Fractal Softworks Forum
March 25, 2019, 05:51:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Starsector 0.9a is out! (11/16/18); In-dev patch notes for 0.9.1a (01/31/19)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 87
  Print  
Author Topic: Starsector 0.9a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 175508 times)
intrinsic_parity
Captain
****
Posts: 475


View Profile
« Reply #435 on: October 30, 2018, 05:04:30 PM »

It would be cool if there was some special event that could alter your relationship with pirates/path. I like the idea of fixed relationships, but maybe with the addition of more narrative based content, there could be some special event that causes your relationship to change to neutral. Maybe bombarding a core hegemony world, or assassinating a hegemony admiral gains you respect within the pirate community. I'm remembering the escape velocity Nova stories fondly while thinking of this.
Logged
The Soldier
Admiral
*****
Posts: 3727


Quartermaster


View Profile
« Reply #436 on: October 30, 2018, 10:14:59 PM »

Is it just the Pirates and Pathers establishing new bases to go raiding?  Seems like there should be more than that to it.

Hm, I'm a bit concerned over the -33% Speed that Converted Hangars and Defective Manufactory give to their fighters.  Some of the slower fighters already struggle to keep up with faster carriers like the Heron and Drover, let alone faster combat ships that you might install Converted Hangars on.  All the non-REDACTED vanilla bombers plus the Warthog, for example, would be completely unable to keep up with a Drover that has the 0-flux boost going if it had the Defective Manufactory d-mod.  If any ships have speed modifiers, then the gap becomes bigger and some more fighters might lag behind.  Having the Wing Commander skill solves most of these issues, but I feel like this is an important enough thing to point out.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 09:16:13 AM by The Soldier » Logged

Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.
Megas
Admiral
*****
Posts: 6149


View Profile
« Reply #437 on: October 31, 2018, 04:45:56 AM »

I missed -33% speed, and that hurts.  It would be silly for fighters to be much slower than its mothership.  Carrier might end up being the fighters' fighter.
Logged
Alex
Administrator
Admiral
*****
Posts: 13319


View Profile
« Reply #438 on: October 31, 2018, 02:43:23 PM »

I don't want to go into the details of Pather "cells" too much; let's just say that it's a colony condition with various mechanical tie-ins to things.
Logged
The Soldier
Admiral
*****
Posts: 3727


Quartermaster


View Profile
« Reply #439 on: October 31, 2018, 05:22:34 PM »

I missed -33% speed, and that hurts.  It would be silly for fighters to be much slower than its mothership.  Carrier might end up being the fighters' fighter.
Might be a good excuse to add in RECALL for fighters like the old drone systems have.  Carry the fighters into battle rather than let them fly on their own.  Also means you can add wings to fighters while being in combat without having them getting blow up all the time.
Logged

Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.
TaLaR
Admiral
*****
Posts: 1425


View Profile
« Reply #440 on: October 31, 2018, 08:11:10 PM »

Might be a good excuse to add in RECALL for fighters like the old drone systems have.  Carry the fighters into battle rather than let them fly on their own.  Also means you can add wings to fighters while being in combat without having them getting blow up all the time.

Yeah, it's badly needed anyway. For example to restore fighters while being threatened by some beam-boat which is not dangerous to the carrier itself, but can easily pick fighter as they respawn. Or to prevent fighters from suiciding into Flash mines.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 08:16:09 PM by TaLaR » Logged
Blaine
Lieutenant
**
Posts: 72


View Profile Email
« Reply #441 on: October 31, 2018, 09:30:30 PM »

I'm more-or-less 90% sure (there's 10% uncertainty there) from my reading that altering Converted Hangars in that way is a reaction to min-maxing strategies that add Converted Hangars to (nearly) every ship in the fleet.

While I still have a lot to learn about the game in its most recent iteration, I'm approaching the endgame in my current run, and I feel I know enough now to guarantee that I'd never put the altered version of that mod on a ship for any reason. I can think of a whole lot more use for 25-30+ total OP on a cruiser than installing a single hangar bay that produces one wing of slow fighters or bombers that die twice as quickly.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 09:33:00 PM by Blaine » Logged
The Soldier
Admiral
*****
Posts: 3727


Quartermaster


View Profile
« Reply #442 on: October 31, 2018, 09:51:22 PM »

I'm more-or-less 90% sure (there's 10% uncertainty there) from my reading that altering Converted Hangars in that way is a reaction to min-maxing strategies that add Converted Hangars to (nearly) every ship in the fleet.

