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

Author Topic: Underpowered Ships  (Read 22638 times)

Faiter119

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2012, 02:12:59 PM »

The Buffalo could be fixed if it had another medium missile mount. Pilums scale well - a double launcher would be able to pressure any frigate, at least a little bit. In convoys they might actually be able to survive...

Well it is getting a speed and maneuverability update next update. So it wont be such a piece of useless garbage.
Logged

DJ Die

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2012, 02:16:34 PM »

i guess speed should help before it was just too slow to stay out of trouble and given its lack of shields it couldnt survive one the trouble it hadnt evaded......
Logged

Catra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2012, 02:44:04 PM »

The Buffalo could be fixed if it had another medium missile mount. Pilums scale well - a double launcher would be able to pressure any frigate, at least a little bit. In convoys they might actually be able to survive...

Well it is getting a speed and maneuverability update next update. So it wont be such a piece of useless garbage.

that isn't going to save it from my point blank reaper barrage. <.<

nor is it going to make me re-think about plowing through it's escorts to blow it up so the formation gets scattered.

also it's only getting bumped up to 80, which means that frigates are still going to be able to hunt it down, so nothing about is is going to change.

IMO the problem with the thing is that it isn't durable, a missile support ship doesn't really -need- speed since it doesn't need to get close to deliver its payload.
Logged

zakastra

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2012, 03:45:17 PM »

With the buffalo argument, a lot of people are trying to compare the buffalo MKII (a freighter with some missiles strapped on, civilians/pirates cooked up because they had nothing better to stick the missiles to) against specialist role combat warships.

Its like comparing a caravan some hillbilly survivalist modded and stuck a hatch on top with a couple of AK's and comparing it with a hum-vee and a challenger 2 main battle tank.

Yes it has no reason to be in a hand picked fleet, just as you wont find retooled caravans in an armies main lines (unless that army is a ragtag force using dregs and cobbled together trash), But those caravans would exist in a post collapse mad max scenario, sure tanks are better, but how many hillbillies can get their hands on tanks?

The buffalo MkII has a role In universe and in lore, being what desperate people make do with, when they only have hope, spit, and grandad's left over Pilums. When the campaign is properly fleshed out, don't expect to see these in any organised military fleet, but DO expect to seem them in the hands of pirates, small merc factions, and the odd small independent station/colony's defensive "fleet"
Logged
Oh DRM, bane of the carrier captain...

Mattk50

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2012, 07:34:35 PM »

Remember how it has zero extra quarters, and very little cargo and fuel zak. Its not only useless out of combat, but its useless in combat too. Which means, if you want to balance it without changing any stats, price needs to be adjusted. Right now, using your analogy, its the price of a main battle tank except with the usefulness of a homemade battle segway.
Logged

zakastra

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2012, 03:25:29 AM »

Remember how it has zero extra quarters, and very little cargo and fuel zak. Its not only useless out of combat, but its useless in combat too. Which means, if you want to balance it without changing any stats, price needs to be adjusted. Right now, using your analogy, its the price of a main battle tank except with the usefulness of a homemade battle segway.

Well, extending the analogy a caravan with a hole cut in the top for guns, filled with crates of ammo and grenades, isn't going to make very comfortable or rain-proof living accommodation is it, It ceases to be one thing (mobile accommodation) and becomes another (a really terrible weapons platform) Just as the Buffalo MKII ceases to be one thing (a passable freighter) and becomes another (a really terrible weapons platform)

The buffalo is not supposed to be useful in or out of combat, what it is, is the last ditch effort to turn a freighter which has zero combat usefulness into something that has ever so slightly more than zero usefulness. It expense is probably due to spares resale or just scrap metal value ;). Right now they are not supposed to be balanced, and certainly not supposed to be bought by the player, they are kind of designed to be captured and sold, for a decent amount of coin, as there are no combat free methods of generating income.
Logged
Oh DRM, bane of the carrier captain...

Jonlissla

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2012, 04:16:26 AM »

Right now they are not supposed to be balanced, and certainly not supposed to be bought by the player, they are kind of designed to be captured and sold, for a decent amount of coin, as there are no combat free methods of generating income.

