Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Painting the Stars (02/07/20); Updated the Forum Rules and Guidelines (02/29/20)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair  (Read 7247 times)

HELMUT

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1329
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2018, 09:05:55 AM »

I do not use Safety Override on Harbinger.  Harbinger's peak performance is already short enough without it.

You should try, the huge mobility boost is really nice, and the improved flux dissipation makes things easier during tricky situations where you have to cloak/de-cloak under fire. And it's not like you need that much peak performance to fire your 5 (10) shots into whatever you want dead then retreat.

I kinda like Histidine's suggestion about a stronger Interdictor Array. Although being stalked by an AI Harbinger that want to make your life miserable might get frustrating, especially if it's a guaranteed flameout.

I'm curious about that phase tanking idea too, like some kind of cloaked damper field.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2018, 11:14:29 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).
I'd like to have both phase brawlers and phase assassins, similarly to how we have phase skimmers and phase teleporter.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7773
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2018, 11:54:12 AM »

You should try, the huge mobility boost is really nice, and the improved flux dissipation makes things easier during tricky situations where you have to cloak/de-cloak under fire. And it's not like you need that much peak performance to fire your 5 (10) shots into whatever you want dead then retreat.
I tried Safety Override, but I simply do not have the peak performance to stay in combat long enough.  Thus, it is not a useful option.  Sure, the mobility is nice, but lack of peak performance (and reduced range if I use blaster loadout) is a fatal weakness for something that costs 20 DP to use.

By the time I launch all three Reapers ten times, peak performance has about expired, and I already have Combat Endurance 1 for more peak performance.  If I am forced to fight near a black hole, then I need to squeeze Hardened Subsystems somewhere (and remove capacitors and vents to do it).
Logged

Techhead

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2018, 11:58:53 AM »

I actually think that shortening the QD time was a mistake, but not for power reasons.

Firstly, it makes it harder for the AI to use effectively since you really have to tightly sync up the timing with attacks. And the AI has enough problems with phase ships as is.

Secondly, the short window heavily favors short burst patterns with reliable time-to-target. Patterns like unloading 3 Reapers at once, which was strong before and (in the right hands) minimally affected by the change. While at the same time, it leaved both energy loadouts and other missile loadouts severely hampered. Phase Lance barely gets a full burst out, Heavy Blaster only gets one shot in, and the Harpoon's flight patterns means they don't always land at once.
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2018, 03:08:40 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.

I had that thought, too. It's definitely worth a try, just to see how it plays.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7773
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2018, 10:12:21 AM »

They probably would die to enemy beam loadouts if they take soft flux (not unlike phase ships building up soft flux back in the day).  Sometimes, my phase ships (flagship or AI) ghost through a lot of firepower.  The only problem child is Harbinger, and only playership with triple Reapers.  Doom is in a good spot.  It feels good to use, and the AI can use it well.  The frigates are a pain to use now that invulnerability frames are gone and AI seems to react quicker to decloaking ships.
Logged

StarGibbon

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2018, 10:26:13 AM »

The frigates are a pain to use now that invulnerability frames are gone and AI seems to react quicker to decloaking ships.

Conceptual nitpick: You meant to say de-phasing.  Would love to see an actual stealth ship implementation, as cloaked ships are a far more prevalent Sci-fi archetype, and would presumably still be bound by the game's physics. In other words, cloak to de-aggro but still subject to indirect damage, and would have to fly *around* rather than shortcut *through* ships for opportunistic hit and fade strikes on engines and unshielded flanks. High value strike potential, but damage output limited by travel time.

Anyway, I'm sure it's probably something Alex considered at one point but decided it didn't work for some reason or another.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2018, 10:32:28 AM »

Just in case someone missed this: https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1070420035469017088


Conceptual nitpick: You meant to say de-phasing.  Would love to see an actual stealth ship implementation, as cloaked ships are a far more prevalent Sci-fi archetype, and would presumably still be bound by the game's physics. In other words, cloak to de-aggro but still subject to indirect damage, and would have to fly *around* rather than shortcut *through* ships for opportunistic hit and fade strikes on engines and unshielded flanks. High value strike potential, but damage output limited by travel time.

Anyway, I'm sure it's probably something Alex considered at one point but decided it didn't work for some reason or another.

The reason probably being is it would be extremely annoying to fight against such a ship. Even if the AI couldn't use it well it's still not fun trying to kill something that's completely invisible.
Logged
Please don't take me seriously, I'm a jokester and 99% of the time not being hostile on purpose :)

StarGibbon

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2018, 10:35:34 AM »




Conceptual nitpick: You meant to say de-phasing.  Would love to see an actual stealth ship implementation, as cloaked ships are a far more prevalent Sci-fi archetype, and would presumably still be bound by the game's physics. In other words, cloak to de-aggro but still subject to indirect damage, and would have to fly *around* rather than shortcut *through* ships for opportunistic hit and fade strikes on engines and unshielded flanks. High value strike potential, but damage output limited by travel time.

Anyway, I'm sure it's probably something Alex considered at one point but decided it didn't work for some reason or another.

The reason probably being is it would be extremely annoying to fight against such a ship. Even if the AI couldn't use it well it's still not fun trying to kill something that's completely invisible.

Obviously it would have to uncloak to fire, and would be unshielded and fragile. I dont see how it could possibly be any more annoying than fighting phase ship spam already is.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7773
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2018, 10:36:06 AM »

As far as I concerned, phasing and cloaking are interchangeable in Starsector and not worth arguing over semantics.  It is called phase cloak, after all.

Alex thought about it.  It is in one of the older pre-0.6 blog posts.

Phase cloak went through at least two major changes before we got the modern one either in 0.7.2 or 0.8.
Logged

StarGibbon

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: Player controlled phase ships, not a bit unfair, but extremely unfair
« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2018, 10:38:30 AM »

As far as I concerned, phasing and cloaking are interchangeable in Starsector and not worth arguing over semantics.  It is called phase cloak, after all.


That's why it's a nitpick. But everyone can still see the ships, they just cant hurt them. Hence not stealth.

Like you said though. Semantics.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]