While I still have a lot to learn about the game in its most recent iteration, I'm approaching the endgame in my current run, and I feel I know enough now to guarantee that I'd never put the altered version of that mod on a ship for any reason. I can think of a whole lot more use for 25-30+ total OP on a cruiser than installing a single hangar bay that produces one wing of slow fighters or bombers that die twice as quickly.
I agree with that, putting a wing of Xyphos on pretty much any Cruiser or even a Destroyer could be worked in very nicely as escorts, but with the massively increased OP costs it's pretty much worthless, not only because they're slower, but because they die twice as quick AND cost an absolutely mind-boggling amount of OP.  The only upside is that Converted Hangars can now relaunch and remake fighters with no penalties, but those pale in comparison to the amount of OP you have to spend.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 09:52:57 PM by The Soldier » Logged

Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.
TaLaR
Admiral
*****
Posts: 1425


View Profile
« Reply #443 on: October 31, 2018, 10:36:15 PM »

New converted hangars seem to be purpose-built for Talons - they are cheap, so even 50% extra it's just 3 OP. Fast enough to remain useful with 33% speed penalty.
Will respawn at full rate, and I don't care much about their survival after launching swarmers.

Might be also good for some bombers, IF you can keep attrition down. Longbows are fairly easy to keep safe, for example.

But anything slow or stuff that needs to tank damage as normal part of lifecycle is out. For example, Warthogs fail in both ways.
Logged
Megas
Admiral
*****
Posts: 6149


View Profile
« Reply #444 on: November 01, 2018, 08:28:38 AM »

0.8 Converted Hangar is already purpose-built for Talons, and maybe Claws too, because replacement rate for anything else is too slow, thanks to rate penalties and no Expanded Deck Crew.  Not to mention it is hard to afford it without Loadout Design 3.
Logged
fall19
Ensign
*
Posts: 1


View Profile Email
« Reply #445 on: November 01, 2018, 09:15:08 AM »

so is the update coming before Christmas ?
Logged
Grievous69
Commander
***
Posts: 198



View Profile
« Reply #446 on: November 01, 2018, 09:42:48 AM »

Which one?
Logged
Alex
Administrator
Admiral
*****
Posts: 13319


View Profile
« Reply #447 on: November 01, 2018, 02:16:57 PM »

so is the update coming before Christmas ?

Hi, and welcome to the forum!

Lips sealed


I'm more-or-less 90% sure (there's 10% uncertainty there) from my reading that altering Converted Hangars in that way is a reaction to min-maxing strategies that add Converted Hangars to (nearly) every ship in the fleet.

While I still have a lot to learn about the game in its most recent iteration, I'm approaching the endgame in my current run, and I feel I know enough now to guarantee that I'd never put the altered version of that mod on a ship for any reason. I can think of a whole lot more use for 25-30+ total OP on a cruiser than installing a single hangar bay that produces one wing of slow fighters or bombers that die twice as quickly.

Been playing around with this loadout in my current playtesting run:


I think this sort of general build has potential - bombers especially really give a combat ship a capability it otherwise wouldn't. Even if you just think of them in terms of being unlimited missiles - with extended range, to boot - the OP costs start to get fairly close what getting said missiles plus expanded racks, never mind that it doesn't need slots, and that it can be combined with other stuff the ship has to offer which normal carriers don't. And for bombers the penalties barely matter (hence the higher OP cost).

So for the Enforcer, it's able to provide consistent longer-range support, while being very much a brick, *and* having good punch with its torpedoes. Is it better than a Drover? Definitely not as far as just fighters go, but it's also cheaper, can hold up much better to being outnumbered, and has a decent shot at turning the tide with a few well-placed torpedoes. Haven't had *too* much playtime with it yet, though, just got that setup going today.

That said, yeah, it's definitely meant to be more a niche thing - something that changes how a ship plays entirely rather than enhancing its normal playstyle, if that makes sense. Sort of like SO in that sense. And it may indeed need a touch more balancing, we'll have to see!

(Edit: I should add, this is an early game build - my first ship past the initial "mercenary" start - so the choices are largely driven by what's available vs what would be exactly ideal.)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 03:08:42 PM by Alex » Logged
The Soldier
Admiral
*****
Posts: 3727


Quartermaster


View Profile
« Reply #448 on: November 01, 2018, 05:12:57 PM »

Seems fair, I suppose - it sounded a lot worse than it actually is.  What about the inherent problems that the -33% Speed Penalty that Converted Hangars and Damaged Manufactory give?  Mostly bombers being unable to keep up.
Logged

Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.
Alex
Administrator
Admiral
*****
Posts: 13319


View Profile
« Reply #449 on: November 01, 2018, 09:18:58 PM »

That's a good point - let me make it so that fighters can always at least somewhat keep up when ordered to regroup.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 87
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!