Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 50

Author Topic: [0.96-RC8] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.9.12 [5/12/23]  (Read 581996 times)

Gwyvern

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
  • I build ships.
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.1.1
« Reply #45 on: November 29, 2018, 05:04:26 AM »

Right, yes some of the weapons are meant to be common sector wide.

I'm not sure I follow on the plasma driver, it can no sell a fair few types of missile, but its range and reload means it can rarely stop more than 1 or two before its out of time. Rotation speed is the sort of stat that can instagib a weapon's effectiveness vs certain targets so I'm not sure changing that is a good idea.

The plasma buster has already been brought up by others, I intend to reduce its ammo by 1 and give it a real flux stat.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 05:11:51 AM by Gwyvern »
Logged

Kittah Khan

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.1.1
« Reply #46 on: November 29, 2018, 05:55:57 AM »

Mostly, I'm comparing PD lasers(4 OP) to the Light Plasma Driver(5 OP)
I'm doing this comparison instead of other PD weapons because the range, ability to hit targets and damage type are similar.

In general, you can expect PD lasers to struggle against anything but swarmers, trebuchets and ultra-light fighters. They need to be massed to put a dent in incoming ordnance or fighters.

The light plasma driver, on the oher hand, can burn fighters and bombers out of the sky with comparative ease, heavier missiles are deleted with impunity and it can do appreciable damsge to larger ships. I don't think the increased flux cost(offset by not taking as many hits on the shield) and 1 OP justify that.

Try running a test with 4 Light Plasma Drivers against various threats, and then run the same with 5 PD lasers.
I believe the only situation in which 5 PD lasers are better than 4 Light Plasma Drivers is against a large amount of light projectiles(swarmers and similar weapons)

The reason why I suggested reducing turn rate and increasing range is that this would fit the ARS lore of being range focused, reduce the ability to take out fighters that get in close, and reduce the ability to take out missiles from different directions, but retain the ability to burn heavier weapons out of the sky.
As an alternative, removing the Point Defense tag from Light plasma drivers may do the trick, this will make them excellent anti-fighter weapons. You already have the Bongo aad Bass Drum for PD, regardless.

I hope that clarifies my point.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 04:36:22 PM by Kittah Khan »
Logged

Gourdman

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.1.1
« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2018, 02:20:10 PM »

Let me put it into perspective as to why 0 to 2 is not the same as 8 to 10.

8 to 10 is a compromising decision.  It requires you to think about what you use, and whether or not you need those extra vents, that one good hullmod.  Or even whether or not your ship will have the right weapons to perform it's task.  Heavy Blaster vs Pulse Laser, which are massive *different* weapons, separated by 2 OP.

It's a decision you have to weigh checks and balances against and go "I'd better chose carefully, might try both builds before I go ahead with using this fighter wing, or this weapon".

0 to 2, is not a compromising decision.  Classic Monodrones vs Talons is a no-brainer.  Monodrones outnumber, outdamage, and outrage talons AND cost nothing to mount.  They are harder to hit with projectile based PD, harder to hit with PD in general due to their range, and cause various issues with enemy AI due to how much they outrange most ships.

If you ever wondered why many fighters have special 'fighter versions' of weapons, this is why.  Long range fighters can cause the AI to mismanage it's engagements and turn tale on say...an Onslaught to try and swat a Monodrone with it's extra long fighter range.  This is bad.  Especially if you exploit it or use Monodrones often, because these situations only amplify with more on the battlefield.

I locked up most battles in early, mid, and mid-late game with two Hawkes due to this phenomenon.  These fighters cause a serious exponential problem with balance.  The more you use, the worse it gets, and the more powerful they seem.  The high accuracy long range guns they utilize melt frigates when used en masse, which isn't hard to do thanks to the high wing size, and causes problems with lots of destroyers as well.

If you don't think these are glaring issues, then I don't have much else to say.  These fighters, as are, would sit more at 4-6 OP, since they outperform Talons and break the game the more you use.  Flak helps, sure, but not when they hover out of PD range.

These fighters are an issue for many reasons.  And range is the biggest problem.  The missiles could be left well enough alone if the range was nerfed.  They're highly accurate, high ranged, high burst fighters that cost 0 OP and can be deployed en masse very easily.

Talons?  They crumble when they encounter flak, very quickly.  Hell, even burst PD will melt these little guys.  Whereas one wing of Monodrones can deplete two Burst PD mounts.
Logged

Kittah Khan

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.1.1
« Reply #48 on: November 29, 2018, 04:33:13 PM »

Gourdman, I'll try and go over your post point by point.

Let me put it into perspective as to why 0 to 2 is not the same as 8 to 10.

