Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

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 - Hiruma Kai

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 59
721
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 19, 2020, 02:02:35 AM »
Well, to be fair, we don't know how the other skills scale as well.  Or at least, I don't if there's been further details put somewhere.  If the skill opposite the Carrier group provides a similar CR bonus that gets split across ships (i.e. +15% CR up to 10 ships, then scaling down to +5% Cr at 30), then there is also a penalty to having reserve direct combat ships (or really, any reserve ships).  I'd need to see the all the skills before being able to make a statement about where this skill fits in.

I guess the question is, how does it stack up against say, a single ship skill from the combat tree.  In the current skill trees, the fleet wide skills all scale with the size of your fleet, while the combat skills do not.  If you want optimal power at end game, you prioritize the fleet wide bonuses from leadership and tech.  Currently, unless you're limited by cash for some reason, it is always better to have more and bigger ships in your fleet.  From an optimization view point, a +15% replacement bonus from Fighter Doctrine on a large fleet size likely beats out any single Combat skill.  Especially if its 20 fighter bays.  At 8 bays, this skill is the same as Fighter Doctrine 3 and Carrier Command 3 (a personal skill!) right now.  At 20 Bays its equivalent to the fleet wide Fighter Doctrine 3 by itself.

To be honest, +15% on 20 bays (equivalent to 10 Drovers) seems good.  More than that in your fleet, I'm kind okay with weakening it versus the current setup given how dominant fighter spamming is and the way it scales non-linearly.  Recovery also scales non-linearly.  If you have enough fighters in your wings, your recovery goes up.  If you build ships faster, you spend more time recovering replacement rate, which leads to fighters coming out faster.  There's some feedback there.

I agree it probably does lead to some unintended decision making, dumping non-combat ships with drones that never get deployed.  On the other hand, early game when you fail to escape a pirate fleet with your small exploration fleet, you'll want that bonus applying to any ships you have, to get as much of as an edge as you can get.  It'd be weird early game taking that skill, and then not having it help your shepherds which happen to be your only fighter ships at the time.  Having to stick hull mods which modify skill behavior strikes me as inelegant and non-intuitive.

Its not clear to me what is the right way to go in this situation without testing and without knowledge of all the other skill effects.

722
General Discussion / Re: 10th Starsector AI Fleet Building Tournament
« on: July 17, 2020, 02:47:33 PM »
Omen has 0.6 shields, unlike Wolf or Tempest, meaning it starts with 33% better shields, it starts with similar flux stats, its weapons are few in number and its EMP emitter is a very efficient and versatile, if random at times, weapon. It can tank quite a lot, simply because there's not much going on, unlike other ships, so it can disregard vents entirely. I wouldn't say ~12k effective shield HP is low-mid destroyer tier, it's closer to what Eagle or Aurora start with, about 90% as much. Unlike cruisers, it enjoys being a small, fast target, meaning that it's also less likely to get hit in the first place.

You might be better at building Shrikes than me, but my 360 degree 23k effective shield HP Shrike ends up being heavily reliant on sabots and in a way starved for dissipation, because even if the only thing it has is heavy blaster, 390 dissipation is still quite short of that. Regular Shrike builds are closer to 12k shield HP, which is the same as Omen, except on a more expensive, hotter-running platform. It's also a bigger target.

I guess that Omen doesn't truly have cruiser-tier shields, only almost cruiser tier shields that are hard to hit that its effective durability is around cruiser tier shields.
As for its EMP emitter, it's a part of what makes it good (and as a weapon, it's incredible), but for shield durability, the most important part is the flux draw, which I already mentioned. People like it because it's not just a durable distraction, but a mean anti-fighter frigate as well.

