Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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 - Hiruma Kai

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34
General Discussion / Re: Vanilla map size
« on: Today at 06:21:36 AM »
In regards to cryosleepers, I either colonize directly in system or don't and then ignore it for colonization decision making.  Certainly at the edge of the 10 ly circle isn't really game changing and even at 5 light years it is merely a nice perk, not a must have.  In system feels like it increases overall growth by like 500% or so, which means 1/5th in game time to get to size 6.

For exploration, a pure hound fleet, preferably with augmented drive field, auxiliary fuel tanks, safety overrides, and unstable injector, can generally ignore most enemy fleets just by running away.  If you want some derelict drone clearing power, throw in an s-modded SO + UI Tempest or two, although that will drop you to base burn 11.  Combine with Bulk Transport and Navigation skills.

General Discussion / Re: Vanilla map size
« on: January 27, 2022, 07:27:01 PM »
It's true you can grow faster in or near the core, unless you're colonizing a Cryosleeper system that happens to be on the edge.  In terms of growth rate, the biggest possible difference in terms of access is something like a -25% out on the edge of a normal vanilla map, to something like +42% in Duzahk.  Which translates to something like +6 growth difference.  Even a size 3 colony in a Cryosleeper system can hit +30 without much trouble, and +60 with a spare alpha core (with alpha core, the bonus is 20 times colony size).

I'll note even 3 unimpressive planets at the farthest point from the core, they can make over 1 million credits per month once they've been fully built up and reach size 6 (or over 370,000 with alpha administrators and no other items/cores).

Given colony size is a bigger factor in credits per month than starting accessibility, I'd typically rate colonizing a cryosleeper system that happens to have a gate as the best option (if you can find one), irregardless of distance from the core.   A gate system close to the core would then be the next best.

As for map size, small or normal both seem to have plenty to do for a vanilla campaign, and missions are definitely closer on average in a small map.  In terms of fun, I see no disadvantages to playing a vanilla campaign on a small map.

General Discussion / Re: Non-SO enforcer: is it outclassed?
« on: January 25, 2022, 11:48:07 AM »
As you mentioned, the good points of the Enforcer are it's missile mounts and armor.  I will point out it also has the most ordinance points of any destroyer.  I tend to lean into those good points when creating a non-SO build.   I'll note flux free weapons not only include missiles, but fighters bays as well.

Typically my non-SO Enforcers will be equipped with converted hangar, and field Xyphos if I can get my hands on them.  Otherwise I'll settle for Broadswords or Longbows, but Xyphos definitely improve the longevity of Enforcers.

While a Manticore might arguably be better 1 on 1, it is 33% more expensive.  While 3 DP doesn't sound like a lot, you have to consider the entire fleet composition.  3 DP here and there can get you a whole another ship eventually, which in turn helps the AI, as that potentially turns a 1 on 1 at the edges of the skirmish into a 2 on 1.  If you're filling out your fleet with some destroyers to get more bodies on the field than Cruisers can provide, Enforcers do that better than Manticores.  For 36 DP, you can get 3 Manticores, or 4 Enforcers.  At which point you're comparing 3 Enforcers against 3 Manticores, but that last Enforcer is free to do whatever it wants, like gang up on a Manticore.

For more concrete ideas, a typical non-SO Enforcer build for me might look like Heavy Armor (s-mod) and Expanded Missile Racks (s-mod), along with Converted Hangar and Xyphos.  Heavy Mortar, 2x Arbalest, 2x Vulcan, 2x Harpoon, 2x Sabot, 20 Vents, 6 caps.

Or if you want more of an anti-shield setup with kill secure, you could 1x Heavy Autocannon, 2x Arbalest and 4x Harpoons, and 3 caps.  Kinetic ballistics run up shield, Xyphos Ion beams shield pierce and disable the ship, then the 24 Harpoons come out once the ship's flux is critical.

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: January 24, 2022, 09:40:38 AM »
I was about to build a cyrorevival only to see 10 demand for organics.  No way I can meet that.  Although if the only penalty is half bonus, maybe I can use another +3 to my population growth instead +6 or whatever I got.

