Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

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 - Apfelkuchenbemme

Pages: [1] 2
1
Bonus EXP doesn't sound like a very enticing reward, especially if the player lvl is capped; when I installed the SkilledUp mod, I jumped straight to lvl 126. Expanding on the descriptions of custom ships of the IBB bosses added in the Ships and Weapons Pack, I'd like to be able to customize ships myself:

E.g. I once defended my Starfortress against some Ordos and hadn't realized just how many joined the battle. I fought with a battle size of 200, and deploying a Victory Capital Ship instantly brought me down to -45 or so DP. When the thing reached single-digit CR and had like 5k integrity left, the REDACTED deployed their last Solar Capital Ship. My Starfortress was at ~40% integrity and only had its citadel and the two modules on either side of it left, I was tired and just wanted this to be over, so I increased battle size to 500 and deployed my three Paragons.

Afterwards, I realized I had destroyed 139 REDACTED ships in the battle, 9 of which were Capitals and I think about 130 or so saw their end when the only thing I had deployed was my Victory. What I'd like to do here is slap the title of "Defender of <colony-name>" onto that Victory, give it a paintjob, increase its OP and maaaybe increase the size of two weapon mounts. You could do a similar thing to the AI ships, where a Pirate Atlas Mk. II, that has participated in three successful attacks on Orbital Stations, becomes something like the "Scourge of Askonia" or wherever the attacks took place.

To add a disadvantage, if you have several ships with the title "Defender of <Hegemony-Colony/System>" in your fleet and the faction of the system you jump into is currently hostile with the Hegemony, you could be denied access to the port of a planet. Plus if your fleet is made up of several custom ships that have seen dozens of battles and all carry distinguishing names, it'd of course be harder to hide your identity with your transponder turned off. To expand on the "Contacts", destroying a unique ship - even if it is a Pirate - could anger other captains because they have fought besides the captain of the destroyed ship in the past.


Something else I wouldn't mind seeing is "actually designated crew". At the moment, if you place a few ships in storage because you want to screw around, you may run into the problem that you have to "put some crew / marines into storage", too. I guess you could split "crew" into "normal workers", which are used to e.g. colonize a planet, and "ship crew", which is obviously used on ships. If you put a ship into storage, you'd then either leave the crew of that ship on it, or you'd get those guys and gals back into the available pool of crew for your ships.

If the crew is deployed in a battle, they'd gain experience and a more experience crew raises certain stats of the ship. However thinking about things like "crew becoming experts on a ship when they're employed on there for a long time", makes me think tracking several thousand crew members' deployment history may go a bit overboard. However coming back to that point of making risky fights more desireable, you could make it harder and harder for a crew to gain exp, to the point they'd have to destroy half the opposing fleet by themselves in a battle, effectively making the player think of deploying another ship as "deploying kill stealers".

Plus with "designated crew", losing a ship in a battle would actually hurt. At the moment, you lose a ship in battle and say "Eh, I have like 5 more of those back at base" or you can just buy another one over at that station. Well OK thinking about that I guess people would be more likely to just deploy as many ships as possible so they don't lose that one ship which has a veteran crew and three titles from previous endeavours, but hey it's a singleplayer game and you can just reload.

2
General Discussion / Re: best way to make big battles faster?
« on: October 01, 2020, 01:25:32 AM »
Just forcefeeding the game more RAM isn't always the solution. When I continued playing after a longer break, I often didn't even have 20fps in 300 battle size fights. First thing I noticed when looking for clues was the NVidia control panel had set the global selection of the GPU to auto, so the game apparently said "Eeeyy, your i7-4710HQ has Integrated Graphics!". Thus, my GTX860M twiddled its thumbs with a gentle smile while the CPU sprinted to 95°C. After changing the setting to my dedicated GPU didn't help that much, I opened 'er up (MSI "gaming" laptop) and well ... the interior and the thermal paste looked about as good as you'd expect it to look if it hasn't been cleaned in almost six years.

Cleaned the cooler, cleaned the interior, replaced thermal paste on CPU and GPU and voila, the game runs at 60fps at 60-75°C with 4GB of RAM allocated.

