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] 5 6 ... 60

Author Topic: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 149333 times)

SapphireSage

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #45 on: February 01, 2019, 09:05:33 AM »


  • Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
  • Stronger fleets will have many more large ships
    • This increases both their ground-raiding strength and their effectiveness vs stations


Out of curiosity, would this also be adjustable via the settings.json "MaxShipsInFleet" or the "DoNotPrune" or is this non-adjustable for those that enjoy larger fleet sizes/battles in order to be able to salvage things in endgame?

If someone wanted to raise their max fleet size to be able to have room for salvage, it would be unfair if the player would outnumber the AI consistently.

Also, are colonies with Commerce able to put their own nanoforges in Heavy Industry after a time when sold to them? I can see that a 2nd Heavy Industry with Commerce could be used as an extra money farm by returning every so often to remove the nanoforge and resell it to them since the highest level nanoforge in all your colonies is used for ship quality in all fleet and ship productions.

Thanks for all the excellent content and enabling of other awesome content!
Logged

Shad

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #46 on: February 01, 2019, 09:18:36 AM »

Really like the upcoming changes. Economy, techmining

A couple of points:
Quote
Fleet spawning:

    Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
    Stronger fleets will have many more large ships
This one I am a bit worried about. Top heavy fleets are be good for "elite" strike fleets, but a general the cap does not sound like a good idea. It will only worsen the already existing ship size inflation. Low-tier frigates and light destroyers (like wayfarer/enforcer) should not become obsolete by mid-game.

Also from a purely immersion veiwpoint the only top-heavy fleets are less fun. The whole point about a large battle is how it stats small with frigates/destroyers, harrassing/flanking and occasional cruiser, and builds up to eventually reach the peak with facing enemy capitals. It builds up. Facing a heavy-only fleet does not sound as fun.

Quote
Can now abandon colonies up to size 4
Can we get the Nex option of granting independence to colonies (just because I found a better habitable world doesn't mean the other habitable is useless)

Quote
Abandoning a colony no longer removes the "Decivilized" condition
Is there now a proper way of removing this modifier?
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7762
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2019, 09:55:43 AM »

Quote
Harbinger: changed 3 medium hardpoints to "energy" (was: "synergy")
This would make the the Harb the only phase ship incapable of using missiles at all.
Would it be possible to have the forward centre mount reverted to synergy or changed to universal, just to keep all the phase ships consistent with each other?
I would not want center synergy and rest energy because that makes three AM Blaster loadout impossible.  (Synergy cannot use small energy.)  If Harbinger will be reduced to an AM Blaster striker, it needs all three mounts energy to use them.

As for missiles, maybe mount them in the rear universals and backpedal if player really wants them?

P.S.  Although I guess three energy (for AM Blasters) is about equal to one Reaper, but Harbinger does not have enough OP to support both optimized AM Blaster and Reaper loadouts at the same time.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 09:59:37 AM by Megas »
Logged

HELMUT

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1329
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2019, 10:26:54 AM »

Quote
  • Ships with "Militarized Subsystems" no longer get increased maintenance from capacity-increasing logistics hullmods
    • And can have Safety Overrides

RIDE THE LIGHTNING I am actually against this change. As much as i want to field a stampede of SO Buffalo MK.II, allowing SO with Militarized Subsystems make it a no-brainer for freighters/tankers. The massive speed boost make it invaluable in retreat scenarios. A Tarsus can fit both MS and SO, allowing it to fly at a blazing 125 su, faster than a Lasher! And that's without counting the burn drive. Not all civilian ships have the OPs available for those two hullmods though, only the tankers , the Tarsus, the Valkyrie... Haven't checked them all.

But yeah, i think it's too good, civilians ships's survivability would be vastly increased with this combo.

Quote
  • Harbinger: changed 3 medium hardpoints to "energy" (was: "synergy")

The beast is dead! Like Serenitis, i kinda expected it to keep one synergy to allow for some variety. I think the Harbinger would now move more into a support role with its three energy hardpoints, with something like Ion Pulsers to annoy bigger threats, or heavy blasters to hunt smaller targets. The triple AM Blaster boat is another idea, an easier, but more expensive variant of the blaster Afflictor.


Overall, i really like all the listed changes, 0.9.1 is going to feel much smoother to play.

Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 16166
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2019, 10:31:14 AM »

While I totally agree that Harbinger was OP and needed a nerf, doesn't this leave it a bit too useless?

