Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[stormbringer951]

1. Ignoring hull damage for purpose of estimating CR gain after winning battle.
You incentive very cautious gameplay by punishing hull damage. One can claim, that this is how highly skilled player would play, but one can also claim that such playstyle lacks tad bit of bravado. Swinging in, exchanging broadside fire with enemy? Nope, it's better to kite them to death... And you avoid this whole "is armour tank disadvantaged by this" debate.

The rating system doesn't primarily incentivize avoiding hull damage unless your ship also does very little damage. Doing lots of damage relative to how much your ship is worth is a lot more significant for rating contribution than the % of hull damage taken; in extreme cases I've personally gotten more than 10% rating gain in a battle where my ship was destroyed.

This isn't even necessarily a player-only thing; I have some recklessly-piloted AI ships that take large amounts of hull damage regularly, but stay at 100% rating because they kill very large numbers of enemy ships.

[Rutaki]

Starship Legends 1.2.0

Added a file for adjusting the percent of damage taken that is counted for rating calculation: "\sun_sl\data\hull_regen_ships.csv"
   This is primarily for ships that regenerate hull damage, and currently only applies to the Excelsior and Royco (from ship and weapon pack), with a 50% reduction
   Please let me know of any other ships that regenerate hull and should be adjusted

Noir faction ships (mod Artefact) regenerate Hull and Armor in combat while having at least X amount of CR (I believe it is from 85% upwards)

[Sundog]

Noir faction ships (mod Artefact) regenerate Hull and Armor in combat while having at least X amount of CR (I believe it is from 85% upwards)

Thank you! I'll check out those ships and try to figure out what a good reduction would be for them.

[Sundog]

I think the biggest problem with starship legends is that the rating system is simultaneously too difficult for new players and too easy for expert players. It's also impossible to make the rating system fair. In spite of how much many people would hate it, I'm considering disabling the rating system by default and instead making traits have an equal chance to be good or bad regardless of how well a ship has performed. Or I might just reduce the influence of rating on trait goodness. Open to suggestions!

[Taverius]

Reduce it so its a more minor thing.

Then while its possible to game it, its not really worth it, and if you screw up or go all science dog no clue what im doing on it its not crippling. And you can also stop worrying about getting it 100% correct, which is impossibru because like all such game systems it WILL be gamed.

I mean personally I'm fine with it as is, but if you have to change it ...

[ActuallyUlysses]

@Sundog
I think rating system is great. After I tweaked the numbers in settings it works very well for me. I think the issue is that you try to support all types of playstyles with system that does not account for all variations.

Ie. I play small and invest in "piloted ship" skills, meaning that your balancing of how skills affecting fleet strength are off in my case. Luckily you added settings and we are fine.

I understand that it is preferable for mod to work for most people out of the box and account for as much as possible, but in short term I think it's better to make people aware how to tweak it to fit their playstyle. It's really nice to know that your battle performance has a meaningful impact on ship's reputation

Edit: without some way of affecting ship's reputation via combat rating it becomes more of a random thing. I think it would help to also ie. Explicitly state that even if ship gets bad rep, it can change in the future. I learned about it recently and felt kinda dumb for selling ships with bad rep instead of working towards improving it.

[Warmasta]

I feel like the disadvantage this mod gives to armor tank ships is realistic.
Think about it, if you are on a ship that regularly gets large chunks blown off it you wouldn't feel very safe, or confident in the ship.
I for one would feel much safer on an astral than an onslaught if a battle were to happen.

[TrashMan]

Regarding regenerating ships - couldn't it be auto-detected by looking if he hull/armor values actually goes up in battle?

Or even simpler, if at the end of the battle the damage taken is greater than the total HP value of the ship?

[Sarissofoi]

I feel like the disadvantage this mod gives to armor tank ships is realistic.
Think about it, if you are on a ship that regularly gets large chunks blown off it you wouldn't feel very safe, or confident in the ship.
I for one would feel much safer on an astral than an onslaught if a battle were to happen.

Well but coming back in one piece but zero casaulties even if shot would be a great morale booster and legend maker.
Also carriers don't suffer at all now if they stay away - even if they have tremendous pilot losses.
Imagine getting send on a carrier that burn dozens fighter pilots per fight - even if ship don't get shoot at.

[Euripides]

Is it possible to change the mod's settings to punish crew losses more than hull damage?

[Sundog]

Reduce it so its a more minor thing.

Yeah, I think that's what I'll do.

I think it would help to also ie. Explicitly state that even if ship gets bad rep, it can change in the future. I learned about it recently and felt kinda dumb for selling ships with bad rep instead of working towards improving it.

