Print

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

[yajusenpai]

It is the increment of improvement being higher than buffalo to collosus

And that being a problem.... How?

It is only natural that bigger ship are more efficient at carry around large amount cargo.

There really isn't much to a cargo ship: some room for the bored crew, engine and a giant cargo hold. As long as the engine are working it is fine. There aren't many thing that can go wrong except the engine. Thus the low maintenance compared to other more interesting ship.

As for why bigger ship are more efficient. It is because the added tonnage can be mostly allocated to cargo capacity. You don't need more crew to maintain a ship that is mainly empty space, even if there are more empty space, there are nothing that can go wrong. With a bigger ship, you can fit a bigger, more efficient engine, therefore saving you the need to maintain multiple separate engine from multiple smaller. So as the ship get bigger, the ratio of cargo space to other stuff increase, thus the increase in efficiency.

If there will be a even bigger cargo ship, Say a Superduper-Atlas class freighter, the "increment of improvement"™ will be even bigger.

And every PLAYER will use the Superduper, because that is how player work. but not everyone is a player. There are people that just hauling around good for a living and they don't just immediately go for the biggest truck (ship) available.

You know about the Venture? That thing are suppose to be a "pride of the fleet" for some small corporations according to its description. As a player? That thing is "insufferable".

Player are built different.

multiplier being greater

It is the same old 30% and the double.

Therefore I conclude when you even the odds by giving both S-mod, it still shift to Atlas's favor.

That mean the Colossus require less investment.

[Killer of Fate]

you guys are forgetting Colossus has one attribute the Atlas doesn't... Crew capacity.
Atlas has 100 crew per 10 dp. Colossus has 200 per 6 dp.
Atlas needs 50 skeleton crew. Colossus needs 40...
Which means if you have 2 Atlas, you get a max 100 bonus crew. But with Colossus you get 320. Which is enough to probably replenish a Conquest's lost crew when it got blown up. And acted like it don't know nobody. HEHEHEHEHEHEH...

Though this aspect is obviously irrelevant... But at the same time the whole aspect of logistics becomes quite irrelevant once you have a network of colonies supporting your efforts. But by then there is not really much else to do than shoot Remnants. So, it's no wonder people default to Atlas.

The only thing that matters then is how many ships can you cram into your fleet. Though also not really... It's just showmanship. So, people could actually put Mercury into their fleet. As often they don't even need all their fleet slots, cause they are trying to maximise the damage and combat readiness buffs, I assume.

[yajusenpai]

That does it. Colossus is OP

[Phenir]

Really complaining about the jump from colossus to atlas being bigger than buffalo to colossus (cargo per dp/maintenance; 150>200= 33%, 133>150= 12%) when even the most efficient frigate, the mudskipper, has only 35 storage per dp, making the buffalo a little less than 4x more efficient. Maybe it's the buffalo (and tarsus) that is OP, lol.
Really, instead of nerfing the atlas, just give the colossus 100-200 more cargo. Don't nerf the upper end, fix the middle.

[TK3600]

imo the solution is to nerf logistical mods getting super s-mod bonuses. Those make no sense considering they technically cost 15 op...

The lower s-mod bonuses of stuff like Efficiency Overhaul, the sensor thingy, Solar Shielding, etc. should stay as are. Obviously.

I mean, it's not like there are some extremely powerful options competing to be installed on civilian ships. It's just a really straightforward decision to built-in more cargo capacity.

ALSO, please decrease the cost of the surveying hullmod... And allow it to retain its bonus. This is one thing in the game that needs to be buffed in terms of logistics.

It's no way near as valuable as simply having more cargo capacity.

I would argue solar shield out of logi mod. It is primarily an anti bot combat mod. It is a meme mod otherwise, unless you abuse AI into the sun.

[TK3600]

It is the increment of improvement being higher than buffalo to collosus

And that being a problem.... How?

