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

Mods / Re: [0.95a] Console Commands v2021.04.10

« on: December 12, 2021, 07:09:53 AM »

Hmm. Trying to run "addofficer aggressive 6" returns the following error in 0.95.1a RC3:

Failed to execute command "addofficer aggressive 6" in context CAMPAIGN_MAP
java.lang.NullPointerException

I am using the newest version of Console Commands, running 0.95.1a RC3. This happens both in a game that was created in 0.95a as well as a fresh one that was just created in 0.95.1a RC3.

Fortunately this doesn't cause the game to crash, just that this error message is returned in console.

Same here. Even "addofficer" without params gives this error. Both in _MAP and _MARKET.

47

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 24, 2021, 07:51:07 AM »

AI allies should be optimized as a support to the player in the Player vs AI battle.

AI allies and AI enemies use the exact same AI. You can't optimize them for support because the enemy side has no player flagship to support.
You also seem to be pushing your own vision of the game very hard. Maybe you want it to be player vs the world, but that's not how the game is intended to be played currently and a lot (if not most) of the current players like the game the way it is (otherwise they wouldn't be playing).

You very much can and, more importantly, it is. With current default battlesize AI fleet is built around single capital while others (if any) are added in the course of battle. The only problem that it takes AI commander to keep things running smooth and tidy. But a new player have absolutely no idea how to do that. And even the seasoned one just as myself is more like accepting the AI rules. There was large discussion recently about that.

https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=21861.0

Mind my position in all that.

And the last one. If it was for my vision the game would be indistinguishable from the navy's tactical simulator. And player vs player only.

48

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 24, 2021, 02:45:00 AM »

Attempts to balance the game from the AI perspective will end up in minimizing player's capability to affect the fight. Because it will ruin the perfect balance.

AI allies should be optimized as a support to the player in the Player vs AI battle. Not the other way around.

This is a bit of a generalization though I do agree. You aren't giving specific instances where this applies though. In fact, I'd say the opposite is currently true. Much relies upon the player intervening rather than relying upon the AI to pull the weight of the battle. If the AI was perfect then yeah that would be a problem because the player would obviously never keep up and end up feeling irrelevant. I'd hardly say this is the case though.

My point is that you are saying that the AI shouldn't be taken into consideration as a balance factor - to which I heartily disagree. Anyway, to each their own. I think I've made my point clear enough as it is.

One of the most typical complains from the new players is the difference between fleet AIs. Friendlies are dumb and the enemy is cunning and effective. It tells us two things. First. AI role is defining. Second. It doesn't help the player. You have to get accustomed to it and learn how it works so it will become competitive enough. Typically it reduces the player's role from the fleet's commander to a captain of a single ship. Subordinate.

AI shouldn't be taken into account solely for the reason of the need to make it fit the role of the player's assistant and ally. Not the boss. Player's capabilities are the subject to balance changes. AI simply follows the suit.

49

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 24, 2021, 01:19:03 AM »

The question was about the flux stats.

But raw flux stats aren't the only thing that decides combat outcome. Plus, free missiles equate to a lot flux equivalent.

It doesn't decide. So you can accept that it is mediocre and move on to presenting supposedly stronger sides of the Guardian.

50

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 11:56:12 PM »

Compared to Paragon and Radiant.

Paragon gets beaten one-sidedly until it's dead. Only HVD/TLs/HILs can match range with Guardian and these don't do enough damage. How exactly is this supposed to be an impressive performance?

Pretty much same with Radiant, though at least it can try to bite back if you are inaccurate at range management. While Radiant is decently fast, Guardian is still both faster and has a lot more range.
A group of 3-4 Radiants could theoretically swap once fluxed and eventually corner a Guardian, but AI doesn't do advanced tactics like that other than by accident.

The question was about the flux stats.

51

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 11:54:26 PM »

Starsector is a single player game. Player centered. Not AI. I suspect that a mess what happened in the current release is at least partially is a result of paying too much attention to AIvsAI scenarios.

I would disagree here. AI vs AI is important from a balance perspective. While it's true that the player is going to have the most impact and probably should have the most impact, to say that you shouldn't pay attention to AI ships because it is a single player game is a recipe for disaster.

98% of the ships on the field are AI ships. There is certainly a point where "the player does everything" turns from fun into tedium imo. The player should be the driving force, but AI allies should have a definitive use and for that to happen there has to be balance considerations around AI vs AI.

As far as the OP, I can't really say I have much of an opinion other than I don't think all ships need to be player pilotable - though that doesn't mean I think the Guardian should necessarily be excluded for that reason alone. I'm pretty indifferent really.

Attempts to balance the game from the AI perspective will end up in minimizing player's capability to affect the fight. Because it will ruin the perfect balance.

AI allies should be optimized as a support to the player in the Player vs AI battle. Not the other way around.

52

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 11:41:22 PM »

How is being able to solo an Ordo a "support platform"? Oh, sure, this ship can beat entire endgame fleets by itself, but it has to KITE to do so, and that means it's actually weak. How does that make any sense.

Not "being able" but "supposedly being able". I mean nobody even cared to actually do it.

Strong = capable of destroying any opponent in a direct engagement.
Weak = incapable of doing so.

53

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 11:24:13 PM »

Compared to Paragon and Radiant.

It is the problem of the weaker ship that it can't allow itself to get shot. Stronger ship doesn't care. It is being stronger for this particular reason.

Have you never read the blog post about two tech levels?

