Removing battle size limits lets the player overwhelm the enemy with pure numbers, which is fine if thats what is fun for you, but it is a severe handicap if the player does have an effective, concentrated fleet.
[...]
removing limits would make that player need more ships, rather than less, to take on the same fleet.
I really hope someone makes a mod to stop the enemy from cheating like this. I feel that would help alleviate a lot of this game's issues.
Also, capturing command points gives you a lot of extra DP, like 60-80 extra DP now. I've been deploying frigates early just to contest command points and it works quite well. You're definitely not stuck at min DP, like in the last release. IMO, that problem has been improved, not worsened with this patch.
The ECM thing is pretty annoying though, and I hope it gets adjusted. Even with the ECM skill, I feel like I have no chance to match enemy ECM. I can't spam officered frigates like the AI can.
I do like that the endgame is a lot harder. It's been much more interesting trying to find things that work, and I've been having a lot of fun.
Anyways deployment should be either just allowed to go bigger into the thousands or redo the way ships are deployed a long time ago. But hey, as long as the option for just opening a txt file and changing a number is there I don't complain too much.
The game clearly balanced around 180 dp max for the player, what's the point of builds and tactics if you can just deploy 10 capital ships to faceroll every challenge. Now small ships have their purpose even at late game.
In addition to that, I went ahead and experimented on just exactly how many ships are needed to match the FP of that exact remnant ordo. 4 additional paragons, 1 astral and a Ziggy later, we are still at max penalty for being the "smaller" fleet.
Than the odd thing come, mid game enemy fleet start growing bigger on both ship size and number, even player with a same fleet size start having DP disadvantage(why do this!?) and player only counter on this is increase fleet size to have a fair fight, at this point player fleet usually start going over the 180pt limit on the skill system. And bounty here is around 150k to 200k, depend on LY this start getting unprofitable for a combat fleet (trade fleet is always broken because of how the system work, how can anyone blame player cheese the trade system when that is the only way player can get profit :P)
...
And this is the problem, Alex want us play with a small fleet(The new skill system) but the way it increase the difficultly is increase both number of ship and size of ship to a double or triple to ideal size player fleet on the new skill system, and on top of that a DP penalty system when player have a smaller fleet(why?), this is just nonsense when this all sum up. Not to mention Golde's situation when ai also have higher ship quality and DP efficiency than player.
half the times, the objectives are in a line in the dead center of the map. With the officer personality changes, remnants actively suicide to trade damage and will only drive forwards.
... and I have my own complaints about enemy officer count and its effect on the ECM skill from a systems design standpoint:
The ECM thing is pretty annoying though, and I hope it gets adjusted. Even with the ECM skill, I feel like I have no chance to match enemy ECM. I can't spam officered frigates like the AI can.
The current non-modded cap is 240 deployment points at max battle slider, if the player gets all objectives. I wouldn't mind the skills being scaled up to meet that instead of being at 180.
Barring mercenaries (which are a very stop-gap measure)...Do you mean a stop gap measure for the player within the campaign to overcome a specific fight, or a stop gap in game balance where you intend to implement something else?
I've seen this occasionally as well, sometimes the objectives are in a line or a very flat U across the middle of the battle field. It can be tough to get to them before the AI, although usually you can get at least 1-2 captured in my experience. I haven't tried farming remnants yet though, so I can't speak on that, but in normal fights, I still usually get 1-2 captured early.half the times, the objectives are in a line in the dead center of the map. With the officer personality changes, remnants actively suicide to trade damage and will only drive forwards.
Hmm, really? They're not supposed to be; if they are it's an issue. I've done a fair bit of testing vs similar strength Ordos as you're showing and objectives were very much key there - and also quite easy to capture the first couple, at least. If that's not your experience, then that'd be something to look at.
Do you mean a stop gap measure for the player within the campaign to overcome a specific fight, or a stop gap in game balance where you intend to implement something else?
I've seen this occasionally as well, sometimes the objectives are in a line or a very flat U across the middle of the battle field. It can be tough to get to them before the AI, although usually you can get at least 1-2 captured in my experience. I haven't tried farming remnants yet though, so I can't speak on that, but in normal fights, I still usually get 1-2 captured early.
sounds good!
Mind telling us why don't we just cap DP at 180 and call it a day then? I'm sure by that point the game would be a lot smaller and would be much easier running on toasters no?
it's a win win.
Hmm, I wonder if making mercenary officers available in groups of 2-4 - when they *do* spawn - might not be a good idea here. Let me make a note.Spending 1 SP to get a bag of several merc officers at once might be good.
