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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 57

Author Topic: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 368217 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #60 on: June 12, 2012, 12:51:44 PM »

Alex, I think you missed one of my questions:

Quote
Quote
Removed key binding for raising flux on purpose
Aww, that was a slightly useful ability in very rare cases, to raise flux and thus damage without firing at nothing. Oh well, it wasn't that important.

Is the function still in, though? Can I still bind it to a key if I really want it for some strange reason?

Ah, I did indeed. No, you can't bind it anymore - it's gone.


Ah, but with Burn Drive, these ships become quite good at bullying smaller ships. It's a bit of a bull vs matador thing, but the matador doesn't always win. If a frigate gets behind it, the ship can get away. If a frigate is in front of it, it can close the gap with frightening speed. It's an awesome system, with tons of combat utility, especially vs smaller ships - and, lets face it, the main problem for these ships was mobility, not firepower or armor. Burn Drive is a tool to overcome that limitation. It's got some downsides (no turning, no shields) but without those it would be incredibly OP.
Hmm. How much speed does it add, anyway? How long does it last? Can you cancel it?

The flameout chance only comes into play when you hit something as big as your ship or larger.
Is that defined by the class, the mass, or the size in pixels?

Right now, it adds 200 speed, and lots of acceleration. 1 second ramp-up, 4 second duration, can not be cancelled.

Flameout possibility is determined by size class, and by mass in the case of asteroids (only an issue when they hit frigates, but no frigates have Burn Drive, so that actually doesn't come into play at all).
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #61 on: June 12, 2012, 01:22:26 PM »

The infernium injector got cut - could never nail down what it was supposed to do, in a satisfying way (it was meant to be a high-tech movement enhancer, akin to Burn Drive, but different).

Well, you've got something that fits that bill quite nicely: the phase skimmer.

Yeah, good call - the skimmer is indeed the "spiritual successor" to the injector - it's on the same two ships the injector was supposed to go on.
I call shenanigans!  The preview video you posted clearly showed an infernium injector on an Aurora!
...Yes, ok, so that's slightly tongue-in-cheek.  Still, I find the notion of the High Energy Focus on the Aurora to be an odd choice; it can't mount the long-range energy weaponry (HILs or lances) needed to avoid the drawbacks, nor does it have the armor or hull to survive for long with its shields down - even without the extra 50% damage taken.  It's not useless, of course; you can get some good value out of it against overloaded targets or things that you're flanking... but I'd still find the phase skimmer or fortress shield to be a more fitting choice.
...Speaking of which, you may want to consider some more complicated algorithm for "is this ship fire support" than just "does it have any weapon with extreme range" - because Auroras really shouldn't be held on the back lines until they run out of MIRV ammo.


Quote
High Energy Focus - boosts energy weapon damage by 50%, increases damage taken by 50%, can't use shields

    Sunder, Aurora, Odyssey

I'll have to wait to play this and see how it goes. In my mind either 50% extra damage or no shields would be appropriate. Of course I'll probably eat those words the instant I switch this on and gore an overloading enemy to death. My main concern, like a lot of other people, is how this will affect the Tachyon lance. Because of the range tachyon Odyssey's will have no downsides to this ability...

Alex, how do you feel about the Tachyon lance?

We'll see - there hasn't been an awful lot of playtesting, beyond just making sure the systems "feel" good. I have to admit, I hadn't considered the "Odyssey with Tachyon Lances and always-on HEF" angle - but was already thinking of reducing Tachyon Lance range to around 3000 (from 5000). Definitely something to keep an eye out for, though.
My suggestion would be a mix of reduced range (4000 was what I tested) with either further increased flux generation, or less damage; part of the issue, I think, is that the last balance pass, while it did increase flux generation some, also (due to a bug fix on burst beam weapons) increased the lance's damage output by about 50%.  (I think?  Don't have the game in front of me, but if it's still listed as 200 sustained DPS, that's 50% more than it had before.)

As for a "ship around a weapon", I've been thinking about that a bit - came up early on during this dev cycle. *IF* that happens, it probably won't be handled through ship systems. You actually could do this with a mod - easy enough to strap any kind of weapon onto a hull using the same functionality that, say, the flare launcher uses - but the problem would be in making the AI use it. Needs a bit more thought on my end.
We have a ship around a weapon: the Sunder.  We will have another one with this patch: the Omen.  In fact, if I was setting up ship systems, I'd give the Paragon something akin to the Omen's EMP Emitter, spewing lightning bolts from an orb of energy generated in that curious hole in the middle of the ship...
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Faiter119

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #62 on: June 12, 2012, 01:32:52 PM »

Sooooo i guess this means the Omen is finally in the campaign?
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #63 on: June 12, 2012, 01:48:55 PM »

I think you should add small, red lightning arcs to the Burn Drive active engines. Would look hella awesome and you've already got the lightning fx working for the Omen, yeah?
Logged

Jonlissla

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #64 on: June 12, 2012, 02:00:41 PM »

... especially the Buffalo MK2. Jesus Christ, it's about time it got a buff. Mind telling us how much more speed and manueverability it recieved?

