Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21); Blog post: Skill Changes, Part 2 (07/15/21)

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 - Goumindong

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 100
1
General Discussion / Re: Physics turn on by collisions
« on: June 05, 2021, 11:32:49 PM »
Come on, you seriously buy this? We are talking about rockets in space, which are able to accelerate for maybe 5 seconds before they get arbitrary "max speed" limit, which is applied out of what, safety (and then increased if they happen to not be shooting weapons)? Do they worry the ship will break in half due to the resistance of the void? This is kind of an artificial magical non-sense that's trying to explain some unrealistic gamey system in a vague

The void may be very low density. But if you’re going fast enough even a single hydrogen molecule can drop the hammer.

Buuut that is not where the speed limit is enforced. The speed limit is enforced only when you’re close enough to other vessels that a speed limit makes sense. So when you maneuver to prevent the enemy from escaping you’re plotting an intercept burn that puts you close enough to them that the collision avoidance systems tick in. At which point the global speed doesn’t matter but only local speed. So the ships can still be going very fast relative to some distant object. But won’t have high relative velocities towards the other ships in combat.

This is why, when you successfully retreat your ships burn off the map at high speed.


2
If you’re not using shield shunt omni shields are a good upgrade on the onslaught. The AI will try to flicker omni shields and this tends to be bad for high tech ships but for the Onslaught with its prodigious armor it’s not a big deal and will keep you firing far longer(and also protect your rear!)  than the forward only option.

3
General Discussion / Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« on: April 30, 2021, 01:59:30 PM »
I don't think its because large ballistics are bad. I think its because large ballstics armed ships have divergent mounts. The Conquest with its broadsides, the Onslaught with its kind of 2.5 broadsides (as each forward flank can support 2, but only 1 forward + TPCs). The issue that was coming up was that it was better to concentrate the OP power of a ship in a single direction and then point that way: single broadside Conquests, forward only Onslaught (or even broadside onlsaught with 2). The large mounts in the off directions then got like a single flak. Heavy Ballistics integration incentivizes keeping those "off" mounts still filled with larges instead of downsizing them. The ships with large ballistics without divergent mounts (Dominator, Legion) don't have HBI.

HBI is definitely this.

However as an aside i am struck by how hard it is to armor tank large ships anymore(absent derelict contingent armor tanking). Impact Mitigation is... much weaker than it used to be. And, importantly, comes at a huge loss in DMG. Shield tankers have an advantage in that they can reset their effective HP, so -20% damage is a pretty strict bonus. But armor tankers cannot, and so need a much larger effective increase in general. The problem is that impact mitigation is far weaker than armor tanking used to be in net.

And, importantly, its far easier to increase hit strength. The general hit strength advantage an officer has now is between +20 to +50%(for a frigate this can go as high as 70% though its unlikely). While the general bonus DR that an armor tanker has is -25%. This nets to a 10% advantage to 12.5% deficit in terms of hit strength*. And its worse if you want your large armor tanking ships to actually do damage. Because armor tanking is now on the same skill as a +30% damage bonus from range. So an armor tanker compared to a shield tanker, capital officer vs capital officer, now has a 12.5% deficit in terms of hit strength/dps over no skills, but also has a 4% DPS deficit. (Shooting 1.2 weapons into .8 shields) for a net 17% disadvantage over no skills. And this without having a unique top of the line value for the tier 5 skill (where as mid tech and high tech generally do).

This is a far cry from the advantage you could achieve last version.

On top of that the inability to easily get PD on armor tanking ships

*While there were much larger hit strength bonuses in .91 these were entirely offset by the armor strength bonus. So we can effectively ignore them in net x/(x+y) = x*.5 / (x*.5+y*.5). Thus we had the +15% dmg skill vs the +150 armor always skill and the 90% armor DR skill(and maybe another -armor damage taken skill i think?). You needed about 500 hit strength before +15% damage would overcome +150 armor at 2000 armor as an example. As armor goes down the necessary hit strength bonus to achieve equivalency goes up.

To compare:
.91 armor dmg bonuses were +15% (all dmg) +50% hit strength, +50% weapon/engine dmg
.91 armor tnk bonuses were -20% armor dmg, +50% armor calc, +150 armor, 10% minimum armor dmg calc, -50% kinetic dmg, -50% weapon engine dmg, +50% weapon/engine repair, +50% weapon HP

.91 net(officer v officer) armor tanking was -8% incoming dps and hit strength, +150 armor at all stages of calc, 10% min armor damage calc, -50% kinetic dmg, 62.5% effective dmg reduction for weapons/armor, +25% repair rate for weapons/armor
.95 net(officer v officer) armor tanking is +17% incoming DPS*, +12.5% incoming hit strength, +50 armor at all stages of calc.
Relative DPS change: +27% (not including secondary characteristics OR hit strength)

