Print

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

[Mondaymonkey]

I think for player piloted Odyssey getting Plasma Jets would be a nerf.

Truth.

I think we are talking here about AI controlled things...

[Thaago]

I use Shrikes in my fleets often, as they are cheap and available (and pirate ones are free...). They survive just fine for a light destroyer and I go many fights before one dies... at which point I don't care, because  they are cheap and available. Tempests die just as often or more often but are more expensive and rarer, at least in my experience.

The missile slot on the Shrike is a lot more flexible than people think. Yes, Sabots are good, but combat analytics showed me that Harpoons perform equally well in AI hands. I kind of want to try a Reaper next and see what the stats show! Remnant are nasty with their Reapers after all...

The medium energy is locked into very few choices: Heavy Blaster for builds that want to do gun damage, either Ion or Graviton for standoff beam build (which is usually a converted Hangar spam strategy build that works because it does not need 20 vents).

Sunders, Hammerheads, and Medusas are stronger than Shrikes: no doubt about it. But honestly the ships aren't nearly as bad as people talk about.

[Mondaymonkey]

I kind of want to try a Reaper next and see what the stats show!

Reapers + ECCM + EMR can be devastating to enemies. Although, it requires so many OP, so reapers become effectively only weapon available on ship. Occasional friendly fire.

Almost forgot: that is said if it does not suicide itself into enemy line.

Probably not the optimal build, but definitely fun!

[pairedeciseaux]

Venture - use them as bigger Shepherd, either when you can't get Shepherd or when you reach a stage when you want to consolidate on bigger ships and you still need to do exploration. Unless I'm mistaken it as the same logistic profile as a Falcon, a good point for a utility ship that you can bring in battle. Indeed burn speed is an issue, fortunately Augmented Drivefield or Militarized Subsystem fix that easily. I don't use it often, because I usually do a quick transition from Shepherd to several logistic ships with Surveying Equipment for my exploration needs, but on a few occasions Venture appeared as the solution at hand.

Venture doesn't offer the combination of good cargo efficiency and utility hullmods like Shepherd does. So you aren't getting it for the cargo, because at cruiser speed you want a Colossus; you aren't getting it for utility hullmods, because you already have Shepherds and you aren't getting it for combat capability, because Falcon is just as cheap, without committing you to cruiser burn level.

I guess it depends on player's requirements. If my requirements are (1) ship can go in battle and (2) ship has built-in Surveying Equipment, then Venture is a valid solution. So yes it can be useful.

Don't get me wrong, more cargo / fuel / built-in hullmods would serve as welcome additional incentives to use Venture as a utility ship. On the military side, maybe add a couple small turrets + matching additional OP.

Burn speed 7 is fine, it's the expected civilian cruiser speed.

Also, IMO, thinking about this only in terms of balance or meta-game is preciselly missing the one point that matter. Think of it in terms of gameplay, "there is a purpose for this and for that". Please note I didn't write niche, as the word seems to convey poor value to what has the highest value here: gameplay. I would even go as far as claming: the meta-game viewpoint here can be dangerous as it might restrict one's view to "I want the best", which is indeed an issue in several video game community, especially where PvP fight is involved - and the balance viewpoint is dangerous as is encourage to level everything to a similar playing field.

"The only reason I'm using X is because I want to go with the worst option available" significantly limits enjoyment I get from using X and makes my gameplay experience worse. It's better for me to actually have reasons to go with a more difficult playstyle, other than because I want to increase my e-schlong length.

Let us reason together, and not talk past one another, please. Not using the best does not necessarily translate into using the worst. And by the way, what does worst mean? Or best?

Condor vs nothing? What's the worst? Condor brings 2 fighter wings, nothing brings 0 fighter wings. If player's requirement is to bring fighters in battle early-mid game, then Condor is a valid solution, sometimes the only available solution. Obvious gameplay benefit: player gets fighters early if he so choose! This is not "worse experience", this is "better experience" and "early game option".

You want a small&fast ship that can rush/flee with shield up and wield decent fire power? Shrike is the best... well it's the only ship that can do that. So it allows a specific piloting gameplay, not necessarily more difficult for players used to pilot high tech frigates. Players shall use said gameplay to distract, damage and destroy enemy ships. Obvious yet not so obvious gameplay benefit: new gameplay!

