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: Planet Search Overhaul (07/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 99

Author Topic: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 346899 times)

Sarissofoi

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #90 on: February 02, 2023, 08:37:29 AM »

So release soon?
Like in 3 days? Or 2 weeks?
Or we should expect another 1 year wait?

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #91 on: February 02, 2023, 08:47:40 AM »

Between 2 weeks and a year ;)
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Ruddygreat

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • Seals :^)
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #92 on: February 02, 2023, 10:16:30 AM »

  • Proxmimity Charge Launcher:
    • Added some inaccuracy to the direction of the launch
    • No longer affected by missile flight time and speed/acceleration modifiers
      • (Previously, ECCM Package would actually reduce its range)

yay, the slightest pcl nerf!

  • Removed point-defense flag from Proximity Charge Launcher; will no longer auto-target missiles

oh god no!
I suppose this does fix the "problem" of it being a player-only weapon, but imo at this point it should just be entirely reworked; either drop the idea of it being PD entirely or make it a PD weapon that's worth being in a medium missile slot.

IonDragonX

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #93 on: February 02, 2023, 10:48:16 AM »

For real this time. I remember that there was a lengthy discussion in general about SO nerf and Alex agreed that something has to be done. Next patch maybe?
Until the actual .96a is released, these patch note can be changed. It's happened before.
Logged

Sandor057

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #94 on: February 02, 2023, 11:13:31 AM »

Combat:
  • Added option to disable screen whiteout for large ship explosions
  • Whiteout no longer obscures the command UI (still obscures ship combat UI)
  • Improved ship explosion visual effect

Very glad to see this change!


Combat:
  • Reserve Deployment, for ships with only one fighter bay, now:
    • At least doubles wing size (minimum +2 craft)
    • Fighter replacement rate reduction is 15% instead of 25%

Hooo leee mother of Ludd! The possibilities!


Quote
Persean League now has its own music
Are you entertained now, the guy who complained about PL not having its own theme?

Yes I am, I thoroughly am.
Logged

highIntensityGazer

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #95 on: February 02, 2023, 11:24:30 AM »

Quote
  • Added Venture (P)
    • Replaced mining drone with large missile slot pointing backwards
    • Medium missile slots changed to ballistic
Hehehe... I thought reapers on the Harbinger was hilarious. Now we have BAM - Big Ass Missiles!
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24494
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #96 on: February 02, 2023, 11:45:16 AM »

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Please don't do this.

Great! So, are there any functions that could change UI interface?
Or something like CampaignUIPlugin that only for additional UI rendering? Currently I use everyframeplugin which I think is somewhat unstrict

There aren't, no. I assumed this was a solved problem since mods seem to do this (e.g. radar) - hmm. How are you currently doing it?

Will Tech-Mining be using Event System for .96?

No - but I really like the idea (Wyvern's, I think?) and have a note about it, though!


Wait so I'm a bit confused. The description of the changes for reserve deployment make it sound like the changes to reduced fighter replacement rate only applies to ships with one fighter bay (Gemini). Yet there's no mention of reserve deployment in the bug fixes section of the patch notes, unless crtl+f failed me. Does reserve deployment now reduce replacement rate by 15% for all ships now?

I think some stuff didn't make it into the notes - iirc there was a bug that caused it to tank the replacement rate more quickly than it should have. I'm not 100% on this, though; it was a while ago. (There's probably a fair amount of misc fixes that didn't make it into the notes.) I've made a note to keep an eye on the Drover in particular during playtesting, though.



any details on how much armor does smodded shield shunt provide?

An extra 15%, 30% total.

This is really going to hurt every variant and ship that relies on that for PD for the AI though - and I never put on IPDAI for anything but turning smalls into PD. Have you considered making non-PD smalls PD, PD_ALSO instead unless s-modded, to avoid the potential effects of smalls prioritizing missiles but still allowing them to help when lacking other targets?

Hmm. I mean, it's going to hurt a bit, to the tune of - effectively - something like 5 OP for a capital ship (compared to the current cost of IPDAI), or 10 OP (compared to not building IPDAI in). That doesn't seem unreasonable for a qualitative change?


One thing that got me curious is
Quote
Waystations now pull in a small quantity of Volatiles and Transplutonics
Wonder what's the reason and or explanation behind this one
Game-mechanics, it makes it a one-stop shop for "This is everything an exploring player needs". Lore-wise... probably about the same: "Yeah, we don't use this stuff locally, but it's good to have on hand for exploration fleets that come by, so we keep a bit of stock."

