Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hyperspace Topography (10/12/22)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Scorpixel

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
General Discussion / Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« on: June 06, 2021, 06:22:52 PM »
I maintain what i implicitly said, a customer does not know what he wants, it's up to the producer to find what works, same goes for players and devs.

About that point of "you want something nerfed that you do not play", i do not use the Doom because A: not my playstyle and B: still entrenched in 0.9.1. Considering how broken the thing is and how broken enemies are unless the former is used, i would be driven into that corner, as right now playing midlines+carriers and ignoring lowtech entirely.

I'm not special, just part of the niche that enjoy that kind of stuff, i like my corner and management tabs, yet recognise that this niche has no right subjugating others who want no part in it yet have to (be it consciously or not).
We are our most biased viewpoint, observing communities as a whole and acknowledging (not necessarily rejecting) our biases when doing so is primordial to understanding trends and mechanisms.

Maybe there's a truth about good being subjective (that i view as the go-to "defence" when something someone likes is being "attacked", both a wound and insult to all artforms), but an absolute one is the playerbase. If your game offer options, viable ones are those that count, others might as well not exist.
A busted option does this to an even greater degree.

In both solo and multi, the advantaged playstyle defends it's position, while the others complain, if devs give-in, the nerfed side (if within reason) cries a bit before calming down, but when the status-quo remain, everyone else quietly leaves, entering a negative feedback loop of dwindling population but higher ratio of pro status-quo.

As for that point you made on the P2W game, it is flawed logic, and for two reasons:

-You wouldn't need to find the fun through cheats in the first place if the game was good (which is solely incompatible with P2W games, took years to learn that), it takes time to know when something is bad, as even poking a dead rat with a stick can be entertaining for some time.

-You only reference your point of view, which you did the whole time, everything is subjective but only if it's from someone else. What about the large majority of the playerbase that did not get to find such cheats to essentially gain the benefits of those with a bottomless credit card? Did they find the fun?

The truth is whatever gets to be reliably viable within it's niche, games inside those search for the truth in question.
The best representation of this idea is the essay on DayZ from Sovietwomble.

Multiplayer is inherently different and more likely to provide entertainment (IE: not fun, entertainment. Can be the kind players loathe but still play) and as such while more active, also more forgiving of it's flaws.

A solo experience is it's own description.
It HAS to stand on it's two feet and provide to the player entirely by itself, the core gameplay loop has to suck the player in and keep-up for hours if not days, helped by the flavours around it.
ALL flavours have to live around said loop, those fully in the shadow are useless load bound to disappoint, those basked in light completely alter the intended journey, and hold an addiction that take long to notice until you realise you spent the whole voyage in a semi-conscious daze.

General Discussion / Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« on: June 06, 2021, 05:57:44 AM »
What's with the fallacy that nerf=bad because it's a negative term?
Any game needs it's base state to be a balanced experience, a failure to do so is a failure of game design.
Unbalanced gameplay can be obtained through cheats/mods, and should not be expected of the main game outside dedicated modes/sliders/difficulties.

Players will naturally gravitate toward the most efficient gameplay, it is what a game has to work with, if the best strategy consist of sitting in a corner with a silenced sniper and abusing the enemy AI, everyone will do it eventually no matter how unfun to them.

And personal taste here, no not everyone wants ships to be zooming around like methed-up squirrels on ice, i like my ships with the momentum of a ship.

I wonder how hyperspace works. I think that there's one fitting explanation, that unlike real space, hyperspace expands near gravity wells and contracts in empty space.
It really is the best way to explain it in accordance with in-game mechanics.

General Discussion / Re: Ship size vs weapon size
« on: May 28, 2021, 06:37:56 AM »
Some do look good, the Sunder is basically what happens when the UNSC finds a plasma lance, the Wolf is a frigate hunter so of course would pack something to outgun others. Also like the Brawler for strapping two batteries to an engine and calling it a ship.

What can i say, spinal weaponry and brutal design efficiency are so pleasing to look at.

The term assault implies being the heaviest kind with firepower to match. Basically ├╝berfighters/corvettes.
There's quite a few of them in mods, although they're more of a gimmick than a proper class since you want either saturation or alpha strike, rather than a suicidal frigate that respawn.

