Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex]

Ok, now that the burn-reduction is applied correctly on the attacking player, I must say, its too binary and catch-all.

Frigate fleet with burn 10 and cap fleet with burn 3 both slow down to 1 ... it just feels wrong. Something like reducing max burn by 75% would be better, I think.

Lore-wise, this reflects that the fleet is pretty much stopped while conducting salvage and in general recovering from the engagement. I understand what you mean when you say it's binary, but that's rather the idea. Something like a 75% reduction would effectively be the same thing, just more complex and likely to have a weird edge case or two.

Augmented Engines take less time to repair than before (125% instead of 200%)?  The hullmod description is lying to me - it needs an update.

Oops - fixed that up. But yeah... I'm a little concerned about the +burn hullmods becoming more or less mandatory. Will have to see about that at some point.


@moontan: Thanks, glad you're liking it!

my top 3 new features i like in this update:

* hardened Subsystem: makes flying a frigate a more viable option.
* fleet slowdown after a fight: you got to be more careful when and where you pick a fight
* transfer Command before the fight: very nice option to have.

The new burst pd mechanics are amaaazing! Enemy hounds are living a little longer, but I can live with that to not get smacked in the butt by Salamanders .

All things that came up here on the forum; thank you guys!

[Taverius]

Ok, now that the burn-reduction is applied correctly on the attacking player, I must say, its too binary and catch-all.

Frigate fleet with burn 10 and cap fleet with burn 3 both slow down to 1 ... it just feels wrong. Something like reducing max burn by 75% would be better, I think.

Lore-wise, this reflects that the fleet is pretty much stopped while conducting salvage and in general recovering from the engagement. I understand what you mean when you say it's binary, but that's rather the idea. Something like a 75% reduction would effectively be the same thing, just more complex and likely to have a weird edge case or two.

Mmm, I can see that, the two cases I'm worried about is:

a) frigate fleet too large to disengage, where your burn bonuses are effectively nullified with no way to alleviate the issue.
b) beginning player experience - its incredibly intimidating in the early game when there's lots of small-to-medium pirate fleets around that after you kill that lone buffalo/lasher/hound you found by weaving through a dozen pirate fleets that could splat you every bloody red fleet around homes in on you and you feel like the proverbial sitting duck. learning curve and initial experience intimidation is high enough as it is in this game. beginning players wouldn't know that small fleet vs small fleet you can just disengage, and its just plain scary. I'm also not sure what happens if you're new and your small noob frigate team gets caught by a large pirate fleet.

[Megas]

Oops - fixed that up. But yeah... I'm a little concerned about the +burn hullmods becoming more or less mandatory. Will have to see about that at some point.

Engine hullmods have been mandatory for every ship, except for those few who can teleport (Hyperion in standard).  The easiest way to fix this is to eliminate all speed hullmods.

[Trylobot]

But yeah... I'm a little concerned about the +burn hullmods becoming more or less mandatory. Will have to see about that at some point.

    I've played a game up to level 40 on v0.6a and I have some insight into that. The only ships where I immediately put Augmented Engines on without thinking was on my freighters. The rest of the time it was a very tough decision whether to equip them. Basically the high cost of the hullmod made me ignore it in favor of usage of OP directly for combat (which I think was the intention). It wasn't until my character was much higher level and I had tons of extra OP for each ship that I could consider putting it on more ships as a bonus that wouldn't impact their combat performance too severely. In the same save also, I flew roughly three basic fleet compositions: frigate swarm, fighter/carrier swarm, balanced + battleships. Same was true for each fleet, I really wanted the extra burn but most of the time if I could do it with just Ox tugs, I chose to use the OPs for more combat related things.

In other words I don't think they've become mandatory, but the price should remain high.

[Gothars]

I've played a game up to level 40 on v0.6a and I have some insight into that...

That has been my exact experience, too. The only other cases where I used engine mods were highly specialized pursuit ships and sometimes on a "luxus" capship that was meant only as backup of my real fleet, so it wouldn't slow me down too much.

[DatonKallandor]

Same here - Freighters and ships that I won't ever deploy to combat anyway get the burn upgrades. For combat ships it's entirely a tactical decision - most just don't have the points to spare for faster engines. As I understand it that's working as intended - which I personally like.

[Megas]

At first, I cannot afford Unstable Injector on my Wolf, something I want to rectify as soon as possible.  I start with a mad dash to Technology 7 when I can get Entopic Rangefinder (so my flagship can use superior range to kite), Frontal Shields (so the Odyssey I get later can get 360 shields), ITU, Augmented Engines, and more OP.

I put Unstable Injector or Augmented engines on all of my ships except Hyperion.  Ships bigger than a destroyer are too slow (to pilot or move on the campaign map) without it.  In previous patches, I used both Augmented engines and Unstable Injector on all cruisers and battleships.  Now that I cannot use both, the OP once taken by Unstable Injector gets used to reclaim some of the other things I used to get during the days of +50% OP.

