Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Announcements => Topic started by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 12:29:07 PM

Title: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 12:29:07 PM
Blog post/download links here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2019/05/10/starsector-0-9-1a-release/).

Changes as of May 20, 2019

Campaign:
Modding:
Bugfixing:

Changes as of May 17, 2019

Miscellaneous:
Modding
Bugfixing:

Changes as of May 10, 2019

Campaign
Modding
Bugfixing

Changes as of April 25, 2019

Campaign


Combat


Ships

Ship AI


Miscellaneous


Modding

Bugfixing:



Changes as of January 31, 2019

Campaign


Combat:

Miscellaneous:


Ships:

Ship AI:

Modding:



Bugfixing:

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: arcibalde on January 31, 2019, 12:41:05 PM
That is one huge bugfix list ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: MajorTheRed on January 31, 2019, 12:45:23 PM
Lot of good thing there. I like how the colony will be more realistic (no more spamming of structures right after you colonize it).
I'm curious to see how pather base will fare next release (I find them really boring, hard to crack, come back too soon and doesn't make sense no factions goes after them...)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: cjusa on January 31, 2019, 12:51:46 PM
How close are we to being able to drop colonies?

In all seriousness though, do appreciate the colony tweaks.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on January 31, 2019, 01:00:34 PM
Some really good stuff in here!  One that I have some questions about, though:
  • Player faction should no longer use combat freighters instead of a portion of combat/freighter ships in patrols etc
    • May still use combat freighters in place of combat ships, if priority settings allow it
What does this actually mean?  And, in particular, is there a way I can tell my faction "If you were thinking about adding a freighter to a fleet, use this combat freighter instead, but don't replace warships with combat freighters" or "If you were thinking about adding a tanker to a fleet, use this Apogee instead"?  (Well, okay, there are a bunch of mods with combat-tankers, too, but the closest vanilla ship to that description is the Apogee.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 01:11:55 PM
Some really good stuff in here!  One that I have some questions about, though:
  • Player faction should no longer use combat freighters instead of a portion of combat/freighter ships in patrols etc
    • May still use combat freighters in place of combat ships, if priority settings allow it
What does this actually mean?  And, in particular, is there a way I can tell my faction "If you were thinking about adding a freighter to a fleet, use this combat freighter instead, but don't replace warships with combat freighters" or "If you were thinking about adding a tanker to a fleet, use this Apogee instead"?  (Well, okay, there are a bunch of mods with combat-tankers, too, but the closest vanilla ship to that description is the Apogee.)

It means that if you don't have Hounds, Mules, Ventures, and other such prioritized, and have a set of combat ships prioritized, the former should not show up in your fleets anyway in the "combat freighter" role. Which tends to look to a player as the priority flags being ignored.

(The other stuff is not possible, no; and there's no concept of "combat tanker" in fleet-building code.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Drone_Fragger on January 31, 2019, 01:22:17 PM
Perdition bomber is listed as "High tech" in 0.9, despite being a jury rigged work shuttle, and hence should probably be low tech or (maybe) luddic path.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Vayra on January 31, 2019, 01:31:06 PM
  • Non-primary stars (and black holes etc) can no longer be colonized
  • Converted Hangar can no longer be installed on a Colossus Mk.III

ALEX WHY  :'(

More seriously:

  • Ships produced by the player's colonies will use the proper ship name prefix configured for the faction

Could we possibly get this on player-recovered ships that are too badly damaged to retain their original name (IME: all or almost all of them) as well?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: From a Faster Time on January 31, 2019, 02:17:40 PM
  • Removed stack size limit of 1000 from player cargo
  • Maximum quantity that can be picked up using slider increased to 5000
  • Intel UI (including map) now takes up more space if available
  • Made a few performance improvements
  • Music will no longer switch to another track when passing near a star system, actually entering it is required
  • Now properly handles weapons with a very large interruptible burst
  • Moved flux/second to be under damage/second
  • "Escape" battles: ships deployed on the flanks will start 4000 units closer to the top of the map


Ship AI:
  • Will no longer use High Energy Focus or other weapon-boosting systems when all affected weapons are on cooldown
  • Fixed some broadside AI issues
  • Fixed autopilot issue when "invert turn-to-cursor behavior" setting was checked
  • Reacts more quickly to "primed" friendly mines
  • Burn Drive:
    • Should no longer be used when a ship has an assignment and is not facing towards the assignment target
      • One exception being when trying to get away from an enemy behind the ship
    • Will not burn towards targets that have the "Avoid" order
  • Improved behavior around borders
  • Ships with limited fighters wings (no bombers and <=1 for cruisers and below, <=2 for capital) are more conservative about using these to engage the enemy
  • Fixed issue where carriers would occasionally "engage" their fighters on targets under fog of war
  • Legion, Mora: will no longer hide behind combat ships
  • Improved command obedience
  • Fixed issue that could cause ship to back off from a target due to flanking - but insignificant - threats
  • Fixed several issues that could cause a ship with front shields to turn slightly away from the target, seemingly without a reason
  • Fixed an issue that could cause REDACTED ships to wander around the battle map instead of engaging the player
  • Non aggressive/reckless officers will be more careful about maintaining range from the enemy
  • Made some tweaks to evasion logic that should make ships less likely to try to "pivot" around an enemy at too close a range
    • Should improve survivability
  • Escort behavior overhauled
    • Does a better job positioning escorting ships to ward off flanking enemies
    • Does a better job not getting in the way of the parent ship's fire
    • Does a better job handling broadside ships
      • (Still more likely to get in their line of fire if escorting one)
    • Capital ships and cruisers with an escort assignment now only turn towards fighters if no other targets are in range
    • Should fix a number of cases where a ship appears to be over-aggressive and dies for "no reason"
    • Can more smoothly handle a larger number of frigates escorting the same ship
    • Much more consistent and predictable overall
Bugfixing:
  • Fixed possible slowdown issue
  • Fixed a game-loading crash
  • Fixed slow memory leak caused by Commerce industry
  • Impact Mitigation 1: now properly applies +150 armor instead of +150% armor
  • Fixed Helmsmanship 5%/1% issue
How was it "fixed" and whats the end result?
  • Cancelling an assignment will now only close the command frequency if it's appropriate to do so
  • Fixed issue that could cause a fleeing fleet using Emergency Burn to stay within a certain range of what it was fleeing from

Subarashii!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on January 31, 2019, 02:26:45 PM
The colony changes look interesting; restricting colonies to 4 industries will force a bit of specialization to some degree (I tend to have 5-6 production buildings (Industries with the upcoming patch?) per colony), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, so I look forward to trying that out.

This may be a silly question, but any chance of listing what buildings are industries and which are not; for example, with the changes to Tech-Mining, I'm not sure if this would be considered an industry building with the new changes since it doesn't provide economic units (this is the stuff under "Production" in the Tech-Mining tool-tip right?).

Harbinger has had Thor's hammer applied and none to gently :D

Total battle size in vs-station battles is increased by the deployment cost of the station
Nice, I guess then we can deploy more of our ships to assist our own star bases (Normally I can only choose a single ship due to a lack of deployment points).  This may work out more difficult defending since it is likely the enemy will be attacking with bigger numbers, getting 60% of the additional deployment points from the station; but having more ships on the field should lead to faster station battles which will be nice when attacking enemy stations yourself.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on January 31, 2019, 02:38:27 PM
What a treat...
"Free Port" condition feels a bit overnerfed. How are the core pirate markets handling it? With just +25% accessibility and -5 stability they probably are miserable beyond reason.
Player faction not using combat freighters isn't really necessary, but since the player doesn't know (unless digging into the files) that combat freighters even are their own category, it might be for the better. Some "allow combat freighters" check would probably work as well, but it's a fairly insignificant choice in the end.
Tech-mining not giving any production anymore is better for people trying to stay under the radar. Monthly report for salvaged items could use some more detail at this point. It should show how particular colonies are contributing and especially if some aren't giving anything at all anymore, so that the player knows when to stop mining.
Deserters using proper weapons is nice. I swear it was like that in previous update...
It's also nice that you can personally take over space infrastructure. Waiting for patrols to do it would be annoying to some, and it would be weird that they can do it, but not the player.
Made "Missile Autoforge" hullmod visible on station modules and REDACTED
Just the modules, or the entire station? I don't think we can check the modules' hullmods legitimately yet. If it was on the main body of the station, it would show up.
Salvaging: +50% bonus for rare items will no longer result in a full re-roll and will simply result in "more stuff" compared to without the skill
Heh. It's not really important, but I guess that change makes its function clearer on the player end.
Battlestations and Star Fortresses have officers - do their skills depend on the size and type of the station, maybe even RNG and player faction doctrine, or is it just some generic officer?
...Can we queue upgrades from the get go, so that there's no need to go back to the colony if all you want is just a Star Fortress?
When joining an ongoing battle, allied fleets will prefer to pursue instead of harry/let go when possible
Will no longer force the player to fight when weaker and stopping them for the transponder being off or for a cargo scan
Now these are some quality of life improvement! What was even causing your faction to let the enemy fleet go, when it has the advantage now?
Moved flux/second to be under damage/second
Move damage per shot and flux per shot together as well, just so that it doesn't look so interrupted. Flux efficiency can still be at the bottom.
Harbinger: changed 3 medium hardpoints to "energy" (was: "synergy")
Does its system keep the "decreases energy damage" bit?
All the AI fixes... It's too late to save me now, but the next tournament is going to be incredible.
I also want to note that if we could set some pre-determined ship behaviours, or their general personality (without using officers or the faction doctrine slider - the latter especially, since player fleet most likely is much different from what player faction has to do with), similarly how the Autonomous Ships mod does it. No matter how expendable frigates/destroyers are, I care for them and their survival.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on January 31, 2019, 02:43:28 PM
  • Added to SettingsAPI:
    • FactionAPI createBaseFaction(String factionId);

What exactly does this do?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on January 31, 2019, 03:19:21 PM
  • Industrial Planning: level one now reduces upkeep by 10% instead of reducing demand
Could you pair this with a reduction in the drugs needed by mining?  Right now, if I have Industrial Planning at 2, and use an alpha core on my base population and an AI core of any grade on mining, I can meet the drug requirements without having to have a free port with light industry; once this change goes in, that will no longer be the case.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DatonKallandor on January 31, 2019, 03:46:43 PM
Any hope of changes to how blueprints are looted so stuff you have already is just dropped as a duplicate for selling or rerolled into something else?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 03:57:39 PM
Perdition bomber is listed as "High tech" in 0.9, despite being a jury rigged work shuttle, and hence should probably be low tech or (maybe) luddic path.

Yeah, that's fixed - a bunch of typo-type or otherwise minor fixes didn't make the changelog.


More seriously:

  • Ships produced by the player's colonies will use the proper ship name prefix configured for the faction

Could we possibly get this on player-recovered ships that are too badly damaged to retain their original name (IME: all or almost all of them) as well?

I might be able to take a look at some point; not actually 100% sure whether the change might have covered this or not.



  • Fixed Helmsmanship 5%/1% issue
How was it "fixed" and whats the end result?

As was covered fairly exhaustively in the relevant thread (and possibly some PMs), it's 1% as it was supposed to be. Balance stuff entirely aside.

Subarashii!

(Thank you for your feedback re: some of the AI stuff, btw!)


The colony changes look interesting; restricting colonies to 4 industries will force a bit of specialization to some degree (I tend to have 5-6 production buildings (Industries with the upcoming patch?) per colony), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, so I look forward to trying that out.

This may be a silly question, but any chance of listing what buildings are industries and which are not; for example, with the changes to Tech-Mining, I'm not sure if this would be considered an industry building with the new changes since it doesn't provide economic units (this is the stuff under "Production" in the Tech-Mining tool-tip right?).

