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: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 54

Author Topic: Starsector 0.65.2a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 325218 times)

Linnis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #240 on: December 16, 2014, 11:30:25 PM »

One other boost is to destroy all of the wrecks except the conquest so that only it can be chosen

Maybe in the future we get officers for boarding or w/e other method so we don't have to save scum to board ships.
Logged

Venatos

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #241 on: December 17, 2014, 02:34:12 AM »

interresting thought, i could see how playstyles might be interresting for a developer and funny that you pick exactly the 2 ships that usually end up being my flagship. ;) (usualy loaded with heavy maulers and grav beams)
so playstyle:
1.get something with cargospace (maybe even sell the starting frigate)
2.make money trading/hunting traders for destroyer
3.get enforcer/hammerhead (in case frigate survived step1 either sell now or keep as distraction)
4.alternate between raiding traders, making traderuns and taking bountys
5.get 2nd destroyer, then start saving for eagle or falcon
6.get 2nd cruiser, start saving for battleship
7.final fleet: 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 1or more freighter(if gemini maybe +2-4 fighterwings)

at this point there is no AI fleet that poses a threat, i do a little roflstomping, declearing wars on factions and so on, but the game is practicly won, because there is no way for me to lose.
i would realy wish for something to do at this point, like in exerelin mod, taking over stations and stuff, would be cool if i could help my faction of the playthrough take over known space!

EDIT: in case it is of interrest, ships are usually outfittet with focus on highexplosive (heavy mauler and similar) after the philosophy that if an enemy drops his shields or vents he dies.
and deployment is usually: 1class higher, half the ships(if the enemy has 4 frigates, i deploy 2 destroyer;  against 2 destroyer and 2 frigates i deploy 1 cruiser 1 destroyer and so on)
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 02:51:03 AM by Venatos »
Logged

Callabaddie

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #242 on: December 17, 2014, 02:55:08 AM »

I don't really like the idea of any of these changes. It's certainly nothing that will make me want to pick up the game and try the next release.
Logged

Griffinhart

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #243 on: December 17, 2014, 04:15:41 AM »

Removed energy weapon bonus damage from high flux level
Increased damage values for non-beam energy weapons by roughly 25% to compensate

tl;dr non-beam energy weapons lost nothing and in fact probably got a buff. Cool; I never factored the flux bonus into any of my builds or tactics. (That said, I fly Ballistics primarily, so that's just my nature.)

Standardized range to 1000 for most non-PD, from Tactical Laser to HIL
Increased range for PD Laser and LR PD Laser

Hmm, IIRC there's a crossover point where, if you have enough mounts for them, a bunch of Tactical Lasers + PD AI > an equivalent number of PD/LR PD Lasers with no PD AI. I don't think any of the vanilla ships run into this, but some mod ships do - although there's no real sense in balancing the game to mods, so I guess this point is rather moot.

Though,having a standard range, in my head, is good - it means quicker theoretical builds on my part, since I don't have to futz around with considering distances vs. whatever advantage a given weapon has over another.

Tactical Laser, Graviton Beam, and Phase Beam are no longer interrupted by missiles

Meaning these beams will damage missiles and continue past, or just ignore missiles entirely and not be useful for PD?

Salamander: both versions have unlimited ammo and require 20 seconds to reload
Hurricane MIRV: regenerates 1 ammo every 20 seconds
Pilum LRM: regenerates 1 ammo every 10 seconds

You mean missiles will actually be threatening now, instead of something that can be more-or-less safely ignored at mid-scale and larger fights? \o/

Now have unlimited ammo, except for Bomb Bay

As a player who flies primarily Ballistic:

Good. Ammo was always a non-issue for my builds (I prefer high-speed, high-alpha setups, meaning I don't do long-endurance fights) - I'd just stick Expanded Mags on all my ships by default. As for fighting against Ballistic-primary ships, this is also good; it means no more bunkering/kiting against Pirates and the Hegemony until they run out of bullets and become easy meat.

That said, you may still want to consider having a magazine for Ballistic weapons - that is, they still have unlimited ammo, but after firing x number of bullets, there's a forced cooldown period where the gun is unable to fire. (Of course, this may also mean implementing some kind of reload functionality - or else players will just mag-dump before their next in-battle engagement.)

