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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 54

Author Topic: Starsector 0.65.2a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 325203 times)

BillyRueben

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #300 on: January 05, 2015, 07:12:13 AM »

I think the game lost everything that was fun about it when Alex removed ammo. Now it's just unplayable.
Logged

Modest

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #301 on: January 05, 2015, 09:06:24 AM »

Quote
I think the game lost everything that was fun about it when Alex removed ammo. Now it's just unplayable.

Aren't You exagerrating a bit?
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #302 on: January 05, 2015, 09:34:52 AM »

Quote
I think the game lost everything that was fun about it when Alex removed ammo. Now it's just unplayable.

Aren't You exagerrating a bit?

Don't be modest, Billy's statement is completely ridiculous. If it's parody, then lol. If it's not parody, then lel.
Logged

DelicateTask

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #303 on: January 05, 2015, 12:20:35 PM »

I've only read the first 3 pages of replies to this, but things usually repeat after that much time anyway, the only difference being that people start to get in fights over it. That said, I'd like to mention some things that don't seem to have been covered (in what little I've read).

This whole patch (or at least the part people are going crazy over) seems to revolve around balancing. There is an attempt here to make weapons more equal and remove obvious advantages. However, I think that this may not always be a good path to take. Right now, what I'm seeing is a bid to make all weapons viable by removing extraneous systems and simplifying groups of weapons. As an alternative, four in-game systems that can offer balance solutions are Credit cost, OP cost, CR/Logistics, and scarcity/rarity.

Cost in credits:
If we're going to make all weapons equally effective, then shouldn't they all cost the same? Why even bother with pricing? I think that there is room for ineffective and overpowered weapons if prices reflect that. Maybe the zomglaz0r is far more powerful than the failcannon, but if I can only afford failcannons then I will equip them. Later, if I have lots of money, I'll have the choice between buying a new ship, weapons, and crew for it, or a zomglaz0r for my flagship. I should be able to buy power. At some point, if I'm rich enough, I should be able to afford the best. It wouldn't make much sense if I was fabulously wealthy and my famous fleet had the same mediocre weapons as every pirate rabble in the system.

Cost in Ordinance Points:
People occasionally bring up OP when discussing balance, but it doesn't seem to be much of a focus. I think OP is another fantastic way to balance weapons while maintaining diversity. If the zomglaz0r costs 25 OP to mount and the failcannons cost 4 each, then I'll have to make another choice. Do I equip a single super weapon to my ship and use it to punch out enemy ships, or do I equip several smaller weapons to provide more coverage or defense? OP is the great equalizer because if you want top-of-the-line weapons then you can't have as many hullmods or vents or capacitors or what have you. On the other hand, you could have a ship with loads of bonuses but only average weapons. If your weapons are well balanced in regards to OP, then you should have good balance overall because nobody is going to leave OP unused. They will always to so some purpose.

CR/Logistics:
"It would be un-balanced if you could crush everyone with those superior weapons!" Thanks to CR and logistics, I can't have too many battles in a row without suffering a lot. CR is a good way to rein in players and prevent aggression without consideration for consequences. Maybe objectively better weapons could have additional upkeep supply cost. If I don't keep those superconductive quantum-plasma diffuser matrices oiled, we're going to have some problems firing the zomglaz0r. Or maybe they cause ships to use more CR on deployment. Those dilithium crystals provide extra power, but they need longer to recharge. When CR was first introduced, Alex made a point of how it would provide a tie-in between the campaign and individual battles. By causing equipped weapons to have an effect on CR, you can further tie player choices into this system and make them feel the effects of their decisions. The greatest fleet in the universe would need lots of logistical support to keep things running smoothly, after all.

Scarcity:
If a weapon is considered unusually powerful compared to others, don't dumb it down or raise everything else, make it rare! I can't create an unstoppable fleet outfitted with ultimate disintegration blasters if I can't find more than two of them. I remember when Tachyon Lances were terrifying and a Paragon would make me think twice. Now the TL is situational at best and the Paragon is no longer as scary. The TL got "balanced", you see, and now it's not worth using. It was considered overpowered, and now it's nothing. It was exciting back then because it was powerful and if I wanted one, I'd have to shell out a ton of money for the only one in stock or go toe-to-toe with a Paragon and hope I lived long enough to have it drop one.