Interceptors are meant to kill fast stuff by reaching them faster, being weak is more of a side effect and isn't always true.
Fighters are average, it's as broad as "action-adventure"
Bombers do bombing runs and need to resupply their main weapon but can still have some side-gig to operate with.

As for the Xyphos it was nice to have it be able to cover other ships in it's range during 0.9.1, but could lead to ridiculous stacking on a single advancing ship spewing out a big ray of death, support fighters are the least likely to die and thus critical mass is never-ending if reached.

General Discussion / Re: Low Tech ship worst logistics
« on: May 21, 2021, 04:20:41 AM »
That's the point. Powder is better than bow and arrows. High tech best tech.
It has been clarified multiple times that low/mid/high tech is a doctrine difference more than a technological one, and not a tier progression.
The current "low tech" hulls are of an older design but have long since been modernised to current (pre-collapse) standards, the lore state everywhere that modular weaponry and shields weren't a thing at all at the time, yet they have both.

Again, there would be no point bothering to have those exist if they were obsolete, imagine being the clown asked to code a spear in an fps.

Right now low tech gets the shortest stick in every competition, be it terrible logistics, mobility, abilities, flux, and even dps/tanking directly related to the previous, i'd rather have 600 flux, high mobility, crap armour and super shields rather than a ship getting a stroke with two medium kinetics that gets danced around by uberfrigates.

The gates closings were a cataclysmic event, it being called "The Collapse" is not an understatement.
Remember that the Core is all that barely survived due to the concentration of colonies in a somewhat functional state, everywhere else with planetary ruins, dead stations, ships and debris fields were lost to it, even what is left is made-up of unfinished, half-ruined projects.

A modern society can run with 1% of it's population in the military without issue, that would be 1.7/17 millions, more than enough to field everything in canon (=! pirate swarm/Nex fleets), and that's without considering how much more advanced the sector is compared to us.
Normal soldiers are beyond useless in space warfare. What are they going to do, shoot at the ship in orbit?

It's also far better to make a story, we're supposed to be in a "After the end" setting, which would get severely hurt if it went "Oh yes, the situation is dire, humanity is barely surviving over scraps, there's only nine hundred bajillion of us left!"

Too many stories throw-in wild numbers and low/high ball it horribly, here we see known humanity at (lowest estimate) half of what it was for most of written history, or early 20th century (highest), those are scales we can relate with, and immediately make us think "that's not good isn't it?"

General Discussion / Re: Wondering how other players command.
« on: May 13, 2021, 06:27:06 AM »
-Rush control points
-Priority on enemy ships doing the same (the AI gives order too but stop ordering cap after some time)
-Maintain the line (rally/defend/assault), destroy anything that stands out
-Cycle charge the enemy to death

The enemy is only a threat when it's all over the place, keeping orders simple so that ships have the option to deviate when necessary is important, your AIs often cannot do exactly what you wish them to.
Always have some orders in reserve.

That's not exactly fresh news anyways, the League was always described as such as far as it's relation tab.
As discussed in a previous thread, the League exist because the Hegemony does, otherwise they'd be at each other throats due to being largely comprised of authoritarian powers that want to keep it.

As for the low bar, post-post-apocalypse doesn't really allow for a "100% good guys" team, which would hurt both worldbuilding and story.

General Discussion / Re: Carriers mid-late game
« on: May 04, 2021, 03:19:47 PM »
I've tried some carrier with a modded game (Mayasuran Navy and Detailed Combat results) and tried out some of their Battlecarriers, the other mod letting me see how effective some of the LPCs are doing.

They tend to do alright. I usually just field Broadswords now after trying out the various other LPC, severely disappointed in the [REDACTED] interceptors especially. The Broadswords get reduced to just 1/2 a Light machine gun after awhile due to their absolutely pathetic Flux dissipation stats, but their flares and the sheer durability per OP you're paying for makes up for it.

They oddly still do about as much damage as Gladius and Thunders.

