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.

871

General Discussion / Re: My personal vanilla Starsector ships Tier-list

« on: June 16, 2020, 06:45:25 AM »

Tier lists are highly subjective but as more people make them, you start seeing trends and patterns. That's the data you use for balancing.

For example, the Drover is almost universally cited as S-tier and the best pound-for-pound Carrier in the game. Hammerheads are about in the same boat when it comes to line Destroyers. Tempests are among the best Frigates, Afflictors are among the best Phase Ships, Aurora's are great in the player's hands but sorta meh otherwise, etc. etc. When these kind of observations come up and time and time again, it's a good baseline as to where things actually are. Skills/officers also skew things and some ships, with a bump from Loadout Design 3 (or whatever) can really come into their own.

From the perspective of balance, you should see a bell-curve with a few outliers on the extremes but the bulk of options somewhere in the middle. There *should* be a lot of C-tier ships: good-but-not-great options that fill a particular role or excel in a few circumstances. Personally, I think the curve is skewed to the right with the majority of ships in the C and B categories.

872

General Discussion / Re: Speculation of the new phase Capital Ship

« on: June 13, 2020, 05:30:27 PM »

I think if we redefine "phase ship" as a ship who's primary defense is avoiding hits altogether, the Phase Capital could have a ship system that is only a momentary phase. That is, it can't stay phased but has a very rapidly recharging phase system that makes all shots that would normally hit its hull pass through for about a second. Say it has 3 charges that are near-instant when used and each charge lasts phases for 1 second and recharges in 2 seconds. Momentum would be unaffected by phase so it could theoretically "phase" through 3 seconds of space and then have 50% uptime when in combat.

Pair this with some kind of unique regenerating armor (up to 50% of original value) and a hypothetical phase ship could operate with a different style compared to other main battleships. It would still need to be an offensive powerhouse, though (and perhaps on the speedier side).

873

Suggestions / Re: Colony Threat Timers

« on: June 12, 2020, 06:11:25 AM »

This would be a nice QoL improvement. I would also add any other time sensitive, active, missions that are nearing expiration (<30 days).

I would add the caveat that no more of 3 of these notifications could be on screen at once.

874

Suggestions / Re: More mount types

« on: June 09, 2020, 01:23:34 PM »

I'm intrigued but some are going to be objectively better than "standard" mounts, which leads to optimal styles of play. I guess it's in the implementation.

For example, if there was a ship that had a very obvious "special" Large Ballistic mount that was slaved to the ship system, that could work. It couldn't fire under normal circumstances but when the ship system is activated, it does +500% damage for a few seconds. That would lead to tactical combat decisions, meaningful choice, etc. (Getting the AI to use it intelligently might be another issue, but I digress)

I guess I would be against passive mount shenanigans that just "add X damage" or "Add X effect," even if there were good trade-offs to using it.

875

General Discussion / Re: Speculation of the new phase Capital Ship

« on: June 06, 2020, 09:48:39 AM »

To summarize from the threads already mentioned (one was started by yours truly some months ago), there's certain properties of phase ships that have to be addressed:

1.) Phase effectiveness is an inverse of ship size, i.e. smaller ships benefit more from it than larger ship
     1b.)The ship system, therefore, is crucial to the effectiveness of a large phase ship
2.) Phase ships being considered "one class size up" makes a capital Phase ship something of a super-capital
     2b.) This would make such a ship inherently "the best" in terms of single-most powerful vessel

None of these issues are insurmountable, mind you, but it took the Doom having a ridiculous ship system to move it way from mediocre. Now, the Doom is an S-class contender for best player ship in Vanilla. However, no matter how you slice it, a Phase Capital playing by the same rules as all the other Phase Ships isn't going to be able to exploit Phase for mobility and defense like its smaller brethren. The Doom is hardly nimble and a Capital would be even less so. Thus, a Phase Capital would need some additional help with defense, otherwise it would be vastly more vulnerable than any other Capital. Either the ship system would have to be defensive/evasive in nature, it would be a true glass cannon, or it just wouldn't operate like other Phase Ships (i.e. has a shield).

Or, more realistically, I imagine it will be a "special" ship, perhaps one-of-a-kind or at least extremely rare (like the Legion XIV). This alleviates trying to balance it against production-level Capitals and puts a bit of mystique to the thing.