Everyone seems concerned with how these changes in 0.65.2a will affect things/ruin the game forever, but I think that these changes may be an overcomplicated attempt to bring balance without instead utilizing some of the great mechanics which are already in the game. Don't homogenize things in an attempt to bring balance, embrace diversity! Use OP and Credit costs to balance superior weapons. I don't want to play a game where my "superweapon" is as lackluster as a pirate's pop-gun. I enjoy the early-game when I don't have enough money for light autocannons so I have to buy arbalests and hope for the best. Make things unequal and force me to improvise! Make me work hard for better rewards so that they are truly rewards.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 12:23:54 PM by DelicateTask »
Logged

Toxcity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #304 on: January 05, 2015, 02:19:03 PM »

I think the ballistic weapon changes (and the timers added to ships) is more because you could cause fleets to waste all their ammo with a ship like the Medusa or the Wolf, and then easily destroy them, rather than any weapons being especially imbalanced.
Logged

DelicateTask

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #305 on: January 05, 2015, 03:16:35 PM »

I think the ballistic weapon changes (and the timers added to ships) is more because you could cause fleets to waste all their ammo with a ship like the Medusa or the Wolf, and then easily destroy them, rather than any weapons being especially imbalanced.

I remember a year or so ago when some guy took a frigate and soloed a Hegemony SDF with it. That seemed to be the main inspiration for the addition of CR, because Alex didn't want people to play the game like that (at least that's the impression I got). I wonder if it was ever considered that maybe some people enjoy doing things like that. Maybe there's too much effort being put into forcing people to play a certain way. The addition of CR loss to all but capitals feels like we're being forced to make our battles quick. I really enjoyed picking a fast flagship and using it to capture objectives and chase down escaping ships over the course of a long, hard fought engagement. I don't think there's anything wrong with someone choosing to kite a ship for half an hour trying to waste all of its ammo because that's the player's choice. I sometimes like to push the limits of what's possible in the game and other times I just want to win quickly, but either way I like to have the option to do what I feel like.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #306 on: January 05, 2015, 04:01:37 PM »

But aren't those people the kind of people who go out of their way to challenge themselves? Wouldn't these changes create an even greater challenge?
Logged

angrytigerp

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #307 on: January 05, 2015, 04:58:02 PM »

Stuff

While I've always fallen firmly in the "people should be able to play like they want" camp when it comes to debates about using cheats, exploits, or even built-in mechanics, etc., especially in single-player games, I can appreciate that the SS devs are trying to really push the aspect of the player feeling like they need to deploy in strength to meet a large enemy force. It's kind of like playing something like Total War, and saying that it's unfair that you can't just have a single stack of some basic infantrymen fight off an entire mixed force of infantrymen, artillery, cavalry, etc. That's not what the TW devs wanted; they wanted the player to have to form their own mixed force to counter the threat in kind.

Yeah, to some extent the player should have freedom to play as they want, and I will point out that there's plenty of room for modding the game to allow this 'solo experience' to remain present in the game. That said, the devs have made it clear that their goal is to have large-scale wars between the player and their enemies, and while some may find it inconvenient to have to deal with things like CR limits, or prefer having a super-powered mary sue frigate to singlehandedly take over the sector in the spirit of more arcade-y 'space games', that's not the aim of the vanilla SS experience. It's meant to be a large-scale, full-out war in the later stages of the game. And to that extent, the devs will likely keep developing in that direction -- forcing players to limit deployment size and time based on logistical limits (represented as DP and CR, respectively) and making it so that all ships of all classes have a role to play in fleet engagements (with the obvious exception of auxiliary and logistical ships).
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 05:16:53 PM by angrytigerp »
Logged

phantomime

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #308 on: January 06, 2015, 01:09:46 AM »

Quote
combat balance pass:

    Removed energy weapon bonus damage from high flux level
    Increased damage values for non-beam energy weapons by roughly 25% to compensate
    Beam weapons:
        Standardized range to 1000 for most non-PD, from Tactical Laser to HIL
        Increased range for PD Laser and LR PD Laser
        Slightly reduced OP cost for all beam weapons
        Tactical Laser, Graviton Beam, and Phase Beam are no longer interrupted by missiles (they damage missiles, but pass through them and can hit other things)
        Greatly reduced fade in/out time for most beams
    Missiles:
        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
    Ballistic weapons:
        Now have unlimited ammo, except for Bomb Bay
        Reduced OP cost of Light Dual MG
    Ships
        Destroyers and cruisers now have a peak effectiveness timer like frigates
            Roughly 5-7 minutes for destroyers and 7-9 for cruisers
            High-tech/faster ships have shorter timers
        Sunder: increased top speed, acceleration, and flux capacity. Reduced shield efficiency.
        Brawler/Shepherd: increased burn level by 1 (to 6)
        Condor: reduced supplies/day by 1 (to 4)

I have to jump on the 'bring back ammo' band wagon, mostly because it offsets the power level of ballistics. IMO balistics should be super cheep in terms of flux generation, and SOME are, but I wish more were.. it would make Low Tier ships significantly more difficult to tangle with as opposed to - it fires twice, it's at 1/2 flux, I fire 1 reaper torp, it overloads, I empty missiles into its guts. GG.