.91 Shield dmg bonuses were +15% (all dmg), +15% (Shield dmg)
.91 shield tank bonuses were -20% dmg, 10% hard flux dissipation while active, -25% HE dmg on shields

.91 net(officer v officer) shield tanking was +5.8% incoming dps, 10% hard flux dissipation while active, -25% HE dmg on shields.
.95 net(officer v officer) shield tanking is +20% incoming dps*, -30% HE dmg on shields, 15% hard flux dissipation while active
Relative DPS change: 13.4% (ignoring secondary characteristics)

This is a huge discrepancy. It used to be the case that an Onslaught could keep firing its weapons when taking armor damage. This is not possible anymore even with armored weapon mounts and automated repair units. Ion damage disables RFC, AWM, ARU ships now when it generally did not as of last patch. Not only did armor tanking receive a much larger effective deficit but the secondary characteristics swung away from armor tanking and towards shield tanking. (with the lone exception that building in Heavy Armor on everything is now hella good). Whenver i am building armor tanking ships armor tanking has to be a secondary consideration over making a good shield tank and using both (unless utilizing DC... but even then without the huge DR on weapons .91 provided DC just means you get disabled and killed)

*this assumes that the target shooting at them is a shield tanker and not an armor tanker in both cases armor tankers generally lose out on a 0 to 30% damage bonus as a result of taking impact mitigation.

4
General Discussion / Re: Fragmentation got left behind?
« on: April 30, 2021, 10:56:14 AM »
Maybe the issue isn’t so much that frag is bad then but that frag weapons in stock are trash because of the low dmg-per-bullet value against basically anything due to residual armour.

Maybe what we need is some weapons that fire either single large shots a la mauler or hvd, or a small burst a la dual autocannon, with then high pet shot damage but obviously in frag.

I just can’t see myself ever taking frag outside of PD because it’s just not good at right now.

There is a [Hidden] weapon that does this and is absolutely hilariously wonderful.

Buuuut. It’s probably better that it’s [Hidden] because like... well it’s very good to say the least.


In general it’s fine for there to be a damage type that allows PD to work. Frankly I think PD lasers should do frag damage too so they’re like... actually good at killing missiles.

edit: If you need a "reason" for them to do frag damage then say they work on a similar principle as the HIL, but instead of having enough power to vaporize armor they instead provide just enough energy to boil the structure, which causes these pieces of boiling metal to fly around the ship damaging internal components. The rate of boiling isn't enough to do significant damage to armor and any splatter is going to be directed away from the internal area of the ship. And the total energy output is quite low and so does minimal damage to shields. Hence Frag damage.

5
General Discussion / Re: Fragmentation got left behind?
« on: April 29, 2021, 11:33:25 PM »
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.

Well it obviously depends on what ships you’re using them on. On SO ships you can probably forgo front PD not the least of reasons that many SO ships have decent to very good shields. A Hammerhead or Sunder is rocking .8 shields. A medusa is rocking .6 shields. Even a gryphon is rocking .8 shields.

But low tech ships with 1.0 shields (or worse) cannot so easily afford to take hardened shields and eat everything up front. They’re going to lose the flux war if they do this. Rather they need to be able to kill missiles with PD.

And Vulcans kill missiles. A Vulcan IPDAI screen on an onslaught can kill an entire wave of atropos from a 6x dagger astral before they impact shields. (I think. Definitely with skills)

Another nice effect of the Vulcan PD screen is that you will shoot down doom mines as fast as they spawn.

6
There is an example, like 2-3 posts above, of someone literally using this skill in order to win a fight that would have caused them to reload the game in the absence of that skill.

This skill directly increases the difficulty of combat encounter that you can engage in without effective losses. Logistics skills do not do that.

7
General Discussion / Re: Fragmentation got left behind?
« on: April 29, 2021, 09:40:36 AM »
Well missiles have only structure so having a type of damage that is bad against ships but good against fighters and missiles has value.

It would be difficult to replicate the Vulcan with energy, HE, or Kin as an example.

8
Every logistics/campaign skill is combat if you add steps. Why do I need to keep repeating this fact? This is not how combat skills are defined.

Unless you find a way to recover a ship during the actual fight then I'm not interesting and it's overreaching.

Reducing/eliminating the combat penalty for losing ships is a combat buff because it allows you to take harder fights without effective losses. If you can fight harder fights without losses your fleet is stronger

9
When you salvage a ship ships have a reduction in the amount of D-mods they have. Pristine ships that are destroyed in battle and salvaged have between 1 and 2 d-mods on them in general. With the skill they have between 0 and 1. (I am not actually sure they can spawn with D-mods after losing a pristine ship in combat)

10
How about turning it back into what it used to be when it wasn't a combat d-mod thing? Not sure why so much combat is in the Industry tree now.

