Print

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

[Fenrir]

So release when?

Forum tradition: If anyone asks this question, release date will delay by one extra week per person per time.

[Solidus667]

So release when?

Forum tradition: If anyone asks this question, release date will delay by one extra week per person per time.

Thet sucks. Well on a another note, at least he has more time to make the upate even beater. Allways look on the bright side

[Doctorhealsgood]

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

I don't think that creating a tier system overlaying the OP system is a sensible idea. Also you would have to rebalance all fighters to fit the 5/10/15 values and that sounds like a pain and very frustrating to build for and that's without saying the massive nerfs that would have to be doled out to any fighters that are worth more than 15

[vanedor]

I sure wish there was a Patreon or something to play all those "in Development" versions. I would gladly pay to support the development of this game.

[gG_pilot]

Converted hangars introduces sort of Tiers.
Becouse of OP >> DP conversion rounding mechanic means poison ship build :
I  suggest make Tiers  for Fighters official.

I don't think that creating a tier system overlaying the OP system is a sensible idea. Also you would have to rebalance all fighters to fit the 5/10/15 values and that sounds like a pain and very frustrating to build for and that's without saying the massive nerfs that would have to be doled out to any fighters that are worth more than 15

You suffered some kind of short-circuit issue.

Sometimes i feel like my brain has been hit by salamanders not gonna lie.

Agree, It is very possible.

Check this:
1. If current rounding system come into release  stage, it means that every  player have to make its  own  re-evaluation and deep dive into sea of numbers to  pick only  those few fighters which are  worth  for  converted hangar. >> very unfortunate game  design.
2. Proposed  Tiers spread over whole OP  spectrum. e.i. Fighter for 25OP is  Tier 5. No "massive  nerf" exist.
3. what proposed  Tiers do,  is >>> Slight change  performance  of  Fighters to  fit an OP  number which divided by 5  gives  MODULO=0

Got it ?

[Doctorhealsgood]

Converted hangars introduces sort of Tiers.
Becouse of OP >> DP conversion rounding mechanic means poison ship build :
I  suggest make Tiers  for Fighters official.

I don't think that creating a tier system overlaying the OP system is a sensible idea. Also you would have to rebalance all fighters to fit the 5/10/15 values and that sounds like a pain and very frustrating to build for and that's without saying the massive nerfs that would have to be doled out to any fighters that are worth more than 15

You suffered some kind of short-circuit issue.

Sometimes i feel like my brain has been hit by salamanders not gonna lie.

Agree, It is very possible.

Check this:
1. If current rounding system come into release  stage, it means that every  player have to make its  own  re-evaluation and deep dive into sea of numbers to  pick only  those few fighters which are  worth  for  converted hangar. >> very unfortunate game  design.
2. Proposed  Tiers spread over whole OP  spectrum. e.i. Fighter for 25OP is  Tier 5. No "massive  nerf" exist.
3. what proposed  Tiers do,  is >>> Slight change  performance  of  Fighters to  fit an OP  number which divided by 5  gives  MODULO=0

Got it ?

Oh. Well still i am not quite convinced. You do have a point but i dunno.

[Dx]

...
Come on guys the solution is obvious, we will introduce decimal DP points.
...

Or just multiply ALL DP by 5.

[Fenrir]

I sure wish there was a Patreon or something to play all those "in Development" versions. I would gladly pay to support the development of this game.

Technically you are already doing it, since we are still in prelaunch state.

[Jackundor]

mfw hephag still gets only recoil buffs

[CrashToDesktop]

• Added Luddic pilgrim transport bar mission

Will this also include Luddic "pilgrims" of the more questionable variety? Add a bit of variety to the bar missions, especially if something like this would impact the target market.

[gG_pilot]

Player ship autopilot behavior will now take into account the faction doctrine aggression setting

Sound like improvement but isnt.

Faction  aggression doctrine can  be used  to  set non-piloted ships  to reserved behaviour, like  :Careful.
Then  piloted ships are standard or aggressive,  which creates nice mix  leading to victory.
Enforce Main character use  behaviour of support ship is  not smart  (diplomatically  speaking)
Better solution  is, add switch  to character screen to set  AI behaviour  for  main-character  separately.

Player character  typically  use a  flag ship, contrary  non-piloted ships are  support.
Enforce  same  behaviour to both is stu... 

[Megas]

Player ship autopilot behavior will now take into account the faction doctrine aggression setting

Sound like improvement but isnt.

It would be an improvement for some things like Neural Linked brawling ships like two Onslaughts, where the linked ship seems to inherit flagship behavior, which is locked at Steady today, which is not ideal for most conventional warships.

That said, I agree that behavior should be set separately for the commander.  It would be nice for Neural Link or armchair play.

[Amoebka]

Ideally, personality should be set on a per-ship basis. Especially with the changes to missile boat / carrier behaviours. It's nice if I can prevent my Vigilances from suiciding with a timid officer, but when running support doctrine, I'm not setting all ships to timid.

[Alex]

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?

Yeah, it nullifies all of them, including the DP increase.

(Yeah, I'd already reduced the OP on MS.)

I sure wish there was a Patreon or something to play all those "in Development" versions. I would gladly pay to support the development of this game.

I appreciate the thought! The reality is, though, that in-development versions are not really very playable; there's tons of loose ends etc. Things don't really come together in a properly playable state until very close to the actual release.

mfw hephag still gets only recoil buffs

If you keep making that face, it's going to get stuck that way!

More seriously, though, have you considered that you might be underestimating the HAG? I say this both having recently tested it vs high armor (surprisingly close to the Hellbore in time-to-break, possibly even better under some practical circumstances) and having used it as a key, build-enabling, best-in-slot weapon in an Ordo hunting fleet (in this case, using it on the new Invictus.)

• Added Luddic pilgrim transport bar mission

Will this also include Luddic "pilgrims" of the more questionable variety? Add a bit of variety to the bar missions, especially if something like this would impact the target market.

Negative; not to say that couldn't be a thing but this is in connection to the Luddic Shrines.

[FooF]

Yeah, don’t sleep on a more accurate HAG. It’s a gun that you can’t shield flicker like the Hellbore and is generally useful against all hull sizes. The only thing I don’t like is its flux cost. Whereas the Mk. IX is probably more useful as a generalist weapon (it does have decent damage/shot), the HAG isn’t too far behind and its higher DPS once the armor goes down means it finishes ships off better. Against Ordos, I think it’s more than sufficient, and it only really struggles against outlier Low Tech with lots of skills and heavy armor. Even then, it’s not bad: just less impactful than Hellbore shots.