I think Astral is one of them, a lone enemy frigate will tick it down.  (Heron does not get ticked down by frigate though, why does Astral tick down?)  When soloing fleets or simply fighting a grueling battle with mixed forces and AI on both sides stall, less peak performance means carriers need to leave and fighter support will be gone.

[Alex]

Made a note about the zero-flux boost being a main enabling factor here, that's a really good point. I wonder if having fighters out to engage generate slightly more than 1% flux would just do the job, without touching Unstable Injector.

[Megas]

Remember that Helmsmanship 3 was changed from 1% to 5% max flux.  Fighters need to generate lots of flux (especially if I slap Converted Hangar on Paragon, which I do due to fighters being the best missiles a Paragon can take).  Probably should add a condition that shuts-off zero-flux speed regardless of flux, especially if some modder decides 5% is too low and wants skills are powerful as they used to be.

Yes, zero-flux is a major enabler.  The rest of Combat can be relatively weak, but Helmsmanship 3 is a game-changer for carrier flagships to the point that it is must-take.

[Takion Kasukedo]

I'll weigh in and say that I don't ever bother with Unstable Injector on anything other than pure combat ships, simply due to it not being worth any value whatsoever to a carrier for me.

Sure, you go faster with Unstable Injector on carriers, but I focus specifically on combat ships, and if the CR degradation is put in, then I would cease use altogether, because then frigates will be almost worthless to me if something like increased CR degradation was put in. Even the low-tech ships would suffer incredibly due to this, and there's only so much ordnance points you can have, even with the L3 Technology Perk that gives ordnance bonus.

Leave Unstable as it is CR wise, and give an amplification to EMP damage taken instead. I can deal with EMP and range takeaways.

[Megas]

EMP is as ineffective as extra damage to engines, at least against carriers.  Carriers will kite and likely not be hit in the first place, and gunships are already punished enough with -15% to shot range.

The suggestion for CR degradation was instead of shot range penalty, not in addition to it, to hit everyone.  But Alex wants the shot range penalty to stay, so scratch that.

UI shortening shot range was probably to stop gunships from kiting, but carriers are unaffected.  Player who wants to kite-and-snipe and solo fleets as done in previous versions use unarmed carriers min-maxed for top speed and fighter replacement, not gunships.  Drover flagship can solo fights that other destroyers cannot.

[Megas]

One more thing about engaged fighters.  If something is done to block zero-speed flux bonus while fighters are engaged, it would be nice if a hint or some other note on the left side explicitly says that engaged fighters block zero-flux speed bonus (or generate flux).  When I first played 0.8, I did not notice that fighters put flux on my ship and maybe assumed that I still had zero-flux speed bonus or if not, why my ship did not get the speed bonus.  Once someone pointed out that fighters generated flux (to my surprise), I soon thought about Helmsmanship 3 to eliminate that problem.

[AxleMC131]

One more thing about engaged fighters.  If something is done to block zero-speed flux bonus while fighters are engaged, it would be nice if a hint or some other note on the left side explicitly says that engaged fighters block zero-flux speed bonus (or generate flux).  When I first played 0.8, I did not notice that fighters put flux on my ship and maybe assumed that I still had zero-flux speed bonus or if not, why my ship did not get the speed bonus.  Once someone pointed out that fighters generated flux (to my surprise), I soon thought about Helmsmanship 3 to eliminate that problem.

Actually, that's a really good point. Even outside the context of this thread, having a Status note on the left of the screen saying "Fighters Engaging - Engine Boost Disabled" would probably be a very helpful thing - especially for new players.

[Linnis]

Made a note about the zero-flux boost being a main enabling factor here, that's a really good point. I wonder if having fighters out to engage generate slightly more than 1% flux would just do the job, without touching Unstable Injector.

I do feel like the problem is not with carriers abusing zero-flux boost, but how zero-flux boost works. Zero flux boost at least as I understand it, is how ships travel around in the battlefield from fights to fights. Perhaps we should have an extra button in combat that's something like a toggle-able burn drive but on all ships. Where to activate a ship has to have zero flux for a duration of say 2 seconds and gain a speed boost. Where different ship techs have different versions.

Give every ship burn-drive, where burn drive is by far the best ability, both in its usefulness and funness, not only on the user-end, but receiving-end too!

Also zeroflux is a major annoyance to use for alot of slow ships, as an dominator or paragon without it they feel like floating gun platforms not ships with engines, but with it they almost get an 50% speed boost!

[SafariJohn]

It's going a bit off-topic, but I'm starting to think this trouble with Unstable Injectors and the 0-Flux Speed Boost is just one indicator of a deep flaw with combat. List to yourself the 5 best/most fun ship systems; how many of them boost mobility?

Odds are: every single one. This is because, in my opinion, Starsector combat more or less only has two engaging mechanics: maneuver and flux management. And unless you have options with the former, the latter is mostly a numbers game. Hence, especially in small fights, mobility systems are king.

So, building off Linnis's post and my own previous thoughts, I think giving every ship some sort of mobility system, for a total of two ship systems, could be the solution. If it can be done right, it would reduce the dominance of the speed stat and all-around make combat less brutal. Escaping a losing battle is usually either perfectly safe or nigh impossible, and I think this "do or die" combat is one of the major turn-offs for the game.


Starsector is a good game. It is one of, if not the best in its genre. But in my opinion it is not a great game. Part of that is because combat is good, but not great. If combat can be brought above that fine line, maybe Starsector as a whole will come along for the ride.

[TaLaR]

It's going a bit off-topic, but I'm starting to think this trouble with Unstable Injectors and the 0-Flux Speed Boost is just one indicator of a deep flaw with combat. List to yourself the 5 best/most fun ship systems; how many of them boost mobility?

Odds are: every single one.

You are mostly right, i rarely pilot ships without mobility system. But there is one exception: Phase frigates, especially Afflictor - it doesn't really need one, because phase cloak + high base speed handle mobility well enough already. And it strongly benefits from it's current system (nothing can kill a Paragon as fast as Afflictor with Reapers).

So, building off Linnis's post and my own previous thoughts, I think giving every ship some sort of mobility system, for a total of two ship systems, could be the solution. If it can be done right, it would reduce the dominance of the speed stat and all-around make combat less brutal. Escaping a losing battle is usually either perfectly safe or nigh impossible, and I think this "do or die" combat is one of the major turn-offs for the game.

This may work. Though this also increases requirements on AI.
Currently it's usage of most mobility systems boils down to 'activate as soon as available'. Which is why I prefer non-mobility system ships for AI (or ones that perform ok even with that simple approach, like maneuvering thrusters on Eagle).

[Megas]

Generally, mobility systems are most useful, but there are exceptions.  Reserve Deployment on carriers is very powerful, basically a way to heal replacement rate and stop the rate bleeding, plus increasing offense.  Drover is head-and-shoulders above other destroyer flagships thanks partially to this (and powerful shields and enough speed with UI and zero-flux boost).  Also, Fortress Shield is great on Paragon.  (EDIT:  Also Quantum Disruptor on Afflictor, although it has Phase Cloak for non-system mobility boost.  Afflictor is disgustingly powerful thanks to that, and it can counter all of its gunship counters if it gets the first move off.)

As for combat, Starsector has a short-ranged melee fetish.  I wish there was much more viable long-ranged combat.  So far, fighters and Paragon beam/HVD spam are it.  At this point, Starsector is mostly a hack-and-slash or Marvel vs. Capcom style fighting game in space.