Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.96a is out! (05/05/23); Blog post: Colony Crises (11/24/23)

Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 146

Author Topic: Starsector 0.95a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 570392 times)

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #840 on: March 12, 2021, 08:30:17 AM »

After all that, my point is just that I found that using the current storm needler resulted in ships getting into unfavorable engagements too often because the AI is bad with overfluxed ships, so the penalty to survivability was worse than the benefit to winning the flux war.

Are you sure that wasn’t the 320 range disadvantage the weapon has over other large kinetic (up to 480 for some medium?)

Because I doubt the new storm Needler is going to wow you in a fleet. I think you’re going to get even more overwhelmed

Quote
This is not how the AI behaves. It doesn't try to find your weakest ship, it just engages the nearest enemy and does some basic pivoting around allies and enemies to try and flank or retreat based on relative flux levels (as far as I know).

This doesn’t matter either given the available parameters. Unless you can enforce that the enemy shoots tanky ships earlier and you can enforce that more dps ships don’t get shot the then optimal allocation (well assuming they’re all the same ship type) is the fit that has the best combination for dps and tank for a one on one situation. (Unless repairing can happen but this is irrelevant in our context since it cannot)

If the enemy is targeting optimally or randomly* and your fleet is all fit the same then you do not gain by making your ships off of the optimal tank/DPS line.

Your bias to survival means that your ships survive worse.

*technically if the enemy is targeting randomly you will do better sometimes by having a split fleet than others but the same on average.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2021, 09:32:42 AM by Goumindong »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 11643
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #841 on: March 12, 2021, 09:11:43 AM »

  • Cargo scans by patrols:
    • Will more often result in the "suspicious" outcome when smuggling suspicion is high
    • Will demand you allow a boarding party to examine your ships
      • This will cause some disruption to several of your ships' combat readiness
    • More likely to find contraband
Do boarding parties recognize (illegal) automated ships, like Remnants or anything with an AI core shoved in them?  If so, do they demand surrender of such ships or simply cut the link and open fire?
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 807
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #842 on: March 12, 2021, 09:21:20 AM »

That's just eyeballing the 33% cut in overall damage output (which would tend to make me think the fitting cost would drop to 66% of its original value - say 18), but then buffing the efficiency by 23% or so, bumps it 22 or 23 OP.

Just a thought about this - I'm not sure that a DPS drop for a weapon that's going to be flux-limited regardless is actually that much of a difference. Arguably, the DPS reduction is almost a buff because it makes the weapon easier to use while largely retaining its damage potential. If it takes an extra few seconds of fire to get the same damage out... heck, that might even be better since it's harder to armor-tank against. There will be some situations where it's worse, too, but I don't think it's as clear cut as just "33% weaker".

In a flux limited context that sounds right.  I was considering the weapon by itself, without context, which is probably not the way to go.  Flux limited context (or flux sufficient context) depends on the rest of the build and which ship we're talking about, which means I should do actual testing with real ships and builds before proposing numbers rather than eyeballing it.  I also admit I'm not used to thinking the graph of OP costs of hypothetical weapons versus DPS, going from 0 DP to 750 DPS, as not a line but some sort of curve, but I can see that being true when limited to a some collection of actually existing ships.

Or in other words, real game testing is needed, which is what I'm guessing you're working on when not being distracted by forum posts. :)
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #843 on: March 12, 2021, 10:14:18 AM »

@Goumindong
I just made a new thread where I did some analysis to back my claims. I think it would be better to take this discussion there.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23029
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #844 on: March 12, 2021, 11:43:12 AM »

Just a thought about this - I'm not sure that a DPS drop for a weapon that's going to be flux-limited regardless is actually that much of a difference. Arguably, the DPS reduction is almost a buff because it makes the weapon easier to use while largely retaining its damage potential. If it takes an extra few seconds of fire to get the same damage out... heck, that might even be better since it's harder to armor-tank against. There will be some situations where it's worse, too, but I don't think it's as clear cut as just "33% weaker".

The thing is though, kinetic weapons, especially kinetic weapons where you’re in knife fighting range aren’t ever really dissipation limited. You almost always want to shoot over your dissipation until the enemy puts their shields down.

... which is why I said "flux limited" not just dissipation :) Even if you don't hit flux capacity, it's still flux-limited (maybe flux-based is a better term? regardless) in the sense that you're converted a desired amount of flux into hard flux on enemy shields. Taking a few extra seconds to do it matters, but it doesn't matter as much as raw dps numbers would suggest.