At this point: Farming, Mining, Tech-Mining, Refining, Light Industry, Heavy Industry, Fuel Production.


Harbinger has had Thor's hammer applied and none to gently :D

It needed it, what with the 3x Typhoon Harbinger being the answer to any question.


Total battle size in vs-station battles is increased by the deployment cost of the station
Nice, I guess then we can deploy more of our ships to assist our own star bases (Normally I can only choose a single ship due to a lack of deployment points).  This may work out more difficult defending since it is likely the enemy will be attacking with bigger numbers, getting 60% of the additional deployment points from the station; but having more ships on the field should lead to faster station battles which will be nice when attacking enemy stations yourself.

This is part of the reason for stations getting some low-to-mid-level officers, to (hopefully) make sure that fighting alongside a station is still generally advantageous.


"Free Port" condition feels a bit overnerfed. How are the core pirate markets handling it? With just +25% accessibility and -5 stability they probably are miserable beyond reason.

... looking at it again, looks like I'd changed the stability penalty to only go up to 5, so the patch notes were a bit out of date.

Player faction not using combat freighters isn't really necessary, but since the player doesn't know (unless digging into the files) that combat freighters even are their own category, it might be for the better. Some "allow combat freighters" check would probably work as well, but it's a fairly insignificant choice in the end.

Yeah, pretty much what I was thinking here.

Deserters using proper weapons is nice. I swear it was like that in previous update...

Yep - this bug was introduced in 0.9a as part of dynamic variant generation.

Just the modules, or the entire station? I don't think we can check the modules' hullmods legitimately yet. If it was on the main body of the station, it would show up.

Right - this is more about the one REDACTED that has the hullmod, really.

Battlestations and Star Fortresses have officers - do their skills depend on the size and type of the station, maybe even RNG and player faction doctrine, or is it just some generic officer?

Just a generic officer. IIRC the Alpha Core officer always gets Gunnery Implants 3, though.

...Can we queue upgrades from the get go, so that there's no need to go back to the colony if all you want is just a Star Fortress?

No - it's just not set up that way, so it'd be a significant pain to add UI-wise. You'd also be tying down a large number of credits for no benefit (as you also do with a queue), so I think a queue is part "useful feature" and part "it's there because you'd expect it to be there, but not necessarily because it's super useful".

I also want to note that if we could set some pre-determined ship behaviours, or their general personality (without using officers or the faction doctrine slider - the latter especially, since player fleet most likely is much different from what player faction has to do with), similarly how the Autonomous Ships mod does it. No matter how expendable frigates/destroyers are, I care for them and their survival.

Yeah - it's just not something I really want to delve into; officers + faction aggressiveness slider (which has no impact outside of battles involving the player) feels about right for me.


  • Added to SettingsAPI:
    • FactionAPI createBaseFaction(String factionId);

What exactly does this do?

It lets faction data be queried outside the campaign, such as say in a combat plugin running inside a mission.


Could you pair this with a reduction in the drugs needed by mining?  Right now, if I have Industrial Planning at 2, and use an alpha core on my base population and an AI core of any grade on mining, I can meet the drug requirements without having to have a free port with light industry; once this change goes in, that will no longer be the case.

Hmm - design-wise, I'd rather not have skill effects apply to specific pieces of content like that, if that makes sense. I also like the idea of Mining requiring a larger world's infracstructure (or free port etc) to provide the needed drugs.


Any hope of changes to how blueprints are looted so stuff you have already is just dropped as a duplicate for selling or rerolled into something else?

It's something I want to look at, but haven't formed an opinion one way or the other at this point.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: LazyWizard on January 31, 2019, 04:02:05 PM
  • When losing a battle: special items such as blueprints, AI cores, survey data, etc, no longer have a chance to be lost

Is this a blacklist using tags, or have AI cores and survey data been changed from commodities into special items?

And if it's the former, have you considered the latter? For cores especially there's some interesting gameplay possibilities that would require keeping track of their history, which can't be done with commodities.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 04:05:02 PM
Is this a blacklist using tags, or have AI cores and survey data been changed from commodities into special items?

And if it's the former, have you considered the latter? For cores especially there's some interesting gameplay possibilities that would require keeping track of their history, which can't be done with commodities.

It's a "no_loss_from_combat" tag on the commodities in question.

I don't think you could track a history with special items either, i.e. if a couple of cores get stacked together, then what's what is entirely lost.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on January 31, 2019, 04:13:51 PM
:D

Quote
Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
Is there a FleetParams variable for this? Some boss fleets in mods need to be pretty big and it would be odd if they just ended up as 30-capital fleets instead.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: LazyWizard on January 31, 2019, 04:17:43 PM
Spoiler
Is this a blacklist using tags, or have AI cores and survey data been changed from commodities into special items?

And if it's the former, have you considered the latter? For cores especially there's some interesting gameplay possibilities that would require keeping track of their history, which can't be done with commodities.
[close]

It's a "no_loss_from_combat" tag on the commodities in question.

I don't think you could track a history with special items either, i.e. if a couple of cores get stacked together, then what's what is entirely lost.

Special item stackability is based on their SpecialItemData string, right? So if each core was given a unique ID at creation they wouldn't stack over each other, and we could add an entry to persistent data to keep track of such things. Or am I wrong about how this works?

(I should probably post this in Suggestions)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 04:20:07 PM
Special item stackability is based on their SpecialItemData string, right? So if each core was given a unique ID at creation they wouldn't stack over each other, and we could add an entry to persistent data to keep track of such things. Or am I wrong about how this works?

That's right, yeah. But "change AI cores to special items" and "change AI cores to *unstackable* special items" are pretty different :) I'm not really sure I can see doing the latter.

... although, thinking on it some more, I think I could see doing that for Alpha Cores. And then have say a serial number in the tooltip, and heavily imply a unique personality etc. HMM.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Vayra on January 31, 2019, 04:26:41 PM
... although, thinking on it some more, I think I could see doing that for Alpha Cores. And then have say a serial number in the tooltip, and heavily imply a unique personality etc. HMM.

50000% in favor of this idea, fwiw. i have plans if you implement it...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on January 31, 2019, 04:27:57 PM
Could you pair this with a reduction in the drugs needed by mining?  Right now, if I have Industrial Planning at 2, and use an alpha core on my base population and an AI core of any grade on mining, I can meet the drug requirements without having to have a free port with light industry; once this change goes in, that will no longer be the case.

Hmm - design-wise, I'd rather not have skill effects apply to specific pieces of content like that, if that makes sense. I also like the idea of Mining requiring a larger world's infracstructure (or free port etc) to provide the needed drugs.
Nope, sorry, I don't follow - I'm not sure what you mean by 'skill effects apply to specific pieces of content' in this context.

And I do get - and generally agree with - the second point... except for two critical flaws in that idea:
One: You can't rely on a larger world's infrastructure, because smuggled exports don't count for filling demand from in-faction.  (Local production does, even if it's illegal, though.)
Two: Any player colony is on an inevitable progression to size ten, which means you can't rely on a larger world even -existing-.  (And, indeed, as a mining colony grows you'll inevitably hit a point where there are no non-player colonies that are able to supply the amount of drugs needed by its mining operations - this happens at about size eight.)

...Come to think of it, this change breaks a few other things, too.  In 0.9, if you have level two or higher Industrial Planning, your colony's population will produce exactly as much harvested organs as it needs; if there's no matching reduction in demand in 0.9.1, you'll end up with large colonies requiring an AI core to avoid otherwise-automatic shortages there.
Also, with Industrial Planning, mining with no bonuses or penalties exactly matches up with the minerals required by refining; that'll break too.  (Though, hm.  As a reason to actually value planets with high mineral reserves, maybe this one isn't a problem per se.)

I mean, I'd really like if there was some good incentive to, say, drop a mining colony on that 250% hazard volcanic planet with ultra-rich rare minerals.  But the way the game works right now, hazard rating completely trumps resources in terms of colony value.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 04:40:31 PM
Nope, sorry, I don't follow - I'm not sure what you mean by 'skill effects apply to specific pieces of content' in this context.

Just real quick: what I mean is I wouldn't want to have a skill explicitly apply to Mining; that's what I mean by "specific piece of content".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on January 31, 2019, 04:42:48 PM
Nope, sorry, I don't follow - I'm not sure what you mean by 'skill effects apply to specific pieces of content' in this context.

Just real quick: what I mean is I wouldn't want to have a skill explicitly apply to Mining; that's what I mean by "specific piece of content".

Oh!  Yeah, no, that's not what I was suggesting - I was just suggesting simply reducing the drug demand of the mining industry, not as a skill effect, but just as a change in what the base industry needs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 04:58:50 PM
... oh. Right! Thank you for clearing that up :)

I'll say, I think it's thematic for bits of demand here and there (drugs, organs) not being met; I don't think it's really a balance issue or a hard requirement that all demand ought to be able to be met, let alone met easily or comfortably. Things generally work pretty well with some unmet demand, after all.

As far as size 8+ colonies, I'm not too worried about anything that happens past that point - I'd imagine at some point it will probably become exceedingly difficult to get to size 8, and impossible (or almost impossible) to get to size 9 or 10. That you can do so relatively easily right now is more of a rough edge of the implementation than anything else, so I wouldn't want to balance/fine-tune numbers for that.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on January 31, 2019, 05:24:14 PM
Right; that's actually something I've done on occasion.  In 0.9, you have three options for dealing with drugs demand from mining:
1: Accept that some drugs demand won't be met.  This doesn't seem to impact the output of the mines or colony stability, just the growth rate.
2: Have a colony with light industry and free port.
3: Use multiple AI cores, including at least one alpha-grade.

I like having choices; this change removes option three, while leaving one and two alone.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Retry on January 31, 2019, 06:24:07 PM
Doesn't the change to industries mean that you can't actually fill all 12 building slots on your planets without mods that add non-industry buildings except under very specific circumstances?

1 slot Planetary Infrastructure
4 slots Industry
1 Spaceport Variant
1 Waystation
1 Commerce
1 Ground Defense Variant
1 Patrol HQ Variant
= 10 building slots, making the "max-12" mechanic rather defunct in vanilla.  You can only barely get to 12 if you've found the Red Planet and happened to settle an area with a Cryoship.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 06:29:13 PM
It's less of a mechanic and more of a UI limit that I'd hope players won't run up against too often, so: yes, and this is good :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on January 31, 2019, 06:37:44 PM
Battlestation takes up a slot.  With Red Planet reward, player will have no problem filling all 12 slots with only four production industries.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Originem on January 31, 2019, 07:12:42 PM
Hopefully fixed issue loading UTF-8 text with multi-byte characters from mission descriptions etc
What? not all the loading issue? I thought that's the question of entire game ???
Things like designType, descriptions, hull name will meet this problem.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 07:29:53 PM
What? not all the loading issue? I thought that's the question of entire game ???
Things like designType, descriptions, hull name will meet this problem.

"etc" covers all those :) Hopefully, anyway; a bit hard to test w/o being able to reproduce it on my end.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Retry on January 31, 2019, 07:53:15 PM
Battlestation takes up a slot.  With Red Planet reward, player will have no problem filling all 12 slots with only four production industries.
Right, forgot about starbases.  So the 12 slots can be filled in vanilla regularly but only once you find that planet.

I guess if you want to rein in colony income, it's a way to do that.  I'd have greatly preferred a different solution as I liked RP building industrial-focused self-sustaining Ecumenopolis as my Capital from the ground up, which won't be possible now.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on January 31, 2019, 08:35:00 PM
Reposting my question earlier because the change is potentially highly significant for some mods:
Quote
Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
Is there a FleetParams variable for this? Some boss fleets in mods need to be pretty big and it would be odd if they just ended up as 30-capital fleets instead.