In regards to capture point distribution, I think the attached png (cropped for size, but you can see the horizontal nature of the capture points) is what people are refering to. Point Gamma is on the exact midline vertically. Going two lines to it's left is the exact mid point of the map. Delta is farther away from the allied side starting point than Gamma is. (6 lines up and over 2, 6.3 units for gamma, while 6 lines up and 6 lines over for Delta, 8.4 units).
As for opposing fleet compositions, I wonder if it is worth it yet to add more fine tuned difficulty options other than Normal and Easy? Above and beyond any tuning that these release candidates are finding for Normal difficulty. On other hand, I realize that implies more effort in balancing/testing/coding.
Spending 1 SP to get a bag of several merc officers at once might be good.
I started playing before the late game XP curve changes; in those versions, late game SP was just so slow to come by that spending 1 SP for one temporary officer seemed like a nonstarter no matter the bonus XP.
Re: difficulty - yeah, just one primary difficulty mode is hard enough to balance. I'd rather throw in more options that someone that's having a tougher time can make use of.
Re: difficulty - yeah, just one primary difficulty mode is hard enough to balance. I'd rather throw in more options that someone that's having a tougher time can make use of.
Does difficulty affect fleet compositions? The pop-up just mentions damage reduction, sensor range, and extra loot. Personally I'd much prefer a "enemy fleets are smaller" easy mode rather than "you take less damage".
Re: difficulty - yeah, just one primary difficulty mode is hard enough to balance. I'd rather throw in more options that someone that's having a tougher time can make use of.
Does difficulty affect fleet compositions? The pop-up just mentions damage reduction, sensor range, and extra loot. Personally I'd much prefer a "enemy fleets are smaller" easy mode rather than "you take less damage".
Nope, it does not.
I was just curious from the "Can't please all people all the time" with a single game point of point of view. You could at least imagine such a difficulty level that does modify fleet generation. Probably can be modded. The contact system has the potential to satisfy people who like current high end fights while allowing for typical intel type bounties and system restricted Redacted fleets to be toned down. And there's always mods for people who want harder or easier things than baseline. Of which there will always be people on both ends.
The damage reduction is a rather big effect, equivalent to roughly 2-3 additional skills on all your ships (shield, armor, and hull damage reduction). Also, 50% extra loot means being able to deploy 50% more fleet while still breaking even on supplies for the fight (plus extra profit from other drops).
Nope, it does not.
I was just curious from the "Can't please all people all the time" with a single game point of point of view. You could at least imagine such a thing. Probably can be modded.
I mean in terms of a specific fight, though, yeah, hunting up like 4-5 mercenaries at a moment's notice would not be the easiest thing in the world. (I have some other ideas for easier "win a specific fight, if perhaps uneconomically" measures, but... well, not in 0.95.) Hmm, I wonder if making mercenary officers available in groups of 2-4 - when they *do* spawn - might not be a good idea here. Let me make a note.Potential extra sources of Mercenary Officers:
Barring mercenaries (which are a very stop-gap measure), capturing objectives is how you overcome the DP deficit if you really need to get deployment parity to win a fight.
Barring mercenaries (which are a very stop-gap measure), capturing objectives is how you overcome the DP deficit if you really need to get deployment parity to win a fight.
But enemy fleet having 2-3 times normal limit of officers is not some exceptional rare situation. It is the norm of high end bounties.
The thing you're both missing, I think, is how the deployment point allocation works now. It's explained in the tooltip, but having already played the game, it's kind of natural to assume it works the same way as before, look at things in those terms, and become frustrated.
But - what primarily matters is officers, not the ships they're on. Adding an extra 10 Paragons won't help much. 10 Paragons with officers vs 10 frigates with officers also doesn't make much of a difference. If you *really* need a leg up for a tough fight, you can hire some mercenary officers to go above the limit. You're not encouraged to go with a fleet full of large ships because it doesn't help at all. Neither does trying to "match the dp" of the enemy fleet.
Barring mercenaries (which are a very stop-gap measure), capturing objectives is how you overcome the DP deficit if you really need to get deployment parity to win a fight.
The current non-modded cap is 240 deployment points at max battle slider, if the player gets all objectives. I wouldn't mind the skills being scaled up to meet that instead of being at 180.
(Yep - I've actually got a note to raise the skill cap from 180 to 240 where applicable. I think that'll just make more sense as the number to settle on there.)
