Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.96a is out! (05/05/23); Blog post: Colony Crises (11/24/23)

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.

Topics - eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef

Pages: [1]
I've had enough.
The Persean League and Luddic Path are getting saturation bombed.

While I'm here. @Alex mining + refining + a domain artifact should not cause an active Luddic Path cell and an increase to Hostile Activity. It also shouldn't cause LP armadas to pop into existence from nowhere in my system the moment it happens.
Also, "expeditions" should never be sent from planets with story protections, or those protections need to be removed and replaced with a warning. At this point it is a large portion of the military planets in the game. Furthermore, same faction fleets and stations should never aid expeditions. As it currently stands if you get jumped by an expedition that you forgot about, members of the expedition faction will aid them if in proximity.
Before anyone suggests otherwise, the expeditions are supposed to be "rogue actors", if their faction supports their attack against you, they are no longer "rogue actors", and it is now an act of open war.

Suggestions / Temporal shell issue and solution
« on: August 04, 2023, 01:17:14 AM »
Currently Temporal Shell generates soft flux at 25% of the base flux capacity. Which means if a ship like the Scarab is between max flux and (max flux - 625) it will not use its system. The AI will also not intentionally vent enough to use its system.

Switching the flux generation from f/u (base cap) to flux/second would allow the Scarab to activate its system at any flux level. Total soft flux generated should remain the same or be slightly increased.

The reason I'm asking for this is the volume of Scarabs I've lost because they backpedaled to death rather than venting for 1 and a half seconds, is genuinely insane. The AI's recklessness towards enemies at high flux has also made the situation worse when compared to version .95.

At this point, Tempests are better if you need an 8 DP frigate, and Medusas are better if you need a small high-tech brawler.

It would also make the Omegas a lot more interesting to fight.

Suggestions / Spoiler Task Force REDACTED
« on: June 06, 2023, 02:54:27 PM »
The task force is too easy, I managed to be it with a single Hyperion, with one disengage and a couple days of recovery in-between fights.
The first fight I killed everything except the Dominator and Onslaught. The second fight I won.

The fleet has a notable lack of fighters, which means it struggles against flanking frigates, or exceptionally struggles against a player piloted Hyperion. Adding a couple Moras and maybe one more Dominator would fix this issue as it would require too many days of recovering CR, and the fleet would respawn.
For those that are not aware, the fleet respawns after several days which is supposed to prevent waiting to recover CR as I did, but when there are only two ships left you can engage at 50% CR.

Bug Reports & Support / A.I. maintaining outranging enemy bug.
« on: May 15, 2023, 02:35:46 PM »
Certain ships that have a longer range than their target, and higher speed, will not remain out of range despite having steady cautious officers.

Tested ship, Odyssey with the following loadout.
Advance Optics, Advanced Turret Gyros, Auxiliary Thrusters, Expanded Missile Racks, and Integrated Targeting Unit. 42 Capacitors, 23 vents.
Fighters are mining pods. Weapons are double Tachyon Lance, three Harpoon MRM pods, and Squall.
No officer, no built in, no d-mods, and the only player skill effecting the ship is Flux regulation.

Tested against sim Onslaught.

Results are if fleet doctrine is set to steady, the Odyssey takes severe damage or dies. If fleet doctrine is set to cautious, the Odyssey will live with minor to severe damage (there's a lot of RNG involved).
In .95 both aggressiveness settings could kill the Onslaught with minimal or without hull damage.

I have two observations as to why this is happening.
The first is the Odyssey always uses both of its plasma burn charges when re-engaging, including when it's in range after the first charge.
The second is that the Odyssey flies even closer when it is already in range. It's difficult to tell, but it does appear to be stopping at some point, and it looks roughly like it stops at 1000 range.
Is there a possibility that the A.I. isn't taking range bonuses into account?

I kept the loadout simple for testing purposes, the addition of PD and other weapons does not appear to change behavior. Dropping the Harpoons and adding capacitors gives it enough time to retreat once it hits the flux threshold to avoid taking damage.

General Discussion / A.I. engagement issues
« on: May 12, 2023, 02:27:59 PM »
I think I figured out why some ships with reckless officers won't engage. If the difference in firepower is too heavily in favor of the enemy, reckless ships won't engage.
I noticed this when testing Hyperion builds. Lighter weapon builds refuse to engage multiple enemies, whereas heavier weapon builds will engage.

In the simulator the enemy fleet I used was 1 dominator, one medusa, two sunders, two hammerheads, and one mule. The loadouts are the following. The first is Heavy needler, pulse laser, and mining blaster with armored weapon mounts built in. It will not engage the enemy even with a reckless officer.  The second loadout is Mining blaster, thumper, and ion pulser, with expanded mags built in. It will engage the enemy with a reckless officer.

While the second loadout has more officer skills, I don't think that is the issue as neither will properly engage a lone onslaught. When engaging an onslaught, both teleport onto it, and then immediately start retreating regardless of flux level. The onslaught of course has a significantly higher firepower than any lone ship in the above fleet, which is why I suspect it's an issue of the A.I. overcompensating when going against overwhelming firepower.

