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.

46

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.

47

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!

48

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!

49

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."

50

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.

51

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.

52

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.

53

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.

54

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.

55

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Torchships And Deadly Armaments V0.11rc1 (2020/04/28)

« on: April 29, 2020, 07:35:12 PM »

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

56

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Hazard Mining Incorporated (THE POWER IS YOURS! Ed., 0.3.1)

« on: April 24, 2020, 01:22:15 AM »

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.

57

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.

58

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.

59

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?

60

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Hazard Mining Incorporated (THE POWER IS YOURS! Ed., 0.3.1)

« on: April 22, 2020, 02:19:08 AM »

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.