However, I'm only using LazyLib, GraphicsLib, Ships and Weapons Pack and DIYPlanets. And size 500 battles, where both sides deploy loads of fighters, still cause fps drop.

3
Suggestions / Re: Start saved games paused
« on: October 01, 2020, 01:10:10 AM »
When I restart from a saved game I kind of assume the saved situation will be replicated, which it isn't (I only save while paused).

I was extremely confused at first because I could have sworn my loaded saves always start paused, but what do you know:
  • If you pause and then load a save, the save starts paused
  • If you unpause and then load a save, the save starts unpaused

But yeah, we already have "pause after battle" and "pause when opening map", so I don't think "pause after loading", "pause after saving" or "pause after exiting a planet" should be a problem.

4
Factions send expeditions based on market share (for PL, TT and SD) or if free port is on (LC and Heg), regardless of relations. Similarly, Hegemony sends AI expeditions for using AI cores, friend or foe.

Never had the Luddic Church send an expedition even though I have all 14 / 15 colonies on free port for the growth bonus. Can't speak for the Luddic Path since they "saw the light" as I bombed them out of the sector, but the LC is sitting at a relation of 100 since pretty much forever, twiddling their thumbs.

5
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] DIY Planets - Terraforming and more!
« on: September 30, 2020, 05:08:03 AM »
Jesus, I love to hear myself talk ... put everything into a spoiler, but tl&dr is:
"Balance is whack, yo"

Spoiler

I really like the idea of terraforming planets and with Starsector, not only do I think terraforming as an "active" component rather than some derelict stations should be in the basegame, but I think it will be in the basegame at some point. But umm, either my view is extremely skewered by having an Alpha AI core in literally every single structure by the time I tried this mod, or you may want to think about some rebalancing:

Smaller "issues" I have with the mod
  • Yes, compared to the vanilla structures, the upkeep for those terraforming structures is noticably more expensive. However I only hit the red on one colony, and quickly got that colony back to green numbers once I could install a beta core after the third terraforming structure was finished. Since we're literally trying to turn an icy rock into a beautiful, green paradise with butterflies flying about, I'd definitely be OK with it if the upkeep for the structures saw a 25-50% increase. Heck, the only reason you’re even doing this is you have nothing better to do with 10s of millions of credits after some point, so I’d even be OK with it if the upkeep saw a 150% increase.

  • Why even bother with a demand in commodities? Like, unless this is all also lowered because of my AI cores, to function on a planet without an atmosphere, the Atmosphere Pump has a demand of 4 Heavy Machinery and a whooping 2 Volatiles. You don't even need your own Heavy Industries or need to be allied with one of the “big players” of the core, even the vanilla Independent can satisfy that demand with 5 HM from Nova Maxios.

  • "20k for the location of a terraforming rig"

    ... probably a bit of a pet peeve, but it’s like “OK old man sitting in a bar of one of my colonies, I’m going to pay you 20k credits for information as to where that terraforming rig is. Right after you tell me its location, I’ll just load up on supplies and fuel for about 50k and test the Capital Ship another mod added, which I’ve built for about 500k from my orbitals works and oh would you look at that, the income for this month was 1.1m"

    Like, 20k to start the "quest" just feels like a "Test you have to pass to start the quest, just for the sake of having a test", you know? It's just ... who the hell doesn't have 20k credits to start a quest where they have to destroy a certain kind of defense of a Domain-era artifact?
[close]

Bigger issues I have with the mod

But the kind of "broken", but also kinda more "confusingly balanced" thing about this mod is the comparison between those Terraforming Artifacts and ... The Genesis.


In vanilla Starsector, we can already zoom around in Hyperspace, our engines running on Antimatter Fuel, and we'll blast one another to hell with lasers and plasma while we phase cloak into another dimension or something and build a red shield around our entire damn planet ... but in order to make a change to a planets atmosphere or whatever permanent, we need some "Domain = big brain"-tier tech? That's single use? I can totally understand requiring a specialised AI core to (somehow) change a planets gravitational inner field thingy so it doesn’t have a high gravity debuff anymore … but we seriously can’t find a way to say “Alrigthy, we have to run those stellar mirrors / shades for x years and then we’ll put them into this formation to make the change permanent”?