876

General Discussion / Re: Yet another fighter balance post

« on: June 01, 2020, 05:50:05 AM »

I hold the view that introduction of any anti-simulationist behaviors that break WYSIWYG and/or create rules not used elsewhere in the game (special damage modifiers for fighters vs. ships, RNG-based chance to avoid visually hitting shots) are fundamentally undesirable and should only be used when other options have failed or been rejected.

Agreed.

I grew up with the Freespace games and when I think of Fighters attacking Frigates, Cruisers, Destroyers, etc. I don't see them taking down big ships with guns. That caliber of weaponry has almost no effect on warship-grade armor and it takes torpedoes or other capital-grade firepower to truly harm the big ships. In the same vein, if your fighter gets in the crossfire of capital ships, you get one-shotted. That's a reasonable expectation when you're talking giant cannons intended to melt through thick armor. Granted, Freespace was more about dogfighting other fighters and interceptors were rightfully intended to really only deal with incoming fighters/bombers. SS Fighters seem much less concerned with dogfighting and interception so their primary use is almost always attacking warships.

However, I don't think it's a huge stretch to nerf fighter DPS across the board and label them "Fighter versions" of the weapon that are less effective than warship-caliber weapons, if that was the route to take. Likewise, if Armor/Hull values were reduced across the board for Fighters because they're not made to withstand warship-caliber weaponry. All the same rules are being applied to fighters as standard shpis (no RNG, no hidden modifiers), it's just they're less effective by virtue of being smaller/more vulnerable weapons platform. Fighter-vs-fighter combat would remain relatively unchanged but against larger targets, they would need more time-to-kill (and take more losses) without the use of actual ship-killers.

I'm not sure if I'm really advocating that but I wouldn't disagree with it on principle as I would throwing in hidden modifiers or RNG.

877

General Discussion / Re: ECCM Package and "dumb-fire" missles

« on: May 31, 2020, 02:26:59 PM »

The other distinction the Locust over the MIRV is that it can re-acquire a target if the original target happens to get destroyed mid-flight, possibly give you the old "two birds with one stone" trick. It doesn't happen often but I can't recall the last time I got a double-kill with a MIRV.

(MIRV is the weapon of choice against stations, though. I mean, Cyclone, sure, but that's dumbfire. MIRV doesn't have to be ultra accurate and will still obliterate station armor.)

878

General Discussion / Re: Yet another fighter balance post

« on: May 30, 2020, 10:06:39 AM »

Why are we trying to make an Astral a warship? It, along with the Drover, is the most-dedicated pure carrier in the game. All of its weapon mounts are designed for self-defense, not offense. It has enough firepower to fend off Frigates and Destroyers but why is there an expectation for it to outgun a Cruiser without fighters? It even has a built-in Advanced Optics hullmod which tells the player "Hey, you'd do well to stack this thing with Beams." Beam PD, Tac Lasers, Gravitons, etc. It can defend itself (at range) but won't beat back a concentrated attack. That's the point.

Even pre-0.8, the Astral was never a good warship. It was a beam platform with missiles that you tried to keep behind your main lines. Even if you stripped all the OP intended for fighters, what could an Astral accomplish? It has subpar flux stats and is relatively fragile compared to the other Capitals. It also has very poor weapon arcs for frontline assault.

Why are we trying to make any of the pure carriers warships? That's an unreasonable expectation in the name of "build variety." Carrier play (for the player) could be improved with more direct control but the "carriers were better when you could load them with guns" argument is weird to me. Making a sub-optimal warship into a better sub-optimal warship seems...silly?

879

General Discussion / Re: ECCM Package and "dumb-fire" missles

« on: May 30, 2020, 09:50:14 AM »

Since it's built-in on the Odyssey, I never skip a missile slot because of how much it does contribute to accuracy and speed. The Hurricane MIRV is the most egregious example: without ECCM, it may only hit with 2-3 missiles but with ECCM and a little range, almost all the missiles will hit a single point.

The Locus is also one of those missile systems that you wouldn't think ECCM does a whole lot for until you watch their guidance systems turn on a dime after a target gets destroyed. Because of its pinpoint-accuracy, I moved to the Locust as a finisher for my Odyssey build because if I can open up some hull on a ship, the Locusts tend to find it.