8 to 10 is a compromising decision.  It requires you to think about what you use, and whether or not you need those extra vents, that one good hullmod.  Or even whether or not your ship will have the right weapons to perform it's task.  Heavy Blaster vs Pulse Laser, which are massive *different* weapons, separated by 2 OP.

It's a decision you have to weigh checks and balances against and go "I'd better chose carefully, might try both builds before I go ahead with using this fighter wing, or this weapon".

0 to 2, is not a compromising decision.

Seems like you didn't get what I was saying, here it is, hopefully better worded:

During the design of the current fighter system, Alex designed and balanced fighter bays so that each bay reduced ship OP by some amount, in my post the 8 is an inaccurate guess as to what that amount could be.
He did this to make fighter bays act as a sunk cost, if it were not so, a carrier could theoretically bling out on all the things you can spend OP on, slots permitting. This is also why a converted hangar costs a decent chunk of OP.

Classic Monodrones vs Talons is a no-brainer.  Monodrones outnumber, outdamage, and outrage talons AND cost nothing to mount.  They are harder to hit with projectile based PD, harder to hit with PD in general due to their range, and cause various issues with enemy AI due to how much they outrange most ships.

If you ever wondered why many fighters have special 'fighter versions' of weapons, this is why.  Long range fighters can cause the AI to mismanage it's engagements and turn tale on say...an Onslaught to try and swat a Monodrone with it's extra long fighter range.  This is bad.

If ship AI is confused by out-of-range fighters, that's a fair concern. Though I have not seen ships focus on fighters while in direct combat with a threat.

I did suggest two ways to get them in a good spot, one was making them standoff fighters that are annoying, the other was keeping the short range, but returning the missile. There are probably other ways to make monodrones be a decent(as in, not OP) pick. But I think all of them ought to involve having a monogram attached. So my thinking was along the lines of "How do you make a monogram drone useful without being a talon clone?"

One correction, there are 4 Monodrones per wing, the same as talons, you also forgot to mention Monodrones not using up crew when they splat, but I'll admit that's not a great concern.

Especially if you exploit it or use Monodrones often, because these situations only amplify with more on the battlefield.

I locked up most battles in early, mid, and mid-late game with two Hawkes due to this phenomenon.  These fighters cause a serious exponential problem with balance.  The more you use, the worse it gets, and the more powerful they seem.  The high accuracy long range guns they utilize melt frigates when used en masse, which isn't hard to do thanks to the high wing size, and causes problems with lots of destroyers as well.

If you don't think these are glaring issues, then I don't have much else to say.  These fighters, as are, would sit more at 4-6 OP, since they outperform Talons and break the game the more you use.  Flak helps, sure, but not when they hover out of PD range.

These fighters are an issue for many reasons.  And range is the biggest problem.  The missiles could be left well enough alone if the range was nerfed.  They're highly accurate, high ranged, high burst fighters that cost 0 OP and can be deployed en masse very easily.

Talons?  They crumble when they encounter flak, very quickly.  Hell, even burst PD will melt these little guys.  Whereas one wing of Monodrones can deplete two Burst PD mounts.

Classic Monodrones are OP, I have not stated otherwise. The ability to get around shields and deal armor breaking damage, followed by the death of a thousand cuts without going splat is too much.

Let me ask you a question though, have you tried using those Hawkes in the 1.1.1 patch? I think you'll get the point I'm trying to make. I would honestly prefer mining pods over Monodrones in the 1.1.1 patch.

My original point was not "Make Monodrones great again!"
The point I tried to make was that reducing range AND removing missiles made them target practice, 200 fragmentation DPS is very unimpressive until the target is nearly dead already.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, if you want to continue this discussion, perhaps we ought to take it to PM, this thread has been derailed enough.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 11:19:03 AM by Kittah Khan »
Logged

FeudalWulf

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.1.1
« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2018, 10:18:28 PM »

Completely off topic from what all you are talking about, I'm just wondering if there are blueprints added to this mod. I don't know if blueprints are required or not for the game to function or if the game auto generates them, I say this because I've scanned plundered and tech-mined half the sector and still havent found my beloved medium sized sabot pods, i wonder if they even have a BP. Infact I've stopped finding BPs altogether in the past few days of playing this and I know I'm missing quite a few different things.

I'm just overall confused. Mostly just wondering if i can manufacture the weapons in this mod.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2018, 10:20:58 PM by FeudalWulf »
Logged

Gwyvern

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
  • I build ships.
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.1.1
« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2018, 06:04:12 AM »

If you're asking if this faction has blueprints for its ships and weapons, the answer is yes, though in the current version you can only obtain them through raids.
Logged

Gwyvern

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
  • I build ships.
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2
« Reply #51 on: December 10, 2018, 03:58:04 PM »

LEGACY OF ARKGNEISIS v1.2 IS NOW LIVE

- The Plasma Buster has had its ammo capacity reduced to 2, and its flux stats increased heavily. It should still be very efficient, but no longer effectively free.