Quote
Free port:
  • Stability penalty goes from 1 to 3 over time instead of being fixed at 3
  • Accessibility bonus goes from 5% to 25% (was: 10 to 50)
Potential exploit/micromanagement tax: Regularly turn free port off and on to keep the stability penalty at 1. For cases where I don't care about the accessibility bonus, I just want to export drugs.

(Well it's fairly easy as it is to keep stability at 10 even with the full -3 penalty, so I don't expect this to be a big deal)

Right; that's actually something I've done on occasion.  In 0.9, you have three options for dealing with drugs demand from mining:
[...]
3: Use multiple AI cores, including at least one alpha-grade.
Do people generally do this? I slap a gamma core on all my mining industries as a matter of course (since they're not good for much else), but I find betas and alphas are far too scarce to use just to prevent a mining drug shortage that doesn't do anything besides slightly slow the growth of an already large colony. Any betas and alphas go straight to manufacturing industries and (for the latter) star fortresses.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on January 31, 2019, 08:53:29 PM
Reposting my question earlier because the change is potentially highly significant for some mods:
Quote
Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
Is there a FleetParams variable for this? Some boss fleets in mods need to be pretty big and it would be odd if they just ended up as 30-capital fleets instead.

Oh, sorry, just missed it entirely somehow!

There's a Boolean params.doNotPrune that defaults to null, setting it to true will turn off this behavior.

Quote
Free port:
  • Stability penalty goes from 1 to 3 over time instead of being fixed at 3
  • Accessibility bonus goes from 5% to 25% (was: 10 to 50)
Potential exploit/micromanagement tax: Regularly turn free port off and on to keep the stability penalty at 1. For cases where I don't care about the accessibility bonus, I just want to export drugs.

(Well it's fairly easy as it is to keep stability at 10 even with the full -3 penalty, so I don't expect this to be a big deal)

Good point, yeah - will keep an eye on this.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on January 31, 2019, 09:06:36 PM
While I totally agree that Harbinger was OP and needed a nerf, doesn't this leave it a bit too useless?

Harbinger with 3 energy slots is inferior to an Afflictor in every way that matters:
- It is slower
- Has less continuous cloak time
- It's system barely compensates lack of speed (both can bypass omni-shields: Harbinger by system, Afflictor by phase maneuvering)
- LESS shield-bypass firepower (there is no medium AM blaster analog, and Afflictor is better with AM blasters due to damage increasing system). And character skilled Afflictor could even squeeze 4 AM blasters, though significant limitations apply.
- Much more supply expensive

So, what is Harbinger's intended role after nerf anyway? Being a bit more armor-hp-tanky doesn't do much for a phase ship.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DrakonST on January 31, 2019, 09:37:25 PM
So, bug about immediate updating player colonies markets still not fixed? It like cheat on current moment.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on January 31, 2019, 10:07:22 PM
So, bug about immediate updating player colonies markets still not fixed? It like cheat on current moment.
  • Fixed issue with "Open Market" from Commerce fully regenerating on re-opening the tab
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on January 31, 2019, 10:31:39 PM
Harbinger will still be incredibly good simply because of its system - being able to overload and knock out the shields of any ship is a game changing ability. It just won't be able to instantly assassinate any ship as it could before. :P
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on February 01, 2019, 12:06:38 AM
Harbinger will still be incredibly good simply because of its system - being able to overload and knock out the shields of any ship is a game changing ability. It just won't be able to instantly assassinate any ship as it could before. :P

But Afflictor does exactly same thing (bypassing shield) much better and cheaper.

Harbinger without Reapers can't do much about a Paragon, Afflictor can still solo it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DrakonST on February 01, 2019, 12:22:04 AM
So, bug about immediate updating player colonies markets still not fixed? It like cheat on current moment.
  • Fixed issue with "Open Market" from Commerce fully regenerating on re-opening the tab
Ah...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Techhead on February 01, 2019, 12:26:29 AM
Harbinger has had Thor's hammer applied and none to gently :D

It needed it, what with the 3x Typhoon Harbinger being the answer to any question.
Harbinger will still be incredibly good simply because of its system - being able to overload and knock out the shields of any ship is a game changing ability. It just won't be able to instantly assassinate any ship as it could before. :P

Except for ships with slow-to-deploy shields (ie. wide/full arc omni-shields), the duration of the knockout is fairly hard to exploit. Typhoon was the predominant build because it was the main weapon that could exploit that short window consistently. Guided missiles have variable flight times which meant you couldn't trust them to 100% land in that window (and the harpoon pod outputs less damage than a typhoon), phase lance burst was longer than the window, mining blasters spike your own flux super-hard (3600 flux!), and AMBs weren't available since you can't downsize synergy mounts. That puts second-best burst weapon at the heavy blaster at 3x500 damage. To me, Typhoon felt like the *only* option for comboing with QD.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: From a Faster Time on February 01, 2019, 02:16:26 AM
  • Fixed Helmsmanship 5%/1% issue
How was it "fixed" and whats the end result?
As was covered fairly exhaustively in the relevant thread (and possibly some PMs), it's 1% as it was supposed to be. Balance stuff entirely aside.
Oh you know... I was holding out hope it would end up more than 1%. I mean I am glad the bug is fixed, but I am not glad it's fixed into a value I personally don't agree with, since that was originally the reason I even reported it :D
(Thank you for your feedback re: some of the AI stuff, btw!)
My reward is the great game you are making and polishing up the small things pointed out.
It feels great to have a dev that listens, over the years I have gone over many developers from different games of different sizes. It's really refreshing when things mentioned get considered/fixed/balanced/touched-up. I can't tell you how many times I have brought up well documented issues and suggestions on how it may be addressed, only to have forum mods go "that's nice" and never seeing any of the issues touched on in months/years/ever. So again, a single dev managing to do this is hope inspiring to say the least.
Looking forward to testing out the new AI  ;D

Oh and lastly, is there some kind of ETA on the patch?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DrakonST on February 01, 2019, 02:42:27 AM
What about AI cores drop after destroying REDACTED battlestations? In current moment no any sense to kill this. Better leave this for future endgame grind.
Or it somewhere is written and I did not notice it?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 01, 2019, 05:55:12 AM
@ TaLaR:  I guess maybe for battlestations since their shields cannot be bypassed like they can for ships.

I used Harbinger for mainly for killing battlestation modules, then some excess pirate/pather cruisers and tanky destroyers on the side.

Three AM Blasters on Harbinger is like one Reaper, more or less.  (With energy slots, AM Blaster is probably the best Harbinger can use.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on February 01, 2019, 06:53:52 AM
Quote
Harbinger: changed 3 medium hardpoints to "energy" (was: "synergy")
This would make the the Harb the only phase ship incapable of using missiles at all.
Would it be possible to have the forward centre mount reverted to synergy or changed to universal, just to keep all the phase ships consistent with each other?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SapphireSage on February 01, 2019, 09:05:33 AM

  • Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
  • Stronger fleets will have many more large ships
    • This increases both their ground-raiding strength and their effectiveness vs stations


Out of curiosity, would this also be adjustable via the settings.json "MaxShipsInFleet" or the "DoNotPrune" or is this non-adjustable for those that enjoy larger fleet sizes/battles in order to be able to salvage things in endgame?

If someone wanted to raise their max fleet size to be able to have room for salvage, it would be unfair if the player would outnumber the AI consistently.

Also, are colonies with Commerce able to put their own nanoforges in Heavy Industry after a time when sold to them? I can see that a 2nd Heavy Industry with Commerce could be used as an extra money farm by returning every so often to remove the nanoforge and resell it to them since the highest level nanoforge in all your colonies is used for ship quality in all fleet and ship productions.

Thanks for all the excellent content and enabling of other awesome content!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Shad on February 01, 2019, 09:18:36 AM
Really like the upcoming changes. Economy, techmining

A couple of points:
Quote
Fleet spawning:

    Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
    Stronger fleets will have many more large ships
This one I am a bit worried about. Top heavy fleets are be good for "elite" strike fleets, but a general the cap does not sound like a good idea. It will only worsen the already existing ship size inflation. Low-tier frigates and light destroyers (like wayfarer/enforcer) should not become obsolete by mid-game.

Also from a purely immersion veiwpoint the only top-heavy fleets are less fun. The whole point about a large battle is how it stats small with frigates/destroyers, harrassing/flanking and occasional cruiser, and builds up to eventually reach the peak with facing enemy capitals. It builds up. Facing a heavy-only fleet does not sound as fun.

Quote
Can now abandon colonies up to size 4
Can we get the Nex option of granting independence to colonies (just because I found a better habitable world doesn't mean the other habitable is useless)

Quote
Abandoning a colony no longer removes the "Decivilized" condition
Is there now a proper way of removing this modifier?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 01, 2019, 09:55:43 AM
Quote
Harbinger: changed 3 medium hardpoints to "energy" (was: "synergy")
This would make the the Harb the only phase ship incapable of using missiles at all.
Would it be possible to have the forward centre mount reverted to synergy or changed to universal, just to keep all the phase ships consistent with each other?
I would not want center synergy and rest energy because that makes three AM Blaster loadout impossible.  (Synergy cannot use small energy.)  If Harbinger will be reduced to an AM Blaster striker, it needs all three mounts energy to use them.

As for missiles, maybe mount them in the rear universals and backpedal if player really wants them?

P.S.  Although I guess three energy (for AM Blasters) is about equal to one Reaper, but Harbinger does not have enough OP to support both optimized AM Blaster and Reaper loadouts at the same time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: HELMUT on February 01, 2019, 10:26:54 AM
Quote
  • Ships with "Militarized Subsystems" no longer get increased maintenance from capacity-increasing logistics hullmods
    • And can have Safety Overrides

RIDE THE LIGHTNING I am actually against this change. As much as i want to field a stampede of SO Buffalo MK.II, allowing SO with Militarized Subsystems make it a no-brainer for freighters/tankers. The massive speed boost make it invaluable in retreat scenarios. A Tarsus can fit both MS and SO, allowing it to fly at a blazing 125 su, faster than a Lasher! And that's without counting the burn drive. Not all civilian ships have the OPs available for those two hullmods though, only the tankers , the Tarsus, the Valkyrie... Haven't checked them all.

But yeah, i think it's too good, civilians ships's survivability would be vastly increased with this combo.

Quote
  • Harbinger: changed 3 medium hardpoints to "energy" (was: "synergy")

The beast is dead! Like Serenitis, i kinda expected it to keep one synergy to allow for some variety. I think the Harbinger would now move more into a support role with its three energy hardpoints, with something like Ion Pulsers to annoy bigger threats, or heavy blasters to hunt smaller targets. The triple AM Blaster boat is another idea, an easier, but more expensive variant of the blaster Afflictor.


Overall, i really like all the listed changes, 0.9.1 is going to feel much smoother to play.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 01, 2019, 10:31:14 AM
While I totally agree that Harbinger was OP and needed a nerf, doesn't this leave it a bit too useless?

... possibly? The system *is* different, so that could leave some room. It's also got 2 minutes more base peak time, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

Mostly, though, I think all these points are an argument in favor of reining in the Afflictor a bit as well, if that makes sense.

Oh you know... I was holding out hope it would end up more than 1%. I mean I am glad the bug is fixed, but I am not glad it's fixed into a value I personally don't agree with, since that was originally the reason I even reported it :D

Yeah, I know :) Making balance changes is just a different mindset for me, if I'm fixing bugs, I can just do that quickly. Balance changes require more thought and testing and so on, so I'm generally pretty resistant to making them at the drop of a hat.