Destroyers and cruisers now have a peak effectiveness timer like frigates

Ooh, me like. Means mid-game will be more difficult, and capships will be all the more sweeter for not having an effectiveness timer.

-- Griffinhart
Logged


"Rrha ki ra tek wim tes yor
en weel waath dius manaf, Yat!
"

ahrenjb

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #244 on: December 17, 2014, 09:49:16 AM »

Wow, after giving the planned changes a good read-over for the first time, I have to say I'm pretty apprehensive about this update. I don't really care to read through 17 pages of prior discussion, so at the risk of repeating things that have already been said, I'll give some of my thoughts on the matter.

Almost everything in the combat balance pass borderline offends me, and changes the whole character of combat in the game, so I suppose I'll have to address each thing one at a time.

Energy weapon bonus from flux level. Here's something that was never really stood out on it's own, it wasn't an aspect of energy weapons that was terribly distinct, but after giving more thought to it I can honestly say it added an element of character to energy weapons that they desperately need to prevent them from being (less) boring. As it is, energy weapons deal a kind of middling, jack-of-all-trades master-of-none damage. They require no ammunition and affect shields armor and hull mostly the same so they don't require the same type of management as other weapons. Now, maybe this is directly connected to the way I play the game, but my use of energy weapons always somewhat relied on the high flux bonus. The flux generation of my weapons loadout on energy-weapon based ships was always DPS dependent and outmatched my venting capability significantly. I would always vent my flux to zero before starting an attack, then I would hit with everything I had to drive their own flux up, hoping to force them to drop their shields before I cap out on flux, at this point I have damage bonuses coming in, which help my energy weapons to cut through the armor, allowing me to deal some permanent damage before I have to drop back and vent either passively or actively. Without this, all energy weapons become pressure weapons and lose one of the only edges they have.

Let's look at energy vs ballistic before and after. Ballistic weapons; multiple damage types with varying effectiveness vs multiple defense types encouraging varied load outs, ammo limitations encouraging management during long engagements, slight flux use advantage. Energy weapons; generic damage type with equal effectiveness against all defenses, no ammo limitations besides a couple balance situations, higher flux use but good dps, encouraging flux management over ammo management, and high flux damage bonuses adding a distinct consideration for fighting with energy weapons.

Now? What's the honest difference? Damage types? Different skins? I've said enough on this, and there are a good number more issues to address.

Now, the beam changes. For the most part, I suppose this is ok, but the range standardization? You're removing MORE character from a type of weapon that already threatened to be boring at best. One of the real advantages of the HIL was the great range it offered over other options, now all beams will be stand-off weapons.

Missiles having unlimited ammo and ammo regeneration? I disagree with every part of this, I don't even know where to begin. Missiles were a very powerful finishing weapon for high threat or annoying targets that could be used 1-3 times in a battle to great tactical effect. Now they become pressure weapons like anything else. It makes sense in a lore perspective, too. You've got this launcher that is probably externally mounted, easy to re-arm between engagements, but nigh-impossible to work on in the heat of an engagement. And everyone knows that using missiles at the right time can make all the difference. That one slip that rips all your armor away, or that timing that cripples the enemy capital. Now you'll just face a boring, obnoxious trickle of missiles here and there throughout the battle, a role that used to be delegated to LRMs like the pilum.

Peak effectiveness for destroyers AND cruisers? What's the advantage of this, what's the purpose? To force people to use capital ships in larger engagements? Isn't this just the type of forced gameplay that you've said you are trying to avoid many, many times in the past?

There's more I could say on the whole thing, but I feel like my point has been made. The entire "combat balance pass" feels forced to me, even to the point of risking casualizing the entire game. There are a hundred generic space blasting games, the industry doesn't need another one. What was your thought process here? Right up to calling it a "balance pass". This is a drastic restructuring of some of the core concepts of combat in the game. What's next, removal of hard flux? Making armor a homogeneous HP pool instead of area-based?

I've mostly agreed with everything you've done with this game Alex, my posting history will reflect this. I can't agree with these changes though, I really can't. I urge careful reconsideration of these things before you start the downhill slide into a run of the mill shootemup like SPAZ.

