Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Anvel]

Missiles are ok because unlike faction-specific ships sabots can be used by anyone who has slots and they have a limited ordinance, otherwise, there would be no point in not using overpowered ballistics and hybrid weapons only. Carriers on the other hand need a buff for sure.
ps: isn't 20dp for Hyperion after skills nerf way too much? I think 15-18 is more reasonable.

[Corelious]

So what's the plan with the colony system?  Nerf it to the point that it's no longer worth the hefty financial investment?  Why completely remove the colony skills?  We can't just ad a new skill tree that's all about colonies?

Seriously, it already takes a ton of cash to invest and grow a colony... which already takes forever to grow.... and we get all sorts of caps to what we can build... so why the nerf to commerce and removal of skills?  How does nerfing one building make any of the others more viable?

[Corelious]

Now that's a straight up lie.

Dunno man. Hard to tell.

(I feel like maybe you mean these in a kind of jokey/bantering sort of way, but if that's the case, at least IMO - it's the internet, and it doesn't come across very well.)

Towards IonDragon, I was being facetious.
As for harpoons and reapers and Remnants, I felt significantly negatively with how most missiles that weren't sabots were useless at best, harmful-if-taken (in the sense they took OP that could have been spent on something else had any impact) at best and it does show. I shouldn't have called you a liar, and I did not think that perhaps in-dev changes (most significantly, Shield Modulation losing HE resistance) made it different for you, but in the version I get to play, yeah you just don't take anything but sabots in smalls and mediums, and hurricanes and hammer barrages in larges (if you can support them with sabots, of course) and you can see it does not make me happy.

Posted one Dealmaker nerf idea elsewhere:  Instead of adding to income, the Dealmaker can remove all tariffs from the player's colony.  (That way, player will not need to visit pirates next door to buy or sell stuff for the best prices.)

If a core world has it, tariffs are higher, maybe 50%.  Or it does nothing?

As far as I am concerned, Commerce-as-industry exists only to boost the income. If it does not perform any income-boosting function, it is not worth the industry slot and a place in my colony, like in 0.9.1. If dealmaker nerf will result in Commerce having fewer drawbacks, then it's acceptable. Otherwise, if commerce's +25% income (I don't use SPs on colonies) is less of an income increase than what a regular industry would do, it has no place in my colonies.

Basically looking to modders to fix this. Either they need to include the option to make colony management harder when setting up a new character, or stop punishing those of us who don't like how grindy colonies already are by continuing to nerf them into oblivion.

Seriously, allowing more options prior to start would help appease people on both sides of the isle.

In the mean time, looking to you modders to fix the jumbled mess that is the colony management system.

[Yubbin]

Hey @Alex, can you buff omishield conversion? I find I never use it with vanilla or modded ships, probably because front shield is usually not worth changing, because of the shield angle shrinking when you install the hullmod. Maybe give it some other benefit, or remove the downsides of it?

[SonnaBanana]

All I want is to have Cybernetic Augmentation give some sort of fleetwide marine or crew bonus.
Well, that's not all (Atropi buffs would also be good) but it would be pretty nice. 

[Megas]

So what's the plan with the colony system?  Nerf it to the point that it's no longer worth the hefty financial investment?  Why completely remove the colony skills?  We can't just ad a new skill tree that's all about colonies?

Seriously, it already takes a ton of cash to invest and grow a colony... which already takes forever to grow.... and we get all sorts of caps to what we can build... so why the nerf to commerce and removal of skills?  How does nerfing one building make any of the others more viable?

Colonies are only big money makers late.  Early on, they are money pits.  The base 50% is not a big deal given the -3 stability.  Commerce gets crazy after player boosts it with SP and items.  Rather see the boosters nerfed (like SP improvement and alpha core improving stability instead of income, and dealmaker removing tariffs) instead of the core industry nerfed, unless the -3 stability penalty is nerfed too.  Probably a good idea to tone down the stability penalty anyway for the sake of NPC core worlds that cannot absorb stability penalties from pirates and raids without decivilizing.  If Commerce adds less income, then the stability should be less, like -1.

Also, the admin cap will be raised from two to three, so player will get half of Colony Management for free.

Well, that's not all (Atropi buffs would also be good) but it would be pretty nice. 

Alex buffed them by making them cost less OP.  Also, single Harpoons will cost more since they carry two missiles instead of one (and get long reload delay).

[Mantas]

Apologies if this has been asked before or if it's a dumb question, but isn't the 80% nerf to raiding overtuned? I've mostly raided just for supplies and fuel, to keep my fleet going without having to deal with markets, and while it was good if carried out in the right worlds, this feels like an extreme measure because of one specific scenario: a feedback loop. It feels more like a problem of this particular interaction than with the fantasy and base gameplay of raiding.