My reward is the great game you are making and polishing up the small things pointed out.
It feels great to have a dev that listens, over the years I have gone over many developers from different games of different sizes. It's really refreshing when things mentioned get considered/fixed/balanced/touched-up. I can't tell you how many times I have brought up well documented issues and suggestions on how it may be addressed, only to have forum mods go "that's nice" and never seeing any of the issues touched on in months/years/ever. So again, a single dev managing to do this is hope inspiring to say the least.
Looking forward to testing out the new AI  ;D

<3

Oh and lastly, is there some kind of ETA on the patch?

"When it's done", which should be soon(tm).


What about AI cores drop after destroying REDACTED battlestations? In current moment no any sense to kill this. Better leave this for future endgame grind.

It's still on my list, yeah - there's a bunch of stuff that's been reported and noted but not yet fixed up.


This would make the the Harb the only phase ship incapable of using missiles at all.
Would it be possible to have the forward centre mount reverted to synergy or changed to universal, just to keep all the phase ships consistent with each other?

Well, it's got the 2 universals in the back, so that's not strictly true. I'm also not sure this is a point of consistency that makes sense to focus on - it's just a thing that they happened to have in common, right, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a shared pillar of their design.


Out of curiosity, would this also be adjustable via the settings.json "MaxShipsInFleet" or the "DoNotPrune" or is this non-adjustable for those that enjoy larger fleet sizes/battles in order to be able to salvage things in endgame?

If someone wanted to raise their max fleet size to be able to have room for salvage, it would be unfair if the player would outnumber the AI consistently.

There's a "maxShipsInAIFleet" setting, so you can tweak the AI and player maximums separately as you see fit.

Also, are colonies with Commerce able to put their own nanoforges in Heavy Industry after a time when sold to them? I can see that a 2nd Heavy Industry with Commerce could be used as an extra money farm by returning every so often to remove the nanoforge and resell it to them since the highest level nanoforge in all your colonies is used for ship quality in all fleet and ship productions.

Thanks for all the excellent content and enabling of other awesome content!

Not sure if this made it into the patch notes, but I've fixed up that exploit.


Quote
Fleet spawning:

    Will not produce fleets with more than 30 ships
    Stronger fleets will have many more large ships
This one I am a bit worried about. Top heavy fleets are be good for "elite" strike fleets, but a general the cap does not sound like a good idea. It will only worsen the already existing ship size inflation. Low-tier frigates and light destroyers (like wayfarer/enforcer) should not become obsolete by mid-game.

Also from a purely immersion veiwpoint the only top-heavy fleets are less fun. The whole point about a large battle is how it stats small with frigates/destroyers, harrassing/flanking and occasional cruiser, and builds up to eventually reach the peak with facing enemy capitals. It builds up. Facing a heavy-only fleet does not sound as fun.

It's not "only" capitals, there's still some smaller ships. Obviously it's a change, but I think it'll be good overall - instead of fighting 300+ ships, most of which are frigates and don't really pose a challenge beyond eventual CR drain - you'd fight some frigates/destroyers/etc, supporting a larger number of capital ships that do pose a threat, including to stations. And there's plenty of fleets that don't end up top-heavy as well; this really comes into play when the alternative is an absurd number of ships.

Quote
Can now abandon colonies up to size 4
Can we get the Nex option of granting independence to colonies (just because I found a better habitable world doesn't mean the other habitable is useless)

Maybe at some point; holding off on doing that until a few more things fall into place and it's more clear what exactly I want from this in vanilla.

Quote
Abandoning a colony no longer removes the "Decivilized" condition
Is there now a proper way of removing this modifier?

No; I don't think it's a modifier that should be able to be removed.


Quote
  • Ships with "Militarized Subsystems" no longer get increased maintenance from capacity-increasing logistics hullmods
    • And can have Safety Overrides

RIDE THE LIGHTNING I am actually against this change. As much as i want to field a stampede of SO Buffalo MK.II, allowing SO with Militarized Subsystems make it a no-brainer for freighters/tankers. The massive speed boost make it invaluable in retreat scenarios. A Tarsus can fit both MS and SO, allowing it to fly at a blazing 125 su, faster than a Lasher! And that's without counting the burn drive. Not all civilian ships have the OPs available for those two hullmods though, only the tankers , the Tarsus, the Valkyrie... Haven't checked them all.

But yeah, i think it's too good, civilians ships's survivability would be vastly increased with this combo.

There are a couple of other changes that factor in:

1) You can ensure a clean disengage through a rearguard action - fighting a battle and destroying some enemy ships - which would let your civilian ships get away regardless of their speed.
2) Flanking deployment during pursuit starts 4000 units further up, so it could get dodgy regardless. Though the Tarsus in particular has just always been great at retreating.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on February 01, 2019, 10:36:25 AM
Quote
Harbinger: changed 3 medium hardpoints to "energy" (was: "synergy")
This would make the the Harb the only phase ship incapable of using missiles at all.
Would it be possible to have the forward centre mount reverted to synergy or changed to universal, just to keep all the phase ships consistent with each other?
The Harbinger's rear 2 small mounts are universals, and have the arcs to mount guided missiles. Or, in player hands, you can tilt the Harbinger slightly to land torpedos.

The beast is dead! Like Serenitis, i kinda expected it to keep one synergy to allow for some variety. I think the Harbinger would now move more into a support role with its three energy hardpoints, with something like Ion Pulsers to annoy bigger threats, or heavy blasters to hunt smaller targets. The triple AM Blaster boat is another idea, an easier, but more expensive variant of the blaster Afflictor.
Triple Phase Lance Harbinger has always been a beast, able to out-flux cruisers with soft-flux pressure alone by abusing phase time acceleration. Anything smaller than that just pops, including opposing phase frigates that you can force to unphase with QD.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 01, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
I'm really a fan of Phase Lances plus phase-time combo, myself.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on February 01, 2019, 10:50:56 AM
Harbinger + Reaper == No. Being able to reliably and with no recourse stick a Reaper into something is just bad. The cost, DP, flux stats, armor, etc can all be tuned to make the ship be really good, but that combo has got to go.

I also think its a bit odd to consider the Harbinger in a vacuum. When the Harbinger overloads someone, that helps every ship nearby.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 01, 2019, 11:05:37 AM
Harbinger + Reaper == No. Being able to reliably and with no recourse stick a Reaper into something is just bad. The cost, DP, flux stats, armor, etc can all be tuned to make the ship be really good, but that combo has got to go.

I also think its a bit odd to consider the Harbinger in a vacuum. When the Harbinger overloads someone, that helps every ship nearby.
The opening given by Quantum Disruptor is tiny, probably too hard to exploit reactively by other ships.  At best, player see incoming attacks from other ships (like a stack of Perdition wings from Astral) and drop that target's shields.  With Reapers, Harbinger does not need other ships.  Just force an opening for the kill then run away.

Also, Harbinger can hide with empty or dead battlestation modules behind live ones, and kill modules on the other side with splash damage.  (Afflictor can do it too, but Harbinger has almost four times as much Reapers as Afflictor.)

Three Typhoons Reapers were overwhelming and so much better than other loadouts.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 01, 2019, 11:15:59 AM
Mostly, though, I think all these points are an argument in favor of reining in the Afflictor a bit as well, if that makes sense.
My go-to loadout with Afflictor is four Reapers.  Works just as well as 0.9 Harbinger when I do not need Quantum Disruptor, except with less missile capacity.  Probably the easiest nerf would be to change two of the universals to hybrids.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on February 01, 2019, 05:06:33 PM
I'm not really concerned about the nerf to the Harbinger. I had my fun back in 0.8 with Reapers and changing their sub-system to the Quantum disruptor in 0.9 just made them insane.

In any case, I'm really not a fan of phase ships outside the Doom-class since their time acceleration ends up being a bit of a liability under AI control, as their peak readiness doesn't last long enough to be useful to me in bigger battles (being able to deploy more ships during station battles will help though in the upcoming update!)...and perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I feel that Anti-Matter blasters are pretty weak for their OP cost (could do with less of a delay or more damage per shot, and/or make the damage high explosive to take advantage of holes in enemy shields).

Interestingly the Impact Mitigation 1 bug fix (+150% more armour -> +150 armour) is something that I'm going to miss on my Doom since it did provide a decent durability boost when paired with Evasive Action 3 (275% armour boost in 0.9).  Probably a bit early to say, but going from 275% armour (0.9 IM1 + EA3) -> 50% armour + 150 armour (0.9.1a IM1 + EA3), looks to be quite a drastic cut in durability, especially for bigger capital ships relying on hull tanking.

Maybe both IM1 & EA3 should be boosted a bit to compensate a little.  Even if it was a bug to begin with, it didn't feel insanely OP (0.9 IM3 & EA3 increased my Doom's average survival time from 12.4 seconds to 20.3 seconds in my testing).

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 01, 2019, 05:24:04 PM
I'm not really concerned about the nerf to the Harbinger. I had my fun back in 0.8 with Reapers and changing their sub-system to the Quantum disruptor in 0.9 just made them insane.

In any case, I'm really not a fan of phase ships outside the Doom-class since their time acceleration ends up being a bit of a liability under AI control, as their peak readiness doesn't last long enough to be useful to me in bigger battles (being able to deploy more ships during station battles will help though in the upcoming update!)...and perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I feel that Anti-Matter blasters are pretty weak for their OP cost (could do with less of a delay or more damage per shot, and/or make the damage high explosive to take advantage of holes in enemy shields).
Part of what makes AM Blasters good is their ability to outright overload shields and stun the enemy for twelve seconds.  Handy for something like Scarab where it builds up hard flux with IR Pulse Laser and Ion Cannon spam, overload shield with AM Blaster, then finish off ship with something.  Changing AM Blasters to HE would remove their use as shield overload against AI.  Phase ships do not need to use AM Blasters like this, but conventional ships would.

AM Blaster is good burst because it overloads the AI, unlike equally priced Light Needler (where they drop shields and tank the needles on armor or hull for minimal damage instead of getting stunned) that has become merely a railgun knockoff that costs two more OP.

Yes, I dislike phase ships aside from Doom for AI because AI simply dances like cowards and runs out of peak performance too early.  Phase ships need to play more like Doom, not like a bomber usable only under player control.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Dostya on February 01, 2019, 07:29:00 PM
Income from exports no longer counts demand at player colonies for total market value

I'm not sure I agree with this one. Your own colonies are going to be trading in the general market (even with internal sources, you'll see external fleets bringing goods and if those get blown up the market loses some goods) and with each other, and presumably that trade is taxed; internal trade might be taxed via corporate income taxes or something more progressive than tariffs but it should give money albeit somewhat more indirectly. Bottom line - larger populations moving more goods can and should increase the total value of the market. I understand why Commerce isn't lucrative for balance reasons, why the open markets on player planets don't pay their tariffs into the players' pocket, and why external partners are important for accessibility to balance blatant warmongering, but ignoring player planets' impact on the market in its totality just seems a bit wonky.

Is there a balance reason that this got changed? Were player populated planets making too much of an impact on the Sector markets?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 01, 2019, 07:41:37 PM
I think conceptually, the stuff you're talking about is mostly covered by the income from Population & Infrastructure.

Is there a balance reason that this got changed?