Sorry for the confusion.  I think we are making the same points if we compare posts.  I'm not arguing the Omen is under powered.  I could see it being too cheap in terms of DP.  What I was arguing was:

Cruiser-tier shields on a frigate is a bit too much, don't you think?

is simply not true from my point of view.  Lets consider a frigate with the same exact stats as the Omen, but with the Shrike mobility system. I don't think it would be too much.  The statement also implies the Monitor needs to be reigned in as well as the Omen.  It depends on what else that frigate is capable of doing while having that kind of shield.  If you take away the Omen's ship system, as you rightly note, its doesn't have much going on.  The Shrike is another counter argument.  Give it 23k Shields, some PD and no real offensive weapons, and it is not overpowered and in fact not very effective in killing things, yet it does have more starting shields than the Onslaught, Legion, Conquest, Odyssey, and Astral.

Anyways, sorry for the derail.

723
General Discussion / Re: 10th Starsector AI Fleet Building Tournament
« on: July 17, 2020, 12:16:13 PM »
Cruiser-tier shields on a frigate is a bit too much, don't you think?

Sorry, this statement is a personal pet peeve of mine, and always rubs me the wrong way.  And I often see the sentiment expressed on the twitch streams.  I don't think its the shields on the Omen that make it stand out.  Omen has high tech frigate tier shields.  At best I can see it stated it has low or mid-tier destroyer shields.   Its shields are 33% better than a tempest or 40% better than a Wolf, if they were built in the same way.

I mean, if I outfit ships in the same way most people outfit the Omen, the statement clearly becomes false.  Cruisers can be outfitted to have 2-3 times the effective shield capacity of a maxed out shield Omen.  It is the combination of incredibly high speed beyond that of even most frigates (155 base is only beaten by the Tempest, Afflictor, Hound, and Hyperion), with a powerful and free ship system that is basically a medium+ weapon (seems better than a Flak cannon for example) with a low flux cost, and the expectation that ship doesn't need to do real damage, which then combines with high tech frigate tier shields.  The fact is the Omen can be built ignoring offense since it has built in offense already.  The whole package is really powerful, but its not because of the shields.  Drop the speed to 120, or swap the ship system with the Shrike's, and I don't think people would complain about the shield.

I'll note you can build a Shrike such that it has 360 degree "Capital-tier" shields in the same way that an Omen has "Cruiser-tier" shields, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that Capital-tier shields on a 8 DP Destroyer is a bit much.  It can even be built to have more shield per DP than an Omen, but I don't think I've ever seen that done.

724
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 16, 2020, 10:16:07 AM »
Relevant to the talk about weapons focussing too much on fighters:
https://twitter.com/NiaTahl/status/1283538572021301253

Turns out there was an oversight that in some (frequent) circumstances a ship would focus on the closest target regardless of its size, causing over-aggressive target switching to fighters.

That is very interesting.  I wonder how much that fix will change the AI behavior in heavy fighter spam situations.  Certainly, it should make improve the odds for the gunship in 1 on 1 gunship versus carrier situations.  It does make me wish we could test some of the AI modifications and fixes Alex has waiting for the next release, just to see the effects.  AI is such a huge factor in this kind of testing.

Anyways, I haven't forgotten the Condor testing I still wanted to do, but been a bit busy this week and will hopefully have some time this weekend.

725
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 13, 2020, 12:58:04 PM »
This isn't actually true, it's just that Broadsword doesn't have enough flux to fire even just two light machine guns.

Huh, I never noticed that.  In that case, my estimate was off.  Using an Eagle, 16000 flux, and timing that, took roughly 20 seconds.  16000/0.8/6/20 = 167.  So actually about half my original estimate in the long term.

Which bumps that Shrike example from 6.9 seconds to 13.8 seconds.  Which is still probably a yes in most cases given the 10 second rebuild time + travel time unless you're literally sitting next to the carrier - at which point you'll be shooting the carrier.

726
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 13, 2020, 12:50:14 PM »
Strike tag only applies to the AI. If you have an AMB on auto it fires immediately against whatever it can hit.