It is fun to see when people point out a problem about they can't get a fair fight BEFORE enter a battle because enemy fleet can run at 3 time of the fleet size(compare to player ideal fleet size), 2 time officer DP weigh and don't need to worried about supply, the reply are about what you can do AFTER you enter field and follow a set of playstyle(spend some of your lesser than normal starting DP pt to field small ship w/ officer to capture pt, the only way to win DP race)
The solution of buying merc officer to even the field is just another prove that late game balance heavy working again the small fleet idea, not to mention this way make the already low paid bounty much more unprofitable
The key to having 240 DP all the time is to have 2 officered phase frigates with elite phase mastery. Send them to capture the two objectives horizontally farthest from the center while you take the ones closest to your deployment side, and you'll hit 240 DP before any combat starts. Just deploy your slowest 144-ish (160 minus 2x8 DP phase frigates) DP first and the faster 80-ish DP slightly later. Using this tactic nets me 240 DP against even Remnant officer spam.
I think the reason people are saying things about how to fight is that by fighting better, the fight becomes "fair". Because really, "fair" is subjective based on how good the player fleet is in the fight vs the enemy. As an extreme example: for an endgame player fleet with fully powered player and officers, is equal DP with pirates really a fair fight? Not even close, the player is going to absolutely stomp them. "Fair" might be giving pirates 300 DP to the player's 100 but lets be honest, even thats just going to resort in more pirate pinatas to pop.
Remnants are a lot tougher, but the same principle holds: is the fight be "fair" at 240:160 + reinforcements in battle, and 480 DP to 240 DP outside? The better the player fleet, and the more efficient they can be with DP, the more "fair" it is.
Yes you point out what is the problem, you are using the only right(and working) idea to win a DP race, cheese the new rule
The "large enemy fleet get more DP than you" rule is here for a long time, but it make sense and there are different way to work around
In the past, when you are confidence to fight in a small fleet, with high quality ship and player skill you win that fight, same at what working right now(a bit different is in the past you capture point for more ecm/speed, now you have to capture pt for DP)
But if you don't have the player skill or good ship, you can get a larger fleet and get a even DP split(or over do it with extra large fleet), and rotate ship during the fight or use clean disengage for reset a fight, than you get less profit
But in 0.95, under the new rule the choose for the later is greatly limited, not because the skill tree rework make large fleet lost skill advantage(I agree when your fleet is big enough you don't need that much skill advantage).
It is as Alex said in earlier post "Adding an extra 10 Paragons won't help much. 10 Paragons with officers vs 10 frigates with officers also doesn't make much of a difference.",
The RULE itself is changed so player can't use the most easy and make sense way to turn the table for themself, then you get player start finding way to cheese the new rule
And this is my question, WHY cut off one play style completely by making a new rule that only hurt some player which is not in the range of Alex's ideal play style AND this new rule don't do much good on player who are already playing like what Alex want? That is what I call unfair
I like the part of the new rule which when you have a smaller fleet you have way too win back the DP by capture point, but this don't contradict to "if you have a larger fleet you have more DP", why can't they both exist? Someone said earlier that you can't please everyone but on this case you can. Alex have do enough change in 0.95 to favor small fleet gameplay and most of them are reasonable, but this is the change I think is unfair and really not necessarily.
TBH I think that basing DP share on both fleet size and officer count makes intuitive sense, but also 30 Paragon blob is such a transparent attempt to cheese the rules that it being gone makes me happy. Better to make enemy fleets not so oversized (old rules)/over-officered (new rules) that people need to cheese it to begin with.
Yes you point out what is the problem, you are using the only right(and working) idea to win a DP race, cheese the new ruleIt is way more accessible to get 2 phase frigates with phase spec officers than it was to get a fleet huge enough to have 60% DP split against Remnant Ordos in the previous version. It's incredibly cheap, actually; 100k for the 2 afflictors/shades, 4 story points to mentor the officers to have perfect skills and make Phase Mastery elite, and maybe 10k in weapons. Why can't you just build your lumbering expensive capital spam fleet but also bring along a couple of really cheap ships?
The "large enemy fleet get more DP than you" rule is here for a long time, but it make sense and there are different way to work around
In the past, when you are confidence to fight in a small fleet, with high quality ship and player skill you win that fight, same at what working right now(a bit different is in the past you capture point for more ecm/speed, now you have to capture pt for DP)
But if you don't have the player skill or good ship, you can get a larger fleet and get a even DP split(or over do it with extra large fleet), and rotate ship during the fight or use clean disengage for reset a fight, than you get less profit
But in 0.95, under the new rule the choose for the later is greatly limited, not because the skill tree rework make large fleet lost skill advantage(I agree when your fleet is big enough you don't need that much skill advantage).
