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 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic: Complaints about CR and game design  (Read 10673 times)

Sordid

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2021, 02:25:09 PM »

I think deploying your massive battleship to kill 1 frigate loses its fun value very quickly. You can do some 'fun' things once or twice, even if it isn't optimal, but while I smirk when my Paragon absolutely deletes a Kite, the game would not be better if that's all you did -- chew up outmatched opponents.

If you don't find it fun, then don't do it? That's no reason to support taking it away from people who do enjoy it. This right here would be the "screw you, I got mine" attitude I mentioned.

Quote
The game wants you to accurately estimate what it will take to win a battle. If you want to spend a bit more for a more secure victory, you can do that. To use a RL example, the US does not deploy a carrier group to deal with piracy off the African coast, when a few ships will do the job.

I know, but that's exactly my complaint. That's the one playstyle the game pushes you into. If you happen to like that playstyle, good for you, but the game could be so much more than just this.

Not to mention that it's not actually possible to make that estimation accurately due to the dumb AI and lack of command points issues I mentioned.

Quote
Nothing stops you from going with a chain flagship strategy, if it still works, where you deploy 1 ship until it starts running out of CR, then you deploy the next and transfer command, etc.

"Nothing stops you, unless something does." Good one. ;)

Quote
You can also go with the other side of it now, with Derelict Contingent and try to flood the field with crappy ships that have relatively low supply costs to maintain.

Yes, I suppose you can still do that, but if the dev's comments on it are any indication, the nerf bat is rapidly approaching this particular strategy's face.

Quote
If you have actually reached the point where you have a big fleet with officers, then you are probably also at the point where an extra 100 supplies per battle is no longer a serious concern, especially now that you can back your fleet up with a strong economic base from colonies.

As a player, you are trying to assemble your super awesome fleet, but there's significant hurdles in your way, which is the game. It's perfectly achievable, it's rather trivial to set up 3-4 colonies to earn 500k+/month. Once you have that, you basically don't have to care about CR, just take like 2 Atlases and 2 Prometheis full of supplies and fuel, since the credit cost is immaterial at that point.

Yes, but at that point you run into this issue here: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20344.0

Quote
I can't say I'm the biggest fan of how the skills are set up now, but the ideas are there. Combat = you are stronger, Leadership = Officers are stronger (and it seems carriers as well?), Technology = Ships are stronger, Industry = You have more stuff/your campaign layer is stronger.

That's a whole other topic that would be more suitable for the skill impressions thread that this got split off of, but let's just say I'm not a fan of the strict level cap. I see no reason to limit the player to less than half of the available skills.

In this respect also, I get the feeling that the game doesn't know what it wants to be. Are you supposed to play one character for three hundred hours? Or is it supposed to be like a roguelite where a playthrough is a couple hours, and then you go again with a different build? The skill system is set up as if it's the latter, but the rest of the game is the former. There's plenty of successful and fun games of that type that don't have any such limitation, like for instance Skyrim (and the entire TES series in general). Not only can you max out all the skills in that, the devs even realized that once you max a skill, you can't gain any more levels by using it, so they patched in the option to reset it back down to zero, just to avoid pushing players into unwanted playstyles. Starsector's new ability to respec helps a lot in this respect, but the dev could still learn a lot from good old Skyrim.

In the previous version, I used (a customized version of) the SkillUp mod that lets you keep leveling and eventually gain all the skills, and you know what? I still didn't feel overpowered at that point.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 03:55:49 PM by Sordid »
Logged

Pushover

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2021, 04:01:41 PM »

I think deploying your massive battleship to kill 1 frigate loses its fun value very quickly. You can do some 'fun' things once or twice, even if it isn't optimal, but while I smirk when my Paragon absolutely deletes a Kite, the game would not be better if that's all you did -- chew up outmatched opponents.

If you don't find it fun, then don't do it? That's no reason to support taking it away from people who do enjoy it. This right here would be the "screw you, I got mine" attitude I mentioned.
I mean... nothing stops you from doing it other than the supply cost. If you have the supplies to do it... just do it? There's plenty of 'fun' things in games that are not exactly optimal. Committing crimes in TES games like Skyrim? Probably not optimal, but plenty of fun. Is that what the game is about? No.