Either way the point was more that there definitely are weapons that you don’t want to fire vs fighters much at all not that they all necessarily did so. Autopulse without an accuracy clutch is probably the most pertinent. Its likely to be turreted and so when it sees a fighter it just dumps its charges into the ether.

Just tested that in the sim.  Put some AMB on a Shrike, set them to auto fire.  Didn't fire at broadswords.  Selected a broadsword as target. Still didn't fire.  I think Strike tag prevents firing against fighters.

727
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 13, 2020, 12:40:41 PM »
Edit: Alex beat me to this point I think.

That's what I meant by Pyhrric Victory: by firing these flux-intensive weapons at fighters, you lose even if you hit. If there is nothing else to fire at and you're at 0-flux, I get it, but the fighters are absolutely winning if the ship in question generates more flux trying to kill them than the fighters' weapons themselves.  At best, firing these big guns are grossly inefficient when they hit. At worst, you're dumping huge flux/shot and hitting nothing

It's a very complicated question actually.  It doesn't need to be a 0-flux game to be worth it.  It depends on the fighter, the weapon in question, and how much flux you're generating right now versus flux dissipation.  If the fighters are all on one side of your ship, then only half your guns are firing.  A broadside ships exploit this fact.  Also, if only PD weapons are firing, generally you are nowhere near hitting your dissipation rate.

Take a 4400 flux Hammerhead, turn off all weapons fire, raise shields and sit there.  Send 2 wings of broadswords at it from a Condor.  It'll overload in about 3 seconds from when the Broadswords start firing.  Just tested in sim.  On paper a single broadsword deals 156 kinetic damage per second, or 312 shield damage per second.  I vaguely remember fighter machine guns firing half as often than ship ones or the like.  Anyways, 4400 flux/0.8 efficiency/6 fighters/3 seconds = 305 shield damage per second per fighter.  Seems to check out roughly.  So we have a rough estimate of the DPS of a single Broadsword (which I suppose means dual Broadsword Condors with Harpoons should be kinda scary - 936 kinetic damage per second at long range, flux free followed up by HE missiles).

Unskilled heavy blasters require 2 projectiles to connect to completely kill a broadsword.  It is worth it to kill a broadsword if they hit both hit, and it would have lived for 4.6 seconds longer otherwise (1440/312) assuming your shield is 1.0 efficient and you're already using up all your flux dissipation.  On the other hand, most ships do not reach their flux dissipation only firing their PD weapons, so 1440/312 isn't the right thing to compare.  Its flux above dissipation.  If your spare dissipation is, hypothetically, 800 (after shields and all other weapons), then the comparison is  640/312 = 2.05 seconds.

Take a shrike.  Lets say it has a Heavy Blaster, 4 PD Lasers, Sabot Pod, and 610 flux dissipation (a player design), weapons adds up to 880, and shield is another 105, so 985 max builldup versus 610 dissipation.

A wing of broadswords come in.  4 PD lasers deal 300 energy damage per second, at a cost of 160 flux per second.  Shield costs 105 flux per second.  So without firing the Heavy Blaster, you're sitting at -345 flux per second.  The broadswords are dealing 936 klinetic damage, or 1310 shield damage (including the 0.7 modifier) per second.  With 8200 flux capacity, it'll last 6.2 seconds or so with shields up.

Now, the Broadsword flares basically mean the PD lasers are useless for about 6 seconds.  The heavy blaster on the other hand, isn't distracted and will shoot at fighters.  Lets say half the heavy blaster shots hit.  So you're spending 1,500 extra flux (720*4-345*4) to kill a broadsword in 4 seconds.  If that broadsword would have lived for another 6.9 seconds, it was worth it.  Or the other way to put it, if it buys you a 6.9 second reprieve from a fighter (i.e. rebuild time and fly back out to you is 6.9 seconds or longer), and you've got 50% accuracy, you should be firing that Heavy blaster.  Given Broadswords take 10 seconds to replace, the answer is always yes (assuming that 50% hit rate).  For this particular ship against Broadswords.  Which is not a 0-flux balanced ship. 