It is as Alex said in earlier post "Adding an extra 10 Paragons won't help much. 10 Paragons with officers vs 10 frigates with officers also doesn't make much of a difference.",
The RULE itself is changed so player can't use the most easy and make sense way to turn the table for themself, then you get player start finding way to cheese the new rule
And this is my question, WHY cut off one play style completely by making a new rule that only hurt some player which is not in the range of Alex's ideal play style AND this new rule don't do much good on player who are already playing like what Alex want? That is what I call unfair
I like the part of the new rule which when you have a smaller fleet you have way too win back the DP by capture point, but this don't contradict to "if you have a larger fleet you have more DP", why can't they both exist? Someone said earlier that you can't please everyone but on this case you can. Alex have do enough change in 0.95 to favor small fleet gameplay and most of them are reasonable, but this is the change I think is unfair and really not necessarily.
If you don't have the player skill to do anything other than capital spam in the late game, I'd suggest getting good.
Field Repairs can do this in theory, but it takes too long for more than one or two casualties with one d-mod each.
It is really fun when taking about fleet size, people will assume those person are capital spam or 30Paragon(I get this one is a joke)
I don't think get a 300FP fleet(included non-combat ship) to a 300FP enemy fight is capital spam and need to "get good", and we know in 0.95 300FP is already over the limit and can't get both skill advantage and fair DP split at this point.
The problem of DP now is AI have a different rule on deploy, and this get haywire at late game
Let look at the setting file, this line is what are there in 0.9:
"maxOfficersInAIFleet":10, # should match what a max-skill player can get
Fair, isn't it?
And these line are add in 0.95
"officerAIMaxMercsMult":2, # maximum "over-the-limit" merc-type officers that can be added to an AI fleet, times doctrine officer setting
"officerAIMercsStartingFP":100, # start adding more "merc" officers at this threshold
I don't have the exact calculation, but in my understanding when AI fleet get bigger and bigger, they have more and more officer, AND these affect how DP is calculate
And because of that if player want a fair split of DP the only way to do is
A : use your lesser than normal DP to sent small ship to capture point(and use phase ship if afraid for losing ship, better with a few elite phase officer, but why should I waste my officer on those role? Because I want to watch those small ship playing somewhere away from the battlefield?)
B : Buy more merc, which is not profit-able and in gameplay wise, they were strong, but you are only needing them because you need those DP, not much different from putting those d-mod cap in the fleet to pump up fleet size for DP
I don't seem these two way are any fun or interesting in gameplay, why don't fix the late game balance rather than adding unfair rule?
If AI will spam officers, then the officer limit should be done away with and officers allowed to level up to 7 (or AI in human factions forced to honor the same restrictions as player, either eight level 6s or ten level 5s), and get rid of mercs since they are merely overpriced SP-sucking vampire officers. (SP should be doing special things, not a tax to constantly feed stuff to.) The player could achieve this already in theory, but that requires the player to loot level 7 officers and hire as many mercs as possible.
I suppose you know we are taking about the same exact thing ANGRYABOUTELVES, late game enemy fleet have balance issue and as you have state inflated number of officer is the problem and i have point out what is causing the inflated number of officer is the growing enemy fleet sizeHow the player and the AI get ships is also different. The AI just magics ships and fleets out of thin air, just like how they magic officers out of thin air. The main thing that has changed is that you can now get DP by capping points, and capping points is easy. It's a massive improvement over the previous version.
You think the rule is ok because the calculation on both size is the same, but don't forget how player and AI get the officer is different
The rule is unfair, AI get extra officer when they grow to a bigger fleet size, and they grow to a fleet size double or triple to what player's ideal fleet size, with much more officer than player can normally have. Player normally have a 10 officer limit, more than that player need to spend Magic pt, which should be unnecessary since even you need to field 10+ ship you don't need every ship have officer, gameplay-wise. SO AI have a unfair advantage on all fleet size, officer number and DP calculation(yet our discussion haven't include how these will affect combat, but that is the "get good" thing so i wouldn't include it).
Half of the thread have change to discuss how to counteract this by making map effect more powerful(more powerful ecm effect and "you need to cap point" thing)
Or "we need more merc" so there are suggestion like "Why don't we buy a bunch of merc at the same time?"
And god damn it the problem is not how to live with the unnatural amount of officer but to deal with the problem causing it in the first place, and as you say problem will gone if the inflated number of officer, it is true,
but think about it, if both player and AI fleet get same number of officer(10+1~2 extra), both size have similar fleet point, what is the different of DP calculation between the 0.9 and 0.95?
Why in the Hell Alex add these two line
"officerAIMaxMercsMult":2, # maximum "over-the-limit" merc-type officers that can be added to an AI fleet, times doctrine officer setting
"officerAIMercsStartingFP":100, # start adding more "merc" officers at this threshold
when we know one of the problem is late game enemy fleet can grow too big than why tie the number of officer directly to the fleet size?
