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 - Retry

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
31
Being able to pick off whatever weak fleet you want sounds overpowered to me. Expensive maybe on the CR recovery, but OP.

So I dislike the idea.
Stronger than the ability to leash a personal Radiant or 10 extra vents + a 3rd S-mod slot?

I'm not even confident that it's definitively stronger than the T1 Technology campaign skills...

32
Suggestions / Re: justify why people arent using the [redacted]
« on: June 10, 2021, 09:45:33 PM »
if thats the case, I think what would square this circle is the game dropping a hint somewhere else in the game implying that someone else has done this before, so that ur player isnt the first/only person to have ever figured this out in the entire (known) galaxy (which would be very unlikely seeing as "figure out how to use the gates" has to be the most #1 researched thing in the entire galaxy. Cuz, you know, people can probably see that ur using the gates. & if someone had figured it out & kept doing it, even if they kept how they were doing it a secret, it would be pretty unlikely that there wouldnt at least be a rumor that somebody had a magic trick to use the gates.

The most realistic reaction would be that all major powers would want that device. And they would be willing to do anything. Offer you untold riches, and failing that, direct violent action. And not by sending a single fleet after you, they'd probably be willing to send almost everything they have. But even more likely they'd send a million agents to steal it or assasiante you.

And if you somehow managed to elude them all, keeping it to yourself, I also see it as very likely the factions would usnite against you. A combined armada to take it form you.

Realistically speaking, the player would be in deep, DEEP s***.
Just to check up, you're claiming that the most realistic reaction of:

the Hegemony, (who hates TT and the Diktat, and has stressful-at-best ties with the Persean League)
the Luddic Church (who hates TT and, well, technology in general)
the Persean League (who exists solely because they hate the Hegemony more than they hate themselves)
the Tri-Tachyon (who hates the Hegemony
and the Sindrian Diktat (who hates the Hegemony and foreigners in general)

Will all huddle together, set aside their centuries of differences while singing kumbaya, and collectively unite into a five-nation army... because you have a hat trick.

No no, all the factions putting aside 2 centuries of geopolitical conflicts and 2 sector-wide AI wars to harass the player is totally realistic.  Don't seek out Baird for ultimately failing to fulfill her end of the agreement by alienating the entire team, not Scylla & Coreuse for actually knowing how to create and (importantly) replicate it, not the research documents nor the tools used to create the device itself.  In fact, why leave it at the 5?  Let's invite the Pathers and the Pirates into this coalition and we can call it a Seven-nation army, and we can even invite the disembodied heads (Futurama Style) of The White Stripes for a concert.

Yeah no.  While the prototype Janus device is a useful device, it's not by itself a mechanism whose mere possession would warrant blatant declarations of war (except perhaps from the Sindrian Diktat, given their perspective on the Ziggurat), let alone a military union of nations to form against an otherwise mostly law-abiding citizen of the Persean Sector.  That's not realistic, and it's just not how politics works.

33
Suggestions / Re: justify why people arent using the [redacted]
« on: June 08, 2021, 02:27:19 PM »
It wouldn't make sense for others to be roaming around with Janus Devices.  The only reason there's one working at all is because you delved into Alpha Site and lived to tell the tale, while grabbing valuable data from the Ziggurat's motes.  The reason there's not more devices or further research on opening the Gate Network proper is because the engineering team responsible for developing your prototype (which, by the way, you brought together to begin with) jumped ship immediately after finishing it, taking their necessary data and expertise with them.  Hinting that someone has another Janus Device would add plotholes, not fill them.

The Janus Device doesn't even restore the Gate network, it just allows temporary traveling between scanned gates, at high fuel costs.  A properly restored Gate network would allow for instantaneous, free (at least for the traveler) transport between any gate in existence.

The car analogy doesn't work: your "vehicle" is your Ships, and nobody's forgotten how to use them or even build them.  The gate system in its heyday is analogous to a currently-defunct theoretical magical superhighway infrastructure that used to allow for instantaneous, free travel between two points.  The Janus device equivalent would allow for a small sliver of the Superhighway infrastructure to be placed back online temporarily for instantaneous transport, but its usage demands energy (fuel) and a prior visitation to both points that you want to travel between; it's no replacement for the Superhighway in its prime.

