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

Author Topic: New player feedback  (Read 4077 times)

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2020, 09:00:20 AM »

I think it's more that that fleet is pretty serious overkill for 99% of the game. Normal battle size is 300, meaning you get a max of 200 deployment points so you can deploy at most 5 onslaughts and you're probably only deploying 2-3 if you also want to fit in astrals/other ships. Personally, the only fights I've ever wanted more than two capitals for was fighting 2-3 big remnant ordos at the same time. I also usually try to under deploy to save supplies if I expect to win the fight without taking damage anyway. Burning an excessive amount of fuel/supplies is generally not considered min-maxing, but it depends on what you are trying to minimize/maximize I guess.

To me, that fleet just doesn't seem all that optimized, but I'm generally trying to minimize my resource consumption while winning battles without damage, so it's likely that we have different objectives.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2020, 09:19:04 AM »

Thanks Alex! :) I've seen other people mention that late-game is not really developed much for now, and to be honest I don't really have that much of a problem with it, lol.
Also makes sense that at some point you have "won", as you said - can't expect to progress forever. But I guess some sort of "endless goal" with scaling difficulty may be possible some day.

That said - I still love the game and recommending it to everyone.

We'll see! I don't think it'd be anything "endless", but there's a lot of room between that and what's there now.

And thank you :)
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2020, 09:28:17 AM »

I don't see anything wrong with 7 caps, 4 tugs. That's exactly how many you need with Nav3 to get 20 sustained Burn.
How?? Even with Navigation 3 that fleet uses ridiculous amounts of fuel (and who knows what other ships there are) for what, killing pirate stations lol? That's not min maxing, that's just overkill. Min maxing means doing the most you can possibly do with the lowest possible costs, hence the min in the name... If we're ignoring that then might as well have a fleet of 20 Paragons right, but then again would be silly and pointless.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2020, 10:03:25 AM »

Vanilla is too easy. In nexelerin+vayra you both need huge fleets and have use for high speed, since you constantly need to intercept invasions and be ready fight/avoid bounty hunter fleets at any moment (including multiple of them right after beating an invasion...).

Assuming 25% discount from Nav, 7 caps alone will cost around 50 fuel/ly. Adding 12 more for 4 tugs (efficiency overhaul) doesn't change much.

Imo if you only use 1-2 caps, they should be either ADF Paragons/Onslaughts at 9 Burn or Conquest/Odysseys at 8. In larger fleets tugs don't add much fuel consumption so there is no reason to be a slowpoke.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2020, 10:08:42 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2020, 10:20:50 AM »

Because OP is obviously playing with tons of mods...
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Mordodrukow

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2020, 10:22:21 AM »

Wait, what is "tug"? I saw ships, increasing entire fleets speed only in Sylphon mod.
Logged
Spoiler
[close]

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2020, 10:27:33 AM »

It's a small ship that boosts your burn level by 1, so the whole fleet gets a buff. It's called Ox-class tug I think, and you can stack them together but that increases your fuel consumption by a lot.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Mordodrukow

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2020, 10:33:39 AM »

I understand. What mod is it?
Logged
Spoiler
[close]

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2020, 10:35:02 AM »

Vanilla.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Mordodrukow

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2020, 10:39:20 AM »

Need to check it...

TY!
Logged
Spoiler
[close]

Plantissue

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2020, 02:05:17 PM »

Ignoring that the opening poster spent half the post talking about himself, what does min-max even mean in starsector? Your character points can be used slightly more or less effectively possibly, but this is not character based RPG. It's a pretty freeform game. You have to set yourself artificial goals and even then there are artificial measurments. For instance if you have sufficient income you can sustain 30 Onslaughts flying around in a circle forever. There's nothing to minimise and maximise. That said 7 Capitals and several OX tugs (how many???) seem suboptimal to me, but then again what is optimisation? It's an artificial goal. Can the OP even fight the biggest bounties and the biggest expeditions without losing a ship? That too can also be an artificial goal too.
Logged

Perq

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2020, 11:00:42 PM »

I think it's more that that fleet is pretty serious overkill for 99% of the game. Normal battle size is 300, meaning you get a max of 200 deployment points so you can deploy at most 5 onslaughts and you're probably only deploying 2-3 if you also want to fit in astrals/other ships. Personally, the only fights I've ever wanted more than two capitals for was fighting 2-3 big remnant ordos at the same time. I also usually try to under deploy to save supplies if I expect to win the fight without taking damage anyway. Burning an excessive amount of fuel/supplies is generally not considered min-maxing, but it depends on what you are trying to minimize/maximize I guess.

To me, that fleet just doesn't seem all that optimized, but I'm generally trying to minimize my resource consumption while winning battles without damage, so it's likely that we have different objectives.

5 onslaughts are enough to kill anything and everything.
Burning "excessive amounts of fuel/supplies" doesn't matter if you have colonies that you can supply yourself with at whim.

"Optimizing" fleet in terms of supply consumption is my point exactly - in my opinion there is too little difference in simply throwing in 5 onslaughts compared to carefully putting together ships that synergize with one another. In other words - the way you do things is what I think should be the case, but at the moment it is too easy simply brute force.

