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)

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 87

Author Topic: Starsector 0.9a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 468314 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #435 on: October 31, 2018, 04:45:56 AM »

I missed -33% speed, and that hurts.  It would be silly for fighters to be much slower than its mothership.  Carrier might end up being the fighters' fighter.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #436 on: October 31, 2018, 02:43:23 PM »

I don't want to go into the details of Pather "cells" too much; let's just say that it's a colony condition with various mechanical tie-ins to things.
Logged

CrashToDesktop

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Quartermaster
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #437 on: October 31, 2018, 05:22:34 PM »

I missed -33% speed, and that hurts.  It would be silly for fighters to be much slower than its mothership.  Carrier might end up being the fighters' fighter.
Might be a good excuse to add in RECALL for fighters like the old drone systems have.  Carry the fighters into battle rather than let them fly on their own.  Also means you can add wings to fighters while being in combat without having them getting blow up all the time.
Logged
Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #438 on: October 31, 2018, 08:11:10 PM »

Might be a good excuse to add in RECALL for fighters like the old drone systems have.  Carry the fighters into battle rather than let them fly on their own.  Also means you can add wings to fighters while being in combat without having them getting blow up all the time.

Yeah, it's badly needed anyway. For example to restore fighters while being threatened by some beam-boat which is not dangerous to the carrier itself, but can easily pick fighter as they respawn. Or to prevent fighters from suiciding into Flash mines.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 08:16:09 PM by TaLaR »
Logged

Blaine

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #439 on: October 31, 2018, 09:30:30 PM »

I'm more-or-less 90% sure (there's 10% uncertainty there) from my reading that altering Converted Hangars in that way is a reaction to min-maxing strategies that add Converted Hangars to (nearly) every ship in the fleet.

While I still have a lot to learn about the game in its most recent iteration, I'm approaching the endgame in my current run, and I feel I know enough now to guarantee that I'd never put the altered version of that mod on a ship for any reason. I can think of a whole lot more use for 25-30+ total OP on a cruiser than installing a single hangar bay that produces one wing of slow fighters or bombers that die twice as quickly.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 09:33:00 PM by Blaine »
Logged

CrashToDesktop

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Quartermaster
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #440 on: October 31, 2018, 09:51:22 PM »

I'm more-or-less 90% sure (there's 10% uncertainty there) from my reading that altering Converted Hangars in that way is a reaction to min-maxing strategies that add Converted Hangars to (nearly) every ship in the fleet.

While I still have a lot to learn about the game in its most recent iteration, I'm approaching the endgame in my current run, and I feel I know enough now to guarantee that I'd never put the altered version of that mod on a ship for any reason. I can think of a whole lot more use for 25-30+ total OP on a cruiser than installing a single hangar bay that produces one wing of slow fighters or bombers that die twice as quickly.
I agree with that, putting a wing of Xyphos on pretty much any Cruiser or even a Destroyer could be worked in very nicely as escorts, but with the massively increased OP costs it's pretty much worthless, not only because they're slower, but because they die twice as quick AND cost an absolutely mind-boggling amount of OP.  The only upside is that Converted Hangars can now relaunch and remake fighters with no penalties, but those pale in comparison to the amount of OP you have to spend.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 09:52:57 PM by The Soldier »
Logged
Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #441 on: October 31, 2018, 10:36:15 PM »

New converted hangars seem to be purpose-built for Talons - they are cheap, so even 50% extra it's just 3 OP. Fast enough to remain useful with 33% speed penalty.
Will respawn at full rate, and I don't care much about their survival after launching swarmers.

Might be also good for some bombers, IF you can keep attrition down. Longbows are fairly easy to keep safe, for example.

But anything slow or stuff that needs to tank damage as normal part of lifecycle is out. For example, Warthogs fail in both ways.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #442 on: November 01, 2018, 08:28:38 AM »

0.8 Converted Hangar is already purpose-built for Talons, and maybe Claws too, because replacement rate for anything else is too slow, thanks to rate penalties and no Expanded Deck Crew.  Not to mention it is hard to afford it without Loadout Design 3.
Logged

fall19

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #443 on: November 01, 2018, 09:15:08 AM »

so is the update coming before Christmas ?
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #444 on: November 01, 2018, 09:42:48 AM »

Which one?
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #445 on: November 01, 2018, 02:16:57 PM »

so is the update coming before Christmas ?

Hi, and welcome to the forum!

:-X


I'm more-or-less 90% sure (there's 10% uncertainty there) from my reading that altering Converted Hangars in that way is a reaction to min-maxing strategies that add Converted Hangars to (nearly) every ship in the fleet.

While I still have a lot to learn about the game in its most recent iteration, I'm approaching the endgame in my current run, and I feel I know enough now to guarantee that I'd never put the altered version of that mod on a ship for any reason. I can think of a whole lot more use for 25-30+ total OP on a cruiser than installing a single hangar bay that produces one wing of slow fighters or bombers that die twice as quickly.

Been playing around with this loadout in my current playtesting run:

Spoiler
[close]

I think this sort of general build has potential - bombers especially really give a combat ship a capability it otherwise wouldn't. Even if you just think of them in terms of being unlimited missiles - with extended range, to boot - the OP costs start to get fairly close what getting said missiles plus expanded racks, never mind that it doesn't need slots, and that it can be combined with other stuff the ship has to offer which normal carriers don't. And for bombers the penalties barely matter (hence the higher OP cost).

So for the Enforcer, it's able to provide consistent longer-range support, while being very much a brick, *and* having good punch with its torpedoes. Is it better than a Drover? Definitely not as far as just fighters go, but it's also cheaper, can hold up much better to being outnumbered, and has a decent shot at turning the tide with a few well-placed torpedoes. Haven't had *too* much playtime with it yet, though, just got that setup going today.

That said, yeah, it's definitely meant to be more a niche thing - something that changes how a ship plays entirely rather than enhancing its normal playstyle, if that makes sense. Sort of like SO in that sense. And it may indeed need a touch more balancing, we'll have to see!

(Edit: I should add, this is an early game build - my first ship past the initial "mercenary" start - so the choices are largely driven by what's available vs what would be exactly ideal.)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 03:08:42 PM by Alex »
Logged

CrashToDesktop

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Quartermaster
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #446 on: November 01, 2018, 05:12:57 PM »

Seems fair, I suppose - it sounded a lot worse than it actually is.  What about the inherent problems that the -33% Speed Penalty that Converted Hangars and Damaged Manufactory give?  Mostly bombers being unable to keep up.
Logged
Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #447 on: November 01, 2018, 09:18:58 PM »

That's a good point - let me make it so that fighters can always at least somewhat keep up when ordered to regroup.
Logged

MesoTroniK

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • I am going to destroy your ships
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #448 on: November 01, 2018, 09:54:46 PM »

Heh, so a rubber band catch-up mechanic (like many racing games) when a regroup is ordered.

Seems fine mostly on paper, but also seems like it could sort of be lightly exploited say if the carrier itself is under attack. Ordering a regroup instead of an engage order on one of the specific ships attacking the carrier, would result in them getting back faster. Huge problem? Eh not really, but is something to keep in mind.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« Reply #449 on: November 01, 2018, 10:00:59 PM »

Yeah, this sounds gamey. Could we just order fighters to stay docked instead? It would be useful in some other contexts too.
Then again, we already get reduced reinforcement rate loss from just setting fighters on regroup (before they actually reach regroup position)... So it may be a lost cause by this point.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 10:05:52 PM by TaLaR »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 87