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 / Re: Selling the PK device to Arroyo boosts his career

« on: April 18, 2024, 12:55:06 PM »

Tangential to the OP but I feel carrying the PK around should make you unmistakable, like when you have the Zigg in your fleet. There should be some impetus to get rid of it if you try to keep it yourself. I’ve got a save right now where I’ve had it in my ship’s holds for over a Cycle. Seems like the factions would be very heavy handed if you had it too long. Of course, I always figured Gargoyle would love to try to crack the arming codes. 

2

Suggestions / Re: Separate Personal (Combat) skills and Fleet skills

« on: April 17, 2024, 11:25:44 AM »

The officer idea has merit but I have a few reservations:

If you went with a hull-size limitation with the max number of officers allowed, you’ve capped the ceiling of the smaller ships. Something like Wolfpack Tactics might bump them up one more officer, but even then, you’ll never see a Frigate with like 8 skills. That’s not necessarily a negative but a consequence of the system.

I’m unsure I would want a Pokémon mentality to officers. Gotta catch ‘em all. To imitate the same base level of power of 8 Level 5 officers as current, you’re talking 30-40 of these lesser officers. That’s just swimming in them. Again, not negative per se but has implications.

Also, would officers level? If so, what does that look like? If not, it sounds like it’s more about amassing them than developing them.

If I could tweak it, I think it might be more beneficial to have officer types (Weapons, Armor, Nav, etc.) that have 3 skills each in their respective speciality. They add one skill per level and have an Elite effect if they’re the primary officer. The max number is still based on hulls size with a few caveats that skills unlock, as previously mentioned. The Flagship has the PC on it which gives it a few perks. Relative to current, I’d imagine you would have access to at least 15 officers to start, with some skills adding more.

3

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 16, 2024, 06:10:42 PM »

Oddly enough, I'm using HSA on 3x Phase Lance Aurora with 3x AMB and some IR Pulses and it is...ok-to-good? Like, I get point blank with most things anyway because of the AMB and it also guarantees EWM is working fully. It's not an SO ship but it kind of feels like one.

4

Suggestions / Re: Separate Personal (Combat) skills and Fleet skills

« on: April 15, 2024, 08:40:48 AM »

@ Cryovolcanic

Different strokes for different folks so I truly mean no offense but I would have dropped the game in hours if piloting wasn’t a cornerstone of the game. I’m no space ace but if I’m not a part of the battle, it’s frustrating to just…watch.

Fighting while still a ragtag upstart scrounging ships and guns is one of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me. I almost don’t like when I move on from the Destroyer phase because fights become slower and more methodical. If anything, you can build combat power too quickly, once you know what you’re doing.

Again, there’s no “right” way to play in a sandbox game but I’m 100% in favor of incentivizing player piloting.

5

Suggestions / Re: Separate Personal (Combat) skills and Fleet skills

« on: April 13, 2024, 06:56:46 PM »

So what is the point of Officers? Is it to concentrate fighting power into individual ships or are they intended to be force multipliers for the whole fleet? How you approach that question can net wildly different results.

If we go with the latter idea, I could make the argument that Officers shouldn't have combat skills at all. They should impart a single fleetwide combat attribute or a series of small buffs to all ships. Then you mix-and-match them depending on the kind of fleet you're trying to build and as they gain levels, you're able to tailor or improve the buffs. It's not like Officers are killed anyway, so them not being assigned to a discrete ship really isn't that much of a departure. I'm thinking Officers are more like the battle staff of a commander and have their own personalities and expertise that they drill into the fleet. Leadership skills would increase their potency, or increase the number you can have. I could compare it a bit to the Governors in Civ 6, where you know what each offers from the start and all are available but context makes you value one's abilities over the other and the decision is to improve one versus get another.

What that does is remove the direct comparison between officers and the flagship, removes the "haves and have nots" of ships being Officered and, perhaps in a new wrinkle, allows Cores to be assigned to individual ships which makes them qualitatively different. Remnants would operate on a fundamentally different level and having Autonomous Ships in your fleet would also be quite special, rather than just super-officers.

6

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 13, 2024, 06:34:03 PM »

Re: HSA

Yes, I think an OP cost reduction would help but I still doubt I'd use it.

What if the S-mod bonus reduced the range malus? Like modifying the base range from 200 to 400? Or reducing the "past base range" modifier from 50% to 40%?

Take a Phase Lance (600 Range):
Current HSA = 400 Range
Modifying base range from 200 to 400 = 500
Reducing reduction modifier to 40% = 440

Same thing but with a 1000 range beam:
Current = 600
Base range 400 = 700
40% = 680

I kind of like the 400 starting point because it would mean Energy PD is practically unaffected (except LRPD). Hurting your PD ranges is a kind of a poison pill that you don't know you're swallowing. It also hurts the shorter-ranged weapons less than the long-range ones, which is sort of a happy coincidence. The Phase Lance only loses 17% range versus base relative to the 30% a Tac Laser (or similar) does.

Re: S-modded Exp Mags

I think it's fine. We need more outside-the-box, playstyle-changing options. The only weapon I think it really makes S-Tier is the Storm Needler, which might get toned down after it was adjusted last patch. Burst PD and Paladins really needs it to stay +50% to make worthwhile, Ion Pulser isn't made a world-beater and even the Autopulse only goes from "Solid B" to "A" tier in my book. With Exp Mags, it also burns through a ton of flux in its initial volley. You're still paying for all the additional damage and it doesn't have particularly high damage/shot.