[Fangz]

:D

[Cosmitz]

The mad dash for Tech will be adressed eventually. I can't really see any game i'd rather have Combat 5 instead of Tech 5. Even solofleets, the OP bonus does enough to justify its existence.

[BillyRueben]

The mad dash for Tech will be adressed eventually. I can't really see any game i'd rather have Combat 5 instead of Tech 5. Even solofleets, the OP bonus does enough to justify its existence.

I still continue to believe that the OP bonus just looks better outside combat, while the combat stuff makes things SO much better in combat than the tech stuff.

[Megas]

It is not just the OP that makes Technology good, it is Entoptic Rangefinder perk (lets flagship kite), hullmods and maybe the Navigation skill.  As far as power is concerned, Leadership, namely Fleet Logistics skill, wins hands down.  Increase fleet power by a factor of five with max Leadership and Fleet Logistics?  Yes, please.  But many ships are too slow for my tastes without perks from both Combat and Technology, and I cannot have the best weapons, vents, and hullmods without both max Combat (thanks to Optimized Assembly perk) and high Technology.

I still continue to believe that the OP bonus just looks better outside combat, while the combat stuff makes things SO much better in combat than the tech stuff.

By level 30+, I have more skills in Combat than any other tree.  The various perks in Combat make piloting a big ship fun, instead of intolerable.

[Voyager I]

The mad dash for Tech will be adressed eventually. I can't really see any game i'd rather have Combat 5 instead of Tech 5. Even solofleets, the OP bonus does enough to justify its existence.

The level of ridiculous *** you can do with a highly-skilled Combat character is absolutely enough to make the tree viable.  If I was going to look for a complaint, it would be that the level 5 bonuses are nice but not overwhelming and you need to get it properly maxed out to really start being a rules defying badass.  Once you get that point you're rocking out soloing fleets in a cruiser with 100% cr that goes 200 su with shields and PD on and handles like a sports car and also you have Optimized Assembly so it doesn't really matter that you didn't get the OP bonuses from the tech tree.

I would also say that maybe the missile talents and gunnery implant talents should be exchanged.  It's really frustrating as a tech-based character to have basic missile-usability mods for your support ships require a substantial commitment into the combat tree if you aren't trying to make that kind of character.  It's also probably the only skill that pigeonholes your character into being good with only a singular weapon type (gunnery-related skills help just about everything with a turret), especially with missiles typically being secondary weapons.  Gunnery Implants is somewhat similar; in this case, it's a fantastic bonus that is completely out of sync with everything else in the aptitude branch and unattractive for a tech fleet character.  It's a bearable burden for a combat character because you probably wanted to get tech after combat anyways, but it still seems out of place.

[Histidine]

Even some of the level 5 Combat perks are really good (+25 zero-flux speed boost, half overload duration, 50% faster venting).

I would also say that maybe the missile talents and gunnery implant talents should be exchanged.  It's really frustrating as a tech-based character to have basic missile-usability mods for your support ships require a substantial commitment into the combat tree if you aren't trying to make that kind of character.  It's also probably the only skill that pigeonholes your character into being good with only a singular weapon type (gunnery-related skills help just about everything with a turret), especially with missiles typically being secondary weapons.  Gunnery Implants is somewhat similar; in this case, it's a fantastic bonus that is completely out of sync with everything else in the aptitude branch and unattractive for a tech fleet character.  It's a bearable burden for a combat character because you probably wanted to get tech after combat anyways, but it still seems out of place.

Agreed on all points!

[Megas]

•Battles where at least one side has less than 41 deployment points total will not have objectives, except for escape battles, which always have objectives

This was something I wanted for a long time.  One thing I was not fond of in earlier versions was the interference from objectives, and I just wanted big free-for-alls.  Now it is possible to fight big (non-pursuit) battles without them.  It will be hard (solo battleship is harder than before, due to CR and increased supply use), but possible.

I like that objectives are downplayed overall compared to previous versions.  I am not a fan of the objective system.

Even some of the level 5 Combat perks are really good (+25 zero-flux speed boost, half overload duration, 50% faster venting).

Yes.  I rush for them (and the rest of Combat) after I get Technology 7, and maybe Leadership 1.

EDIT - I refuse to pilot battleships or slow cruisers without the level 5 perk Evasion.  +75% maneuverability from that plus Auxiliary Thrusters makes them turn fast enough.

[rex]

The mad dash for Tech will be adressed eventually. I can't really see any game i'd rather have Combat 5 instead of Tech 5. Even solofleets, the OP bonus does enough to justify its existence.

I still continue to believe that the OP bonus just looks better outside combat, while the combat stuff makes things SO much better in combat than the tech stuff.

just for the piloted ship. The tech tree is almost all fleet wide. Combat is unattractive to me cause a lot of my fleets don't center on me doing most of the damage.

I am very tech heavy, the combat to level 5, a few into leadership so I can run a cap if I want, the 10 tech and then dump into combat. Generally.




Let us all remember, there is a whole unpopulated tree. Skill balance right now is all going out the window once industry gets added, leadership gets some buffs, and we ate able to hire captains.