Yet building a ship for a measly 1m credits, that literally pulls a planet with Ultrarich Deposits of normal and rare ores plus Organics plus Volatiles out of some asteroid field is somehow "easier" than permanently changing a planets environment? To put this into perspective, among all the 738 planets of my current playthrough, 37 had Organics and only 4 of them had Plentiful Organics. Exactly how well the Genesis can help you bolster a system depends on the availability of asteroids of course, but I mean ... my main system, the Pelesius Star System, had three planets to begin with:

There was Galahan, an Arid World with Adequate Farmland, Abundant Rare- and Moderate Normal Ore Deposits and Abundant Organics.
Then there was Ose, a Water World with Moderate Ore Deposits, Abundant Organics and (of course) a Water-covered Surface.
And last but not least, we had Ukobach, a Gas Giant that only has Diffuse Volatiles, but he was lovingly colonized nevertheless.


After using 5 Genesis on the ringsystem around Ukobach, the ringsystem around the Pelesius and Tered Kathon stars (binary system), an asteroid field around a jump point and an asteroid field that was big enough to generate two planets, I now also have these guys in the system:

Abundant Volatiles + Abundant Organics,
Diffuse Volatiles + Plentiful Organics,
Trace Volatiles + Plentiful Organics,
Plentiful Volatiles + Abundant Organics,
Diffuse Volatiles + Plentiful Organics


Really, 5m credits was all it took to raise the number of Planets with Plentiful Organics in the entire sector from 4 to 7. OK, this roll for resources was probably almost as lucky as even having enough asteroids to create five planets in the first place, but keep in mind that on top of those resources, all five of these guys have a hazard rating of just 150% and have Ultrarich Rare- and Normal Ore Deposits.


With 550k production value per month from my Orbital Works, it takes just a bit over 9 months to produce 5 Genesis and extend the Pelesius Star System from a very good system to an absolutely ridiculous power house of a system that - if you slap a High Command on every planet - could probably have like 30 or so Patrols / Detachments running about.

Yet it takes 400something ingame days to remove a planets Extreme Heat condition plus you need a single-use Artifact you may not even find in the next fetch quest?

[close]

My proposition for a rebalance

I liked the way Spore handled terraforming:

Early terraforming tech wasn't a precise science and it was a good idea to bring both forms of tech to e.g. be able to lower a planets temperature if you were about to raise it too high. Later terraforming tech could alter two things at once (think a volcano made atmosphere denser and raised temp) and the late game tech gave you precise control over what you wanted to do (those beams for temp and atmosphere vacuum / dispenser for atmosphere).


You could take a similar approach, where tech usable from the start would work, but wouldn't be very efficient. E.g. have standard Stellar Shades / Mirrors take many years to remove the hot Condition and Cold conditions, Atmosphere conditions would take the same time as Temperature and while working on Tectonic Activity would take 10+ years, you could only partially remove the "Extreme" forms of the condition and you couldn't even do anything about a planets gravity with existing tech.

Doing that quest where you return the AI to the system it originated from, would then unlock upgrades to the already available structures, that would lower upkeep and the time it takes to complete these alterations to a planets condition. This event would also unlock tech to work on an irradiated surface and gravity, both of which would be expensive and still take a long time.

Finding and installing those Terraforming Artifacts would significantly speed up the process and lower upkeep and after finishing the alteration, they'd be returned to the planets cargo holds instead of being single use.


Coming back to "why even have a commodity requirement?", I'd say we try to crunch some numbers by having a "natural pull towards the existing condition" and using a slider to change the amount of resources you want to pour into the operation:


Like, the Extreme Heat condition requires 9000 Terraforming Points (TP) to be removed, but decreases your amount produced by 3 per day. So if you build some standard Stellar Shade here, it'd produce 1 TP per Heavy Machinery and Metal you allocate to the operation, plus it'd cost 7.5k upkeep  per point.