Quote
The game wants you to accurately estimate what it will take to win a battle. If you want to spend a bit more for a more secure victory, you can do that. To use a RL example, the US does not deploy a carrier group to deal with piracy off the African coast, when a few ships will do the job.

I know, but that's exactly my complaint. That's the one playstyle the game pushes you into. If you happen to like that playstyle, good for you, but the game could be so much more than just this.

Not to mention that it's not actually possible to make that estimation accurately due to the dumb AI and lack of command points issues I mentioned.
There's been a lot of mitigation around the cost of losing a ship so that even if you guess wrong, the punishment isn't so severe. Ability to passively remove D-mods, ability to build your own ships, more ability to recover own ships, etc. Yeah, I'd love if the AI was a bit smarter at times, but fixing that issue is a very difficult problem. The punishment for losing a ship is not nearly as bad as it used to be. Is good now? Debatable.

"Nothing stops you, unless something does." Good one. ;) More to the point, there is indeed something that stops you, deployment points. Since you don't get your DP back when you retreat a ship, there's a hard cap on how many ships you can deploy. And in that case it's better to deploy them all at once.
This is just wrong, you get DP back when you retreat a ship.

Yes, I suppose you can still do that, but if the dev's comments on it are any indication, the nerf bat is rapidly approaching this particular strategy's face.
Yes, but at that point you run into this issue here: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20344.0
Yeah, but at this point, it's no longer in the scope of this discussion and more about 'what issues still exist in Starsector?'. Late game balance isn't great right now. I agree there. The junker strategy needs better balance than "here's some unkillable ships because reasons." But CR and spending supplies is not really a lategame problem unless you want to talk about chain battles, which seems to be a Nexerelin issue more than a vanilla one (how many times do you really get forced into more than 2 back to back battles in vanilla?)

At the end of the day, you are always going to want more features, more options, more everything, but there's only so much that can be done, especially with such a small team.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2021, 04:08:00 PM »

...
It's not about putting words in your mouth, it's about taking what you said to its logical conclusion. ...

Interpreting someone elses statement with extraneous logic (that is omitted) and then pretending the persons statement was said in support is a textbook definition of putting words into someone elses mouth, especially when the logic is as twisty and flawed as this. This is not an edge case either its just... really blatant. Please don't do it.

Quote
... I simply can't stand people who oppose changes that would benefit others without harming them in any way. This "screw you, I got mine" attitude is very common in echo chambers populated by fans....

People here have spent quite a bit of time explaining to you, in detail and with many examples, of why it does harm both them and others. You haven't managed to argue successfully against them, and have resorted to ad hominem attacks by claiming we are all saying "screw you, I got mine". Resorting to disparaging others when you fail to persuade them is not a good way to convince them you are right. Or good behavior for a forum.

There's nothing wrong with being dissatisfied with the direction the game is going and posting criticisms. There's nothing wrong with just plain not liking the new gameplay and preferring the old: thats your own personal preference. There are a few things that I don't think are good with the new version and I've posted about them loudly. Your own personal preference doesn't need to be supported by any arguments to be correct: it is just what you find best for you and there's nothing wrong with that.

But if you are lobbying for a feature to be added to or removed from the game, you are trying to convince others to have the same preference as you. They can say "no, that would be bad for me and for others for reason X". If you fail to refute X and don't convince anyone, its not because the others are bad bad people of badness. Its because they have legitimate reasons for that feature harming them, and your own preference is just that: a preference for you.
Logged

Sordid

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2021, 04:39:29 PM »

I mean... nothing stops you from doing it other than the supply cost. If you have the supplies to do it... just do it? There's plenty of 'fun' things in games that are not exactly optimal. Committing crimes in TES games like Skyrim? Probably not optimal, but plenty of fun. Is that what the game is about? No.