728
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 12, 2020, 08:30:52 PM »
Re: Weapons being billed as "will not shoot at fighters:

I'm sure you'll come up with more nuanced version but for me, if one rule was followed, I'd be very happy with such a tag.

*Any weapon that costs >300 flux/shot won't shoot at fighters.*

To be explicit: Mjolnir, Guass Cannon, Heavy Blaster, Plasma Cannon, Hypervelocity Driver, Hellbore, AM Blaster, Mining Blaster. (Heavy Mauler is about there, too, along with the Mk. IX. I'm not sure how you would look at high-flux beams like Ion Beam, HI Laser or, Tachyon Lance, but the Phase Lance is fine.) Outside of the Mjolnir, every other weapon is a high-damage, relatively slow-firing projectile that has little probability of hitting a particular fighter and would almost always be a Pyhrric victory even if it did.

My only concern is the number of weapons I listed: 1 Small, 2-4 Medium, 4-7 Large. Large Weapons have the easiest excuse not to target small/fast-moving targets but that does leave a lot of Large Weapons not firing at fighters, even if it does make gameplay sense.

I don't think heavy blasters projectiles are that slow.  I actually rely on auto-fire heavy blasters turrets on my SO Aurora builds to help swat fighters quickly.  I don't aim them, but I do back up at with plasma burn on, and fighters tend to fly straight at the Aurora, making them easy targets for the auto-fire turrets.

Similarly, if the fighters are as thick as flies, I want the AI Plasma Cannons firing since they have pass through and will hit multiple targets.   Hypervelocity drivers shots are fast and long range enough that I see them picking off bombers on attack runs or returning all the time.  Hellbore is probably slow enough you wouldn't want to risk a high deflection shot, but against a bombing run coming straight in, its fine.  Also, wasn't pass-through recently added to it as well?

And if a ship has sufficient flux dissipation to cover firing the weapon, why is it a bad idea to fire it?  An SO Aurora can be flux neutral firing 3 heavy blasters.  Why wouldn't you want to fire them in that case?  It doesn't harm your ship in any way when your shields are up - since that dissipation is going to waste anyways. I don't want my ship sitting there using only 1/10th of its soft flux dissipation firing PD weapons only while surrounded by fighters.

If the fighters are moving in a straight line towards or away, like bombers on an attack run against a capital ship, firing big guns can be a good idea with decent odds of hitting.

Certainly on most vanilla variants, flux dissipation doesn't equal or exceed flux generation, but on player designed ships, it can.  At which point such rules start to be detrimental rather than advantageous.

To be honest, if there was a section to weapons setup in addition to groupings that let a player customize target priority and willingness to fire in something like a matrix (i.e. 1,2,3,4 and never, split along missiles, fighters,ships for each weapon, like how we setup weapon groups) that would be really cool.  Although perhaps that is too much fiddling for vanilla.

In theory, is such a thing possible for a mod?  Not sure how well they can hook into the UI like that.  Given we already have a hull mod that makes PD weapons prioritize missiles over fighters, as well as make all small weapons prioritize missiles, I'm guessing it'd be possible under the hood, but making an easy to use interface is the hard part.

Then players who want to have plasma cannons fire at missiles with max priority, could.  And the players who never want plasma cannons to shoot at missiles or fighters could as well.  I mean, as a player, I'm using Plasma cannons all the time to shoot down reapers or atropos on my Odyssey.

729
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 12, 2020, 06:14:10 PM »
Don't know if doing this specifically is the best plan, but: If the hypothetical weapons that didn't autofire at fighters clearly said so on their stats card, that would make the behavior clearly-not-a-bug.

That's... a very good point. Yeah! I like this a lot, coming from sort of an in-fiction reason why it doesn't/can't do that, rather than being a purely an attempt to adjust the AI. So it stops being an AI thing and becomes an explicitly billed feature of the weapon.

