Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 15, 2024, 04:43:40 PM »

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

You can't increase the range without breaking the games balance. The moment proper High-Tech gets ballistic ranged energy weapons is the moment where all other types of ships get invalidated. I've always known this from playing mods, but I got a hard reminder when I installed Hazard Mining Incorporated and it introduced Remnant weapons that had longer than standard range for a borderline nonexistent OP increase and or flux efficiency decrease.

Can't increase the range at all? The suggestion isn't to maintain a 1000 range beam here, it is to simply put them out of the 500-600 SU range band. Regarding the mod you referenced, you stated it yourself that the special Remnant weapons had a borderline nonexistent OP increase/efficiency decrease, which doesn't really inspire confidence in the balancing ability of that mod. The whole point of this thread is finding the right balance anyway, right?

HMI also introduced me to weapons that frequently pierce shields at any flux level. Given HSA Tachyon Lance and Ion Beam can do that, but are uncommon at low flux, having HSA increase their effects would be hellish, just as it was with that mod.

I didn't suggest EMP arcing at every flux level. I said double the effects. If EMP doesn't arc at low flux, then it still doesn't arc at low flux.

Having multiple beams decreases hit strength, making anti-armor / anti-hull beam weapons worthless. Decreasing the useful builds for S-HSA.

The implication there was that there was some benefit to make the split beams worth it, ie each of three beams does half damage or the beams maintain their effects (like the above 'doubled effects' idea). I remember these ideas coming up in past HSA balance discussions so I didn't feel like retreading all that ground, but the point is that it isn't just to split the beam.

Shield bouncing is best left to a dedicated weapon as it would be agony to balance, and have the AI recognize as a potential threat.
The AI would struggle with beams being half hardflux/softflux. Both on the firing and receiving end.

I agree the AI would be tricky with both of these, was spitballing at that point. Hence why I followed those ideas up with "those are pretty tough to put into action, tricky to balance, and are inconsistent with peer S-mod effects though, so ultimately tweaking the range debuff is frankly the easiest lever."

Which returns to the range balancing. I think halved range beyond 400 isn't that crazy a change.
Compare the Graviton to the Arbalest:
9 vs 8 OP (not counting HSA cost or S-mod opportunity cost)
Both 700 range
Equal damage/flux
Higher hit strength for Arbalest
Perfect accuracy and minor shield debuff effect for Graviton

Similar comparisons with the IR Autolance and the Thumper, where the Thumper recovers charges faster but the IR has higher hit strength. Phase Lance doesn't approach ballistic range or efficiency in any world. Ion Beam is still an expensive and inefficient weapon. All the large energy beams would have equal range to Autopulse or Plasma Cannon, so hardly competitive with large ballistics there. The largest imbalance I see would be the tac laser, which would have 700 range against similarly ranged ballistics, but perfect accuracy. Tactical Lasers are also inefficient compared to ballistics and have poor hit strength though...

All of this at the price of OP, which high-tech ships already have less of compared to low-tech ships, or at the cost of an S-mod slot, when there are some really competitive high-tech S-mod bonuses. All of this compared to 700 range ballistic weapons, which are on the lower end of ballistic ranges. The only thing a high-tech ship would have going with these 700 range beams is speed, which, yeah, it helps, but they still need to enter ballistic weapon range to deliver that damage. The only ships that don't have ballistics are energy-only ships, and in that case I agree that they would have an advantage,  but what are the chances that such a perfect matchup occurs? Never mind that high-tech shields are already an almost rock-paper-scissors like hard-counter to regular (non-HSA) beams as-is.

After looking case-by-case (ignoring Dorito weapons as they are special cases anyway) I'm not convinced that 700 range hard-flux beams would be competitive with ballistic weapons at all. They seem like they'd only be decent against slower, energy-only, non-capital enemy ships. That is a pretty specific niche. Frankly, HSA is useless as-is, so if the range change was an S-mod bonus then HSA wouldn't ever see action outside of being S-modded, that's for sure.

[close]

Unless you want to make them massively flux inefficient, no not at all. The bonus range from ballistic weapons is needed to give the slower Low-Tech ships breathing room. It allows them to fire on High-Tech ships first, and drop their shields first when both ships back off to vent. Granting them a good tradeoff for the extreme speed and dissipation difference.
To get the same 700 range on energy weapons, and thereby on HT ships, you would need decrease their efficiency by an extreme margin to cover for this. When I say extreme, I mean extreme, 0.8 efficiency beam weapons would become 1.1-1.2 efficient weapons.