I find it worthwhile with an AI core as 9 demand can be satisfied with 90% accessibility.  You can import that from the core systems, which do in fact produce that much.  Admittedly not too valuable at the edge of the range, but if you are colonizing the cryosleeper system and have a spare alpha core for the structure, a growth bonus of 20 times planet size dwarfs any other growth bonus in the game by an order of magnitude.

I think Dominator can reach around 180 speed with Unstable injector + SO and Coordinated movement + fighter uplink + Helmsmanship. Activate Burn Drive and it can be as fast as interceptors. Not sure how practical it is but still, you can make your giant brick out speed sport cars.

Just so you know, percentage bonuses are normally added together, and not multiplied, with flat bonuses added in at the end after percentage ones.  Percentage penalties generally multiply however.  Essentially, positives get put together in the worst way for the ship, and penalties also get put together in the worst way for the ship generally.  There are a few exception though, but none associated with speed as far as I know.

You can try out an Unstable Injector + SO, along with a full +20% Coordinated manuevers + Elite Helmsmanship + 100% CR + the 0-flux speed boost, and a basic Dominator caps out at 132 speed (on the display).  Burn Drive does bump that up to 332 in a straight line, which is Talon tier speed.   The shields being down during it, and no turning, means you can't prevent chip damage, and faster ships with a maneuverability system typically will move out of the way.

Most of that is coming from the 0-flux boost to be honest, and an identical Dominator without SO can hit 112 while it's flux is zero.

The fundamental problem with that is the Dominator's range shrinks to 450 which is less than frigate tier weapon range, and is on average slower than most frigates.  Assuming the other side also has an officer in a frigate with Helmsmanship and has Coordinated Manuevers, even a slow Lasher is hitting speed 156, potentially with range 800 ballistics.  Not saying SO Dominators are necessarily bad, but they are still not going after frigates and fast destroyers very well, and need to still be escorted by faster ships or have local fighter superiority.  The AI has issues with being out ranged and out sped.

Also, in case it was unclear due to it's description, Fighter Uplink affects only fighters, not ships.

This also applies to running out of PPT. All ships lose CR at the same rate, 1% every 4 seconds, even though different ships need more supplies to regain that 1% of CR.

The supplies after PPT burn down doesn't bother me quite as much, if only because PPT is in fact an independent statistic, and traditionally low percent CR per deployment ships tend to have higher PPT.  Altering CR tick down rate would have significant affects on combat, at least for SO ships.  We could take a look at it though.

If we imagine CR to be a tank of supplies, where a 100% CR Lasher has a 40 supply tank, and a 100% Hyperion has a 37.5 supply tank.
For a Lasher to have a 1% tick down per 4 second, would imply 0.4 supplies every 4 seconds.  So, we'll call it effective deployment points/10, since we should include the effects of d-mods in there.  They essentially make the tank smaller, so to have the same tick down, the rate should also be affected by d-mods.  So in comparison, the Hyperion would tick down 1.5 supplies every 4 seconds.  So to go from 100% to 40% on the Lasher would take 240 seconds.  The Hyperion on the other hand, would only take 100 seconds (37.5*0.6/1.5)*4 seconds = 60 seconds, which would be a huge nerf to SO Hyperion builds, essentially dropping the usual CR degradation period to a quarter.

Current nominal combat time for an officered 100% CR SO Hyperion burning CR is 109 peak time + 426.7 CR burn time, for  535.7 seconds, or roughly 9 minutes.  With a change like this, it might end up being 109 peak + 106, or about 215 seconds, roughly 40% of the usable time.  That would completely push SO Hyperions out of the running in late game endurance battles, and non-SO Hyperions would be sitting at 436 seconds usable time. 

At that point, I'd probably bump base Hyperion PPT up to 180 seconds, having the So version hit 40% CR at the 256 second mark, almost exactly half current duration, while non-SO would hit 556, which is roughly current SO run time.

For a more typical 20% CR per deployment high tech ship, it'd drop the CR burn time base line to 120 seconds from 240 (or 213 instead of 426 seconds with skills/hardened subsystem).

That doesn't sound crazy actually.  Might be a way to make SO less attractive on high tech ships which typically benefit more from SO anyways.  At least in late game battles.  Early game, it'd probably be about the same effectiveness, which is maybe what you want.

