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

Author Topic: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair  (Read 17354 times)

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2018, 06:03:02 AM »

Character-skilled UI Harbinger has >400 normal space speed while phased
Safety Override ;D
It's faster than SO Tempest, so SO won't help the victim to run.
If you meant  SO on Harbinger - there is no need to. Peak time is more important than some extra speed, which still won't be enough to catch a Hyperion or Afflictor.
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2018, 06:06:14 AM »

My own drastic suggestion would be (said this before) to completely remove or drastically reduce the time acceleration effect and change the overpowered ship systems on Afflictor and Harbinger into something more reasonable. That leaves torpedo Harbinger dangerous but evade-able, or at least player and AI get a bit of time to maneuver.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2018, 06:13:16 AM »

Out of all of the phase ships, only Doom is one the AI can use well.  The others, either they run out of peak performance too fast (frigates phase too much in combat) or are just plain incompetent, making them playerships only, and aside from Reaper Harbinger sometimes, I have better things to pilot.
Logged

StarGibbon

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2018, 06:14:42 AM »

QD is just the broken ass cherry on top of the phase ship cheese sundae. The fact that phase shields infallibly negate *all* damage, no matter how many ships are firing at you and let you actually fly *through* ships for effortless flanking already make me feel like Im playing some other game than  all the other ships on the field are playing. But I acknowledge some players like this, so it's usually enough for me just to pretend they(the ships) arent a part of the game.  

This though...even if they reduced the armament, it would only prolong the inevitable. Being able to stun any ship at will is thoroughly broken, and it does indeed make me feel like a chump while playing the game the AI knows how to play--dropping shields, flux management, hit and fade, anti shield and anti armor weapons, etc. And thank god the AI *doesnt* know how to use this, or it would be intolerable.

No sir. This thing needs to be killed with fire.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 06:19:43 AM by StarGibbon »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2018, 06:20:14 AM »

I find new phase cloak an annoyance to use because if the phase ship needs to fight fair, then it trades damage then eventually dies from accumulated damage.  They would be like glorified Hounds.  Old phase cloak was better for brawling (more viable loadouts), but felt like an inferior Fortress Shield.  New phase cloak does enable unconventional fighting, even if it feels unfair.  At their elevated costs, they better be unfair, or else I am better off with a brick like a (D) mod ridden Dominator.
Logged

goduranus

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 925
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2018, 06:57:08 AM »

Not to the extent of destroying 2 Onslaughts by itself though

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2018, 07:24:34 AM »

I wonder that if quantum disruptor stopped venting, would AI be quick enough to raise shields before the reapers hit?

StarGibbon

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2018, 08:01:48 AM »

How about removing the forward weapons on the Harbringer entirely? QD *becomes* your weapon. Then it becomes a specialty support ship whose job is to stay alive and disrupt high value targets for opportunistic strikes by fighters and the rest of fleet.

Fragile but tricksy, classic control mage. Still novel playstyle. Rewards use of command interface.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2018, 08:07:21 AM »

How about removing the forward weapons on the Harbringer entirely? QD *becomes* your weapon. Then it becomes a specialty support ship whose job is to stay alive and disrupt high value targets for opportunistic strikes by fighters and the rest of fleet.

Fragile but tricksy, classic control mage. Still novel playstyle. Rewards use of command interface.
I probably would give it to the AI, if its cost plummets to about that of a conventional frigate.  Otherwise, I would not bother.  I do not like Omen because it is a pure support ship.  Best support is more firepower to kill things dead faster in any situation.
Logged

Flying Birdy

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2018, 08:08:45 AM »

How about removing the forward weapons on the Harbringer entirely? QD *becomes* your weapon. Then it becomes a specialty support ship whose job is to stay alive and disrupt high value targets for opportunistic strikes by fighters and the rest of fleet.

Fragile but tricksy, classic control mage. Still novel playstyle. Rewards use of command interface.

Think that would be a little bit boring for the player to pilot.

I actually think just changing the three mounts to ballistic or energy only would be enough. A heavy blaster Harbringer is still good, but requires far more thought and skill to use. When you unload 1-2 salvos of blasters on your enemy, you build up a lot of flux that then shortens the amount of time you have to fly yourself out of danger while phased.
Logged

StarGibbon

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2018, 08:17:34 AM »

How about removing the forward weapons on the Harbringer entirely? QD *becomes* your weapon. Then it becomes a specialty support ship whose job is to stay alive and disrupt high value targets for opportunistic strikes by fighters and the rest of fleet.

