Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Updated the Forum Rules and Guidelines (02/29/20); Blog post: GIF Roundup (04/11/20)

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 52

Author Topic: Starfarer 0.54a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 317546 times)

Uomoz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
  • 'womo'dz
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #105 on: September 21, 2012, 05:51:04 PM »

I don't see your point. Those mods have penalties because they are balanced like this.

Think it this way, a mod that gives +5 to something can also be presented as a +10 to that stat and -5 to another. In the end all mods will give generally +5 as they are balanced. It's not about popularity (???) plus I don't see any nerf (as nerf is something that gets depowered over time, while mods were always like this).

EDIT: Just watched the video. It's talking only about Multiplayer, as indeed that concept of imbalance is very important in multi player games (I'm a captain of a Dota2 team so I know well enough about strengths and counters and general imbalances). That do not apply in a system where your enemy DO NOT react to your "imbalance" though, so a balanced environment is better fitting.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 06:02:54 PM by Uomoz »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4158
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #106 on: September 21, 2012, 06:16:20 PM »

I just saw this all happen before where whatever was good was nerfed until you were flummoxed by indecision because everything was terrible. 

I think it's not about good or bad, but about how a hullmod benefits a certain tactic you wish a ship to perform, and if the hullmod en- or discourages you to do so. If any hullmod is so powerful that you simply must build a sniper/tank/speedster to compete, the balancing is off. If you want to go with a certain tactic but cannot because of a terrible hullmod that would be needed, it is off as well.

If all hullmods were trying to archive the same thing (f.e. make the ship a good brawler) your concern might be legitimate, but they do not, so there's no need to worry...
Logged

Ghoti

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #107 on: September 21, 2012, 06:49:48 PM »

My dear flying lord. I am reminded of trying to convince flash frozen about the photon repeater. Gong show.
Logged

Catra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #108 on: September 21, 2012, 07:05:22 PM »

it...kinda is about good or bad:

it's better to be indecisive about something when everything is good ( EG: do you want a tank ship to tank with it's armor or shields? ) than being indecisive because everything is so bad that you just don't want to use them and just get ships that do what you want naturally ( EG: instead of kitting out a lasher with aug engines, i'll instead get a wolf which can just tele across the field. )

in regards to the change:

why does the aug engine need such a hardcore downside, when the other mods that support other playstyles do not? why do people that want speedy ships have to get hit so hard if they choose to not want to be locked into a specific ship set?

Logged

Gaizokubanou

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #109 on: September 21, 2012, 07:10:35 PM »

Then why don't all hull mods have penalties.  The only reason I can think of is penalizing popular mods because they're popular.

It's just an alternative way of balancing out hull mods.  Higher OP cost or weaker speed boost effect would have worked just as well.  Which is more fun?  It's probably different for everyone and it's hard to say which is more fun for most of us.

But I guess that doesn't really answer what Catra asked; what's so different about improved engine that only it warrants this completely unique way of balancing?  Perhaps Alex wants to add penalties to other hull mods in the future?  I don't know.
Logged

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
  • Go.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #110 on: September 21, 2012, 07:19:53 PM »

There's more than one mod with a penalty. It's not just auggie engines...

The penalty isn't even that harsh. It can be mitigated with several other hull mods just like before...

If you don't want to get relegated to a specific set of ships you have to pay the Piper. Making all the ships capable of everything the exact same is boring.

EDIT: I see the auggie engines change as a BUFF even. You are now faster and better at evading, so the prospect of taking the damage that would shut you down for longer is now actually less. It's much better than getting slapped with an arbitrary flux fine.
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Ghoti

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #111 on: September 21, 2012, 07:32:22 PM »

wuh wa.. WAIT

You thought the augmented engines change was a NERF?

Who thought that was a nerf?

That's going to be required equipment from now on.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 16580
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #112 on: September 21, 2012, 07:45:27 PM »

in regards to the change:

why does the aug engine need such a hardcore downside, when the other mods that support other playstyles do not? why do people that want speedy ships have to get hit so hard if they choose to not want to be locked into a specific ship set?

I think it's a very minor downside, actually. If your engines are getting hit to the point where they're flaming out, you've got bigger problems. What I want to do there, though, is create more risk for a kiting-focused style augmented engines enable - yeah, you can kite better, but you have to be a little more careful. Or, on the flip side, your <insert bruiser ship> can get at the enemy faster, but you have to watch your back a bit more.

