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.

Messages - Morbo513

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
31
Suggestions / Re: EMP effective against Phase-cloaked ships
« on: February 18, 2020, 10:40:59 AM »
Phased Afflictor could dodge most of TL/PL burst duration as well - most beams have very low tracking while firing.

Enemy phase ships are not enough of a threat to reduce performance against conventional targets. Player piloted phase ship would find them only a minor inconvenience unless they are ridiculously overpowered (and you could simply switch to non-phase player ship for particular battle).
For that reason, such weapons would work well for phase-hunting frigates where turn-rate is generally offset by maneuverability - most phase-ships are able to time their cloaks even when near maxed-out on flux, to completely avoid being hit by it currently. Giving them the ability to perhaps not damage, but disrupt ships that are phase-cloaked would make them all the more attractive. Lore handwave: Not all the particles fired by the PL are passing through the same dimension as the cloaked ship.

32
Suggestions / Re: EMP effective against Phase-cloaked ships
« on: February 18, 2020, 09:48:09 AM »
Biggest thing is it doesn't jive with lore. The ships are in an entirely different dimension , i dont think would be normal for most weapon to have transdimensional attack capability
I mean, Phase Lances exist - they ostensibly fire a trans-dimensional beam - and ships' sensors can still detect phase-cloaked ships within combat ranges. Whether EMP weapons "in general" would plausibly have that ability per the lore I couldn't say, but in gameplay terms I think the concept would better apply to dedicated, special-purpose weapons; Ones that trade some usefulness, damage output etc. against regular targets, for the ability to offset the threat/ease of cloaked ships.

33
Suggestions / Re: Default Exposed Hull/Weakpoints
« on: February 17, 2020, 08:38:46 AM »
The main way this would differ to how it's expressed in frequently-made-suggestions is that it'd be binary - Each part of the ship is either armoured or unarmoured. But ultimately yeah, I don't think it'd work well, or make a significant difference to how combat plays out, because of the AI. It'd just be a matter of some ships beiing less survivable in their hands.

34
Suggestions / Stations are rebuilt in stages
« on: February 17, 2020, 06:54:27 AM »
Right now a destroyed Star Fortress/Battlestation will immediately return to its full strength once its rebuild period has passed. It'd be more interesting if they rebuilt one section at a time, progressing from Orbital Station > Battlestation > Star Fortress over a given period, giving hostile factions/the player to kick it back down while in a somewhat weakened, but combat-capable state.

This could go even further with CR and damage to hull/armour of each component being tracked for each station, ie the station is repaired and recovered from 10% hull/armour/CR once it becomes operational again - obviously the time in which it's completely out of action would then have to be shortened.

35
Suggestions / EMP effective against Phase-cloaked ships
« on: February 17, 2020, 06:48:13 AM »
Simple suggestion to change up the combat dynamics of phase-ships.
The "issue" (matter of opinion) it'd solve how ruthless they are - The window in which opposing ships have to engage them (while at PPT and not in too deep) before they slip away is very short - they evade a hell of a lot of all return-fire, and make a joke out of range-management, making them extremely effective kiters. I'd like to be able to build ships with loadouts to effectively counter them - and for there to be more threats for players to account for when using them - and figured EMP would be an effective countermeasure that's already in the game.

There's a couple of ways this could work.
In both cases, the EMP projectile doesn't "hit", but passes through the ship while it's phase-cloaked, doing no physical damage.

#1 is projectiles/beams deal diminished EMP damage across all the parts of the ship they intersect - Electromagnetic buggery is transphasic - ships equipped with EMP weapons will have more success in catching phase-ships. Would make Automated Repair Unit, Resistant Flux Conduits more valuable on phase ships

#2 is EMP fire builds flux on the phase-ship while it's cloaked (Compensating for EM interference in their phase thingy), basically the same relationship between EMP vs. phase-cloak as kinetics vs. shields, enabling EMP-equipped ships to more easily flush them out or keep them at-bay.

These dynamics could be built into dedicated weapons of their own and/or combined within one, alternatively or in addition to imbuing EMP weapons with these effects vs. Phase-cloaked ships.