You may not have suggested it, but that's the end effect. HSA Tachyon Lances deal the hardflux they need to arc, which means firing on ships at 0 flux still has a chance to generate an arc. Doubling the odds this happens turns it into a weapon that will reliably shut down destroyers and some lower capacity cruisers.

Pretty much any way you balance split beams is going to have negative consequences. The way I mentioned decreases hit strength making weapons like the HIL, TL, and PL significantly weaker.
Decreasing DPS so that each beam has the same hit strength makes it easier for ships to shield tank shots.

For most of these, see the opening reason. For Phase Lances, you're getting a flux efficient, higher dps, perfect accuracy, and never ending Anti-Matter Blaster for 1 op + HSA, it should be 400 range. Tachyon Lances have a higher sustained DPS than AutoPulse lasers, have higher hit strength, better accuracy, and will arc through shields, for being less flux efficient, lower range, 5 op +HSA, and not having the opening burst. Boosting its range would probably make it an auto pick over AutoPulse Lasers.

[close]

1. I understand the theory, but again, I disagree. As I mentioned, 700 range is the low end for a ballistic weapon as-is. They are also significantly more efficient by virtue of specialized damage types, and frankly speaking, I don't find any of the base-1000-range beams to be good enough with hard flux to compete with their ballistic counterparts. I can hardly see a Tactical Laser or Graviton Beam whittling down an enemy ship before PPT kicks in, in a fleet setting at least. I'd really have to see it to believe it!

2. Good! Shutting down a destroyer with an S-mod boosted Large Energy (already more rare than Large Ballistic and shorter range to boot) should be an achievement. Especially considering how a non-HSA-boosted Tachyon Lance or Autopulse can already perform very well against a destroyer or light cruiser, it doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment. I'll chock this one up to another "see it to believe it".

3. Negative consequences aren't always an issue. Some hullmods have negative consequences, but still fulfill niches, like how S-modded Armoured Weapon Mounts can push an already over-fluxed ship into downright comatose territory, or how S-modded Integrated Point Defense AI can be a bad pick with certain small weapons because they are really bad and inefficient anti-fighter/missile weapons. The point is that sometimes the split beams would be good enough to justify the cost. My example of maintain beam effects but you get it with three separate beams means one Graviton would provide the full 10% shield damage bonus, or that dreaded shield arcing you were just trembling at would come into effect three (!) times over. Also can't say that I wouldn't ever make that trade for a High-Intensity Laser; 50% higher DPS for half hit strength would still be fine for cracking most cruiser-grade armour, it just wouldn't be as effective against the toughest armour around (kind of like how the HAG is higher hull DPS but lower hit strength compared to Hellbore).

4. Phase Lances also take up a medium slot? I can't put a Phase Lance on a Scarab or Omen, for example. Should an Arbalest be weighed against a Railgun now? I personally have a simple conversion ratio where 1L = 2M = 4S. It doesn't hold up perfectly, some slot sizes are more efficient than others, but that is my general feeling. So I'd say that a Phase Lance should probably be twice as good as an Antimatter Blaster right out of the gate anyway. Maybe even better, because I consider small Energy slots to be weaker than the 2-to-1 ratio listed above suggests.

5. Regarding Autopulse versus S-modded HSA'd Tachyon, wouldn't a more apt comparison be to an S-modded ExMag'd Autopulse? All the things you listed are comparing a (presumably S-modded, though it doesn't really matter) HSA'd Tachyon Lance to a raw Autopulse; they shouldn't be so evenly matched that HSA still needs a buff to come out ahead!

[close]

It's also the most efficient end of ballistics in terms of flux/dps/range vs OP. The longer-range options already tend to lose the flux war against faster ships, owing to both their OP cost, flux inefficiency, and low DPS. The exception is the Heavy Autocannon, which pretty much nobody uses because it's boring.
As for whittling down enemy ships before PPT becomes an issue, I already do it with Phase Lance TT Brawlers. They're operating at 800 range, but they only deal soft flux. Between them and the Salamanders, one alone can defeat most destroyers in the game, three can beat any Cruiser. A 700 range hardflux Graviton Beam operates at 210-220 DPS along with buffing shield damage for other weapons. I would say just mod it so you can see for yourself, however HSA is not present in the Data folder for easy modification.

