Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Announcements => Topic started by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 03:32:36 PM

Title: Starsector 0.95.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 03:32:36 PM
Blog post/download links here (https://fractalsoftworks.com/2021/12/10/starsector-0-95-1a-release/).

Hotfix #3 -RC6 (December 20, 2021, 5:15pm EST)

Balance/other changes:

Bugfixing:

Hotfix #2, -RC5 (December 11, 2021, 9:20pm EST)


Hotfix #1, -RC4 (December 11, 2021, 4:00pm EST)

Changes as of December 10, 2021

Ships:
Hullmods:
Combat:
Bugfixing:

Changes as of December 03, 2021

Campaign:
Skills:
Ship AI:
Ships:
Weapons/Fighters:
Hullmods:
Modding:
Miscellaneous:
Bugfixing:


Changes as of November 05, 2021

Campaign:

Skills:

Combat:

Ships:

Phase ships:

Weapons/fighters:

Hullmods:

Ship systems:

Ship AI:

Miscellaneous:

Modding:

Bugfixing:
[/list]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Yubbin on November 05, 2021, 03:39:56 PM
hope it comes out soon tm
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 03:40:58 PM
hope it comes out soon tm

The one thing you can absolutely count on :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 05, 2021, 03:45:15 PM
::) ;D  I Burble With Anticipation  ;D ::)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AppleMarineXX on November 05, 2021, 03:55:50 PM
Oh boy I am ready to mysteriously lose 100% of my free time in the coming weeks
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 05, 2021, 03:56:38 PM
Many interesting things!
Quote
Arbalest Autocannon:
Increased damage to 200/shot (was: 150)
Increased flux/shot to 150 (was: 120)
Increased refire delay to 1.2 seconds (was: 1)
This firmly plants the Arbalest into the 'niche but good' spot to me. It was already a decent budget weapon because of its efficiency, but now its penetration, efficiency, and dps are getting upgraded. Nice!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kaokasalis on November 05, 2021, 04:06:09 PM
  • Prometheus Mk.II:
  • Reduced supply cost to 30 (was: 20)

Typo error or am I just reading it wrong?

Also looking forward to seeing the new low tech ships and to whatever the hell sensor ghosts are going to bring to the table.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Yubbin on November 05, 2021, 04:07:26 PM
I don't want to fill this up with kind of useless chat, but I'm actually excited to hear the lobster cargo sound
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 04:10:04 PM
Oh boy I am ready to mysteriously lose 100% of my free time in the coming weeks

A mystery indeed :)

Many interesting things!
Quote
Arbalest Autocannon:
Increased damage to 200/shot (was: 150)
Increased flux/shot to 150 (was: 120)
Increased refire delay to 1.2 seconds (was: 1)
This firmly plants the Arbalest into the 'niche but good' spot to me. It was already a decent budget weapon because of its efficiency, but now its penetration, efficiency, and dps are getting upgraded. Nice!

Cool!

... also, a bit of errata: a Radiant with an Alpha Core and +30% CR will be at 50% maximum, not "slightly over 40". I forgot to update the notes after making some changes there a while back.


[/li][li]Reduced supply cost to 30 (was: 20)[/li][/list]

Typo error or am I just reading it wrong?

Typo, thank you! Meant to say "was: 32".

Also looking forward to seeing the new low tech ships and to whatever the hell sensor ghosts are going to bring to the table.

:)

I don't want to fill this up with kind of useless chat, but I'm actually excited to hear the lobster cargo sound

*clack*splash*
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TuxedoCatfish on November 05, 2021, 04:15:32 PM
Wow, there isn't a single thing in this patch that doesn't sound fantastic. Very nice work!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 05, 2021, 04:16:25 PM
  • Special items sold to colonies that have a matching industry but do not meet the item's requirements will no longer install the item
Neat stuff! This one reminds me, though - I had a bunch of trouble trying to mod in industry item upgrades, due to the vanilla upgrade options (corrupted nanoforge -> pristine nanoforge) being hard-coded into the industry. Had to implement my own entirely separate campaign listener to handle it, which seems... awkward. Any chance of getting a 'install-value' field for installable items, or maybe a getInstallValue() method (to allow for things like the cryoarithmetic engine whose value changes based on planetary conditions)?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 04:19:11 PM
Wow, there isn't a single thing in this patch that doesn't sound fantastic. Very nice work!

Jeez, thank you!


Neat stuff! This one reminds me, though - I had a bunch of trouble trying to mod in industry item upgrades, due to the vanilla upgrade options (corrupted nanoforge -> pristine nanoforge) being hard-coded into the industry. Had to implement my own entirely separate campaign listener to handle it, which seems... awkward. Any chance of getting a 'install-value' field for installable items, or maybe a getInstallValue() method (to allow for things like the cryoarithmetic engine whose value changes based on planetary conditions)?

Hmm - honestly, not at this point in the release cycle - especially since there *is* a workaround, which is pretty much the intended way of doing it. I can maybe have a look at this at some point, but since it's pretty far off from being needed for vanilla, I can't promise that it'd be a high priority item.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 05, 2021, 04:20:25 PM
Fair enough! Figured I'd bring it up since I was thinking about it, though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Timid on November 05, 2021, 04:20:31 PM
Quote from: Alex link=topic=22918
"no_autofit" tag now also works when applied to variants

Does that mean they'll properly apply the smod from when variants have these tags now?

I noticed when no_autofit is on these ships (in 0.951), they'll ignore the smods indicated in these variants. Which then makes me sad because then I have to use autofit to make sure the smods are smodded properly, but sometimes can't trust the autofit manager to smod them properly.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 04:22:10 PM
Fair enough! Figured I'd bring it up since I was thinking about it, though.

*thumbs up*

Does that mean they'll properly apply the smod from when variants have these tags now?

I noticed when no_autofit is on these ships (in 0.951), they'll ignore the smods indicated in these variants.

Honestly, I'm not sure - it's not something where there's a vanilla test case. I want to say "yes" though since I recall fixing a bug with s-mods being specified in a .variant file not too long ago.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on November 05, 2021, 04:26:02 PM
Wow, that is a long list of changes! Looking forward:)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Caymon Joestar on November 05, 2021, 04:26:25 PM

Skills:
  • Removed Auxiliary Support

Weapons/fighters:
  • Breach SRM:
    • Increased anti-armor damage effect to 300 (was: 200)
    • Increased range to 1500 (was: 1200)
  • Heavy Needler: reduced range to 700, to match other needlers (was: 750, bothering me)


Noooooooo But I like Aux support, It's fun skill for making ships like the venture actually useful in combat, the skill just needed some tweaks. Will the 2 Packages at least be buffed at least in exchanged?

I believe the problem with the breach srm is that "CONSERVE_FOR_ANTI_ARMOR" tag on it messes with the ai so it will only use it ever to strip armor and not to actually hurt things. Causing it to ignore an exposed hull for an area with armor left.

Why not just increase the other needlers to 750 instead of bringing heavy needler down?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mordodrukow on November 05, 2021, 04:26:45 PM
Quote
Quantum Disruptor: removed charges, now just has a 30 second cooldown
Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJFmu_OWoAAP2et.jpg)
[close]

In general: pretty reasonable changes. The only thing i dont get: were energy weapons OP? Why so much buffs for ballistics? I mean: ok, plasma was good. But what else? I understand the asymmetric balance conception, but anyway...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on November 05, 2021, 04:28:55 PM
Great stuff all over the board. One of my my favourite improved small detail being:
Quote
Interacting with abandoned stations (such as the one around Asharu) now plays the salvage/survey music

Also all the deployment cost changes make sense to me. Especially the reduced cost for the lower-end pirate variants: nice incentive to use those less-than-ideal-but-still-serviceable ships early in a campaign.

Hyperion receives two serious nerfs: higher deployment cost + Wolfpack Tactic PPT tweak. Sounds reasonable, the ship should be less of a no brainer, but still a great option.

Additional music being added at some point or out of scope?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on November 05, 2021, 04:40:46 PM
That is a long list of changes. Looking forward to the update and playing around with everything ;D.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 05, 2021, 04:50:11 PM
Quote
Phase Anchor:
One ship *per battle* can execute an "emergency dive" maneuver instead of being destroyed
Counts as retreated instead and loses an extra deployment's worth of CR
So... if both sides have phase ships and an enemy phase ship dives first, does that mean none of the player's phase ships can dive if one of them gets defeated later?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 05, 2021, 04:54:02 PM
Quote
Phase Anchor:
One ship *per battle* can execute an "emergency dive" maneuver instead of being destroyed
Counts as retreated instead and loses an extra deployment's worth of CR
So... if both sides have phase ships and an enemy phase ship dives first, does that mean none of the player's phase ships can dive if one of them gets defeated later?
Hm, that's an interesting point - my first thought is "Oh, clearly that should be per side", but then you run into the same problem if you have an allied fleet in the battle that has a phase ship...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pedro1_1 on November 05, 2021, 05:06:13 PM
I hope combat is playable in my Vega 11... Being limited to only exploration killed 0.95a for me.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 05, 2021, 05:12:09 PM
I will echo the chorus that the vast majority of these changes are good/make sense.

To clarify: both Polarized Armor and Impact Mitigation (Elite) increase armor reduction to 90%. Did you just want to give two opportunities to get this effect or is this a typo? Getting both wouldn't have any additional effect, would it?

"Substantially increased" is kind of vague when you were specific with other stats. What's the Dominator at now, 15000 HP? Legion roughly equivalent to an Onslaught now?

I'm on the fence with the Hyperion cost increase: the non-SO version is not remotely as versatile because of how SO interacts with the Teleporter. With SO, absolutely worth 20 DP. Without...eh, I think 15 is about right. I'd daresay Hyperion benefits from SO more than any other ship to the point where it is fundamentally a different ship under SO versus without. Even without, you have to have Helmsmanship Elite to kind of make it work under fire (drop shields and hold fire). Dangerous precedent, I know, but could SO add +5 DP/supplies per month to the Hyperion rather than bumping the base model to 20 (or come up with a more clever way of handling that)?

I'm totally behind the Fury nerf. Falcon (P) being acknowledged as flat-out better than vanilla version is hilarious.

Tons of QoL improvements, new ships, skill overhaul, slipstreams, and some interesting weapon adjustments...this is a heck of a "minor" patch! Very much looking forward to it :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JaronK on November 05, 2021, 05:24:18 PM
"Admins now have either no skills or Industrial Planning
Added new "Hypercognition" skill for Alpha Core admins
Has a reduced version of the effects of Space Operations and Ground Operations"

__________

That change makes me sad, actually.  I would love for different admins to be, well, different, so there's some excitement in finding particularly good ones.  But that means having lots of different skills (less powerful and more specific than current ones).  Going to no skills except one is a bit disappointing, so all admins are totally generic.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 05, 2021, 05:44:14 PM
That change makes me sad, actually.  I would love for different admins to be, well, different, so there's some excitement in finding particularly good ones.  But that means having lots of different skills (less powerful and more specific than current ones).  Going to no skills except one is a bit disappointing, so all admins are totally generic.

Obviously I don't know, but this could just be placeholder until some more interesting Admin skills are cooked up. Might not have been worth the Dev time this pass.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avanitia on November 05, 2021, 06:02:33 PM
Quote
Heavy Mauler:
Now fires bursts of 3 shots with a long cooldown
Overall slightly lower DPS than before
Reduced flux/shot to 200 (was: 225)
Significantly increased accuracy

This change doesn't make much sense to me - Mauler felt fine to me the way it was. With this change, it feels like it doesn't synergise with Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Autocannon both.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 06:06:24 PM
Wow, that is a long list of changes! Looking forward:)

Can't wait to put it out :)

Noooooooo But I like Aux support, It's fun skill for making ships like the venture actually useful in combat, the skill just needed some tweaks. Will the 2 Packages at least be buffed at least in exchanged?

:( They won't. I like the concept too, but I don't think it works out well in practice, unfortunately.

I believe the problem with the breach srm is that "CONSERVE_FOR_ANTI_ARMOR" tag on it messes with the ai so it will only use it ever to strip armor and not to actually hurt things. Causing it to ignore an exposed hull for an area with armor left.

It will occasionally fire at hull, but generally speaking that's the intended behavior - the missile does a lot of work vs armor and it doesn't make a lot of sense to "waste" it doing what's often relatively minimal hull damage

Why not just increase the other needlers to 750 instead of bringing heavy needler down?

Ah - I don't think buffing the Light Needler to 750 would be a good idea, as it's already quite good, whereas the slight range nerf to Heavy Needler feels just about warranted.


In general: pretty reasonable changes. The only thing i dont get: were energy weapons OP? Why so much buffs for ballistics? I mean: ok, plasma was good. But what else? I understand the asymmetric balance conception, but anyway...

With the caveat that I don't know exactly which changes you mean, and so my answer might be off-base: generally, these are buffs to specific weapons to take them from "generally pretty bad" to "useful". So I don't think it makes sense to consider this as a buff to ballistics in general. It's about opening up more options/giving more purpose to things that already exist but don't see much use, rather than, say, a buff to the top-tier performers in the ballistic lineup, if that makes sense.

Great stuff all over the board. One of my my favourite improved small detail being:
Quote
Interacting with abandoned stations (such as the one around Asharu) now plays the salvage/survey music

Also all the deployment cost changes make sense to me. Especially the reduced cost for the lower-end pirate variants: nice incentive to use those less-than-ideal-but-still-serviceable ships early in a campaign.

Hyperion receives two serious nerfs: higher deployment cost + Wolfpack Tactic PPT tweak. Sounds reasonable, the ship should be less of a no brainer, but still a great option.

*thumbs up*! To be fair, someone brought up the salvage music thing a while back, so it was on my TODO list from that.

Additional music being added at some point or out of scope?

I hate to promise things that aren't 100% set in stone, so let's just say it's fairly likely at some point, and we've had some internal conversations about it.


Quote
Phase Anchor:
One ship *per battle* can execute an "emergency dive" maneuver instead of being destroyed
Counts as retreated instead and loses an extra deployment's worth of CR
So... if both sides have phase ships and an enemy phase ship dives first, does that mean none of the player's phase ships can dive if one of them gets defeated later?
Hm, that's an interesting point - my first thought is "Oh, clearly that should be per side", but then you run into the same problem if you have an allied fleet in the battle that has a phase ship...

Yeah, it's the first one period, globally. Disruptions to the n/p-space interface, you see! But in practical terms - at least at the moment - no ships under AI control have that hullmod anyway. I don't think it'd necessarily be a problem even if they did, though.


I hope combat is playable in my Vega 11... Being limited to only exploration killed 0.95a for me.

Was combat performance in 0.95a worse for you than from 0.9.1a? It's hard to see why that might be; it should've improved if anything. Hmm. But performance with 0.95.1 should be about the same as 0.95, regardless.


To clarify: both Polarized Armor and Impact Mitigation (Elite) increase armor reduction to 90%. Did you just want to give two opportunities to get this effect or is this a typo? Getting both wouldn't have any additional effect, would it?

Augh! What happened here was I changed the IM effect later and at that point wasn't thinking that it was the same as the PA effect. The description is written assuming only one effect doing this, but the way it'd actually work is you'd get to 95%. Hmmm... it sounds like I need to come up with a new elite effect for IM, darn.


"Substantially increased" is kind of vague when you were specific with other stats. What's the Dominator at now, 15000 HP? Legion roughly equivalent to an Onslaught now?

Yeah - Legion's a bit less than Onslaught, IIRC, something like 18k.

I'm on the fence with the Hyperion cost increase: the non-SO version is not remotely as versatile because of how SO interacts with the Teleporter. With SO, absolutely worth 20 DP. Without...eh, I think 15 is about right. I'd daresay Hyperion benefits from SO more than any other ship to the point where it is fundamentally a different ship under SO versus without. Even without, you have to have Helmsmanship Elite to kind of make it work under fire (drop shields and hold fire). Dangerous precedent, I know, but could SO add +5 DP/supplies per month to the Hyperion rather than bumping the base model to 20 (or come up with a more clever way of handling that)?

Hmm, yeah, I woudln't want to do that. I do see what you're saying, though.

(SO increasing deployment cost by some amount could be interesting across the board, though... but that's too sweeping of a change to want to mess with right now, though.)

Tons of QoL improvements, new ships, skill overhaul, slipstreams, and some interesting weapon adjustments...this is a heck of a "minor" patch! Very much looking forward to it :D

:D

That change makes me sad, actually.  I would love for different admins to be, well, different, so there's some excitement in finding particularly good ones.  But that means having lots of different skills (less powerful and more specific than current ones).  Going to no skills except one is a bit disappointing, so all admins are totally generic.

Obviously I don't know, but this could just be placeholder until some more interesting Admin skills are cooked up. Might not have been worth the Dev time this pass.

I'll just say that this is something we've talked about internally - but, don't want to go into details in case nothing comes of it. But I also don't think that having a 3 skills total is *that* much more interesting, given that the skills are all fairly general-purpose boosts anyway.


Quote
Heavy Mauler:
Now fires bursts of 3 shots with a long cooldown
Overall slightly lower DPS than before
Reduced flux/shot to 200 (was: 225)
Significantly increased accuracy

This change doesn't make much sense to me - Mauler felt fine to me the way it was. With this change, it feels like it doesn't synergise with Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Autocannon both.

Hmm, you mean as far as it having reduced ability to put on sustained pressure, forcing shields to stay up more? My impression of the Mauler doesn't match yours, though; I could be off about it but it didn't seem like it was actually all that useful. This version is more about having some ability to burst down armor, at long range and with good accuracy, which feels like it might be more of a niche. But, open to being wrong about that.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 05, 2021, 06:15:07 PM
At least we can hire three admins for five planets.  All admins really need is Industrial Planning.  Anything else is gravy.

Quote
I'm on the fence with the Hyperion cost increase: the non-SO version is not remotely as versatile because of how SO interacts with the Teleporter. With SO, absolutely worth 20 DP. Without...eh, I think 15 is about right. I'd daresay Hyperion benefits from SO more than any other ship to the point where it is fundamentally a different ship under SO versus without. Even without, you have to have Helmsmanship Elite to kind of make it work under fire (drop shields and hold fire). Dangerous precedent, I know, but could SO add +5 DP/supplies per month to the Hyperion rather than bumping the base model to 20 (or come up with a more clever way of handling that)?
Even at 15 DP, I think Hyperion is impractical without SO and a specific skill combo (to reduce teleport delay and raise PPT).  SO is good for making Hyperion fight like it did before 0.95.  Without SO, it can jump in, but it cannot jump out easily.  However, even with SO, if player did not have PPT up skills (from Leadership), Hyperion had way too low PPT to be practical.  It also needed Systems Expertise so that the teleport did not take ages to recharge.

Currently, I prefer phase ships to Hyperion, but phase ships will be changed.

The change to Quantum Disruptor means Harbinger probably cannot brawl anymore.  (No more rapid-fire QDs and phase lance salvos.)  It seems it will be pigeonholed into AMB Afflictor-like assassin.  (Zap shields, shoot AMBs, run away until both QD and AMBs recharge, repeat.)

Quote
Why not just increase the other needlers to 750 instead of bringing heavy needler down?

Ah - I don't think buffing the Light Needler to 750 would be a good idea, as it's already quite good, whereas the slight range nerf to Heavy Needler feels just about warranted.
Might as well be 700 to match light and storm needlers.  It could not combo very well except with 700 energy weapons like plasma cannon (on Paragon and Ziggurat).  800 range needler would combo well with 900 range ballistics on something like Conquest, but not 750 range needlers - not enough range.

Need to check out the new rangefinder hullmod.

Re: Heavy Mauler
My biggest complaint about Heavy Mauler after it lost fire rate a release or two back was it kept its mediocre accuracy, which made it unreliable as a sniper.  The boosted accuracy will be nice.  It will feel more like a sniper weapon, burst fire or not.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 05, 2021, 06:15:35 PM
No changes to Carrier Group?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mordodrukow on November 05, 2021, 06:21:30 PM
Quote
With the caveat that I don't know exactly which changes you mean, and so my answer might be off-base: generally, these are buffs to specific weapons to take them from "generally pretty bad" to "useful". So I don't think it makes sense to consider this as a buff to ballistics in general. It's about opening up more options/giving more purpose to things that already exist but don't see much use, rather than, say, a buff to the top-tier performers in the ballistic lineup, if that makes sense.
I m talking about new hullmod and new skill replacing Ranged spec. Looks a little bit too much...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 05, 2021, 06:26:10 PM
Quote
Mine Strike: reduced range to 1000 (was: 1500)
Improved how the omni shield AI prioritizes mines
Does this affect Star Fortresses that attack with mines?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 06:30:14 PM
No changes to Carrier Group?

Not that I can recall - 50% for up to 8 bays, still. But of course its placement under Leadership is different, since it's one of the six skills in the first tier.

I m talking about new hullmod and new skill replacing Ranged spec. Looks a little bit too much...

Ah! The new hullmod I think is also more about opening up new possibilities - namely, combining small weapons with larger ones and being able to get them in the same range band. This seems like fun from a "more dakka" perspective but not something I'd call a flat-out buff, especially since it costs OP.

Likewise, for the skill - 1) energy weapons have their own dedicated skill, so this is just evening things out in that respect, but more importantly, 2) it's a *skill* so if it didn't exist that officer/the player/whatever would have another skill in its place. So even if it's a good, useful skill, its net effect is still "however much better it is compared to the alternative", not just its raw effect... like, it's easy to look at that and see the numbers as the buff to ballistics in general since you'd expect most ships using ballistics to want that skill on an officer, but that's not the whole picture, since they have to give something else up!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Timid on November 05, 2021, 06:39:56 PM
I wonder if it's too late in the patch notes or not as I wanted to write a more detailed entry later on but...

have there been any changes to the Contacts so far? Cross-mod contact compatibility seems to be quite an issue such as...

- disabling certain missions from appearing in other factions' bar events.
- enabling certain missions from appearing in other factions' bar events.
- missions not allowing certain factions (only luddic church, path, and hegemony can give you remnant military bounties but what about the other factions?)
and so much more in the later era which I will clarify later in a future thread.

Otherwise, it's a cool mod feature so far, just afraid this problem will come up later on. I've been using it with partial success.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 05, 2021, 06:47:25 PM
Quote
Bulk Transport: burn bonus increased to +2 (was: +1)
Doesn't this make militarizing a freighter (or for that matter something like Atlas Mk.II) strongly negative? Unless half the bonus still applies to such ships, so final burn remains the same.

Quote
Quantum Disruptor: removed charges, now just has a 30 second cooldown
Woah, wrecked it (although SysExp will still help)

Is AI smart enough to use it, now that it can't just use the ability a few times for a wider effective overload window? Maybe overload duration could be longer.

Quote
Heavy Needler: reduced range to 700, to match other needlers (was: 750, bothering me)
I feel like this wasn't really needed balance-wise, but maybe it'll help draw a specialization line between Heavy AC (longer range) and heavy needler (better for knife fighters).

- Mauler changes
Nice, maybe it'll know its old glory again. (In recent versions I'd stopped using it since it just recoils too much after a while)

Quote
TextFieldAPI
Text input fields?!

Quote
createCheckbox
I'm guessing this is a 'real' checkbox as distinct from the existing area checkboxes that cover the whole button?
Is this being used in vanilla GUI too?

Quote
Fixed issue where "order a full retreat dialog?" was persistently shown in a battle with allies when none of your own ships were deployed; now it will only be shown once unless the player deploys some ships
Wow this was bothering me so much the last couple of days, great to hear it's fixed!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Maethendias on November 05, 2021, 06:48:34 PM
apogee no longer available from high tech blueprint, but why?

thats a very specific change, no?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avanitia on November 05, 2021, 06:54:50 PM
Quote
Heavy Mauler:
Now fires bursts of 3 shots with a long cooldown
Overall slightly lower DPS than before
Reduced flux/shot to 200 (was: 225)
Significantly increased accuracy

This change doesn't make much sense to me - Mauler felt fine to me the way it was. With this change, it feels like it doesn't synergise with Hypervelocity Driver and Heavy Autocannon both.

Hmm, you mean as far as it having reduced ability to put on sustained pressure, forcing shields to stay up more? My impression of the Mauler doesn't match yours, though; I could be off about it but it didn't seem like it was actually all that useful. This version is more about having some ability to burst down armor, at long range and with good accuracy, which feels like it might be more of a niche. But, open to being wrong about that.

I thought it was an intentional balance point for it - as long range constant pressure weapon, it matched Hypervelocity Driver in that range bracket. Also kept it from being oppressive due to how common medium slots are - if Mauler will be very accurate, doesn't it sort of nullify purpose of Heavy Mortar too? They will be very similar, only difference being that Mauler has way better accuracy, better damage, more range... making it so much more AI-friendly and usable in general despite higher cost. If anything, in my opnion, maybe Heavy Mortar could use some love or something?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Morgan Rue on November 05, 2021, 06:56:05 PM
I will note that previously, you could run a Heavy Mauler and use it as sustained pressure to overwhelm shields over a longer period of time. When combined with an HVD, due to it's reasonable refire rate, it can force shields to be up at 1000 SU, and apply a fair amount of pressure to ships at long range.

Sustained HE weapons are generally in a weird niche, yes, but they do work. Leaning more heavily into HE weapons rather than Kinetic weapons shortens your TTK once you do overwhelm shields.

This is visible in both the Hephaestus Assault Gun and the Heavy Mauler. I'm generally a fan of the Heavy Mauler being high-ish sustained output, premium long range HE.
The Heavy Mortar being HE burst would also be reasonable and make an amount of sense. It's currently... not used all that much?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 07:02:56 PM
have there been any changes to the Contacts so far? Cross-mod contact compatibility seems to be quite an issue such as...

- disabling certain missions from appearing in other factions' bar events.
- enabling certain missions from appearing in other factions' bar events.
- missions not allowing certain factions (only luddic church, path, and hegemony can give you remnant military bounties but what about the other factions?)
and so much more in the later era which I will clarify later in a future thread.

Otherwise, it's a cool mod feature so far, just afraid this problem will come up later on. I've been using it with partial success.

It seems like much of that should be doable by adjusting the mission spec tags; SettingsAPI.getAllMissionSpecs() gives you access to all the mission specs. Or by putting the right tags into person_missions.csv, if the only missions one wants to change are from their mod.

Perhaps worth noting: the various "tag" columns in person_missions can accept a faction id. So if "tagsNotAny" contains "hegemony", that mission won't be offered by a hegemony contact, etc.

apogee no longer available from high tech blueprint, but why?

It's replaced there by the Fury; I think it makes more sense to have a general-purpose combat cruiser in the package than a more specialized exploration ship.


Quote
Bulk Transport: burn bonus increased to +2 (was: +1)
Doesn't this make militarizing a freighter (or for that matter something like Atlas Mk.II) strongly negative? Unless half the bonus still applies to such ships, so final burn remains the same.

It does; in my mind going with "Bulk Transport" has a more civilian-ish feel to it. So if you take that skill, and want to get the most out of it, you also take some potential downsides on sensors (though ofc you could put in Insulated Engines...)

Quote
Quantum Disruptor: removed charges, now just has a 30 second cooldown
Woah, wrecked it (although SysExp will still help)

Is AI smart enough to use it, now that it can't just use the ability a few times for a wider effective overload window? Maybe overload duration could be longer.

I... think it is? Obviously it's less forgiving, but I think it does an ok job with it.

Quote
Heavy Needler: reduced range to 700, to match other needlers (was: 750, bothering me)
I feel like this wasn't really needed balance-wise, but maybe it'll help draw a specialization line between Heavy AC (longer range) and heavy needler (better for knife fighters).

Yeah, that's what I'm hoping, too - well, maybe that's too much, but that's why reducing the range on HN a bit seems better than increasing it on other needlers.

- Mauler changes
Nice, maybe it'll know its old glory again. (In recent versions I'd stopped using it since it just recoils too much after a while)

(That matches up more with how I've been seeing the Heavy Mauler lately.)

Quote
TextFieldAPI
Text input fields?!

Yes!

Quote
createCheckbox
I'm guessing this is a 'real' checkbox as distinct from the existing area checkboxes that cover the whole button?
Is this being used in vanilla GUI too?

Yeah, proper checkboxes. Not used in vanilla (at least, not yet); Jaghaimo asked for these in the API requests thread, and it was fairly easily doable, so!

Quote
Fixed issue where "order a full retreat dialog?" was persistently shown in a battle with allies when none of your own ships were deployed; now it will only be shown once unless the player deploys some ships
Wow this was bothering me so much the last couple of days, great to hear it's fixed!

Hah! *thumbs up*


I thought it was an intentional balance point for it - as long range constant pressure weapon, it matched Hypervelocity Driver in that range bracket. Also kept it from being oppressive due to how common medium slots are - if Mauler will be very accurate, doesn't it sort of nullify purpose of Heavy Mortar too? They will be very similar, only difference being that Mauler has way better accuracy, better damage, more range... making it so much more AI-friendly and usable in general despite higher cost. If anything, in my opnion, maybe Heavy Mortar could use some love or something?

I think a longer delay between bursts helps keep it from becoming too oppressive. As far as the Heavy Mortar, it's more flux-efficient, costs 7 OP to the Mauler's 12, and does about 80% more DPS, so offhand, it seems like it should still remain a fine choice. I do need to spend more time seeing how the Mauler feels, though.


I will note that previously, you could run a Heavy Mauler and use it as sustained pressure to overwhelm shields over a longer period of time. When combined with an HVD, due to it's reasonable refire rate, it can force shields to be up at 1000 SU, and apply a fair amount of pressure to ships at long range.

Sustained HE weapons are generally in a weird niche, yes, but they do work. Leaning more heavily into HE weapons rather than Kinetic weapons shortens your TTK once you do overwhelm shields.

This is visible in both the Hephaestus Assault Gun and the Heavy Mauler. I'm generally a fan of the Heavy Mauler being high-ish sustained output, premium long range HE.
The Heavy Mortar being HE burst would also be reasonable and make an amount of sense. It's currently... not used all that much?

Hmm. I feel like with poor accuracy, the Mauler is hard to make useful - but if it's accurate and sustained, it's too oppressive. And likewise if it just has enough output for its (in)accuracy to matter less. For the Hephaestus, this seems more ok because it requires a large slot.

The Heavy Mortar... my impression is (and person experience seems to support it) that it's pretty useful. If it's not the go-to medium HE option, then what is?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: THEASD on November 05, 2021, 07:05:43 PM
Will there be more API(s) exposed in following days' development/adjustments?

And, I just can't understand why Breach SRM got such a *huge* buff, it performs very well in detaching armor that  Harpoon(even Atropos sometimes) can't handle.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Caymon Joestar on November 05, 2021, 07:29:31 PM

Noooooooo But I like Aux support, It's fun skill for making ships like the venture actually useful in combat, the skill just needed some tweaks. Will the 2 Packages at least be buffed at least in exchanged?

:( They won't. I like the concept too, but I don't think it works out well in practice, unfortunately.

I believe the problem with the breach srm is that "CONSERVE_FOR_ANTI_ARMOR" tag on it messes with the ai so it will only use it ever to strip armor and not to actually hurt things. Causing it to ignore an exposed hull for an area with armor left.

It will occasionally fire at hull, but generally speaking that's the intended behavior - the missile does a lot of work vs armor and it doesn't make a lot of sense to "waste" it doing what's often relatively minimal hull damage

Why not just increase the other needlers to 750 instead of bringing heavy needler down?

Ah - I don't think buffing the Light Needler to 750 would be a good idea, as it's already quite good, whereas the slight range nerf to Heavy Needler feels just about warranted.


So What happens to the packages then? Are they removed or untouched then? If the latter, that would make them only slightly more useful than something like recovery shuttles.

eh but the problem is at that point, swarmers do the same job as breachers but better since they have way more ammo and do pretty decent dmg to both hull and armor compared to the breach. Especially when you take into account missile specialization/EMR

Maybe not Light needler I agree but I dont think it would have hurt Storm needler. The Heavy needler never felt OP to me I guess. Mostly the issue was a lack of 700-800 range Good Medium anti armor for ballistics beyond the heavy mortar.


Might as well be 700 to match light and storm needlers.  It could not combo very well except with 700 energy weapons like plasma cannon (on Paragon and Ziggurat).  800 range needler would combo well with 900 range ballistics on something like Conquest, but not 750 range needlers - not enough range.

 

I heavily disagree, the heavy needler combos well with heavy mortars and Light assault guns in addition to 600-700 range energies.  The 150 range gap is not big enough of a deal breaker to not use it in combination with a hellbore. If anything, the problem is a lack of another 700-800 anti armor ballistic medium. So it just makes you go "Why dont I just get the op and just combo this 900 range large with an HVD/Heavy mauler instead". Which actually begs a question about range hullmods in the future

For Cruisers/Capitals Non-battlecarrier ships, if you're not going SO or some modded flavor of it, DTC/ITU are basically mandatory. Im worried that the new rangefinder if it doesnt act as alt version of those 2, it will become also mandatory IN addition to dtc/itu and strain our choices of hullmods for builds.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Will there be more API(s) exposed in following days' development/adjustments?

Wasn't planning on anything specific there, no - more or less "done" with that for this cycle and moving on to more dedicated playtesting!

And, I just can't understand why Breach SRM got such a *huge* buff, it performs very well in detaching armor that  Harpoon(even Atropos sometimes) can't handle.

I feel like it wasn't quite pulling its weight, still; e.g. I'd like a Fury loadout with something like a Breach Pod and a Pulse Laser or two to be viable, and I feel like it wasn't quite good enough - maybe barely viable.

So What happens to the packages then? Are they removed or untouched then? If the latter, that would make them only slightly more useful than something like recovery shuttles.

They're technically still in the game (for save compatibility) but there's no way to actually get them in a new game.

eh but the problem is at that point, swarmers do the same job as breachers but better since they have way more ammo and do pretty decent dmg to both hull and armor compared to the breach. Especially when you take into account missile specialization/EMR

I'm not sure I see that - Swarmers do next to nothing vs heavy or even middling armor, while the Breach specifically does a ton of anti-armor damage that both 1) is not reduced by armor and 2) does nothing at all to hull. They're very, very different.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 05, 2021, 08:11:13 PM
The only thing i dont get: were energy weapons OP? Why so much buffs for ballistics? I mean: ok, plasma was good. But what else? I understand the asymmetric balance conception, but anyway...
The changes to High Scatter Amplifier have plenty of new ramifications to energy weapons. I think both weapon types were buffed and it will take a lot of data to show which came out on top. Even missiles got a teeny buff with the elite MS skill.

Spoiler
NEW High Scatter Amplifier
  • Reduces the base range of beam weapons to 500/600/700 on frigates/destroyers/larger ships.
  • Beams deal +10% damage.
  • Beams deal hard flux damage to shields.
It perfectly synergizes with EWM skill now.
On paper, it terrifies me to think about an SO Sunder with HSA, 2 Graviton Beams and a HIL
[close]

Quote
TextFieldAPI
Text input fields?!
Yes!
Will the legendary "Map Pin" mod ever be made? Tune in next time, true believers!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 05, 2021, 08:13:42 PM
Does any here believe that fighter/carriers will be less viable than before?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Nia Tahl on November 05, 2021, 08:42:27 PM
Hmm. I feel like with poor accuracy, the Mauler is hard to make useful - but if it's accurate and sustained, it's too oppressive. And likewise if it just has enough output for its (in)accuracy to matter less. For the Hephaestus, this seems more ok because it requires a large slot.

The Heavy Mortar... my impression is (and person experience seems to support it) that it's pretty useful. If it's not the go-to medium HE option, then what is?

Mauler is. It pairs well with both HVD due to range-matching and similar constant pressure and HAC due to equally benefiting from Gunnery Implants. I really don't see any need to change the Mauler at all, it's a great gun thanks to excellent range, decent enough accuracy and solid HE alpha. It can be on a long range pressure loadout with HVDs or a mid-range loadout with HACs where it's accuracy is improved due to shorter engagement range.

Your suggested Mauler change also sounds a lot like a 3-round burst HE medium I have in one of my mods and for that thing to be balanced I had to give it worse recoil than the HAC. That gun actually has less alpha than the proposed Mauler change which just seems laughably OP with good accuracy and 1k range (Mine is 800 range and horrendous recoil)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 05, 2021, 09:27:55 PM
Mauler is. It pairs well with both HVD due to range-matching and similar constant pressure and HAC due to equally benefiting from Gunnery Implants. I really don't see any need to change the Mauler at all, it's a great gun thanks to excellent range, decent enough accuracy and solid HE alpha. It can be on a long range pressure loadout with HVDs or a mid-range loadout with HACs where it's accuracy is improved due to shorter engagement range.

Your suggested Mauler change also sounds a lot like a 3-round burst HE medium I have in one of my mods and for that thing to be balanced I had to give it worse recoil than the HAC. That gun actually has less alpha than the proposed Mauler change which just seems laughably OP with good accuracy and 1k range (Mine is 800 range and horrendous recoil)

Hmm - did your HE have really poor DPS and a high cycle time, as well? Right now the Mauler is at 120 dps and 5 seconds total per burst, which goes a long way to not making it feel overpowered, at least so far. But maybe I'm missing some combination where it really shines? In testing so far it just feels solid - hurts when it hits, but there's ample opportunity to avoid getting hit, too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: MesoTroniK on November 05, 2021, 09:44:13 PM
Personally I'm really not feeling these Heavy Mauler changes (unlike pretty much everything else in the log), if anything I could see the old version just being slightly more accurate and calling it a day. A burst like that on the Nu-Mauler, even with low DPS is really punishing especially since medium slots are so common and spammable. Is exactly the sort of weapon a few mods have done over the years, and usually end up getting removed or reworked.

I have always generally read the lack of any ballistic alpha / burst weapons that are not KE not existing for ballistic slots except for larges as an intentional design decision and a good one at that. While energy gets alpha / burst at every size which segues with the ships that use them.

I'm getting terror images in my head, of Heavy Mauler spam... And every time a ship overloads or vents, it instantly gets tens of shells dumped at it at long range and armor stripped instantly. And unlike missiles, or say Hellbores, good luck really even trying doing anything about it during the moment.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Jonlissla on November 05, 2021, 09:49:07 PM
Starfarersector patch notes are the best notes. Everything looks awesome, but is....
Quote
Star system that becomes permanently inaccessible REDACTED will now become accessible again after around a cycle
... this a reference to something new or something already in the game?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 05, 2021, 09:55:05 PM
Starfarersector patch notes are the best notes. Everything looks awesome, but is....
Quote
Star system that becomes permanently inaccessible REDACTED will now become accessible again after around a cycle
... this a reference to something new or something already in the game?
Old, story stuff.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: deoxyribonucleicacid on November 05, 2021, 10:13:06 PM
i like all the QoL changes especially the raiding and salvage ones.

unfortunately, colony management overall felt like it got a nerf but not too bad, it just became less profitable. honestly, i really wanna have a hopium that makes colonies in future updates have more interesting to do other than spend more to get more in any case i guess they will just stay as a sugar mommy/daddy who pays for your bills.

other than that...

WE SLIPSTREAMING BOYSSSSS!!!!!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 05, 2021, 10:59:52 PM
That change makes me sad, actually.  I would love for different admins to be, well, different, so there's some excitement in finding particularly good ones.  But that means having lots of different skills (less powerful and more specific than current ones).  Going to no skills except one is a bit disappointing, so all admins are totally generic.

Obviously I don't know, but this could just be placeholder until some more interesting Admin skills are cooked up. Might not have been worth the Dev time this pass.

I'll just say that this is something we've talked about internally - but, don't want to go into details in case nothing comes of it. But I also don't think that having a 3 skills total is *that* much more interesting, given that the skills are all fairly general-purpose boosts anyway.

I was going to make basically this exact point, but it would appear that others have beaten me to it.  However, it does beg a few further questions regarding implementation/patching.  Is the current code/colony skills going to be kept in the code as legacy in case someone wants to mod admin skills back in for admins while waiting for whatever the eventual decision is/next patch?

Also, how is/which current admins will get/keep the only skill (Industrial Planning) still available?  Admins that already have the skill, or just any two skill admin?  I only ask 'cuz I recently started a new run to hopefully update to the new patch with no/few issues, and am already dragging around some found admins while looking for that optimal colony location, need to decide which ones to fire and which to keep... and I double-checked your July blog post regarding this, it seems pretty ambiguous regarding who keeps what (maybe it was answered in the blog forum thread somewhere, not gonna reread that entire thing if I can just ask here).

Does any here believe that fighter/carriers will be less viable than before?

Prolly not less viable, but kinda hard to tell with the giant info dump, including changes to fighters/fighter weapons, skills, ships, etc.  However, the PD weapon range nerf seems like it will definitely help make carriers more viable again.  Plus the additional command option for escorting ships should help with better protecting carriers, don't just have to rely on xyphos anymore...

The only thing i dont get: were energy weapons OP? Why so much buffs for ballistics? I mean: ok, plasma was good. But what else? I understand the asymmetric balance conception, but anyway...
The changes to High Scatter Amplifier have plenty of new ramifications to energy weapons. I think both weapon types were buffed and it will take a lot of data to show which came out on top. Even missiles got a teeny buff with the elite MS skill.

Spoiler
NEW High Scatter Amplifier
  • Reduces the base range of beam weapons to 500/600/700 on frigates/destroyers/larger ships.
  • Beams deal +10% damage.
  • Beams deal hard flux damage to shields.
It perfectly synergizes with EWM skill now.
On paper, it terrifies me to think about an SO Sunder with HSA, 2 Graviton Beams and a HIL
[close]

Finally, I will say that the changes to the High Scatter Amplifier are extremely interesting, basically splits energy weapons into two categories via absence or presence of a single hull mod (beams doing hard vs soft flux damage to shields, but basically inversely proportional to energy weapon range).  Are there a bunch of code tags/hints to modify ships AI behavior when High Scatter Amplifier present/used vs. when not?  Seems like ship/energy weapon AI might still end up being too timid otherwise (although this prolly also may vary due to officer temperament).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 05, 2021, 11:50:44 PM
Please increase minimum and maximum bar events, some of us know where the settings are located but there are many more players who don't and might be irritated by the current amount of available events.

Also, maybe some sort of minor crew/marine-related fleetwide bonus on Cybernetic Augmentation please?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shinr on November 06, 2021, 12:04:26 AM
So What happens to the packages then? Are they removed or untouched then? If the latter, that would make them only slightly more useful than something like recovery shuttles.

They're technically still in the game (for save compatibility) but there's no way to actually get them in a new game.

I had runs where I purchased Assault/Escort Packages from the markets and used them with no problems even before I could invest into/when I ignored the Auxiliary Support skill (Could have been a mod, though?), so why not let them to be purchased and usable, even if they would not be as effective?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on November 06, 2021, 02:12:10 AM
You know, now that I actively think about starting a new game soon, I kinda wish there were a random starter frigate option. The random fleet option is fun, but it's also always a fast start with lots of playstile options. Having a single random frigate would force you to adapt to its specific strenghts and get to know it like you never could in a fleet context.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mayu on November 06, 2021, 02:20:22 AM
Quote
Aptitudes whose skill has an "npc_only" tag will no longer be shown in the character screen
Oh no, is it possible for you to add another type of tag that allows a custom skill to be shown in character screen? I've made several obtainable unique skills from a quest and it would be great if custom skills can still be viewed in character screen. Thank you!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Maethendias on November 06, 2021, 02:24:32 AM
"It's replaced there by the Fury; I think it makes more sense to have a general-purpose combat cruiser in the package than a more specialized exploration ship."

the thing is tho, the apogee is the only high tech cruiser with staying power, taking that out would make the whole skirmishing of high tech fleets alot less... well, effective, since without an anchor to bind the enemy fleets you really cant flank them with other ships

not to mention the apogee being the only reliable high tech missile plattform... and that large energy slot really should not be underestimated

even as a "specialized" exlporation cruiser the apogee is anything but a halpless science vessel, and has very strong damage output while still being exceptionally tanky, so arguably the apogee is exactly that, a general purpose combat ship that can be specialized in many diffrent ways

meanwhile, the fury is just a light version of the aurora
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: hypocrisy-aeron on November 06, 2021, 03:21:16 AM
Are there any plans on releasing a CrewAPI/MarinesAPI in the next update?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Drazan on November 06, 2021, 04:03:21 AM
Nice and important changes, the reworking of the skill system and the phase ships was absolutely neccesary.
And is love the new stuff being added in, but i feel like a few important changes shoud have benn made in their place. (if it is the dev time that is liminting the number of changes we get :D )

First, a nerf/rebalance is long overdue for the Safety Override hullmod. It just gives you too much extra flux and the extra speed you get totally offsets the drawbacks of the range reduction. Please please change it.

Secound, carriers are really in a bad place right now, and with the ballistic weapon buff they are getting even worse by comparison. Some drastic changes are needed. (Personally i would like if we could control the attack craft more directly, but if thats too much...) Just some upgrade statwise would be nice as well.

Both things are highly south after in the community, so some changes would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Nia Tahl on November 06, 2021, 04:33:08 AM
Mauler is. It pairs well with both HVD due to range-matching and similar constant pressure and HAC due to equally benefiting from Gunnery Implants. I really don't see any need to change the Mauler at all, it's a great gun thanks to excellent range, decent enough accuracy and solid HE alpha. It can be on a long range pressure loadout with HVDs or a mid-range loadout with HACs where it's accuracy is improved due to shorter engagement range.

Your suggested Mauler change also sounds a lot like a 3-round burst HE medium I have in one of my mods and for that thing to be balanced I had to give it worse recoil than the HAC. That gun actually has less alpha than the proposed Mauler change which just seems laughably OP with good accuracy and 1k range (Mine is 800 range and horrendous recoil)

Hmm - did your HE have really poor DPS and a high cycle time, as well? Right now the Mauler is at 120 dps and 5 seconds total per burst, which goes a long way to not making it feel overpowered, at least so far. But maybe I'm missing some combination where it really shines? In testing so far it just feels solid - hurts when it hits, but there's ample opportunity to avoid getting hit, too.

Fair, that is a considerably slower burst burst than I expected with 2.5s between shots, so it's barely even a burst from the sound of it. Or do you mean time between bursts here?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 04:54:01 AM

Might as well be 700 to match light and storm needlers.  It could not combo very well except with 700 energy weapons like plasma cannon (on Paragon and Ziggurat).  800 range needler would combo well with 900 range ballistics on something like Conquest, but not 750 range needlers - not enough range.

 

I heavily disagree, the heavy needler combos well with heavy mortars and Light assault guns in addition to 600-700 range energies.  The 150 range gap is not big enough of a deal breaker to not use it in combination with a hellbore. If anything, the problem is a lack of another 700-800 anti armor ballistic medium. So it just makes you go "Why dont I just get the op and just combo this 900 range large with an HVD/Heavy mauler instead". Which actually begs a question about range hullmods in the future
Yes, needlers and mortars combo alright on the ships that would use it, although such ships (destroyers, falcon) do not have much OP to spare for heavy needlers.  The bigger ships with heavy and medium mounts were what I had in mind because they do not have 800 or 900 range medium HE to mix with inaccurate Mark IX.  (I tend to use Arbalest or Railguns on the smaller ships because they are relatively cheap and disposable.)

150 range gap (between heavy needler and large ballistics) breaks Steady Conquest.  100 range did not.  I tried.  I replaced the needlers with heavy ACs to make the older loadouts with 800 range kinetics and 900 range heavy weapons work.  (And such a Conquest needs Gunnery Implants so that the ACs are accurate enough.)

apogee no longer available from high tech blueprint, but why?

It's replaced there by the Fury; I think it makes more sense to have a general-purpose combat cruiser in the package than a more specialized exploration ship.
Apogee seems too powerful to be a "specialized exploration ship".  If anything, it feels more like a mini-Paragon or a Sunder with a much stronger shield.  It is a great bargain as a full-blown combat ship at 18 DP.

Be nice if high-tech pack had more ships like the low-tech and midline packs.  High-tech pack is a bit of a letdown.  I hoped the pack would get more ships.  Even four (with Wolf, Shrike, Apogee, and Fury) is less than the other two packs, and still no carriers in the pack.

That said, Fury seems to be a more typical specimen of high-tech than Apogee.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sarissofoi on November 06, 2021, 05:32:11 AM
RELEASE NOW!
or else
Spoiler
I will be very sad
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 05:39:33 AM
Starfarersector patch notes are the best notes. Everything looks awesome, but is....
Quote
Star system that becomes permanently inaccessible REDACTED will now become accessible again after around a cycle
... this a reference to something new or something already in the game?
The point in the Galatia quest line when you nuke a gate with the prototype device?

If so, that is great!  No more exploring the entire sector looking for all of the gates first to find the one gate/system that is least painful to destroy or seal off.  It was definitely a point of decision paralysis.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 06, 2021, 06:07:14 AM
Forgot to mention earlier: Now that there's precedent for vanilla planets having the new industry items, I expect mods will use them on their own markets too. I'll probably have Nex scatter some around the vanilla worlds.

"It's replaced there by the Fury; I think it makes more sense to have a general-purpose combat cruiser in the package than a more specialized exploration ship."

the thing is tho, the apogee is the only high tech cruiser with staying power, taking that out would make the whole skirmishing of high tech fleets alot less... well, effective, since without an anchor to bind the enemy fleets you really cant flank them with other ships

not to mention the apogee being the only reliable high tech missile plattform... and that large energy slot really should not be underestimated

even as a "specialized" exlporation cruiser the apogee is anything but a halpless science vessel, and has very strong damage output while still being exceptionally tanky, so arguably the apogee is exactly that, a general purpose combat ship that can be specialized in many diffrent ways

meanwhile, the fury is just a light version of the aurora

Apogee seems too powerful to be a "specialized exploration ship".  If anything, it feels more like a mini-Paragon or a Sunder with a much stronger shield.  It is a great bargain as a full-blown combat ship at 18 DP.

Be nice if high-tech pack had more ships like the low-tech and midline packs.  High-tech pack is a bit of a letdown.  I hoped the pack would get more ships.  Even four (with Wolf, Shrike, Apogee, and Fury) is less than the other two packs, and still no carriers in the pack.

That said, Fury seems to be a more typical specimen of high-tech than Apogee.
Problem could be solved by giving HT pack a new fleet anchor ship; high tech currently doesn't have any of those other than Paragon and the hybrid Apogee.
(I mentioned this before when Fury was announced, seeing as high-tech already had plenty of high speed attackers in both the destroyer and cruiser categories, and I felt it didn't really need a new one)

Secound, carriers are really in a bad place right now, and with the ballistic weapon buff they are getting even worse by comparison. Some drastic changes are needed. (Personally i would like if we could control the attack craft more directly, but if thats too much...) Just some upgrade statwise would be nice as well.
Alex, how do you feel about me bringing up officer skills for carriers again? (I drafted a post some time back, but didn't submit it because meh)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: braciszek on November 06, 2021, 06:29:42 AM
It's finally here! I was halfway into reading these patch notes when I passed out from exhaustion. I finished reading them now, but my estimate for the release of this post from many months ago was off by two months. Personal note to add two months to all my starsector update estimates. :p

If you don't my asking, will the Remnant roster ever be expanded? (whether that is in scope at all or just very far away). Such as a larger carrier droneship than the feeble scintilla or even a phase droneship.

For us lore nerds:

... Would you consider there to be an implicit reason a drone phaseship doesn't exist? Tri-Tachyon, which has a history in developing phase warships and AI, don't seem to have developed the ultimate weapon. Considering AI don't really physically age much (see remnants) and would theoretically not be vulnerable to the psychological effects of phase... depending on the vector that effect takes hold, the combination would make the ultimate killing machine.

That or Tri-Tachyon would have lore reason to strap AI cores to phase coils and have them perform research at 3x the speed and save themselves some time. And the cores would be held hostage in case they tried anything as turning the phase coil off would cause them to be lost forever, no?

Unless AI cores are averse to phase space directly by knowing something about it that every human in the Persean Sector doesn't know. The... thing and its special event implies a fear of the specific technology developed for it and not inherently phase itself, so I cannot be sure there.

Whether or not you would entertain this idea, there are some of us who wouldn't mind seeing a ship other than Brilliants or Radiants for cruiser and capital slots in remnant fleets. Potentially add a little more variety to their fleets and more toys for the player on the Automated Ships skill end.



Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Caymon Joestar on November 06, 2021, 06:30:25 AM

Might as well be 700 to match light and storm needlers.  It could not combo very well except with 700 energy weapons like plasma cannon (on Paragon and Ziggurat).  800 range needler would combo well with 900 range ballistics on something like Conquest, but not 750 range needlers - not enough range.

 

I heavily disagree, the heavy needler combos well with heavy mortars and Light assault guns in addition to 600-700 range energies.  The 150 range gap is not big enough of a deal breaker to not use it in combination with a hellbore. If anything, the problem is a lack of another 700-800 anti armor ballistic medium. So it just makes you go "Why dont I just get the op and just combo this 900 range large with an HVD/Heavy mauler instead". Which actually begs a question about range hullmods in the future
Yes, needlers and mortars combo alright on the ships that would use it, although such ships (destroyers, falcon) do not have much OP to spare for heavy needlers.  The bigger ships with heavy and medium mounts were what I had in mind because they do not have 800 or 900 range medium HE to mix with inaccurate Mark IX.  (I tend to use Arbalest or Railguns on the smaller ships because they are relatively cheap and disposable.)

150 range gap (between heavy needler and large ballistics) breaks Steady Conquest.  100 range did not.  I tried.  I replaced the needlers with heavy ACs to make the older loadouts with 800 range kinetics and 900 range heavy weapons work.  (And such a Conquest needs Gunnery Implants so that the ACs are accurate enough.)
 

Try a reckless/Aggressive officer. Idk why you’re using steady when reckless/aggressive are easily the best personalities for combat ships. Especially for a ship with bad ai like the conquest due to its broadsider nature. Even then, I would consider the conquest the exception rather than the rule due to its said broadside nature.

Anyways, to go back on the discussion of the packages, Alex, what was your idea behind them/the skill? The problem with them was the fact that you set the cap for the skill too low, meaning only one frigate size ship could effectively benefit from it’s full effect. Was the goal for it to allow the player to have like a fleet of civilian ships combat ready? Or was it only for ships that were technically combat ready but could use a boost to make them more on par with military standard ships like the venture or the Prom/Atlas mk2s? If it was a matter of not enough ships to really justify it, could it not have been merged into a different skill? Or making some new pirate convertions of say the fuel tankers like the Dram/Phaeton? You could have also retroactively apply it to other ships like the Mule or the Buffalo Mk2s or the Colossus Mk2/3s.

Basically in what way did they not work out?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 06, 2021, 06:32:48 AM
Well I didn't expect those Mauler changes, wonder how it will feel to use now. Don't have any strong opinions about the change, although with them I once again thought to myself that having one more medium HE option would make these changes less controversial for some. It's just two complete extremes, short range budget DPS gun, and a long range sniper, with nothing in between.

Fair point about having an anchor in high tech blueprint, I'm also a bit sick at this point of "fast squishy high tech ship with mobility system and medium mounts all around", feel like there's plenty of those already. I know that's the point of high tech doctrine but come on other techs have more exceptions.

And thank youu!!! Thank you for making converted pirate and Ludd capitals actually usable with burn 7. As soon as I start a new game I'm getting a Prometheus MkII to be my flagship.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 06, 2021, 06:38:13 AM
In my experience, Fury is doing the anchoring just fine currently. Sure, it does so through harassment instead of just being a stupid tough brick, but it's close enough for mobile fleets.

Forgot to mention earlier: Now that there's precedent for vanilla planets having the new industry items, I expect mods will use them on their own markets too. I'll probably have Nex scatter some around the vanilla worlds.
I would like most or all of the items scattered around in the core worlds, so you could raid for them, instead of exploration being your only option.

Alex, how do you feel about me bringing up officer skills for carriers again? (I drafted a post some time back, but didn't submit it because meh)
Especially now that you don't need to pick any of them, if you don't want to, if they're tier 1 combat skills.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Ishman on November 06, 2021, 08:01:52 AM

Weapons/fighters:
  • Resonator MRM:
    • Increased damage to 250 (was: 200)
    • Reduced flux per missile to 50 (was: 200)
    • Increased starting ammo to 8 (was: 4)
    • Can now fire a full burst every 2 seconds (was: every 5)
    • Ammo regeneration rate still the same; 10 seconds for a full burst's worth
  • Shock Repeater: reduced flux/shot to 25 (was: 75)

Glad to see these changes (making the shock repeater a premium PD/EMP assault combo is great), but as noted by others here and on the discord, you might also consider taking a look at the reality disruptor. (https://i.imgur.com/KLGh0S0.png)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zonk on November 06, 2021, 08:41:31 AM
Incredible!!!

I'm so excited at being able to finally corral friendly ships with defend orders! Also, the change making friendlies defend a station at 2 flanking points rather than uselessly sitting behind the station is huge. Thank you so much for your hard work!

Also, I'd never heard of the bug where returning the ISS Hamatsu could leave you without a ship... lol!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 06, 2021, 08:55:56 AM
Re: Mauler change

I think it makes sense. Medium HE had 3 options: short-range buzzsaw (ACG), general purpose/inaccurate (Mortar), long-range/accurate/low-DPS (Mauler). The issue was that the Mauler just kind of plinked away and didn't actually deliver any kind of strong hit, despite it having the highest damage/shot of the three. Current Mauler can hit accurately but because of the reload speed, you're not guaranteed to really do appreciable damage to any particular armor cell. Nu-Mauler doesn't hit fast but it hits hard to single points.

If anything, it specializes it more, and with the reduced flux cost, it will be a bit more efficient for a "premium" weapon. 5 seconds of reload feels like a long time, though. The lower overall DPS is also going to look pitiful on paper but DPS doesn't tell the whole story. High damage/shot means less residual armor mitigation, being super-accurate means you're not wasting flux on misses, and the aforementioned hitting single armor cells/locations is also an intangible positive. When it comes to actually getting through hull, it will definitely lag behind but I suppose you're putting those rounds on target and from a distance.

Nu-Mauler sort of fills the gap that I think Medium HE was missing: a heavy hitter. I had suggested some time ago to have a Medium Hellbore-equivalent to replace the Heavy Mortar as the "cheap/efficient" option in Medium HE. You'd turn the Heavy Mortar into a true general-purpose weapon with a higher OP cost and 800 range. The Medium Hellbore would hit hard (400) but have lower range (700) and slow reload (3 seconds) but cost 7 OP. 600 damage (over 3 shots) every 5 seconds is basically that, though it can now do so at 1000 range and you have to pay a premium for it.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AHandyDandyHotDog on November 06, 2021, 09:10:32 AM
I'm very happy with the new methods of distracting patrols, that is a very important inclusion for me. Both being able to place false signatures and having the patrols travel further away from their original spots so your efforts aren't wasted when they go right back along with you is very good.

I also want to say that I think story points are too easy to get, I think they should be a harder to come by. That, or the more useful uses of story points should be more expensive. Right now it feels like a get out of jail free card/ limitless credit card that I have basically infinite of because of the refund system.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 09:21:26 AM
Try a reckless/Aggressive officer. Idk why you’re using steady when reckless/aggressive are easily the best personalities for combat ships. Especially for a ship with bad ai like the conquest due to its broadsider nature. Even then, I would consider the conquest the exception rather than the rule due to its said broadside nature.
I do not like the more aggressive officers unless I plan to use mostly short-range weapons (which I am generally not fond of).  I would use Aggressive if I planned on a bumper car or melee fleet.  If I used Aggressive on Conquest, I would swap out AC/MarkIX/Mjolnir for Storm Needlers and Mortars (because it gets too close for other weapons).

Aside, I gave up using Gauss on AI Conquest.  With Cautious, it kept staying beyond Gauss range and cowered.  With Steady, it kept getting within 900 range, defeating the point of Gauss.  It was better off with more damaging and efficient weapons if it could not maintain range advantage with Gauss.

I also want to say that I think story points are too easy to get, I think they should be a harder to come by. That, or the more useful uses of story points should be more expensive. Right now it feels like a get out of jail free card/ limitless credit card that I have basically infinite of because of the refund system.
No thank you.  Colonies and historian have an insatiable appetite for story points.  Exploding 2^n costs are crazy.  They eat far more story points than anything else.  I need all the story points I can get to feed those hungry monsters.

Story points do not feel like plot movers.  They feel like vespene gas or rarer second currency used to buy upgrades for ships and especially colonies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pedro1_1 on November 06, 2021, 09:47:37 AM
I hope combat is playable in my Vega 11... Being limited to only exploration killed 0.95a for me.

Was combat performance in 0.95a worse for you than from 0.9.1a? It's hard to see why that might be; it should've improved if anything. Hmm. But performance with 0.95.1 should be about the same as 0.95, regardless.

I used my early 0.95a benchmarks for that coment, I just tested the new drivers, and they work significantly better even if they run at 200Mhz insted of 300-500Mhz, the only problem I have now is the fact that Heron's Targeting Feed kills performace
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 06, 2021, 10:39:12 AM
I'm getting terror images in my head, of Heavy Mauler spam... And every time a ship overloads or vents, it instantly gets tens of shells dumped at it at long range and armor stripped instantly. And unlike missiles, or say Hellbores, good luck really even trying doing anything about it during the moment.

Hmm - it wouldn't vent in Mauler range, and if it overloads, it's lucky that it's getting hit by Maulers and not a bunch of Harpoons, so I'm not sure I'm really on board with that.

Again, not to say that the changes are perfect or anything, and I'd like to spend more time with them.

I was going to make basically this exact point, but it would appear that others have beaten me to it.  However, it does beg a few further questions regarding implementation/patching.  Is the current code/colony skills going to be kept in the code as legacy in case someone wants to mod admin skills back in for admins while waiting for whatever the eventual decision is/next patch?

For now the old skills are around but there's no committment on my part to keeping them in the next major release; in fact I'll most likely clean them up at some point.

Also, how is/which current admins will get/keep the only skill (Industrial Planning) still available?  Admins that already have the skill, or just any two skill admin?  I only ask 'cuz I recently started a new run to hopefully update to the new patch with no/few issues, and am already dragging around some found admins while looking for that optimal colony location, need to decide which ones to fire and which to keep... and I double-checked your July blog post regarding this, it seems pretty ambiguous regarding who keeps what (maybe it was answered in the blog forum thread somewhere, not gonna reread that entire thing if I can just ask here).

When the save is converted over (which happens after the first time you load the game) non-Industrial-Planning skills will be removed.


Finally, I will say that the changes to the High Scatter Amplifier are extremely interesting, basically splits energy weapons into two categories via absence or presence of a single hull mod (beams doing hard vs soft flux damage to shields, but basically inversely proportional to energy weapon range).  Are there a bunch of code tags/hints to modify ships AI behavior when High Scatter Amplifier present/used vs. when not?  Seems like ship/energy weapon AI might still end up being too timid otherwise (although this prolly also may vary due to officer temperament).

