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 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 99

Author Topic: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 339426 times)

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #435 on: April 14, 2023, 10:00:41 PM »

(Militarized Subsystems) Well, now it's an expensive hullmod that feels like it "doesn't do anything" - and if you have Bulk Transport skill, it actually makes the ship slower. Maybe it could be cheaper since it comes with its own drawbacks anyway.

I mean, this is something I've wanted to harp on for a bit anyway - while I love the speed boost from a purely objective point of view (I have a lot of things to say about going slower than Burn 20 on a practical, gameplay level), Bulk Transport is outrageously overpowered in its current form and especially skill slot. It more or less trivializes carrying capacity, it makes Colossi Burn 20 on skills alone when combined with Navigation (another must-have skill), and it's just absurdly more impactful than the other two skills that occupy its slot.

How much of a benefit MilSub gives is definitely a consideration, but Bulk Transport is kind of a problem skill that impacts a lot of things. (That said, if left unchanged, then yes, MilSub is a straight downgrade unless you build without BT for some reason.)

idk if this has been addressed since u posted this but i dont think this game actually intends you to play it any way you want -- at least not in the skills, it seems clear that a number of the skills are supposed to be more or less mandatory (eventually). the big example being transverse jump
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #436 on: April 14, 2023, 11:50:51 PM »

You can get transverse jump from a quest without the skill, and in the next patch you will be able to reasonably easily get burn 20 without navigation thanks to the slipstream event reward.

The skills that feel most mandatory to me are tier 4 leadership ones. Officers are way too important in the current system.
Logged

Brainwright

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #437 on: April 15, 2023, 08:38:13 AM »

An extra 100% engine health and the sensor profile reduction is changed to 90% (from 50%).

Didn't notice this at first, and it's likely the thing that will change my play the most.

It's always been hard to build a smuggler/raider fleet at the start of the game, since the balance is built with phase ships in mind.  Now I can do this right off, and it'll take out a lot of the early frustration!

I’m curious to know if the new autoloader plus sabots is going to be a viable alternative to the needler for frigates.

The needler has been king for flux and OP efficiency, and everything that can’t get it feels a bit hampered.

That will be interesting to see, though even with the Autoloader, you've got, what, 9 Sabots? Nothing to sneeze at, but not something that couldn't get spent in a hurry, either. With Missile Spec and EMR you'd get up to 15 but that's a *lot* of investment for - at that point - diminishing returns.

Not looking for a frontline ship from this, just something like a pair of Vanguards that can cruise around the fight, take a good chunk out of the frigate screen, and then retreat.

Not a replacement for the needler, but something better tuned for a hyper-aggressive ship that could engage and destroy another equivalent ship in one or two passes.   Like a Vanguard with two LAGs, a light autocannon, two vulcans, a sabot, a hammer, and a swarmer.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24408
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #438 on: April 15, 2023, 09:17:36 AM »

Not a replacement for the needler, but something better tuned for a hyper-aggressive ship that could engage and destroy another equivalent ship in one or two passes.   Like a Vanguard with two LAGs, a light autocannon, two vulcans, a sabot, a hammer, and a swarmer.

Ah! The Vanguard is actually not affected by the autoloader - it doesn't have any missile slots, they're composite. Even if they were, there's 3 of them, which would make the autoloader less inefficient than EMR.
Logged

Brainwright

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #439 on: April 15, 2023, 12:20:10 PM »

Ah! The Vanguard is actually not affected by the autoloader - it doesn't have any missile slots, they're composite. Even if they were, there's 3 of them, which would make the autoloader less inefficient than EMR.

Eh, was the first thing I could think of, but a Wolf is a better example anyway.  Sharing the autoloader between a sabot for strike potential and a swarmer for anti-fighter sounds quite appealing to me.
Logged

Doctorhealsgood

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #440 on: April 15, 2023, 03:47:52 PM »

We are at playtesting phase now? Oh man i thought the day would never come! It is so close now...

EDIT: So uh is the Invictus Vast hangar going to nullify the new maluses for converted hangar? I am concerned specifically about the DP one because if i remember right the invictus is already pretty expensive DP wise. Also oof for militarized subsystems. Can it get a little OP cost reduction to compensate?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2023, 03:16:55 AM by Doctorhealsgood »
Logged
Quote from: Doctorhealsgood
Sometimes i feel like my brain has been hit by salamanders not gonna lie.

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4181
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #441 on: April 16, 2023, 07:37:26 AM »

Bulk Transport is outrageously overpowered in its current form and especially skill slot.
idk if this has been addressed since u posted this but i dont think this game actually intends you to play it any way you want -- at least not in the skills, it seems clear that a number of the skills are supposed to be more or less mandatory (eventually). the big example being transverse jump
Transverse jump is convenient for using any planet as a jump point (I typically don't use it, though), but there are people who use Bulk Transport? Just buy more freighters and you get the same thing.

The skills that feel most mandatory to me are tier 4 leadership ones. Officers are way too important in the current system.
Probably because there's 2-3 times more of them than previously (0.9.1 and earlier), on both sides.