That's technically true, you can do that, but then you run out of supplies way quicker and have to go buy more. Or you have to take skills that increase the loot you get, at the expense of skills that enhance the core combat gameplay. So while playing in a way that the dev doesn't approve of is possible, the game does penalize you for it, and that's just not nice.

To borrow an example from one of my favorite games, Dark Souls does absolutely nothing to enforce 'optimal' play. You can use your Megasword of Genocide +15 to turn basic zombies in the starting area into fine paste as much as you want, and the game never goes, "No, no, you're doing it wrong, I'm going to penalize you by making your sword lose durability faster, so that you have to take more frequent breaks to go repair it." That would be stupid, yet in Starsector people defend it? And it works the other way around as well, Dark Souls never makes it impossible to overcome any given challenge just because you're using a 'sub-optimal' build. You can finish the entire game with a level 1 character using nothing but bare fists; people have. Sure, having a good build with good gear helps a ton, but it's not necessary. Good luck killing [redacted] or [super redacted] with nothing but a Hound. And yet I'm sure you'd agree Dark Souls is not a simplistic or shallow or easy game. I wish Starsector was more like Dark Souls.

Quote
There's been a lot of mitigation around the cost of losing a ship so that even if you guess wrong, the punishment isn't so severe. Ability to passively remove D-mods, ability to build your own ships, more ability to recover own ships, etc. Yeah, I'd love if the AI was a bit smarter at times, but fixing that issue is a very difficult problem. The punishment for losing a ship is not nearly as bad as it used to be. Is good now? Debatable.

Eh... yes, it's been mitigated somewhat, but that d-mod removal skill is quite deep into that skill branch, not to mention that I have no clue if it's even worth taking. "A chance to remove a d-mod every two months"? How much of a chance? 90% 25%? 1%? The game doesn't say, and I'm sure as hell not about to invest four skill points and spend several in-game years to collect a big enough sample size to be able to figure it out. Even if it was guaranteed, 2 months is too long. If it was "remove a d-mod every week", yeah, I'd spend 4 skill points to get it.

As for dumb AI, the other way to mitigate the issue is to make the player stronger so that their AI allies play less of a role. I've been advocating that for some time now.

Quote
This is just wrong, you get DP back when you retreat a ship.

Yes, I realized and removed that part of the post. I could swear I've had battles where that didn't happen, though. Maybe I'm just misremembering.

Quote
Yeah, but at this point, it's no longer in the scope of this discussion and more about 'what issues still exist in Starsector?'. Late game balance isn't great right now. I agree there. The junker strategy needs better balance than "here's some unkillable ships because reasons." But CR and spending supplies is not really a lategame problem unless you want to talk about chain battles, which seems to be a Nexerelin issue more than a vanilla one (how many times do you really get forced into more than 2 back to back battles in vanilla?)

The thing with supplies is that it's not just the in-game currency cost that's the problem; you're right that that disappears as you progress. It's also the real-world time and annoyance cost. Having to go back to resupply is just tedious and annoying, especially because you have to deal with unresponsive, rubberbandy fleet controls and hyperspace storms that bounce you around like a pinball. If I was in charge, those would receive a major overhaul. The overworld map gameplay has never been fun in this game; from the very first version it got implemented, I considered it nothing but padding between the fun bits. The Hyperdrive mod helps a ton, but even that can only do so much to mitigate the underlying issue.

As for back-to-back battles, I don't need to be forced into them. I want to fight them. The less overworld travel I have to do to get from one battle to the next, the better. The issue for me is that the game mandates taking those breaks and doing that travel, or at least a lot more of it than I think it should.

Quote
At the end of the day, you are always going to want more features, more options, more everything, but there's only so much that can be done, especially with such a small team.