If we're being honest, I'm a bit concenred that it may produce some far-too-powerful combinations, but we'll see!


I had runs where I purchased Assault/Escort Packages from the markets and used them with no problems even before I could invest into/when I ignored the Auxiliary Support skill (Could have been a mod, though?), so why not let them to be purchased and usable, even if they would not be as effective?

Ah - for how litle they do without the skill - while they might be very situationally useful - I don't think they're worth the added clutter.


You know, now that I actively think about starting a new game soon, I kinda wish there were a random starter frigate option. The random fleet option is fun, but it's also always a fast start with lots of playstile options. Having a single random frigate would force you to adapt to its specific strenghts and get to know it like you never could in a fleet context.

That does sound like fun! Not sure I can carve out the time to mess with it now, though, but... hmm. Tempted :)


Quote
Aptitudes whose skill has an "npc_only" tag will no longer be shown in the character screen
Oh no, is it possible for you to add another type of tag that allows a custom skill to be shown in character screen? I've made several obtainable unique skills from a quest and it would be great if custom skills can still be viewed in character screen. Thank you!

I think maybe I wasn't 100% clear - it's not "aptitudes where any of the skills has an npc_only" tag, but "an aptitude whose implementation-skill has that tag". Like, for example, AptitudeDesc in vanilla. There's no reason to have had the npc_only tag on that before, so it's not a change that takes any options away from you.


the thing is tho, the apogee is the only high tech cruiser with staying power, taking that out would make the whole skirmishing of high tech fleets alot less... well, effective, since without an anchor to bind the enemy fleets you really cant flank them with other ships

not to mention the apogee being the only reliable high tech missile plattform... and that large energy slot really should not be underestimated

even as a "specialized" exlporation cruiser the apogee is anything but a halpless science vessel, and has very strong damage output while still being exceptionally tanky, so arguably the apogee is exactly that, a general purpose combat ship that can be specialized in many diffrent ways

meanwhile, the fury is just a light version of the aurora

Ultimately, what goes into the packages is pretty subjective, right. I hear what you're saying (though the Apogee definitely also has non-combat features), but to me, given the overall feel of the high-tech package, the Fury feels like a better fit.

Are there any plans on releasing a CrewAPI/MarinesAPI in the next update?

I'm not at all sure what you mean.


First, a nerf/rebalance is long overdue for the Safety Override hullmod. It just gives you too much extra flux and the extra speed you get totally offsets the drawbacks of the range reduction. Please please change it.

Secound, carriers are really in a bad place right now, and with the ballistic weapon buff they are getting even worse by comparison. Some drastic changes are needed. (Personally i would like if we could control the attack craft more directly, but if thats too much...) Just some upgrade statwise would be nice as well.

Hmm, I don't think we're on the same page here, as I'm fairly happy with where both of these are at right now.


Fair, that is a considerably slower burst burst than I expected with 2.5s between shots, so it's barely even a burst from the sound of it. Or do you mean time between bursts here?

The actual burst is .6 seconds - a .3 delay between shots - with a 4.4 cooldown, so 5 seconds total cycle time.

Be nice if high-tech pack had more ships like the low-tech and midline packs.  High-tech pack is a bit of a letdown.  I hoped the pack would get more ships.  Even four (with Wolf, Shrike, Apogee, and Fury) is less than the other two packs, and still no carriers in the pack.

I wonder if the midline pack could do with a few less ships. Some of the ones in it - especially the Heron - feel like they might deserve to be a "rare blueprint" instead.


RELEASE NOW!
or else
Spoiler
I will be very sad
[close]

Spoiler
:'(
[close]


The point in the Galatia quest line when you nuke a gate with the prototype device?

If so, that is great!  No more exploring the entire sector looking for all of the gates first to find the one gate/system that is least painful to destroy or seal off.  It was definitely a point of decision paralysis.

Yep!


Alex, how do you feel about me bringing up officer skills for carriers again? (I drafted a post some time back, but didn't submit it because meh)

Well, you're always welcome to bring stuff up! But as far as likelihood-of-me-doing-something, it's fairly low, though it depends on the specifics. I'm not a fan of bringing back carrier-only skills; the new skill system (for 0.95.1a) is a deliberate step away from skills locking the player into a too-small set of ships. Yeah, ballistic and energy masteries do that to some extent, but the range of interesting ships that these benefit is broad.

Carrier skills, there aren't that many interesting ships to pilot - Astral, Legion, Heron. Maybe the Odyssey. But combining carrier skill effects with non-carrier effects seems like it would still incentivize you to pilot a subset of these ships due to them benefitting from both the carrier and combat aspects of the hypothetical skill. So it seems like a tricky design problem. That would be less of an issue for officer skill picks - if you have a dedicated carrier officer, that's fine - but since those come from the same skill pool...

Overall, I'm happier with the skill system now that it doesn't have these (well, almost - Point Defense, still) and the carrier effects are fleetwides-only.


If you don't my asking, will the Remnant roster ever be expanded? (whether that is in scope at all or just very far away). Such as a larger droneship than the feeble scintilla or even a drone phaseship.

It's definitely a possibility!

... Would you consider there to be an implicit reason a drone phaseship doesn't exist? Tri-Tachyon, which has a history in developing phase warships and AI, don't seem to have developed the ultimate weapon. Considering AI don't really physically age much (see remnants) and would theoretically not be vulnerable to the psychological effects of phase... depending on the vector that effect takes hold, the combination would make the ultimate killing machine.

That or Tri-Tachyon would have lore reason to strap AI cores to phase coils and have them perform research at 3x the speed and save themselves some time. And the cores would be held hostage in case they tried anything as turning the phase coil off would cause them to be lost forever, no?

Unless AI cores are averse to phase space directly by knowing something about it that every human in the Persean Sector doesn't know. The... thing and its special event implies a fear of the specific technology developed for it and not inherently phase itself, so I cannot be sure there.

Whether or not you would entertain this idea, there are some of us who wouldn't mind seeing a ship other than Brilliants or Radiants for cruiser and capital slots in remnant fleets. Potentially add a little more variety to their fleets and more toys for the player on the Automated Ships skill end.

I don't think there's a particular reason for it, and a drone-phaseship sounds like it could be fun. Likewise with capitals or a new cruiser, especially now that these can be part of the player fleet, too, and even controlled via Neural Link!


Anyways, to go back on the discussion of the packages, Alex, what was your idea behind them/the skill? The problem with them was the fact that you set the cap for the skill too low, meaning only one frigate size ship could effectively benefit from it’s full effect. Was the goal for it to allow the player to have like a fleet of civilian ships combat ready? Or was it only for ships that were technically combat ready but could use a boost to make them more on par with military standard ships like the venture or the Prom/Atlas mk2s? If it was a matter of not enough ships to really justify it, could it not have been merged into a different skill? Or making some new pirate convertions of say the fuel tankers like the Dram/Phaeton? You could have also retroactively apply it to other ships like the Mule or the Buffalo Mk2s or the Colossus Mk2/3s.

Basically in what way did they not work out?

The idea was that you could have a very limited set of civ-grade ships boosted to a high level. The cap was deliberately low so that you couldn't, say, get the full effect on an Atlas Mk.II or a Venture, but the effect was high enough that it would have, hopefully, made some actually-civilian-ships (say, the Tarsus) more combat-capable, since they'd get the full bonus.

But that didn't really work out, and instead it was functionally *only* a buff to the already-combat-capable conversions, which in turn made those trickier to buff directly. If you'll note, the Prometheus Mk.II and the Atlas Mk.II have both received significant improvements, which I felt freer to make now that I didn't have to worry about how those might combine with the package mods.

Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.


And thank youu!!! Thank you for making converted pirate and Ludd capitals actually usable with burn 7. As soon as I start a new game I'm getting a Prometheus MkII to be my flagship.

Excellent :D


Glad to see these changes (making the shock repeater a premium PD/EMP assault combo is great), but as noted by others here and on the discord, you might also consider taking a look at the reality disruptor. (https://i.imgur.com/KLGh0S0.png)

... really? It seems borderline overpowered as-is, what with being able to bypass non-360 shields and completely lock a ship down. I mean, I'm open to feedback here, but that's my current impression of where it's at.

Also, I'd never heard of the bug where returning the ISS Hamatsu could leave you without a ship... lol!

Definitely not a common one to run into :)


I also want to say that I think story points are too easy to get, I think they should be a harder to come by. That, or the more useful uses of story points should be more expensive. Right now it feels like a get out of jail free card/ limitless credit card that I have basically infinite of because of the refund system.

What level do you mean at? It slows down quite a bit once you reach the cap. And before the cap, levels 1-10 taking more XP should make them a touch less easily available along the way.

I used my early 0.95a benchmarks for that coment, I just tested the new drivers, and they work significantly better even if they run at 200Mhz insted of 300-500Mhz, the only problem I have now is the fact that Heron's Targeting Feed kills performace

Ah, good! Yeah, that visual effect seems to occasionally cause problems, which is... odd. It's not doing anything particularly special that the game doesn't do at other times.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 10:54:55 AM
@ Alex:  The one ship I am kind of surprised not bring rare is the Dominator in the low-tech pack, with it being a heavy cruiser (especially now that we will get another lighter low-tech cruiser), and Eagle being its midline brother.  Eagle and Aurora are rare, and I expected Dominator to be so, but it is not.

I would not expect Heron to be rare if Mora is not.  They seem like direct competitors between the tech styles.

As for High Scatter Amplifier, I have some ideas to try out.  The one weapon I like to try with it is Paladin PD.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Maethendias on November 06, 2021, 11:10:15 AM
it is always so weird so see someone compare aurora and dominator next to each other, but yeah, they are BOTH cruisers arent they lol

its just funny how far apart both are from each other lol
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 06, 2021, 11:13:32 AM
Oh wow just because they're a different colour smh some people nowadays...

But for real now the comparison is fair, they're both heavy cruisers (different role tho obviously).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shinr on November 06, 2021, 11:26:13 AM
Alex, how do you feel about me bringing up officer skills for carriers again? (I drafted a post some time back, but didn't submit it because meh)

Well, you're always welcome to bring stuff up! But as far as likelihood-of-me-doing-something, it's fairly low, though it depends on the specifics. I'm not a fan of bringing back carrier-only skills; the new skill system (for 0.95.1a) is a deliberate step away from skills locking the player into a too-small set of ships. Yeah, ballistic and energy masteries do that to some extent, but the range of interesting ships that these benefit is broad.

Carrier skills, there aren't that many interesting ships to pilot - Astral, Legion, Heron. Maybe the Odyssey. But combining carrier skill effects with non-carrier effects seems like it would still incentivize you to pilot a subset of these ships due to them benefitting from both the carrier and combat aspects of the hypothetical skill. So it seems like a tricky design problem. That would be less of an issue for officer skill picks - if you have a dedicated carrier officer, that's fine - but since those come from the same skill pool...

Overall, I'm happier with the skill system now that it doesn't have these (well, almost - Point Defense, still) and the carrier effects are fleetwides-only.

I think you're really overestimating things here.

Only the small minority of min-maxers would agonize over wasted bonuses. The non-carrier players (or at least those who don't personally pilot them) would simply ignore them either because it is irrelevant to their play-style or found that trying to squeeze fighters into non-carrier ships for the sake of utilizing those bonuses more trouble than it was worth.

Meanwhile, giving carrier/fighter exclusive bonuses to existing skills would help the Carriers get out of their current bad standing.

Besides, what options do you have? You have said that Carrier exclusive skills are not an option, and yet at the same time you consider adding carrier/fighter bonuses to existing skills as some kind of design sin that will ruin everything.

So besides leaving them in the rut, that leaves either designing a whole separate (sub)-system for the Carriers/Fighters (And if the debacle behind the Colony system is any indication, this is not your preference)... or removing them all together to prevent obviously inferior newbie trap options.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Ishman on November 06, 2021, 11:30:58 AM
Ah - the reality disruptor is seen widely as an enormous waste of OP and a valuable energy slot - the bolts it fires are just the equivalent of launching an omen overtop something, and besides the enormously undercosted radiant, I'm not aware of any ship where that's a DP efficient use of a large energy, much better to just have the actual tanky omen to soak more attention and flux from things, while the energy mount is put to better use with a tach lance, plasma cannon, rift torpedo, or whatever.

I guess there's a few people who enjoy it as is - but I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use them more than once.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 11:42:46 AM
Go back into late 0.5 or early 0.6, cruisers were Venture, Dominator, Falcon, Eagle, Apogee, and Aurora (and Aurora was basically high-tech Champion with heavy missile and HEF).  Dominator, Eagle, and Aurora were competitors.  Venture was the only cruiser-sized carrier, and it was a solid combat ship back in the day.  Falcon and Apogee were atypical.

Heron, Mora, Gryphon, Champion, variants like Falcon-P and Eagle14, and the new ships to come, did not exist years ago.

Quote
So besides leaving them in the rut, that leaves either designing a whole separate (sub)-system for the Carriers/Fighters (And if the debacle behind the Colony system is any indication, this is not your preference)... or removing them all together to prevent obviously inferior newbie trap options.
There is buffing unskilled fighter use good enough to be worth using, or at least sturdy enough to last at least as long as Locusts with Expanded Missile Racks.  Right now, Locusts and ECCM'ed MIRVs do a better job of fighter-ing than fighters, and the mothership with Locusts and MIRV fighters missiles still have enough weapons to be a useful warship.

Ah - the reality disruptor is seen widely as an enormous waste of OP and a valuable energy slot - the bolts it fires are just the equivalent of launching an omen overtop something, and besides the enormously undercosted radiant, I'm not aware of any ship where that's a DP efficient use of a large energy, much better to just have the actual tanky omen to soak more attention and flux from things, while the energy mount is put to better use with a tach lance, plasma cannon, rift torpedo, or whatever.

I guess there's a few people who enjoy it as is - but I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use them more than once.
Speaking of Omega weapons... kind of disappointed Rift Cascade Emitter has not been changed.  Maybe it will be a killer weapon with High Scatter Amplifer (or not, just get Plasma Cannon), but as it is, RCE is just an overpriced and inefficient lance knockoff with conflicting design goals.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 06, 2021, 12:02:50 PM
I think you're really overestimating things here.

Only the small minority of min-maxers would agonize over wasted bonuses.

I mean, that's true to some extent, but non-minimaxers are also affect to some extent, too. A lot of learning a game is figuring out what works well; you can't help but be affected by the game's rules/what options the game offers, and what direction they pull your playstyle towards. Any individual thing may be not that big a deal on its own, but that doesn't mean that when looked at as a whole, these things don't matter.

Besides, what options do you have? You have said that Carrier exclusive skills are not an option, and yet at the same time you consider adding carrier/fighter bonuses to existing skills as some kind of design sin that will ruin everything.

So besides leaving them in the rut, that leaves either designing a whole separate (sub)-system for the Carriers/Fighters (And if the debacle behind the Colony system is any indication, this is not your preference)... or removing them all together to prevent obviously inferior newbie trap options.

Well - it also leaves the option of not having personal carrier skills and balancing them around that, and the possible presence of fleetwide carrier skills, which is both easier and doesn't clog up the skill tree with carrier skills :)

Ah - the reality disruptor is seen widely as an enormous waste of OP and a valuable energy slot - the bolts it fires are just the equivalent of launching an omen overtop something, and besides the enormously undercosted radiant, I'm not aware of any ship where that's a DP efficient use of a large energy, much better to just have the actual tanky omen to soak more attention and flux from things, while the energy mount is put to better use with a tach lance, plasma cannon, rift torpedo, or whatever.

I guess there's a few people who enjoy it as is - but I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use them more than once.

Hmm, interesting - thank you for the info! I'll have to have another look at it and maybe try out some more builds.

(... I mean, being able to launch an Omen at something seems like it'd be worth a large energy slot, no? ... hm.)


Speaking of Omega weapons... kind of disappointed Rift Cascade Emitter has not been changed.  Maybe it will be a killer weapon with High Scatter Amplifer (or not, just get Plasma Cannon), but as it is, RCE is just an overpriced and inefficient lance knockoff with conflicting design goals.

I think comparing RCE to the Tachyon Lance (if that's what you meant by "lance knockoff"?) misses the point - it's supposed to be largely a short-range weapon. There are no conflicting design goals there, the design is explicitly and intentionally a weapon that's more and more effective at shorter ranges. That said, it might still be a bit weak - in fact, it likely is.

I wonder if making the rifts stronger at shorter ranger might not be a fun way to address this, as well as make its design intentions more clear.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 06, 2021, 12:17:25 PM
I agree that dedicated carrier skills are not a good idea. My issue is that it rarely feels worth having an officered carrier because they don't really leverage skills very well IMO, and the officers would just do more on a combat ship. Unofficered carriers however feel really weak/squishy like every unofficered ship, so I end up in a place where I just don't want to use carriers. It would be nice if there were carrier specific buffs built into existing skills similar to how phase skills were reworked, so that I could build a good carrier officer. Something like adding bomber damage boosts to missile spec, fighter damage buffs to some existing damage skills, fighter survivability buffs to existing survivability skills etc.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on November 06, 2021, 12:24:08 PM
Quote
Carrier skills, there aren't that many interesting ships to pilot - Astral, Legion, Heron.
To me this feels like confirmation that Converted Hangers is in need of a buff, TBH. I'd like to use it, but I've yet to find a ship where the OP cost is worth the investment.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 12:44:17 PM
Speaking of Omega weapons... kind of disappointed Rift Cascade Emitter has not been changed.  Maybe it will be a killer weapon with High Scatter Amplifer (or not, just get Plasma Cannon), but as it is, RCE is just an overpriced and inefficient lance knockoff with conflicting design goals.

I think comparing RCE to the Tachyon Lance (if that's what you meant by "lance knockoff"?) misses the point - it's supposed to be largely a short-range weapon. There are no conflicting design goals there, the design is explicitly and intentionally a weapon that's more and more effective at shorter ranges. That said, it might still be a bit weak - in fact, it likely is.

I wonder if making the rifts stronger at shorter ranger might not be a fun way to address this, as well as make its design intentions more clear.
At the ranges where RCE might outperform Tachyon Lance, plasma cannon beats both, and since RCE has no significant special abilities (the explosions rarely sidestep around shields to hit unshielded sections), I want plasma cannon every time I want a high-end medium-range brawling energy weapon (unless I want to stack a bunch of autopulses for some reason).  I want to mount RCE because (at its 30 OP) I expected it to be a super Tachyon Lance, trading efficiency and (shield-piercing) EMP for more long-range damage, like various overpowered beam weapons from something like Knights Templar or old Neutrino mods.  But it does not do that.  RCE has no niche where I want it over either plasma cannon or tachyon lance.

I guess a question would be, is RCE meant to be a swiss-army knife weapon that is strong like plasma close but can snipe like a lance at long range in a pinch?

Now if RCE has a significant special ability, like its explosions partially ignoring shields (or adding significant hard flux), or had some advantage over normal weapons, I would desire it.  But right now, RCE looks like something I would only use if need a tachyon lance, but do not have one, but I have an RCE laying around at hand.

RCE is not a bad weapon per se, just underperforming for the OP and flux cost my ship pays to use it (not to mention rarity), when compared to more common alternatives.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 06, 2021, 12:56:05 PM
Also, I'm a bit concerned that the scarab and hyperion nerfs are unwarranted in the context of the rest of the patch. I'm a bit worried about balance whiplash where they become second rate because too many small factors swing away from them. Most of the changes I see either benefit ships that they will compete with, or directly hurt them: the addition of new low-tech ships that will compete for the same elite frigate/destroyer role, new skill options that benefit those new ships (ballistic weapon mastery), buffs to armor skills and the new polarized armor skill, buffs to ballistic weapons, nerfs to shield/flux related skills and hull mods, nerf to wolfpack tactics that hurts frigates in general etc. None of those things are massive factors, but I think they all stack up against high tech frigates.

I actually think the hyperion might be back to unusable status particularly because of the wolf pack changes in addition to the hefty DP nerf. It really needs SO to be good (I think non-SO builds are mediocre at best currently, even with officer skill support) and the wolf pack change loses 40 seconds of PPT on the SO build which is really painful, plus it costs an extra 5 DP which means an extra 10 supplies per month with higher maintenance. It costs as many supplies as a capital ship now... I really can't imagine using it when the best build is nerfed and the logistics are much worse, not to mention all the other changes that aren't really huge, but mostly stack up against it. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't use non-SO hyperion on the current patch with just the +5 DP nerf, and there are so many other factors that pile up on top of that.

With regards to the scarab, I also just hate OP nerfs on ships that already feel tight on OP. It makes outfitting them just feel really bad, I would rather see other balance changes if necessary. I honestly don't think the scarab is that out of line currently, and I think it would be fine without a nerf in the context of the rest of the patch.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: braciszek on November 06, 2021, 01:19:07 PM
RCE is not a bad weapon per se, just underperforming for the OP and flux cost my ship pays to use it (not to mention rarity), when compared to more common alternatives.

Besides a weapon too similar to something you can get many of without much difficulty (that is to say, I don't find the RCE worthy of being used as an omega weapon), another issue is that one of the most dissatisfying aspects of Omega weapons is when you get the "wrong" Omega weapon. Which makes it easier to find some of them underwhelming compared to others. I can make use of a volatile particle driver. Reality Disrupter? 35 DP for something which seems to have no purpose and is on a competitive mount and has spawned in place of a large Omega weapon you would have preferred to use.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 06, 2021, 01:47:44 PM
I actually think the hyperion might be back to unusable status particularly because of the wolf pack changes in addition to the hefty DP nerf. It really needs SO to be good (I think non-SO builds are mediocre at best currently, even with officer skill support) and the wolf pack change loses 40 seconds of PPT on the SO build which is really painful, plus it costs an extra 5 DP which means an extra 10 supplies per month with higher maintenance. It costs as many supplies as a capital ship now... I really can't imagine using it when the best build is nerfed and the logistics are much worse, not to mention all the other changes that aren't really huge, but mostly stack up against it. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't use non-SO hyperion on the current patch with just the +5 DP nerf, and there are so many other factors that pile up on top of that.

I already voiced my opinion on the matter earlier but I agree with all of the above. I totally forgot about High Maintenance: it will cost as much as a capital to maintain! Yikes...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on November 06, 2021, 01:58:44 PM
New Heavy Mauler seems extremely weak, it's too easy to shield flicker against and AI already can exploit this weakness somewhat decently when at high flux (but doesn't try to apply this tactic to conserve flux for offense, the way a player would).
I suspect that an Eagle with it will just get cornered and slaughtered in AI vs AI sim fight by almost same build, but using Heavy Mortars instead.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: RustyCabbage on November 06, 2021, 02:23:38 PM
Glad to see these changes (making the shock repeater a premium PD/EMP assault combo is great), but as noted by others here and on the discord, you might also consider taking a look at the reality disruptor. (https://i.imgur.com/KLGh0S0.png)
Ah - the reality disruptor is seen widely as an enormous waste of OP and a valuable energy slot - the bolts it fires are just the equivalent of launching an omen overtop something, and besides the enormously undercosted radiant, I'm not aware of any ship where that's a DP efficient use of a large energy, much better to just have the actual tanky omen to soak more attention and flux from things, while the energy mount is put to better use with a tach lance, plasma cannon, rift torpedo, or whatever.

I guess there's a few people who enjoy it as is - but I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use them more than once.

Hmm, interesting - thank you for the info! I'll have to have another look at it and maybe try out some more builds.

(... I mean, being able to launch an Omen at something seems like it'd be worth a large energy slot, no? ... hm.)
I guess since it's my discord post being quoted I'll pitch in that I actually do like the Reality Disruptor a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone else praise it ever. I guess most people strongly disagree with the thought of paying premium OP for support weapons, however specialized (I imagine the same line of thinking is part of what leads people to dismiss the Proximity Charge Launcher).
Anyways, despite me liking it lots, I guess it could use some buffs to make it more attractive to use - any combination of lower OP, slightly higher range, perhaps even shield piercing arcs so it has non-zero utility against 360 degree shields.



Lovely set of patch notes; I'll enjoy messing around with all the balance changes and new stuff. Especially very curious about the new Proximity Charge Launchers. They look like nice changes, but with the refire rate change they'll run out of ammo even more quickly than before, so I'm unsure how that'll play out.

Other thoughts in no particular order:

I feel like bumping the Hyperion up to 20 DP hurts the non-SO variant excessively, which feels acceptable at its current cost. An SO-specific nerf like giving Phase Teleporter a cooldown/charges would be far more preferable, even if it'd look less awesome for the gifs :p
(also would make SO Hyperions less annoying to fight, which a DP shift doesn't do, if that's a consideration)

Scarab feels like it got drive-by hit for no reason :< just as it was finally finding its legs!

The hit to Hardened Shields is pretty heavy, with a 40% decrease in effectiveness but only a 33/17/17/17% decrease in cost (and it's also now out of automatic s-modding range). New breakeven (vs capacitor) values of 4533/11333/17000/28333 capacity are unattainable for the vast majority of ships. I'm leaning towards thinking this is probably too excessive compared to something like a 4/8/12/20 OP cost, but maybe reduced EMP pierce and vent time will carry the difference?

At a glance the new Cryoblaster looks like it'll become worse than the Heavy Blaster. The current iteration is excessively strong, but it seems like it should have a slight flux cost reduction to go along with this change.

Also I guess the elephant in the room when it comes to weapon balance is still Sabots; the Pods in particular are still far and away the best medium missile (and probably best non-Omega weapon in general). Penny for your thoughts on its current state? I still find suggested changes like removing the arcing effect or the EMP effect entirely to be pertinent.

Edit: also I forgot to mention, but I see that Ordnance Expertise got its effect slashed in half. Was it really excessive in testing? The current Elite effect especially seems extremely underwhelming, probably amounting to less than 2000 additional capacity on even an Onslaught.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Maethendias on November 06, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
Oh wow just because they're a different colour smh some people nowadays...

But for real now the comparison is fair, they're both heavy cruisers (different role tho obviously).

oh dont mistake me, that wasnt a jab, its just hilarious how they both function so completly diffrent from each other, one being an anchor, and the other being an acutal skirmisher darting around like a wolf
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 06, 2021, 02:55:57 PM
My commentary on recently-discussed omega weaponry:

The Reality Disruptor is actually pretty good! It's not main armament, so you don't want it on a Sunder, Gryphon, or in the large energy slots of an Odyssey or Apogee, and it's not capable of off-bore fire which makes it awkward to use in the large-missile-capable slots of the Apogee, Odyssey, or Conquest, but installing one (and only one) is a pretty decent choice for anything else that can mount large energy or large missile weapons.

As for the Rift Cascade Emitter... Mechanically, I don't have any issues with it - it pairs well with the Tachyon Lance, adding extra short-range punch and a touch of hard-flux at extreme ranges, while the TL contributes EMP and superior armor penetration. Sure, if you look exclusively at "how does this perform at extreme range" or "how does this perform at point-blank range", then it's not an optimal choice... but the fact that it's decent in both of those niches is definitely worth something.
Visually, though, I'd be happier if installing two of them would have the rifts arc in opposite directions around the target, rather than both going in the same direction.

No, the only other Omega weapon that I think needs a buff is the Rift Beam - there are some setups where you can get it to actually perform its job as a point-defense weapon... but there aren't very many of them, it doesn't fill any roles other than point-defense, and even as point-defense you're probably better off with a regular Heavy Burst Laser. At a minimum I'd suggest increasing its range to somewhere around 600-800; make it capable of doing its job without needing to be in a turret slot right at the very front edge of the ship it's mounted on.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 06, 2021, 02:58:46 PM
Quote
Carrier skills, there aren't that many interesting ships to pilot - Astral, Legion, Heron.
To me this feels like confirmation that Converted Hangers is in need of a buff, TBH. I'd like to use it, but I've yet to find a ship where the OP cost is worth the investment.

Maybe not a buff, but perhaps instead a companion hull-mod that reduces Converted Hanger penalties but wastes taxes OP.  Like maybe reduces size of fighter wing but also reduces penalties and/or OP cost of fighter wing.  Actually, having a hull mod in general that reduces OP cost of fighters would be a very interesting addition to carriers in general, although likely would need some sort of tax/debuff for balance...

Just can't make any changes too good, otherwise players will just stick Converted Hangers onto everything!  Although I basically never use it, I actually maybe should try it out a little more now that Xyphos has 0 range... but I agree, it mostly seems like an OP sink for OP that could better be used for anything else, unless player has no choice but to field a cargo ship with Converted Hangars for some reason (masochism?).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on November 06, 2021, 03:19:58 PM
Maybe not a buff, but perhaps instead a companion hull-mod that reduces Converted Hanger penalties but wastes taxes OP.  Like maybe reduces size of fighter wing but also reduces penalties and/or OP cost of fighter wing.  Actually, having a hull mod in general that reduces OP cost of fighters would be a very interesting addition to carriers in general, although likely would need some sort of tax/debuff for balance...

Just can't make any changes too good, otherwise players will just stick Converted Hangers onto everything!  Although I basically never use it, I actually maybe should try it out a little more now that Xyphos has 0 range... but I agree, it mostly seems like an OP sink for OP that could better be used for anything else, unless player has no choice but to field a cargo ship with Converted Hangars for some reason (masochism?).
I think a hullmod that only modifies another hullmod might be a bit too niche. I can get behind more carrier options than Expanded Deck crew, though.

I'm not too worried about CH going from "can't find a use case" to "current meta", that'd be a really big swing. Especially with dedicated carriers being in the position that they're in.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 06, 2021, 03:22:28 PM
...Oh, right, there was a discussion on skills having effects for carried fighters, too.

Personally, I feel like worrying about such skills 'double-dipping' is silly. Fighters - as currently implemented - are weapons. Giving them some benefit from the skills of the carrier's captain makes as much sense as having a single "Field Modulation" skill that provides benefits to both shields and phase cloaks - if your fighters aren't improved by your per-ship skills at all, then you're just going to not pilot carriers.

Now, if fighters were separate entities that didn't occupy ordnance points on the carriers? Then there might be a concern to be made. Or if there were powerful fleet-wide skills that actually boosted fighter offense or defense - again, sure, then you might have a reasonable concern for not stacking that with benefits from per-ship skills. (Except, oh wait, there already are such skills for non-fighter weapons, in the form of things like Weapon Drills or Flux Regulation, and that's not an issue.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 03:36:12 PM
My commentary on recently-discussed omega weaponry:

The Reality Disruptor is actually pretty good! It's not main armament, so you don't want it on a Sunder, Gryphon, or in the large energy slots of an Odyssey or Apogee, and it's not capable of off-bore fire which makes it awkward to use in the large-missile-capable slots of the Apogee, Odyssey, or Conquest, but installing one (and only one) is a pretty decent choice for anything else that can mount large energy or large missile weapons.

As for the Rift Cascade Emitter... Mechanically, I don't have any issues with it - it pairs well with the Tachyon Lance, adding extra short-range punch and a touch of hard-flux at extreme ranges, while the TL contributes EMP and superior armor penetration. Sure, if you look exclusively at "how does this perform at extreme range" or "how does this perform at point-blank range", then it's not an optimal choice... but the fact that it's decent in both of those niches is definitely worth something.
Visually, though, I'd be happier if installing two of them would have the rifts arc in opposite directions around the target, rather than both going in the same direction.
I ought to try Reality Disruptor.  It did not drop in the game I played, so I have no idea of its effectiveness.

As for RCE, I would not mind it being not as good as lance or plasma IF it was not such an OP and flux hog.  At 30 OP, I expected something overpowered or best-of-the-best performance like plasma cannon, but instead got a weapon on par with a 22 OP weapon.

@ intrinsic_parity:  Agreed on Hyperion.  I think it is already a pain to use today without SO and proper skills.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Caymon Joestar on November 06, 2021, 04:28:31 PM

Anyways, to go back on the discussion of the packages, Alex, what was your idea behind them/the skill? The problem with them was the fact that you set the cap for the skill too low, meaning only one frigate size ship could effectively benefit from it’s full effect. Was the goal for it to allow the player to have like a fleet of civilian ships combat ready? Or was it only for ships that were technically combat ready but could use a boost to make them more on par with military standard ships like the venture or the Prom/Atlas mk2s? If it was a matter of not enough ships to really justify it, could it not have been merged into a different skill? Or making some new pirate convertions of say the fuel tankers like the Dram/Phaeton? You could have also retroactively apply it to other ships like the Mule or the Buffalo Mk2s or the Colossus Mk2/3s.

Basically in what way did they not work out?

The idea was that you could have a very limited set of civ-grade ships boosted to a high level. The cap was deliberately low so that you couldn't, say, get the full effect on an Atlas Mk.II or a Venture, but the effect was high enough that it would have, hopefully, made some actually-civilian-ships (say, the Tarsus) more combat-capable, since they'd get the full bonus.

But that didn't really work out, and instead it was functionally *only* a buff to the already-combat-capable conversions, which in turn made those trickier to buff directly. If you'll note, the Prometheus Mk.II and the Atlas Mk.II have both received significant improvements, which I felt freer to make now that I didn't have to worry about how those might combine with the package mods.

Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.


In that case, yeah it was kinda flawed from the start, the true civilian ships like the tarsus even taking into account smodding in hullmods to save op just don't have good weapon layout or the op to really take advantage or consider using themselves in place of actual combat ships or even the more combatable ones like the venture and stuff. You would have to had to redesign them to have more weapon slots/OP for the packages to have been considered which prob would have been more work than it was prob worth so I can see why you didn't want to keep it around.

Though I dont think Prom/AtlasMk2 benefitting from the packages was as big as a worry as you thought. The benefits they got wasn't really that much that it would break them with the buffs you gave them if the skill wasnt going away in 0.9.5.1.

Also on the topic of Omega Weapons: is there any plans for more ballistics focused ones?

 
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: LookItsRain on November 06, 2021, 04:44:14 PM
I agree with most others, I think the mauler changes go away from the weapons current synergy with HVD and HAC and a good way of buffing it is just increasing its overall accuracy a bit.

I also have to agree with AHandyDandyHotDog, story points in its current form is too easy to earn compared to its immense benefits, the only time i find myself getting low on them is during colony/system construction, otherwise they just seem to be a nearly free key press to avoid consequences or add extra benefits. I think the best way to solve this would be to remove the bonus XP from usage entirely.

Maybe im off base here but i have strong opinions on this:
On the Hull Restoration skill and similar effects: To me, this just seems way too stacked in terms of usefulness, it basically nullifies ship losses, removes d mods on obtained ships and even gives you a significant CR boost. With how easy it is to also scoop up salvageable ships thanks to story points, overall i feel like its too easy and cheap to obtain and repair ships compared to 0.91 which was the polar opposite.

Overall IMO, combat not in your favor is nearly free to avoid with a single story point with some CR loss, actual combat loses outside of supplies/crew are negligible, d mods dont really exist because you would just fly around a bit and passively repair, while your CR on most ships with the combination of skills(officers) and Hull restoration will be 100%.

And to comment on modded playthroughs, these problems are exacerbated significantly with mods like NEX, where saving up half a dozen story points or so and going to a system with heavy combat can quite literally net you a significant fleet with near zero effort, while avoiding any intercepting fleets with movement or a singular story point if you do get caught
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 06, 2021, 06:23:08 PM
(comments I consider less important spoilered)
Spoiler
I recently found it's pretty easy to burn all your SP in the wrong circumstances, although those were largely due to bugs or mod features.
(Specifically, I once had to special recover four ships in a single battle (when most of them should have been free recoveries), and had to invest SP mentoring/eliting new officers a few times after existing ones died)

Recovering SP is mostly a matter of finding a suitable big fight (preferably one that's easier than the XP bonus calculation thinks). Big fights are abundant (if nothing else, you can find a high-population system and pick a fight with some patrols), though not always accessible for a roleplayer (i.e. if you're non-hostile to everyone).

The idea was that you could have a very limited set of civ-grade ships boosted to a high level. The cap was deliberately low so that you couldn't, say, get the full effect on an Atlas Mk.II or a Venture, but the effect was high enough that it would have, hopefully, made some actually-civilian-ships (say, the Tarsus) more combat-capable, since they'd get the full bonus.

But that didn't really work out, and instead it was functionally *only* a buff to the already-combat-capable conversions, which in turn made those trickier to buff directly. If you'll note, the Prometheus Mk.II and the Atlas Mk.II have both received significant improvements, which I felt freer to make now that I didn't have to worry about how those might combine with the package mods.

Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.

In that case, yeah it was kinda flawed from the start, the true civilian ships like the tarsus even taking into account smodding in hullmods to save op just don't have good weapon layout or the op to really take advantage or consider using themselves in place of actual combat ships or even the more combatable ones like the venture and stuff. You would have to had to redesign them to have more weapon slots/OP for the packages to have been considered which prob would have been more work than it was prob worth so I can see why you didn't want to keep it around.
I think if you wanted to benefit true civilian ships more than things like Atlas2/Prom2, any bonuses the ship involved receives would have to be based on their cargo/fuel capacity. So the ship sacrifices some transport functionality for combat strength – in place of the hullmod costing OP, which it can't spare, it already has too little for vents/caps and guns as it is. Like how combat freighters are less efficient at freighting than civilian ones. Atlas Mk.II and Prometheus Mk.II wouldn't benefit as much from the conversion (but also need less of it) since they already lost most of their cargo/fuel capacity (though the Prom2 still can carry 800 fuel...)

But of course there's still no reason to do this to a Tarsus when you can just obtain and field a real combat ship, and never put the Tarsus in harm's way...

Also on the topic of Omega Weapons: is there any plans for more ballistics focused ones?
Yeah, I kinda find it odd that all the hybrid Omega weapons are basically "energy but fits in a ballistic slot". Including the ones that feel like they ought to be 'ballistic at heart', like Volatile Particle Driver (compare with Mjolnir Cannon).
[close]

I'm not a fan of bringing back carrier-only skills; the new skill system (for 0.95.1a) is a deliberate step away from skills locking the player into a too-small set of ships. Yeah, ballistic and energy masteries do that to some extent, but the range of interesting ships that these benefit is broad.

Carrier skills, there aren't that many interesting ships to pilot - Astral, Legion, Heron. Maybe the Odyssey. But combining carrier skill effects with non-carrier effects seems like it would still incentivize you to pilot a subset of these ships due to them benefitting from both the carrier and combat aspects of the hypothetical skill. So it seems like a tricky design problem. That would be less of an issue for officer skill picks - if you have a dedicated carrier officer, that's fine - but since those come from the same skill pool...

Overall, I'm happier with the skill system now that it doesn't have these (well, almost - Point Defense, still) and the carrier effects are fleetwides-only.
I think you're really overestimating things here.

Only the small minority of min-maxers would agonize over wasted bonuses. The non-carrier players (or at least those who don't personally pilot them) would simply ignore them either because it is irrelevant to their play-style or found that trying to squeeze fighters into non-carrier ships for the sake of utilizing those bonuses more trouble than it was worth.

Meanwhile, giving carrier/fighter exclusive bonuses to existing skills would help the Carriers get out of their current bad standing.

Besides, what options do you have? You have said that Carrier exclusive skills are not an option, and yet at the same time you consider adding carrier/fighter bonuses to existing skills as some kind of design sin that will ruin everything.

So besides leaving them in the rut, that leaves either designing a whole separate (sub)-system for the Carriers/Fighters (And if the debacle behind the Colony system is any indication, this is not your preference)... or removing them all together to prevent obviously inferior newbie trap options.
So, the post!

My complaint is about the value of having carriers vs. just getting more combat ships. They're already seen as underperforming right now, and officers not being worth putting on them means they'll fall off even harder than now. Also it makes carriers seem like they're just less important. Second-class. Filler. Those kind of adjectives.

I don't think more fighter-specific skills are really desirable, for the same reason that the phase and shield skills were merged. But it'd be nice if they got a partial benefit from the existing combat skills.

In the scenario where 'normal' combat skills also benefit fighters, I don't think the notion that players would feel compelled to use fleet or battle carriers checks out. Consider: when a skill gives bonuses for both ballistic and energy weapons, we don't say the player feels compelled to use midline ships. The carriers would be trading off combat ship traits (guns, but also things like making use of its personal armor, shields and speed) that benefit from skills, for fighters that benefit from the same skills.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 06, 2021, 07:07:34 PM
I tweaked the weapons file to try the Nu-Mauler out: it feels meatier than before. I will say that the reload times feel long, perhaps a bit too long, but it does pack a punch. The only thing I had to presume was perfect accuracy (like the HVD) but the rest of the stats are known. I really like the sound of the triple shot: it sounds like a true cannon. 

I tried out an Eagle with 3x Heavy Mauler and watched as an Enforcer burned drive in and had its armor striped by the first volley. Granted, that's a perfect scenario but Nu-Mauler is more of an opportunist than a pressure weapon now. Against a Dominator, its overall lack of DPS is apparent but Old Mauler really wasn't much better. Honestly, I don't think HE needs another pressure weapon, which is all the Mauler was when paired with HVD. Now, when it hits, it hits, which Medium HE is sorely lacking.

Personally, when I tweaked the reload to 3.9 (so overall 4.5), it felt way better. It's only half a second but 5 seconds is maddeningly long when ships are venting and you have a clear shot. It bumps the DPS/flux to 133/sec, which is on par with the old and if you raised the flux levels back, I wouldn't complain. The only buff really would be the perfect accuracy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 07:21:48 PM
Maybe im off base here but i have strong opinions on this:
On the Hull Restoration skill and similar effects: To me, this just seems way too stacked in terms of usefulness, it basically nullifies ship losses, removes d mods on obtained ships and even gives you a significant CR boost. With how easy it is to also scoop up salvageable ships thanks to story points, overall i feel like its too easy and cheap to obtain and repair ships compared to 0.91 which was the polar opposite.

Overall IMO, combat not in your favor is nearly free to avoid with a single story point with some CR loss, actual combat loses outside of supplies/crew are negligible, d mods dont really exist because you would just fly around a bit and passively repair, while your CR on most ships with the combination of skills(officers) and Hull restoration will be 100%.
The problem is not avoiding combat, but randomly losing ships in low-risk fights (due to AI stupidity) or taking on high-risk, high-reward fights, like boss fights (Ziggurat, Tesseracts), Ordos with Radiants, or even endgame bounties when player is just not quite strong enough to steamroll them (ten or more capitals and twenty or so cruisers is a lot to chew through)... without losing a single ship.

Rewards are generally balanced to assume flawless victory or very minor losses (like losing a common frigate or Shrike in a 300k+ multi-capital slugfest).  Lose a ship, and why did the player bother fighting?  He just lost too much money to replace the ship.  It is like fighting level draining undead and losing more than a level permanently.

And with s-mods, there is no cheap way to fix recovered s-modded ships aside from Field Repairs, which repairs too slowly to be practical for anything beyond a ship or two.

And people tend to value max combat power much more than campaign QoL (that mitigates losses).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 06, 2021, 07:32:30 PM
Is there another skill which looks suitable enough to grant carrier/fighter bonuses, whether fleetwide or piloted? Ordnance Expertise? Field Repairs?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 06, 2021, 07:55:18 PM
Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.

You've designed yourself into a corner, there. Civilian ships simply don't have enough weapon slots to compete. The only role I have figured without redoing all the sprites is to let civ ships become bricks: can't really deal damage, but able to soak lots of damage to take pressure off of the real combat ships.

I suggest replacing Assault Package with 2 hullmods: one super-buffs flux capacity, the other super-buffs hull. In exchange they neuter all of the ship's logistics stats and have a high enough OP cost that most civilian ships can't fit both.

(Escort Package should be rebranded as a normal hullmod bc it is cool. Militarized Subsystems should not make a civilian ship count as a combat ship for skill buffs.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sarissofoi on November 06, 2021, 07:57:30 PM
Question
Why Falcon (P) was nerfed so hard?
I mean it was pretty decent missile boat and quite tanky thanks to no flux from weapons but there is little reason to use it now.
It was budget choice for (P) themed fleets or nice flagship for them but I really don't see good reason to nerf it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 06, 2021, 08:12:39 PM
New Heavy Mauler seems extremely weak, it's too easy to shield flicker against and AI already can exploit this weakness somewhat decently when at high flux (but doesn't try to apply this tactic to conserve flux for offense, the way a player would).
I suspect that an Eagle with it will just get cornered and slaughtered in AI vs AI sim fight by almost same build, but using Heavy Mortars instead.
I feel similarly, I was surprised that people were worried about it being too good. My biggest issue with the current mauler was the low DPS and that got even worse. The AI also loves to fire HE into shields so I'm imagining a world where the AI just fires the mauler into shields constantly and the long cool down means it does even less armor/hull damage. I like the concept of making it more bursty, but the numbers seem pretty bad to me.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 08:23:41 PM
I feel similarly, I was surprised that people were worried about it being too good. My biggest issue with the current mauler was the low DPS and that got even worse.
Not to mention recoil after sustained fire, so it cannot snipe well after a few shots, unlike HVD.

The main thing I am interested in "nu-mauler" is increased accuracy so it can snipe if it keeps its low DPS.

What is the flux cost on nu-mauler?  Last thing we need is another phase lance type weapon for sudden flux spikes AI cannot deal with.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 06, 2021, 08:33:03 PM
Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.

You've designed yourself into a corner, there. Civilian ships simply don't have enough weapon slots to compete.
Number of weapon slots isn't even the issue... well, okay, excluding some outliers like the Buffalo, with its single energy mount, or the Colossus, whose small mounts simply don't have the firing arcs to be relevant, or the Phantom, or the... okay, number of weapon slots is sometimes the issue.

But the thing that puts the nails in the coffin of civilian ships in battle is the basic stats of the ships - speed, flux stats, ordnance points. And there's no way to trade off cargo/fuel capacity for any of those things. Imagine, for a moment, a Buffalo with the speed and flux capacity of a Medusa, a wing of broadswords in close escort, and a Rift Lance. That would be worth deploying! But you can't get even close to the sort of base stats it needs to have a place on the battlefield.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 06, 2021, 08:42:00 PM
I feel similarly, I was surprised that people were worried about it being too good. My biggest issue with the current mauler was the low DPS and that got even worse. The AI also loves to fire HE into shields so I'm imagining a world where the AI just fires the mauler into shields constantly and the long cool down means it does even less armor/hull damage. I like the concept of making it more bursty, but the numbers seem pretty bad to me.

Modify the weapons file and try it (seriously). It's different: neither better nor worse. You do end up dumping bursts into shields but you were hitting shields before, too. If anything, now that the Mauler is more flux efficient, when you do hit shields, you've wasted slightly less. When you do have an opening, you do more damage to a localized area. I think the exchange is fair.

Overall DPS is always going to be low. You can't have near-perfect accuracy, 1000 range, and high damage/shot without a trade-off. Supposedly, the high OP cost is part of that but I just don't think high DPS is in the cards: it would make the Heavy Mauler too optimal across the board. Pre-Nerf Mauler was OP so I can't see us going back to that. That said, with the limited playtesting I've had with the Nu-Mauler, the 5 second reload felt too long and if that was shored up a little, DPS would a tad higher and it would feel a little less anemic.

@Megas

Flux on Nu-Mauler is overall 120 flux/sec with a 1.0 dps/flux value. It's 600 flux per burst (over .6 seconds). The flux cost really isn't that bad. Also, when I inserted it into my game, I presumed perfect accuracy. That may not be the case but it has to be really low to justify the cost. With perfect accuracy, I think it's a good-not-great weapon: I can't imagine what it would be like if there were recoil issues.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 06, 2021, 08:49:57 PM
I tend to fire HE into shields because 1) AI will not try to flicker shields to counter kinetic-only volleys when HE is mixed in and 2) even HE can add up on shields (unless they have Impact Mitigation 2).

I suppose 600 flux might not be a big deal for one mauler, although multiple maulers could be mounted.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Caymon Joestar on November 06, 2021, 09:39:38 PM
Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.

You've designed yourself into a corner, there. Civilian ships simply don't have enough weapon slots to compete.
Number of weapon slots isn't even the issue... well, okay, excluding some outliers like the Buffalo, with its single energy mount, or the Colossus, whose small mounts simply don't have the firing arcs to be relevant, or the Phantom, or the... okay, number of weapon slots is sometimes the issue.

But the thing that puts the nails in the coffin of civilian ships in battle is the basic stats of the ships - speed, flux stats, ordnance points. And there's no way to trade off cargo/fuel capacity for any of those things. Imagine, for a moment, a Buffalo with the speed and flux capacity of a Medusa, a wing of broadswords in close escort, and a Rift Lance. That would be worth deploying! But you can't get even close to the sort of base stats it needs to have a place on the battlefield.

A Broadsword wing and a rift lance even with the speed and flux capacity of a medusa isn't really enough for to actually kill anything bigger than frigate and even then, I'm not convinced. Weapon slots for some of the civilian ships really are THAT bad. If it had at least 2 more small energies for like 3 ir pulse lasers or if we are really sticking with the idea of 1 small energy, 2 Wings of broadswords instead of 1. Then MAYBE Someone would consider it in a pinch.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BaBosa on November 07, 2021, 12:08:41 AM
First, Alex this update looks amazing and almost a major update in it’s own right.
The skill rework looks *mwah* magnificent, the less variable weapons load out for all ships will be great if it works like it did for redacted.
The new low tech ship and rugged constructed hullmod is exactly what low tech frigates have been missing.
Max level officer retraining, cheaper cargo pod stabilisation, patrol distractions, defend assignments, thumper burst changes, HSA rework are all awesome and amazing and aren’t the only small but great changes so thank you.


I suppose 600 flux might not be a big deal for one mauler, although multiple maulers could be mounted.
Set them on alternating, that would even out the flux and damage over time.
And about the worries of the low DPS, the increased accuracy means actual DPS will probably be up as there will be less misses and the burst and accuracy means that you can shred armour much better. It won’t be too good at actually taking out hull but kinetic can do that reasonably enough anyway. So overall it fulfils the niche of taking out armour at long range better. You can put it on cheap frigates and destroyers and they might actually do something against low tech cruisers and capitals. It may need tweaking like 0.5 or 1 sec faster cycle but otherwise I think it’s in a good place. It’s not as good as a suppressor to prevent shield flicker but then it can be paired or replaced with HVD which does respectable armour and emp damage anyway and so whether the shield is up or down it’s effective.
I’m gonna try putting it on some hounds and have them just plink from long range.


With civilian ships, you can’t make full civilian ships like the buffalo good combat ships, not without buffing it to the wazoo and going crazy. That’s just not worth even trying.
Ships like the mule, gemini, kite, colossus mks and such though, especially with the increased burn bonus from skill means that militarised subsystems can actually be reserved for ships that will fight rather than using it for the burn bonus.
Spoiler
Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.

You've designed yourself into a corner, there. Civilian ships simply don't have enough weapon slots to compete. The only role I have figured without redoing all the sprites is to let civ ships become bricks: can't really deal damage, but able to soak lots of damage to take pressure off of the real combat ships.

I suggest replacing Assault Package with 2 hullmods: one super-buffs flux capacity, the other super-buffs hull. In exchange they neuter all of the ship's logistics stats and have a high enough OP cost that most civilian ships can't fit both.

(Escort Package should be rebranded as a normal hullmod bc it is cool. Militarized Subsystems should not make a civilian ship count as a combat ship for skill buffs.)
[close]
SafariJohn made a lot of good points that I won’t repeat, but to add, making combat civilian ships work as damage soaking bricks with just enough firepower to not be ignored would be a good niche that doesn’t really have other ships filling it (they either have damage, armour and or dissipation as well). Making the hullmod reduce cargo, fuel and crew carrying capacity to low side of standard combat ship amounts and then significantly increasing capacity or hull per unit reduced would automatically scale the benefit between those that don’t need it so much like venture and atlas mkII and those that do like gemini and even make the original colossus into an interesting meme. I can just imagine it like a truck parking in front of a paragon and rolling down their windows to swear at them for honking ;D
It would also let it have very low OP.


Question, why Scarab OP reduced?


With carriers, I actually think how they are is pretty good. They’re frankly, boring to use, they can be fun to watch but I don’t think personal skills are necessary for that. I suspect why some people really want them is because they used to be really strong and they have fundamental advantages over weapons with much longer ranges and don’t produce flux or have limited missiles.
Not really having any reason to add officers to them is a bit of a problem though. A possible idea is a officer only skill that gives the fleet wide skill effects onto just their ship and remove that ship’s fighter bays from the fleet wide skill count. That will also help if we just want 1 carrier or all carriers. Which could actually be fine if the reduce weapon variability means more consistent point defence. Then 4 other skills can then be filled by the likes of system expertise, helmsmanship and ballistic mastery.
Otherwise I think if someone wants to focus on fighters that may be better suited for mods.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on November 07, 2021, 12:27:38 AM
New Heavy Mauler seems extremely weak, it's too easy to shield flicker against and AI already can exploit this weakness somewhat decently when at high flux (but doesn't try to apply this tactic to conserve flux for offense, the way a player would).
I suspect that an Eagle with it will just get cornered and slaughtered in AI vs AI sim fight by almost same build, but using Heavy Mortars instead.
I feel similarly, I was surprised that people were worried about it being too good. My biggest issue with the current mauler was the low DPS and that got even worse. The AI also loves to fire HE into shields so I'm imagining a world where the AI just fires the mauler into shields constantly and the long cool down means it does even less armor/hull damage. I like the concept of making it more bursty, but the numbers seem pretty bad to me.

Yeah another point is that new Mauler also requires different handling. It was a pressure weapon to fire constantly, now it is a manual fire burst weapon. Ideally timed to arrive split second after kinetic projectiles on enemy already at high flux. And AI treats everything as pressure weapons...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 07, 2021, 12:31:49 AM
Maybe im off base here but i have strong opinions on this:
On the Hull Restoration skill and similar effects: To me, this just seems way too stacked in terms of usefulness, it basically nullifies ship losses, removes d mods on obtained ships and even gives you a significant CR boost. With how easy it is to also scoop up salvageable ships thanks to story points, overall i feel like its too easy and cheap to obtain and repair ships compared to 0.91 which was the polar opposite.
As far as I am concerned, this is easy: the cost of Hull Restoration is not getting the skills that actually improve your fleet's performance. In a choice between, say, Automated Ships and Hull Restoration, I will definitely go with Automated Ships.

Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.
You've designed yourself into a corner, there. Civilian ships simply don't have enough weapon slots to compete.
Number of weapon slots isn't even the issue... well, okay, excluding some outliers like the Buffalo, with its single energy mount, or the Colossus, whose small mounts simply don't have the firing arcs to be relevant, or the Phantom, or the... okay, number of weapon slots is sometimes the issue.
Sometimes? As far as I am concerned, all dedicated freighters have not enough mounts or mounts not good enough (or both), and so do all liners, and so do Dram and Phaeton. That leaves combat freighters (which, as the name suggests, are meant to do some combat anyway and sometimes get deployed for a good reason) and Prometheus. And even Prometheus's weaponry is destroyer-grade...
I think it would be more worthwhile to simply get rid of such a thing as a "dedicated logistic ship" and make all of them like current combat freighters. If all ships are meant to participate in combat, they have to be built for it.

It was budget choice for (P) themed fleets
Budget? Falcon (P) is basically an elite pirate ship and the best ship in their roster.

Yeah, I kinda find it odd that all the hybrid Omega weapons are basically "energy but fits in a ballistic slot". Including the ones that feel like they ought to be 'ballistic at heart', like Volatile Particle Driver (compare with Mjolnir Cannon).
It's very simple: high-tech ships are balanced by having crap weapons, so if it fits in an energy slot, it has to compete with energy weapons. Hybrid and synergy weapons can't outcompete energy weapons as much as ballistics do, so you don't get Cabal Auroras and Odysseys in vanilla. Even composite weapons can't be allowed to fully pick between two good weapon types, because if you made it sort of ballistic-like, high-tech ships with all their missile slots compatible with composite weapons are going to love it.
Ever since Alex said multi-type weapons means weapons that can be mounted in multiple mount types, not ones restricted to multi-type mounts, I knew it would be a pain in the neck to do anything fun with it. Good ballistic weapons have to be exclusively ballistic.
It's also goddamn criminal that in a game where one kind of ships has good weapons and bad ships, and the other has bad weapons and fun ships, it's the latter that gets all the fun weapons.

And AI treats everything as pressure weapons...
Alex, where is my perfect play AI?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JaronK on November 07, 2021, 12:42:51 AM
I'll just say that this is something we've talked about internally - but, don't want to go into details in case nothing comes of it. But I also don't think that having a 3 skills total is *that* much more interesting, given that the skills are all fairly general-purpose boosts anyway.

They interesting thing would be to expand the list.  Have administrators with specific abilities, like boosted volatiles production specifically, or something that reduces specific penalties, or similar.  Basically, just more specific, so you're trying to find the right administrator for each of your worlds.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BaBosa on November 07, 2021, 01:07:30 AM
And AI treats everything as pressure weapons...
Alex, where is my perfect play AI?
Spoiler
In his secret basement lair. Plotting  :-X
[close]


I'll just say that this is something we've talked about internally - but, don't want to go into details in case nothing comes of it. But I also don't think that having a 3 skills total is *that* much more interesting, given that the skills are all fairly general-purpose boosts anyway.

They interesting thing would be to expand the list.  Have administrators with specific abilities, like boosted volatiles production specifically, or something that reduces specific penalties, or similar.  Basically, just more specific, so you're trying to find the right administrator for each of your worlds.

That’s basically just the colony items except you can only have one per colony which would make other people complain. Also they have a salary, a different picture and interface. That’s it.
The bigger issue I see is that with only one skill, there’s not really a reason to have administrators. It is almost (though not quite) worthwhile just removing them and increasing the number of colonies a player can manage.


A possible future direction to take them is to give them a more fundamental impact.
Like make it so that colonies you own are the baseline and that factions will attack them based on your relationship with them. So if you are hostile with everyone, then you defend against a lot of attacks.
But then if you hire an administrator, the relationship impact is reduced because you are seperate from the functioning of the colony.
And to compensate, the income you earn from the colony is reduced the more it is Lessening negative relationships.
Then you could also possibly hire faction affiliated administrators which further reduces income but instead increases relationship and maybe other bonuses.
And maybe administrated colonies could have a free market you interact with because it is separated from you plus they improve the colony automatically.

Basically colonies you manage are personal projects that you put a lot of effort in and earn a lot from (income would probably need like a x2 multipler to account for the greater amount of effort to defend from factions or make them happy.)
Then administrated colonies would be slower but more low effort income streams, maybe with some faction interplay.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on November 07, 2021, 02:10:05 AM
Seeing some people are worried about Scarab OP budget reduction, I was curious and just gave a quick look at variants: on paper, going from 60 to 55 means one less hullmod and maybe one less vent. Not a big deal in my opinion.

Spoiler
It's true some loadouts that were already hard to balance (*), like having more than one AMB and trying to use all weapon slots, will be even harder with 55 OP. But Scarab ought to remain a very good ship thanks to its good flux stats, good hull, good shield, and crazy ship system.

(*) I mean the balancing act of choosing a loadout viable for several situations, from a player perspective

Beside Hyperion at 65 OP, Scarab is an outlier at 60: most military frigates we would compare it to are at 50 or 55. Something to consider: hullmods are so cheap on frigates, having a high OP budget means it is possible abuse the system and get (too) many hullmods and turn this very good ship into a little monster as dangerous as a destroyer, even without the multiplying effect of skills and build-in hullmods (S-mods).

Of course, it would also be possible to go the other way around: leave stats as is, set deployment cost at 10 or something. In any case, something has to be done about Scarab, right?
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 07, 2021, 04:11:07 AM
Quote
Auxiliary Support: removed

Boooooooo.

Excited for the rest, though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 07, 2021, 04:54:46 AM
Set them on alternating, that would even out the flux and damage over time.
Not helpful on a big ship, like on Onslaught or Conquest, where I have one mauler pointed left and another pointed right.

Also, AI does not always maintain alternating perfectly (like if it wants to spam its missiles, it will fire them one-two-three and mostly override alternating).  I find alternating useful mostly for manual control of missiles.  Alternating is a pain to use on guns meant to fire automatically.

Maybe im off base here but i have strong opinions on this:
On the Hull Restoration skill and similar effects: To me, this just seems way too stacked in terms of usefulness, it basically nullifies ship losses, removes d mods on obtained ships and even gives you a significant CR boost. With how easy it is to also scoop up salvageable ships thanks to story points, overall i feel like its too easy and cheap to obtain and repair ships compared to 0.91 which was the polar opposite.
As far as I am concerned, this is easy: the cost of Hull Restoration is not getting the skills that actually improve your fleet's performance. In a choice between, say, Automated Ships and Hull Restoration, I will definitely go with Automated Ships.
Classic case of QoL vs. combat power, like taking Navigation or Sensors instead of another combat skill the player wants more and gives up QoL because he does not have enough points for both QoL and combat power.

In my case, I probably take Hull Restoration because it gets tiring reloading the game after a single mistake, and reloading is faster than grinding a few hours to recover money and progress lost to the rust monsters in a game with combat rewards balanced mostly on flawless victories.  And the AI is incompetent enough and/or player does not have enough control to prevent all casualties, except in fights where player can auto-resolve them away in a pursuit battle (which do not need combat ships to get free kills, just send in the barely armed civvies and clunkers to do it).

That said, getting Hull Restoration would interfere with getting Tech 8 and enough combat skills to dominate with Radiant flagship.

P.S.  With Hull Restoration, fixing Remnants, Ziggurat, and other ships acquired only by looting them (after battle) cheap is nice.  Fixing ships is bloody expensive, especially capitals.  Ziggurat is especially pricey with its restoration being close to two million credits, and the restoration skill removing the d-mods from it (and other capitals with repair bills close to a million a pop) is especially nice.  Endgame bounties only give about 300k per bounty, and the loot goes toward replacing what the player's fleet consumed on the trip.  This is why I write the game's rewards assume flawless victories, and the hull restoration skill extend that threshold from flawless victory to lose a few ships.  (Field Repairs was good only for one or two ships, including those looted from battle, which can send threshold back to flawless victory so player can fix the new former enemy ships in his lifetime.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on November 07, 2021, 07:59:40 AM
Basically, the goal was to see some more true-civilian ships in battle, and that didn't work out at all.

Maybe the assault/escort package could be preserved to change their role to an emergency option by increasing deployment cost. For me civilian ships never really made sense as part of my regular combat force. But I have sometimes resorted to deploying them when I'm about to lose a fight, as distractions. That was actually fun, it felt like a "really giving it my all" sort of thing. Hullmods that support and expand that would be great. Maybe they increase deployment cost so much you can only deploy a civ ships once, in an emergency, but then in acts like an SO ship.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 07, 2021, 08:23:03 AM
If you are deploying civ ships with the expectation of losing some, you are already desperate - losing extra supplies after the battle seems irrelevant.


I think it would be more worthwhile to simply get rid of such a thing as a "dedicated logistic ship" and make all of them like current combat freighters. If all ships are meant to participate in combat, they have to be built for it.

