Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: ubuntufreakdragon on May 10, 2020, 05:39:50 PM
-
Locust SRM Missile:
The primary goal of this missile is to counter Carriers, but carries get unlimited reinforcements while the Locus has limited ammo.
I with for a slow regeneration like 1missile/sec (which is very slow given its weapons rate of fire) to make it more useful in its primary role.
It's already fragmentation dmg so there is only a little chance of this being exploited.
Commerce Industry:
Doesn't feel like an industry more like a structure, it only offer benefits if the player visits that colony which is quite rare.
On the other side all other industries provide a passive benefit.
btw. why do you have to pay taxes here, your faction are the one who takes the taxes.
Techmining:
It would be nice if it would work as a weak source of metals supplies and organics, depending on the ruins density.
Think of it as recycling the ruins that have been searched already.
How about having the waystation store small amounts of heavy machinery transplutonics metals violates and marines in the stockpiles as these are resources needed by the player as well?
Administrators definitely need to be buffed given Alpha Core can be farmed in Remnant space.
You should be able to hire more than limit administrators at a cost e.g. doubled upkeep.
Administrators may be buffed by governing a solar system instead of only a colony.
Administrators could be leveled up.
A damaged synchrotron item would be a nice addition to the loot tables.
The just drop to often for their price and should be on par with Nanoforges.
Safety Procedures 3 skill should remove the CR penalty of the Traverse Jump Ability as well it you happen to have it.
It would be nice to have skills to increase your fleet size and deployment points slightly to distinguish more between one ship and fleet playstyles.
E.g. each Fleet Logistics lvl allows 2 additional ships.
Electronic Warfare 2 reduces the enemies deployment point base on the ECM values of the hole fleet. lvl 3 allows you to steal these points instead. up to~20 points.
Coordinated Manoeuvrers 2 and 3 could give +15 deployment points each.
two more skill point for your main char would be nice being forced to have at least one skill not at lvl 3 just locks bad.
How about a one time respec item as reward e.g. for the red planet.
How about to Expand the Hegemony Auxiliary list, Larger fleets need larger supply you know.
-
Locust murders frigates and weaker destroyers. Also puts a big dent in battleships that lost armor. Locust is an all-purpose weapon. That said, I would not be opposed to ammo regeneration.
Commerce will be changed. Rather, income will be nerfed (high stability will not give more income next release), and Commerce will be required to get that lost income back. But it will come with a big stability penalty.
Techmining used to produce commodities, and attracted expeditions left-and-right as a result. Expeditions are bad early in the game.
Player can respec whenever as long as he has story points next release.
-
Techmining:
I have another idea about that:
We already have some faction settings like fleet doctrine etc. I suggest to add some new settings to reflect your faction's attitude for some things. Like:
- Tech attitude. You can set it to "dislike/doesn't matter/like". The higher your attitude to technologies, the lower will be your relations with Luddic Path and Luddic Church. Also, higher attitude will increase the cost you are ready to pay for technologies. What does it mean:
1) Your citizens can find some technologies on the planets with ruins. If you dislike tech - they will probably sell what they found on the black market. If you like tech - you will pay big reward to those, who found new tech (literally means: you get blueprint/something else in the storage and lose some money). If your attitude is on average, then there are some chances.
2) Random space explorers can find some technologies in abandoned research stations ect.. They will want to sell em for maximum price, but also will count with the distance they need to travel to sell the thing. So, the chances that you will get new tech will be based on combination of your planets accessibility and your attidute to tech (cause it affects prices).
And then we just delete techmining as an industry, cause we dont need it.
- Migration attitude. Can be set to "no/between own planets/everywhere". Will affect population growth. Migration means: people want to live on planes with better QoL (less hazard rating, less tariffs/taxes etc). If you set it to "no", it means, you spend no money and people need to pay for travel and new home on their own. If you set it to "between own planets", you will support those, who want to travel between your colonies. And "everywhere" means, you allow migration to other factions, who also allows this. Migration between factions also will make espionage easier (if only the game will get this mechanics, but Nex already has it)
Some unhappy people can migrate to other faction's planets. Some will become pirates.
