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.

1

Suggestions / Allow players to spend SP to recover ships during a "clean disengage"

« on: May 21, 2025, 12:00:42 PM »

Right now ironmode is unappealing to most players because losing a single battle is insanely punishing, mostly because you can only recover ships if you win a battle.

The big problem here is it makes you feel like a complete idiot moron if you decide to retreat halfway into a battle after you realize it's tougher than you expected. Now any ships you lost are gone permanently. Might as well try to fight to the bitter end for the chance at a Pyrrhic victory. Except it's not so bad actually, because you can recover your lost ships. Compare that to retreating after you lose a couple frigates and a destroyer... even if your remaining ships all manage to escape, you are still worse off than the "Pyrrhic victory" scenario.

My suggestion is simple: once you do enough damage to the enemy to qualify for a "clean disengage" you should be able to spend a story point to unlock the option to recover your lost ships. If that feels too easy, maybe they come with 1 extra d-mod when recovered this way because your recovery teams are in a rush.

Narratively, I'd say it makes about as much sense as the "emergency repair" SP option you get before combat when your ships are damaged. Mechanically, this smooths out the overall experience; it gives you a reason to perform a "fighting retreat."

Also, it would be nice if there was a more obvious visual indicator of your progress towards a clean disengage. Something like a big progress bar at the top of the screen whenever you open the tactical map. This would help retreating from battle feel like an actual part of the game, rather than an afterthought.

2

Bug Reports & Support / Phase lances not firing

« on: May 19, 2025, 02:39:03 PM »

Screenshot

[close]

This *might* be a suggestion, but the AI acts like margin for "friendly fire" is so ridiculously large for phase lances that I'm inclined to think it's a bug. The AI will happily fire other weapons in this situation, but the harbinger refuses to use its phase lances if an ally is even remotely close to the target.

3

General Discussion / New Weapons Discussion [spoilers]

« on: April 01, 2025, 06:08:00 AM »

What are your thoughts on the new weapons so far? I'll list out some of the ones I've played around with.

Hungering rift:
Combined with the s-mod bonus from shrouded mantle, your ships gains lifesteal. Or hullsteal? Either way, it eats enemy ships to recover itself. Not by a lot, but combined with the mantle's jump it could make for an immortal ship that always slips away and then recovers its hull. Just one ship though, because of the weapon only allowing 10 rifts to be spawned across the entire battlefield which puts a soft cap on the number you can effectively run in your fleet.

Mass drivers (light and heavy):
Fantastic flux efficiency, perfect accuracy. Yes they are expensive, but lowtech ships with ordnance expertise are going love these things.

Swarm launcher:
Tried it with the legion. Three of these can command up to 12 swarms, and combined with 4 fighter bays it... feels underwhelming. Seems pretty gimmicky. Maybe if you commit your fleet to spamming them it might become good, but the heavy OP cost you pay for the hullmod and the launcher makes it a questionable investment.

Voltaic Cannon:
Being a small energy with 800 range sounds promising, but it comes with a sustained DPS of 5! A full minute to regain one charge makes it more like a missile that happens to go in the small energy slot. Problem is, it seems the AI will happily waste that ammo on targets it will never EVER hit like fighters and phase ships. If this gets fixed I could see some uses for it.

4

General Discussion / Ship AI changes

« on: March 30, 2025, 03:23:01 AM »

I've read some people saying the AI is worse at flux management as a deliberate design choice, to make player piloting more important.

I don't remember reading anything like this in the notes (maybe I just missed it). If true, it could be a good choice for the game. A lot of players struggle with piloting at first because the AI is so much better than a new player. That being said, this kinda sucks for experienced players. I think the solution is pretty simple: you can have ships use the "nerfed" AI on easy difficulty, and use the better AI on normal difficulty.

5

Suggestions / Escort Package

« on: March 21, 2025, 11:26:38 PM »

Ships with escort package should get the "auto-escort" behavior that most carriers have. At present they operate independently by default and you have to order them to act as escorts which makes sense for a normal destroyer, but if you give it escort package then it should be the other way around.

