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: Planet Search Overhaul (07/13/24)

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 - Warnoise

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14
166
General Discussion / Are low tech ships supposed to be the "lowest"?
« on: October 19, 2020, 02:18:38 AM »
Currently, I have a feeling that overall, High-tech and mid-line ships are better than low tech. Not only they have the best ships (doom, astral, paragon) they have also better fighters, better dp and also better survivability (shield+speed).

Meanwhile low tech ships feel like playing the game at a harder difficulty. Anything below destroyer struggles against mass salamander. Fast fighters like the thunder are a bane for low tech ships. Sabots also are 1 way ticket to overflux city whenever they target a low tech ship since it outranges most of the ballistic PD's.

What I want to say is, low tech ships are designed in a way that makes them have tons of weaknesses. Very few low tech ships standout compared to mid tech and high tech.

Is this by design?

167
You can already give the planet to your commissioning faction after creating a colony (talk to the admin that spawns on comm board after undocking and redocking), then buy the governorship for 1 credit.

Does the AU upgrade commissioned planets?

Tmi gave a planet to the Tri tachyon and even after about 100 cycles it still didn't uograd the battlestation

168
General Discussion / Re: My fleets struggle versus carriers
« on: October 17, 2020, 10:33:24 PM »
This is why I always avoid carrier heavy fleets. You need doom-class ships or capitals with tons of fast projectile guns to beat them.

Not only that, fighting against them is not fun. Having to grind through wave after wave of bombers (which can flank you if you are playing with a low tech ship) coming from all sides isn't fun.

169
Mods / Re: The Nirvana is just...
« on: October 17, 2020, 10:26:16 PM »
I don't even install mods that add ridiculous ships like this

170
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: October 16, 2020, 08:03:12 PM »
I was expecting the sabot to be nerfed. It is now anti low tech ships because its burst outranges small ballistic PD's and AI always tries to block it with shield which makes end up being overfluxed all the time.

It would be great if sabot burst range gets significantly reduced considering the amount of damage it does.

171
I wonder if a hullmod that offers passive armor regeneration in battle would be OP or not...

172
Suggestions / Re: Fighter rework
« on: October 11, 2020, 02:53:35 AM »
Fighters currently are OP. Especially spam dagger or those sabot equipped ones. No matter how much dp you cram into one ship, it will get absolutely overwhelmed simply by the sheer number of missiles.

I just came from a fight vs a fighter spamming fleet, it felt like playing some sort of survival mode where you have to survive the longest times possible. Carriers like Astral for example can throw at your ships wave after wave the most cancerous bombers (dagger and sabot) making it impossible for your ships to advance.

High yield missile bombers should have their numbers reduced and their op cost upped in such way that it would be hard to make full high yield bomber squad without sacrificing weapon slots.

Edit:I forgot to mention the Thunder, that thing can disable a capital ship just with a couple of shots. It is hell made into a small ship. Completely remove that emp nonsense and make it do hull dmg instead.

173
Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] The Knights Templar 0.9.8f
« on: October 10, 2020, 09:10:34 AM »
Is it possible to get their blueprints?

I want to make a holy faction and launch a crusade with them

174
(for example Onslaught armor up to 4k?)
Ok 4k might be a little too much, but isn't that what the onslaught supposed to be?
For example on an onslaught you need:

I'm beginning to see a bit of a pattern.  Is this really about armor, or is this about the Onslaught's performance specifically?

Uhhh I am using onslaught as an example because it is the only vanilla ship designed as an armor tank?

175
There is something else that people forgot to mention, in order to make the armor stat worth it, you have to invest about 90 OP worth of hullmods.

For example on an onslaught you need:

Heavy Armor: 40 OP
Armored Weapons mounts: 15 OP
Integrated point defence AI: 20 OP
Resistant flux conduit: 15

Optional:  Automated repair unit: 15

You add in solar shielding when facing energy weapons heavy fleet: 15

So that is 90 or up to 110 points worth of ordinances just to make high armor survive a little longer (which still melts to tachyon or long range large anti armor weapons in my experience). Here we are still not counting other important hull mods like flux dissipation, expanded missile racks and ITU.

Without those hullmods, the onslaught is simply at disadvantage when compared to mid-line capitals or high tech capitals.
No maneuvering jets?

Yeah, I forgot manoeuvring jets ...as you can see the list is quite long

176
There is something else that people forgot to mention, in order to make the armor stat worth it, you have to invest about 90 OP worth of hullmods.

For example on an onslaught you need:

Heavy Armor: 40 OP
Armored Weapons mounts: 15 OP
Integrated point defence AI: 20 OP
Resistant flux conduit: 15

Optional:  Automated repair unit: 15

You add in solar shielding when facing energy weapons heavy fleet: 15

So that is 90 or up to 110 points worth of ordinances just to make high armor survive a little longer (which still melts to tachyon or long range large anti armor weapons in my experience). Here we are still not counting other important hull mods like flux dissipation, expanded missile racks and ITU.

Without those hullmods, the onslaught is simply at disadvantage when compared to mid-line capitals or high tech capitals.



