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 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 146

Author Topic: Starsector 0.95a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 595935 times)

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #120 on: October 17, 2020, 06:11:32 PM »

IMO a lot of the large ballistic weapon problems would be solved if the Mk IX were a slightly more expensive, but better weapon. I'd pay 25 OP for the same gun at a tighter spread and 1.0 efficiency.
I don't want Mk. IX fundamentally changed (like "premiumizing" it); it's nice to have a cheap 'n practical option for large kinetics in contrast with Gauss Cannon and Storm Needler. Less recoil and more efficiency certainly wouldn't hurt though.
(It's possible that many of the times I'm currently using Mk. IX, I should downsize to a Heavy Needler instead...)

P.S. Is the version number supposed to be 0.95 or 0.9.5?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #121 on: October 17, 2020, 06:14:26 PM »

P.S. Is the version number supposed to be 0.95 or 0.9.5?

0.95a - the way I've been using it, 0.9.5a would imply a 5th hotfix-and-balancing patch of the 0.9a release. ... did I mess up and say 0.9.5 somewhere?
Logged

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #122 on: October 17, 2020, 06:21:57 PM »

P.S. Is the version number supposed to be 0.95 or 0.9.5?

0.95a - the way I've been using it, 0.9.5a would imply a 5th hotfix-and-balancing patch of the 0.9a release. ... did I mess up and say 0.9.5 somewhere?
No uses of 0.9.5 somewhere, it just struck me as strange compared to 0.9.1, 0.8.1, 0.7.2, 0.7.1 etc.
But I noticed that a previous version used 0.65 as well, huh.

(It just looks odd, mathematically speaking I'd expect the number comparison to go e.g. 0.95 > 0.90 > 0.10 > 0.9)
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #123 on: October 17, 2020, 06:25:44 PM »

IMO a lot of the large ballistic weapon problems would be solved if the Mk IX were a slightly more expensive, but better weapon. I'd pay 25 OP for the same gun at a tighter spread and 1.0 efficiency.
I don't want Mk. IX fundamentally changed (like "premiumizing" it); it's nice to have a cheap 'n practical option for large kinetics in contrast with Gauss Cannon and Storm Needler. Less recoil and more efficiency certainly wouldn't hurt though.
(It's possible that many of the times I'm currently using Mk. IX, I should downsize to a Heavy Needler instead...)

P.S. Is the version number supposed to be 0.95 or 0.9.5?

For me its a matter of gunnery implants 1 to reduce recoil: With the skill, the gun is a decent budget option when premiums aren't available - as you say cheap and practical. (Even though I complain about efficiency, its still kinetic so will get the job done 'ok ish'). Without the skill, it misses an improbable number of shots (as does the HAC - was just testing and its firing arc at capital ranges is wider than an Onslaught, so it will even have a significant miss rate against enemy capitals).
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #124 on: October 17, 2020, 06:27:30 PM »

(Hmm - I guess I'm just thinking of it as a decimal point number. At least, of the first part that's inching up towards 1.0)
Logged

Octal

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #125 on: October 17, 2020, 06:30:43 PM »

Honestly, the thing I'm most excited for, before everything else, is simply the UI scaling.

I've basically stopped playing until the next update because I dislike the workaround for now.
Good stuffs though!


Also, to add onto the version naming talk:
If you're using "0.9.1" and "0.9" for example, as far as I recall it makes sense to show it as "0.9.0" instead of just "0.9"
Like, if you're showing iterative hotfix versions then that position should be kept as 0 if none have occured yet..

maybe im just dumb tho
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 06:52:02 PM by Octal »
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #126 on: October 17, 2020, 06:42:11 PM »

I don't agree with this interpretation. If its true than optimal ships should have max caps, filling vents with leftovers... and yet extensive playtesting has not settled on that as optimal outside of a few very special ships. I note that your own Broadside Onslaught has 60 vents and 6 caps.

Yes but this isn't because i don't want to trade my flux for theirs as fast as possible. Its because i don't face things for which i need 60 caps(more than i need extra hull mods) and because i am not limited by being at maximum cap due to being an armor tanker as a shield tanker is. Edit: my shields don’t turn off, they were already off.