I hope the tone of this post doesn't detract in any way from the content, I recognize it could be construed as combative, but I'm genuinely sharing my thoughts on the presented changes and hope this will be taken into account. This is a game that I invested in very, very early and I've seen it grow and come a long way. This is one of the first changes that has stood out to me as a step in the wrong direction, at a time which should be very exciting for Starsector. There are players coming out to make some of their first posts on the board to express similar opinions, so I know I'm not alone in this. I look forward to keeping an eye on how things progress.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 10:00:42 AM by ahrenjb »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #245 on: December 17, 2014, 10:57:11 AM »

Tactical Laser, Graviton Beam, and Phase Beam are no longer interrupted by missiles

Meaning these beams will damage missiles and continue past, or just ignore missiles entirely and not be useful for PD?

"It means they damage missiles, but pass through them and can hit other things."

I added that to the OP, since the question came up several times now.



@ ahrenjb: Just a few support missiles regenerate ammo.



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.

Tartiflette

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3529
  • MagicLab discord: https://discord.gg/EVQZaD3naU
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #246 on: December 17, 2014, 12:10:08 PM »

I think people should try to see this from Alex's point of view. While I'm firmly opposed to these changes as a player, they do make sense from a developer perspective:

As with each updates, we saw a big surge in new players that enjoyed the games but as usual 2 months later we're back the usual calm. People don't play the game for long because it become quickly repetitive (especially if you don't play with mods) What they want? From the suggestions we can mostly see "better AI" and "more high level mechanics and content".

"High level mechanics and content" will take times, no matter what. Even if we get only player stations and officers in the next update it will require months of incompressible development time.

Now for "better AI" there is two choices: Make an actually better AI, with the risk of opening new different exploits, making it more quirky in certain circumstances/using certain mods, or seriously hurting the performances... That is a huge undertaking (months at least) with no guarantee of making anything better than the current AI.
Or, he can strip some secondary gameplay mechanics actually underused by the vanilla game (ammo and flux boost) and totally ignored by the AI (see the exploits). Time of development: a few days plus some testing, maybe a bit more it he takes time to solve some minor issues like firing beams while just out of range and the like.

Starsector has been in alpha for years and while it has built a small but solid core of players, those don't pay the new bills. It need badly content, and it's in this perspective that the changelog makes perfect sense. Spending 6 months polishing something that is already doing a decent job would be a major waste, especially when a quick "dirty" fix can alleviate most or the minor remaining problems.

Also, in a more general sense, I think all the talks about countering the over-deploying or ship-jumping exploits are done with a way too narrow perspective. I mean sure it would be good to eliminate those, but they mostly are visible because for now, Starsector is only about combat (trading is only a mean to get a better fleet, not an end). The final game, as I understood it, will be much more about exploration, quests, restoring/plundering the sector and building your faction, than battling over and over again until none can stand before your fleet. The player will have so many more money sinks to fill that the current common exploits might become much rarer/harder to manage/uninteresting anyway.

Finally, for all we know, Alex liked the previous ammo and flux mechanic (after all, he implemented them) and they aren't removed but simply won't be used in vanilla. So maybe later, after Starsector is released and if he isn't fed-up, we will get a "StarSector - Enhanced Edition" with better AI, meaningful flux management for energy weapon, and ammunition fed Ballistic weaponry.

[PS] I should add that the game is already very complex, even if we veterans can't see it anymore. And with more and more mechanics added to the game, I don't think the removal of those will hurt the big picture that much...
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 02:11:15 PM by Tartiflette »
Logged
 

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #247 on: December 17, 2014, 01:11:11 PM »

...

There's more I could say on the whole thing, but I feel like my point has been made. The entire "combat balance pass" feels forced to me, even to the point of risking casualizing the entire game. There are a hundred generic space blasting games, the industry doesn't need another one. What was your thought process here? Right up to calling it a "balance pass". This is a drastic restructuring of some of the core concepts of combat in the game. What's next, removal of hard flux? Making armor a homogeneous HP pool instead of area-based?

I've mostly agreed with everything you've done with this game Alex, my posting history will reflect this. I can't agree with these changes though, I really can't. I urge careful reconsideration of these things before you start the downhill slide into a run of the mill shootemup like SPAZ.

...