No, I've been asking for the exact opposite. Like I said, I think the dev is like a writer without an editor, and as a result the game is in dire need of trimming all the fat. He's created a wonderfully clever, complex, and interconnected system, but unfortunately that doesn't make the game more fun when all those mechanics just serve as restrictions against playstyles he doesn't like. I don't want more, I want less.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 06:43:09 PM by Sordid »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2021, 05:06:59 PM »

I enjoy the optimization aspect of games on its own. If the game lets me do a thing, but it isn't a good way of solving the problems in the game, I still can't do that thing without losing my enjoyment of the optimization aspect of the game. If you get rid of CR and the optimum fleet becomes a solo frigate that kills everything, that whole optimization aspect of the game is lost. It's fine if you don't care about that, but clearly a lot of other people do.
Logged

Sordid

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2021, 05:52:39 PM »

I enjoy the optimization aspect of games on its own. If the game lets me do a thing, but it isn't a good way of solving the problems in the game, I still can't do that thing without losing my enjoyment of the optimization aspect of the game. If you get rid of CR and the optimum fleet becomes a solo frigate that kills everything, that whole optimization aspect of the game is lost. It's fine if you don't care about that, but clearly a lot of other people do.

I don't think that optimization would stop being a good way of solving problems, it's just that without CR, you'd be the one to decide what "good" means in that context rather than having it dictated by the game. I would never consider a solo frigate to be the 'optimal' way of playing the game simply because killing fleets with it would take forever, and likewise I wouldn't want to deploy overwhelming numbers of ships either because then I wouldn't get to do any fighting myself. To borrow an example from Dark Souls again, people don't stop optimizing their builds just because the game allows you to finish it with with a level 1 character or grind XP until you max out every stat (both of which could be considered 'optimal' from different points of view). People don't stop playing melee either just because casters are stronger and easier. As I said earlier, mechanics that enforce optimization in the way CR does are very rare, most games don't have them, and we play and enjoy them perfectly well regardless. So I think your fears are unfounded, I think if CR disappeared tomorrow, you'd still play the same way you do now and continue enjoying it just as much.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 06:03:13 PM by Sordid »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2021, 06:17:13 PM »

I enjoy the optimization aspect of games on its own. If the game lets me do a thing, but it isn't a good way of solving the problems in the game, I still can't do that thing without losing my enjoyment of the optimization aspect of the game. If you get rid of CR and the optimum fleet becomes a solo frigate that kills everything, that whole optimization aspect of the game is lost. It's fine if you don't care about that, but clearly a lot of other people do.

I don't think that optimization would stop being a good way of solving problems, it's just that without CR, you'd be the one to decide what "good" means in that context rather than having it dictated by the game. I would never consider a solo frigate to be the 'optimal' way of playing the game simply because killing fleets with it would take forever, and likewise I wouldn't want to deploy overwhelming numbers of ships either because then I wouldn't get to do any fighting myself. To borrow an example from Dark Souls again, people don't stop optimizing their builds just because the game allows you to finish it with with a level 1 character or grind XP until you max out every stat (both of which could be considered 'optimal' from different points of view). People don't stop playing melee either just because casters are stronger and easier. As I said earlier, mechanics that enforce optimization in the way CR does are very rare, most games don't have them, and we play and enjoy them perfectly well regardless. So I think your fears are unfounded, I think if CR disappeared tomorrow, you'd still play the same way you do now and continue enjoying it just as much.
I've never played dark souls, so I can't speak to it, but a solo frigate is already an optimal way to win a lot of easier fights, even with CR, so I can't really see how it would not be a dominant strategy. Why would you pay hundreds of supplies a month to have warships when you can get the exact same results with a single frigate? There's no benefit to using anything else.

Also, I can't imagine a way that playing a game without taking any levels would be optimal in any way. That sounds like a challenge run someone does just because they can. I don't get any enjoyment out of that sort of thing.
Logged

Sordid

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2021, 06:27:37 PM »

I've never played dark souls, so I can't speak to it, but a solo frigate is already an optimal way to win a lot of easier fights, even with CR, so I can't really see how it would not be a dominant strategy. Why would you pay hundreds of supplies a month to have warships when you can get the exact same results with a single frigate? There's no benefit to using anything else.

Also, I can't imagine a way that playing a game without taking any levels would be optimal in any way. That sounds like a challenge run someone does just because they can. I don't get any enjoyment out of that sort of thing.