You can already see it, just download the mod I mentioned. Everything you've said seems like a good idea until you have to fight it, at which point you will be glad it's not in vanilla.

There's literally no benefit to making every beam weapon multibeam with a s-mod besides the fact that it sounds cool and increasing secondary effects. Which would be broken mind you. Doubling arcing for every ship with emp beams is on par with the enemy bringing a couple ships with Reality Disrupters. It's agonizing to fight and is without counter beyond spamming weapon/engine repair stats.
Gravitons are also an issue because you're forgetting their secondary effect which everyone forgets about, they push things. Two to three Graviton beams make frigates difficult to control, double that makes them spin uncontrollably, tripling or quadrupling with split beams would send them flying and make destroyers impossible to control and cruisers very difficult to control.
If you need to see it to believe it, grab a frigate or destroyer, and go fight the Persean League. Their Gazer spam will give you a good idea of what doubling the effects of gravitons is like.

It literally is two times the overall power of an Antimatter Blaster. It's 238.7 DPS vs 274 DPS, in return for not needing ammunition, perfect accuracy, and better flux efficiency.

Yep, I forgot about s-ExMags. Still, it shouldn't be competing with AutoPulse lasers, they need separate niches.

I'm not going to move from this position. No bonus range, no doubling the effects, and no cheesing my disagreement by doubling the effects through split beams.

If you want bonus range with HSA, allowing Energy Bolt Coherer to work with it would be fine as all the ships with that hullmod have midline speed and dissipation.

Here are a few s-mod bonuses that would be fine and would fix some current issues and fit the hullmod's theme. A combination of them would be fine as well.
Increased flux efficiency, as mentioned.
Increased turn speed of beam weapons while firing.
Instant travel of beam weapons. So, beams like the Tactical Laser would start hitting the moment they fire.
Increased beam damage to enemy hull, HSA IRAL is fairly worthless so may as well.

2

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 15, 2024, 12:16:48 AM »

Spoiler

You can't increase the range without breaking the games balance. The moment proper High-Tech gets ballistic ranged energy weapons is the moment where all other types of ships get invalidated. I've always known this from playing mods, but I got a hard reminder when I installed Hazard Mining Incorporated and it introduced Remnant weapons that had longer than standard range for a borderline nonexistent OP increase and or flux efficiency decrease.

Can't increase the range at all? The suggestion isn't to maintain a 1000 range beam here, it is to simply put them out of the 500-600 SU range band. Regarding the mod you referenced, you stated it yourself that the special Remnant weapons had a borderline nonexistent OP increase/efficiency decrease, which doesn't really inspire confidence in the balancing ability of that mod. The whole point of this thread is finding the right balance anyway, right?

HMI also introduced me to weapons that frequently pierce shields at any flux level. Given HSA Tachyon Lance and Ion Beam can do that, but are uncommon at low flux, having HSA increase their effects would be hellish, just as it was with that mod.

I didn't suggest EMP arcing at every flux level. I said double the effects. If EMP doesn't arc at low flux, then it still doesn't arc at low flux.

Having multiple beams decreases hit strength, making anti-armor / anti-hull beam weapons worthless. Decreasing the useful builds for S-HSA.

The implication there was that there was some benefit to make the split beams worth it, ie each of three beams does half damage or the beams maintain their effects (like the above 'doubled effects' idea). I remember these ideas coming up in past HSA balance discussions so I didn't feel like retreading all that ground, but the point is that it isn't just to split the beam.

Shield bouncing is best left to a dedicated weapon as it would be agony to balance, and have the AI recognize as a potential threat.
The AI would struggle with beams being half hardflux/softflux. Both on the firing and receiving end.

I agree the AI would be tricky with both of these, was spitballing at that point. Hence why I followed those ideas up with "those are pretty tough to put into action, tricky to balance, and are inconsistent with peer S-mod effects though, so ultimately tweaking the range debuff is frankly the easiest lever."