I agree. The one place where pure logistics ships could be fun, blowing them up in pursuit battles, is much more quickly and satisfyingly autoresolved.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 07, 2021, 08:38:58 AM
Radical idea:  Turn all the dedicated logistics ships into carriers and greatly expand cargo for current carriers that are expected to spend most OP on good fighters and deck crew.  Currently, most carriers feel like dedicated logistics/civilian ships that haul fighters instead of cargo.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on November 07, 2021, 08:42:33 AM
If you are deploying civ ships with the expectation of losing some, you are already desperate - losing extra supplies after the battle seems irrelevant.

Right, but it's more about making this desperate deployment more useful, while still keeping it a bad idea in non-desparate situations.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 07, 2021, 08:48:52 AM
Maybe someone should just make a mod that upgrades every freighter into being a combat freighter? You'd still be better off deploying dedicated combat ships, but, say, a Colossus with two fighter wings, combat-destroyer level flux stats, and expanded turret arcs would be something you could reasonably put on the field in an emergency.

And it's not like giving logistic ships more ordnance points is going to break anything - their logistic-ness is limited more by the two hullmod limit than ordnance points anyway.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Yubbin on November 07, 2021, 09:14:48 AM
Just to jump in about sabots, they are still the best missile, and it's been said a million times, the situation is damned if you shield damned if you don't. So I agree with rubi, nerf it's effectiveness against armor/hull. If you want a good anti shield missile, then it also shouldn't be great against not-shields
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Timid on November 07, 2021, 09:23:28 AM
have there been any changes to the Contacts so far? Cross-mod contact compatibility seems to be quite an issue such as...

- disabling certain missions from appearing in other factions' bar events.
- enabling certain missions from appearing in other factions' bar events.
- missions not allowing certain factions (only luddic church, path, and hegemony can give you remnant military bounties but what about the other factions?)
and so much more in the later era which I will clarify later in a future thread.

Otherwise, it's a cool mod feature so far, just afraid this problem will come up later on. I've been using it with partial success.

It seems like much of that should be doable by adjusting the mission spec tags; SettingsAPI.getAllMissionSpecs() gives you access to all the mission specs. Or by putting the right tags into person_missions.csv, if the only missions one wants to change are from their mod.

Perhaps worth noting: the various "tag" columns in person_missions can accept a faction id. So if "tagsNotAny" contains "hegemony", that mission won't be offered by a hegemony contact, etc.

Since there is little documentation, I'd like to make a guide for it now (instead of a criticism) but I have a hard time finding the src code for these columns so.. correct me if I'm mistaken.

While we're on the same step here what does bar_events.csv's tags imply? Can I enter in faction id to make them require certain faction id just like the person_missions.csv?

person_id means only the person with this id can hand out this mission, does this include multiple person_id? Meaning that I can add sebestyen and someone else into a mission and ONLY both of them will give out this mission?
tagsAll seems like an "AND" condition as in I need all the tags for this to spawn?
tagsAny seems like an "OR" condition as in I can have any of these tags for this to spawn?
tagsNotAny seems like a NOT condition as in any tags will prevent this mission from spawning?
freq seems understandable, just a weighted random picker.
min/max timeout.. do they count down after the mission is accepted or after the mission is completed?
min/max rep do they accept float as well (can i put in 0.24 instead of WELCOMING) instead of just the reputation string level
importance I'm guessing importance requirement level, does "prioritizing a contact" help ease into this requirement? As in prioritizing a medium contact can make "tabo" mission available?
reqMissionAny/reqMissionAll/reqMissionNone Assuming that they're like OR, AND, and NOT conditions respectively. Are these for like missions completed before? Or missions in progress? Or how do they actually check?

Most importantly, are there any other tags that are made that hasn't been explicitly stated like


Anything else aside from those 3?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 07, 2021, 09:51:35 AM
I like Sabots as they are.  They work and can be counted on (if only the AI would use them more optimally).  Medium missiles are generally a pile of yawn... except Sabots.  My only gripe with Sabots is they do not last long enough like some of the large missiles, but at least Sabots are reliable.  It is also good for high-tech ships (like standard Shrike) that have no good anti-shield options and need sabots to not lose the flux war.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 07, 2021, 10:28:42 AM
I appreciate all the feedback here! Going to respond where I can; if I don't respond to your point specifically, my apologies and rest assured I've definitely seen it.


I agree that dedicated carrier skills are not a good idea. My issue is that it rarely feels worth having an officered carrier because they don't really leverage skills very well IMO, and the officers would just do more on a combat ship. Unofficered carriers however feel really weak/squishy like every unofficered ship, so I end up in a place where I just don't want to use carriers. It would be nice if there were carrier specific buffs built into existing skills similar to how phase skills were reworked, so that I could build a good carrier officer. Something like adding bomber damage boosts to missile spec, fighter damage buffs to some existing damage skills, fighter survivability buffs to existing survivability skills etc.

Another issue with this is that fighters as they are can very easily focus fire on a single target, and relatively minor performance increases get *way* out of hand when multiplied like this, in a way that ship-specific buffs simply don't. It's easier to keep it under control with a few fleetwide skills that give a large bonus when there's not too many carriers in the fleet; this *works*, and per-ship fighter boosts are trouble.

As for carrier-officer-skills, hmm. I do understand what you mean, though I wonder if it's a question of perception or actual reality. If you've got 8 officers (or even 10), there's a solid chance that your "first line" - all you can deploy to start a fight - consists only of ships with officers. In that case, the presence of officers is not the limiting factor, the DP cost of the ship is - so you're better off putting an officer on a carrier, even for a relatively smaller boost, just to strengthen your initial and critical deployment.

And it does feel like a lot of the skills have reasonable applicability to carriers - Helmsmanship, Systems Expertise (depending), Point Defense (also depending), Missile Spec (some carriers have heavy missile armaments), Field Modulation, Ballistic Mastery (ok, a bit of a stretch, but the Heron would benefit a good bit from that one), Gunnery Implants (for range of standoff weapons, and the EW bonus). Combat Endurance (currently Reliability Engineering) is probably the biggest one since it actually buffs fighters directly by bumping up their CR.

I should try to find some time to playtest this specifically. It *feels* like a combination of these would boost a carrier more than it sounds like it would, but I'm not fully certain. But, after all, a combat ship can be made much stronger without any skills that directly boost its offense, so the same seems like it might hold for carriers - with, of course, the crucial difference that a dedicated carrier is less likely to need defensive skills, but... well. It seems worth looking at.

Quote
Carrier skills, there aren't that many interesting ships to pilot - Astral, Legion, Heron.
To me this feels like confirmation that Converted Hangers is in need of a buff, TBH. I'd like to use it, but I've yet to find a ship where the OP cost is worth the investment.

Hmm, I don't think that's related; I wouldn't expect one fighter bay to be something you build skills around.


Now if RCE has a significant special ability, like its explosions partially ignoring shields

It kind of does, though! By wrapping around the target. That gives me an idea; perhaps making the additional explosions progressively stronger could be good - both to emphasize the short-range preference for this weapon, and to improve its "going around shields" aspect.


I guess since it's my discord post being quoted I'll pitch in that I actually do like the Reality Disruptor a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone else praise it ever. I guess most people strongly disagree with the thought of paying premium OP for support weapons, however specialized (I imagine the same line of thinking is part of what leads people to dismiss the Proximity Charge Launcher).
Anyways, despite me liking it lots, I guess it could use some buffs to make it more attractive to use - any combination of lower OP, slightly higher range, perhaps even shield piercing arcs so it has non-zero utility against 360 degree shields.

Ah, that tracks. I can see reducing the OP cost some, for example.


I feel like bumping the Hyperion up to 20 DP hurts the non-SO variant excessively, which feels acceptable at its current cost. An SO-specific nerf like giving Phase Teleporter a cooldown/charges would be far more preferable, even if it'd look less awesome for the gifs :p
(also would make SO Hyperions less annoying to fight, which a DP shift doesn't do, if that's a consideration)

This is a really, really good idea - I'm just about sold in adding charges to the teleporter and changing the supply cost back to 15.


Also I guess the elephant in the room when it comes to weapon balance is still Sabots; the Pods in particular are still far and away the best medium missile (and probably best non-Omega weapon in general). Penny for your thoughts on its current state? I still find suggested changes like removing the arcing effect or the EMP effect entirely to be pertinent.

I'm not sure how excessively good they actually are if you don't consider the Falcon (P). Which, to be fair, *is* a ship, and it's a troublesome one balance-wise, but it's also fun. Still, it's definitely not a ship on whose existence I'd want to base any evauluation of missile effectiveness. Beyond that, Sabots still only do mostly temporary damage, and e.g. removing the EMP component would make it possible to make firing them mostly a waste by just turning shields off.

Just to jump in about sabots, they are still the best missile, and it's been said a million times, the situation is damned if you shield damned if you don't. So I agree with rubi, nerf it's effectiveness against armor/hull. If you want a good anti shield missile, then it also shouldn't be great against not-shields

Right - I have a feeling that if they *don't* have some impact in either case, they might swing too far the other way. ([size=8]Plus, if we're being honest, I just like the EMP effect on 'em.[/size])


Edit: also I forgot to mention, but I see that Ordnance Expertise got its effect slashed in half. Was it really excessive in testing? The Elite effect especially seems extremely underwhelming, probably amounting to less than 2000 additional capacity on even an Onslaught.

Ah, that's an error in the notes - I think I'd typed them out before the effect got doubled by the time I'd written the blog post. It's +2/+20.

Visually, though, I'd be happier if installing two of them would have the rifts arc in opposite directions around the target, rather than both going in the same direction.

Let me make a note about that.

No, the only other Omega weapon that I think needs a buff is the Rift Beam - there are some setups where you can get it to actually perform its job as a point-defense weapon... but there aren't very many of them, it doesn't fill any roles other than point-defense, and even as point-defense you're probably better off with a regular Heavy Burst Laser. At a minimum I'd suggest increasing its range to somewhere around 600-800; make it capable of doing its job without needing to be in a turret slot right at the very front edge of the ship it's mounted on.

Hmm, a bit of a range increase might not be a bad idea, yeah.

Giving them some benefit from the skills of the carrier's captain makes as much sense as having a single "Field Modulation" skill that provides benefits to both shields and phase cloaks ...

The key difference being that it's impossible to make use of both shields and phase cloak bonuses (some kind of mod-ship excepted, perhaps).


So, the post!

My complaint is about the value of having carriers vs. just getting more combat ships. They're already seen as underperforming right now, and officers not being worth putting on them means they'll fall off even harder than now. Also it makes carriers seem like they're just less important. Second-class. Filler. Those kind of adjectives.

"Seen as underperforming" I think is a key point. I think they're in a pretty good place power-wise; to me the main question here is of "feel" in that it would feel pretty nice to have an officer'ed carrier feel like it's part of your core force. On the other hand, having unofficered carriers make better support ships - since they lose less from not having an officer - is also a reasonable niche. And fundamentally, carriers - especially dedicated carriers - are support ships.


I don't think more fighter-specific skills are really desirable, for the same reason that the phase and shield skills were merged. But it'd be nice if they got a partial benefit from the existing combat skills.

In the scenario where 'normal' combat skills also benefit fighters, I don't think the notion that players would feel compelled to use fleet or battle carriers checks out. Consider: when a skill gives bonuses for both ballistic and energy weapons, we don't say the player feels compelled to use midline ships. The carriers would be trading off combat ship traits (guns, but also things like making use of its personal armor, shields and speed) that benefit from skills, for fighters that benefit from the same skills.

Players might feel compelled to use midline ships if energy mounts were both uncommon and offered way more power per ordnance point, though. Which is what we've got with carriers. Though, it's a question of how the ships in question are balanced. Are they balanced around having the fighters be boosted, or baseline? If it's the former, then what you're saying makes sense, but it runs into the problems I mentioned earlier with fighters being boosted and how that stacks up too quickly. (Also, if you haven't read it, please see my point earlier in this post about fleetwide skills and carriers!)

So I guess to sum up my thoughts on carriers (which, sigh, it feels like I forget some aspect of it every time it comes up, and have to re-remember over the course of a few posts): fleetwides with max effect at a low number of bays seem like a *much* better way of boosting fighters because of how fighters work with regard to force concentration. In fact, it seems like the only safe way of doing it. The other stuff, while still a consideration, isn't actually as much of one as this.

The only thing I had to presume was perfect accuracy (like the HVD) but the rest of the stats are known. I really like the sound of the triple shot: it sounds like a true cannon. 

It's not perfect accuracy, but it's *very* good. And, yeah! That was actually one of the main goals, to make it sound/feel like an high-impact weapon, rather than an inaccurate long-range plinker. I feel like it lost that feel that it had originally, along the way. (And, yeah, it can get accurate with Gunnery Implants, but then it also gets into "oppressive long-range HE weapon" territory. Which is in general why GI's recoil bonus got half of it moved onto Armored Weapon Mounts, to help keep recoil a more relevant balancing stat for weapons...)


I suggest replacing Assault Package with 2 hullmods: one super-buffs flux capacity, the other super-buffs hull. In exchange they neuter all of the ship's logistics stats and have a high enough OP cost that most civilian ships can't fit both.

I don't think I'd want to reduce their logistics support capacity! The ideal for me is to feel like you can use your logistics train in combat under certain conditions, not repurpose it from its main role entirely.


First, Alex this update looks amazing and almost a major update in it’s own right.
The skill rework looks *mwah* magnificent, the less variable weapons load out for all ships will be great if it works like it did for redacted.
The new low tech ship and rugged constructed hullmod is exactly what low tech frigates have been missing.
Max level officer retraining, cheaper cargo pod stabilisation, patrol distractions, defend assignments, thumper burst changes, HSA rework are all awesome and amazing and aren’t the only small but great changes so thank you.

Thank you! :D


Question, why Scarab OP reduced?

It felt a little too strong to me. I don't think it's a major change; we're talking -50 flux dissipation - which, ok, it matters, but its base dissipation is so high that it's not going to feel that nearly as much as most frigates.

With carriers, I actually think how they are is pretty good. They’re frankly, boring to use, they can be fun to watch but I don’t think personal skills are necessary for that. I suspect why some people really want them is because they used to be really strong and they have fundamental advantages over weapons with much longer ranges and don’t produce flux or have limited missiles.
Not really having any reason to add officers to them is a bit of a problem though. A possible idea is a officer only skill that gives the fleet wide skill effects onto just their ship and remove that ship’s fighter bays from the fleet wide skill count. That will also help if we just want 1 carrier or all carriers. Which could actually be fine if the reduce weapon variability means more consistent point defence. Then 4 other skills can then be filled by the likes of system expertise, helmsmanship and ballistic mastery.
Otherwise I think if someone wants to focus on fighters that may be better suited for mods.

Now that gives me an idea, hmmmmm! As I mentioned earlier, fleetwide fighter bonuses seem like the only way to go for fighters. But what if *those* were, say, doubled by the presence of an officer on the ship? That'd certainly make you feel like putting an officer on a carrier was worthwhile, without getting into all the problems of personal skills boosting them. Really liking this, actually! Would have to tweak the specific skill numbers some, of course.


Maybe im off base here but i have strong opinions on this:
On the Hull Restoration skill and similar effects: To me, this just seems way too stacked in terms of usefulness, it basically nullifies ship losses, removes d mods on obtained ships and even gives you a significant CR boost. With how easy it is to also scoop up salvageable ships thanks to story points, overall i feel like its too easy and cheap to obtain and repair ships compared to 0.91 which was the polar opposite.
As far as I am concerned, this is easy: the cost of Hull Restoration is not getting the skills that actually improve your fleet's performance. In a choice between, say, Automated Ships and Hull Restoration, I will definitely go with Automated Ships.

That's part of it! But also, it would enable you to play in a way that generates more ship losses, which should open up some qualitatively different strategies.

That said, maybe it'll end up being too strong; I guess we'll see. I definitely want to have the top-tier skills be very high-impact and playstyle-changing/defining, though!


Alex, where is my perfect play AI?

(That'd be an ironic way to ruin the game...)


They interesting thing would be to expand the list.  Have administrators with specific abilities, like boosted volatiles production specifically, or something that reduces specific penalties, or similar.  Basically, just more specific, so you're trying to find the right administrator for each of your worlds.

Thinking along vaguely similar lines, here.


Quote
Auxiliary Support: removed

Boooooooo.

Fair enough :)


Maybe the assault/escort package could be preserved to change their role to an emergency option by increasing deployment cost. For me civilian ships never really made sense as part of my regular combat force. But I have sometimes resorted to deploying them when I'm about to lose a fight, as distractions. That was actually fun, it felt like a "really giving it my all" sort of thing. Hullmods that support and expand that would be great. Maybe they increase deployment cost so much you can only deploy a civ ships once, in an emergency, but then in acts like an SO ship.

Hmm - I'm not sure that this is a case that it works to design something like this around. If a battle's gone so far off the rails that you're about to bring in civilians... chances are this isn't a case you've specifically outfitted them for, at the expense of logistics hullmods, right?


Radical idea:  Turn all the dedicated logistics ships into carriers and greatly expand cargo for current carriers that are expected to spend most OP on good fighters and deck crew.  Currently, most carriers feel like dedicated logistics/civilian ships that haul fighters instead of cargo.

Probably a bit too radical! But, points for outside-the-box thinking.


While we're on the same step here what does bar_events.csv's tags imply? Can I enter in faction id to make them require certain faction id just like the person_missions.csv?

Same as person_missions. I think you're mostly on point about how these work, but a detailed discussion feels like a bit much for this thread. Would you mind reposting it in Modding? Someone else might be able to help out with that, too, but I'll see if I can find the time to break it down at some point.

A lot of this (possibly all?), you can answer by opening up PersonMissionSpec in an IDE and then seeing where the getters for the various properties are used.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 07, 2021, 10:55:16 AM
There are a few this I want on top:
AI core wish list:
I think an integrated AI Core should decrease the multiplier for max CR compared to a free one, an integrated Alpha Radiant should be at 40% without other skills.
I would like to use an integrated AI in my fleet to create a stable point.

You shouldn't be limited in the amount of admins you can hire and not forced to use alpha cores to settle more than 5 worlds, may be at the cost of extra admins costing more money making this a soft cap.
electronic warefare shouzld give you bit more for lerger ships, as you can't field as much of them e.g. 1,1,2,2.

economy wish list:
A system wide stability bonus for military bases.
No longer a perma fuel shortage at Syndria.
moving domain area stable point constructs from one place to another.
lower cost increase of improving an industry, +2 instead of *2, atm. it's close to a hard cap of 3 improvements per colony.
a few random AI colonies in the outer systems.
A raid option to disrupt a military base to screw expeditions this way without the going hostile of tac bomb.
More ships in the hightech package.

logistics wish list:
limit repairs (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=22762.msg342202#msg342202) for fleet, instead of stop repairs to repair enough to prevent accidents and allow save usage of emergency burn/traverse jump, so ships are only repaired to ~5%CR.
fleet wide bonus of solar shielding.
Having many fast ships(burn level) in a fleet should decrease the terrain movement penalties for the fleet.
rebalance of tech tier logistic stats, my idea would be:
High Tech high maintenance, low crew //high degree of automatization
Low Tech high fuel cost, low maintenance //inefficient but robust systems
midline high crew demand, low fuel //many systems to man
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 07, 2021, 10:55:58 AM
Giving them some benefit from the skills of the carrier's captain makes as much sense as having a single "Field Modulation" skill that provides benefits to both shields and phase cloaks ...

The key difference being that it's impossible to make use of both shields and phase cloak bonuses (some kind of mod-ship excepted, perhaps).
But a skill that adds bonus damage to both shipboard weapons and fighter weapons is exactly the same there: one bonus or the other applies, but never both at once. I mean, if we go by that logic, the existing "Target Analysis" skill is triple-dipping! After all, its bonus applies to ballistic weapons and energy weapons and missile weapons, and there are ships that can use all three of those at the same time!

Say you have a HSCV (Hypothetical Spherical-Cow-in-a-Vacuum) battlecarrier that gets half its firepower from directly mounted guns, and half its firepower from fighters. With no officers involved, this is great! With officers involved, suddenly it needs to be re-balanced, because the officer skills are boosting just the 'guns' half of that, and now you have to choose 'what level of officer do I balance this ship around?'

...Now, the argument you've made about concentration of firepower being an issue. That one I can understand, even if I don't use fighters that way, and if that pushes towards keeping fighters as more of a fleet asset than a ship asset... well, then I'm not entirely happy with having to spend carrier OP on them, but so be it.

Hm, maybe what the HSCV needs is a built-in hullmod that reduces fighter roam range by... let's say 50%, and then also makes (some) officer skill bonuses apply to its fighters?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 07, 2021, 11:03:49 AM
Now if RCE has a significant special ability, like its explosions partially ignoring shields

It kind of does, though! By wrapping around the target. That gives me an idea; perhaps making the additional explosions progressively stronger could be good - both to emphasize the short-range preference for this weapon, and to improve its "going around shields" aspect.
The problem with wrap-around is it needs to wrap-around a lot to even have a chance to blast targets around the shields.  There were multiple times when it would appear the explosions snaked around the shield, but the shield still managed to absorb it.  It was rare for a blast to snake around shields of even weaker ships with junk shields.  Explosions wrapping around shields enough to bypass them happened rarely enough that it simply could not be counted on.  And at the range when it would have a chance to do it, I would be better off simply outgunning the enemy (and max their flux) with non-stop plasma cannon barrages.

Also, at the range where RCE would get a meaty-hit for a glorious chain-reaction, a tachyon lance getting a similar hit would be shutting down the enemy with mass EMP and take a big chunk off of armor or hull, good against a very dangerous enemy (or generally better than mildly more damage from RCE).

Explosions getting stronger sounds like an interesting idea.  When my ships get killed by RCE from angry enemy Tesseract, it was always long range snipes, very similar to lance kills from SIM Paragon.  Hit-and-run is risky when I underestimate Omega range or mobility and my ship eats a RCE blast at near max range.  A range where explosions do not proc much.

* * *

I like the idea of teleport charges on Hyperion.  It gives a reason to use non-SO Hyperion.  I have no reason not to use SO on Hyperion because it plays just like it did from before 0.95.  Non-SO Hyperion is a pain to use, enough that I rather use Afflictor or Fury instead.

Phase Teleporter getting charges is reminiscent of Fast Missile Racks going from unlimited to getting (three) charges in late 0.65 to prevent unlimited Salamander long-range cheese kills even after the damage nerf from 500 to 100.

* * *

No longer a perma fuel shortage at Syndria.
My game had perma-volatile shortage at Sindria, and making volatile runs from Umbra to Sindria was almost as profitable as drug or supply runs with various black markets elsewhere.

Speaking of shortages, maybe finding a tap and lamp will have a better use than causing perma-shortages in core worlds that try to use those you sell to them.  Right now, if I find one of those (Pather magnets), my first thought is to sell it to a core world and cripple it (thanks 10 demand of blue heavy metal or volatiles), then sell lots of commodities whenever I please for profit.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 07, 2021, 11:26:58 AM
But a skill that adds bonus damage to both shipboard weapons and fighter weapons is exactly the same there: one bonus or the other applies, but never both at once. I mean, if we go by that logic, the existing "Target Analysis" skill is triple-dipping! After all, its bonus applies to ballistic weapons and energy weapons and missile weapons, and there are ships that can use all three of those at the same time!

Say you have a HSCV (Hypothetical Spherical-Cow-in-a-Vacuum) battlecarrier that gets half its firepower from directly mounted guns, and half its firepower from fighters. With no officers involved, this is great! With officers involved, suddenly it needs to be re-balanced, because the officer skills are boosting just the 'guns' half of that, and now you have to choose 'what level of officer do I balance this ship around?'

...Now, the argument you've made about concentration of firepower being an issue. That one I can understand, even if I don't use fighters that way, and if that pushes towards keeping fighters as more of a fleet asset than a ship asset... well, then I'm not entirely happy with having to spend carrier OP on them, but so be it.

Hm, maybe what the HSCV needs is a built-in hullmod that reduces fighter roam range by... let's say 50%, and then also makes (some) officer skill bonuses apply to its fighters?

Yeah, you're right. I think was just coming at it with an unstated and unexamined assumption that the battlecarrier-type ship is balanced (as much as it's possible to do it) without fighters-being-boosted in mind. Which, now that I think of it, was likely rooted in not wanting to boost fighters for force-concentration reasons (even though this would make for somewhat smoother individual balance for battlecarriers, if all of their aspects were boosted simultaneously.) But, yeah, without that, I think you (and Histidine) are absolutely right.

Sorry it took me a bit to get all this re-straightened-out in my head and get to the actually-pivotal force concentration point :) I appreciate the thoughts and feedback!

And, the idea about a hullmod reducing roam range and making some bonuses apply to fighters - I think that's a very interesting idea. It seems like it'd be tough to make it come out right, though, given the possible range of effects skills can have. And having to flag certain skill effects as "fighter-applicable for this hullmod" and others as not, and conveying this information somehow... that seems awfully messy for essentially implementing a hullmod. But the general concept - trading off roam range for power - I think is good.


No longer a perma fuel shortage at Syndria.
My game had perma-volatile shortage at Sindria, and making volatile runs from Umbra to Sindria was almost as profitable as drug or supply runs with various black markets elsewhere.

(Per the patch notes, this is resolved by adding the Fullerne Spool at Eventide.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 07, 2021, 11:35:23 AM
Giving them some benefit from the skills of the carrier's captain makes as much sense as having a single "Field Modulation" skill that provides benefits to both shields and phase cloaks ...

The key difference being that it's impossible to make use of both shields and phase cloak bonuses (some kind of mod-ship excepted, perhaps).
But a skill that adds bonus damage to both shipboard weapons and fighter weapons is exactly the same there: one bonus or the other applies, but never both at once. I mean, if we go by that logic, the existing "Target Analysis" skill is triple-dipping! After all, its bonus applies to ballistic weapons and energy weapons and missile weapons, and there are ships that can use all three of those at the same time!

Say you have a HSCV (Hypothetical Spherical-Cow-in-a-Vacuum) battlecarrier that gets half its firepower from directly mounted guns, and half its firepower from fighters. With no officers involved, this is great! With officers involved, suddenly it needs to be re-balanced, because the officer skills are boosting just the 'guns' half of that, and now you have to choose 'what level of officer do I balance this ship around?'

...Now, the argument you've made about concentration of firepower being an issue. That one I can understand, even if I don't use fighters that way, and if that pushes towards keeping fighters as more of a fleet asset than a ship asset... well, then I'm not entirely happy with having to spend carrier OP on them, but so be it.

Hm, maybe what the HSCV needs is a built-in hullmod that reduces fighter roam range by... let's say 50%, and then also makes (some) officer skill bonuses apply to its fighters?
Same thing about concentration of fighters can be said for homing missiles.  It is a reason why I have been writing that, as of 0.95, some missiles are being better fighters than real fighters, in part because of longevity (four minutes of continuous firing of missiles instead of one or two minutes of unskilled fighter spam) and in part because the motherships (like Apogee or Conquest) are still generally armed warships with stats of their weight class, more than a dedicated carrier (or carrier-wannabe Gryphon) with stats comparable to a civilian minus the civilian debuff hullmod.

(Per the patch notes, this is resolved by adding the Fullerne Spool at Eventide.)
What happens after the player steals it?  I have been playing kleptomaniacs and stealing rare items as soon as my fleet is able to (a bit late in a game).

If the player can cause a perma-shortage by stealing an item, then a good late-game strategy is to steal that item!  Even better if doing so causes a Pather cell tormenting that planet to dissolve (when I do not want to kill core worlds).

I suppose if it occurs sufficiently late, it does not matter since the item did its job for at least half of a playthrough that is not prolonged by Ordos grinding or other endgame activity.  (I still want to steal that spool to cause a perma-shortage if that is the result.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 07, 2021, 12:07:16 PM
And, the idea about a hullmod reducing roam range and making some bonuses apply to fighters - I think that's a very interesting idea. It seems like it'd be tough to make it come out right, though, given the possible range of effects skills can have. And having to flag certain skill effects as "fighter-applicable for this hullmod" and others as not, and conveying this information somehow... that seems awfully messy for essentially implementing a hullmod. But the general concept - trading off roam range for power - I think is good.

Basically you'd be creating 2 categories: fleet carriers and officer carriers. Maybe go the other way? Slash all fighter roam ranges and add a "Fleet Carrier" hullmod that puts them back to long range? Hrmm, that seems sketchy, too.



RE civ ships in combat: I am not sure hullmods are really the way to do it.

With hullmods, either you are building your civilian ships to always be deployed in combat, or never be deployed in combat. Theoretically you can refit them in space right before a battle, but nobody does that.

The idea of super-buffing civilian ships for a desperate battle seems more like a story point ability, but that is not great either.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 07, 2021, 12:14:09 PM
And, the idea about a hullmod reducing roam range and making some bonuses apply to fighters - I think that's a very interesting idea. It seems like it'd be tough to make it come out right, though, given the possible range of effects skills can have. And having to flag certain skill effects as "fighter-applicable for this hullmod" and others as not, and conveying this information somehow... that seems awfully messy for essentially implementing a hullmod. But the general concept - trading off roam range for power - I think is good.
Make the carrier skills reduce roaming range. Explain that it's because the officer is taking a hands-on approach and you can't really do that without any communications, now can you? Well, assuming you're going back to carrier skills. If not, make it a part of "affects ships with officers" skill? Making it a hullmod is also an option, but possibly less desirable.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 07, 2021, 12:14:48 PM
No longer a perma fuel shortage at Syndria.
My game had perma-volatile shortage at Sindria, and making volatile runs from Umbra to Sindria was almost as profitable as drug or supply runs with various black markets elsewhere.

(Per the patch notes, this is resolved by adding the Fullerne Spool at Eventide.)
Well if that shortage I mean would have been created by a volatile shortage, I wouldn't have complained about it in first place, I caused by an high command consuming more fuel then a fuel production with synchrotron can produce, without admin boost.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 07, 2021, 12:29:57 PM
Same thing about concentration of fighters can be said for homing missiles.

Hmm, I don't think that's true! The ranges are so much greater for fighters, and ability to force-concentrate is more than linearly improved by higher range. In addition, missiles are *much* easier shoot down en masse by AoE point defense. It just doesn't begin to compare. I mean, yes, compared to shorter ranged weapons, missiles have a greater ability to focus-fire something, but fighters are in an entirely different league when it comes to that.


What happens after the player steals it?to (a bit late in a game).

What you'd expect!


Make the carrier skills reduce roaming range. Explain that it's because the officer is taking a hands-on approach and you can't really do that without any communications, now can you? Well, assuming you're going back to carrier skills. If not, make it a part of "affects ships with officers" skill? Making it a hullmod is also an option, but possibly less desirable.

Hmm, I don't think skills giving an unavoidable debuff to something is great.

Well if that shortage I mean would have been created by a volatile shortage, I wouldn't have complained about it in first place, I caused by an high command consuming more fuel then a fuel production with synchrotron can produce, without admin boost.

Ah - does Andrada not have Industrial Planning in 0.95a? He does now, so that'd explain that aspect of it.


Basically you'd be creating 2 categories: fleet carriers and officer carriers. Maybe go the other way? Slash all fighter roam ranges and add a "Fleet Carrier" hullmod that puts them back to long range? Hrmm, that seems sketchy, too.

Yeah. To be honest, I'm pretty into the "officer presence enhances fleetwide fighter skill effects" idea - that seems to resolve everything very neatly!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 07, 2021, 12:53:03 PM
What happens after the player steals it?to (a bit late in a game).
What you'd expect!
Back to square one and perma-shortage for profit, if nothing else changed.  But given the difficulty of raiding big heavily defended worlds (I do not remember if Eventide has a battlestation or star fortress), it is something that probably does not happen until player can do worse at that time of the game.

Make the carrier skills reduce roaming range. Explain that it's because the officer is taking a hands-on approach and you can't really do that without any communications, now can you? Well, assuming you're going back to carrier skills. If not, make it a part of "affects ships with officers" skill? Making it a hullmod is also an option, but possibly less desirable.

Hmm, I don't think skills giving an unavoidable debuff to something is great.
I avoided old shield skill at level 3 (that had both shield and phase buffs) for officers because 4x time shift to phase ship was a major debuff to effective PPT (given how much time AI wasted while phased), even if hard flux dissipation to shields was good for those ships.  Similarly, old Gunnery Implants 10 because the faster fire rate made it easier for AI (or even playership if relying on autofire) to flux themselves to death with loadouts that were relatively flux neutral at normal fire rate.

Skills that hurt the user... hurt, more so if it is coupled with a genuinely useful buff, like hard flux dissipation for shields plus 4x time shift for phasers, or half recoil with +25% fire rate to all guns (that makes flux use too high).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on November 07, 2021, 01:06:50 PM

Maybe the assault/escort package could be preserved to change their role to an emergency option by increasing deployment cost. For me civilian ships never really made sense as part of my regular combat force. But I have sometimes resorted to deploying them when I'm about to lose a fight, as distractions. That was actually fun, it felt like a "really giving it my all" sort of thing. Hullmods that support and expand that would be great. Maybe they increase deployment cost so much you can only deploy a civ ships once, in an emergency, but then in acts like an SO ship.

Hmm - I'm not sure that this is a case that it works to design something like this around. If a battle's gone so far off the rails that you're about to bring in civilians... chances are this isn't a case you've specifically outfitted them for, at the expense of logistics hullmods, right?

I wasn't thinking it should be a logistic hullmod as a tradeoff, but that you can't deploy civs thus equipped more than once (for a while). So if you are still losing the fight after emergency deploying them, or getting in another shortly after, you will now have trouble retreating with all your civs having 0%CR.

Basically, your loadout choice would be to have civs without combat packages that are good at running away when you lose a fight, or civs that are good (well, "good") at helping you not to lose the fight in the fist place. Both cases don't have to cut into the logistics capabilities of these ships, but can, if you want to really optimize them for that role.



As I mentioned earlier, fleetwide fighter bonuses seem like the only way to go for fighters. But what if *those* were, say, doubled by the presence of an officer on the ship? That'd certainly make you feel like putting an officer on a carrier was worthwhile, without getting into all the problems of personal skills boosting them. Really liking this, actually! Would have to tweak the specific skill numbers some, of course.

Mh, interesting, but it seems like that would favor battlecarriers a lot, which can profit way more from officer skills than stand-off carriers, while benefiting equally from the fleetwide fighter bonus boost.

Mhh... Except maybe if officers need a skill or two to actually access the full fleetwide-fighter-bonus-boost. Then the optimal battlecarrier captain might have 0-1 of these skills, and the optimal stand-off carrier captain would have them all. Haha, kinda coming full circle here - or maybe it's an upwards spiral? :)

 
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 07, 2021, 01:38:30 PM
I like the idea of simply the presence of an officer in a carrier does *something*. Even if officer skills become somewhat tangential to how the carrier operates, the fact they do improve fighter performance makes me want to put them in a carrier.

In regards to trading fighter range for some sort of fighter buff, I would love that for ships like the Legion, Mora, and to a lesser extent something like an Odyssey. I typically run these ships without ever using "Engage" and allow the fighters to simply be another form of damage. A way to improve that would be stellar, though I'd want to it to be heavily incentivized to pair with an Officer and work with global skills. Something like a "Battle Carrier Retrofit" hullmod that, on its own, adds 5% damage/HP/accuracy to fighters at the cost of some OP and -50% fighter range (and is mutually exclusive with Expanded Deck Crews). However, global fighter skills would directly tie into this that also adds a variable flat amount of damage/hp, etc. based on total # of flight decks. An officer adds some multiplier to this number. Maxed out, maybe a 20-25% increase? Of course, the global skill that boosts these attributes would be like the Phase Cloak/Shields skill: if a ship doesn't have the Battle Carrier hullmod, it gets the normal fighter bonuses but if it does have the Battle Carrier hullmod, it gets this set of buffs. That way you're not having to choose at the fleet level but at the individual ship level. There's probably a way more elegant way of doing this but I think a distinction between battle carrier and fleet carrier would be kind of cool.

Also, +1 to Hyperion TP charges.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 07, 2021, 01:47:19 PM
I like the idea of simply the presence of an officer in a carrier does *something*. Even if officer skills become somewhat tangential to how the carrier operates, the fact they do improve fighter performance makes me want to put them in a carrier.

In regards to trading fighter range for some sort of fighter buff, I would love that for ships like the Legion, Mora, and to a lesser extent something like an Odyssey. I typically run these ships without ever using "Engage" and allow the fighters to simply be another form of damage. A way to improve that would be stellar, though I'd want to it to be heavily incentivized to pair with an Officer and work with global skills. Something like a "Battle Carrier Retrofit" hullmod that, on its own, adds 5% damage/HP/accuracy to fighters at the cost of some OP and -50% fighter range (and is mutually exclusive with Expanded Deck Crews). However, global fighter skills would directly tie into this that also adds a variable flat amount of damage/hp, etc. based on total # of flight decks. An officer adds some multiplier to this number. Maxed out, maybe a 20-25% increase? Of course, the global skill that boosts these attributes would be like the Phase Cloak/Shields skill: if a ship doesn't have the Battle Carrier hullmod, it gets the normal fighter bonuses but if it does have the Battle Carrier hullmod, it gets this set of buffs. That way you're not having to choose at the fleet level but at the individual ship level. There's probably a way more elegant way of doing this but I think a distinction between battle carrier and fleet carrier would be kind of cool.

Can't make it too good, but +1 agree.  Seems like since carrier skills for player are fleetwide, kinda need an incentive to also put officers on carriers.  But keep bonus light AND random, like slightly reducing CR loss for fighters or slightly increasing effective fighter range.  Is ECM for fighters a thing?  If so, could maybe add a small effect to that also.  No officer gets the same bonus, and only really matters if officer has a carrier skill anyway, since non-carrier officers won't get attached to carriers unless absolutely necessary for some reason.  Could even just make effect dependent on carrier skill...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 07, 2021, 03:03:28 PM
Mh, interesting, but it seems like that would favor battlecarriers a lot, which can profit way more from officer skills than stand-off carriers, while benefiting equally from the fleetwide fighter bonus boost.

Maybe I'm not thinking this through correctly, but it seems like it would favor battlecarriers with officers less than now.

Right now, an officer on a battlecarrier gets more use out of their skills than on a carrier. If the officer increases the fleetwide skills' bonus to fighter wings, then putting them on a dedicated carrier - which presumably has more bays than the battlecarrier - will provide more utility, countering at least some of the advantage of putting that officer on a battlecarrier, or even all of it (and perhaps then some), depending.

Haha, kinda coming full circle here - or maybe it's an upwards spiral? :)

(Hah! Yes, but also no :D)

In regards to trading fighter range for some sort of fighter buff, I would love that for ships like the Legion, Mora, and to a lesser extent something like an Odyssey. I typically run these ships without ever using "Engage" and allow the fighters to simply be another form of damage. A way to improve that would be stellar, though I'd want to it to be heavily incentivized to pair with an Officer and work with global skills. Something like a "Battle Carrier Retrofit" hullmod that, on its own, adds 5% damage/HP/accuracy to fighters at the cost of some OP and -50% fighter range (and is mutually exclusive with Expanded Deck Crews). However, global fighter skills would directly tie into this that also adds a variable flat amount of damage/hp, etc. based on total # of flight decks. An officer adds some multiplier to this number. Maxed out, maybe a 20-25% increase? Of course, the global skill that boosts these attributes would be like the Phase Cloak/Shields skill: if a ship doesn't have the Battle Carrier hullmod, it gets the normal fighter bonuses but if it does have the Battle Carrier hullmod, it gets this set of buffs. That way you're not having to choose at the fleet level but at the individual ship level. There's probably a way more elegant way of doing this but I think a distinction between battle carrier and fleet carrier would be kind of cool.

I wonder if a 50% fighter range bonus would be enough, and I also wonder if there even is a sweet spot where the fighter range is low enough that force concentration isn't big a concern, while fighters have enough room to form up and do a proper attack run.

That said, it seems like the "officer increases effect of fleetwide fighter skills" would already get much of what you'd like to see, namely 1) boosting battlecarriers and 2) having that be contingent on an officer.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: LookItsRain on November 07, 2021, 03:39:25 PM
Set them on alternating, that would even out the flux and damage over time.
Not helpful on a big ship, like on Onslaught or Conquest, where I have one mauler pointed left and another pointed right.

Also, AI does not always maintain alternating perfectly (like if it wants to spam its missiles, it will fire them one-two-three and mostly override alternating).  I find alternating useful mostly for manual control of missiles.  Alternating is a pain to use on guns meant to fire automatically.

Maybe im off base here but i have strong opinions on this:
On the Hull Restoration skill and similar effects: To me, this just seems way too stacked in terms of usefulness, it basically nullifies ship losses, removes d mods on obtained ships and even gives you a significant CR boost. With how easy it is to also scoop up salvageable ships thanks to story points, overall i feel like its too easy and cheap to obtain and repair ships compared to 0.91 which was the polar opposite.
As far as I am concerned, this is easy: the cost of Hull Restoration is not getting the skills that actually improve your fleet's performance. In a choice between, say, Automated Ships and Hull Restoration, I will definitely go with Automated Ships.
Classic case of QoL vs. combat power, like taking Navigation or Sensors instead of another combat skill the player wants more and gives up QoL because he does not have enough points for both QoL and combat power.

In my case, I probably take Hull Restoration because it gets tiring reloading the game after a single mistake, and reloading is faster than grinding a few hours to recover money and progress lost to the rust monsters in a game with combat rewards balanced mostly on flawless victories.  And the AI is incompetent enough and/or player does not have enough control to prevent all casualties, except in fights where player can auto-resolve them away in a pursuit battle (which do not need combat ships to get free kills, just send in the barely armed civvies and clunkers to do it).

That said, getting Hull Restoration would interfere with getting Tech 8 and enough combat skills to dominate with Radiant flagship.

P.S.  With Hull Restoration, fixing Remnants, Ziggurat, and other ships acquired only by looting them (after battle) cheap is nice.  Fixing ships is bloody expensive, especially capitals.  Ziggurat is especially pricey with its restoration being close to two million credits, and the restoration skill removing the d-mods from it (and other capitals with repair bills close to a million a pop) is especially nice.  Endgame bounties only give about 300k per bounty, and the loot goes toward replacing what the player's fleet consumed on the trip.  This is why I write the game's rewards assume flawless victories, and the hull restoration skill extend that threshold from flawless victory to lose a few ships.  (Field Repairs was good only for one or two ships, including those looted from battle, which can send threshold back to flawless victory so player can fix the new former enemy ships in his lifetime.)

Perhaps i overvalue the QOL and repairs, but to me the d mod repairs along with how easy it is to salvage ships will net you overall more combat power vs dedicated combat skills. Automated ships is likely equally as good, simply because the radiant is absurdly strong. In the current build even with AI mistakes etc, you still almost never actually lose a ship, especially because any time you get intercepted and think you cant reasonably win, you just press your 1 sp get out of jail button. Even if you lose a ship, you likely already have something to replace it anyways. IMO, just mothballing a ship as it repairs as you fly around and do everything else seems way to easy, id like to see a middle ground between this and the absurd credit cost of normal restoration.

We will get a much better idea once the patch gets released though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 07, 2021, 03:48:36 PM
  • New technology skill, top tier: Neural Link
    • Allows rapid transfer between two ships with the Neural Interface hullmod
    • Transfer is instant if combined DP is 50 or below
    • Uses "switch view to target" key for transfer
    • Both ships benefit from the player's personal combat skills at all times

I forgot to ask this earlier, but when using this skill, does it still cost a CP to make your companion ship attack stuff, or is it free?  Because that would suddenly and very seriously change the possible uses for this skill... but seems kinda like rule of cool would override some of the concern...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 07, 2021, 04:07:17 PM
Because fighters consume the same OP budget as weapons and flux, I think having a pilot skill that boosts both guns and fighters in some way would work well! Its kind of like a single budget boosted, rather than just one aspect of it boosted.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 07, 2021, 04:45:40 PM
Should Cybernetic Augmentation give bonuses to raids/marines?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 07, 2021, 04:47:08 PM
Should Cybernetic Augmentation give bonuses to raids/marines?
I'm with you there! Makes sense.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 07, 2021, 04:53:38 PM
The idea to use officers to enhance carrier fleetwide skills is pretty nice! It does have some odd effects (in the naive implementation the carrier officer's specific skillset and even level don't matter, could even leave them at level 1 to save on the salary), but I think it'll do the job.

Well if that shortage I mean would have been created by a volatile shortage, I wouldn't have complained about it in first place, I caused by an high command consuming more fuel then a fuel production with synchrotron can produce, without admin boost.

Ah - does Andrada not have Industrial Planning in 0.95a? He does now, so that'd explain that aspect of it.
Andrada has Industrial Planning now? Huh.

That highlights one (minor) side effect of the admin skills removal; the loss of characterization among the unique admins (and arguably procgen admins for high-tier markets in general). Kanta and Sun have all three skills because they're skilled leaders of their respective political organizations (despite Kanta's questionable sanity), Daud has them too because he could have been the player character in another timeline. Andrada only has Space Operations and Ground Operations; he's an excellent military leader but has no particular talent in civilian administration, and it shows in the polity he's created. Rao and Ibrahim have no admin skills, perhaps because one's a worn out old soldier and the other's a (likable) fraudster.

Might be cool if some of the named admins got the alpha cores' Hypercognition, or even unique admin skills that exist nowhere else in the game.

(Incidentally, Nexerelin fixes Sindria's High Command being an absurd fuel hog by putting a gamma core on it. Although why do Military Base and HC have such high resource demand (size+2 and +3 respectively), anyway?)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 07, 2021, 04:55:17 PM
Beyond that, Sabots still only do mostly temporary damage, and e.g. removing the EMP component would make it possible to make firing them mostly a waste by just turning shields off.
HE missiles can just as easily be wasted into PD or shields. I think that sabots are the outlier in that they are very difficult to waste.


Question, why Scarab OP reduced?
It felt a little too strong to me. I don't think it's a major change; we're talking -50 flux dissipation - which, ok, it matters, but its base dissipation is so high that it's not going to feel that nearly as much as most frigates.
I agree that scarab is currently slightly too strong, but I think that there are enough factors (multiple hullmods and skills (flux and shield stuff) it disproportionally benefits from being nerfed, lots of things that compete with it being buffed, so that it will already be a bit worse next patch. I also would argue the loss of 5 OP = 50 dissipation will really hurt since any excess weapon flux generation is effectively tripled by its system (e.g. firing 30 flux/sec over dissipation will generate 90 flux/sec while system is active and you will overload faster). I already struggle to have enough OP/vents, even when I am leaving half of its slots empty.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Yubbin on November 07, 2021, 05:16:23 PM
Beyond that, Sabots still only do mostly temporary damage, and e.g. removing the EMP component would make it possible to make firing them mostly a waste by just turning shields off.
HE missiles can just as easily be wasted into PD or shields. I think that sabots are the outlier in that they are very difficult to waste.
I completely agree with inrinsic here, firing almost any HE missile (besides reapers) into shields has barely any effect unless you shoot a lot of missiles, or you're shooting a frigate. On the other hand, sabots either raise flux by a large margin, or emp all the weapons, because they are impossible to shoot down! The main annoying part of sabots is that they hit the ship they are fired at 90% of the time! Lowering the range where they split and increasing the spread of the pellets would be a step in the right direction I think.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 07, 2021, 05:34:11 PM
I forgot to ask this earlier, but when using this skill, does it still cost a CP to make your companion ship attack stuff, or is it free?  Because that would suddenly and very seriously change the possible uses for this skill... but seems kinda like rule of cool would override some of the concern...

The skill has no effect on any command point costs.

Because fighters consume the same OP budget as weapons and flux, I think having a pilot skill that boosts both guns and fighters in some way would work well! Its kind of like a single budget boosted, rather than just one aspect of it boosted.

Hmm - did you see the earlier point about force concentration and not wanting to buff fighters directly from officers because of that?


Should Cybernetic Augmentation give bonuses to raids/marines?

Should it? :)


The idea to use officers to enhance carrier fleetwide skills is pretty nice! It does have some odd effects (in the naive implementation the carrier officer's specific skillset and even level don't matter, could even leave them at level 1 to save on the salary), but I think it'll do the job.

That might just be good enough! I'm not sure whether basing the bonus on officer level in some way would be "neat" or "a pointless complication"; kind of leaning towards the latter, to be honest.


Andrada has Industrial Planning now? Huh.

That highlights one (minor) side effect of the admin skills removal; the loss of characterization among the unique admins (and arguably procgen admins for high-tier markets in general). Kanta and Sun have all three skills because they're skilled leaders of their respective political organizations (despite Kanta's questionable sanity), Daud has them too because he could have been the player character in another timeline. Andrada only has Space Operations and Ground Operations; he's an excellent military leader but has no particular talent in civilian administration, and it shows in the polity he's created. Rao and Ibrahim have no admin skills, perhaps because one's a worn out old soldier and the other's a (likable) fraudster.

Fair! But also, "oh well"; I don't feel like that kind of thing justifies keeping complexity that was otherwise judged to be not pulling its weight.

Might be cool if some of the named admins got the alpha cores' Hypercognition, or even unique admin skills that exist nowhere else in the game.

The Culann admin has it, but don't tell anyone, especially the Hegemony :)

(Incidentally, Nexerelin fixes Sindria's High Command being an absurd fuel hog by putting a gamma core on it. Although why do Military Base and HC have such high resource demand (size+2 and +3 respectively, anyway?))

Seems reasonable to me; ultimately these kinds of industries could well be the ultimate reason for having colonies in the first place...

Question, why Scarab OP reduced?
It felt a little too strong to me. I don't think it's a major change; we're talking -50 flux dissipation - which, ok, it matters, but its base dissipation is so high that it's not going to feel that nearly as much as most frigates.
I agree that scarab is currently slightly too strong, but I think that there are enough factors (multiple hullmods and skills (flux and shield stuff) it disproportionally benefits from being nerfed, lots of things that compete with it being buffed, so that it will already be a bit worse next patch. I also would argue the loss of 5 OP = 50 dissipation will really hurt since any excess weapon flux generation is effectively tripled by its system (e.g. firing 30 flux/sec over dissipation will generate 90 flux/sec while system is active and you will overload faster). I already struggle to have enough OP/vents, even when I am leaving half of its slots empty.


I guess we'll see!


Beyond that, Sabots still only do mostly temporary damage, and e.g. removing the EMP component would make it possible to make firing them mostly a waste by just turning shields off.
HE missiles can just as easily be wasted into PD or shields. I think that sabots are the outlier in that they are very difficult to waste.
I completely agree with inrinsic here, firing almost any HE missile (besides reapers) into shields has barely any effect unless you shoot a lot of missiles, or you're shooting a frigate. On the other hand, sabots either raise flux by a large margin, or emp all the weapons, because they are impossible to shoot down! The main annoying part of sabots is that they hit the ship they are fired at 90% of the time! Lowering the range where they split and increasing the spread of the pellets would be a step in the right direction I think.

I had a feeling someone would mention this :)

The thing is, firing HE missiles like this into shields or PD is a piloting error. Except for when it's not, i.e. when you're trying to achieve an overload by forcing shields to stay up, let's say. And in that scenario, maybe they'll be shot down (though Sabots also face that possibility vs at least *some* PD), but it's not as trivial to nullify as it with Sabots.

With Sabots, a primary use case is firing it into the shields of a relatively fresh, and almost certainly not overloaded, opponent. If they can be almost completely neutralized in that case by simply turning the shields off, that's a much, much different situation from that which HE missiles face.

HE, you're either firing enough to overwhelm PD with acceptable missile losses, or you're firing at an overloaded/venting target. Or you messed up. With Sabots, instead of "you messed up" it'd very often just be "opponent right-clicked when you were hoping they wouldn't". There'd be some window of opportunity to use Sabots, still - paired with HE damage to keep shields up, perhaps? But it feels like it would be quite narrow. On the other hand, with EMP damage, they generate *some* kind of opening regardless.


Lowering the range where they split and increasing the spread of the pellets would be a step in the right direction I think.

Hmm, there's something to that - though, again, they tend to face "fresher" opponents, so if they become easily susceptible to PD, that has a much more outsized effect on them than it would on HE missiles, which have a different use case.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 07, 2021, 05:42:40 PM
Should Cybernetic Augmentation give bonuses to raids/marines?

Should it? :)

Yes  :P
No need to be major bonuses
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 07, 2021, 06:15:08 PM
Perhaps i overvalue the QOL and repairs, but to me the d mod repairs along with how easy it is to salvage ships will net you overall more combat power vs dedicated combat skills. Automated ships is likely equally as good, simply because the radiant is absurdly strong. In the current build even with AI mistakes etc, you still almost never actually lose a ship, especially because any time you get intercepted and think you cant reasonably win, you just press your 1 sp get out of jail button. Even if you lose a ship, you likely already have something to replace it anyways. IMO, just mothballing a ship as it repairs as you fly around and do everything else seems way to easy, id like to see a middle ground between this and the absurd credit cost of normal restoration.
In early 0.9, when there was Loadout Design 3 and no s-mods, the middle ground was simply building a new ship with Orbital Works at relatively cheap credit cost, but that does not work now in 0.95 because the new ship does not have the s-mods the old ship had.  If you rebuild the ship (or buy a new one from the core worlds), you pay story points to replace the s-mods to old ship had.  If you restore the ship, you keep the s-mods and remove the d-mods, but you pay way too much money to do it.  That leaves Field Repairs, but it takes two months to remove a d-mod.  That is slow when your fleet (and any new enemy ships you loot) have multiple d-mods each.  Still, Field Repairs is the only cheap option we have.

Alex wrote that in the next release, scuttling ships with s-mods you paid story points to install (with less than full bonus xp) will be refunded with bonus xp, so maybe rebuilding new ships with Orbital Works will be a viable option again, provided the fleet is made out of ships player can build (and the player is a combat junkie to farm bonus xp fast enough).

Quote
Perhaps i overvalue the QOL and repairs, but to me the d mod repairs along with how easy it is to salvage ships will net you overall more combat power vs dedicated combat skills.
There is a trope for that:  Boring but Practical.

People like to maximize combat power (stacking as many combat skills as possible), or take flashy special abilities or powers (something like the top-tier tech skills).  Recovery skills do not do any of that, but it improves quality-of-life when things go wrong - when and not if.  In theory, having too much combat power might prevent the player from losing ships, but the AI is too stupid not to die at times, and player will not become so strong that he can solo everything (with possible exception of Doom or Ziggurat with the right skills).

Also, easy recovery and ship acquisition does not raise maximum combat power (and it is not flashy or pretty), but it makes things much easier to gather some power to get even with the enemy after the player wipes and does not reload (or gets sick of reloading too much for the flawless win combat rewards tend to be balanced towards).

* * *

Moving on...

Quote
Lowering the range where they split and increasing the spread of the pellets would be a step in the right direction I think.
This was tried in the second version of the sabot years ago, and enemy ships dropped shields and armor tanked about half of the sabot (with the rest completely missing off to the side) for minimal damage every time, making the Sabot useless except against an incompetent playership.

First and third versions was a single 750 slug which was good against everything.  Who cares about half damage (against armor) when it still put a big hole in armor and an even bigger hole in hull, and it was more reliable than a Harpoon (because PD could not stop second stage).

The current iteration is a decent compromise.  It is not too great against armor, but it is still a decent hull crusher and better against shields.

* * *

(Incidentally, Nexerelin fixes Sindria's High Command being an absurd fuel hog by putting a gamma core on it. Although why do Military Base and HC have such high resource demand (size+2 and +3 respectively), anyway?)
I tried to build colonies that would not rely on nanoforge and synchrotron, but the requirements of Military Base make that impossible.  There may be one other building that also has crazy high supply and/or fuel requirements, I guess either Megaport or Waystation.  Player must have synchrotron and nanoforge (ideally pristine) to be self-sufficient.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Warruk on November 07, 2021, 07:39:34 PM
As a mostly low-tech player, very glad to see the Legion and Dominator both get some buffs.  I was going to write a longer post on the Dominator, as it's been my main ship to pilot for most of my time playing and I have some thoughts, but I didn't do so in time to beat all this patch.

All the buffs it gets are great, but I don't normally have issues with the Dominator on OP, dissipation, or longevity.  The fact that the two large ballistic weapon slots are hardpoints and spaced widely, coupled with its low maneuverability, really defines the ship and provides some challenges in how to outfit it and use it.  I found that for normal enemies all the way through high level bounties, it was a good ship and grew well along with the rest of the fleet.  It's usefulness fell off pretty hard with [Redacted], though, and I think point out two issues that plague the ship most.

First, it normally shines when duking it out with capitals.  The Dominator can't rotate quickly and its main damage dealers (missiles and large ballistics) are hardpoints, so something that is large or moves slowly will stay in its crosshairs.  It can't win a solo flux war with a capital, but it can with some help, and then pound in some damage as the ship tries to retreat.  Against a Radiant, though, the Dominator can not take much of the damage to shields, and has to armor tank pretty quickly.  That's fine, it's made for that, but its main weapons are routinely knocked out of commission as it does that, so then it can't fight back.  I think this is a general weakness of armor tanking vs. shield tanking, but I suspect the Dominator struggles with that more than a Legion or Onslaught as its main weapons are all along its front and located close together.  When fighting a Radiant, I find my normal role is to take that damage and let the other ships take the Radiant down.  It works, but not a lot of enjoyment in it.  What fun is it to get hammered on with no chance of launching a reaper (or three!) in something's face when it gets fluxed out?

Second, the Dominator does not excel close-in fighting with even semi-agile opponents, which the [Redacted] very much try to utilize (specifically, groups of Fulgents/Glimmers). Their typical style is to pelt you from a few angles, swooping into and out of range as they take shield damage.  I can pressure one of their shields with the turreted mediums (H Needlers) and sabots, but it's tough to convert that pressure to hull damage as I normally can't spin fast enough to use the larges to hit them.  Also, even if I can turn fast enough to hit that weakened ship, the close range will make only one of the two large hardpoints usable...the other is firing into space.  Again, I can tie up a decent number of enemies for a while, enough time for the rest of the fleet take things down, but I take damage and don't do much in return. 

I'd humbly request two things.  First, some kind of way to make the impact of damage to weapons less brutal.  Losing most of your DPS in a few moments is tough to plan around, and not much fun for a low-tech fleet relying on armor tanking.  Perhaps a Hullmod where instead of a weapon becoming unusable when it runs out of HP, it just reduces to 50% of normal rate of fire?  Or maybe a 50% chance to become unusable instead of 100% when it runs out of HP? 

Second, I really think the ship needs some way to deal damage at brawler range, either by converting the fixed missiles and LB to turrets (even a small amount of movement would provide a lot of good), or perhaps with another turreted medium ballistic (with no additional dissipation to power it) if the fixed nature of the craft is an important point.  With its crazy-low speed and maneuvering, the Dominator cannot dictate terms for exchanges...it's got to have a way to be effective at multiple ranges.  It's too easy to just rush it down and make the LB's and missiles semi-useless, and the two mediums just are not enough.  The Enforcer has more than that. 
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amazigh on November 07, 2021, 08:06:19 PM
Beyond that, Sabots still only do mostly temporary damage, and e.g. removing the EMP component would make it possible to make firing them mostly a waste by just turning shields off.
HE missiles can just as easily be wasted into PD or shields. I think that sabots are the outlier in that they are very difficult to waste.
I completely agree with inrinsic here, firing almost any HE missile (besides reapers) into shields has barely any effect unless you shoot a lot of missiles, or you're shooting a frigate. On the other hand, sabots either raise flux by a large margin, or emp all the weapons, because they are impossible to shoot down! The main annoying part of sabots is that they hit the ship they are fired at 90% of the time! Lowering the range where they split and increasing the spread of the pellets would be a step in the right direction I think.

I had a feeling someone would mention this :)

The thing is, firing HE missiles like this into shields or PD is a piloting error. Except for when it's not, i.e. when you're trying to achieve an overload by forcing shields to stay up, let's say. And in that scenario, maybe they'll be shot down (though Sabots also face that possibility vs at least *some* PD), but it's not as trivial to nullify as it with Sabots.

With Sabots, a primary use case is firing it into the shields of a relatively fresh, and almost certainly not overloaded, opponent. If they can be almost completely neutralized in that case by simply turning the shields off, that's a much, much different situation from that which HE missiles face.

HE, you're either firing enough to overwhelm PD with acceptable missile losses, or you're firing at an overloaded/venting target. Or you messed up. With Sabots, instead of "you messed up" it'd very often just be "opponent right-clicked when you were hoping they wouldn't". There'd be some window of opportunity to use Sabots, still - paired with HE damage to keep shields up, perhaps? But it feels like it would be quite narrow. On the other hand, with EMP damage, they generate *some* kind of opening regardless.

The thing that makes sabots so good (imo) is how unlike HE missiles, if you have no chance to dodge or intercept the shot, then there is no "good" option on how to take the hit.
Taking it on shield will build up a bunch of flux, and taking it on armour will still cause a significant EMP impact that will likely disable something.

Speaking from personal experience, if it's not enough to overload me, I will in 95% of instances prefer to take a Sabot on shields rather than hull, because that sudden spike of EMP will more than likely disable a not insignificant portion of my weapons.
The sudden loss of player agency from having a bunch if weapons disabled is not fun and in my opinion is worse (both in feel and practical terms) than having to cope with a higher flux level.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 07, 2021, 08:22:29 PM
At the minimum, there should be another fleetwide carrier/fighter skill
Between officers/piloted skills and fleetwide skills, there are just too many ways to boost weapons/officered ships and not enough for fighters/unofficial carriers.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 07, 2021, 09:22:30 PM
Spoiler
As a mostly low-tech player, very glad to see the Legion and Dominator both get some buffs.  I was going to write a longer post on the Dominator, as it's been my main ship to pilot for most of my time playing and I have some thoughts, but I didn't do so in time to beat all this patch.

All the buffs it gets are great, but I don't normally have issues with the Dominator on OP, dissipation, or longevity.  The fact that the two large ballistic weapon slots are hardpoints and spaced widely, coupled with its low maneuverability, really defines the ship and provides some challenges in how to outfit it and use it.  I found that for normal enemies all the way through high level bounties, it was a good ship and grew well along with the rest of the fleet.  It's usefulness fell off pretty hard with [Redacted], though, and I think point out two issues that plague the ship most.

