Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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
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.

I absolutely refuse to play with a max level cap because it results in there being exactly one optimal skill set for every play through, hence the yellow and red trees being all but ignored. The 103 captain meme video is funny but I'm not really sure its hugely indicative of anything as lots of ships become disgusting with that level of investment, and all in capitals tend to hard counter any other caps they beat in stats. They haven't been a problem at all in my game and I imagine heavy fighters would eat them alive. I do think SOMETHING needs to be done about EMP/weapon damage, as making it outright immune is probably the source of many of these problems. Without that protection EMP will destroy them, but maybe something that precludes other EMP resistance would be good and rapid repairs could instead put a cooldown on having weapons disabled, so it still resists EMP like anything else building for it, but can't be locked forever by EMP. That way it could still be hit with EMP for plays but not shut down entirely.

Also, I'm pretty sure if it has 4 burn literally no one will use it. Keep in mind with militarized and aug burn drives it no has 0 logistics slots left. I really think most people will just see 4 burn and immediately trash can it without even considering options that point. Remember that burn as a mechanic is mostly untouched or raised/lowered by 1 in extreme cases, and its already lowered by 1 here. Every point of burn lowered is 2 at full burn and none of this has an effect on combat, which seems to the source of the problems in question.

Consider this, how much storage would it take for you to be willing to go to 3 burn, or 2? Is there ever a point it doesn't matter how much storage something has, its just no longer worth dealing with because its too much of a pain? Normally you only go to 6 for capitals, something you only take to win fights, and only if you're planning on fight. Even an atlas hits 7 easily, and some capitals have 8 base, which is a common value lots of things share. 7 and 8 burn are nice because LOTS of stuff has those burn values. The next thing to consider is that going to means you probably only have one, maybe two types of ships with those burn values, so you likely want several of them. Now consider that for most people, the Junk is one of the only ships in the entire game with 5 burn as it is now, so you have exactly more Junk to efficiently fill your fleet with. Going even lower than that is insane, it will be literally the only ship in the whole modiverse with burn that low.

If stats need to come out of somewhere burn isn't it. The compromised storage idea is interesting and may be the best solution. Keep in mind lowering fuel cap and the compromised storage would be extra rough, and that all these problems and low burn speed actually increase maintenance costs and decrease map range by proxy. Also no way to fit eff overhaul because you have no logistic slots. A combat nerf may be a better solution, but that would take the ship in a different direction.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v5.1.3)
« on: April 22, 2020, 05:15:50 AM »
Its all good, Its definitely a tertiary feature.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v5.1.3)
« on: April 22, 2020, 03:48:26 AM »
What is the purpose of terraforming then?

Habitability? I don't think the entire appearance of the planet need change to reflect some temperature changes for example, a solar shield won't make a desert less of a desert at least over night. I think keeping the appearance of a planet would be a nice config option, some of them have pretty unique looks.

[EDIT] Actually I wasn't clear enough here, I dont mean if you fully terraform it step by step just a few changes, but I suppose if you only put up a solar shield like in my example it wouldn't be enough to actually meet the requirement to change appearances so its kind of a moot point. Still think it would be a cool config option.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v5.1.3)
« on: April 22, 2020, 03:09:53 AM »
This is a pretty weird question and I'm sorry if its been asked before/has a solution/I've misunderstood something, but is there anyway to have the planets appearance not change when its terraformed? Or can that be made into a config setting somehow?

I was planning to come in and shower some compliments and make a big write up after using the mod (seriously playing it) for the first time and HELMUT did all that and more. It kinda put what I was going to write to shame, so I think I'll hold off for now until I've tried more of the new April 12th stuff. That being said, I figured I'd jump in on some specific things and the Junk convo.