The point is to try to make picking it something other than a no-brainer. Speed is just so important, and it's hard to balance a speed-giving hull mod with OP alone. Not saying it's perfectly balanced - but I do feel the downside of it is getting blown way out of proportion.

Ultimately, downsides allow more and better choices. Both because you have to account for the disadvantages, and because you now have more hull mods you can pick, since they cost less OP. Of course, you could instead have cheaper pure-upside hullmods with smaller bonuses, but I think that'd be less interesting - more pronounced changes to the ship are more interesting to consider.

Edit: I don't mean to imply that more choices is always better. It just comes down to - and I hate to even say it - something as nebulous as playtesting and tweaking it enough to make the choices "fun". Obviously that's subjective. On a related note, I'm actually going to look through hull mods in the near future and make some adjustments.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 07:59:42 PM by Alex »
Logged

Catra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #113 on: September 21, 2012, 10:17:33 PM »

Quote
I think it's a very minor downside, actually.

 a minor downside is more along the lines of heavy armour :

- low tech ships because they're slow anyway and they have goods arcs to the point where unless you -really- need to look forward, it's not going to be a performance hit.

- mid line ships because they have their jets.

- high tech because they are maneuverable enough to the point where even if they take a hit, they can still perform fairly well.


possibly sitting uselessly in space for much longer and having to be more overly critical about everything elses positions (enemies, allies, missiles, allied missiles, etc) and your fleet possibly being denied some heavy firepower for even much longer, when compared to pretty much getting free armour and just being more reckless and relaxed, is a fairly huge downside, and a much more unfair one to the player who wants a more faster fleet than the player who wants a more meatier fleet.

going further with this example:

in the previous(current? i suppose) aug engine downside, you didn't have to pay as much to get back to where you were (if you so desired to do so) and maybe get a little more than that, with this, you cannot.

also, with the vent cut, it wasn't down to luck / incompetence (either on your part or the AIs). you could prevent an overload by shutting down the shields and backing off to vent, however no amount of eye laser glares or harsh words would get those missiles to not slam into your engines, or those pesky ships to not mess up your rear.

for heavy armour users, you can get XX% more maneuvering for w/e amount of OP with somewhat no downside(may or maynot have to sacrifice some heavy OP guns for it), this bonus was MUCH more higher than the amount of venting you could get.

this was fairly ok, as just like the heavy armour downside, you could cancel it out (or not worry about it altogether, in some circumstances), however now you cannot and you have to pay significantly more to lessen the effect whereas heavy armour ships can get a rather large gain.

inb4 "if heavy armour is so great, why doesn't everyone use it then": different styles are different, i could live / workaround my ships not turning as well. some people may not.*

Quote
If your engines are getting hit to the point where they're flaming out, you've got bigger problems.

not really, there have been far far far far far more times when tele-ships / flanking ships / missiles have gotten lucky  to do JUST ENOUGH for me to flameout and make me drift uselessly and my fleet got denied their heavy support firepower, than situations where my engines cutout in / lead to fatal situations, in which case 2x repair rate is redundant unless the enemy ships suddenly get a severe case of OOOOOH SHINY! and leave me be and disperse.

inb4 " my experiences are different! you're doing it wrong / stop trolling / play the game ": such is the way of games like these. naturally mine are going to be different from yours, whats happening to you isn't the same that's happening to everyone else.*
 
Quote
but I do feel the downside of it is getting blown way out of proportion.

and i feel you're vastly downplaying it so people just go along with it with the least amount of fuss, your blanket statement above kindof proves that.


* not specifically aimed at you alex.
Logged

StahnAileron

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #114 on: September 21, 2012, 11:03:55 PM »

Personally, as soon as I read the Flux hit for Aug Eng was swapped for 2x repair time on flame-outs, I was thrilled. Mind you, as others have apparently mentioned, some may not like the change. However, considering my play style - mobility: hit hard, fast (both speed-related), and as often as possible (for me, flux-related) - this is something of a godsend for me.