(Regarding your excuses for not testing)
You can hide but you cannot run. Even with skill changes the majority of the skills are unchanged and it’s fairly easy to set such fight up. It’s even easier of you’re willing to test it without skills as there won’t be changes to hull specifications aside from deployment points of radiant. If you still can’t do that I will have no choice but to parse that as your inability to prove your arguments.

I did read it.

Radiant officially will become player controllable. AI on AI action will turn into a substitute for a real thing.

Can you solo an ordo with two radiants with your own radiant?

Ai vs AI is the only objective metric when it comes to balancing. Player action is too much of uncertainty that a doom in player hands can solo an entire ordo, but does that stop radiant from being raised to 60 dp.

Edit: I still disagree with your alpha strike fantasy. In a capital 1 v 1 it’s impractical to end the fight within 10 seconds let alone one volley. How long does it take your proud aurora to beat the standard variant radiant?

I can't have Radiant as of right now. Player control is not implemented yet.

Starsector is a single player game. Player centered. Not AI. I suspect that a mess what happened in the current release is at least partially is a result of paying too much attention to AIvsAI scenarios.

I don't see how blowing target up in 10 seconds is impractical. It is very practical since destroyed target will not shoot back or in any other form demand attention from you or your allies.

54

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 11:20:29 AM »

The point being: currently, campaign Guardian is one the most un-impressive boss ships.

Campaign guardian has a suboptimal loadout, suboptimal officer, VERY suboptimal weapon group(s), is fought without a supporting fleet, limited by autopilot being dumb, in addition to a mismatched officer personality and the hidden never-back-off behaviour automated ships get.

A player-piloted properly fitted guardian is basically a completely different ship that has nothing to do with the campaign boss.

Every boss, Guardian included, has a fight scenario with the support of a fleet. Everything else is a common problem.

"From the player perspective it has very limited alpha strike. Automatically derating the ship into a support platform."

55

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 11:13:12 AM »

Compared to Paragon and Radiant.

It is the problem of the weaker ship that it can't allow itself to get shot. Stronger ship doesn't care. It is being stronger for this particular reason.

Have you never read the blog post about two tech levels?

(Regarding your excuses for not testing)
You can hide but you cannot run. Even with skill changes the majority of the skills are unchanged and it’s fairly easy to set such fight up. It’s even easier of you’re willing to test it without skills as there won’t be changes to hull specifications aside from deployment points of radiant. If you still can’t do that I will have no choice but to parse that as your inability to prove your arguments.

I did read it.

Radiant officially will become player controllable. AI on AI action will turn into a substitute for a real thing.

56

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 09:52:53 AM »

Compared to Paragon and Radiant.

It is the problem of the weaker ship that it can't allow itself to get shot. Stronger ship doesn't care. It is being stronger for this particular reason.

The point being: currently, campaign Guardian is one the most un-impressive boss ships.

It is very easy to quantify the metrics of the alpha strike. It is the damage per strike. The realistic implication of it is the ability to overload the target and/or destroy it instantaneously.

I see zero sense in any experiments with the current ships right before general overhaul of the game.

57

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 08:41:23 AM »

Oh. Right. It uses a stat pre-ship creation and the max ammo is set during ship creation and is never re-calculated after that point. How did I forget the 6 hour frustration on manipulating bomber ammo count.

Still doesn’t stop AI core from abusing it, but you can at most field a beta and must have combat endurance (and max effect crew training) to make it 40% CR - the bare minimum to not malfunction. (Assuming it will cost 100 DP because unlimited missiles)
As long as you don’t field any short range weapons on it (namely flak and whatever goes in small slot) it will fight at distance. It’s mostly about manipulating AI behavior. In an AI vs AI combat a properly fit guardian can crush radiant with ease.
Again - it’s just conquest but better without unlimited missiles.

Can you clarify your stance real quick? As I have stated I generally am against Guardian be obtainable but would accept if it has the right cost. 100 for one have autoforge and 60 without.
What is your take? I don’t know what you’re arguing for. You’re not giving any actual suggestion from the beginning.

I don't see current implementation of the Guardian as a supership on pair with the Radiant. Mostly due to mediocre flux stats.

I see kiting tactics as a forced option for the weak side to level the fight against the strong opposition. Supership isn't supposed to be second to anything. And I despise dragged out fights anyway.

I have absolutely no problems with Guardian being recoverable. The current version interests me merely as a trophy to put it on a wall.

Infinite missiles are of no concerns to me since I've destroyed countless Guardians with their infinite missiles in the campaign. For the most part the "infinite missiles" feature is completely balanced out by the mounts configuration and RNG. From the player perspective it has very limited alpha strike. Automatically derating the ship into a support platform. Hence will Guardian keep it or not doesn't concern me at all.

58

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 06:41:33 AM »

It doesn't.

59

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 23, 2021, 03:37:56 AM »

It also would make NL Radiant somewhat balanced because you won’t be able to get both missile spec and system spec and is capped at level 9 officer equivalent assuming you invested 7080.

Worth noting - you're likely better off getting System Spec for the Radiant because only the actual flagship benefits from +100% ammo, much like tranferring command also doesn't carry over that bonus.

60

Suggestions / Re: Make Guardian recoverable

« on: July 22, 2021, 09:19:23 PM »

It is technically impossible to launch 12 sabots from two mounts all at once. It will be either two or four. 12 sabots from two small mounts will be launched in 3 (w. the buff). or 6 (w/o) seconds.

Hammer barrages can be placed only in the outward mounts. In the linked mode there will be misses even against capitals. You have to use alternating mode and rotate ship to utilize all the rockets. Point blank of course.