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 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 106

Author Topic: [0.9.1a] Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.86-RC3)  (Read 986192 times)

Erick Doe

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2489
  • "Pretty cunning, don't you think?"
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #480 on: September 23, 2013, 07:39:43 AM »

*throws a Zorg Control Matrix at the Unsung - watches it explode*
Logged

Silver Silence

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #481 on: September 23, 2013, 07:41:38 AM »

If I had a few good hours to spare, I'd go test that theory.
Logged

Uomoz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
  • 'womo'dz
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #482 on: September 23, 2013, 07:52:31 AM »

The Unsung cost 15% CR, such a gigantic high tech monstrosity should require a lot more efforts to ready for battle i think. Same apply for other big ships.

High tech is better than low tech.

Oh boy, you are SO wrong. Alex stated multiple times, high tech and low tech are 2 different ways of approaching the game, there's not a better way. For instance, vanilla high tech costs WAY more to deploy then low tech, and its probably related to the fact that vanilla repair and resupply parts are HARDER to find in a post apocalyptic situation. But I guess that most of the player base don't really care about the lore of the game.  ::)
Logged

Taverius

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Mistake not ...
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #483 on: September 23, 2013, 07:55:04 AM »

Vanilla balance sets the rule that higher tech = more CR per deploy. Older tech = cheaper to run.

5% is ludicrously low. I think the lowest I've seen anywhere else is 15%.
Logged
No faction is truly established without a themed Buffalo (TAG) variant.

Uomoz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
  • 'womo'dz
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #484 on: September 23, 2013, 07:58:02 AM »

Can't say I really like where this mod is going, personally I would have liked some very high maintenance costs for neutrino, as they pretty much rule the battlefield. Good in battle and outside, it's a bit too much for my tastes.
Logged

FlashFrozen

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #485 on: September 23, 2013, 08:14:31 AM »

I'll tinker some more when I get back, but if the ships are high maintenance, I'd have to buff cargo/fill it with cargo drones because the ships always take hull damage, and with supplies as is, it's unrunnable/profitable you'll run out of credits in mere days if you don't become Bobba Fett 24/7

Alternatively, low total repair cost, high CR deployment. I personally think high initial cost and high maintenance costs are illogical to use, kinda like the beaten to death hyperion.
Logged

Silver Silence

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #486 on: September 23, 2013, 08:18:53 AM »

Uomoz, the only time you like a faction is when it's ships are balanced almost to the point of incompetence against any half decent foe.
Logged

Cycerin

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • beyond the infinite void
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #487 on: September 23, 2013, 08:23:18 AM »

How can something be balanced to the point of "incompetence"? Starting with the best cards isn't always interesting. Balance is about meaningful decisions, and letting the player make the difference. Without designed weaknesses to go with designed strengths, everything is meaningless.

High power and low maintenance are obviously two strengths, not one strength and a counterbalancing weakness. A way to balance with a faction that has both these traits, would be to add another weakness, like.. hmm, let me brainstorm a bit. Low out-of-combat burn rate across the field, and reliance on auxiliary tugs and so forth, maybe? The core gameplay certainly isn't skint on ways to justify a faction's strengths with weaknesses in other areas.

I personally think Neutrino is a fairly balanced faction and has always been, and any overpowered traits are usually justified by interesting/fun gameplay mechanics: but designed weaknesses NEVER hurt the gameplay if they're done well and the player understands and learns how to plan around them.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 08:30:55 AM by Cycerin »
Logged

Erick Doe

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2489
  • "Pretty cunning, don't you think?"
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #488 on: September 23, 2013, 08:24:36 AM »

Uomoz, the only time you like a faction is when it's ships are balanced almost to the point of incompetence against any half decent foe.

I find that a rather strongly formulated opinion. And not one that belongs in this thread.

Uomoz is giving his opinion on how balanced he thinks this mod is. As he works with mod compilations and actually gets them to work together "HIMSELF", I'd say he is more of an authority on vanilla balance than anyone else out there.

I for one share his 'fear' of having mod ships becoming too powerful compared to vanilla vessels. The only reason I see for this happening is that mod builders are starting to compare their ships to those in other mods. Hence, this creates an 'arms race' where there shouldn't be one!