The market value of player planets ended up being too-high a contributor to player income. Also, it had the counter-intuitive effect of something lowering demand on player colonies (good because it's easier for it to be met) also being bad due to decreasing the market value for that commodity and thus the player's income from exports. And, finally - as you point out - it's good to have the player's income be more dependent on outside partners.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: R.U.A on February 01, 2019, 08:40:22 PM
Navigation skill: now modifies individual fleet member fuel use (rather than fleetwide)
So the skill can only take effect on piloted ship? Or it still take effect fleetwide, but would cut down the fuel use for each ship rather than calculate on the total fuel the fleet use, and showing its effect on every ship in the ship tooltip?
Fuel use/day indicator now properly accounts for "free" speed over burn level 20
Do you mean in the past this calculation is wrong? And in my opinion, since the free speed is caused by storm or neutron stars etc., we shouldn't pay fuel for the extra speed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on February 02, 2019, 12:42:06 AM
Navigation skill still cuts down fleet fuel usage, it's just that it's technically applying it to particular ships and not fleet as whole (but since fleet fuel usage uses now-reduced ship fuel usage values, it decreases as well), which results in it showing up in the tooltip, like the maintenance reduction does.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Kulverstukass on February 02, 2019, 04:27:36 AM
Am I'm missing, or there is no mention of situation, when colonized gas giant got name change, but retains original name on global (hyperspace) map?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DatonKallandor on February 02, 2019, 05:04:48 AM
And in my opinion, since the free speed is caused by storm or neutron stars etc., we shouldn't pay fuel for the extra speed.

Fuel use needs to be per light year and speed independent or the fuel range circle would be lying to the player and unusable.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Plantissue on February 02, 2019, 07:35:38 AM
Wow, it;s always good to see an active developer fixing what appears to be lots of minor issues but has big gameplay effects.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on February 02, 2019, 07:46:43 AM
I think conceptually, the stuff you're talking about is mostly covered by the income from Population & Infrastructure.

Is there a balance reason that this got changed?

The market value of player planets ended up being too-high a contributor to player income. Also, it had the counter-intuitive effect of something lowering demand on player colonies (good because it's easier for it to be met) also being bad due to decreasing the market value for that commodity and thus the player's income from exports. And, finally - as you point out - it's good to have the player's income be more dependent on outside partners.

Out of curiosity, if the player somehow destroys (or in Nex, takes over the sector) every non-player planet in the sector, does it imply planetary trade income will drop to zero by the end?  Is the population and infrastructure of large planets sufficient to pay the entire upkeep of said planet (i.e. are they potentially self-sufficient if they have all industries and make all goods?), or is the goal of being the only sector power as an end game goal non-viable due to insufficient credit generation near the end?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Plantissue on February 02, 2019, 08:10:43 AM
I would guess that as the market total is 0, then your income from exports is effectively 0 as well. The economy in starsector is all kinds of strange and nonsensical anyways.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 02, 2019, 08:44:08 AM
Or it still take effect fleetwide, but would cut down the fuel use for each ship rather than calculate on the total fuel the fleet use, and showing its effect on every ship in the ship tooltip?

Exactly, yeah.


Do you mean in the past this calculation is wrong?

It was wrong just for display purposes, it was still deducting the correct (reduced) amount of fuel.


Am I'm missing, or there is no mention of situation, when colonized gas giant got name change, but retains original name on global (hyperspace) map?

It's on my list! Hopefully will be able to get to it.


Out of curiosity, if the player somehow destroys (or in Nex, takes over the sector) every non-player planet in the sector, does it imply planetary trade income will drop to zero by the end?  Is the population and infrastructure of large planets sufficient to pay the entire upkeep of said planet (i.e. are they potentially self-sufficient if they have all industries and make all goods?), or is the goal of being the only sector power as an end game goal non-viable due to insufficient credit generation near the end?

Right, the income from exports would drop to 0. Whether the income from P&I is enough depends on a lot of things - what the player has as far as upkeep reductions and income increases, how many industries and structures they have, the hazard rating of the colonies, etc.

I'm pretty sure a self-sufficient set of colonies at that point is possible, since you could get quite efficient with it if that was your specific goal. I'd also imagine a general-purpose set of colonies that relied on export income would have to be pared down quite a bit in terms of what industries and structures they have.


Wow, it;s always good to see an active developer fixing what appears to be lots of minor issues but has big gameplay effects.

Thank you!


I would guess that as the market total is 0, then your income from exports is effectively 0 as well. The economy in starsector is all kinds of strange and nonsensical anyways.

"You've literally killed off all your trade partners and therefore get no more money from trade" seems pretty sensible to me :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on February 02, 2019, 09:08:37 AM
I have a question about this global market exclusion mechanic: is it hardcoded, or is it possible to turn it off and return to present mechanics? Or, perhaps more interesting, can mods include or exclude particular markets or even factions from participating in the "global market"? Trade deals would be an interesting mechanic, one that would make relations above 0 matter as well.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 02, 2019, 09:50:08 AM
It's... a bit involved. Not really set up for toggling on and off, but mods can put markets in a separate economy group, which would be self-contained both as far as filling demand and income from exports.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on February 02, 2019, 09:12:52 PM
Properly handling the only-one-faction-remaining case would probably require converting the economy to a resource-based system.
Instead of industries costing credits to operate/maintain and generating credits from exports, industries consume commodities (and labor) to maintain and to produce other commodities, which are in turn used by other industries. Some of these commodities would be diverted to the player's use, as supplies/fuel for fleet operations and for the custom production of ships, fighter wings and weapons.

The "upkeep reduction from in-faction supply" thing partly abstracts this, but at a mere 25% maximum reduction it's not going to work very well at simulating an autarkic economy.

Question: Do other factions also not include their own markets in calculating global market size? The difference is generally insignificant since NPCs don't care about credits, but it could be relevant for when the punitive expedition manager compares market shares of player and NPC exports.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 02, 2019, 09:58:39 PM
Question: Do other factions also not include their own markets in calculating global market size? The difference is generally insignificant since NPCs don't care about credits, but it could be relevant for when the punitive expedition manager compares market shares of player and NPC exports.

Ah, these are two different things - the market value is based on demand for a commodity on non-player markets. The market share of each colony is based on its supply of the commodity, and that always includes player markets.

The market value only matters for the player's exports. In theory, it would also matter for non-player markets, and they would use a different market value that excludes their demand, but since that income doesn't matter (and it would be confusing to base it on a different market value and have to explain all that) the income of non-player colonies is simply no longer shown on the colony screen. (Since it would either be 1) inaccurate or 2) require computing another set of market values for no good reason.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DrakonST on February 02, 2019, 11:28:21 PM
In my first campaing on vanila 0.9 i blow-up every planet and station on sector. And my colonies still brought income. Just mounth income decreased from 3.000.000 to 200.000.

But Pirates and Luddic Path bases still spawning.

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/HwrKtfs.png)
[close]
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/4FNdAuI.png)
[close]

Also, no any Radiant-class changes?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 03, 2019, 09:56:56 AM
Also, no any Radiant-class changes?

Wasn't planning on any, no - what did you have in mind?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DrakonST on February 03, 2019, 10:26:36 AM
Radiant-class in current moment too overpowered in comparison with all other capital ships. Radiant too hardy, too armed and too fast. No one of capitals available to player can`t effectivity fight against this ship. Except one. Paragon-class.

It completely kills all endgame period because if you want effectivity fight agains Remnants for AI cores you need Paragons. You dont need any another capital type because they a totaly useles when they faced agains Radiants. Force player always, every new game try to found one, concrete class of capitals it very bad idea for gameplay.

And Radiant have 40 deployment points, such 40 points have Onslaught or Conquest but what they can againts Radiant? Nothing. If Radiant for some reason loses a duel he just jumps back and comes back again. They can easy outjump Onslaught "Burn Drive"(also, they can easy kill Onslaught when he use Burn Drive) and outjump Conquest.

When fighting against Radiants one way to kill him it press it to corner of battle border. But this is normal gameplay?

Radiant must will have stats like battlecruiser for chance to kill him quickly or they will have less overpowered active system such as "Plasma Burn".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on February 03, 2019, 11:08:28 AM
I don't think Radiant is impossible to kill with a Conquest or an Onslaught, nor do I think it's unfairly overpowered. It provides a good challenge and your fleet is much more important than what capital ship you use.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 03, 2019, 11:14:17 AM
A standard stock-loadout Onslaught has a fairly even (though ultimately losing) fight with it when both are under AI control. Given how much the player can do to improve loadouts or simply maximize the effect of their ships, I think there's plenty of room for beating it with different options.

It *is* supposed to be better at a baseline level than a player-available battleship, though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DrakonST on February 03, 2019, 11:36:45 AM
I don't think Radiant is impossible to kill with a Conquest or an Onslaught, nor do I think it's unfairly overpowered. It provides a good challenge and your fleet is much more important than what capital ship you use.
Capital ships it everything in this game.

You can take 3-4 Paragons, and blow-up everything what you can found in sector, even if you need to blow-up 5 Remnant Ordo with 10 Radiants. But 5 Onslaught can`t do this anymore. They can do it 0.8 before Radiant appear in game.

Yep i can take 5 Onslaught/Conquests and blow-up max sized defenders fleet of Red Planet. But it everything what can do this capitals. 3 Paragons can do much more.

When Radiant appear in game it just killed sense to use all other ships except Paragon-class. 
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Morrokain on February 03, 2019, 12:06:35 PM
Nice update!

I like the new added support for music in mods, especially. :)

Two quick questions I haven't seen yet:

1) What do you mean by "Danger Level" on the fleet tooltips? If it is an indicator of how powerful the fleet is, then in what context? Relative to the player's current fleet? Also, how is it calculated and can it be changed or set by mods, such as in the faction file?

2) I know tags can be changed by skins, but would it be simple to add an optional section to the variant.json file that could modify tags by variant as well? For instance, the new tag for the Mora and Legion would make a lot of sense for the attack variant of the Astral in my mod, but not at all for the Elite variant.

*Edit* I meant hints, not tags. I get those confused a lot.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Toxcity on February 03, 2019, 12:27:19 PM
I mean Radiant existing doesn't invalidate every ship not named Paragon.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 03, 2019, 12:28:07 PM
1) What do you mean by "Danger Level" on the fleet tooltips? If it is an indicator of how powerful the fleet is, then in what context? Relative to the player's current fleet? Also, how is it calculated and can it be changed or set by mods, such as in the faction file?

See here:

https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1070133506947366912

It's relative to the strength of the player's fleet, based on the relative fleet point values, modified by quality/officers/etc. It can't be modified directly... although, actually, let me add a $dangerLevelOverride to fleet memory - that's pretty simple.

2) I know tags can be changed by skins, but would it be simple to add an optional section to the variant.json file that could modify tags by variant as well? For instance, the new tag for the Mora and Legion would make a lot of sense for the attack variant of the Astral in my mod, but not at all for the Elite variant.

*Edit* I meant hints, not tags. I get those confused a lot.

I don't think that makes sense since variants are something that can be modified by the player. This sort of thing would have to be player-facing, otherwise you'd have a situation where the behavior of a player-modified variant depended on what the variant was originally, which would be super weird.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on February 03, 2019, 12:36:02 PM
When Radiant appear in game it just killed sense to use all other ships except Paragon-class. 

Reaper Harbinger deletes it without any problems in current release (Harbinger will only get nerfed in next one).
2 Afflictors can easily delete it too (1st with Reapers to cripple, 2nd with AM blasters to finish while avoiding death aoe).

A standard stock-loadout Onslaught has a fairly even (though ultimately losing) fight with it when both are under AI control. Given how much the player can do to improve loadouts or simply maximize the effect of their ships, I think there's plenty of room for beating it with different options.

