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 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 54

Author Topic: Starsector 0.65.2a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 325177 times)

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #135 on: December 06, 2014, 01:30:23 PM »

Note about energy weapons: the damage is getting boosted to compensate for the boost change. So at low flux they will be more powerful than present, less powerful at highest flux. This is a significant improvement for the energy PD in particular - more consistent stopping power is much better.

I think everyone proclaiming doom, gloom, and outrage should instead try and be constructive and propose alternate solutions, like the early parts of this thread. Or at least hold off until they can actually play the update. Just because something is different from the present doesn't mean it will be automatically bad.
Logged

Zapier

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #136 on: December 06, 2014, 01:35:59 PM »

I agree, the base boost to energy weapons actually improves the way I tend to use energy weapons. I love using mid-tech ships with ballistic mediums and small energy for point defense. I'd love some sort of reloading mechanic with ballistics to give a varied feel to ballistics other than just stats, but most of the time the ammo definitely wasn't a limiting point for me. I'm also more inclined to now use missiles or even keep ships with a heavy missile focus.

Trying these new changes will certainly be interesting to see how it makes both the AI feel (more missiles, more ammo, more danger) and my own method of play with mid-tech ships.
Logged

Gaizokubanou

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #137 on: December 06, 2014, 01:40:03 PM »

Am I the only one who actually just wants to get my hands on this new changes to see how things play out?  We can theorize designs and mechanics all day but whatever ideas and visions one may had in mind, so little of it survives actual testing.

I'm just excited that it's a big change.  At the very least it'll be interesting to perhaps mix it up (but again, without actually trying it who knows, maybe it'll be largely unchanged).
Logged

miljan

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #138 on: December 06, 2014, 01:41:29 PM »



The point here is, because the dev doesnt know how to improve the AI, he is implementing a limitation in time. And he is doing it only because some people are abusing the AI and are playing a battle for 30 min and kiting *** of the AI. Because of them he is implementing something that will have a direct impact on my play style and how I play. If people want to abuse AI, let them. This is not a MMO where there is some player vs player competition, this is a offline single player game, you will not be able to prevent abusing mechanic (and if they do it for 40 min I dont see any problem with that), and trying to balance something like that with implementing very doubtful limitation is very bad in my book.

So it is bad, very bad. And if dev thought process is like this, I do not know what future arbitrary limitation will come if he can not balance some other mechanics.

The AI and the rules of the game are two parts of the same coin; expecting to have an arbitrarily good AI for *any given ruleset* is simply unrealistic. The two have to work together. Some mechanics, while a good idea in, say, a PvP game, are not something any (reasonably real-time) AI can handle, period. Aside from that, some mechanics the AI has problems with aren't an AI issue to begin with. For example, if you put a human player in a slower ship, they're going to get kited too, so that clearly isn't an AI problem. Of course, the AI could try some tactics to counter that (and it does), but ultimately it's an uphill battle because of the mechanics. Thus, the motivation for making mechanical changes to address the problem. You're welcome to question/disagree/dislike the actual mechanical chages, of course. My point here is that regardless of how you feel about the specific changes, it's definitely more a mechanics issue rather than an AI issue, and that further the two are much more intertwined than one might think. They have to work together to produce a good result.

As far as balance overall, the ideal is that the player trying to play the game optimally is able to have fun. Ultimately that's a large part of games (well, most games) - learning how to play, and improving. If, as you improve, you realize that your best options are un-fun (e.g. kite for 30 minutes), that's a big problem for a game's longevity and replay value. Of course, since we're talking about "fun", that's a subjective call to make.
I hope you are not offended from my posts, as some posters suggested here. I am interested what do you think about the proposal from Venatos few pages ago, where the CR will lower the speed of the ship, aiming and maybe some other things, but will not go as far in the area of malfunction of system or blowing parts of ship health. That way when CR hits the low, the ship will be a lot slower, and so not able to kit anymore, but it will not be a hard limit where things start to go wrong with all system shutting down
Logged

Modest

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #139 on: December 06, 2014, 01:43:20 PM »

Hmm... Hmm... What to say?
I think I like most changes. I think I just love missile changes. I already can't wait to get my hands on those.

I am totally indifrent about CR aplying to most of ships from now on. Questions - will Hardened Subsystems now modifications for all ships that "burn" CR during battles?