(Yep, exactly!)


May I ask what faction has access to

Defensive Targeting Array
and
Missile Autoloader

or if it's already available to the player (which can mean everyone can use it)?

All factions in theory, but I don't think any default variants have it in them and the autofitter is not just going to randomly slap it on. The player does need to acquire it in some way before they can use it, though. Another change that didn't make it into the notes is that factions generally have access to most/all hullmods, but there's a section in the .faction file that adjust how likely they're to sell certain hullmods - all part of making "buying stuff" a more reliable experience.


Gotta ask though, is there any REDACTED stuff you didn't include in the patch notes? Hehe

There is, though not of the endgame-redacted variety. I'm pretty excited for you all to get your hands on it but don't want to spoil it :)


  • Fulgent: added built-in Energy Bolt Coherer (increases base non-beam energy/hybrid weapon range)
Okay, this new Hullmod is listed in the Ships section but not the Hullmods section. Is it unavailable to the player?

It's not - it boosts non-beam energy weapon range and would be pretty busted if it was installable on arbitrary ships.

Are they salvageable by the player?

Yes!


please please please add function to change weapon slot coordinates in ShipAPI or cloned HullSpec
without the weird french magik, i mean

Ah, sorry - that's very hairy.


Typhoons and Jackhammers can give it serious firepower but Falcon(P) exists which has DOUBLE the missile potency and the exact same DP cost.

(OK, but the Falcon(P) occupies the same space in my mind as SO when it comes to balance discussions :P It's a ship I know I need to nerf at some point but I just kind of don't *want* to, for some reason.)



Does this mean that the Gemini now deploys THREE Cobra bombers?

Yep.

Quote
Brilliant:

    Changed system to Plasma Burn
    Reduced shield upkeep to 0.4 (was: 0.5)

Is that shield upkeep or shield efficiency?

Upkeep - 0.4 efficiency would really be something!

Quote
Hurricane MIRV:

    Increased submunition accuracy
    Reduced number of submunitions by to 7 (was: 9)

Does that mean it now does 23% less damage? Or was the damage of submunitions increased to compensate?

The damage of the subminutions is unchanged. The point was to reduce its damage output with ECCM but leave it similar without, making ECCM less "required" for it.


Quote
Logistics hullmods have a significant bonus regardless of their cost (since it's still a sacrifice in combat power)

It's not a sacrifice on civilian ships though.

Yeah, but it's a SP sacrfice on civilian ships.



@BCS
You could go to the blog posts and look at the screenshots, not all ships are there but there is enough info. DP costs we currently know are Invictus (60), Retribution (35), oh wait that's actually all. Well we can be sure that the faction variants will have identical costs. Pegasus is also likely 55-60 DP along with Executor. Nova is probably 40 and Apex 20.

Pegasus/Executor: 50, Apex: 30; you're right about the rest!


Suggestion: with the faction flavor focus of this patch, please consider making Thule system a little more interesting.
It's the largest Persean League military market so the league commissioned player will have to visit it often for military hardware, but it just does not feel like a capital system.
There is no ancillary league market there like in all the other capital systems, so there is very little in-system transit.
I think it's also a combination of Kazeron texture not giving the feel of a size 7 market, the dark background, asteroid fields and white star giving it an even starker and emptier look.

Duly noted!


Does this mean you can pick up the goods, as long as your standing with the colony is above -50 or does the mission won't be offered, if your standing with the colony is too low?
(Right now this mission can always be offered but you can't pick up the goods, if your standing with the faction is at -25 or below.)

Ahh, thank you - I'll take a look and make sure it's doing the right thing. Good chance it might not be.

ShipEngineControllerAPI.ShipEngineAPI.repair() please, since .disable() already exists in the API

Added! (But, for future reference, this is *really* not the right thread for API requests.)


Quote
Added message explaining what's going on and what to do when there's no flagship deployed and the player starts in the command shuttle
Does this mean that the player always starts in the command shuttle if you dont deploy your flagship? - that would be ( / sounds ) annoying

That's how it's always worked. You're in the command shuttle, in theory, but it's not actually deployed on the battlefield. When you transfer command to another ship, the shuttle shows up a little ways away from it.