Just to get this out of the way, I think the Junk's stats are fine for having 5 burn. I honestly hate that 5 burn as much as some other people have posted about, I think messing with that layer of the game is probably not a great idea because most people (including me for transparency) are outright allergic to slow ships. I have to REALLY like something to go down to 7 burn base. That being said, I think minmaxing map layer logistics like fuel and supplies sucks, so I tend to favor stuff having "OP" storage. 5 burn is a huge downside, if it does get nerfed and I don't think it needs one, consider giving it at least 6 burn, especially since it cant use militarized subsystems. Having higher burn and lowered stats I think would be fine too.

Moving on, I love the design of everything in HMI. The lower than low tech feel is great, and I think the junker ships fit perfectly into their role. There have been several attempts to make shieldless ships workable through the years of mods and I think this one finally got it right. They have very clear weaknesses and strengths and the haphazard over saturated weapon mounts are one of the few times overgunning a ship is a good idea. I also love not having to worry about ships dying at all, it fits perfectly into a yellow tree prioritizing playthrough. The scavanged drone ships are also great, I was wondering when someone would use that idea. It fits perfectly with the image of a low tech faction struggling to make ends meet economically and field fleets.

Regarding weapons, again, I really like the themes of most of them. Cheap, user friendly weapons are a welcome addition that stand out even among most other mods. While some of them do seem a little too close to their vanilla inspiration, I don't think that necessarily a bad thing. Side grades can be good, especially if what they're based on has some glaring flaws. I do think some might need some help especially compared to their vanilla counterpart.

The Pummeler carbine I think could do with some soft stats like projectile speed to define its role a bit better, especially considering the lower projectile damage than Thumpers making it even worse against armor. The Williamson shotgun is similar, its lowered per-hit damage makes it hard to justify over an auto cannon especially considering the negative flux ratio. For example the Anderson MG is great, it feels very distinct but still grounded and balanced. The McGuyver mining laser probably needs at least slightly positive flux ratio to reward its close range as well.

Some things definitely feel off though, like Mbeke rockets and the Mark IV cannon. The rockets REALLY need some more ammo to fill out their low damage. They're presented as just being outdated rather than inferior, but their performance is kneecapped by their tiny potential damage. If they aren't going to be dirt cheap on OP, I think having a lot more ammo would go a long way. The Mark IV I love in concept but I don't feel like it ever justifies usage. Unless I'm missing something, this one in particular really just seems bad to me. The slight OP cost reduction over a Mark IX never feels worth it, even under ideal conditions like mounting them en masse to get the most out of expanded magazines. The cost of expanded magazines outweighs their OP cost, not including the range cut and having less than half the per-hit damage. It sounds silly at first, but its a huge difference against armor with massed fire, and if you're only mounting a single kinetic weapon its no contest. Its also called a strike weapon in its desc but fires pretty much continually with expanded mags. I think it should be at least noticeably better than a Mark IX if you're using expanded mags.

I'm not sure what direction you want to take all this stuff in (I know its okay for something to just be worse than vanilla) but I hope you'll tinker with the weapons somewhat. Most of them have enough nuance that I always consider using them in place of something else, and stuff that uses expanded mags well is rare enough that I want to see it shine.

[EDIT] I did some fiddling just for fun with the Mark IV and came to 381(288) dps with 160 damage, 8 ammo, 12 reload, 1.8 ammo/sec, 0.32 cool down. That might be a bit high but its easy to fiddle with. It also has a longer cooldown between bursts for a more strikey feel. Please don't take this as imposing, I was more doing it for my own testing and figured I might as well post it.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Kingdom of Terra (v0.7) - Beheading the Serpent
« on: January 10, 2020, 06:10:46 PM »
I haven't played with it yet, but the changes look awesome. Great work.

Hey Vayra, I was able to remove all the mining lasers from the Prospector and other Hardwired Mining Laser ships. I'm not quite sure how I did it, but it involved entering and exiting sim, removing one laser, and repeating. I was actually able to just outright remove them all at will at one point. I thought they were gone for good, but I tried autofitting, and after I autofit I stripped some other slots and they all came back at once! I wish I could tell you more about how I did it but It happened by accident and I wasn't paying attention.

