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 ... 6 7 [8] 9

Author Topic: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor  (Read 12404 times)

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #105 on: July 17, 2020, 09:35:12 AM »

For example, you can get... I think +50% fighter replacement rate, fleetwide - but only at 6 fighter bays in the fleet - not deployed, but fleetwide total. (Numbers could be tweaked, of course; 6 feels like it might be a bit high.)
Wait, wait.  Too high?  Six feels, to me, like the minimum acceptable value here - that's the point where I can apply full benefit to a single Astral if and only if I have no other fighters in my fleet at all.

...Of course, that is an Astral, so if you want it to not be higher than six, I can live with that, even if I'd prefer seven or eight just to allow for an Astral and some spare change.  But being able to go over the limit with a single carrier would just feel wrong.

Ah, and that reminds me - I think I fixed (or at least mitigated a lot) the "turrets turn towards target, fire too early, first volley misses" issue, since that came up with HBs and the Medusa. To be perfectly honest, not 100% if this is already in the currently-out release, but I think it's only in the dev version. Forgot to add this to the patch notes I've been keeping, though.)
That's got to be an in-dev change, because this issue is endemic to the current live version - including both the 'turret fires too early' issue, and the even-more-annoying 'Onslaught fires its side large turrets when they actually can't quite hit what it's aiming at' issue.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #106 on: July 17, 2020, 09:40:06 AM »

Currently, 6 bays is nothing, but perhaps Alex has decreased the scale of battles that even a single capital ship is a centerpiece of the fleet. We will see.
The bigger issue I'm going to have with this skill is that Shepherds are going to needlessly dilute this bonus.

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #107 on: July 17, 2020, 09:48:39 AM »

I'd presume that it doesn't count bays with built-in fighters?  I don't, personally, in the end-game, use Shepherds or Ventures, but having fighter bonuses get eaten up by Tempests would be kindof annoying.  (I think there was some comment from Alex that ships with only built-in fighters would neither count towards the limit nor benefit from the skill?  But I don't remember where it was.)

(Decreased battle scale is something I'm looking forward to in the next version.  I don't like having my endgame fleet consist of four paragons plus an enormous pile of backup ships that are just there to ensure I have enough deployment points available to actually put those four paragons on the field at once.)
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #108 on: July 17, 2020, 12:27:02 PM »

Wait, wait.  Too high?  Six feels, to me, like the minimum acceptable value here - that's the point where I can apply full benefit to a single Astral if and only if I have no other fighters in my fleet at all.

...Of course, that is an Astral, so if you want it to not be higher than six, I can live with that, even if I'd prefer seven or eight just to allow for an Astral and some spare change.  But being able to go over the limit with a single carrier would just feel wrong.

+50% fighter replacement rate is a lot. Having a single ship exceed the limit actually feels fine to me, even good - I think it would really help sell the scale of that ship. (I.E. "wow, the Astral is such a big ship, it can't even get the full bonus", etc.) Anyway, if it ended up with, say, +30% or whatever, that's... still huge.

Currently, 6 bays is nothing, but perhaps Alex has decreased the scale of battles that even a single capital ship is a centerpiece of the fleet. We will see.

Right - plus, this incentivizes having a few carriers as part of your fleet, rather than it being a carrier mono-fleet.

The bigger issue I'm going to have with this skill is that Shepherds are going to needlessly dilute this bonus.
I'd presume that it doesn't count bays with built-in fighters?  I don't, personally, in the end-game, use Shepherds or Ventures, but having fighter bonuses get eaten up by Tempests would be kindof annoying.  (I think there was some comment from Alex that ships with only built-in fighters would neither count towards the limit nor benefit from the skill?  But I don't remember where it was.)

I went back and forth on this, but ultimately, built-in decks both count towards the total and benefit from the bonus. It gets too weird otherwise, especially when you consider the breadth of possibilities for built-in wings in mods.