- Free port. We changing the attitude to criminals from single colony to entire faction. Works as it does already: -to stability, but +to accassibility. And makes some factions mad. Also rises the chances black market will be created on your planets, but increases chances, that it is created by your own gouverment and will give you some profit anyway.
- Tariffs/taxes. You can set em to "low/mid/high". The higher the tafiffs, the more money you will get, but your people will be sad.
- Worker's salary. Again: "low/mid/high". Higher salary means bigger upkeeps for industries, more people happiness, lesser spawn of availiable space crew on market, cause nobody wants to risk their own lives having good payments. Also high salary will increase goods prices, because of inflation (if the demand is bigger than offer). Low salary can result in lesser industry effectiveness (less people wanna work than industry needs).
- Security payments. The bigger they are, the lesser chances to become spy victims, the better chances to find luddic cells and information about them, the lesser percentage of unhappy people will become pirates, the better ground defences on planets. But also bigger upkeep cost.
-
Allow pollution and decivilized modifiers to be removed legally from colonies (I know about the double colonize exploit), for quite some cost.
If many fleets meet in one battle e.g. 2 defending player AI fleets 3 large pirate Armadas and the player fleet there should be more than 360 deployment points in total as such a fight takes just too much time, how about adding up all deployment costs of all fleets subtract 1000 divide by 3 and add the result to the total deployment points.
If you have a diverse fleet with some slow capitals and some fast frigates, those frigates could fly ahead and map the path such that the slower ships could fly with less evasive actions,
e.g. new burn lvl = old burn + (average burn - slowest burn)/2, this would make frigates more interesting in late game, also it should have a higher effect in slowing surroundings.
It would be nice to have a medium energy weapon that's a bit better against heavy armor, maybe an anti armor beam a smaller version of the high intensity laser.
Beams could deal a small proportion of their damage as hardflux e.g. 25%hard 75%soft, at least the graviton beam should get some hard flux.
-
It would be nice to have a medium energy weapon that's a bit better against heavy armor, maybe an anti armor beam a smaller version of the high intensity laser.
Excuse me what? There's loads of weapons already good vs armor, shields are the problem. Heavy Blaster, Phase Lance, Mining Blaster are all pretty good vs armor, and that's almost half of the medium weapons...
-
You can increase maximum battlesize by modifying the Starsector\starsector-core\data\config\settings.json file. Change "maxBattleSize" value to whatever you want.
The reason why beams have such high range is because they don't deal any hard flux at all. Otherwise, high-tech ships could just kite enemy ships to death with their superior range and mobility.
-
It would be nice to have a medium energy weapon that's a bit better against heavy armor, maybe an anti armor beam a smaller version of the high intensity laser.
Excuse me what? There's loads of weapons already good vs armor, shields are the problem. Heavy Blaster, Phase Lance, Mining Blaster are all pretty good vs armor, and that's almost half of the medium weapons...
This is why high-tech without ballistics (or plasma cannons) suffer so much. It is either Sabots and Expanded Missile racks plus energy weapons, or few weapons with max capacitors and vents, plus all of the flux boosting and shield efficiency hullmods. High-tech ships with only one or two weapons and every other mount empty is almost as bad and stupid looking as unarmed carriers.
Alex revealed his new anti-armor SRMs. How about some for anti-shield (that are not lame like Squalls with awful tracking and not enough ammo, and more AI-friendly than Sabots), if there will not be any anti-shield energy weapons worth using?
-
Beams could deal a small proportion of their damage as hardflux e.g. 25%hard 75%soft, at least the graviton beam should get some hard flux.
That would make it most powerful weapon ever. I mean it. They are already good. In suppression role they are already best among all energy (and even most of ballistic) weapons. I already imagine Paragons and Odysseys armed entirely with HIL and GB + advanced optics.
Making 25% hard flux to beams as an expensive hullmod (with some kind of debuff, maybe) is much better idea.
-
Gravitons have 2 roles:
- full soft flux pressure, which only a Paragon is good enough at. Though Paragon has only 2 slots to spend on Gravs (universals are better used for ballistics even on 4xTL Optics build).