And Alex's 0.95 is about going small!
Maybe not a native english speaker and not good in writing is causing problem here but as my first post in the thread what I want to say is the whole DP problem and bounty low pay and late game balance issue are all in the same root. Don't know why I get in to this "fair" mess
And of course i know phase ship is op and that is why i say use phase ship to cap point is cheesing the rule, and using a op thing to solve a balance problem is never the right thing to do in the first place...
The key to having 240 DP all the time is to have 2 officered phase frigates with elite phase mastery.
And this is my question, WHY cut off one play style completely by making a new rule that only hurt some player which is not in the range of Alex's ideal play style AND this new rule don't do much good on player who are already playing like what Alex want? That is what I call unfair
I like the part of the new rule which when you have a smaller fleet you have way too win back the DP by capture point, but this don't contradict to "if you have a larger fleet you have more DP", why can't they both exist? Someone said earlier that you can't please everyone but on this case you can. Alex have do enough change in 0.95 to favor small fleet gameplay and most of them are reasonable, but this is the change I think is unfair and really not necessarily.
Agree with that. Enemy officer and ECM spam is complete nonesense. New system itself is OK as an idea, but numbers should be toned down. Every dog in the sector has ECM better, than mine, and i cant put ECM module on my ships, because there is no OP for that unless i make some mods build-in, which, again, requires SP, which means, i will must use upgraded ship to the rest of my days or the SPs will be wasted. I cant spend them for the story-oriented stuff, i cant experiment with ships...
If shafting players with 160 DP is mere encouragement for contest objectives to reach DP parity or to force their hands to use frigates in the first place; then having two phase frigates to completely sidestep the mechanic shouldn't even be allowed.I'm not sure what you mean. Having 2 officered phase frigates for capping points isn't sidestepping the mechanic that encourages the use of fast frigates, it's leaning into it and doing it as efficiently as possible. That's like saying having 3 Drovers with the carrier group skill just for interceptor coverage is sidestepping the fighter game.
I think that's a fair question. Basically... it's really, really easy - once you have money rolling in - to just stack a bunch of Paragons (or whatever the highest-DP battleship happens to be) and to basically just roll everything with them, outnumbering the enemy on the battlefield. It's a way to win, for sure. Is it a playstyle that's interesting? I don't think so.
I think that's a fair question. Basically... it's really, really easy - once you have money rolling in - to just stack a bunch of Paragons (or whatever the highest-DP battleship happens to be) and to basically just roll everything with them, outnumbering the enemy on the battlefield. It's a way to win, for sure. Is it a playstyle that's interesting? I don't think so.
Okay, you don't think that's fun. Fair enough, but you're not designing the game just for yourself. Some people do find fun and satisfaction in working hard to assemble a kick-ass fleet and then using it to kick ass. The issue is that you allow the former part of that but not the latter, and it's not clear that step 2 is not possible until step 1 has already been completed, so the player ends up feeling shafted and their work wasted. If you insist on enforcing your own preferred fleet composition on everyone, it would be a lot more palatable if it was made clear ahead of time what that composition is supposed to be. You could for instance cap not only the total number of ships in the fleet but also individual types, so a fleet could be limited to 2 capitals, 4 cruisers, 8 destroyers, and 16 frigates (or something, exact numbers TBD). And importantly, enemy fleets need to be limited in the same way.
... thats like all wrong. If a fleet doesn't kick ass, then its not a kick ass fleet. By definition. If the game is changed so that all cap fleets aren't as good, then they aren't as good.
I think that's a fair question. Basically... it's really, really easy - once you have money rolling in - to just stack a bunch of Paragons (or whatever the highest-DP battleship happens to be) and to basically just roll everything with them, outnumbering the enemy on the battlefield. It's a way to win, for sure. Is it a playstyle that's interesting? I don't think so. It makes combat a trivial stomp. I'm not sure you can even really call it a "playstyle", it's just sort of an optimal thing you can do that beats everything with a minimum of interaction on the part of the player. It's expensive, sure, but past a certain point you have credits aplenty, so that's not a great balancing factor. The game shouldn't get less interesting as you get more stuff, right?
Well... on the one hand, I think the numbers of officers should probably be toned down a bit, which'd also take enemy ECM down some. On the other hand, you absolutely could put ECM on your ships. Stuff like Omens with officers with Gunnery Implants is particularly impactful. And for smaller ships especially, you get a ton of those SP back due to bonus XP, so you really don't need keep using them forever. And ECCM is an option, too. That said, enemy ECM does seem like it's "too much" right now, you probably shouldn't be forced to hard-spec into your own ECM to counter it, and I've got an item to have a look here.I know how it works, but right now i am starving of OP. Again: i can start to use Build-in option, but i dont want to do that, because i dont know how much SP i will have at the end, and i dont know if i need them for some different things. And i dont know what ships i will want to use in future.
so a fleet could be limited to 2 capitals, 4 cruisers, 8 destroyers, and 16 frigates (or something, exact numbers TBD). And importantly, enemy fleets need to be limited in the same way.Oh no, please don't turn Starsector into Overwatch with limited class system.