Only change which I think I will not like is getting rid of flux dmg. bonus for energy weapons. Why? It is simple - 25% flat bonus for energy weapons is clearly direct buff for energy weapons. Energy weapons will become now better than they were with Flux Bonus in general (yes, I know - I could technicly get up to 50% if my flux would be at max but that would affect rate of fire in most cases and was simply dangerous really), and that part is great for me. What is not great is that Flux Bonus was for me an interesting mechanick while flat 25% bonus is boring mechanic. It just feels like taking something away without contributing it with other interesting in return. Luckyly I see that many has already pointed it out and there are ideas (that have been noticed by Alex) of adding diffrent mechanic for balistic weapons that would be also interesting ("Reloading" ammo, decreasing rate of fire from firing guns too long) so I will say that while I feel that something interesting and good was taken out, I see and greatly hope that there will be something else that will fill void.

Generaly only once I will just sit down and just play game with new changes... Than and only than I will be able to say if what I think I feel about it is true or if it will be totally diffrent. Two things I am really glad of - Alex is not affraid to do big changes and there are no changes that would be changeproof in future ;)

Also there was nice idea somewhere during discusion about adding one more Dmg. Type - Beam Dmg. I must say that it would be awesome to have it! It would help to claryfy things better. I know which weapon is beam and which is not - You know it as well... But it is knowledge obtained by actually using those weapons rather than making "quick glance" at it's statisticks and picture representing dmg. type. If Alex would suddenly brought 100 new weapons and 20 of them would be beam weapons, we would have no idea which are those really without trying them first (good we could do so in simulation) or reading description and hoping info will be there. So I think that this idea of adding representation for another Dmg. Type is good idea.

Ehh... I have headache and don't feel too good so I just hope my post was well organized, presented my point of view in rational, well explained and polite way and most of all - just made sense. Can't wait (actually I CAN wait but... You know, just saying) to try game with those new changes to "solidyfy" my own opinion.

EDIT: WHY? WHY?! WHY?!!! Why had I forgot to add that Question Mark there? It is so troublesome to edit posts just for this... ;) I like to exagerrate small things sometimes :P This was time like that. But lack of question mark where it should be is irritating me. Even more when it happens in MY OWN POST! >.<
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 01:51:12 PM by Modest »
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #140 on: December 06, 2014, 02:22:24 PM »

I hope you are not offended from my posts, as some posters suggested here. I am interested what do you think about the proposal from Venatos few pages ago, where the CR will lower the speed of the ship, aiming and maybe some other things, but will not go as far in the area of malfunction of system or blowing parts of ship health. That way when CR hits the low, the ship will be a lot slower, and so not able to kit anymore, but it will not be a hard limit where things start to go wrong with all system shutting down

(If we're being honest, I was a little bit, but I understand that things can get heated, and appreciate you saying this. So, no worries.)

About Venatos' idea: yeah, I saw that. My thought on it is that I actually really *like* how these malfunctions play out, and they also serve as a clear visual indicator that things are going wrong, which is particularly important if this is happening to a ship other than your flagship.

Consider that in a previous version, low-CR ships couldn't be deployed at all. The current system, where things eventually get really, really bad, is meant to provide a range of options there instead of a hard boundary - you can decide how much risk you're willing to take, and when to bail out. It also makes last-stand type fights more dramatic than simple stat changes.

Basically, the idea is that a ship at 0 CR is not something you can rely on for any length of time. You might get one last thing done with it, or you might not. If they're reliable (even if poor) performers, then it undermines the whole CR system. You'd end up encouraging the player to fight "free" battles with swarms of 0-CR ships against weak opponents. (With that in mind, one of the goals of the hull damage from critical malfunctions is to make sure it's very much not free outside of combat.)

I will say that the complexity of the rules around "peak performance" ticking down is bothering me, though.


Also there was nice idea somewhere during discusion about adding one more Dmg. Type - Beam Dmg. I must say that it would be awesome to have it! It would help to claryfy things better. I know which weapon is beam and which is not - You know it as well... But it is knowledge obtained by actually using those weapons rather than making "quick glance" at it's statisticks and picture representing dmg. type. If Alex would suddenly brought 100 new weapons and 20 of them would be beam weapons, we would have no idea which are those really without trying them first (good we could do so in simulation) or reading description and hoping info will be there. So I think that this idea of adding representation for another Dmg. Type is good idea.

Hmm. One issue there is something like the Graviton Beam, which is a beam but does kinetic damage. Still, something to think about.

Ehh... I have headache and don't feel too good so I just hope my post was well organized, presented my point of view in rational, well explained and polite way and most of all - just made sense. Can't wait (actually I CAN wait but... You know, just saying) to try game with those new changes to "solidyfy" my own opinion.

