|
Haha a nerf to disrupters, already one of the game's most pointless weapons. 100 mineral corvettes is going to be annoying for fielding enough ships to beat the early game pirates. Another buff to going hard on minerals early, potentially balanced by tech offering greater rewards. Mass drivers did need a nerf. It'll be interesting to see how the new destroyer behaviour pans out; I imagine they'll die in droves as a result of lower evasion if that's not changed. Making flak PD means that all-cruiser fleets have been emphatically nerfed. They'll now get eaten alive by strike craft, and if they run their own strike to compensate, they'll be gimped against balanced fleets. A Good Change.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Splicer posted:100 res corvettes are one way to discourage the early game corvette exploration I suppose! Just replace it with early game constructor exploration
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Now that flak is a PD slot, it would be neat if we could get another ship module for battleships and cruisers with maybe a single PD slot or something. It's annoying to be forced to use a strike craft module if you want some organic PD on the bigger ships. Like, yeah I understand a mixed fleet is the ideal, but building ships with NO defense for the small stuff just feels really wrong. I like to build balanced ship designs for flavor rather than trying to min-max it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Flak PD sounds like a straight upgrade over base PD which... eh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Flak PD sounds like a straight upgrade over base PD which... eh. Agreed. Sacrificing a medium slot for more PD was an interesting tradeoff and gave the option to ignore destroyers & go heavy on cruisers / battleships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Make flak useless against missiles. That way its PD vs missiles vs strike craft vs flak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Make flak useless against missiles. That way its PD vs missiles vs strike craft vs flak. This is what I would have wanted, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Hmm those changes will make it significantly more difficult to rush down a neighbor than it already is due to increasing the corvette costs to such a degree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:100 res corvettes are one way to discourage the early game corvette exploration I suppose! I hated using corvettes to explore; for me, the FTL probe mod is a must-have. The only downside is that you have to remember to go into the ship designer and make a template manually before it'll show up in the spaceport build options. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=699496957&searchtext=Probe
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Hmm those changes will make it significantly more difficult to rush down a neighbor than it already is due to increasing the corvette costs to such a degree. It'll also make missiles as starting weapon an even better choice. Missile starports are already dominating early and missile buffs combined with more expensive corvettes is only going to make it stronger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
I like the changes to disruptors. The retarded behavior of ships armed with them always meant I had to mix laser/plasma in with my disruptors, otherwise my fleets would try to strip every single enemy ship of shields first before trying to kill them. As nice as the combination of disruptors hammering down shields and lasers melting the armor beneath was, I'd like to have a full disruptor fleet without effectively crippling myself, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
To be fair, we really need some kind of doctrine button, like the stance button, that tells your fleets whether to focus fire, use their weapons where they're most effective (current behaviour), or just shoot at the closest targets. Preferably by ship size, too, so you don't need to micromanage 4 fleets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
The missile changes are nice but holy loving poo poo the Destroyer behavior changes are the big thing. Point Defense ships actually acting like loving Point Defense ships finally. I'm cool with Flak being an ultra high-end PD slot so long as the power requirements reflect it's capability. Flak should sill be a tradeoff in the sense that a Flak Destroyer isn't going to be packing a large slot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
I actually don't like the destroyer change, because in most of my games I'd just build battleships and destroyers at a 1:1 ratio, destroyers provided a screen of death to anything small that tried to close in quick, battleships sniped everything else from afar. Now destroyers will just rush in and die to cruisers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand why flak is the more precise and better tracking version of point defense. I think that what people normally think of as flak guns are old WW2 anti-air artillery cannons, which have been superseded by point defense systems. Nowadays point defense is mostly done by shorter range, precise and rapid firing CIWS systems or guided missiles designed to readjust for and retarget incoming missiles or aircraft. So, with that in mind, I think that it's a little weird that weapons called flak artillery are an upgrade over point defense, when in real life it's the opposite. Furthermore 
turn off the TV fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