And you know what both Condor and Shrike have in common? Both are easily available a the start (or any point) of a campaign, at a low price, with standard logistic profiles. That can't be said of their respective alternatives / closest siblings.

Now can we let our disagreements aside and petition to have Medusa leave it's hideout and be more generally available? I can't remember the last time I used one.

Re: Shrike
Shrike needs more turning speed if it keeps Plasma Burn.  Without Auxiliary Thrusters or skills, it cannot turn fast enough to plasma burn away from enemies when it is time to get out.  Shrike does not have the OP to spare for Auxiliary Thrusters; it is one of the more OP-starved ships.

I would not consider it a strong "need" on Shrike. I put Auxiliary Thrusters on many ships, but almost never on Shrike. If you anticipate a 90 degree right turn before you need to get out, medium turret will still fire while the ship is in position to perform an instant escape. Obviously not a satisfying solution if you want to fire reapers at your targets.

Plasma Burn is a problem system for AI.  AI kills itself too easily with it.  With Shrike, it may be okay because it is cheap.  With Odyssey, it is unacceptable.  AI cannot use the good Odyssey brawling loadouts because it will burn into a mob and die.

Yes, it happened to my Pirate Shrike yesterday. AI put it in front of the large gun section of a midline station, destroyed in 1 second. I blamed myself for this loss because I didn't pay attention when choosing which ships to bring into battle, Shrike should have stayed on the sideline.

Improving AI would be much welcome here: before deciding to use the ship system, anticipate movement induced by ship system in order to build a better tactical situation assessment. Currently AI seems to think "let's do it, we'll see how it goes", which is strange because AI seems to be much more careful with regular movement.

[Grievous69]

So if a ship is better than having nothing it's balanced? Well thank god some people aren't developers. But the thing I see mentioned a lot that doesn't make sense to me is this ''early game option''. Some seem to have an idea to solve problems of bad ships by gating decent ships behind grind, and just making them harder to get in general, instead of, you know, making bad ships less bad. I mean what's the point in designing a ship that's only ever gonna be useful in the first 10% of the game, if that even. It's the same as if an RPG has a spell tree with lots of cool and amazingly designed spells to use, but there's no scaling. Early game spells get replaced by stronger ones and eventually you end up with similar build all the time. Isn't it better to just level everything so the player has as many possible choices in the game, improving the fleet diversity by a ton?

I don't get how some don't get this, they're essentially saying less choice is good. You have to have bad ships in the early game and good ones in late game.

Another bonus analogy: A weapon in an action game that has a fun moveset, but gets outclassed by everything else. You COULD use it, but only to upload meme gifs or videos.

[Morrokain]

So if a ship is better than having nothing it's balanced? Well thank god some people aren't developers. But the thing I see mentioned a lot that doesn't make sense to me is this ''early game option''. Some seem to have an idea to solve problems of bad ships by gating decent ships behind grind, and just making them harder to get in general, instead of, you know, making bad ships less bad. I mean what's the point in designing a ship that's only ever gonna be useful in the first 10% of the game, if that even. It's the same as if an RPG has a spell tree with lots of cool and amazingly designed spells to use, but there's no scaling. Early game spells get replaced by stronger ones and eventually you end up with similar build all the time. Isn't it better to just level everything so the player has as many possible choices in the game, improving the fleet diversity by a ton?

I don't get how some don't get this, they're essentially saying less choice is good. You have to have bad ships in the early game and good ones in late game.

Another bonus analogy: A weapon in an action game that has a fun moveset, but gets outclassed by everything else. You COULD use it, but only to upload meme gifs or videos.

Honestly I think you are overly obsessed with this whole grind thing. I think any kind of progression you consider grind when that is not what defines it. If choices are meaningful along the way, and the early part is still fun, then it's not grind. If anything, player/officer levels and skills are far more "grindy" than anything else in the game.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I really think all games have progression of some kind or they get boring very quickly. You can make a case that strategy games don't, but even then only to a point. When they took away base building in Dawn of War II I stopped investing in the series. It was the one source of progression and they axed it to be more like Mobas. If I wanted to play a Moba I would have bought one. Dawn of War fans were not Moba fans and the devs made a serious mistake in thinking that they were or that they would cross over genres.

I don't think less choice = good, as a default. But I also don't think equal ship accessibility is fun either. It's fun to have those carrots that you look forward to. At least for me, personally. And I think we can disengage from the idea that progression = boring, crappy early game ships.

