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.

Topics - TaLaR

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
Bug Reports & Support / AI misuse of HEF
« on: November 24, 2018, 11:44:08 PM »
Tempest variant:
Spoiler
[close]
Both Phase Lances are linked.

Deploy vs sim standard Mule (as survivable, but safe punching bag).

1st Tempest simply won't engage unless ordered. Why? Mule can't burst or corner it. This is exactly where 'approach and see what happens' tactics that fails so horribly against TL Paragon would have been correct.

2nd to the meat of issue: Tempest will often waste HEF charges by using them when lances are unready to fire (due to either reload, lack of flux or being out of position). There are no other weapons on it, so there is no reason to spend HEF charge unless it's going to fire lances.

32
Suggestions / Less suicidal patrols
« on: November 24, 2018, 11:14:19 PM »
When you fly with transponder off in faction space, patrols will always seek you, demand enabling transponder, then attack if you refuse.

This is perfectly fine behavior when you are a small time smuggler. But when you are running a doom fleet that has just destroyed the starbase, bombarded and raided the colony, that's nonsense. You've already shown that you are hostile, capable of causing enough damage and not willing to enable transponder. What do these patrols expect anyway?

...But in practice AI can simply annoy/bore you into enabling transponder, because constantly fighting off patrol pickets is not fun. Boring the player into submission shouldn't be a thing :).

33
Bug Reports & Support / AI trying to conserve Salamanders?
« on: November 24, 2018, 01:10:24 AM »
Drover variant:
Spoiler
[close]
Deploy vs sim Eagle.

What I expect: Drover should fire Salamanders on cooldown to keep enemy engines disabled for most of the fight, since there is no downside in doing so (in 1v1 at least). 4 ECCM Salamanders are pretty much guaranteed to get through (vs AI at least), there is no need to wait for vulnerability.

What actually happens: AI fires much less often than Salamanders allow for (and not just when enemy engines are already disabled). Also risks way to much (and some of these risks are exacerbated by conserving Salamanders) - Drover could safely win by attrition. Or at least limit close approaches to times when Eagle is close to overloading, not just has a bit flux.

34
I mean whole colony is disrupted for a year and yet this only somewhat reduced expected expedition strength ('Strong' to 'Somewhat weak'). Disrupting Starport and/or Military Base should probably prevent expedition.

35
Bug Reports & Support / Omen AI can't use it's side weapon slot.
« on: November 23, 2018, 06:48:48 AM »
Variant:
Spoiler
[close]
Deploy vs sim standard Hound (just to avoid Omen getting scared of opponent). Tac lasers for similar reason of being easier to demonstrate.

What I expect: Only 1 gun can fire straight ahead, so Omen should keep the Hound within range and slightly offset it's aim to the left of Hound to hit the sweet-spot for both guns.

What actually happens: Omen locks it's facing exactly on Hound, failing to utilize second Tac laser.

36
General Discussion / How interactive are factions in 0.9?
« on: November 19, 2018, 11:30:52 PM »
Does having higher relation/commission help in preventing raids(other than using to avert already generated raid)? I was never raided by TT, with whom I have commission, was this just luck?

Does state the faction is in have any effect on raid size/quality/frequency? Like being reduced to single world with saturation bombardments VS massive instability through raids VS healthy 10 stability everywhere?
If it does, then shouldn't you actually do your best to encourage any pirates/luddites that do not go directly go for your colonies.

Can you wipe out pirates/pathers as faction? I mean will their stations keep generating even after you wipe all their core worlds?

Has anyone 'won' game by wiping out every faction yet?

37
General Discussion / Pirate rampages
« on: November 19, 2018, 08:18:51 AM »
Looks like player is not the only one to enjoy massive raids:
Spoiler
That's Culann. Pirates decided to scatter as I approached. As I discovered by checking station during cleanup combat later, it was almost destroyed (last module with about 10% hp). Which makes me question whether pirates can finish AI stations at all, or this is the worst they can do.
[close]

Does it have effects beside lowering stability?
Also, Why? There is no related bounty on pirate starbase, or any generated pirate bases nearby (they are about 15 LY away). Are pirate core worlds alone enough to cause this?

38
Spoiler
[close]

39
RC8

Carrier variant:
Spoiler
[close]

Officer has all 3 carrier skills (as all my other carrier officers, so I could not check which exact skill makes the difference, though I suspect it's Strike Commander).
To test: just autopilot it vs sim Falcon.In most cases 1st salvo overloads, 2nd destroys hull and armor. Sometimes Falcon is left at 20% hp after just first salvo. Rarely it gets lucky and dies on 3-4th salvo.