First, it normally shines when duking it out with capitals.  The Dominator can't rotate quickly and its main damage dealers (missiles and large ballistics) are hardpoints, so something that is large or moves slowly will stay in its crosshairs.  It can't win a solo flux war with a capital, but it can with some help, and then pound in some damage as the ship tries to retreat.  Against a Radiant, though, the Dominator can not take much of the damage to shields, and has to armor tank pretty quickly.  That's fine, it's made for that, but its main weapons are routinely knocked out of commission as it does that, so then it can't fight back.  I think this is a general weakness of armor tanking vs. shield tanking, but I suspect the Dominator struggles with that more than a Legion or Onslaught as its main weapons are all along its front and located close together.  When fighting a Radiant, I find my normal role is to take that damage and let the other ships take the Radiant down.  It works, but not a lot of enjoyment in it.  What fun is it to get hammered on with no chance of launching a reaper (or three!) in something's face when it gets fluxed out?

Second, the Dominator does not excel close-in fighting with even semi-agile opponents, which the [Redacted] very much try to utilize (specifically, groups of Fulgents/Glimmers). Their typical style is to pelt you from a few angles, swooping into and out of range as they take shield damage.  I can pressure one of their shields with the turreted mediums (H Needlers) and sabots, but it's tough to convert that pressure to hull damage as I normally can't spin fast enough to use the larges to hit them.  Also, even if I can turn fast enough to hit that weakened ship, the close range will make only one of the two large hardpoints usable...the other is firing into space.  Again, I can tie up a decent number of enemies for a while, enough time for the rest of the fleet take things down, but I take damage and don't do much in return. 

I'd humbly request two things.  First, some kind of way to make the impact of damage to weapons less brutal.  Losing most of your DPS in a few moments is tough to plan around, and not much fun for a low-tech fleet relying on armor tanking.  Perhaps a Hullmod where instead of a weapon becoming unusable when it runs out of HP, it just reduces to 50% of normal rate of fire?  Or maybe a 50% chance to become unusable instead of 100% when it runs out of HP? 

Second, I really think the ship needs some way to deal damage at brawler range, either by converting the fixed missiles and LB to turrets (even a small amount of movement would provide a lot of good), or perhaps with another turreted medium ballistic (with no additional dissipation to power it) if the fixed nature of the craft is an important point.  With its crazy-low speed and maneuvering, the Dominator cannot dictate terms for exchanges...it's got to have a way to be effective at multiple ranges.  It's too easy to just rush it down and make the LB's and missiles semi-useless, and the two mediums just are not enough.  The Enforcer has more than that.
[close]

I appreciate the detailed write-up! Hmm. Impact Mitigation, Damage Control, and Automated Repair Unit (and Armored Weapon Mounts!) are all intended means to counteract weapons getting disabled, and to bring them back online faster. Resistant Flux Conduits also help reduce EMP damage taken. In the next release, Polarized Armor will also help by reducing EMP damage by up to 50% when flux levels are high, and having a bit more ordnance points will let you take advantage of more of the other options, too. It feels like there is a large number of options here, and they'll be broadened somewhat. You're right that due to how the ship is, its weapons are more exposed (though the larges can actually avoid a lot of fire due to being offset, it's really the medium missiles that suffer the brunt), but I think that's just the breaks for this specific ship.

For engagement range, the changes to Burn Drive should help it be able to dictate range more. But the trouble it has with faster attackers that get close is very much part of its intended design, a weakness that's meant to be compensated for with allies on its flanks.

I think if it ends up brawling with a Radiant... you just kind of have to expect that it'll have some trouble. That *is* a battleship, after all! But, just trying it for a bit now, with a focus on using these options, its weapons get remarkably resilient.

The thing that makes sabots so good (imo) is how unlike HE missiles, if you have no chance to dodge or intercept the shot, then there is no "good" option on how to take the hit.
Taking it on shield will build up a bunch of flux, and taking it on armour will still cause a significant EMP impact that will likely disable something.

Speaking from personal experience, if it's not enough to overload me, I will in 95% of instances prefer to take a Sabot on shields rather than hull, because that sudden spike of EMP will more than likely disable a not insignificant portion of my weapons.
The sudden loss of player agency from having a bunch if weapons disabled is not fun and in my opinion is worse (both in feel and practical terms) than having to cope with a higher flux level.

That's fair. But it's also not permanent damage you've taken, and the opposing ship expended a limited resource. And you do have options - either the one you describe, or indeed taking the hit on armor and backing off if stuff gets disabled. The options aren't amazing, but again, the downsides are temporary unless the other side can follow through.

That said, though, if someone has a loadout in mind that demonstrates how the Sabot is much too strong that isn't a Falcon (P) (or, I suppose, a Gryphon, though that's a different ball of wax), then I'd love to have a closer look!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 07, 2021, 09:29:42 PM
Personally, I don't think that sabots need any adjustments.

What I would like to see, though, is better endurance from harpoon pods. Three shots is just... well. That's what you get for spending a small slot on harpoons. I actually liked harpoon pods better at two missiles per salvo. If they're not going to go back to that... give them a few more missiles, please? >.>
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 07, 2021, 11:31:17 PM
I don't think Sabot is necessarily mega OP or anything. It's just the default choice because it's always useful and "always works" (where a Harpoon, the other general purpose missile, is likely to get wasted by PD, miss its target, or hit a shield without significant flux increase). That latter consideration is especially important when a rack costs 4 OP for only three shots.

If I'm not already in the thick of things, sabots on armor feels like an acceptable choice for me (possibly because I run Resistant Flux Conduits on most things), it's not pleasant but you can usually afford to back away and/or hide behind your shield for a bit while the weapons repair.

Personally, I don't think that sabots need any adjustments.

What I would like to see, though, is better endurance from harpoon pods. Three shots is just... well. That's what you get for spending a small slot on harpoons. I actually liked harpoon pods better at two missiles per salvo. If they're not going to go back to that... give them a few more missiles, please? >.>
I wouldn't mind the trade of Harpoon pods having a smaller throw (three missiles per volley instead of four) in exchange for a significantly deeper magazine. Would make them last longer while also being less 'force-feed an overloaded target 12 Harpoons at once and make it explode'.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on November 07, 2021, 11:52:52 PM
Simplest 'counter' to Sabot is just back off a bit. 1st stage is very slow and doesn't inherit launcher's speed. Of course, if the other ship just tried to get a breather, they've got what they wanted.

But as offensive weapon Sabots are only useful because AI is not smart enough to back off when it should, or when you have decisive speed advantage to launch them close enough that backing off is impossible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Undead on November 08, 2021, 01:19:47 AM
"Kite (S) now has 30 ordnance points"

Operations center kite is on the menu, boys!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 08, 2021, 02:49:13 AM
The fact that the two large ballistic weapon slots are hardpoints and spaced widely, coupled with its low maneuverability, really defines the ship and provides some challenges in how to outfit it and use it.
Dominator is designed around overwhelming frontal firepower that isn't actually overwhelming enough to justify the frontal focus. As an AI ship, it's more often a time waster than anything, and as a player ship, it's too cumbersome to bother. Just use a Champion that not only is more manoeuvrable, its design is also less dependent on its mobility in the first place.

For engagement range, the changes to Burn Drive should help it be able to dictate range more. But the trouble it has with faster attackers that get close is very much part of its intended design, a weakness that's meant to be compensated for with allies on its flanks.
Majority of the time it's keeping the enemy at bay that's the issue, not closing in, though burn drive not being a trap is a positive change anyway.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BreenBB on November 08, 2021, 03:16:28 AM
About modding suggestions, I think good idea is expand .skin files, add ability to set style for ship itself, and ability to override stats like Flux Vents\Cap, HP, armour and speed. Also I'd like to have ability to change ship OPs through hullmod too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 08, 2021, 05:02:00 AM
Should Cybernetic Augmentation give bonuses to raids/marines?

Should it? :)

Yes  :P
No need to be major bonuses
Cybernetics are rarely used on healthy humans, but make a great way to extend the careers of casualties. It may be cool to have a simple reduction in the number of marines lost in raids. Tactical drills could lose the casualty bonus, and instead get a marine XP buff (which makes more sense for intense training imo).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BaBosa on November 08, 2021, 05:42:57 AM
My thoughts on Hyperion and it’s system, giving it a single charge with a long recharge and the assumption that the player or officer will have system expertise could balance it. That’ll just let it do hit and runs which is a core part of the ship but the delay time to regain two charges should reduce the *** to acceptable amounts. Could make it so that 0flux bonus increases recharge rate by 3-4x so that SO builds still get to use just as much teleportation.
Trying to use flux to balance hasn’t worked well.
Giving it a bunch of charges (like 8?) but no recharge as they would force players/officers to be prudent but still allow for some fun insanity.
Another possibility is to give it a long wind up time during which shields are turned off. That would let it have no cool-down or charges. Though this way would make it tactically similar to burn drive.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Warruk on November 08, 2021, 06:53:09 AM
Spoiler
As a mostly low-tech player, very glad to see the Legion and Dominator both get some buffs.  I was going to write a longer post on the Dominator, as it's been my main ship to pilot for most of my time playing and I have some thoughts, but I didn't do so in time to beat all this patch.

All the buffs it gets are great, but I don't normally have issues with the Dominator on OP, dissipation, or longevity.  The fact that the two large ballistic weapon slots are hardpoints and spaced widely, coupled with its low maneuverability, really defines the ship and provides some challenges in how to outfit it and use it.  I found that for normal enemies all the way through high level bounties, it was a good ship and grew well along with the rest of the fleet.  It's usefulness fell off pretty hard with [Redacted], though, and I think point out two issues that plague the ship most.

First, it normally shines when duking it out with capitals.  The Dominator can't rotate quickly and its main damage dealers (missiles and large ballistics) are hardpoints, so something that is large or moves slowly will stay in its crosshairs.  It can't win a solo flux war with a capital, but it can with some help, and then pound in some damage as the ship tries to retreat.  Against a Radiant, though, the Dominator can not take much of the damage to shields, and has to armor tank pretty quickly.  That's fine, it's made for that, but its main weapons are routinely knocked out of commission as it does that, so then it can't fight back.  I think this is a general weakness of armor tanking vs. shield tanking, but I suspect the Dominator struggles with that more than a Legion or Onslaught as its main weapons are all along its front and located close together.  When fighting a Radiant, I find my normal role is to take that damage and let the other ships take the Radiant down.  It works, but not a lot of enjoyment in it.  What fun is it to get hammered on with no chance of launching a reaper (or three!) in something's face when it gets fluxed out?

Second, the Dominator does not excel close-in fighting with even semi-agile opponents, which the [Redacted] very much try to utilize (specifically, groups of Fulgents/Glimmers). Their typical style is to pelt you from a few angles, swooping into and out of range as they take shield damage.  I can pressure one of their shields with the turreted mediums (H Needlers) and sabots, but it's tough to convert that pressure to hull damage as I normally can't spin fast enough to use the larges to hit them.  Also, even if I can turn fast enough to hit that weakened ship, the close range will make only one of the two large hardpoints usable...the other is firing into space.  Again, I can tie up a decent number of enemies for a while, enough time for the rest of the fleet take things down, but I take damage and don't do much in return. 

I'd humbly request two things.  First, some kind of way to make the impact of damage to weapons less brutal.  Losing most of your DPS in a few moments is tough to plan around, and not much fun for a low-tech fleet relying on armor tanking.  Perhaps a Hullmod where instead of a weapon becoming unusable when it runs out of HP, it just reduces to 50% of normal rate of fire?  Or maybe a 50% chance to become unusable instead of 100% when it runs out of HP? 

Second, I really think the ship needs some way to deal damage at brawler range, either by converting the fixed missiles and LB to turrets (even a small amount of movement would provide a lot of good), or perhaps with another turreted medium ballistic (with no additional dissipation to power it) if the fixed nature of the craft is an important point.  With its crazy-low speed and maneuvering, the Dominator cannot dictate terms for exchanges...it's got to have a way to be effective at multiple ranges.  It's too easy to just rush it down and make the LB's and missiles semi-useless, and the two mediums just are not enough.  The Enforcer has more than that.
[close]

I appreciate the detailed write-up! Hmm. Impact Mitigation, Damage Control, and Automated Repair Unit (and Armored Weapon Mounts!) are all intended means to counteract weapons getting disabled, and to bring them back online faster. Resistant Flux Conduits also help reduce EMP damage taken. In the next release, Polarized Armor will also help by reducing EMP damage by up to 50% when flux levels are high, and having a bit more ordnance points will let you take advantage of more of the other options, too. It feels like there is a large number of options here, and they'll be broadened somewhat. You're right that due to how the ship is, its weapons are more exposed (though the larges can actually avoid a lot of fire due to being offset, it's really the medium missiles that suffer the brunt), but I think that's just the breaks for this specific ship.

For engagement range, the changes to Burn Drive should help it be able to dictate range more. But the trouble it has with faster attackers that get close is very much part of its intended design, a weakness that's meant to be compensated for with allies on its flanks.

I think if it ends up brawling with a Radiant... you just kind of have to expect that it'll have some trouble. That *is* a battleship, after all! But, just trying it for a bit now, with a focus on using these options, its weapons get remarkably resilient.


Sorry about the wall of text, it swear it didn't appear as long when I wrote it. 

I currently use IM, DC, and armored mounts (along with solar shielding), so I'm trying to keep the guns firing with the tools that are available.  My experience has not been the same as what you are describing, and I do find it's difficult to keep the mounts working well (in particular the missiles which often have only a limited time to use).  I appreciate you trying it out.

To be clear on the close range weakness, my issue isn't that close-range flanking won't be painful...it is and that feels fair.  It's that the fixed nature of the weapons really limits the damage you can deal back in those cases.  That's true even if you have a partner to avoid flanking; if your target moves laterally at close range, it will really reduce your effectiveness.  The best counterexample is the Legion XIV, which I found to be surprisingly strong in my LT fleet.  With 5 turreted heavy needlers and two hurricanes, it can flux out attackers from a number of angles and then pursue them with missiles, all while being slower than the Dom. 

Related to the various comments on Radiants and close attackers, I think you are hinting at what I see as the Dom's identity crisis.  Against those end-game enemies, what is it supposed to be good at?  Not really tackling a Radiant when it is the target, and not attacking faster-moving enemies that close distance.  I find it's just got a small list of cases where it works well against Redacted.  It's a shame, as it's a pretty decent ship against non-Redacted fleets that respect range a little more, but struggles with the transition to the major leagues. 

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 08, 2021, 09:07:57 AM
I find Dominators to be slightly underperforming, but not extremely, so I'm happy to see buffs but I'm also glad they aren't too large. I find them to perform best vs non-mobility destroyers, cruisers, and capitals due to the issues that others have pointed out, but its DP efficient in that role. Its weak against extremely mobile small ships that hug it close, which wouldn't be so much of a problem except thats the exact play style of the boss ships that are also very strong stat wise.

One thing I like about them is that I can really pack on ranged kinetic firepower compared to other ships: Mk IX's in the hardpoints are really good because being hardpoints their recoil is reduced. A mostly kinetic (say 2x Mk IX, 1 HVD 1 Mauler, maybe 2 railguns to support the HVD/Mauler combo in close range vs frigates) dominator is quite good vs all Remnants except their frigates. They do lose vs Radiants 1v1, but thats 25 DP going up against 60 with an alpha core, so its not really a sign of a bad ship, just an outmatched one.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: RustyCabbage on November 08, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
That said, though, if someone has a loadout in mind that demonstrates how the Sabot is much too strong that isn't a Falcon (P) (or, I suppose, a Gryphon, though that's a different ball of wax), then I'd love to have a closer look!
I'll go with this video, wherein a player easily takes the Tesseract fight in a pure Low Tech fleet with mass Sabots and a few complimentary Harpoons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5BYXY8rLl4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5BYXY8rLl4)
e.g. you can see off screen that three Enforcers and a Mora wipe the strongest ship in the game effortlessly. This course of events pretty much generalizes to any encounter in the game. Tesseracts aren't the tankiest ship around, but they aren't push-overs and they have built-in RFC so they're also far from the most vulnerable to Sabots. And you're not going to get comparable performance with any other missile + accompanying loadout.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 08, 2021, 09:29:39 AM
@RustyCabbage!
I mean that's cool and all but it just shows that missile spam is strong when focused on 1-2 targets. That fleet is pretty much built for it, and I suppose officers have missile skills and ships have built-in missile hullmods. The Enforcers are truly scary when they unload everything at once. But what I'm trying to say is you could accomplish similar feats with different missiles. Invest heavily into kinetic ballistics and just pun Harpoons everywhere. Actually this is pretty much where it ends in vanilla because Doritos are fast and will just dodge other things.

Don't get me wrong, Sabots are very strong and always useful, but it takes so little to push them into "unusable and completely harmless when used by AI". If you take away the EMP portion, it would be the most pointless missile as basically only the player and maybe phase ships could take advantage of it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 08, 2021, 09:57:50 AM
That Onslaught flagship was effectively one hit away from death late in the fight.  You were lucky those fighters did not get close enough, or something else slamming into your ship.  If it had been any other fight, losing that Onslaught would have been a pyrrhic victory worthy of reload if you did not have Field Repairs (by losing more money replacing the ship than a bounty would pay), but since Omegas have unique loot, some losses would have been acceptable to obtain unique best-in-class weapons.

Also, the sabots ran out somewhat early, no later than first five minutes, they better do something!  Missiles are not worth using if too unreliable.  The rest of the fight was trading gunfire.

Given punishing losses and stingy rewards, game is balanced on player steamrolling every fight, or simply avoiding combat altogether if that is not possible (and run drugs or supplies for easy money).

P.S.  One of the Tesseracts avoided a mass Sabot barrage by kiting away from that Onslaught.  Granted, it did that not to avoid Sabots, but to play its stock cowardly AI routine of running away from anything it cannot surround or overpower (your Onslaught flagship in this case).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 08, 2021, 10:13:30 AM
Cybernetics are rarely used on healthy humans, but make a great way to extend the careers of casualties. It may be cool to have a simple reduction in the number of marines lost in raids. Tactical drills could lose the casualty bonus, and instead get a marine XP buff (which makes more sense for intense training imo).
This is a good suggestion! I like it!  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 08, 2021, 11:31:35 AM
Cybernetics are rarely used on healthy humans, but make a great way to extend the careers of casualties. It may be cool to have a simple reduction in the number of marines lost in raids. Tactical drills could lose the casualty bonus, and instead get a marine XP buff (which makes more sense for intense training imo).
This is a good suggestion! I like it!  ;D

+1 Agree, for both suggestions.  Although it does beg the question:  Do marines generated by High Command start with more XP than marines generated by the military base version of industry?  Asking for a friend...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 08, 2021, 12:10:13 PM
What I would like to see, though, is better endurance from harpoon pods. Three shots is just... well. That's what you get for spending a small slot on harpoons. I actually liked harpoon pods better at two missiles per salvo. If they're not going to go back to that... give them a few more missiles, please? >.>

They can get what, up to 24 more missiles per pod? :)

I don't think Sabot is necessarily mega OP or anything. It's just the default choice because it's always useful and "always works"

I think that's pretty fair.

I wouldn't mind the trade of Harpoon pods having a smaller throw (three missiles per volley instead of four) in exchange for a significantly deeper magazine. Would make them last longer while also being less 'force-feed an overloaded target 12 Harpoons at once and make it explode'.

A possibility, though it seems like a solid missile choice already, so I'm not sure it's something I want to mess with, at least not without a lot of testing.


Operations center kite is on the menu, boys!

(Every time I hear "X is back on the menu", I wonder what kind of society the Uruk-Hai had that made this a common turn of phrase among them. Do they have sit-down restaurants? Like... "yes, sparkling water, please, and I'll have the Leg of Guy-I-Killed-the-Other-Day... but I digress.)

Yes, *thumbs up* on the OC Kite :)


Sorry about the wall of text, it swear it didn't appear as long when I wrote it. 

No worries :)

I currently use IM, DC, and armored mounts (along with solar shielding), so I'm trying to keep the guns firing with the tools that are available.  My experience has not been the same as what you are describing, and I do find it's difficult to keep the mounts working well (in particular the missiles which often have only a limited time to use).  I appreciate you trying it out.

To be clear on the close range weakness, my issue isn't that close-range flanking won't be painful...it is and that feels fair.  It's that the fixed nature of the weapons really limits the damage you can deal back in those cases.  That's true even if you have a partner to avoid flanking; if your target moves laterally at close range, it will really reduce your effectiveness.  The best counterexample is the Legion XIV, which I found to be surprisingly strong in my LT fleet.  With 5 turreted heavy needlers and two hurricanes, it can flux out attackers from a number of angles and then pursue them with missiles, all while being slower than the Dom. 

Related to the various comments on Radiants and close attackers, I think you are hinting at what I see as the Dom's identity crisis.  Against those end-game enemies, what is it supposed to be good at?  Not really tackling a Radiant when it is the target, and not attacking faster-moving enemies that close distance.  I find it's just got a small list of cases where it works well against Redacted.  It's a shame, as it's a pretty decent ship against non-Redacted fleets that respect range a little more, but struggles with the transition to the major leagues.

The missile mounts, yeah, they can be tough to keep online. But again, if it's facing down a Radiant, that's a big ask. If it's able to just tank it for long enough to create openings for other ships, it's already doing more than many cruisers are capable of.

I also hesitate to use Redacted as the ultimate measuring stick long term; as you say they have some specific behaviors that might not carry over to every endgame threat (or, indeed, to high-level bounties, which can be pretty close to on par with them.)


I'll go with this video, wherein a player easily takes the Tesseract fight in a pure Low Tech fleet with mass Sabots and a few complimentary Harpoons:

e.g. you can see off screen that three Enforcers and a Mora wipe the strongest ship in the game effortlessly. This course of events pretty much generalizes to any encounter in the game. Tesseracts aren't the tankiest ship around, but they aren't push-overs and they have built-in RFC so they're also far from the most vulnerable to Sabots. And you're not going to get comparable performance with any other missile + accompanying loadout.

Thank you, I appreciate it! It's unfortunate that the most interesting bit happened offscreen :) The Tesseracts can be surprisingly easy to burst down, provided they overload at the wrong time (for them), and I've seen it happen in some kind of unexpected cases - but that's luck based, and not seeing this, it's impossible to say what happened there.

And as far as generalizing - quite seriously, does it? The Tesseracts are heavily outnumbered and can't use allies to back off and recover behind. They also have "fearless" AI and so get into more trouble trying to tank Sabots on shields while hanging around. It's really the perfect storm of being susceptible to Sabots. RFC probably doesn't matter too much here; the bigger problem is how much they shield-tank and what it does to their flux, I think.

I have a feeling that even just changing their personality to "steady" could cut down on the effectiveness of Sabots against them a lot.

And whether this really generalizes to a fight when this fleet is outnumbered - I'd imagine it *can* beat a high-level Ordo, probably without too much trouble, because it looks like a high-end fleet. But would it be a much harder - or at all harder - fight with the Sabots either partially or fully replaced by something else? That seems much harder to say. At least, it does not appear to be self-evident to me just from watching this video. And from experience, Harpoons and Reapers seem very, very good in vs-Ordo fights; the number of times that a Radiant - or even a Brilliant - has managed to back off after getting over-fluxed, for lack of finisher-type weapons... that seems to happen a lot.

That said, still, something for me to think about and keep an eye on, and I appreciate the video and the thoughts. While we're on the subject: any missiles that stand out as particularly bad?

(This reminds me, I've been wanting to tweak the Tesseract fight. It's *supposed* to get harder once you destroy one of them, but that doesn't seem like it's holding up at all.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 08, 2021, 12:34:44 PM
Overall the upcoming patch looks really good to me.

I am a bit curious where your ideas for the elite Impact Mitigation effect are going, given the 90% max mitigation being duplicated in Polarized armor.  Where you looking for something that helps at high armor levels and or small weapon hits (which is what the 85%-90% does), but doesn't quite stack so much (1/3 less damage during the maximum mitigation period extends it by a factor of 1.5,.e. 50% more, while 2/3 extends it by by a factor of 3).

Looks like we've already got less damage to armor (base IM), less engine/weapon damage (base IM), max 90% mitigation (polarized armor), 50% more armor for calculations based on flux (polarized armor), reduced emp based on flux (polarized armor).

Clearly, you're trying to move away from flat armor for damage reduction calculation purposes since you replaced it with the 90% max reduction in the first place.  At the end of the day, all these things do is interact to make the ship last longer when it's shields are down, so what scale improvement were you looking for and against which classes of weapons?

Would something like a simple 10% more real armor, or +75/150/200/250 (tweak numbers as needed) real extra armor based on size, repaired instantly at the end of every engagement work?  Where "repaired" is just the has an elite Impact Mitigation officer piloting it at deployment time, so it adds say +250 to whatever the armor was there as the ship is deployed into the fight.  At the end, if it's over normal maximum in any cell, just remove excess.

It gives a player a reason to actually armor tank a little bit, since if it's dinged a little, it'll be repaired instantly at the end of the current engagement and before the next fight in the series starts.

As for carrier balance, that is always tricky, as noted by the way they scale with massing more and more fighters in a single point.  Guided missiles have the same problem, although it's more of a large missile bay issue (Hurricane, Locust).  Maybe harpoon/sabot swarms also have a similar issue, but they don't last for four minutes of non-stop fire.  One might imagine bonuses applying to unguided munitions that don't apply (or apply lesser) to their guided brethren which can shoot over friendlies.

I do really like the idea of linking officers to fleet wide carrier bonuses.  Which in some way lets you say "These fighter bays are more important than those fighter bays".  This is perhaps a silly question, but would it be simpler to tie "fleet wide" fighter bonuses to the presence of an officer on the ship just like how Wolf pack tactics works?  As opposed to the more complicated double the bonus if officer is present interaction?

If the skill is balanced with officers in mind, and there's like a factor of 2 difference between ships with and without officers, then I feel the only effective fighter choice would be a few ships with officers and bays, instead of a mixture of officered and unofficered ships with bays.  You'll eliminate any excess bays in your fleet even more so than now, given you'll take twice the hit on your officered ships simply for carrying around spare carriers.  It certainly makes balancing much easier as you have to consider far fewer permutations.
 
I always viewed Wolf pack tactics as you (the fleet commander) giving each individual officer on a frigate a extra skill above and beyond the normal limit.  Given it's +20% damage to larger ships is pretty comparable to Target Analysis.  So go the same route with fighter skills, with the additional caveat that the skill given out gets weaker if you're giving it to too many officered bays.

Say it's the same bonus as now, +50% faster fighter replacements (up to 8 bays, scaling down afterwards) it puts control in the players hands to determine how that 50% is distributed.  Take the case of 4 Herons, 2 get deployed, and 2 are reserve for when the first two get damaged, destroyed, or are out of CR.

Case 1: Only officered fighter bays count. 50% bonus all the time for the primary Herons, 0% for reserve Herons (or if I get a chance to switch officers between fights, also 50%).

Case 2: Officers get current bonuses, unofficered halved.  33% bonus for the primary Herons, 16% for reserve (or 33% if I can switch officers).

I'd prefer the 1st case, which also happens to be the same power level for both if I eliminate the reserve carriers completely from my fleet (so same peak power if I do so, i.e. 50% replacement rate).

It also means I don't have to put converted fighter bays on every single civilian ship with drones - I did find myself in the weird spot once of not having that hull mod, but having fighter uplink in one play through.  Eventually tracked down a copy, but still.

It's possible the requirement justifies a buff to numbers, or maybe additional bonuses with the skills (return of the old -20% damage taken by fighters?).  Not sure on that point, but I think restricting it to officers as is would likely be an actual small buff for a number of fleet compositions.  The only compositions which would be weakened would be those with less than 8 bays in ships with officers, which typically means 2-4 officers dedicated to carriers.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 08, 2021, 01:01:13 PM
I also hesitate to use Redacted as the ultimate measuring stick long term; as you say they have some specific behaviors that might not carry over to every endgame threat (or, indeed, to high-level bounties, which can be pretty close to on par with them.)
Ordos with Radiants make every other recurring fight look like midgame chumps, even named bounties that are worth about 350k.  (It was less extreme before 0.95, the gameplay changes really benefitted the Remnants.)

Behavior and defenses of non-Ordos do not matter too much when top Ordos is at an 11 while everything else is a 6 or 7 at best.  Player needs a fleet that can crush the fleet with power level of 11, and the one that can do that should crush the level 6 or 7 enemy even if the anti-11 fleet does not have optimal tools to crack weaker enemies defenses most efficiently because of the power level involved.  Like having fire beat water because fire user massively outlevels the water user.

I guess dual Tesseracts can be tough, but even they sometimes fall as easily as a normal 350k bounty, and there are only two such fights.

Hopefully, there will be more recurring endgame threats aside from Radiants.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: default on November 08, 2021, 01:05:56 PM
I am very much looking forward to this patch, despite my favorite thing getting a nerf, as it does over perform in the hands of the player. Though I do have a question. With the Elite effect of damage control, does this apply to beam weapons like the Tachyon lance that do more than 500 damage, but not in a singular hit?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 08, 2021, 01:06:15 PM
Quote
While we're on the subject: any missiles that stand out as particularly bad?

Well, breaches and proximity launchers. Both are getting buffed already, but I'm VERY sceptical the current changes will do anything. Ultimately, if I want shield damage I do sabots, and if I want armor/hull damage I go harpoons. Everything else feels like a waste, except maybe locusts against carriers. Medium locusts when, Alex.  ::)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 08, 2021, 01:20:49 PM
Pilums are absolutely useless and a waste of OP unless you spam a bazillion of them, or if you get off of breaking AI behaviour. I remember back when they costed 10 OP but were a bit faster, they had a use at least. Now I just leave empty if I can't afford or put literally anything else.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 08, 2021, 01:27:19 PM
While we're on the subject: any missiles that stand out as particularly bad?
Hm. Here's a question: does anyone actually use the large-slot Reaper? I've found myself considering it a few times - but every time I do, I end up deciding that the Hammer Barrage actually does the job better - less ammo, yes, but much cheaper to mount, higher DPS, and four small torpedos are harder to shoot down than two large torpedos.

(This reminds me, I've been wanting to tweak the Tesseract fight. It's *supposed* to get harder once you destroy one of them, but that doesn't seem like it's holding up at all.)
In my experience, it really does work that way - the worst thing to do against the Tesseracts is to just kill both of them at once, and taking out all the shards is where the meat of the fight is. My most successful fights against these things typically involve using my flagship to lure one of them away and keep it busy while the rest of my fleet deals with the other, just to avoid killing the second one off until the first one's shards have been at least mostly finished off.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 08, 2021, 01:34:03 PM
I _sometimes_ use the large slot reaper on player conquests when I want missiles but don't want to take the missile skill because it has an excessive amount of ammo. But in general its DPS is low and few ships can use it effectively.

I agree with Wyvern re: tesseracts. A whole one with an aggressive loadout has more danger of just singling out and popping a destroyer (or sometimes cruiser if the AI drops its shield at the wrong time), but once one splits things get very hectic and ships get flanked badly. I also try to stall one while mopping up another.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 08, 2021, 01:35:22 PM
Pilums are absolutely useless and a waste of OP unless you spam a bazillion of them, or if you get off of breaking AI behaviour. I remember back when they costed 10 OP but were a bit faster, they had a use at least. Now I just leave empty if I can't afford or put literally anything else.
I actually enjoyed using pilums on the DOOM in older versions. The slow missiles act as a defensive screen, absorbing hits and protecting precious phase ship armor. When they do hit, it's a big punch. Phase ships have increased fire rate and recharge thanks to cloaking, which counters the weakest aspect of the missile pack.

I wouldn't mind if pilum missiles were hardier. Big, slow, persistent, tanky missiles are not very different from fighter craft. It might even make a nice design for fighter drones.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 08, 2021, 01:36:22 PM
I find large Reapers quite useful if I need a large HE missile on a ship that's not built for knife fighting. Hammer barrage is great but man does it suck when half or more shots gets wasted.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 08, 2021, 01:43:32 PM
(Every time I hear "X is back on the menu", I wonder what kind of society the Uruk-Hai had that made this a common turn of phrase among them. Do they have sit-down restaurants? Like... "yes, sparkling water, please, and I'll have the Leg of Guy-I-Killed-the-Other-Day... but I digress.)
Or perhaps it's a mangled westron idiom.

I also hesitate to use Redacted as the ultimate measuring stick long term; as you say they have some specific behaviors that might not carry over to every endgame threat (or, indeed, to high-level bounties, which can be pretty close to on par with them.)
If you think top of the line human fleets should match Remnants in difficulty, please consider making that so. Currently Remnants demand noticeably more than even toughest mercenaries. Mostly because of how many officers they get and Radiants.

And from experience, Harpoons and Reapers seem very, very good in vs-Ordo fights; the number of times that a Radiant - or even a Brilliant - has managed to back off after getting over-fluxed, for lack of finisher-type weapons... that seems to happen a lot.
Now that's a straight up lie. I used harpoons and reapers against Remnants and unless I overloaded their ships already, missiles would not score hits on the hull. And if you need to overload their ships, you must bring either bring double the missiles to force overloads for high-flux Remnants through sheer ordnance avalanche, or by bringing some sabots anyway.

That said, still, something for me to think about and keep an eye on, and I appreciate the video and the thoughts. While we're on the subject: any missiles that stand out as particularly bad?
Besides everything that isn't sabots, Pilum and Proximity Charge Launcher don't find use in my fleets much. At least the latter is being taken care of, though, so that's nice.

(This reminds me, I've been wanting to tweak the Tesseract fight. It's *supposed* to get harder once you destroy one of them, but that doesn't seem like it's holding up at all.)
Tessaract is a big slippery bugger. They are the biggest hurdle to overcome. All the refactors are also slippery, but aren't as big, so stuff that works against Tessaract works even better against them. Except for Facet, but it never seems to be an issue to deal with.

Would something like a simple 10% more real armor, or +75/150/200/250 (tweak numbers as needed) real extra armor based on size, repaired instantly at the end of every engagement work?  Where "repaired" is just the has an elite Impact Mitigation officer piloting it at deployment time, so it adds say +250 to whatever the armor was there as the ship is deployed into the fight.  At the end, if it's over normal maximum in any cell, just remove excess.
I would prefer it to have a bonus that's useful in combat, unless it's a campaign bonus that activates in between rounds in combat as well, like Field Repairs 2 and Damage Control 2 used to. Something like weapon and engine repairs not being interrupted by damage, merely slowed, or being resistant to EMP arcs.

Hm. Here's a question: does anyone actually use the large-slot Reaper? I've found myself considering it a few times - but every time I do, I end up deciding that the Hammer Barrage actually does the job better - less ammo, yes, but much cheaper to mount, higher DPS, and four small torpedos are harder to shoot down than two large torpedos.
It's an alright option for Radiant and Champion, but with Missile Spec I prefer to use Hammer Barrage for reasons you mentioned. It's less reliable, less damaging and more expensive.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 08, 2021, 01:48:44 PM
The spead on the hammer barrage is a blessing. AI is dreadful at lining torpedo strikes and misses reapers even on capitals all the time. With hammers at least something will connect.

In general, using torpedoes on non-flagships feels bad to me. 90% of the time they do nothing, 5% of the time they do very little, and 5% of the time they instagib someone. Harpoons always do something, even if they can't "highroll" as much.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 08, 2021, 02:09:24 PM
Would something like a simple 10% more real armor, or +75/150/200/250 (tweak numbers as needed) real extra armor based on size, repaired instantly at the end of every engagement work?  Where "repaired" is just the has an elite Impact Mitigation officer piloting it at deployment time, so it adds say +250 to whatever the armor was there as the ship is deployed into the fight.  At the end, if it's over normal maximum in any cell, just remove excess.
I would prefer it to have a bonus that's useful in combat, unless it's a campaign bonus that activates in between rounds in combat as well, like Field Repairs 2 and Damage Control 2 used to. Something like weapon and engine repairs not being interrupted by damage, merely slowed, or being resistant to EMP arcs.

I probably didn't communicate the idea well.

What I was suggesting was an additional bonus armor on top of normal armor.  So instead of sitting at 1750 base armor, a pristine Onslaught being deployed with such an officer starts with 2000 total armor.  Which was what I was trying to get at with "real armor" and thus an actual benefit in combat.  If it takes no damage, it will immediately drop to 1750 armor after combat, the normal base armor.  If a damaged Onslaught had half armor in every cell, i.e. 875, upon deployment it would enter with 1125 armor in every cell, and if it never takes damage, leave with 1125 armor.  If it had to redeploy immediately, it would then enter with 1375 in every cell.  So a once per deployment armor regeneration, which can exceed the maximum.

One could phrase it as "Piloted ship gains 75/150/200/250 armor when deployed, which can exceed the normal maximum armor.  If armor is above maximum at end of combat, any excess is removed".

It's not necessarily the best suggestion, but it nicely combines to give the armor skills something to work with every fight, even if all armor has been stripped prior to deployment, and also increases the maximum combat effectiveness.  It's not hull tanking in disguise, as the flat armor for calculation purposes bonus tends to be.  It's also fairly straight forward to understand assuming it's explained well.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: RustyCabbage on November 08, 2021, 02:15:34 PM
I'll go with this video, wherein a player easily takes the Tesseract fight in a pure Low Tech fleet with mass Sabots and a few complimentary Harpoons:

e.g. you can see off screen that three Enforcers and a Mora wipe the strongest ship in the game effortlessly. This course of events pretty much generalizes to any encounter in the game. Tesseracts aren't the tankiest ship around, but they aren't push-overs and they have built-in RFC so they're also far from the most vulnerable to Sabots. And you're not going to get comparable performance with any other missile + accompanying loadout.

Thank you, I appreciate it! It's unfortunate that the most interesting bit happened offscreen :) The Tesseracts can be surprisingly easy to burst down, provided they overload at the wrong time (for them), and I've seen it happen in some kind of unexpected cases - but that's luck based, and not seeing this, it's impossible to say what happened there.

And as far as generalizing - quite seriously, does it? The Tesseracts are heavily outnumbered and can't use allies to back off and recover behind. They also have "fearless" AI and so get into more trouble trying to tank Sabots on shields while hanging around. It's really the perfect storm of being susceptible to Sabots. RFC probably doesn't matter too much here; the bigger problem is how much they shield-tank and what it does to their flux, I think.

I have a feeling that even just changing their personality to "steady" could cut down on the effectiveness of Sabots against them a lot.

And whether this really generalizes to a fight when this fleet is outnumbered - I'd imagine it *can* beat a high-level Ordo, probably without too much trouble, because it looks like a high-end fleet. But would it be a much harder - or at all harder - fight with the Sabots either partially or fully replaced by something else? That seems much harder to say. At least, it does not appear to be self-evident to me just from watching this video. And from experience, Harpoons and Reapers seem very, very good in vs-Ordo fights; the number of times that a Radiant - or even a Brilliant - has managed to back off after getting over-fluxed, for lack of finisher-type weapons... that seems to happen a lot.
Yeah, I wish I had better footage on hand :(. It's sort of a popular enough opinion on the Discord that no one's felt the need to do a dedicated showcase for it, I suppose.

I'd still say that yes, it generalizes. The point about not having allies to retreat behind is valid, but in fleet scenarios you could similarly have cases where a ship is blocked from behind by its allies. And PD grids are a thing, but even then it doesn't take many Harpoons to knock out any overloaded ship on the front-line before it can retreat (excepting solid interceptor / Paladin PD coverage).

Steady/Timid Tesseracts would be nightmarish, but they have a combination of speed and tanki-ness that is unmatched excepting Radiants (kind of, and they're Fearless as well anyways), Auroras, Hyperions and maaybe Medusas. I doubt that personality changes would save any other ship. Fair point regarding RFC here; I wanted to make a more general point that even armor-tanking the Sabots wouldn't be great here despite the EMP damage reduction, but it's a rather clumsy exhibit for that.

I would wager that the nature of Sabots providing extremely easy overloads (or, while not particularly relevant in this instance, shutting down the entirety of a ship's weaponry and easily winning the flux war) compared to needing a sustained combination of various weapons does make this fight significantly harder than without them.

(I guess it's not super helpful since I'm arguing the opposite side, but I would not be excited to have to try to win this same fight refitted without Sabots (half is still probably reasonably doable but honestly I'd doubt it'd outperform Vlad's current loadouts), and I love a challenge :p)

Harpoons and Reapers are still good! but Sabots are on flexibility and average usefulness grounds a tier above, imo.

That said, still, something for me to think about and keep an eye on, and I appreciate the video and the thoughts. While we're on the subject: any missiles that stand out as particularly bad?
Honestly I'm reasonably happy with the current state of things (despite what my post may imply I actually don't like sweeping balance changes too much :p). If I have to be nitpicky:
- The (Single) versions of Harpoon, Sabot, Hammer, Atropos just feel like ways for autofit to punish the AI
- Small Hammers are probably ever so slightly worse than Reapers (don't have a recommendation here - this is just me being very nitpicky)
- Breaches are getting buffed, which I think is fair
- Swarmers are still on the weaker side but the buff in 0.95a helped them a lot. It's just hard for them to compare to the Sabot/Harpoon/Reaper trifecta.
- I wish Salamanders weren't so expensive. It's one of those cases where support weapons cost more than killing weapons, which feels unfortunate. Like yeah they can be kind of useful, but it takes a fairly large number of them and falls off very quickly as fleet sizes increase.

- Resonators are being buffed a ton, which is wonderful.
- I doubt anything less than an OP cost reduction will convince (other--I don't hate them!) people to use Proximity Charge Launchers, but I'm looking forward to the rework. Expensive support weapons, again.
- I will still rarely use Pilums, like in whatever old Last Hurrah showcase I did back in 0.9.1a, but it's more of a "mess with the AI" tool than a "I expect this will have a notable effect" sort of thing.

The Larges are probably fine, though the Hurricane is imo better, possibly significantly, than all the rest, especially with the buff to ECCM in 0.95a. I guess Squalls still feel distressingly low on ammo, and the refire delay and awkwardness of Cyclones make me just not ever want to use them over Hammer Barrages and Hurricane MIRVs, but I'd hesitate to say they're out and out bad.

(This reminds me, I've been wanting to tweak the Tesseract fight. It's *supposed* to get harder once you destroy one of them, but that doesn't seem like it's holding up at all.)
o-oh. (I think this was the case when people were still learning the fight at the start of the patch, but Facets and Shards aren't too threatening compared to a Time Dilation Cruiser and Point Defense trivializes all fighters - thankfully that's being nerfed :p)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 08, 2021, 03:07:02 PM
Pilums are atrociously bad.  They are slow and fragile, but worst of all, blotting the screen with pilums causes enemy AI spines to turn deep yellow and run for the hills, wasting your fleet's PPT.  AI is already cowardly enough, and Pilums make it worse.  Going all in on Pilums was basically calling a time out until the pilums disappear.  If I was lucky, I might kill a ship or two after blotting the map with pilums.  I do not care if Pilums are dirt cheap today if they are bad enough that I do not ever want to use them.

Proximity Charges are also bad.  Cost too much OP, too slow, and runs out of ammo fast.  Also, at least in previous releases, they do not do full damage if they hit because they explode somewhat prematurely like Devastator used to do.

Most other missiles I have gripes, but they are not so bad (except maybe Squalls, and that is due to lack of ammo) that they are useless or worse.

My biggest gripe with Breach was lack of range.  Breach seems like a poor-man's Locusts, but that was not much help if the range was too short, which will be extended.

Atropos is also an annoying one to use due to narrow range band, and it cannot be used point-blank, just for what is basically a somewhat improved Harpoon with half the range.

Hm. Here's a question: does anyone actually use the large-slot Reaper? I've found myself considering it a few times - but every time I do, I end up deciding that the Hammer Barrage actually does the job better - less ammo, yes, but much cheaper to mount, higher DPS, and four small torpedos are harder to shoot down than two large torpedos.
Recently, no.  The problem is recent releases made Reapers fragile, and like MIRVs, not useful enough without buffs from missile skills or hullmods to make Reapers fast and/or sturdy enough.  It is too easy (for PD) to shoot down unboosted Reapers, and it does not help there are not many ships who could use Cyclone well in the first place.  0.95 added Champion and made Legion14 a viable option (thanks historian).  Gryphon does not count for being too fragile at near frontline combat.  AI is too conservative with Reapers, so larger Reapers are mostly playership weapons.

Hammer Barrage would be great if it did not spend all ammo so quickly.  At least all it needs is Expanded Missile Racks.  (Well, most missiles need it, but Hammers are more desperate for more ammo.)

That said, still, something for me to think about and keep an eye on, and I appreciate the video and the thoughts. While we're on the subject: any missiles that stand out as particularly bad?
Besides everything that isn't sabots, Pilum and Proximity Charge Launcher don't find use in my fleets much. At least the latter is being taken care of, though, so that's nice.
It is easier for me to list missiles I use than missiles I do not want to use because they lack ammo and/or reliability.

For me, I use Hammers, Annihilators, Salamanders, Sabots, and Locusts.  If I have OP to burn, then occasionally ECCM'ed MIRVs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: braciszek on November 08, 2021, 03:49:42 PM
The binary nature of pilums kind of ruins them as a weapon. It's not effective to only use some pilums; they pay off when everything has a pilum and you reach critical mass. And even then they primarily work because mass pilums screws up the enemy AI. So you don't use them at all or you use them everywhere. Since the latter option is only nice for one whole playthrough, no one really touches pilums ever again. That's not very interactive.

Squalls are also considered... not great. The idea of a lower base ammo pool for squalls in exchange for some longer lasting ammo regeneration was thrown around as a way to make them more attractive.

If single versions of small missiles vanished, no one would really bat an eye. You typically build around missiles, or at least I do, so I don't skimp out on OP for them. Singles are just so bizarre and out of place.

I'm looking forward to the resonator buff. They would be a weapon that would benefit if you could put them on many ships, but since they are limited, it is difficult to achieve a great effect with them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Yubbin on November 08, 2021, 03:54:42 PM
The binary nature of pilums kind of ruins them as a weapon. It's not effective to only use some pilums; they pay off when everything has a pilum and you reach critical mass. And even then they primarily work because mass pilums screws up the enemy AI. So you don't use them at all or you use them everywhere. Since the latter option is only nice for one whole playthrough, no one really touches pilums ever again.
I agree, against larger fleets pilums are not very helpful, unless you have a massive amount. Though in smaller fleets, I think pilums are pretty good. The lack of PD makes pilums much more scary.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 08, 2021, 04:11:27 PM
I'll use pilums on dedicated long range ships that should never be within 4000 units of the enemy anyways, in which case its some free distraction I guess (Thunder Condors). But yeah, they aren't effective. Squalls are excellent vs large targets while the ammo lasts, but the ammo runs out a bit too quickly. Good way to deal with Radiants though (in combination with a heavy gunship to chase them down and sink HE strike in).

In the medium slots, Sabots, Harpoons, and Reapers are all about equal value in their respective roles to me. I think sabots are very good at their job but overrated compared to the strike missiles for actually killing ships. I want enough to drive up flux or force an overload (preferably after some gunfire or other flux increases to the enemy) and no more.

For small slots, absolutely nothing beats the value of the single shot Reaper IF mounted on a ship that can use it effectively and be relatively close to the enemy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 08, 2021, 04:43:21 PM
Pilums could use a second-stage. If they get within X units of a target ship, they fix their direction and then propel themselves at like 2x speed for a bit before fizzling out. The slow, meandering nature of Pilums means they only ever hit by accident. With a little bit more initiative, they'd still miss most of the time but it wouldn't be a hope and a prayer.

I sort of wish Squalls and Pilums were switched. A Medium Kinetic pressure weapon that's long range but not terribly accurate and a Large HE weapon that dumps a ton of ordinance out sort of haphazardly but never runs out. More dakka, I suppose.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 08, 2021, 04:52:29 PM
I recently put two Cyclone Reapers on my Radiant due to specific circumstances.
I had OP to install ECCM but not Expanded Magazines (and was saving SP for other purposes). So the weapon's deep ammo pool was helpful, and elite Missile Spec and ECCM's speed boost helped with its natural weaknesses (relatively slow torpedoes and painfully long cooldown).

I haven't been watching the ship closely but it seems to work well enough; even shields don't like eating 4000 HE damage spikes, and if the target overloads before the salvo is done the ship is in for a lot of hurt.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amazigh on November 08, 2021, 05:22:02 PM
While we're on the subject: any missiles that stand out as particularly bad?
Leaving aside prox charge and breaches as they are (hopefully) going to be good with the upcoming changes.

Pilum: as everyone else has said, they are near useless until you get an overwhelming swarm of them on field, and then they suddenly flip to being an all conquering death ball, not really fun to use in either situation.

Squall: I do use these occasionally if i really need more kinetic damage, but they are lackluster. Alongside previous comments on ammo issues, i'd ask why are they set to fire on frigates, as (in my experience) squalls will miss frigates in 95% of instances.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: boogiebogus on November 09, 2021, 03:36:45 AM
On missiles that are bad:

Pilums: everything that I have to say about this one has been said already
Squalls: not only are these distressingly low on ammo, the AI likes to waste these - they fire them even if there's nothing stopping you from taking it on your armor.
Proximity charge launcher: this one's honestly so useless I forgot it was vanilla at first. Why would I use this when I could drastically increase the brawling power of my ship with proper missiles?
Single missiles: seems like a waste of a missile slot, TBH. I remember someone saying they made a personal rebalance to make them have infinite ammo, but a very slow reload - which sounds interesting but is probably unbalanced.

Things I don't agree on:

Cyclone reapers: these seem pretty good to me. Endurance throughout a whole fight is a pretty good quality for a missile IMO, and this can do that.
Breaches: these are honestly almost good. They help a lot on ships with poorer armor cracking, like some falcon/eagle builds (though mauler rework is changing that). The large ammo pool almost - but not exactly - places them on similar ground with other missiles for me.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 09, 2021, 04:01:35 AM
Pilums could get faster, they should at least keep up with most ships.
Squlls need more ammo, and a weak traking on 2nd stage would be nice, e.g. adjusting movement by about 30° for full reach.
Some weak point defence options for missiles would be nice, e.g. a 1op flare launcher a 3op active flare launcher or a 5op minilocust, there are ships not needing their missile slots in any proper loadout.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 09, 2021, 05:21:21 AM
I also hesitate to use Redacted as the ultimate measuring stick long term; as you say they have some specific behaviors that might not carry over to every endgame threat (or, indeed, to high-level bounties, which can be pretty close to on par with them.)
If you think top of the line human fleets should match Remnants in difficulty, please consider making that so. Currently Remnants demand noticeably more than even toughest mercenaries. Mostly because of how many officers they get and Radiants.

And from experience, Harpoons and Reapers seem very, very good in vs-Ordo fights; the number of times that a Radiant - or even a Brilliant - has managed to back off after getting over-fluxed, for lack of finisher-type weapons... that seems to happen a lot.
Now that's a straight up lie. I used harpoons and reapers against Remnants and unless I overloaded their ships already, missiles would not score hits on the hull. And if you need to overload their ships, you must bring either bring double the missiles to force overloads for high-flux Remnants through sheer ordnance avalanche, or by bringing some sabots anyway.
Yes.  The main thing that makes Ordos hard is 1) Radiant; it is a bonafide SNK boss that is highly overpowered (and the only thing that makes Automated Ships worthwhile instead of getting Spec.Mods.), and 2) officer power (and DP pools vary solely on officer power instead of ships).  They get lots of alpha officers (level 7s with all elite skills), possibly on every ship, such that fights will have the player at -10% shot range unless the player min-maxes for ECM, and 40% deployment (and if Remnants take the points, or take them later and you cannot reinforce, you basically lose the fight).  Meanwhile, human NPC fleets have more reasonable limits on officers, and Electronic Warfare sometimes helps instead of never.

Radiant is very slippery.  Even if it loses the flux war somehow, it can easily disengage without taking damage unless you have something that can punish it immediately, like Tachyon Lance, or your attacker has a mobility system to keep up, like Onslaught.  None of the human ships have the combination of high stats, high firepower, and mobility that Radiant has.  Thus, bounties against human fleets are not so hard.

A fleet built to kill Ordos with Radiants will effortlessly kill everything else.  The reverse is often not true.  I had fleets that could slaughter 350k bounties with ease only to wipe against top Ordos fleets in 0.95 (and they did not wipe badly in previous 0.9 releases).  Ordos were easier in releases prior to 0.95.

P.S.  If human fleets get harder, make sure the rewards are worth it.  Even now, top human bounties are only worth it when player is overpowered enough that flawless victory is almost certain (because paying twice the bounty reward to replace a single capital ship is silly - who in their right mind would try to subdue the fleet if they merely equal in power like every other endgame NPC fleet).  It also gets tiring at times chewing through mostly capitals and brick cruisers.

Consider extending the fleet cap to more than 30 so that 1) NPCs get less capitals and more smaller ships and 2) player gets to fly around with more ships if he wants.  Before NPCs honored the same fleet cap as the player, their endgame fleets used to be several cruisers and dozens of destroyers and frigates.

P.P.S.  Lastly, a reason to consider Ordos with Radiants as the bar is aside from difficulty significantly higher than everything else, is alpha core drops so player can collect his harem of alpha cores for full sector colonization and/or saturating his colonies with them in every industry or structure.

And if human fleets get harder because they get more and/or bigger ships (or more officers with defense skills), then please crank PPT higher across the board.  Those times have not changed since 0.6, and enemies are steadily getting bigger over the releases (and skill power took a dive since 0.8 ).  Even 0.95 doubled down on capital spam, and now fleets get officer spam on top of that.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 09, 2021, 08:53:55 AM
They say quantity has a quality all its own.
Do NPC fleets get access to player skills? There are quite a few skills that provide major boosts to a fleet and could dramatically impact its combat doctrine. If human fleets seem lacking, maybe that's the extra edge they need?


Haha, or maybe it's just an excuse to put Radiants into human bounty contracts. Radiants 2 stronk? Just give everyone Radiants 6head
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 09, 2021, 09:34:06 AM
NPC admirals can have fleetwide skills, but iirc they get at most one, and from a pretty limited pool. For example, Hegemony fleets can have Crew Training or Officer Training, while League fleets can have those two or Fighter Uplink, Carrier Group, Coordinated Manoeuvres, Electronic Warfare or Flux regulations. As far as I know, they get only a single fleetwide skill, if that. I don't know what skills and how many of them can mercenaries get.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: YAZF on November 09, 2021, 11:51:40 AM
Quote
Fixed issue that could cause the AI to fire too many HE missiles at an overloaded target despite being aware that it was overkill

At last! As much as I can appreciate a good old "FIRE EVERYTHING!" moment, having my fleet unload 20+ Harpoons at the first overloaded frigate they saw could be very annoying, especially whenever it happened at the start of a bigger battle.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BaBosa on November 09, 2021, 05:44:23 PM
Could you make it so if they’re firing at the last ship that they will fire everything then. It’s always fun to watch  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Oni on November 09, 2021, 07:44:17 PM
...
  • Uncoupled story point gain rate after reaching maximum level from what the actual maximum level is
    • Only matters if the maximum level is increased beyond the vanilla maxium
    • Before this change, doing this would make story point gain at max level significantly slower
....
Personally I'd have uncoupled story points from levels completely right from the beginning, to remove the problem of getting a lot at the start but only a few in the late game (ie getting them every fixed amount of experience regardless of level). However, it's still an improvement.

I'd have also give a free story point every month if you have less than 5 (to guarantee you always have a few to play with) and made 20 the maximum you can have (to encourage you to spend them rather than hoard them since once you have 20 you can't get any more), but that's just me.  ;)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dexy on November 10, 2021, 12:42:27 AM
Ironman mode is trivialized by story points, mainly due to being able to escape from bad fights without consequences. The other uses of story points also help make things easier.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 10, 2021, 12:59:37 AM
Ironman mode is trivialized by story points, mainly due to being able to escape from bad fights without consequences. The other uses of story points also help make things easier.
As opposed to manual save-copying?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 10, 2021, 01:04:07 AM
What factions will have access to the new ships, aside from pirates as it's obvious from the patch notes? I'd take a guess and say Hegemony will at least have some but I hope other factions get a bit more distinguished from the rest. For example I don't know if Luddic Church has anything unique in their roster. Sorry if I'm mistaken or if this was already answered somewhere.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Jaghaimo on November 10, 2021, 01:17:14 AM
Ironman mode is trivialized by story points, mainly due to being able to escape from bad fights without consequences. The other uses of story points also help make things easier.
As opposed to manual save-copying?

More like as opposed to alt+f4 (which any single player game with Iron Man mode is susceptible too, and some online like Path of Exile).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on November 10, 2021, 04:19:19 AM
As opposed to just getting wiped, I'd say. My issue with story points to escape a tough battle is that you can only do it before even trying. When you try to win against superior enemy (which I do most of the time, because those are the most interesting fights) but the battle goes badly, story points won't save you, and you will still be tempted to alt+f4. I'd be really cool if you could use a story point during a fight to instantly escape.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: EclipseRanger on November 10, 2021, 04:34:26 AM
I think the main issue with missiles isn't that Sabot's are too strong.For me,the main issue is that shields are just too damn important,so anything that reliably overwhelms them is bound to be too good.

Shields are the first defense that any ship has,and for the endgame threats(Ordos) its the main defense and largely the only one that matters,their armor is really weak.Exactly the same applies on the Tesseracts.Couple that with the fact that without shields,ships are open to all kinds of debuffs(overloading,weapons/engines disabled) and it's easy to see why Sabots are that good.
Not to mention,even without shields,Sabots overload massively,so they are always useful,unlike an Atropos,that just does a bit of damage on shields and nothing else.

For me,the solution is either reworking how shields work or changing Sabots to have a more long term effect.Instant bursts are always a weakness of shields,especially if the alternative is a massive overload.Also,Pilums are just too slow and fragile to do their work without spamming them,which feels unsatisfying.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 10, 2021, 04:39:47 AM
I think the main issue with missiles isn't that Sabot's are too strong.For me,the main issue is that shields are just too damn important,so anything that reliably overwhelms them is bound to be too good.

Shields are the first defense that any ship has,and for the endgame threats(Ordos) its the main defense and largely the only one that matters,their armor is really weak.Exactly the same applies on the Tesseracts.Couple that with the fact that without shields,ships are open to all kinds of debuffs(overloading,weapons/engines disabled) and it's easy to see why Sabots are that good.
Not to mention,even without shields,Sabots overload massively,so they are always useful,unlike an Atropos,that just does a bit of damage on shields and nothing else.

For me,the solution is either reworking how shields work or changing Sabots to have a more long term effect.Instant bursts are always a weakness of shields,especially if the alternative is a massive overload.Also,Pilums are just too slow and fragile to do their work without spamming them,which feels unsatisfying.
Challenge accepted, Alex will now introduce a new end game enemy that won't even use shields :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 10, 2021, 05:12:59 AM
Yes, a recurring endgame-grade enemy that does not rely on shields.  Either phase ships or a massive armor tank mostly immune to debuffs and can regenerate armor and hull.  Or it can be zombie pirates taken to eleven.  You can wipe them, but you can never truly kill them on the campaign level, and they do bad things on the campaign level if ignored.  (But, campaign zombies are lame.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 10, 2021, 05:28:26 AM
Challenge accepted, Alex will now introduce a new end game enemy that won't even use shields :)
Is it time for the return of derelict contingent zombie fleets?  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 10, 2021, 06:03:53 AM
I honestly wouldn’t be opposed to zombie derelicts as an endgame threat that is the antithesis of Remnants. The trick would be to sometimes combine them so you can’t gear up for one without neglecting the other.

Zombie derelicts that don’t have shields and armor tank would be cool but as an endgame threat, they’d have a Necron “we’ll be back” rule where disabled but not destroyed ships randomly come back online (with degraded CR or something). Zombie horde indeed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 10, 2021, 06:38:56 AM
Challenges where you really want a bunch of HILs or HAGs or heavy anti-armor weapons.  Currently, the only real endgame threats favor high-efficiency kinetics (with some token anti-armor and/or EMP).

Or maybe just enemies with mediocre shields AND armor, but has an absurd amount of hull, and it regenerates, and fully immune to EMP so no easy knockouts.  Maybe something where Thumper can shine.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Oni on November 10, 2021, 08:31:01 AM
As opposed to just getting wiped, I'd say. My issue with story points to escape a tough battle is that you can only do it before even trying. When you try to win against superior enemy (which I do most of the time, because those are the most interesting fights) but the battle goes badly, story points won't save you, and you will still be tempted to alt+f4. I'd be really cool if you could use a story point during a fight to instantly escape.
Well Story Points are supposed to be some sort of cinematic event, which helps make your run interesting. So I don't have a problem with using them to avoid fights (you may have never been in a place where the enemy fleet was faster than you, I must've burned five points just getting out of the system, or how risky things feel once you run out), but their nature as a safety net makes you want to hoard them rather than spend them on the multitude of other uses (ships, colonies, etc). Which is why I suggested doling out a small bonus a month if you're too low (they are fun to use, not having any feels like you're missing an aspect of the game) and a maximum for how many you can have at a given time (having a couple in reserve for emergencies is a good idea, but it'd remove the reluctance to use them if you're near the maximum amount). It'd make people less reluctant (at least from my own experience, maybe I'm too cautious) to spend story points improving ships. Even ones ones they don't plan to keep until the end game... they'd have to make limit for how high those options that increase costs go though.

As opposed to just getting wiped, I'd say. My issue with story points to escape a tough battle is that you can only do it before even trying. When you try to win against superior enemy (which I do most of the time, because those are the most interesting fights) but the battle goes badly, story points won't save you, and you will still be tempted to alt+f4. I'd be really cool if you could use a story point during a fight to instantly escape.
Hmm... maybe make avoiding the fight entirely more expensive, but escaping mid fight costs only one? Call it the "Emergency Retreat" button that doubles your speed to give your ships a better chance of reaching the border but can only be used after the fight's gone on for a while?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 10, 2021, 09:55:04 AM
The current bonus XP system already takes care of story points. If a player chooses to bank them, they lose out on bonus XP and end up with slower progression. If they spend too many, well that's a mistake they are allowed to make. Carrots work better than sticks, and bonus XP is a nice carrot.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 10, 2021, 10:11:40 AM
As opposed to just getting wiped, I'd say. My issue with story points to escape a tough battle is that you can only do it before even trying. When you try to win against superior enemy (which I do most of the time, because those are the most interesting fights) but the battle goes badly, story points won't save you, and you will still be tempted to alt+f4. I'd be really cool if you could use a story point during a fight to instantly escape.
Well Story Points are supposed to be some sort of cinematic event, which helps make your run interesting. So I don't have a problem with using them to avoid fights (you may have never been in a place where the enemy fleet was faster than you, I must've burned five points just getting out of the system, or how risky things feel once you run out), but their nature as a safety net makes you want to hoard them rather than spend them on the multitude of other uses (ships, colonies, etc). Which is why I suggested doling out a small bonus a month if you're too low (they are fun to use, not having any feels like you're missing an aspect of the game) and a maximum for how many you can have at a given time (having a couple in reserve for emergencies is a good idea, but it'd remove the reluctance to use them if you're near the maximum amount). It'd make people less reluctant (at least from my own experience, maybe I'm too cautious) to spend story points improving ships. Even ones ones they don't plan to keep until the end game... they'd have to make limit for how high those options that increase costs go though.
I would not want a story point maximum as long as story points scale 2^n for colony improvements and historian use.  If I can have twelve buildings, I would want to be able to save up and improve all twelve of them if I grind long enough.