6

Suggestions / Escort AI kinda sucks

« on: February 10, 2025, 08:00:09 PM »

I'm noticing some problems with the AI's behavior when given an escort order that cause some serious problems. It seems like no matter how much range they have or what officer personality you use, they always drive straight into the face of the enemy. If you have a vigilance escorting a capital ship, it will happily drive within inches of an enemy capital and die instantly. Why? Does anyone find this behavior useful? I could understand it if the ship it's escorting was very high on flux or overloaded, but that doesn't seem to be a factor at all.

This problem makes some ships like the vigilance completely useless as escorts, despite having a weapon setup that should be good for it. I should be able to give it some harpoons and an ion beam with advanced optics, or an hvd with BWM and gunnery implants to provide fire support against heavier targets, but instead it chooses to drive straight up to the enemy and die for no reason. The only good escorts are the ones that usually survive this nonsensical behavior, like manticores.

It's fine for them to get close to ships that are behind the ships they're escorting to try and push them away, but when the target is in front then they should keep their distance until their friend is over 90% flux/overloaded.

*EDIT*
I'm testing out more destroyers and finding they keep a reasonable distance, I don't know why the vigilance doesn't.

7

General Discussion / Monitor Builds

« on: February 06, 2025, 07:15:47 PM »

It seems like the common sentiment about monitors is that they are completely harmless and they only have value because the AI foolishly targets them. So why not add some guns? I've had some success with this; it's possible to add some weapons that are decently threatening without compromising its survivability. Some options include ion cannons, missiles, kinetics. I'd like to see what other people run with (besides just leaving the slots empty). Monitor builds are pretty under-explored at the moment.

AM-blaster Monitor

[close]

I know the flux build-up of an AM-blaster might seem bad, but fortress shields works extremely well with large soft-flux build up. It baits the enemy into thinking the monitor vulnerable, but the soft flux dissipates much faster than the hard flux would from shield shunt so it's actually perfectly safe. It can just sit comfortably under fortress shields while the blaster is on cooldown.

8

Suggestions / Carrier hullmods

« on: January 28, 2025, 06:32:33 PM »

One of the fun additions to phase ships was the introduction of 2 hullmods which let you specialize the ship. Both interact with the unique mechanics of phase cloaks, but in different way, and you aren't allowed to install both of them at the same time.

I think this same approach would be great for carriers, letting you specialize in ways that currently aren't possible. We currently have 2 hullmods that affect fighters in DTA and expanded deck crew. I'd suggest adding on more options, and making them mutually exclusive so you can't stack them all. On top of that, the hullmods shouldn't just be a generic power increase like increasing top speed, they should provide specialized bonuses.


A couple ideas I'm kicking around are:

• +100% damage to weapons and engines.
• +25% damage against frigates.

The first one would be especially useful for claws, thunders, xyphos, and longbows. Being better at shutting down enemy ships without outright killing them would make these fighters better in a support role, without making them too strong when massed. Their direct damage isn't boosted so you still need to rely on something else to destroy the enemy.

The second one is a straightforward damage bonus but ONLY against frigates. Fighter and interceptor squads are traditionally a good counter to frigates, but they feel somewhat lackluster in that role now. A damage boost against frigates would make 1-2 carriers with fighters good at countering enemy frigates, but not so good that mass numbers can overwhelm entire enemy fleets.

For bombers, expanded deck crew is already fairly good. Throw in DTA, and now you have 4 hullmods that let you specialize your fighter for specific roles without going overboard and letting them solo fleets when deployed in large numbers.

9

Suggestions / Recall device

« on: January 12, 2025, 07:52:28 AM »

Instead of a normal cooldown, allow the recall device to store up to 2 charges with the charge regeneration being the same as the current cooldown. It wouldn't be a huge buff, but it would make the ship a little more reliable. Plus, systems expertise would have a larger impact since it not only increases the recharge speed but it would also let it store up to 3 charges.

It turns out this change is easy enough that I can actually test it out. Feels nice, but it does make it really obvious that the AI is too conservative with the system. If a bomber dies and respawns, the AI will see that it still has one "armed" bomber and refuse to engage the system even when all the other bombers are way out at max range and trying to return. Although, the fact that it could be used much better in player hands may make it a more exciting flagship option if you grab systems expertise.

