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

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General Discussion / Re: Bounty spike?

« on: December 14, 2018, 12:47:27 PM »

Alright. You know what? I don't care. It's exhausting to have to restate your arguments every time someone jumps new on your ass, and the thread is so long now I wouldn't reasonably expect anyone to have followed along. I apologize for running away with things a bit.

I'll check back in on the game when it's ready for release. It will either have a skill system that rewards making decisions with meaningful tradeoffs and I'll enjoy and replay it at length, or it won't and I won't.  Frankly, judging by commercial success, making everything a bland, homogeneous, decisions dont matter, trivial to be good at everything, coddle the player power fantasy is a good financial decision. It seems to work well for the Elder Scrolls games.  I was just selfishly arguing for the sort of game I'd enjoy.  I'm sure Alex would make a better decision about it than I would anyway.

2

General Discussion / Re: Bounty spike?

« on: December 14, 2018, 11:06:10 AM »

Fair enough. I don't think you understand that it *doesn't matter*.  In terms of risk assessment, whatever the arbitrary difficulty (never mind that the comfort level will be different for all players), if a player is choosing to do a given bounty, it's because they have already determined they can do it with minimal losses--hence, very little risk. Nobody chooses to run a bounty where they're likely to suffer unacceptable losses, especially when there are profitable alternatives available. If they feel there aren't alternatives without unacceptable losses available, they come on the forum make a thread about it.

I do take risks with bounties because it's fun.

You're complaining about the current selection of bounties being too risky to undertake, and petitioning for more bounties to be scaled to your ability. Just a reminder. If you seriously want to make the case that you ever do a bounty that you dont believe you can probably win just for the sake of having your entire fleet destroyed, then I would have a difficult time taking you seriously. At the very least, you must acknowledge that this is not something *most* players would do. Certainly not anyone playing without save scumming.

The best way to incentivize risk taking is to make the rewards worth the risk. Trying to incentivize risk taking by removing non-risky options and then reducing the rewards (as you have suggested) will just cause people to not do the activity. People make decisions based on risk/reward. If someone chooses to do a bounty, it's because they have assessed that the likely reward is greater than the likely loss. That doesn't equate with no risk.

I never argued for removing risk. You're the one who has the problem with the appearance of bounties you perceive as too difficult for your relative ability. I did say that I would like to see bounties take longer OR be more difficult OR pay out less, in order to slow down the returns from them, and make them less clearly superior to most other mission types.

I've never said bounties have zero risk, only minimal in most cases. I've said there's little reason to think they risk any more than a minimally defended trade fleet in a hostile universe that, unlike a bounty, does not know what kind of threats they might face and will be targeted by every potentially hostile fleet in sight, and so risk vs reward is not a compelling argument for EXP payout.

If you are complaining that players only do activities that will benefit them, then I'm not really sure what to say...

I'm acknowledging a fact. If you are suggesting that most players *dont* only do things in their self interest, I'm not sure what to say. We live on different planets I guess.

It seems to me like the player should be given the choice of high risk or low risk (relative to the players fleet).

I agree, except for the second part, and said so earlier in the thread. I dislike time based scaling, and would ideally prefer no scaling at all.  But the rewards have to be commensurate with the difficulty. Making 200k and a boatload of EXP for a bounty mission easily within your ability to complete is not a significant downgrade to a bounty that pays 300k, and will cost your fleet heavily. There must be some level of combat that a combat spec is rewarded by being able to handle, that a non combat spec could not, with appropriate rewards.

The system as it is now at least has the merit of giving players of range of opportunities to choose from, allowing them to find their own comfort level. Scaling all of them to your relative ability, which YOU have argued for, would remove that.

TL;DR  :  Scaling bounties to current player ability makes combat spec meaningless. Industry focus can then do anything combat spec can do, but combat spec can not do what industry spec can do.

This would be true if:
1) the only combat in the game was bounty combat
2) the scaling system attempted to account for combat skills

1 is patently false

It's definitely false, which is why Ive been saying it every other post in this thread when people argue bounties are the only way to engage in combat or progress in the game. Like here:

(never mind that combat is a part of many other activities in the game)

Who are you arguing with?  

and 2 can be easily circumvented. If the scaling is based only on fleet size/composition, then combat skills would not affect the scaling and thus taking them would make the bounties easier. Idk how it is implemented but I imagine alex didn't bother to attempt scaling based on skills, given his affinity for simplicity. Even if the scaling system did take combat skills into account, they would still be valuable for fighting remnant and raids which are now the major combat challenges along with bounties.