Which returns to the range balancing. I think halved range beyond 400 isn't that crazy a change.
Compare the Graviton to the Arbalest:
9 vs 8 OP (not counting HSA cost or S-mod opportunity cost)
Both 700 range
Equal damage/flux
Higher hit strength for Arbalest
Perfect accuracy and minor shield debuff effect for Graviton

Similar comparisons with the IR Autolance and the Thumper, where the Thumper recovers charges faster but the IR has higher hit strength. Phase Lance doesn't approach ballistic range or efficiency in any world. Ion Beam is still an expensive and inefficient weapon. All the large energy beams would have equal range to Autopulse or Plasma Cannon, so hardly competitive with large ballistics there. The largest imbalance I see would be the tac laser, which would have 700 range against similarly ranged ballistics, but perfect accuracy. Tactical Lasers are also inefficient compared to ballistics and have poor hit strength though...

All of this at the price of OP, which high-tech ships already have less of compared to low-tech ships, or at the cost of an S-mod slot, when there are some really competitive high-tech S-mod bonuses. All of this compared to 700 range ballistic weapons, which are on the lower end of ballistic ranges. The only thing a high-tech ship would have going with these 700 range beams is speed, which, yeah, it helps, but they still need to enter ballistic weapon range to deliver that damage. The only ships that don't have ballistics are energy-only ships, and in that case I agree that they would have an advantage,  but what are the chances that such a perfect matchup occurs? Never mind that high-tech shields are already an almost rock-paper-scissors like hard-counter to regular (non-HSA) beams as-is.

After looking case-by-case (ignoring Dorito weapons as they are special cases anyway) I'm not convinced that 700 range hard-flux beams would be competitive with ballistic weapons at all. They seem like they'd only be decent against slower, energy-only, non-capital enemy ships. That is a pretty specific niche. Frankly, HSA is useless as-is, so if the range change was an S-mod bonus then HSA wouldn't ever see action outside of being S-modded, that's for sure.

[close]

Unless you want to make them massively flux inefficient, no not at all. The bonus range from ballistic weapons is needed to give the slower Low-Tech ships breathing room. It allows them to fire on High-Tech ships first, and drop their shields first when both ships back off to vent. Granting them a good tradeoff for the extreme speed and dissipation difference.
To get the same 700 range on energy weapons, and thereby on HT ships, you would need decrease their efficiency by an extreme margin to cover for this. When I say extreme, I mean extreme, 0.8 efficiency beam weapons would become 1.1-1.2 efficient weapons.

You may not have suggested it, but that's the end effect. HSA Tachyon Lances deal the hardflux they need to arc, which means firing on ships at 0 flux still has a chance to generate an arc. Doubling the odds this happens turns it into a weapon that will reliably shut down destroyers and some lower capacity cruisers.

Pretty much any way you balance split beams is going to have negative consequences. The way I mentioned decreases hit strength making weapons like the HIL, TL, and PL significantly weaker.
Decreasing DPS so that each beam has the same hit strength makes it easier for ships to shield tank shots.

For most of these, see the opening reason. For Phase Lances, you're getting a flux efficient, higher dps, perfect accuracy, and never ending Anti-Matter Blaster for 1 op + HSA, it should be 400 range. Tachyon Lances have a higher sustained DPS than AutoPulse lasers, have higher hit strength, better accuracy, and will arc through shields, for being less flux efficient, lower range, 5 op +HSA, and not having the opening burst. Boosting its range would probably make it an auto pick over AutoPulse Lasers.

3

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 13, 2024, 09:13:52 PM »

Beam DPS would be flux efficient but OP inefficient, while energy bolt DPS would be flux inefficient but OP efficient.
This would have a valuable use case for ships that have a good amount of OP, but not enough venting. So high-tech frigates like the Wolf, Midline ships, and many Remnant ships.

I don't agree, beam weapons are already really cheap and efficient flux-wise and often the ships that can field them have a flux profile made to account for generally inefficient bolt weapons. Making them (and only them) slightly cheaper isn't really going to make the difference worth the extra OP or a different S-mod bonus.

I'm fine if they compete with regular bolt weapons because one is already paying that tax to enable them to do so (just like with S-Modded Expanded Mags), but if they were to have an alternative niche, I'd like it to really be interesting and not just a minor stat change.