So if you allocate 4 HM and Metal, it'd cost 30k credits per month and take 9000 days, because it'd produce 4 TP per day, which are reduced by 3 because it's Extreme Heat, so ~25 years (9000 / 30 / 12). If you now allocate 8 HM and Metal, it'd cost 60k credits in upkeep and "only" take about 5 years. If an Alpha AI core took the normal route of "-1 demand, -25% upkeep, +1 production", you'd now only pay 45k and it'd take a bit over 4 years.


The upgraded Stellar Shade would produce 2 TP and cost 6k upkeep per Resource allocated. This way, allocating 8 resources and installing an Alpha Core would cost 36k upkeep and produce 17 TP which, reduced by 3 because Extreme Heat, would still take about 21 and a half months to clear the Extreme Heat Condition.

If you now used some Domain-Tech AI core, that doubles TP and halves upkeep per resource allocated, using the Upgraded Stellar Shade + the Domain-Tech core + an Alpha core and 8 resouces would produce 33 TP a day, reduced by 3 because Extreme Heat and it'd take 10 months to clear Extreme Heat, while costing 18k upkeep.

Because of the demand by the Structure, having a trade disruption would act as if you had allocated fewer resouces to the Structure, so it'd produce fewer TP and the terraforming process would take longer.


To give you an example of how long some endgame run would take, my planet Galahan produces 12 Metal and 13 Heavy Machinery, so I could allocate 13 resources to a Stellar Shade, if I used an AI core.

If a planet has the Extreme Heat Condition, which takes 9000 TP to remove and reduces daily TP by 3, I could:
  • Allocate 13 resources to an Upgraded Stellar Shade for 26 TP per day and 78k upkeep
  • Install a Domain-Tech AI core for the Stellar Shade to double production to 52 and halve upkeep to 39k
  • Install an Alpha AI core to increase production to 53 and reduce demand by 1 so I can even allocate 13 resources in the first place and further reduce upkeep to ~30k

The Extreme Heat would reduce daily TP production to 50, so it'd take 9000 / 50 / 30 = 6 months to remove the Extreme Heat condition for an upkeep of 30k and very endgame-tier available resources, which I'd say looks like a pretty "believable" cost.



Regarding the Genesis, aside from increasing its cost significantly, I'd say it'd make sense for the created planet to become a volcanic planet with Extreme Heat, No Atmosphere and Extreme Tectonic Activity since all we're doing here is smack a whole bunch of rocks together, point at it and say "New planet :-D". I know that the description of a planets birth with this method sucks the heat off to ... "somewhere", but that's honestly bs if you compare this "Lets produce a cat IV or even V planet for 1m credits" to "Well yes we are a space faring powerhouse of a faction, but god knows how to build an array of Stellar Shades to cool this planet lmao lets build a ship that can teleport mines". Additionally, you could also vary the amount of ore in the new planet a bit because creating a new planet with Ultrarich Rare- and Normal Ore Deposits feels really unbalanced. Expanding on that, how about depending on the composition of the asteroids floating about, you could end up with a volcanic planet with the aforementioned conditions, or a Cryovolcanic / Frozen planet with Volatiles or a Barren planet that's more prone to have less Ore but more Organics?

Plus the Genesis' max burn of 4 really isn't that bad. Slap on Extreme Modifications from ... I think the Ships and Weapons Pack, install an enhanced Drivefield, get 3 Ox and the Navigations perk and boom, max burn of 10. Since we're lumbering about with a ship big enough to plop a new planet into existence, you could at least give it a hullmod that prevents any other hullmods and lowers the entire fleets max burn by 2 because "Field to stabilize the core interfering with drivefield" or something like that.

[close]
[close]

6
General Discussion / Re: Ship Naming!
« on: September 29, 2020, 05:27:20 PM »
Also, there was Aurora named "Dawson’s Christian". But her beams definitely were not "burned brighter than all beams I'd seen before". Instead, it dies in a very first battle. Unrecoverable.