... possibly? The system *is* different, so that could leave some room. It's also got 2 minutes more base peak time, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

Mostly, though, I think all these points are an argument in favor of reining in the Afflictor a bit as well, if that makes sense.

Oh you know... I was holding out hope it would end up more than 1%. I mean I am glad the bug is fixed, but I am not glad it's fixed into a value I personally don't agree with, since that was originally the reason I even reported it :D

Yeah, I know :) Making balance changes is just a different mindset for me, if I'm fixing bugs, I can just do that quickly. Balance changes require more thought and testing and so on, so I'm generally pretty resistant to making them at the drop of a hat.

My reward is the great game you are making and polishing up the small things pointed out.
It feels great to have a dev that listens, over the years I have gone over many developers from different games of different sizes. It's really refreshing when things mentioned get considered/fixed/balanced/touched-up. I can't tell you how many times I have brought up well documented issues and suggestions on how it may be addressed, only to have forum mods go "that's nice" and never seeing any of the issues touched on in months/years/ever. So again, a single dev managing to do this is hope inspiring to say the least.
Looking forward to testing out the new AI  ;D

<3

Oh and lastly, is there some kind of ETA on the patch?

"When it's done", which should be soon(tm).


What about AI cores drop after destroying REDACTED battlestations? In current moment no any sense to kill this. Better leave this for future endgame grind.

It's still on my list, yeah - there's a bunch of stuff that's been reported and noted but not yet fixed up.


This would make the the Harb the only phase ship incapable of using missiles at all.
Would it be possible to have the forward centre mount reverted to synergy or changed to universal, just to keep all the phase ships consistent with each other?

Well, it's got the 2 universals in the back, so that's not strictly true. I'm also not sure this is a point of consistency that makes sense to focus on - it's just a thing that they happened to have in common, right, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a shared pillar of their design.


Out of curiosity, would this also be adjustable via the settings.json "MaxShipsInFleet" or the "DoNotPrune" or is this non-adjustable for those that enjoy larger fleet sizes/battles in order to be able to salvage things in endgame?

If someone wanted to raise their max fleet size to be able to have room for salvage, it would be unfair if the player would outnumber the AI consistently.

There's a "maxShipsInAIFleet" setting, so you can tweak the AI and player maximums separately as you see fit.

Also, are colonies with Commerce able to put their own nanoforges in Heavy Industry after a time when sold to them? I can see that a 2nd Heavy Industry with Commerce could be used as an extra money farm by returning every so often to remove the nanoforge and resell it to them since the highest level nanoforge in all your colonies is used for ship quality in all fleet and ship productions.

Thanks for all the excellent content and enabling of other awesome content!

Not sure if this made it into the patch notes, but I've fixed up that exploit.


Quote
Fleet spawning:

    Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
    Stronger fleets will have many more large ships
This one I am a bit worried about. Top heavy fleets are be good for "elite" strike fleets, but a general the cap does not sound like a good idea. It will only worsen the already existing ship size inflation. Low-tier frigates and light destroyers (like wayfarer/enforcer) should not become obsolete by mid-game.

Also from a purely immersion veiwpoint the only top-heavy fleets are less fun. The whole point about a large battle is how it stats small with frigates/destroyers, harrassing/flanking and occasional cruiser, and builds up to eventually reach the peak with facing enemy capitals. It builds up. Facing a heavy-only fleet does not sound as fun.

It's not "only" capitals, there's still some smaller ships. Obviously it's a change, but I think it'll be good overall - instead of fighting 300+ ships, most of which are frigates and don't really pose a challenge beyond eventual CR drain - you'd fight some frigates/destroyers/etc, supporting a larger number of capital ships that do pose a threat, including to stations. And there's plenty of fleets that don't end up top-heavy as well; this really comes into play when the alternative is an absurd number of ships.

Quote
Can now abandon colonies up to size 4
Can we get the Nex option of granting independence to colonies (just because I found a better habitable world doesn't mean the other habitable is useless)

Maybe at some point; holding off on doing that until a few more things fall into place and it's more clear what exactly I want from this in vanilla.

Quote
Abandoning a colony no longer removes the "Decivilized" condition
Is there now a proper way of removing this modifier?

No; I don't think it's a modifier that should be able to be removed.