It can solely be flavor, if needed, not purely based upon function alone.

[Thaago]

Those things that you say would be bad are present in 95% of games because it is a fundamental tenant of game design for there to be progression, and for the game to push players to do different things at different times. Like, you put forward those points like they don't happen or if they are bad: but they happen constantly and they are very very good for gameplay.

The only exceptions I can think of are games where there is literally no progression: players from the start have their complete set of equipment and moves. The original Halo comes to mind... except even then, there is development in terms of what vehicles are available in what levels: the player tends to get the tank and/or attack aircraft only after doing a few levels where they slogged it out on foot or in a jeep, and thats intentional game design. The player's game enjoyment with the later equipment is changed by their earlier experiences.

Another example might be a fighting game like Tekken... except that even there, as the player completes more runs they unlock more characters. A lot of the time, those new characters have movesets that are just better than old ones. But the player probably had fun figuring out the move sets of the old characters and overcoming challenges: its not bad game design that those characters aren't used by a player that has unlocked everything, because the experience of using those characters when they were available/when the player had to was part of the game.

I'm actually struggling to think of any games that have no progression where later content obsoletes earlier (I started writing the above because two examples because I thought they would be good examples of no progression/obsoleteing, but then realized that they have it). Maybe some card games? Some board games? Dating sims?

[Grievous69]

Honestly I think you are overly obsessed with this whole grind thing. I think any kind of progression you consider grind when that is not what defines it. If choices are meaningful along the way, and the early part is still fun, then it's not grind. If anything, player/officer levels and skills are far more "grindy" than anything else in the game.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I really think all games have progression of some kind or they get boring very quickly. You can make a case that strategy games don't, but even then only to a point. When they took away base building in Dawn of War II I stopped investing in the series. It was the one source of progression and they axed it to be more like Mobas. If I wanted to play a Moba I would have bought one. Dawn of War fans were not Moba fans and the devs made a serious mistake in thinking that they were or that they would cross over genres.

I don't think less choice = good, as a default. But I also don't think equal ship accessibility is fun either. It's fun to have those carrots that you look forward to. At least for me, personally. And I think we can disengage from the idea that progression = boring, crappy early game ships.

It can solely be flavor, if needed, not purely based upon function alone.

I don't know why are you putting so much emphasis into the grind sentence, it wasn't even the point I was trying to make, merely a thing that other people suggested that I think wouldn't help the gameplay. Btw grind to me can be fun, if the gameplay loop is good enough, I really don't mind it (hey I like roguelites after all), but of course it's not always the thing. The biggest point I tried to make is that some of these cool and fun ships are getting the short end of the stick and because of that they get labeled as ''early game budget choices'' and then ignored and left as such. Again, I don't have a problem with objectively worse ships, it's just that some are so sad yet people still defend them.

Good that you mentioned RTS games (also a fan of the first Dawn of war). If a unit is useful only a small part of the game, eventually gets replaced by a clear superior choice, but has flavor and sense, is it really that bad? I'd say no, even tho I prefer games where each unit has a role in the entire match (Starcraft for example). But the thing is, progression in RTS games is super fast, matches last maybe half an hour (wildly depending on the game, I know), meanwhile a playthrough in Starsector probably lasts more than a dozen hours. Gameplay >> flavor

I agree that not every ship should be equally accessible. Not sure I even said that somewhere but just trying to clear it up.

EDIT: @Thaago
I even hate that in fighter games you mentioned. Once you unlock secret characters that are strong, the rest of the game becomes a breeze and you can unlock everything else with them easily (at least in some games). And then when you play it with friends they keep picking the secret characters because it's ez win. Like imagine if you could unlock Jinpachi in Tekken 5 (not sure on the name, been ages since I played it), the final boss, that would be bonkers. Sometimes progression can make the gameplay boring, contrary to its whole reason it's there.

Yeah I'm definitely going too far and beyond over a couple underpowered ships. Guess I'll blame insanity and boredom...

[pairedeciseaux]

So if a ship is better than having nothing it's balanced?

It's not about balance, it's about gameplay.

Well thank god some people aren't developers.

 

But the thing I see mentioned a lot that doesn't make sense to me is this ''early game option''. Some seem to have an idea to solve problems of bad ships by gating decent ships behind grind, and just making them harder to get in general, instead of, you know, making bad ships less bad. I mean what's the point in designing a ship that's only ever gonna be useful in the first 10% of the game, if that even. It's the same as if an RPG has a spell tree with lots of cool and amazingly designed spells to use, but there's no scaling. Early game spells get replaced by stronger ones and eventually you end up with similar build all the time.