Please make a compelling argument as to what an Industry specced character is giving up if bounties scale to their level without consideration for combat ability, which I'd have no idea how to pull off either--I just assumed you did because you suggested setting difficulty for all bounties relative to the player. A combat specced character cant get the same bonuses from doing exploration/salvage/trade, but if bounties were scaled to their level, an industry specced character can complete bounties with the same degree of efficiency a combat spec can.  What tangible reward does a combat spec gain over an industry spec, that doesn't ultimately prove superficial in terms of the broader campaign? Remember, you're on the side arguing that bounties at times are too difficult and provide no alternatives, but my lowly D fleets haven't struggled with this.  So what have I given up? A trivial amount of a non scarce resource like supply? Why should anyone spec for combat if they can't get rewards from it that I can't, while I have benefits *they* cant replicate?

I don't particularly like any form of scaling, but I like your suggestion much less than I do the current system, which at least provides a range of opportunities for a player to find their own comfort level, and over-achieve at if they have the mind to do it.  As you have already agreed with me, rewarding combat activities are ubiquitous, bounties are not the only way to progress through combat, and bounty mission choices should provide a range of options, which is already happening.
.

3

General Discussion / Re: What kind of ship do you like most?

« on: December 14, 2018, 08:49:18 AM »

I never liked Paragon until recently and I don't know what is it about it, but it makes sniping and brawling with it pretty enjoyable.

I always liked the way you put one on the field and everything else just died. That's what I look for in a cap   It does kind of ruin the illusion of fleet vs fleet combat though, unless you're monkeying with battle size.

4

General Discussion / Re: How often do you need to destroy Pather bases to defend your colonies?

« on: December 14, 2018, 08:19:00 AM »

Once per year, putting all sinful industries in same system and leave others much less industrialized.

Which feels like the blink of an eye in game time, especially when you're also having to play Pirate whack-a-mole. By the time you deal with one, the other is ready to pop again, and the rest of the game grinds to a halt.

I *love* being able to have my own colony, and I personally think that hunting down and blowing up starbases is a blast. But even ice cream becomes sickening if you have to eat it all the time.

5

General Discussion / Re: What kind of ship do you like most?

« on: December 14, 2018, 07:48:48 AM »

Wayfarer 
It requires careful forethought in the fitout and quite a bit of skill to pilot well in combat.  Off-centerline triple converging turrets, capability to engage multiple targets and that spin for dumbfire torpedoes.  Challenging but pure joy when it all comes together

Care to share your loadout(s)? I struggle with the wayfarer every time I pick a scavenger start. It just feels so awkward...

Same. My hat is off to anyone who can make that work.

6

General Discussion / Re: Bounty spike?

« on: December 14, 2018, 07:21:41 AM »

I don't think you understand what I mean when I say 'scaled to your fleet'. If you know how strong the players fleet is, you can scale the bounty to be as difficult or easy as you want relative to the fleet. Scaling to your fleet just means the difficulty is relative to your fleet rather than to some other baseline.

Fair enough. I don't think you understand that it *doesn't matter*.  In terms of risk assessment, whatever the arbitrary difficulty (never mind that the comfort level will be different for all players), if a player is choosing to do a given bounty, it's because they have already determined they can do it with minimal losses--hence, very little risk. Nobody chooses to run a bounty where they're likely to suffer unacceptable losses, especially when there are profitable alternatives available. If they feel there aren't alternatives without unacceptable losses available, they come on the forum make a thread about it.

And here we are.

With regards to other aspects of the game, argue with the dev not me. Write a post if you want. The game began as only combat and everything has been added around that. He has stated that combat is the core of the game. You can say what you want about it, but I'm not even arguing with you, just stating what the dev has said, and also pointing out that it's not relevant to the discussion of bounty difficulty scaling.

Thanks for your permission. I am writing a post about it here and now, as one of the many tangents to this issue. People discuss many things in this thread. A while back I was talking about the utility of frigates in the late game with another player. Playing topic-cop isnt a compelling stance.