Probably, I shouldn't fit three phase lances on it. Stupid idea it was.

My best design choice for an Aurora so far was to strip it, slap 7 Antimatter Blasters into the front, install Safety Overrides and Aux Thrusters, put the rest into Flux and hand the keys over to my good ol’ Lieutenant Rio Tjon … a reckless officer.

The guy took off screaming, blasted a Lumen straight to hell, rammed a Radiant going 280 and took off behind the REDACTED fleet as I could have sworn I heard a faint “witneesss mmeeeee ..” over the comms console.

Sure, you give the guy a command and he answers with maniacal cackling as you can hear his crew record goodbyes for their families in the background, but the REDACTED fleet was almost as suprised as me.

7
General Discussion / Re: How to edit weapon mount sizes on ships
« on: September 29, 2020, 06:50:47 AM »
Spoiler
Here is exactly what I do:
  • go to Fractal Softworks\Starsector\mods\Star Wars 2020\data\hulls
  • Open sw_asseror.ship in Notepad++(as a .txt file)
  • Edit weapon size/type
  • Click save file button
  • Exit all programs
  • Start Starsector game
[close]

That's what I do for all changes.

I kinda dislike that you referr to the files as .txt files; if you saved it as a .txt file, the game wouldn't even load. However since your screenshot of Notepad++ clearly shows it's a .ship file, and not some additional .txt file sitting around in the \hulls folder, this should work.

No, not only "should" it work, it literally DOES work. I copied the content from your sw_assertor.txt file, pasted it into the sw_assertor.ship file under the path you have open in Notepad++, used the console to get an Assertor and yes, the mounts from the file worked. Even the mounts of the Assertor you can face in the battle simulation had changed and after I saved and exited the game, changed the mounts to ballistic and loaded that save, all mounts were ballistic.

However you never know what system the person on the other end has and after reapplying thermal paste fixed my frame rate issues, rather than allocating more RAM to the game as is often advised in threads about performance issues with mods, I'd say there's clearly something wrong on your end that we can't help you with without looking at your computer. Unless you're doing something completely "time to get more sleep!"-tier thing such as looking at the wrong ship, I'd say try a complete reinstall of the game and the mods you're running.

(however to be perfectly honest, I haven't tested it with all mods you're running ... but none of the other mods should interfere with the mounts on a ship from the Star Wars mod)

8
General Discussion / Re: How to edit weapon mount sizes on ships
« on: September 27, 2020, 10:22:59 AM »
I tried to look it up but got nowhere or it didn't work.

Where did you look at what did you try to change? As far as I would tell from a glance over the files in /Fractal Softworks/Starsector/starsector-core/data/hulls, the .ship files contain information to the weapon mounts. Values like OP or flux dissipation, speed etc. are in the ship_data.csv.

There are probably some tools over on the mod section of the forum to fiddle around with the .csv file more comfortably, but don't forget to change the slot size alongside the slot type:

I need a better CPU and didn't have more Tachyons on me



Obligatory reminder:
Backup these files before screwing around with 'em
You could of course try to add the stuff as a mod, I guess
[close]

9
Suggestions / Re: Dogfighting, races
« on: September 27, 2020, 02:24:14 AM »
You could probably create something like checkpoints you have to fly through. Maybe even some smaller buoys left and right of the "track", so going "off track" would earn you a penalty and you could create some sharp corners so the race wouldn't simply be "Hold down w" and the ship with the highest top speed would win by default.

I honestly haven't read up on the lore and story behind the sector, but maybe some racing-class ships would make sense, too? You know, expensive, smaller ships that are fast af, used by the sectors elite for leisure runs between systems but don't have any combat abilities to speak of, purely relying on their speed to avoid enemies.

Kinda like the ... was it a "Pegasus"? from X2: Terran Conflict, that could go a kilometer per second but got destroyed by a single hit from a destroyer.