My biggest gripe with story points is they are Starsector's Vespene Gas, best hoarded then spent on ship and colony upgrades, because their costs are greater than other SP uses.  Sure, having a few to avoid fights, reassign skills, or do other special things is nice, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to buying upgrades with story points.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 10, 2021, 10:27:55 AM
Which is why I suggested doling out a small bonus a month if you're too low (they are fun to use, not having any feels like you're missing an aspect of the game) and a maximum for how many you can have at a given time (having a couple in reserve for emergencies is a good idea, but it'd remove the reluctance to use them if you're near the maximum amount).

The issue I have with systems which give you X per period of in game time is that they incentivize boring gameplay.  Namely docking your entire fleet except a cargo ship loaded with supplies and sitting in orbit of a planet, walking away, and coming back 10 minutes later.  Spend SP on ship upgrades, repeat.

I agree the current bonus XP mechanic is the better way to go as it rewards doing something (i.e. actions that earn XP, which can include low risk things like trading or exploring) as opposed to simply passing time.

As opposed to just getting wiped, I'd say. My issue with story points to escape a tough battle is that you can only do it before even trying. When you try to win against superior enemy (which I do most of the time, because those are the most interesting fights) but the battle goes badly, story points won't save you, and you will still be tempted to alt+f4. I'd be really cool if you could use a story point during a fight to instantly escape.

The game is halfway there already, with the destroy X% of the enemy fleet allowing for a clean disengage.  It's not instant in the middle of the fight, but if you approach the battle with the idea of keeping a quick retreat an option (i.e. stay close to your side of the map, keep slow ships from ranging too far) it's not too bad on iron man.  If it's a completely one sided stomp then I suppose that might not be sufficient - but a complete one sided stomp should be easier to gauge than a 50/50 chance fight and thus easier to realize that the story point will be well spent before hand. 

The thing I find about playing iron man games is it forces me to leverage all the tools the game provides, and Starsector provides a surprising number even above and beyond story points. For example, I'd be really interested to know what the ratio of players that regularly take advantage of the clean disengage mechanic in normal runs versus iron man runs is.  I have in fact leveraged that mechanic on multiple occasions in ironman games, and because of my iron man game experience, done it once or twice in more normal campaigns where I allow myself to save and reload.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 10, 2021, 10:40:01 AM
I had the option to cleanly disengage from fights that took multiple rounds to win (because not enough PPT for a single round, so I full retreat to reset the PPT clocks), but needless to say, I did not retreat because I want to win the encounter and not lose the loot.  If my fleet is in dire straits, I just reload and try again.

I do not play Iron because I want to reload instead of grinding for hours back to square one after a painful loss.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 10, 2021, 11:10:18 AM
I would also like to see end game low-tech enemy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 10, 2021, 01:17:38 PM
I would also like to see end game low-tech enemy.

Not tryin' to just straight rip off Firefly's Reavers, but basically, YES!  Be interesting for something bad to start popping out of the gates when they get opened.  But maybe don't also add some sort of phase space biological end-game enemy, prolly get sued by Paradox for copyright infringement of Stellaris's end-game crisis...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 10, 2021, 02:17:01 PM
Thank you everyone for the feedback about missiles! I appreciate it; took some notes.

I am a bit curious where your ideas for the elite Impact Mitigation effect are going, given the 90% max mitigation being duplicated in Polarized armor.  Where you looking for something that helps at high armor levels and or small weapon hits (which is what the 85%-90% does), but doesn't quite stack so much (1/3 less damage during the maximum mitigation period extends it by a factor of 1.5,.e. 50% more, while 2/3 extends it by by a factor of 3).

...

Would something like a simple 10% more real armor, or +75/150/200/250 (tweak numbers as needed) real extra armor based on size, repaired instantly at the end of every engagement work?  Where "repaired" is just the has an elite Impact Mitigation officer piloting it at deployment time, so it adds say +250 to whatever the armor was there as the ship is deployed into the fight.  At the end, if it's over normal maximum in any cell, just remove excess.

I'm actually pretty open to what the effect might be - ideally it'd be something that's at least semi-interesting gameplay-wise, and also doesn't come with the problem of, for example, making most kinetics near-useless vs hull, like +150 effective armor did.

The issue with +X armor (not effective, just at the start) is that it wouldn't apply once command is transferred. Generally, the goal of the design is to have skill effects transfer over - although a couple do break that rule; most notably Missile Specialization. I kind of wonder - is "giving your intended flagship to an officer with Missile Spec, and probably Reliability Engineering, and then transferring command to it after deployment to benefit from about an extra skill's worth of stuff" at all a thing? I'd guess it's probably not quite worth it, but if we pile on more bonuses that work like this...


I do really like the idea of linking officers to fleet wide carrier bonuses.  Which in some way lets you say "These fighter bays are more important than those fighter bays".  This is perhaps a silly question, but would it be simpler to tie "fleet wide" fighter bonuses to the presence of an officer on the ship just like how Wolf pack tactics works?  As opposed to the more complicated double the bonus if officer is present interaction?

It's not a silly question! It's a really good one; it's great to consider whether simplifying something drastically is a viable or not, and I know sometimes for me it can be a bit hard to step back enough to see the simplification options.

In this case, though, I think keeping the option of "non-officered carriers as support ships to your officered ships" is valuable. Especially in light of Support Doctrine being a top-tier skll in the same tree as the fleetwide carrier skills, and that providing bonuses specifically to non-officered ships.

(Wolfpack Tactics with some frigates and destroyers to get maximum officers on the field, supported with some carriers, sounds like it could be fun!)


Ordos with Radiants make every other recurring fight look like midgame chumps, even named bounties that are worth about 350k.  (It was less extreme before 0.95, the gameplay changes really benefitted the Remnants.)

I keep forgetting that all of my recent testing has been with Radiants at 60 DP; that skews my viewpoint quite a bit. Of course, they also basically never get "dud" loadouts now, either...



Though I do have a question. With the Elite effect of damage control, does this apply to beam weapons like the Tachyon lance that do more than 500 damage, but not in a singular hit?

It doesn't - as you noted, beam damage is not dealt in a single hit!



(This reminds me, I've been wanting to tweak the Tesseract fight. It's *supposed* to get harder once you destroy one of them, but that doesn't seem like it's holding up at all.)
In my experience, it really does work that way - the worst thing to do against the Tesseracts is to just kill both of them at once, and taking out all the shards is where the meat of the fight is. My most successful fights against these things typically involve using my flagship to lure one of them away and keep it busy while the rest of my fleet deals with the other, just to avoid killing the second one off until the first one's shards have been at least mostly finished off.
I agree with Wyvern re: tesseracts. A whole one with an aggressive loadout has more danger of just singling out and popping a destroyer (or sometimes cruiser if the AI drops its shield at the wrong time), but once one splits things get very hectic and ships get flanked badly. I also try to stall one while mopping up another.

Hmm, interesting! That wasn't the impression I'd gotten from watching people taking them on, so that's especially ... well, interesting. Maybe it's just not harder-*enough* compared to what I was aiming for.

(One thought I've been mulling over was swapping ship systems around on the Tesseract and the Facet. It'd make the Tesseract tankier but less dangerous, and seems like it should up the danger level of the Facets quite a bit...)


Yeah, I wish I had better footage on hand :(. It's sort of a popular enough opinion on the Discord that no one's felt the need to do a dedicated showcase for it, I suppose.

I'd still say that yes, it generalizes. The point about not having allies to retreat behind is valid, but in fleet scenarios you could similarly have cases where a ship is blocked from behind by its allies. And PD grids are a thing, but even then it doesn't take many Harpoons to knock out any overloaded ship on the front-line before it can retreat (excepting solid interceptor / Paladin PD coverage).

Steady/Timid Tesseracts would be nightmarish, but they have a combination of speed and tanki-ness that is unmatched excepting Radiants (kind of, and they're Fearless as well anyways), Auroras, Hyperions and maaybe Medusas. I doubt that personality changes would save any other ship. Fair point regarding RFC here; I wanted to make a more general point that even armor-tanking the Sabots wouldn't be great here despite the EMP damage reduction, but it's a rather clumsy exhibit for that.

I would wager that the nature of Sabots providing extremely easy overloads (or, while not particularly relevant in this instance, shutting down the entirety of a ship's weaponry and easily winning the flux war) compared to needing a sustained combination of various weapons does make this fight significantly harder than without them.

(I guess it's not super helpful since I'm arguing the opposite side, but I would not be excited to have to try to win this same fight refitted without Sabots (half is still probably reasonably doable but honestly I'd doubt it'd outperform Vlad's current loadouts), and I love a challenge :p)

Hmm. I wonder if maybe halving the EMP damage on the Sabots would put them in a better place, then. I still think they need to have an effect when armor-tanked, but the specific numbers on it, on the other hand...

And, hm, just making the AI better about armor-tanking Sabots could make a big difference here, though that's tricky.

Regardless, I appreciate your elaborating!

Do NPC fleets get access to player skills? There are quite a few skills that provide major boosts to a fleet and could dramatically impact its combat doctrine. If human fleets seem lacking, maybe that's the extra edge they need?

They do, yeah! But so do the Remnant fleets.


What factions will have access to the new ships, aside from pirates as it's obvious from the patch notes? I'd take a guess and say Hegemony will at least have some but I hope other factions get a bit more distinguished from the rest. For example I don't know if Luddic Church has anything unique in their roster. Sorry if I'm mistaken or if this was already answered somewhere.

Some will; I don't remember off the op of my head.


As opposed to just getting wiped, I'd say. My issue with story points to escape a tough battle is that you can only do it before even trying. When you try to win against superior enemy (which I do most of the time, because those are the most interesting fights) but the battle goes badly, story points won't save you, and you will still be tempted to alt+f4. I'd be really cool if you could use a story point during a fight to instantly escape.

Hmm - interesting idea - let me make a note to have a quick look! (And a bit of a think, too...)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 10, 2021, 02:31:25 PM
The issue with +X armor (not effective, just at the start) is that it wouldn't apply once command is transferred. Generally, the goal of the design is to have skill effects transfer over - although a couple do break that rule; most notably Missile Specialization. I kind of wonder - is "giving your intended flagship to an officer with Missile Spec, and probably Reliability Engineering, and then transferring command to it after deployment to benefit from about an extra skill's worth of stuff" at all a thing? I'd guess it's probably not quite worth it, but if we pile on more bonuses that work like this...
I tried this before but it is not worth it, especially in more recent releases.  It is annoying to exploit and not worth the hassle.  Even in previous releases that had stronger skills and more solo-friendly, it still was annoying enough that I did not want to do it every fight.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 10, 2021, 03:25:54 PM
I am a bit curious where your ideas for the elite Impact Mitigation effect are going, given the 90% max mitigation being duplicated in Polarized armor.  Where you looking for something that helps at high armor levels and or small weapon hits (which is what the 85%-90% does), but doesn't quite stack so much (1/3 less damage during the maximum mitigation period extends it by a factor of 1.5,.e. 50% more, while 2/3 extends it by by a factor of 3).

...

Would something like a simple 10% more real armor, or +75/150/200/250 (tweak numbers as needed) real extra armor based on size, repaired instantly at the end of every engagement work?  Where "repaired" is just the has an elite Impact Mitigation officer piloting it at deployment time, so it adds say +250 to whatever the armor was there as the ship is deployed into the fight.  At the end, if it's over normal maximum in any cell, just remove excess.

I'm actually pretty open to what the effect might be - ideally it'd be something that's at least semi-interesting gameplay-wise, and also doesn't come with the problem of, for example, making most kinetics near-useless vs hull, like +150 effective armor did.
Hm. Just from a 'what does it sound like the skill should do' perspective, I'd think that Damage Control's chance to reduce damage from high-impact hits would fit well here instead.
...Then give Damage Control the hull regen from Combat Endurance - that feels like it should be on an industry skill rather than a combat skill anyway...
And then for Combat Endurance elite effect... hm. I think something like a 20% reduction in CR-per-deployment would be a very fitting effect for that skill to have, but it's a bad choice for an elite effect because it generally won't matter if an enemy ship happens to roll it... Maybe put something like that in as a base skill effect and move the peak operating time to elite?

...I am possibly over-complicating things. Let's try this again. Maybe make Elite Impact Mitigation give a maneuverability bonus when you take armor damage? ...Eh, that's pretty good for high-armor cruisers or capitals, but entirely irrelevant for most frigates.

Steal the old Derelict Contingent skill's chance for reduced damage? Would need re-tuning to more appropriate values - maybe something like 20% chance of reducing hits on armor by up to 40%?
That should be useful, thematic, and easy to tune to appropriate values - just make sure to keep the maximum damage reduction percent small enough that it's not 'random chance to ignore torpedo hits'.

Is "giving your intended flagship to an officer with Missile Spec, and probably Reliability Engineering, and then transferring command to it after deployment to benefit from about an extra skill's worth of stuff" at all a thing? I'd guess it's probably not quite worth it, but if we pile on more bonuses that work like this...
I will absolutely stick an officer with +15% CR on a ship that I use as a 'secondary flagship'... but that only really comes up when my 'primary flagship' is a mod-added super-frigate that's great for most fights but just doesn't quite have the durability to face up to capital-heavy enemy fleets.

I don't, as a general rule, play shenanigans with the extra ammo from missile spec... with one exception: I will absolutely do that if I've got an officer with missile spec and I'm using a double-hammer-barrage Legion XIV for station-busting. The extra ammo makes a notable difference for that specific case, and even with a reckless personality, the AI just will not do the fire-hammers-on-cooldown thing you need to do when your goal is to eliminate as many station modules as possible as quickly as possible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 10, 2021, 03:42:18 PM
As opposed to just getting wiped, I'd say. My issue with story points to escape a tough battle is that you can only do it before even trying. When you try to win against superior enemy (which I do most of the time, because those are the most interesting fights) but the battle goes badly, story points won't save you, and you will still be tempted to alt+f4. I'd be really cool if you could use a story point during a fight to instantly escape.

Hmm - interesting idea - let me make a note to have a quick look! (And a bit of a think, too...)

Heh, had a funny thought: maybe the Church should bust out pristine LP ships when they want to get dangerous.

Look all weak normally, then BAM! Super SO ships everywhere!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 10, 2021, 05:21:02 PM
Re: Impact Mitigation Elite effect

Spit-balling here:

"-X% High Explosive damage taken" It wouldn't effect Kinetics or Energy at all but would give a good chunk of mitigation against the most dangerous form of damage to armor and it wouldn't discriminate against Low Tech, High Tech, etc. or ship size. It would be weak against Ordos and whatnot that primarily use Energy but they're still using missiles that do HE (and the HIL).

I know ablative armor will never happen but I still think it's cool (i.e. some fixed amount of armor that has to be destroyed before depleting armor HP proper)

Bear with me on this one: limited armor regeneration as long as a ship is above 50% armor in that segment and the armor stays free from fire. If armor segments go undamaged for 5 seconds of time, they can regenerate 1%/sec up to a max of 5% from whatever "low HP" the armor has. Any damage resets the timer and the lowest armor HP is remembered so "low+5" is as high as it can get. Armor at 75% could go up to 80% (but never above 80%) but if it takes a bit hit and is reduced to 54%, its new maximum is now 59%, etc. All regen ceases if the "low" value dips below 50%. Any armor value above 95% could be regenerated indefinitely, rendering light hits on large ships meaningless. Armor tanks could try to pull out from battle and catch a "breather," since 5% isn't drastic, but would be felt over the course of a fight if you can keep the ship in relatively good shape.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 10, 2021, 05:28:34 PM
Oh, how's this for a thought: damage to armor reduced based on current ship speed. The faster you're going, the more shots 'glance off'!

Balancing could be tricky, and might require scaling differently for different ship classes... but at least the notion of it seems good: a small benefit for slow, high-armor ships, a larger benefit for faster, less-armored ships, and a hopefully-noticeable boost to durability while Burn Drive is active.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 10, 2021, 05:43:12 PM
Oh, how's this for a thought: damage to armor reduced based on current ship speed. The faster you're going, the more shots 'glance off'!
Yes. I like this one.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 10, 2021, 05:52:11 PM
Oh, how's this for a thought: damage to armor reduced based on current ship speed. The faster you're going, the more shots 'glance off'!

Balancing could be tricky, and might require scaling differently for different ship classes... but at least the notion of it seems good: a small benefit for slow, high-armor ships, a larger benefit for faster, less-armored ships, and a hopefully-noticeable boost to durability while Burn Drive is active.

Dunno, depending as much on how as where you get hit, more shots would be 'absorbed,' not necessarily 'glance off.'  If you punch me in the chin, the difference between a KO, a broken jaw and sore jaw are like a few cm, but also generally dependent on how you punched me; an uppercut might KO, but a jab likely would end skidding off to the side as landing squarely.  And that's not even accounting for strong vs weak chins!  Maybe not the best example, but you get the idea.

Put another way, flying straight into a projectile (ie, exactly opposite vector), stuff isn't likely to glance off unless the surface it hits is angled as opposed to perpendicular (straight hit) or parallel (straight miss).  But game already uses polar geometry for tracking threat vectors/evasion of a ship in battle, so math/code already exists in game for basically doing this.  But definitely would require some sort of scaling for different ship classes, and prolly a second scaling parameter regarding any arbitrary ship's level of armor (since theoretically stuff more likely to ricochet off of armor, I guess).

But this is the kinda change that would require A LOT of simulation to verify balance, so maybe in the next update...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dri on November 10, 2021, 06:52:18 PM
How much were the substantial HP and armor buffs for Legion and Dominator?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TheLaughingDead on November 10, 2021, 07:30:44 PM
Oh, how's this for a thought: damage to armor reduced based on current ship speed. The faster you're going, the more shots 'glance off'!

Balancing could be tricky, and might require scaling differently for different ship classes... but at least the notion of it seems good: a small benefit for slow, high-armor ships, a larger benefit for faster, less-armored ships, and a hopefully-noticeable boost to durability while Burn Drive is active.

Dunno, depending as much on how as where you get hit, more shots would be 'absorbed,' not necessarily 'glance off.'  If you punch me in the chin, the difference between a KO, a broken jaw and sore jaw are like a few cm, but also generally dependent on how you punched me; an uppercut might KO, but a jab likely would end skidding off to the side as landing squarely.  And that's not even accounting for strong vs weak chins!  Maybe not the best example, but you get the idea.

Put another way, flying straight into a projectile (ie, exactly opposite vector), stuff isn't likely to glance off unless the surface it hits is angled as opposed to perpendicular (straight hit) or parallel (straight miss).  But game already uses polar geometry for tracking threat vectors/evasion of a ship in battle, so math/code already exists in game for basically doing this.  But definitely would require some sort of scaling for different ship classes, and prolly a second scaling parameter regarding any arbitrary ship's level of armor (since theoretically stuff more likely to ricochet off of armor, I guess).

But this is the kinda change that would require A LOT of simulation to verify balance, so maybe in the next update...

I believe what Wyvern is referring to is a simple armour damage reduction percentage related to speed. The 'glancing off' bit was put in quotation marks as an in-game lore explanation for this effect, and would not actually require anything so extensive or excessive.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 10, 2021, 08:58:15 PM

I am a bit curious where your ideas for the elite Impact Mitigation effect are going, given the 90% max mitigation being duplicated in Polarized armor.  Where you looking for something that helps at high armor levels and or small weapon hits (which is what the 85%-90% does), but doesn't quite stack so much (1/3 less damage during the maximum mitigation period extends it by a factor of 1.5,.e. 50% more, while 2/3 extends it by by a factor of 3).

...

Would something like a simple 10% more real armor, or +75/150/200/250 (tweak numbers as needed) real extra armor based on size, repaired instantly at the end of every engagement work?  Where "repaired" is just the has an elite Impact Mitigation officer piloting it at deployment time, so it adds say +250 to whatever the armor was there as the ship is deployed into the fight.  At the end, if it's over normal maximum in any cell, just remove excess.

I'm actually pretty open to what the effect might be - ideally it'd be something that's at least semi-interesting gameplay-wise, and also doesn't come with the problem of, for example, making most kinetics near-useless vs hull, like +150 effective armor did.

The issue with +X armor (not effective, just at the start) is that it wouldn't apply once command is transferred. Generally, the goal of the design is to have skill effects transfer over - although a couple do break that rule; most notably Missile Specialization. I kind of wonder - is "giving your intended flagship to an officer with Missile Spec, and probably Reliability Engineering, and then transferring command to it after deployment to benefit from about an extra skill's worth of stuff" at all a thing? I'd guess it's probably not quite worth it, but if we pile on more bonuses that work like this...

That is a fair point.  Stack enough bonuses and some min-maxer some where will take advantage of it.  I will admit if I'm pulling solo Odyssey shenanigans, I'll load it up with a missile expertise officer and switch into it, since my officers have nothing better to do in that scenario.

Interesting gameplay-wise is perhaps a bit tough given it has traditionally I simply take more shots to die kind of skill, which definitely makes the character or officer stronger, but doesn't feel like it changes the ship fundamentally.



Oh, how's this for a thought: damage to armor reduced based on current ship speed. The faster you're going, the more shots 'glance off'!

Balancing could be tricky, and might require scaling differently for different ship classes... but at least the notion of it seems good: a small benefit for slow, high-armor ships, a larger benefit for faster, less-armored ships, and a hopefully-noticeable boost to durability while Burn Drive is active.

Extra armor durability during Burn drive would be amusing, I admit, and potentially really useful.  It does make it fairly niche though.  There is quite a large range in speeds in each ship class, say from 25 of the Onslaught to the 70 of the Odyssey.  Not to mention plasma burn drive.  It also ties into gameplay.

What are mechanics and behavior we can tie into?  Maneuverability, speed.  Either modifying those numbers, or basing it off what you're doing (i.e. the proportional bonus to speed suggestion).  There's weapons fire state, although that doesn't make much sense.  There's shield state and flux levels.  Polarized armor already has stuff proportional to flux level though.  There's shield state though.  Your armor could become better if you have no shields up (which would indirectly make damping field better).  Reinforcing internal structures in a powered way somehow.

You could make the armor trade for winning the flux war explicit.  You reduce your current flux levels by real armor lost.  I.e. take a hit that make you lose X armor, reduce your built up hard flux by Y.  If no armor was lost (i.e. it was all already destroyed in that cell) then no benefit.  It does mean if an Onslaught eats a Reaper, it suddenly perhaps drops it's flux level by a few thousand.  You're essentially storing waste flux in the armor sections, and if it get's blown off, it takes the flux with it.

Alternatively, increase flux dissipation while shields are down is perhaps simpler to communicate, and incentives actually armor tanking more.

Some crazier ideas:  Ramming bonus when impacting on the ship sprite instead of shields, and reduced or completely negated damage from ship explosions.

Actually, for unshielded ships like Ramparts, or phase ships like the afflictor, being immune to ship/station explosions would be a fairly big quality of life improvement.  You could alternatively simply limit how much damage AoE effects do to armor cells in total, so that things like Reapers still make holes, but they are smaller holes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 10, 2021, 09:25:16 PM
With support doctrine, I believe it would be safer to give more Elite skills benefits to carriers/fighters.
This way players would be forced to choose between a hefty DP reduction and an assortment of other bonuses.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 11, 2021, 01:22:29 AM
  • "Defend" assignment can now be placed on friendly ships
    • Right-clicking a powerful group of ships onto a friendly will also create this assignment

I assume this only refers to the default behavior - will the player be able to manually toggle between Escort or Defend regardless of group size of assigned ships?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on November 11, 2021, 01:50:36 AM
Oh, how's this for a thought: damage to armor reduced based on current ship speed. The faster you're going, the more shots 'glance off'!

Balancing could be tricky, and might require scaling differently for different ship classes... but at least the notion of it seems good: a small benefit for slow, high-armor ships, a larger benefit for faster, less-armored ships, and a hopefully-noticeable boost to durability while Burn Drive is active.

Cool idea! Mh, a simpler to balance (and play with) version would be if ships just get a flat (scaling inversely with ships size) armor boost with their zero flux speed boost. Would be great for escaping or tactical repositioning. Or, if mobility systems should be buffed, get that flat armor boost whenever the ship is moving faster than its nominal top speed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 11, 2021, 05:27:32 AM
Another thing:  If fights against human fleets become even larger because they get more ships to close the gap with Ordos with Radiants, then map size needs to be bigger too.  Having and fighting a fleet with ten capitals and twenty cruisers is lame when both sides can deploy only a quarter or third of their fleet at time due to DP limits even at max size.  (I still miss 500 map size.)

What is the point of big fleets when we cannot use them (because over half of our fleet is stuck on the sidelines like lazy bums)?  And backup ships to replace those lost in battle is not a good idea for the player's fleet when rewards are calibrated toward flawless victory.  Meanwhile, the enemy is expected to run through all of their ships in waves and do not care if they lose because they have unlimited fleets and resources.  If I lose one of my capitals, I pay more than my bounty reward to replace it.  Meanwhile, I am expected to chew through about ten capitals and twenty cruisers of a human enemy endgame fleet without losing a ship.  If I can do this, my fleet is highly overpowered, but I need to be overpowered if I want to make money instead of losing it.  Otherwise, I am better off avoiding combat altogether and abuse trade or raid exploits to make money.

Hopefully, 60 DP Radiant will shrink Ordos fleets, and the gap between humans and Ordos, enough.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 11, 2021, 08:06:11 AM
Patch notes included some notes on reducing the size of bounty fleets. I assume (and hope) that if Alex increases their challenge, it will be by giving NPC fleets more fleetwide skills.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Caymon Joestar on November 11, 2021, 08:20:20 AM
Another thing:  If fights against human fleets become even larger because they get more ships to close the gap with Ordos with Radiants, then map size needs to be bigger too.  Having and fighting a fleet with ten capitals and twenty cruisers is lame when both sides can deploy only a quarter or third of their fleet at time due to DP limits even at max size.  (I still miss 500 map size.)

What is the point of big fleets when we cannot use them (because over half of our fleet is stuck on the sidelines like lazy bums)?  And backup ships to replace those lost in battle is not a good idea for the player's fleet when rewards are calibrated toward flawless victory.  Meanwhile, the enemy is expected to run through all of their ships in waves and do not care if they lose because they have unlimited fleets and resources.  If I lose one of my capitals, I pay more than my bounty reward to replace it.  Meanwhile, I am expected to chew through about ten capitals and twenty cruisers of a human enemy endgame fleet without losing a ship.  If I can do this, my fleet is highly overpowered, but I need to be overpowered if I want to make money instead of losing it.  Otherwise, I am better off avoiding combat altogether and abuse trade or raid exploits to make money.

Hopefully, 60 DP Radiant will shrink Ordos fleets, and the gap between humans and Ordos, enough.

What do you mean calibrated toward flawless wins? No one goes for flawless wins, it's not super realistic and recovering your ships is super easy, we have like 10 different ways of making sure the ships are always recoverable. The reward difference between flawless and non-flawless is super negligible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 11, 2021, 08:26:57 AM
Unless you have Field Repairs, ships lost will have d-mods if recovered, and unless you build for Derelict Contingent where you want d-mods, replacing or restoring ships will cost a lot of money and some money plus story points.  Take a stock capital, about 500k-700k to repair.  Endgame bounty reward is about 300k-350k.  As for loot, consider that an even trade for all of the supplies and fuel consumed to get to the warzone and back.

When both sides want to throw several capital ships at each other, yet the payout is not enough to replace one capital ship, fighting is stupid unless one side can completely erase the other without significant casualties.  That is not a challenge, and when rewards are that stingy, I do not want a challenge, because seeking a challenge and losing (which can be as small as a single capital lost) is either a reload or time wasted flawlessly winning back losses.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Demetrious on November 11, 2021, 10:26:45 AM
I'm late to post this reply, but I just wanted to say:

Alex, the sheer number of AI improvements on this changelog are absolutely beautiful.

AI is the one aspect of the game that you can't trumpet as "NEW SHINY CONTENT!!1!ONE" but it is absolutely one of the most important parts of the core gameplay and I am really, really happy to see how much work you've put into it. Not just bugfixing, but flat-out improvements. Bravo sir.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 11, 2021, 10:27:00 AM
It’s true that losing a capital does cost half a million+ but I can’t think of the last time where I lost a capital in a fight I had any business getting into. The more common cost is more like sub-100k if I’m a little unlucky and lose a destroyer or couple frigates.

Thing is, I’m drowning in credits by the time I’m thinking about removing D-mods. I either have a few ships that have d-mods I can stomach or I find/purchase them pristine. I do lose ships but I can live with the consequences until I can afford to start doing wholesale removal.

One thought I had is reducing the cost of D-mod removal by 25% for every S-mod on a ship. Typically, I’m only going to S-mod ships that I care about and restoring favorites could be a little cheaper than restoring rank-and-file vessels.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 11, 2021, 10:36:43 AM
If a pristine 70% CR Onslaught goes down, you are out 233 supplies for CR recovery. That is 7.8% of a 300k bounty payout instead of 1.3%.

(I am not sure how much supply cost the hull/armor repairs add.)

If you are willing to suck the d-mods, which are usually not crippling, I think the cost is acceptable. Bad, but acceptable.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sarissofoi on November 11, 2021, 12:04:53 PM
Release the update right now.
So we can test it and put real feedback, no some speculations.
ALEX
RELEASE IT NOW
or I will find your KOT  and
Spoiler
pet him and rub his belly.
[close]
I will show no mercy!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 11, 2021, 12:26:04 PM
A pristine sparkling fleet is meant to depreciate quickly. That's not a case of expecting flawless victories, that's a case of being overly picky with the fleet. An ordinary fleet has scratches and scars. Garbage ships get cycled out when a new hot ship shows up on the battlefield, so the cost of replacing ships is nearly free. The updated S-mod removal mechanics will make ship cycling a lot friendlier, since you get the bonus XP back. Losing out on S-mods(I.E. story points) was the biggest issue with standard fleet attrition.

It might be nice for bounty fleets to have fewer d-mods than average, especially for the flagship and select officers. A bounty captain with field repairs will definitely have higher quality ships than the faction standard. Better quality ships are more dangerous, and are also more juicy picks for the loot screen.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 11, 2021, 12:30:15 PM
Thank you all for the suggestions about Impact Mitigation! That got me thinking outside the box a bit, and I've just about settled on "+50% maneuverability for cruisers/capitals, +25% if smaller". It makes sense for the theme of the skill, (after all, turning the ship to avoid/distribute/dare I say mitigate the incoming damage is a thing), and it should be a useful bonus for heavily armored ships that's not just another "damage number is lower".

How much were the substantial HP and armor buffs for Legion and Dominator?

14k is the new value for the Dominator, and 18k for the Legion. The Legion's new armor is 1750; I forget what the original value was.


  • "Defend" assignment can now be placed on friendly ships
    • Right-clicking a powerful group of ships onto a friendly will also create this assignment

I assume this only refers to the default behavior - will the player be able to manually toggle between Escort or Defend regardless of group size of assigned ships?

Correct!

Also, hi and welcome to the forum :)



I'm late to post this reply, but I just wanted to say:

Alex, the sheer number of AI improvements on this changelog are absolutely beautiful.

AI is the one aspect of the game that you can't trumpet as "NEW SHINY CONTENT!!1!ONE" but it is absolutely one of the most important parts of the core gameplay and I am really, really happy to see how much work you've put into it. Not just bugfixing, but flat-out improvements. Bravo sir.

Thank you! <3


Release the update right now.
So we can test it and put real feedback, no some speculations.
ALEX
RELEASE IT NOW
or I will find your KOT  and
Spoiler
pet him and rub his belly.
[close]
I will show no mercy!

Haha! (I trust I don't need to clarify why releasing prior to playtesting would be a bad idea... not that I don't appreciate the enthusiasm; I very much do.)


It might be nice for bounty fleets to have fewer d-mods than average, especially for the flagship and select officers. A bounty captain with field repairs will definitely have higher quality ships than the faction standard. Better quality ships are more dangerous, and are also more juicy picks for the loot screen.

That does actually happen, btw! Not for flagship/ships with officers, but just in general - larger/tougher bounties tend to have less d-mods, too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 11, 2021, 12:43:55 PM
This means cruisers and capital ships will be able to get +50% mnvr from Helmsmanship and another +50% from elite IM for a total of double the manoeuvrability? Dominator will certainly like this.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on November 11, 2021, 12:48:42 PM
@Alex

So Legion now has the same armor as Onslaught?
It just feels wrong.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 11, 2021, 01:21:50 PM
If a pristine 70% CR Onslaught goes down, you are out 233 supplies for CR recovery. That is 7.8% of a 300k bounty payout instead of 1.3%.

(I am not sure how much supply cost the hull/armor repairs add.)

If you are willing to suck the d-mods, which are usually not crippling, I think the cost is acceptable. Bad, but acceptable.

Though the very D mods themselves will lower the repair costs moderately which is nice.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 11, 2021, 01:37:16 PM
I aim for flawless victories every time in bounty fights, and generally consider any losses to be significant failures, although typically some failure can be tolerated without the bounty becoming unprofitable.

Loses have significant costs on multiple different levels:
- immediate supply and crew cost to restore CR and repair armor/hull
- d-mods: increase chances of ships in the fleet taking damage or dying in the future (costing more supplies) and possibly adding more d-mods that compound the effect
- eventually as ships gain more d-mods, they will no longer be worth using (too weak for their DP cost) and will need to be replaced or restored costing money. Even if you replace via recovering new ships, you still pay the upfront supply and crew cost. Plus recovering ships with d-mods has the hidden cost of more future damage and loses as well.

You definitely can't be taking loses in every fight and expect to make money from bounties efficiently. At least, not without spending skill points to support that and incurring the opportunity cost associated with spending skill points.

I also don't believe in running 'garbage' ships (ships with lots of/bad d-mods, or just generally weaker hulls). I think it's just wasting supplies and fuel lugging them around and recovering them. If a ship dies regularly, I will not use it: why would I use a ship that cost me extra supplies to recover every other fight when I can use a ship that doesn't? I only run d-mods long term if I think they don't adversely affect combat performance significantly. Typically I have some d-mods but I rarely run anything with more than 2 and I would say 1 or 0 is much more typical. In late game when I have massive colony income, I will just restore everything. I would much rather pay more up front for a pristine ship that will not die and will have better combat power per deployment point.

I might consider trying to take the new Hull Restoration skill early to build my fleet though, it sounds like a good way to get ships via recovery without the downside of d-mods, and it can be re-specced late game once I have the ships I want. I will have to see what skills I need to take get there though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 11, 2021, 01:58:19 PM
I aim for flawless victories every time in bounty fights, and generally consider any losses to be significant failures, although typically some failure can be tolerated without the bounty becoming unprofitable.

Regarding bounty profitability, I kinda have a bone to pick here.  Since this game is to some degree basically just the Golden Age of Piracy in space, a significant amount of monies from bounty hunting (ie, letters of marque/commissions) awards back then was predicated on bringing back prize ships fo' dat cash, but in this game, it's (understandably) different.  Since the fleet limit is vanilla maxed at 30, a player has little to no incentive to recover an enemy ship (ie, one that doesn't keep SP hull mods) unless they want/need the underlying hull.  I understand this is necessary as much for stabilizing gameplay (ie, player can't cheese game design with a free money generator) as it is realism (rehabilitating a vacuum proof ship vs keeping a wooden boat afloat), but when a player decides not to recover ships, is the ship truly broken down into the equivalent value of ALL commodity goods, or is it the goods minus some loss for some (metal...) and normal for others (fuel)?  I guess I can always just crack open the code and look for myself, since initial bounty valuation seems primarily predicated on ship class and quality as much as fleet size for payout size calculations, but the previous statement is necessary for the following chain of thought.

Normally I wouldn't care as much, and it would break the game for basically any regular battle, but for bounties... adding a premium for leaving derelict ships to be "recovered" might be an interesting addition (although game would have to give player an option to choose breaking ships down now or not, and maybe only pays extra later based on valid "recovery," which is to say sometimes there is loss due to poaching by pirates or indys).  I almost feel like perhaps this would be better to post in the Suggestions forum, but since this kinda already came up... I'll drop it here.  Maybe someone will move it.  It also is partially mitigated by the fact that a player has no control over which ships are normally disabled/recoverable (as in, not recovering via SP), but seems like an interesting alternative to just always breaking stuff down.  Food for thought.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 11, 2021, 02:12:04 PM
I might consider trying to take the new Hull Restoration skill early to build my fleet though, it sounds like a good way to get ships via recovery without the downside of d-mods, and it can be re-specced late game once I have the ships I want. I will have to see what skills I need to take get there though.

Does it even work like that though? To me it sounds like the chance to avoid D-mods completely only applies to your own ships, not enemy ships you recover. Those only get a chance at -1 d-mod at most, and even pristine ships get at least 2 when destroyed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 11, 2021, 03:55:14 PM
I was about to write about fleets and flawless victories, but intrinsic_parity wrote much of what I wanted to write.

It is not so much about recovery of enemy ships, it is about recovering your ships if they die, especially if they had s-mods.

If my ship that died had no s-mods, no problem, I just rebuild it if I have the blueprint.  If it has s-mods (or I cannot build the ship), I am not scuttling it!  If I have Field Repairs and nothing else to fix, I will recover it and lug it around until the d-mods disappear.  Otherwise, I reload and replay the fight until the result is flawless victory (or I give up and do something else like cheese trade until I earn enough to upgrade my fleet) because it is faster that way.  There are exceptions, like if I lose a small ship or two in an endgame fight, fine, I did not lose that much money and I eat it.

However, Field Repairs makes it tempting to recover anything that does not have more than one d-mod, and it is more convenient than shopping for one at a core world or waiting a month or two for my Orbital Works to spit one out.  And if I am fighting exotic ships I cannot build or buy, I will recover (and mothball) at least some of them.  And if I am running around with Ziggurat, and it blows up, I am not spending nearly two million to fix it.  Either I let Field Repairs fix it, or I reload.

Quote
I will just restore everything. I would much rather pay more up front for a pristine ship that will not die and will have better combat power per deployment point.
If I think casualties is likely, and the only significant reward is money, then it is better to avoid the fight in the first place and run drugs or otherwise cheese trading exploits - much safer!

I dislike d-mods, and I strive to have every ship pristine at all times.  I have a special fondness for Field Repairs.  I plan to take Hull Restoration so I do not need flawless victories for fighting to be profitable.  I will only respec if I need to enable flagship Radiant to be the best it can be with more combat skills, if I go for the Tech 8 path, or if I really need all combat skills to enable soloing fleets efficiently like SCC did with phase ships.

Does it even work like that though? To me it sounds like the chance to avoid D-mods completely only applies to your own ships, not enemy ships you recover. Those only get a chance at -1 d-mod at most, and even pristine ships get at least 2 when destroyed.
With Field Repairs and other Industry skills, I sometimes see formerly pristine enemy ships with a single d-mod.  They are worth recovering.  I obtained most of my capitals by recovering and fixing them with Field Repairs.  By the time I raided for all the blueprints, I already obtained most of my endgame fleet by recovering them from the enemy.  It was also nice recovering spare Radiants with one d-mod and field repairing them for later.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 11, 2021, 04:34:08 PM
I might consider trying to take the new Hull Restoration skill early to build my fleet though, it sounds like a good way to get ships via recovery without the downside of d-mods, and it can be re-specced late game once I have the ships I want. I will have to see what skills I need to take get there though.

Does it even work like that though? To me it sounds like the chance to avoid D-mods completely only applies to your own ships, not enemy ships you recover. Those only get a chance at -1 d-mod at most, and even pristine ships get at least 2 when destroyed.
I agree that it's unclear whether you will avoid new d-mods on enemy ships, but even if that bit doesn't apply, you also remove 1 d-mod per month from your fleet like the current industry skill. So the skill means that I am now seeing mostly 1-2-3 dmod ships rather than 2-3-4 and I am much more likely to hit reasonable d-mods on ships and I also need to wait less time for them to become usable/better/pristine. I will have to see how well it works but it seems like it could be good enough that I would no longer bother buying ships except maybe very early on to get the ball rolling, or rare ships I don't fight much. The max CR per S-mod is also really good IMO.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 11, 2021, 06:36:12 PM
How much were the substantial HP and armor buffs for Legion and Dominator?
14k is the new value for the Dominator, and 18k for the Legion. The Legion's new armor is 1750; I forget what the original value was.
Hmm, gotta say that I'd be wary of the hull/armor creep that low tech seems to have going on these days (previously it was Enforcer that benefited). At some point, ships that don't die when the player shoots them (a lot) are just annoying to deal with.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vehemence on November 11, 2021, 07:07:34 PM
I know this more of a fine tune patch, but I was curious when more permanent terraforming will arrive in the game?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 11, 2021, 07:10:34 PM
Hmm, gotta say that I'd be wary of the hull/armor creep that low tech seems to have going on these days (previously it was Enforcer that benefited). At some point, ships that don't die when the player shoots them (a lot) are just annoying to deal with.

Fair, generally speaking! But, these buffs are *not* just "need to improve these things somehow, so lets go with durability because it's thematic". Rather, it's improving durability because it felt to me like these ships weren't holding up as well under fire as they, well, ought to, though of course that's a subjective evaluation. (More specifically, it's driven by spending *a lot* of time fighting multi-Radiant Ordos using a low-tech fleet that included both of these ships...)


I know this more of a fine tune patch, but I was curious when more permanent terraforming will arrive in the game?

Hmm, I'm not sure why you'd specifically expect it to be a thing! It's not a direction I'm particularly looking to go in. It's a cool concept, and if it happens to fit in with something else going on (i.e. a main storyline development, for example, or into some other mechanics I'm looking to add), then I could see it, but not the sort of thing I'd want to add just for its own sake, if that makes sense.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 11, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
Thank you all for the suggestions about Impact Mitigation! That got me thinking outside the box a bit, and I've just about settled on "+50% maneuverability for cruisers/capitals, +25% if smaller". It makes sense for the theme of the skill, (after all, turning the ship to avoid/distribute/dare I say mitigate the incoming damage is a thing), and it should be a useful bonus for heavily armored ships that's not just another "damage number is lower".
Hm. +Maneuverability is great for ships like the Onslaught or Dominator. It's very nearly worthless for frigates, though. Hm...

Would it be reasonable to add a second elite effect that, for frigates (and maybe to a lesser degree destroyers) just... increases the resolution of the armor grid? Make it more feasible for small ships to actually get some benefit from turning to take hits on different sides, rather than the armor grid being low enough resolution that hits to one side still damage armor on the other?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BaBosa on November 11, 2021, 08:14:37 PM
Spoiler

I am a bit curious where your ideas for the elite Impact Mitigation effect are going, given the 90% max mitigation being duplicated in Polarized armor.  Where you looking for something that helps at high armor levels and or small weapon hits (which is what the 85%-90% does), but doesn't quite stack so much (1/3 less damage during the maximum mitigation period extends it by a factor of 1.5,.e. 50% more, while 2/3 extends it by by a factor of 3).

...

Would something like a simple 10% more real armor, or +75/150/200/250 (tweak numbers as needed) real extra armor based on size, repaired instantly at the end of every engagement work?  Where "repaired" is just the has an elite Impact Mitigation officer piloting it at deployment time, so it adds say +250 to whatever the armor was there as the ship is deployed into the fight.  At the end, if it's over normal maximum in any cell, just remove excess.

I'm actually pretty open to what the effect might be - ideally it'd be something that's at least semi-interesting gameplay-wise, and also doesn't come with the problem of, for example, making most kinetics near-useless vs hull, like +150 effective armor did.

The issue with +X armor (not effective, just at the start) is that it wouldn't apply once command is transferred. Generally, the goal of the design is to have skill effects transfer over - although a couple do break that rule; most notably Missile Specialization. I kind of wonder - is "giving your intended flagship to an officer with Missile Spec, and probably Reliability Engineering, and then transferring command to it after deployment to benefit from about an extra skill's worth of stuff" at all a thing? I'd guess it's probably not quite worth it, but if we pile on more bonuses that work like this...

That is a fair point.  Stack enough bonuses and some min-maxer some where will take advantage of it.  I will admit if I'm pulling solo Odyssey shenanigans, I'll load it up with a missile expertise officer and switch into it, since my officers have nothing better to do in that scenario.

Interesting gameplay-wise is perhaps a bit tough given it has traditionally I simply take more shots to die kind of skill, which definitely makes the character or officer stronger, but doesn't feel like it changes the ship fundamentally.



Oh, how's this for a thought: damage to armor reduced based on current ship speed. The faster you're going, the more shots 'glance off'!
Balancing could be tricky, and might require scaling differently for different ship classes... but at least the notion of it seems good: a small benefit for slow, high-armor ships, a larger benefit for faster, less-armored ships, and a hopefully-noticeable boost to durability while Burn Drive is active.
[close]
Extra armor durability during Burn drive would be amusing, I admit, and potentially really useful.  It does make it fairly niche though.  There is quite a large range in speeds in each ship class, say from 25 of the Onslaught to the 70 of the Odyssey.  Not to mention plasma burn drive.  It also ties into gameplay.

What are mechanics and behavior we can tie into?  Maneuverability, speed.  Either modifying those numbers, or basing it off what you're doing (i.e. the proportional bonus to speed suggestion).  There's weapons fire state, although that doesn't make much sense.  There's shield state and flux levels.  Polarized armor already has stuff proportional to flux level though.  There's shield state though.  Your armor could become better if you have no shields up (which would indirectly make damping field better).  Reinforcing internal structures in a powered way somehow.

You could make the armor trade for winning the flux war explicit.  You reduce your current flux levels by real armor lost.  I.e. take a hit that make you lose X armor, reduce your built up hard flux by Y.  If no armor was lost (i.e. it was all already destroyed in that cell) then no benefit.  It does mean if an Onslaught eats a Reaper, it suddenly perhaps drops it's flux level by a few thousand.  You're essentially storing waste flux in the armor sections, and if it get's blown off, it takes the flux with it.

Alternatively, increase flux dissipation while shields are down is perhaps simpler to communicate, and incentives actually armor tanking more.

Some crazier ideas:  Ramming bonus when impacting on the ship sprite instead of shields, and reduced or completely negated damage from ship explosions.

Actually, for unshielded ships like Ramparts, or phase ships like the afflictor, being immune to ship/station explosions would be a fairly big quality of life improvement.  You could alternatively simply limit how much damage AoE effects do to armor cells in total, so that things like Reapers still make holes, but they are smaller holes.

I really like some of these ideas.
Removing flux when taking armour damage seems really cool. It would help ships keep pressuring Ships that have more dissipation. Wouldn’t want it on many ships though. It’d probably be a built in hullmod.

Making ramming damage greater when using hull instead of shields sounds like something that should be normal. You’re risking more significant damage to yourself that way so there should be a bigger payout.
Flat immunities are boring in my opinion but making the rugged construction hullmod say half or quarter death explosion damage would be pretty damn cool and it would fit.
Not so much for phase ships as they’re supposed to just phase out.

Reducing the size of the destroyed sections from missiles is a really cool idea. But I’m not sure if it could be implemented in a good way.


I aim for flawless victories every time in bounty fights, and generally consider any losses to be significant failures, although typically some failure can be tolerated without the bounty becoming unprofitable.
Spoiler
Regarding bounty profitability, I kinda have a bone to pick here.  Since this game is to some degree basically just the Golden Age of Piracy in space, a significant amount of monies from bounty hunting (ie, letters of marque/commissions) awards back then was predicated on bringing back prize ships fo' dat cash, but in this game, it's (understandably) different.  Since the fleet limit is vanilla maxed at 30, a player has little to no incentive to recover an enemy ship (ie, one that doesn't keep SP hull mods) unless they want/need the underlying hull.  I understand this is necessary as much for stabilizing gameplay (ie, player can't cheese game design with a free money generator) as it is realism (rehabilitating a vacuum proof ship vs keeping a wooden boat afloat), but when a player decides not to recover ships, is the ship truly broken down into the equivalent value of ALL commodity goods, or is it the goods minus some loss for some (metal...) and normal for others (fuel)?  I guess I can always just crack open the code and look for myself, since initial bounty valuation seems primarily predicated on ship class and quality as much as fleet size for payout size calculations, but the previous statement is necessary for the following chain of thought.
[close]
Normally I wouldn't care as much, and it would break the game for basically any regular battle, but for bounties... adding a premium for leaving derelict ships to be "recovered" might be an interesting addition (although game would have to give player an option to choose breaking ships down now or not, and maybe only pays extra later based on valid "recovery," which is to say sometimes there is loss due to poaching by pirates or indys).  I almost feel like perhaps this would be better to post in the Suggestions forum, but since this kinda already came up... I'll drop it here.  Maybe someone will move it.  It also is partially mitigated by the fact that a player has no control over which ships are normally disabled/recoverable (as in, not recovering via SP), but seems like an interesting alternative to just always breaking stuff down.  Food for thought.

Making leaving ships behind part of the bounty would be really good. It makes it so recovering any of the ships not so free.
But more importantly, if it was made so you could actually make a ship become disabled rather than destroyed and show up on recovery. That would make fights have a varying amount of difficulty depending if you’re just trying to kill them or capture them.
Maybe make it so if you hit a ship with enough emp in a short enough time that they become fried and are disabled. It would have to be harder to do than just damage if their hull so it’s not broken but it would also make it easier to pick what ships you want to recover.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 11, 2021, 08:34:41 PM
Quote
Alternatively, increase flux dissipation while shields are down is perhaps simpler to communicate, and incentives actually armor tanking more.

This may be easier to achieve by tweaking the shield upkeep values. Make the default flux strength between low and high tech ships a bit more equal. The tradeoff is that high tech ships have very low shield upkeep costs (so they don't feel bad about keeping shields up) while low tech ships have very high shield upkeep. A low tech ship would have much more to gain by dropping shields, making tradeoff more of a choice rather than an armor gamble. It also obviously boosts emergency venting, which further limits armor damage.


The current onslaught has 600 venting and 240 shield upkeep. Maybe the armor trade would feel better with 800 venting and 500 upkeep? It's a nerf with shields up, and a buff with shields down. Something like that. Dunno if it would require further tweaks, as it would make stabilized shield mod far more effective.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 11, 2021, 09:00:11 PM
Hm. +Maneuverability is great for ships like the Onslaught or Dominator. It's very nearly worthless for frigates, though. Hm...

Would it be reasonable to add a second elite effect that, for frigates (and maybe to a lesser degree destroyers) just... increases the resolution of the armor grid? Make it more feasible for small ships to actually get some benefit from turning to take hits on different sides, rather than the armor grid being low enough resolution that hits to one side still damage armor on the other?

Ah - it's not really reasonable on the backend, plus I think things have the potential to get weird if the armor grid resolution changes too much. After all, hits are spread on a fixed number of cells, so if it's enough to visibly change the impact area of a torpedo, say, I think that'd start to feel odd.

The turn rate portion of maneuverability probably doesn't help frigates much, yeah. But it also improves acceleration/deceleration, and that seems marginally more useful. All in all, though, IM is not the best skill for frigates anyway. Even the weapon damage taken bonus isn't *that* useful - unless it's EMP, if a frigate is taking enough damage for that to matter, chances are things have gone off the rails a bit already.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 11, 2021, 09:16:02 PM
Hm. +Maneuverability is great for ships like the Onslaught or Dominator. It's very nearly worthless for frigates, though. Hm...

Would it be reasonable to add a second elite effect that, for frigates (and maybe to a lesser degree destroyers) just... increases the resolution of the armor grid? Make it more feasible for small ships to actually get some benefit from turning to take hits on different sides, rather than the armor grid being low enough resolution that hits to one side still damage armor on the other?

Ah - it's not really reasonable on the backend, plus I think things have the potential to get weird if the armor grid resolution changes too much. After all, hits are spread on a fixed number of cells, so if it's enough to visibly change the impact area of a torpedo, say, I think that'd start to feel odd.
I mean, that... was kindof the point of the suggestion? For a player-facing description it'd be something like "reduces the spread of enemy weapon impacts on armor", so reduced impact area would be expected.

...But the points about 'not really reasonable on the backend' and 'not really a skill meant for frigates in the first place' are both reasonable ones, even if we do have that new burn-drive-and-damper-field low-tech super-frigate incoming...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 11, 2021, 09:27:20 PM
I mean, that... was kindof the point of the suggestion? For a player-facing description it'd be something like "reduces the spread of enemy weapon impacts on armor", so reduced impact area would be expected.

(Ah, gotcha! Yeah, if it's presented to the player that way, that'd make sense; wasn't thinking of that.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 11, 2021, 11:45:55 PM
Hmm, gotta say that I'd be wary of the hull/armor creep that low tech seems to have going on these days (previously it was Enforcer that benefited). At some point, ships that don't die when the player shoots them (a lot) are just annoying to deal with.
It reminds me of one fight in the middle of the game, against Hegemony with lots of cruisers. My Champions and Dominators were winning the fight ever so slowly, but even they simply run out of PPT. This was before the Impact Mitigation nerf, though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 12, 2021, 06:30:36 AM
Re: Maneuverability on small ships
Actually, most if not all small ships feel surprisingly sluggish without any maneuverability boosts.  (They may be more agile than big ships, but they still feel a bit pork-ish without a boost.)  Most of them, it is not bad enough that I would complain, but Shrike is an exception.  If I plasma burn a Shrike into a fight with its base maneuverability, it seems to take too long to spin the ship to the side and burn away.  It is too clumsy to hit-and-run with plasma burn.  Either my Shrike needs Auxiliary Thrusters (fat chance with its lean OP total) or one of the skills that boosts maneuverability.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 12, 2021, 10:11:26 AM
How much were the substantial HP and armor buffs for Legion and Dominator?
14k is the new value for the Dominator, and 18k for the Legion. The Legion's new armor is 1750; I forget what the original value was.
Hmm, gotta say that I'd be wary of the hull/armor creep that low tech seems to have going on these days (previously it was Enforcer that benefited). At some point, ships that don't die when the player shoots them (a lot) are just annoying to deal with.

Legion has 1500 armor currently, same as a Dominator.

I guess the question is how long should a properly equipped fleet take to destroy a particular defensive type ship for an enjoyable experience.  I've never actually timed it for typical battles.  How long does a Radiant or Paragon typically last in enemy fleets?  How about phase ships?  Especially if you're not configured with anti-shield weapons or setup to purse a teleporting Radiant or a phasing Doom.

Most end game fleets tend to skew towards kinetics since Remnants are more shield based, but if you're packing all Reapers and Hellbores instead of Sabots and Needlers, along with HE weapons, even an Onslaught doesn't last long once it's shields are down and flak is disabled (i.e. the infamous Afflictor + reaper strike comes to mind).

I wonder if part of it is once a ship's shields are down or it's overloaded, it's weapons are no longer firing being disabled, it feels more like a chore than a fight, despite perhaps taking an equal amount of time compared to a more mobile and/or shielded enemy.  It's like the Monitor - next to impossible to kill, but unable to actually do any harm, and thus can be considered annoying in the opposing fleet.

Certainly something like an SO Hyperion or SO Fury can last essentially until it's PPT runs out against a wide variety of opponents.  Tempests and Omens can take an outsized amount of fire to pin down and kill compared to their OP cost.  Especially if the enemy is setup with anti-armor weaponry instead of anti-shield.

If low tech starts taking longer to win against when using a skewed towards anti-armor weapons loadout (as much as most late game fleets are skewed towards anti-shield), then that's probably too much.  Unfortunately, I don't have a data sample at hand to make an intelligent statement on where we are currently.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 12, 2021, 10:43:59 AM
Just speaking of the Legion and Dominator, what it felt like to me is they ought to have had an easier time surviving an overload or two than they did, in situations where it didn't lead to overwhelming focus fire that *should* get an easy kill.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 12, 2021, 10:54:15 AM
I'm not sure that can really be helped. The whole point of torpedoes is to deal devastating damage against undefended opponents, and fluxed opponents are as undefended as they get. It'd be better to consider ships that are healthy but choose to keep their shields down, I.E. trading their defense for offense. They're supposed to take hits, maybe block a few with PD, and hopefully return the favor just as well. Maybe the trade off is good, maybe it's not, but if a low tech can't benefit at all from dropping shields then something might be going wrong.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 12, 2021, 10:55:37 AM
(Not sure if you're responding to me or Hiruma Kai! If to me, then: yeah, I meant in the general absence of torpedoes.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: memeextremist on November 12, 2021, 10:57:57 AM
why buff the prometheus mkII and then remove auxillary support? you kinda need buffed assault package to not get melted by everything.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Timid on November 12, 2021, 11:24:51 AM
Now that the dust has settled...
Quote
  • Light Assault Gun: increased range to 700 (was 600)
  • Light Autocannon, Light Dual Autocannon
    • Increased range to 700 (was 600)
    • Reduced flux/shot to 40 (was: 50)
  • Arbalest Autocannon
    • Increased damage to 200/shot (was: 150)
    • Increased flux/shot to 150 (was: 120)
    • Increased refire delay to 1.2 seconds (was: 1)

With the Light Assault Gun being much faster and having less OP cost as well similar flux DPS to the Heavy Mortar, what's going to incentivize me to use the Heavy Mortar instead of downgrading to the Light Assault Gun? The only big difference now is the damage/shot and projectile speed (which the AI would much rather prefer the Light Assault Gun)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 12, 2021, 11:31:20 AM
With the Light Assault Gun being much faster and having less OP cost as well similar flux DPS to the Heavy Mortar, what's going to incentivize me to use the Heavy Mortar instead of downgrading to the Light Assault Gun? The only big difference now is the damage/shot and projectile speed (which the AI would much rather prefer the Light Assault Gun)
Because the LAG does basically nothing to decent armour? Hell take a single Enforcer and it would take a long time to take down with only LAGs. Damage/shot is the most important stat for HE weapons.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 12, 2021, 11:35:52 AM
The LAG is more accurate and a much better tool for engaging fighters and frigates, but IF the heavy mortar hits its stats are far superior. 220 vs 160 dps, much better efficiency even before the almost triple shot size. Its going to be on the order of 2 or 3 times better at dealing armor damage (again if the shots hit, which is not guaranteed).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 12, 2021, 12:13:19 PM
I’m sure there’s a tooltip somewhere that damage/shot matters but it’s a frequent enough misconception that pure DPS=better that I wonder if the game should point that out a little better. I suppose you kind of figure it out as you go but it’s not glaringly obvious. The Heavy Mortar vs LAG is a prime example of “numbers don’t tell the whole story”. Same for the assault chain gun. I mean, the Nu-Mauler really isn’t that far off from doing Plasma Cannon-like damage in terms of defeating armor (400 vs 500 dmg/shot x3) and it’s arguably “weak!”



Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sly on November 12, 2021, 04:52:52 PM
That is one thick brick of patch notes, very cool.

A little disappointed Salamanders weren't changed to dual purpose (for anti-phase duty).

That aside, on paper the patch notes are really exciting - can't wait to try it out! Really substantial and compelling changes!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 12, 2021, 06:56:40 PM
I wonder if part of it is once a ship's shields are down or it's overloaded, it's weapons are no longer firing being disabled, it feels more like a chore than a fight, despite perhaps taking an equal amount of time compared to a more mobile and/or shielded enemy.  It's like the Monitor - next to impossible to kill, but unable to actually do any harm, and thus can be considered annoying in the opposing fleet.

Someone suggested disabled weapons still being able to fire at half rate or whatever. I think that would help a lot both for fighting tough ships and to make it suck less when your own weapons get disabled.

Engines could probably do with a similar thing - flamed out ships still having a few engines.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on November 12, 2021, 08:47:06 PM
So I've only read about 9 pages worth of posts but I'm surprised two changes didn't get more attention.
1) Commerce: reduced base income bonus to 25% (was: 50%)
Please, PLEASE tell me that this includes a shift from it being an industry to a structure. This nerf in combination of the already severe -3 stability, all to gain access to some income and a place to sell seems way WAY too much! What was the reasoning behind this? This is already considered one of, if not the worst industries in the game due to the current stats.
In my mind, I would have it so that it was +25%, a structure and at MOST -1 stability. Something that takes up such a precious slot should not be so punishing to the player.

2) Cryoblaster: Reduced damage to 1250 (was: 1600)
I don't see the reason behind this either. Before it was a 4 OP more expensive, rare weapon that was a bit more flux efficient than the Heavy Blaster (1.25 Flux/Damage for anything that is not stripped armor  versus 1.44 F/D for the HB) with the minor bonus effect of doing more damage to the enemy as their armor wore down. With the changes, it puts this well below the the HB in efficiency (1.6 vs. 1.44 for the HB)  and the "effect" is too rare to happen in my mind that it would make any difference. Combine that with the fact that this is a limited amount, "you might not get any at all or only one" kind of weapon and you have something that was alright if not a bit good to get, to something that is pretty much trash in my mind.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 12, 2021, 09:28:03 PM
Someone suggested disabled weapons still being able to fire at half rate or whatever. I think that would help a lot both for fighting tough ships and to make it suck less when your own weapons get disabled.

Engines could probably do with a similar thing - flamed out ships still having a few engines.

I feel that there are so many (stackable!) ways to increase weapon/engine hp/regeneration, decrease EMP impact, decrease damage taken by components, etc, that further diminishing the actual disabled effect itself would be overkill, especially for EMP weapons. Consider that Armored Weapon Mount will be more popular now with its recoil bonus, and that's already a full +100% weapon durability.

That said, similar to the overly-large fighters bonus for Point Defense, I feel that the +100% bonus on Elite Target Analysis makes it too trivial to take out weapons/engines using spammy, non-EMP weapons like Hurricanes, or even just using random damage in general. I would rather have that bonus reduced to +50% and instead add an additional bonus for EMP weapons, like perhaps larger EMP impact radius, or allowing EMP arcs to affect a 2nd target (considering how many arcs are wasted on already-disabled targets), etc. - something that's not a raw damage effect. Or alternately, a second completely different Elite bonus altogether.

2) Cryoblaster: Reduced damage to 1250 (was: 1600)
I don't see the reason behind this either. Before it was a 4 OP more expensive, rare weapon that was a bit more flux efficient than the Heavy Blaster (1.25 Flux/Damage for anything that is not stripped armor  versus 1.44 F/D for the HB) with the minor bonus effect of doing more damage to the enemy as their armor wore down. With the changes, it puts this well below the the HB in efficiency (1.6 vs. 1.44 for the HB)  and the "effect" is too rare to happen in my mind that it would make any difference. Combine that with the fact that this is a limited amount, "you might not get any at all or only one" kind of weapon and you have something that was alright if not a bit good to get, to something that is pretty much trash in my mind.