Quote
A DPS reduction on a weapon is never a buff all things equal. It’s always better to have more available DPS. It’s not always better to shoot that DPS but it’s always better to have it.
I think this would be true if the AI fired weapons at partial ROF, but in the actual game, the vast majority of guns are on autofire 95% of the time, meaning you really need to judge a gun as if it is always firing. The only case I agree with this is if the weapon is on the player ship and manually fired.

(Yep. And even then it's both a pain and likely comes at a cost of doing something else more useful.)

All that aside, the new patch is looking super promising and I'm eager for a chance to enjoy it when it's ready.

Thank you! Looking forward to getting it out there :)


Huh, shouldn't the fighter wing offset positions deal with that? On astrals the daggers and longbows seem ok... but if not, then the offset on daggers should be upped a bit to make them go behind the longbows.

Yes they do, and the distance from the target doesn't matter for how they line up. In fact a slightly longer distance is better since it gives them a chance to line up exactly as desired. Both the Trident and the Dagger have the same offset.

https://imgur.com/a/GGTGogq

The Daggers do hit a touch earlier because when they get close enough, they accelerate to max speed. But both generally hit before the Longbow and this difference is not affected by the length of the attack run.

Man all these cool weapon buffs and reworks yet the Pulse laser is crying in the corner with 1.1 efficiency. Ion pulser will straight out be a better choice for most ships, frigates will still have issue mounting any assault medium weapon. Sorry if this was mentioned already but I didn't have time to read everything since my last response here.

Yeah... honestly, from testing, the Ion Pulser feels a bit too strong right now. I might dial it back, and maybe up the efficiency of the Pulse Laser a bit.


This is only true for low-tech ships.  For Conquest, it is a nerf because it has no problem sustaining the old Storm Needlers long enough.  If I need to pair them with Heavy Mortars for HE just so AI-piloted Conquest will engage at the proper ranges, then it needs the DPS to compete somewhat with other weapon combinations with superior range.

The old Storm Needler is effectively a Conquest-only weapon.  The new one will probably require Conquest to stick something in the medium energy mount to make for lost damage, if it even has OP left to afford another weapon or two.

Old Storm Needler is comparable to Mjolnir in flux use, and Conquest can make good use of Mjolnir too.

Fair points.


IMO Hammer barrages could use some help overall, a slight base ammo increase would make it a lot less crap compared to the Cyclone. As is its only real selling point is that its cheaper and has a higher rate of fire. Currently its just too of an unattractive weapon compared to the reaper launcher, the only reason any player ever uses it is because it comes as a fixed mount on some vanilla and modded ships.

Hmm, let me have a look.


All those balancing and QoL patchnotes read like the playtesting is in full swing! Looking forward to the changed game dynamic.

:D

Ahh, does that imply size 1 or 2 frontier-town style colonies didn't make it into the game?

Ah, they didn't! I still like the idea, just... too much of a re-work. Still something that's in the "potential" pile, though.

If combined, this might lead to some ships needing more crew than they can support, right? Cool, role play wise. Might also make passenger ships worthwhile if you're running a junker fleet.

Yep!

That got me thinking, maybe it would be nice if you could trigger a punitive expedition early (for reputation), so you have a chance to deal with it right away and then explore safely?

Well - you could use a story point to avert it, so that's... kind of the same thing just in a different way.


Do boarding parties recognize (illegal) automated ships, like Remnants or anything with an AI core shoved in them?  If so, do they demand surrender of such ships or simply cut the link and open fire?

They don't.

I also admit I'm not used to thinking the graph of OP costs of hypothetical weapons versus DPS, going from 0 DP to 750 DPS, as not a line but some sort of curve, but I can see that being true when limited to a some collection of actually existing ships.

FWIW, neither am I :) That's not a balancing measure I'm using; if things do end up on some sort of reasonable-looking curve based on that, that's a side effect/outcome of the other balance metrics (which, maybe too strong a word), not a primary goal. As you say, there's just a ton of factors, and any approach that crunches the numbers down to simplify also unavoidably loses context.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #845 on: March 12, 2021, 12:24:35 PM »

Yeah... honestly, from testing, the Ion Pulser feels a bit too strong right now. I might dial it back, and maybe up the efficiency of the Pulse Laser a bit.
I think just increasing the efficiency to 1.0 would have been sufficient for Ion Pulser buff. For Pulse Laser, I'd probably try 0.9 efficiency. Either way, if you propose some changes fast, we might get to test them out in a few show battles.

The old Storm Needler is effectively a Conquest-only weapon.  The new one will probably require Conquest to stick something in the medium energy mount to make for lost damage, if it even has OP left to afford another weapon or two.