Currently, the combat readiness mechanic (CR) has some non-intuitive effects.  Normally, having a low % CR reduction per deployment is a good thing, representing a rugged and reliable ship that is easy to maintain.  It means you can deploy more times consecutively.  However, this benefit gets turned into a disadvantage when a ship is destroyed.  By going directly to 0% CR, you essentially empty out the "supplies tank" of CR that you have stored.

If a ship loses 10% CR per deployment, and spend 4 supplies to restore that much, their CR tank effectively holds 40 supplies.  A ships that loses 20% CR per deployment and spend 4 supplies to restore that much has a CR tank that effectively hold 20 supplies.  Destruction hurts the 40 supply stored in CR ship more than the 20 supply stored in CR ship.  It also means that skills that increase maximum CR increase the amount of effective supplies stored in the CR tank, making it a disadvantage when destroyed.

A similar issue crops up with hull restoration.  If you have a high percent recovery rate of CR per day, such that it only take you 1.25 days to restore one deployment's worth of  CR, you'll be paying 80% of your deployment cost per day of hull repairs, even if your CR is at full.  If you have a low percent recovery rate of CR per day, such that it takes you 2 days to restore your CR, you'll be paying 50% of your deployment cost per day of hull repairs.  On a per deployment point basis, low tech ships are more expensive to repair than high tech ships - despite being expected to take more hull and armor damage even in successful fights.

A damaged Onslaught pays 10 supplies per day when restoring hull and armor.  An Odyssey pays 9 supplies per day to restore hull and armor, despite having a deployment cost 5 bigger.

So what if instead of having the penalty of having a hull transition from 1 to 0 be a dropping of CR to 0% no matter what it was, to be only dropping by one additional deployment's worth?  Mechanically, hull and CR are tracking two different things, otherwise being at 1% Hull and 90% Cr wouldn't make much sense.  This change makes the penalty proportional to deployment points directly, as opposed to also dependent on stats which are supposed to be beneficial, not harmful.

This eliminates the excessive penalty applied to ships are supposed to be rugged and easy to run, and puts them on the same playing field as other ships in their class, given the already flat time across class to restore hull from 0%.

One could also imagine having a repair cost per day separate from CR cost restoration per day, and using the higher value of either when both hull is damaged and CR is down.  So instead of paying 80% of the deployment cost per day when it takes 1.25 days to restore one deployment's worth of CR, it could be separated out to be, say, 50% of the deployment cost per day.  You spend 80% if you are doing both or just restoring CR, and 50% when just repairing.  Admittedly, this adds an additonal statistic, but it would be pretty straight forward to understand and does provide a meaningful mechanics difference.

The thing I like about this idea is it in fact makes it possible to have a ship be both easy to run and easy to repair, which is currently not possible due to how the various CR and restoration stats are linked.  Field repairs could change to have recovered ships restore their CR per deployment value, instead of the current minimum of 30-40%.

Suggestions / Re: Wolfpack Tactics: Small Problem and Proposed Change
« on: January 22, 2022, 01:23:03 PM »
One could look at this from the point of view of % bonus per DP.  Working under the assumption all ships are correctly balanced for their DP (and if not, we advocate for that to be true) then skills like Crew Training and Tactical drills can be described as providing a 240*5% = 1200% per DP damage pool, that then gets spread out over all ships.

In the current Wolfpack Tactics design, assuming you grab the 10 officer skill and grab all Hyperions, it's not too hard to have 150 DP worth of Hyperions (and a 60 DP Radiant and 30 DP player cruiser, for example).  In that case Wolfpack Tactics is providing 20*10*15 = 3000% per DP damage pool.  Admittedly, a more modest 4 Hyperions deployment is the point at which you reach break even with Tactical Drills in terms of damage output.  Below that, you're likely better off with Tactical Drills assuming you deploy 240 DP each fight and don't care about the PPT bonus.

In Thaago's proposal, were considering a 120% per DP pool per officer, but only to that ship.  Which is a bit rough since that break even with Tactical Drills is at 10 officers assigned.

The 6% per officer in a frigate, applied to all frigates, starts off weak  6% to one 15 DP ship is a 90% per DP pool, compared to Thaago's 120% for 1 ship, or the current 300% for 1 Hyperion.  On the other hand, if you go all in, you end up with 60% to 150 worth of ships (10 Hyperion), for a 900% per DP bonus (9000% total) which as noted is too strong. Even capping the bonus to 20%, and still applying to all frigates (officered and unofficered) would lead to 20*240=4800% pool, 4 times stronger than Tactical Drills and arguably more bonus than Crew Training, all focused in damage.