Same Heron without officer when it gets lucky enough to overload Falcon on 1st salvo, merely damages armor on 2nd, without significant hull damage.

Officer on other carrier ships (or even Heron, when I pilot manually and do not use Targeting Feed) does not make nearly as much difference.

40
When I returned to Ancyra after defeating pirates at the jump point, game generated around 10 delivery missions for various commodities to Ancyra. Most of the stuff could easily be bought right there and delivered instantly. Which bumped me from 25k credits to around 180k. Isn't this too easy?

Missions were generated on RC6 (then I went to sleep and continued this save on RC8).

41
Suggestions / Less CR deadly 0 CR penalties.
« on: October 23, 2018, 04:26:57 AM »
Something along the lines of 50% speed, 50% flux rate, 50% flux max + temporary malfunctions. Fighter replenishment capped at 50% and restores slower, reduced fighter performance.  Attempts to use shields/phase cloaks/ship systems lead to malfunction surges + random flux spikes (but can be used to limited extent).
No zero flux mobility bonus.
Missiles not being loaded if entering combat without CR, even on 1st round.
Also extra post-combat nonlethal damage to any ship deployed with 0 CR (trying to do it multiple times in a row would lead to 1% hull, no armor and still 0 CR).
On plus side: no spontaneous explosions or permanent weapon malfunctions.
Etc, if I forgot some loophole that could allow to effectively exploit 0 CR state.

So overall - huge debuffs, but opposite side still needs to do more than just waiting till ships with 0 CR explode on their own.

To avoid endless stalemates: if both sides are completely at 0 CR, either of them can instantly (no need to crawl to map corner) end encounter with a draw and no further penalties. This rule kicks in after a minute or so of 0 CR on both sides, so that you could enter reinforcements, if you have any. Player/AI can't initiate encounter on strategic map if no deployment-ready ships are in fleet. Loot after draw is left in space for anyone capable to salvage (new patch notes already exclude below 10% CR ships from salvage, same rule should apply to AI).
Now that I think about it,  just having 0 CR on opponent fleet (for a minute) should allow instant draw, usable by both AI or player.

42
Suggestions / 'Engage as formation' mode for carriers
« on: September 18, 2018, 12:07:11 AM »
Leave current 'Engage asap' mode as is, and add as separate 'Engage as formation', tweak-able at design time.

Formation would be defined by:
1) Max distance to get ahead of previous step in formation:
Broadsword have speed of 200, Flash bombers 170 - they are closest thing to naturally occurring formation in game as is. And yet Broadswords would get too far ahead of Flashes, if target is too far away. Would be nice, if you could leash them some 100-200 range ahead of Flashes with transition to full speed attack at set range per formation step (you could always fine tune by switching to 'engage asap' manually). Before that formation travels at speed of slowest fighter wing.

2) Spacing within formation step.
Tight - Medium - Wide. (Either space to next wing within formation step, or distance from center if single and offset).

3) Offset of formation step.
Center - Side (whatever is closer from current position, just avoid center) - Other side than behind formation step - Other side than ahead formation step (2 ways to make it possible for slower fighter wing to pick closest, while faster one adapts to it).

4) Distance at which current step will break formation and switch to normal engage

So example formation could look like (6x, Astral):
- Wide, Any side, Break at 1000: 1x Broadsword. Offset left of right to the max - to prevent missing fire from hitting other fighters. (Suffers the brunt of long ranged fire, they are the cheapest + carry flares)
--200 space
- Medium, Center, Break at 1000: 2x Flash. (Deploy mines while Broadswords provide distraction, medium spacing to  better protect other fighters and avoid lumping)
--100 space
- Tight, Center, Break at 1000: 2x Longbow. They more or less want to hit center, where shield is most likely to be present. (Hide behind mines, fire sabots safely)
--100 or more space
- Wide, Any side, Break at 1000: 1x Dagger. Offset left of right to the max - shields deploy from dead center on front shield ships, side shots have chance to bypass.  (Fire Atropos timed to arrive roughly after sabots hit, while enjoying mine protection for self and Atropos in flight)

This is somewhat similar to what happens with this fighter set naturally, but Daggers fire Atropos too early, Longbows risk by getting ahead of Flashes and Broadswords can goo too far ahead if target is far. So it's very much not ideal.