EDIT: WHY? WHY?! WHY?!!! Why had I forgot to add that Question Mark there? It is so troublesome to edit posts just for this... ;) I like to exagerrate small things sometimes :P This was time like that. But lack of question mark where it should be is irritating me. Even more when it happens in MY OWN POST! >.<

Yeah, it made sense, but it still sounds like you need need to get some rest :) Feel better!
Logged

miljan

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #141 on: December 06, 2014, 02:42:30 PM »

I hope you are not offended from my posts, as some posters suggested here. I am interested what do you think about the proposal from Venatos few pages ago, where the CR will lower the speed of the ship, aiming and maybe some other things, but will not go as far in the area of malfunction of system or blowing parts of ship health. That way when CR hits the low, the ship will be a lot slower, and so not able to kit anymore, but it will not be a hard limit where things start to go wrong with all system shutting down

(If we're being honest, I was a little bit, but I understand that things can get heated, and appreciate you saying this. So, no worries.)

About Venatos' idea: yeah, I saw that. My thought on it is that I actually really *like* how these malfunctions play out, and they also serve as a clear visual indicator that things are going wrong, which is particularly important if this is happening to a ship other than your flagship.

Consider that in a previous version, low-CR ships couldn't be deployed at all. The current system, where things eventually get really, really bad, is meant to provide a range of options there instead of a hard boundary - you can decide how much risk you're willing to take, and when to bail out. It also makes last-stand type fights more dramatic than simple stat changes.

Basically, the idea is that a ship at 0 CR is not something you can rely on for any length of time. You might get one last thing done with it, or you might not. If they're reliable (even if poor) performers, then it undermines the whole CR system. You'd end up encouraging the player to fight "free" battles with swarms of 0-CR ships against weak opponents. (With that in mind, one of the goals of the hull damage from critical malfunctions is to make sure it's very much not free outside of combat.)

I will say that the complexity of the rules around "peak performance" ticking down is bothering me, though.

Ahh, shame. I am not a fan of this, as you probably already know, but lets leave it at that.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #142 on: December 06, 2014, 03:09:22 PM »

Fair enough. Still thinking some of this (and related stuff) through; if you have other ideas, I'd love to hear them.

I'd also like to know what your playstyle is that you feel is going to be affected; is it similar to what Wyvern said about feeling uncomfortable about there even being a possibility of time running out (which is legitimate, but hard to address w/o drastic changes), or do you think you'd actively be affected by a (longer) destroyer/cruiser timer, in battles where you're not deploying a single ship with the goal of kiting an otherwise overwhelming force to death?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 03:12:37 PM by Alex »
Logged

Talkie Toaster

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #143 on: December 06, 2014, 03:27:46 PM »

Er, I just feel I should say: I like the changes to beams, CR & ammo and think the reasoning behind it is pretty great.

W.r.t. a simpler way of handling CR tickdown without needing an array of exceptions and such... if it's to stop enemies baiting out CR by dripfeeding weak ships into the battlefield perhaps the old mechanic of "Take all the points and the opponents can't deploy" could come back into play? Or something like "If the enemy has ships in your deployment zone, you can't deploy more" (or perhaps "You can't deploy any smaller ships"). If you start a fight by committing a handful of frigates that you skirt around the edge of their cruisers, they can just park their fleet in your deployment zone and wait for you to time out and have to flee, handing them the match.

If you let them deploy equally-sized ships when their DZ is threatened, then they're punished for being driven to this by having their reinforcements burn in, shields down, and take a pummelling. This also stops the problem of frigates skirting around the fight to block off enemy reinforcements- if that is a problem, rather than an interesting new tactic. Equally it clashes with your goals to move the combat away from the edges of the map whilst a hard block supports those goals by preventing deployment when combat at the edges is likely.

I've mocked up an example below:
Deployment Zone open

Deployment Zone blocked

It's something that's quite easy to visually communicate, and the concept of a deployment zone is fairly intuitive and "Keep enemy ships out of your deployment zone if you want reinforcements" is a lot easier to communicate than the sets of circumstances in which you do and don't have to worry about CR.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 03:30:51 PM by Talkie Toaster »
Logged

Recklessimpulse

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #144 on: December 06, 2014, 03:39:01 PM »

I'm on the "infinite ammo ruins verisimilitude" bandwagon I read your early replies and I think a better way would be to just quadruple ammo counts for ballistic weapons across the board this would have pretty much the same effect as giving them infinite ammo while leaving an important 'flavor' of the weapon class intact.
Logged

Talkie Toaster

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #145 on: December 06, 2014, 03:39:58 PM »

I feel like a total badass when I take my Medusa (armed with Heavy Blasters, Light Needlers, and LR PD lasers) and destroy Captain RandomJoe's entire fleet for a 200000-credit bounty.  I play all kinds of battles, but the most common type is when I need money and I use a single Medusa, Sunder, or Eagle to destroy a medium-sized pirate or faction enemy fleet for the bounty. 