No, it's not "designed" to be dead weight and sold off at the nearest station. It's an underpowered and useless mess of a ship with an expensive pricetag on it. If the community itself treat the ship as a joke because of how bad it is, then something is kind of wrong.

Right now, using your analogy, its the price of a main battle tank except with the usefulness of a homemade battle segway.

This.

Seriously, just this. I can accept its bad stats as long as the price reflects that, but it doesn't. Therefore, the ship is broken and unbalanced.
Logged

WKOB

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Odobenidine Benefactor
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2012, 04:25:07 AM »

Who cares? FFS you're acting like the game can't possibly go on if the Buffalo Mk2 isn't made to your silly standards of balance.

Alex has much better things to do than change a singular value of a single ship.
Logged

Mattk50

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2012, 04:31:26 AM »

Who cares? FFS you're acting like the game can't possibly go on if the Buffalo Mk2 isn't made to your silly standards of balance.

Alex has much better things to do than change a singular value of a single ship.

No, he isn't, he's annoyed at the logical inconsistencies of of the post he replied to. Nobody is going to die if the buffalo isn't fixed, the same way that the campaign is a placeholder but we can still talk about future features. Oh, and his silly standards of balance are completely correct and i havn't seen an argument against them other than "its worth that much in scrap" in which case why do any of them exist in the game world in any form other than scrap.

It's not up to you to decide Alex's priorities. Nor ours, but we weren't trying to.
Logged

WKOB

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Odobenidine Benefactor
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2012, 04:42:30 AM »

I didn't decide his priorities, I said he had better ones; that's not even reasonably arguable.
Logged

Mattk50

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2012, 05:44:56 AM »

Ignoring the idea that it would probably take likely minutes to make a change like this, its simply not relevant. Alex has the best estimates of how long everything would take to implement and what everything does for gameplay value, so its essentially his job to decide these things. People post on these forums to point out potential ideas or problems, not to be badgered by a fool who pretends everyone in disagreement thinks the game is dead if their tiny suggestion isn't implemented.

Oh wait, i just realized you were working on the idea that development was completely sequential and the time vs gameplay worth ratio didn't exist. Isn't that funny.
Logged

WKOB

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Odobenidine Benefactor
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2012, 06:31:00 AM »

Hostile, much? I just think this thread is a waste of time. I'd be surprised if any of the ship's stats are the same as they are now when the game is released.

Hell, most of the stats will probably be changed with this very next patch with balance changes brought upon by two completely new game play mechanics.

If you want a silly debate find something worth doing it for.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #42 on: July 29, 2012, 10:11:25 AM »

Guys, guys - let's tone it down a bit. Who'd have thought the poor Mk.2 Buffalo could elicit so much emotion!


I suppose I might as well say what I think about it. It's meant to be a punching bag, for now. It's not utterly useless in the player's hands, but not something I'd consider credits well spent if you were to buy it. The upside of the price is that they're worthwhile to capture and sell. Making it cheaper might make it more useless - you probably still wouldn't buy it, given the availability of better ships and the disadvantages it has - but now it wouldn't be worth the trouble of selling, either. As it is, they're nice little packets of credits to snap up in the early game, and given where the game is currently at, I think that's just fine.

I'll revisit it (and everything else) when there's an actual economy in the game - at which point making it economically viable will make sense. If it really bothers you and you want to reduce its price right now, editing ship_data.csv for this is trivial. Go ahead, I won't judge you :)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 10:14:11 AM by Alex »
Logged

hadesian

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
  • It's been one of those days...
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #43 on: July 29, 2012, 10:48:52 AM »

I'm deadly certain a player would make a fortune supplying MK 2s to a newly founded independent system. That's eXploitation right there
Logged
Changes as of May 24, 2013
  • Reinvented Starsector.
  • That is all.

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Underpowered Ships
« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2012, 08:10:26 PM »

Personally, I think part of the Buffalo 2's problem is a combination of poor weapon selection, and a lack of understanding of its own fragility - it tries to conserve ammo from its small missile mounts, when it should be burning those shots early and often just to try to stay alive.  Plus, nine salamanders is overkill; one launcher on each side should be more than enough.

I'm tempted to just mod them to have 3x swarmer...
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5