Spells uh? What about player characters?

In some RPGs, some class or archetypes are objectively superior. Yet, people do not play only with those, people play with whatever satisfies their role-play fancy and/or their gameplay preference at a given time. And in RPGs with a player-controlled party of characters, party composition matter. Maybe one character in the party has a weaker build overall but it servers a purpose in the party.

Does this analogy make sense?

Isn't it better to just level everything so the player has as many possible choices in the game, improving the fleet diversity by a ton?

Yes and no, you can't just use such broad statement, whether discussing gameplay or balance. It's unreasonable, IMO.

Another bonus analogy: A weapon in an action game that has a fun moveset, but gets outclassed by everything else. You COULD use it, but only to upload meme gifs or videos.

I see your point, a valid one. IMO this does not apply to Starsector to the same extent.

Allow me to have some fun with a few more analogies:

When playing Super Mario Bros, Mario starts small and needs to get a mushroom in order to grow. And it doesn't end here, because at this point Mario still can't fly nor shoot fireballs. 

When playing Mario Kart, are Koopa and Donkey Kong the best or the worst? Or maybe they provide a specific gameplay other characters do not. 

In the Chess board game, each side starts with 16 pieces, including 8 pawns. Are the 8 pawns useless or just meme material? Should the player have the choice to start with a front row of 8 queens? 

[Morrokain]

The original Halo comes to mind... except even then, there is development in terms of what vehicles are available in what levels: the player tends to get the tank and/or attack aircraft only after doing a few levels where they slogged it out on foot or in a jeep, and thats intentional game design. The player's game enjoyment with the later equipment is changed by their earlier experiences.

Can't forget the weapon limit too. And ammo. So what you are given as far as enemies go affects what you can realistically use as your toolset.

I don't know why are you putting so much emphasis into the grind sentence, it wasn't even the point I was trying to make, merely a thing that other people suggested that I think wouldn't help the gameplay. Btw grind to me can be fun, if the gameplay loop is good enough, I really don't mind it (hey I like roguelites after all), but of course it's not always the thing. The biggest point I tried to make is that some of these cool and fun ships are getting the short end of the stick and because of that they get labeled as ''early game budget choices'' and then ignored and left as such. Again, I don't have a problem with objectively worse ships, it's just that some are so sad yet people still defend them.

Good that you mentioned RTS games (also a fan of the first Dawn of war). If a unit is useful only a small part of the game, eventually gets replaced by a clear superior choice, but has flavor and sense, is it really that bad? I'd say no, even tho I prefer games where each unit has a role in the entire match (Starcraft for example). But the thing is, progression in RTS games is super fast, matches last maybe half an hour (wildly depending on the game, I know), meanwhile a playthrough in Starsector probably lasts more than a dozen hours. Gameplay >> flavor

I agree that not every ship should be equally accessible. Not sure I even said that somewhere but just trying to clear it up.

Mentioning Starcraft - What is the role of the Scout? (Just being cheeky but overall I definitely agree with your assessment.)

As far as the grind emphasis vs ship quality, it's more that I think you, and others, have a worst-case scenario knee-jerk reaction to some progression mechanics because you think you are going to be stuck in a Buffalo MkII for 20 hours of gameplay because that is something a lot of modern gaming companies would actually do. And that is as horrifying a thought to me as it is to you, haha.

Outliers in ship balance is definitely a valid concern to me and I agree with you there, but when "grind" is mentioned it sort of acts as a buzz word with a negative connotation that others may paint over too large an area in the overall game's design. (Sheesh, I don't know if I'm making sense here but I'm trying to flesh out a complicated snag in design practice that comes from generalizing.) To simplify, stating that gating ship accessibility is inherently guaranteed grind is disingenuous to actual good progression design.

Progression in some ways is more about pacing the content to a new player without overwhelming them while also giving players new, different toys or considerations to keep their interest peaked. Then, when the "dam breaks" as far as reaching real difficulty, the player has practice with all the tools they need. If that is too much, at least they can go back to "calmer waters" as far as what they have to deal with. That can be done either with the sliding scale difficulty that was discussed a while ago in regards to pirate bounties, or simply starting a new game and practicing the early-mid game more. For experienced players, the design should cater to the idea that good gameplay and choices = faster progression and higher difficulty access. To not do this would be considered grindy.

