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 - From a Faster Time

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
31
Suggestions / Re: Improving the Shrike
« on: February 21, 2019, 01:50:57 PM »
It's very weak, even in player hands, vs. just using a Medusa or even a Wolf.  I'd honestly rather use a Wolf in the Shrike's supposed role; it's more likely to survive and not get surrounded.
Heeey that's harsh!
https://webm.red/qdOM.webm
Hammerhead is cheaper (8 DP) and better.  Enforcer is a decent brick for the same cost, even if not quite up to par with Hammerhead. 
But both of those are worse in terms of flanking mobility.
Plasma Burn is more of a pursuit system best used to run down and finish off fleeing opponents, such as ships attempting to back off to vent.
Mmmm, plasma burn is mainly for flanking and chasing. If the enemy formation is very tight together than flanking is hard at best, so you either need big targets or a more spread out battlefield.
Totally agree with this.  In addition to AI stupidity, lack of OP really hurts.  Not enough OP to fit Reinforced Bulkheads or campaign mod, even with Loadout Design 3, while other destroyers (with Loadout Design 3) can fit one without too much pain.
See if you want to call it a terrible ship for the AI to pilot you'd be right, but a player can do plenty with it.
I agree with Xenoargh.  I would rather use Medusa or Wolf over Shrike if I want a fast skirmisher.
Shrike should be more available/easier to get than medusa.

32
Suggestions / Re: Improving the Shrike
« on: February 21, 2019, 01:09:53 PM »
I want to like the Shrike, I really do, but every time I try to pilot one, it feels inferior to the other "main" destroyers like the Hammerhead or Sunder. I understand it's an opportunistic light destroyer: it's not meant to go toe-to-toe with sturdier destroyers or cruisers but even when I get in good positioning, it just can't do anything to exploit those opportunities.
Here I though it was about AI not being able to utilize this finesse ship to it's fullest. You can imagine my surprise that a player is complaining that it's too weak in players hands.


One thing to keep in mind here is the Shrike is a light destroyer, and should be inferior in combat power to the Medusa, let alone the Harbinger (which in its current state is the most OP ship in the game, and which at least design-wise should be roughly equivalent to a cruiser in power, which phase ships generally being meant to have a strength of one size higher).

Let me change its burn to 10, actually - that should make it a little more clear where it belongs on the power spectrum.

So basically it can bully smaller ships, or act as support for larger ships (which really includes other destroyers). In terms of it being a player ship... the player I think tends to skate by the sweet spot for its use too quickly. I've got half a mind to increase the buy costs of ships, especially larger ones - this would both extend the early game, which right now feels a bit too quick - and would give ships like the Shrike more room, since they could be meaningfully cheaper to acquire than other destroyers.
Yeah, Shrike would be a perfect upgrade after a starting wolf. Issue is that I went from wolf to phase ships as my upgrade, since both were about equally hard to get early on. And phase ships are superior for what you want to do with a shrike in general.

33
General Discussion / Re: Best loadout for Fourteenth Onslaught?
« on: February 21, 2019, 10:22:02 AM »
What are your best loadouts for the Onslaught XIV?  I want it to be the beast it was meant to be without it getting shitcanned because my flux exploded out the other side.
Well my lad, it really depends on what you are gearing it vs. What your own fleet composition is like and what you plan of attack is.

34
Modding Resources / Re: [0.9a] GraphicsLib 1.3.1
« on: February 16, 2019, 02:16:49 AM »
Version 1.3.1:
- Fixed lighting for plasma burn system
- Rendering order fix for lighting
What was wrong with them?

35
General Discussion / Re: Making the Conquest great
« on: February 14, 2019, 01:48:57 PM »
No, its just that there actually are vastly different design philosophies that all lead to pretty good outcomes. Onslaughts and Paragons are objectively tougher ships, but they can really only do one thing.
Because of its mounts, flux, and ship system, it legitimately can be a long range sniper... or a mid range wedge... or an anti-fighter zone machine (tac grid + locusts)... or even a close range brawler (single sided with extra OP to toughness, storm needlers + others and HE missiles) and probably a bunch of other roles as well.
Correct, Conquest has more options while being the master of none. I would say it's only a master at long range sniper and being able to run away/maintain distance. A kiting ship.
The one consensus seems to be that Hardened Shields are required.
If you plan to get close enough to get damaged.

36
General Discussion / Re: 6th Fleet Building Tournament
« on: February 14, 2019, 06:40:29 AM »
The number of participants is the biggest problem for me. In PvE it takes an innordinate amount of time to setup the waves, but in PvP it takes an innordinate amount of rounds to get a winner. The places are limited and there aren't that many ways to increase that number of besides Tag-Teams that are already doing.
What would be really interesting to see is 2 allied fleets that both have one player controlling one ship and ordering their part of the fleet around. Would cut down a lot on "ahhh the AI just doesn't know what to do with that special snowflake loadout/composition". Though I doubt that can be arranged.

37
General Discussion / Re: Making the Conquest great
« on: February 14, 2019, 06:09:33 AM »
If a thread about the Conquest's balance can get this many replies each time, it's not balanced, simple as that.
Interesting logic.
It's an inferior ship that can be "worked around" with very specific builds. Its ship system only nullifies one of its flaws, it doesn't add to an already good ship.
Somewhat agree there, for a Onslaught for instance the Maneuvering jets would be a huge boon in terms of getting rid of it's biggest weakness/problem which is it's defined weakness for balance sake. Since it wants to keep its front pointed at the enemy at all time.
On the Conquest the Maneuvering jets are there to help it not be terrible.
The other big issue is the AI vs player control of the ship itself, much like the Odyssey I believe the Conquest is too much finesse for an AI to handle(at least the current implementation of the AI) and it rarely fully utilizes it's strengths while mitigating it's weaknesses.