What Radiant variant? 5 TL one with 20 lvl officer and correct skills may be actually quite close to un-solo-able except for Paragon in straightforward combat.
At least without player bringing a Capital with similarly maxed out character skills and piloting it personally.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on February 03, 2019, 12:37:20 PM
Onslaughts can absolutely fight Radiants as long as you equip them right. I'm personally fond of putting 3 Heavy Needlers in the central mediums backed up with Haephestus Assault Guns in the larges and Harpoon Pods for missiles. The Radiant gets a massive needler burst when they jump in, the Haephestus forces the shields up so they have to tank the kinetics, and the Harpoons chase it down when it tries to back off.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 03, 2019, 12:38:32 PM
What Radiant variant? 5 TL one with 20 lvl officer and correct skills may be actually quite close to un-solo-able except for Paragon. At least without player bringing a Capital with similarly maxed out character skills and piloting it personally.

The other one, which is what I happened to have in my sim opponents file :) But since the loadouts for most of the Radiants you'll see in the wild are dynamically generated...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Delta7 on February 03, 2019, 02:47:56 PM
Is the crash related to salvaging debris fields being fixed in 0.9.1?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 03, 2019, 02:49:45 PM
Yep!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Morrokain on February 03, 2019, 03:49:48 PM
It's relative to the strength of the player's fleet, based on the relative fleet point values, modified by quality/officers/etc. It can't be modified directly... although, actually, let me add a $dangerLevelOverride to fleet memory - that's pretty simple.

I'll see how it handles Archean Order's ship/weapon rebalance, but thanks for the memory option that will prove handy if it doesn't pan out. :)

I don't think that makes sense since variants are something that can be modified by the player. This sort of thing would have to be player-facing, otherwise you'd have a situation where the behavior of a player-modified variant depended on what the variant was originally, which would be super weird.

Ok yeah that makes sense.

I was originally thinking along the lines that Support almost always means that carrier-like behavior would be the preferred option, whereas Strike and Attack/Assault would always prefer having that hint to commit to front-line combat. I had thought that would translate well to the player based on variant description, but I see where it being an obscure source of changing AI behavior could become problematic when it doesn't necessarily fit into those archetypes (like player controlled variants).

Edit:

Though to be honest, I would be all for simply putting this into the autofit U.I as a toggled behavior. I'm sure that has been suggested before though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: R.U.A on February 04, 2019, 03:11:38 AM
Do you mean in the past this calculation is wrong?
It was wrong just for display purposes, it was still deducting the correct (reduced) amount of fuel.
What?s the meaning of ?reduced?? Do you mean that when the fleet is at a ?free? speed, it in fact doesn?t cost as much fuel as the displayed number? For example, assuming that a fleet consumes 200 fuel/day at a normal speed of 14(with sustained burn). When the fleet reaches the ?free? speed of 25, should it still consumes 200 fuel/day or more fuel/day?
Now properly handles weapons with a very large interruptible burst
Can you give a few examples of such weapons?  I didn?t fully get the point orz.

And thank you a lot for bearing my shooting questions.   :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SirOstrich on February 05, 2019, 07:11:35 AM
RIP Reaper Harbinger. Your OP-ness will be missed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on February 05, 2019, 07:25:58 AM
What?s the meaning of ?reduced?? Do you mean that when the fleet is at a ?free? speed, it in fact doesn?t cost as much fuel as the displayed number? For example, assuming that a fleet consumes 200 fuel/day at a normal speed of 14(with sustained burn). When the fleet reaches the ?free? speed of 25, should it still consumes 200 fuel/day or more fuel/day?
If you move at burn speed higher than 20, tooltip showed increased fuel usage, when it actually used as much fuel as fleet moving at 20 burn does (so going over 20 is "free").
Can you give a few examples of such weapons?  I didn?t fully get the point orz.
See tooltip for Storm Needler. It shows "burst" of 9999.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 05, 2019, 07:33:56 AM
With upcoming industry limit to prevent single self-sufficient colony, I considered trying to avoid active Pather cells since they are so annoying and the most dangerous threat in endgame.  Only the Intel exploit makes them tolerable (and only if I can disrupt all of them for a year after destroying only a single pather base), and that will be gone soon.

If Industrial Planning does not reduce demand anymore, then that means the only way to meet fuel demand for a big colony (with megaport, waystation, and/or military base) is to use a synchrotron (or alpha core), which means that colony with fuel production and synchrotron will be targeted by pathers, because synchrotron increases pather interest.  It will be impossible to have faction-wide self-sufficiency without starting more fires that need to be put out.  (There are already too many fires that require direct player intervention to stop.)

According to the wikia, fuel production with synchrotron has 4 interest, instead of 2 on fuel production without it.  I noticed player gets sleeper cell at 3 that does nothing harmful (presumably as a warning), and active cells at 4+ which becomes a recurring pain to deal with short of removing industries.  Curiously, heavy industry stays at 2 regardless of upgrades or nanoforge.  I like that heavy industry does not exceed 2 because no heavy industry on any colony is very painful, given the junk player gets without one.  (I would not want to see heavy industry spike to 4 just because player upgraded to orbital works or installs nanoforge.)

It would be nice that synchrotron did not spike pather interest.  If not, at least something (either new item or old Industrial Planning 1 restored) that can either boost fuel production or reduce demand that does not cause more problems (either pather cells or hegemony inspections).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on February 05, 2019, 08:12:16 AM
I don't think Radiant is impossible to kill with a Conquest or an Onslaught, nor do I think it's unfairly overpowered. It provides a good challenge and your fleet is much more important than what capital ship you use.
Capital ships it everything in this game.

You can take 3-4 Paragons, and blow-up everything what you can found in sector, even if you need to blow-up 5 Remnant Ordo with 10 Radiants. But 5 Onslaught can`t do this anymore. They can do it 0.8 before Radiant appear in game.

Yep i can take 5 Onslaught/Conquests and blow-up max sized defenders fleet of Red Planet. But it everything what can do this capitals. 3 Paragons can do much more.

When Radiant appear in game it just killed sense to use all other ships except Paragon-class. 

I dunno, I've engaged a pair of Radiant fleets before having Paragons.  Onslaughts, Conquests, Legions, some other carriers and Apogees worked.  Its kinda fun tanking a Radiant with a human piloted (with at least Defense 2, 3 helps a little as well, also +10% OP skill) SO Apogee.  5 tachyon lances don't do much to it, as it gets rid of the flux in 2 seconds.  Speed of ~105+50 0-flux boost means it can control range somewhat, even against teleportation.  And worst case they're pretty disposable with the High tech blueprint, although they tend to survive if you choose to chain deploy at low CR.  Certainly won't kill it, but you just need to keep some of them away from the rest of your fleet while your capitals finish crushing their cruisers and then engage with numerical advantage.

I've also used similar setups to tank beam spam Paragons.  In a run through with only finding the High tech blueprint set, you learn to adapt. Fear the Apogee fleet. :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on February 05, 2019, 12:33:31 PM
Although this is not (yet) in the patch notes, I guess it's coming with 0.9.1:

https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1092842982234042369

This kind of ambient sound work is indeed great for player immersion! A much welcome addition.

This reminds me of a related issue I noticed while playing 0.9.0, and I don't remember whether it was already that way in 0.8.1: the deafening silence in some structures such as the abandoned platform orbiting Asharu in Corvus. Maybe it makes sense for empty structures to have no music in order to convey some sense of .. uh .. emptiness  :D  but I'd much prefer to have some kind of music, such as the "outside" music still playing at a lower volume in the background or something else.

I don't want to oversell the idea, but IMO :
- not breaking the music flow could translate into better immersion
- the situation in this abandoned platform is especially annoying for player that establish their initial base here right after playing the tutorial, you spend a sizeable amount of time with no music in that base, until you get a colony up and running

Reading the patch notes...
Quote
Music:
* Added MusicPlayerPlugin interface; implementation specified via "musicPlugin" in settings.json
* Can create arbitrary number of campaign music states for different locations/conditions/etc
* Method that picks music set for combat gets passed in a CombatEngineAPI
* Can specify a $musicSetId for star systems, markets, and entities to override default plugin behavior
... I guess one could create a mod for this  ;D , but still think it would be better to have this in the base game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: xor0 on February 06, 2019, 07:21:41 AM
In my current game I tried to create a challenge, going ironman and making a colony in the first year, no pirate trading. Ironman is great, needs attention all the time and occasional rebuilding from a single frigate after being gangbanged. Building a colony slowly does work, no growth incentives.

However, apart from the military and required industries (spaceport etc) I only have heavy industry and IT WORKS FINE. Every resource is brought to the colony for free, now I found a nanoforge and upgraded the patrols I am getting close to the unassailable base again. It just doesn't seem right that you can win by making a single top tier industry, not having to bother with any of the others. Is 0.9.1a going to fix this? I didn't see the answer looking through the patch notes.

To me it seems like this is because the economy is not real, just a hack. I understand that it's been redone half a dozen times and there are constraints on processing time etc, but as someone who worked making complex simulations for many years, I learned that the basics must be robust and coherent, based in something real, otherwise you keep having problems down the line, necessitating more and more hacks, which start stumbling over each other. If ships actually cost resources (with arbitrary scaling to keep the AIs viable) everything would fall together - all those resources and industries are actually needed, providing a motivation for trade and war. You could even get rid of credits (with a marked-up resource trading house) and have transplutonics (or whatever) as the standard for buying ships.

There are a few other issues I found (eg free stuff lying around seems too common, needs to be behind more "fight" walls) but they are all balance issues. The economy isn't.

This game is already better than many AAA space titles, but it could become one of the all-time classics.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 06, 2019, 10:23:54 AM
However, apart from the military and required industries (spaceport etc) I only have heavy industry and IT WORKS FINE. Every resource is brought to the colony for free, now I found a nanoforge and upgraded the patrols I am getting close to the unassailable base again. It just doesn't seem right that you can win by making a single top tier industry, not having to bother with any of the others. Is 0.9.1a going to fix this? I didn't see the answer looking through the patch notes.

Hmm - so I don't think that's a definition of "winning" that really makes sense long-term. If you can establish a reasonably secure heavy industry base like this, that seems... fine? Ultimately it's still being supplied from the outside and is subject to disruptions from that, especially as it grows bigger. Looking a bit into the future - credits would ideally be a key resource in projecting power, so just having a well-defended system like this would be a step, not an end-goal. And, the amount of credits something like this generates (as well as fleets, and everything else, really) is a point of balance.

For 0.9.1a specifically, what you've done would take longer and produce less income, so it'll probably feel better just due to that. But since there's ultimately no endgame at this point, well...

Finally, it's not technically free, you're paying upkeep for Heavy Industry, and in 0.9.1a, the colony's upkeep will be reduced based on how much of its demand is met in-faction.

To me it seems like this is because the economy is not real, just a hack.

Hard disagree! It's just a higher level of abstraction that I think works best for all the various things it needs to do, and it's quite clean. I get that you're not in agreement as far as the level of abstraction goes, but that's another point entirely. (And, as you're aware, I've tried various less abstracted versions several times.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: xor0 on February 06, 2019, 11:04:14 AM
OK, thanks for the reply. If you get to the point where nothing is a threat and you can kill everything, have infinite money, its as close to winning as anything I've seen. But yes, the real point (enjoyment) seems to be getting to this point (in ironman), and the game should be adjusted so that there are no easy shortcuts.

You're right my colony is kind of brittle, relying on the outside, but if I can keep it til the space station is maxed (one more upgrade) before it gets bigger and attracts faction fleets (currently only size 4, growing slowly) then I can add the money-making industries at leisure, cos it will be invincible to attack (already maxed patrols).

Reducing upkeep based on in-faction production seems like a good hack, though :)

I get that you're not interested in a resource-based economy, any chance that could be modded-in in the future?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 06, 2019, 11:16:56 AM
OK, thanks for the reply. If you get to the point where nothing is a threat and you can kill everything, have infinite money, its as close to winning as anything I've seen. But yes, the real point (enjoyment) seems to be getting to this point (in ironman), and the game should be adjusted so that there are no easy shortcuts.