It is only natural that bigger ship are more efficient at carry around large amount cargo.

There really isn't much to a cargo ship: some room for the bored crew, engine and a giant cargo hold. As long as the engine are working it is fine. There aren't many thing that can go wrong except the engine. Thus the low maintenance compared to other more interesting ship.

As for why bigger ship are more efficient. It is because the added tonnage can be mostly allocated to cargo capacity. You don't need more crew to maintain a ship that is mainly empty space, even if there are more empty space, there are nothing that can go wrong. With a bigger ship, you can fit a bigger, more efficient engine, therefore saving you the need to maintain multiple separate engine from multiple smaller. So as the ship get bigger, the ratio of cargo space to other stuff increase, thus the increase in efficiency.

If there will be a even bigger cargo ship, Say a Superduper-Atlas class freighter, the "increment of improvement"™ will be even bigger.

And every PLAYER will use the Superduper, because that is how player work. but not everyone is a player. There are people that just hauling around good for a living and they don't just immediately go for the biggest truck (ship) available.

You know about the Venture? That thing are suppose to be a "pride of the fleet" for some small corporations according to its description. As a player? That thing is "insufferable".

Player are built different.

multiplier being greater

It is the same old 30% and the double.

Therefore I conclude when you even the odds by giving both S-mod, it still shift to Atlas's favor.

That mean the Colossus require less investment.

If you are using real world logics, then capital ships are faster than frigates. No water resistence, more engine power. It makes a lame game. Don't want that? Then stop using it as argument.

Second, by real logics, increase efficiency above collosus is already obeying square root law. Nothing contradictory. I have already said being more efficient is fine, just not excessive.

Having more base stats for same multiplier for same 1sp is better multiplier efficiency no? It is not about one having 30%+, its stat gain per SP efficiency.

Lastly, on venture example, I argue game should design it opposite. Player is a murder hobo with trading as hobby. Venture SHOULD be the ideal player ship over Atlus. Whereas professional merchants should be the one using Atlus. Thats how player should be built different. We should favor security more. But gameplay sort of contradict the lore here. Atlus is the superior ship for a combat focused fleet. Combat frieghters are ignored. IMO thats kinda ***.

Lastly s-mod investment... Atlus beats colossus without s-mod already. Smod atlus just beat smod colossus even harder.

[yajusenpai]

If you are using real world logics, then capital ships are faster than frigates. No water resistence, more engine power. It makes a lame game. Don't want that? Then stop using it as argument.

Did you just assume my preference? I am triggered.

"capital ships are faster than frigates"? Well, not necessary. While there are no water resistance in space, and the engine power did tend to be stronger on a capital ship. There are still mass and inertia after, I mean before the engine that we need to consider. The effect of mass and inertia is that bigger ship are slower to accelerate and decelerate, and have more difficulty in maneuvering and repositioning. While the capital ship can still reach the speed a smaller ship is capable of, it definitely take  longer than say a frigate. Therefore a frigate are faster than a capital in combat because a frigate can more realistically achieve and utilize faster speed than a battleship. This also explain burn speed, as in a non combat situation we need not worry about maneuvering and fighting and dodging, and focus on going fast.

Second, by real logics, increase efficiency above collosus is already obeying square root law. Nothing contradictory. I have already said being more efficient is fine, just not excessive.

At this point I probably need you to define what is "excessive".
Who are you to decide what is excessive for me?
How is you unbased assumption better than my unbased assumption on how much a ship should carry?

If you did think being more efficient is fine, then why you keep bringing this up?

Having more base stats for same multiplier for same 1sp is better multiplier efficiency no? It is not about one having 30%+, its stat gain per SP efficiency.

Lastly s-mod investment... Atlus beats colossus without s-mod already. Smod atlus just beat smod colossus even harder.

