Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hyperspace Topography (10/12/22)

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 - Morgan Rue

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
16
Suggestions / Re: Fighters should have bigger hitboxes
« on: November 23, 2019, 01:26:45 PM »
A MKIX Autocannon may be able to reliably overcome frigate armor, but a Hephaestus Assault Gun will kill them much faster than a MKIX would. There's also some frigates and destroyers that have fairly heavy armor.

The MKIX is also significantly worse at hitting fighters than a Hephaestus Assault Gun.

17
Suggestions / Re: Fighters should have bigger hitboxes
« on: November 22, 2019, 10:11:22 AM »
'Light' fighters like Wasps, Talons or Borers can be dealt with by weapons which would normally be PD, heavier fighters need actual ship guns to break them. But most actual ship guns have issues hitting fighters. I don't want to have to fill a cruiser's small ballistics with Light Assault Guns specifically to kill fighters, because that is almost certainly going to cause a bunch of other issues, but with how fighters currently are it feels like I should do that.

One of the big reasons I'm complaining about this is most vanilla loadouts aren't built with the current fighters in mind, and thus don't have many 'proper' anti-fighter tools
Alrighty then, here's every vanilla non-small weapon I consider to be good vs fighters:
  • Energy: Pulse laser, Heavy Blaster, Graviton beam (you're usually gonna have it more than one on a ship), Ion Beam, Phase lance (melts any fighter), Heavy burst laser, Autopulse laser, HIL, Tachyon lance with a swipe, Plasma Cannon (some consider this to be the best fighter killing weapon) and Paladin PD but no one uses that so who cares.
  • Ballistics: Assault chaingun, Heavy mauler, HVD, Heavy Mortar, Thumper kinda (but again why even have this), Devastator cannon, Mjolnir, HAG and lastly Gauss cannon which can snipe any fighter a mile away but isn't the best option for the job.
This enough for ya?

EDIT: And let's not forget the best large missile weapon that annihilates everything it sees.
The AI has to be effective with them against fighters. A lot of that is only really effective against fighters when used by the player in specific ways fairly certain. The 'best' solution I've found for fighters so far is actually Scarabs with Tactical Lasers and Advanced Turret Gyros, but that's rather specialized. Beam weapons are generally pretty effective against fighters because they can't really miss.

I'm not convinced Maulers Heavy Mortars can reliably hit fighters. Gauss absolutely cannot under AI direction hit fighters reliably. Heavy Blaster is... it can probably hit fighters but is not exactly something you want to fire at fighters. Thumpers are generally good and probably effective against most fighters, especially when stacked.

18
Suggestions / Re: Fighters should have bigger hitboxes
« on: November 21, 2019, 11:29:29 PM »
'Light' fighters like Wasps, Talons or Borers can be dealt with by weapons which would normally be PD, heavier fighters need actual ship guns to break them. But most actual ship guns have issues hitting fighters. I don't want to have to fill a cruiser's small ballistics with Light Assault Guns specifically to kill fighters, because that is almost certainly going to cause a bunch of other issues, but with how fighters currently are it feels like I should do that.

One of the big reasons I'm complaining about this is most vanilla loadouts aren't built with the current fighters in mind, and thus don't have many 'proper' anti-fighter tools

19
Suggestions / Fighters should have bigger hitboxes
« on: November 21, 2019, 10:22:29 PM »
If they're going to have 750 hull and 100 armor like Broadswords, they need to be big enough to reasonably hit with ship weapons. If they're going to be small, they need to have low enough hull to reasonably kill with PD weapons, like Wasps with their 100 hull and 10 armor. Though Wasps are a bit extreme, I'd guess 300 hull and 50 armor is a reasonable upper limit for 'small' fighters.

I don't think there should be a 'sorta small but sorta big so it's got 500 hull and 75 armor' type of fighter which you might hit sometimes with ship weapons. I think some fighters should be balanced around being hit by ship weapons and others should be balanced around being hit by PD weapons. I don't think there should be an in between.

20
Not sure if here or a modding subforum is the right place for this.

It would be nice if there was a SUPPORT style fighter AI which sat in front of the ship it was escorting instead of behind it. Currently there's no way I can see to make a fighter which provides cover and actively blocks enemy fire for an allied ship. It would also help for making fire support ships which are more vulnerable.

