Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: S-burn balance....  (Read 24110 times)

Techhead

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #75 on: April 25, 2017, 07:35:06 PM »

Burn caps at 20.
I mentioned uncapping it in my suggestion post.

Also, a Burn-11 fleet is VERY specialized. It means nothing larger than frigates, no Shepherds, and everything with a base Burn 10 has paid OP for Augmented Engines. I'm kinda unsure why anyone would spring for that Burn 27 fleet build at all. But it'd be there.
Logged

nomadic_leader

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #76 on: April 26, 2017, 01:24:52 PM »

That would make ships with low burn useless as before.  Venture, scrap!  (D) ships with degraded engines, scrap!

Yea, this is the problem. But there are outside the box approaches to try, like making big ships have higher burn speeds (like in real life seaships) and making higher burn less maneuverable or economical , or something so that little ships won't just get constantly stomped.
Logged

Darloth

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #77 on: April 26, 2017, 02:08:52 PM »

You could decouple sustained burn speed and maneuver burn speed, do some fancy size to burn weighted average over the entire fleet, and end up with:

Big fleets full of heavy bruiser ships have a very high sustained burn but a very low maneuverable burn.  They're great for moving from place to place and ignoring smaller fleets, but can't chase.

Small fleets full of light vessels have a high maneuver burn but don't gain much at all from sustained burn, and are affected more by many (but not all) navigational hazards.  They're good for lurking on the fringes picking off anyone who seems weak, and also little in-system trade hops and things.

I'm not sure if that's good, but it would be possible.  It might be a lot more workable if you could split your fleet, or at least leave part of your fleet sitting somewhere for a while.
Logged

nomadic_leader

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #78 on: April 26, 2017, 02:29:48 PM »

^^ yes I like this. It's just Star Wars' fault that we got this idea that small spaceships are faster than big spaceships.

Han Solo lied, people died!
Logged

DatonKallandor

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #79 on: April 26, 2017, 05:36:39 PM »

Well the closest comparable game, Mount and Blade has a speed scale that starts slow, for the cheapest possible units, then starts giving both fast and slow options from medium quality upwards. That way the default speed for cheap armies (the pirate equivalent, aka what-a-new-player-fights) is slow and predictable.

Fast fleets ("cavalry") maybe shouldn't be the default, but rather a choice when you start upgrading from the default.

On another note, MnB also has extremely crappy, extremely cheap chaff units, something I always thought was missing from Starsector. Thanks to the new salvage system and D-mods, that's been changed.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 05:39:20 PM by DatonKallandor »
Logged

Darloth

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2017, 05:30:32 AM »

Indeed, designating things as Fast Frigates or Fast Cruisers and giving them +1 or +2 burn to compensate for their other, slightly sub-par stats for that size would be interesting.

The problem there is currently if you have one Fast Cruiser in your fleet of other normal Cruisers... you don't get anything from it (except if it's really fast in combat too, perhaps).   

The Falcon already pretty much suffers from this, and/or fills this 'role'.

But you could add more and then have a whole fleet doctrine around it that might work, sure.  Fleet splitting would help here as well if you could detach your fast ships to chase something down.
Logged

Cothek

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #81 on: April 28, 2017, 08:13:57 AM »

I agree with the sentiment that the player should not be able to interact with things while SB-ing and that the deceleration/object interaction time should be increased.  SB is meant for travel, not combat.  To mitigate the longer decel time when traveling to a destination, the autopilot should account for this and auto decel in time for interaction to be ready when the player is close.  So in otherwords, SB would auto deactivate when within a certain distance (based on your burn level) of the destination.

I think making a skill to drop players/ai out of SB is potentially viable but it really doesn't fix the core problem.  It would be an interesting skill especially if the AI had SB.
Logged

Bastion.Systems

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • Special Circumstances LCU
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #82 on: April 30, 2017, 12:42:26 PM »

Sustained burn is so OP that you can even use it to escape from the center of a black hole  ;D

(I think it would make sense that when you reach the absolute center of a black hole it instakills your entire fleet).
Logged

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: S-burn balance....
« Reply #83 on: April 30, 2017, 04:09:53 PM »

You should be able to engage your hyperdrive at the last second and get flung across space to a random location  :o
Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]