Quote
  • Ships with "Militarized Subsystems" no longer get increased maintenance from capacity-increasing logistics hullmods
    • And can have Safety Overrides

RIDE THE LIGHTNING I am actually against this change. As much as i want to field a stampede of SO Buffalo MK.II, allowing SO with Militarized Subsystems make it a no-brainer for freighters/tankers. The massive speed boost make it invaluable in retreat scenarios. A Tarsus can fit both MS and SO, allowing it to fly at a blazing 125 su, faster than a Lasher! And that's without counting the burn drive. Not all civilian ships have the OPs available for those two hullmods though, only the tankers , the Tarsus, the Valkyrie... Haven't checked them all.

But yeah, i think it's too good, civilians ships's survivability would be vastly increased with this combo.

There are a couple of other changes that factor in:

1) You can ensure a clean disengage through a rearguard action - fighting a battle and destroying some enemy ships - which would let your civilian ships get away regardless of their speed.
2) Flanking deployment during pursuit starts 4000 units further up, so it could get dodgy regardless. Though the Tarsus in particular has just always been great at retreating.
Logged

ANGRYABOUTELVES

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
  • AE ALTADOON GHARTOK PADHOME
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2019, 10:36:25 AM »

Quote
Harbinger: changed 3 medium hardpoints to "energy" (was: "synergy")
This would make the the Harb the only phase ship incapable of using missiles at all.
Would it be possible to have the forward centre mount reverted to synergy or changed to universal, just to keep all the phase ships consistent with each other?
The Harbinger's rear 2 small mounts are universals, and have the arcs to mount guided missiles. Or, in player hands, you can tilt the Harbinger slightly to land torpedos.

The beast is dead! Like Serenitis, i kinda expected it to keep one synergy to allow for some variety. I think the Harbinger would now move more into a support role with its three energy hardpoints, with something like Ion Pulsers to annoy bigger threats, or heavy blasters to hunt smaller targets. The triple AM Blaster boat is another idea, an easier, but more expensive variant of the blaster Afflictor.
Triple Phase Lance Harbinger has always been a beast, able to out-flux cruisers with soft-flux pressure alone by abusing phase time acceleration. Anything smaller than that just pops, including opposing phase frigates that you can force to unphase with QD.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 16166
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2019, 10:48:27 AM »

I'm really a fan of Phase Lances plus phase-time combo, myself.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4426
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2019, 10:50:56 AM »

Harbinger + Reaper == No. Being able to reliably and with no recourse stick a Reaper into something is just bad. The cost, DP, flux stats, armor, etc can all be tuned to make the ship be really good, but that combo has got to go.

I also think its a bit odd to consider the Harbinger in a vacuum. When the Harbinger overloads someone, that helps every ship nearby.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7762
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2019, 11:05:37 AM »

Harbinger + Reaper == No. Being able to reliably and with no recourse stick a Reaper into something is just bad. The cost, DP, flux stats, armor, etc can all be tuned to make the ship be really good, but that combo has got to go.

I also think its a bit odd to consider the Harbinger in a vacuum. When the Harbinger overloads someone, that helps every ship nearby.
The opening given by Quantum Disruptor is tiny, probably too hard to exploit reactively by other ships.  At best, player see incoming attacks from other ships (like a stack of Perdition wings from Astral) and drop that target's shields.  With Reapers, Harbinger does not need other ships.  Just force an opening for the kill then run away.

Also, Harbinger can hide with empty or dead battlestation modules behind live ones, and kill modules on the other side with splash damage.  (Afflictor can do it too, but Harbinger has almost four times as much Reapers as Afflictor.)

Three Typhoons Reapers were overwhelming and so much better than other loadouts.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7762
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2019, 11:15:59 AM »

Mostly, though, I think all these points are an argument in favor of reining in the Afflictor a bit as well, if that makes sense.
My go-to loadout with Afflictor is four Reapers.  Works just as well as 0.9 Harbinger when I do not need Quantum Disruptor, except with less missile capacity.  Probably the easiest nerf would be to change two of the universals to hybrids.
Logged

Baqar79

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2019, 05:06:33 PM »

I'm not really concerned about the nerf to the Harbinger. I had my fun back in 0.8 with Reapers and changing their sub-system to the Quantum disruptor in 0.9 just made them insane.

In any case, I'm really not a fan of phase ships outside the Doom-class since their time acceleration ends up being a bit of a liability under AI control, as their peak readiness doesn't last long enough to be useful to me in bigger battles (being able to deploy more ships during station battles will help though in the upcoming update!)...and perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I feel that Anti-Matter blasters are pretty weak for their OP cost (could do with less of a delay or more damage per shot, and/or make the damage high explosive to take advantage of holes in enemy shields).

