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.

106

Suggestions / Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties

« on: May 26, 2022, 06:54:05 AM »

I very strongly disagree with "generally worse in combat, only speed matters" sentiment. Low-tech has received enormous buffs recently, and is arguably "generally better in combat" now. New low-tech ships have about the same speed as high-tech ones, with double the range and triple the efficiency on their weapons.

Shieldless ships with rugged construction specifically could use crew casualties reduction, but the rest seem priced correctly to me.

Lowtech is much better now, after the buffs, now I dont feellike im directly making the game harder for myself when i use them. For normal battles they are the same as any other. However try to take down the doritos or even just heavy ordos with a lowtech themed fleet. It is possible but with enourmus losses.
Currently the 40 dp lowtech battlecarrier have a higher logistical profile than a 60 dp hightech battleship. I'll borrow Zyms chart from the Low Maintanence mod.

This is not priced correctly in my oppinion.
Manticore and Eradicator are in a better place exactly beacuse they are faster, and have better logistical profiles.

107

Suggestions / Re: Add Sound to Transmitter Trap

« on: May 26, 2022, 02:32:46 AM »

Yeah, i miss it so often, beacuse im just clicking trought exploration without reading. This could be an immersive way to remind me.

108

Suggestions / Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties

« on: May 26, 2022, 02:29:29 AM »

While the gameplay impact is debatable, lore-wise it makes perfect sense. Less automated systems means higher crew. Heavier armor and more hull structures (storing physical ammo which energy weapons don't use, housing additional crew, etc) means less fuel efficiency.

Yeah I mean it is true, but it is stated numerous times everywhere in the game that lowtech ships should be cheaper and more accesible than high tech ones. They should have a lower logistic profile, thats why lots of people use them.
And if you think about it, ehich one should be more expensive to maintain: a top of the line cutting edge technology using rare materials and few people know how it works, or a tried an trusted basic ship which have spare parts in abundance and its workings are common knowledge? Right know the maintanece of a Legion is about 20% more than a goddamn Paragon (see table in the linked mod).
Of course lore wise the solution could be that for hightech ships you need a better trained crew costing more money but who the hell wants this kind of *** in the gamplay.
Lowtech ships cost more to maintain than hightech, generaly worse in combat, (beacuse for ai only speed and range counts, it cannot armor or hull tank if its life depended on it), cannot retreat as easily beacuse they are slower. Thus, they blow up more commonly, this is acknowledged by implementation of the rugged construction. On the top of ths you have to spend even more money on replacement crew (even worse if you buy it beforehand becuse then you have to give them salary all the way, and if by some mirracle your ship didnt get killed then you are practically throwing money out of the airlock).
So im only asking for something that reduces crew losses for lowtech ships, at least for those that have the rugged construction.

There is a nice mod called Low Maintanence, that is aiming to solve this problem, I absolutely recommend it to every lowtech enjoyer.
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=21715.0

109

Suggestions / Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties

« on: May 25, 2022, 02:36:00 AM »

I like the lore of lowtech and how they feel in battle. But yeah beacuse of the more crew and lower fuel efficency they are actually more expensive to maintain than hightech ships, this make no sense in lore.
I think a mechanic that reduces crew casuality would be awesome. At least on ships like the vanguard that is expected to die. Or support ships like valkyrie should have a fleetwide buff to recover lost crew after battle.

110

General Discussion / Re: How do DP work in battles? Can you increase it so I have more than 160?

« on: May 23, 2022, 07:53:02 AM »

If you edit the file then dont forget that you still need to change the number in the games settings.

I'd reccomend against editing the max size, the game's balanced around the 3-400 dp range & I find that it just gets boring if you go over it.

I dont really agree. Capital spam is real and if you dont want half of the 30 ship you can bring around just sitting out every fight then you need a larger battle size. Erlier the default max was 500 it is perfectly balanced there, but many play on the 600-700 range especially with mods and its still fine.

111

General Discussion / Re: What is the point of Defend order?

« on: May 16, 2022, 04:04:11 PM »

Man you keep coming to posts even vaguely mentioning AI and constantly spam that the game needs direct commands like an RTS. It's not that type of game, nor could it handle that sort of system. It would just make the game harder and even more frustrating for everyone who tries to play it that way (like the new players you so care about).