880

General Discussion / Re: Yet another fighter balance post

« on: May 29, 2020, 09:55:54 AM »

I'll say it for the 50th time: the reason the current system of fighters feel like "missiles on steroids" is because the system meant to keep them in check (replacement rate) benefits from 1.) PD being geared toward killing missiles, not fighters and 2.) no "partial" destruction of fighters (it's a binary system). You simply can't reduce the replacement rate fast enough to make fighters worse than standard weapons in the current version. This isn't a fault of the current fighter system but the meta-game around it.

Regarding #1 - If you kill the fighters faster, replacement rate goes down and the next swarm of fighters is slower/less effective. Mitigating the fighter swarms is something that I've felt has been relatively unchanged since 0.8 and fighters with shields make a lot of PD much less effective at outright killing fighters. Since killing the fighters is the only recourse an opposing ship has to slowing fighters' perpetual waves, this leads to carriers having a perennial advantage that can be multiplied if you keep adding carriers. 

This is the distinguishing feature between a fighter and a standard missile weapon: missiles may not be replaced but they are (generally) available on command. The player can judge opportune times while the fighters just kind of shoot whenever. There's a lot to be said for striking at the precise moment. If replacement rate could be reduced more effectively, the fighter vs. missile debate would become apples vs. oranges. Fighters would be perpetual but haphazard and could be almost completely neutralized vs missiles which are limited, can't be stopped short of destroying the missile itself, but when used properly, can completely swing a battle.

Regarding #2 - A fighter with 1 HP has no impact on replacement rate. Or to put it another way, flux is being spent by the opponent but if it doesn't kill the fighter, the flux doesn't actually do any damage to the system meant to keep fighters from overwhelming the opponent. The carrier benefits from forcing flux from an opponent at no cost to itself.

If replacement rate was based off of fighter wing HP, instead of merely wing size, an opponent could still reduce replacement without having the binary system of "killed/not killed." This could be handled a few ways. Forcing fighters to return to the carrier at some HP % (like 33%) would not only force them to peel off but it would also force the carrier to spend replacement rate to repair them. Or, you could have a gradient system that some % of overall wing HP would have a detrimental/beneficial effect on replacement rate. Either way, doing damage to fighters would have a direct effect on replacement rate, which would, in turn, slow their advance and give fighters a true downside.

Or, you could tweak the replacement rate on all ships and simply lower it until there's a general feel of balance vs. standard warships.

I didn't like the old system particularly and the only thing that was lost, in my mind, was the ability to command the fighter wings directly. Other than that, I find the current system drastically better than the old. I don't agree with Megas that carriers should also have some fighting capability independent of their fighters. Most carriers are poor warships anyway and that sounds to me like shoehorning a square peg into a round hole. I would prefer tweaking the current system rather than going back to the old.

881

General Discussion / Re: how to optimize stealing ships?

« on: May 28, 2020, 08:55:42 AM »

If I recall correctly, there is nothing the player can do that changes the outcome of whether a ship or disabled or destroyed. I want to say that the game rolls the RNG chance when they enter the battle space. So whether you kill a ship with a Vulcan or a Reaper, its fate was predetermined before the battle began. I only vaguely remember this because Alex didn't wan't people trying to game the disable/destroy mechanic. Maybe it was in a blog post or the discussion thereof (but someone correct me if I'm wrong).

A destroyed ship will have more D-mods if it is recoverable, and the recovery mechanic is also RNG. So, long story short, it's luck of the draw with the player being able to tip it a little via Industry skills so that they have, overall, a few more choices at recovery.

882

Suggestions / Re: "Exploration" variants

« on: May 26, 2020, 01:50:43 PM »

The venture with salvaging gantry is interesting, but my biggest issue with the venture is the burn speed. It drops you to cruiser burn without giving you cruiser combat capability. Running away is a very important tactical capability that you lose. I think that would need to be improved before I would really consider using it.

I get what you mean and had considered it but the Apogee isn't any faster then a Venture+Militarized Subsystems, though to be fair, it is a better combat ship by quite a bit. An Exploration variant for the Venture might have an increased Burn speed but at what cost? Otherwise, it'd be a straight upgrade and no one would want the standard version.

The Venture epitomizes "slow, clunky junk ship" more than about anything in the game (even more so than Low-Tech warships) so just improving the speed doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe strip some armor off of it to reduce weight?