I also wonder, is there design space for anti-massed fighter/missile spam weapons?  I mean, I only recently discovered the proximity charge launcher as being effective, and there's also flak, but it just doesn't stack the same way as fighters do.  You can't currently combine all the PD of the fleet in one place to handle a spike in fighters, but fighters can stack to focus all their fire power on one ship.  And due to flux mechanics, spike damage is much more powerful than sustained damage.

Remember, the player controlled spam fighter fleet is far more dangerous than the AI spam fighter fleet, since a player can call coordinated bombing runs which any individual ship can't survive.  They can pull back to a way point, gather strength, and then go again and take out another ship.

But what if the defending fleet could gather effectively an entire fleet's worth of PD in one spot?  I do know you've modified the Paladin to have an AoE component, which will be interesting to see, given it can shoot over allied ships to hit fighters on the other side.

If you do get enough AoE damage in one place that can last long enough, it is possible to bring down a swarm of sparks.  I remember doing something like that against a 12 Drover spark swarm in the simulator using an Onslaught XIV with hand picked Officer (Advanced Countermeasures, Armor Skills, Damage skills, Flux skill) + armor/flak focus on the ship itself.  With the magnified armor, it survived the first pass swarm and took out enough fighters along the way with its purely flak loadout, it eventually became immune to the uncoordinated return flights, and just slowly burn drived down each Drover.

So is there a place for a missile or maybe high tech energy weapon that chains between enemy fighters/missiles within a certain distance from each other like lightning, hitting each target only once, but then jumping to all targets within range of that target, and so on until all possible targets are exhausted?  A couple of these and sufficient density of fighters suddenly makes the damage spread to the entire swarm.  Below a certain density, it only hits a few and then runs out of range.  And against single wings, well, it only hits a single wing.  And against a ship, assuming its not bumping another ship, you get a single hit.  So now, you've got an anti-fighter weapon which fired from different directions on the swarm, hits all of them.  Potentially concentrating fire from multiple ships.

If there were some dedicated PD variant files that used such a weapon, and they showed up enough, they would give over concentrations of fighters some pause, at least in some engagements.

Not sure how easy or hard to script such a weapon, although it'd be a bit like ion damage jumping, but between fighters/ships instead of just on the ship.

^ In regards to player piloting balance vs player admiral balance: (Bit of a tiny derail but I think it's relevant to the balance discussion)

Not a derail at all.  The thread is a balance discussion, which includes AI and fighters, along with the Condor itself.

If you were using half bomber, half thunder Condors and had way more wins than I did, then I either unknowingly had other changes in my files I don't remember, or my Condors had one hell of a bad luck. I'll run some battles tomorrow and if they stay abysmal like that, then I'll have to reinstall my Starsector and check if that changes anything.

So I'm thinking you have had the Condors get unlucky, and I got the Condors to be lucky.

Fresh install, ran another 8 simulation.  Results are 2 wins, 6 losses (8 total matches) for the Condors (broadsword/perdition x3, thunder x3).

If I tally up all matches run, yours and mine, I get 7 wins, 1 tie, and 20 losses (out of 28 matches).  So if the Condors have a true underlying 25% chance to win, getting 1 win in 12 trials has about (12 * 0.25*0.75^11 = 12.6% or so).  Not likely, but not crazy unlikely.  Call my test 4 wins,4 losses (70*0.25^4*0.75^4= 8.6%).  Again, unlikely, but not crazily so.

In any case, I don't think the Condors are doing as well as the Drovers with this setup now that we've got 28 samples.


730
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 12, 2020, 02:08:51 PM »
If you keep the map open and the game unpaused, you can see what admiral AI is doing. As I mentioned earlier, first it gives escort orders on cruisers, then dismisses those orders and orders assault on the objective, then dismisses that and only retreats individual ships. I don't think it's possible to give invisible orders, but I'm not so sure of it now.
The biggest benefit for me was that it acted sort of like the player, so I did not have to make any input myself.