Take Guild Wars 2. I haven't started a new character in that game because: A) You can zone to newbie areas and your stats scale, though you will still be ridiculously OP due to your skillset and gear. (Which is actually a problem for me!) And, B) The game is soooo boring with only a few skills available to spam. The actual fun part of the game is when you have a full skill set and the specialization mechanics to create a nuanced build.

Colonies, already, do a good job of implementing this concept - so that is why I advocate this on the earlier stages as well. At first, a player simply has to manage their fleet. When colonies come into play, there are so many more things to consider and strategize around and it becomes more complex/awesome. That is before Nex even comes into play, and with Nex that is emphasized even more.

I see early game through mid game as lacking in that department. The sole exception is either higher cost but more powerful ships (which can be determined by hullsize or ship tier - either works really, but I agree that designing and spriting throw-away ships is a bit of a waste) or more-complex-to-pilot ships that provide flavorful and fun gameplay.

[Megas]

Learning movesets (and moves that require precise timing like King's Rolling Death Cradle or Mishima EWGF) is annoying and not a good option for me when arcade game costs two credits per game, and the CPU knows all of the moves.  I do not care much about progression when playing an arcade game.  I want to last as long as possible by any means necessary.  I did not like waiting week after week for more characters to be unlocked for Tekken games, especially if the character I want to play was locked away.

There is progression of sort in a fighting game (and others).  How many rounds you can beat up the CPU with flashy and fun moves like King's Rolling Death Cradle before the CPU becomes a max difficulty or perfect play opponent and you are stuck with the few boring but safe moves (or AI breaker strategies) that can beat the computer.

I suppose there is progression in many old '80s arcade classics too.  They get faster and faster until you cannot keep up and die, or you become so good that you can last until the power gets turned off or real-life otherwise intervenes.

Like imagine if you could unlock Jinpachi in Tekken 5 (not sure on the name, been ages since I played it), the final boss, that would be bonkers. Sometimes progression can make the gameplay boring, contrary to its whole reason it's there.

Yes, it would be bonkers.  No, I would like it (in a single-player game).  Seeing the unfair SNK boss powers he had (hard-to-avoid two-hit kill fireball, ultimate priority or unblockable stun move that opens victim up to everything including said 2HKO fireball), I want him!  At least there were codes in some games to play overpowered bosses (even if somewhat depowered).  A single playable SNK boss that is not banned would be bad in head-to-head because they degenerate the game to a single mirror match.  I have seen this for Tekken 4, where Jin was better than everyone else by a wide margin.

[Yunru]

No, I get it. Even in single player games, I feel compelled to make the most optimal choices.

[intrinsic_parity]

I think the really important part of 'progression' is that it implies there are requirements for the progression i.e. goals that the player is obligated to achieve. You can't gain access to stuff that you want/need unless you complete the requirements with currently available options, which creates interesting challenges to be solved. What I really want is an interesting challenge that I have to solve to win the game or get rewards, and I think progression systems have the potential to create those challenges and rewards very effectively. Bad progression creates difficult challenges via required repetition (grinding), but that is not inherent to progression. Requirements and imposed goals are completely absent from the game right now.

One very common video game design theme I can think of that highlights this:
The player is given some very difficult challenge, then when they complete it, they get access to some new ability/item that trivializes some of what they just did but also creates the possibility for new challenges. If the player had access to all their abilities from the start, they would have more choices for completing the game, but the problems that the game presents to them would be less interesting (or from another perspective, there would be less interesting challenges that could be created for the player). It's the constraint of having limited access to abilities/items that makes the problems interesting to solve, and allows for a wider variety of problems to be in the game. I prefer this sort of unlock system to RNG based tech access.

In the context of starsector, this might mean limiting your access to military tech or big ships, which might allow for interesting and difficult missions that would never happen if you could get any tech you wanted (stuff like the campaign missions). Wouldn't it be way more fun to be required to beat a fleet of paragons (without any of your own) to get a paragon blueprint, or assassinate a TT admiral in the middle of a defended system to get access to hegemony cruisers? Maybe that's just me, but that sounds like a much more fun game, even though your access to tech is 'gated' and you have less ships to choose from at most points in the game.