Its good to share thoughts, but I think this is an overreaction. How are any of these changes "a drastic restructuring"? The main effect of the energy flux bonus was people complaining about energy weapons having low DPS because they didn't even know about it. Ammo for ballistics is a more important concept, but I think in this case its a case of "follow the fun": is it fun to run out of ammo? No. Is it fun to wait until the enemy runs out of ammo? Maybe, if you like that kind of thing, but personally I don't - I just get bored in any situation it would be good in. Yes is was a factor in choosing weapons, but there are so many other factors to that - per shot damage, flux usage, damage type, range, burst vs continuous, accuracy, turret speed... all of them are also important considerations and removing ammo doesn't make all weapons homogeneous by a long shot. The missile changes allow the missile weapons that are supposed to be pressure weapons (LRM, Salamanders) to actually be pressure weapons.
Logged

ahrenjb

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #248 on: December 17, 2014, 03:09:23 PM »

...

There's more I could say on the whole thing, but I feel like my point has been made. The entire "combat balance pass" feels forced to me, even to the point of risking casualizing the entire game. There are a hundred generic space blasting games, the industry doesn't need another one. What was your thought process here? Right up to calling it a "balance pass". This is a drastic restructuring of some of the core concepts of combat in the game. What's next, removal of hard flux? Making armor a homogeneous HP pool instead of area-based?

I've mostly agreed with everything you've done with this game Alex, my posting history will reflect this. I can't agree with these changes though, I really can't. I urge careful reconsideration of these things before you start the downhill slide into a run of the mill shootemup like SPAZ.

...

Its good to share thoughts, but I think this is an overreaction. How are any of these changes "a drastic restructuring"? The main effect of the energy flux bonus was people complaining about energy weapons having low DPS because they didn't even know about it. Ammo for ballistics is a more important concept, but I think in this case its a case of "follow the fun": is it fun to run out of ammo? No. Is it fun to wait until the enemy runs out of ammo? Maybe, if you like that kind of thing, but personally I don't - I just get bored in any situation it would be good in. Yes is was a factor in choosing weapons, but there are so many other factors to that - per shot damage, flux usage, damage type, range, burst vs continuous, accuracy, turret speed... all of them are also important considerations and removing ammo doesn't make all weapons homogeneous by a long shot. The missile changes allow the missile weapons that are supposed to be pressure weapons (LRM, Salamanders) to actually be pressure weapons.

I'll agree that it's probably somewhat of an over-reaction, I didn't sit on the information for very long before I responded which may have been a misstep, but I think the core of what I was saying remains true. You're right in that "follow-the-fun" has a validity of its own, but is getting rid of ammunition entirely a good idea? Running out of ammunition, or waiting for the enemy to run out, is probably not fun. If ammo was being re-structured, this could have been a good opportunity to introduce a new mechanic for ballistic weapons. A magazine and reloading function. Weapons like the autopulse laser already have a mechanic where you can rapidly fire off a magazine of ammo as individual shots trickle in to replenish what you've used. You can fire at any time, whether there are 5 or 20 available charges. This makes sense for an energy weapon, as capacitors or what-have-you store energy coming in from the main reactor. For ballistic weapons, Alex could have taken another approach. Drastically reduce magazine size for all ballistic weapons (For instance, 500 to 50), and then implement a system where when all the available ammunition runs out the turret starts a reload timer. So, for your light assault gun you have 100 shots available. Once you've fired off 100 shots, the cool down bar starts at full and now functions as a reload timer. Once completed, the magazine is re-filled to 100 rounds. Running out of ammunition is now more common, but only leaves your weapons temporarily out-of-action. This keeps the flavor of ballistic weapons feeling ammunition based, while also allowing for unlimited ammunition and an element to consider in fights. For those players who like to try to run the opponent out of ammunition, they can still do so. Evading and absorbing shots until it seems like the enemy vessels turrets have entered a reload cycle. Maybe there could be a key to manually begin the reload cycle, I'm not sure if this would be necessary. To avoid it becoming a source of frustration, magazines coudl still allow for somewhat extended firing, and reload times would be relatively short, but that feeling would be preserved.