I do agree with Alex (and general consensus) that the damage reduction was necessary since Cryoblaster's hull damage output was rather extreme, but reducing only damage puts Cryoblaster's new efficiency (1.6) rather close to Mining Blaster (1.71) which is... not a great comparison for such a rare/OP-intensive weapon, even without considering how its higher OP cost effectively worsens flux inefficiency. The Cyroblaster could use a flux reduction of maybe 25-50 per shot, which would make it still less efficient than Heavy Blaster for off-damage types.

Also, consider that Cryoblaster is already being double-nerfed by the new reduction-over-500-damage skill, unlike Heavy Blaster/Plasma Cannon. Along the same vein, Mining Blaster can probably use a small flux reduction as well.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 12, 2021, 09:45:15 PM
1) Commerce: reduced base income bonus to 25% (was: 50%)
Please, PLEASE tell me that this includes a shift from it being an industry to a structure. This nerf in combination of the already severe -3 stability, all to gain access to some income and a place to sell seems way WAY too much! What was the reasoning behind this? This is already considered one of, if not the worst industries in the game due to the current stats.
In my mind, I would have it so that it was +25%, a structure and at MOST -1 stability. Something that takes up such a precious slot should not be so punishing to the player.

I suspect at least part of the reason commentary regarding the change to the Commerce industry hasn't been debated as much here is because a similar discussion more or less came up organically on a general discussion thread that coincidentally dropped just before the patch notes dropped.  See the following:

As for commerce, have you missed the big fat "+50% money" modifier it slaps on your colony?
No, I didn't miss that, I had just assumed it was a placeholder for a better system to come later.  Seems a pretty lazy bonus to tack onto an entire industry slot, no?
Better than +1 stability it originally gave, at least for the player's colonies.

The main problems with Commerce today is...
1) Went from terrible (+1 stability) to must-have (+50% or more income), especially with items that boost income from Commerce more.

2) Kills stability (-3).  Really hurts some core worlds (those with both Free Port and Commerce), and player cannot fix those worlds he does not own.  Player needs two colony improvements to partially offset the stability tax (+2 vs. -3) from the Commerce industry tax for his worlds.  Player still wants 10 stability for fleet quality and size (to hopefully avoid babysitting his colonies personally).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 12, 2021, 11:31:16 PM
Someone suggested disabled weapons still being able to fire at half rate or whatever. I think that would help a lot both for fighting tough ships and to make it suck less when your own weapons get disabled.

Engines could probably do with a similar thing - flamed out ships still having a few engines.
I suggested for elite IM effect that weapons and engine repairs should never stop, only maybe do so at half rate when attacked, to make it harder for weapons to go out from just fighting. EMP and damage spikes would still work.

This is already considered one of, if not the worst industries in the game due to the current stats.
If anything, I've seen most often people call it the best building and sometimes even mandatory. If it was called the worst, it's probably because of how obviously good it is, so much it's too good.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 13, 2021, 04:00:51 AM
2) Cryoblaster: Reduced damage to 1250 (was: 1600)
I don't see the reason behind this either. Before it was a 4 OP more expensive, rare weapon that was a bit more flux efficient than the Heavy Blaster (1.25 Flux/Damage for anything that is not stripped armor  versus 1.44 F/D for the HB) with the minor bonus effect of doing more damage to the enemy as their armor wore down. With the changes, it puts this well below the the HB in efficiency (1.6 vs. 1.44 for the HB)  and the "effect" is too rare to happen in my mind that it would make any difference. Combine that with the fact that this is a limited amount, "you might not get any at all or only one" kind of weapon and you have something that was alright if not a bit good to get, to something that is pretty much trash in my mind.

In my mind it was already the only omega weapon worth using, won't be after the nerf. Super-special limited edition endgame weapons are supposed to be gimmicky downgrades to market ones, I guess.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Caymon Joestar on November 13, 2021, 04:09:42 AM
So I've only read about 9 pages worth of posts but I'm surprised two changes didn't get more attention.
1) Commerce: reduced base income bonus to 25% (was: 50%)
Please, PLEASE tell me that this includes a shift from it being an industry to a structure. This nerf in combination of the already severe -3 stability, all to gain access to some income and a place to sell seems way WAY too much! What was the reasoning behind this? This is already considered one of, if not the worst industries in the game due to the current stats.
In my mind, I would have it so that it was +25%, a structure and at MOST -1 stability. Something that takes up such a precious slot should not be so punishing to the player.

2) Cryoblaster: Reduced damage to 1250 (was: 1600)
I don't see the reason behind this either. Before it was a 4 OP more expensive, rare weapon that was a bit more flux efficient than the Heavy Blaster (1.25 Flux/Damage for anything that is not stripped armor  versus 1.44 F/D for the HB) with the minor bonus effect of doing more damage to the enemy as their armor wore down. With the changes, it puts this well below the the HB in efficiency (1.6 vs. 1.44 for the HB)  and the "effect" is too rare to happen in my mind that it would make any difference. Combine that with the fact that this is a limited amount, "you might not get any at all or only one" kind of weapon and you have something that was alright if not a bit good to get, to something that is pretty much trash in my mind.

Are we playing the same game? In what universe is Commerce considered bad? Maybe back in 0.9.1 it was but in 0.9.5, It's one of the best buildings. It's hella easy to get stab back and throw in the industry's item and your colony is gonna be printing money.

2) Cryoblaster: Reduced damage to 1250 (was: 1600)
I don't see the reason behind this either. Before it was a 4 OP more expensive, rare weapon that was a bit more flux efficient than the Heavy Blaster (1.25 Flux/Damage for anything that is not stripped armor  versus 1.44 F/D for the HB) with the minor bonus effect of doing more damage to the enemy as their armor wore down. With the changes, it puts this well below the the HB in efficiency (1.6 vs. 1.44 for the HB)  and the "effect" is too rare to happen in my mind that it would make any difference. Combine that with the fact that this is a limited amount, "you might not get any at all or only one" kind of weapon and you have something that was alright if not a bit good to get, to something that is pretty much trash in my mind.

In my mind it was already the only omega weapon worth using, won't be after the nerf. Super-special limited edition endgame weapons are supposed to be gimmicky downgrades to market ones, I guess.

Minipulse? Rift Lance? Anti matter SRM? Cyroflamer? Disintegrator? Particle Driver? Cascade Beam? Rift Torpedo?

Are we just ignoring those Good Omega weapons?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 13, 2021, 04:16:43 AM
Your definition of good seems to be unreasonably generous. All those weapons have glaring issues and are not worth using over standart human ones. The fact that they all have gimmicks AI is utterly incapable of using properly doesn't help. Have fun watching your ships dump all antimatter SRMs into fortress shields at the first opportunity.

Yes, the game doesn't crash to desktop when you fit one of those on your ship. By that definition they are usable.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 13, 2021, 04:24:09 AM
Minipulse? Rift Lance? Anti matter SRM? Cyroflamer? Disintegrator? Particle Driver? Cascade Beam? Rift Torpedo?

Are we just ignoring those Good Omega weapons?
There's maybe 2 good weapons there, everything else is "oh cool, this has a neat effect / visuals" and then go back to using standard weapons. I agree that Omega weapons shouldn't be brokenly good so that they're always the best choice in every scenario but come on, so much are downright detrimental to your ships unless you pilot it yourself.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 13, 2021, 06:00:46 AM
No mentions about the lack of Atropos buffs?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Ruddygreat on November 13, 2021, 06:49:44 AM
1) Commerce: reduced base income bonus to 25% (was: 50%)
Please, PLEASE tell me that this includes a shift from it being an industry to a structure. This nerf in combination of the already severe -3 stability, all to gain access to some income and a place to sell seems way WAY too much! What was the reasoning behind this? This is already considered one of, if not the worst industries in the game due to the current stats.
In my mind, I would have it so that it was +25%, a structure and at MOST -1 stability. Something that takes up such a precious slot should not be so punishing to the player.

commerce is far an away the best industry in the game, this nerf is deserved
being able to pull from 50% to 150% extra income out of nowhere is insane and actively removes choice (by being the best 4th industry pick a solid 90% of the time) from the already incredibly boring vanilla colony gameplay loop (seriously, you just sit on a box until you suddenly have more money than god)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 13, 2021, 06:56:34 AM
So I've only read about 9 pages worth of posts but I'm surprised two changes didn't get more attention.
1) Commerce: reduced base income bonus to 25% (was: 50%)
Please, PLEASE tell me that this includes a shift from it being an industry to a structure. This nerf in combination of the already severe -3 stability, all to gain access to some income and a place to sell seems way WAY too much! What was the reasoning behind this? This is already considered one of, if not the worst industries in the game due to the current stats.
In my mind, I would have it so that it was +25%, a structure and at MOST -1 stability. Something that takes up such a precious slot should not be so punishing to the player.
I would not mind less income provided there are other tweaks (like less stability penalty).  If not, all this means is player needs to spend SP to improve it, then look for the Dealmaker item to crank it up high.  If player does not care about cells and H, the alpha core for more income.

If I had to choose a nerf, then colony improvement the improves stability instead so that the penalty is -2 instead of -3, and holosuite giving less income and less pather interest (+2 instead of +4).

Or... have the stability penalty vary by the bonus income given by Commerce, maybe -1 stability per +25% income on Commerce (although that is a bit on the punitive side if min-maxed).

Commerce costs a lot to build, and has upkeep, so I would not want to build it unless it will be on the colony a long time, and the colony makes a lot of money (or I killed all of the core worlds and need all the income multipliers I can get).  I tend to build commerce as my fourth industry, after I get everything I need and no longer need to pay hazard pay.  Commerce is part of the late-bloom power of colonies, not something to be built early.

+25% income with no other changes?  Yes, it seems severe, maybe too punishing for early use and only encourages player to hit peg-leg Wirt the historian for the Dealmaker items and grab every booster.

Quote
Minipulse? Rift Lance? Anti matter SRM? Cyroflamer? Disintegrator? Particle Driver? Cascade Beam? Rift Torpedo?

Are we just ignoring those Good Omega weapons?
Rift Lance is mediocre, inferior to Tachyon Lance except maybe at ranges where it is better to use plasma cannon.  If Rift Lance cost 20-22 OP and/or was more efficient than Tachyon Lance, it would be good.  As it is, it is more of a flux hog than lance and costs more OP, all for a weapon that might do a bit more damage up close.  Alex mentioned he wanted a weapon that gets better at close range, but it is beyond me why he chose to put it on a tachyon lance clone - a sniper weapon!

After experimenting with it, I would never use it if I can use tachyon lance and/or plasma cannon instead because both weapons are better in any case.  A shame because the weapon is flashy.

No mentions about the lack of Atropos buffs?
They were okay when they did 1200 damage, but (and this is a guess) because of Daggers and Tridents that use it and Atropos being too strong for them, the damage is lower and they feel too weak.  It does not help that they are short-ranged and cannot be used point-blank, which gives them an annoyingly narrow effective range for lackluster performance.  I rarely use Atropos.

commerce is far an away the best industry in the game, this nerf is deserved
being able to pull from 50% to 150% extra income out of nowhere is insane and actively removes choice (by being the best 4th industry pick a solid 90% of the time) from the already incredibly boring vanilla colony gameplay loop (seriously, you just sit on a box until you suddenly have more money than god)
I rather see the +100% bonus from other effects tweaked and not the base effect.  +25% instead of +50% is a big deal.  +125% instead of +150%?  Not so much.  Rather see the range tightened, not screw over those limited to the stock industry.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 13, 2021, 09:06:32 AM
  • New industry skill, personal: Ordnance Expertise
    • +2 flux dissipation per ordnance point spent on weapons
    • Elite: +20 flux capacity per ordnance point spent on weapons
You're joking?! Right?! This is a typo??
Uran92 also agrees with me here... (https://youtu.be/uIFdOpVmNL4?t=375)
Unless, this doesn't affect the fleet but only the piloted ship? Its important to say which it is.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 13, 2021, 09:23:13 AM
  • New industry skill, personal: Ordnance Expertise
    • +2 flux dissipation per ordnance point spent on weapons
    • Elite: +20 flux capacity per ordnance point spent on weapons
You're joking?! Right?! This is a typo??
Uran92 also agrees with me here... (https://youtu.be/uIFdOpVmNL4?t=375)
Unless, this doesn't affect the fleet but only the piloted ship? Its important to say which it is.
Dunno man. Hard to tell.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 13, 2021, 10:09:42 AM
My 2 cents on a few raised points:
Commerce was the best industry slot for making money by a factor of 2.5 or more, but it doesn't supply any goods for reducing maintenance and has that stability penalty. I'm not sure if 25% is too harsh or not, it depends on how the item and upgrades are changed as well.

Atropos is a sidegrade to the harpoon but a useful one: it does slightly less theoretical damage per magazine (2000 vs 2250) in a shorter time and more reliably, with better tracking, slightly faster speed, higher projectile hitpoints, and better penetration value. Its main downside is being shorter ranged so you can't stack backline ships' Atropos from 2000 units away together, which is a big factor, but for brawlers its a superior missile (if you want to use missiles and not reapers).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 13, 2021, 10:30:22 AM
Commerce was the best industry slot for making money by a factor of 2.5 or more, but it doesn't supply any goods for reducing maintenance and has that stability penalty. I'm not sure if 25% is too harsh or not, it depends on how the item and upgrades are changed as well.
It would still be worth it if you could get more stability by other means, I want a system wide stability boust by military bases, as they project major forces system wide and offer enough capacity to help with difficulties on nearby planets.

And an upgrade for the way station stockpiling needed resources and more rare ship equipment would be nice.
Rare ship equipments include all comodities consumed by a fleet: Marines, Heavy Machinery, Metalls, Transplutonics, Volatiles.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 13, 2021, 10:33:33 AM
I think commerce will probably not be worth using without the item, which doesn't seem unreasonable IMO. Honestly stability is really not so important now that any stability over 5 gives full income. Sitting at 8 or 9 stability is pretty tolerable for a big income boost.

In terms of omega weapons, I think most of the small ones are quite good, and the weak PD option is getting buffed. I don't think any of them are weaker than the non-omega options now.

The cryo blaster was the only really good medium option IMO, the others all had downsides that were large enough to make them quite situational although most of them still felt decent in the right loadout. I think the cryoblaster probably needs a flux reduction to make it viable with such a large damage reduction, otherwise the heavy blaster will simply be better 90% of the time.

The large omega weapons are the weakest IMO, none of them feel exceptionally powerful, and I usually find myself preferring a tach lance or plasma cannon. The kinetic one was ok, but it felt really weird with the reduced damage at range mechanic which really doesn't suit most of the ships with large energy slots.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 13, 2021, 10:49:37 AM
Quote
Sitting at 8 or 9 stability is pretty tolerable for a big income boost.
For income alone, 8 is enough to take the occasional -3/-50% from pirates.  But high stability is important for things aside from income, especially since colony size is capped for the player.

(Also in my last game, most habitables had Decivilized Subpopulation - what an unlucky seed!  I needed colony improvements just to offset that condition!)

It would still be worth it if you could get more stability by other means, I want a system wide stability boust by military bases, as they project major forces system wide and offer enough capacity to help with difficulties on nearby planets.
Currently, for player colonies, we have a net stability change of -1 from last release.  Commerce for -3, and +2 from the two colony improvements that add +1 to stability.  NPC core worlds with Commerce get shafted and may be prone to decivilization if they take further penalties to stability, like pirate activity and raids.

With our colonies capped at size 6, and one of the fleet doctrine stats nerfed, stability is important for fleet defense (and ship production without pristine nanoforge).

My 2 cents on a few raised points:
Commerce was the best industry slot for making money by a factor of 2.5 or more, but it doesn't supply any goods for reducing maintenance and has that stability penalty. I'm not sure if 25% is too harsh or not, it depends on how the item and upgrades are changed as well.

Atropos is a sidegrade to the harpoon but a useful one: it does slightly less theoretical damage per magazine (2000 vs 2250) in a shorter time and more reliably, with better tracking, slightly faster speed, higher projectile hitpoints, and better penetration value. Its main downside is being shorter ranged so you can't stack backline ships' Atropos from 2000 units away together, which is a big factor, but for brawlers its a superior missile (if you want to use missiles and not reapers).
Atropos is lame for brawling in part because it cannot be used point-blank - they bounce.  Would be fine if they hit hard, but they are barely better than a Harpoon.  Also, I may not want to use Reapers (because too slow or easy to shoot down without boosts), but I may take Hammer rack instead.  I can hit one out of two and still do better than Atropos.  If Atropos had more range, I might consider the homing a plus, but its range is too short to help much.

However, I might use (single) Atropos on ships with awkward mounts unfriendly for dumb-fire missiles, like say... Falcon or Eagle with those mounts way off-center.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 13, 2021, 10:59:57 AM
  • New industry skill, personal: Ordnance Expertise
    • +2 flux dissipation per ordnance point spent on weapons
    • Elite: +20 flux capacity per ordnance point spent on weapons
You're joking?! Right?! This is a typo??
Uran92 also agrees with me here... (https://youtu.be/uIFdOpVmNL4?t=375)
Unless, this doesn't affect the fleet but only the piloted ship? Its important to say which it is.
Dunno man. Hard to tell.
That's harsh, man. You could have simply said that I overlooked the word "personal" in the first line.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 13, 2021, 11:07:26 AM
commerce is far an away the best industry in the game, this nerf is deserved
being able to pull from 50% to 150% extra income out of nowhere is insane and actively removes choice (by being the best 4th industry pick a solid 90% of the time) from the already incredibly boring vanilla colony gameplay loop (seriously, you just sit on a box until you suddenly have more money than god)
I rather see the +100% bonus from other effects tweaked and not the base effect.  +25% instead of +50% is a big deal.  +125% instead of +150%?  Not so much.  Rather see the range tightened, not screw over those limited to the stock industry.

This in a nutshell seems to capture the major issue relating to the commerce industry option.  Its primary purpose is to allow a player sell junk at their colony, but this purpose has been basically overridden by the additional +% income bonus (further exacerbated by allowing use of SP for improvement + rare items).  However, if player gets bored and decivs basically the entire sector, kinda need that income bonus.  So perhaps the solution is either that if enough of a sector decivs, either some deciv planets spontaneously become cived again, or just that some huge extra income (hidden) bonus for commerce industry occurs only AFTER some large % of sector decivs.  Whether or not it stays an industry slot is another issue, although seems relatively simple to solve, just make it like Patrol base (ie, a building that upgrades into an industry, if player only wants to buy/sell stuff, it really only needs to be a building).

But since the entire colony gameplay loop will likely get a pass during the next update cycle (if only possibly to add diplomacy and further contact stuff to colonies), seems like whatever being done now is just temporary until 2025 or whenever the next major patch drops...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 13, 2021, 11:12:47 AM
I never liked the shop aspect of Commerce on my colonies.  For one of the markets (either commodities or ships), it defaults to Open Market instead of my Storage.  Adding another click to access my stockpiles is not what I want on my primary homeworld.  Also, the tariffs!  If I really want a shop near my colonies, I will simply go to one of the pop-up zombie pirate space stations that never stay dead and often pop-up near one of my colonies.  I can buy stuff from them and sell them vendor trash without paying any tariffs (and buy crew and marines cheaper than my own colony resources).

The only reason I tolerate Commerce is the extra income.  Without that, the freeloader Indies demanding upkeep and 30% tariffs can keep off of my planets!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 13, 2021, 11:54:19 AM
Hmm, I'll have another look at the Cryoblaster numbers. I do think it's a mistake to entirely dismiss the absolutely ridiculous damage it does to hull, though; the difference in TTK that makes is just about qualitative. Still!


Now that's a straight up lie.
Dunno man. Hard to tell.

(I feel like maybe you mean these in a kind of jokey/bantering sort of way, but if that's the case, at least IMO - it's the internet, and it doesn't come across very well.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 13, 2021, 12:17:57 PM
Hmm, I'll have another look at the Cryoblaster numbers. I do think it's a mistake to entirely dismiss the absolutely ridiculous damage it does to hull, though; the difference in TTK that makes is just about qualitative. Still!
I think even like 450 flux/sec would be much better. It would give cryoblaster the same shield damage efficiency as the HB, while leaving it noticeable behind in armor DPS/efficiency and still far ahead in hull DPS.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 13, 2021, 12:35:12 PM
I did, actually, edit my game files to the new Cryoblaster damage - without changing its flux cost - and it seems to be at least mostly fine?

Usable, definitely. Optimal... Maybe not? I'll admit to primarily using it on Tempests, which will be losing HEF next patch... but even on non-HEF ships it performed acceptably.

If the damage reduction is an over-nerf, it's not an extreme one, and I'd probably compensate with... maybe an extra 50 range? Maybe one or two less OP cost?

It is, at the very least, not in original-stat-shockrepeater range of "this is trash, never use it".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 13, 2021, 12:51:23 PM
FWIW, I've just changed its damage to 1400 - which puts in at almost exactly at the Heavy Blaster's anti-shield effectiveness.

Now, the real question is the Hypervelocity Driver. I'm not sure I'll end up touching it for this update, but it does feel like it needs to be adjusted *somehow*, at some point.

Also, just for fun (coupled with some other missile adjustments):
Harpoon (Single), Sabot (Single):
   Changed to (Double)
   Ammo increased to 2, with a 10 second reload delay
   OP cost increased to 2
   Longbow Bomber retains the single-shot version
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 13, 2021, 12:55:10 PM
Also, just for fun (coupled with some other missile adjustments):
Harpoon (Single), Sabot (Single):
   Changed to (Double)
   Ammo increased to 2, with a 10 second reload delay
   OP cost increased to 2
   Longbow Bomber retains the single-shot version

So long, Atropos!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 13, 2021, 12:57:53 PM
Posted one Dealmaker nerf idea elsewhere:  Instead of adding to income, the Dealmaker can remove all tariffs from the player's colony.  (That way, player will not need to visit pirates next door to buy or sell stuff for the best prices.)

If a core world has it, tariffs are higher, maybe 50%.  Or it does nothing?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 13, 2021, 01:04:28 PM
So long, Atropos!

One of other changes is the Atropo...ses? Atropi? cost 3 OP for double / 1 OP for single!

Posted one Dealmaker nerf idea elsewhere:  Instead of adding to income, the Dealmaker can remove all tariffs from the player's colony.  (That way, player will not need to visit pirates next door to buy or sell stuff for the best prices.)

If a core world has it, tariffs are higher, maybe 50%.  Or it does nothing?

Hmm, interesting! Will keep that in mind. On the other hand, it'd probably make you feel like you had to sell stuff at your home colony only - to get full credits and to avoid any black market consequences, even if they're relatively minor.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 13, 2021, 01:13:32 PM
Hmm, interesting! Will keep that in mind. On the other hand, it'd probably make you feel like you had to sell stuff at your home colony only - to get full credits and to avoid any black market consequences, even if they're relatively minor.
It is more for QoL.  I already take a slight detour to the nearby pirate planet (especially the -1/-10% next to my system) just to do tariff-free trade.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 13, 2021, 01:18:11 PM
Now, the real question is the Hypervelocity Driver. I'm not sure I'll end up touching it for this update, but it does feel like it needs to be adjusted *somehow*, at some point.
I'd suggest add an ammo count to it. Keep the current DPS for a few seconds then let it fall off under sustained fire. It will make the other choices stronger by comparison and increase the scrutiny of Expanded Magazines hullmod.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 13, 2021, 01:25:27 PM
Now that's a straight up lie.
Dunno man. Hard to tell.

(I feel like maybe you mean these in a kind of jokey/bantering sort of way, but if that's the case, at least IMO - it's the internet, and it doesn't come across very well.)
Towards IonDragon, I was being facetious.
As for harpoons and reapers and Remnants, I felt significantly negatively with how most missiles that weren't sabots were useless at best, harmful-if-taken (in the sense they took OP that could have been spent on something else had any impact) at best and it does show. I shouldn't have called you a liar, and I did not think that perhaps in-dev changes (most significantly, Shield Modulation losing HE resistance) made it different for you, but in the version I get to play, yeah you just don't take anything but sabots in smalls and mediums, and hurricanes and hammer barrages in larges (if you can support them with sabots, of course) and you can see it does not make me happy.

Posted one Dealmaker nerf idea elsewhere:  Instead of adding to income, the Dealmaker can remove all tariffs from the player's colony.  (That way, player will not need to visit pirates next door to buy or sell stuff for the best prices.)

If a core world has it, tariffs are higher, maybe 50%.  Or it does nothing?
As far as I am concerned, Commerce-as-industry exists only to boost the income. If it does not perform any income-boosting function, it is not worth the industry slot and a place in my colony, like in 0.9.1. If dealmaker nerf will result in Commerce having fewer drawbacks, then it's acceptable. Otherwise, if commerce's +25% income (I don't use SPs on colonies) is less of an income increase than what a regular industry would do, it has no place in my colonies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Phenir on November 13, 2021, 02:27:04 PM
Does the AI change to make them avoid same and bigger ship's line of fires come with a change to autofire's "avoid shooting if ships might get in the line of fire" since they now actively avoid that?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 13, 2021, 02:31:33 PM
Towards IonDragon, I was being facetious.
As for harpoons and reapers and Remnants, I felt significantly negatively with how most missiles that weren't sabots were useless at best, harmful-if-taken (in the sense they took OP that could have been spent on something else had any impact) at best and it does show. I shouldn't have called you a liar, and I did not think that perhaps in-dev changes (most significantly, Shield Modulation losing HE resistance) made it different for you, but in the version I get to play, yeah you just don't take anything but sabots in smalls and mediums, and hurricanes and hammer barrages in larges (if you can support them with sabots, of course) and you can see it does not make me happy.

I mean, reasonable points to raise, but yeah, if it starts off like that, it's not going to lead to a meaningful discussion. All good, though; I appreciate the apology!

(Another change that I think makes a difference on my end is 60 DP Radiants - just, less overall pressure and more time for non-Sabot kinetics to do the job. All I can say is I had good success with Reapers (not mixed with Sabots, even - just with heavy kinetics on the new Eradicator, and on the rest of the fleet), and marginal success with Harpoons, though I did not spend too much time with the latter, and am assuming it could be improved with a more refined build and tactics. And, I wasn't even thinking about it, but the change to Shield Modulation seems like it'd be pretty massive here, given that I think all Remnants - at least Alpha Core'd ones - would have it.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 13, 2021, 04:36:06 PM
I did, actually, edit my game files to the new Cryoblaster damage - without changing its flux cost - and it seems to be at least mostly fine?

Usable, definitely. Optimal... Maybe not? I'll admit to primarily using it on Tempests, which will be losing HEF next patch... but even on non-HEF ships it performed acceptably.

Keep in mind that due to Cryoblaster's particular damage profile, even with no direct nerfs in 0.951 it'd still be losing 40% off of most of its hull damage against Al-core Remnants with Elite Damage Control ("hull damage over 500 points in a single hit has the portion above 500 reduced by 40%"), so Cryoblasters might become relegated to taking out non-Remnant trash such as human faction fleets.

Assuming current 1400 damage Cryoblaster, target with Elite Damage Control, and ignoring attacker bonuses:

Heavy Blaster:
500 vs shield
500 vs armor
500 vs hull

Cryoblaster:
350 vs shield
350 vs armor
1040 vs hull

In this situation, Cryoblaster's competitiveness becomes very questionable depending on how long it takes to chew through target shields/armor to reach hull and how effectively the target's shields can continue to be suppressed. Still great vs trash without Elite Damage Control, of course.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 13, 2021, 04:38:42 PM
Cheaper Atropos is welcome.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 13, 2021, 04:42:36 PM
Elite damage control doesn't seem that bad for cryoblaster. Still double the DPS of heavy blaster into hull even in the worst case. It has the same efficiency as the HB into shields so I think it's pretty much a wash there, I wouldn't say the HB or cryoblaster are really going to be effective against remnant shields. I want to test it, but I think 1600->1400 will be pretty reasonable.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 13, 2021, 05:18:07 PM
I wrote this huge post about missile balance, posted it in the wrong thread, then decided to do some testing myself and found myself disagreeing with myself so there's that... :P

Long story short: Harpoons absolutely need to do the damage they do. I took their damage down but gave them better guidance and found that even when they landed it was like "big deal." Slower, more powerful Atropos basically never hit and you felt like you were wasting them. Harpoons vs. Atropos is a non-issue. They're just opposite sides of the same coin: one does slightly more damage with better guidance but with less ammo. The other is more ubiquitous, a little harder to land but with more ammo to compensate. I'm not sure if we need both but the Atropos is more of a fighter weapon at this point so as long as it works there, I'm fine with it.

I think the Atropos was originally intended to be between the Harpoon and Reaper (wasn't it 2000 damage?) but 2000 damage Atropos on Daggers/Tridents would be insane. I'd prefer ship-mounted Atropos be 2000 damage and Fighter-mounted Atropos stay as-is but the game would have to tell you that somehow and that's more effort than it's worth. However, at the end of the day, we're talking about a missile system confined to Small Mounts. It's a blip on the balance radar, all things considered. If there were Medium Atropos pods or Hurricanes fired Atropos at the split, maybe it'd be worth debating but as it is, it's no big deal to me.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 13, 2021, 07:08:27 PM
I think the Atropos was originally intended to be between the Harpoon and Reaper (wasn't it 2000 damage?) but 2000 damage Atropos on Daggers/Tridents would be insane. I'd prefer ship-mounted Atropos be 2000 damage and Fighter-mounted Atropos stay as-is but the game would have to tell you that somehow and that's more effort than it's worth. However, at the end of the day, we're talking about a missile system confined to Small Mounts. It's a blip on the balance radar, all things considered. If there were Medium Atropos pods or Hurricanes fired Atropos at the split, maybe it'd be worth debating but as it is, it's no big deal to me.
The fast 2k damage Atropos from 0.7.2 was the best Atropos (even at 3 and 6 OP), and one of the few that did not need old Missile Specialization 10 to be good, and that old overpowered version of Missile Specialization 10 has been gone for a long time.

I would certainly like the old 2k Atropos return to ships while the current Atropos is used by the fighters.

But it seems Atropos is taking the place of old singleton Harpoons while the latter is becoming a 2 OP budget rack.  At least that is better than ignoring Atropos for a Hammer rack and doing better if even only one of the Hammers hit.

As for communicating the difference, it should not be any different than with various energy weapons (High Delay) for fighters, except with damage instead of fire rate... or fighter version of Swarmers that are unlimited but only shoot one or two instead of four.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 13, 2021, 08:13:02 PM
I'd suggest add an ammo count to it. Keep the current DPS for a few seconds then let it fall off under sustained fire. It will make the other choices stronger by comparison and increase the scrutiny of Expanded Magazines hullmod.

Hmm, I'll definitely think about that! That sounds like it could be a way to keep the general character of the weapon while reducing how oppressive it can be over sustained periods.


Keep in mind that due to Cryoblaster's particular damage profile, even with no direct nerfs in 0.951 it'd still be losing 40% off of most of its hull damage against Al-core Remnants with Elite Damage Control ("hull damage over 500 points in a single hit has the portion above 500 reduced by 40%"), so Cryoblasters might become relegated to taking out non-Remnant trash such as human faction fleets.
Elite damage control doesn't seem that bad for cryoblaster. Still double the DPS of heavy blaster into hull even in the worst case. It has the same efficiency as the HB into shields so I think it's pretty much a wash there, I wouldn't say the HB or cryoblaster are really going to be effective against remnant shields. I want to test it, but I think 1600->1400 will be pretty reasonable.

Definitely worth noting here: the patch notes are missing a bit about the elite Damage Control effect applying at most once every 2 seconds. So vs a single Cryoblaster, it'd apply to every other shot. Vs a pair, it'd apply to a quarter of the shots, and so on.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: THEASD on November 13, 2021, 09:28:42 PM
suddenly noticed a bug in 0.95:
picking skills for admin in OfficerManagerEvent.createAdmin() doesn't check skills' "player_only" tag, will it be fixed in 0.951?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 14, 2021, 01:25:01 AM
Huh didn't expect those missile changes. Seems cool but it's kinda funny to me that there now exists two versions of the same missile, with one having a literal one missile more, I understand why for gameplay reasons and bonuses but still. Glad for Atropos changes, still sad there's not a medium version that fires two at once. There's so many options for small slots, but then you get to larger options and you only have Reapers as torpedoes.

Is HVD really a problem? I understand it's a comfortable pick on most setups and safe for AI but I really don't think it outshines other options. It takes a long time to do meaningful damage to shields compared to any other kinetic gun. I mean the Mauler changes might make it even more feasible but if it gets nerfed what are we supposed to use at long range? The primary reason I use HVDs is because of AI, not because it's overperforming or something.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on November 14, 2021, 01:44:58 AM
Is HVD really a problem? I understand it's a comfortable pick on most setups and safe for AI but I really don't think it outshines other options. It takes a long time to do meaningful damage to shields compared to any other kinetic gun. I mean the Mauler changes might make it even more feasible but if it gets nerfed what are we supposed to use at long range? The primary reason I use HVDs is because of AI, not because it's overperforming or something.

Yeah, I never put HVD on player ship variants, except maybe a beams Paragon. It's a mistake-proof AI weapon, but player can do better.

Mauler changes are a big nerf - HE burst is much easier to counter than HE pressure by shield flickering, and AI already does that at high flux.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 14, 2021, 05:17:47 AM
Why does anyone think HVD should be nerfed? ??? I have never seen a super-strong build that spams HVDs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 14, 2021, 06:07:09 AM
Why does anyone think HVD should be nerfed? ??? I have never seen a super-strong build that spams HVDs.
I only use them on four lance Paragon, which is not good enough against Radiants.  Against Ordos, DPS of HVDs are too low, and I use heavy needlers instead.  And since Ordos-and-Radiant killing is the bar to aim for, loadouts that do not work well against them get phased out in the end.

If anything, HVD is too weak.  Not enough DPS and efficiency.  It is good earlier in the game against weaker and more cowardly human opponents, but not against the advancing wall of doom of Ordos late in the game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 14, 2021, 07:10:10 AM
Why does anyone think HVD should be nerfed? ??? I have never seen a super-strong build that spams HVDs.
Well I would have spammed them on some ships but they are OP expensive.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sarissofoi on November 14, 2021, 07:14:46 AM
You guys don't get the MASTER PLAN.
Everything will be nerfed until there is no fun left.
Spoiler
Then game will be ready for Steam release.
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 14, 2021, 07:15:57 AM
I use HVD on Ventures, as the need to stay out of reach, but it just feels too weak to be on any useful frontline ship.

sadly there is no reliable strong medium anti armor option for either Energy or Ballistics with a range of 700 to 800.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 14, 2021, 07:19:51 AM
inb4 Alex actually wanted to buff HVD (unlikely, but would be funny)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 14, 2021, 08:14:26 AM
I use HVD on Ventures, as the need to stay out of reach, but it just feels too weak to be on any useful frontline ship.

sadly there is no reliable strong medium anti armor option for either Energy or Ballistics with a range of 700 to 800.
Venture does not seem like endgame material.  Venture feels like entry-level cruiser for the early-game.

HVD is okay against human fleets, just not against Remnants (the only enemies that matter at endgame).

Last release, I used to use HVDs and Mauler on Falcon and Eagle, and they were effective against human fleets.  Once I started fighting (the weaker 0.9.1) Remnants, they overran my Falcons and Eagles.  I swapped the HVDs out for heavy needlers and Falcon and Eagle had a fighting chance against the Remnants.  Similarly, I replaced HVD and four lance Paragon for needler, lance, and plasma Paragon and it started putting pain on Radiants.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 14, 2021, 09:27:34 AM
I run 5x HVD on legion XIV, and maybe on a falcon or eagle occasionally, but that's about it.

I only use it for AI manipulation purposes, to encourage the AI the hang back. I really don't understand the desire to nerf it. It feels underwhelming as is to me. I felt the same way about the mauler though, so there's obviously some major disconnect on the topic of long range ballistics here.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 14, 2021, 09:36:58 AM
I appreciate the added feedback regarding HVD! That actually more or less matches up with the *intent* behind how it's set up, so I'm glad it seems to be functioning more like that and, well, not more like how I was concerned it was.

I think the Atropos was originally intended to be between the Harpoon and Reaper (wasn't it 2000 damage?) but 2000 damage Atropos on Daggers/Tridents would be insane. I'd prefer ship-mounted Atropos be 2000 damage and Fighter-mounted Atropos stay as-is but the game would have to tell you that somehow and that's more effort than it's worth. However, at the end of the day, we're talking about a missile system confined to Small Mounts. It's a blip on the balance radar, all things considered. If there were Medium Atropos pods or Hurricanes fired Atropos at the split, maybe it'd be worth debating but as it is, it's no big deal to me.

Yep, that's exactly the history of it! And it feels like it's at least easier to balanced a ship-board Atropos around it having 1200 damage than it would be to balance the fighters around a 2000 damage one. And, hopefully, with the reduction in OP cost, it'll see more use.

Huh didn't expect those missile changes. Seems cool but it's kinda funny to me that there now exists two versions of the same missile, with one having a literal one missile more, I understand why for gameplay reasons and bonuses but still.

Hah, I know what you mean. Still, this is a change I'm actually low-key excited about. It feels like the (Double) version should be a viable "budget" alternative, especially for ships with multiple missile mounts that can still get a decent salvo off with one-per-shot. Of course, they'd also get more out of the extra missile in the standard racks, but at an OP premium for both that missile and the increased rate of fire. So it *seems* like this should add some real choices!


Glad for Atropos changes, still sad there's not a medium version that fires two at once. There's so many options for small slots, but then you get to larger options and you only have Reapers as torpedoes.

Hmm. Reapers (and some other weapon line examples notwithstanding), I'm generally not a fan of "same thing but bigger" weapons - or, at least, that's not the first place I want to go. I mean, it's hard to avoid to a certain extent, especially for certain weapon types that are pretty core to the game - the autocannon line comes to mind here. And, really, the Reaper is pretty core too - it's the quintessential torpedo, and its existence is definitely a balance consideration, or perhaps even "pillar" :)

So that said, if I really wanted to add a new medium or large torpedo, my preference would be to go for something entirely new! Seems like there's a lot of design room to explore there. Maybe something that's very heavily anti-armor with scripted armor damage (like the Breach on steroids, hard to stop, and with very limited ammo). Or some kind of ion-torpedo that spawns a ton of EMP arcs on impact but only does energy damage, so it's more of a disabler. Or indeed something guided like the Atropos; that could be interesting as well, though it might be more useful with a longer range, if it's in a non-small slot. Or, or, an energy torpedo with a flux cost. ... getting a bit too into this, I think. But yeah, it seems like there's a lot of fun options to consider here.



I felt the same way about the mauler though, so there's obviously some major disconnect on the topic of long range ballistics here.

The mauler changes aren't a nerf - or, well, they're not intended as one. Consider also that the improved accuracy is a bigger concern given that Gunnery Implants only reduces recoil by 25% now (and you'd have to get Armored Weapon Mounts to get the other 25%). I wouldn't necessarily call the changes a buff - I think they're closer to being that than a nerf, but it's more just giving the mauler a different feel and role. And it's also one in which it could be buffed more safely if need be, than it is in its current state, where I think it's too easy to make it too strong.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 14, 2021, 10:17:50 AM
The two-shot Harpoon looks like it would be useful for ships with enough missile mounts and maybe stop the AI from panic firing them all on the first Hound or overloaded ship they detect.

For Sabots, I usually use them on ships with (or had) no good anti-shield options (e.g., any high-tech ship without a large mount or ballistic mount) and need as many Sabots as I can get to let them hurt things with relatively inefficient energy weapons, so I probably would not use the budget rack.

As for nu-Mauler, it would be a nerf if the AI shield flickers more, especially HVD and nu-Mauler combo.  It does not shield flicker against classic Mauler.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 14, 2021, 10:28:53 AM
I'm generally not a fan of "same thing but bigger" weapons - or, at least, that's not the first place I want to go. I mean, it's hard to avoid to a certain extent, especially for certain weapon types that are pretty core to the game - the autocannon line comes to mind here.
Oh yeah I'm well aware of that, we're pretty much on the same page. I'd take a new unique weapon over double barrelled anything, any day. Atropos just came to mind because I barely ever use it on ships which is a shame because it looks cool, hopefully I'll start using them more with the new changes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 14, 2021, 11:01:23 AM
If I were going to do a medium Atropos, I'd probably go in the direction of single shot, slowish reload, extensive-or-perhaps-regenerating ammunition. Vanilla does not have a good medium HE missile with endurance to it; the Pilum used to be that, but the missiles are too slow now...

...Hm. There's a notion for a Pilum buff: Make the missiles start off fast(er) and then slow down - make it so it's possible to use them as a short-range armor-breacher, without making them any stronger at long ranges.

Edit: TODO: Actually try using breach missile pods.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 14, 2021, 12:53:47 PM
High ammo low ROF medium HE missile sounds really nice tbh. HE Missiles right now are all insta delete one or two ships and then do nothing for the rest of combat type weapons.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 14, 2021, 03:11:33 PM
High ammo low ROF medium HE missile sounds really nice tbh. HE Missiles right now are all insta delete one or two ships and then do nothing for the rest of combat type weapons.
Breach sort of does this, but it is not very useful because of its weaknesses.  They seem like beefier and more sluggish Swarmers, but they last longer.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 14, 2021, 03:46:56 PM
If you want a new Weapon, how about a tractor beam:
Large Energy Mounted constant beam
Kinetic beam(they are just funny, and fits lore)
Some not much EMP dmg
If it is not blocked by shields it drags the target closer, and increases phase cool down.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sly on November 14, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
In my experience, Breach is a good missile to use en masse in a wolf pack of frigates and a few destroyers. Easily cracks a pirate Venture open like a tin can. You don't get the killing power of a less specialized missile, but it lasts longer with 0.95 AI, is more reliable against PD, and frees up a little OP.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 14, 2021, 04:25:19 PM
The lack of Energy missiles in the game is...disturbing. Just sayin' :P You really could go wild with them: disablers, slow-moving death balls, chain-effects...the sky is the limit. Even more traditional Energy missiles pose an interesting dilemma: a 2000 damage Energy missile is a moderate hit against both shields and hull but if it also was an Ion hit, I really don't want to get disabled! At least something like that would give the Sabot some competition: depending on ammo, OP, etc.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 14, 2021, 04:34:37 PM
Atropos rebalance as an energy torpedo could be pretty cool.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Rojnaz on November 14, 2021, 05:38:58 PM
I have been using the Gremlin a lot lately, it's a fun little ship, reliable as a "Double Light Needler Brawler" or "Annihilator Rocket Launcher Assassin", can't wait to try Phase Anchor with it, Sounds like fun.

Right now Gremlin (LP) doesn't feel good to use, it eats it own CR too fast, id like to see Gremlin (LP) have access to Accelerated Ammo Feeder instead of Safety Overrides, it would have synergy with Phase Anchor and it would feel different from the rest of the Phase Ships, without being better than them.
Thematically, could make sense as an "Ill-Advised Modification" because doing continuous fire with a Phase Ship it's a bad idea.

Anyway, the update looks great, the ships with rugged construction are my favorites, really want to test the derrelict drones.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 14, 2021, 05:43:37 PM
Any chance the player won't be able to personally govern colonies?
Or piggybacking colony-related benefits onto non-colony skills?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 14, 2021, 05:51:59 PM
suddenly noticed a bug in 0.95:
picking skills for admin in OfficerManagerEvent.createAdmin() doesn't check skills' "player_only" tag, will it be fixed in 0.951?

(Forgot to say: thank you, fixed this up!)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 14, 2021, 06:05:04 PM
The lack of Energy missiles in the game is...disturbing. Just sayin' :P You really could go wild with them: disablers, slow-moving death balls, chain-effects...the sky is the limit. Even more traditional Energy missiles pose an interesting dilemma: a 2000 damage Energy missile is a moderate hit against both shields and hull but if it also was an Ion hit, I really don't want to get disabled! At least something like that would give the Sabot some competition: depending on ammo, OP, etc.

In my experience from playing with mods torpedoes with an energy damage type are very difficult from a balance perspective because large shot size energy has no weaknesses, and torpedoes are by nature very large impacts. Something like a 2000 damage energy missile will strip the armor of cruisers in a single shot: the only effective defense against them is shields, no ship in the game wants to take that kind of hit to armor! But they do double the damage the damage vs shields than an HE torpedo does, so blocking them with shields is half as effective.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Caymon Joestar on November 14, 2021, 06:13:06 PM
Any chance the player won't be able to personally govern colonies?
Or piggybacking colony-related benefits onto non-colony skills?

wat? Why would you want this?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 14, 2021, 06:26:26 PM
Any chance the player won't be able to personally govern colonies?
Or piggybacking colony-related benefits onto non-colony skills?

wat? Why would you want this?

1: Plenty of arguments why, see this thread - https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=22294.0

2: To provide more ways of buffing colonies through skills without increasing the number of skills
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Deshara on November 15, 2021, 04:08:26 AM
I wonder if part of it is once a ship's shields are down or it's overloaded, it's weapons are no longer firing being disabled, it feels more like a chore than a fight, despite perhaps taking an equal amount of time compared to a more mobile and/or shielded enemy.  It's like the Monitor - next to impossible to kill, but unable to actually do any harm, and thus can be considered annoying in the opposing fleet.

Someone suggested disabled weapons still being able to fire at half rate or whatever. I think that would help a lot both for fighting tough ships and to make it suck less when your own weapons get disabled.

Engines could probably do with a similar thing - flamed out ships still having a few engines.

prey did this, had weapon durability but when your weapon's reaches 0 it doesn't break, it just jams every time you fire it after it fires, turning all guns into single-shot manually operated guns.
which i really, really, really liked.
i could see SS rotating something similar onto itself; instead of weapons getting disabled or engines flamed out by enemy damage (barring catastrophic hits), they get put into an "unstable" state. Using an unstable weapon causes it to become disabled temporarily, & using an unstable engine causes it to flame out after a delay. So instead of being rendered unable to do things by the enemy's actions -- which can be not-great, you are rendered only able to do 1 thing by the enemy's actions -- which can be compelling. In a sort of, having to make a leap of faith by picking a direction u think ur gonna want to be going for the next 4-12 seconds & giving it a burn until the engines flame out leaving u coasting in the direction u picked, kind of way.
So instead of taking a stray shot to the aft while approaching an enemy Onslaught in ur frigate causing you guarenteed death, that shot to the engines instead leaves your engines unstable, allowing you to use what gas is left in the burner to try & halt your approach & leave yourself coasting away from the gigantic death-monster instead of towards like u were when u took the hit


The lack of Energy missiles in the game is...disturbing. Just sayin' :P You really could go wild with them: disablers, slow-moving death balls, chain-effects...the sky is the limit. Even more traditional Energy missiles pose an interesting dilemma: a 2000 damage Energy missile is a moderate hit against both shields and hull but if it also was an Ion hit, I really don't want to get disabled! At least something like that would give the Sabot some competition: depending on ammo, OP, etc.

In my experience from playing with mods torpedoes with an energy damage type are very difficult from a balance perspective because large shot size energy has no weaknesses, and torpedoes are by nature very large impacts. Something like a 2000 damage energy missile will strip the armor of cruisers in a single shot: the only effective defense against them is shields, no ship in the game wants to take that kind of hit to armor! But they do double the damage the damage vs shields than an HE torpedo does, so blocking them with shields is half as effective.

plus any energy torpedo that does have its damage balanced against its utility winds up feeling really bad as a torpedo. Energy torps have 2 textures to them; they hit way too hard for what they are, or they hit way too not-hard for what they are. The sort of damage alpha that a torpedo calls for doesn't work well with universal damage type. It's best to specialize them so u have an excuse to make them heinous.
What I really want to see is a frag torpedo. A lot of missiles are listed as finishers but I want to see a finisher; a MIRV full of cluster bombs that doesn't start firing until after it's entered an enemy ship (as in, it doesn't "impact" like a normal missile, it flies thru the ship like a fighter but invisible to the player as it does, dealing damage (which the player can see in the form of explosions) as it goes & "impacts" the armor on the far side of the ship when it attempts to exit the target & blows up instead of overshooting. The sort of thing you can sink into an Onslaught thru a gap in its armor & watch it get hollowed out. The sort of thing that turns a flamed-out Hound into a cloud of dust & echoing screams
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 15, 2021, 05:04:22 AM
The lack of Energy missiles in the game is...disturbing. Just sayin' :P You really could go wild with them: disablers, slow-moving death balls, chain-effects...the sky is the limit. Even more traditional Energy missiles pose an interesting dilemma: a 2000 damage Energy missile is a moderate hit against both shields and hull but if it also was an Ion hit, I really don't want to get disabled! At least something like that would give the Sabot some competition: depending on ammo, OP, etc.

In my experience from playing with mods torpedoes with an energy damage type are very difficult from a balance perspective because large shot size energy has no weaknesses, and torpedoes are by nature very large impacts. Something like a 2000 damage energy missile will strip the armor of cruisers in a single shot: the only effective defense against them is shields, no ship in the game wants to take that kind of hit to armor! But they do double the damage the damage vs shields than an HE torpedo does, so blocking them with shields is half as effective.

All true. But a hypothetical 2000 damage energy torpedo is half as powerful as a Reaper against armor and twice as good against shields, and we deal with Reapers all the time. The balancing levers you pull are ammo, OP cost, delivery methods, ease to shoot down, etc. The damage itself isn’t the only factor to consider. Honestly, if you do take a hit on hull, this torpedo does less damage than any other finisher except a Harpoon. So, even when it does hit, you’re not getting the same “oomph” as the others. The trade off is that the shield hit might cause an overload.

As long as the other balance levers are in place, an energy torpedo (to me) is no better or worse than an HE one: it has its own pros and cons.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 15, 2021, 05:25:33 AM
My 2 cents on a few raised points:
Commerce was the best industry slot for making money by a factor of 2.5 or more, but it doesn't supply any goods for reducing maintenance and has that stability penalty. I'm not sure if 25% is too harsh or not, it depends on how the item and upgrades are changed as well.
My guess, too harsh on its own without upgrades, but not harsh enough after it is thrice upgraded with SP, Dealmaker, and Alpha Core.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 15, 2021, 07:25:11 AM
All true. But a hypothetical 2000 damage energy torpedo is half as powerful as a Reaper against armor and twice as good against shields, and we deal with Reapers all the time. The balancing levers you pull are ammo, OP cost, delivery methods, ease to shoot down, etc. The damage itself isn’t the only factor to consider. Honestly, if you do take a hit on hull, this torpedo does less damage than any other finisher except a Harpoon. So, even when it does hit, you’re not getting the same “oomph” as the others. The trade off is that the shield hit might cause an overload.

As long as the other balance levers are in place, an energy torpedo (to me) is no better or worse than an HE one: it has its own pros and cons.

I'll point out a hypothetical 2000 energy damage torpedo is theoretically 1/4 as powerful as a Reaper against armor since 4000 high explosive * 2 = 8000 (2000 vs 8000), not half.  However, Reapers are ludicrous overkill against any armor in the game, even a fully kitted Onslaught XIV with officer.  Any ship taking a Reaper to armor will have 0 armor left in that spot.  As Thaago said, 2000 armor damage will pretty much leave any cruiser not named Dominator with 0 armor in a single hit, along with half the capitals.

A 2000 energy damage torpedo is equally good against shields as a Reaper since 4000 high explosive * 0.5 = 2000 (2000 vs 2000), not double.  It is also equally good as a single Sabot (200 kinetic*5*2 = 2000), but given the 3 to 1 ammo and no non-linear effects against shields, makes it about 1/3 as good (probably less if it's a true unguided torpedo) as a typical set of 3 Sabots. 

So, we've already hit the first balancing point, which is what job is a  single 2000 damage energy torpedo filling?  It's straight up less effective than a Reaper if there's a 1 to 1 correspondence in ammo for these things (armor penetration is essentially equal since nothing in the game has 5000 armor, hull is half, shield is the same).  So do we field them like Hammers? 2 to 1 ammo?  Then when considered in aggregate, said energy torpedo two pack is essentially twice the armor penetration, same hull damage, and twice the shield, at the very first adjustment to ammo.  So ammo perhaps a too coarse balancing knob.

Do we make them not torpedoes and turn them into some kind of guided munition like Atropos with 1 to 1 ammo correspondence with Reapers?  That's also is pretty coarse balancing point, since as soon as these become guided, you run into the mass Harpoon style situation - but fired at the start of combat instead of when something gets overloaded. 

You're basically down to how hard this thing is to shoot down or dodge as your balancing point, which is difficult and somewhat nebulous.  Overall it sounds like something hard to balance to me.  Not impossible, but really hard as you're trying to find some use case that doesn't lead to simply replacing Reapers, Sabots or being strictly worse than either.   We've already got Reaper vs Hammer in the unguided armor opening space.  Single big hit sabots were considered too strong at 750 kinetic (21 times less penetration than a Reaper) and split into the current EMP + split shot version with 80 times less penetration.

My experience with guided energy missile equivalents to Harpoons (even with damage significantly reduced from 750 energy) in tournament is they're openers, whose punishment for not taking it on the shield is it's a finisher.  They really are mostly competing with Sabots.  And ships on the receiving end either overload due to being forced to take it on shield, or take hull damage immediately because their armor is gone.  Or more usually, 10 of these come in and the ship overloads and blows up, since the excess beyond shield overload isn't wasted at all when it hits armor and hull.  Just spam one missile type until dead.  Or they get toned down the point where 10 of these don't overload shields.  Again, the hard to balance issue.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FreonRu on November 15, 2021, 09:03:21 AM
Good day. I apologize in advance for using google translate.

All the changes are interesting and can't wait to try it out. Is there a chance that the update will be released before the new year?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 15, 2021, 09:05:57 AM
I mean, antimatter SRM is already in the game at 1000 energy damage with unlimited ammo, and while it's a borderline OP omega weapon, I don't think it's so far unbalanced from the rest of the weapons in the game that you couldn't balance it down to non-omega weapon level. It's worth noting that adding a flux cost to fire is a reasonable balance lever that has already been used.

Also, 2000 damage is a quite high damage level, there's a ton of balance space below that where a hypothetical energy torpedo would be significantly less effective.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 15, 2021, 09:16:25 AM
All the changes are interesting and can't wait to try it out. Is there a chance that the update will be released before the new year?
I mean there's a chance but that's not really saying anything. If it's any consolation this should be the majority of patch notes, and since Alex has entered the playtesting phase, it should be pretty Soon™-ish. I'd say there's a 80% chance of the release happening this year.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 15, 2021, 09:47:39 AM
So far, whenever patch notes drop like this (after months of blogs), release is relatively imminent.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zakaluka on November 15, 2021, 10:20:52 AM
Something I have not seen asked (sorry if I missed it, only skimmed the 23 pages of comments)

Added slipstreams to hyperspace
   New slipstream systems form in hyperspace twice per cycle
   Can drastically speed up travel and cut fuel use
   Loosely follow certain patterns that can be figured out


Will slipstreams affect colony accessibility? I mean, if you get favorable slipstreams it seems like our accessibility bonus for "proximity to other colonies" should go up, and if the slipstreams are useless the bonus/penalty should remain as is now.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 15, 2021, 10:47:00 AM
@Hiruma Kai

For some reason I had 4000 damage in my head but I thought it was 2000 HE not 4000 HE.

All your points are valid but there are still other levers to pull. Maybe it’s a 1000 damage torpedo with an extra 1000 damage toward armor (to bring the shield cracking down a smidge). If you spam them, it takes 10 or so to overload a generic Cruiser and another 5-6 to defeat it. Meanwhile, a combination of Sabots and Hammers do the same thing in half the ammo. That’s just running down the well-worn path of generalist vs. specialist.

Alternatively, you factor in an EMP payload. If you had a 1000 damage dumb-fire but it also carried a potent disabling effect, you’d have a pseudo-Sabot, pseudo-Harpoon that isn’t as good as either in their respective niches but still generally effective. You could also do a guided version but again, you don’t want to overlap roles too much.

OP cost can also be considered. They might just cost more for the same amount of ammo/damage and that makes it prohibitively expensive to fill a ship up with them. Long-reload times would also blunt spamming them in such a way that they’re too optimal.

Harder to balance, sure, but not impossible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 15, 2021, 11:26:05 AM
Will slipstreams affect colony accessibility? I mean, if you get favorable slipstreams it seems like our accessibility bonus for "proximity to other colonies" should go up, and if the slipstreams are useless the bonus/penalty should remain as is now.

Thoughts?

I don't believe this was clearly answered, so some speculation may ensue.  However, calculating how slipstreams affect the accessibility stat might be as simple as just measuring distance to nearest active slipstream and proportionally increasing accessibility, or as complicated as just not bothering.  Thus, having accessibility fluctuate twice cycle might lead to weird results.  If anything, it prolly won't affect accessibility at all, just maybe profitability of industries and the speed at which trade fleets arrive (so shorter shortages, basically).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 15, 2021, 11:30:28 AM
Will slipstreams affect colony accessibility? I mean, if you get favorable slipstreams it seems like our accessibility bonus for "proximity to other colonies" should go up, and if the slipstreams are useless the bonus/penalty should remain as is now.

They won't! They're too transient and I think that'd just amount to a random, unpredictable-feeling boost that complicates things without a good reason for it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on November 15, 2021, 12:30:35 PM
Will slipstreams affect colony accessibility? I mean, if you get favorable slipstreams it seems like our accessibility bonus for "proximity to other colonies" should go up, and if the slipstreams are useless the bonus/penalty should remain as is now.

They won't! They're too transient and I think that'd just amount to a random, unpredictable-feeling boost that complicates things without a good reason for it.
In-universe, maybe explain it as traders being skittish about using slipstreams because they're frequently used by pirates to set ambushes, something the player might have personal experience with at that point?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zakaluka on November 15, 2021, 01:06:06 PM
makes sense. thanks for answering.

Removed Colony Mangement, Space Operations, Planetary Operations


Does this include the same for administrators, or just the player's skills?

If the former, will there be any new way to get back that accessibility / stability?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 15, 2021, 01:13:02 PM
This includes administrators.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mortrag on November 15, 2021, 01:48:00 PM
All the changes are interesting and can't wait to try it out. Is there a chance that the update will be released before the new year?
I mean there's a chance but that's not really saying anything. If it's any consolation this should be the majority of patch notes, and since Alex has entered the playtesting phase, it should be pretty Soon™-ish. I'd say there's a 80% chance of the release happening this year.

I'm not so optimistic, first quarter of 2022 seems more likely.

Nonetheless, very interesting changes, great work Alex.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Malorn on November 15, 2021, 11:35:39 PM
I swear every time I read these changelogs, it's such a difference from other development group. I read a line and think "Yup, that's an improvement that makes sense".

So many low hanging fruit are ignored by many game companies, it's really great that Alex seems capable of actually understanding the game he create, and how it feels to play it.

Just feels really good to see something like that.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vanshilar on November 16, 2021, 01:02:54 AM
  • Point Defense:
    • Reduced bonus damage to fighters to +50% (was: 100%)
    • Elite effect: increased PD range bonus to 200 (was: 100)

Hmm does this affect the base range of PD weapons (i.e. thus affected by ITU etc.)? Thinking this means Devastator would have a base range of 1100 and Heavy Machine Gun would have a base range of 650 (almost that of Heavy Needler), plus the light (dual) machine guns would have their base range increased to 500, which makes them almost useful as just regular weapons in their own right (albeit still short-ranged)...spicy.

  • Hybrid (and other multi-type) weapons can now also be placed in a one-size-larger slot of their type like other weapons
    • For example, a small hybrid weapon can be placed in a medium hybrid slot (but not in a medium energy slot)

Just wanted to note, small hybrids (like the minipulser) can already be placed into medium energy slots, and same with medium hybrids (like cryoblaster) into large energy slots. They can't be placed into ballistic slots of a larger size though. Not sure if that was intentional or not (though they say they count as energy in terms of stat modifiers).

  • High Scatter Amplifier:
    • Added 10% damage bonus
    • Now reduces base beam range to 500/600/700 on frigates/destroyers/larger ships
    • (Previously: reduced range by half)

Similar question here as the PD one: Does this also affect Advanced Optics? Since I *believe* the current HSA affects AO as well (so that AO only gives a bonus of 100 range instead of 200). Obviously the difference here is that if it does affect AO, then a cruiser using HSA would have its beam range reduced from 700*1.55 + 200 = 1285 to 700*1.55 = 1085.

Ship AI:

I read through this with interest because I think the biggest issue with the game right now is the AI. It gets many situations wrong, and in many cases, behaves counterintuitively. For me I would actually prefer improved AI over new features, although I know this varies by player (and "new and improved AI" doesn't really bring new players to the game, it's new features that do).

Generally what the player would like the AI to do (at least for front-line ships) is if it's at low flux, it should run in and fight, while if it's at high flux, it should back off and vent. But when a ship gets into trouble i.e. at high flux, I'll often see nearby ships at low flux continue to hang back. That's very much undesirable behavior. There seems to be something in the AI's "fight or flight" decision-making that says if it's close to an enemy ship, it'll rush in to get even closer (such as a Fury doing plasma burn to go nose-to-nose even though it's already in range of its shortest-ranged weapon), but if it's far enough away, it'll just hang back even at low flux -- even though other ships near it are rushing in. So I end up with ships basically nose-to-nose at high flux in the front, while ships in the back will be at low flux but make no move to head in and fight; the forward ships commit "too much" while the rearward ships commit "not enough".

I don't know if it's missiles or something else that cause this sort of behavior. It's basically unreproducible, but it happens fairly frequently -- I can give plenty of screenshots of it happening, but it's hard to tell when it's going to happen in advance to document it to diagnose what went wrong with the AI.

Something else that is fairly reproducible though is that apparently, if an Odyssey has the plasma cannon equipped, it'll be less likely to go in and fight, and prefer to just stay away. Again, this is opposite of desirable behavior (a ship with more weapons should be more willing to fight, not less). I'm not sure if it's a quirk with broadside behavior, or if it has something to do with the AI script you fixed up (about large ships not chasing after small ships). But this is pretty repeatable.

I posted a video of this behavior here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iImQCs4oLwo

What you can see is that if the Odyssey has a plasma cannon, it'll stay away. But if I remove the plasma cannon, making no other changes (leaving the weapon slot empty and the 30 OP unused), it'll go in and fight. This is with reckless officers, under full assault, so they are supposed to be as aggressive as possible.

An example of the "closer ships rush in to fight, farther ships stay away" AI behavior can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QiaL46a4U8

I can send you a save file if it'll help you see what's going on, although the videos show the complete fleet setup. Hope the AI can be improved to not have these sorts of issues.

(As an aside: If that large energy slot is filled with a HIL, this 3-Odyssey, 6-Hyperion fleet has a pretty good chance of killing the 2-Ordos, 7-Radiant fleet without taking any losses, all under complete AFK, AI control other than the very beginning stages of the battle where the player sets up the fleet as shown in the video. The Odysseys do the bulk of the work in mulching any ships that get close, while the Hyperions run around killing small ships and distracting the enemy fleet, preventing it from surrounding the Odysseys. So it's very close to an "automated" Ordos-farming setup, and against a 2-Ordos, 7-Radiant fleet at that for the +500% XP bonus.)