Of course, FlashFrozen is the only one who can comment and confirm that Neutrino ships are balanced with taking other mods in consideration.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 08:27:12 AM by Erick Doe »
Logged

FlashFrozen

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #489 on: September 23, 2013, 08:30:50 AM »

How can something be balanced to the point of "incompetence"? Starting with the best cards isn't always interesting. Balance is about meaningful decisions, and letting the player make the difference. Without designed weaknesses to go with designed strengths, everything is meaningless.

High power and low maintenance are obviously two strengths, not one strength and a counterbalancing weakness. A way to balance with a faction that has both these traits, would be to add another weakness, like.. hmm, let me brainstorm a bit. Low out-of-combat burn rate across the field, and reliance on auxiliary tugs and so forth, maybe? The core gameplay certainly isn't skint on ways to justify a faction's strengths with weaknesses in other areas.

Actually, you may of just given me an idea, hold the thought. I might make most of the ships have like ... 1 - 2 burn but make those cargo drones integral, they'll carry the supplies and are basically all tugs, so if you want to gut a neutrino fleet, go after the backend, but civilian ships don't deploy at all atm so I'll see

But as a note, I didn't touch the base stats of most of the ships from 1.6 => 1.7 in most sense other than increasing deployment points and adjustments to the new jackhammer ( which may get toning down )

« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 08:36:55 AM by FlashFrozen »
Logged

Silver Silence

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #490 on: September 23, 2013, 08:54:29 AM »

Uomoz, the only time you like a faction is when it's ships are balanced almost to the point of incompetence against any half decent foe.

I find that a rather strongly formulated opinion. And not one that belongs in this thread.

Uomoz is giving his opinion on how balanced he thinks this mod is. As he works with mod compilations and actually gets them to work together "HIMSELF", I'd say he is more of an authority on vanilla balance than anyone else out there.

I for one share his 'fear' of having mod ships becoming too powerful compared to vanilla vessels. The only reason I see for this happening is that mod builders are starting to compare their ships to those in other mods. Hence, this creates an 'arms race' where there shouldn't be one!

Of course, FlashFrozen is the only one who can comment and confirm that Neutrino ships are balanced with taking other mods in consideration.

And this mod should practically be a godsend for the lurkers out there who have all signed up to make their first post about the absolute horrors of CR and how much it totally stuffs over their play as they fight one battle, do not fight perfectly and might as well roll another toon because they're stuffed forever.

I'm fine with ships being better than the best ship that vanilla has to offer. After about an hour of play, just about any capital ship that's not an Atlas can be tuned to the point that you just hold W with all guns on autofire and cruise through an enemy fleet. I would very much like it if there were factions that are not simply reduced to "raise shields, drink tea, win, take all the women and children, rinse repeat". Neutrino ships are great for withstanding that "autofire to win", if only for a few moments longer than everyone else.

Of course, everyone could simply take the EVE route of "cost is not a balance factor", in which case every ship can blandly have 35% CR cost to deploy and take a week to restore afterwards. Then, like EVE, it's just same *** different day. That seems much better. Let us not have mod factions that offer a different experience from what vanilla has to offer. Let's just make everything a differently styled Paragon, Aurora, Medusa and Tempest and call it a day.
Logged

Uomoz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
  • 'womo'dz
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #491 on: September 23, 2013, 09:11:32 AM »


1) absolute horrors of CR

2) I'm fine with ships being better than the best ship that vanilla has to offer.

3) After about an hour of play, just about any capital ship that's not an Atlas can be tuned to the point that you just hold W with all guns on autofire and cruise through an enemy fleet. I would very much like it if there were factions that are not simply reduced to "raise shields, drink tea, win, take all the women and children, rinse repeat". Neutrino ships are great for withstanding that "autofire to win", if only for a few moments longer than everyone else.

4) Let us not have mod factions that offer a different experience from what vanilla has to offer. Let's just make everything a differently styled Paragon, Aurora, Medusa and Tempest and call it a day.

I laugh at your total misinterpretation of what I meant. Anyway, without sounding too harsh, here's my answers. After this I'll stop posting here since it doesn't relate to Neut too much, its more like a general topic.

