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 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 72

Author Topic: Starsector 0.95.1a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 248942 times)

Vanshilar

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #360 on: November 17, 2021, 10:17:05 PM »

Almost certainly not - I believe nothing modifies base range unless it says so explicitly, and so far the only examples are Ballistic Rangefinder and new-HSA. I believe Elite Point Defense is more like "Advanced Optics for PD", where it's a flat bonus added after multiplicative bonuses to base range.

Unless something explicitly says "base range" it does not affect the base range.

Aww darn. Oh well. Welp, presumably the PD range bonus stacks with Advanced Optics, so now I just need to wait for some enterprising mod author to make a 50-small energy slot ship so I can put 50 mining lasers on it for 600*1.55 + 200 + 200 = 1330-range 1500-DPS hard flux beams for 500 flux (and 15 hit strength, harhar). Or well...that Arkgneisis (I think) ship using PD lasers (which still gets up to 1020 range) or something. Will be fun to mess around with.

Come to think of it, HSA will be much more deadly against fighters, since they can't really take much hard flux, even if they could've absorbed the soft flux.

Unassigning skills that boosted officer level/elite skills will result in either the officer becoming a mercenary on a new contract, or losing excess skills

Hmm...does this differentiate between officers that you leveled up, versus officers that you found in cryopods? Not sure if this is why cryopod officers will now be level 5 or 7 but not level 6 (to make it so that level 6 officers were ones that you leveled up, not found). If so, then what happens to officers in the current (0.95a) version of the game, where you can find level 6 cryopod officers? (It's possible that cryopod officers have a tag specifically saying they're from cryopods to get around this or something -- but then maybe it's a level 5 cryopod officer that you leveled to 6.)

Oh, another question: Will the AI be adjusted to not plasma burn into hulks in the ship's way? Since that happens a fair amount of the time, making the ship flameout and often fly into the enemy fleet at high speed and die. (Here's a funny video of an Odyssey doing exactly this: It was lagging behind, unable to figure out how to get around a Radiant hulk, then it decided to plasma burn, hit the hulk, flamed out, and flew past my ships into the enemy fleet at over 300 su, although it survived:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyLdzlOjD9k

I should say, though, before going further: in the videos you've posted, the AI behavior, specifically for the Odysseys, looks strange. Maybe it's something broadside-ship specific, though I haven't seen anything even similar to what you're observing. It's possible that a mod you're using is factoring in somehow, too. The Odyssey hanging back due to a plasma cannon being installed doesn't make any sense, and I'm not seeing it on my end, hmm.

In this case, all the officers are reckless, and the fleet is operating under full assault mode (not sure how that changes things). I'm only using utility mods (to me, the vanilla game's combat, ships, weapons, etc. have so much theoretical and analytical richness that I still haven't gotten "bored" of it nor felt like I've explored all the possible combinations, to want to explore mods thus far this update, especially since my playtime is pretty limited now), although it's always possible that a mod designated "utility" may affect the game's AI.

I took out all the mods I could, leaving only Captain's Log and Detailed Combat Results (I think they can't be removed from an existing save), and redid it with and without the plasma cannon. It can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeS60EXWxVk

I used the non-plasma cannon save first to verify that the Odysseys will attack normally, then loaded the plasma cannon save for the bulk of the video. (I turned on full assault at around 6:17 in the video). For example at around 7 minutes in, you can see Odyssey 3 setting the Radiant as its target, but just stays away firing Hurricanes instead of going in. So this behavior still happens. I tried to find the ship that the Odyssey was targeting to see how it behaved toward its target throughout the fight.

I don't think "stay away if far away, close in if close" is necessarily some command in the vanilla AI. Rather, I'm guessing it's an emergent property based on some different AI decision-making steps. For example, it seems like in this update, the AI over-prioritizes far-away missiles like pilums and proximity charges. Well, the Remnant fleet launches plenty of both (the latter from Flash wings). So it's possible that ships farther away see all those missiles and decide to stay away, while ships closer to the front lines see a juicy enemy target and rush in to attack it. Or sometimes I've seen them target some frigate or another that's behind 3 or 4 other ships, so they might go in to take out what they think is an easy target (since they're ignoring other ships), while that frigate is too far for a ship that's farther away, which targets the bigger ships and decides it's too dangerous so stays away instead.