A DP pool by itself, while applying to only officered frigates makes it so you're incentivized to just put in the minimum number of officered frigates to fill the pool, i.e. use only Hyperions.  A 60 DP pool with a +30% bonus, for example (1800% pool), just means you'll likely have 4 Hyperions and no other frigates.

You could try something like a scaling DP limit that applies to all frigates/destroyers, both officered and unofficered.  Let's say the bonus is +30%, and applies to all combat frigates and destroyers. We'll also say the DP pool starts at 6 DP.  For every officer assigned to a frigate or destroyer, the pool increases by 6 DP, for 180% per DP bonus per officer.

Assuming 10 officers and 1 main character, that limits the max DP pool to 72 DP with a 30% bonus, or 2160% pool, roughly 80% more than Tactical drills, at the expense of having no officers in cruisers or capitals.  Break even point is around 6.6 officers in frigates. Numbers probably need to be tweaked, but you get the idea.  You could also exclude AI cores from providing the DP increase, arguing they can't coordinate with the human officers as well, but since they take orders, have the bonus split over them.

This kind of scaling is easier to communicate than Thaago's proposal, since all frigates get the exact same bonus, so it's the same kind of display as Tactical Drills - it just updates as you move officers around.

Is it a bug though? Isn't the doctrine screen aggression slider only supposed to affect officers from play faction npc fleets?

Yes it is supposed to.  Quickest quote I could find from Alex on the topic (bold is my emphasis):

Numbers, loadouts (and especially weapon ranges relative to enemy ships; if one side is generally heavily outranged, it won't do well), officer personalities/skills, the fleet doctrines (the aggressiveness setting affects unofficered ships), and of course the orders given all affect this.

Although I suppose you might call it an unadvertised feature.  I don't think there's even a tip describing it.

Doing a quick test in the simulator of a campaign game does show behavior differences for me in unofficered ships when changing the doctrine setting between cautious and reckless for me.  Cautious Legion (XIV) only fire missiles and send fighters while trying to stay way.  Reckless Legion (XIV) closes to fire front medium ballistic mounts along with missiles.  Real fights take a bit more effort to generate a repeatable and focused test scenario.

General Discussion / Re: Atlas - Most useful ship in the game?
« on: January 21, 2022, 12:35:08 PM »
What is there to square? Those mod don't get taken almost ever because of limited OP or specifically limited SP, the only ships with the OP can't take them because of the arbitrary limit. Those SP shouldn't have to be spent on secondary fleet bonuses, which are frankly minor, when the combat ships need them more for survival and fighting power.

The logistics limit exists for no reason. There is no balance argument that can be made for it continuing to enforce it.

I am perhaps misinterpreting your statement, so please correct me, but it sounds like to me that you're implying there are no balance considerations for the campaign and navigation layer.  I'm pretty sure a giant profile, low sensor range, and low burn fleet (a fleet with all civilian tags and no mitigating hull mods for example), is going to be found and caught by hostile fleets more often than a small profile, high sensor range, high burn fleet.  Especially if neither has transverse jump.

The number of logistic hullmods you can place your logistics train directly affects how large that logistics portion of the fleet needs to be (translating potentially into more slots for combat ships out of the 30 soft cap), or alternatively increasing profits for a lower investment and running cost, as well as those 3 campaign map statistics which determine how often you have to engage in fights you don't want.

You can keep your fleet's profile small and burn at 10 by using 26 hounds for 1950 cargo space, limiting you to 4 combat ships, or you can use an Atlas for 2000 cargo space, at the cost of dropping to burn 6 with a 150 or more increase in the fleet profile, but allowing 29 other combat ships.  That is an extreme, but real potential comparison of fleet setups.  Logistics mods then directly affect those numbers.

While I can see being what the ideal balance point being hard to pin down quantitatively, I do see there is a balance to at least be considered.  If a 15 Atlas, 15 Prometheus fleet was as fast and hard to detect as an all phase frigate fleet, then I would agree the logistics hull mod limit exists for no reason.  But there is a multidimensional continuum of campaign stats that logistics hull mods move ships in different directions on, and by limiting hull mods, you are restricting how far you can move from the initial starting point, which looks like a balance consideration to me.  In the same way that OP limits combat ship stats all going up to the max as well.