It is relevant to bounty scaling though, and Ill try once more to make you understand why.  Since your position seems to be "Combat by way of Bounty missions (never mind that combat is a part of many other activities in the game) is the only thing that matters, and never mind all the officially supported options for players to specialize in things other than combat", you should care about this:

Scaling all bounty content to the player's present ability makes the decision to specialize in combat skills meaningless at best, and very likely strictly inferior to any other option.

I have chosen to specialize in industry and salvage skills, with very few direct combat bonuses.  This means it would be *impossible* for any player who has specced into combat at the expense of those skills to complete exploration/salvage, and by extension, trade missions as profitably as I can. My material bonuses in rare and mundane loot are substantial, which have a profound effect on the overall ease of the game. I can barrel through storms reaching destinations much faster, because supply is meaningless to me. I can effectively use cheap, inferior ships to achieve combat goals, and overwhelm targets with numbers due to deployment cost reduction and the fact that supply is meaningless to me. I can maximize my colony efficiency without risking the downsides of AI use. I get rare tech and blueprints easier, rare ships and weapons faster.

The tradeoff for this is *supposed* to be that at some point combat becomes difficult for me, and I will face fleets large/powerful enough where DP becomes the limiting factor because a D-fleet under-performs a pristine fleet on a DP to DP basis, and there simply wont be enough available for me to overcome with additional deployment. Never mind that I haven't found this to be true already. As far as I can tell from this thread, I'm already having an easier time with pirate bases and bounties than other experienced players with combat spec and ostensibly superior skill. But as long as there are bounty tiers, I can kind of squint at the highest level ones and think maybe I really will have trouble coping with that.

But forget all that, because now you're proposing to scale all bounties to my ability. Any pretense of additional combat challenge flies out the window.  I can complete bounties just as well as any combat specced player, because they're all relative to my ability, rather than the overall campaign balance.  I can replicate anything a combat specced player can do, but the same is not true in reverse. What would be the point of speccing for combat? Succeed with fewer ships? Meaningless. Deployment cost is meaningless to me. The ability to kill ships slightly faster is meaningless compared to the vast campaign benefits I receive, and there is no longer even a pretense of a tradeoff. This would be true no matter how hard you nerfed industry bonuses into the ground, BTW--if bounties scale to the ability of an industry specced character, then on some level there will always be something I'm getting that a combat spec is not.

***

TL;DR  :  Scaling bounties to current player ability makes combat spec meaningless. Industry focus can then do anything combat spec can do, but combat spec can not do what industry spec can do.
.

7

General Discussion / Re: Bounty spike?

« on: December 13, 2018, 08:39:41 PM »

The core of the game is combat. Discussion of appropriate rewards for various actions is a totally different and unrelated discussion.

So never mind the new colony system and the skill trees that reward specialization in other areas?  I'm not the one arguing for only doing one mission type all the time and complaining when the game might actually require me to switch it up on occasion.  I don't believe the game supports that kind of myopic focus, which is why I think it's unreasonable to only define certain types of bounties as the only acceptable stream of combat content.

But if you are going to offer the other paths in the game, they need to be supported.  Ive said from a start my interest is chiefly in rewarding specialization, and making sure all the different paths available through the game pay rewards the other dont. I *want* certain combat activities to be out of reach for me, *because* I chose to specialize in another path in exchange for other rewards.  Otherwise what is the point of a skill tree if all decisions are ultimately meaningless. I want players to have to make more difficult decisions and really commit to a path, rather than easily being able to do everything with a safe middle path. You are arguing to make my choices have no meaningful trade-offs.

Also bounties can be scaled to be risky for your current fleet level? I don't see why you insist that bounties are easy/low risk if they are scaled appropriately.

Because you have very little to fear from any fleet while traveling through space in a warfleet, or at least much less than a trade fleet does. Nobody runs from a trade fleet--everyone is out to get you.  And if you're doing a bounty, it's because you've already determined that it's within your ability to complete with minimal losses. You know exactly what you'll be facing. You risk little, the battle is a forgone conclusion 90% of the time. A trade fleet is always one mistake away from disaster. I see no compelling reason why EXP gain should be the sole domain of combat to any practical extent, and no reason why Bounty missions should be so favored among all available mission types.

