Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: The Pilgrim's Path (07/19/22)

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 - Agalyon

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16
General Discussion / Re: Conquest is bad - change my mind
« on: November 25, 2020, 05:51:11 PM »
Yes it absolutely is a polarizing loadout lol, thats exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Thats what people have been saying to do to make it hold up for most of the thread. Its very similar to what I've used in the past, tailor made to fight other capitals. I'm not saying its a bad thing to make inventive builds but how many other ships in the game use less than half of their weapon mounts to invest everything in shield strength and max vents and caps.

Thats what polarizing means, its minmaxed to fit a specific purpose. You don't have to go that far with the other capitals or other Midlines.

Doctrine is a just an aesthetic/fluff thing, not a serious set of rules for balance.
Doctrine isn't just fluff and its not a set of balancing rules either, its a win condition. Also I don't understand whats so confusing about comparing a ship to its doctrine. If its not going to follow it why have it at all even if its only lore. Every vanilla doctrine and modded faction is based around some kind of idea, something specific their ships do better than others they rely on to win fights. Again, you are welcome to just hand wave it all if it makes you feel better but it sounds more like you don't think they should exist at all.

I KNOW there's exceptions, no need to reiterate this again. My point about the Conquest is that if you were to make a Midline ship right now, most people would compare it to other Midline ships, use their basic statline, then make changes. There have clearly been some serious changes made to make the Conquest not OP, and IMO the Midline ships are already pretty individualized as SCC mentioned so its harder to gauge.

General Discussion / Re: Conquest is bad - change my mind
« on: November 25, 2020, 05:16:24 PM »
Definitely true. Stuff like this is probably why so many people are willing to throw down in favor of the Conquest, myself included. While it has a lot more pitfalls to get caught in, it avoids the common ones capitals have.

General Discussion / Re: Conquest is bad - change my mind
« on: November 25, 2020, 04:05:53 PM »
I did a quick search and I can't find the one I'm thinking of. Granted it would be at least years old now, it wasn't new, so lets just say I was wrong because I dont want to dig anymore. And yeah, that list looks super questionable.

The fixation on ship doctrine is because they do follow a trend, not the other way around. Every doctrine has a couple ships that go against it, but its not about the exact number of flux ratio on the shield. Also I don't get your examples at all, the lasher is perfectly fine in LowT, its a brawler with a damage boost and well above average armor. HighT ships aren't supposed to be fast, isn't that Midlines thing? The odyssey I'll give you, and its weird because of its extreme speed.

This whole thing about "just use a good loadout" seems to go in circles in this thread, but you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Obviously hitting random is bad, that doesn't need to be said. My point is that any polarizing ship needs a polarizing loadout, and the Conquest is one of them, much like a lot of the Midline doctrine. I definitely don't think it works well with generic loadouts because it gets crushed in trades due to its terrible shield like I talked about. I guess like the rest of this thread, everyone is going to think something different from their own experiences.

General Discussion / Re: Conquest is bad - change my mind
« on: November 25, 2020, 02:57:19 PM »
Well, no, being midline has nothing to do with its "problems". In fact, the majority of midline ships perform well under AI control (except maybe Gryphon) since their systems are very forgiving and they have decent flux stats. I don't know what are you on about midline being bad, it's the one tech type which doesn't have many weak ships. Their shields are supposed to be mediocre, if they weren't, they'd just be better high tech.
I really don't agree with that, the ONLY thing forgiving about Midlines is their systems. Notice how the Sunder is one of the worst ships in vanilla, backed by tier lists of the forums and most players. It lacks a mobility system, and like the conquest has bad shields and paper thin armor. The actually good Midline ships either have forgiving systems and/or 0.8 shields.

Sure this is a general idea but obviously exceptions exist. Also midline is hardest to describe clearly since they're somewhere in the middle, duh. If every ship followed the doctrine faithfully, it would make for a very boring roster of ships.
This just feels like a cop out to me honestly. Most of the good Midline ships follow a doctrine, and the most questionable ones don't, like the Sunder and Conquest. Nearly every HighT and LowT ships follow their doctrine in the ways that matter.