.QuoteSome people do find fun and satisfaction in working hard to assemble a kick-ass fleet and then using it to kick ass.Quote.. thats like all wrong. If a fleet doesn't kick ass, then its not a kick ass fleet. By definition. If the game is changed so that all cap fleets aren't as good, then they aren't as good.
Adding an extra 10 Paragons won't help much. 10 Paragons with officers vs 10 frigates with officers also doesn't make much of a difference.
I think that's a fair question. Basically... it's really, really easy - once you have money rolling in - to just stack a bunch of Paragons (or whatever the highest-DP battleship happens to be) and to basically just roll everything with them, outnumbering the enemy on the battlefield. It's a way to win, for sure. Is it a playstyle that's interesting? I don't think so. It makes combat a trivial stomp. I'm not sure you can even really call it a "playstyle", it's just sort of an optimal thing you can do that beats everything with a minimum of interaction on the part of the player. It's expensive, sure, but past a certain point you have credits aplenty, so that's not a great balancing factor. The game shouldn't get less interesting as you get more stuff, right?
What i suggest:I just want to be able to recover from losses cheaply like late-game of the previous release (building ships yourself). Right now, once s-mod ships enter play, they stay in your fleet forever, but restoring them costs too much, building new ones eat too many story points, and Field Repairs take too long to remove more than a few d-mods.
- tone down the number of enemy officers
- tone down ECM numbers a little bit (if it will not help, then we can try more, i agree that we can make it carefully)
- remove SP cost of build-in option, and make it cost money instead, just like the restoration. Something like the half of ships cost for the 1st upgrade, full price for the second, double price for the third. Maybe add increased supply usage per month also (but keep deployment cost the same)
- maybe remove SP cost of mercenaries, but make em cost more. Idk really, maybe it will nor be nessessary after first 3 changes
I dunno why are you saying that ECM numbers look fine
- tone down the number of enemy officers
- tone down ECM numbers a little bit (if it will not help, then we can try more, i agree that we can make it carefully)
- remove SP cost of build-in option, and make it cost money instead, just like the restoration. Something like the half of ships cost for the 1st upgrade, full price for the second, double price for the third. Maybe add increased supply usage per month also (but keep deployment cost the same)
- maybe remove SP cost of mercenaries, but make em cost more. Idk really, maybe it will nor be nessessary after first 3 changes
Alex, with the last version of Starsector the moment I get Paragon or any capital for that matter I feel like I accomplish something, I grind to this point, and now I feel overpower through my vein. Yes, maybe it's not an interesting "playstyle" to you, but for me, after grinding for the last 10 hours and finally able to eat pirate for days give a huge dopamine release to me. With this version, I feel more frustrated than I want to be, it feels stagnant and unrewarding the more I play it. I feel like I am missing an entire excel guide to play the game side by side.
I dunno why are you saying that ECM numbers look fine
I'm ... not?- tone down the number of enemy officers
- tone down ECM numbers a little bit (if it will not help, then we can try more, i agree that we can make it carefully)
That's literally what I said in the part of my post that you quoted, so, yes!- remove SP cost of build-in option, and make it cost money instead, just like the restoration. Something like the half of ships cost for the 1st upgrade, full price for the second, double price for the third. Maybe add increased supply usage per month also (but keep deployment cost the same)
- maybe remove SP cost of mercenaries, but make em cost more. Idk really, maybe it will nor be nessessary after first 3 changes
That on the other hand seems unnecessary. The reason you're not spending SP on hullmods I don't think is actually borne out by the game mechanics. They're one of the primary uses for story points, and you get tons of bonus XP (and thus some of those points back) if you use them on smaller ships/cheaper hullmods, too.
The question I pose to people who hate this: should starsector have any endgame challenges that require mastery of the game? Where mastery is learning the game systems and how to maximize their benefit, learning how to outfit ships well, using combinations of ships that work well together, getting officers with good skils etc etc. Or should the endgame be very easy, where all that is required is spamming lots of ships and turning on autopilot?Yes, there must be challenges. But it must be a challenge of skill, not an exam of how much you can stack.