-Folk have mentioned split beams, that would be a cool S-mod bonus.
-Or if it bounced off of enemy shields and could hit other enemies.
-Or if it doubled special beam effects, like Graviton shield damage buff is doubled and/or Ion Beam/Tach Lance do double EMP arcing through shields.
-Or the S-mod bonus gives the beams back their original range, but the hard-flux damage only applies within the HSA range ie your Graviton does soft flux at 1000 SU until the enemy gets within 600 SU upon which it does hard flux as per HSA usual.

All of those are pretty tough to put into action, tricky to balance, and are inconsistent with peer S-mod effects though, so ultimately tweaking the range debuff is frankly the easiest lever.

What if the S-mod bonus reduced the range malus? Like modifying the base range from 200 to 400? Or reducing the "past base range" modifier from 50% to 40%?

Hmm, makes me consider: how about changing nothing about HSA except simply making it compatible with Advanced Optics (applied later)? Then you can choose not to swallow the poison pill, but at a further OP cost.

Regarding S-modded Expanded Mags, I agree with FooF. I never considered the Thumper to be worth it past early game, but S-EM brought it into the light and they are one of my favourite weapons now. Likewise with the Paladin or Burst PD Lasers, both weapons I hardly ever used that can now be enabled by S-EM in a way that more OP can't do.
What I will say about S-EM however, is that it somewhat shares an issue with the old Safety Overrides S-mod in that it can really limit build diversity. By building it in you kind of always want a couple charge-based weapons in your fit from then on (less universally applicable than, say, ITU or Reinforced Bulkheads). Makes me wish for an S-mod removal service :|

You can't increase the range without breaking the games balance. The moment proper High-Tech gets ballistic ranged energy weapons is the moment where all other types of ships get invalidated. I've always known this from playing mods, but I got a hard reminder when I installed Hazard Mining Incorporated and it introduced Remnant weapons that had longer than standard range for a borderline nonexistent OP increase and or flux efficiency decrease.
HMI also introduced me to weapons that frequently pierce shields at any flux level. Given HSA Tachyon Lance and Ion Beam can do that, but are uncommon at low flux, having HSA increase their effects would be hellish, just as it was with that mod.

Really if you want to see it for yourself, download HMI, use only vanilla weapons, and go fight some Ordos. You will quickly realize it's for the best that they stay in the realm of modding.

Having multiple beams decreases hit strength, making anti-armor / anti-hull beam weapons worthless. Decreasing the useful builds for S-HSA.
Shield bouncing is best left to a dedicated weapon as it would be agony to balance, and have the AI recognize as a potential threat.
The AI would struggle with beams being half hardflux/softflux. Both on the firing and receiving end.

This is why I made such a simple suggestion for a s-mod. The more complicated it gets, the harder it is to balance and ensure the AI can handle it.

4

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 13, 2024, 05:44:41 PM »

If people want a better s-mod bonus for HSA, removing its 5% s-mod damage buff, and replacing it with a flux decrease for beam weapons would be a good idea.
Right around 10% should be enough.

My reasoning for this is that beam weapons should never compete with energy bolt weapons or ballistic weapons. If their damage gets buffed further, then we'll start seeing issues where the effective DPS of beam weapons outcompetes bolt weapons due to beams almost always hitting and bolts frequently missing.
Likewise decreasing the range decrease would make it an auto pick, as the thing that keeps the faster High-Tech ships in check is their short range. If you give an Aurora ballistic range energy weapons, there's very little in the game that will be able to fight against it.

Beam DPS would be flux efficient but OP inefficient, while energy bolt DPS would be flux inefficient but OP efficient.
This would have a valuable use case for ships that have a good amount of OP, but not enough venting. So high-tech frigates like the Wolf, Midline ships, and many Remnant ships.

5

General Discussion / Re: New player lotsa questions?

« on: April 12, 2024, 07:08:47 PM »

Hi all,

Love this game, got a variety of fleets and weapons. One question is how do I make money smuggling? When I get the drugs/organs from my colony resource stockpile it seems to be an overall loss when I sell.

I want to setup my colonies but I just don't have the cash. Before I was farming Galatia Academy missions for large amounts of cash because they had no time limit but after those missions I seem to be locked out now!

Another question, I don't understand fleet doctrines at all LOL!

Final thing, A picture of my colonies? maybe I suck? there are more planets in the system I want to colonize but I don't have the funds.