Here is a test of what it would look like under AI control (vs sim destroyers):

video

[close]

An AI tweak that could work is whenever there is only 1-2 bombers still armed, it starts a 5 second countdown. At the end of the 5 seconds it uses recall device even if the bombers still have ammo.

10

Suggestions / Player Skills

« on: January 10, 2025, 06:00:20 AM »

I like the current skill system a lot. The only thing that bugs me is the extra s-mod from botb. I don't think it's a problem balance-wise, but thematically it feels like a bonus that should be in tech or industry. I understand the in-fiction explanation is supposed to be that you are good at recognizing talent so you promote the most qualified technicians and engineers, but that's just industry with extra steps, you know?

Something that would feel more in line with the theming of Leadership would be a bonus to ships with officers. It creates a nice contrast with the other option, support doctrine. Something simple like: ships with officers get 15% CR, and 50% reduced chance of malfunctions at low CR (this used to be part of elite sysex, but I think a small bonus in addition to the CR feels appropriate).

On top of that, instead of getting 10% of the battle size as if you control objectives, I think it should just always give you maximum deployment points even when you control no objectives. It's a much simpler explanation and I don't think it would be too powerful when most endgame fleets can easily find a way to grab 3 objectives at the start of a battle, even if it's something as simple as a couple of SO kites.

Obviously the next thing would be to give the extra s-mod to hull restoration instead of the CR bonus. In the same way that this version of botb mirrors support doctrine (officers vs no officers), this would make hull-resto mirror derelict ops (s-mods vs d-mods). Plus, the extra s-mod is just as useful on logistics ships as it is on combat ships, which feels more appropriate for the industry tree than leadership.



Other than that, only a couple other things feel off, but I don't think they're issues. The first is industrial planning, but I'm assuming that once colonies get fleshed out more this skill will be integrated with the new mechanics in a way that makes it more interesting. The second is crew training being too strong for how easy it is to get, but I've accepted that it's just part of the game. It's not flashy but it is effective, which fits perfectly with the skill's flavor text. Plus, getting cr from botb may displace crew training in some builds. If your ships need the extra longevity from combat endurance, then there's no reason to pick both botb and crew training.

And... that's it. Everything else feels perfectly fine to me. Lots of interesting choices to make.

11

Suggestions / Polarized armor

« on: January 09, 2025, 07:35:37 AM »

This skill is much better on larger ships than smaller ones, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the gap seems a bit too wide at the moment.

Something that could help without making the skill too powerful is letting the effect scale up faster on smaller hulls. For example, it could be that capitals get the full effect at 100% hard flux (in other words, unchanged), cruisers get it at 75% hard flux, destroyers at 50%, and frigates at 25%. While it would be even better on the dominator, it's not like the dominator is all that strong currently so I don't think it's an issue.

Polarized Armor:

• Maximum damage reduction by armor increased from 85% to 90%
• Up to +50% armor for damage reduction calculation only, based on current hard flux level
• EMP damage taken reduced by up to 50%, based on current hard flux level
• Full effect reached at (25%/50%/75%/100%) hard flux, based on ship size

?

How it feel to get an officer with polarized armor in the early game (you only have frigates)

[close]

12

Suggestions / Weapon tweaks

« on: January 09, 2025, 05:39:10 AM »

I feel the weapon balance right now is really good overall, which I don't want to ruin it by introducing any drastic changes. I'd only suggest some relatively small buffs to a few weapons that I almost never find myself using, just to nudge them in the right direction. This list includes all the changes I'd suggest right now, not including any [super alabaster] weapons. Also the heavy burst laser is apparently getting buffed in some way so I didn't include it here. Same for the piranha wing.

Small weapons
PD laser
OP 4 -> 3
Range 400 -> 500

LR PD laser
Range 800 -> 1'000
Beam speed 3'600 -> 10'000

Light assault gun
Flux/shot 40 -> 36 [efficiency 1.0 -> 0.9]
Flux/second 160 -> 144

Medium weapons
Heavy mortar
Damage 110 -> 120 [efficiency 0.82 -> 0.75]

Gazer pod
OP 9 -> 8

Gorgon pod
Ammo 12 -> 14

Assault chaingun
Range 450 -> 600
*Admittedly, this one is a bit more experimental and may need to be reverted, but it feels fine so far.*