- flux debuff to reduce enemy weapon flux usage while you are using other hard flux weapons (Eagle, Falcon, Aurora, Radiant).
I wouldn't bother to pay for expensive hullmod for either of these scenarios for just 25% hard flux. It would take ages to kill anything with that (even if quite unavoidable when used against slower, short ranged ship), you'd just run out of PPT/CR.
-
Full beam aurora can put out 1125 dps of 1000 range soft flux (without skills) which is enough to overpower most ships. Not really worth the 30 DP though IMO.
-
Not really worth the 30 DP though IMO.
Exactly the point. Plus, a 4xTL Paragon can exploit AI quirks to kill ships when it actually can't push through shields (other Paragon or Radiant), beams Aurora is absolutely useless against large ships with good shields.
-
Not really worth the 30 DP though IMO.
Exactly the point. Plus, a 4xTL Paragon can exploit AI quirks to kill ships when it actually can't push through shields (other Paragon or Radiant), beams Aurora is absolutely useless against large ships with good shields.
I think if you full spammed them it would be good, but I'm too lazy to try it. Two of them is enough to outflux a maxed out paragon pretty much.
-
AI lacks persistence with full beams builds, letting enemy dissipate for just few seconds is a huge total time loss.
Paragon can have around 2k dissipation and 0.45 shield ( hardened) before skills. And Auroras would be vulnerable to getting focus fired. Or Paragon could just vent in their face, tacs+gravs are not much against armor.
-
AI lacks persistence with full beams builds, letting enemy dissipate for just few seconds is a huge total time loss.
Paragon can have around 2k dissipation and 0.45 shield ( hardened) before skills. And Auroras would be vulnerable to getting focus fired. Or Paragon could just vent in their face, tacs+gravs are not much against armor.
Just tested it for fun: 2 auroras with full beams, base OP and 70 CR vs sim paragon and also 4xTL paragon. I didn't have the patience to let it play all the way out, but 2 auroras seemed like they were winning easily when I gave up. The auroras are just never in any danger, they can flank at will and since they have such a mobility advantage, they do a fairly good job of staying in range. In both cases when I gave up, the auroras had taken no damage and the paragons armor was cracked/ it was taking hull damage. Once the armor is cracked, 14 tac lasers and 6 gravs do 1650 hull dps which is respectable, although it doesn't necessarily line up with the spots the armor has cracked. I don't think the paragon can ever win. The 4x TL paragon actually fares quite a bit worse because it is too slow to line up all 4 TLs and usually just wastes a bunch of flux firing the hard points (the variant had them all linked I think). Aurora has really good shields (and my variant had hardened shields and a decent number of caps too) so it could tank multiple 4x TL bursts without much issue. The paragon also builds up a lot of flux itself by using fortress shield and firing its weapons so the auroras don't need to flux it out just by beam pressure.
If I was going for a true beam spam fleet, I would just mix in some sunders with HIL which would speed things up a lot, or a beam paragon. I think beam aurora on its own is bad, but beam stacking doesn't scale linearly and in a fully committed beam fleet, I think it would be one of the best ships you could add. Beam aurora is virtually invulnerable and probably provides the most soft flux/DP of any ship.
-
Checked out myself, there are several problems for AI Paragon here:
1) Most important: suicide by fortress shield. 2 Auroras can't really overflux it (tested by just disabling autopilot with shields up), but fortress shield can. Without this Auroras would have gotten nowhere.
2) Attention split: AI doesn't focus 1 Aurora at a time, splitting weapon fire between them and often rotating in between. Aux Thrusters are quite useful too.
3) 4xTL is a player ship build, at least for anything more than lazy long range support.
Player piloted 4xTL can win by intentionally letting the TLs build up high flux on itself. This makes Auroras unwilling to retreat despite own high flux. Since I already know that only my own weapons can raise my flux levels, it's actually safe as long as I'm cautious.
This one of fundamental AI flaws, it reacts to percentile flux levels comparison. Which can be suicidal against far superior opponent like Paragon.
-
The augmented drive field logistical hullmod could use a combat buff, too.
e.g. +20 max speed in combat +some acceleration. (After all you are using better engines in your ships)
And a smaller Version offering half the boost for halved cost would be nice to speed up cruisers a bit.