The Tempest is actually, I think, a fairly decent example where it'd be useful... well, more so than the Shepherd, anyway! Though I suppose it'd be useful as long as the Shepherd is useful as a combat ship, i.e. in the early game.


That is very interesting.  I wonder how much that fix will change the AI behavior in heavy fighter spam situations.  Certainly, it should make improve the odds for the gunship in 1 on 1 gunship versus carrier situations.  It does make me wish we could test some of the AI modifications and fixes Alex has waiting for the next release, just to see the effects.  AI is such a huge factor in this kind of testing.

I think it'll help in some specific cases, and not really have much of an impact in others. E.G. I don't think the Hammerhead is much affected by this, for example, due to the typically-"manual" guns being on hardpoints. For the Medusa, the "manual" guns would often both be able to focus on the same fighter, so it's much much more affected.

After a bit of testing, the Heavy Blaster Medusa seems to perform about the same vs a 2x Broadsword Condor, though the fight goes differently. Prior to the change, it would be able to "wear down" the fighters, then get in and do some damage to the Condor, before it bounced back with some fighters and ... either won or lost, very close either way. Now, it deals more consistent damage to the Condor throughout, but still wins or loses in a very close manner.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #109 on: July 17, 2020, 01:16:49 PM »

It feels weird that ships having built in wings are actively worse than if they didn't in a significant number of cases. Especially ships like the shepherd and venture that are more campaign stat sticks (for surveying and salvaging) than combat ships IMO. Now I have to weigh a combat malus on my carriers in addition to campaign stats, logistics and fleet cap concerns? It just feels weird (and very difficult to asses) to me. I also think ships like the gemini and colossus II/III will be hurt (basically all the weaker carriers feel worse). Also, maybe the tempests needs the nerf, but I like my tempests for pursuits and derelict fleets in late game :(. I of course realize that I can't really judge these changes without playing them, but these are my instincts on the changes.

Also how is this mechanic communicated to the player? It seems like it could be really difficult to figure out/there are lots of places for the player to make choices that have unforeseen/difficult to perceive (but still significant) consequences.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #110 on: July 17, 2020, 01:29:34 PM »

Or it makes the player feel "ew, this ship makes the bonus go down? Maybe I shouldn't use it, it's too much".
When it comes to built-in fighters, though? I'd rather have them all not count. Tempest is already decent, but I like to acquire (or, well, never get rid of) Shepherds and use them until the end. Venture already isn't a very appealing ship, making it hurt your actually good carriers is going to make it feel even worse.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #111 on: July 17, 2020, 01:56:56 PM »

Yeah, I'm also not fond of built-in wings de-buffing carriers by just being in fleet. This would restrict 'valid' fleet compositions quite a lot.

If I remember right, we'll be able to respec in next version, right? I don't see myself taking such restricted skill permanently, but I guess it could be fine for just early game.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #112 on: July 17, 2020, 03:11:36 PM »

I think what really matters is how the skill scales, IE how fast the bonus drops off. +25% over 10 wings for example is going to be a much stronger force than +50% over 5 wings (with a hypothetical 5 wings max and -5% per extra wing). Sure the bonus is lower, but more fighters = less losses, especially if the scale of combat is smaller than present. Otoh, if its -10% per extra wing, then are 10 unboosted wings better than 5 boosted ones, given the opportunity cost those wings represent in terms of carriers/warships?

50% is already a huge, game changing number. Even if expanded deck crew is gone (I hope so), that means that a modest number of carriers for that captain will never run out of fighters. Just think about a pair of strike Herons in the midgame that rebuild their bombers in half the time (actually 40% of the time because of CR bonus...).
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #113 on: July 17, 2020, 03:21:39 PM »

I think what really matters is how the skill scales, IE how fast the bonus drops off. +25% over 10 wings for example is going to be a much stronger force than +50% over 5 wings (with a hypothetical 5 wings max and -5% per extra wing). Sure the bonus is lower, but more fighters = less losses, especially if the scale of combat is smaller than present. Otoh, if its -10% per extra wing, then are 10 unboosted wings better than 5 boosted ones, given the opportunity cost those wings represent in terms of carriers/warships?