Ballistics... wtf?

I like that low tier ships generally have high armor values but crap shields, and wish you guys played that up more than 'energy weapons and missiles are the ***.' I dont believe nurfing-buffing energy weapons is a  good idea IMO - the 'high flux = bonus damage' is really cool factor for energy weapons and it DOES (as has been said) push you to potentially over extend yourself, which is good for a high tech ship, they are crazy risk-reward ships and quite brutally effective, and this just makes it easier to play them, which shouldnt be the case.

I say this because it again creates a heavy disparity between high-tech and low-tech ships. High tech ships have awesome hardpoints, speed, flux cap, shields, OP, abilities, (consider, if you will, ANY of the high tech frigates, and the Medusa) where as the low tech ships, like the enforcer are very very type cast, neutered by a crap tonne of ballistic hardpoints, that, if you want semi sustainable direct fire, they are hideously inaccurate, low damage (ish), and MONSTEROUS on the flux generation - and its HARD flux!

Beam Range
I like the different ranges as they are on the various mentioned beams, it makes each feel unique and even if it doesnt make much sense (lazors in space and all) uniqueness in weapons is a GOOD THING - there is actually a reason to take the Graviton Beam over the Phase Beam aside from just the OP difference. this is GOOD!



[tl:dr] THE POINT...
Personally, I am all about leaving energy alone and just buffing ballistics by giving at least most of them positive dps:flux generation ratios and leaving ammo on them, or even buffing the ammo on them by +10-20%.
Missiles, these arent too bad, as they arent overly powerful, though the buff to the MIRV makes the Onslaught more disgusting.



more...



Buffalo..

..why?

I like the changes to destroyers and cruisers loosing combat efficiency, the downside is it hurts destroyers more, and they arent a super-powerful ship niche, at least tech level matters, as the ultra low-tier Buffalo missile support destroyer is in NO way comparable to any other destroyer. changing its ability from 'flares' (honestly, the last thing that is gonna kill it is missiles) to 'fast missile racks,' 'burn drive,' or even 'point defense drones' would be a gigantic step up for a ship who's only reason to be played, EVER, over ANY frigate, was its immunity to CR degradation.


Aurora..

is too good. especially late. it solo's fleets. Onslaught fleets..

The beam change is both good and bad for it, good in that all those tactical lasers I like to use just got a +400range buff and will hit the same stuff as the Phase Beams, bad in that those very very few times when I have a gigantic buildup of flux, they dont do a lot more damage when compounded with its 'high energy focus' ability (hint: only happens against Onslaughts, and usually doesnt matter).
-Something in terms of its maneuverability, speed, or durability (shield) should probably change.

-Aside, but related: increasing the reload time of ALL Torpedoes as a trade-off to the colossal damage bonus they get from the lv10 buff in the 'Missile Specialization' skill tree.


ALL Cloaking Ships..

more flux generation when activating cloak, or more flux generation while cloaked, or slower. they are death to anything that isnt tweaked to crap, simply due to the twitch factor of the AI.
Logged

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #309 on: January 06, 2015, 02:07:33 AM »

Quote
-snip-
I have to jump on the 'bring back ammo' band wagon, mostly because it offsets the power level of ballistics. IMO balistics should be super cheep in terms of flux generation, and SOME are, but I wish more were.. it would make Low Tier ships significantly more difficult to tangle with as opposed to - it fires twice, it's at 1/2 flux, I fire 1 reaper torp, it overloads, I empty missiles into its guts. GG.

Ballistics... wtf?
I like that low tier ships generally have high armor values but crap shields, and wish you guys played that up more than 'energy weapons and missiles are the ***.' I dont believe nurfing-buffing energy weapons is a  good idea IMO - the 'high flux = bonus damage' is really cool factor for energy weapons and it DOES (as has been said) push you to potentially over extend yourself, which is good for a high tech ship, they are crazy risk-reward ships and quite brutally effective, and this just makes it easier to play them, which shouldnt be the case.