It should be noted this wasn't an issue last patch, and while it could be an artifact of removing safety overrides, I doubt it because other people are reporting similar issues.

The IR Autolance doesn't prioritize fighters, despite being essentially dedicated PD. It will focus on ships regardless of whether their shields are raised or not. I checked and it doesn't have the "anti-fighter" hint in weapon_data. So, it's a A.I. balance issue and not a bug.

Proximity launchers won't fire at fighters or missiles. I tested this with both hardpoint and turret mounts with the same result. It has the anti_fighter tag, but lacks the PD tag which it had last version. So, this is both a bug, as well as a A.I. balance issue.
PCLs were some of the best PD for ships that lack ballistic PD. It can't be understated just how big of a nerf not targeting missiles is, especially with the current missile meta.

I'm putting this in general as it contains A.I. balance issues, suggestions, as well as bugs.

Suggestions / A.I. piloting issues and potential fixes.
« on: October 20, 2022, 11:00:20 PM »
I'll start off by saying, this is not a bug report topic, as most of these issues are the result of intended features under unfavorable circumstances.

The first, and most annoying A.I. behavior that I've come across, is that the A.I. is extremely scared of missiles. This is most noticeable with fast highly maneuverable ships.
This issue comes in two flavors.

The A.I. tries to dodge all missiles, including missiles with tracking. While this sounds desirable, the player can't dodge most tracking missiles, which means the A.I. definitely can't. This results in the missiles "pushing" faster ships back, as they are trying to dodge those missiles. The A.I. will try to dodge missiles regardless of current flux levels.
For testing purposes take an SO Aurora, any loadout, and pit it against the long-range support Dominator. The Aurora will struggle to close the distance due to trying to dodge the incoming pilums.
This issue is also very noticeable pitting the Aurora against three Condors. The conjunction of trying to dodge the Condor's pilums, along with trying to dodge an incoming volley of Comp-X bombs, means the Aurora will struggle to engage, and frequently will lose.
An interesting note is that the dodging algorithm bugs out when saturated with targets, such as when trying to dodge a piranhas' payload, and will slow down enough that some of the bombs will hit.

This issue is also why long-range weaponry in conjunction with squall or mirvs are "meta" in the campaign. The enemy will never get in range due to being pushed back by missiles that aren't a threat but remain in range of your long-range weaponry which results in an indecisive flux lock.

The fix for this issue is to disable dodging for tracking missiles, because they're rarely possible to dodge anyways, and lower the threat assessment of none tracking missiles. The A.I. should not treat a couple piranha bombs as if they're a reaper. Likewise, squall aren't an issue until armor has been compromised, as such dropping shields against a ship using them should be the A.I. response.

The second issue is that ships with frontal shields, shield conversion front included, always try to face missiles if they can. This behavior makes sense if a ship has a low shield arc. It does not make sense if the ship has 360-degree shields, and they are fully raised.
The biggest test case is against a star fortress. Fast ships, high tech, and SO all struggle against star fortresses as they waste firing time turning towards mines that couldn't hit them in the first place.

A simple check to see if the ship has 360 shields, they are fully raised, and then disabling the behavior should be enough for most cases.

The two issues mentioned above are partly why SO builds, fast low weapon range ships, and high-tech struggle so much in the A.I. hands, but are great in the player's.

For the next annoying A.I, behavior, the A.I. becomes more aggressive when it starts to lose CR. This includes ships within the player's fleet. If I want a reckless officer, I will assign a reckless officer. There is no circumstance I want my steady or aggressive officer becoming reckless due to lowering CR. If I need them to kill something in a risky fashion, I can always order them to do it.
I presume this was added to prevent the A.I. from CR stalling, or to make an already won fight faster. I would appreciate it if it was removed at bare minimum from the player's fleet.

Second to last A.I. behavior is indecisive flux locking.
This happens for two reasons. First the A.I. is getting pushed back by missiles so it can't engage its weapons, but it's not disengaging meaning it remains within enemy weapon range. The Apogee and Conquest videos by Big Brain Energy are a good example of this.
The other reason is that the A.I. disengages but re-engages before fully venting its flux. This is mostly an issue with, you guessed it, faster shorter-range ships. The fix for this is simple, do not re-engage until the ship is at 0 hard flux. It is almost always better and safer to re-engage too late, rather than re-engage too early.

The last A.I. behavior I'll touch on is flux management with heavy burst weapons such as the Tachyon Lance. Even if the A.I. has more than enough dissipation, and capacity, it will still frequently disable auto-fire due to the sudden increase in flux. This of course disables the weapon's tracking, which can be the difference between a dead frigate and a badly damaged frigate. The current workaround is to put Tachyons in the same weapon group as PD as the A.I. will almost never turn the PD group off. However, the A.I. should get a proper adjustment as there are cases near max flux where the Tachs need to stop firing.

Pages: [1]