Conquest having bad shields is the whole idea behind it, it's not made to go in and brawl like a battleship. Not even mentioning that the combo of speed + firepower + defense would be hilariously broken.
Again, this doesn't make much sense. You don't have to go in to get annihilated for having THAT bad of shields. If the average shield strength of Midline is either 0.8 or 1.0, the Conquest has nearly half the shield strength, and I'm pretty sure its actually the worst ratio in vanilla at 1.4. This isn't mechwarrior, you can't outrange by that wide of a margin for that to be acceptable especially with equally bad armor and hull. Not to mention the Paragon already has its own range mod built in. The built in mod for the Conquest facilities more guns not more range, which you HAVE to get close enough to actually use or there is no point mounting them all, hence all the people talking about asymmetric builds or it being player only because of the finesse required to do so without dying.

Also, if thats the idea behind it it doesn't even fit Midline well then. Like you said its an outlier, but what makes it an outlier also makes it so much worse.

Crap, SCC posted while I was typing lol.

It's similar to Sunder, in that better shields would make it too good at tanking, in addition to being excellent at dealing damage.
This is probably the crux of it. Like I speculated, the Conquest would probably go from bad to insane if it was buffed in the wrong way. Its probably one of those things that's always going to be on the razors edge (if it ever does get changed, which I doubt) between amazing and awful. I imagine it was nerfed during its creation into its current state to avoid being too good.

I think of midline as mostly specialists. Brawler %u2014 anti-big ship frigate. Centurion %u2014 brick. Vigilance %u2014 there to give you that medium missile. Hammerhead? I'd say it's a generalist, actually, but that's because shooting things is so handy. Sunder %u2014 glass cannon. Drover, Heron %u2014 dedicated carriers (though this is cheating a bit, since you don't have much of a choice when it comes to carriers). Gryphon spews missiles. Conquest combines good flux stats, good mobility, good weapons with bad shields. It's just Falcon and Eagle that are straightforward generalists (and Hammerhead, as I mentioned).
This is how I feel too, and its probably part of why Midline seems to be confusing to me. I've also wondered if it couldn't do with some more ships being added in vanilla to round it out a little. Probably unnecessary but its the category I'd like to see expanded on more. What I'm assuming the problem is is that because each ship is a generalist, the statline works better or worse differently in every case. It just so happens to be weird on some of them and great on others, and some of them even have to be tweaked quite a bit.

Regarding the shields and flux stats, I find that High and Low tech ships USUALLY (massive disclaimer here) dont need much in the way of hullmods or crazy loadouts while Midlines, due to each ship being somewhat its own beast, need to be fitted carefully or have their weaknesses covered with expensive hullmods. This takes away from their superior flux stats because those points could have been dumped into vents on a HighT for example, which narrows the advantage Midline is supposed to have with its doctrine.

After all, what good are guns if you can't use them? Just because it has good flux stats that offset its bad shields doesn't excuse it from also having to use that flux to fire, and if it CAN'T fire, it can't stop its shield from getting pushed by more defensive builds, creating a vicious circle.

General Discussion / Re: General Thoughts from a new player
« on: November 25, 2020, 02:19:59 PM »
I don't mind pirates and Heg basically creating asymmetrical gameplay, because at the end of the day I assume it would be much too hard for everyone to all have the same logistics troubles as you do at a technical level. That being said, it is kind of a constant reminder that everyone has unlimited resources to throw at you 24/7, and it never matters how devastating the losses you dole out to them are. I wouldn't mind playing wack a mole for a bit if Heg got a taste of true fear after being wiped out 5 times in a row, and either changed their plan or retreated for a while, you know, like a player might.

On that note (and I know there are some bugs regarding this that will be fixed) fighting in coronas or black holes doing essentially nothing to enemies feels really bad. If you have solar shielding and the supplies to last, chasing a guy through a star for a week not mattering because you have to deal with supplies and he doesn't really sucks. I know that's vaguely off topic, but it feels relevant given whats already been discussed.

