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: New music for Galatia Academy (06/12/24)

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 99

Author Topic: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 340878 times)

gG_pilot

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #360 on: April 12, 2023, 12:56:25 PM »

Quote
Hull-standard built-in hullmods that have an s-mod bonus can now be "enhanced" to unlock that bonus

    Costs 1 story point, grants 100% bonus XP
    Does *not* count against the maximum number of s-mods per ship
So  you  have to spend 6 story points to get fully polished ship ?

I dont see any fix of char-skills, are they coming ?
I dont see any  spice for Salamanders, they are interesting (mechanic) rockets, but very weak in total effect. Could you add a bit power ? (at least rate of fire 25 >> 20s)


Looks good in general, I am surprised  that you spent so much time for AI fixing/improving.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: I have noticed a small detail, Afflictor uses Entropy at fighters  even other  adult ship is in range (the other ship istarget of ally) Probably polished logic for Entropy debuff  use in  priority  >> First check all adult ships in range  in given order >>  Own target, Ally own fleet target (if more targets available then de-buff the one who is most damaged), Ally target, .  If nothing fit, then  use same  order for fighters. This  way, de buffing should be a bit more efficient.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2023, 12:59:08 PM by gG_pilot »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #361 on: April 12, 2023, 12:59:13 PM »

Quote
Fighters with hull damage will land for repairs

Silly me, that's my favorite change. It was always bugging me that fighters didn't do that.

Really looking forward to the update and getting back into the game:)
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Vanshilar

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #362 on: April 12, 2023, 01:57:19 PM »

I didn't end up putting that in, no. Didn't really seem necessary, given how minor the EMR build-in penalty ended up being.

Ahh okay. Yeah will be really interesting to see how the new s-mod bonuses/penalties play out, since the ones revealed so far provide a lot of interesting variations for ship builds.

Interesting, glad to hear it's working out at least in the initial testing! One detail: the +DP is rounded up, not rounded, so e.g. Gladius/Broadsword are both +2, while Flash is +3.

Ahh okay. Not sure if it'd make it too overpowered, but how about reducing the Gladius to 5 OP so that it's only 1 DP instead of 2 DP? Looking through the fighter list, it's the only one that is "1 more OP" than OP/5, and this would provide a bit of differentiation between it and the Broadsword. Not sure if this would make it too powerful for CH or if it would step on the toes too much of other 1 DP fighters. (Or how it'd relate to the upcoming Sarissa.)

As a side thought I just noticed, the Colossus Mk III has the Converted Cargo Bay built-in hullmod. Does that interact in any way with the Converted Hangar or s-mod bonus/penalty changes? Or is that basically just a debuff applied to that particular ship?

Completely unrelated to the above, an issue I've noticed with the AI for Plasma Burn is that it'll still run into hulks and such quite frequently, making it flame out and sending it careening into the enemy fleet. That makes it always a bit chancy to have AI Odysseys or Furies in the fleet. Was there any changes to the AI for Plasma Burn, i.e. check if there are any big hulks or other ships in its path before deciding to Plasma Burn? I don't know if it was brought up in the forums before so...it may have to wait until after the next update heh.
Logged

SpaceDrake

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Piloting space mecha for fun and profit(?)
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #363 on: April 12, 2023, 02:58:32 PM »

Modding:
  • Made it possible to add custom UI to the title screen
    • See TestCombatPlugin.renderInUICoords() and .processInputPreCoreControls() for an example
    • This is not currently structured in a way that makes it easy for multiple mods doing this to coexist, it's just *possible*
    • (A framework could be built on top of this, however)

oh_no.gif

Anyway, this all looks very nifty, and it's neat to see all the new modding options being added. The frontal shield conversion change is... interesting, and I'd sort of wondered about it myself (there are a lot of mod ships on which it can be extremely good), but it's definitely a sea change for its value proposition and resistance to the change might just highlight how hard it is to use omni shields well in the current game. (I know I certainly find them incredibly hard to use without something like PureTilt's QoL Pack).

Anyway, pilgrim transport, eh? I just get curiouser and curiouser about the new campaign content... :D
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3035
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #364 on: April 12, 2023, 03:21:50 PM »

Quote
Hull-standard built-in hullmods that have an s-mod bonus can now be "enhanced" to unlock that bonus

    Costs 1 story point, grants 100% bonus XP
    Does *not* count against the maximum number of s-mods per ship
So  you  have to spend 6 story points to get fully polished ship ?