Fragile but tricksy, classic control mage. Still novel playstyle. Rewards use of command interface.

Think that would be a little bit boring for the player to pilot.

I actually think just changing the three mounts to ballistic or energy only would be enough. A heavy blaster Harbringer is still good, but requires far more thought and skill to use. When you unload 1-2 salvos of blasters on your enemy, you build up a lot of flux that then shortens the amount of time you have to fly yourself out of danger while phased.

You're probably right on the first point. QD would need to be much more of an active weapon requiring targeting, not just a "point in general direction and win" button.

I disagree on the second part. Nerfed weaponry only prolongs the inevitable, when the "fly through the ship, de phase, fire, repeat" cycle is nearly infallible. Then you're just relying on gimpy CR to be a limiting factor, and having to retreat a ship halfway through the battle just doesn't sound fun to me in any incarnation.  Admittedly you're not doing it *for* me since I refuse to use phase ships in general, but its got to be something that doesn't make that choice feel so clearly inferior.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2018, 08:25:05 AM »

you build up a lot of flux that then shortens the amount of time you have to fly yourself out of danger while phased.

That's not how it works - you vent the soft flux faster than your hard flux rises, so there's no effect on your phase time.


My own drastic suggestion would be (said this before) to completely remove or drastically reduce the time acceleration effect and change the overpowered ship systems on Afflictor and Harbinger into something more reasonable. That leaves torpedo Harbinger dangerous but evade-able, or at least player and AI get a bit of time to maneuver.

I would rather just make phased ships hittable for soft flux. Then they are close enough to normal ships that the AI can handle them (both as and against) and the player can't cheese them.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2018, 08:35:07 AM »

I would rather just make phased ships hittable for soft flux. Then they are close enough to normal ships that the AI can handle them (both as and against) and the player can't cheese them.
That's kind of interesting. Phase ship gets skill play to dodge stuff with small profile (less than shield) - and it can dodge quite a lot due to time dilation, AI gets what it is accustomized to - target that is not useless to shoot at. Though projectiles probably should not 'hit', but rather disturb cloak when they pass through (so that phase ships could not super-tank for others).

Of course base phase upkeep needs to be lower and we need a new stat - phase cloak efficiency (similar to shield efficiency). Phasing through enemies can be particularly expensive.
It way work differently than shields/armor with damage types too.

Then again, clips also seemed like a good idea on paper.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 08:37:50 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2018, 08:45:09 AM »

I disagree on the second part. Nerfed weaponry only prolongs the inevitable, when the "fly through the ship, de phase, fire, repeat" cycle is nearly infallible. Then you're just relying on gimpy CR to be a limiting factor, and having to retreat a ship halfway through the battle just doesn't sound fun to me in any incarnation.  Admittedly you're not doing it *for* me since I refuse to use phase ships in general, but its got to be something that doesn't make that choice feel so clearly inferior.
Since peak performance is limited, a huge reduction of firepower is a big deal.  Also, three blasters on Harbinger is less firepower than two AM blasters on Afflictor or Shade.  I did not want Harbinger in 0.8 because the phase frigates had better firepower (and Afflictor had Quantum Disruptor instead).  Of course, Quantum Disruptor is nice, but not enough on its own to pay 20 DP on Harbinger.  If Reapers did not work, I would have thrown Harbinger into the garbage bin since AI cannot use it and I want to pilot the best (i.e., capital like Paragon).

Even with Reaper Harbinger, I only use it if I absolutely need Quantum Disruptor and Reapers to destroy a high-priority target or two immediately.  Otherwise, I rather use Doom or a conventional capital.  Reaper Harbinger plays similar to Hyperion in earlier versions (with dumber AI and stronger skills).
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 08:47:25 AM by Megas »
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2018, 09:01:54 AM »

Though projectiles probably should not 'hit', but rather disturb cloak when they pass through (so that phase ships could not super-tank for others).

What about missiles and HE rounds and frag rounds and AoE? A few too many exceptions there, IMO. I like your idea, but, given phase ships' short peak time, I don't think phase-tanking would be particularly viable. Don't forget they would block friendly shots too.

Of course base phase upkeep needs to be lower and we need a new stat - phase cloak efficiency (similar to shield efficiency). Phasing through enemies can be particularly expensive.
It way work differently than shields/armor with damage types too.

Why would phase upkeep need to be lower? Efficiency should probably just be 1.0 across the board. I think phasing through ships should be the same as now, if it can be done. For damage types, just let it be the same as shields - no need to overcomplicate things - else make it all 1 to 1.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4