How about a XIV Legion Blueprint, as it exists it's unrealistic the Hegemony forgot how to build it.
Allow us to give priority for weapon types as we can do for ship types, for faction fleets and stations, if we know the weapons blueprint.
Converted Hangar could add Carrier Slots based on the hull size, as it's cost increase by it.
-
Augmented Drive Field (formerly Augmented Engines) used to boost combat speed for many releases, and it (and Unstable Injector when it did not reduce shot range) was a no-brainer hullmod for many ships to take. Even during 0.8.x, when it penalized shot range but not carrier stats, it was a no-brainer hullmod for carriers. Currently, it is mostly useful for phase ships that do not care about shot range. Combat speed hullmods without significant penalties are huge game changers.
I would like a cheaper +1 burn mod that non-civilians could use (and does not stack with ADF).
I would like a Legion14 blueprint just so we have (more) ships that can use Hammer Barrage (and Cyclone Reaper) effectively. Griffon cannot use it well because it is too fragile to brawl at the frontline. Legion14 is a sidegrade to normal Legion. It is not overpowered enough to feel like a special ship.
I prefer Converted Hangar have static OP cost like Operations Center.
-
I would like a cheaper +1 burn mod that non-civilians could use (and does not stack with ADF).
Yep, that.
Current ADF puts some ships out of consideration simply because they can't hit right Burn speed bracket. For example ADF Paragon at 9 burn (or any other base 7 burn capital) doesn't combine with 8 burn of Conquest/Odyssey, while pushing the latter to 10 is waste of OP.
-
I think the game could use another combat speed hull mod because unstable injector in its current state isn't really useful outside of civilian ships so they can run away faster and maybe phase ships. I would like a +speed Hullmod with a more palatable downside. Something like reduced armor/hull would make sense to me, or even weakened shields, although that one might hurt too much.
It feels to me like the loss of range offsets the benefits of increased speed since you move faster but take longer to get into range (and take damage while you are approaching) which makes balancing that downside pretty challenging.
-
I think the game could use another combat speed hull mod because unstable injector in its current state isn't really useful outside of civilian ships so they can run away faster and maybe phase ships. I would like a +speed Hullmod with a more palatable downside. Something like reduced armor/hull would make sense to me, or even weakened shields, although that one might hurt too much.
It feels to me like the loss of range offsets the benefits of increased speed since you move faster but take longer to get into range (and take damage while you are approaching) which makes balancing that downside pretty challenging.
Well that's the whole point of speed hullmods, speed is such an important stat you really have to pay with something equally important. That's what makes it niche and not a no-brainer choice. Because with your suggestion it's either gonna be an autopick on high tech ships or low tech ones. And if it's a slight nerf to both, then it's gonna be worth on everything lol, even more so on glass cannon like Sunder and Conquest. So yeah that's really a touchy thing in general. I wouldn't want another UI on every ship meta.
+1 to weaker ADF, Mk II capitals may even be decent in early game then.
-
In older releases, Unstable Injector's penalty was quad(?) damage taken to engines, while Augmented Engines doubled repair times. Did not do much to stop kite-and-snipe of combat ships that could maintain range and speed superiority. (At the time, fighters were ships and carriers were outfitted as gunships with less guns.)
Current ADF puts some ships out of consideration simply because they can't hit right Burn speed bracket. For example ADF Paragon at 9 burn (or any other base 7 burn capital) doesn't combine with 8 burn of Conquest/Odyssey, while pushing the latter to 10 is waste of OP.
Not to mention various cruisers (with burn 8 ) that cannot comfortably afford Augmented Drive.
-
I think the game could use another combat speed hull mod because unstable injector in its current state isn't really useful outside of civilian ships so they can run away faster and maybe phase ships. I would like a +speed Hullmod with a more palatable downside. Something like reduced armor/hull would make sense to me, or even weakened shields, although that one might hurt too much.
It feels to me like the loss of range offsets the benefits of increased speed since you move faster but take longer to get into range (and take damage while you are approaching) which makes balancing that downside pretty challenging.