Suggestions / Re: Wolfpack Tactics: Small Problem and Proposed Change
« on: January 18, 2022, 09:23:37 PM »
I think the assumption is ships are nominally close to their DP value in terms of effectiveness added to a fleet.  In an ideal world, frigates are worth their DP, or if they're not, you buff or nerf them until they fall into the right benefit to the fleet.  So a skill specifically just buffing frigates in general is possibly not so interesting under that assumption.  Why frigates in that case and not cruisers?  If they are in fact worth their value, you should already see them included in fleets. 

Given the AI's has more difficulty when outnumbered or flanked, coupled with advantages in late game gained from capturing points early in a fight, many frigates are likely worth their DP, in a matchup that ignores skills.

However, if ships are all worth their DP and officers are percentage based buffs on top of a ship's value, that means you'll always want to put your officers into your most expensive ships first.  Which generally is capitals, followed by cruisers.  A 30% increase on 20 DP is a much better investment than a 30% increase on a 4 DP investment.

Wolfpack tactics is intended to help compensate this a bit and create more varied fleets.  Ones where you might actually choose to put officers in lower DP ships, since you're getting closer to the same benefit.  So now you've got like a 50% increase on a 8 DP investment instead of a 30% increase on a 20 DP investment.  So making Wolfpack tactics also apply to unofficered frigates is somewhat missing the initial objective, namely spreading officers around, as opposed to generally improving all frigates.  If frigates need improvements to compete, they should be buffed in their raw capability, not have a skill patching it up.

Carriers are in a different boat because they scale faster with numbers than frigates or most ships in general.  Fighters (and missiles) can't collide, and can shoot through each other, and thus nothing is preventing a critical density of them coming together and just overwhelming one ship at a time.  Frigates still bump into each other, can't shoot through each other, and have short range, resulting in a smaller enveloping circle.  Thus the carrier bonus scales to give a fixed benefit that doesn't grow with fleet size, so it doesn't help that non-linear growth as much.

The issue Thaago and Alex are trying to address is Hyperions are nominally worth 15 DP, which is more than some Cruisers.  They already have a high DP value, and assuming it is accurate, that is a fairly good reason to stick officers in them by itself, without much extra push from Wolfpack tactics.  It's quite reasonable to imagine officers being placed in Hyperions even if Wolfpack tactics didn't exist, which means a flat application to all frigates is going to make Hyperions much better officer value than nearly any other ship in it's DP range.  More so than Furies or Eagles, for example.

I guess one general question to ask is, are Hyperions actually worth 15 DP by themselves, in a comparison that doesn't include Wolfpack tactics.  This is definitely a nerf to Hyperions, but the question one needs to ask then, are Hyperions with Wolfpack tactics too good and need said nerf?  Or do they need to be buffed to be actually worth 15 DP?  Similar questions should be answered for the other frigates.

Suggestions / Re: Wolfpack Tactics: Small Problem and Proposed Change
« on: January 17, 2022, 08:08:52 PM »
I like Thaago's suggestion as well.

Perhaps it might be worthwhile including a general info block on the refit screen itself that informs the player of all fleet wide character skills which currently affect it, and what adding or removing a ship might do.  Maybe a hover over next to or under the officer picture?

As it stands right now, there's some very nice tool tips under the High Resolution Sensor and Salvage Rig hullmods that tell you what adding or removing another ship of that type does.

Let's say you've got 280 worth of combat ships, and you're looking at a Hyperion. So the block when hovered over might show:

Crew Training:  All ships are gaining +13% maximum CR.  Removing this ship would change the bonus to 14%.  Adding another would change it to 12%

Wolfpack Tactics:  This ship is gaining 60 seconds of peak performance time.  This ship is gaining a +8% bonus to damage due to it's DP cost.

Flux Regulation: This ship is gaining +9% additional flux dissipation and capacity.  Removing this ship would change it to +9%.  Adding another would change it to +8%.

Alternatively, if it didn't have an officer, and you had Support Doctrine, it would replace the Wolfpack tactics line with:

Support Doctrine:  This ship's DP cost is reduced to 12 from 15.  The ship is benefiting from non-elite Combat Endurance, Helmsmanship, and Damage Control.