Yeah, that's fair. The "infinite money" should be quite a bit lower btw (due to some core worlds having skilled admins and more of the market share).

You're right my colony is kind of brittle, relying on the outside, but if I can keep it til the space station is maxed (one more upgrade) before it gets bigger and attracts faction fleets (currently only size 4, growing slowly) then I can add the money-making industries at leisure, cos it will be invincible to attack (already maxed patrols).

Those industries will also be limited in number based on colony size, per the patch notes - hopefully helping keep the income in check for longer.

Reducing upkeep based on in-faction production seems like a good hack, though :)

I see what you did here :)

I get that you're not interested in a resource-based economy, any chance that could be modded-in in the future?

It could be, though it'd have to be done carefully to play nice with the UI, and a lot of existing game systems (such as, say, fleet spawning, some missions, etc) tie into the economy, so it'd be a huge undertaking.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Blothorn on February 06, 2019, 05:06:07 PM
The one aspect of the economy that really challenges my suspension of disbelief is earning revenue on total production - upkeep, rather than net production--it seems weird that if I have a refinery and a mine producing just enough to feed the mine that I still get the same profit from ore exports that I would if I did not have the refinery. Reduced upkeep for in-faction sourcing provides an incentive for vertical integration but makes that even more implausible because the player explicitly double-profits from intermediate good production.

I would consider calculating the player factions' net imports/exports of each good and adding expenses/income based on those (probably incentivizing vertical integration with a spread between import/export prices)--it seems a lot more intuitive, although it could make it too hard to make a financially-viable colony at first.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on February 06, 2019, 10:00:21 PM
Will .9 mods be compatible with the new version (besides balance changes)?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Hazard on February 07, 2019, 12:22:49 AM
Alex, did you manage to put in a fix for the Coordinated Maneuvers/Electronic Warfare bug (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12271.0)?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 07, 2019, 09:54:33 AM
The one aspect of the economy that really challenges my suspension of disbelief is earning revenue on total production - upkeep, rather than net production--it seems weird that if I have a refinery and a mine producing just enough to feed the mine that I still get the same profit from ore exports that I would if I did not have the refinery. Reduced upkeep for in-faction sourcing provides an incentive for vertical integration but makes that even more implausible because the player explicitly double-profits from intermediate good production.

I would consider calculating the player factions' net imports/exports of each good and adding expenses/income based on those (probably incentivizing vertical integration with a spread between import/export prices)--it seems a lot more intuitive, although it could make it too hard to make a financially-viable colony at first.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but "not caring about that" is specifically what makes the economy work. Trying to figure out some sort of "net" production etc would not work out because it doesn't make sense as a concept given how the rest of it works - so it'd either mean reworking the entire thing, or it'd be hacky and probably exploitable in weird ways.


Will .9 mods be compatible with the new version (besides balance changes)?

Should be, unless I have to break something between now and the release. Trying to avoid that, of course.

Alex, did you manage to put in a fix for the Coordinated Maneuvers/Electronic Warfare bug (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12271.0)?

It's on my list of things to look at.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on February 07, 2019, 11:46:28 AM
The one aspect of the economy that really challenges my suspension of disbelief is earning revenue on total production - upkeep, rather than net production--it seems weird that if I have a refinery and a mine producing just enough to feed the mine that I still get the same profit from ore exports that I would if I did not have the refinery. Reduced upkeep for in-faction sourcing provides an incentive for vertical integration but makes that even more implausible because the player explicitly double-profits from intermediate good production.

I would consider calculating the player factions' net imports/exports of each good and adding expenses/income based on those (probably incentivizing vertical integration with a spread between import/export prices)--it seems a lot more intuitive, although it could make it too hard to make a financially-viable colony at first.

TLDR; Starsector's abstract treatment of supply/demand is in many ways more realistic than economy simulators that count units of production.


The weird thing about the economy is that, while it is heavily abstracted, in this manner it is a lot more life like than most 'economy' simulator type games. The idea that industry has some fixed output production level that it makes at all times is at odds with how real world industry works. A rigid supply base operating at 100% capacity is efficient, but very bad.

As an example, take mining or factory output. In almost all cases, the amount being output is the amount that the mine or factory can secure a buyer for, up to a maximum set by the infrastructure present. When demand is especially high workers are called in to work overtime (or more are hired), the plant is run 24 hours a day, etc. But when demand is lower, the opposite happens. When demand is consistently high, the company may invest in infrastructure to increase their maximum possible output, but this carries a large risk as if demand lowers again than the money is 'wasted'.

The demand for components in one industry is almost never static, but goes through upswings and downswings. And if your suppliers are running at flat out 100% capacity, then they cannot expand production in short order to fulfill unexpected needs. So in practice, suppliers will have some amount of excess capacity in a good functioning system. Not only that, but in order to secure themselves against unexpected crises in the supply chain, consuming companies will spread their contracts around to different suppliers (and also if you have multiple competing suppliers, they will offer you lower prices). Those suppliers of course lose some money on excess capacity so will take outside contracts if they can find them.

This comes back around to the SS setting: say you have a heavy industry requiring 4 metals. This is saying that it needs suppliers that can operate at 10^4 scale, whatever that may be. Those suppliers though aren't going to be giving 100% of their output to the industry though - they will have excess capacity to deal with spikes in demand, and when those spikes aren't present they will export to others, if they can get buyers (accessibility).

Here's an example from recent real world: Apple tried to move the domestic assembly of one of their computers from China to Texas a decade or so back. They ran into a problem when they suddenly needed an order of 16000 custom made screws - the local machine shop companies in Texas could not fill a sudden order of that size, so Apple's operations were disrupted until they could secure a supply. This is an example where the local supply size could usually fulfill demand of the company, but was not of sufficient scale to fulfill a spike. In SS terms, this would be a industry requiring say 4 units of something, but only having a supply of 3: it still has output, just limited by problems. Meanwhile, the machine shops in Texas were still exporting goods to others, despite not being able to fill that large spike order - in SS, the 3 output mining or whatever is still making money.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Hazard on February 07, 2019, 12:07:22 PM
It's on my list of things to look at.

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice you had already replied in that thread. Good to hear.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on February 07, 2019, 05:25:40 PM
@ Thaago: Thanks for the interesting perspective, that was a good read!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on February 07, 2019, 08:22:35 PM
@ Thaago: Thanks for the interesting perspective, that was a good read!

^_^

Glad it was enjoyable!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on February 08, 2019, 01:42:44 AM
  • Music will no longer switch to another track when passing near a star system, actually entering it is required

Ah, that reminds me, I've had a small beef with the game for a while now. It really bothers me that when exploring derelicts or planets, the music stops. This is specially noticeable when running custom music, while exploring the songs will constantly stop and resume. I understand when vising markets that have their own music but I really don't know why this is the case for places that have no music at all such as most unexplored landmarks.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DrakonST on February 08, 2019, 09:54:08 AM
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/es8RAn6.png)
[close]
Whether will be fixed situation when in battle with large count of enemy fleets enemy try to attack you forces when they not have any combat ship and they trying atack with tankers and freighters, and in this atack they very fast go to retreat.

And after retreat they again try to atack.

It very much irritates.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 08, 2019, 09:59:29 AM
This is fixed, per the patch notes:

Quote
Fixed issue with large fleets full of civilian ships ordering a full retreat shortly after starting a battle
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: DrakonST on February 08, 2019, 10:37:53 AM
This is fixed, per the patch notes:

Quote
Fixed issue with large fleets full of civilian ships ordering a full retreat shortly after starting a battle
And they still want to attacking player?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on February 08, 2019, 10:42:30 AM
This is fixed, per the patch notes:

Quote
Fixed issue with large fleets full of civilian ships ordering a full retreat shortly after starting a battle
And they still want to attacking player?
Of course they don't want to attack the player.  But the same "fleet's too large, can't cleanly disengage" rules apply to them, so they don't get a choice.  ...Though, in this case, perhaps it should still be possible for the player to say "Eh, I don't care, let them run regardless".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 08, 2019, 11:16:41 AM
Right. It's worth keeping in mind that this will be much more rare with the changes to fleet spawning, so I think it'll move from "annoying" to "entertaining change of pace", especially considering that when civ ships are the only ones on the field, they act like normal combat ships, i.e. no keep-away etc.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Morbo513 on February 08, 2019, 01:06:58 PM
Really liking the escort behaviour shown off in them twitter posts, it's kinda like what I was getting at with my old formations suggestion but more organic. I'd still love a way to micromanage the ships escorting my own when that's the case, but this looks to be a definite step up.
I am curious to see how the escorts behave when the group is outnumbered and outgunned.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: RedHellion on February 08, 2019, 01:23:06 PM
Really liking the escort behaviour shown off in them twitter posts, it's kinda like what I was getting at with my old formations suggestion but more organic. I'd still love a way to micromanage the ships escorting my own when that's the case, but this looks to be a definite step up.
I am curious to see how the escorts behave when the group is outnumbered and outgunned.

I'm also really liking this. Hopefully this ties in nicely with carriers no longer getting pushed out of escort slots into bull-rushing the enemy, and means that escort ships will aimlessly sit behind the ship they're escorting - or float directly in front of it while it's firing at an enemy - less often.

Now, adding different/selectable escort behaviour to ships (either as a command or during ship refit) to differentiate between true "escort ships" (ward off flankers, provide fighter/artillery support, etc) and "task force members" (tied to the escorted ship's targeting/engagement behaviour so that they work together as a group to attack) would be an amazing addition :P I've been hoping for the ability to form in-combat task forces that act as a coherent group (and can be escorted, escort, or given commands as a group) for a while, either as a separate "create task force" command or part of the existing "escort" framework!

The systems are getting much better as-is so it's not like I necessarily consider the escort system and automatic AI ship/fleet tasking lacking where it is right now, but it would be a nice addition to force complementary ships to work together as a unit rather than just assigning them all as escorts and hoping the escorts don't just sit on the defensive. And I don't feel like it would turn combat too micromanagement-heavy or too much like a strategy game, since the task force would still be under AI control. Just another way of directing the AI gently, like the current set of orders does.

EDIT: I also feel like this should be in "Suggestions", but I already posted it here so...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Morbo513 on February 08, 2019, 02:45:27 PM
"task force members" (tied to the escorted ship's targeting/engagement behaviour so that they work together as a group to attack)
This
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zaskow on February 09, 2019, 12:25:16 AM
Can we expect the autocombat option when fighting defense of survey ships/abandoned stations?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: borgrel on February 09, 2019, 02:26:38 AM
...Can we queue upgrades from the get go, so that there's no need to go back to the colony if all you want is just a Star Fortress?

No - it's just not set up that way, so it'd be a significant pain to add UI-wise. You'd also be tying down a large number of credits for no benefit (as you also do with a queue), so I think a queue is part "useful feature" and part "it's there because you'd expect it to be there, but not necessarily because it's super useful".

Maybe make the queue only 'hold' money for the next upcoming project? since build times are now much slower, when project 2 starts the player can get a colony intel warning "insufficient funds for next order" (if needed) and have 60+ days to fix it with a count down they can look whenever they want (and maybe a 'transfer funds' button to end warning when they feel they have enough extra money for their personal account.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Dalek Ix on February 09, 2019, 03:10:03 PM
  • Added Prometheus Mk.II to Pather fleets
  • Added Atlas Mk.II to pirate fleets

I am very curious about these two ships, because until now Pirates and Pathers had a severe lack of capital ships bigger than the converted Colossus freighters.