One command that might be nice in the command UI is some sort of "back off" command to a specific ship. Usually when a ship is under heavy fire, I want it to back off, but I want other ships to go in. But for example if I set an "avoid" command to get it to back off, all the nearby ships would move away instead. Nor do I necessarily want the nearby ships to rush in headlong at that "avoid" ship (by commanding them to attack that ship to override the "avoid" command for them). I simply want a particular ship to temporarily get away from nearby enemy ships, so that it doesn't stay in and die.

Also, for some reason, the AI seems to not like using the cryoblaster, even when it should. A Fury will use it just fine, but on an Onslaught for example, the ship seems to prioritize using other weapons instead, so the cryoblaster ends up being rarely used for some reason. Not sure how the AI picks whether or not to use a given weapon in different circumstances -- but it seems to not like the cryoblaster.

  • Fixed issues with Hyperion's phase teleporter AI that:
    • Could cause it to teleport to unsafe locations
    • Could cause it to teleport away from danger too conservatively

This was sorely needed, since the Hyperion (or more generally: any ship which can teleport) should have the highest flux threshold at which it decides to bug out, since it can at any time near-instantly move to near-guaranteed safety with teleport.

-----

Some analysis on the cryoblaster change:

Versus hull (assuming residual armor from 100 to 0, meaning target ship originally had from 2000 to 0 base armor), heavy blasters currently do 417-500 DPS (i.e. 417 vs 100 residual armor, 500 vs 0 residual armor) while cryoblasters do 1280-1600 DPS, accounting for hit strength. Against Damage Control (elite), cryoblasters would do 968-1160 DPS instead. With cryoblasters being changed to 1400, they will now do 1089-1400 DPS, and 853-1040 DPS against Damage Control (elite). So instead of being 3.1x heavy blaster, they'll be somewhere between 2.1x heavy blaster and 2.7x heavy blaster, depending on how much of their damage gets eaten up by Damage Control (elite). So it'll be around a 14-34% nerf for them versus hull. This is shown graphically in the attachment. (For the cryoblasters, the top line represents without Damage Control (elite), while the bottom line represents against Damage Control (elite), so the actual average damage will be somewhere in between those two lines.)

Had it been 1250, then it would've done 947-1250 DPS, or 768-950 DPS vs Damage Control (elite), for a 24-40% nerf.

Against armor, however, the cryoblaster's (effective) hit strength drops from 400 to 350, compared with heavy blaster's 500. Right now, a "stock" heavy blaster against a "stock" Radiant (i.e. 1500 armor without considering the effect of skills) would take 9 shots to break through armor, assuming it hit the same square all the time. (Hitting different armor squares would increase the number of shots needed.) A cryoblaster would currently take 13 shots. After the nerf (to 1400), it would take 16 shots. So the cryoblaster would take almost twice as long to get through armor before it gets to do its massive hull damage.

So it will be interesting to see whether or not the cryoblaster will still be useful as anti-armor, or if it ends up being better to have something else dedicated to anti-armor. Currently, it's fine to just get by with cryoblasters despite it not being as good as heavy blasters for anti-armor, because the massive anti-hull damage is worth it. That may or may not be the case after the update.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 16, 2021, 02:26:56 AM
  • Point Defense:
    • Reduced bonus damage to fighters to +50% (was: 100%)
    • Elite effect: increased PD range bonus to 200 (was: 100)

Hmm does this affect the base range of PD weapons (i.e. thus affected by ITU etc.)?

Almost certainly not - I believe nothing modifies base range unless it says so explicitly, and so far the only examples are Ballistic Rangefinder and new-HSA. I believe Elite Point Defense is more like "Advanced Optics for PD", where it's a flat bonus added after multiplicative bonuses to base range.

  • High Scatter Amplifier:
    • Added 10% damage bonus
    • Now reduces base beam range to 500/600/700 on frigates/destroyers/larger ships
    • (Previously: reduced range by half)

Similar question here as the PD one: Does this also affect Advanced Optics?

Again I'd think not:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBnfmgrXIAInJPB?format=png&name=900x900)

The tooltip seems to pretty explicitly state that the hullmod modifies base range only, and other modifiers are applied normally afterwards.

Old-HSA reduced Advanced Optics (and all other bonuses, such as ITU) because it's a straight negative multiplier, and those seem to be applied last. I believe this is true for all negative range multipliers, such as from Unstable Injector, ECM penalty, SO beyond 450 range, etc. This is why old-HSA was absolutely crippling to attempt using - it was like SO with a maximum range of 0.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Fenrir on November 16, 2021, 08:40:25 AM
Looking very forward to playing the next patch and thanks a lot.

Just asking if these following terms which seems to be bugs were fix, didn't find them in the notes:
-Ships' fighter bay(s) with built-in wings but removed by converted fighter bay still count towards number-based skills
-objects(supply cages, probes, etc) occasionally spawn at center of stars
-objects(primarily pirate and pather bases) spawn in orbit of one star in a binary/trinary system can "fall into" the other star
(I might have missed them, plz remind me if I did)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 16, 2021, 10:19:51 AM
I swear every time I read these changelogs, it's such a difference from other development group. I read a line and think "Yup, that's an improvement that makes sense".

So many low hanging fruit are ignored by many game companies, it's really great that Alex seems capable of actually understanding the game he create, and how it feels to play it.

Just feels really good to see something like that.

Thank you for your kind words!


Hmm does this affect the base range of PD weapons (i.e. thus affected by ITU etc.)? Thinking this means Devastator would have a base range of 1100 and Heavy Machine Gun would have a base range of 650 (almost that of Heavy Needler), plus the light (dual) machine guns would have their base range increased to 500, which makes them almost useful as just regular weapons in their own right (albeit still short-ranged)...spicy.

Unless something explicitly says "base range" it does not affect the base range.

Just wanted to note, small hybrids (like the minipulser) can already be placed into medium energy slots, and same with medium hybrids (like cryoblaster) into large energy slots. They can't be placed into ballistic slots of a larger size though. Not sure if that was intentional or not (though they say they count as energy in terms of stat modifiers).

Yep, aware - thank you!


Generally what the player would like the AI to do (at least for front-line ships) is if it's at low flux, it should run in and fight, while if it's at high flux, it should back off and vent. But when a ship gets into trouble i.e. at high flux, I'll often see nearby ships at low flux continue to hang back. That's very much undesirable behavior.

It's more complicated than that; coming in when on low flux can still be a bad idea if it gets the ship into a possible crossfire. On the other hand, reckless officers don't care about that, so you should see more or less the behavior you want. What you're describing here, though, sounds like a reckless ship getting ahead of the line - because it doesn't care about crossfires/being flanked - and then non-reckless ships not moving in to support it when it gets in trouble - because they *do* care about that. If that's the case, then this sounds like it's working as intended.

I should say, though, before going further: in the videos you've posted, the AI behavior, specifically for the Odysseys, looks strange. Maybe it's something broadside-ship specific, though I haven't seen anything even similar to what you're observing. It's possible that a mod you're using is factoring in somehow, too. The Odyssey hanging back due to a plasma cannon being installed doesn't make any sense, and I'm not seeing it on my end, hmm.

There seems to be something in the AI's "fight or flight" decision-making that says if it's close to an enemy ship, it'll rush in to get even closer (such as a Fury doing plasma burn to go nose-to-nose even though it's already in range of its shortest-ranged weapon), but if it's far enough away, it'll just hang back even at low flux -- even though other ships near it are rushing in. So I end up with ships basically nose-to-nose at high flux in the front, while ships in the back will be at low flux but make no move to head in and fight; the forward ships commit "too much" while the rearward ships commit "not enough".

I don't know if it's missiles or something else that cause this sort of behavior. It's basically unreproducible, but it happens fairly frequently -- I can give plenty of screenshots of it happening, but it's hard to tell when it's going to happen in advance to document it to diagnose what went wrong with the AI.

This - the concept of "stay away if far away, close in if close" is not a thing in the vanilla AI. It would be fairly trivial for a mod to force it to behave this way by dynamically setting some AI flags on the ship, though... question is what the mod would have been trying to do to have it go so far off the rails. Again, possible that it's some specific vanilla issue that you're running into due to a combination of specific circumstances - but also again, it's not something I've seen at all until just now, and not in vanilla.

Something else that is fairly reproducible though is that apparently, if an Odyssey has the plasma cannon equipped, it'll be less likely to go in and fight, and prefer to just stay away. Again, this is opposite of desirable behavior (a ship with more weapons should be more willing to fight, not less). I'm not sure if it's a quirk with broadside behavior, or if it has something to do with the AI script you fixed up (about large ships not chasing after small ships). But this is pretty repeatable.

I posted a video of this behavior here:

What you can see is that if the Odyssey has a plasma cannon, it'll stay away. But if I remove the plasma cannon, making no other changes (leaving the weapon slot empty and the 30 OP unused), it'll go in and fight. This is with reckless officers, under full assault, so they are supposed to be as aggressive as possible.
An example of the "closer ships rush in to fight, farther ships stay away" AI behavior can be found here:

(Just: acknowledging that the behavior in those videos is indeed odd, even if I don't have an explanation for it.)

I can send you a save file if it'll help you see what's going on, although the videos show the complete fleet setup. Hope the AI can be improved to not have these sorts of issues.

Thank you for the offer! Do you happen to have a vanilla (or very close to it) setup where I might be able to see some of this? The second one - the 5-minute-something video - looks like it's mostly vanilla; here's hoping.

If that's the case - would you mind sending me the save (ideally, pre-fight where I can try to observe this)?

fractalsoftworks [at] gmail [dot] com


Looking very forward to playing the next patch and thanks a lot.

Thank you!

-Ships' fighter bay(s) with built-in wings but removed by converted fighter bay still count towards number-based skills

Are you sure? I don't remember this being an issue, and testing this just now it seems to work fine - I put that hullmod on a Tempest and its bays are then not counted.

-objects(supply cages, probes, etc) occasionally spawn at center of stars

This is a weird one that I haven't been able to fix; somehow recreating the Sector with the same seed puts those in the right orbit.

-objects(primarily pirate and pather bases) spawn in orbit of one star in a binary/trinary system can "fall into" the other star

Hmm, haven't seen this one - unless it's a sub-case of the previous one, in which case I *have* seen it and it's not fixed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 16, 2021, 10:47:18 AM
My experience with plasma Odyssey piloted by (Steady) AI is it plasma burns into the middle of a mob and dies in a crossfire.  If I want to use Odyssey as an AI ship, I need to use mostly beams and missiles just so it will not burn into a mob like an idiot and die, but then it becomes more of a harasser than a beatstick.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Fenrir on November 16, 2021, 12:00:11 PM

-Ships' fighter bay(s) with built-in wings but removed by converted fighter bay still count towards number-based skills

Are you sure? I don't remember this being an issue, and testing this just now it seems to work fine - I put that hullmod on a Tempest and its bays are then not counted.
After a few investigation further into it I realized it was a mod compatibility problem and didn't exists in vanilla plz forgive me and just forget it.


-objects(primarily pirate and pather bases) spawn in orbit of one star in a binary/trinary system can "fall into" the other star

Hmm, haven't seen this one - unless it's a sub-case of the previous one, in which case I *have* seen it and it's not fixed.
Not quite, I believe it's that the object had an orbit intersecting with other stars. I think preventing the station spawning at the orbit of ONE OF the stars of a binary/trinary system (with 2 or more stars at center) and only allow it to spawn farther away orbiting the center of mass can eliminate the problem and also prevent it being in between the stars which can be very hard to reach. ps. [REDECATED]
Spoiler
Remnant stations and Hyper Shut
[close]
can also have a similar problem
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 16, 2021, 12:10:42 PM
After a few investigation further into it I realized it was a mod compatibility problem and didn't exists in vanilla plz forgive me and just forget it.

Ah - no worries!

Not quite, I believe it's that the object had an orbit intersecting with other stars. I think preventing the station spawning at the orbit of ONE OF the stars of a binary/trinary system (with 2 or more stars at center) and only allow it to spawn farther away orbiting the center of mass can eliminate the problem and also prevent it being in between the stars which can be very hard to reach. ps. [REDECATED]
Spoiler
Remnant stations and Hyper Shut
[close]
can also have a similar problem

Yeah - the game, as far as I can remember, already does account for this sort of thing. For example, in binary/trinary systems with the stars near each other, things will *generally* orbit the center. So if that's not working somewhere, it's likely because of something specific that happened there and not a general problem, if that makes sense - so it'd help to see.

The Hypershunt sometimes being in the middle of a trinary and hard to reach is very much intentional, though!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vanshilar on November 17, 2021, 10:17:05 PM
Almost certainly not - I believe nothing modifies base range unless it says so explicitly, and so far the only examples are Ballistic Rangefinder and new-HSA. I believe Elite Point Defense is more like "Advanced Optics for PD", where it's a flat bonus added after multiplicative bonuses to base range.

Unless something explicitly says "base range" it does not affect the base range.

Aww darn. Oh well. Welp, presumably the PD range bonus stacks with Advanced Optics, so now I just need to wait for some enterprising mod author to make a 50-small energy slot ship so I can put 50 mining lasers on it for 600*1.55 + 200 + 200 = 1330-range 1500-DPS hard flux beams for 500 flux (and 15 hit strength, harhar). Or well...that Arkgneisis (I think) ship using PD lasers (which still gets up to 1020 range) or something. Will be fun to mess around with.

Come to think of it, HSA will be much more deadly against fighters, since they can't really take much hard flux, even if they could've absorbed the soft flux.

Unassigning skills that boosted officer level/elite skills will result in either the officer becoming a mercenary on a new contract, or losing excess skills

Hmm...does this differentiate between officers that you leveled up, versus officers that you found in cryopods? Not sure if this is why cryopod officers will now be level 5 or 7 but not level 6 (to make it so that level 6 officers were ones that you leveled up, not found). If so, then what happens to officers in the current (0.95a) version of the game, where you can find level 6 cryopod officers? (It's possible that cryopod officers have a tag specifically saying they're from cryopods to get around this or something -- but then maybe it's a level 5 cryopod officer that you leveled to 6.)

Oh, another question: Will the AI be adjusted to not plasma burn into hulks in the ship's way? Since that happens a fair amount of the time, making the ship flameout and often fly into the enemy fleet at high speed and die. (Here's a funny video of an Odyssey doing exactly this: It was lagging behind, unable to figure out how to get around a Radiant hulk, then it decided to plasma burn, hit the hulk, flamed out, and flew past my ships into the enemy fleet at over 300 su, although it survived:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyLdzlOjD9k

I should say, though, before going further: in the videos you've posted, the AI behavior, specifically for the Odysseys, looks strange. Maybe it's something broadside-ship specific, though I haven't seen anything even similar to what you're observing. It's possible that a mod you're using is factoring in somehow, too. The Odyssey hanging back due to a plasma cannon being installed doesn't make any sense, and I'm not seeing it on my end, hmm.

In this case, all the officers are reckless, and the fleet is operating under full assault mode (not sure how that changes things). I'm only using utility mods (to me, the vanilla game's combat, ships, weapons, etc. have so much theoretical and analytical richness that I still haven't gotten "bored" of it nor felt like I've explored all the possible combinations, to want to explore mods thus far this update, especially since my playtime is pretty limited now), although it's always possible that a mod designated "utility" may affect the game's AI.

I took out all the mods I could, leaving only Captain's Log and Detailed Combat Results (I think they can't be removed from an existing save), and redid it with and without the plasma cannon. It can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeS60EXWxVk

I used the non-plasma cannon save first to verify that the Odysseys will attack normally, then loaded the plasma cannon save for the bulk of the video. (I turned on full assault at around 6:17 in the video). For example at around 7 minutes in, you can see Odyssey 3 setting the Radiant as its target, but just stays away firing Hurricanes instead of going in. So this behavior still happens. I tried to find the ship that the Odyssey was targeting to see how it behaved toward its target throughout the fight.

I don't think "stay away if far away, close in if close" is necessarily some command in the vanilla AI. Rather, I'm guessing it's an emergent property based on some different AI decision-making steps. For example, it seems like in this update, the AI over-prioritizes far-away missiles like pilums and proximity charges. Well, the Remnant fleet launches plenty of both (the latter from Flash wings). So it's possible that ships farther away see all those missiles and decide to stay away, while ships closer to the front lines see a juicy enemy target and rush in to attack it. Or sometimes I've seen them target some frigate or another that's behind 3 or 4 other ships, so they might go in to take out what they think is an easy target (since they're ignoring other ships), while that frigate is too far for a ship that's farther away, which targets the bigger ships and decides it's too dangerous so stays away instead.

Or it may be some property of broadside behavior. (Almost all the weapons are on the left side; the only weapons that can hit the right side are the missiles and a couple of minipulsers.) I don't know how the AI treats broadside so can't really comment on that. Or maybe the plasma cannon makes the Odyssey think it'll overflux itself (since its weapon flux becomes greater than its flux dissipation) and thus decides not to go in with broadsides. Don't know.

Yes I do have the save and will send it to you once I've cleaned it up a bit (it's adjusted with things like linking to my custom "number" officer portraits to help me quickly identify which ship is which, so I'll have to edit those back). Another possibility is, since I manually edit the save files by typing in stuff sometimes, I may have inadvertently changed something that affects the AI, although usually it's just stuff like the officer personalities, etc., so I don't see how that may happen, but it's a possibility. This is the "test fleet" that I use to try out different fleets and strategies, so I probably have over a hundred saves of this particular fight (with different fleet setups) at this point, heh.

The setup is fairly straightforward. Start with 3 Odysseys (since they take longer to get into position) and a Hyperion, have the Hyperion grab the upper left objective, one of the Odysseys grab the right objective, set a "Defend" order to the left of the right objective. Once they've grabbed the objectives, deploy the remaining Hyperions, cancel the objective orders (so that they all gather around the "Defend" point), then once they sort of gather up, turn on full assault. After that, no more commands are put in, it's running under pure AI control at that point.

If the Odysseys have HIL in that large energy slot, then the fleet actually has a fair chance of winning the battle, with no losses (it really depends on how the Odysseys lined up at the beginning and if the Hyperions do a good enough job of distraction/harassment, though). I *think* the HIL has a long enough engagement range that the AI will move in rather than sitting back, but I don't really know how the AI works so not sure if that's the reason. I was testing if the plasma cannon would be better (since it does more DPS and does hard flux instead of soft flux) when I encountered this issue.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 18, 2021, 04:09:15 PM
Thank you for sending me the saves! And for the detailed instructions, and the video to go with it to make sure we're looking for the same thing. I can't overstate the amount that this helps with AI issues - they can be so tricky to nail down! I really appreciate it.

So, good news! While I wasn't seeing it to quite the extent you were (probably due to other dev changes, AI and otherwise, making things a bit different), I did definitely observe this behavior. It's specific to broadside ships - what was happening was that the Odyssey would 1) figure that the "optimal broadside angle" was 80-ish degrees, i.e. facing away from the target by almost that much, and 2) would strafe towards the target, while also pressing W, which at that high an angle would make it so it couldn't really close the distance and would circle the target instead.

I think (I didn't verify this) that removing the Plasma Cannon simply made it not worry about using the broadside so much, while putting a HIL in instead of a Plasma Cannon would change some of the "how to broadside" calculations due to the range difference.

What I did is make it so that the ship will face more towards the target (compared to its calculated "ideal" facing for its broadside firepower) if it's further away from the target than it wants to be. So it works fairly nicely - they Odyssey will start out a bit off-center and move towards the target, turning gradually away from it to open up the broadside as it closes into its desired range.

Incidentally: I think removing the IR Pulse lasers from the broadside of that specific loadout will also make the AI move in more reliably, even in the currently-released build.

(Oh, also: I see in the video you're deciding what ship the AI is trying to engage based on what it "targets" - that's not always going to match up. Sometimes it'll target another ship (say, for a missile salvo), for example. This sort of thing is fairly frequent, though; the targeted ship and the ship it's actually trying to maneuver with respect to can be different.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 18, 2021, 05:24:46 PM
Nitpick: Support Doctrine not listed in the changelog.

Also Alex, how do you feel about far more colony bonuses from (primarily non-colony) skills but most of the bonuses dropping off with increasing Colony Size/number of Colonies?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Lulloser on November 19, 2021, 03:35:14 AM
I haven't looked at every post here, but I wanted to know what happens if you hit an enemy fleet(thats entering) in the slipstream, or you hit one while going out.
Or is it unlikely?    I dont wanna hit a massive fleet by accident xD

Can they even use it?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 19, 2021, 04:05:48 AM
I haven't looked at every post here, but I wanted to know what happens if you hit an enemy fleet(thats entering) in the slipstream, or you hit one while going out.
Or is it unlikely?    I dont wanna hit a massive fleet by accident xD

Can they even use it?
Yes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: q-rau on November 19, 2021, 11:45:57 AM
I did always feel like Falcon (P) was one of the better cruiser hulls but 33% increase is pretty harsh...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 19, 2021, 01:16:32 PM
I did always feel like Falcon (P) was one of the better cruiser hulls but 33% increase is pretty harsh...

Even 20 DP is a bargain for how many Sabots you can pack into a Falcon (P) using EMR and Missile Spec, and Sabot spam is one of the most DP-efficient tactics vs [REDACTED] given how strong Sabots currently are.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on November 20, 2021, 07:44:06 AM
Are Falcon(P)s even impressive as AI ships for campaign use? I mean, as player ships - sure, for tournaments against equal DP - sure. But against overwhelming numbers we have to fight in campaign? - I don't see how.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 20, 2021, 09:03:27 AM
Doesn't the +5 DP for the Falcon (P) mean they are 33% stronger in auto-resolve battle?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 20, 2021, 09:51:06 AM
Are Falcon(P)s even impressive as AI ships for campaign use? I mean, as player ships - sure, for tournaments against equal DP - sure. But against overwhelming numbers we have to fight in campaign? - I don't see how.

They are to be honest. They run out of ammo eventually but the combination of high speed, high missiles, and the flux systems being almost entirely available for defense lets them punch out more ships than a normal light cruiser. Plus the advantage of killing enemy ships immediately and tilting the odds in the player's favor for the rest of the fight.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 20, 2021, 10:31:38 AM
Nitpick: Support Doctrine not listed in the changelog.

Thank you, added that in!

Also Alex, how do you feel about far more colony bonuses from (primarily non-colony) skills but most of the bonuses dropping off with increasing Colony Size/number of Colonies?

I don't think that'd be a good idea - or, at least, that's not a direction I want to go in. I think I've touched on the "why" of that somewhere in one of the posts? Or maybe it was in one of the discussion threads. But basically, I don't think "colony is passively a bit better" type bonuses are mechanically interesting enough to have a bunch of them. Once colonies have a more well-defined/established mechanical - and active - role, I could see improving that via skills, maybe. But I still don't want to have many skills like that; colonies aren't the focus of the game in that way and don't warrant this.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 20, 2021, 11:14:48 AM
Doesn't the +5 DP for the Falcon (P) mean they are 33% stronger in auto-resolve battle?
Considering that DP doesn't get used in autoresolve, no.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 20, 2021, 12:24:16 PM
Doesn't the +5 DP for the Falcon (P) mean they are 33% stronger in auto-resolve battle?
Considering that DP doesn't get used in autoresolve, no.

It's a very reasonable question to ask, though. It's helpful to know that what *does* get used in autoresolve is a hidden "fleet points" stat (that used to be not hidden way back) which doesn't track exactly (or at times even very closely - especially for larger ships) with deployment points. For example, stations tend to have higher fleet point values so they're stronger in autoresolve than their deployment cost would indicate.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: q-rau on November 20, 2021, 03:58:01 PM
Even 20 DP is a bargain for how many Sabots you can pack into a Falcon (P) using EMR and Missile Spec, and Sabot spam is one of the most DP-efficient tactics vs [REDACTED] given how strong Sabots currently are.

That sounds more like a reason to nerf sabots than to nerf Falcon (P).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 21, 2021, 02:32:33 AM
Even 20 DP is a bargain for how many Sabots you can pack into a Falcon (P) using EMR and Missile Spec, and Sabot spam is one of the most DP-efficient tactics vs [REDACTED] given how strong Sabots currently are.

That sounds more like a reason to nerf sabots than to nerf Falcon (P).

I don't disagree that Sabots deserve to be nerfed, but the Falcon (P) is still well worth at least +5 DP due to 0.95a buffs to missile mounts (s-mod EMR and +100% ammo from Missile Spec), plus the free built-in hullmods. Sabots simply exacerbate this disparity vs stock Falcons.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Anvel on November 21, 2021, 04:30:27 AM
Missiles are ok because unlike faction-specific ships sabots can be used by anyone who has slots and they have a limited ordinance, otherwise, there would be no point in not using overpowered ballistics and hybrid weapons only. Carriers on the other hand need a buff for sure.
ps: isn't 20dp for Hyperion after skills nerf way too much? I think 15-18 is more reasonable.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Corelious on November 21, 2021, 09:13:14 PM
So what's the plan with the colony system?  Nerf it to the point that it's no longer worth the hefty financial investment?  Why completely remove the colony skills?  We can't just ad a new skill tree that's all about colonies?

Seriously, it already takes a ton of cash to invest and grow a colony... which already takes forever to grow.... and we get all sorts of caps to what we can build... so why the nerf to commerce and removal of skills?  How does nerfing one building make any of the others more viable?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Corelious on November 21, 2021, 09:24:29 PM
Now that's a straight up lie.
Dunno man. Hard to tell.

(I feel like maybe you mean these in a kind of jokey/bantering sort of way, but if that's the case, at least IMO - it's the internet, and it doesn't come across very well.)
Towards IonDragon, I was being facetious.
As for harpoons and reapers and Remnants, I felt significantly negatively with how most missiles that weren't sabots were useless at best, harmful-if-taken (in the sense they took OP that could have been spent on something else had any impact) at best and it does show. I shouldn't have called you a liar, and I did not think that perhaps in-dev changes (most significantly, Shield Modulation losing HE resistance) made it different for you, but in the version I get to play, yeah you just don't take anything but sabots in smalls and mediums, and hurricanes and hammer barrages in larges (if you can support them with sabots, of course) and you can see it does not make me happy.

Posted one Dealmaker nerf idea elsewhere:  Instead of adding to income, the Dealmaker can remove all tariffs from the player's colony.  (That way, player will not need to visit pirates next door to buy or sell stuff for the best prices.)

If a core world has it, tariffs are higher, maybe 50%.  Or it does nothing?
As far as I am concerned, Commerce-as-industry exists only to boost the income. If it does not perform any income-boosting function, it is not worth the industry slot and a place in my colony, like in 0.9.1. If dealmaker nerf will result in Commerce having fewer drawbacks, then it's acceptable. Otherwise, if commerce's +25% income (I don't use SPs on colonies) is less of an income increase than what a regular industry would do, it has no place in my colonies.

Basically looking to modders to fix this. Either they need to include the option to make colony management harder when setting up a new character, or stop punishing those of us who don't like how grindy colonies already are by continuing to nerf them into oblivion.

Seriously, allowing more options prior to start would help appease people on both sides of the isle.

In the mean time, looking to you modders to fix the jumbled mess that is the colony management system.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Yubbin on November 21, 2021, 09:44:27 PM
Hey @Alex, can you buff omishield conversion? I find I never use it with vanilla or modded ships, probably because front shield is usually not worth changing, because of the shield angle shrinking when you install the hullmod. Maybe give it some other benefit, or remove the downsides of it?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 22, 2021, 12:37:04 AM
All I want is to have Cybernetic Augmentation give some sort of fleetwide marine or crew bonus.
Well, that's not all (Atropi buffs would also be good) but it would be pretty nice.  :P
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 22, 2021, 03:56:02 AM
So what's the plan with the colony system?  Nerf it to the point that it's no longer worth the hefty financial investment?  Why completely remove the colony skills?  We can't just ad a new skill tree that's all about colonies?

Seriously, it already takes a ton of cash to invest and grow a colony... which already takes forever to grow.... and we get all sorts of caps to what we can build... so why the nerf to commerce and removal of skills?  How does nerfing one building make any of the others more viable?
Colonies are only big money makers late.  Early on, they are money pits.  The base 50% is not a big deal given the -3 stability.  Commerce gets crazy after player boosts it with SP and items.  Rather see the boosters nerfed (like SP improvement and alpha core improving stability instead of income, and dealmaker removing tariffs) instead of the core industry nerfed, unless the -3 stability penalty is nerfed too.  Probably a good idea to tone down the stability penalty anyway for the sake of NPC core worlds that cannot absorb stability penalties from pirates and raids without decivilizing.  If Commerce adds less income, then the stability should be less, like -1.

Also, the admin cap will be raised from two to three, so player will get half of Colony Management for free.

Well, that's not all (Atropi buffs would also be good) but it would be pretty nice.  :P
Alex buffed them by making them cost less OP.  Also, single Harpoons will cost more since they carry two missiles instead of one (and get long reload delay).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mantas on November 22, 2021, 04:33:34 AM
Apologies if this has been asked before or if it's a dumb question, but isn't the 80% nerf to raiding overtuned? I've mostly raided just for supplies and fuel, to keep my fleet going without having to deal with markets, and while it was good if carried out in the right worlds, this feels like an extreme measure because of one specific scenario: a feedback loop. It feels more like a problem of this particular interaction than with the fantasy and base gameplay of raiding.

Thematically, raiding should give some measure of reward even if the raided commodity's not in excess. Otherwise, you wouldn't see pirates raiding in and around systems except for very specific planets (those with an excess of supplies and/or fuel). Not only that, but it adds another layer of logistics to the problem. Now when you want to raid, you not only need to check if the planet produces the commodity you desire and if it's a viable raid target (as in, it has defenses you can penetrate), but now you also need to make sure it's in excess (and that it remains in excess by the time you reach the system, or you've been burning fuel pointlessly). While before you could resupply anywhere and mostly raid anywhere for supplies/fuel, now you might need to ping-pong across the entire core-worlds for a haul you could possibly get off a singular planet.

Anyway, sorry for the rant and any grammatical mistakes. What are your thoughts on this? Just lifting some concerns, based on what it might hypothetically end up looking like. If it ends up becoming too punishing or otherwise too much of a chore to be worth the trouble, raiding is a cool feature that could end up going unused. Except for blueprints or industry items, but that's not the mechanic being changed.

Edit: Grammar
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Corelious on November 22, 2021, 04:55:12 AM
So what's the plan with the colony system?  Nerf it to the point that it's no longer worth the hefty financial investment?  Why completely remove the colony skills?  We can't just ad a new skill tree that's all about colonies?

Seriously, it already takes a ton of cash to invest and grow a colony... which already takes forever to grow.... and we get all sorts of caps to what we can build... so why the nerf to commerce and removal of skills?  How does nerfing one building make any of the others more viable?
Colonies are only big money makers late.  Early on, they are money pits.  The base 50% is not a big deal given the -3 stability.  Commerce gets crazy after player boosts it with SP and items.  Rather see the boosters nerfed (like SP improvement and alpha core improving stability instead of income, and dealmaker removing tariffs) instead of the core industry nerfed, unless the -3 stability penalty is nerfed too.  Probably a good idea to tone down the stability penalty anyway for the sake of NPC core worlds that cannot absorb stability penalties from pirates and raids without decivilizing.  If Commerce adds less income, then the stability should be less, like -1.

Also, the admin cap will be raised from two to three, so player will get half of Colony Management for free.

Well, that's not all (Atropi buffs would also be good) but it would be pretty nice.  :P
Alex buffed them by making them cost less OP.  Also, single Harpoons will cost more since they carry two missiles instead of one (and get long reload delay).

That's not entirely accurate - they double nerfed it by removing all skills. AND then doubled down by removing skills on the administrators.

Why would I bother with paying a salary when they literally don't buff my colonies at all?

Im sorry, but this move is an extremely one dimensional solution - there are those of use who don't want to spend weeks getting the resources to set up planets.  By the time I have them up and running, my fleets are expensive.  By killing the income, they're killing the incentive for the late game.  The point is that planets are supposed to make this easier once developed - it shouldn't be a pointless grindfest for mediocre results.

So essentially you're forced to play the markets now for money so you HAVE to be a trader and switch out fleets for cargo carrying.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Corelious on November 22, 2021, 04:57:27 AM
Apologies if this has been asked before or if it's a dumb question, but isn't the 80% nerf to raiding overtuned? I've mostly raided just for supplies and fuel, to keep my fleet going without having to deal with markets, and while it was good if carried out in the right worlds, this feels like an extreme measure because of one specific scenario, a feedback loop. It feels more like a problem of this particular interaction than with the fantasy and base gameplay of raiding.

Thematically, raiding should give some measure of reward even if the raided commodity's not in excess. Otherwise, you wouldn't see pirates raiding in and around systems except for very specific planets (those with an excess of supplies and/or fuel). Not only that, but it adds another layer of logistics to the problem. Now when you want to raid, you not only need to check if the planet produces the commodity you desire and if it's a viable raid target (as in, it has defenses you can penetrate), but now you also need to make sure it's in excess (and that it remains in excess by the time you reach the system, or you've been burning fuel pointlessly). While before you could resupply anywhere and mostly raid anywhere for supplies/fuel, now you might need to ping-pong across the entire core-worlds for a haul you could possibly get off a singular planet.

Anyway, sorry for the rant and any gramatical mistakes. What are your thoughts on this? Just lifting some concerns, based on what it might hypothetically end up looking like. If it ends up becoming too punishing or otherwise too much of a chore to be worth the trouble, raiding commodities is a cool mechanic that could end up going unused. Except for blueprints or industry items, but that's not the mechanic being changed.

My thoughts exactly, how is it worth the cost of marines and heavy weapons now?  You mean I should spend a story point for it to be worth my time now?  What if I'd rather spend the story point on my ship S Mods instead or planet?  Oh I have to choose?  What's if that's not how I enjoy playing?

Pre game settings are a thing and can be expanded on.  This adjustment should fall under the difficulty options prior to starting a new play through.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 22, 2021, 07:51:14 AM
That's not entirely accurate - they double nerfed it by removing all skills. AND then doubled down by removing skills on the administrators.

Why would I bother with paying a salary when they literally don't buff my colonies at all?

Im sorry, but this move is an extremely one dimensional solution - there are those of use who don't want to spend weeks getting the resources to set up planets.  By the time I have them up and running, my fleets are expensive.  By killing the income, they're killing the incentive for the late game.  The point is that planets are supposed to make this easier once developed - it shouldn't be a pointless grindfest for mediocre results.

So essentially you're forced to play the markets now for money so you HAVE to be a trader and switch out fleets for cargo carrying.
You pay a salary to an admin to hold the planet at all beyond the two you can rule yourself, unless you use alpha cores as admins.  Without admins, you can only hold two planets, which is likely not enough to produce all resources yourself.

As for removing all skills, this was already practically done for the player this release, with all of them stuck at Leadership 5 and Industry 5.  Getting Leadership 5 also means you cannot respec your Leadership 4 skill away.  0.95 is very unfriendly to colony enthusiasts.  That leaves admins.  The most important skill for them is Industrial Planning, which they can still get next release.  The others are nice, but not as important as Industrial Planning, and the salaries of two skill admins (e.g., Industrial Planning and Ground Operations) is very high (25k for two skills instead of 5k for one skill).

If colony skills were removed from the player, it makes sense to remove them from admins as well.

Next release, unskilled player can hire one more admin than he can in the current release.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 22, 2021, 08:30:38 AM
Hey @Alex, can you buff omishield conversion? I find I never use it with vanilla or modded ships, probably because front shield is usually not worth changing, because of the shield angle shrinking when you install the hullmod. Maybe give it some other benefit, or remove the downsides of it?

Let me make a note to have a look at that one! Meant to at some point, but it slipped through the cracks.

Apologies if this has been asked before or if it's a dumb question, but isn't the 80% nerf to raiding overtuned? I've mostly raided just for supplies and fuel, to keep my fleet going without having to deal with markets, and while it was good if carried out in the right worlds, this feels like an extreme measure because of one specific scenario: a feedback loop. It feels more like a problem of this particular interaction than with the fantasy and base gameplay of raiding.

Thematically, raiding should give some measure of reward even if the raided commodity's not in excess. Otherwise, you wouldn't see pirates raiding in and around systems except for very specific planets (those with an excess of supplies and/or fuel). Not only that, but it adds another layer of logistics to the problem. Now when you want to raid, you not only need to check if the planet produces the commodity you desire and if it's a viable raid target (as in, it has defenses you can penetrate), but now you also need to make sure it's in excess (and that it remains in excess by the time you reach the system, or you've been burning fuel pointlessly). While before you could resupply anywhere and mostly raid anywhere for supplies/fuel, now you might need to ping-pong across the entire core-worlds for a haul you could possibly get off a singular planet.

Anyway, sorry for the rant and any grammatical mistakes. What are your thoughts on this? Just lifting some concerns, based on what it might hypothetically end up looking like. If it ends up becoming too punishing or otherwise too much of a chore to be worth the trouble, raiding is a cool feature that could end up going unused. Except for blueprints or industry items, but that's not the mechanic being changed.

The thing is, raiding was so *over* tuned that even at 20%, it still gives you a substantially more than break-even reward even under less than ideal circumstances - a low raid effectiveness, no excess, and a comparatively high danger level. But at least now that scenario is painful enough that you'd have to maybe think about it, if you've got an eye towards building up your marine veterancy.

It's also much easier to get a nice bonus to raiding effectiveness and a marine loss reduction, via Tactical Drills in Leadership - that can be your first point spent, if that's desired.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mantas on November 22, 2021, 09:02:53 AM
Sounds fair, thanks for addressing this!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 22, 2021, 09:13:00 AM
Glad that sounds reasonable! I'll still keep an eye on it, of course, and on any feedback.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Fenrir on November 22, 2021, 11:25:56 AM
quick bug report:
If 2 Galatia missions both involve an option to launch a raid to acquire the objective (artifact, prisoned researcher, etc) happened to point towards the same planet, it is possible that when you try to raid for the 2nd objective after raiding for the 1st already, in the raid panel the 1st objective is still there. I didn't try if I raid for the 1st again but I'm pretty sure something worse than being wrong could happen.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 22, 2021, 12:12:50 PM
quick bug report:
If 2 Galatia missions both involve an option to launch a raid to acquire the objective (artifact, prisoned researcher, etc) happened to point towards the same planet, it is possible that when you try to raid for the 2nd objective after raiding for the 1st already, in the raid panel the 1st objective is still there. I didn't try if I raid for the 1st again but I'm pretty sure something worse than being wrong could happen.

Thank you - this is actually fixed for the next release! It's the "Fixed issue where multiple custom raid objectives would show up when only one of them should have given the context" item in the patch notes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Fenrir on November 22, 2021, 12:30:33 PM
Thank you - this is actually fixed for the next release! It's the "Fixed issue where multiple custom raid objectives would show up when only one of them should have given the context" item in the patch notes.

Oh that's what that term mean! I used to wonder what did it mean and it's clear now, thank you for your work!   :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Fenrir on November 22, 2021, 02:33:32 PM
Light-years map legend no longer shown in star system map view, only in hyperspace

I just realized that the hyperspace terrain tooltip claiming about legend had wrongly labeled 1 grid = 1 light-year which is the case in system view, in hyperspace view one "big" grid is no longer further segmented into 9 smaller grids and one "grid" should equals to 3 light-years. Although the vanilla auto-pilot clearly labels the distance to target but I believe people would like to calculate distances to estimate their supply and fuel costs exploring multiple outer systems in series.


Also a few thoughts about the skill system remake, first of all there is no better word than "stunningly awesome" I could think about to describe the new mechanism. I believe the "Industry" could be renamed as "Engineering" as it will no longer have much to do with "Large scale industrial planning and production" but fairly amount about "Repair and maintenance skills practical applications and field creative solutions", also a few re-location of skills between "Technology" and "Industry" can be made as I believe Tech leans more to "Theocratical" and Indus can be more "Practical". For example moving "Automated ships" to Indus as more practical applications nowhere to find in any manual are applied to "tame" a rouge ai ship (and also solve the "neural link - auto ship" problem mentioned in blog as a side-effect).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 22, 2021, 03:27:30 PM
I just realized that the hyperspace terrain tooltip claiming about legend had wrongly labeled 1 grid = 1 light-year which is the case in system view, in hyperspace view one "big" grid is no longer further segmented into 9 smaller grids and one "grid" should equals to 3 light-years. Although the vanilla auto-pilot clearly labels the distance to target but I believe people would like to calculate distances to estimate their supply and fuel costs exploring multiple outer systems in series.

Hmm - it's definitely 1 light year per smaller cell side. The bigger 3x3 cells are 3 light-years a side.

Also a few thoughts about the skill system remake, first of all there is no better word than "stunningly awesome" I could think about to describe the new mechanism. I believe the "Industry" could be renamed as "Engineering" as it will no longer have much to do with "Large scale industrial planning and production" but fairly amount about "Repair and maintenance skills practical applications and field creative solutions", also a few re-location of skills between "Technology" and "Industry" can be made as I believe Tech leans more to "Theocratical" and Indus can be more "Practical". For example moving "Automated ships" to Indus as more practical applications nowhere to find in any manual are applied to "tame" a rouge ai ship (and also solve the "neural link - auto ship" problem mentioned in blog as a side-effect).

Ah - that I think illuminates the problem with calling it "Engineering" :) Since then it becomes closer to Technology and it's harder to make distinctions. Of course,  most of that is fairly arbitrary anyway. But, generally speaking, Industry skills are about improving resilience, while technology is a mix of exploration and other-stuff that sounds more or less higher-tech.

"Theoretical" and "practical" get really blurry - e.g. is it an understanding of the theory of how AI cores/automated systems work that enables the use of automated ships, or is it an understanding of some specific more practical applications? It'd be very easy to argue either way.

Glad you're into the skill changes overall, though, thank you!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Fenrir on November 22, 2021, 03:33:16 PM
Hmm - it's definitely 1 light year per smaller cell side. The bigger 3x3 cells are 3 light-years a side.

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I was trying to say that the hyperspace map did not segment the bigger "should be 3x3"cell like how it did in "in system" map and just look like "a" cell and can cause confusions.

Glad you're into the skill changes overall, though, thank you!

No reason not to go through the up coming very interesting design  :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 22, 2021, 03:36:07 PM
Sorry I didn't make it clear, I was trying to say that the hyperspace map did not segment the bigger "should be 3x3"cell like how it did in "in system" map and just look like "a" cell and can cause confusions.

Ah, I see what you mean. At least the ruler in the bottom left helps with that, but yeah.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 22, 2021, 04:59:54 PM
Any new colony structures/industries coming up? They're even more interesting than colony skills.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 23, 2021, 02:56:53 AM
I would wager that the nature of Sabots providing extremely easy overloads (or, while not particularly relevant in this instance, shutting down the entirety of a ship's weaponry and easily winning the flux war) compared to needing a sustained combination of various weapons does make this fight significantly harder than without them.

Hmm. I wonder if maybe halving the EMP damage on the Sabots would put them in a better place, then. I still think they need to have an effect when armor-tanked, but the specific numbers on it, on the other hand...

And, hm, just making the AI better about armor-tanking Sabots could make a big difference here, though that's tricky.

Sorry I missed this earlier, but re: Sabots.

I appreciate the design intent for Sabots have some effect both when blocked and when unblocked by shields; however, I believe this also means that Sabots scale differently with increased ammo. Higher ammo count for HE missiles can be somewhat covered up either by wastage vs shields or lack of enough openings while enemy shields are down, but since Sabots are effective either way thanks to EMP, increased Sabot ammo feels much more impactful than increased HE missile ammo.

For high tech ships, especially ships like Aurora and Fury with multiple medium missiles, Sabot pods in 0.95a provide much more sustained shield breaking than in 0.91 due to increased max ammo per pod from 24 (+100%) to 36 (+200%), especially since it's even easier to reach now with build-in s-mod and officer skills without being forced to spend a huge pile of OP. In fact, currently many (most?) builds w/ Sabot pods no longer need to allocate other resources against shields. Rather than reducing the Sabot's impactfulness via reducing EMP damage, perhaps it makes more sense to return the sustainability of Sabot pods back closer to the 0.91 value of 24 max per pod. Either:
This way Sabots can still remain impactful in smaller scale battles (or when used judiciously by the player), but most Sabot ships (especially high tech ships) will be forced to carry more supplemental anti-shield weaponry for larger battles instead of relying on Sabot spam to always carry them through.

I think most will agree that even back when Sabots pods were 12 base and 24 max, they were already considered extremely strong.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 23, 2021, 03:06:59 AM
Sabots are the only kinetic missile in both small and medium mounts, they're always going to be an easy choice on high tech ships. You can nerf them as much as you like and people will continue to spam them, up until the point when they get so nerfed they'll never be worth using. It's a nightmare of a weapon to balance properly purely because there's no alternative. Kinetic burst damages that costs no flux will be crazy good in all scenarios, that's just the nature of the game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 23, 2021, 03:19:01 AM
colony wishlist:
adminstartor cap -> soft cap any further admin gets 5 times the payment or something like this.
military base give system wide stability bonus
upgrade for way station to stockpile resources
item for aquaculture similar to the one for farming + adds lobster.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on November 23, 2021, 05:00:47 AM
colony wishlist:
adminstartor cap -> soft cap any further admin gets 5 times the payment or something like this.
military base give system wide stability bonus
upgrade for way station to stockpile resources
item for aquaculture similar to the one for farming + adds lobster.

seconded
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on November 23, 2021, 05:27:29 AM
colony wishlist:
adminstartor cap -> soft cap any further admin gets 5 times the payment or something like this.
military base give system wide stability bonus
upgrade for way station to stockpile resources
item for aquaculture similar to the one for farming + adds lobster.
These are great suggestions. Would support.
Please remember that there is a Suggestions Forum for these while this is a Patch Notes thread.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 23, 2021, 06:05:06 AM
For high tech ships, especially ships like Aurora and Fury with multiple medium missiles, Sabot pods in 0.95a provide much more sustained shield breaking than in 0.91 due to increased max ammo per pod from 24 (+100%) to 36 (+200%), especially since it's even easier to reach now with build-in s-mod and officer skills without being forced to spend a huge pile of OP. In fact, currently many (most?) builds w/ Sabot pods no longer need to allocate other resources against shields. Rather than reducing the Sabot's impactfulness via reducing EMP damage, perhaps it makes more sense to return the sustainability of Sabot pods back closer to the 0.91 value of 24 max per pod. Either:
What other resources against shields?  Without heavy mounts, there are no other good options!  They get stuck with energy weapons that are not very efficient compared to ballistics.  If they use blasters, they are inefficient.  If they use pulse lasers, they cannot hit-and-run and need time to drill armor, and they are probably need Energy Mastery to be efficient enough (which prevents getting Gunnery Implants, which is good for everyone.)

And I do not want less Sabots without Expanded Missile Racks.  They already have low enough ammo as it is.

For high-tech ships that cannot use Plasma Cannon, it is getting SO and lots of guns, getting Sabots and Missile Racks, or maybe getting all the flux you can get and leave all mounts except the main gun empty.

Sabots are the only kinetic missile in both small and medium mounts, they're always going to be an easy choice on high tech ships. You can nerf them as much as you like and people will continue to spam them, up until the point when they get so nerfed they'll never be worth using. It's a nightmare of a weapon to balance properly purely because there's no alternative. Kinetic burst damages that costs no flux will be crazy good in all scenarios, that's just the nature of the game.
And the second iteration with wide spread and AI always dropping shields to eat no more than half of the spread was a "so nerfed" moment.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 23, 2021, 06:48:40 AM
I do have a question about core worlds.  I may have missed it in the thread, but are NPC administrators losing access to ground operations and space operations as well as the player?  If so, are core worlds being modified to take into account a loss of up to 30% accessibility and -2 stability?  That strikes me as a pretty big hit for a number of worlds which typically are on the edge of just enough accessibility and/or stability with administrators.

Take Culann for instance.  In a brand new game, it sits at 86% accessibility (hostile with Hegemony, Church, Pathers, and Pirates does that).  If I edit the administrator to only have Industrial planning, the planet starts the game in shortage of supplies and ship hulls (due to it's military base), and surplus of metals, crew, and marines.  Given Culann is essentially the Tri-tach manufacturing world, it seems a bit odd for it's default state being insufficient access.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 23, 2021, 07:18:32 AM
@ Hiruma Kai:  Good point about loss of skills dropping stability.  Do any of those worlds also have Free Port and/or Commerce?  The last thing we need is a planet (without quest armor) that will decivilize shortly after it takes a -3 stability penalty from pirates or raids.

Culann losing stability will be a bummer.  It is THE planet to raid for so much exclusive high-tech stuff.  It also has perma-Pather cells thanks to its alpha admin, and I am not chasing Pathers for core worlds' sake.

P.S.  If Culann really has an alpha admin, it should get Hypercognition.  Maybe just drop the human face since the Pather cell makes it very obvious who is running Culann - an alpha core.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on November 23, 2021, 09:24:01 AM
I do have a question about core worlds.  I may have missed it in the thread, but are NPC administrators losing access to ground operations and space operations as well as the player?  If so, are core worlds being modified to take into account a loss of up to 30% accessibility and -2 stability?  That strikes me as a pretty big hit for a number of worlds which typically are on the edge of just enough accessibility and/or stability with administrators.

Take Culann for instance.  In a brand new game, it sits at 86% accessibility (hostile with Hegemony, Church, Pathers, and Pirates does that).  If I edit the administrator to only have Industrial planning, the planet starts the game in shortage of supplies and ship hulls (due to it's military base), and surplus of metals, crew, and marines.  Given Culann is essentially the Tri-tach manufacturing world, it seems a bit odd for it's default state being insufficient access.

Culann is actually fine - its admin, which is *totally* not a front for an Alpha Core, has the new Hypercognition skill. I haven't noticed any other problems, though it's possible I might have missed something. Happy to double-check anything else specific!

item for aquaculture similar to the one for farming + adds lobster.

Hah, don't think I haven't thought about this already!

(The other stuff: thoughts noted! Definitely too late in the release cycle to want to be messing with anything like this now, though.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on November 23, 2021, 10:28:47 AM
(The other stuff: thoughts noted! Definitely too late in the release cycle to want to be messing with anything like this now, though.)

Ahhh, that's what I like to read.

You see here, there is kind of a recognizable pattern where, well, release is getting closer, so you gotta somehow freeze and test, right? Brothers, I think we shall be blessed with .1 very soon indeed! Make sure you all cancel your important meetings and travels for the next too weeks, 'cause you can't afford to miss the first shuttle to .1 release!

Besides, we can't allow you to spread fake news regarding Thumper for much longer.

:P
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Fenrir on November 23, 2021, 11:48:17 AM
Make sure you all cancel your important meetings and travels for the next too weeks, 'cause you can't afford to miss the first shuttle to .1 release!

Ha, that's where the neural link comes in, be at 2 places at the same time!   :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 23, 2021, 05:49:42 PM

Culann is actually fine - its admin, which is *totally* not a front for an Alpha Core, has the new Hypercognition skill. I haven't noticed any other problems, though it's possible I might have missed something. Happy to double-check anything else specific!

Could we also do this ourselves? Spend story points to cover up AI involvement in colonies to reduce Hegemony and Pather attention........
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mantas on November 24, 2021, 04:37:52 AM
colony wishlist:
adminstartor cap -> soft cap any further admin gets 5 times the payment or something like this.
military base give system wide stability bonus
upgrade for way station to stockpile resources
item for aquaculture similar to the one for farming + adds lobster.

Forget Pristine Nanoforges, an Aquaculture industry item that adds lobsters would become the single most sought for item in the sector.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 24, 2021, 05:30:35 AM
Colonies are only big money makers late.  Early on, they are money pits. 
But that's not true. All a colony needs to turn a profit is a handful of resources and a mining industry. Everything else is a bigger investment with a longer period of debt for a bigger payoff, which is perfectly fine. You don't NEED a level 3 alpha core starbase, marines and 600% nanoforge fleets to start colonizing.


Of course one could argue that a tiny colony takes too much baby sitting or something like that. But it's hard to lose a huge amount of investment on a tiny outpost, when so little gets invested in the first place.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 24, 2021, 07:32:33 AM
The meager profit from my early colonies was eaten up by maintaining my fleet and other expenses, basically breaking even or maybe an insignificant profit after expenses.  For me to actually gain money, I did cheesy stuff like black market trades, raiding pirate bases silly, and eventually chain 300k+ bounties near the end after my fleet was strong enough.

Once my colonies made it to size 6, near the end, my colony income bloomed dramatically.  No hazard pay to pay, plus Commerce as industry #4, is a big deal.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 24, 2021, 08:09:41 AM
Covering the cost of fleet upkeep IS a profit, when the alternative is having no passive income at all. Setting up a starter colony is incredibly easy as well, the most difficult part is getting enough colonists in one spot at the same time. That obstacle can be cheesed a bit by taking multiple trips and freeze drying colonists in orbit, and maybe there are other tricks I don't know about. The colony can definitely be set up before getting a single capital ship, or even having enough money for one, and it certainly takes some pressure off by covering the costs of one.

Of course a tiny colony can't cover a doom fleet's upkeep, nor should it be expected to. But I don't think anyone is going to argue that. Early game isn't endgame, but it has its place. Perhaps the issue is more of being extremely experienced and racing through the early game, so that early game strategies become obsolete before they even warm up.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 24, 2021, 08:30:59 AM
Paying for fleet upkeep IS a profit, when the alternative is having no passive income at all. Setting up a starter colony is incredibly easy as well, the most difficult part is getting enough colonists in one spot at the same time. That obstacle can be cheesed a bit by taking multiple trips and freeze drying colonists in orbit, and maybe there are other tricks I don't know about.

Poor frozen colonists. My typical solution is two Nebulas, destroyer class transports - colony ships if you will, with additional berthing that can hold 1040 crew combined, and are about 66,000 credits for the pair.  That is roughly the cost of the crew, supplies, and heavy machinery you'll use to build the colony, and then you just leave them in storage at the new colony until you need space for marines or something.  I think the time spent not making multiple trips will generally generate more profit than 66,000 credits (depending on colony location).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 24, 2021, 09:08:02 AM
Covering the cost of fleet upkeep IS a profit, when the alternative is having no passive income at all. Setting up a starter colony is incredibly easy as well, the most difficult part is getting enough colonists in one spot at the same time. That obstacle can be cheesed a bit by taking multiple trips and freeze drying colonists in orbit, and maybe there are other tricks I don't know about. The colony can definitely be set up before getting a single capital ship, or even having enough money for one, and it certainly takes some pressure off by covering the costs of one.
Not when compared to pre-colony releases when personnel and officers did not drain income per month.

The Galatian stipend is insufficient for a late-game fleet, and I need colony income to support it.

The personnel are in my fleet living in my big ships, and I prefer big ships.  Eight level 5 officers also take a bite out of income.

Also, I like to raid, I like to raid for vendor trash if it is practically free money (like drugs or supplies), and I will raid core worlds to catch all blueprints (and other rare items) like pokemon.  Marines also drain income.

I start colonies when it is feasible to, about midgame.  My last game had a terrible seed for planets, so I did not grow colonies beyond 4 until very late in the game.

With only four colonies, I place colonies where they can be self-sufficient and at a good location, not necessarily where they can mine the most resources for the most profit.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 24, 2021, 09:48:15 AM
If the colony is making net money over its own upkeep, it is not a money pit. Your fleet is the money pit, and the colony is helping to mitigate that.

Colonies only become money pits when you are paying hazard pay and also trying to build/upgrade lots of industries at the same time. You can play things more slowly to avoid that, but it will take a lot longer.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 24, 2021, 10:08:30 AM
If the colony is making net money over its own upkeep, it is not a money pit. Your fleet is the money pit, and the colony is helping to mitigate that.

Colonies only become money pits when you are paying hazard pay and also trying to build/upgrade lots of industries at the same time. You can play things more slowly to avoid that, but it will take a lot longer.

Right. If you don’t try to do everything at once, colonies are fine. Also, taking a commission offsets the majority of fleet costs early and is equal to a decent single colony in terms of income. I don’t always take commissions but when I do, I find I start colonies sooner because I have the capital earlier.

Also, I never thought about jettisoning crew around a colony and stabilizing the orbit. How funny!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 24, 2021, 10:33:18 AM
If the colony is making net money over its own upkeep, it is not a money pit. Your fleet is the money pit, and the colony is helping to mitigate that.

Colonies only become money pits when you are paying hazard pay and also trying to build/upgrade lots of industries at the same time. You can play things more slowly to avoid that, but it will take a lot longer.
There is the initial cost of building up a colony.  Colonies are a money pit in that it costs nearly or about as much as a capital to build a structure or industry.  With up to about 100k income per month (from small early colonies), it would take years to pay off the costs of building up one colony with several structures with colony income alone.  Colony takes millions of credits to build.

Unless I go for Wolfpack Tactics frigate horde (which I did not), I want a fleet bigger than the enemy (or use overpowered ship that works with my skills) to crush the enemy.  Enemy fleets level up faster than I do.  (Late in my last game, I had to avoid combat until after many drug runs and raids on pirates because nearly everything was 250k+ strength, and my fleet was not big enough to kill them without significant losses.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 24, 2021, 06:48:33 PM
Yeah, this is my issue with people claiming colonies are profitable too. Have you guys actually sat down and calculated how long it takes for a size 3 heavy industry colony with no defenses to pay for itself? You will run out of things to do in the game long before that. The only colonies that felt useful to me were drugs+commerce, and now commerce is nerfed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 24, 2021, 07:28:35 PM
I mean colonies late game can make half a million credits per month, so they definitely pay for themselves many times over eventually. Also, heavy industry is a bad example: that industry definitely is one of the least profitable because it provides the additional utility of letting you build ships. I think if you just built farming/mining on a high resource, low hazard world, it would pay for itself pretty quickly: farming only costs 75k, so even small income like 20-30k/month would pay for the colony very quickly. Defenses are the expensive part, but that's more a question of how much you are willing to babysit. Also, colony items make a big difference. I'm sort of curious how something like a megaport or way station would stack up in terms of profitability early on. I would guess they would not be very helpful if you were trying to break even quickly, but obviously they are worth a lot later on when you  have multiple industries.

I generally colonize late and dump money into my colonies because I like to wait and see what items I have to prioritize worlds, and I need something to do with my money once I scale up my fleet, so I guess I can't really speak from experience about small colonies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 24, 2021, 07:57:03 PM
Small mining colonies only pay for themselves in reasonable time if you don't grow them. It's a pick your poison situation - either you lose money for a long, long time; or your colony never grows and its meagre income becomes meaningless compared to your fleet expenses.

Making millions eventually is exactly the problem. Colonies are a net loss of money early, when money matter the most, and only start giving profits when the game is already over because you have nothing else to do. The investment is too long term. It's like pouring all your money into stocks that will only start paying off when you are 80.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strict on November 24, 2021, 10:48:15 PM
Small mining colonies only pay for themselves in reasonable time if you don't grow them. It's a pick your poison situation - either you lose money for a long, long time; or your colony never grows and its meagre income becomes meaningless compared to your fleet expenses.

Making millions eventually is exactly the problem. Colonies are a net loss of money early, when money matter the most, and only start giving profits when the game is already over because you have nothing else to do. The investment is too long term. It's like pouring all your money into stocks that will only start paying off when you are 80.

I completely agree. Game has literally one (1) questline, you dont really need colony to complete it, even though encounters are made for super late-game and/or specifically tailored fleets to counter them. Colony will never give all investment back (in vanilla) because there is no reason to play campaign for that long (due to lack of content), something needs to be done, like adjusting growth rates, or upkeep costs, or items for that,  or adding more content for late-game, but instead colony skills got removed... Im questioning the necessity of the whole colony gameplay now, what's the point? To give exploration some meaning? Just make "production slots" bar encounter more often. As of now mods handle colonies better.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 24, 2021, 10:52:34 PM
Small mining colonies only pay for themselves in reasonable time if you don't grow them. It's a pick your poison situation - either you lose money for a long, long time; or your colony never grows and its meagre income becomes meaningless compared to your fleet expenses.
In my experience, pretty much every colony will make it to at least size 4 without hazard pay, and I think low-hazard habitable worlds will usually be able to make it to size 5 or 6 (albeit very slowly). Of course you will likely to want to spend money to speed up the process at some point, but I don't think it's at all required early on. You can definitely ride some passive income from a nice Terran world with farming through midgame and then turn on hazard pay later on when you're ready to scale up/invest. You certainly wouldn't end up behind where you would be if you waited to colonize until you were ready to invest IMO.

With regards to late game, it seems quite likely that there will be new things added that give you incentive/reason to have scaled up colonies. You have to remember you are playing an alpha, just look at that juicy greyed-out orders tab. I consider the entirety of late game to be a placeholder right now, so I am not judging it yet. It's more just something to do now since most of the story/late game content is (presumably) yet to be added.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Jackundor on November 25, 2021, 01:24:09 AM
Some nice changes, especially to my beloved dominator

Not that i'm going to play with them

i haven't played in half a year

such is the modmaker experience
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 25, 2021, 02:42:13 AM
Heavy industry as first industry is a straight-up mistake if the goal is money (as opposed to building ships or weapons early). HI profitability is a joke, and only gets worse in modded games where every faction has its own HI flooding the market.

For the starter colony, Farming/Mining requires the lowest capital expenditure and is pretty much assured of a modest profit. Free port Light Industry (aka drug lab) may have the best non-Commerce profit per industry slot, that or Refining (due in part to the aforementioned HI bloat).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 25, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
btw freeport can bypass haz pay for smaller colonies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 25, 2021, 05:52:22 AM
Small investment, small payout. The academy stipend could be replaced with a quest to reestablish contact and become governor over a mining colony, and it'd be practically the same reward. That might even be a pretty nice quest, it gets players on the colony game from the very start.


The cluster spanning empire with gigantic shipyards, top tier worlds and $mil/month income is pretty much post game territory. There isn't really any reason or purpose to invest that hard into colonies. It seems most of the issues only pertain to endgame or post game economy, but players with that level of experience are well on their way to modding their game. So is it really an issue? A casual, ordinary player can just pick a few planets, build a few things, and call it good.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 25, 2021, 01:14:11 PM
In my experience with the latest patch, colonies don't make money until the game is already over. 6 cycles while constantly bleeding money (iirc 60k to 200k, but I'm not sure) is not viable until later in the game, when you will not make the investment back, at least not without colony items and story points.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 25, 2021, 01:27:17 PM
I'll just chime in and agree with the others. It seems like the colony part of the game is balanced purely around min maxers, which is weird tbh. Unless you find perfect items you need and have the will to search for a perfect system, you're probably going to be struggling for a while, or as already mentioned, invest everything you can but at that point you're a god already and don't care about extra money. If I didn't take a commission last playthrough, I would be operating with a net loss each month. There's no point in balancing income in a way that makes colonies useful only if you "max" them out, it's tedious.