Optimal from what point of view? A single frigate may be optimal in terms of the amount of supplies used, but it takes a longer period of real-life time to fight that battle. There's no such thing as optimal, it's always a trade-off of one kind or another. There will still be trade-offs to be optimized if you take CR out of the picture. In fact, if you take CR and supplies out of the game, that single frigate ceases to be optimal from that point of view, since deploying a larger force is no longer going to incur a higher cost. It would do the opposite of what you think; rather than exacerbate the solo frigate issue, it would fix it.

I don't either, but I don't oppose that option being present in the game for those that do.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 07:34:05 PM by Sordid »
Logged

Soda Savvy

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2021, 07:27:41 PM »

Jumping in to say that I personally like the logistics side of the game a lot. Having a supply chain and upkeep costs and plotting out expeditions is fun for me, as is budgeting what I can get away with in terms of the combat to wear and tear ratio. Traveling through the outer reaches of the sector is also fun, though I feel deep space could use more out there at times.

I also like that CR exists in the battles themselves, because thematically it makes sense for ships going full blast at each other to wear out over time, and mechanically acts as a counter to certain annoyances(Like the infinitely kiting tiny ship).

I do however think it could be toned back for the actual deployment costs a bit, as well as what causes it to drop.

Ships in real life that jump to red alert, or do combat drills, etc, don't suddenly take a capability hit once the action is over unless something has gone genuinely wrong.  Maybe if CR degradation outside of a small amount was instead focused on the ships that were actually in the thick of the action?
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2021, 01:11:56 AM »

Optimal from what point of view? A single frigate may be optimal in terms of the amount of supplies used, but it takes a longer period of real-life time to fight that battle. There's no such thing as optimal, it's always a trade-off of one kind or another. There will still be trade-offs to be optimized if you take CR out of the picture. In fact, if you take CR and supplies out of the game, that single frigate ceases to be optimal from that point of view, since deploying a larger force is no longer going to incur a higher cost. It would do the opposite of what you think; rather than exacerbate the solo frigate issue, it would fix it.

I don't either, but I don't oppose that option being present in the game for those that do.
If a single frigate could kill everything, it would be optimal from any in-game resource point of view (credits,fuel,supplies,burn speed,sensor profile,range etc.). If you removed CR, you still pay supplies monthly and fuel/light year to have ships in your fleet, even if you don't deploy them, so you want to get rid of any ships you don't need, which would be all combat ships except the frigate. You also have a higher burn if you don't use big ships, and it becomes easier to sneak around/smuggle, and you require less cargo space for supplies, and your range is further............. The only reason to use big combat ships is that they provide more power in combat. Other than that, they just cost more in pretty much every way. If big ships no longer present a combat benefit over a single frigate, how would you ever justify using them? It's like making a Prius that can go as fast and perform well as a Ferrari, while having better fuel economy, and costing 1/100th the price, and then saying the Ferrari's price is fine because it looks cool and they will deliver it the next day. If you care about getting value out of your money, you're buying the Prius. You have to remove most of the campaign mechanics (sensors, fuel, supplies etc.) to make a single frigate non-optimal from a resource perspective.

The only argument you could make is that it takes less IRL time, but I think balancing gameplay around any IRL factor is a terrible idea all around. Pay to win is the worst case of this, but grind to win is just as unfun. It's just a question of how much annoyance/unhappiness you're willing to put up with to succeed in the game. Might as well have 'stub your toe to win'. Why make it so you have to be unhappy to do better in the game?
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2021, 01:57:14 AM »

Well, Afflictor exists, and it's exactly the single frigate to rule them all (well, technically you may need to swap 2 or 3 through the fight, but it's still pretty much nothing in supply costs).

You still may want a bit of a fleet to go with it, because attacking a distracted target is much easier and finishing some capitals (depends on shape and presence of omni-shield) with Afflictor itself is problematic - you need exactly perfect execution every single time, or you blow up with them. So it's easier to cripple enemy capitals and leave finishing hits to allies.
Logged

Sordid

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2021, 04:41:41 AM »

If a single frigate could kill everything, it would be optimal from any in-game resource point of view (credits,fuel,supplies,burn speed,sensor profile,range etc.).