A big part of me has just accepted the asymmetrical gameplay, and maybe I'm wrong for that, but I don't think it can be totally escaped. I do wish you could have some kind of meaningful damage done to factions without just glassing them. No one in their right mind would just keep feeding millions worth of ships into a grinder.

My token response to autosave: absolutely terrible idea, and not just because SS runs/saves poorly, which IMO it does. That being said, I'm a firm believer that having an option for something means everyone wins, which is always good. I would never use it but having it as a toggle is a good idea.

General Discussion / Re: Conquest is bad - change my mind
« on: November 25, 2020, 01:59:34 PM »
If this has devolved into a forum tradition its time to spice things up some more. The Conquests biggest problem is that its Midline, because the Midline doctrine's statline is terrible.

Memes aside (that is what I truly think though) I think the idea of "Conquest apologists" saying its a player ship being purely a negative thing is only half right. I do consider whether the AI can handle a ship to be an important factor, but thats a problem with lots of things. You know why the Paragon fairs so much better in AI hands? While it is worth more DP, consider how slow and tanky it is. Its essentially mistake proof. The AI can't "stage dive" with it and die instantly. The Onslaught is less so but its MUCH larger pool of armor and health help there too. Also you won't catch me dead unironically flying a Paragon myself, its too boring.

So I would go so far as to say Midline in AI hands is the real issue. Thats (maybe?) a spicy opinion, but to counter balance it out I've also seen the AI do some nearly savant level plays with broadside ships (far better than I can control) if it manages to stay at the appropriate range. Im going to reiterate here what I said before, I think the conquest is powerful but inconsistent, and MASSIVELY dependent on how its built and the rest of your fleet. I'm sure a lot of people will consider that purely negative, which is fine. Thats the beauty of choices.

One final consideration because I'm sure someone is thinking it right now. If Midline is bad, why is the Eagle so good? Honestly I think Midline ships are little confused about their identity sometimes, the biggest problem being shields.

If LowT is slowish with linear movement abilities and good armor, and HighT is fastish with precise agile movement abilities and good shields, does that mean Midline has medium speed, a mix of armor and shields, and movement abilities that are mixed too?

Well no it doesn't. It seems to often be more glass cannon like support ships with good speed, bad shields AND questionable armor, low hull, and way too many guns for their flux. While their flux stats are admittedly (usually?) better, they don't keep up with higher cost loadouts with lots of guns. But then you have stuff like the Eagle, the quintessential icon of a sticky skirmisher in vanilla. It actually does have decent armor AND shields, good flux for its weapons, is fantastic in the AI's hands, doesn't need a slew of hullmods to work, and fits in nearly any fleet. So what went wrong with the Conquest?

Honestly I'm not sure. I'd bet just making good and interesting ships is more important than following a doctrine perfectly, but at the end of the day I feel like I don't know what Midline is supposed to be. My biggest immediate problem with the Conquest is its hilariously bad shields. Like why? Would it be be overpowered with better shields? I'm not sure, but I know I consider it unusable without Hardened Shields. But its also missing around a third of the armor and hull Onslaughts AND Paragons have. Now you're paying for Hardened Shields which certainly isn't cheap when OP is already tight just to get to a usable baseline.

That combined with a tendency to overgun and thus overload is a deadly flaw. If nothing else, the Conquest taught me that more guns is typically a liability rather than a bonus, especially in AI hands.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Kingdom of Terra (v0.11) - Big Bitey Boi
« on: November 25, 2020, 10:45:12 AM »
You really have the most consistent high quality content updates, I gotta say. The conversions look nice too, they look natural like they were meant for it. I guess in a lot of ways the basic pieces of ships convert well to bones and the like, such as the "spine" of the hammerhead. Excited to try everything out!