I guess you can frame it entirely in that context: adding more constraints to what the player can do (reducing choice) also increases the challenge of achieving goals. I find enjoyment in games from the challenge/difficulty so I'm happy to lose some choice if it means the decisions I have to make, and the challenges I have to overcome, are more interesting. 


Another completely different though which isn't worth a separate post: If all ships are perfectly balanced with each other, it sort of makes decisions between ships irrelevant. Your choice matters because you could choose a bad ship. It's the existence of bad ships that give you a reference to call other ships good.

[TaLaR]

Re: Shrike
Shrike needs more turning speed if it keeps Plasma Burn.  Without Auxiliary Thrusters or skills, it cannot turn fast enough to plasma burn away from enemies when it is time to get out.  Shrike does not have the OP to spare for Auxiliary Thrusters; it is one of the more OP-starved ships.

I would not consider it a strong "need" on Shrike. I put Auxiliary Thrusters on many ships, but almost never on Shrike. If you anticipate a 90 degree right turn before you need to get out, medium turret will still fire while the ship is in position to perform an instant escape. Obviously not a satisfying solution if you want to fire reapers at your targets.

Without Auxiliary Thrusters, characters skills (EA1 + Helm1) or SO Shrike isn't maneuverable enough to get behind most DE or Falcon/Eagle. Since Shrike is weak and can only win by doing this or spamming missiles, saying that Shrike needs Auxiliary Thrusters is not wrong.
But AI doesn't use PB to get away or behind the enemy, so it's kind of moot point unless Shrike is player-piloted.

[SCC]

Let us reason together, and not talk past one another, please. Not using the best does not necessarily translate into using the worst. And by the way, what does worst mean? Or best?

Condor vs nothing? What's the worst? Condor brings 2 fighter wings, nothing brings 0 fighter wings. If player's requirement is to bring fighters in battle early-mid game, then Condor is a valid solution, sometimes the only available solution. Obvious gameplay benefit: player gets fighters early if he so choose! This is not "worse experience", this is "better experience" and "early game option".

You want a small&fast ship that can rush/flee with shield up and wield decent fire power? Shrike is the best... well it's the only ship that can do that. So it allows a specific piloting gameplay, not necessarily more difficult for players used to pilot high tech frigates. Players shall use said gameplay to distract, damage and destroy enemy ships. Obvious yet not so obvious gameplay benefit: new gameplay!

And you know what both Condor and Shrike have in common? Both are easily available a the start (or any point) of a campaign, at a low price, with standard logistic profiles. That can't be said of their respective alternatives / closest siblings.

The issue is that Condor isn't actually all that more available early game. Want a Condor? Buy it, or get it from tutorial graveyard. Want a Drover? Buy it for about twice the price. The issue comes up when you compare them. You can get a Condor one bounty earlier, but Drover is going to give you way more bang for your buck, is less likely to die for a myriad of reasons (costing you more credits in the long run), is more capable for a couple of reasons (increasing your profit in the long run) and is barely any more expensive in maintenance. And you can't just go anywhere to buy it, but have to look for it in Persean League, Sindrian Diktat, Tri-Tachyon or Independent colonies, or over half the colonies in the sector, but that is an issue only if you don't know who sells Drovers and don't leave Hegemony or Luddic space.
Condor without Drover is a crappy carrier you use until you get cruiser carriers which are universally better, except for burn level and absolute price. Condor with Drover taken into consideration is unjustifiable, unless you really, really, really need a single carrier for the next battle and only that battle and have no interest in using carriers afterwards. The moment any other cruiser becomes viable, Condor becomes obsolete for all purposes.

I'm not against Condor being cheap, I'm against Condor having borderline no advantages over every other carrier in the game, except for initial price.

Now can we let our disagreements aside and petition to have Medusa leave it's hideout and be more generally available? I can't remember the last time I used one.

Yeeeees.

In the context of starsector, this might mean limiting your access to military tech or big ships, which might allow for interesting and difficult missions that would never happen if you could get any tech you wanted (stuff like the campaign missions). Wouldn't it be way more fun to be required to beat a fleet of paragons (without any of your own) to get a paragon blueprint, or assassinate a TT admiral in the middle of a defended system to get access to hegemony cruisers? Maybe that's just me, but that sounds like a much more fun game, even though your access to tech is 'gated' and you have less ships to choose from at most points in the game.

I wouldn't mind faction relation having more meaning that free expedition bribes and access to the mostly skippable military market.