The top speed is 80 now - not great, but no longer horrible. It's still not a good ship, and really isn't supposed to be one.

It's less than mediocre, every other combat ship in the game outperforms it in every way. Speed buff, great, flare system, even better, but if you yourself say that it's still not a good ship then why have it in the game? Variety is always good, no doubt about that, and every ship has its place but for the Buffalo that place happens to be on the scrapyard. Have you considered turning it into a pure missile platform instead? That small energy mount at its front is rather misplaced so it could be switched for something else.

I just want it to have a role that doesn't involve rushing to a station and getting rid of the damn thing as fast as possible.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #65 on: June 12, 2012, 02:06:04 PM »

If everything is special than nothing is! Sometimes you have to have a few less-than-ideal ships - 'sides the Buffalo has decent cargo capacity and can be sold for a good amount when full repaired.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #66 on: June 12, 2012, 02:10:26 PM »

...Yes, ok, so that's slightly tongue-in-cheek.  Still, I find the notion of the High Energy Focus on the Aurora to be an odd choice; it can't mount the long-range energy weaponry (HILs or lances) needed to avoid the drawbacks, nor does it have the armor or hull to survive for long with its shields down - even without the extra 50% damage taken.  It's not useless, of course; you can get some good value out of it against overloaded targets or things that you're flanking... but I'd still find the phase skimmer or fortress shield to be a more fitting choice.

The idea there is to emphasize its role as an offense-oriented ship. A phase skimmer could work to that end as well, but in general, large ships teleporting around seems too powerful. One could go many different ways when assigning ship systems (do you shore up a weakness? emphasize a strength? specialize a ship in a role, or give it more flexibility?), and in many cases, I don't think there's one right answer.

...Speaking of which, you may want to consider some more complicated algorithm for "is this ship fire support" than just "does it have any weapon with extreme range" - because Auroras really shouldn't be held on the back lines until they run out of MIRV ammo.

Yeah, good point.

My suggestion would be a mix of reduced range (4000 was what I tested) with either further increased flux generation, or less damage; part of the issue, I think, is that the last balance pass, while it did increase flux generation some, also (due to a bug fix on burst beam weapons) increased the lance's damage output by about 50%.  (I think?  Don't have the game in front of me, but if it's still listed as 200 sustained DPS, that's 50% more than it had before.)

Hmm. Increasing flux generation on the Tachyon Lance is more like to improve its fire support performance. All that does is make it less viable as a close-range weapon. Reducing the damage might be a good idea... well, I'm definitely keeping an eye on this - it seems too powerful as-is, even before the HEF system.


Sooooo i guess this means the Omen is finally in the campaign?

Yep.

I think you should add small, red lightning arcs to the Burn Drive active engines. Would look hella awesome and you've already got the lightning fx working for the Omen, yeah?

Ah, it's not so simple. There's lightning and there's lightning, and we're probably visualizing different things besides - I'm having trouble picturing lightning along with the engine effects, and it looking coherent and good. Also: that lightning is designed to only be used in a few places, i.e. with appearance rather than performance in mind.


It's less than mediocre, every other combat ship in the game outperforms it in every way. Speed buff, great, flare system, even better, but if you yourself say that it's still not a good ship then why have it in the game? Variety is always good, no doubt about that, and every ship has its place but for the Buffalo that place happens to be on the scrapyard. Have you considered turning it into a pure missile platform instead? That small energy mount at its front is rather misplaced so it could be switched for something else.

I just want it to have a role that doesn't involve rushing to a station and getting rid of the damn thing as fast as possible.

How shall I put it... it's not a good ship, and it's not supposed to be. When character skills and such come in, you might be able to make something presentable out of it, and it could make a reasonable short-term stop on your way to something better. With how the campaign works *now*, with the lack of character skills and the ease of acquiring better ships, it's simply never going to be all that useful. Some ships are just flat out worse than others, and this is ok.

The speed buff is to make it a bit more of a threat in AI hands - not to make it a particularly appealing choice for the player.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #67 on: June 12, 2012, 02:34:04 PM »

Well, I'm visualizing tiny little bolts of lightning coursing across the engine - sorta like when overloaded but confined only to the engine area. You know, like they're seething/overcharged with power and energy. Maybe the overload fx, with red/oragen tinting, would be better than the lightning fx after all.