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Seeker - Unknown Contact 0.405 (2020/11/19)
« on: November 20, 2020, 10:59:14 AM »
Hey hey, no longer discord only I see? I was just thinking about how to dole out some praise with no forum thread and now I dont have to.

Having weird stuff and secrets stashed away in the corners of the world is such an appealing idea for starsector, I love it. And the interesting "normal" ships in SEEKER are always a joy as well. Your mods are always unique but this kind of "white whale" idea as you put it is really perfect to round out exploration and collecting in starsector, and its always a staple in my games. I look forward to any updates!

General Discussion / Re: Conquest is bad - change my mind
« on: November 19, 2020, 06:02:49 PM »
I think its funny how hotly contested the conquest is, but honestly im glad people are (continuing to) bringing up their grievances and they're being discussed openly. I respect that, can't do that everywhere these days.

To the point, I think ON AVERAGE the conquest is the worst of the three, compared to the paragon and the onslaught. However, I also think it has the highest possible potential, which is why its so hotly debated. At any rate, if I had to die on a single hill it would be if anything, it absolutely isn't consistent. The conquest is a glass cannon that's very hard to pilot and imo, essentially hopeless for the AI to use effectively unless it somehow manages to circle with the broadside correctly without over committing and dying which is extremely rare. Paragons and onslaughts have serious weaknesses that the onslaught doesn't for the most part, but that trade comes with problems that capitals typically don't have, like its infamous fragility. I would go so far as to say the conquest not only has to be minmaxed to even be good at all, but minmaxed in a specific way to really hold its own, that being total asymmetry with mandatory hardened shields and good officer skills. Even considering all this, a single mistake means near instant death, and using all those weapons continually requires some degree of relative safety, which isn't so for an onslaught or paragon.

Maybe the question isn't "is the conquest good" but more "what makes a ship good."

Modding / Re: [0.9.1a] Advanced Hullmods
« on: November 18, 2020, 04:11:13 PM »
Since this seems to somewhat of a contested topic, I thought I'd drop my likely unwanted 2 cents here. I've thought about the balance of these hullmods quite a bit in my own playtime, having spent far longer than I care to admit just fiddling with ship loadouts and I've always wondered if many hullmods are actually a "trap option" in lots of cases. Now just to be clear, I definitely don't mean ALL cases. Theres a certain joy to finding the perfect puzzle piece to make a loadout work, especially if its one of (for me) the admittedly underused hullmods where you, as is the topic, pay with both a downside and OP cost.

I think the actual biggest barrier to entry in arriving to an answer is just how many choices there are in starsector, how many different situations with different priorities, different playstyles to consider, and even how the AI decides to behave on a given day. That being said, I often find the most effective strategy being to use as few hull mods as possible to load up on vents and capacitors. Whether this is a symptom of the above or the hullmods actually being questionable is hard to say, but one thing I'm confident putting my money on is that these hullmods are rarely consistently good. Which is fine, but while I'm tempted to say maybe the point of hullmods is be niche here, there are some that are very clearly good in at least vastly more cases than the "trade off" mods.

The other big issue imo is that many hull mods have to be balanced around extreme cases. A good example is armor, as because it effectively scales exponentially having too much could be insane in specific cases while still underwhelming (for the cost) in others. So in effect, the hullmod has to be more tame for everyone else because of the fringe cases. If every hullmod could have better upsides there would probably not be any need for a mod like this, at least in theory.

To the point, I think everything introduced here is fine except for unstable injector because range and speed are such strong stats. They're such core stats changing them at all is usually a bad idea, because they all but define ships and weapons. As an example to the contrary, the armor mod is fine because 1 the downside is not directly related to the upside, and 2 the 75% effectiveness prevents the aforementioned extreme cases from being a problem. Part of the issue with UI is how range and speed ARE so related and both stats are so powerful changing the ratio places it firmly into the category of stuff like hardened shields where the cost pays for itself and its nearly always good on every ship.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Hullmod Barratry 1.3b
« on: November 18, 2020, 06:05:38 AM »
Just wanted to drop in and say this is such a great idea for a mod. I was hoping someone would make something like this for a while. The idea of seriously cutting corners to cut costs is very thematic for starsector I feel. It also reminds me of the grungy "make ends meet at any cost" feel of mechwarrior. Also, I've been in that exact scenario of trying to pick up D mods and it is a total nightmare. Keep up the good work!