I dunno why are you saying that ECM numbers look fine
I'm ... not?- tone down the number of enemy officers
- tone down ECM numbers a little bit (if it will not help, then we can try more, i agree that we can make it carefully)
That's literally what I said in the part of my post that you quoted, so, yes!- remove SP cost of build-in option, and make it cost money instead, just like the restoration. Something like the half of ships cost for the 1st upgrade, full price for the second, double price for the third. Maybe add increased supply usage per month also (but keep deployment cost the same)
- maybe remove SP cost of mercenaries, but make em cost more. Idk really, maybe it will nor be nessessary after first 3 changes
That on the other hand seems unnecessary. The reason you're not spending SP on hullmods I don't think is actually borne out by the game mechanics. They're one of the primary uses for story points, and you get tons of bonus XP (and thus some of those points back) if you use them on smaller ships/cheaper hullmods, too.
Ok, i see. I guess, i get you wrong. Sorry for that. My english is too bad.
About the last one. I m playing D&D a lot. And there are such thing as consumables (potions, scrolls, etc.). Literally: you pay money to get an advantage for few fights. In 5th edition they tell us that one potion of, for example, uncommon rarity cost as a half of permanent magic item of the same rarity (sword, boots, hat...). And it is complete nonesense. In previous editions cost ratio was much better, and even there i never spent money for consumables (well, maybe few healing wands). Starsector's SP are pretty much the same: i dont want to spent em on things which are not permanent. And thanks god, build-in mods are. But i want to spent em on Paragon or at least Odyssey, not on Auroras or something. And i want also to save a lot, because i dont know if i will need em in future for some important things.
Also, if i forced to spent consumables to win a fight, i feel like something is wrong. In Resident evil 4, for example, you can buy pretty expensive rocket launcher (it has only 1 shot), which kills every enemy in one shot (even bosses). You spend money to buy a victory. What a hero! But in RE you can beat every boss without this feature. And i want to see the same in Starsector. If i need to buy mercs to win a fight, because otherwise i ll be overwhelmed by numbers... well, it is just bad design. Today i can pay and win. Tomorrow i will have 0 SP, and what shoud i do?QuoteThe question I pose to people who hate this: should starsector have any endgame challenges that require mastery of the game? Where mastery is learning the game systems and how to maximize their benefit, learning how to outfit ships well, using combinations of ships that work well together, getting officers with good skils etc etc. Or should the endgame be very easy, where all that is required is spamming lots of ships and turning on autopilot?Yes, there must be challenges. But it must be a challenge of skill, not an exam of how much you can stack.
I still remember one Dassault-Mikoyan fight i had. There was like 12 enemy capitals (vs 4 or 5 mine, no Paragons btw), ton of cruisers and destroyers. Total fighter spam and owerwhelming ECM. I killed em in 3 stages. The third one took me 6 hours of attempts. I lost no ships. I am still satisfied by this challenge. But i also still hate it because:
- i got around 300k for that, which is not even close to money i spend on travel and supplies
- the enemy was not smart, it just overwhelmed me with numbers
Ok, i see. I guess, i get you wrong. Sorry for that. My english is too bad.
About the last one. I m playing D&D a lot. And there are such thing as consumables (potions, scrolls, etc.). Literally: you pay money to get an advantage for few fights. In 5th edition they tell us that one potion of, for example, uncommon rarity cost as a half of permanent magic item of the same rarity (sword, boots, hat...). And it is complete nonesense. In previous editions cost ratio was much better, and even there i never spent money for consumables (well, maybe few healing wands). Starsector's SP are pretty much the same: i dont want to spent em on things which are not permanent. And thanks god, build-in mods are. But i want to spent em on Paragon or at least Odyssey, not on Auroras or something. And i want also to save a lot, because i dont know if i will need em in future for some important things.
If shafting players with 160 DP is mere encouragement for contest objectives to reach DP parity or to force their hands to use frigates in the first place; then having two phase frigates to completely sidestep the mechanic shouldn't even be allowed.I'm not sure what you mean. Having 2 officered phase frigates for capping points isn't sidestepping the mechanic that encourages the use of fast frigates, it's leaning into it and doing it as efficiently as possible. That's like saying having 3 Drovers with the carrier group skill just for interceptor coverage is sidestepping the fighter game.
Yes, you told that in blog post. And after you get 15 level, you will keep getting storry points just like you could if there be more levels past 15 (if i get it correctly). But if the exp-to-next-level progression is the same it was in 9.1, you will get like 18-20... may be 25 "level", if you are very motivated man. And thats it. The story points are limited, you need just too much exp to get more and more. And even extra exp will not save you. While merks need the same amount every time.