Colonies you control allow you to take resources at 100% their market value. In order to turn a profit, you have to sell to colonies that buy above market value. To make even more profit you have to buy what you intend to sell at below market value. Pirate activity, and trade disruptions decrease a colonies accessibility, which decreases/increases the cost of their exports and imports respectively.
The most profitable way to sell is to kill an AI trade fleet for their goods, and then sell them to the colony they were traveling to. Piracy is the most profitable form of smuggling.

Select ships and weapons you want your faction to produce for defense fleets, you have to have heavy industry, and then select the other options that complement your choice of prioritized ships. As an example, if you want Paragon spam with aggressive officers defending your system, select the Paragon, set fleet size to max, set ship size to max, set warships to max, and set AI to aggressive.

Colony stability effects your income. You are losing 40% of your income for a 25% increase to your income from Commerce, a net loss of 15%. Either remove Commerce or build an Orbital Station and then upgrade it to a Battle Station. While you're at it, add mining on Salero, the organics are worth having.

6

Suggestions / Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 12, 2024, 03:58:42 PM »

Which is the same as Expanded Mags for reference. As it currently stands, only the Paragon and Scarab can effectively make use of this hullmod due to its extreme OP cost and drawbacks.
While this will make Paragons with HSA more powerful, it would only be a buff of about 10 OP which isn't sector ending.

Its current price point is equal to either of the two Flux hullmods, which it just isn't worth taking outside of the two above extremes. Decreasing that price point opens up more builds that use hardflux beam weapons either fully or as a mix alongside energy bolt weapons. Likewise, it would function as an indirect buff to certain beam PD such as the PD and Burst PD Laser. ExMags is better for BPD, however if a built doesn't need it outside of PD, and the build can integrate one or more offensive beam weapon, then HSA would work as a nice alternative.

If that still somehow ends up being too expensive (mainly for frigates and destroyers), dropping it down to 2/4/6/10, or equivalent to Advanced Turret Gyros, should be enough.

7

General Discussion / Re: Is the Hephaestus at a good spot?

« on: April 11, 2024, 10:32:27 PM »

It should be noted that the pausing bug isn't the only bug causing beams to overreport their damage. Even without pausing, when I was using multiple beam types on a Brilliant. High Intensity Laser, Ion Beam, Tactical Laser, and IR Auto Lance.
I tested it against the sim double gauss cannon Dominator, so assuming everything was working correctly without pausing, I should only be seeing around 14,000 hull damage. However, I was seeing anywhere between 16,000 and 18,000.
Removing the Ion Beam dropped it back down to 14,000, however it was still a bit over what could be accounted for by overkill.

Edit:

I never believed in IRAL, so I'm glad my blind lack of faith was rewarded for once

When I did manage to get accurate damage reporting, in terms of hull damage 1 IRAL with expanded mags is about = to 4 TLs, and is about half the hull DPS of a Phase Lance. So, it does have its use, but you need to have more than one IRAL to make it worth the cost. Which means only a handful of ships in the game can actually make good use of it.

8

General Discussion / Re: I don't understand the combat AI

« on: April 11, 2024, 09:53:51 PM »

Are you using anything besides shrikes and novas? Might be better to put doctrine to steady or maybe even cautious. Actually, I'm not sure personality affects escort behavior.

TT Brawlers, and they need to be set to aggressive. The remaining ships are officered Omens, and my flagship buffalo mk.II which sits in the corner crypto mining me command points.

9

General Discussion / Re: I don't understand the combat AI

« on: April 11, 2024, 09:23:04 PM »

Huh. Are you running any mods that would impact the AI? That does not match my experience so far with escort.

Nope. It's a consequence of the restricted movement that escort enforces, and using faster ships. Shrikes are faster than Novas, but only by 20 speed. So, it is very easy for a Nova to get behind or in-between another Nova's escort Shrike. What should happen is the Shrike moves out of the way of the Nova, but it doesn't. Instead, it does everything in its power to stay in that escort position.
The end result is it blocks the movement and firing line of that Nova, and gets damaged from a combination of moving into the Nova while the Nova tries to push through it.

Likewise, escorts will not fall back behind the ship they are escorting until they hit the "back off" hard flux level. This happens regardless of the enemy that's currently shooting at it. This ends up being a problem when it's an enemy expanded mags Nova with double Autopulse + 4 Ion Pulsers, or the aforementioned Radiant.

