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 7

Author Topic: Ship classes balance  (Read 12374 times)

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2019, 02:50:54 AM »

Why is that an issue? This a FLEET game. The capital will rarely be alone. And even more reason to have your own smaller, faster ships in a fleet.
And 2 DE's might not have enough DPS to tag-team. Remember, IF range depended on mount size (a large autocannon will have a bigger range than a small one), the capital will STILL have a range advantage on the account of more bigger mounts. It only won't be as overwhelming as it is now.

This has so many flaws it isn't even funny. Yea let's completely *** up the balance by making the Tempest the most broken thing since nothing could touch it unless it had large mounts, Sunder would also be OP due to oversized mounts for its class, Aurora would be even more crap then and so on. And the worst thing, all PD would be utter garbage on capitals. Since most PD is put in smalls and capitals have mounts that are not always in the far front, it wouldn't even be able to shoot before getting hit by a missile or something. Just give this idea a rest, it wouldn't work.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #46 on: September 02, 2019, 05:50:06 AM »

If 8 Wolfs fought a Conquest in exactly even terms, the Wolfs would lose every single time,

If the conquest was set to kill frigates then maybe. But otherwise i put my money on the wolfs.
"Even terms" in this case meant they were simply exchanging blows as a pure DPS race rather than using mobility to avoid taking damage and micro target availability, I don't think I conveyed that properly.  Wolfs absolutely can take advantage of their mobility, especially the ship system, to win against a Conquest.  The conquest having paper-thin shields and weak armor for a capital doesn't help matters either.

But that isnt “even terms”. Its negating the frigates advantage while accentuating the capitals. You could just as well say “even terms means that the ships start at point blank range with their engines facing away from each other” and then wonder why frigates have an advantage.

The conquest also does not have paper thin armor/shields. Its armor is middle of the road for capitals and its sheilds are only a tad weaker than other lowtech options. It also has the second highest dissipation of any ship in the game. If you want to use the high armor onslaught as an example its shields are only marginally better than the conquest but it cannot protect its rear and it has less max vent dissipation than the conquest has base. If you want to compare to a paragon... well i get to bring 4 more wolves for your extra 50 dissipation
Why is that an issue? This a FLEET game. The capital will rarely be alone. And even more reason to have your own smaller, faster ships in a fleet.
a capital without a range advantage has no place in a fleet. It would always be better to take smaller, more maneuverable ships. Possibly even once you hit the fleet cap.
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2019, 06:03:56 AM »

To be fair you do get a range advantage baked into the larger weapons by default.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #48 on: September 02, 2019, 06:13:12 AM »

To be fair you do get a range advantage baked into the larger weapons by default.

Sometimes. But there are smaller ships that are able to mount larger weapons. Sunders can mount large energy. Mudskippers large ballistic. Medium ballistic contains the second highest range base weapons in the game...

And lets not get into the effect of safety overrides...
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #49 on: September 02, 2019, 06:21:03 AM »

True but I'm alright with that myself.

Those smaller ships are built around those massive guns to their own detriment.

As for smaller sniper like weapons like HVD or Tac Lasers, that's fair.... sorta, as even the larger ships can fit them if they want. But this is just me slitting hairs.

Yeah without a range advantage you'd have to build your battleships for sustainable fire rate over artillery, like fitting a conquest with those HE Gatling guns rather then their usual artillery. Which would be problematic as the guns would often not have the range to shoot past their own hull, let alone the enemy who has their sticking out the front.

I'd highly recommend giving a short range onslaught a go however, tons of fun!
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #50 on: September 02, 2019, 09:33:22 AM »

I'd highly recommend giving a short range onslaught a go however, tons of fun!
It hurts.  Enough that I probably prefer three heavy needlers over one storm needler at the front, just for 800 range instead of 700.  (However, Storm Needler is brutal if enemy is in range.)  I bet 450 or so range from medium heavyweights is even worse.  (I think I tried that once and it was frustrating.)  Does not help that AI seems to love TPCs over all else and behaves accordingly.

During 0.7.1a, I kissed enemies with Dual Flak and Vulcan spam.  Onslaught was much tougher and faster back then with overpowered skills, overpowered enough to solo the whole simulator without armor damage and peak performance to spare.
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2019, 09:46:10 AM »

I'd highly recommend giving a short range onslaught a go however, tons of fun!
For those using Ship & Weapon Pack, there's an IBB ship called Flamebreaker which I politely suggest you consider recovering and flying into battle at least once just for the novelty.
Logged

sotanaht

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #52 on: September 02, 2019, 11:39:33 AM »

Just a thought, but if larger ships weren't built around range advantage, they could probably have their speed buffed.  Not necessarily to the point where they are equal to frigates at 150+, but the capitals could probably average in the 70-90 range, closing the gap considerably.
Logged

Locklave

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #53 on: September 02, 2019, 02:29:52 PM »

Just a thought, but if larger ships weren't built around range advantage, they could probably have their speed buffed.  Not necessarily to the point where they are equal to frigates at 150+, but the capitals could probably average in the 70-90 range, closing the gap considerably.