36
Discussions / Re: New Player's Quick Review
« on: February 16, 2020, 07:18:32 AM »
Generally combat becomes easier the more you internalise knowledge about the game.
General rule of thumb is, you want to win the "flux war" - So that means a healthy amount of Kinetic-damage weapons (The majority of which are Ballistics), and a mixture of ships that can deal it and easily disengage to vent, and those that can out-shoot and force the retreat of most things.
Frigates heavy on HE (Anti-Armour), Frag (Anti-hull) and/or EMP weaponry can deliver those damage more easily against capital ships by way of their mobility; the better you can overwhelm or fix the target, the better they are at doing so.
It's also prudent to consider the types of fleets you're going up against at a given time period; Pirates and Pathers are much more susceptible to HE and Frag damage as they field many unshielded ships.
Hegemony ships' shields and flux will buckle under sustained Kinetic attack, but their typically heavier-armoured ships demand a good balance between KE and HE, with some frag thrown in there for finishing them off.
Tri-Tac ships are generally high mobility, high-damage-output and low flux tolerance - High volumes of KE weaponry and flux efficiency of your own ships to force them into retreat when they engage, missiles to bloody their noses when they overextend and get overloaded, a few frag weapons to twist the knife in those proverbial wounds. Hardened Subsystems to help your ships outlast theirs is important against their phase-cloakers and skimmers.
Diktat, League and Independents are somewhere between the two, and demand the most balanced mixture of damage types - or having a mix of different specialised ships to deploy as you're able.

37
It stands to reason that some surviving weapons, LPCs and ship systems from wreckages and derelicts would sometimes be irreperably damaged in the process of salvaging them. Having the proper equipment to do so should results in greater, more consistent success in recovery of this equipment.

I was under the impression that this was already the case, and was surprised to figure out that it isn't. This'd make salvage ships as valuable as I previously believed them to be.

38
Suggestions / Default Exposed Hull/Weakpoints
« on: February 16, 2020, 06:30:41 AM »
Logic:
In many ships' sprites, there are areas that aren't covered by armour and look like they'd be particularly vulnerable to frag weaponry. This is not currently reflective of armour coverage which is homogenous.

Gameplay:
Give ships some areas of "exposed hull" they have by default - the areas surrounding some weapon mounts, hangar bays, engine exhausts, that sort of thing. Adds a dimension to exploiting enemy ships' weaknesses and accounting for those of your own. Would make frag weapons more viable. Mainly the homogeny of armour makes the big picture of engaging a ship play out the same.

This could be compensated for with a hullmod, which applies 50% of the armour value for everywhere else on the ship, to those exposed areas. There could be different skins per ship to reflect this, in the same manner as Interstellar Imperium's Package hullmods (which is where I got the inspiration).


I'm not too invested in the concept myself, I'm not sure it'd necessarily make combat and loadout design more fun and rewarding, or if these weakpoints would just end up being a source of frustration, and if that'd be worth all the things it'd do for game balance. I'd certainly be interested to find out for certain though.

39
Suggestions / Re: Ambush Bickering
« on: February 14, 2020, 10:07:04 AM »
No they cant simply do anything but their shuffle thing. Reason being Travel Drive and its non-existant turning capability noticably only on the astronomical scale. Since all Travel Drives of the fleet are working in the synchro (what makes Tugs possible) there is no distinction between individual ships. They are all similary bad or good.
I think you're right on that as far as the game explains it; even so, what's to stop them "shuffling" towards one another as an enemy fleet approaches? What's to stop them consolidating once they return to combat speed prior to the initiation of combat? How, exactly, does a group of frigates prevent this from happening, and in doing so isolate a group of ships from the main force, to the degree that they're separated by a distance it takes several in-game hours for them to regroup? How is it that a specific classification of ship are the ones isolated, as opposed to any others - despite similar levels of mobility and that those combat ships would be deployed and maneuvered in an effort to specifically to protect those ships and maintain overall cohesion?

40
Suggestions / Re: (Mod Suggestion) Target filter for ship weapons
« on: February 14, 2020, 09:33:00 AM »
+1, rules-of-engagement per weapon are quite sorely needed. It could go even deeper, eg:

Autofire:
Always
Shields down/in-phase
Overloaded
Never

On targets:
Missiles (Must be PD weapon/IPDAI)
Fighters
Bombers
Shields
Armour
Hull
Engines
Weapons

Somewhat complex, but it wouldn't make a difference to players who don't want to tangle with it.

41
Suggestions / Re: Ambush Bickering
« on: February 14, 2020, 09:21:10 AM »
If you look at how ships in the bubble are moving you will notice that they always look alongside the course while their trajectory being a wavy line so what all ships shuffle their positions with time.

That means the possibility of any logistics ships to found themselves in a position closest to the border of the bubble.

And this is where the fast ships are supposed to attack.
And by what reason are the other ships within the bubble so far away that they can't simply consolidate once an approaching threat has been detected? If we're using the logic of the fleet as represented by the fleet bubble, why would it then necessarily be all the logistics ships separated from all the main combat ships that the attackers encounter first?


Quote
Since they actually can go around the defending fleet, they also fully capable of picking exactly that location.

While defender can do nothing about that because all its ships are stuck on the single course. Ordering one group of ships to change it means detaching them from the main fleet.