Or (6x, Astral)):
- Wide, Any side, Break at 1000: 1x Broadsword. (same distraction as above)
--200 space
- Wide, Center, Break at 500: 5x Flashes. (Bomb the enemy from frontal cone and maybe even sides instead of single lump, deny as much area as possible)

Or (2x):
- Wide, Any side, Break at 1000: 1x Broadsword. (same distraction as above)
-- 200 space
- Wide, Other side than ahead step, Break at 1000: 1x Claw (exploit opening created by Broadswords on other side)

Or (2x):
- Wide, Any side, Break at 100: 1x Claw
-- 0 space
- Wide, Other side than ahead step, Break at 100: 1x Claw
Same thing, depends on implementation which would be preferable:
- Wide, Center, Break at 100: 2x Claw

(simultaneous attack from sides to bypass non 360 shields. 1st configuration looks somewhat awkward, but you get the idea. Break distance needs to apply to either wings themselves or formation step center, whatever is closer)

These 3 scenarios just do not happen naturally.

43
Suggestions / PD on-off toggle (not hold fire)
« on: September 10, 2018, 03:41:12 AM »
Unless your ship can stack multiple dual flaks, I feel that usefulness of PD is rather limited.

I mean sure, a few PD Laser or Burst PD can cover your rear from few fighters or Salamanders. But when we are speaking about serious frontal fighter attack non-flak PD is too easy to bypass.

Flares, saturation targets like Flash/Piranha bombs or Squalls stream and any non-flak PD becomes waste of flux. While IR Pulse or Tac lasers keep killing fighters, which is actually helpful.

Having PD tag on weapons actively hurts your ship in some situations. Shouldn't they be able to perform at least on par with non-PD weapons against fighters?

Overcomplicated solution that would likely not pass would be to designate weapons at design time as always PD vs optional PD, and let these optional PD weapons in 2nd group be toggled between PD and non-PD more during combat.

Why 2 groups? Because Flak or Devastator is almost always good as PD, even firing at flares will probably hit missiles/fighters trying to get through. But Burst PD is easily wasted, which can be demonstrated by using a shield-less Hound to kill sim Vigilance at point blank range without taking a single hit.

44
Suggestions / Carrier balance stuff
« on: September 09, 2018, 01:53:31 AM »
1) Helmsmanship 3 is way too overpowered for carriers. Optimized  skill-less Astral (with UI) is already a tough enough opponent.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can 1v1 (skill-less) it either with all-killing frigate trio (Hyperion, Afflictor, Shade) or other Capitals (only same Astral or Legion can do so reasonably fast, for non-carriers it's slow and dangerous process of cornering the Astral). And that's without Helmsmanship 3. With it, Astral is pretty much untouchable to all but super frigates and other capital carriers.

2) Flash bombers, or more specifically how other AI fighters fail to handle their mines. PD ones just suicide rush into the minefield,  non-pd fail to make sufficient course corrections to avoid the mines (when engaging/disengaging they just fly straight to target, even if that means going through minefield. When regrouping they also fail to make decent enough attempt to avoid the minefield).
Since you can't correct this suicidal behavior by manually leading your fighters by waypoints or forcing them to stay docked, the only possible counter (as a carrier) is to  attack with more Flash bombers yourself.

3) Bomber control: you'd think you could at least defend against enemy's Flash bombers with few ones of your own. But there is another problem - they can effectively attack only larger/slower ships.
If 2 carriers target each other, one with more Flashes wins, but as the smaller one, you can't defensively target incoming fighter wave (Flash bombers won't drop mines against maneuverable targets).
Would be nice if (any) bombers interpreted command to attack a fighter as 'don't try to precisely hit single fighter in question, just carpet bomb general area (require much less precision to release bombs)'.
Separate area bombardment command would be nice for defensive usage too (ignored by fighters except free-fall bombers) - like pick starting point and direction.

45
Suggestions / 4 rear weapons slots on Scarab
« on: August 31, 2018, 09:47:38 PM »
Does anyone use them?

Scarab is quite OP starved with just using 5 frontal slots, so leaving rear ones empty is my default.
 
Only fighters have any real chance of getting behind a Scarab (unless badly outnumbered). But even if you fill it with nothing put PD, Scarab can at best keep a few fighters at bay - at cost of completely giving up offensive potential. Just not worth it. Especially considering that Scarab is yet another ship heavily leaning into player-only territory (it's all about ship system, which AI can't properly use).

Can we maybe trade 4 for just 2, but with more reasonable coverage (close to 270, except the front 90)? I don't see a reasonable way to fill side-slots even in pd-only configuration (that is without compromising PD role itself).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6