I tend to use Hi-tech ships (or any ship with a wide shield cover thanks to the blessed Fixed-Shield hullmod; makes some more ships viable for my play-style), so if I ever get a flameout, that's my own damn fault for not watching my butt like I'm supposed to (and normally do.) Hi-tech vessels practically live and die by the flux stats (well, at least IMHO with my play style), so I rarely took aug engines for my mainline combat ships unless the loadout I had on them was relatively gentle on the flux vents. (I did give all my freighters aug engines though, namely to help keep up my fleet speed on the sector map.)

Honestly, it could have been worse: Aug Engines could've made flame-out easier to achieve ^_~ Well, not really sure what would be worse:

  • Flame-outs for twice as long at the current occurance rate (current change in/for 0.54a)
or
  • Flame-outs at the current length, but twice as often (my above remark/comment)
Logged

Catra

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #115 on: September 22, 2012, 12:04:20 AM »

i found vents to be inferior to capacity on high techs, i always hit the flux ceiling earlier than if i took capacitors mostly due to how you're a shield tank, the hard flux catches up much faster making any venting irrelevant( could've sworn there was a good thread somewhere where this was discussed and concluded that venting > capacity for low techs, venting = capacity for mid lines, and venting < capacity for high techs. :/ ).

if anything, this is going to help low / mid line ships, since they relied the most on venting and aug engines shafted them the hardest.
Logged

StahnAileron

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #116 on: September 22, 2012, 01:10:02 AM »

I understand what you mean. However, since my play style is a bit more speed-based, the venting and speed go hand-in-hand for me on a couple ships due to how I outfit them (at least for human control. AI is another matter entirely.) I know that Flux Cap is a bit more important overall for Hi-tech ships, but since I rely a bit more on speed, I use my speed advantage to get in, unload, get out, vent (QUICKLY), repeat (dodge/evade as needed/possible).

A high Flux Cap with low Flux Vent is actually fairly detrimental when you finally do need to vent off built up flux, IMHO (and some experience). I honestly prefer flux venting over flux capacity in most of my builds. (I'm actually a bit opposite for my mid-/low-tech: I tend to prioritize flux cap for my low tech ships; they are designed to take armor hits better than hi-tech.) I like to stay in forced venting mode for as LITTLE as possible. As I recall, force venting [V-key] doubles your vent rate for the duration of the venting.

I find focusing on vent rate is a bit more offensive-oriented (venting flux as quickly as possible to offset the build up so you can fire more continuously, even at/near max flux cap.) Flux cap focus is more of something I use for my more defensive/tank designs. Though I will admit I'm making a very broad generalization about my play style. It depends on the ship and loadout as well. As an example, what you mentioned is perfectly valid and true when I'm sitting in my Paragon. On the flip side, I prefer vents over caps on my Hyperion.

Anyway, I do see your point.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4158
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #117 on: September 22, 2012, 06:51:28 AM »

and i feel you're vastly downplaying it so people just go along with it with the least amount of fuss, your blanket statement above kindof proves that.


Ich schmeiß mich weg!
And I feel you try to make it sound as if Alex was some kind of evil dictator, trying to raise our taxes and cut our liberties  and sell it to us as progress, and you are the only one to notice. Is that how you feel?


Besides, the numbers a clear: On a eagle you need 13 Op to cancel the current effect, but only 9 for insulated engines, which cancels the double engine damage. On a Aurora the difference is 22:9. On a Medusa 10:6. On a tempest 6:3. On a Paragon 32:15.  So it's clearly a buff for Augmented engines.

Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4601
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #118 on: September 22, 2012, 07:47:28 AM »

When I read the Aug engines change I literally started cackling in glee. For my playstyle its a huge buff (I am solidly in the vents > capacity camp for about 80% of ships, and for the other 20% its a mix). I understand that for other people it is less of a buff.... but simply by the numbers it is purely beneficial.

...
Aw yeah! Seems like stuff is pretty nailed down now, release soon?

Not quite :) These are initial skill implementations - now I get to spend lots of time tweaking things until they feel right. There are also a few other things I want to get into this release. Or, at least, am seriously considering.

Any change of a .53.5a with just the fighter AI changes :P? (Yes I'm kidding, I'm just super excited for them!)
Logged

The Soldier

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3738
  • Quartermaster
    • View Profile
Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #119 on: September 22, 2012, 07:52:33 AM »

Seems as if I missed a lot.  More debate?  Could I join in? ;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.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 52