I was hoping something was going to be done with ground combat as right now its pretty awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I'm not sure I understand why flak is the more precise and better tracking version of point defense. I think that what people normally think of as flak guns are old WW2 anti-air artillery cannons, which have been superseded by point defense systems. Nowadays point defense is mostly done by shorter range, precise and rapid firing CIWS systems or guided missiles designed to readjust for and retarget incoming missiles or aircraft. Seems to be a SF-trope. Space Empires V had the same thing going: Flak in that game was less an actual WWII-Flak but instead some kind of space-shotgun, shooting a cone of destruction into the general direction of missiles and fighters. I'm thinking Stellaris is trying to go down the same route.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Yeah I think the idea is that both have good tracking systems, but missiles fly in predictable patterns while fighters can maneuver. Thus a single highly accurate projectile can intercept the former but still might miss the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Seems to be a SF-trope. Space Empires V had the same thing going: Flak in that game was less an actual WWII-Flak but instead some kind of space-shotgun, shooting a cone of destruction into the general direction of missiles and fighters. I'm thinking Stellaris is trying to go down the same route. quote:* Flak is now a Point-Defense slot weapon with a high power cost. It has a faster firing rate and better tracking than regular PD, making it ideal to defend against highly evasive missiles and strike craft. This doesn't sound like a space shotgun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:This doesn't sound like a space shotgun. I just translate "better tracking" with "it shoots so much stuff it's easier to hit stuff with it", since it makes more sense
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Space automatic shotguns! That Expandables 1 scene with Hale Caesar, but in space and the bad guys are strike craft/missiles
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I just translate "better tracking" with "it shoots so much stuff it's easier to hit stuff with it", since it makes more sense I'm pretty sure that the tracking stat actually refers to how well the turret can keep on its targets, while the accuracy stat refers to how often the projectiles will hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I'm pretty sure that the tracking stat actually refers to how well the turret can keep on its targets, while the accuracy stat refers to how often the projectiles will hit. Doesn't tracking just subtract directly from the evade on a thing and then accuracy is a separate roll? there's probably some thread on the pdx forums that explains in detail
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Tracking is just a counter to enemy evasion. The current to hit formula is: Accuracy - (Evasion - Tracking), but the (Evasion - Tracking) can't go below zero. So against high evasion targets, bonuses to Tracking & Accuracy usually mean the same thing. I think Stellaris flak is supposed to be WWII/Battlestar Galactica flak, just tons of cannons flinging exploding shells downrange designed to fill an area of space with shrapnel that isn't dangerous to large ships but will screw up lightly armored missile & fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Doesn't tracking just subtract directly from the evade on a thing and then accuracy is a separate roll? there's probably some thread on the pdx forums that explains in detail Nevets posted:Tracking is just a counter to enemy evasion. The current to hit formula is: Yeah, this is what I mean when I say that it's how well the turret can keep on targets. The evasion and tracking dynamic is simulating the turret being able to line up a shot. Nevets posted:I think Stellaris flak is supposed to be WWII/Battlestar Galactica flak, just tons of cannons flinging exploding shells downrange designed to fill an area of space with shrapnel that isn't dangerous to large ships but will screw up lightly armored missile & fighters. This is pretty much my point, from the sounds of it this is actually what the basic point defense is going to be, while flak is a rapid firing weapon on a mobile turret.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Tormented posted:I was hoping something was going to be done with ground combat as right now its pretty awful. Could be what they are hinting at for next week, but I agree. The biggest problem for me in the game right now is the awful amount of micro involved in moving troops around and capturing planets. Fixing how that works would be a huge change for the better. This balance stuff is definitely nice but at the end of the day spergs are gonna sperg and will take about a week to figure out the "best" ships and fleets, and then everyone will just build that. The meta will change but not the gameplay. fake edit: this sounds like grousing but I do think these are positive changes, presumably especially for multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Truga posted:I actually don't like the destroyer change, because in most of my games I'd just build battleships and destroyers at a 1:1 ratio, destroyers provided a screen of death to anything small that tried to close in quick, battleships sniped everything else from afar. I've been using a huge screen of high evasion corvettes, and that's worked pretty well, though I'm pretty sure part of that is due to the AI making really dumb choices for their weapons. All my late game battles (previous to the patch) my fleet had massive shield damage, but almost no hull damage. I think (since the AI fuckin looooves disruptors) they had a disruptor heavy fleet that would wipe shields, retarget, wipe shields--therefore letting all my ships with no shields regen shields, since I stuck the rapid shield regeneration on everything. Since the fleet was big enough, they could never actually wipe enough shields for the majority of their weaponry to ever be hitting hulls on my bigger ships. Meanwhile, all their anti-armor weapons are targeted on corvettes that they can barely hit. This led to me having battles where I would lose a few dozen corvettes to their 100k fleet, which I wiped entirely. I have no idea if any of that stuff works/worked in the early game though, since I like to avoid wars until I have a big tech and fleet advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