Oh you're right.  Looking mid-game doesn't help, but clearly right at the beginning there are some escort orders.

My mods list when doing this is: Fleet Tester 1.0
LazyLib 2.4
MagicLib 0.27
ZZ GraphicsLib 1.4.1

I'll do a reinstall as well and see if it my results change signficantly.  It'd be bad if I've got an unintentional edits somewhere that is affecting results.


731
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 12, 2020, 12:45:43 PM »
I'm not sure how to tell what the admiral AI is doing.  At the beginning of the AI Battles mod or Fleet tester with the updated jar, there are some initial orders to claim nav/sensor bouys.  That shows up on the map layer.  Then the only other orders I see on the map layer are retreat orders.  The local ship AI is clearly assigning itself to escort though (I've seen drovers follow other ships that are retreating to the edge of the map, then once they retreat, head back to the fight).  And generally in the initial clash, most of the bombers go after the same ship, but then again, that might just have been the first ship seen, or they all had the same selection criteria at the beginning of the fight, so it tends to make them select a single target.

And all I can say is random AI is random.  Well, and steady AI is really, really good at staying alive, with the side effect of not going for the kill in a lot of situations.  Which to be fair, if you're actually playing the game, generally what you want out of your standard AI.  The fact that these fights are going to CR, frigates and destroyers are hitting 0% with several different composition means things can't be too far out of balance.

Although it does makes me wonder if we're testing things the right way.  As it is right now, fleet composition in terms PPT is arguably more important than base ship effectiveness.  A few more cruisers and a few less destroyers and you'll have a significant advantage at the end.  The other thing is, the game isn't intended to be balanced AI vs AI.  Its intended to be player vs AI, and provide a fun and interesting challenge.  A player thrown into the mix will make fights go much shorter, at which point PPT doesn't matter as much.

It also begs the question, of which player's balance?  Someone just piloting their ship and ignoring the AI is going to have different performance from one that switches to the map layer and issues appropriate orders mid-battle.  Keeping your carriers together and having them send a bomber wave at a target you know is going to be high flux in 10-20 seconds, is going to see different effectiveness.  We also know at some point there's a transition where you have so many fighters on your side, the AI can't handle it optimally.

So anyways, I did a bunch of broadsword/peridition +2x thunder setups.  Both Condor and Drover.

I'm including in the spoiler tags the setup files I'm using for the condor fights, just in case someone can spot a mistake.  The Venture_Pulse is just a Venture_Balanced with a Pulse Laser instead of mining blaster.   I did make a mistake on the first 2 Drover fights, and gave them 3x broadsword/peridition and 3x Thunders.  Anyways, I include this because I've got fairly different results from SCC.

Condor fights:
8 matches, 4 wins for the Condors, 3 losses, 1 tie (literally every ship was at 0% CR and retreating off the field - although Conquest did retreat while Onslaught had been destroyed...)

Drover fights
6 Drovers (3 Broad/Perdition, 3 Thunder)
1 win, 1 loss
5 Drovers (3 Broad/Perdition, 2 Thunder)
5 wins, 3 loss. 
Note: The 5 wins were all in a row, and the 3 losses were all in a row at the end - so it was looking like 5/5 at the beginning of testing and I was very confused about why drovers with thunders were so much better than broadsword/dagger).

I have been running some of these matches 2 at a time (two instances of starsector running) to speed up testing, but I don't think that should matter?

Anyways, thunders are better than I had traditionally given them credit for, at least in a AI vs AI setup.  I'm not seeing statistically significant differences between 5 Drover fleets and 6 Condor fleets, at least with this limited testing.  Again, it really is vagary of the AI.   I mean, I've seen the Onslaught destroy the Omen during the first few moments of enemy contact, when they wanted to go in opposite directions and the omen crashed into the Onslaught with its shields down.  Sometimes a destroyer will zoom ahead, flux up, and then the bombers come in.  Some times, the bombers slit their attention on two different ships at the beginning of the fight, running up flux, but not securing a kill.