Well that's the whole point of speed hullmods, speed is such an important stat you really have to pay with something equally important. That's what makes it niche and not a no-brainer choice. Because with your suggestion it's either gonna be an autopick on high tech ships or low tech ones. And if it's a slight nerf to both, then it's gonna be worth on everything lol, even more so on glass cannon like Sunder and Conquest. So yeah that's really a touchy thing in general. I wouldn't want another UI on every ship meta.
+1 to weaker ADF, Mk II capitals may even be decent in early game then.
Is survivability/defense not equally important? Surely you could reduce survivability enough to make an interesting decision and not a no brainer. The point I was trying to make is that losing range offsets the benefits of speed directly in a lot of combat scenarios rather than creating a tradeoff, so the hull mod doesn't really present an interesting decision. If the range penalty was smaller, then it would suddenly become a no-brainer, there's very little middle ground. I think reducing survivability might be a more interesting trade off.
Also, I would say current unstable injector is closer to useless than niche.
-
Is survivability/defense not equally important?
Not even close mate, not even in the same category. You don't need defense if you can evade everything that's a threat to you. By your logic Conquest would be a horrible ship, while in reality that's far from the truth.
-
Conquest would be a horrible ship
It is, dude, it is*.
*In AI hands. It is serious threat only in player's hands.
-
I always seems to come back to the conquest. It has to be the most derisive ship in the game.
I've made in work in AI hands well enough. I feel it most benefits the title of battlecruiser as it isn't quite a battleship, but it's certainly no standard cruiser.
-
I don't get how often people trash AI Conquest but praise Odyssey like the ultimate ship. In my experience AI Conquests do more work and die less despite being cheaper and much easier to find. By cheaper I mean less DP.
-
Is survivability/defense not equally important?
Not even close mate, not even in the same category. You don't need defense if you can evade everything that's a threat to you. By your logic Conquest would be a horrible ship, while in reality that's far from the truth.
No, by my philosophy, the conquest is a reasonably balanced ship (and an interesting and unique one) because speed and survivability can be reasonably traded off... If the conquest was terrible, that would be evidence that survivability was more important than speed and if the conquest was overpowered, that would be evidence that speed is more important than survivability.
-
AI Conquest is good enough. It can use loadouts I want to use competently and survive. I prefer it over Onslaught because Conquest is more mobile and Locusts last significantly longer than quad Annihilators.
AI Odyssey, at least the plasma cannon loadout I would use if I pilot it, has a death wish. It burns into a mob just like Onslaught would, then dies faster because of weaker defenses. Only if I give it beams and missiles, and maybe autopulse in the rear large, that AI hangs back far enough for its system to not be a suicide move, but such loadouts have less firepower than I want. I would have less problem with Odyssey if AI was not so suicidally stupid with plasma burn and short-range weapons (like plasma cannons). Also, even if I use plasma cannons on Odyssey, I need to leave most mounts empty (including the large synergy) to have enough flux to power two plasma cannons for a while and brawl like a battleship, and it is almost as stupid as unarmed carriers.
Also, I would say current unstable injector is closer to useless than niche.
It is niche. Great for Harbinger (it needs either Unstable Injector or x4 time shift to be fast enough to outflank enemies), and great for Reaper Afflictor (unfair glass sword wielded by player to assassinate key targets).
Also, Harbinger's Quantum Disruptor has annoyingly short range. Longer shot range is not very useful if Harbinger cannot drop enemy shields because QD has less range than the guns.
-
+1 to weaker ADF, Mk II capitals may even be decent in early game then.
I would not want current ADF weakened to +1. Sometimes, the +2 ADF is exactly what I need (like if I try to go to the fringe with a single large ship). However, it would be nice if there was also a cheaper +1 version for non-civilians.
-
+1 to weaker ADF, Mk II capitals may even be decent in early game then.
I would not want current ADF weakened to +1. Sometimes, the +2 ADF is exactly what I need (like if I try to go to the fringe with a single large ship). However, it would be nice if there was also a cheaper +1 version for non-civilians.
That's exactly what I said? I'd be mad to suggest a nerf to an already super costly hullmod.
EDIT: To make myself clear, I was simply agreeing with the suggestion of having both options in the game.