It also creates an important distinction between energy and ballistic weapons. Magazine based energy weapons have constant regen, where ballistic weapons have quantity regen.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 03:11:21 PM by ahrenjb »
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #249 on: December 17, 2014, 03:23:28 PM »

@ahrenjb: What you just suggested has come up a couple times already in this thread, termed as a "clip reload" mechanic.  There are several good reasons why it's a bad idea, but the basic gist of them is that - especially on large ships with multiple different weapons - it encourages micromanagement of ammunition supplies and firing of weapons at nothing in order to get a reload before going back into combat.  A better idea is what I'll call "chunk reload" - where, instead of reloading 100 shots 10 seconds after you empty the magazine, it reloads maybe 30 shots say 15 seconds after you started firing, and again every 15 seconds until it's back up to full, or perhaps it reloads all 100 shots every 45 seconds, or something like that.  This way you get the same sort of feel, but don't actually have to empty a clip before it starts reloading.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Zapier

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #250 on: December 17, 2014, 06:35:58 PM »

@ahrenjb: What you just suggested has come up a couple times already in this thread, termed as a "clip reload" mechanic.  There are several good reasons why it's a bad idea, but the basic gist of them is that - especially on large ships with multiple different weapons - it encourages micromanagement of ammunition supplies and firing of weapons at nothing in order to get a reload before going back into combat.  A better idea is what I'll call "chunk reload" - where, instead of reloading 100 shots 10 seconds after you empty the magazine, it reloads maybe 30 shots say 15 seconds after you started firing, and again every 15 seconds until it's back up to full, or perhaps it reloads all 100 shots every 45 seconds, or something like that.  This way you get the same sort of feel, but don't actually have to empty a clip before it starts reloading.

Yeah, I still think this may be the better solution in the long-term to appease people who might be on both sides of limited/unlimited ballistic ammo. One tweak I'd have to the starting chunk reloading after some aforementioned time period is to have the reload chunks only occur when the weapon isn't firing at all, that way the ammo limitations are still very easily noticed/felt by people shooting non-stop, yet still provide unlimited ammo if you aren't shooting. Of course, the AI might be pressured into trying to fire more often, but then you could have the reload start much more quickly once you're not 'firing'.

I don't know. I'm curious to see and feel the changes before the next step.
Logged

Vulpes

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #251 on: December 18, 2014, 04:05:34 AM »

I thought I'd divide this between my play style and thoughts on the change, incase anyone found it relevant.
Play style:
Early game I usually end up as a solo flagship for cost reasons, because the AI just can't handle being vastly outnumbered (or I'm bad at making ships for it to use) and either dies or isn't useful enough to justify risking ships.  At this stage I'm usually in a frigate decked out to quickly pick off enemy frigates (or whatever I can kill quickly) and then start wearing down larger ships; this is when I might actually start deploying reinforcements, either to help catch retreating ships or take apart destroyers/cruisers... strangely enough this is safer than fighting frigates, because if the AI does something stupid I can usually jump in front and save it before ordering a retreat.

If I have any particularly rugged frigates I'll sometimes send them out first to help split tough enemy fleets and let me get a few kills before they retreat.  I don't really like daisy-chaining flagships and find it unneccessary unless picking fights I really shouldn't have- the AI has real problems working out when to retreat (or pursue) 1 player frigate, so I can pretty much dictate what it'll do and receive another free combat round by simply retreating and being "chased"...
This pattern really doesn't change much unless I get a bunch of fighters and a carrier- fighters are cool because my flagship can charge in whilst they distract things (in a cheap, easily replaced fashion!), or chase and kill weaker enemies.  Large support ships are nice things to have, but I don't really end up *needing* them: if I've got my hands on a capital ship I can pretty much solo anything anyway.  I mention this because I tried ignoring the combat tree in some games but found that just doing the same thing with more fighters worked well anyway :P

I usually like ballistic weapons for their efficiency and play a juggling act (especially with mid line ships) to preserve ammo during solo fights, where I find their raw power normally outweighs ammo limitations.  Energy weapons are interesting because they offer "reliable" dps whilst at the same time encouraging some very aggressive plays at high flux rather than backing off and venting, as I'd usually do with low tech ships/ballistic weapons.