34
Mods / Re: [0.95a] Fighter Expansion Rebalanced v1.1.1a
« on: June 08, 2021, 01:55:08 PM »
Yep!

35
Mods / Re: [0.95a] Fighter Expansion Rebalanced v1.1.1a
« on: June 08, 2021, 01:11:13 PM »
Mod updated to v1.1.1a, includes the a fix for case-sensitive OS's, two weapons, and a slew of new Fighter craft to toy with.

36
Mods / Re: Fighter Expansion Rebalanced [0.95 RC15]
« on: June 07, 2021, 10:41:29 PM »
I'll take another look at Prism.  Compared to the Dagger, their torpedo's special effects are intended to be somewhat compensated by their reduced raw damage and higher interceptibility compared to Atropos torpedos (Lachesis both have less HP and speed), though the interceptibility probably matters less on small ships. which don't usually have the PD throughput to deal with multiple missiles.  I suppose it really depends on whether the Prism (or Prism+Longbows) performs in excess of Daggers (or Daggers+Longbows) against the same small and medium-sized targets, and if so by how much.

Another HHE update is coming very soontm to a forum near you: Featuring a fix for case-sensitive OS's, 2 more modular weapons, 1 new fighter hull, and 9 modified skins of existing fighter hulls.

37
General Discussion / Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« on: June 07, 2021, 05:13:42 PM »
Yeah... maybe before saying you've never said X, make sure you've never said X.

38
Suggestions / Re: Doom system proposal
« on: June 06, 2021, 12:30:33 PM »
Quote
Do remember phase is acting at 3x speed, so it’s tripled DPS like temporal shell but better.
Only for as long as the system and the Doom's flux reserves (while phased) hold out, which I don't think would amount of much of anything in either case.

A better solution IMO, other than making Doom+skills not crazy overtuned and instead more in line with just Doom, would be to change the mines from HE to Energy damage (and maybe tinker with their damage numbers a bit, not sure). As far as I know that's what causes the omni shield problem in the first place, since ships want to try and take the HE damage on the shields and don't account for the quad+ anti-matter blasters staring them in the face.
That'd make the problem worse, not better.  The mines are 2k damage apiece which can tear apart armor effortlessly, so all energy damage would do is double shield damage.

39
Suggestions / Re: Possible buff to Low Tech Ships idea
« on: June 06, 2021, 12:10:15 PM »
I don't see the point in blaming the subreddit; while they've got some frequently odd builds and inadvisable takes, the vast majority of (non-meme) builds posted there do not forego the small mounts as the OP describes.  A cursory look through the subreddit clearly shows that.

Neither did the linked YT video claim that small's are pointless.  In fact, the guy had neutral to positive things to say about the majority of the small weapons in their respective sections, including the Vulcan and Light Needler.  He even had more positive things to say about the LAG than I'd ever be willing to claim.

Neither did the unofficial Discord server (linked in the Forums) agree with the OP's perspective, the primary "dwelling" of most of our mod author, tournament managers, spaders, streamers, and other Star Sector community members.  The Discord reaction to this suggestion was universally negative, but at least there's been several memes that's been generated from this thread alone.

40
General Discussion / Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« on: June 06, 2021, 11:55:03 AM »
Quote
But isn't it ironic that the most people who want to nerf OP ships are the people who aren't using them?
"No survivors users?  Then where do the stories videos come, I wonder?"

No, it's not ironic, and more importantly it's not true.

The main people highlighting the problems of, say, Dooms, did personally use them and fly them, often recording video evidence of their Dooms performing ridiculous feats such as soloing Remnant Ordo's, story bosses such as Ziggurats, and end-game enemies like Doritos (Either SCC or Zym IIRC?).  Then they stopped using it because it trivialized the challenge fights (let alone the regular gameplay) were leading to non-positive gameplay experiences.

That's one problem solved by self restraint, but there's another issue intrinsic with the situation...

Quote
If Doom for example, just went *poof* right now, how would that improve your gameplay experience, if you didn't even use it to begin with?

...the obvious thing being missed here is it's not optional.  Dooms and Furies and Radiants act as NPC enemies whether or not you choose to use them yourself, and it quickly becomes frustrating when the difficulty of a fleet becomes directly proportional to the number of Dooms or Radiants it contains regardless of the composition of the rest of the fleet.  This also degrades the gameplay experience, and it's not an issue that can be solved by merely restraining to personally use certain ships and mechanics.

41
Suggestions / Re: Possible buff to Low Tech Ships idea
« on: June 05, 2021, 12:15:17 PM »
One word.  Not a paragraph, not a sentence.