-
@ Grievous69: "+1 to weaker ADF" could be interpreted to mean, yes, weaken ADF by lowering the bonus from +2 to +1 (and maybe lower OP cost). At least you clarified you really did not mean that.
-
I like current UI on frigates/destroyers in the early game, when I'm not using SO (usually AI ships). This is because the enemy I'm most likely fighting are swarming pirates: in that case having extra speed to avoid getting swarmed is a lot more important than stand off range.
-
Speed is king in this game, followed by range. Anything that boosts combat speed becomes "must-have" if it doesn't have a downside. Unstable Injector negates some range because the two work hand-in-hand. The only hullmod to improve speed (with no tradeoff) that I could reasonably get behind is extra speed at 0-flux. Once the fighting gets going, it loses its effect but once you're out of harm, you can chase down stuff. That would also keep carriers from abusing it. It would be most helpful on Capitals (where it would contribute a greater % of their top speed).
I would really like a +1 Burn hullmod. +2 Burn is overkill on anything but a Capital but is still necessary for them. +1 Burn at half the OP cost would fit the bill and make a lot of slower ships more manageable.
-
Also, I would say current unstable injector is closer to useless than niche.
It's close to autopick for frigates - most frigates will never outrange anybody in meaningful way, so it's better to stop trying and capitalize on high speed instead.
Same for any size SO loadouts, as long as you can afford OP cost.
I'd also use UI on player-piloted Medusa, or any early DE while I have no ITU yet. Probably larger phase ships too, if I ever used them.
I agree that it's mostly useless for non-SO cruisers and capitals.
-
Also, I would say current unstable injector is closer to useless than niche.
It's close to autopick for frigates - most frigates will never outrange anybody in meaningful way, so it's better to stop trying and capitalize on high speed instead.
Same for any size SO loadouts, as long as you can afford OP cost.
I'd also use UI on player-piloted Medusa, or any early DE while I have no ITU yet. Probably larger phase ships too, if I ever used them.
I agree that it's mostly useless for non-SO cruisers and capitals.
You don't have to outrange something for range to be useful. Increased range means you take less damage on approach before you can start dealing damage. Range lets you play at safer distances and take less 'standoff' damage which I find to be very helpful for the AI. The AI is pretty terrible at utilizing speed in my experience. For my flagship, I've never felt like a SO ship needed more speed, I'd much rather have more guns and vents, and I pretty much always run out of OP before mounts/dissipation. My SO ships are almost always SO + hardened subsystems + good weapons and vents with no room to spare.
Also, I feel like in the early part of the game where frigates are somewhat relevant, they can still be somewhat competitive in range, even if they aren't explicitly outranging things. Maybe I'm not giving enough credit to UI, and maybe I'm biased by late game, but it just doesn't seem very useful to me.
-
AI conquest is very good but not so much better than a Griffin that its terribly worth it. Double MIRV and any long range kinetic is a great combo for the AI
-
How about a flux venting penalty for UI e.g. -30/60/90/150 venting (just copied flux distributors values) instead of range.
The range mod dedicated targeting core is obsolete as the integrated targeting unit has the same cost but better buffs.
The Ox Tug could take an additional ordnance point to allow two logistical hull mods.
The defence platforms of star fortresses could rotate closer to the station, to make them less easy to snipe and give defending fleets more maneuver space.
The hardened subsystems mod could be a bit better at reducing the safety overrides PPT penalty, due to stacking you only get 13% base PPT I think it should be at least 25% base PPT.
When setting a weapons group to alternating that contains weapons that fire constantly e.g. Graviton beams and burst weapons e.g. a kinetic gun, the alternating should apply only to those weapons that are affected by it.
The skill that allows for zero flux boost at 1% flux could get lifted to 5% there are many weapons which can cause more than 1% flux in one salvo.
-
Dedicated Targeting Core is accessible to everyone from the start, ITU is loot.
The downside of SO is the PPT penalty, if you could just spend OP to get rid of it that's not a big enough penalty.
The 1% 0-flux speed boost skill is basically for being being able to run shields and still be fast.