Because, as explained in the other thread, there needs to be big combat value on I4L to compliment the big combat value of I4R

I4L has zero combat value, it has after and out of combat value. Only Derelict Contingent has combat value on that tier. I have no clue why you think they both do.

Faster repairs and some free repairs isn't combat to be clear.

Please explain if this isn't what you are talking about.

I4L reduces and eventually eliminates the costs of losing ships in combat. This expands the effective lossless range that you can engage in and thus expands your fleet strength.  I4L also makes ships in your fleet stronger, DP for DP, by removing D-mods (when acquiring ships and over time).

I4L also makes it easier to re-engage due to the automatic repair, which increases your fleets power.

I accept the re-engage as technically valid. Feels kinda exploity honestly. But point taken.

As for the rest. I could argue anything that saves me money allows me to afford better ships therefor combat skill or extra money means restores therefor combat skill for the same reason you listed. Improving your fleet in combat prevents damage, saving supplies, therefor it's a logistics skill. The stretching required to make that connection has the reach to make everything combat or logistics skill.

Everything other then the re-engage is directly logistics.

Well no. When you lose a ship you must salvage it. The reduction in D-mods for salvaged ships means you're highly likely to get your ship back pristine. This means that you have a larger "no loss engagement window". It does not just "save you money" it means you can fight another fight relatively quickly.

Re-engages are not as common as they used to be i will say that. At least in prior versions it was very much no uncommon for battles to be big enough that they had to be split in two.

11
General Discussion / Re: Auxiliary Support skill
« on: April 28, 2021, 03:28:09 PM »
The skill is great. I think it tends to be better overall than its companion.

In the early game its possible to use the size of the bonus to make certain ships (like the aforementioned Venture) into absolute bricks. Which has a lot more fleet value than a few DPS. Later in the game you can utilize some of the "weaker" frigates as DP fills and still have them be useful. A kite is 2 DP and so 4 Kites only are at 5/8 of the skill, which lets them do a whole lot and survive pretty well.

12
How about turning it back into what it used to be when it wasn't a combat d-mod thing? Not sure why so much combat is in the Industry tree now.

Because, as explained in the other thread, there needs to be big combat value on I4L to compliment the big combat value of I4R

I4L has zero combat value, it has after and out of combat value. Only Derelict Contingent has combat value on that tier. I have no clue why you think they both do.

Faster repairs and some free repairs isn't combat to be clear.

Please explain if this isn't what you are talking about.

I4L reduces and eventually eliminates the costs of losing ships in combat. This expands the effective lossless range that you can engage in and thus expands your fleet strength.  I4L also makes ships in your fleet stronger, DP for DP, by removing D-mods (when acquiring ships and over time).

I4L also makes it easier to re-engage due to the automatic repair, which increases your fleets power.

13
Nah. I have noticed this as well. I lost a gryphon today and it didn't even shoot its 3 front sabots in panic. Just sat there with missiles on the rack.

I can understand the Harpoons, they're listed as strike. But the Gryphon should be dumping missiles like there is no tomorrow. The thing can have up to 9 times the number of missiles for each launcher. It should not be worried about running out.

14
They don't chase you when you turn around, they go back to their station. But you turning around and getting ready for battle is quite literally the purpose of harry. If you turn around and get ready to fight then you're dumping CR. They don't take the engagement and run away if you do. But they're forcing you to be ready to fight them.

That is how harrying has always worked. How do you think it works if you want to run away from a larger force when you're a smaller force? They small ships harass you and when you turn to attack the harassers the harassers retreat to the main force preventing you from engaging.

And you indeed can harry any force that does not want to engage you. You cannot harry forces that want to engage you because they aren't leaving the engagement range...

15
You cannot smash them without flying into the station. They can harass you because they can always retreat to the station...
If they come out to harass me, I stop and prepare to fight them, and they retreat to the station, at that point they have ceased to harass me!

I'd say the situation is symmetrical between the fleets: neither can get close to the other without putting itself in danger. But given this symmetry, one of them should not be able to inflict massive supplies damage on the other.



Actually, I want to say this: Why does harry even exist now? For player it does nothing unless you really want to run some smaller fleet into the ground; for NPCs its main function seems to be to punish the player for committing one of an undefined set of mistakes.

No. As soon as you turn around to leave they harass you again. You can uhhh. "Sit ready for combat forever" but that would be them successfully harrying you by forcing you into peak readiness and thus reducing your combat readiness in the future.

I do agree that harry doesn't really have a particular use except to give yourself from negative rep. AI fleets don't have simulated resources so it only gives them CR damage that doesn't matter anyway because like... You are far stronger than them in the first place to be able to harry.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 100