So the neck would have for example +100% more survivability and the tail 50% less, with a gradient in between. That way it still rewards sniping higher-up segments, without making them big glowing weak points, and more often it will lose segments one-by-one instead of a big chunk of 7.

This sounds really solid, I like it.

- The power of Neoterra's industry, which is a size 9 planet. If the Hedgies are getting overwhelmed with numbers I might have to tone it down a bit, but I don't think it's as big a deal, since industry and numbers were the intent.
- If, however, they are simply winning all evenly-sized fights, it means the fleet point values for the ships are off base.

I'm not confident saying for sure. Probably best to just leave it alone unless more people notice something, its definitely hard to test. And yeah I meant auto-resolved world battles.

Don't worry too much about the head sprite. Your spritework in general is great, they're a wonderful semblance of bestial traits made mechanical. Keep up the good work!

I want to reiterate how great it is to hear this stuff! Thanks again :)

I'm happy to hear it! I definitely understand testing on small battle sizes, I only recently got a computer that can handle it (and its broken in a way that's essentially impossible to diagnose, so, we'll see if I even get to keep it). I haven't tested the Quetzal enough to say on a large scale, a lot of the testing I did was also on a small scale. I will say in my Nex game, Terra quickly and easily wiped Heg out of Oasis, won every fight I observed, and has never been threatened since. When I PERSONALLY fought the Quetzal, I either lost or sniped the head pretty much every time. In group fights, it does seem to just get attritioned to death by shots slipping through shields. That being said, actually getting close enough to pop segments did a decent enough job as well.

I think the dream scenario would be to have broken segments hang around no-clipped or something so the lower segments don't break when an upper one breaks, if that makes sense. I don't think anything like that has been done before though, so I'm not sure how realistic it is to implement. I think the center of battlestations is similar, in that it sticks around till all the other parts are dead. It would also totally change how fighting the thing works, so its your call. I'm going to buy one and just start using it naturally in my game and see how it goes. Its probably just really really hard to balance well because its so unique; some of these problems are just the nature of being light and speedy, but on the other hand no other ship in the game permanently loses dps as it takes damage.

I really think if missile storm is reigned in, you should make the whole thing much, much tankier and just see how it works out. Wider shields, a pinch more armor, that sort of thing. I think that uniquely the segments could have terrible shields and it would be fine if they were a bit wider, encouraging trying to slip shots through gaps created in the shield wall. As for giant fights, if multiple Quetzals are deployed and use the storm together, pretty much everything without a fortress shield dies. It sort of negates any of its weaknesses.

Is it bad enough to need a stopgap? Possibly yeah. This is kinda the opposite of what you're asking for, but let me mess with it a little more and see how it is with only one Quetzal. I cant escape the thought that the whole faction is pretty close range, and simply running from the missiles works, and thus maybe its punishment for getting too close. On the other hand, it can one shot capitals. I hate the idea that its a one hit wonder though, killing a big ship or too then dying. While I definitely think it needs to change, beyond what I suggested earlier I cant think of an easy replacement so it doesn't feel right asking for one.

The sprite thing is really nitpicky, I just don't like the look of the large mount. It breaks the look of head, and I know theres a way to make the weapon be invisible when mounted so it could be in a thematic "mouth" of sorts, and you only end up seeing the head itself with no weapon mount. At least that was my idea. I really like the look of the tail segment, I think it would be really pretty to use some of the same aspects.

I'm actually glad you went in the direction of overtuning to start so the unique aspects didn't end up getting lost. Really the Quetzal is the ONLY thing that stood out as having serious issues, everything else is pretty solid. In my opinion, its biggest problem is the whole ship is far too brittle in implementation. Successes are devastating, but any mistake usually results in death. I definitely don't want to go in the direction of mod police and only balance against perfectly standard vanilla, so if you WANTED it to function like that and break the mold take everything I say with a grain of salt.

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