Yeah, it's been quite a while since I refurbished the original post. I think if I explain things more clearly it would resolve a lot of the issues people run into.

Regarding regenerating ships - couldn't it be auto-detected by looking if he hull/armor values actually goes up in battle?

Yes, that could tell me whether or not a ship has regenerated hull, but it wouldn't tell me how much it relies on regenerating hull as a defense mechanism.

Or even simpler, if at the end of the battle the damage taken is greater than the total HP value of the ship?

Same problem as above, as well as not working if the ship takes less than 100% damage during the battle.

Is it possible to change the mod's settings to punish crew losses more than hull damage?

I'm afraid not. Starship legends doesn't track crew losses at all.

[Degernase]

Recently got this mod and just finished my first significant battle, I really like the idea of it but there are some issues that are hard to overlook.

First of all, why do reserved ships gain traits? Not only that, it seems to always be negative because they of course didn't contribute.
Secondly I don't really understand how well I'm supposed to perform in order to get a positive trait, sent out my poorly equipped Paragon (still early in the game on this playthrough) and a Outlander against a full Hegemony Grand Invasion Fleet supported by a regular Invasion Fleet in order to protect a Tri-Tachyon colony.

My damage inflicted is 353% and damage sustained is 17%, I got +8.1 rating but regardless of this was rewarded with a negative trait. Really took away any feelings of joy after struggling through a tough battle.

After coming back to the mod page I realized that I'm using the Ruthless Sector settings but even then this seems pretty ridiculous to me.
But it doesn't really explain why reserved ships get bombarded with negative traits, I could live with it being tough to get positive traits but automatic negative traits on non participating ships is a deal breaker. This also increases the frustration of when the AI inevitably pulls some dumb stunt, which is already a point of great mental anguish in my life.

Attached the log below, only the Paragon and Outlander were involved in the initial battle, the others were deployed for chasing.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Euripides]

I'm finding the rating actually useful for helping me determine which of my ships are underperforming.

[Sundog]

My damage inflicted is 353% and damage sustained is 17%, I got +8.1 rating but regardless of this was rewarded with a negative trait.

So, with default settings, traits will adjust themselves to match the rating of a ship. For example, a ship with a rating of 70% will gradually adjust it's traits so that 70% of them are good and 30% are bad. So if your paragon already had one good trait, the next one is pretty much guaranteed to be negative because 50% is closer to it's rating of 59% than 100%. Don't worry though, that bad trait will eventually go away if your paragon maintains a high enough rating. There is a way to configure starship legends to award traits based only on performance from the previous battle, as you seem to expect. Take a look at the "options presets" in the original post. You might be interested in the "better immersion" one at the bottom.

First of all, why do reserved ships gain traits? Not only that, it seems to always be negative because they of course didn't contribute.

Civilian ships gain traits even when they're not deployed because there generally isn't any reason to deploy them. Eventually I want to make civilian ships earn traits for experience gained outside of combat instead. There's supposed to be a flat 50% chance for them to gain a good or bad trait, so this looks like a bug to me. The chance for eight ships to get a negative trait at the same time should be less than 0.04%. In fact, given that you're using ruthless sector settings, I think I may know what's wrong and I should be able to fix it in the next day or two. Until then, you might want to use Console Commands to clear the reputations from your civilian ships.

clearRep Atlas
clearRep Colosus
clearRep Buffalo

Sorry about the trouble!

I'm finding the rating actually useful for helping me determine which of my ships are underperforming.

It can be handy, but I wouldn't rely on it too much. The rating system is very simplistic and designed with gameplay considerations in mind more than being a proper metric for combat performance. You might be interested in Combat Analytics

[Tartiflette]

I think a lot of the complains comes from a lack of understanding of the inner working of the mod. Which is a problem given how difficult it is to explain it quickly.

Maybe if the reputation traits where given after a delay instead of after the battle it would disociate them from the direct battle performance. The intel text could also be written with a bit more flavor to point out that the reputation traits aren't necessarily grounded in cold hard facts, especially negative ones.

Another way to deal with it would be to garantee a positive or negative trait if if there is a large swing in combat rating, say more than 5%. That way a really good ship that is cruising to a high combat rating wouln't get stacked with mixed traits that would get replaced over time until it reaches it's nominal rating.

Or maybe a new ship added to the fleet could get a starting rating dependent on its D mods: a pristine one could start at 100% rating since it's brand new and would only get negative traits after loosing that rating, but any dmod present would reduce the starting rating by 15% and early negative traits could be explained by the defective nature of the ship.

Crew loyalty could also be used to completely nullify the effect of negative traits making them more palatable (but wouldn't remove them) instead of improving good traits, while keeping the ppt boost.