7

Blog Posts / Re: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More

« on: April 12, 2024, 03:11:29 PM »

(One thing I'm noticing which is kind of subtle is with starscape turned off, you can actually tell which part of the Sector you're looking at even when zoomed in, due to the roughly spiral nature of the hyperspace cloud gaps... so you get some "free" info about where you're looking at, exactly, without zooming out. That's pretty neat!)

I've never fully articulated it that way but, yes, you can tell what general section of the sector you're looking at by the swirl pattern of the storms. It's something the Starscape lacked and why I basically never use it. I admit the Starscape is "prettier" but it's much less functional.

Thanks for implementing that!

8

Blog Posts / Re: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More

« on: April 11, 2024, 06:11:46 PM »

I was thinking more about the Intel markers vs. putting them on the map issue and going into the game, I realized something: I use the Intel screen to lay in my destination (because that's where all the pertinent information is) but I use the map screen to visualize/chart the course. Why? Because only the map screen shows me deep hyperspace topography. If I could turn off the Starscape within the Intel screen, I think I would care a lot less about seeing the icons on the map proper and trying to transpose the information from screen to another.

I think I'd still use the sector map for general navigation (it's a lot bigger) but the transition from Intel to sector map would feel a bit more natural for me since the maps are just different scales, rather than going from Starscape to Hyperspace Topography. Not everyone plays this way but just throwing it out there as a hybrid solution for this debate.

9

Blog Posts / Re: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More

« on: April 10, 2024, 12:32:22 PM »

Massive upgrade. Like, seriously huge. The map markers were all I was hoping for but Salvor’s Tally is incredible. That’s such a nice automated feature that I’ll wonder how we lived without out for so long.

I’m also liking the reduction in fleet log/exploration entries. “There is a habitable planet here” or “has ultra rich minerals” is ok but rarely made want to look there. Now, if there was intel about mining, orbital or research stations in system…heck yeah I’ll check it out. I’m also going to support the idea of not telling the player there’s a research station in a system for random core world investigation missions. Maybe “high-value derelict” but nothing specific. Could be a station, capital ship, Gate with a bunch of smaller derelicts, etc. But there should be some mystery to it.

Super happy for this one.

10

General Discussion / Re: Your favorite frigate fits in 0.97?

« on: April 09, 2024, 11:59:22 AM »

Centurions are my ol reliable; cheap, tanky, good firepower. 3 LAC + 1 ion + Burst PD + Swarmer. Good kinetic pressure, emp stops hounds on its track, swarmer strips frigate armor. Kinda falters vs remnants, but solid vs humans. Replaced with monitors when farming ordos. I've seen people putting AMB + LAC to great effect vs remnants, but I've never tried it myself.

Pretty much this with a different loadout. 2x LAC, 1 LAG, Ion, pair of Vulcans in the back and Breaches. Sometimes I'll throw Railguns on there if I have extra. I love Tempests, Omens, Scarabs, etc. but Centurions are cheaper and can take an enormous amount of damage for 4 DP. The only knock against them is they're not great at capping points early but as escorts and "filler", I think they're on-point. It also doesn't hurt that they're easy to repair/replace.

11

General Discussion / Re: [completed] Migrating the unofficial wiki from Fandom to wiki.gg

« on: March 25, 2024, 08:27:44 AM »

Just checked it out. Mobile experience is literally 1000x better. The only quibble I have is that all the links to ships, weapons, etc. aren’t listed at the bottom like Fandom when you’re in that category. That was a nice ease-of-access feature. If it can’t happen, no biggie but thought I’d mention it.

Thank you and well done!

12

General Discussion / Re: Destroyers with Escort Package Comparison 0.97a

« on: March 19, 2024, 12:40:31 PM »

Level 14 Officers and mod Hullmods…? Nothing done here is remotely close to Vanilla so I’m not sure what it’s supposed to evidence.

I mean, I guess all things are equal but I don’t know how the results translate into normal play.

13

General Discussion / Re: [Poll] Migrating the unofficial wiki from Fandom to wiki.gg

« on: March 19, 2024, 08:50:07 AM »

The mobile experience on Fandom is downright abusive. I can’t stand it. 1000% in favor.

14

Suggestions / Re: Hull restoration giving a 3rd s-mod instead of BOTB

« on: March 18, 2024, 12:55:18 PM »

I wouldn’t call it “ease” necessarily because you’re putting 3 points into Industry instead of 3 points elsewhere. Granted, I often spring for Ordinance Expertise so Industrial Planning is only 1 skill away but unless I’m actually going down the Industry tree, I avoid it if I can. 

An extra S-mod is powerful but divorced from BotB and Leadership, it’s a totally different animal to me.

15

Blog Posts / Re: Simulator Enhancements

« on: March 18, 2024, 10:53:46 AM »

By the way, added these 3 behavior options:
Do nothing
Stationary, defenses only (shields/defensive system e.g. fortress shields)
Stationary (no movement or movement systems, but anything else goes)

w00t! So many Onslaughts are going to be used for target practice…