Maybe i m getting it wrong. I still cant understand: it gives me, for example, 100% bonus. 100% of what number? It can double exp i m getting, ok, but how long?
- its engines made of paper. Guess, even my cat can break them
- system works for, like... 1 second, or so... it is really small time
About Fury: maybe, my new favorite cruiser. I gave it to officer with Systems expertise, and he is an absolute beast. Worth every single DP.
ECM, someone in another thread had a suggestion I really like - making the +ECM bonus from Gunnery Implants the Elite effect of the skill. That alone should knock enemy ECM values down a ton, since not very many enemy officers would have the elite version of GI. Remnants still would, but then them being great at electronic warfare is also very thematically appropriate.I ll wait till you make changes before making any conclusions. Maybe you r right and it will help.
Hmm - they're not any weaker than engines on other ships. I wonder why it feels that way?Idk really. Sometimes it breaks down from a simple sneeze. But yes, all engines are too squishy imo. I think, you should give em like 50 or may be 100% more HP. Players will still have their advantage if they will want to cripple an enemy, while players engines will break less often. It is important, because right now having shield is way better than having armor (well, it is even better to have both, but anyway...). You added extra armor to Heavy armor module, and yes, there are Insulated engine assembley, but you cant solve every problem by installing hullmod. Because, again: not enough OP.
It's I think 3 seconds or so? But the system has multiple charges.Idk really. For me it expires pretty fast. Yes, it has charges, but imo, better to make 2 instead of 3 and increase the duration a bit.
Hey Alex, since Remnants used to be undercosted DP-wise because they were meant to be a boss faction and be harder to fight, now that officers are more important, they could be more fairly statted. 60 DP Radiant would also help make it more viable to take anything else but Radiant with Automated Ships skill...
Hey Alex, since Remnants used to be undercosted DP-wise because they were meant to be a boss faction and be harder to fight, now that officers are more important, they could be more fairly statted. 60 DP Radiant would also help make it more viable to take anything else but Radiant with Automated Ships skill...
pity modeOh please no, i just want my sense of progression back after hours of grind, i don't want easy, relaxed, or whatever difficulty that make the game walk in the park.
You need like 4 frigates to solve this (DP) problem?.. the current system is 100 times better than the previous and drastically makes using smaller ships more enjoyable vs lol capital capital capital steamroll.
Golde, youre making everyone bite their tongues here dude. Stop with the the stropping. I didnt make it past 'its lazy game design' until i didnt read the rest of your last comment. Youre entitled to your opinion, but seriously, tone it down and people may actually respect your opinion more.
If Special Modifications exploited at full power is really strong, why does the Radiant need to be weakened for player use? It is overpowered for its cost, but that would be a good price to pay for not having +1 s-mods and boosted flux stats for the whole fleet.Hey Alex, since Remnants used to be undercosted DP-wise because they were meant to be a boss faction and be harder to fight, now that officers are more important, they could be more fairly statted. 60 DP Radiant would also help make it more viable to take anything else but Radiant with Automated Ships skill...
Yeah, this makes sense. Remnants don't really need reduced DP cost on Radiant in addition to all the other advantages they now have.
Automated Ships skill with higher cap would become more proper choice between Radiant and several smaller ships.
If Special Modifications exploited at full power is really strong, why does the Radiant need to be weakened for player use? It is overpowered for its cost, but that would be a good price to pay for not having +1 s-mods and boosted flux stats for the whole fleet.Hey Alex, since Remnants used to be undercosted DP-wise because they were meant to be a boss faction and be harder to fight, now that officers are more important, they could be more fairly statted. 60 DP Radiant would also help make it more viable to take anything else but Radiant with Automated Ships skill...
Yeah, this makes sense. Remnants don't really need reduced DP cost on Radiant in addition to all the other advantages they now have.
Automated Ships skill with higher cap would become more proper choice between Radiant and several smaller ships.
Maybe tone down Point Defense skill to 50% damage to fighters?
Capital ships... are also still useful in late game battles. Having a capital or two or three even is a MAJOR boost to fleet power compared to all cruisers.
I feel like you're screaming "PLAY THIS WAY" and I hate that. The fact that people wanted smaller ships to be more useful didn't have to mean that it's now the ONLY viable thing to do, just that it's A viable thing to do. Why even put Paragon in the game if we can't even use it?What I do not like about small ships is if they are necessary, then so is Wolfpack Tactics because I have real PPT problems with frigates late in the game without Wolfpack Tactics, and I have no room for Leadership in my current build. Even Reliability Engineering (on frigates with officers) is not enough, and unless I s-mod my frigates (I am not doing that yet given how expensive replacing losses of s-mod ships are), they do not have enough OP to spare for Hardened Subsystems.