I literally never said that it should be like an RTS. I know what kind of game it is. I never said that the whole combat needs to be remake. What i said in this exact sam thread that there should be two types of command one direct and one that we have now. So if somebdy is not is not comfortable using direct commands they can still use what we have now.
I myself would use them in mixture generally using the less direct ones and only using the direct command when i want to make a pincer manouver an exact battle line, or in edge cases when I really need that one ship to attack the overloaded target in front of it but refuses to do so any other way.
I dont want the micromanagment of an RTS I want a bit more controll over my ships. Or at least taht command would actually be intuitive and work like many belive they supposed to.

There has been some improvments already as i havent seen my frigates going up into the face of enemy stations which is nice.

112

General Discussion / Re: What is the point of Defend order?

« on: May 16, 2022, 01:42:50 AM »

As stated numerous times before. WE. NEED. A. COMMAND. OVERHAUL.
Commands are not obeyed, but even worse they are not intuitive either. New players can struggle for hours tríing to figure out what an ored called "defend" actually do instead of defending, etc.
I suggest that there should be completely new commands with different names, and there should be two sets of them one that works like todays commands, and an other direct one that is obeyed without question.

113

Blog Posts / Re: Uniquifying the Factions, Part 2

« on: May 10, 2022, 05:16:57 PM »

Case for replacing FMR on the Executor with Accelerated Ammo Feeder:
-missile battleship
-loses two missiles for large energies
-diktat engineers give it AAF to buff its ballistic capabilities
peak performance
the ultimate generalist battleship
does not rely on any weapon loadout gimmick
is infinitely versatile
phillip andrada is a genius and a visionary

Peak performance indeed, awsome idea. Hope our gods listen to us.

114

General Discussion / Re: Sindrian Diktat Changes

« on: May 09, 2022, 03:24:15 PM »

The blog post also makes it sound like the elite weapons are for LG patrols only - but more likely it's using the existing game system of commissioned reputation gating access to elite equipment on the Military market.

Sign commission, run a few missions, get a few contacts and bam - you're the Lion's Guard now! Time to load up on cheap fuel and go hunt Remnant fleets with your flashy purple assault ships that do heavy kinetic damage from energy mounts.

In the blogpost and in the discussion thread Alex have confirmed that they can only be obtained by killing their executors

115

Suggestions / Re: Shield Shunt 2: Shunt Harder

« on: May 08, 2022, 03:55:48 PM »

Actually good idea. Problem is that better shielded ships are already OP. No need to make them even better by this.

116

Suggestions / Re: Themed Combat Music

« on: May 08, 2022, 03:54:12 PM »

YES YES YES. LOVE THIS.

117

Suggestions / Re: Make combat moddable and not hardcoded.

« on: May 06, 2022, 02:14:41 AM »

Even in small battles its a problem, even in minimal battle size. And fleet setup would not make the game harder to run.

118

Suggestions / Re: Buff Capacitors

« on: May 05, 2022, 09:14:06 AM »

Problem is that ai cant really use burst weapons beacuse it wont reliably fire if the ship doesnt have the dissipation for it. Caps would be good if ai wasnt a dumbass.

119

Suggestions / Re: Make combat moddable and not hardcoded.

« on: May 05, 2022, 09:11:42 AM »

Fleet setup should be a thing in vanilla. Its just so annoying that myships get assigned to a place semi randomly and when a igroup them via escort command they start bumping into each other.

120

Blog Posts / Re: Uniquifying the Factions, Part 2

« on: May 01, 2022, 05:31:09 PM »

League has Drovers for destroyer missile boats. Not a line ship, but it fits the doctrine. Would be cool to have a cheap option for large missiles, but the pirate Venture somewhat fits the niche. Although at 14 dp you are probably better off with Ramparts.

Drover cannot use anything bigger than small missiles, making them no better than other warships without bigger mounts for the League to use their new bigger DEMs.

Be nice if there was something between Vigilance and Gryphon/Champion the League can use to mount medium+ DEMs, since they do not have unlimited ship selection like a late-game player.

Change herons M mount to missile. Then it can support its fighters from range, we have more missile options and a bit of inclinment to use carriers