PS the zip is missing its own folder for me too like Sultan mentioned.

PSS I humbly suggest removing all tags from the UI table for the mods except for V/S Mod tab, even requires dock. That will clean up the UI much more effectively, because otherwise you have to toggle off every category they fall under and everyone already knows they're dock only.

PSSS It doesn't look like the math is right on V mods, the recovery CR cost doesn't seem to actually go down. I think its actually reducing maintenance cost instead when it shouldn't. Is each 10% supposed to be multiplicative? I think its supposed to be flat but I'm not sure.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Diable Avionics 2.51 RC4 (2020/04/20)
« on: May 21, 2020, 02:40:18 AM »
Ahhh, I see. That makes sense, I didn't realize it worked like that.

Super carriers are already pretty gross, I get that part at least. The new scaling replacement depletion is interesting, I just think replacement time is a pinch too long across the board. Its really hard to say though since wanzers have so much more execution power in most circumstances than normal heavy fighters, so its probably fine. The tournament will probably be more telling either way anyway. Thanks for the reply.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Kadur Remnant 3.1.2 - un-invincible 2020-02-11
« on: May 20, 2020, 05:21:25 PM »
I really think something needs to give with the crystal splintergun. Its one of the most expensive medium mounts at 15 OP, has garbage flux ratio, and finicky execution. I know the explosion can reach staggering levels with several of them, but theres so many things that make it very hard to actually execute that on top of the AI being essentially unable to use it due to how much finesse it needs. The fact that the explosion only amps in quantities of 7 and how incredibly easy they are to shoot down lends to only a handful landing out of the 21 shots. I think the crystals need a lot more health or possibly just be untargetable, and maybe a reduction in OP to go with it. Its such a unique weapon but It barely ever feels worth using.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Diable Avionics 2.51 RC4 (2020/04/20)
« on: May 20, 2020, 03:40:16 PM »
Whats the point of making wanzer servicing gantry only work with full wanzer loadouts? Is it just trying to further enforce the long refit time on wanzers by preventing cheaper fighters screening them on the same carrier? You've already made it all but 100% mandatory to use, it seems strange to put even more restrictions on using wanzers. I guess its more that they aren't supposed to be something you can "splash." But even then, that seems more like a game limitation than a hard limitation on the hullmod, because if you had finer control of carriers it would be easy to send in screening fighters first or combine fleets of different carriers.

I guess the consensus is wanzers perform really well and needed toning down but it seems to me like once the initial wave of them is dead (which also tends to be when they are most vulnerable, as they often get hit by "real" weapons when moving to engage) wanzer fleets falter hard due to the extreme refit times. I'm not saying they're bad, I love using heavy fighters in general, its just my observations.

Another probably unwanted opinion of mine is the new Zephyr doesn't feel very good. I do think the old one was too good, but the current nerf is pretty extreme. In a meta sense, having only 1 just increases the chance of something unlucky happening to it, catching a big hit or missile, getting focused, etc. I think I would prefer having two fighters in a wing even if they cost more OP or were nerfed just for consistency. Do you think it performs so well it really warrants a single fighter?

Sorry for all the negativity, but I don't feel like I'm familiar enough with Diable right now to do an actual in-depth write up on the new stuff. This is just what really stood out to me. I REALLY like pretty much all of the weapon and ship changes except for possibly the gantry removal on the Fractus. The weapons especially all really feel like they perfectly fit and suit a role now. The Warlust change I think works exceptionally well too. I'm loving the palate swaps as well, Diable is still one of the most polished mods we have.

Best I can tell the download in the OP has not been updated.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16