That would be faster then an Enforcer 60 and as fast as a Hammerhead at 90.

70-90 would be Capital ships flying at destroyer speeds.

edit:

Even the Medusa is only 100 speed and it's the fastest destroyer (matched by shrike).
« Last Edit: September 02, 2019, 02:32:35 PM by Locklave »
Logged

Plantissue

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #54 on: September 02, 2019, 03:49:19 PM »

A long time ago I had written that ship ranges and ship speeds should be more normalised closer towards each other, so the kiting and outranging effect would be harder to create and gameplay would flower more nicely. Something like tempest should only be a little faster than wolfs, and slower frigates should be a bit little faster, and so forth with all the ship clases, so in the end Paragon and Onslaughts would be closer to speed 50 and small energy should be range 500 and medium ballistics 650 and so on till the "normal" weapon ranges for large ballistics would be 800.

Back then people argued that it would remove the unique relationship of ship classes. Back then Odyssey and Aurora was a lot slower.

____________

I rather think that frigates being nonviable as a line-of-battle combatant in the face of capital ship firepower and range is a feature, not a bug. Frigates have been incapable of facing proper warships as far back as the Age of Sail.
Your preconceptions on the names of ship roles has no relevance to a discussion on game balance. In any case, the Afflictor, a frigate is used to face all other warships and quite successfully at that in the player's hands. Someone a while ago tried to mass Tempests successfully and claimed to be able to beat everything. The Omen has a place in a fleet always.

Balance-wise, faster ships SHOULD lose a shootout to bigger, slower ships; otherwise, there's no reason to ever take those bigger, slower ships. So one 30-FP capital ship should be able, all things being equal, to take on 6 5-FP frigates and come out on top.

Now, obviously a sufficiently skilled player can beat pretty much anything in the game with pretty much anything in the game, and very fast ships are ideally suited to maximize the skill differential between a player and an AI. But capital ships should absolutely be *** of the walk in combat terms, as superior combat performance is the only justification, either balance-wise or in Watsonian terms, to build a giant, slow, heavily crewed, resource-hogging capital ship instead of a group of small, fast, cheap frigates.
And what does your your preconceptions on the names of ship roles has on the relevance to a discussion on game balance? None at all, which is why you wrote something that i and others have written and where you pretend it was the point you was making.
Logged

Nysalor

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #55 on: September 02, 2019, 04:29:37 PM »


I rather think that frigates being nonviable as a line-of-battle combatant in the face of capital ship firepower and range is a feature, not a bug. Frigates have been incapable of facing proper warships as far back as the Age of Sail.
Your preconceptions on the names of ship roles has no relevance to a discussion on game balance. In any case, the Afflictor, a frigate is used to face all other warships and quite successfully at that in the player's hands. Someone a while ago tried to mass Tempests successfully and claimed to be able to beat everything. The Omen has a place in a fleet always.

Balance-wise, faster ships SHOULD lose a shootout to bigger, slower ships; otherwise, there's no reason to ever take those bigger, slower ships. So one 30-FP capital ship should be able, all things being equal, to take on 6 5-FP frigates and come out on top.

Now, obviously a sufficiently skilled player can beat pretty much anything in the game with pretty much anything in the game, and very fast ships are ideally suited to maximize the skill differential between a player and an AI. But capital ships should absolutely be *** of the walk in combat terms, as superior combat performance is the only justification, either balance-wise or in Watsonian terms, to build a giant, slow, heavily crewed, resource-hogging capital ship instead of a group of small, fast, cheap frigates.
And what does your your preconceptions on the names of ship roles has on the relevance to a discussion on game balance? None at all, which is why you wrote something that i and others have written and where you pretend it was the point you was making.

The point I was making is that this;

A long time ago I had written that ship ranges and ship speeds should be more normalised closer towards each other, so the kiting and outranging effect would be harder to create and gameplay would flower more nicely. Something like tempest should only be a little faster than wolfs, and slower frigates should be a bit little faster, and so forth with all the ship clases, so in the end Paragon and Onslaughts would be closer to speed 50 and small energy should be range 500 and medium ballistics 650 and so on till the "normal" weapon ranges for large ballistics would be 800.