1) If the game feels hard with CR, mod it so you can play with whatever parameter you want. This is a vanilla balanced mod, and here every discussion regarding balance needs to take CR into high consideration.

2) I'm not and I can express my concern.

3) Fixable by adding skills to enemy captains instead of adding ships and factions that are tailored to specific moments of the game. An expert admiral with low tech frigates should be an enemy to take in consideration even late game. I do not like the idea of an enemy whose role is "great for withstanding that "autofire to win", if only for a few moments longer than everyone else", that's just ***.

4) Junk Pirates, Blackrock. I can list many factions with very interesting mechanics without being better then vanilla ships.

Logged

Griffinhart

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #492 on: September 23, 2013, 11:40:18 AM »

Of course, everyone could simply take the EVE route of "cost is not a balance factor", in which case every ship can blandly have 35% CR cost to deploy and take a week to restore afterwards.

Cost really isn't a balance factor, though. I've got like... maybe 4-6 hours on my 0.6a game and I've got two Unsungs, a Jackhammer, and like 800k credits to spare. CR costs are meaningless because every large fleet engagement I get into results in far more supplies than the cost of fully deploying my entire welpfleet. And it doesn't take a week to restore everything to max CR, because it takes less than a week at Burn 7 to return to a friendly station to spend supplies to re-up CR.

-- Griffinhart
Logged


"Rrha ki ra tek wim tes yor
en weel waath dius manaf, Yat!
"

valefore

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #493 on: September 23, 2013, 08:58:03 PM »

Of course, everyone could simply take the EVE route of "cost is not a balance factor", in which case every ship can blandly have 35% CR cost to deploy and take a week to restore afterwards.

Cost really isn't a balance factor, though. I've got like... maybe 4-6 hours on my 0.6a game and I've got two Unsungs, a Jackhammer, and like 800k credits to spare. CR costs are meaningless because every large fleet engagement I get into results in far more supplies than the cost of fully deploying my entire welpfleet. And it doesn't take a week to restore everything to max CR, because it takes less than a week at Burn 7 to return to a friendly station to spend supplies to re-up CR.

-- Griffinhart


I would disagree and say that costs are in fact a balancing factor. Buying neutrino ships in the start and mid-game is much more harder than buying something similar that does reasonably well at the same time. It's not just a 50% difference or so but like a 300% difference, including weapon costs. Same goes with CR and supply usage. Until end-game, these costs are a serious matter to the growing player.
I think your example only applies to end-game situations where cost, indeed does become pretty much irrelevant. But other aspects of game play also become bland such as the power of your character and fleet and the meager challenges enemies pose. That's like saying that an rpg game isn't balanced after farming 200 hours for the best possible gear and stats. Starsector is in the alpha stages and does not have an end goal, but I would say that most people wouldn't play the game seriously after reaching the levels such as yours.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand,
Uomoz, the only time you like a faction is when it's ships are balanced almost to the point of incompetence against any half decent foe.
I don't completely agree with Silver Silence, but I do share some of his sentiments on this quote, Uomoz. I'll state right now that I think you are correct in most (only 'most' because someone can't be always right) of the things you say in this forum and that I am very grateful for the modding you do. Balance is a very important aspect of game play, and an incorrectly balanced game can be exploited in game play, feel too easy, hard, unfair and simply not fun. I also understand your preference for orthodox game design, sticking to the lore, game mechanics and styles of the original game. Anything that deviates too much from the original game can hurt the ambience of the game, leading to degraded experience or just a completely different game.


What I am concerned about is how you phrase your opinions.
Oh boy, you are SO wrong.
But I guess that most of the player base don't really care about the lore of the game.  ::)
Can't say I really like where this mod is going
it's a bit too much for my tastes.
I laugh at your total misinterpretation of what I meant.
Anyway, without sounding too harsh,

None of these comments are nice at all, and it's not like other people were bombarding you with degrading remarks. In fact, the first person you replied to was only stating his opinion and the second had mild sarcasm, and as a forum regular (I think I saw him often), I think I can understand why he did that (Although it's still BAD). But I'm not just bringing this up for the few comments you posted here, but also in others before, like when you talked about cheaters and the Hawken fleet mod.