It is still 2-3 story points normally, but ships that come with built-in hullmods can upgrade them into extra S-mods.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24416
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #365 on: April 12, 2023, 03:21:59 PM »

Mm. Yeah, I can see that being "playtesting required".

On the other hand, I don't personally feel that front shield conversion is a strict upgrade: sure, sometimes it's nice from a personal playstyle perspective, because I don't have to manage shield angles on top of every other piloting task... but then again, salamanders exist, as do phase frigates. Even for ships that can get to 360 shields, you're trading off being able to quickly bring up shields where needed, since you do lose the zero flux boost for just having shields up and can't leave them on all the time like I used to.

Omni shields are a bit more arguable as being an upgrade - I do remember back in early Starfarer days where I considered the omni shield conversion to be near-mandatory for AI-controlled ships - but the AI is a lot better these days, and I don't find myself using it much in the current Starsector version.

Hmm. All fair points, but e.g. 10 OP for a capital (or 2 for a frigate) just feels like it becomes a very casual decision. And this is a qualitative change for a ship. So in some cases it'd still be worth it at the 3/6/9/15 tier, in either case, and it feels like it makes sense to push the cost - a little! - just to maintain the overall character of the ships a bit more.


Let me guess, s-mod bonus gives it cost reduction?

Right now, it actually improves shield flux/damage by 5%.

You say it feels wrong to grab a hullmod for the side effect, and let me tell you there's a huge amount of people who put RFC on almost every ship purely for faster vent speed (especially on flagships). I feel that's fine if the player really wants to maximize one part, or just enable his comfort playstyle.

I wouldn't call faster vent speed a side effect of RFC, though, not at all.

EDIT: Also how did no one mention that Apogee now has a medium energy actually pointing forwards, that's big.

Right?


BTW: I have noticed a small detail, Afflictor uses Entropy at fighters  even other  adult ship is in range (the other ship istarget of ally) Probably polished logic for Entropy debuff  use in  priority  >> First check all adult ships in range  in given order >>  Own target, Ally own fleet target (if more targets available then de-buff the one who is most damaged), Ally target, .  If nothing fit, then  use same  order for fighters. This  way, de buffing should be a bit more efficient.

Ahh, that's a bug! It's not supposed do target fighters at all, but taking a look at the code, I think I see how it might happen. *Should* be fixed, thank you.


Quote
Fighters with hull damage will land for repairs

Silly me, that's my favorite change. It was always bugging me that fighters didn't do that.

Really looking forward to the update and getting back into the game:)

:D


Ahh okay. Not sure if it'd make it too overpowered, but how about reducing the Gladius to 5 OP so that it's only 1 DP instead of 2 DP? Looking through the fighter list, it's the only one that is "1 more OP" than OP/5, and this would provide a bit of differentiation between it and the Broadsword. Not sure if this would make it too powerful for CH or if it would step on the toes too much of other 1 DP fighters. (Or how it'd relate to the upcoming Sarissa.)

Hmm, I feel like it ought to be at least a little more expensive than Wasps.

As a side thought I just noticed, the Colossus Mk III has the Converted Cargo Bay built-in hullmod. Does that interact in any way with the Converted Hangar or s-mod bonus/penalty changes? Or is that basically just a debuff applied to that particular ship?

Right, that doesn't interact with CH at all. The CCB continues to produce defective fighters and does not increase the ship's deployment points.

Completely unrelated to the above, an issue I've noticed with the AI for Plasma Burn is that it'll still run into hulks and such quite frequently, making it flame out and sending it careening into the enemy fleet. That makes it always a bit chancy to have AI Odysseys or Furies in the fleet. Was there any changes to the AI for Plasma Burn, i.e. check if there are any big hulks or other ships in its path before deciding to Plasma Burn? I don't know if it was brought up in the forums before so...it may have to wait until after the next update heh.

It's possible that there are AI changes pertaining to this; I've certainly touched the code there and I remember fixing this - though with things like this, it could've been "fixed one of like 3 different causes". I'll keep an eye out!


(I know I certainly find them incredibly hard to use without something like PureTilt's QoL Pack).

(Personally, I tend to use autofire for the main guns; this makes handling Omni shields a lot easier. Can still get tricky at times, though.)