I don't think this is true even if no other change is made besides removing CR as a mechanic. Larger ships have more sensor strength in addition to a larger sensor profile, so while a single frigate is easier to sneak around with, it also can't see much on its own. It can't carry a lot of cargo/loot or fuel either, so you'd want some freighters and tankers with it, and those have lower speeds and larger sensor profiles. Since those advantages of the frigate are negated anyway, you might as well take some larger warships too, since they won't make any difference at that point. Basically, solo frigate is a battle playstyle, not an overworld playstyle. The removal of CR would result in slightly smaller fleets, yes, but only in the sense that you wouldn't need to rotate tired ships out of the battle and replace them with fresh ones, so you could get away with not having those reserves with you. If that's not a thing you do, I don't think it would make much difference at all.

Quote
You have to remove most of the campaign mechanics (sensors, fuel, supplies etc.) to make a single frigate non-optimal from a resource perspective.

I would probably remove supplies completely, yes, since replenishing/maintaining CR is the only purpose they serve.

Quote
The only argument you could make is that it takes less IRL time, but I think balancing gameplay around any IRL factor is a terrible idea all around. Pay to win is the worst case of this, but grind to win is just as unfun. It's just a question of how much annoyance/unhappiness you're willing to put up with to succeed in the game. Might as well have 'stub your toe to win'. Why make it so you have to be unhappy to do better in the game?

But... every game in existence is balanced that way? Gameplay in any game is always a choice between playing cautiously and taking longer or being more aggressive and quicker, especially so in combat-focused games. Balancing around real-life factors can't be avoided because there's always a real-life person playing the game.

As for having to be unhappy to succeed, that is, paradoxically, what makes games fun. You put in effort and you get satisfaction in return. If you've ever typed in a cheat code, you know from experience that the fun of winning without having to overcome obstacles is very short-lived. That's not to say that games should be grindy or overly tedious; mitigating that problem is precisely the goal of removing CR. I agree that pay-to-win (and pay-to-skip) is cancer, but I don't think that's really applicable here; thankfully Starsector didn't go down that path.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 04:58:40 AM by Sordid »
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2021, 05:20:54 AM »

Well, Afflictor exists, and it's exactly the single frigate to rule them all (well, technically you may need to swap 2 or 3 through the fight, but it's still pretty much nothing in supply costs).
If all you want to do with skills is to buff that one Afflictor, you should go C LLLRL, L LRL, T ERLRL, I ER (E for Either) and you will have an Afflictor with 630s PPT and 100% CR (less if you have a bigger fleet). Except for personal skills and T4R (can be swapped for T4L, but that's a more general skill), these skills buff your fleet, too, not just your flagship. My best try was about 10 (out of 80) shots to destroy a Paragon, which is still rather good, I think.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2021, 05:40:52 AM »

If all you want to do with skills is to buff that one Afflictor, you should go C LLLRL, L LRL, T ERLRL, I ER (E for Either) and you will have an Afflictor with 630s PPT and 100% CR (less if you have a bigger fleet). Except for personal skills and T4R (can be swapped for T4L, but that's a more general skill), these skills buff your fleet, too, not just your flagship. My best try was about 10 (out of 80) shots to destroy a Paragon, which is still rather good, I think.

I prefer C-LLLRL, L-LRL, T-22LLL.
Phase spec in tech is less important than extra flux capacity - that's key to 4 AM blaster loadout that's actually useful (need reserve for cloaked approach). PPT even without T4R is almost enough to fire all 30 salvos, and my game plan is to swap 2-3 Afflictors to begin with.
Double dip in Tech to have both +15% range and EWM. Range margin to kill capitals without dying yourself is very thin, so 15% range helps a lot.