And that's impossible. Sad also.
Ships can travel in any direction regardless of orientation since there's no drag or air resistance to slow them down (except in nebulas, arguably) - heading in the direction of movement is only necessary for acceleration and course changes. Ships can move towards one another, further shortening the distance between any ship(s) even close to being isolated, and "the rest of the fleet" as if they weren't already contiguous.
 The fleet bubbles evidently leave enough room for two fleets travelling in opposite directions to stop or slow down to combat speeds before overshooting one another. Changing the disposition of a fleet's ships towards an incoming force is accomplished within the space/time between the fleets "meeting" (ie getting so close they're forced to take action; committing to the battle or disengaging) and the initiation of combat.

Once both fleets have met, there's nothing stopping the reserve/non-combat ships from simply falling back behind their combat ships once the attackers are committed to a given direction of approach.

Being able to detach (an) element(s) of your fleet is something I've wanted in the game for a long while, and this is where the "cut-off/regroup" battle type would make the most sense - but it'd only be able to be initiated when a fleet is already separated, and the composition of that detachment would be decided by the player/NPC. Otherwise, there's no reasonable way to justify a weaker force successfuly dislodging any given ship or group thereof from the rest of its fleet, without engaging in direct combat.

42
Suggestions / Re: Ambush Bickering
« on: February 14, 2020, 05:44:25 AM »
The question was about fast ships going around a defending fleet. Do you see the fleet of the fast ships in the back of defending fleet or did you not?
Irrelevant and proves nothing. Yes, faster fleets can maneuver around slower fleets. That does nothing to support your assertions that 1: Logistics ships would be in a vulnerable/uncovered position relative to their fleet's combat ships, or 2: that those faster ships could successfuly cut-off or isolate those logistics ships, and in doing so have enough time to accomplish anything before those combat ships could respond.
Further, it does nothing to address the fact that in the time it takes for the faster, attacking fleet to close, the defending/slower fleet can easily reorient its self to face the incoming threat, once again putting those combat ships between the attackers and the defenders' logistics ships.

I fail to see how players could be told "This weaker but faster enemy force has magically outmaneuvered your own; your logistics ships are isolated and under attack" in a way that's either satisfactory and/or allows for any agency on the player's part.

43
Suggestions / Re: Fleet cap discussion
« on: February 14, 2020, 03:01:09 AM »
I don't disagree - but frigates and some destroyers are invaluable for tying up the heavier ships' escorts, disabling some of their guns, getting hits on their engines or wherever their shield isn't facing, putting pressure on those shields, all while your own cruisers and caps are doing the heavy lifting against them - in addition to carving through any trash frigates the enemy has. It's not so much their effect on an individual target, but how they affect the disposition and cohesion of the enemy fleet, and their ability to exploit the openings created in that regard. PPT, 30-ship limit and the lesser survivability of lighter ships means you have a very limited window in which you can leverage this effect, where a bunch of cruisers in their place wouldn't have the problem of simply being outlasted.

44
Suggestions / Re: Localized relationships
« on: February 12, 2020, 12:50:05 PM »
I like it, especially with respects to the Independents and Pirates. Different factions could have different weights to personal vs. faction-wide relations too.

45
Suggestions / Re: Fleet cap discussion
« on: February 12, 2020, 12:37:49 AM »
To answer your question:
It would afford the player more granular control over the composition of their fleet, while maintaining a reasonable limitation they must work within. It would allow the player to compensate for the current shortcomings of lighter ships (which are generally reasonable) with numbers, making frigates more viable throughout all stages of progression. In other words, it sidesteps the fact that a fleet comprised of 30 frigates will almost always be outlasted by, or will otherwise lose against, a fleet comprised of 30 capitals. It removes that conundrum from the decision-making process in regards to composing a fleet; Instead, you'd be able to have any number and mixture of ships in your fleet, up to a limit of overall strength - instead of being forced to compromise that overall strength for a more diverse force, or compromising the diversity of that force in the pursuit of overall strength.
It'd also be consistent with the behaviour of deployment points - The stronger the ships you deploy, the less you can deploy at once; The weaker the ships in your fleet, the more you can take with you.


I maintain that a change to fleet cap wouldn't factor into issues with the number of simultaneously deployed ships, as that is controlled by a seperate value (Deployment Points). For the record I think the current deployment limits are as good as they're going to get in light of the AI's behaviour, and general performance; A change to fleet cap would simply mean changing how many of which types of ships you can have in reserve for a given battle.
 In other words, the relatively short PPT/CR/Survivability of Frigates doesn't mean so much in the face of that of Capitals, if over the course of a battle you're able to deploy, retreat and reinforce as many Frigates it takes to equal the overall strength of that Capital.  It also means the fleet you're fighting can't outgun/outlast you simply by having heavier ships on average - because to have heavier ships, they'd necessarily have less ships.
 Currently, those reserves are best comprised of the heaviest ships possible because you can only have up to 30 total, railroading the player into a general fleet composition, at penalty of often being outgunned by NPC fleets with similar numbers of ships.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21