This upcoming patch will force me to play a different way, and my initial reaction to that is negative.  But is my negative reaction because the changes will make StarSector a worse game, or is it because they will force me to play "properly"?  I've decided that it's the second.  The game will be better for the change, it just won't be the exact game I'm already comfortable with.
I think this is a playstyle that needn't be blocked by these changes, just made dependent on investment in the Combat tree. There's definitely a case for letting PCs fly single ships for super-long battles but only if they've explicitly chosen to make that their playstyle by putting points into a 'Combat Drills' perk that increases their flagship's CR timer or something.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #146 on: December 06, 2014, 03:58:23 PM »

@Network Pesci: Thanks for the detailed description, I really appreciate that. Hmm. Yeah, this sounds like a good thing and not something I want to necessarily remove. Question: do you have an idea of roughly how much time that kind of battle takes?


I think this is a playstyle that needn't be blocked by these changes, just made dependent on investment in the Combat tree. There's definitely a case for letting PCs fly single ships for super-long battles but only if they've explicitly chosen to make that their playstyle by putting points into a 'Combat Drills' perk that increases their flagship's CR timer or something.

That's a really interesting idea. If it's a dedicated skill increasing peak performance time, then it's a question of balancing it against other skills that it's not a no-brainer, but the important part here is that someone that doesn't take the skill wouldn't feel forced into long battles to play "optimally"; they could spend the points elsewhere. For a player that does take the skill, it'll contribute to a feeling of their flagship being durable, which I think is an important psychological component here, too.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #147 on: December 06, 2014, 04:00:02 PM »

Quote
Note about energy weapons: the damage is getting boosted to compensate for the boost change. So at low flux they will be more powerful than present, less powerful at highest flux. This is a significant improvement for the energy PD in particular - more consistent stopping power is much better.
- AND -
Quote
•Increased damage values for non-beam energy weapons by roughly 25% to compensate
Do not mix.  It sounds like only non-beam energy weapons like pulse lasers and blasters will get the extra damage, which is good for the affected weapons now that they will be at a severe range disadvantage compared to beams and ballistics.  Beams will be boosted by more range and cheaper OP costs instead.

Re: Network Pesci
I agree with him that ammo is huge factor, because until I reach level 50+, I often pilot one flagship against entire fleets because I lack the Logistics to support hordes to steamroll fleets.

I pilot a Medusa much like him, except I use free Harpoons or 1 OP Reapers instead (and burst PD instead of LR PD) precisely because I know I will run out of needler ammo.  So far, every gunship I use that relies on ballistics has Expanded Magazines because I do need all of the ammo I can hold.  Once this update comes out, I will have more OP to spend on other things, like Hardened Subsystems.  Also, if Heavy Needler remains unchanged, I will swap it for Heavy Autocannon, because both perform very similarly, except the needler has five times as much ammo as the autocannon, and will be 5 more OP per gun swapped.  (Or, I may use HVDs instead to counter beam ships.)

@ Alex:
Quote
Hmm. One issue there is something like the Graviton Beam, which is a beam but does kinetic damage. Still, something to think about.
Maybe, let Graviton Beam deal hard flux (by retaining old kinetic or energy type), but change it into a burst (non-continuous) beam, so that AI won't be confused by continuous hard flux buildup.  It might mess up its property of messing with other ships' velocity, though.
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3784
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #148 on: December 06, 2014, 05:36:08 PM »

@ Alex:
Quote
Hmm. One issue there is something like the Graviton Beam, which is a beam but does kinetic damage. Still, something to think about.
Maybe, let Graviton Beam deal hard flux (by retaining old kinetic or energy type), but change it into a burst (non-continuous) beam, so that AI won't be confused by continuous hard flux buildup.  It might mess up its property of messing with other ships' velocity, though.
Which is why I suggest a separate indicator for hard flux / soft flux, rather than tying it specifically to beam weapons.  The graviton beam idea is pretty good, though.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #149 on: December 06, 2014, 06:58:57 PM »

Question: do you have an idea of roughly how much time that kind of battle takes?

... I don't have much of a problem with larger fleets, but when I run into a captain that has the same unfair BS powers that I do like "zero flux speed bonus at 25% flux" or "reduce flux while shields are up" it feels like a punching bag just reached out and smacked me upside the head.  ...

I'm glad someone else feels the same way about those skills... its really clear how powerful the level 10 combat skills are when fighting the AI. Levels 1-9: Not all that noticeable. Level 10: Ridiculous power boost.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 54