After much brain wracking I've managed to make a whirlpool galaxy that actually has its stars laid out in a way that matches the textures.   Bold Robot posted:Could be what they are hinting at for next week, but I agree. The biggest problem for me in the game right now is the awful amount of micro involved in moving troops around and capturing planets. Fixing how that works would be a huge change for the better. This balance stuff is definitely nice but at the end of the day spergs are gonna sperg and will take about a week to figure out the "best" ships and fleets, and then everyone will just build that. The meta will change but not the gameplay. I'm enjoying a mod that just increases army upkeep, health and morale so that instead of lugging around 20 individual armies you're dealing with maybe five or six. It's much easier to manage, and it actually makes units with lots of morale damage much more useful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
I don't understand why you'd change the destroyer combat computers to force them to be picket ships instead of just allowing people to choose a combat computer that sets the ship behaviour. There's already (very popular) mods that do this so it's not hard to implement. Then you can build picket destroyers if you want them, artillery destroyers if you want them instead, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I wish they'd stop pigeonholing ship classes into specific roles when they all have hull options that aren't optimal for that role. I don't see why they can't have multiple AI options.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:Yeah, I wish they'd stop pigeonholing ship classes into specific roles when they all have hull options that aren't optimal for that role. I don't see why they can't have multiple AI options. Because behavior based on role is easy to tell at a glance, while behavior based on a ship component requires you to drill down to a mouseover tooltip in an inspect ship screen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:Yeah, I wish they'd stop pigeonholing ship classes into specific roles when they all have hull options that aren't optimal for that role. I don't see why they can't have multiple AI options. Yep, one of my biggest pet peeves is the "rush in and die" tactic most ships take. If they could somehow have fleet formations instead of individual ship AIs that would be the best long term solution. Like, you could have a "death swarm fleet" that causes all ships to rush in, a standoff formation that causes "artillery" ships to stay at max range, but allows picket ships to go "x" distance away from the core, but not rush. Then you could choose ship AIs like "Capital" "Assault", "Picket", "Interceptor" or whatever that makes them behave according to the fleet behavior you set (or is set by a doctrine). Everything wrong with Stellaris combat is rooted in the "rock-paper-scissors" stuff. Forcing ship behavior into that same model is annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Yep, one of my biggest pet peeves is the "rush in and die" tactic most ships take. If they could somehow have fleet formations instead of individual ship AIs that would be the best long term solution. Like, you could have a "death swarm fleet" that causes all ships to rush in, a standoff formation that causes "artillery" ships to stay at max range, but allows picket ships to go "x" distance away from the core, but not rush. Seriously, get Advanced Ship Behaviors http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=790455347&searchtext= That mod is really great, it's actually possible to design artillery ships that just hang back out of the fight and unload on targets, picket ships that will either stick with the rest of the fleet or approach the enemy as quickly as possible, and you can have carriers that just hang out out of range of pretty much any weapons while they launch fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:Seriously, get Advanced Ship Behaviors
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Stellaris will never have good combat for the simple reason that any ship designer more complicated than Sword of the Stars ultimately makes achieving game-long balance without degeneracy impossible. We can hope for combat that at least looks interesting and without too much obviously stupid behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Just started my second game, still figuring out things. As a non-Devouring Swarm hivemind, what wargoals should I prioritize, particularly in the early game?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Probably none. Conquering other races will make you eat them regardless, unless you have unlocked genemodding so you can absorb them. You'll be at -1000 very quickly that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
Truga posted:Probably none. Conquering other races will make you eat them regardless, unless you have unlocked genemodding so you can absorb them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Mass drivers did need a nerf. It'll be interesting to see how the new destroyer behaviour pans out; I imagine they'll die in droves as a result of lower evasion if that's not changed. There goes my favorite composition of 100% large autocannon+flak gun destroyer
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Bug Squash posted:Stellaris will never have good combat for the simple reason that any ship designer more complicated than Sword of the Stars ultimately makes achieving game-long balance without degeneracy impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 12:24
|
|