But this does not mean that having more cap isn't good even at the expense of less efficient weapons. you can even figure a pretty reasonable breakeven for the weapons. (its like 6 seconds for DPS equivalent HN's vs mark IX, which is about 3400 shield damage not counting the extra time the mark IX gets to make use of your full dissipation which is pretty significant)

At the end of the day i have found that mark IX's are pretty good. I used to be in the boat you were but found that they performed a lot better than i was giving them credit for. Like, ships where i wanted kinetic damage just did better with Mark IX's than they did with HN. The extra range on HN's(140 to 160) make them really valuable even at slightly less efficiency. They even do decent damage vs things that put their shields down and have high armor. If you make them better accuracy/recoil they will be obscene even at higher OP. As an example there is a mod with an 'estus Assault Gun, which is less flux efficient compared to a Mark IX and has HAG fire profile. And its just simply the best kinetic damage weapon in the game to a ludicrous degree

You could maybe reduce its flux use if you wanted to give it a buff but its still a very competent weapon for ships that are slot limited (and for ships that really need to eek out every last ounce of range).
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 07:48:34 PM by Goumindong »
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #127 on: October 17, 2020, 07:10:41 PM »

I think maybe ECM should apply straight to the enemy fleet instead of competing with their ECM. This would make ECM less of a battle-winner, but it would still shift how battles work by making long range builds relatively weaker than normal.

Hmm - that'd just effectively reduce range by 20% across the board for everything, no? At least in many, many cases.

Wouldn't it usually be 0% vs. 10% or 10% vs. 20%, or did you remove the cap increases? Even 20% reduction across the board sometimes could be interesting in its own way, I think.

RE HBI on Onslaught: I don't think it addresses the ship's core issues with flux usage and armor vs. shields.

Well, you're right about that - but those are ship features rather than ship issues! Which isn't to say that it's a perfectly balanced ship or whatever, but rather than anything that's done to balance it ought to work around these, imo.

I'm not against HBI, but I put mediums on the Onslaught's side larges mainly to save flux, not OP. If the movement AI considered turning to face its best PD towards incoming missiles instead of preemptively throwing up shields, overfluxing with more larges might be more viable.


Mark IX is fine in my book, btw. It is really effective against destroyers and up.
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #128 on: October 17, 2020, 07:13:22 PM »

Please let us have Size-7 colonies through cryosleeper!
And +1 industry when a colony reaches size-7
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 07:19:38 PM by SonnaBanana »
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #129 on: October 17, 2020, 07:40:18 PM »

Also, to add onto the version naming talk:
If you're using "0.9.1" and "0.9" for example, as far as I recall it makes sense to show it as "0.9.0" instead of just "0.9"
Like, if you're showing iterative hotfix versions then that position should be kept as 0 if none have occured yet..

maybe im just dumb tho

Makes sense! But since it hasn't been that way, I'll just stick to how I've been doing it :)


Wouldn't it usually be 0% vs. 10% or 10% vs. 20%, or did you remove the cap increases? Even 20% reduction across the board sometimes could be interesting in its own way, I think.

Ah, right - it's now 20% max, and the max isn't affected by skill. But since Gunnery Implants gives an EW bonus when used on smaller ships, you'd get some EW in many battles. Sorry about not providing enough context :)

I'm not against HBI, but I put mediums on the Onslaught's side larges mainly to save flux, not OP. If the movement AI considered turning to face its best PD towards incoming missiles instead of preemptively throwing up shields, overfluxing with more larges might be more viable.

Not sure an Onslaught could really pull that off, turn-rate wise. But yeah, I see what you're saying. Still, I think this opens up more variety, especially if those arcs don't try to fire front and so aren't as much of a flux drain.


Please let us have Size-7 colonies through cryosleeper!
And +1 industry when a colony reaches size-7

Well, if you really want 'em, you can edit settings.json! But vanilla-wise, I don't think it makes sense. (Edit: you'd feel forced to only colonize near the cryosleeper; that'd be really bad for the game. Unless you could move the sleeper around etc, but that's a whole other separate thing.)
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #130 on: October 17, 2020, 08:29:19 PM »

Do some industries have multiple options for story-point based specialization/improvement? Mutual exclusivity between options?
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 08:31:19 PM by SonnaBanana »
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

bananana

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #131 on: October 17, 2020, 08:30:40 PM »