21
General Discussion / Re: Red Planet C&BT
« on: November 18, 2019, 08:03:54 PM »
Right, I'm getting my quests mixed up. Red Planet is always a bunch of big stuff, the scientist quest might scale? But not significantly enough to make it cheesable early game

22
General Discussion / Re: Red Planet C&BT
« on: November 14, 2019, 07:35:41 PM »
Red Planet scales difficulty with time and level I believe.

Generally, for breaking Remnant you want a lot of heavy kinetic weapons.

23
General Discussion / Re: Sequel?
« on: November 02, 2019, 09:42:31 PM »
Not that I'm aware of. Considering it isn't even really out yet and is still in a 'beta' state and being developed... I wouldn't expect to hear about a Starsector 2 for at least ten years, if ever. There will probably be another blog post about development in a few months.

24
General Discussion / Re: The Drover has too much OP
« on: November 02, 2019, 09:38:30 PM »
Non-bomber wings get full RD benefit. I think it refreshes the wing temporarily and deploys 50% more fighters, rounded up? For bombers I believe it just deploys a new wave?

25
General Discussion / Re: The Drover has too much OP
« on: October 29, 2019, 01:54:43 PM »
 Making it a bit more expensive would work. Perhaps part of the issue is how strong Reserve Deployment is. Or maybe it's that proper anti-fighter is quite rare outside of interceptors.

26
General Discussion / Re: The Drover has too much OP
« on: October 29, 2019, 01:26:07 PM »
Is it really a contradiction? Missiles may be alpha strike, but the primary reason to field a carrier is the fighters. The missiles are 'extra'. And that many harpoons would last a few frigate or destroyer kills. Also I could just replace all the Harpoons with Salamanders, drop EMR and I have 4 more OP to put into fighters or token ballistic weapons. I don't see a good way to use all of it's 70 OP without adding logistics hullmods or similar on top of a fully combat capable ship.

Drover would still be pretty good at 45 OP, though I do think dropping it to 45 OP is a bit too much. The main issue I have with it is I don't have to choose between what to put on it, since it can afford pretty much everything anyway.

The Condor is the only thing I've got to compare it to, there is no other destroyer size carriers in vanilla.

27
General Discussion / The Drover has too much OP
« on: October 29, 2019, 12:36:02 PM »
It feels like I can get literally everything I want on a Drover and then some. I can quite reasonably fit four small missiles, expanded missile racks, two 12~ OP fighters, a pair of machine guns and almost 20 OP into capacitors. There is no 'Oh I want to focus on fighters more than these small missiles' style choice.

I could fit a 'good' Drover with 40 OP. It would have two Broadswords(16), four Harpoons(12) and Expanded Missile Racks(12). A bit light on fighters, and no ballistic weapons, but four Harpoons with Expanded Missile Racks is pretty good.

Drover should probably have 45 OP, same as the Condor. Or maybe they should both be 55. Or the Drover should lose a flight deck and get more missiles.

Actually, compared to the Condor, the Drover seems really out of line. I don't see an area where the Condor is better than the Drover.

28
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Common Drops - Cherry picking blueprints made easy
« on: October 13, 2019, 09:11:49 PM »
Hasn't this conversation happened already with Vesperon Combine? Or at least, something close enough.
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=14915.0

Would it be possible for you to make blueprint packages 'unpack' into these individual blueprints instead of giving them common drops? That would fix any 'compatibility' issues if you made it sufficiently robust.

29
Suggestions / Re: Burst Beam autofire
« on: October 06, 2019, 07:48:54 PM »
The AI always seems to put burst beams like the tach lance and phase lance on auto fire and then shoot them into shields at low flux which is the worst possible time to fire them. It makes those weapons much less useful on AI ships. Burst beams should definitely not be on auto fire, it would be nice if the AI only fired burst beams into hull/armor where they are actually effective, or at least saved them until the enemy was high on flux.
I prefer this behavior because of how Lances work. Lances are usually good for the ship firing them to fire. Ships which are mounting a lot of Lances are usually targeting stuff with lower flux capacity, and want to kill the thing as fast as possible. If Lances did not fire at ships with no flux, then they would not serve their role where they break smaller ships and serve as general assault weapons.

Currently you can quite reasonably equip a Sunder with a bunch of Lances and no other weapons and it breaks frigates and lighter destroyers just fine.

30
The big reason I find this so weird is that normal Burst PD Lasers are reasonably efficient

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10