Or it may be some property of broadside behavior. (Almost all the weapons are on the left side; the only weapons that can hit the right side are the missiles and a couple of minipulsers.) I don't know how the AI treats broadside so can't really comment on that. Or maybe the plasma cannon makes the Odyssey think it'll overflux itself (since its weapon flux becomes greater than its flux dissipation) and thus decides not to go in with broadsides. Don't know.

Yes I do have the save and will send it to you once I've cleaned it up a bit (it's adjusted with things like linking to my custom "number" officer portraits to help me quickly identify which ship is which, so I'll have to edit those back). Another possibility is, since I manually edit the save files by typing in stuff sometimes, I may have inadvertently changed something that affects the AI, although usually it's just stuff like the officer personalities, etc., so I don't see how that may happen, but it's a possibility. This is the "test fleet" that I use to try out different fleets and strategies, so I probably have over a hundred saves of this particular fight (with different fleet setups) at this point, heh.

The setup is fairly straightforward. Start with 3 Odysseys (since they take longer to get into position) and a Hyperion, have the Hyperion grab the upper left objective, one of the Odysseys grab the right objective, set a "Defend" order to the left of the right objective. Once they've grabbed the objectives, deploy the remaining Hyperions, cancel the objective orders (so that they all gather around the "Defend" point), then once they sort of gather up, turn on full assault. After that, no more commands are put in, it's running under pure AI control at that point.

If the Odysseys have HIL in that large energy slot, then the fleet actually has a fair chance of winning the battle, with no losses (it really depends on how the Odysseys lined up at the beginning and if the Hyperions do a good enough job of distraction/harassment, though). I *think* the HIL has a long enough engagement range that the AI will move in rather than sitting back, but I don't really know how the AI works so not sure if that's the reason. I was testing if the plasma cannon would be better (since it does more DPS and does hard flux instead of soft flux) when I encountered this issue.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #361 on: November 18, 2021, 04:09:15 PM »

Thank you for sending me the saves! And for the detailed instructions, and the video to go with it to make sure we're looking for the same thing. I can't overstate the amount that this helps with AI issues - they can be so tricky to nail down! I really appreciate it.

So, good news! While I wasn't seeing it to quite the extent you were (probably due to other dev changes, AI and otherwise, making things a bit different), I did definitely observe this behavior. It's specific to broadside ships - what was happening was that the Odyssey would 1) figure that the "optimal broadside angle" was 80-ish degrees, i.e. facing away from the target by almost that much, and 2) would strafe towards the target, while also pressing W, which at that high an angle would make it so it couldn't really close the distance and would circle the target instead.

I think (I didn't verify this) that removing the Plasma Cannon simply made it not worry about using the broadside so much, while putting a HIL in instead of a Plasma Cannon would change some of the "how to broadside" calculations due to the range difference.

What I did is make it so that the ship will face more towards the target (compared to its calculated "ideal" facing for its broadside firepower) if it's further away from the target than it wants to be. So it works fairly nicely - they Odyssey will start out a bit off-center and move towards the target, turning gradually away from it to open up the broadside as it closes into its desired range.

Incidentally: I think removing the IR Pulse lasers from the broadside of that specific loadout will also make the AI move in more reliably, even in the currently-released build.

(Oh, also: I see in the video you're deciding what ship the AI is trying to engage based on what it "targets" - that's not always going to match up. Sometimes it'll target another ship (say, for a missile salvo), for example. This sort of thing is fairly frequent, though; the targeted ship and the ship it's actually trying to maneuver with respect to can be different.)
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #362 on: November 18, 2021, 05:24:46 PM »

Nitpick: Support Doctrine not listed in the changelog.

Also Alex, how do you feel about far more colony bonuses from (primarily non-colony) skills but most of the bonuses dropping off with increasing Colony Size/number of Colonies?
« Last Edit: November 19, 2021, 03:21:19 AM by SonnaBanana »
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

Lulloser

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #363 on: November 19, 2021, 03:35:14 AM »

I haven't looked at every post here, but I wanted to know what happens if you hit an enemy fleet(thats entering) in the slipstream, or you hit one while going out.
Or is it unlikely?    I dont wanna hit a massive fleet by accident xD

Can they even use it?
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #364 on: November 19, 2021, 04:05:48 AM »

I haven't looked at every post here, but I wanted to know what happens if you hit an enemy fleet(thats entering) in the slipstream, or you hit one while going out.
Or is it unlikely?    I dont wanna hit a massive fleet by accident xD

Can they even use it?
Yes.
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

q-rau

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #365 on: November 19, 2021, 11:45:57 AM »

I did always feel like Falcon (P) was one of the better cruiser hulls but 33% increase is pretty harsh...
Logged

DaShiv

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #366 on: November 19, 2021, 01:16:32 PM »

I did always feel like Falcon (P) was one of the better cruiser hulls but 33% increase is pretty harsh...