883

General Discussion / Re: T3 Orbital stations

« on: May 26, 2020, 06:34:34 AM »

Strangely enough, I find that the original Remnant (Fully Operational) Nexus to be significantly easier to fight than a Star Fortress of any flavor. As the first iteration of stations, it suffers from "Guinea Pig" status and the lessons learned helped create the Low/Midline/High-Tech stations. I think what sets it apart are the smaller modules that you can pick off piecemeal vs. the much larger modules on the later-developed stations.

Now, a proper Nexus is still a tough fight but it doesn't have all the bells and whistles the newer ones do but then again, if you face a Nexus with an Ordo hanging around, that's about as tough as a fight you can get in Vanilla.

884

Suggestions / "Exploration" variants

« on: May 25, 2020, 09:07:43 PM »

Random idea:

Currently, I view three ships as somewhat dedicated to exploration: the Shepherd, the Venture, and the Apogee. The Shepherd is a very useful utility ship that not only helps reduce surveying costs but also gives a bump to salvage recovery. The Venture is a hardy (but slow) centerpiece to surveying missions, although Militarized Subsystems is a must. The Apogee is a full-fledged exploration cruiser with decent firepower for the fringe but also a host of built-in hullmods that help with scanning and surveying. It also has a very nice logistics profile with good storage and modest deployment cost.

Along these lines, it would be nice to have more dedicated exploration ships, namely ships that tend to be jack-of-all-trades that I, personally, don't see much use out of but might if they were useful in an exploration role. Exploration fleets could be built that remain swift, combat-capable (though not particularly good) and have bonuses to sensors, surveying, and/or salvaging. Here are my candidates and proposed changes:

Wayfarer

I don't think I've used the Wayfarer since 0.8 when it was introduced as a starting ship. It's touted as being relatively tough and relatively strong in combat but awkward converging arcs has always made it a non-contender for me. It does have the benefit of not being a Civilian vehicle, being fast (Burn 10), and having modest storage capacity.

An Explorer variant (or I could argue, the base ship) would simply add High Resolution Sensors and Surveying Equipment as built-in Hullmods. I would never pilot it but the AI handles them decently and they'd make capable combat ships if part of a larger fleet.

Gemini

I tend to skip the Gemini because I don't like my freighters joining the battle, but like the Mule, the Gemini does pretty well in combat. It's OP-starved but since it tends to hang back and let its fighter wing do the work, it doesn't get into a lot of trouble. Having decent cargo capacity also gives it the ability to support itself (and other exploration vessels) out in the trackless regions of space. Its downside is that it costs 3x more to maintain than a Buffalo or Tarsus (with less storage capacity!) so for hauling duty, it is grossly inefficient.

An Explorer variant would add Surveying Equipment as a built-in hullmod, increase the cargo capacity to 300, and reduce the logistical profile down to 7 supplies/month. Combat performance would suffer a little by way of turning the 2 Medium Ballistic mounts into 2 Small Ballistic, dropping base dissipation to 150 (from 170), and lowering the base capacity down to 2500 (from 2700). It would retain its fighter bay and Medium Missile mount (which is the bulk of its combat prowess) but it would be much more vulnerable due its inability to mount Flak or other defensive weapons.

Venture

But you say, "I thought it was already an exploration ship!" You're right but I think it should also get the Salvage Gantry hullmod. I know with the salvage mechanics this might seem overboard but the Venture ought to be an oversized Shepherd (it practically is already). Would this make Salvage Rigs obsolete? I don't think so. The Venture has 5x the logistical profile for a 5% salvage boost relative to the Salvage Rig. I might even consider hauling a Venture around just for the perks. In all honesty, I don't think I've ever had a Venture in my fleet.

Overall

You can add some of these hullmods to the ships as-is, however, by doing so, you're reducing their combat capability (which wasn't all that high already). Having some Exploration variants that "bake in" these exploration perks would keep some of these marginally useful ships in consideration for longer. But then again, the next patch might change everything so...

885

Suggestions / Re: Nerf the Thunder via...

« on: May 23, 2020, 07:49:20 PM »

I find Thunders grossly miss their intended target more often than not because of their breakneck speed and strafing action. They are do-everything fighters but I've never considered them top-tier.

Then again, I've never tried massing them. Could just be user error (me!) but a single Thunder has never impressed me.