This is just another example of people crying too much about something, then nerf batting that part when it's just the vocal minority that happened to get lucky. Yes I saw your 500k income colony with 10 Alpha cores, all colony skills and exploration items, very nice. But now we all suffer.

The first iteration of colonies was straight up busted, I'll admit that. But this is getting ridiculous with each update making colonies more and more miserable. It's enough of a chore already when waiting for defenses to build and colony size to increase. Lately I barely bother with them, I just use them as a place to stock up on supplies/fuel and to hoard all my weapons and LPCs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 25, 2021, 02:16:37 PM
I mean, right now, 500k/month maxed out colonies don't really matter because there is no late game content so nothing matters at that point. But if the goal is to add a real late game with actually stuff to do with your colony income, late game colonies do need to be balanced.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on November 25, 2021, 02:23:49 PM
Then just flatten the progression curve. Make early-mid colonies less crap and late game colonies less absurd in those "stars aligned" scenarios.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 25, 2021, 02:26:16 PM
500k a month is not quite enough to restore a typical capital recovered from battle.  Certainly nowhere near enough to restore Ziggurat, which costs close to two million.

Millions per month would be nice to build custom fleets and send them out on hit jobs, or to fix up your fleet after you lose about half of your ships like NPCs (in the player's shoes) would.

500k is only too much when the game expects flawless victories after combat.

There's no point in balancing income in a way that makes colonies useful only if you "max" them out, it's tedious.

This is just another example of people crying too much about something, then nerf batting that part when it's just the vocal minority that happened to get lucky. Yes I saw your 500k income colony with 10 Alpha cores, all colony skills and exploration items, very nice. But now we all suffer.
That is my skepticism of the Commerce nerf.  It does nothing to the items that raise it to ridiculous levels.  I suspect Commerce will not be worth it unless player scores a Dealmaker.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 25, 2021, 02:50:52 PM
Weird how different people seem to have wildly different experiences with the current colony system...

For me, for example, Commerce is already not worth it - it's literally the last industry I build, and only if there's nothing more important and the colony can afford the stability hit.

Then again, I'm not looking at colonies as a primary cash supply - which, I mean, they do supply some if you haven't messed things up too much, and that's useful, but the primary purpose for colonies for me is to keep my stuff, and to allow production of things I've got the blueprints for. Income is a nice bonus, but not a priority.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: EclipseRanger on November 25, 2021, 04:16:59 PM
Personally,I do like fiddling with colonies,but they take the fun out of the game when they re fully equipped. Nothing can get past a fortified colony with a Star Fortress and multiple fleets patrolling it. Obviously, they will have a use in future updates,but I feel that the fact that OUR colonies can get so powerful and self suffucient,Core World faction colonies feel relatively weak.Not saying that the should all be pumping out capital ships,but giving at least capital worlds a really good fleet would make them more realistic.

Not to mention,when player colonies are fully set up,money becomes a non issue,so part of the fun of exploring to make ends meet is taken away. You just have functionally infinite money.Again,future updates are likely to change that,but unless there is some real money sink in the future AND the colonies don't produce enough credits to eclipse every other form of income, they will still remain a relatively shallow aspect of the game,which is a damn shame.I am sure many players,myself among them,love seeing their colony flourish from a small outpost to a self sufficient fortress. The story points change was a major step in the right direction IMO.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 25, 2021, 04:31:33 PM
I will point out, you don't need stars aligned scenarios for end game size 6 colonies to be profitable in 0.95a.  A single colony fully loaded pulling in 500-600k per month, still pulls in 200-250k per month with all the exploration goodies and cores removed.  It's roughly a factor of 2 in net profit difference on profit focused worlds.  There's some room to flatten, but not as much as you might think.  Flattening also impacts other portions of the game, for example making exploration less relevant.  Flatten too much and make minimal effort colonies produce enough credits to retire on, then why put anything other than minimal effort into your colonies? 

I guess it comes down to what people see colonies as in terms of gameplay.  Are they a tool?  Are they a goal? Are better colonies a reward for exploration gameplay as well as routinely defeating Remnants?  Are they optional or are players expected need them every game unless they're playing really well?  Are they intended as a credit sink for players already doing well, or a support for players doing poorly?  Are they intended to solve problems or create problems to be solved (like, hmm, now I need a gamma core to reduce the ore requirements for my refinery to reduce my upkeep costs)?

I wonder what people would want to see as the early and mid-game return on investment?  Should colonies early and mid-game be more profitable than actually flying your fleet around and doing stuff?  Should colonies become the focus of the economic portion of the campaign and thus in some sense, mandatory?  What about the cost benefit analysis between simply not paying hazard pay and pulling in profit now, versus paying hazard pay for less (or negative) profit now for more profit in some nebulous future.

Right now in the very early game, best return on investment is commissions, which scale from 25,000 credits/month at level 1 up to 95,000 credits at level 15 for an investment cost of nothing.  Not to mention bonus credits for blowing up ships you were going to blow up anyways.  You can grab a commission on day 1 of a spacer start.  Should a single colony's profits be comparable to commission profits early and mid-game? Less, more?  How about multiple colonies combined?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 25, 2021, 04:39:49 PM
Weird how different people seem to have wildly different experiences with the current colony system...

For me, for example, Commerce is already not worth it - it's literally the last industry I build, and only if there's nothing more important and the colony can afford the stability hit.

Then again, I'm not looking at colonies as a primary cash supply - which, I mean, they do supply some if you haven't messed things up too much, and that's useful, but the primary purpose for colonies for me is to keep my stuff, and to allow production of things I've got the blueprints for. Income is a nice bonus, but not a priority.
Heavy industry is the only (non-defense) industry that does anything more than making money, and commerce as the third industry with any boost (cores, items, story points) already makes more than any other industries. If you don't care about money, then I guess you just spam heavy industries? Nothing else would do anything.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 25, 2021, 05:00:26 PM
@Hiruma Kai

Early-game colonies (what are we defining as "early?") would only work if they funneled combat to the player and generated income. I would love for starter colonies to be especially "ripe" for pirate activity but likewise, a system bounty would just perpetually be in effect until the colony hit a certain size or or other conditions were met. That would make starting a colony a bit of a defense game but also generate income and funnel the player into combat.

And has been said ad nauseum since colonies came out: they've always been a means to end but the end isn't here yet. It is my hope that a true endgame will require a system-spanning empire and the use of hundreds of thousands of credits per month to have a prayer. Until then, colonies will always be a bit purpose-less because nothing in the game currently requires the benefits high-end colonies provide.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 25, 2021, 06:02:37 PM
Another idea for Cybernetic Augmentation:

If it's about enhancing the player's high-rankers then what about +1 stability from Admins, in addition to the normal +2 elite skills for officers?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 25, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
In terms of "flattening the curve" on colonies, a great deal of colony value comes from bonuses multiplying bonuses. The biggest multiplier of all is accessibility, since it directly controls the planet's share of the market. Most of the other aspects of planet growth are merely "good". Going from size 3 to size 6 roughly doubles industries and the value of a planet (does it really justify millions going into hazard pay?). Adding +1 to production isn't much on its own, reduced costs have very specific value, and stability already got the nerf bat. What really makes a colony BRRRRR is taking all the bonuses in the left, and multiplying it by accessibility on the right. So maybe that situation isn't working out as well as it should?


Would it make sense for accessibility to be more flat, less dependent on modifiers, or perhaps to tie it more into player driven missions? So that way a player CAN advertise the hell out of their planet, but first they have to deliver 8000 fuel to chicomoztoc. Blowing up a merchant fleet to hurt one planet's accessibility for a few months isn't much. Maybe it could be more meaningful to make an "example" of competitive merchants, and effectively strong arm the market into using your own goods. Stuff like that, stuff that ties into blowing ships up and having a good time while still feeding colony play. I mean, players already do this when they wage all out war and start purging the sector, but that's not really applicable in early or mid game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 26, 2021, 08:45:03 AM
@Hiruma Kai

Early-game colonies (what are we defining as "early?") would only work if they funneled combat to the player and generated income. I would love for starter colonies to be especially "ripe" for pirate activity but likewise, a system bounty would just perpetually be in effect until the colony hit a certain size or or other conditions were met. That would make starting a colony a bit of a defense game but also generate income and funnel the player into combat.

It's a good question.  An early game colony would presumably be a colony built as soon as you've amassed sufficient credits and ships to create it, and without doing any exploration.  So after you've built up something like 85,000 credits (for supplies, machinery, crew) and perhaps a pair of Nebulas (another 60,000 credits or so).  Could be done after picking up the first 3 Galatia missions from Alviss, as those pay about 55,000 each.

As it stands, once you have ~250,000  credits, you can go over to Penelope and settle Ismara and build a mining industry, which all combined will pull in about 16,000 credit a month with no skills or administrator.  About 6.5% return on investment per month.  If you spend some more and settle Ithaca, that pulls in about 6250 even without industry for 85,000 credits (you already bought the Nebulas, so no need to buy twice).  335,000 gets you 22,000 credits per month, so same return on investment per month.  Which all told is similar to a level 1 commission, and 50% more than the stipend from Galatia.  Investment cost is about 6 Galatia missions.  Growth would be negative on Ismara, and like 1-2% on Ithaca, but we're talking about leveraging colonies to help with early game problems, I think.

Assuming things were "flattened" a factor of 2, so high end fully loaded late game colonies only pull in 250,000, and early game colony income was doubled (which admittedly, was unlikely affected by all the 0.95.1a changes since Commerce really needs other industries, and colony skills were tier 5), we'd be talking about 45,000 credits per month from the Ismara + Ithaca start, for presumably the same investment.  13% return on investment per month (payoff in 7 months).  That's starting to dwarf early game stipend and likely exceeding commission.  If combined with commission, that's starting to hit a passive 100k monthly fairly early on (like level 8 or so).

Assuming people stay away from the hazard pay button when they can't afford it, that looks like there isn't that much room to play with the early game colony profit numbers.  If you eliminate hazard pay or make it trivial even on early game income, then your best course of action every run is to build colonies as early as possible, to grow them as soon as possible.  Currently, hazard pay generally means you build colonies when you can afford the upkeep (or alternatively, you've found an amazing system full of habitable planets, a nice perk of exploration).  In 0.95a, colonies are a choice you have to make as opposed to something that only has net positives after 6 months or whatever of paying off the investment.  You could turn them into something that is expected and take that account into overall player income streams, but I feel like that is changing the nature of colonies and probably means tuning prices and what not for the new expected passive income.

As for the removal of skills and commerce reduction, I'd like to see it in practice, but I don't think it'll affect my play any.  I admit, I was one of those that never grabbed colony skills, so their removal doesn't affect my particular play style.  As for the commerce change, it's probably a 12.5% cut in profitability.  Generally, by the time I'm putting commerce down as the 4th slot, I've got alpha cores and story points to spare, so even without a deal maker, they'll be sitting at +75% instead of +100%.  1.75/2.0 = 0.875, i.e. 12.5% less profit.  Don't think it'll change things much for me, other than flatten out the high end a small amount on my profit colonies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mantas on November 26, 2021, 10:56:41 AM
Personally, and to the interest of absolutely nobody, I think colonies are mostly fine as is. Colonies aren't designed as an early-game mechanic and trying to build and sustain colonies early is about as practical as trying to battle using a fleet of Mules. The cost of entry informs you of this. Setting up a world to be productive is a large endeavor that consumes time and money. Early game, you're a raggedy captain running a raggedy fleet. It's only somewhere in the mid game that your fleet will have the capability to haul the resources for trades and/or hunt for bounties on a scale that turns a sufficient profit for a properly planned colony to be an option.

Barring Hazard Pay, any singular industry on a small colony pays for itself over the course of a cycle or two and from there it's a net gain. Consequentially, the same goes for the colony. Your dividends only improve if you build your industries smartly. If you build Mining into Refining into Heavy Industry, for example, you're cutting on the cost of materials for each sequential industry. The game helps you here, it informs you of how much your industries are going to produce and how much they require so you can plan ahead. You can build industries out of sequence, but then, you're paying for the imports and having a higher operating cost for your industry, which makes sense and is how industries work in real life.

You can opt to activate hazard pay, but then you're making a conscious decision to go for growth over profit. At which point, you'd be both paying more now to turn a profit later, albeit more quickly, but also complaining that you're paying more now. Which is self-contradicting.

Similarly, if you add a spaceport, ground defenses, a space station, etc, to a growing colony, you're quickly going to overwhelm any profit the colony might have had with the extra costs of the facilities. Again, this a conscious choice being made to turn an otherwise profitable colony into a money-sink.

A similar argument goes for colonies favoring optimization. Take the hazard rating of a colony, for example. You can't force people to live on a naturally non-habitable planet (>=200% hazard rating) and expect it to grow, thrive and turn a profit. It's a world that's naturally hostile to human settlement and operation, so a higher -maybe even forbidding- cost goes in hand. These aren't worlds meant for habitation, they're just planets. You realistically wouldn't build a house anywhere near an active volcano or in the middle of the desert and this is a mechanic that mimics that. Likewise, you can extract more natural resources from resource-rich planets and in turn, turn a greater profit from them. Which is also logical. Worlds better suited for habitation and operation are better suited for habitation and operation. It's not strange at all.

I think people are expecting colonies to be a quick and easy cash-out button without really considering the "fantasy" of what they're doing. They're settling worlds and building and raising infrastructure on a huge scale, with a living population that will then grow organically. Of course it's going to cost a lot of money. Of course a bad rock to colonize is going to cost more than it's worth.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on November 26, 2021, 11:15:17 AM
You don't get money you can spend only on colonisation, you can spend money you earn on anything you want. Colonies are one of those things, but they aren't what you do to make money (that being bounty hunting, exploring or trading), they are what you spend money on, at least for several cycles. Though I don't use AI cores or story points and maybe I am not meant to tackle colonies without AI cores (or, at least, not meant to see them as competitive until six cycles into the investment), but I would have rather made them simply require AI cores and story points to make. It would be clearer in that case.
It's hard for me to say how much money colonies should make me, as there's no way to track income and expenses over time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 26, 2021, 11:45:42 AM
The way I see it, colonies were added to the game before there was a use for them, and now they are nerfed into irrelevance until such uses are added, presumably because Alex doesn't want to remove them outright and face the outrage.  :D

The temporary fix that would seem to both shorten the investment times and not make money trivial is to greatly buff colony items without buffing base income rates. That's sort of what 0.95 was going for to begin with, but it wasn't pushed nearly hard enough.

An alpha core is 450.000 credits. If you waste that much on improving an industry instead of selling it, the added benefits better be good. Right now it's +4.000 credits per month from exports. Same for colony boosters proper. Just selling them is better money than actually improving industries.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 26, 2021, 12:42:17 PM
Alpha core admins make a ton of money, more than enough to pay for themselves, not to mention allowing you to exceed the max governor limit (i.e. entire extra colonies worth of income). Alpha cores in defensive structures can allow you to do whatever you want and not have to babysit, which is QOL but probably worthwhile to a lot of people.

Putting alpha cores in random industries is definitely a 'I have insane passive income so money is meaningless and am farming remnants because I have nothing better to do in the absence of a real end game' situation.

Typically, I will try to save alpha cores for admins (or for officers if I take the remnant ship skill), but I will definitely consider selling them early to afford a particular ship I think will help a lot. Same with blueprints and colony items, I will sell the less important ones for income if there is a specific thing I want to buy (or money is tight).

Usually by mid-game though, I have enough money that I don't need to sell stuff, and can afford to invest for the long term.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 26, 2021, 01:57:17 PM
I think people are expecting colonies to be a quick and easy cash-out button without really considering the "fantasy" of what they're doing. They're settling worlds and building and raising infrastructure on a huge scale, with a living population that will then grow organically. Of course it's going to cost a lot of money. Of course a bad rock to colonize is going to cost more than it's worth.

I think part of the problem is there are 2 fantasies: settling and conquering. Not exclusive, of course.

Settlers want to grow their colonies, get all the big numbers, and be left alone.

Conquerors want to control the Sector, be self-sufficient, and have a safe place to retreat to. They don't care if their base is a nightmare world - in fact, that probably sounds really cool to them!


Without any way to make money militarily (taxes, raiding, etc.) or change who controls markets or systems right now (besides decivilizing them), conqueror-types are left bashing themselves against systems that aren't designed for what they want to do: conquer.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on November 27, 2021, 05:26:22 AM
Colony building works extremely well with exploration and comfy styles. The sector is filled with treasure, find it and take it home to a colony. Wander around, do some trading and build a colony. There's good times to be had.

Colony building has some combat, but it's mostly weighted towards endgame. The big options are to hunt redacted or purge the sector, with not too much in the middle. Pirates and expeditions are combat events, but they are mostly events that players react to and try to mitigate, rather than goals for players to charge into.  I can see why players consider colonies to be dead weight for most of the game. They're skipping directly to the part where combat stops being reactionary and starts being proactive for colony development, which happens at the end.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zakaluka on November 27, 2021, 03:22:02 PM
I don't understand the 'colonies have been nerfed into oblivion' mindset. A planet without optimal placement or attributes, just present in a system with other semi-useful planets, can bring down millions per cycle. That fully developed system with every resource available lets you print expensive ships at a discount.

There have been nerfs but also more and more multiplying bonuses added to the game. An artifact for each industry. More ways to get accessibility. (now slightly pulled back apparently in 0.95.1a with the removal of certain administrator skills)

What's a problem is how they're only useful after dumping resources into them for a long time and going full max with multiplying bonuses. A basic planet with 1 resource should be useful for an early player who can barely afford to set it up. Currently, sure, as above, 7% per month ROI, but that hardly compares to doing missions and building your fleet. Having a colony without defense anchors you to it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 27, 2021, 06:00:33 PM
... Having a colony without defense anchors you to it.

Kind of yes, but also kind of no - a small early game colony attracts no faction expeditions, and pirate raids won't destroy a colony for a long time. Its not needed to have a 'perfect' defense of a colony for it to still be returning money, giving a place to store ships/weapons, and slowly growing into a larger state where a player can lay down later improvements/industries.

I disagree with the idea that colonies will be useless/overnerfed - the incoming changes are pretty minor.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on November 27, 2021, 07:56:27 PM
... Having a colony without defense anchors you to it.
Kind of yes, but also kind of no
This is one of the reasons I consider having a gate in-system to be mandatory for any colony I make: it vastly simplifies getting back there to deal with whatever incoming problem needs dealing with.

(Now, maybe if the Hypershunt added a new gate in orbit, the way the fusion lamp adds a mini-sun... but it doesn't.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 28, 2021, 12:33:27 AM
If a single industry size 3 colony gets raided by pirates, it stops growing and making money for a couple months, delaying the returns even more. At that point it literally does nothing but provide storage space, and you have that for free in core systems.

If colonies are supposed to only exist for players who spend 50+ hours on a single savefile, then sure, there's no issue. I can't see myself building colonies at all next release, especially since production contracts were bugfixed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Delta_of_Isaire on November 28, 2021, 02:59:30 AM
Another wonderful set of patch notes. The quality of these major updates continues to be awesome. It's quite amazing :)


About colonies: I think their profitability / return of investment is fine as it is, though I agree with nerfing Commerce. It is too much of a no-brainer in 0.95.

The biggest problem with colonies is that the game is currently too short to fully enjoy their monetary benefits. It takes time to survey planets to find good ones to develop, then it takes time for them to grow, then time to pay back the invested money. An experienced player will have already reached endgame by the time his colonies reach size 6, and at that point there is very little to spend all that money on. The solution to this is more end-game content / money sinks, which I'm sure we will see eventually :)

Are early colonies a good investment? Let's see. Pick a low-hazard world with farming and mining opportunities. These are the expenses you will want to make:
    - ~100k for crew, supplies and other materials to colonize and build a comm relay
    - ~100k to buy ships to transport the above (pair of nebula's and a freighter)
    - 75k to build Farming
    - 100k to build Mining
    - 100k to build Waystation, so you can resupply at the colony.
    - 250k to build an Orbital station, the most effective defense.
    - 150k to build Ground Defenses, for the stability bonus.
    - 300k for Patrol HQ, so you spawn some ships to deal with straggler pirate fleets, etc.
    - 5k/month for an Administrator with Industrial Planning. Pays for itself so it's a no-brainer.
    - 5-10k/month for Hazard Pay to grow to size 4.
Total: roughly 1.3 million credits all told.

How much money does this colony make? Depends on the quality of resources. Could be anything up to like 70k per month net profit. And that's after everything is build and colony population is at size 4, which could take over a cycle.
At 50k/month, the return of investment takes 26 months.
At 40k/month, it takes 32 months.
At 30k/month, it takes 43 months.

So altogether you're looking at 3-5 cycles before you see any actual profit. By that time an experienced player doing bounties will be lvl 15 and well into midgame. And that's just a basic colony. Further development with Megaport / Star Fortress / Military Base etc will cost millions more. So yeah, proper colonies are not an early-game thing, and fully developing 3-4 colonies isn't even a mid-game thing.

That doesn't mean early colonization can never work though. You could settle a bare-bones colony with only a single industry and no other structures: just Farming, Mining or Tech Mining. And skip Hazard Pay. Then the investment is only 200-300k. It's not something you'd do on just any world, but on a world with good resources like a Terran with Bountiful Farmland or a world with Vast Ruins, it can be worth it. Doubly so if you happen to have Soil Nanites or a Mantle Bore.

Bottom line: fully developed colonies are definitely an endgame thing, but that endgame lacks money sinks so it's mostly for bragging rights. For the time being, colonies themselves are the mid/late-game money sink. On the other hand, an early opportunistic colony can, under the right conditions, pay for itself and provide some benefit. So it's not like colonization is a completely wasted mechanic. I think it is fine.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mantas on November 28, 2021, 07:25:11 AM
Are early colonies a good investment? Let's see. Pick a low-hazard world with farming and mining opportunities. These are the expenses you will want to make:
    - ~100k for crew, supplies and other materials to colonize and build a comm relay
    - ~100k to buy ships to transport the above (pair of nebula's and a freighter)
    - 75k to build Farming
    - 100k to build Mining
    - 100k to build Waystation, so you can resupply at the colony.
    - 250k to build an Orbital station, the most effective defense.
    - 150k to build Ground Defenses, for the stability bonus.
    - 300k for Patrol HQ, so you spawn some ships to deal with straggler pirate fleets, etc.
    - 5k/month for an Administrator with Industrial Planning. Pays for itself so it's a no-brainer.
    - 5-10k/month for Hazard Pay to grow to size 4.
Total: roughly 1.3 million credits all told.

This is a textbook example of the points I was raising on what not to do when your colony's still small. If this is how someone plays, power to them, but people should treat colony income/expenses the same way as they do flux dissipation. Building a colony is not dissimilar to fitting a ship and smaller colonies will have a hard time supporting a number of costs that, in my opinion, aren't quite necessary for their size.

Defense-wise, a size 3 colony can get by perfectly fine with just ground defenses or a station, especially if it's the first colony. They both protect against raids and improve stability and either one is really all you need for the scale of raids the colony will be having in the early game. Doubling up on the defenses at this point is just paying for the sake of peace of mind. Also, at this stage, players won't have anything to bump their fleet size or ship quality, so a Patrol HQ is about useless. Especially if its early game and they don't even have blueprints. An early game patrol HQ is just burning money for the sake it. Eventually, as the colony grows and the industries increase in number and resources produce, players will have a need to bump their defenses, but it's not necessary to start with.

Regarding a way-station, if it's still in the early game and relatively strapped for cash, especially if the player doesn't plan on baby-sitting their first colony, they won't be getting any benefit off it. At this point in the game, they should be playing the markets for the highest returns and this also applies to where and how they get they supplies, fuel and crew from. Just like how you buy from excess markets to sell to deficit markets, at this phase where money is a luxury you should also be getting your resources in the same way, if not from space battles.

I see this, not as an example of colonies taking a long time to be profitable, but more of an example of poor planning. Maybe it's an issue of mindset. Players build their ships strategically to get the most advantage of each hull size within the limitations of OP and flux dissipation and should build colonies with the same mindset. Is this investment and expenditure really justified for a colony of this size? What do I want from my colony?  Do I need a waystation if I don't plan on visiting it much? Am I in a hurry for it to grow, to justify the expense of the hazard pay? People can't just throw structures and industries onto a colony any more than they can add weapons and hullmods onto their ships haphazardly and expect it to work.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on November 28, 2021, 08:04:12 AM
Agreed with Mantas: you don't need anything beyond a first industry and orbital station/ground defenses to start. If you go above and beyond that, you're investing in the colony but it won't pay dividends for a very long time.

I think, as players, we're just impatient. I mean, you could theoretically gate some stuff behind colony size but I don't know if that's entirely necessary. If you have the money, I guess the game shouldn't prevent you from doing it but it's kind of a noob trap to have millions of credits-worth of stuff just waiting for you as soon as you plop down a a colony.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 28, 2021, 08:31:18 AM
The first structure to be built is always orbital station because of that first pirate raid.  I have time to build one structure before the pirates come, and I want something that can put more guns on the battlefield, and orbital station is the only option for that.

I like some ground defenses as backup, in case orbital station is not enough, or if I want the stability.  There was one or two times when the battlestation was down, but ground defenses repelled the pirate raid.

Patrol HQ is needed to maintain control of relays in your system.  Enemies will steal them while you are away, and if you do not have patrol HQ, then you will need to run back (possibly long distance) to your home system to reclaim your comm relay.  With Patrol HQ, your patrols will reclaim your relays for you, reducing babysitting hassle.

I like Waystation because it stocks up on crew, supplies, and fuel - the fleet essentials, especially if my colony is not that close to core.

My early colony with all of the basic structures look something like this:  Waystation, Orbital Station, Ground Defenses, Patrol HQ, and Industry #1 (usually Farming or Mining).  It should be enough to repel early pirates player will likely get.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on November 28, 2021, 10:15:14 AM
I usually don't build any defenses at all on size 3 worlds, and oftentimes not a waystation either (this depends a bit if I'm doing lots of missions in the area of the colony/treating it as a home base - if yes then waystation, if no no need). If I happen to be in the neighborhood I'll stop the initial pirate raid, but its not really important to do so if its inconvenient. Its not that damaging and while it costs some money, for a brand new colony its not as much as a few missed contracts.

If I have the money to spend on defense buildings, I usually instead spend it on colonizing 2-3 worlds all at once if their in the same system.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 28, 2021, 08:56:58 PM
and oftentimes not a waystation either (this depends a bit if I'm doing lots of missions in the area of the colony/treating it as a home base - if yes then waystation, if no no need).

Sort of weird not to bother with a waystation, seems to basically be no downside to dropping one (relatively low cost for +10% accessibility, basically pays for itself eventually).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 28, 2021, 09:21:01 PM
We need ways to deal with Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs demands without going Free Port.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kragh on November 28, 2021, 09:34:36 PM
We need ways to deal with Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs demands without going Free Port.
What. Are you telling me you believe it should be legal to trade in Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs? Those are banned in most of the system. Free port is basically saying "You can trave whatever you want here". Of course your need Free port to trade those (which imply you need free port to supply those needs).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 28, 2021, 09:59:30 PM
We need ways to deal with Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs demands without going Free Port.

I've actually been thinking about this, the fact that light industry doesn't have an upgrade seems ripe for change.  But can't think of a decent upgrade for allowing for Recreational Drug production without requiring free port...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on November 28, 2021, 10:18:40 PM
We need ways to deal with Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs demands without going Free Port.
What. Are you telling me you believe it should be legal to trade in Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs? Those are banned in most of the system. Free port is basically saying "You can trave whatever you want here". Of course your need Free port to trade those (which imply you need free port to supply those needs).
We need ways to deal with Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs demands without going Free Port.

I've actually been thinking about this, the fact that light industry doesn't have an upgrade seems ripe for change.  But can't think of a decent upgrade for allowing for Recreational Drug production without requiring free port...

I was thinking of demand elimination than legal production, some sort of Medical System industry which removes RD&HO demands from other industries, or some sort of Augmentary industry which replaces RD&HO demands with Supplies demand.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 28, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
I was thinking of demand elimination than legal production, some sort of Medical System industry which removes RD&HO demands from other industries, or some sort of Augmentary industry which replaces RD&HO demands with Supplies demand.

That might work with some sort of tradeoff beyond just $$ cost, although whether building vs. industry, I dunno (medical leftovers and VR data centers, basically).  But regarding cutting up organ donors at hospitals, health care, policing instead of just military, and maybe power systems/energy seem like they would get added during that eventual colony overhaul in, 2023, maybe?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 29, 2021, 03:22:10 AM
  • Fighter Uplink: moved to Leadership, added 50% target leading accuracy bonus

I didn't see this addressed elsewhere, but doesn't the target leading accuracy make the current elite bonus from Strike Commander somewhat redundant? The current Elite Strike Commander is extremely niche - it's already the only combat skill that doesn't benefit the piloted ship at all, and the elite bonus doesn't benefit fighters with guided ordnances (such as Daggers) or beams (such as Sparks) at all either.

Considering how elite bonuses for skills like Helmsmanship and Point Defense got a bit of a touch-up, I wonder if similarly there wasn't something extra for Elite Strike Commander that was left out of the patch notes, for flavor if nothing else.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on November 29, 2021, 03:26:26 AM
Strike Commander got dropped.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on November 29, 2021, 03:45:08 AM
Strike Commander got dropped.

Ahh gotcha - that's useful context for the earlier discussion of fleetwide vs pilotable fighter skills. So it looks like there are no more direct damage bonuses for fighters, other than CR and Point Defense vs other fighters; it'll be interesting to see whether the officer-dependent bonus for the fleetwide skills compensates for this. Thanks!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on November 30, 2021, 01:06:06 PM
We need ways to deal with Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs demands without going Free Port.
What. Are you telling me you believe it should be legal to trade in Recreational Drugs and Harvested Organs? Those are banned in most of the system. Free port is basically saying "You can trave whatever you want here". Of course your need Free port to trade those (which imply you need free port to supply those needs).
Trading normally illegal commodities between your own planets and exporting them to other factions are different things, yet the game treats it the same. If my planet A makes drugs and sells them to my planet B, what the hell does Hegemony care?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 30, 2021, 03:02:29 PM
Trading normally illegal commodities between your own planets and exporting them to other factions are different things, yet the game treats it the same. If my planet A makes drugs and sells them to my planet B, what the hell does Hegemony care?

Technically, they shouldn't.  But considering even just the real world example of the War on Drugs and transnational crime, only when a total idiot is in charge would any government ignore a potential source of instability (ie, the proverbial Nero; just not the actual Nero, seems the legend of him "fiddling" was just a smear campaign), even if it is a foreign source.  Arguably the source of the issue is the abstract nature of the game's commodity system.  Just Rec Drugs.  Not caffeine vs. cannabis vs. heroin... but adding MOAR commodities would definitely increase game data requirements (how much, that is debatable), plus is really, REALLY controversial on forums.  I ran a more commodities poll like 6 months ago, was very surprised to see how evenly split fanbase is regarding adding commodities (half wanted more, half vehemently opposed).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 30, 2021, 03:19:40 PM
Quote
only when a total idiot is in charge would any government ignore a potential source of instability
Which they do!  So many low-hanging pirate and indie worlds Hegemony and Church could rough up and decivilize, but they do not.  They attack only the player's worlds, even after the player's faction has grown to major faction size.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 30, 2021, 05:40:05 PM
Quote
only when a total idiot is in charge would any government ignore a potential source of instability
Which they do!  So many low-hanging pirate and indie worlds Hegemony and Church could rough up and decivilize, but they do not.  They attack only the player's worlds, even after the player's faction has grown to major faction size.

Yeah, but Hegemony, League and Church are too busy trying to rough each other up... even Alex has stated that the pirates and indies are more "factions" than actual factions (ie, no single government is in charge compared to actual factions).  Luddic Path prolly falls in this category also.  Quite frankly, dropping the concept of the indies and pirates as actual factions might actually improve the game, or at least render it somewhat less confusing.  But since game seems to lack any sort of governing mechanism beyond factions as nation states as opposed to nation states containing multiple political parties factions... prolly just one more thing that'll get fixed/added with rest of that mythical colony update.  Put another way, your critique seems to turn on the fact that factions as nations lack basically any form of interaction beyond basically putting boots on the ground, like real actual tariffs between polities, espionage, diplomacy, and so on.  Game is still single player, not a sci-fi socioeconomic simulator.  I mean, colonies at level 3 are white-listed, but as soon as you hit that magic 4... player gets stomped unless they saved up enough cash to build some defenses while waiting for that magic 4.  If anything, the current lack of an alternative to the colony system is the game's primary weakness right now.  Either save up $$ and start a colony (and deal with all ramifications of having a colony), or finish the Galatia quest line with frequent stops to make $$ on the side (selling all colony stuff you don't need), OR take a commission with a faction.  Where can the player just buy bonds and clip some coupons?

As for another attempt at a real world example... nobody fixes Somalia, they just deal with its ramifications; theoretically Somalia gets the honor of fixing itself, but in practice, it generally doesn't and prolly won't until something radical occurs.  I mean, America tried like 30 years ago, but all it succeeded at was generating a decent Ridley Scott movie.  But I think it was Histidine that pointed out in his Nex thread that the game lacks a lot of stuff under the hood that one would expect should be there, like that tariffs in the game only exist to force player to risk using black market, doesn't actually change value of goods being shipped between factions.  Some of this is prolly necessary abstraction, some is necessary to reduce game data requirements, some hasn't been added yet, and some that seems unnecessary is probably due a compromise in coding.  I mean, game technically isn't even finished yet.  C'est la vie.

Edit: forgot to include Luddic Path as a "faction"
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ubuntufreakdragon on November 30, 2021, 06:42:05 PM
Other factions need more tools to react to the player than just expeditions, as expeditions fail against any defence set up by an experienced player.
How about embargoes blockades and trade wars, reducing the accessibility of a colony of and extra tax reducing the export income of some ware.
Of cause there should be options to break these things, e.g. smuggling a large quantity of commodities somewhere to break the tax's purpose, or killing the blockade fleet...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on November 30, 2021, 06:42:21 PM
The point is Hegemony and Church single out the player and attack him over and over again just for Free Port, regardless if he is yet another indie-like or a major faction equivalent.  They do not attack anyone else, whether small independent (and possibly pirate) worlds, isolated worlds of their enemies, or even major worlds.  If they can send big fleets at the player just for using Free Port, they should be sending them to several other worlds at the same time, and not just at Free Ports, but also at pirate bases and especially Pather bases (instead of waiting for the player who to do their work like ungrateful beggars then thank him by stabbing him in the back).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on November 30, 2021, 06:59:25 PM
The point is Hegemony and Church single out the player and attack him over and over again just for Free Port, regardless if he is yet another indie-like or a major faction equivalent.  They do not attack anyone else, whether small independent (and possibly pirate) worlds, isolated worlds of their enemies, or even major worlds.  If they can send big fleets at the player just for using Free Port, they should be sending them to several other worlds at the same time, and not just at Free Ports, but also at pirate bases and especially Pather bases (instead of waiting for the player who to do their work like ungrateful beggars then thank him by stabbing him in the back).

Game is still single player, not a sci-fi socioeconomic simulator.

That one is on me, prolly shoulda put this sentence in italics or bold at a minimum.  Game isn't necessarily intended to be fair, just trying to achieve verisimilitude... which varies from player to player.  Half the reason game has an easy option isn't just to ease new players in, it's also necessary to prevent alienation of those filthy, filthy neutrals casuals.

Hence why I pointed out that dropping indies, pirates, and L Path as factions might actually be a better choice in the long run, instead making all their planets just as generically "unaffiliated" (although unlikely to occur until a more complex political system can backstop such changes to game loops, whether for player to have option to turn their unfactioned personal colonies into a single faction, or for a pirate king to arise).  Kind of a delicate balance, can't make the game too much like Stellaris!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on November 30, 2021, 08:10:52 PM
Hence why I pointed out that dropping indies, pirates, and L Path as factions might actually be a better choice in the long run, instead making all their planets just as generically "unaffiliated" (although unlikely to occur until a more complex political system can backstop such changes to game loops, whether for player to have option to turn their unfactioned personal colonies into a single faction, or for a pirate king to arise).  Kind of a delicate balance, can't make the game too much like Stellaris!
Seems like the question would still be "why do major factions not send expeditions at these unaffiliated free ports, only the player?" and the answer is ultimately the same, the gamey "because we didn't bother making them do so, which in turn is because it doesn't affect (as much) the player actions and gameplay experience".

There are a bunch of asymmetries in the game like this, not a big deal in terms of gameplay but it does sometimes grate on the player's sense of fairness, or the aforementioned verisimilitude.

(But the pirate base case is kinda silly because the affected systems can be quite literally getting economically ruined, often to the player's advantage with exploitable commodity shortages, yet the factions do less about it than they do about relatively minor player activity. I changed this in Nex specifically because of Megas posting about it)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on December 01, 2021, 12:04:44 AM
I think it's something like a mix of grandfather clause and funding the terrorists. Some colonies were independent for a long time and people are just used to them. They might not be a threat, or no faction can take it over without angering another, so there's an unspoken agreement that colony is ok. For pirates and pathers, factions might be using them to do things they aren't officially allowed to do. Plausible deniability is a nice thing to have.
It's the sort of unfair treatment you see in real life. Better the debil you know. The player is new and unknown and that makes him dangerous.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on December 01, 2021, 12:36:29 AM
I think it's something like a mix of grandfather clause and funding the terrorists. Some colonies were independent for a long time and people are just used to them. They might not be a threat, or no faction can take it over without angering another, so there's an unspoken agreement that colony is ok. For pirates and pathers, factions might be using them to do things they aren't officially allowed to do. Plausible deniability is a nice thing to have.
It's the sort of unfair treatment you see in real life. Better the debil you know. The player is new and unknown and that makes him dangerous.
Still, other factions should know when to back down.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: q-rau on December 01, 2021, 10:16:13 AM
Honestly wanting every game I play to be a socioeconomic simulator is probably my biggest issue. I'm still working on modeling faction relations in my fantasy trading sim...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on December 01, 2021, 10:58:14 PM
Honestly wanting every game I play to be a socioeconomic simulator is probably my biggest issue. I'm still working on modeling faction relations in my fantasy trading sim...

Oof, man, you gonna die of either a burst bladder or starvation when Dwarf Fortress hits Steam...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on December 02, 2021, 05:20:05 PM
Alex, how close is the second batch of patch notes?  :P
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Radicaljack on December 02, 2021, 05:38:46 PM
Alex, how close is the second batch of patch notes?  :P

always my favorite thing to read, the intial ones are great but i start checking daily after the second batch comes out, furiously refreshing in hopes that i'll see the glorious "released" tag. Honestly the list of changes already is very impressive, eager to test them out. Alex killing it as always and the suggestions from the community are so massive that he's sure to have any number of ideas to pull from for any issues.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on December 03, 2021, 03:35:25 PM
Updated with a bit of new stuff in the OP.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Yubbin on December 03, 2021, 04:12:31 PM
A pilum rebalance and a sabot nerf?? YAY!!!!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Aramoro on December 03, 2021, 04:15:07 PM
Ships:

    Updated older sprites for several ships

Can we know which ships plz?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Okawal on December 03, 2021, 04:15:20 PM
Well the new Pilums seem interesting ... wonder if they will be able to hit frigates (with ECCM).

That are the kind of weapon changes i realy like: unique (and hopefull usefull) weapons.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Ruddygreat on December 03, 2021, 04:17:58 PM
oooohhhhhh, new sprites!

and changes that all seem fine, though polarised armour looks like it's gonna make already tanky ships (mora and venture mainly) downright impossible to kill and it's a shame you cant stack it with shield shunt :'(
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on December 03, 2021, 04:30:49 PM
Can we know which ships plz?

That's more of a question for David! I think the Apogee and... I'm not sure.

Well the new Pilums seem interesting ... wonder if they will be able to hit frigates (with ECCM).

That are the kind of weapon changes i realy like: unique (and hopefull usefull) weapons.

*thumbs up*

They might be able to hit frigates; probably not super reliably but even so.


and changes that all seem fine, though polarised armour looks like it's gonna make already tanky ships (mora and venture mainly) downright impossible to kill and it's a shame you cant stack it with shield shunt :'(

You can combine it with shield shunt - the skill treats shieldless ships as having 50% hard flux; this is mentioned in the skill tooltip.

And, for the change from 50% to 100% armor strength, keep in mind that it'd basically never get the full 100% since that'd require the ship to be at 100% hard flux. Even if you're forced to bring down shields, chances are there's still a bunch of soft flux from weapons fire, so you're really going to be seeing a fraction of the bonus most of the time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Timid on December 03, 2021, 04:46:39 PM
You can combine it with shield shunt - the skill treats shieldless ships as having 50% hard flux; this is mentioned in the skill tooltip.

And, for the change from 50% to 100% armor strength, keep in mind that it'd basically never get the full 100% since that'd require the ship to be at 100% hard flux. Even if you're forced to bring down shields, chances are there's still a bunch of soft flux from weapons fire, so you're really going to be seeing a fraction of the bonus most of the time.

Is the 25% armor off the base armor value or the modified armor value?  :-[
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on December 03, 2021, 04:53:15 PM
Base armor. Percentage bonuses always always apply to the base value, before flat modifiers (which apply next) and multipliers (which apply last, and also include percentage *penalties*).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on December 03, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Oh nice! Loving the new patch notes!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: David on December 03, 2021, 05:26:28 PM
Can we know which ships plz?

Uhhhhh let'see.

Valkyrie, Vigilance, Buffalo, Mule, Hermes, Wolf, Shrike, Revenant, and some weapon slots on others (Falcon, Eagle, Apogee).

Some weapons got touch-ups too; Autopulse, HIL, ... etc? And added a new Pilum stage, of course.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on December 03, 2021, 05:32:25 PM
  • Sabot SRM: reduced EMP damage to 200 (was: 400)
  • Hurricane MIRV: reduced number of submunitions to 9 (was: 11)
  • Squall MRLS: increased ammo to 160 (was: 100)
  • Swarmer SRM: increased ammo to 80 (was: 60)
All of these appear to be better balanced, guess I have less of a reason to just jam sabots onto whatever I can't think of something better for!
Sabot (Single):
  • Changed to (Double)
  • Ammo increased to 2, with a 10 second reload delay
  • OP cost increased to 2
Interesting tradeoff, maybe I will still jam smaller sabots on instead.
  • Pilum LRM:
    • Range reduced to 4000 (was: 10000)
    • Damaged changed to 500 fragmentation plus 500 EMP (was: 500 HE)
    • Added a second stage that's faster (Harpoon-level speed) and triggers on approach
    • Increased hitpoints to 150 (was: 50)
    • Has a chance to fire off a shield-piercing EMP arc dealing 500 EMP damage
      • Chance based on target's hard flux, same as for other shield-piercing effects
    • Other stats mostly unchanged - still very slow (except for 2nd stage), low OP cost, ammo regen
    • Overall goals:
      • Make it into a useful very-long-range support weapon
      • But not one that benefits excessively from being fielded in huge numbers
The meat and potatoes of the missile changes, tradeoffs appear to make Pilums better but not like when they were the God of missiles.  Still would be interesting to add a cheaper second Pirate (or maybe LPath, but pirates just seem more missile happy) version of Pilums that keeps old/current range of 10000, but worse stats than current version of Pilum.  Just my opinion, but should balance benefits of being "fielded in huge numbers."
  • Shield Shunt:
    • Removed EMP resistance bonus
    • Now increases armor by 25%
So does this mean that only Resistant Flux Conduits Hullmod is only EMP resistance HullMod now?  No armor-related version, just flux related?  I smell another new low tech HullMod!  But maybe not, I guess it depends on how balanced this works out to be.  But would have to wait for 2023 update anyway, way too late currently.
  • Fixed issue with "deliver VIP" mission at the Galatia Academy not having a time limit
I've been meaning to ask about some of the GA quests lacking time limits in general, but this answers at least one of the questions.  Still, wouldn't the hostage negotiation mission also have a time limit?  IIRC, it does not... unlike the "buy tech from LPath" mission, that appears less in need of a time limit (although still maybe needs one, just with a much longer time limit.  Seller holding an illegal item and all).  Alternatively, if player takes too long for buyer, maybe the price change isn't so unreasonable after all (as in, if player shows up within time limit, buyer won't always ask for more money).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DaShiv on December 03, 2021, 05:49:32 PM
  • Rift Cascade Emitter:
    • Significantly increased rift damage
    • Successive rifts are bigger and deal more than the initial ones in the chain

Just out of curiosity: what do the new rift numbers look like compared to the current 1000 per rift?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on December 03, 2021, 06:12:28 PM
Interesting tradeoff, maybe I will still jam smaller sabots on instead.

Maybe! I'm low key excited about the (Dual) missiles; they feel like they'll be a genuine budget option - and since small missile slots are rather common, I think it's a change with a high potential impact on variety and loadout decisions.

Not that I'm not excited about the Pilum change, either :)


Still would be interesting to add a cheaper second Pirate (or maybe LPath, but pirates just seem more missile happy) version of Pilums that keeps old/current range of 10000, but worse stats than current version of Pilum.  Just my opinion, but should balance benefits of being "fielded in huge numbers."

Honestly, I've spent enough time trying to make 10k range missiles into anything other than either "really bad" or "way too good if massed" and am pretty well convinced that it's just not going to happen.

(It's possible to play some games with high max speed/low acceleration type things, but the results are a bit too unpredictable for my taste...)

So does this mean that only Resistant Flux Conduits Hullmod is only EMP resistance HullMod now?

Yep. But with Polarized Armor and Impact Mitigation (which affects EMP damage, though not *just* EMP damage), there's still plenty of ways to keep the weapons online.

I've been meaning to ask about some of the GA quests lacking time limits in general, but this answers at least one of the questions.  Still, wouldn't the hostage negotiation mission also have a time limit?  IIRC, it does not... unlike the "buy tech from LPath" mission, that appears less in need of a time limit (although still maybe needs one, just with a much longer time limit.  Seller holding an illegal item and all).  Alternatively, if player takes too long for buyer, maybe the price change isn't so unreasonable after all (as in, if player shows up within time limit, buyer won't always ask for more money).

Generally speaking they're story-type missions and they don't have time limits in the name of not being annoying. The VIP mission, it was just too poor of a fit to not have a time limit anyway, and variety is the spice of life, after all. I understand your point about it making varying degrees of sense with some of the other missions, but, just drew a line somewhere.


Just out of curiosity: what do the new rift numbers look like compared to the current 1000 per rift?

It used to be 1000 damage down to 500 at the fifth rift. Now it's 750 on the first rift, going *up* to 1250 for the fifth.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Aramoro on December 03, 2021, 06:39:42 PM
Can we know which ships plz?

Uhhhhh let'see.

Valkyrie, Vigilance, Buffalo, Mule, Hermes, Wolf, Shrike, Revenant, and some weapon slots on others (Falcon, Eagle, Apogee).

Some weapons got touch-ups too; Autopulse, HIL, ... etc? And added a new Pilum stage, of course.

Cool man, thx.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Nesano on December 03, 2021, 08:33:34 PM
Any theories as to when this will be released?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IonDragonX on December 03, 2021, 08:50:51 PM
Uhhhhh let'see.
Valkyrie, Vigilance, Buffalo, Mule, Hermes, Wolf, Shrike, Revenant, and some weapon slots on others (Falcon, Eagle, Apogee).
Some weapons got touch-ups too; Autopulse, HIL, ... etc? And added a new Pilum stage, of course.
I think somewhere the Graviton Beam was one of those sprites, right?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amoebka on December 03, 2021, 09:04:54 PM
Any theories as to when this will be released?
Well, last time it was 6 months from patchnotes to release, so...  :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on December 03, 2021, 09:46:50 PM
Any theories as to when this will be released?
Hopefully this month  :P
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: THEASD on December 03, 2021, 11:42:16 PM
Fighter Uplink/Carrier Group: increased by 1.5x if the carrier has an officer in command

increased by 1.5x?
meanwhile...250% effect?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on December 04, 2021, 12:13:59 AM
Anyway Alex, add another bonus to Cybernetic Augmentation please? Doesn't have to a major bonus.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on December 04, 2021, 12:18:42 AM
Me: Hey I think Mora doesn't have enough OP for its armaments
Alex 24 hours later in patch notes: "Mora OP increased haha"
You never cease to amaze me damn, but also glad that Wayfarer got a nice nudge.

Really excited about all the missile changes, looks like you really listened to the feedback about which were underperforming. I assume one reason for double variants, except that no one used singles, is that some tend to leave small missile mounts empty in the campaign in favour of more hullmods or flux stats. But now we have some nice lucrative options to fill in. And not going to lie, out of all these listed things, I can't wait to see all those updated sprites  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on December 04, 2021, 01:04:14 AM
Pilums are salamanders now. Nice.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on December 04, 2021, 01:39:32 AM
Updated older sprites for several ships
(...)
Updated older sprites for some weapons

Valkyrie, Vigilance, Buffalo, Mule, Hermes, Wolf, Shrike, Revenant, and some weapon slots on others (Falcon, Eagle, Apogee).

Some weapons got touch-ups too; Autopulse, HIL, ... etc? And added a new Pilum stage, of course.

Yay!

Hyperion:
  • Phase Teleporter cooldown increased to 10 seconds
  • Changed deployment/base maintenance cost back to 15

Finally, the mobility nerf. Hard decision.   ;D

Squall MRLS: increased ammo to 160 (was: 100)

Haha! I can see squall pressure from those large pirate fleets and remnants stations getting harder to deal with.

  • Atropos (Single): reduced OP cost to 1 (was: 2)
  • Atropos Rack: reduced OP cost to 3 (was: 4)
  • Harpoon (Single), Sabot (Single):
    • Changed to (Double)
    • Ammo increased to 2, with a 10 second reload delay
    • OP cost increased to 2
    • Longbow Bomber retains the single-shot version

So now there are small missiles options at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OP, right?

I suspect the Atropos (Single) at 1 OP and the new Harpoon/Sabot (Double) at 2 OP are going to be my most-used missiles on frigates. Also nice options on larger ships for OP-padding.

Pilum LRM:

Curious to play with that.

Perdition Bomber:
  • Increased wing size to 3 (was: 2)
  • Increased OP cost to 20 (was: 15)

My initial reaction was: unpractical, cost too much! Then i realised that 2 new Perdition wings for 40 OP gives the same firepower as the old Perdition wings for 45 OP. So, on Mora/Heron, just put 2 of those new wings, and mix with 1 cheaper option. Though comparison with Dagger wings is inevitable.

Any theories as to when this will be released?

Hmm, looks like finishing touches to me! So, should be close.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sozzer on December 04, 2021, 04:52:12 AM
I'll admit that I'm pretty curious what the reasoning was for the Pilum gaining a second stage for the final sprint compared to making it a bit faster in general - and even more curious why the change from HE. It seems less like an adjustment to the pilum, and more like a missile with a completely different role and use case sharing only name and a generally supportive role.
Which isn't necessarily a complaint, but it seems like it'd have been about as effective to just make this as a separate missile entirely, so I guess I'm asking why not do that?


(And while I'm here, question we were discussing over on discord - is the temporal shell understood to be related to phase technology, or is the description of the scarab merely using phase as a different example of TT pushing the boundaries?)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on December 04, 2021, 05:09:27 AM
The pilum suffers from severe snowball syndrome. It's nearly useless in small numbers, but once it overwhelms enemy defenses it starts breaking things. Part of this is due to the extreme range (every ship on the map can focus the same target), low health(easy to stop, until you can't), and high damage(OW).

Looks like the intent is to flatten that curve. Make the pilum more useful in small numbers, but less useful as a map sweeping weapon. The weapon appears a lot more defensive now, being able to annoy ships rather than outright kill them, which is fine. The damage change may be worrisome(frag damage has half the value of other types due to it being 25/25/100), but it seems good enough to start testing it and see what really happens.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on December 04, 2021, 06:42:41 AM
Salamanders used to do 500 damage, until they became unlimited (upgraded from three rack), then ships with unlimited Fast Missile Racks could kill everything from beyond fog-of-war firing them blind.  Also, thirty to forty frigates each armed with Salamanders caused havoc.  Even after Salamanders were weakened to 100 damage, ships with unlimited Fast Missile Racks could still kill enemies with them, and then Fast Missile Racks gained charges.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: RustyCabbage on December 04, 2021, 09:52:18 AM
Dang, solid changes across the board! Hoping patch notes part two means we're going to get a release soon.  :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on December 04, 2021, 01:02:04 PM
Fighter Uplink/Carrier Group: increased by 1.5x if the carrier has an officer in command

increased by 1.5x?
meanwhile...250% effect?

Hmm - 1.5x means "a factor of 1.5", so "increased by a factor of 1.5" seems both appropriate and reasonably unambiguous - plus, it's consistent with other usage of <number>x in the game.


Me: Hey I think Mora doesn't have enough OP for its armaments
Alex 24 hours later in patch notes: "Mora OP increased haha"
You never cease to amaze me damn, but also glad that Wayfarer got a nice nudge.

Haha, well your thread/comment had a little something to do with this! I meant to pop in that thread and say thank you to everyone for the feedback/thoughts, and to you for getting it started.

It also didn't hurt that I was trying to make the Mora work for me in the campaign and it just, well, wasn't. Despite being a putative brick, it was getting taken down frequently without even making bad decisions - just, too slow and short ranged, but still trying to fight. I should really have another look to see how much this change helps. And maybe using the new Ballistic Rangefinder on it might be a good idea, hmm!

Really excited about all the missile changes, looks like you really listened to the feedback about which were underperforming. I assume one reason for double variants, except that no one used singles, is that some tend to leave small missile mounts empty in the campaign in favour of more hullmods or flux stats. But now we have some nice lucrative options to fill in. And not going to lie, out of all these listed things, I can't wait to see all those updated sprites  ;D

:D Yeah - I mean, that's part of the reason for the (double) variants. It just overall feels like it spreads the missiles out more nicely - the single Atropos can cost 1 OP and not feel way overpriced at 2, also. I think it's fine if it's viable to leave missile mounts empty for some builds. Generally, the (double) versions I think would be most useful on ships that already would not always want to make this tradeoff - i.e. ships with plenty of small missile slots, where they can still get a nice salvo off by firing one missile from each of them.


Pilums are salamanders now. Nice.

I suppose I can see how one might look at "fragmentation and EMP damage plus unlimited ammo" and think that, but it ignores some pretty key differences. They don't feel anywhere near the same either in using or facing them.



So now there are small missiles options at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OP, right?

Yep!

I suspect the Atropos (Single) at 1 OP and the new Harpoon/Sabot (Double) at 2 OP are going to be my most-used missiles on frigates. Also nice options on larger ships for OP-padding.

Hmm, maybe. The single Atropos seems like worthwhile filler if you didn't care that much about missiles anyway and were going to leave the slots empty otherwise. But for something like the Wolf/Lasher? I think that's a harder decision. A triple Harpoon rack gives you enough punch to "punch up"; launching a sad pair of Harpoons isn't really going to do that - it'd be a nice finisher against frigate-sized opponents, or perhaps if massed. Double Sabots might be more competitive in that same situation, though, since a pair would be very useful already. And of course if you've got Expanded Missile Racks and/or Missile Spec on the officer, that changes the value comparison, too.

My initial reaction was: unpractical, cost too much! Then i realised that 2 new Perdition wings for 40 OP gives the same firepower as the old Perdition wings for 45 OP. So, on Mora/Heron, just put 2 of those new wings, and mix with 1 cheaper option. Though comparison with Dagger wings is inevitable.

*thumbs up* I'm just hoping they're not going to be overpowered again, but it's a different fighter landscape than last time they were at three per wing.


I'll admit that I'm pretty curious what the reasoning was for the Pilum gaining a second stage for the final sprint compared to making it a bit faster in general - and even more curious why the change from HE. It seems less like an adjustment to the pilum, and more like a missile with a completely different role and use case sharing only name and a generally supportive role.
Which isn't necessarily a complaint, but it seems like it'd have been about as effective to just make this as a separate missile entirely, so I guess I'm asking why not do that?

First up: it's definitely a different missile. But, as you noted, what it retains is the general idea of the Pilum, which is a long-range support missile. (Plus, for fun, it functions more like its ancient namesake now, what with punching holes in shields and all.)

A support missile generally means it's not going to be synched up well with whatever its supporting, so unlimited ammo is a desired quality. But this means that you have to be careful that it doesn't out-compete non-support missiles in their roles. For example, even a modest speed boost lets the old Pilum function pretty well as an unlimited-ammo medium range finisher missile, and that really steps on the Harpoon. The fast second stage is a way to let it have reasonable anti-PD performance while ... bascially not suppressing venting in an overly-large area simply by existing. Plus, this second stage means that there's less accomulation of Pilums from multiple salvoes following a target around - they'll get used up (by getting close enough and engaging the second stage) at about the rate they're fired.

The idea is to let it support another ship, and shield-piercing EMP damage should accomplish that. With HE damage, it's easier to get into trouble with it being too good as a short-range finisher instead of support, hence frag damage.

As for why not make it another missile - I don't think the original Pilum concept worked out, ultimately, and I was just done trying to salvage it in anything like its original form.


(And while I'm here, question we were discussing over on discord - is the temporal shell understood to be related to phase technology, or is the description of the scarab merely using phase as a different example of TT pushing the boundaries?)

I'd say it's probably related, though to what degree is extremely fluid.


The pilum suffers from severe snowball syndrome. It's nearly useless in small numbers, but once it overwhelms enemy defenses it starts breaking things. Part of this is due to the extreme range (every ship on the map can focus the same target), low health(easy to stop, until you can't), and high damage(OW).

Looks like the intent is to flatten that curve. Make the pilum more useful in small numbers, but less useful as a map sweeping weapon. The weapon appears a lot more defensive now, being able to annoy ships rather than outright kill them, which is fine. The damage change may be worrisome(frag damage has half the value of other types due to it being 25/25/100), but it seems good enough to start testing it and see what really happens.

(Yep! I'd say "support" instead of "defensive", but still that's all quite accurate.)


Dang, solid changes across the board! Hoping patch notes part two means we're going to get a release soon.  :)

:-X
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sly on December 04, 2021, 05:02:29 PM
  • Defective Manufactory, Converted Hangar:
    • Fighter damage taken penalty reduced to 25% (was: 50%)
    • Fighter speed penalty reduced to 25% (was: 33%)

This was something I've wanted to suggest for a year or so, but never thought it would pick up any traction! Very cool, I like Converted Hanger and experiment with it all the time. It was simply laughably bad (in a funny, facepalming way) at times with how easily strikecraft were wiped out.

I look forward to trying this out in the future and seeing if Converted Hanger is in a good spot now.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kragh on December 04, 2021, 09:43:19 PM
The changes to converted hangar are really going to impact the AI. They already use them a lot so I wonder how much stronger they're going to be (and that's a good thing in my opinion).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on December 05, 2021, 12:29:24 AM
The converted hangar buff is something I was pretty happy to see on the new patch notes.  I don't use them much any more, but I still love equipping them on my Apogee's (I've since downgraded from Xyphos wings to Wasp's).  Of questionable benefit alone, they seem to survive a bit longer when fielding 4 or so Apogee's in my end game exploration fleet, so they should be even better now.

I noticed that the art on the fighter wings look broken down when using a converted hangar (well they aren't a proper hangar I guess).  I don't think I noticed it much on wasps, but the Xyphos looked pretty derelict and ready for the scrap yard...is that still the case with the new update? (wasn't a fan of that, but I guess it was used to distinguish them between normal hangars; maybe they could look a little less beat up with the buff?).

Imgur isn't working right now so I attached a comparison between a converted hangar (left) and normal hangar (right)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strict on December 05, 2021, 01:10:45 AM
My suggestion is to remove EMP damage from sabots, it's a good weapon in its role (burst KE damage, nobody uses it for EMP),  so it won't ovelap with salamander and new pilum. It will help gameplay too, armor tanking sabots (correct play from player and AI) now will not result in punishmet from EMP disabling weapons (punishment for correct play), so now everyone will need to time their attacks better to overload ships.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on December 05, 2021, 01:15:26 AM
My suggestion is to remove EMP damage from sabots, it's a good weapon in its role (burst KE damage, nobody uses it for EMP),  so it won't ovelap with salamander and new pilum. It will help gameplay too, armor tanking sabots (correct play from player and AI) now will not result in punishmet from EMP disabling weapons (punishment for correct play), so now everyone will need to time their attacks better to overload ships.
Well now you've just made it useless. I know Sabots are hated but come on you can't expect a kinetic missile like this to do literally nothing if you drop shields. AI would never do anything with it, ever. It's not the fact that people use it for EMP, it's to have some effect if you tank it on armour.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strict on December 05, 2021, 01:29:08 AM
Well now you've just made it useless. I know Sabots are hated but come on you can't expect a kinetic missile like this to do literally nothing if you drop shields. AI would never do anything with it, ever. It's not the fact that people use it for EMP, it's to have some effect if you tank it on armour.

No? Combine missiles together and time it well, atropos+sabot as example, use HE strike weapons during first stage, it will be uselesss on it's own and it's a good thing. Dumping sabots and not thinking is good strategy in this patch (you either overload it or emp it to overloaded like state, I know that 3 medium sabots on odyssey is hilarious but it gets old real fast).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on December 05, 2021, 01:45:15 AM
Wait until this guy hears about Harpoon spam...
But seriously do you then want HE missiles to do zero damage to shields? Because that's pretty much what you're asking for here. You CAN'T remove the EMP component unless you completely redesign Sabots from ground up (and they were already reworked bunch of times).

And if you have free time, make a fleet full of Harpoon missiles with Expanded missile racks and ECCM for hullmods, and then come back here to say Sabots are broken.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strict on December 05, 2021, 02:01:52 AM
Wait until this guy hears about Harpoon spam...
But seriously do you then want HE missiles to do zero damage to shields? Because that's pretty much what you're asking for here. You CAN'T remove the EMP component unless you completely redesign Sabots from ground up (and they were already reworked bunch of times).

And if you have free time, make a fleet full of Harpoon missiles with Expanded missile racks and ECCM for hullmods, and then come back here to say Sabots are broken.

I absolutely seriously and unironically don't understand what you mean, armor tanking kinetic damage makes this type of damage useless without something "extra"? Most weapons work this way and you combine them for that reason.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on December 05, 2021, 02:06:03 AM
Most weapons don't have very limited ammo?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strict on December 05, 2021, 02:15:50 AM
Most weapons don't have very limited ammo?

Most weapons don't do insane burst damage and cost flux to fire, so it's balanced that way. Still don't understand how it will make sabots useless, why hammers are not useless when you can easily block them by shield?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on December 05, 2021, 02:32:28 AM