On the topic of command frequency: Why does the command frequency get closed, if you exit the map?
As in, you open the map, give an order, then control you flagship for a few seconds and observe the effects of your order and then want to use the command frequency to possibly change these orders. Right noch you can only use the observe modus to view the effects, but need to hope that you flagship does not get reapered

IIRC primarily so that you aren't incentivized to do exactly what you're describing.


Is Sarissa low_tech_bp or rare_bp?

rare_bp


Thanks for the patch notes. Now that we're getting close to the finish line of this update, can you tell us how impactful it will be for most mods in general? As in if they will break or not. Besides balancing issues and some quirks I'm not seeing anything that would necessarily break them, except maybe Nex since that's a really big one.

I think - I mean, there'll be features mods will probably want to update to use. But aside from that, just the other day I was able to load a modded savegame that someone sent in with a bug report. Some things *will* break for sure, though; I believe there is an interface or two that got new methods.

(Edit: you'd really want to create a new game, though; a bunch of new stuff - e.g. story missions won't work if you don't.)

For example making safety overrides only give the baseline speed buff by default, & give the zero flux boost & all of the other stuff only if you build it in? Or the omni shield conversion only makes the shield omni, & you only get the shield upkeep buff & shield size debuff if you build it in? There's a lot of ships I'd love to put that onto but never will bc I find the smaller shield to be a dealbreaker -- the option to accept an effective 25% debuff to shield upkeep in order to keep the shield the size it is would be an attractive prospect. same with armored turret mounts, I'd use it just for the increased weapon health but don't bc of the rest of it

I don't think this works as an across-the-board thing, but funnily enough, the s-mod effect for the omni shield conversion is removing the arc penalty :)


It's an interesting ship that has design considerations that make it distinct from other carriers, it's one of the first dedicated carriers the player can access, and it's a shame to see it go unused for so long.

Hmm. Is it, honestly? It's really tricky to balance, it feels like the sort of ship that very easily tips over into "and now massing it is the absolute best strategy". The Mora at least has some interesting battlecarrier-type things going for it.

Also in regards to new medium sized hammer... I cant not post this

(Hahah)

Like in 3 days? Or 2 weeks?
Or we should expect another 1 year wait?

No!


  • Removed point-defense flag from Proximity Charge Launcher; will no longer auto-target missiles

oh god no!
I suppose this does fix the "problem" of it being a player-only weapon, but imo at this point it should just be entirely reworked; either drop the idea of it being PD entirely or make it a PD weapon that's worth being in a medium missile slot.

...? The point is to make it an effective anti-fighter weapon that can also be used in an assault role. I think it suffers from prioritizing missiles in some cases. (Edit: I think this might come off a little rude; what I meant was that I'm confused about what you mean re: the "problem" etc)

(The "soloing the Ziggurat" case is pretty fun, btw, and should I think still be doable.)
« Last Edit: February 02, 2023, 12:43:57 PM by Alex »
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #97 on: February 02, 2023, 11:56:24 AM »

On the topic of command frequency: Why does the command frequency get closed, if you exit the map?
As in, you open the map, give an order, then control you flagship for a few seconds and observe the effects of your order and then want to use the command frequency to possibly change these orders. Right noch you can only use the observe modus to view the effects, but need to hope that you flagship does not get reapered

IIRC primarily so that you aren't incentivized to do exactly what you're describing.

I often encounter it because I give an order, tab out of the map (muscle memory), then realize I missed something and have to use another command point even though it has been less than a second or I never even unpaused. It is my main frustration with the CP mechanic.
Logged

coolio

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #98 on: February 02, 2023, 11:58:06 AM »

add portraits that have moustaches so I can feel like a 18th century admiral and I will be happy.
Logged

00lewnor

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #99 on: February 02, 2023, 02:23:09 PM »

Patch notes! please excuse me while I do the happy dance!

Ahem. Well, there’s a lot to talk about there but one that caught my eye was:

  • When the ship is overloaded or venting, the raise shields/phase cloak command will be buffered if it was issued within 0.2 seconds of the overload/vent ending

I’ve discovered this feature as part of the QoL pack mod and it immediately became my favourite feature, I’m glad to hear that I’ll never have to worry about playing without it again. My question however is that I notice this only mentions venting and overload; is it possible for this to also apply to after system activation and/or phase coil cooldown?

Also, this:

  • Added Planetkiller and "Hostile Activity" related mission

I would like more details about this.
Logged

Draba

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #100 on: February 02, 2023, 03:09:38 PM »

Typhoons and Jackhammers can give it serious firepower but Falcon(P) exists which has DOUBLE the missile potency and the exact same DP cost.