. . . Is a stupid idea, which would in fact damage gameplay. Strong distinctions between ship classes, including in speed and range, are valuable and interesting. 'Normalizing' distinguishing characteristics is something to be avoided as much as is practical, not sought after; reducing variety should be an absolute last resort. I'm frankly puzzled that I even have to mention this in a strategy game forum, but here we are.
Logged

Plantissue

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2019, 02:18:39 AM »

Come on now, Nysalor, you don't get to pretend the point you was making was to argue against a post I haven't even posted yet. Just accept that your preconceptions on the names of ship roles has no relevance to a discussion on game balance.
Logged

Zeeheld

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #57 on: September 03, 2019, 01:43:28 PM »

I rather think that frigates being nonviable as a line-of-battle combatant in the face of capital ship firepower and range is a feature, not a bug. Frigates have been incapable of facing proper warships as far back as the Age of Sail. Destroyers have

>He tried to apply antiquated naval terminology to Starsector
>Get-A-Load of this guy cam
You do realize that real world naval classification has always tried to keep up with ship development and figuring out what to do with them later? They are completely arbitrary and serve no purpose in this game, and, apart from the broadest possible definitions, in real navies, either, if we're being honest.
If I got your other points right, you would much rather prefer a literally tiered approach to ships? Where capitals would be untouchable by cruisers and down, and cruisers would be immune to destroyers and frigates and so on? Where's the fun in that? Gameplay as it is today is already pushing the player to field bigger ships the more the game progresses, and it kind of makes sense. But that doesn't mean one is limited to Paragon-only in late game.
I fail to see the point in your argument, and it might just be that there isn't really one.
Logged
Cool story, bro.

Nysalor

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #58 on: September 03, 2019, 03:46:05 PM »

I rather think that frigates being nonviable as a line-of-battle combatant in the face of capital ship firepower and range is a feature, not a bug. Frigates have been incapable of facing proper warships as far back as the Age of Sail.



You do realize that real world naval classification has always tried to keep up with ship development and figuring out what to do with them later? They are completely arbitrary and serve no purpose in this game, and, apart from the broadest possible definitions, in real navies, either, if we're being honest.

No, not at all. The terminology used for things indicates how the designer is thinking of them, and the role they're supposed to analogize to - obviously not a perfect one-to-one match, but think about it. You could easily refer to spaceships by completely different terminology; they're called frigates, destroyers and cruisers in Starsector for a reason. That's a deliberate analogy.

If I got your other points right, you would much rather prefer a literally tiered approach to ships? Where capitals would be untouchable by cruisers and down, and cruisers would be immune to destroyers and frigates and so on? Where's the fun in that? Gameplay as it is today is already pushing the player to field bigger ships the more the game progresses, and it kind of makes sense. But that doesn't mean one is limited to Paragon-only in late game.
I fail to see the point in your argument, and it might just be that there isn't really one.

Obviously you didn't get my points right; you draw a hugely exaggerated and unsupported conclusion. Please point to where - anywhere - I indicated that larger classes of ships should be 'immune' to smaller ones.

What I said was that 30 FP of capital ship ought to be able to reliably outfight 30 FP of frigates in a shootout, if you stuck them in a 'white room' scenario. And of course this isn't actually a call for change; this is me maintaining that current class balance is broadly in the right place, since that's currently true, and stating that I think changing this relationship would be bad for gameplay. Larger ships being more effective in slugging matches is the whole point of larger ships; if they're not, then there's absolutely no point in having them.

If you'll recall, this whole thread started with the complaint that smaller ships need a 'gimmick' to compete with larger ones in combat, because they generally aren't tough enough to stand up to heavy firepower. Which is correct, and should remain so.

Does that clarify things for you?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 04:03:57 PM by Nysalor »
Logged

TrashMan

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • View Profile
Re: Ship classes balance
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2019, 04:11:52 AM »

Why is that an issue? This a FLEET game. The capital will rarely be alone. And even more reason to have your own smaller, faster ships in a fleet.
And 2 DE's might not have enough DPS to tag-team. Remember, IF range depended on mount size (a large autocannon will have a bigger range than a small one), the capital will STILL have a range advantage on the account of more bigger mounts. It only won't be as overwhelming as it is now.

This has so many flaws it isn't even funny. Yea let's completely *** up the balance by making the Tempest the most broken thing since nothing could touch it unless it had large mounts, Sunder would also be OP due to oversized mounts for its class, Aurora would be even more crap then and so on. And the worst thing, all PD would be utter garbage on capitals. Since most PD is put in smalls and capitals have mounts that are not always in the far front, it wouldn't even be able to shoot before getting hit by a missile or something. Just give this idea a rest, it wouldn't work.

What? You're not making sense.
Why would the PD suddenly not have range? How does it magically loose range?
And it sounds like you have no idea what the word "rebalance" means, like it's impossible to...let's say reduce the OP of ships that might end up stronger?
You might want to go back and re-read.
And also, no it would not be broken because I tested if for myself (by editing the hullmods)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7