10
Ayy no problem, but:

While it's certainly a way to make low-risk money that's available from the start of the game... it kinda misses the point.

is spot on tbh. Everyone is different of course, but all it took for me to go and get Starsector was Alec's Sseth's video review about it. Giving your buddy some pointers towards playing the game by giving them a pretty extreme min-max start kinda feels like introducing someone to Oblivion by making a beeline to Peryite's Shrine to powerlvl offensive skills before getting the Everscamp Staff to powerlvl block, armor and smithing only to end up at lvl 17 or so in order "to not "lose" health, magicka and stamina on lvl up because your attributes aren't lvled perfectly" before you start "the normal game".

The only thing you're doing when you run around with only a Dram at the start, is gain lots of cash via exploration contracts and some exp. If you want to give your buddy an easy start to the game, just have him cheat in a million credits and enough exp to get to lvl 20 or something like that.

11
Its quite wise to build a starfortess in Remnant space, but you shouldn't build the patrol hq to make sure they follow you to your fortress.

I'll be damned, building a Starfortress in a Remnant Sector gives you enough of an advantage to mothball the Drovers. Something to add is:
  • If you approach the Remnant fleet before they can reach the Starfortress, it'll count as "Remnants attack you, Starfortress helps out" so in my experience, the Remnants are attacking your ships more aggressively.
  • If you approach the Remnant fleet after it has already begun attacking your Starfortress, it'll obviously count as "You are helping your Startfortress, which is getting attacked by the Remnant fleet" so they're going to attack the Starfortress more aggressively. This goes as far as having a Brilliant try to push you aside as it holds fire if you're directly between them and the Starfortress.
  • If you've built a Patrol HQ or if there is some trader that's crazy enough to stick around in a red sector, you joining the fight will count as "The Starfortress is getting attacked by Remnants and a patrol or some random traders are helping. You are joining an ongoing battle!". Even if that trader fleet or patrol is baaarely in the range of joining the battle or hasn't even moved towards the Remnant fleet.
    This means you'll drop in waayyyy to the bottom of the map and the Starfortress will take unnecessary damage. Sure, it's a friggin Starfortress, but if it has three Radiants hugging it closely, there can be a few bits that come off.

12
Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework
« on: September 25, 2020, 08:32:59 AM »
So you think it would be ok for 6 Plasma Cannon shots in a row to completely miss fighters? Maybe even more if you're unlucky... That just sound completely bonkers honestly.
It will be, if it comes after fighters have their hull and armor halved.

Since you brought up Plasma Cannons as Anti-Fighter weapons, lets imagine you're "chasing" a Heron with a Paragon that has four Plasma Cannons in its large energy mounts. Just before you can close the distance with your 0 flux speed boost, the Heron lets its three squads of Trident bombers loose. Normally, the first hit on the Trident overloads its shields, second one takes it out. If the decrease in defensive stats doesn't incorporate that the "overload damage" from a Plasma Cannon hit would kind of punch through the Trident's shield, you'd still need two hits. Only now, since you're firing a large energy weapon, you have a 75% chance a shot "doesn't hit".

You kind of have to aim a bit anyways because of the size of the bombers and the accuracy of the PCs, but now you only have a 6.25% chance to destroy a Trident in the first two shots. If I'm not completely mistaken with my maths from eight years ago, even if all 12 shots from a volley "hit" the Trident, the 75% dodge chance would mean you only have an 84% chance of destroying it:

Tfw you have to google how combinatorics worked
e.g.
Chance to miss = 75%
Chance to hit = 25%
12 shots fired, 2 hit = 0.75^10 * 0.25^2 = 0.00352
Combinations are basically "First and last one hit,  second and last one hit, third and last one hit" etc., so we have 11 combinations here
=> Chance to destroy with exactly 12 shots = 0.03872 because of rounding
=> Accumulated chance to destroy within 12 shots = 0.84162
[close]

If you also added that fighters can't dodge if they're overloaded and we'd say that the second hit after getting overloaded is guaranteed, then you'd already have an 82% chance to destroy the Trident with 7 shots. But yeah, pushing numbers about until I find something where I'd say "Yeah that sounds alright" really makes me like the idea of giving the fighters evasive maneuvers more than pulling some magical percentages out of the air.