Old Storm Needler is comparable to Mjolnir in flux use, and Conquest can make good use of Mjolnir too.
Midline thrives on elite ballistic weapons, some of which are getting nerfed now. At least they aren't big, since Storm Needler was just an option for Conquest, and Heavy Needler's nerf isn't big, either.

They don't.
Ha! I wouldn't be surprised if the player character could make the water run uphill, too.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23029
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #846 on: March 12, 2021, 02:11:53 PM »

Yeah... honestly, from testing, the Ion Pulser feels a bit too strong right now. I might dial it back, and maybe up the efficiency of the Pulse Laser a bit.
I think just increasing the efficiency to 1.0 would have been sufficient for Ion Pulser buff. For Pulse Laser, I'd probably try 0.9 efficiency. Either way, if you propose some changes fast, we might get to test them out in a few show battles.

I was thinking of reducing the Ion Pulser damage to 90, and reducing the Pulse Laser flux cost to either 100 or 90.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6836
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #847 on: March 12, 2021, 02:37:23 PM »

The Ion pulser is a little too strong now... I was playing with it quite a bunch during the last tournament and it is just plain nasty.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23029
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #848 on: March 12, 2021, 02:38:25 PM »

Do you think lowering the damage to 90 is sufficient or does it need more?
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6836
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #849 on: March 12, 2021, 04:14:15 PM »

Mostly guessing, but I think 90 sounds about right? 90 ties it with current pulse laser for efficiency, and I think the 100 damage version is closer to right than 75. Anyone else who played with the 100 version have thoughts?
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #850 on: March 12, 2021, 04:43:46 PM »

It makes sense to me that the new ion pulser at 100 dmg/shot with the same armor pen as a pulse laser, better efficiency, and a bunch of ion damage would be too good. I definitely feel like the pulse laser should be more efficient than the ion pulser, but I also really like the idea of the ion pulser as premium medium assault weapon. I guess I would vote for it to be strong (90 seems reasonable), and maybe increase OP cost if it needed to be tuned a bit more than that rather than reduce damage more.
Logged

Radicaljack

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #851 on: March 12, 2021, 05:04:48 PM »

Just played with it at 90, obviously it won't be operating in the same realm as the new patch, but it did seem a bit more balanced. I always love ion pulsers, but they could use a slight nerf.
Logged

Half-full

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #852 on: March 12, 2021, 05:19:44 PM »

Is it possible that we can use the doctrine page in the next patch to dictate what freighters our faction uses? Currently I don't think that is what happens when selecting certain freighters from the doctrine page.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2949
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #853 on: March 12, 2021, 05:37:07 PM »

Huh, shouldn't the fighter wing offset positions deal with that? On astrals the daggers and longbows seem ok... but if not, then the offset on daggers should be upped a bit to make them go behind the longbows.

Yes they do, and the distance from the target doesn't matter for how they line up. In fact a slightly longer distance is better since it gives them a chance to line up exactly as desired. Both the Trident and the Dagger have the same offset.

https://imgur.com/a/GGTGogq

The Daggers do hit a touch earlier because when they get close enough, they accelerate to max speed. But both generally hit before the Longbow and this difference is not affected by the length of the attack run.

This is that mod-bug with hyper-speed Sabots showing its head. Super-speed Sabots were hitting before Atropos; sometimes Longbows would even get 2 volleys before Daggers or Tridents fired.
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #854 on: March 12, 2021, 05:55:04 PM »

Yes they do, and the distance from the target doesn't matter for how they line up. In fact a slightly longer distance is better since it gives them a chance to line up exactly as desired. Both the Trident and the Dagger have the same offset.

https://imgur.com/a/GGTGogq

The Daggers do hit a touch earlier because when they get close enough, they accelerate to max speed. But both generally hit before the Longbow and this difference is not affected by the length of the attack run.

So will Tridents get a buff then?  ;D


IMO Hammer barrages could use some help overall, a slight base ammo increase would make it a lot less crap compared to the Cyclone. As is its only real selling point is that its cheaper and has a higher rate of fire. Currently its just too of an unattractive weapon compared to the reaper launcher, the only reason any player ever uses it is because it comes as a fixed mount on some vanilla and modded ships.

Hmm, let me have a look.

Even with more ammo for the Hammer Barrage, I still think Colossus Mk.II and Prometheus Mk.II should have Expanded Missile Racks. Just feels thematic that a cargo hauler converted into a torpedo-spewing platform would use some of its ample cargo holds for holding extra ordnance.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 146