Thematically, raiding should give some measure of reward even if the raided commodity's not in excess. Otherwise, you wouldn't see pirates raiding in and around systems except for very specific planets (those with an excess of supplies and/or fuel). Not only that, but it adds another layer of logistics to the problem. Now when you want to raid, you not only need to check if the planet produces the commodity you desire and if it's a viable raid target (as in, it has defenses you can penetrate), but now you also need to make sure it's in excess (and that it remains in excess by the time you reach the system, or you've been burning fuel pointlessly). While before you could resupply anywhere and mostly raid anywhere for supplies/fuel, now you might need to ping-pong across the entire core-worlds for a haul you could possibly get off a singular planet.

Anyway, sorry for the rant and any grammatical mistakes. What are your thoughts on this? Just lifting some concerns, based on what it might hypothetically end up looking like. If it ends up becoming too punishing or otherwise too much of a chore to be worth the trouble, raiding is a cool feature that could end up going unused. Except for blueprints or industry items, but that's not the mechanic being changed.

Edit: Grammar

[Corelious]

So what's the plan with the colony system?  Nerf it to the point that it's no longer worth the hefty financial investment?  Why completely remove the colony skills?  We can't just ad a new skill tree that's all about colonies?

Seriously, it already takes a ton of cash to invest and grow a colony... which already takes forever to grow.... and we get all sorts of caps to what we can build... so why the nerf to commerce and removal of skills?  How does nerfing one building make any of the others more viable?

Colonies are only big money makers late.  Early on, they are money pits.  The base 50% is not a big deal given the -3 stability.  Commerce gets crazy after player boosts it with SP and items.  Rather see the boosters nerfed (like SP improvement and alpha core improving stability instead of income, and dealmaker removing tariffs) instead of the core industry nerfed, unless the -3 stability penalty is nerfed too.  Probably a good idea to tone down the stability penalty anyway for the sake of NPC core worlds that cannot absorb stability penalties from pirates and raids without decivilizing.  If Commerce adds less income, then the stability should be less, like -1.

Also, the admin cap will be raised from two to three, so player will get half of Colony Management for free.

Well, that's not all (Atropi buffs would also be good) but it would be pretty nice. 

Alex buffed them by making them cost less OP.  Also, single Harpoons will cost more since they carry two missiles instead of one (and get long reload delay).

That's not entirely accurate - they double nerfed it by removing all skills. AND then doubled down by removing skills on the administrators.

Why would I bother with paying a salary when they literally don't buff my colonies at all?

Im sorry, but this move is an extremely one dimensional solution - there are those of use who don't want to spend weeks getting the resources to set up planets.  By the time I have them up and running, my fleets are expensive.  By killing the income, they're killing the incentive for the late game.  The point is that planets are supposed to make this easier once developed - it shouldn't be a pointless grindfest for mediocre results.

So essentially you're forced to play the markets now for money so you HAVE to be a trader and switch out fleets for cargo carrying.

[Corelious]

Apologies if this has been asked before or if it's a dumb question, but isn't the 80% nerf to raiding overtuned? I've mostly raided just for supplies and fuel, to keep my fleet going without having to deal with markets, and while it was good if carried out in the right worlds, this feels like an extreme measure because of one specific scenario, a feedback loop. It feels more like a problem of this particular interaction than with the fantasy and base gameplay of raiding.

Thematically, raiding should give some measure of reward even if the raided commodity's not in excess. Otherwise, you wouldn't see pirates raiding in and around systems except for very specific planets (those with an excess of supplies and/or fuel). Not only that, but it adds another layer of logistics to the problem. Now when you want to raid, you not only need to check if the planet produces the commodity you desire and if it's a viable raid target (as in, it has defenses you can penetrate), but now you also need to make sure it's in excess (and that it remains in excess by the time you reach the system, or you've been burning fuel pointlessly). While before you could resupply anywhere and mostly raid anywhere for supplies/fuel, now you might need to ping-pong across the entire core-worlds for a haul you could possibly get off a singular planet.

Anyway, sorry for the rant and any gramatical mistakes. What are your thoughts on this? Just lifting some concerns, based on what it might hypothetically end up looking like. If it ends up becoming too punishing or otherwise too much of a chore to be worth the trouble, raiding commodities is a cool mechanic that could end up going unused. Except for blueprints or industry items, but that's not the mechanic being changed.

My thoughts exactly, how is it worth the cost of marines and heavy weapons now?  You mean I should spend a story point for it to be worth my time now?  What if I'd rather spend the story point on my ship S Mods instead or planet?  Oh I have to choose?  What's if that's not how I enjoy playing?

Pre game settings are a thing and can be expanded on.  This adjustment should fall under the difficulty options prior to starting a new play through.