Anyways, these systems should be pretty awesome but thinking of early game against Hounds with flares makes me... ?_?
Logged

Kommodore Krieg

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #68 on: June 12, 2012, 03:02:16 PM »

Well, I'm visualizing tiny little bolts of lightning coursing across the engine - sorta like when overloaded but confined only to the engine area. You know, like they're seething/overcharged with power and energy. Maybe the overload fx, with red/oragen tinting, would be better than the lightning fx after all.

Anyways, these systems should be pretty awesome but thinking of early game against Hounds with flares makes me... ?_?

The engines aren't really overcharging though.  They are using travel drives, which would be quite stable as they must be constantly used for non combat travel, in a combat situation. 
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #69 on: June 12, 2012, 03:10:31 PM »

but in general, large ships teleporting around seems too powerful.

And now I'm imagining some ultra-slow battlestation that can, once every few minutes (or even just once per battle), teleport to just about anywhere on the tactical map...  That'd be a fun toy to play with.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

MidnightSun

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
    • About Me
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #70 on: June 12, 2012, 03:15:20 PM »

These all look like a lot of fun :)

One comment though: should the Tempest really be getting Active Flares? With its high speed and omni-shield, it's already nearly invulnerable to missiles, unless fired when the Tempest ventured too close and is nearly overloaded--and now, in that case, it can just fire off its flares. I'll have to try it, but I think it might be OP and make it even easier for the Tempest to kite far larger ships.
Logged

CrashToDesktop

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Quartermaster
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #71 on: June 12, 2012, 03:16:19 PM »

The engines aren't really overcharging though.  They are using travel drives, which would be quite stable as they must be constantly used for non combat travel, in a combat situation.  
This is a game, not a real-life combat simulation like Arma 2.  This is where we can enjoy the marvels of Alex's coding. ;D
Logged
Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.

Cerevox

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #72 on: June 12, 2012, 03:22:09 PM »

I have this vision in my head of a destroyer using the engine boost and pushing against a frigates shield to accelerate the frigate to silly high speeds, then the frigate coasting at those high speeds until it approaches an enemy cap ship and using its phase skimmer to jump in between the cap ships shields and hull, where it immediately unloads its pair of reapers and proceeds to slam into the cap ships just softened side, doing huge collision damage to the hull hp itself.

Would this be possible, assuming I could get the AI to ram my own ship at the right angle? Not saying it would be effective, but it would be hilarious to watch.

Or can frigates with phase teleporters get inside a cap ship's shields? Some of the cap ships have quite a bit of space in there.

Edit: It sounds like the skimmer keeps current heading and speed of the ship, will teleporters also or do you come out at 0 speed or something like that?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 03:26:05 PM by Cerevox »
Logged

PCCL

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • still gunnyfreak
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #73 on: June 12, 2012, 03:28:23 PM »

Can we have Fort shield for aurora? I think it would be useful because it's actually fast enough to get into a favorable position while shielding as opposed to only the paragon who's gonna use it to turtle and little more
Logged
mmm.... tartiflette

Jonlissla

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #74 on: June 12, 2012, 03:29:26 PM »

If everything is special than nothing is! Sometimes you have to have a few less-than-ideal ships - 'sides the Buffalo has decent cargo capacity and can be sold for a good amount when full repaired.

It's a kind of a bad sign if this is the best thing about a ship.  ;)

How shall I put it... it's not a good ship, and it's not supposed to be. When character skills and such come in, you might be able to make something presentable out of it, and it could make a reasonable short-term stop on your way to something better. With how the campaign works *now*, with the lack of character skills and the ease of acquiring better ships, it's simply never going to be all that useful.

If you do have abilities/skills/perks/something that enhanches it, won't these buffs be for all or for specific ship sizes? Right now I'm speculating since these things have not yet been implemented yet, but shouldn't that make every other ship even more attractive compared to the Buffalo?

Some ships are just flat out worse than others, and this is ok.

Absolutely, when it is justified in cost. Talon squadrons are among the weakest ships in the game, but they're brutally cheap and expandable. I completely understand that not every ship is supposed to tackle a Paragon 1vs1, but every ship has a role of some sorts. The Buffalo has nothing really redeemable about it, it's like a flying kinder egg just waiting to be smashed apart and eaten by the player... and its toy being sold to a trader.

My point is, it lacks a role, it lacks a purpose. If it does have a role or purpose and if that is to either be sold at stations or used as target practice, there are perhaps better ways of doing it. Why not let it retain some of its cargospace or fuel capacity, make it a more heavily armed transport instead?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 57