Expanding on the idea of some kind of a plasma jet burst to the side in order to dodge, you could give different fighters different versions:
  • different accelerations based on tech-lvl and size / weight of the fighter
  • limited charges that have to be recharged after getting called back at the carrier vs.
    several charges that are recharged like the Phase Skimmer of a Wolf vs.
    no charges but generates Flux like the Phase Skimmer of a Hyperion
  • larger fighters / bombers or low-tech ones can't use it with shields up vs.
    smaller midline ones can, bigger midline ones still can't vs.
    high-tech fighters and bombers can use it with shields up regardless of size

13
General Discussion / Re: How do we make small ships useful?
« on: September 25, 2020, 04:27:33 AM »
The Pinnacle with your setup sure sounds and looks like a good flanking ship, but a 6 on 1 fight with 85% CR high-tech ships, that are very purpose-built to be long range flankers from the players side vs one of the slowest low-tech ships of the game without (i assume) an officer isn't really that much of a comparion now is it? Give the Onslought one or two of those Pinnacles as escort of its own and you'd probably see more moments like that one Pinnacle with ~85% hard flux in the left of your second screenshot. Imo, raising the fleet size for both sides and just spamming Frigates until the Frigates are fielding 3x as many guns as the big boys also doesn't really solve any "problems", but can lead to shenanigans like:

If you can still see the background, you're not using enough Tempests

Plus honestly, compared to things like the Tempest, 2 medium and 3 small energy mounts that can all engage the target at once, High Energy Focus as ability, a 180° Omni Shield, Advanced Optics preinstalled and like what, 60 OP? sounds like a deployment cost of 6 is pretty damn low.

But for me, the most surprising thing in those screenshots is you've actually managed to get all six Pinnacle to flank the Onslought. From the POV of an almost purely Capital Ship captain, I'd say the biggest problem the Frigates of the enemy have is that they're just thrown away. Having Frigates say "Haha, nnoope!" and running away to their Cruisers when they find your Capital Ship would be a good boost to their survivability already. What happens instead is you arrive at an Objective in an Odyssey with two Auroras trailing behind and the Hound and the Lasher of the enemy just keep going although you're already aiming your Tachyon Lances into their direction and your Tacs are lighthing them up.

14
Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework
« on: September 25, 2020, 01:06:33 AM »
Crewed fighters should really have some advantages over drones, given that drones are piloted by sub-human AI routines...

Eh, could go both ways in that pilots have better reactions overall while drones have more available space for computers, shield generators, flux vents, don't have to have emergency shuttles or something on board to save the pilot, can accelerate faster etc.

But it got me thinking ... what if you had to use AI cores on your carriers if you want to use REDACTED fighters? One AI core needed per fighter LPC you use and a Gamma core would make it so the fighters take longer to respond to a change in order / react to getting intercepted by enemy fighters because the Gamme core needs time to calculate the best reaction. So you'd see fighters firing off a few shots at the ship that just got destroyed before they choose the next target. Using a Beta core would make them perform the same way they perform now and using an Alpha core could make them faster / deal more damage because they're aiming for weakpoints or something like that (kinda as if you'd give the fighters combat skills). If you implement some kind of evasive maneuver like a roll, you'd need a Beta core to give the REDACTED fighters the ability to even perform such a maneuver, while using an Alpha core would decrease the maneuvers cooldown or something like that.

Downside could either be that the cores assigned cost extra OP or that the better AI cores you use, the more flux they generate when you give the order to engage. Could go all the way to the point where a carrier that exclusively uses Alpha cores would overload if it kept the engage order on, or that Alpha cores would generate flux even when the order to regroup was given, so that if you use too many Alpha cores, the carrier couldn't get the Zero Flux Bonus to speed.

Of course It'd bring us yet another step closer to repeating what led to the AI war,
01100010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110111 01100101 01101100 01100011 01101111 01101101 01100101 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01101110 01100101 01110111 00100000 01000001 01001001 00100000 01101111 01110110 01100101 01110010 01101100 01101111 01110010 01100100 01110011
[close]

Pages: [1] 2