-
The 1% 0-flux speed boost skill is basically for being being able to run shields and still be fast.
It's mostly an AI crutch, AI keeps shield up way more than is anywhere near optimal.
There are also some builds that can at least operate PD and lighter weapons without breaking 1%, with heavy weapons used manually (example - dual plasma Odyssey).
-
The 1% 0-flux speed boost skill is basically for being being able to run shields and still be fast.
It's mostly an AI crutch, AI keeps shield up way more than is anywhere near optimal.
There are also some builds that can at least operate PD and lighter weapons without breaking 1%, with heavy weapons used manually (example - dual plasma Odyssey).
It's worth noting that once upon a time (I *think* this changed between 1.9.1 and 1.9.1a?- It could have been earlier though I don't remember) it also allowed carriers to set fighters to engage without losing the speed boost. That was too strong for vanilla balance as it made the skill mandatory for carriers.
-
Yes... encountering a Heron with that skill was a nightmare just because of how well it could run away.
-
Yes... encountering a Heron with that skill was a nightmare just because of how well it could run away.
Then why not have it not effect carriers when fighters are set to engage? Or full on have a different effect for carriers?
The skill is pretty crap right now because it needs to either be crap to not make carriers more OP or it is useful on other ships but makes carriers even worse
-
It could even be interesting for launching/replacing fighters to produce flux on a carrier. Then at least they could have their stats buffed up to that of gunboats due to needing to support the average flux costs of operating wings.
-
Replacing fighters could create hard flux.
I want this 5% to make pursuing carries easier not to make them run away even faster.
How about a Tractor Beam (Geater Brother of Graviton beam) e.g.
Large ~20Op
250 Kinetic dmg/s
200 flux/s
1000 Range
If armor or hull is hit the target will be dragged toward the firing ship based on hull size(main engines can counter it but not basic backwards trust)
How about a Missile based point defence:
Mosquito missile Defence System
Small ~5Op
100frag dmg
Very Fast
Excellent Tracking
1500 Range
limited Charges
rate of fire 1/s(1/3s)
Or a smaller High intensity Laser
Medium ~10Op
200 HE dmg/s
200 flux/s
1000 Range
-
Or a smaller High intensity Laser
Medium ~10Op
200 HE dmg/s
200 flux/s
1000 Range
That will ruin all the energy/ballistic mounts balance to the hell. Imagine tempest with graviton beam and that?
I believe, just medium energy beam (similar to tac laser) with energy damage and decent damage to flux stats, wold fit better.
And it would be nice to have real energy artillery thing. Like 1200 range with projectiles bigger, stronger and slower than plasma. Bad flux efficiency as a price for armor cracking capabilities at that range.
-
Respec Officers.
Better Distress Call Rewards(you are risking a pirate trap so a fleet offering you a nice ship for you help or something like that would be nice)
Rapid firing burst weapons like heave Needler could get their alternating fire fixed.
Option to stockpile resources at colonies.
No sat bombing independents.
-
Odyssey could use another shipsystem, Plasma burn may be nice in Player hands, but it's a press to suicide button for the AI, Maneuvering Jets, Phase Skimmer or Phase Teleporter would perform better in AI hands. Also a buildin surveying equipment would fit the Odyssey.
Broadside Ships AI should be fixed in Combination with frontshield hullmod.
14Legion could get it's large turret changed to composite.
Missile Autoforge could regain a charge by consuming a destroyed ship.
Selling blueprints to official markets could allow this faction to use said blueprint.
Conquest could use a slightly larger shield arc.
Idea for a new fleet size limit:
Military ships cost 2,3,5,8 fleetpoints by size civilian 1,2,3,5, you have ~150 fleetpoints to spend (numbers are based on the fibonacci series, which is often a very good fit for balancing),
this way you could use e.g. 30 military cruisers or 75 military frigates or 18 battleships, if speed reduction in nebulas would be based on average speed of the fleet this would make small ships way more interesting.
Respecing officers for storypoints in both skills and personality would be nice, you often find good offices with personality not matching skills (e.g. rekless + carrier skills).