Hmm? The patch notes talk about AI fleet composition changes.
Less top-heavy (i.e. fewer large ships), more even mix of ship classes on the high end
    Use "mercenary" type officers to augment the fleets and go above the 10 officer limit
that doesn't seem to address the problem, it only affects composition of a fleet, not the size of it
or am i not understanding something
we have that already, in "maxShipsInAIFleet", but if i set it lower it will not make fleets smaller in the late game, it will only make them to consist of the largest ships possible
i'm talking about hard restrictions of how much fleet points a fleet can possibly have, overriding any other factors(vanilla or modded).
because late game battles can take several hours real time to fight, when combined fleet points of ai fleet exceed maximum possible battle size multiple times over, it's just reinforcements after reinforcements after reinforcements over and over again, all at 10fps at best.
Logged
Any and ALL sprites i ever posted on this forum are FREE to use. even if i'm using them myself. Don't ever, EVER ask for permission, or i will come to your home and EAT YOUR DOG!!!
i do NOT want to see my name appear in the credits section of any published mod and will consider it a personal insult.

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #132 on: October 17, 2020, 08:32:17 PM »

It is already strange that colonies can summon thousands or millions of new people out of thin air within a timespan of just a few cycles. Frankly, I get where you're coming from re: larger colonies being fun. We all want to rule the galaxy. But it won't play well with the timescale.

Also, give Conquest some love plz. Now that Onslaught stole its hullmod, it's even more of an odd-man-out.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #133 on: October 17, 2020, 08:51:35 PM »

Do some industries have multiple options for story-point based specialization/improvement? Mutual exclusivity between options?

Search the OP for "make improvements"!

Hmm? The patch notes talk about AI fleet composition changes.
Less top-heavy (i.e. fewer large ships), more even mix of ship classes on the high end
    Use "mercenary" type officers to augment the fleets and go above the 10 officer limit
that doesn't seem to address the problem, it only affects composition of a fleet, not the size of it
or am i not understanding something
we have that already, in "maxShipsInAIFleet", but if i set it lower it will not make fleets smaller in the late game, it will only make them to consist of the largest ships possible
i'm talking about hard restrictions of how much fleet points a fleet can possibly have, overriding any other factors(vanilla or modded).
because late game battles can take several hours real time to fight, when combined fleet points of ai fleet exceed maximum possible battle size multiple times over, it's just reinforcements after reinforcements after reinforcements over and over again, all at 10fps at best.

I think you may be missing the "less top heavy" part? The max number of ships is the same but a top-end fleet will have a few capitals (along with smaller ships filling it in) and a bunch of officers rather than a *ton* of capitals and a few token something-elses.

This also reminds me - I may have toned down the number of fleets in the high-end expeditions, but it didn't make it into the patch notes. I seem to remember making some changes with these; will have to have another look.

(Edit: just to be clear, we're very much on the same page as far as what you're describing not being good.)

Also, give Conquest some love plz. Now that Onslaught stole its hullmod, it's even more of an odd-man-out.

Hmm, I think the Conquest is already pretty great, so I'm not so sure about that!
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 09:07:12 PM by Alex »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #134 on: October 17, 2020, 09:00:49 PM »

Re: Mark IX
If I do not need 900 range, I prefer Heavy Needler over Mark IX because of efficiency.  Heavy Ballistics Integration is the only reason why I put Mark IX on Conquest.  Otherwise, I would use more Heavy Needlers.  In case of Onslaught, I usually put Heavy Needler in the center heavy because of accuracy and efficiency.  (On the other hand, four heavy needlers firing at once is a huge flux spike that can self-destructive.)

I would not mind Mark IX being a bit more efficient.  (Aside from that, Mark IX gets the job done.)  Arbalest is efficient for a cheap 8 OP weapon.  Unlike small and medium in which autocannons have superior competitors, there is no heavy kinetic upgrade better than Mark IX.  Gauss is too slow and inefficient, and Storm Needler has terrible range (at 700) for its size.  If I need a simple medium range kinetic in a heavy mount, either Heavy Needler (medium weapon!) or Mark IX are it.

Speaking of Arbalest, with 7 OP light needlers, I might shove them in medium mounts instead of Arbalests.  (I mount railguns instead of arbalests sometimes.)  1 more OP to spend may be worth more than steady anti-shield suppression.

It is already strange that colonies can summon thousands or millions of new people out of thin air within a timespan of just a few cycles. Frankly, I get where you're coming from re: larger colonies being fun. We all want to rule the galaxy. But it won't play well with the timescale.
It would be nice if player could start a colony at size 4 (instead of 3) if player somehow brought more than 10k crew with him.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 09:24:23 PM by Megas »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 146