It is you who talk about multiplier.
I can only say it is a virtue of being bigger.
If you talk about "stat gain per SP efficiency", then how about Revenant? Buffalo? Tarsus? Mule? Gemini? Cerberus? Wayfarer? Hound? Shepherd?
Are you going to argue for them too?

Lastly, on venture example, I argue game should design it opposite. Player is a murder hobo with trading as hobby. Venture SHOULD be the ideal player ship over Atlus. Whereas professional merchants should be the one using Atlus. Thats how player should be built different. We should favor security more. But gameplay sort of contradict the lore here. Atlus is the superior ship for a combat focused fleet. Combat frieghters are ignored. IMO thats kinda ***.

No No No No No.
You don't get it.

Combat freighter are for those who are unable to field separated dedicated vessel.
Those peasants use combat freighter because they can't afford a proper combat fleet to protect dedicated freighter, so they need to use combat freighter that can (sort of) protect itself.

Jack of all trade can never beat dedication given equal resource.
A ship that only put 50% resources into combat ability can never beat a ship that is 100% murder.

Player can freely progress into dedicated freighter because they have the fist to back it up.




"We should favor security more"?
Hah! We are the biggest menace in the galaxy.

[Brainwright]

If you are using real world logics, then capital ships are faster than frigates. No water resistence, more engine power. It makes a lame game. Don't want that? Then stop using it as argument.

In real world logic, large ocean-going ships are faster because inertia overcomes resistance.  Smaller ships still accelerate faster, so that would translate to a better velocity over time.

In Starsector, there are drive fields that warp gravity.  It's what provides gravity to the crew.  Ships also don't expend nearly as much mass to burn their engines as real spacecraft, so we can assume that the drive field is doing most of the work.

Also, combat is very obviously a representation.  It's a good translation, but top speed, for instance, isn't something that should exist in vacuum.

Given these factors, there isn't a really good reason to translate real world properties to Starsector.

That said, it is implied that larger ships are supposed to be more cumbersome and force you to engage in battles that might be better retreating from.

It doesn't really work in the current build of the game.  The disengage fight will always kill most of your logistics ships, no matter their constitution.  It's a bit silly that frigates are able to enter the sides from the center of the map, technically ahead of a lot of the logistics ships.  Logistics ships are completely hamstrung as it is, they don't need more disadvantages.

If disengagement were more viable, flying only with s-modded Atlases might be less obvious.  You might actually be willing to sacrifice a ship or two to avoid spending a story point.

[Thaago]

This is what some of the player's own frigates are for: to fly ahead and tie up the enemy ones and let the logistics get through. It's kind of moot because players can just use a story point (and get 100% bonus xp), but getting logistics ships out in escape scenarios is entirely possible and I've done it many times when I've messed up on the campaign layer. I haven't done it with an Atlas so can't speak to that, because I've never felt the need to run with one other than rare dedicated large-haul missions.

[TK3600]

Really complaining about the jump from colossus to atlas being bigger than buffalo to colossus (cargo per dp/maintenance; 150>200= 33%, 133>150= 12%) when even the most efficient frigate, the mudskipper, has only 35 storage per dp, making the buffalo a little less than 4x more efficient. Maybe it's the buffalo (and tarsus) that is OP, lol.
Really, instead of nerfing the atlas, just give the colossus 100-200 more cargo. Don't nerf the upper end, fix the middle.

I think colossus is just underpowered, not other issues raised.

1. Less maintnence per cargo efficient than buffalo.
2. frigate is less efficient yes, but they are all combat transport comparable to Mule in role, while Buffalo is pure transport.
3. I consider shepherd with converted cargo to be closest to be pure cargo frigate. Its efficiency is alright along with other neat bonus.

[Phenir]

Really complaining about the jump from colossus to atlas being bigger than buffalo to colossus (cargo per dp/maintenance; 150>200= 33%, 133>150= 12%) when even the most efficient frigate, the mudskipper, has only 35 storage per dp, making the buffalo a little less than 4x more efficient. Maybe it's the buffalo (and tarsus) that is OP, lol.
Really, instead of nerfing the atlas, just give the colossus 100-200 more cargo. Don't nerf the upper end, fix the middle.