Still, they are more a compliment to the guns of my Battlecarriers than anything else. I can't ever seem to get the bombers to do any work, they just get shot to pieces unless it's against fleets I was going to bulldoze through anyway.
Oh Mayasuran ships, poor things must have went from top tier to anemic half-warships.
Liked the Mithuna a lot for exploration, very good anchor due to capital range and obscene dissipation.
Current version most likely gets ravaged by [REDACTED] frigates despite S-modding.

Now that sparks are meh and replacement nerfed. Drone/Xyphos it is for every battlecarrier, because those don't kamikaze.

The new version seem to be more clement toward players who'd rather pilot themselves rather than take full fleet and logistic skills.
However it's less because personal skills were buffed and more because non-personal ones were severely hampered by the "get half of it and loop for the other half" on top of diminishing returns on some and the trap of derelict+fieldrepair.

As someone who doesn't pilot, 0.9.1 but i do understand the point of those who prefer 0.95, and will too be in favour of it when skills gets some balancing to make the system flexible without leaving an aftertaste of doing concessions rather than specialisation.

General Discussion / Re: A compliment to the writing
« on: May 04, 2021, 12:03:39 PM »
Flavour text always add a lot to a world. It was always very nice to learn a bit more every time you read a ship or planet's description, and the new quests with fleshed-out storylines greatly help at immersing ourselves by giving a sentiment of leaving an impact.

Now for the desired impact of those quest, does anyone know if the release intend on having those directly impact the sector, or should they be mostly free of consequences in order to preserve the game flexibility?

General Discussion / Re: Problem with deployment points?
« on: May 03, 2021, 07:22:18 AM »
Nothing to do with the subject but
Say you got 10 officers plus yourself and you have not become a pantsy left the Battle size to the default 300.
I'll have you know my self-esteem has been deeply hurt as i play on 500, and will now proceed to send you a strongly worded letter about how you're wrong and smell bad.

More seriously, what's so bad about increased battle size? Other than frying a potato-pc.

General Discussion / Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« on: April 30, 2021, 11:14:41 AM »
Sorry guys but like in the real world high tech supposed to be better than low-tech, a new generation of ships always better than 200+ years older. We simply need more med-high tech ships for other factions too not just TT, for example, powerful high-tech cruiser for hegemony, missile capital for Syndicat, etc.
It is supposed to be a different doctrine, if the only viable way is high-tech then why even bother with anything else?
Factions have specific roasters for Lore reasons.
Why would your local templar show-up in the Heresy-mobile-3000?
Why would a hegemony commander act all picky and ask the entire logistical line to make him unique ships when every other goes the XIVth's way?

The real problem is low-tech being a black hole of ressource consumption for terrible returns. Enormous crew requirements, same supply consumption as more advanced designs except it need long and costly repairs after every battle, guzzle fuel at a pace making you think the crew drinks it.

Less intricate designs should cost less and give more, if a Paragon beats an Onslaught then just make ten for the same cost because you can afford the manpower and Bagration the whole thing.

General Discussion / Re: Fragmentation got left behind?
« on: April 29, 2021, 06:51:31 PM »
I've got 2 vulcans on my enforcers instead of flak because they are so effective. I've seen them shoot down reapers, full volleys of harpoons, etc. They are certainly worse knife fighting weapons than lmg's, and the reduced range means they can't protect other ships, but they are fantastic point defense for the mounting ship. I'd say single lmg is... 20% as effective at PD, and double lmg maybe 30% as effective.
It seem i've got a personal grudge against frontward ballistic pd (and SO builds in general), the combination of short range and fast approach make taking down incoming fast volleys before those hits the shield feel somewhat unreliable.
Many players far more experienced than myself support extensive pd arrays, turns out i'm a vulture and my ships are lucky to even get 2 lmg/pd(beam).

Instead, a railgun/needler is top-tier kinetic, the enemy gets too scared about flux and only release dangerous missiles when panick-retreating, plus leaving larger slots for efficient explosive damage.
Shields can generally tank any non-sabot missile, fighters are a bigger issue because of their severe drain on flux and it happens that the aforementioned weaponry is quite good at thinning-out approaching squadrons.

Yes it is extremely vulnerable if isolated or flanked, but it's the fleet's objective to not end-up in this situation and keep attacking, frag dmg does very little regarding neutering the enemy. Dual-flak gets a pass on capitals due to obscene range and saturation potential.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11