Ion beam
Flux/second 150 -> 120

Heavy blaster
Flux/shot 720 -> 700 [efficiency 1.44 -> 1.4]

Large weapons
Paladin
Flux/second 750 -> 250 [efficiency 0.75 -> 0.25]
*This is the change mentioned in the anubis blog post, which I fully endorse.*

Gigacannon
OP 25 -> 18

Gauss cannon
Flux/shot 1200 -> 1050 [efficiency 1.71 -> 1.5]
Flux/second 600 -> 525

Dragonfire pod
OP 28 -> 30
Ammo 5 -> 7

Fighter wings
Spark
Replacement time 10 -> 8 [total 50 -> 40]
+integrated point defense ai

Lux
Replacement time 12 -> 10 [total 48 -> 40]

13

Suggestions / IPDAI on sparks

« on: January 09, 2025, 03:16:40 AM »

Sparks feel pretty underwhelming, even when compared to wasps. Enemy fighters with flares will eat up all the pd charges on the sparks, leaving them with only the nerfed recharge rate of the slow burst laser. Wasp's pd lasers also get distracted by flares, but this often doesn't matter thanks to the stinger-class mines they drop.

Given that sparks are a remnant LPC, it would make sense for them to have "integrated point defense AI" built in. This would make them more effective in the interceptor role without bringing back the dreaded spark spam of older patches.

14

General Discussion / SO active ability

« on: January 07, 2025, 06:02:10 AM »

A lot of people have proposed a lot of different reworks for SO. I've heard that Alex is thinking about changing it to an activated ability using the V key, replacing active venting. This sounds really cool, and it's got me thinking about how exactly that would work. To avoid upsetting too many people, existing pather ships that have free SO could be grandfathered-in, where they keep the current version of SO. They are already balanced around it anyways.


Currently SO has a few effects:

• Double flux dissipation
• Reduced ppt down to 1/3
• The 0-flux boost is always active
• Range past 450 units is cut down by 75%
• An additional speed boost based on size class

For an active ability, this could cause a few issues. The first one is the dissipation: if you stack up enough weapons to actually use the double dissipation, then your ship is gonna be terrible whenever SO is on cooldown. A potential solution is to have SO double your weapon rate of fire on top of your dissipation. That way you can set up your flux usage based on your normal dissipation, and it will work just as well when SO is active.

For the ppt, I'd say it's better for the penalty to only be active when the ability is active. Instead of reducing the ppt outright, SO could accelerate the rate of ppt and cr degradation by around x4 during the active period.

The speed boost and range tradeoff is probably fine as is. If SO has a cooldown you are going to want an ITU to have reasonable range in between activations, but those points spent on the ITU aren't doing much when the ability is active. Seems like a fair cost for such a strong ability.

The last issue is that the AI may have trouble switching between a normal ranged weapon and the short-range you get during SO. Might need to have the AI's aggression level go up by 1 tier during the active period, so cautious would become steady, steady would become aggressive, and aggressive would become reckless.


Overall the new effects would look like this while it is active:

• Double flux dissipation
• Double weapon rate of fire
• PPT and CR degradation speed multiplied by 4
• The 0-flux boost is always active
• Range past 450 units is cut down by 75%
• An additional speed boost based on size class
• AI aggression increased by 1 tier

Also, it's probably not a good idea to have the ability grant the full effect instantly. Instead it could have something like a 1 second "wind up" period where all the effects scale up to their full values. Then something like a 15 second active period where you get the full bonus, and then a 4 second "wind down" period where the values scale back to normal. The AI aggression should return to normal as soon as the wind-down period starts to give them a chance to take some distance. After that a 20 second cooldown before it can be activated again would be reasonable.

I think this would not only open up some very interesting potential builds, but also free the assault chaingun. Currently its only purpose is as SO weapon, converting all that extra dissipation into dps. With the changes I listed above that simply wouldn't be necessary as all weapons would get their rate of fire doubled to match the extra dissipation. The ACG could be redesigned so that it is still good on the new SO, but actually has enough range and low enough flux cost that it has a use even when the ability is on cooldown.

15

General Discussion / Phaseless Afflictor

« on: January 04, 2025, 11:37:32 PM »

Imagine right clicking! Couldn't be me.