(OK, but the Falcon(P) occupies the same space in my mind as SO when it comes to balance discussions :P It's a ship I know I need to nerf at some point but I just kind of don't *want* to, for some reason.)
While Pirate Falcon is on the strongish side at 20 DP, if that level already needs a nerf Gryphon/Monitor/LP Brawler could definitely take a bit of a beating IMO.
(LP Brawler going up to 6 DP seems smallish but might be enough)
« Last Edit: February 03, 2023, 06:48:50 AM by Draba »
Logged

Ruddygreat

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • Seals :^)
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #101 on: February 02, 2023, 03:48:50 PM »

...? The point is to make it an effective anti-fighter weapon that can also be used in an assault role. I think it suffers from prioritizing missiles in some cases. (Edit: I think this might come off a little rude; what I meant was that I'm confused about what you mean re: the "problem" etc)

(The "soloing the Ziggurat" case is pretty fun, btw, and should I think still be doable.)

ahhh, fair, that makes a lot more sense! even if the ziggy situation is too silly imo

While I do agree that it having the PD hint does definitely make it suffer (and basically useless in AI hands, the "problem" I referred to), I think that that's almost a good thing?
IMO it's currently an excellent assault weapon that happens to also be really good PD & it sounds like it's meant to be the other way around, keeping PD there kinda balances them out? really not entirely sure how to properly write out my thoughts on it though.

But everything else sounds great, I've been theorycrafting retribtuion builds since it got announced! something something 3 mjolnirs, 6 sabots and a dream

Originem

  • Purple Principle
  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Dancing like a boss.
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #102 on: February 02, 2023, 03:50:38 PM »

There aren't, no. I assumed this was a solved problem since mods seem to do this (e.g. radar) - hmm. How are you currently doing it?
Radar? You mean that combat radar? But it's in the combat engine, not the campaign layer...
What I referred to is the UI like the left corner credits
Logged
My mods


Kos135

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #103 on: February 02, 2023, 03:52:51 PM »

Aside from the new capitals and P/LP variants, I am looking forward to the upgraded Legion, Eagle and Vigilance...

-Legion with +40 OP will allow for viable 4x Xyphos builds. Today I tried one out in simulator. It requires support (as all capitals do) but it was a brutal line-breaker. Shield Shunt build with max armor/hull, officered 6 skill/4 elite. Experienced players can guess the skills.

-Eagle has been sighed at for a while for being so mediocre.
It's not bad so you don't see a challenge in making it good, but it's not good enough to be optimal in any way. So it falls into this undesirable roll of being a relatively pricey, long range kinetic cruiser with lacklustre ability to punch down.

Frankly, the Eagle is boring. I would rather it be bad than boring!

The update enhances the Eagle in that role but still keeps it in that role. It feels like a gigantic point defense turret, scaled up to targeting light-mid destroyers.

-Vigilance, I haven't monkeyed around with flux/armor/hull stats to see how this thing will perform with the proposed upgrades. But those upgrades and the upgrade to Typhoon Launcher make it clear, this ship will be a Strike Frigate. 1x Typhoon, 1x HMG. Just run up and hammer them, with a cheap frigate built for Support Doctrine, I love it.

But regarding the new capitals I am looking forward to the Invictus most of all. Its system gives it enormous potential for burst damage. Just imagine 4x MK9's or even GC's with that ship system, it would be incredible.
And I hope that by now everyone has learned the value of un-officered frigate gangs w/ Support Doctrine skill.

I'm also looking forward to the lore expansion of the Luddic Church, which their fleet doctrine contributes to. Religion, philosophy, none of us can escape from those categories of thought.
Everyone has a worldview and must, at some point in their life, wade into the weeds of A-Priori thought: epistemology, ethics, telos, metaphysics.

It's impossible to believe that most of the Persean Sector has simply avoided such questions! Humans are greater than animals, we philosophize and invent technologies. Technology is a means, not an end.
Logged
You cannot trick an honest man, only a villain will fall for it.

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #104 on: February 02, 2023, 07:15:56 PM »

Quote
Brilliant:

    Changed system to Plasma Burn
    Reduced shield upkeep to 0.4 (was: 0.5)

Is that shield upkeep or shield efficiency?

Upkeep - 0.4 efficiency would really be something!

Ah, so shield upkeep is actually defined as fraction of flux dissipation, got it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 99