38
General Discussion / Re: 6th Fleet Building Tournament
« on: February 14, 2019, 12:48:50 AM »
Why not make the fleet slots a random draw so everyone who wants to join has a chance, not just the same few lucky individuals?
Certainly more unique approaches/compositions that tackel the same problem differently is interesting.
Part of the problem with carriers is that they tend to be slow and weak. They might not even suicide any more than other ships, they're just less suited to surviving the mistake and more likely to be noticed by players due to the circumstance (players assume they should always be in the backline) and confirmation bias.

Another part of the problem is that there is a lack of player control in the AI Tournament, which isn't an expected scenario in the base game, and the turn resets mess up the approach order of the ships, which in the base game it is assumed that the slow carriers will reach the battle slower and therefor tend to be in the backlines.

AI Tournament is a unique scenario not expected in the base game. Although AI could use some work, a large portion of the problems in the AI Tournament would be solved by compensating for the lack of player control and the messiness of turn resets.
While you are correct that the tournament setting brings it out more and the base game "masks it" better by arranging the fleet in a smarter way, this is however still a downside of the AI as prearanging fleets into a smarter position, rather than AI knowing what a smarter position is, is a "hack".
Ideally AI with fighters know to hide behind allied forces and support them from the back. If the game had even as something as "choose AI for this ship, will it be a battleship or a carrier" so you could always either add or remove fighters from any ship, but still have them be in the correct formation based on what the player thinks is best. For instance putting condors always in the back by selecting carrier AI, or not messing up a capital ship by giving it 1 fighter wing and making the AI be too defensive because of it.

39
General Discussion / Re: Making the Conquest great
« on: February 13, 2019, 11:06:13 AM »
The Heavy Blaster does not have high flux usage though its range is not long.
You really need to add "relative to the damage it does" for it to be a sane statement. Otherwise pic related.
I agree that it is inefficient, but the Conquest has a lot of flux to spare.
I disagree, considering the range of Heavy blaster will mean you are in range where you have to use shields. And the conquest has one of the worst, if not The worst shields in the game. So it's "flux advantage" is instantly reduced when close enough to take damage on it shields.
There in lies the problem
1) Enemy in front of Conquest. This mainly happens when the AI is piloting, but can happen with agile ships vs a player. In this case 2 HB is 1440 fps - easily enough to be covered by the Conquest. In this situation the other guns aren't firing (enemy in front), so... well the Heavy Blaster is the only choice. It gives much more DPS than any other option.
The conquest is really weak when not using the broadsides, assuming the enemy has enough units to force themselves into the area where conquest can't just rotate towards them I really have to ask, where is your own fleet. Rather than plan on your conquest being stranded vs a ton of fast ships, it would make sense to play to the ships strengths and utilize the broadsides.
2) Enemy in Broadside and within 600*1.6 range. In this case the Conquest either is mauling something to death OR wants the thing to go away as fast as possible. In either case, what is most needed is DPS. I will admit that 2x Large Ballistics + 2 offensive mediums + 1 HB overfluxes the Conquest (by a small amount). However, if you put flak in the medium ballistics (which a lot of people do) then the flux is not overtaxed: the Conquest can handle 2x Large Ballistics + 1 HB even without skills.
So, even though the HB is a flux hog, the Conquest can handle it and it adds significant capabilities.
I agree on you here, if you are using the mediums for flak, then you automatically get more flux to play with and that can be used on it's medium energy. The issue I have with this is again, not utilizing the conquest in it's strongest position.
But then again, as I understand you are building the conquest for AI use, and I mainly argue about player controlled conquest, so the methods that apply to either are different due to execution.


40
General Discussion / Re: Making the Conquest great
« on: February 05, 2019, 11:17:58 AM »
But you should never be close range with it. In fact you should never even have to deploy your shield to make the best possible use of it.
Indeed, it has bad shields, but good flux dissipation. Low armor, but good ability to disengage and maintain range. Everything about the ship suggests to use long range Gauss to gain an advantage and move in(if you want to/need to) only once you have gained an advantage at a range.
Here is my special snowflake loadout that I'm having fun with right now. Obviously this is not for AI to pilot.

41
General Discussion / Re: Making the Conquest great
« on: February 05, 2019, 06:21:00 AM »
point taken dadposter.
Really the Conquest is one of the most "versatile" ships as it has a lot of possible loadouts that gear for different approaches(though not being the strongest in most of them)
Considering the natural strengths and weaknesses of the Conquest though, the Gauss cannons makes a natural fitting.

Quote
I have regular issues with things like the Onslaught and Conquest basically exploding from it's own flux generation.
As for this, you can't put the most flux intensive weapons on all the slots and use shields and hope you wont overload yourself. Either give up shield usages, strategically of course, or utilize more flux efficient weaponry. Generally speaking more slots means you can use less powerful more flux efficient options.

42
General Discussion / Re: 6th Fleet Building Tournament
« on: February 05, 2019, 02:24:05 AM »
9 PM/21:00 UTC on 5th for Prime League, same time and 6th for Underdog League.
I await!

43
General Discussion / Re: Making the Conquest great
« on: February 05, 2019, 01:52:43 AM »
Quote
Making the Conquest great

44
Put them in player.faction, delet them from (or don't put them in in the first place) all the other .faction files?
I did that, the issue with that was that some administrators for hire would still use that portrait.

45
Is there a way to have custom player portraits that can't be used by the game for any other characters? As in, is there a way to make certain portraits exclusive to the player?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10