No one is asking for easy fights. I repeat, no one is asking for easy fights.

Except where you keep asking for easy fights.  Bounties scaled to your level are easy. The conclusion is foregone.  Losses are minimal.  Travel risk is minimal.

This entire thread (as noted in the title) is about a particular and sudden spike in difficulty that occurs at the same early point in the campaign. During this time, there are suddenly no appropriately difficult bounties until the player scales up in some other way, like a missing rung on a ladder. Once this has been surpassed it is generally ok.

I said the same thing a couple posts above. Not sure what your point is.  People have discussed lots of stuff in this thread. I'm arguing with you over the assertion that *all* bounty content should scale to your present ability.

8

General Discussion / Re: Conquest ship build/fleet Tips?

« on: December 13, 2018, 07:36:49 PM »

Let me change this topic to the 2nd part of my question.
What is in your fleet when you fly a conquest?

Carriers. More carriers. Possibly some escorts. My Conquests job is just to keep other ships off my carriers while they kill stuff.  Hence my long range Tac laser PD and preference for HAGs on the side that can spray any target rapidly.  Works very well against bases. long range Beam PD clears path for fighters, guns long enough range to stay at edge of Base's firing arc to keep pressure on shields, but can still retreat as necessary to deflux.

9

General Discussion / Re: Bounty spike?

« on: December 13, 2018, 07:28:32 PM »

I was objecting to ALL of the bounties being outside of my capabilities until I got a much bigger fleet

Then I'm calling that out as being a wild overstatement of the issue.  I'm not saying it's out of the realm of possibility for a single batch to provide literally zero opportunities for an accessible bounty mission ( defined as any combat oriented mission that pays a bounty), but it is definitely not the case over time. There are no amount of in game variables that could account for the apparently different games we are playing. I'm looking right now at year 214, there are a couple 50k bounties (capable to anyone of any skill level), 2 system bounties (again, accessible from the start) a number of lucrative pirate base popping missions (accessible to all by mid game at the latest), some 200k+  missions that are within reach for my fleet, and a bonkers crazy one with multiple capitals that I would probably have to build/buy ships for.  Can screenshot if requested.  Frankly, the one I'd have to really reach for is the only one that's interesting, as it has a ship I dont own yet.

If you honestly contend that this is not the case for you, then we need to switch to a bug-finding discussion, and not a balance discussion.

If bounties are going to scale with the players capabilities, they ought to do so at an appropriate rate so that the player is able to beat them or at least the some of them if he plays well.

Again, this is already the case most of the time, barring some absurdly bad batch of bounty missions.  The game's scaling is only meant to provide a range of opportunity, because no player will be at the same comfort level at any given time. Missions you think are impossible are going to be in reach for some players, and vice versa. In my opinion though, games that serve up content scaled to closely to your level at all times (Ex: Elder Scrolls content scaling), result in a boring, homogeneous experience.  Remember, Alex is already pushing back the most difficult bounties arrival time, so there is no need to argue that point.

For trade/exploration missions, they are all at least close enough to your current capabilities that you could buy a couple ships and then be able to handle them without any substantial long term commitment.

Trade missions frequently pop that would be impossible to complete profitably in any worthwhile sense, even with millions in the bank. There might not be a good enough deal some place close to buy the goods, you may not have them in storage, it may be too far, it may require purchasing more cargo capacity that would destroy profit.  In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the rule with trade missions, rather than the exception.

Station scanning exploration missions are likely to be much more profitable than other types. You can complete others, but they arent going to be your preference, just like there are always bounty missions that are completeable even if not preferred.  

So again I ask, why should Bounty missions get to not only be the most profitable mission type, but also pay out boatloads more EXP than most other activities, and scale perfectly into your preferred comfort zone at all times when no other mission type does? It isn't risk--bounties scaled to your level aren't risky. Cruising through space with a warfleet isn't risky, and you know exactly what you'll be facing.  If you want to have a discussion about the overall mission rewards system and the viability of only choosing to do a single type of mission all the time, then I'm all for that. But in the game currently scaling all bounty content to your level is unreasonable. Frankly, I wish they were all much harder, paid much less, or took much longer to complete.

10

General Discussion / Re: How often do you need to destroy Pather bases to defend your colonies?