177
Spoiler
Removing the 15% cap would make armor super OP. A pulse laser would do 5 damage to an onslaught. Small ships would be totally unable to do any non-trivial to high armor ships. I could see an argument for a reduction in the armor cap to ~10/7%, but you have to be super careful messing with that, especially when you consider how the balance works with skills. Full armor skills are super strong.

The strong part of armor is that you can absorb damage without increasing your own flux, which lets you win the flux war easily. Selectively block high damage shots with shields and kinetic/low damage with armor is very strong. The whole point of armor is selectively avoiding damage on shields to win individual fights and gain an advantage in the overall fleet battle, and extra armor definitely helps do that. Battles only take a finite amount of time, and you're trying to maximize your performance in that time, not over an arbitrarily long time. If you use your armor to kill the first 30% of the enemy fleet, then you can often steamroll the rest of the fight because you have a numerical advantage.

I think HE torpedos that wreck armor are balanced by their susceptibility to PD and their limited ammo. I also think they need to be very effective against armor because other weapons are completely shut down by high armor. I don't think that is a problem. Armor is very effective against a large portion of weapons, and you can choose to use your shields to stop high damage HE stuff.

I would also argue that a salvo of sabots does negate shields when it overloads you.

The maneuverability penalty on heavy armor is too much though, I agree with that. The extra armor is definitely never bad, it basically just increases the amount of time you get to spend taking 15% damage from most weapons, which is significant.

TBH, I think the armor and flux mechanics are the most well designed part of the game. Maybe some numbers can get tweaked here or there, but overall, the balance is very close IMO.
[close]
[/spoiler]

Ok 4k might be a little too much, but isn't that what the onslaught supposed to be? With its low flux and obvious weakness to flanking, isn't it supposed to have very high armor on the front to encourage smaller ships to flank? 
Especially ships like onslaught who spend 80% of the time fighting at max flux due to its *** flux stats.

While on paper it sounds op, remember that armor, unlike shields, it doesn't regenerate. Damage piles up pretty quickly (especially by anti armor weapons) So 2k armor gets "consumed" pretty fast in battles. And we all know once armor reaches 0, it is a quick death in most late game battles.

While speed is part of defense, in the current meta, fast ships die way less than armored ships. Because fast ships do their jobs properly whereas ships that are supposed to eat shots, just die without doing much since their armor doesn't protect them from the various anti armor shenanigans that the game has.

This is why players in general prefer high/mid tech ships more than low tech ships. The latter have stats that allow them to do what they are supposed to do.

178
Currently the armor stat isn't useful to be honest. It all takes 1 harpoon salvo to destroy the hardest armor (onslaught).

Also, there are so many tools that make armor kind of useless (this is why low tech ships are least popular)

I feel that armor should be higher overall on ships that have poor shielding (for example Onslaught armor up to 4k?) That way, even without shield, it still can eat many shots before crumbling.

Also armor related hullmods should be better imo. A +% based armor mod instead of flat bonus in armor would be a great asset for ships that are naturally armored.

Some mods added an amazing function for armor, and that is a detacheable armor, like a sort of independent module attached to the ship that needs to be destroyed before it reaches the ship's armor.

So what do you guys think about the current armor system?


179
I also have some mods adding additional modpsecs and there's one improving missile speed/HP while hurting their handling, and it's really good on squalls is said ships also has a modspec called "Targeting AI Core" wich also improves target tracking. It actually hits frigades with a 50-70% ratio. It's disgusting.

42 Ordinance points worth of disgusting to set up tough (Targeting AI is worth 30OP and Torpedo Spec is worth 12OP on capitals)


That said, squalls are already really good at hitting things. I'd actually nerf them instead if I had to be completely honest with you, along with the Sabot activation distance from the target. They're the prime "AI ravager" you have in the game (besides carriers) as even an AI controlled ship of yours can reliably take down a ship a third, two thirds or even double its own Fleet Points given it's got sabots/squalls and weaponry to follow up on the almost guaranteed overload they're going to cause.

This. The only thing I'd nerf the squall is its damage on armor and hull. It is already amazing against shields, but currently it hits pretty hard hulls too (considering its salvo).

Dealing 5 pirate atlas with 2 squalls is a nightmare since you can't even approach them (unless you have a tanky capital like the onslaught)

Next comes the sabot, for me it is the most op missile in the game. The amount of dmg it does is absurd considering it outranges most of the do and it hits instantly. fighting a [Redacted] capital that has tachyon+sabot is a nightmare

180
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Tahlan Shipworks 0.3.17
« on: October 07, 2020, 10:16:55 AM »
How do we deal with the timeless-class ship?

Three of them massacred an entire army of 2 GH onslaught, 2 Vendettas and 1 legion + some destroyers.

Not only they're agile and fast like frigates, they hit pretty hard too. But the most annoying thing are their drones. Holy ***. A horde of billion drones fast as hell melting everything and causing the ship AI to panic...

Anyone dealt with those ships? How did you do it?

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14