42
Suggestions / Re: Possible buff to Low Tech Ships idea
« on: June 05, 2021, 12:06:57 PM »
It's a Yes or No question, I require a Yes or No response.

One word.  Not a paragraph, not a sentence.

Yes or no?

Which is it?

Yes?

Or No?

43
Suggestions / Re: Possible buff to Low Tech Ships idea
« on: June 05, 2021, 11:44:10 AM »
And what would the point be? Fighting a ship made to counter another ship instead of making a ship that works against all the ships in a single player game?
A 4 tachyon paragon can't duel for crap unless it has a very specific timid officer trolling all over the map in a 1v1 (or 1v3) scenario, if I wanted to cheese to get fake results against ships you'd never encounter in the sector I'd probably abuse something like autopulse and/or heavy plasmas for a very specific scenario, instead of having a great centerpiece capital flagship capable of erasing anything below capital level in a single burst, and taking care of doom swarms (the fight before the Ziggurat, for example, was basically carried by the tachyon spam)

For a full meme tournament kind of shenanigans one could just abuse the broken Derelic contingent skill with meaingnless D mods on low tech ships instead and abuse not being able to take damage at all.
The point of an AI Fleet Tournament would be to prove once and for all that you're correct and your massive text walls of theories work.  After all, if what you said is true, it should be demonstrably provable through some fair fights.

Think of it this way: This thread is a suggestion.  This thread is your suggestion.  The purpose of a suggestion is to convince people in charge that the suggestion is a worthwhile implementation.  Thus far, this suggestion has failed to convince the vast majority of the playerbase with its words despite the hefty character counts of the original and followup posts, and from what I've known of Alex (the primary Star Sector developer) it's also very unlikely to convince the people in charge.  As such, the probability that this suggestion is actually adopted currently sits near zero.  One way to improve this is to prove that your underlying claims on game balance are correct by putting them to the test: through a competitive tourney where your theories are put against conventional wisdom.

To reiterate the terms of the Tourney, as the guest of honor it would be you who would have input on the rules, guidelines and restrictions for the Tourney.  You'd be able to create the parameters of the compositions and fights to your whim, and as such you can specifically forbid stuff like Derelict Contingent cheese from being used at all.

Oh, and it's a fleet tourney; not a 1v1.  No need to have a Tachyon Lance Paragon solo on the field of battle.  As the guest of honor, you would have the ability to decree at what Deployment Point size each fleet should be.

The offer is still available.  You can still accept a front-row spot in a tourney, and you will have control over the parameters of the tournament, and the chance to prove indisputably that your perspective is the correct one. (and by extension, your suggestion is a worthwhile one)

This is a yes or no question.  So what is it?  Yes, or no?

44
General Discussion / Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« on: June 05, 2021, 10:32:28 AM »
Nerfing overperforming Ship Z has the the same result as Buffing median performing(not underperforming) Ships A thru Y, the primary difference being that buffing Ships A thru Y takes far more effort to get the same effect, while introducing far more potential sources of error that may result in additional overperforming and underperforming ships.

45
Suggestions / Re: Possible buff to Low Tech Ships idea
« on: June 05, 2021, 09:50:09 AM »
I was going to respond with some huge point-by-point rebuttal of most of these points but I thought of a better idea.

OP, this thread has attracted a lot of attention from others within the community because of some (well, many) claims that are unorthodox.  Clearly you and I are talking over each other and neither of us is going to be convinced by the manner of words.

As such, I would like to invite you to a community PVP AI Tourney

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to create a fleet composition with given rules and restrictions, and these fleets get thrust against each other in the field of battle until a victorious side emerges.

Most players outfit their ships more closely to what I describe (as such: far more fitting of various small slots onto warships).  If Star Sector combat works far more closely to what you're saying, then your fleet compositions should have no issue defeating their fleet compositions.

If it's your fleet compositions that perform consistently well over the currently-known "conventional" community member compositions, I'll have no choice but to accept that your points are correct, such as that smalls are near-useless and high-tech ships are the true long-range doctrine, and that your suggestion of reducing all small weapons to 0-2 OP is valid.

Should you accept this invitation, you'll have considerable sway as the guest of honour on what precisely the ruleset and various restrictions on building ships and fleets will be, such that you feel that the Tournament experience is a fair one without "cheese" or "meme" compositions.

So, will you accept?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28