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

Author Topic: Percentages Question  (Read 2218 times)

Yunru

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
Percentages Question
« on: September 26, 2019, 03:06:01 PM »

For this example we'll be using Defensive Systems 3's:
"10% hard flux dissipation while shields are active (piloted ship)"

I tired so wording this is hard, does this refer to 10% of the hard flux that has built up, or 10% of the maximum flux capacity?

Ebola

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2019, 03:23:22 PM »

I always took it as "dissipate hard flux at 10% of the regular rate while shields are active"
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2019, 03:25:34 PM »

Yep, that's right. As a consequence, this only comes into play when your shields are up and your hard flux level is equal to your total flux level, i.e. you have no soft flux - since that would dissipate at the normal rate regardless.
Logged

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2019, 03:47:53 PM »

only comes into play when ... you have no soft flux
Oh man. It sounds like the talent only comes into play when your ship is deliberately wasting 90% of its vent potential. I imagine not too many players would be keen keeping their shields up, yet doing absolutely nothing so the talent has an opportunity to kick in.

 I was hoping it would be an always-active skill, I.E. your shield's hard flux gets "softened" at a rate equal to 10% of the ship's vent value. Over a long engagement that can end up being a full shield bar which is certainly not trivial, but turning the shields off will always be superior.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2019, 04:47:17 PM »

It really matters when the ship is in a tight spot and can't afford to lower its shields; i.e. it's easily the difference between overloading from a Harpoon salvo and taking some heavy hits, or not. I think it's a lot more useful than it perhaps seems. Also handy for AI-controlled ships, which have a bit of a propensity to keep shields up too much at range.
Logged

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2019, 06:40:58 PM »

Ah yes, I am becoming somewhat familiar with the "no danger in 1000 range, shields up!" maneuver. No AI is perfect, and I'm sure there's a good story reason why perfect AI isn't a smart idea. ;)

DS3 definitely sounds like a niche perk. Paying a heavy vent tax for the ideal "well, first you need to be almost dead" scenario doesn't sound very attractive. There is definitely more clear utility in the -25% shield upkeep and -20% shield ratio of the previous talents, but maybe I'm just missing the numbers and experience to appreciate it more.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2019, 07:11:12 PM »

It errs on the conservative side because... it'll get it wrong now and again no matter what, right? And "kept shields up unnecessarily" seems a bit better than "took some unnecessary hits". Though it'll end up doing some of both in any case :)

DS3 definitely sounds like a niche perk. Paying a heavy vent tax for the ideal "well, first you need to be almost dead" scenario doesn't sound very attractive. There is definitely more clear utility in the -25% shield upkeep and -20% shield ratio of the previous talents, but maybe I'm just missing the numbers and experience to appreciate it more.

I can see that, but it's just something that lets you do a qualitatively different thing, and that's powerful in a way pure numbers have a hard time describing. In my experience, situations where this lets you push a tactical edge more, or just go from "about to die" to "totally fine, actually" come up quite a bit. Consider that when hard flux is high, an extra second or two of 10% dissipation could mean doubling the amount of flux you've got to work with. That's a bit different than needing to be almost dead, imo - rather, it pushes the line for what you can get away with and be fine.

I'm not saying it's insanely powerful or anything like that. And, honestly, -20% shield damage seems better. But this one lets you do different things more so than the ones that are plain number reductions.
Logged

sotanaht

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2019, 07:51:25 PM »

only comes into play when ... you have no soft flux
Oh man. It sounds like the talent only comes into play when your ship is deliberately wasting 90% of its vent potential. I imagine not too many players would be keen keeping their shields up, yet doing absolutely nothing so the talent has an opportunity to kick in.

 I was hoping it would be an always-active skill, I.E. your shield's hard flux gets "softened" at a rate equal to 10% of the ship's vent value. Over a long engagement that can end up being a full shield bar which is certainly not trivial, but turning the shields off will always be superior.
It's useful in tandem with Helmsmanship 3 when closing distance.  Taking some light hits and effectively venting them while keeping the shield up and maintaining 0-flux boost.
Logged

Tackywheat1

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Paragon is Perfection
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2019, 08:33:31 PM »

Does the effect stack with flux shunt?