[Megas]

That's not entirely accurate - they double nerfed it by removing all skills. AND then doubled down by removing skills on the administrators.

Why would I bother with paying a salary when they literally don't buff my colonies at all?

Im sorry, but this move is an extremely one dimensional solution - there are those of use who don't want to spend weeks getting the resources to set up planets.  By the time I have them up and running, my fleets are expensive.  By killing the income, they're killing the incentive for the late game.  The point is that planets are supposed to make this easier once developed - it shouldn't be a pointless grindfest for mediocre results.

So essentially you're forced to play the markets now for money so you HAVE to be a trader and switch out fleets for cargo carrying.

You pay a salary to an admin to hold the planet at all beyond the two you can rule yourself, unless you use alpha cores as admins.  Without admins, you can only hold two planets, which is likely not enough to produce all resources yourself.

As for removing all skills, this was already practically done for the player this release, with all of them stuck at Leadership 5 and Industry 5.  Getting Leadership 5 also means you cannot respec your Leadership 4 skill away.  0.95 is very unfriendly to colony enthusiasts.  That leaves admins.  The most important skill for them is Industrial Planning, which they can still get next release.  The others are nice, but not as important as Industrial Planning, and the salaries of two skill admins (e.g., Industrial Planning and Ground Operations) is very high (25k for two skills instead of 5k for one skill).

If colony skills were removed from the player, it makes sense to remove them from admins as well.

Next release, unskilled player can hire one more admin than he can in the current release.

[Alex]

Hey @Alex, can you buff omishield conversion? I find I never use it with vanilla or modded ships, probably because front shield is usually not worth changing, because of the shield angle shrinking when you install the hullmod. Maybe give it some other benefit, or remove the downsides of it?

Let me make a note to have a look at that one! Meant to at some point, but it slipped through the cracks.

Apologies if this has been asked before or if it's a dumb question, but isn't the 80% nerf to raiding overtuned? I've mostly raided just for supplies and fuel, to keep my fleet going without having to deal with markets, and while it was good if carried out in the right worlds, this feels like an extreme measure because of one specific scenario: a feedback loop. It feels more like a problem of this particular interaction than with the fantasy and base gameplay of raiding.

Thematically, raiding should give some measure of reward even if the raided commodity's not in excess. Otherwise, you wouldn't see pirates raiding in and around systems except for very specific planets (those with an excess of supplies and/or fuel). Not only that, but it adds another layer of logistics to the problem. Now when you want to raid, you not only need to check if the planet produces the commodity you desire and if it's a viable raid target (as in, it has defenses you can penetrate), but now you also need to make sure it's in excess (and that it remains in excess by the time you reach the system, or you've been burning fuel pointlessly). While before you could resupply anywhere and mostly raid anywhere for supplies/fuel, now you might need to ping-pong across the entire core-worlds for a haul you could possibly get off a singular planet.

Anyway, sorry for the rant and any grammatical mistakes. What are your thoughts on this? Just lifting some concerns, based on what it might hypothetically end up looking like. If it ends up becoming too punishing or otherwise too much of a chore to be worth the trouble, raiding is a cool feature that could end up going unused. Except for blueprints or industry items, but that's not the mechanic being changed.

The thing is, raiding was so *over* tuned that even at 20%, it still gives you a substantially more than break-even reward even under less than ideal circumstances - a low raid effectiveness, no excess, and a comparatively high danger level. But at least now that scenario is painful enough that you'd have to maybe think about it, if you've got an eye towards building up your marine veterancy.

It's also much easier to get a nice bonus to raiding effectiveness and a marine loss reduction, via Tactical Drills in Leadership - that can be your first point spent, if that's desired.

[Mantas]

Sounds fair, thanks for addressing this!

[Alex]

Glad that sounds reasonable! I'll still keep an eye on it, of course, and on any feedback.

[Fenrir]

quick bug report:
If 2 Galatia missions both involve an option to launch a raid to acquire the objective (artifact, prisoned researcher, etc) happened to point towards the same planet, it is possible that when you try to raid for the 2nd objective after raiding for the 1st already, in the raid panel the 1st objective is still there. I didn't try if I raid for the 1st again but I'm pretty sure something worse than being wrong could happen.

[Alex]

quick bug report:
If 2 Galatia missions both involve an option to launch a raid to acquire the objective (artifact, prisoned researcher, etc) happened to point towards the same planet, it is possible that when you try to raid for the 2nd objective after raiding for the 1st already, in the raid panel the 1st objective is still there. I didn't try if I raid for the 1st again but I'm pretty sure something worse than being wrong could happen.

Thank you - this is actually fixed for the next release! It's the "Fixed issue where multiple custom raid objectives would show up when only one of them should have given the context" item in the patch notes.