« on: December 13, 2018, 05:43:21 PM »

Far too frequently, in my opinion.

11

General Discussion / Re: Bounty spike?

« on: December 13, 2018, 05:30:50 PM »

I clearly wasn't claiming that I was forced to fight the bounty fleet. I was saying that fleet difficulty was completely inappropriate for my fleet level implying that the bounty scaling is not working correctly. I was also responding to the implication that I was playing poorly by not making adjustments with an example of what I considered to be an unacceptably difficulty bounty for a given fleet.

No, you were objecting to the presence of a challenge outside your current ability. The purpose of scaling isnt to make sure you're never faced with a challenge beyond your ability to complete.  You have to make those decisions all the time in the game. How boring would that be if we were never given opportunities to over achieve. Again, Alex said he's slowing down the rate at which the most difficult bounties show up, but that doesn't meant he game won't still show you challenges beyond your current ability or comfort level.

I admit there might be a small gap right before tackling Pirate Bases become feasible where some players who don't want to do *anything* but bounties in the game might feel that they lack opportunity.  I mean, I never felt it, but I can see the case for it. After that point there is never a batch that doesn't provide multiple opportunities for accessible combat and a superior income stream.   At the current rate of money and EXP bounties pay out  (shooting up 3 levels after a single bounty sometimes, rapidly burning out the skill tree aspect of the game), expecting there to be a list of nothing but bounties right at your level that you can rapidly turn around is unreasonable, not to mention boring.

Again, every other mission type in the game never gives an ideal set of mission options every batch, and I don't see why bounties should get to be so clearly superior. I don't even really buy risk vs reward, because I'm not convinced that traveling with a lightly defended fleet in a hostile universe (which you have to do to make trade profitable), is really any less risky than showing up for a bounty you *know* is well within your ability to handle at virtually no risk for an easy payday.

12

General Discussion / Re: In your opinion, what type of faction is Starsector currently lacking?

« on: December 13, 2018, 03:55:28 PM »

So ideally we'd have either the Perseans or Sindrians get a new iconic Capital class (and a few more ship designs) and that would help define them more.

If I hear the words "Phase Capital" I'm going to lose my f-ing mind.

An upscaled Doom in the hands of anyone other than TT cannot bode well for the system at large

Fighting Sindrian phase spam is already one of my least favorite fights.  If they got a phase cap I'd seriously consider modding them out of the game.

13

General Discussion / Re: In your opinion, what type of faction is Starsector currently lacking?

« on: December 13, 2018, 03:50:09 PM »

So ideally we'd have either the Perseans or Sindrians get a new iconic Capital class (and a few more ship designs) and that would help define them more.

If I hear the words "Phase Capital" I'm going to lose my f-ing mind.

14

General Discussion / Re: Bounty spike?

« on: December 13, 2018, 03:37:23 PM »

I saw a fleet that was a paragon with 6 herons before I had a proper combat cruiser. That is not a winnable fight.

I saw a fleet that was full of cruisers when I only had a few frigates, and it chased me!  Luckily high level fleet bounties can be easily be evaluated for fleet challenge, and avoided entirely.

Alex already said he was changing how fast the hardest  missions would show up. The only real argument here is whether there are enough combat activities available in the game to give alternative combat opportunities when you get a batch that doesn't have one at your comfort level. I think there are, but whatever.

The income/exp stream from Bounties is still way too crazy. If it weren't for the currently even more broken income stream from colonies, everyone would be talking again about how easy it was to make money doing bounties. I think slowing down the rate at which you can turn them over is a good thing, so only having one or two "comfortable" bounties per batch, or requiring big ticket bounties to take more time (bases), or effort and losses (high level fleet bounties) is probably for the best.

15

General Discussion / Re: Conquest ship build/fleet Tips?

« on: December 13, 2018, 03:07:46 PM »

I'm also not trying to convince you that it's bad, just not worthwhile.

Well, I'm glad that's settled  Most people would consider those terms synonymous though.

Like I said, it matters what role you're giving the ship and what skills you have, and a few points of DPS dont always tell the whole story. Apparently having certain skills would make me suck less at using slow, hard hitting weapons on turrets instead of fixed mounts, but I don't, and so I like HAGS there.