Optimal 4AM Afflictor can kill Paragon in 2 salvos. And some squishier capitals in just 1.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 05:43:22 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Complaints about CR and game design
« Reply #44 on: April 02, 2021, 09:19:22 AM »

If a single frigate could kill everything, it would be optimal from any in-game resource point of view (credits,fuel,supplies,burn speed,sensor profile,range etc.).
It can't carry a lot of cargo/loot or fuel either, so you'd want some freighters and tankers with it, and those have lower speeds and larger sensor profiles. Since those advantages of the frigate are negated anyway, you might as well take some larger warships too, since they won't make any difference at that point. Basically, solo frigate is a battle playstyle, not an overworld playstyle. The removal of CR would result in slightly smaller fleets, yes, but only in the sense that you wouldn't need to rotate tired ships out of the battle and replace them with fresh ones, so you could get away with not having those reserves with you. If that's not a thing you do, I don't think it would make much difference at all.
Yes obviously you would have freighters to haul your loot. That's why I specified combat ships every time I talked about it. If you want better sensor profile, slap some sensor hullmods on you freighters. All of the campaign aspects of the game can be solved without any combat ships. The point is that there's no reason to use big combat ships anymore, which is what I said.

I carry around about two to three times a single deployment in late game, but usually ships with different functions (astrals vs paragons etc.) so that I can tailor my deployment to the enemy somewhat. All of those interesting decisions would be removed too! That frigate can kill everything so I don't have to think about how to counter the enemy fleet, and I don't have to spend time developing loadouts for those ships, either.
I usually don't have to rotate ships out because I've spent a fair amount of time optimizing my fleet to kill things quickly before retreat is necessary (to save supplies), but I'm prepared to, and often have to retreat a few ships. That's exactly why I like supplies, they forced me to optimize/improve my strategy to get better performance. That's the gameplay I like, and don't want to lose.

I would probably remove supplies completely, yes, since replenishing/maintaining CR is the only purpose they serve.
The fact that people are coming into this thread to actively say they enjoy the resource management aspect of the game is clear evidence that this change would hurt other peoples enjoyment of the game. It's fine if you don't care for that aspect of the game, but at least acknowledge that other people do...


But... every game in existence is balanced that way? Gameplay in any game is always a choice between playing cautiously and taking longer or being more aggressive and quicker, especially so in combat-focused games. Balancing around real-life factors can't be avoided because there's always a real-life person playing the game.
Every game in existence? No way. Maybe a significant portion of action/combat games have some element of this. But even in those games, there is an effort to actively design them to prevent strategies that trade IRL time for success, even if that is unavoidable to some degree. Just think about how much people hate turtling/camping/defensive play in most games. Many strategy games have no element of this at all, i.e. they are not real time and cautious and aggressive play take the same amount of time, and are differentiated by risk/reward factors.
I don't like games where the best course of action is to play very defensively, or repeatedly do the same simple task with low risk. I acknowledge that some people like those games, so I have no issue with their existence, I simply don't play those games and I also don't go on their forums to say how much I don't like them.

As for having to be unhappy to succeed, that is, paradoxically, what makes games fun. You put in effort and you get satisfaction in return. If you've ever typed in a cheat code, you know from experience that the fun of winning without having to overcome obstacles is very short-lived. That's not to say that games should be grindy or overly tedious; mitigating that problem is precisely the goal of removing CR. I agree that pay-to-win (and pay-to-skip) is cancer, but I don't think that's really applicable here; thankfully Starsector didn't go down that path.
Sure but there are a lot of different ways games can be challenging. For me, fun games present a mental challenge, like solving a puzzle. I don't find games where the challenge is in the perfect execution of simple but difficult task to be compelling. I like the parts of starsector that make me think, and I find that most of the thinking I do revolves around solving/optimizing logistical challenges, and solving/optimizing combat challenges by choosing ships and loadouts. CR creates those challenges for me to solve. The enjoyment I get from piloting/combat is only one part of why I like the game.

CR was implemented to prevent grindy gameplay, where you spend hours in a single frigate slowly killing capital ships, so claiming that removing CR prevents grinding makes no sense to me. If there are problems with grindy gameplay in the current game, it's because some endgame fleets are too big, not because ships have a CR timer. It's not like fighting those fleets in a single superpowered frigate would be faster.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6