Interestingly the Impact Mitigation 1 bug fix (+150% more armour -> +150 armour) is something that I'm going to miss on my Doom since it did provide a decent durability boost when paired with Evasive Action 3 (275% armour boost in 0.9).  Probably a bit early to say, but going from 275% armour (0.9 IM1 + EA3) -> 50% armour + 150 armour (0.9.1a IM1 + EA3), looks to be quite a drastic cut in durability, especially for bigger capital ships relying on hull tanking.

Maybe both IM1 & EA3 should be boosted a bit to compensate a little.  Even if it was a bug to begin with, it didn't feel insanely OP (0.9 IM3 & EA3 increased my Doom's average survival time from 12.4 seconds to 20.3 seconds in my testing).

Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7762
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2019, 05:24:04 PM »

I'm not really concerned about the nerf to the Harbinger. I had my fun back in 0.8 with Reapers and changing their sub-system to the Quantum disruptor in 0.9 just made them insane.

In any case, I'm really not a fan of phase ships outside the Doom-class since their time acceleration ends up being a bit of a liability under AI control, as their peak readiness doesn't last long enough to be useful to me in bigger battles (being able to deploy more ships during station battles will help though in the upcoming update!)...and perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I feel that Anti-Matter blasters are pretty weak for their OP cost (could do with less of a delay or more damage per shot, and/or make the damage high explosive to take advantage of holes in enemy shields).
Part of what makes AM Blasters good is their ability to outright overload shields and stun the enemy for twelve seconds.  Handy for something like Scarab where it builds up hard flux with IR Pulse Laser and Ion Cannon spam, overload shield with AM Blaster, then finish off ship with something.  Changing AM Blasters to HE would remove their use as shield overload against AI.  Phase ships do not need to use AM Blasters like this, but conventional ships would.

AM Blaster is good burst because it overloads the AI, unlike equally priced Light Needler (where they drop shields and tank the needles on armor or hull for minimal damage instead of getting stunned) that has become merely a railgun knockoff that costs two more OP.

Yes, I dislike phase ships aside from Doom for AI because AI simply dances like cowards and runs out of peak performance too early.  Phase ships need to play more like Doom, not like a bomber usable only under player control.
Logged

Dostya

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2019, 07:29:00 PM »

Income from exports no longer counts demand at player colonies for total market value

I'm not sure I agree with this one. Your own colonies are going to be trading in the general market (even with internal sources, you'll see external fleets bringing goods and if those get blown up the market loses some goods) and with each other, and presumably that trade is taxed; internal trade might be taxed via corporate income taxes or something more progressive than tariffs but it should give money albeit somewhat more indirectly. Bottom line - larger populations moving more goods can and should increase the total value of the market. I understand why Commerce isn't lucrative for balance reasons, why the open markets on player planets don't pay their tariffs into the players' pocket, and why external partners are important for accessibility to balance blatant warmongering, but ignoring player planets' impact on the market in its totality just seems a bit wonky.

Is there a balance reason that this got changed? Were player populated planets making too much of an impact on the Sector markets?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 16166
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2019, 07:41:37 PM »

I think conceptually, the stuff you're talking about is mostly covered by the income from Population & Infrastructure.

Is there a balance reason that this got changed?

The market value of player planets ended up being too-high a contributor to player income. Also, it had the counter-intuitive effect of something lowering demand on player colonies (good because it's easier for it to be met) also being bad due to decreasing the market value for that commodity and thus the player's income from exports. And, finally - as you point out - it's good to have the player's income be more dependent on outside partners.
Logged

R.U.A

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #59 on: February 01, 2019, 08:40:22 PM »

Navigation skill: now modifies individual fleet member fuel use (rather than fleetwide)
So the skill can only take effect on piloted ship? Or it still take effect fleetwide, but would cut down the fuel use for each ship rather than calculate on the total fuel the fleet use, and showing its effect on every ship in the ship tooltip?
Fuel use/day indicator now properly accounts for "free" speed over burn level 20
Do you mean in the past this calculation is wrong? And in my opinion, since the free speed is caused by storm or neutron stars etc., we shouldn't pay fuel for the extra speed.
Logged
Access to RDS failed.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 60