My fleet doctrine is set to aggressive, Shrikes are support doctrine and only have PD weapons and fighters.

10

General Discussion / Re: I don't understand the combat AI

« on: April 11, 2024, 06:56:56 PM »

Been playing for a while and after all this time, the ships' behavior is still puzzling me.

Escorting a ship still makes your ships extend far into the enemy line and die stupidly. I can't count how many times I've lost ships due to irrational behavior.
The enemy AI knows how to surround you because usually they can field way more ships than you, and your ships don't really know how to respond efficiently, and you quickly run out of command points (if your ships accept to follow your orders anyway).
"Hey, my ship is way out of position, come back! Why is it not listening? Ok it's gone."

Am I missing something? Is there a "Don't be stupid and listen" hullmod I didn't notice?

No, you're not missing anything. The escort command clearly isn't taking enemy threat into account when picking its position. In no universe should an escort Shrike try to 1v1 a quintuple AutoPulse Radiant while the escorted ship backs off. Fighting alongside it is fine, but pushing ahead of it is beyond absurd.
They also don't care about non-escort ally positioning, which leads to a phenomenon that I call escort trolling. Essentially escorts don't care about collisions, and are more than happy to block non escorted friendly ships like of sight and movement, forever, seeming to go well out of their way to do so.
Their "trolling" is so bad that I don't assign escorts at the start of battles, only assign them once they can't get in the way, and most of my crew losses come from Shrikes ramming into friendly capitals.

11

General Discussion / Re: What is your Flagship named?

« on: April 10, 2024, 12:33:35 PM »

The last flagship I used, that I personally piloted, was a Nova with the randomly generated name TTDS Sigma Prince.

In general, the Remnants get some pretty good names.

12

Suggestions / Re: Quest Planets being immune to satbombing

« on: April 08, 2024, 02:27:59 PM »

Hot take, vanilla shouldn't even have satbombing as an option. What purpose does it serve?

Make it a mod only option. It makes perfect sense in Nexerelin. Vanilla Starsector isn't a 4x game. You're like, some trader / pirate / bounty hunter dude with a small fleet, why are you nuking the sector like Genghis Khan?

One sat bombing stops the Leagues Hostile Activity. Sat bombing a faction's military markets to de-civilization stops that factions HA completely. The AI can do it, and a general trend of what the AI can do the player can, and vice versa.

13

General Discussion / Re: Escort Package - Works on Destroyers by name, not hull type?

« on: April 07, 2024, 09:32:47 PM »

You can also pilot the destroyer yourself and see on the left side a "Telemetry" effect that increases and decreases based on proximity to a larger ship.

Ahhh, this is wise. Thanks for the tip!

Hi! Definitely It applies based on hull size and proximity to a larger ship.

Actually, returning to this because I also figured out part of my problem. Because I've set the Escort-Packaged-AI-Carrier to Escort my ship, it has automatically assigned its fighters to Engage on me. As a result, it is generating flux and won't get its zero-flux bonus. With this, the carrier cannot keep up with my ship, which IS getting its zero-flux bonus. Next thing you know, I've moved across the battlefield, it's left behind, and gets nabbed by an AI or I have to turn around to defend it.

While trivial, it makes it difficult to manage staying close enough to the carrier to allow it to remain within bonus range. Ive lost them a few times due to them falling behind and losing the bonus, which was what tipped me off something was up at first. Especially in long fights where I am constantly moving around to engage key targets, having my escorting carrier get left behind makes the value of Escort Package less applicable or ideal.

Is there perhaps a reasonable way to have Carrier AI be more selective when they set their Fighters to Engage? This way they don't end up fluxing themselves out of their mobility, and thus implicitly losing out on the range bonus. The closest I've gotten to a functional solution is to assign the Escort-Packaged-AI-Carrier a captain with the Improved Helmsmanship skill, but that 1% doesn't always cover the flux cost thus it's still not a complete solution.

Do the funny, put converted hanger on a Shrike.

Escort Package has almost 0 use on any of the carriers. They're backline ships that are never supposed to get into direct combat with anything that threatens them, and having them escort ships will do just that. The solution is you need a battle carrier. However, there are no battle carriers for destroyers or cruisers, with the only true battle carrier being the Legion. Other capitals with fighter bays such as the mkII Prometheus or Odyssey don't count because they don't have enough bays relative to their DP cost.