I say this because it again creates a heavy disparity between high-tech and low-tech ships. High tech ships have awesome hardpoints, speed, flux cap, shields, OP, abilities, (consider, if you will, ANY of the high tech frigates, and the Medusa) where as the low tech ships, like the enforcer are very very type cast, neutered by a crap tonne of ballistic hardpoints, that, if you want semi sustainable direct fire, they are hideously inaccurate, low damage (ish), and MONSTEROUS on the flux generation - and its HARD flux!

Beam Range
I like the different ranges as they are on the various mentioned beams, it makes each feel unique and even if it doesnt make much sense (lazors in space and all) uniqueness in weapons is a GOOD THING - there is actually a reason to take the Graviton Beam over the Phase Beam aside from just the OP difference. this is GOOD!

THE POINT...
Personally, I am all about leaving energy alone and just buffing ballistics by giving at least most of them positive dps:flux generation ratios and leaving ammo on them, or even buffing the ammo on them by +10-20%.
Missiles, these arent too bad, as they arent overly powerful, though the buff to the MIRV makes the Onslaught more disgusting.

more...

Buffalo...why?

I like the changes to destroyers and cruisers loosing combat efficiency, the downside is it hurts destroyers more, and they arent a super-powerful ship niche, at least tech level matters, as the ultra low-tier Buffalo missile support destroyer is in NO way comparable to any other destroyer. changing its ability from 'flares' (honestly, the last thing that is gonna kill it is missiles) to 'fast missile racks,' 'burn drive,' or even 'point defense drones' would be a gigantic step up for a ship who's only reason to be played, EVER, over ANY frigate, was its immunity to CR degradation.

Aurora... is too good. especially late. it solo's fleets. Onslaught fleets..
The beam change is both good and bad for it, good in that all those tactical lasers I like to use just got a +400range buff and will hit the same stuff as the Phase Beams, bad in that those very very few times when I have a gigantic buildup of flux, they dont do a lot more damage when compounded with its 'high energy focus' ability (hint: only happens against Onslaughts, and usually doesnt matter).
-Something in terms of its maneuverability, speed, or durability (shield) should probably change.

-Aside, but related: increasing the reload time of ALL Torpedoes as a trade-off to the colossal damage bonus they get from the lv10 buff in the 'Missile Specialization' skill tree.

ALL Cloaking Ships..

more flux generation when activating cloak, or more flux generation while cloaked, or slower. they are death to anything that isnt tweaked to crap, simply due to the twitch factor of the AI.
About Ballistic weapons being weak:
What ships are you fighting that are maxing their flux so quickly with ballistics? The only ship that I can think of is the Onslaught but that is mainly because it likes to fire EVERYTHING at you, many times with its crap shield raised... Usually it is Energy weapons that are flux hungry

About beam range:
I agree with the uniqueness aspect of the different ranges and while they might be getting a "buff" in one or two areas, they are mostly getting nerfed by the loss of the flux boost AND not getting the +25% damage boost. Hell, one beam, that many already don't choose, is getting nerfed even more: The HIL. Not only is it not getting a damage boost but it is also LOSING 20% of its only really good stat: range! (going from 1250 to 1000)

About the Buffalo: (Most likely the MK.II)
I hate to break it to you, but this ship DOES already have a CR timer! Yes I know it is sad... And I agree that the system should be something different, like FMR
Logged
Help out MesoTroniK, a modder in need

2021 is 2020 won
2022 is 2020 too

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #310 on: January 06, 2015, 03:30:38 AM »

Ballistics are more flux-efficient, but low-tech ships have way worse flux stats and more weapon mounts to spend flux on.
Logged

Linnis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #311 on: January 06, 2015, 03:39:54 AM »

Beams are not main weapons, they are always support, if your killing something with beams that means you can kill it way faster with something way smaller using ballistics.

Making them have 1k range and 20% less damage just make this more true.

Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #312 on: January 06, 2015, 09:09:06 AM »

Every time I look at the blog and see that the last post was two months ago I make a sadface.

Spoiler
Yes, I know we've gone longer without posts. Still doesn't stop my sadfaces.
[close]
Logged

Steven Shi

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #313 on: January 06, 2015, 07:00:25 PM »

^ I feel you man.

And I don't even care about the 0.65.2a changes tbh.

I just want a more fleshed out economy system so I can play 2D Elite with Starfarer. At this rate, I should just check back in May.
Logged

Linnis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #314 on: January 06, 2015, 09:38:28 PM »

Give Alex a break, this patch went trough christmas and newyears.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 54