Even 20 DP is a bargain for how many Sabots you can pack into a Falcon (P) using EMR and Missile Spec, and Sabot spam is one of the most DP-efficient tactics vs [REDACTED] given how strong Sabots currently are.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #367 on: November 20, 2021, 07:44:06 AM »

Are Falcon(P)s even impressive as AI ships for campaign use? I mean, as player ships - sure, for tournaments against equal DP - sure. But against overwhelming numbers we have to fight in campaign? - I don't see how.
Logged

IonDragonX

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #368 on: November 20, 2021, 09:03:27 AM »

Doesn't the +5 DP for the Falcon (P) mean they are 33% stronger in auto-resolve battle?
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #369 on: November 20, 2021, 09:51:06 AM »

Are Falcon(P)s even impressive as AI ships for campaign use? I mean, as player ships - sure, for tournaments against equal DP - sure. But against overwhelming numbers we have to fight in campaign? - I don't see how.

They are to be honest. They run out of ammo eventually but the combination of high speed, high missiles, and the flux systems being almost entirely available for defense lets them punch out more ships than a normal light cruiser. Plus the advantage of killing enemy ships immediately and tilting the odds in the player's favor for the rest of the fight.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #370 on: November 20, 2021, 10:31:38 AM »

Nitpick: Support Doctrine not listed in the changelog.

Thank you, added that in!

Also Alex, how do you feel about far more colony bonuses from (primarily non-colony) skills but most of the bonuses dropping off with increasing Colony Size/number of Colonies?

I don't think that'd be a good idea - or, at least, that's not a direction I want to go in. I think I've touched on the "why" of that somewhere in one of the posts? Or maybe it was in one of the discussion threads. But basically, I don't think "colony is passively a bit better" type bonuses are mechanically interesting enough to have a bunch of them. Once colonies have a more well-defined/established mechanical - and active - role, I could see improving that via skills, maybe. But I still don't want to have many skills like that; colonies aren't the focus of the game in that way and don't warrant this.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #371 on: November 20, 2021, 11:14:48 AM »

Doesn't the +5 DP for the Falcon (P) mean they are 33% stronger in auto-resolve battle?
Considering that DP doesn't get used in autoresolve, no.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #372 on: November 20, 2021, 12:24:16 PM »

Doesn't the +5 DP for the Falcon (P) mean they are 33% stronger in auto-resolve battle?
Considering that DP doesn't get used in autoresolve, no.

It's a very reasonable question to ask, though. It's helpful to know that what *does* get used in autoresolve is a hidden "fleet points" stat (that used to be not hidden way back) which doesn't track exactly (or at times even very closely - especially for larger ships) with deployment points. For example, stations tend to have higher fleet point values so they're stronger in autoresolve than their deployment cost would indicate.
Logged

q-rau

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #373 on: November 20, 2021, 03:58:01 PM »

Even 20 DP is a bargain for how many Sabots you can pack into a Falcon (P) using EMR and Missile Spec, and Sabot spam is one of the most DP-efficient tactics vs [REDACTED] given how strong Sabots currently are.

That sounds more like a reason to nerf sabots than to nerf Falcon (P).
Logged

DaShiv

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #374 on: November 21, 2021, 02:32:33 AM »

Even 20 DP is a bargain for how many Sabots you can pack into a Falcon (P) using EMR and Missile Spec, and Sabot spam is one of the most DP-efficient tactics vs [REDACTED] given how strong Sabots currently are.

That sounds more like a reason to nerf sabots than to nerf Falcon (P).

I don't disagree that Sabots deserve to be nerfed, but the Falcon (P) is still well worth at least +5 DP due to 0.95a buffs to missile mounts (s-mod EMR and +100% ammo from Missile Spec), plus the free built-in hullmods. Sabots simply exacerbate this disparity vs stock Falcons.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 72