Also this is really helpful on Paragon
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2019, 08:46:36 PM »

I've always found the 10% hard flux dissipation to be fairly underwhelming. I can see it helping the AI in situations where the AI is acting overly conservative, but I really don't see much value for the player. I can just avoid situations where it would matter by piloting and managing flux/shields well. With high tech, I can back off and vent whenever I want, which is much better than sitting with shields up, and for low tech I can armor tank and shield flicker to manage flux. Mid tech can do a bit of each of those strategies.

Also, I feel like most of the time if I am in a situation where a small amount of flux would make the difference with overloading or taking damage, I was probably just fighting and have some soft flux built up from shooting. If I can back off long enough to let that soft flux dissipate, then I can probably just get back to my allies and vent.

On a random note, it's difficult to tell how much of your flux is hard vs soft flux. I wish they were displayed with different colors in the flux bar, even different shades of blue would help. 
Logged

Daynen

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2019, 09:42:52 PM »

It's also good for ships that have slow raising shields and a lot of ship to cover.  The time it takes to drop shields, vent, then fully raise shields again can be a HUGE window for strike forces; allowing hard flux to dissipate with shields up means some craft can just run shields all the time.

How do you think the monitor is so damn durable?  It does exactly the same thing, only faster.  Combine a monitor with an officer with this talent and they'll eat heavy ordnance for DAYS.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2019, 10:02:17 PM »

I've always found the 10% hard flux dissipation to be fairly underwhelming. I can see it helping the AI in situations where the AI is acting overly conservative, but I really don't see much value for the player.

...

On a random note, it's difficult to tell how much of your flux is hard vs soft flux. I wish they were displayed with different colors in the flux bar, even different shades of blue would help.

Yeah, I see it as a crutch for AI. Decent player should always be able to find a moment to drop. Same for Helmsmanship 3 and beam-boat-under-dissipation builds - there is no point in piloting something so low impact for player.

Agreed, the small tick on flux bar is way more important than it is visible. And as other topic recently mentioned charge based systems could get a reload bar over 1st charge too (other color/smaller).
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 10:16:48 PM by TaLaR »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2019, 10:20:44 PM »

It's also good for ships that have slow raising shields and a lot of ship to cover.  The time it takes to drop shields, vent, then fully raise shields again can be a HUGE window for strike forces; allowing hard flux to dissipate with shields up means some craft can just run shields all the time.

How do you think the monitor is so damn durable?  It does exactly the same thing, only faster.  Combine a monitor with an officer with this talent and they'll eat heavy ordnance for DAYS.
I think the fact that the monitor has a fortress shield that reduces incoming damage by 90% is the reason it can tank tons of damage, not hard flux dissipation.

Having shields up when no damage is incoming is wasting dissipation in shield upkeep that can otherwise be spent firing weapons. Also, why would I want to keep shields up and dissipate 10% hard flux when I can drop shields and dissipate 100% hard flux? My goal is to have shields down as often as possible without taking big hits to armor. Slow shields do make this harder, but there are hull mods for that. Good shield management is way stronger than 10% hard flux dissipation with shields up all the time. The AI doesn't know how to do this so the skill is decent on officers, but it's not worthwhile for a good pilot IMO.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 10:24:06 PM by intrinsic_parity »
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2019, 03:10:10 AM »

Defensive Systems 3 (for shields) and Helmsmanship 3 are similar, in that they both are AI fixes with some minor benefits to the player. They could become basic abilities for all ships, for all I care.
Monitor is tanky, but in my experience, not tanky enough: AI sometimes disables fortress shields, even if it has positive dissipation with it, which is a mistake.

sotanaht

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: Percentages Question
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2019, 04:22:54 AM »

Defensive Systems 3 (for shields) and Helmsmanship 3 are similar, in that they both are AI fixes with some minor benefits to the player. They could become basic abilities for all ships, for all I care.
Monitor is tanky, but in my experience, not tanky enough: AI sometimes disables fortress shields, even if it has positive dissipation with it, which is a mistake.
Keeping shields up while approaching is vital, especially if those enemy ships have beam weapons.  You can easily out-dissipate the beams on shields, but if you lose your 0 flux boost the enemy can probably outrun you.  That's where Helmsmenship 3 is basically mandatory.  Defensive Systems 3 ensures that you keep that 0 flux boost even when you take a few stray missiles or long-range kinetic weapons on approach as well.  Both skills are only really useful on approach, but that's probably the most vital point in the fight.  You have to get close enough to the enemy (WELL within their weapon range) to ensure you can kill them before they run away.

To that extent I'd say they are more important for players than AIs, and they are both in the top 10 most important combat skills for player ships.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2