Simply put, the comments you write can make you sound 'cold and condescending'. I won't say that you actually are that kind of person, but I think that's how you would sound to many people, and I do remember some conflicts. I mean, I cannot sense any respect for other people in the comments I quoted above, even disregarding the third one which you may have considered an attack. NONE of the people around me would appreciate me if I say 'You are SO wrong, and a lot of people (probably including you) don't care about something Important,' or 'I don't really like your work. It's too much for my tastes'. It's not even 'different tastes' but 'too much for my tastes'. I don't want to be overly analytic, but you should know that little parts of language can imply a LOT of things.


I really would have kept these opinions to myself, but looking from the reaction of the community, I thought I had to bring this up, because you guys are being way too harsh to one person over another in similar situations. If you guys think I am hypersensitive, then so be it, I'll accept the facts. But I think the least I can argue is that 'we should choose our words more carefully'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Apart from that and Neutrino-wise, I would disagree that they are overpowered in combat, especially after the extended shields were taken off. They may be strong 1:1 but have pretty high costs, low speed, low fire power due to the arrangement of weapon mounts, and you can basically shoot through the sides of the shields, especially for big capital ships.
If they are OP at all, they are as OP as the other modded factions. Some mentioned that Junk Pirates and Black Rock are very vanilla balanced, but I disagree on that too. Junk Pirates are one of the most durable enemies I fought with and Black Rock are very aggressive and hunt and rip your fleet apart (In fact, I could kill enemies much faster with Black Rock than any other faction). And all the others too: definitely OP in Pirate and Hegemony standards. Maybe they par with Tri-tachyon.
As a side note, I think interstellar Federation was about similar to Hegemony and a little weaker than Tri-Tachyon.

I haven't played much since 0.6a, so I don't know how balanced Neutrino is in regards to CR, but I'd say it's good to go if they are similar to Tri-tachyon or slightly lower due to high initial costs.



BY THE WAY, the Unsung is definitely not balanced and I thought this was not the purpose since Uomoz specifically took the ship out for 'Boss Fleet Only' in his mod. The ship has way too many OPs, and if you max your tech tree, you can basically add 100 flux dissipation and almost every single hull mod. It's also bad since the Unsung has really high flux dissipation and the 6 large cannons are universal mounts, which means you can add 6 flux crazy super weapons and be able to fire non-stop. Also, the HERP cannon is super strong too...
But I thought this was a bonus ship like the Valkyrian Vatican mk4. I understand the reasoning for taking it out in a compilation, but does a bonus ship in a stand alone mod need to be balanced?
Logged

Shoat

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.7)
« Reply #494 on: September 23, 2013, 09:09:05 PM »

Oh boy, you are SO wrong. Alex stated multiple times, high tech and low tech are 2 different ways of approaching the game, there's not a better way. For instance, vanilla high tech costs WAY more to deploy then low tech, and its probably related to the fact that vanilla repair and resupply parts are HARDER to find in a post apocalyptic situation. But I guess that most of the player base don't really care about the lore of the game.  ::)

I wasn't talking about how vanilla balances it, I meant that as a general rule in the world high tech is better than low tech.

For this specific issue, it's just common sense that high-tech anything requires less effort to use than low-tech anything.

Using it (CR) and doing maintenance for it (supply costs) are two entirely different things, though, so don't get me wrong here.
Of course it'll be more expensive to maintenance it (more expensive supplies used for repairs and such) but as far as I understand the CR mechanic it makes no sense for high tech to cost more CR than low tech.


Gameplay-wise this is, of course, an advantage (and I have confidence that there'll be a fair measure to counterbalance that since cost alone is not enough) and I'm certainly not one to encourage straying too far from vanilla balance.
But I find it really counterintuitive how CR treats high-tech and low-tech in vanilla.



Edit:
Don't worry about it valefore, I don't think there's any true hostility in Uomoz's corv comments and there's no reason (for me at least) to feel attacked by them. We're discussing a topic that we consider controversial so it's natural if one comment seems a bit harshly worded.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 09:29:23 PM by Shoat »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 106