- The Light Plasma Driver has had its turn speed raised slightly

- The Duke Gunship has had its role changed from SUPPORT to FIGHTER, this comes with a lot of other tweaks that have turned it into an effective kinetic assault craft, with token HE and PD capability. in light of this, it's OP cost has been raised to 14. I have also re-named its main gun to simply "Pellet Gun" apparently the old name was causing confusion about its effectiveness, but it is in-fact a full sized, medium pelletgun...on a fighter.

- Icon art for all hullmods has been updated and improved.

- Blueprints now fully implemented with custom icons and everything, in addition to raids, ARS blueprints can now be bought on rare occasion from ARS military markets.

- ARS Civilian ship markets will no longer sell standard ARS ships except in very rare circumstances, instead you will regularly find ARS Generic variants on the civilian market. And will have to go through the military or the black market to get their standard offerings.

- The ARS will now behave far closer to how they are presented in lore. At semi-random intervals they will engage in hostilities with a random faction, barring a few exceptions, these hostilities are temporary. Later on i intend to expand this feature, but for now it will simply make them as volatile as they are advertised to be.

- Some classified shenanigans...
Logged

Kitfox88

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2
« Reply #52 on: December 10, 2018, 05:07:42 PM »

Will this update break saves?
Logged

Ravenholme

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2
« Reply #53 on: December 10, 2018, 05:34:21 PM »

Will this update break saves?

Yes, according to Gwyvern on Discord.
Logged

Kitfox88

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2
« Reply #54 on: December 10, 2018, 06:09:28 PM »

Dang, oh well. Thanks!
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2
« Reply #55 on: December 10, 2018, 06:16:16 PM »

The latest 1.2 version fails on startup with:
Code
3910 [Thread-5] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.loading.LoadingUtils  - Loading JSON from [DIRECTORY: /Users/wyvern/Desktop/Starsector.app/Contents/Resources/Java/../../../mods/Legacy of Arkgneisis (data/hulls/skins/al_thatcher_g_customD.skin)]
3915 [Thread-5] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.RuntimeException: Ship hull spec [al_thatcher_g] not found!
Also, the variants files have a persistent typo of "rading" instead of "raiding".
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Gwyvern

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
  • I build ships.
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2
« Reply #56 on: December 10, 2018, 07:04:34 PM »

The latest 1.2 version fails on startup with:
Code
3910 [Thread-5] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.loading.LoadingUtils  - Loading JSON from [DIRECTORY: /Users/wyvern/Desktop/Starsector.app/Contents/Resources/Java/../../../mods/Legacy of Arkgneisis (data/hulls/skins/al_thatcher_g_customD.skin)]
3915 [Thread-5] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.RuntimeException: Ship hull spec [al_thatcher_g] not found!
Also, the variants files have a persistent typo of "rading" instead of "raiding".

LEGACY OF ARKGNEISIS v1.2.1 IS NOW AVAILABLE

- Removes some deprecated variants that were causing issues for some users. This update should NOT break saves.



As for your other point I have no idea what you are talking about, that word shouldn't even appear in any of my variants in the first place, let alone as a typo.
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2.1
« Reply #57 on: December 10, 2018, 07:46:06 PM »

From al_thatcher_g.skin: "descriptionPrefix":"To help pad the treasury of the Reparations Society when choice rading targets are scarce,...
Also present in the walsh_g skin file.  Both files also have a later typo I hadn't noticed on first look, using "bluprint" instead of "blueprint".
The thatcher_p skin file, in contrast, has "maintenence" where it should be "maintenance".

Doesn't crash on startup now, though, thanks!
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Gwyvern

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
  • I build ships.
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2.1
« Reply #58 on: December 10, 2018, 08:08:05 PM »

From al_thatcher_g.skin: "descriptionPrefix":"To help pad the treasury of the Reparations Society when choice rading targets are scarce,...
Also present in the walsh_g skin file.  Both files also have a later typo I hadn't noticed on first look, using "bluprint" instead of "blueprint".
The thatcher_p skin file, in contrast, has "maintenence" where it should be "maintenance".

Doesn't crash on startup now, though, thanks!

Oh right...I need to get a spellcheck apparently.
Logged

lcarapaica

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: [0.9a] Legacy of Arkgneisis 1.2.1
« Reply #59 on: December 11, 2018, 08:35:06 AM »

I think i found the secret, it's the Champion class right? (had to look around in the game files to see what mod it was from) It's refreshing to see a ship with that loadout and shield arc, makes it quite unique for a cruiser size, altho with 8 (D) modes it's quite harsh! makes me feel like i'm only flying half the ship, guessing it's only a recoverable ship from derelicts right? Would be nice to find the blueprints for it, altho doubt it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 50