Suggestions / Re: Gemini still has civ-grade hullmod
« on: January 17, 2022, 06:17:54 PM »
I'd personally lean even more into the fact it is a long range support hybrid ship, if I were to change the Gemini.

Given the Gemini has only 1 bay, it eliminates it from the running in fighter spam scenarios.  The existence of Converted Hangar Bay means any destroyer can have a similar, if not quite as strong, fighter contingent.  Certainly an Enforcer with converted hangar bay and a Xyphos wing still has 73 OP left (compared to a Gemini and Xyphos with 57 OP left), and is a much stronger base chassis than the Gemini, for the same deployment cost.

As for the hybrid nature of the ship, I think Alex is moving towards simply having ships be worth their deployment cost, which is the way the Venture went, and the Apogee is currently sitting at (or beyond depending on who you talk to).  Right now, the Venture is more of a cargo ship than the Gemini is (14 DP and 3 fuel/ly for 600 cargo and 180 fuel, versus 9 DP and 2 fuel/ly for 250 cargo and 70 fuel).  Which is consistent with the removal of the civilian tag.  Venture feels worth while dropping into battle at 14 DP, at least for short ones where it's missiles don't run out.

So if I were to try tweaking a Gemini into a 9 DP tier destroyer hull, I'd probably try the following:
1) It's weapon count is pretty low for a destroyer.  I'd add 2 small composite mounts on the front of the saucer section, roughly parallel with the missile mount, with 180 degree arcs, pointing 45 degrees away from forward.  I'd add 10 more OP because 2 more small mounts were added.

This provides flexibility to put point defense either in the smalls or mediums.  Since the Gemini's armor is so low, it's in danger of going down to an interceptor strike.  If you don't put Mining Pods or Xyphos in the fighter bay, it can't rely on it's fighters for PD either, so simply more mounts that allow for different PD solutions seems good.  It adds swarmers and vulcans to the already possible double flak.

Alternatively, a medium and two small missiles makes it reasonable to throw expanded missile racks on, and utilize missile pressure to keep flanking frigates away.

2) Bump the flux dissipation up to 200 from 170, to also help the fact it has 2 more mounts.  Bump flux capacity up to 3200.  That puts it roughly at 80% of a Hammerhead's flux stats, and about on par with an Enforcer (which is a low tech ship compared to the Gemini's midline doctrine).

3) Bump the speed to 60.  It's not going to win any races, but at least it can keep up with things like Eagles and Champions and perhaps be set to escort on them, making it a reasonable midline support addition.  Trying to get a slow carrier to escort a speedy cruiser can be painful to watch.

So, 85 OP, 1 Medium Missile, 2 Medium Ballistics, 2 small composites, 1 fighter bay.  200 flux dissipation, 3200 flux capacity shield, 250 armor, 4500 hull, 60 speed.  The same 250 cargo/70 fuel capacity.

It is more on the glass cannon end of things, but supported properly can dish out destroyer tier damage, and between fighters, missiles and ballistics, can imagine a variety of viable loadouts.  Although, obviously would need some testing, as I could be underestimating those changes.  But certainly I want it to be able to, say, take on a non-SO Shrike.

Suggestions / Super ping
« on: January 17, 2022, 12:40:46 PM »
Sometimes people have issues with finding mission or quest objects far out on the edge of a system, potentially spending far more real life time than is probably fun.  I'd like to propose an alternative usage mode for the neutrino detector skill.  Currently, we have a mode of operation where it costs a low amount of volatiles per day, and produces some ghost readings and very weak readings for very distant objects.

One could imagine instead of this low level passive operation, a high usage active mode that acts more like an extra strong sensor ping, briefly jumping sensor strength up to system wide, assuming it was activated at the center, with a much higher volatiles cost.  Say, something like 100 or 200 (equivalent to 25,000 to 50,000 credits, plus tax). 

If you want to severely limit it, you could instead (or in addition) make it cost a story point.

Essentially, provide a short cut, but at a significant in game cost.