Thoughts on the changes:  As a player I liked the flux damage boost.  It lead to some cool moments where in-game where I realised I could press a high flux "advantage" rather than vent, but can see that it was difficult for the AI to actually use properly; rather than remove it entirely I'm wondering if it could be replaced with some other mechanic the AI would be more adept at using?  Off the cuff I've only really come up an "overcharge" mechanic: Basically a distinct mode/feature where shields are disabled, energy damage is buffed, EMP overloads are actually possible and maybe costs a chunk of flux to activate and deactivate.  It's fairly similar to high energy focus and idk if the AI would end up using it properly, but it's an idea so I'll throw it out there!

To me, infinite ammo seems like a weird concept and takes away from its charm; sure ammo constraints can be an issue for certain ships/weapons during lengthy engagements (and make machine guns OP), but that seems more like the consequence of a few ships trying to take a larger/tougher fleet.  It also doesn't really address armour damage, which I'd say is more of an issue for low tech ships in protracted battles: they are meant to both take and give beatings yet have poor shields, once the armour is gone they end up playing like gimped high tech ships.  I think a nice way of dealing with this would be making it possible for some armour/ammo/missiles to (partially) regenerate at the cost of CR.  After all, it has to come from somewhere  :P

As for lasers, I'm not sure there's actually enough variety to make them all 1k range and feel like it'd break tactical lasers a tad; maybe instead of this we could have more range modifiers, like a cruiser/capital version of "advanced optics" that gives more range to small lasers?  Or I suppose just adding more lasers could work, but tactical laser would still have abnormally high range... without the flux damage boost I think lasers will just decimate fighters/frigates and annoy everything else, but I suppose we'll have to wait and see
I've never really liked the larger burst lasers because I don't need that much PD and they can't compete on the dps/range front, so in my mind they could do with a little boost- especially if everything else is getting more range and lower fade times!

Edit: A quick question for Alex: I love how the game is shaping up, but it's quite a while to reach this stage.  Does a lot of time go on tweaking things and trying to decide what would make the game *great*, as opposed to actually coding stuff that ends up in the game?  I ask because that's what I'd imagine myself doing (not that I'm trying to diminish your undertaking or the technical wizardry involved).
« Last Edit: December 18, 2014, 04:18:45 AM by Vulpes »
Logged

Linnis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #252 on: December 18, 2014, 06:34:34 AM »

I agree ammo has charm and is generally a good idea to create even more divide and options between weapons, but as it stands currently, ammo serve no purpose in the long run.

But the game will change...

Starsector as stated many times is not going to be about you soloing fleets in one ship with a few distractions. Battles will be short, intense and with losses on both sides, once industry, officers, and multi fleet battles are in the equation.

Currently, the only weapons that DO run out of ammo are point defense, which in optimal setups, you would not use anyways even if they had unlimited ammo (on on lashers, you would end up manual fire to persevere ammo anyways, more tedious work then an actual game play option) that means unless you want ammo to run out within 1min, then it does not matter if it has ammo at all.

So you want regenerating ammo? It donst matter because you cant solo a bunch of ships who have similar combat skills to you. (more combat skills, means you use EVEN MORE ammo) Where it would bring back the days of 30min battles before there where combat skills, and you had to have energy weapon.

Weapon balance then completely depended on ammo count, not on how the weapons where different.

Perhaps the ammo change is too early, but once you play in actual fleet vs fleet combat, ammo is basically unlimited, and future of starsector is fleet vs fleet.


Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #253 on: December 18, 2014, 07:03:22 AM »

Quote
Currently, the only weapons that DO run out of ammo are point defense, which in optimal setups, you would not use anyways even if they had unlimited ammo (on on lashers, you would end up manual fire to persevere ammo anyways, more tedious work then an actual game play option) that means unless you want ammo to run out within 1min, then it does not matter if it has ammo at all.
I use Vulcans on several ships for PD.  Lasher and Sunder need PD badly and Vulcans are the best they can get.  For Dominator, I prefer Vulcans in small mounts and assault weapons in medium, instead of (dual) flak in medium and assault in light due to flux efficiency.

I have no trouble running low of ammo in many long fights, even with Expanded Magazines.  I use Expanded Magazines on most ships reliant on ballistics.  (Exceptions due to low enough OP that getting it means sacrificing more important hullmods.)  Many times, if I did not have Expanded Magazines, I would run out of ammo.

Running out of ammo is the primary reason why I favor high-tech ships.