I'm tempted to switch over to a new scenerio, with superior enemy forces, and seeing how long the carrier fleet lasts.  Probably something like a reckless SO Luddic fleet 180 DP versus 120 DP.  And then see how long the fleet lasts and how much they kill.  That I'm willing to bet is going to show case the Drover's advantages.

player0_fleet.csv
Spoiler
#personality: The captain's personality. Can be "timid", "cautious", "steady", "aggressive", "reckless".
#flagship: boolean to set the flagship of the fleet
#DO NOT RENAME THIS FILE, DO NOT CHANGE THE TOP LINE.
1,conquest_Elite,steady,false
2,eagle_Assault,steady,false
3,venture_Pulse,steady,false
4,enforcer_Elite,steady,false
5,enforcer_Elite,steady,false
6,hammerhead_Balanced,steady,false
7,centurion_Assault,steady,false
8,centurion_Assault,steady,false
9,wolf_Assault,steady,false
10,wolf_Assault,steady,false
#11,drover_Broad_Perd_Harpoon,steady,false
#12,drover_Broad_Perd_Harpoon,steady,false
#13,drover_Broad_Perd_Harpoon,steady,false
#14,drover_Thunder_Harpoon,steady,false
#15,drover_Thunder_Harpoon,steady,false
11,condor_Broad_Perd_Harpoon,steady,false
12,condor_Broad_Perd_Harpoon,steady,false
13,condor_Broad_Perd_Harpoon,steady,false
14,condor_Thunder_Harpoon,steady,false
15,condor_Thunder_Harpoon,steady,false
16,condor_Thunder_Harpoon,steady,false
[close]

player1_fleet.csv
Spoiler
#personality: The captain's personality. Can be "timid", "cautious", "steady", "aggressive", "reckless".
#flagship: boolean to set the flagship of the fleet
#DO NOT RENAME THIS FILE, DO NOT CHANGE THE TOP LINE.
1,onslaught_Standard,steady,false
2,eagle_Balanced,steady,false
3,falcon_Attack,steady,false
4,heron_Strike,steady,false
5,mora_Strike,steady,false
6,condor_Support,steady,false
7,drover_Starting,steady,false
8,medusa_Attack,steady,false
9,sunder_CS,steady,false
10,shrike_p_Attack,steady,false
11,shrike_p_Attack,steady,false
12,tempest_Attack,steady,false
13,omen_PD,steady,false
14,lasher_Assault,steady,false
15,wolf_Strike,steady,false
[close]

drover_Thunder_Harpoon.variant
Spoiler
{
    "displayName": "Strike",
    "fluxCapacitors": 3,
    "fluxVents": 0,
    "goalVariant": true,
    "hullId": "condor",
    "hullMods": ["expanded_deck_crew"],
    "permaMods": [],
    "variantId": "condor_Thunder_Harpoon",
    "weaponGroups": [
        {
            "autofire": true,
            "mode": "LINKED",
            "weapons": {
                "WS 001": "vulcan",
                "WS 002": "vulcan"
            }
        },
        {
            "autofire": false,
            "mode": "LINKED",
            "weapons": {"WS 003": "harpoonpod"}
        }
    ],
    "wings": [
        "thunder_wing",
        "thunder_wing"
    ]
}
[close]

condor_Broad_Perd_Harpoon.variant
Spoiler
{
    "displayName": "Strike",
    "fluxCapacitors": 0,
    "fluxVents": 0,
    "goalVariant": true,
    "hullId": "condor",
    "hullMods": ["expanded_deck_crew"],
    "permaMods": [],
    "variantId": "condor_Broad_Perd_Harpoon",
    "weaponGroups": [
        {
            "autofire": true,
            "mode": "LINKED",
            "weapons": {"WS 001": "vulcan"}
        },
        {
            "autofire": false,
            "mode": "LINKED",
            "weapons": {"WS 003": "harpoonpod"}
        }
    ],
    "wings": [
        "broadsword_wing",
        "perdition_wing"
    ]
}
[close]

