Fractal Softworks Forum
December 13, 2018, 02:00:03 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)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 82
  Print  
Author Topic: Starsector 0.9a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 119317 times)
MesoTroniK
Admiral
*****
Posts: 1209


I am going to destroy your ships


View Profile
« Reply #450 on: November 01, 2018, 09:54:46 PM »

Heh, so a rubber band catch-up mechanic (like many racing games) when a regroup is ordered.

Seems fine mostly on paper, but also seems like it could sort of be lightly exploited say if the carrier itself is under attack. Ordering a regroup instead of an engage order on one of the specific ships attacking the carrier, would result in them getting back faster. Huge problem? Eh not really, but is something to keep in mind.
Logged

TaLaR
Admiral
*****
Posts: 1342


View Profile
« Reply #451 on: November 01, 2018, 10:00:59 PM »

Yeah, this sounds gamey. Could we just order fighters to stay docked instead? It would be useful in some other contexts too.
Then again, we already get reduced reinforcement rate loss from just setting fighters on regroup (before they actually reach regroup position)... So it may be a lost cause by this point.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 10:05:52 PM by TaLaR » Logged
Alex
Administrator
Admiral
*****
Posts: 12740


View Profile
« Reply #452 on: November 01, 2018, 10:29:16 PM »

I mean, fighters already get a speed boost when moving into position relative to their wing leader, and I don't remember anyone worrying too much about that Smiley So just think of this as improving the consistency of fighter mechanics across the board.


Could we just order fighters to stay docked instead?

Hmm. It's more controls, it reduces the ability of pressure on the carrier to deal with its fighters, and it reduces the ability of the player to at-a-glance evaluate the state of a carrier's fighters, both friendly and enemy.

For this particular case, I think it also probably wouldn't work very well because it would still require fighters to catch up with a moving carrier, or for the carrier to stop/slow down - which is actually a tough problem to solve for the AI, because of so many conflicting considerations, and a pain for the player.
Logged
MesoTroniK
Admiral
*****
Posts: 1209


I am going to destroy your ships


View Profile
« Reply #453 on: November 01, 2018, 10:30:33 PM »

How much of a speed boost are you talking about here Alex? For catching up with the carrier when set to regroup.
Logged

Alex
Administrator
Admiral
*****
Posts: 12740


View Profile
« Reply #454 on: November 01, 2018, 10:35:01 PM »

Up to the carrier's speed plus 20, right now. Which, generally speaking, means a slight boost to the slower bombers/Warthog when they're used with CH or Defective Manufactory, and that's mostly it. They don't zoom around or anything.
Logged
Chronosfear
Commander
***
Posts: 186



View Profile
« Reply #455 on: November 02, 2018, 11:09:57 AM »

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.)


STAP teasing use... it hurts that we are not allowed to play  Grin

I also think the Warthog nerv is to much while Talons for 2OP seems fair.
It was OP but I am not sure if its still worth using. But well we just need to test it... sooooo let us test it?  Roll Eyes
The rest seems solid pretty solid to me.

Honestly I'am very hyped to play the next version ... again ...
Great work. Keep on it!
Logged

Be the change that you wish to see in the world.
My words are backed with nuclear weapons (Civ)
Gandhi
Alex
Administrator
Admiral
*****
Posts: 12740


View Profile
« Reply #456 on: November 02, 2018, 11:46:47 AM »

Sorry not sorry Smiley

(An update on that Enforcer: took on a tough bounty and managed to win after quite a few tries. Then tried it with a more conventional loadout for the Enforcer, still under AI control - Mauler, Hypervelocity Driver, and so on. Didn't feel different in terms of difficulty, so the CH build doesn't seem like it's *too* far off. I'm putting points into combat skills, though, which 1) indirectly buffs any support builds and 2) means that what the flagship does matters a lot more than what the other ships do.)
Logged
The Soldier
Admiral
*****
Posts: 3710


Quartermaster


View Profile
« Reply #457 on: November 02, 2018, 11:49:10 AM »