If you want to still make some systems a mystery, you could require an interaction with a star (similar to how interacting with a star with an alpha core in the hold can generate a new stable point), making the star the source of the ping, which would allow systems without stars to still force players to do a manual search.  If tool tips indicated said detection skill had an interaction with a star, that might actually naturally lead players to realizing they have the ability to add a stable point as well.

General Discussion / Re: Atlas - Most useful ship in the game?
« on: January 17, 2022, 11:57:06 AM »
Configuration does vary a bit with what you're concerned about.  I personally feel like the supplies running cost of an Atlas is small enough compared to it's capacity that's I just tend to ignore it as a balancing factor.  Militarized subsystems is good for sensors (+75 on a capital logistics ship if you're not running 5 combat capitals already), profile (150 is a non-trivial improvement) and burn speed.  If you've taken Salvaging instead of Bulk Transport, it's probably the best choice.

Keep in mind, Militarized subsystems does doubles the minimum crew required, bumping an Atlas or Prometheus from 50 to 100, which when multiplied by crew salary of 10 credits, is a 500 credit a month bump in running costs, although credits don't take up cargo space like supplies.  If you're using Makeshift equipment, going from 5 supplies to 7.5 supplies because you added Expanded Cargo holds is actually cheaper (~250 plus 30% tax is still only 325 credits) to run without militarized subsystems.  Even going from 10 to 15 is only 500 credits a month if you're typically buying off the black market.  Making it break even either way, in term of running costs.

In my combat fleets for example, I stay away from Militarized subsystems, since I don't want my fleet wide combat boosts to be diluted.  I often take insulated engine assembly to keep signature reasonable (not good, but reasonable) instead of militarized subsystems.  But in a lightweight exploration fleet, it can potentially make a lot of sense improving three useful stats.

Well, I have to disagree with you, OP.
It's a capital ship, which will considerably slow you down (even with burn 20 penalties do still apply to the difficult terrain movement) and put a dent in your supply/fuel economy. Early game you can't really afford it (both the price of a ship and its logistical profile), and you're not limited by the 30 ships cap. Destroyer sized haulers are good enough, while Shepherd is a top tier pick with Converted Fighter Bays+Expanded Cargo Holds combo.

Late game (or past the first few years if you're not a complete newbie) credits become practically worthless, thus there is no reason to pick up anything besides supplies and fuel. If you absolutely love to roam outside the Core with the full 300DP fleet for months and months then yeah, I can totally see the appeal. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason to haul around this slow, vulnerable, fuel guzzling monstrosity.

While I agree capital ships will have more terrain penalties, slowing you down, and the logistics capitals have a max burn speed of 9 without skills, I don't see how it puts a dent in your supply/fuel economy.  Can you give an example?

The supply and crew costs of the capital logistic ships are about in line with a combat destroyer, which certainly can be afforded at the beginning of the game.  Fuel usage is a bit more than a combat cruiser, but the Atlas comes with 400 fuel capacity, for a 67 light year range, 65% better than a Shepherd.  If you only need 150 or 300 cargo, then two Shepherds or a cargo destroyer is enough, but if you're trying to deliver 1,000 supplies and 500 drugs to a pirate base in deficit, the Atlas starts looking pretty efficient to me.  Or pulling in the loot from 2-3 orbital habitats on a long exploration run.  Those types of opportunities are available from the start of the game.  In addition, contact trade missions scale to your cargo capacity.  The more you have, the more you make.

Just to put some numbers down, 6 Shepherds with Expanded Cargo hold and Converted fighter bay carry 180 cargo each, and individually cost 4.5 supplies and 1 fuel/ly.  Or times 6, 1080 cargo for 27 supplies/month and 6 fuel/light year.  They reduce survey costs by 30.  Spending a story point or two on the Atlas (as opposed to 6 or 12 for the Shepherds), can add survey capability as well, reducing costs by 40.  10 or 15 supplies for 2600 cargo space and the same fuel costs sounds like a pretty efficient deal to me.  And 2600 cargo space is definitely usable inside the core for trading.  If we're talking about massed Atlases, like 5 or 10, then that is quite likely overkill with 13,000 to 26,000 cargo space, but 1 Atlas will definitely replace a small fleet of frigate and destroyer logistic ships economically.  Still like a pure hound fleet with Bulk transport for smuggling operations though.

Although, I haven't tried finding a contact trade mission with 10 Atlases in tow.  I should try that sometime.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34