I think colossus is just underpowered, not other issues raised.

1. Less maintnence per cargo efficient than buffalo.
2. frigate is less efficient yes, but they are all combat transport comparable to Mule in role, while Buffalo is pure transport.
3. I consider shepherd with converted cargo to be closest to be pure cargo frigate. Its efficiency is alright along with other neat bonus.

I don't know what you are talking about with first point.
Mudskipper literally has just 1 small ballistic and no shield. It is not a combat freighter.
Yeah, I guess if you give the shepherd converted fighter bay, it does jump up to 50 cargo per supply but that's still a very far cry from buffalo.

[TK3600]

If you are using real world logics, then capital ships are faster than frigates. No water resistence, more engine power. It makes a lame game. Don't want that? Then stop using it as argument.

Did you just assume my preference? I am triggered.

"capital ships are faster than frigates"? Well, not necessary. While there are no water resistance in space, and the engine power did tend to be stronger on a capital ship. There are still mass and inertia after, I mean before the engine that we need to consider. The effect of mass and inertia is that bigger ship are slower to accelerate and decelerate, and have more difficulty in maneuvering and repositioning. While the capital ship can still reach the speed a smaller ship is capable of, it definitely take  longer than say a frigate. Therefore a frigate are faster than a capital in combat because a frigate can more realistically achieve and utilize faster speed than a battleship. This also explain burn speed, as in a non combat situation we need not worry about maneuvering and fighting and dodging, and focus on going fast.

Second, by real logics, increase efficiency above collosus is already obeying square root law. Nothing contradictory. I have already said being more efficient is fine, just not excessive.

At this point I probably need you to define what is "excessive".
Who are you to decide what is excessive for me?
How is you unbased assumption better than my unbased assumption on how much a ship should carry?

If you did think being more efficient is fine, then why you keep bringing this up?

Having more base stats for same multiplier for same 1sp is better multiplier efficiency no? It is not about one having 30%+, its stat gain per SP efficiency.

Lastly s-mod investment... Atlus beats colossus without s-mod already. Smod atlus just beat smod colossus even harder.

It is you who talk about multiplier.
I can only say it is a virtue of being bigger.
If you talk about "stat gain per SP efficiency", then how about Revenant? Buffalo? Tarsus? Mule? Gemini? Cerberus? Wayfarer? Hound? Shepherd?
Are you going to argue for them too?

Lastly, on venture example, I argue game should design it opposite. Player is a murder hobo with trading as hobby. Venture SHOULD be the ideal player ship over Atlus. Whereas professional merchants should be the one using Atlus. Thats how player should be built different. We should favor security more. But gameplay sort of contradict the lore here. Atlus is the superior ship for a combat focused fleet. Combat frieghters are ignored. IMO thats kinda ***.

No No No No No.
You don't get it.

Combat freighter are for those who are unable to field separated dedicated vessel.
Those peasants use combat freighter because they can't afford a proper combat fleet to protect dedicated freighter, so they need to use combat freighter that can (sort of) protect itself.

Jack of all trade can never beat dedication given equal resource.
A ship that only put 50% resources into combat ability can never beat a ship that is 100% murder.

Player can freely progress into dedicated freighter because they have the fist to back it up.




"We should favor security more"?
Hah! We are the biggest menace in the galaxy.

I assumed your preference is not lame unbalanced game and I am sorry for the wrong assumption.

Although if we take your preference of real life logic, then capital should have less combat speed (to simulate slow battle acceleration), but higher burn, at least when not hyperspace. It does ruins fun trade off of weaker faster skirmisher/smuggler vs battlefleet/big trader designs. We can agree to disagree on realism vs balance then.