So, if you want your Escort Package and fighter bays too, you have to do the funny and put converted hanger on a Shrike.

14

General Discussion / Re: Your favorite frigate fits in 0.97?

« on: April 06, 2024, 12:54:57 PM »

I haven't seen a discussion on frigates (other than the Tempest thread https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=29315.0) in a while and want to get some conversation going! Some questions that are on my mind:

- What are your favorite frigate fits in 0.97a? Have they changed since 0.96 or 0.95 and why?
- What jobs do frigates perform in your fleet?
- Do you like Glimmer/Lumen still, now that the tradeoff is giving up Cyber Aug? How do you fit them, and in what kind of fleet composition do you use them? What kind of AI core? Is AI core+Remnant frigate better than human frigate+mercenary officer? Why or why not?
- How are you fitting Monitors now that SO was removed? Do you prefer an Escort Package destroyer (eg Medusa) for the same role?
- Anyone here like TT Brawler? When do you use it over LP Brawler?
- Omen/Afflictor - I assume people still like these? They offer something special that can't be overtaken by Escort Package destroyers.
- Are there any other under-the-radar, sleeper frigates or builds that people should know about, but don't?
- Anything else you want to share or ask about regarding frigates!

SO Hyperion, always will be. I shouldn't have to explain why.

Filler combat ships that can fill the battle line, hunt down frigates and other destroyers, while being sturdy or fast enough to distract cruisers. Beyond that, escort, although I usually leave that to destroyers

I don't use Glimmers or Lumens. If I go automated ships I'm probably going with Novas. If not, then it will be some Brilliants plus Scintillas. The reason for this is due to their fearless AI, it's easy to manage a couple Novas or a few Brilliants. It is very hard to manage Glimmer or Lumen spam.

I don't use the Monitor, never have, I don't like the ship. For PD escorting I use Shrikes that are covered in Burst PD, and have converted fighter bay with Wasps.

TT Brawler is my standard combat filler. Works wonderfully with Support Doctrine.
The Build is 15 caps, 12 Vents.
Built in (s-modded) Hullmods are Insulated Engine Assembly, Advanced Optics, Flux Coil Adjunct, and Hardened Shields. Other Hullmods are Stabilized Shields and Integrated Targeting Unit. Weapons are two Salamanders, and two Phase Lances.
It can solo most destroyers in the game if given long enough, and when it's three or more brawlers vs any cruiser, the brawlers will win. Otherwise, they can distract most cruisers indefinitely.

I use Omens with officers, they're inefficient to use with Support Doctrine. Skills + Hullmods are all built around reducing incoming damage as much as possible.
Skills are: Elite System Expertise and Target Analysis, Helmsmanship, Field Modulation, Combat Endurance, and Gunnery Implants. I recommend swapping GI for anything else.
Hullmods are: Built in Hardened Subsystems and Frontal Shields and Stabilized shields, Hardened shields, and Expanded Mags.
Weapons are a Salamander and Antimatter Blaster.
15 Caps, 5 Vents.
I don't use the Afflictor.

As for frigate builds that no one tries, a Player piloted SO Vigilance with reapers is surprisingly effective.

15

Suggestions / Re: new commodity: medicine

« on: April 06, 2024, 01:23:41 AM »

I think the plauge system could be interesting...
I think you would also want to implement a quarantine system as well.
That would give opportunities for captains to smuggle to quarantined worlds, but also risk spreding the plague that way.  Which could potentially reduce reputation if your the one to spread the plague. 

The more a plauge ramps up, the more worlds start lockign down, not letting people dock, until they are scanned.  it would be kind of complicated to implement, but I agree that there could be a whole fun mechanic with this.

also, I agree, recreational drugs are not medicine.   If anything I could see it being a part of supplies

From the various video games I've played with a disease system. I'm going to say absolutely not. It will either end up a RNG *** with doom diseases popping up randomly on worlds that should be healthy. Or it will end up as an overly developed system that draws dev time away from other areas, in return for a nuisance feature.

Likewise, if I hear so much as one port official making demands for quarantine or wearing masks I will resort to immediate saturation bombardment.
I had no patience for that *** IRL, and I'm not going to put up with it in a video game.