Up to the carrier's speed plus 20, right now. Which, generally speaking, means a slight boost to the slower bombers/Warthog when they're used with CH or Defective Manufactory, and that's mostly it. They don't zoom around or anything.
Sounds about right.  I'm a tiny bit concerned that bombers are going to be able to skedaddle a bit too quick after they've dropped their payload, but I could only be sure if I had it in front of me.
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.
Vayra
Commander
***
Posts: 202



View Profile
« Reply #458 on: November 02, 2018, 06:07:02 PM »

Up to the carrier's speed plus 20, right now. Which, generally speaking, means a slight boost to the slower bombers/Warthog when they're used with CH or Defective Manufactory, and that's mostly it. They don't zoom around or anything.
Sounds about right.  I'm a tiny bit concerned that bombers are going to be able to skedaddle a bit too quick after they've dropped their payload, but I could only be sure if I had it in front of me.

It sounds like it should be fine on any of the carriers in the base game -- bombers without a debuff already have quite a bit higher than 100 speed (Heron's 80 speed + 20) so it sounds like this will mostly be useful for countering the debuffs from CH or D-mods, or adding a tiny boost to especially slow bombers on especially fast carriers (SO + unstable injector drover?  Tongue) at best. Mods that add stuff like fast destroyer or frigate carriers will definitely need to rebalance, though!
Logged

Kadur Remnant faction mod: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6649.0

im gonna push jangala into the sun i swear to god im gonna do it
The Soldier
Admiral
*****
Posts: 3710


Quartermaster


View Profile
« Reply #459 on: November 02, 2018, 07:14:04 PM »

It sounds like it should be fine on any of the carriers in the base game -- bombers without a debuff already have quite a bit higher than 100 speed (Heron's 80 speed + 20) so it sounds like this will mostly be useful for countering the debuffs from CH or D-mods, or adding a tiny boost to especially slow bombers on especially fast carriers (SO + unstable injector drover?  Tongue) at best. Mods that add stuff like fast destroyer or frigate carriers will definitely need to rebalance, though!
I'm assuming here that Alex meant the carrier's Top Speed + the 0-flux boost, which is also what I was intending.  The Heron is very nippy at 130 speed with that boost - more if you include hull mods.  The Warthog only has a top speed of 130, and nearly all the bombers have less than 200 speed, the required speed to keep up with a 130 mothership that has either of the aforementioned d-mods.

Though, come to think of it, the Warthog currently as it stands with these changes would be crawling along at 86 speed with the -33% speed bebuff when Engaged.  That's brutal, it's a suicide mission for those guys.  Better be packing Recovery Shuttles.
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: 5756


View Profile
« Reply #460 on: November 02, 2018, 07:35:47 PM »

I think that Recall might become poor-man's recall device.  For a ship that is faster than its bombers, it might sense for ship to Recall after bombers drop their bombs so they return faster, then toggle back to Engage after they return to rearm.

Perhaps bombers returning to rearm should automatically speed up to Recall speed (if that is faster) so that player does not need to fiddle with the Engage/Recall toggle to squeeze out maximum performance.
Logged
Alex
Administrator
Admiral
*****
Posts: 12740


View Profile
« Reply #461 on: November 02, 2018, 07:53:57 PM »

Good point, did that. This is not going to affect much - just some of the bombers, and then only with the CH/etc speed debuff, not much else - but might as well.
Logged
Cyan Leader
Captain
****
Posts: 445



View Profile
« Reply #462 on: November 05, 2018, 10:25:44 AM »

Has there been any changes to music in the new version? As in combat music and things like that.
Logged
Bishi
Ensign
*
Posts: 19


View Profile Email
« Reply #463 on: November 07, 2018, 05:53:45 AM »

Damn you for posting interesting updates. I was ok for most of a year not checking on Starsector now its back to every day to see if the new version has been released!  Roll Eyes
Logged
Embercloud
Commander
***
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #464 on: November 07, 2018, 03:03:03 PM »

Damn you for posting interesting updates. I was ok for most of a year not checking on Starsector now its back to every day to see if the new version has been released!  Roll Eyes
Same here, sometimes several times a day.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 82
  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!