I define excessive as almost no one should use collosus if they can help it, be it a combat focused fleet or a trading ship. Without S-mod I could see Atlus being much better but not complete overshadow. With smod in equation it just always beats s-modded collosus, be it cargo, efficiency, speed, or sensor profile. I see you take no problem with that, but I do. I think it is a lame design and could use buff/nerf.

[TK3600]

Really complaining about the jump from colossus to atlas being bigger than buffalo to colossus (cargo per dp/maintenance; 150>200= 33%, 133>150= 12%) when even the most efficient frigate, the mudskipper, has only 35 storage per dp, making the buffalo a little less than 4x more efficient. Maybe it's the buffalo (and tarsus) that is OP, lol.
Really, instead of nerfing the atlas, just give the colossus 100-200 more cargo. Don't nerf the upper end, fix the middle.

I think colossus is just underpowered, not other issues raised.

1. Less maintnence per cargo efficient than buffalo.
2. frigate is less efficient yes, but they are all combat transport comparable to Mule in role, while Buffalo is pure transport.
3. I consider shepherd with converted cargo to be closest to be pure cargo frigate. Its efficiency is alright along with other neat bonus.

I don't know what you are talking about with first point.
Mudskipper literally has just 1 small ballistic and no shield. It is not a combat freighter.
Yeah, I guess if you give the shepherd converted fighter bay, it does jump up to 50 cargo per supply but that's still a very far cry from buffalo.

Mudskipper I think is a crew carrier. Same role as Nebula.

[Maeleth]

For all the Atlas lovers, I have only two words:
Difficult Terrain.

Assuming you've found ADF at all, which is not guaranteed in the first few months. And even with ADF you absolutely cannot reach that comfortable 19-20 burn level only base 10 burn ships can provide. For that reason alone my freighter of choice would always be Buffalo (P), not matter how far I'm into the campaign.

Allow me to make a few examples of my usual reasoning:
1) Early game I prefer exploration/Galatia missions, thus reaching the target system a few days earlier allows me to make an extra quest or even two. Putting Atlas in a fleet means a single Dram is no longer enough. I need at least Phaeton now, lowering average speed and agility on the campaign map even more, which often leads to otherwise avoidable fights. And traveling via storm clouds becomes really, really tough due to increased supply cost of bigger ships, which lowers average burn even more or eats up supplies at insane rate.

Meanwhile a single Buffalo can carry all the good, valuable stuff you actually want to haul back, has 10 burn, has Shielded Cargo holds for braindead bulk trading at black market with no risks involved. A-and will probably survive a retreat battle if all else fails. After all, it has enough spare OP for UI and a bit of flux capacity.

2) Mid-game is usually a time to found a colony or two, and babysit them for a few years, scanning nearby systems, farming ordos, developing contacts and doing bounty quests. Don't need much cargo capacity here either as I'm operating near my home base and, most likely, Core Worlds. Also there is no need to haul anything back as a commission and a few colonies will provide enough funds for any project I can think of. Buffalo is still king.

3) Late game the only items in your cargo should be around 100 machinery, token 20-30 transplutonics/volatiles for skill activation, and supplies. There is absolutely no need to have bigger cargo, no matter what you do or where you go. A single S-modded buffalo still provides enough space for half a year worth of supplies, assuming an efficient ~240 DP combat fleet and a few salvage rigs in tow.

All the above includes switching from Industry skills to combat skills at midgame, probably even earlier. If you keep the yellow tree it's even more relevant.

In all honestly, it's completely beyond me why anyone would want to lug around that huge, ugly brick of a ship. For me at least Starsector is too casual and unbalanced (read easy) to necessitate hauling anything but supplies and the most valuable loot.

Spoiler

Unless you're just space truckin' in the Core Worlds, which begs the question "why Starsector and not ETS2/Elite/X series/dozens of better simulation games".

[close]

[Princess of Evil]

L + ratio + Augmented Drive Field + Navigation + Bulk Transport.