A tactic screen allowing to define rules for the AI when to do what would be nice: (Dragon Age Origins is a nice example)
1 Enemy Overloaded -> Fire Harpoons
2 Enemy combinedflux > 90% -> Fire Tachion Lances
3 hard flux < 25% -> close in
4 hard flux > 75% -> goto 7
5 combinded flux > 75% -> activate fortess shields
6 allied flux > 75% -> shield it
7 hard flux > 75% -> retreat form frontline
Officer lvl could increases the max length of the ships tactics.
Offset Pather interest by -LP Reputation.
Additional Commission effects: Tri Tach friendly Remnants Hege Licenced AI Use (no checking expedition AI doesn't dare to go rouge) LC lower Pather interest ...
Factions that don't offer commissions shouldn't sat bomb on territory conflicts.
Autofire should respect alternating fire settings.
Dispatch hardflux at 10% rate with active shields could be changed to convert hardflux at 10% dissipation rate to make it more useful when still firing weapons.
Time between deterioration and decivilization should be increased.
Armed Timer for Sabots to make them less useful as a dagger.
-
Odyssey could use another shipsystem, Plasma burn may be nice in Player hands, but it's a press to suicide button for the AI, Maneuvering Jets, Phase Skimmer or Phase Teleporter would perform better in AI hands. Also a buildin surveying equipment would fit the Odyssey.
I'm going to have to disagree with this one. Odyssey is amazing fun to pilot. We shouldn't alter a defining feature for a ship simply because the AI can't handle it.
I think it might be better to make it less punishing for the AI to use. For instance, getting rid of the collision flameout would help with some of the suicidal burns. Or maybe add like a temporary shield strength buff for the duration of the plasma burn to give a slight boost to survivability. Or, even better, Alex could just change the AI; plasma burn only in low-risk scenarios.
Time between deterioration and decivilization should be increased.
I think this is interesting in that the player might actually want a shorter deciv timer. On the one hand I hate pirates decivilizing the core and making me babysit every planet and would like more time to respond to the notification. On the other, decivilizing Chalcedon (and kanni and olinadu) and then colonizing it makes for an excellent core system base.
A nice middle ground could be a system used by Nex, where AI sends out stabilization fleets that the player can intercept. If AI were set to always do this when the notification hits, then the player could be essentially confronted with a decision - either ignore it and let the planet be stabilized or intercept the fleet. This way, the pace in which a planet decivs due to pirates is extended but the player can shorten it again with some aggressive fleet piracy. Alex should in general adopt some of the AI faction fleet mechanics used by Nex - the stabilization and expedition fleets that kill pirate bases do an excellent job of protecting the core.
-
Odyssey does need some work. Although mildly funny when it suicide burns into the middle of the enemy ships, the damage caused is usually superficial. Also, quite an expensive tactic to maintain. The way the AI handles the ship currently a different system would be the easiest fix for this, yet I must admit I'd prefer an AI that can handle Plasma Burn better.
I'd second the suggestion of increasing decivilisation timer. Once you get the notification about the deterioration of a planet you are basically unable to do anything, unless you're right relatively close to the planet with the right resources readily available. In the same regard I much prefer the Nexerelin planet invasion method to the "workaround" of decivilising a planet and then recolonising what remains. It always bugged me, that in vanilla (in the perspective of the player) you can either:
1. Bomb the everliving cr*p out of the planet and its populace
2. Raid and pillage until all semblance of civilization is dissolved, then rebuild on top of the ruined cities of the former inhabitants
But to turn back to the original point, I think decivilisation timer should be increased. Or alternatively, timer can stay the same, if the factions can muster a more effective defence (have defence fleets spawn quicker, or simply make them stronger, or something similar), hence making deterioration less likely to occur.
-
I do not use Odyssey because AI kills itself with it if I give it mostly hard flux weapons (and it barely stays away from the mob with mostly missiles and beams). It is worse than Onslaught and Burn Drive because Odyssey lacks the defenses to withstand a mob from multiple directions.
Plasma Burn is great for playership, but terrible for AI. It is almost like Accelerated Ammo Feeder on Hammerhead before 0.8a, when it also increased flux use. It is tolerable on Shrike because it is cheap, but Odyssey is too expensive to be a suicide ship.