732
General Discussion / Re: What 'weapon recoil' does in this game??
« on: July 12, 2020, 12:21:20 PM »
Some weapons, but not all, have a cone of fire.  When you shoot them, the shot can end up anywhere within that cone, randomly.  The longer you fire in rapid succession, the larger the cone of fire becomes, and the more spread out your shots become.  This is the recoil.  If you stop firing for a few moments, the cone will shrink back down to its original size.

733
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 11, 2020, 02:33:19 PM »
So I've got the fleet tester mod with admiral AI setup, and running and its basically producing the same results as the AI Battles mod (which was a tournament mod).

This is again using SCC's suggested line up.

Anyways, so before with AI Battles mod: 3 wins out of 5 matches for Condors
With Fleet Tester + Admiral AI .jar: 3 wins out of 5 matches for Condors

This again is with 60 DP of "Broadsword/Dagger/Reaper/2x Vulcan/Expanded Deck Crew/rest into caps" Condor, to match up against the Drover setup.

So overall, 6/10, which at this sample size is pretty indistinguishable from the Drover victory odds using Broadswords and Daggers as well.

So I submit fighter selection has a far greater effect than, say filling the medium missile slot on a Condor.  Also, PPT actually plays a huge part in these fights.  Generally the destroyers are at 0% CR by the end, and any cruisers are in critical malfunction territory at the end.

Although, there was one perfect win for the Condors, no losses and only 3 retreats.  Such is the randomness of AI.

So next up is the Thunder x2/Broadsword + Peridition Drover tests to confirm its more an issue of fighter selection rather than base ship.

734
General Discussion / Re: Question about fleet size
« on: July 11, 2020, 12:16:16 PM »
Quick question though : surveying planets to choose where to settle, i didn't know that some colony gave you chips you can sell to factions... does this mean that the faction will try to settle there (if i sell them the info ?)

Thanks again everyone !

Unless you're playing a mod that changes things, the vanilla factions don't expand, and even in the mods where they do expand, I don't believe the survey data chips matter.  Pretty sure they stack in inventory, which means they're all identical and can't have planetary data associated with them because you can't tell which planet which chip came from in a stack.

They're purely there for you to sell for credits with no other effect on the game.

735
General Discussion / Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« on: July 11, 2020, 10:58:54 AM »
So, using  the Battle AI mod, and the same fleet loadout as SCC, except using 6x Condor with broadsword/dagger/2x Vulcan/1x Reaper/Expanded Deck Crew/1 capacitor

I have the following statistic: 3 wins out of 5 matches for the Condors

However, SCC and Tartiflette have kindly shared the admiral AI .jar for the fleet tester mod on discord, so I've downloaded that and will do the same test with that mod, and see what things look like.

Edit: I only watched 2 of the battles, but I think the daggers are much better at securing small kills, compared to the periditoins. Especially in the first exchange.  The last fight I watched the medusa came in fast, got fluxed up, then 9 dagger atropos took it out after it had burned its teleport charges.  This happened in like the first 15-20 seconds of contact.  And as I discovered with my incorrect fleet testing, even a 1 frigate difference at the beginning can snowball significantly.

Edit 2: Another thought.  When I'm playing in the campaign, my default 2 fighter slot carrier are using either broadsword/daggers or longbow/daggers (or x2 Longbows on the Odyssey).  My 3 slot carriers will have broadsword/longbow/dagger.  I might switch up for a station attack, but those are my go to general setups when I don't know what I might be engaging.  Do thunders really bring that much to a fight compared to bombers (especially daggers).

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 59