Quote
Perhaps the ammo change is too early, but once you play in actual fleet vs fleet combat, ammo is basically unlimited, and future of starsector is fleet vs fleet.
Only when Logistics increases automatically on level up, base Logistics is raised to something much higher than 20, or leveling is much faster such that getting level 50 in a day is possible.  Right now, player needs to spend AP/SP in Leadership/Logistics to get a big fleet.  Player may want Combat and Technology more, and settle for a small elite fleet until he gets Leadership at endgame.  Then again, maybe not - remember that Industry is coming, which will likely compete with the player's limited points.

For current gameplay, chain flagships is the most efficient way in terms of in-game resources by far.  Fleet battles are most useful for finishing fights fast and powerleveling, but will eat into your profits and/or some of your storage.
Logged

Captain Pugh

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #254 on: December 18, 2014, 07:17:46 AM »

@ Captain Pugh:  Eagle can be good, although now, it is not as powerful as Dominator or Aurora because the Eagle cannot mount near as many missiles as those two.

... It is if you put heavy blasters in them, but that requires max Combat and Technology to get the necessary OP and flux stats to support it, and only when controlled by player (because AI cannot manage its flux).  It plays much more aggressively than long-ranged and more efficient configurations.  Better firepower than Aurora without any missiles, but pales to an Aurora with missiles powered up by high Missile Specialization.

Cool, I'm looking forward to giving them another go with my next captain, who'll go Tech and Combat, unlike my present admiral.  This is why I'm always careful to add heaps of qualifiers like 'IMO/E', 'Given my particular playstyle' and 'YMMV' (@ Venatos :) ) rather than make blanket statements like 'This ship is rubbish!'.  I mean, I really like the Hammerhead as a strictly non-sexy but solid line unit, so I know how much YMMV when it comes to these ships (though agree with the rough consensus that a tiny bit more flux capacity and ~5 more OPs wouldn't hurt...).  

My main point about these ships was tied into their using medium beams specifically, they being emblematic examples of where medium beams might not be fully up to scratch (IMO).

Quote
That does not work if you want to pilot a slow ship, but want to get to the killer enemy flagship before your faster (and much weaker) ships do.  If everything gets deployed at once, then slow ships are placed at the rear, and the fast ships up front will try to engage anything in their way unless you order them not to, which is not feasible if you want to capture objectives.

It can be done well enough if you don't have too much of a speed difference between your different speed/fragility tiers of ships that you deploy.  Fastest hits the speed-bump of the enemy's leading units (usually also his fastest skirmish units), holds them up just long enough (without getting destroyed) for your second tier units to get into range and polish those enemies off, by which time your third tier (which has been contributing throughout via, eg, Pilums, TLs and flight decks for the Gucci advanced strike craft) has caught up.  Meanwhile, my flagship's dishing out firepower here and there, as needed, as she makes a beeline (without becoming too isolated) for the enemy's flagship, and usually has Augmented Engines for this purpose even if her sister units don't.

Anyway, not to give poor Alex more text to have to read through, but that's the general idea: deploying what I need all at the beginning almost always results in the enemy's flagship going down, plus nearly all of his fleet - sometimes a Wolf/Cerberus/Phase Frigate and battered squadron of craft makes it out alive but that's about it, and it's often a clean sweep if I played it spot on.

Quote
I do not pursue because I do not want Vengeful relations with any faction.  In addition, if I get the option to Stand Down, I always take it to recover CR.  Giving up pursuit for CR is a no-brainer.

Aye, by 'pursuit' I didn't necessarily mean pressing the pursue button, but just pursuit generally; stand down then chase them all over again (on the odd occasion that this is necessary/desirable, at least in the endgame) - either way, you still want some fresher ships/craft that you didn't deploy in the earlier big battle.

Quote
Until the next update, Conquests are not for sale anywhere.  (Alex says Black Markets can sell them.)  They rarely spawn as flagships for Independent deserter fleets.  If you see one, and your game is not Ironman, save-scum until you board that ship!

Thanks a million for this info.  I'm an incorrigible ship collector/completionist, so will reluctantly save-scum if I have to, to get a Conquest.  Just so I don't squander this rare opportunity to get one when it comes up, how many Marines should I be carrying to get a good chance of successfully boarding one?

Cheers.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 54