Ah! The Vanguard is actually not affected by the autoloader - it doesn't have any missile slots, they're composite. Even if they were, there's 3 of them, which would make the autoloader less inefficient than EMR.
Inefficiency of 0% means efficiency of 100%! Alex, how could you deprive Vanguard of such a crucial hullmod? Stone-cold.

bob888w

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #442 on: April 17, 2023, 02:53:55 PM »

Bulk Transport is my go to (3-5th) skill. In the timeframe where I have already gotten my go to skills, but don't have the SPs, officers, or ships to grab what I describe as
tree-completing skills (crew training). When the combat layer has nothing to improve a gravitate towards campaign qol just to make my life easier
Logged

Sarissofoi

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #443 on: April 17, 2023, 03:08:23 PM »

So release when?
or its another tease and playtests gonna take another year?

Bummelei

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #444 on: April 17, 2023, 03:22:46 PM »

I've been thinking about Gladiuses recently, why not reduce their cost by one for them able to fit in +1 CH cost? Then they will be able to fill the niche of light fighters in converted hangars. Otherwise, they occupy too indefinite place.

And question about Warthogs: Did you change their distance? Were they too strong? Or did you not touch them? I just remembered your answer in a dedicated thread. Just curious.
Logged

PotatoFarmer1

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #445 on: April 18, 2023, 01:28:58 AM »

So release when?
or its another tease and playtests gonna take another year?
I am dying to play this update. I am willing to playtest a build even if it is made out of duct tape and razorblades. Pleasse Alex! I need iiiiiiiittttt! How much longer can we wait?
Logged

gG_pilot

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #446 on: April 18, 2023, 02:40:11 AM »

I've been thinking about Gladiuses recently, why not reduce their cost by one for them able to fit in +1 CH cost? Then they will be able to fill the niche of light fighters in converted hangars. Otherwise, they occupy too indefinite place.
That is serious concern.

The new fighter mechanic bring new player behaviour, the new ship builds.
Here is suggestion how to polish a rough edge:
Converted hangars introduces sort of Tiers.
Becouse of OP >> DP conversion rounding mechanic means poison ship build :
>> more rounding down less suitable for converted hangar. (because you get less punch for buck)
>> more rounding up more suitable for converted hangar.  (because you get  more punch for buck)
That is unfortunate game design.
I  suggest make Tiers  for Fighters official.

Make changes to  Fighter's numbers  such way they OP fit directly to DP.
Make T1 fighters  cost ALWAYS  5OP
Make T2 fighters  cost ALWAYS 10OP
Make T3 fighters  cost ALWAYS 15OP
and so on

It will be some work,  but definitely  worth  it,  for much better gameplay  experience. 
It also add positive mechanic, where new player could easer recognize that T2 fighter is better than  T1 without deep dive into sea of numbers. 

It would  also worth considering better readability, fighters make distinct naming  convention  which is  related to task.
Fighter   >> any small ship
Bomber >>  a small  ship which can attack adult ships but has no  weapons  to attack  other  fighters e.i. Bomber  could use Harpoon but  can not use Swarmers.
Interceptor >> a  small  ship which can use weapons which can aim fighters. e.i. Interceptor  could use Swarmers  but can not use Harpoon.

Bombers  or Fighters could use flare at will.  Decoy is not weapon.

Example:
Fighter Bomber  :  Longbow current cost 12  OP need change to 10OP to fit Tier 2 
-  PD replace by Decoy Flare Launcher
 
« Last Edit: April 18, 2023, 02:52:37 AM by gG_pilot »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #447 on: April 18, 2023, 02:46:32 AM »

Joke comment incoming:

Come on guys the solution is obvious, we will introduce decimal DP points. Gladius is in a tough spot so why not just make it increase the DP of a ship by 1.5. That way it won't become "must pick", or an inferior choice. Xyphos should then raise the cost by 6.9 since it is the most broken fighter in the existence of space action rpgs with elements of Mechwarrior that has a working economy system which may or may not be realistic.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Lawrence Master-blaster

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #448 on: April 18, 2023, 03:55:45 AM »

Not-so-joke comment: set the minimum DP increase for fighters in Converted Hangar to 0 because Mining Pod Auxiliary costs 0 OP!
Logged

Princess_of_Evil

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #449 on: April 18, 2023, 04:22:19 AM »

Time for my favorite part of modding: disassembling someone else's balance concerns.
Converted hangars introduces sort of Tiers.
In one spot, where you would ever only put interceptors.

It would  also worth considering better readability, fighters make distinct naming  convention  which is  related to task.
There is already a distinct naming convention. It has an unfortunate part where the game calls one of them "fighters" (they're, essentially, a space equivalent of attack aircraft, or gunships), but they are distinct.
The difference being:
"Fighters": infinite weapons, armored, flares.
Bombers: wet tissue paper, limited ammo, basically flying M slots.
Interceptors: flying PD slots. The difference between interceptors and "support fighters" is that interceptors have a non-zero range, but otherwise supports are just interceptors.

(I would love low-tech vulcan interceptors, but i understand why they don't exist.)

Bombers  or Fighters could use flare at will.  Decoy is not weapon.
Example:
Fighter Bomber  :  Longbow current cost 12  OP need change to 10OP to fit Tier 2 
-  PD replace by Decoy Flare Launcher
Ah yes, let's make one of the best bombers cheaper and give it better screening. That'll make it balanced.
Bombers usually have PD weapons because they're there for self-defense against interceptors. Unlike PD laser pointers, flares also work on target ship's PD weapons.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2023, 04:30:27 AM by Princess_of_Evil »
Logged
Proof that you don't need to know any languages to translate, you just need to care.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 99