I don't see anything wrong with 7 caps, 4 tugs. That's exactly how many you need with Nav3 to get 20 sustained Burn.
How?? Even with Navigation 3 that fleet uses ridiculous amounts of fuel (and who knows what other ships there are) for what, killing pirate stations lol? That's not min maxing, that's just overkill. Min maxing means doing the most you can possibly do with the lowest possible costs, hence the min in the name... If we're ignoring that then might as well have a fleet of 20 Paragons right, but then again would be silly and pointless.
Same as above - it should be the case, but supply/fuel is too little of a factor to change much in this scenario. It is far easier to just add 20% extra supplies and have a fleet that is simply stomping anything without much thought.

By the way - adding in tugs doesn't change anything in terms of fuel consumption. Afaik fuel is consumed "per light year", meaning that you're going to burn the same amount of fuel, no matter how fast you're going. What you're going to save, however, are supplies when you are traveling. The less time you take to travel given distance, the less supplies you're going to use.
So adding in tugs is actually saving you supplies, as you will save time (and therefore supplies from bigger ships).

Because OP is obviously playing with tons of mods...

No. Vanilla. Also I feel like you're trying to be antagonistic for some reason. Could you stop?

Spoiler
Ignoring that the opening poster spent half the post talking about himself, what does min-max even mean in starsector? Your character points can be used slightly more or less effectively possibly, but this is not character based RPG. It's a pretty freeform game. You have to set yourself artificial goals and even then there are artificial measurments. For instance if you have sufficient income you can sustain 30 Onslaughts flying around in a circle forever. There's nothing to minimise and maximise. That said 7 Capitals and several OX tugs (how many???) seem suboptimal to me, but then again what is optimisation? It's an artificial goal. Can the OP even fight the biggest bounties and the biggest expeditions without losing a ship? That too can also be an artificial goal too.

This is the only response I will make to posts like these. Few things:
- The reason I explain my background is exactly why you do not understand the point of my feedback. If you're not interested in mechanics and enjoy game as-is - why are you even responding? I feel like what you're doing is poor attempt at ad hominem, trying to imply I'm self-centered and therefore what I'm saying is not worth considering. Please don't do that.
- If you have nothing to say about things I'm mentioning, please refrain from responding at all. All you're doing is saying "your point is invalid because I think it is". Everything is artificial goal and nothing matters - how can I even argue against something like this? The answer is that no one can (nor should, and I won't), because your response contains no points, simply trying to tell me that my point of view is wrong "because of reasons".
- I'm here and I can read this... you don't have to call me "OP", I'm Perq, nice to meet you.

As I mentioned - unless you have something to say about actual points I've made, refrain from responding further, as I'm not interested in such borderline trash-talk.
[close]
« Last Edit: January 28, 2020, 11:14:31 PM by Perq »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2020, 01:32:00 AM »

Because OP is obviously playing with tons of mods...
No. Vanilla. Also I feel like you're trying to be antagonistic for some reason. Could you stop?
Come on, it was such an obvious /s . No need to call me antagonistic just because you didn't get the joke (while it clearly says at the bottom I often joke).

Funniest part tho is saying that Plantissue was trash talking you and throwing ad hominems, you just need to mention the Dunning Kruger effect and you have the whole genius package. Dude was right, you're just giving feedback, we don't need an opening of your background like this is some big speech for an award. Literally no one cares you completed Minecraft on survival mode and got a victory royale 100 times, that doesn't make your feedback any more important that the rest of the community. I just get annoyed at these kind of people. inb4 ''you're being antagonistic''
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2020, 01:51:08 AM »

About capital ships being too good. Well they better be *** good since they're so expensive and have bad logistical stats.
Well, not really. A capital ship can cost the same as 4 destroyers to deploy, and they can definitely wipe out far more than 4 destroyers on the field. They also have strictly superior fuel and cargo capacity compared to smaller ships. Fleet size has a hard cap of 30 ships, that can be a swing of several thousand cargo capacity and fuel compared to flying small. It may not be as efficient, but it can keep a fleet going.

4 destroyers by cr, 7.5 by fuel. Only the Odyssey brings enough fuel to compare to destroyers logistics profile. An Onslaught has 7.5 months of supplies and 26.6 ly of fuel. A hammerhead has 10 months of supplies and 30 ly of fuel. Adding Onslaughts to your fleet will lower logistics range compared to an even DP of Hammerheads.
Logged

Perq

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: New player feedback
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2020, 02:35:50 AM »

About capital ships being too good. Well they better be *** good since they're so expensive and have bad logistical stats.
Well, not really. A capital ship can cost the same as 4 destroyers to deploy, and they can definitely wipe out far more than 4 destroyers on the field. They also have strictly superior fuel and cargo capacity compared to smaller ships. Fleet size has a hard cap of 30 ships, that can be a swing of several thousand cargo capacity and fuel compared to flying small. It may not be as efficient, but it can keep a fleet going.

4 destroyers by cr, 7.5 by fuel. Only the Odyssey brings enough fuel to compare to destroyers logistics profile. An Onslaught has 7.5 months of supplies and 26.6 ly of fuel. A hammerhead has 10 months of supplies and 30 ly of fuel. Adding Onslaughts to your fleet will lower logistics range compared to an even DP of Hammerheads.

True, but I think that this difference is too small. While using Hammerheads there is quite a lot bigger chance to lose one of them, which leads to far bigger costs.
In general, having your units "centered" in one means there is lower probability of losing parts of it. Especially when shields can pretty much render them immune to damage (with enough flux/shield efficiency). And that is fine if there is a counter-play for that.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3