50% is already a huge, game changing number. Even if expanded deck crew is gone (I hope so), that means that a modest number of carriers for that captain will never run out of fighters. Just think about a pair of strike Herons in the midgame that rebuild their bombers in half the time (actually 40% of the time because of CR bonus...).
I mean for most of the ships and situations we are talking about (tempest, venture, shepherd etc.) the wings are not actually contributing much, or at all. If you have 4 shepherds in your fleet for the salvage bonus and don't deploy them, they still count against you and your combat performance is worse (If I am understanding correctly). Tempest drones don't really benefit much from the bonus, and don't really contribute to the overall fighter density (at least nowhere near the extent a proper wing on a carrier would). Also, having 'backup' ships in your fleet for a potential second fight counts against you as well. In all those cases, you are straight up losing combat power, there's no trade off. In general I think the mechanic is interesting/good for dedicated carriers, but I think it really hurts ships that have fighter bays which don't contribute as much as a normal fighter wing, or ships that are more useful for non-combat reasons that just coincidentally have fighter bays.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #114 on: July 17, 2020, 04:08:41 PM »

The bonus scales down linearly, so if it's 50% at 6, then it'd be 25% at 12.

And, yeah, I get what you're saying about Shepherds/Ventures. Kind of want to see how it actually works out; I mean, losing a bit of the bonus isn't a huge deal, and just in general I'd expect the various fleetwide bonuses to be less-than-maxed-at-all-times.

That said, I could see maybe adding a tag for certain wings or ships that make their bays not count (or get the bonus). But that's getting pretty off-topic for this thread.

Also, having 'backup' ships in your fleet for a potential second fight counts against you as well.

(That's super intentional, btw.)
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #115 on: July 17, 2020, 07:32:04 PM »

Wait, wait.  Too high?  Six feels, to me, like the minimum acceptable value here - that's the point where I can apply full benefit to a single Astral if and only if I have no other fighters in my fleet at all.

...Of course, that is an Astral, so if you want it to not be higher than six, I can live with that, even if I'd prefer seven or eight just to allow for an Astral and some spare change.  But being able to go over the limit with a single carrier would just feel wrong.

+50% fighter replacement rate is a lot. Having a single ship exceed the limit actually feels fine to me, even good - I think it would really help sell the scale of that ship. (I.E. "wow, the Astral is such a big ship, it can't even get the full bonus", etc.) Anyway, if it ended up with, say, +30% or whatever, that's... still huge.
Hm.  Still doesn't feel right to me.  Then again, a properly-piloted Astral doesn't actually benefit much from replacement rate anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter that much.  Unless you're nerfing the recall device?
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #116 on: July 17, 2020, 07:34:59 PM »

Unless you're nerfing the recall device?

Yeah :)

Even if expanded deck crew is gone (I hope so)

(That's also nerfed a lot, though not "gone".)
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #117 on: July 17, 2020, 08:42:26 PM »

Deliberate exclusions from counting towards and bonuses through a zero OP hullmod.

Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

DatonKallandor

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #118 on: July 18, 2020, 02:56:01 PM »

I'd be okay with it being somewhat flavor based and just say any drones don't count. That happens to fix all of the vanilla issues (Venture, Shepherd, Tempest) and also is a nice kick in the teeth for the overperforming Sparks.
Logged

Scorpixel

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: 0.9.1a Balance Testing Case Study: Condor
« Reply #119 on: July 18, 2020, 03:08:56 PM »

I'd be okay with it being somewhat flavor based and just say any drones don't count. That happens to fix all of the vanilla issues (Venture, Shepherd, Tempest) and also is a nice kick in the teeth for the overperforming Sparks.
This easily translate into an elite fighter/bomber squadron supported by a swarm of sparks and/or various drones, it wouldn't discourage carrier only fleets.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9