Anyway, pilgrim transport, eh? I just get curiouser and curiouser about the new campaign content... :D

:D
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #366 on: April 12, 2023, 03:40:04 PM »

I think I only used Front Shield when it would make a smaller omni shield into a full 360—I remember every Aurora I made got one. The halved upkeep and faster deploy was defs nice but not the main reason I personally went with it.
Logged

Lukas04

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #367 on: April 12, 2023, 03:43:19 PM »

Modding:
  • Made it possible to add custom UI to the title screen
    • See TestCombatPlugin.renderInUICoords() and .processInputPreCoreControls() for an example
    • This is not currently structured in a way that makes it easy for multiple mods doing this to coexist, it's just *possible*
    • (A framework could be built on top of this, however)

oh_no.gif


when the feature i request makes it in hehe.
still very thankful for it.
Logged
My Mods

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #368 on: April 12, 2023, 04:26:48 PM »

Re: Front-Shield Conversion

Chalk me up as one who uses it primarily as a QoL mod. I appreciate the usefulness of Omni Shields in "oh crap!" moments but, in general, I prefer the stability of good coverage Front Shields. The shield upkeep reduction was nice but not the primary reason I used it (not to mention that FSC cost more than Stabilized Shields, anyway). My favorite use-case was on an Aurora, as it gave 360 degree coverage and reduced the fairly pricey upkeep.

I admit that FSC was essentially Accelerated Shields and Stabilized Shields "in one" but you were also giving up pin-point shield flexibility, which can be a big deal. The AI definitely prefers Omni-Shields in my experience. I don't think I ever put FSC on non-player ships. As a side-grade option, I think FSC is fine with the new changes but you're paying for that QoL preference.

Other stuffs:

Something must have happened to the Eagle if playtesting is reverting the most important change: speed. I was excited to try the faster Eagle because that was my #1 complaint. I figured the 18 DP would be the first thing to go if it needed walked back but I didn't expect the speed change. I'm sure the meta game has changed with new weapons and hullmod options but it being nearly "too strong" at 20 DP is kind of surprising.

Apogee change is actually quite a shock. It's still in a hardpoint and the Large and Medium won't really converge but that's a lot more potential firepower vs. current.

I imagine the Converted Hangar change will be polarizing, either due to disrupting the status quo, or because DP costs can be considered one of the key stats in shipbuilding, especially as you push up against the 240 limit.

I'm ambivalent about the Drover changes. I saw the tweet and I'm still...underwhelmed(?)...by the B-deck idea. The reason I pick a Drover over a Condor is because the fighters on a Drover are superior to those on a Condor on a 1:1 basis. You can field more fighters with the ship system and get more DPS. It's the same reason I pick a Heron over a Mora in some cases. So, the Drover's ability to restore its Replacement Rate once just doesn't strike me as suitable replacement to Reserve Deployment. If you go 2x Bomber, it seems to me that that B-Deck perk could get used up toward the beginning of a fight and then you just have a 2-deck carrier with Active Flare Launchers for the remainder. Or, if you go 2x Fighter and don't see a ton of losses, you may never even get down to 50%. It just doesn't strike me as 40% better than a Condor if all you want is more flight decks. The B-Deck is a great idea, just not as a replacement for Reserve Deployment. Of course, I need to try it before complaining too much.

"Medusa: adjusted misaligned engine nozzle" - truly the unheralded diamond in the rough. :D
Logged

jujuteux

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #369 on: April 12, 2023, 04:30:20 PM »

you should probably check the code for shipEngineAPI.disable(boolean permanent)
if there's only one engine left, it won't disable the engine, not even permanently
Logged

Flet

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #370 on: April 12, 2023, 05:20:04 PM »

I like the drover changes. 10 OP seems to be a straight buff to how i use them as a player ship, and combat carrier means maybe the AI will use them how i use them. For a passive carrier in AI hands id always just pick condors.
Logged

Originem

  • Purple Principle
  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Dancing like a boss.
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #371 on: April 12, 2023, 05:26:03 PM »

More UI modding is GOOD.
Logged
My mods


Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #372 on: April 12, 2023, 05:52:38 PM »

Quote
Hull-standard built-in hullmods that have an s-mod bonus can now be "enhanced" to unlock that bonus

    Costs 1 story point, grants 100% bonus XP
    Does *not* count against the maximum number of s-mods per ship
Do we know the s-mod bonus for insulated engines yet? Brawler (TT) is going to be meta as hell.
Logged

Low Settings

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #373 on: April 12, 2023, 06:01:23 PM »

Oh wow heavy ballistic integration can get a bonus  ;D
Logged

SpaceDrake

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Piloting space mecha for fun and profit(?)
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #374 on: April 12, 2023, 07:26:52 PM »

when the feature i request makes it in hehe.
still very thankful for it.

Oh, it's rad as hell, don't get me wrong, I'm just bracing for this bold new era of mods trying to mod the title screen and making each other explode.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 99