In fact, will we be seeing more converted ships in the future? And will there be a mechanism for turning things like Buffalo, Colossus and Tarsus freighters into Buffalo Mk. IIs, Colossus Mk. IIs/IIIs and Condors?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 09, 2019, 09:43:30 PM
Really liking the escort behaviour shown off in them twitter posts, it's kinda like what I was getting at with my old formations suggestion but more organic. I'd still love a way to micromanage the ships escorting my own when that's the case, but this looks to be a definite step up.
I am curious to see how the escorts behave when the group is outnumbered and outgunned.

One of the gifs on twitter shows some of that - an Omen warding off a bunch of frigates. I think overall it'll depend on the specific ships involved and how they all match up; in some cases it'll work well and in some cases probably less so.

Now, adding different/selectable escort behaviour to ships (either as a command or during ship refit) to differentiate between true "escort ships" (ward off flankers, provide fighter/artillery support, etc) and "task force members" (tied to the escorted ship's targeting/engagement behaviour so that they work together as a group to attack) would be an amazing addition :P

I think to a degree it's the same thing - i.e. escorting ships will help out vs primary targets situationally, and start warding off etc when there are flankers. But in my mind that's not exactly the same as a task force, where you'd assume multiple ships of the same size would probably work well together, while escort I think works a lot better when the escorting ships are smaller (and faster) or at least considerably faster.

Can we expect the autocombat option when fighting defense of survey ships/abandoned stations?

I don't think so; I'm not a fan of how autoresolve works out as far as what it does to the game. If, let's say, the goal was to prevent the player from having to fight those battles beyond a certain point, I would prefer a different solution that removes those battles entirely.

(I've got half a mind to remove autoresolved pursuits, either, since those get weird in terms of results/incentives/etc, but I don't think I'll touch it for the .1 release, in any case. It's not great but it's also fairly benign.)

Maybe make the queue only 'hold' money for the next upcoming project? since build times are now much slower, when project 2 starts the player can get a colony intel warning "insufficient funds for next order" (if needed) and have 60+ days to fix it with a count down they can look whenever they want (and maybe a 'transfer funds' button to end warning when they feel they have enough extra money for their personal account.

I see what you're saying, I think, but I'd rather keep it simple.


I am very curious about these two ships, because until now Pirates and Pathers had a severe lack of capital ships bigger than the converted Colossus freighters.

https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1091076592980426753

Welcome to the forum, btw!

In fact, will we be seeing more converted ships in the future?

Maybe? Depends on what becomes necessary; e.g. the change to fleet spawning that uses more large ships in larger fleets necessitated adding these two.

And will there be a mechanism for turning things like Buffalo, Colossus and Tarsus freighters into Buffalo Mk. IIs, Colossus Mk. IIs/IIIs and Condors?

Almost certainly not. These have been retconned into being hacks of the base blueprints, rather than post-hull-production modifications, though the backstory ought to remain flexible enough to allow for both as the situation demands. But I don't really see adding this as a player-facing mechanic, while potentially cool, it also seems needlessly complicated - that is, it's not solving any particular design problem.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zaskow on February 10, 2019, 01:40:28 AM
I don't think so; I'm not a fan of how autoresolve works out as far as what it does to the game. If, let's say, the goal was to prevent the player from having to fight those battles beyond a certain point, I would prefer a different solution that removes those battles entirely.

(I've got half a mind to remove autoresolved pursuits, either, since those get weird in terms of results/incentives/etc, but I don't think I'll touch it for the .1 release, in any case. It's not great but it's also fairly benign.)

Mm, what? So, you prefer players having easy and boring combats over and over again which only consume time? That's why I refrain from inspect survey ships at some point.
Autoresolve works fine, imao. I've never get weird results when decided to use it. At least when I have far superior fleet. If I get lesser reward, it's fine anyway, because I've saved time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 10, 2019, 08:04:12 AM
Re: Autoresolve
For a moment, I thought Alex meant colony patrols auto-resolving expeditions/invasions, not player fleet auto-resolving pursuit.  Colony defenses automatically killing invaders is good because player already needs to spend too much time traveling and play whack-a-mole with pirate and pather bases in a burning sector, and failure to do so means colonies (yours or core worlds) get disrupted or even decivilized.  Colonies with heavy industries getting whacked by pirates or pathers interferes with blueprint raids (because I cannot raid without sending stability to zero and risking decivilization).

As for auto-resolving pursuit...

I think I have auto-resolved every fight that allowed it except maybe one or two in 0.9a.  I do not bother with manual pursuits because 1) they take much more time to resolve than clicking for auto-resolve, 2) I risk casualties if I fight without auto-resolve, and 3) some enemies will escape if there are too many, and auto-resolve will probably score more kills.

The problems I can think of regarding auto-pursuit are:
* Anything works, even badly armed clunkers or civilians.  I frequently deploy utility ships like Colossus 3 and Shepherds against everything, and they work.
* Because anything works, you only need one burn 11 frigate to enable pursuit against everything.
* Combined with limited fleet slots and peak performance in big battles, frigates for normal battling become obsolete after early game.

However, before I am willing to bring more frigates and destroyers in my cramped 30 slot fleet, player needs to be able to select all eligible ships that can be recovered (even if player cannot take them all), and discard-and-draw ships if they are more desirable than one in the fleet.  There were times I would be willing to discard a pristine ship to recover a more valuable ship.

Of course, if 0.9.1a replaces 100+ ship fleets with 30 capital fleets, I might stick with my mostly capital-and-cruiser fleet today.  I like to be able to match the enemy, even if it is difficult (as long as it is possible).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 10, 2019, 08:22:39 AM
I don't think so; I'm not a fan of how autoresolve works out as far as what it does to the game. If, let's say, the goal was to prevent the player from having to fight those battles beyond a certain point, I would prefer a different solution that removes those battles entirely.

Mm, what? So, you prefer players having easy and boring combats over and over again which only consume time? That's why I refrain from inspect survey ships at some point.

Bolded relevant part of my answer. To reiterate, if I felt this was an issue in this case - and I do see what you're saying, but I think having only a probability of defenders, combined with their strength growing, mostly takes care of it - I would prefer removing those battles entirely past a certain point, rather than making them autoresolvable.

There's also a bug where, when fighting a bunch of these defenses, a lone enemy frigate can wander off on the map somewhere and be a pain to track down; this should be fixed for the next release. I think this may also be coloring your perception of these fights, since it can make them drag on quite a bit.

As for auto-resolving pursuit...

I think I have auto-resolved every fight that allowed it except maybe one or two in 0.9a.  I do not bother with manual pursuits because 1) they take much more time to resolve than clicking for auto-resolve, 2) I risk casualties if I fight without auto-resolve, and 3) some enemies will escape if there are too many, and auto-resolve will probably score more kills.

The problems I can think of regarding auto-pursuit are:
* Anything works, even badly armed clunkers or civilians.  I frequently deploy utility ships like Colossus 3 and Shepherds against everything, and they work.
* Because anything works, you only need one burn 11 frigate to enable pursuit against everything.
* Combined with limited fleet slots and peak performance in big battles, frigates for normal battling become obsolete after early game.

Yep, I think that sums it up nicely.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 10, 2019, 08:44:10 AM
If officers and admins can be renamed, I like to rename my character too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 10, 2019, 08:52:26 AM
If officers and admins can be renamed, I like to rename my character too.

Way ahead of you :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Ali on February 10, 2019, 11:13:08 AM
Is there any chance for a "metal sink" in the future if there isn't already? Being able to look at other markets to see where there's a demand is great but my metal stockpiles build up faster than i can fidn places to sell at a profit?

Are there any plans for more;

- planatary conditions ( more positive one's ) there's a lot of negative one's but few positive's?
- special items ( synchotron & nanoforge are great / cool ) will we see more we can use with our colonies?
- industries / structures - will we see more of these? & upgrades for each!  ;D
- any plans to add more skills to fill out the skill tree's?  any chance some sort of bonus will return for putting a point in the core stats instead of it just being a gateway to putting points into the next tier  :-\  is bit underwealming to gain a level than not get anything from it if your using your point to access the next tier  :-[

many thanks for keeping the updates / content coming!!  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 10, 2019, 11:32:19 AM
Is there any chance for a "metal sink" in the future if there isn't already? Being able to look at other markets to see where there's a demand is great but my metal stockpiles build up faster than i can fidn places to sell at a profit?

Maybe; not specifically looking to add something to do with metals, but if something were to come up that would neatly fit in here, I'm not opposed to doing that, either.

Are there any plans for more;

- planatary conditions ( more positive one's ) there's a lot of negative one's but few positive's?
- special items ( synchotron & nanoforge are great / cool ) will we see more we can use with our colonies?
- industries / structures - will we see more of these? & upgrades for each!  ;D
- any plans to add more skills to fill out the skill tree's?  any chance some sort of bonus will return for putting a point in the core stats instead of it just being a gateway to putting points into the next tier  :-\  is bit underwealming to gain a level than not get anything from it if your using your point to access the next tier  :-[

Nothing I would call "plans", no. As far as skills specifically, I've got some ideas about some adjustments to make, but not quite ready to talk about it, or 100% decided on it!

many thanks for keeping the updates / content coming!!  ;D

Thanks for your support :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Okaenia on February 11, 2019, 02:02:10 AM
Speaking of officers, can you make an option where they die when their ship explode? I hate it when they're the only survivor of the entire crew. Captains should go down with their ship, not flee in an escape pod.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: cjy4312 on February 11, 2019, 09:05:07 AM
Changes as of January 31, 2019
  • Fixed issue where torpedoes and other AoE projectiles hitting a station's shield could damage other modules technically behind the shield.

How about the same issue with EMP system?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on February 11, 2019, 09:19:27 AM
Speaking of officers, can you make an option where they die when their ship explode? I hate it when they're the only survivor of the entire crew. Captains should go down with their ship, not flee in an escape pod.
There's at least one mod that added that behavior.  It was terrible.  Ship AI is pretty good these days, but it still occasionally derps and gets itself killed for no good reason; that's only really tolerable when you can restore the ship after the fact.  Good, high-level officers are not easy to acquire; losing one would be a reload-the-game situation for me.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 11, 2019, 09:56:25 AM
Same here as Wyvern.  I would reload the game if an officer is lost.  I place Reinforced Bulkheads on all ships without officers so I do not reload the game as soon as I lose a ship.  (The few ships that cannot spare OP for Reinforced Bulkheads either get an officer or do not get used at all.)

Nexerelin features (or featured) officer death, and I reloaded a save the instant that happened.  (I think I might have turned them off after I saw officer death.)

I would only tolerate losing officers if losing my character or fleet resulted in "GAME OVER" instead of wipe-and-respawn.  In other words, I chose to play game with permadeath option, which Starsector does not have.  (Iron Man is not it.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SapphireSage on February 11, 2019, 10:27:06 AM
Agree with above, if it is implemented I would like it as an option defaulted to off.

Nexerelin does have it as a (requested tbf) feature and I generally always turn it off. There was one point in a pre-0.9 patch where I had updated Nexerelin and forgot to adjust the rules back to disallow officer death and lost a level 20 cruiser because it derped into an enemy ball for a fleet that otherwise would've been an easy mop up after a couple hours of play. If it was just the cruiser I could've easily replaced the cruiser, but grinding good level 20 officers are a major pain.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on February 11, 2019, 08:32:03 PM
I agree with Wyvern but I wouldn't mind the option for those that want it. Maybe a toggle in the settings file?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Okaenia on February 12, 2019, 04:59:26 AM
Yeah, when I asked it as an option I thought about a toggle in the settings. I only play on Iron Mode and I delete the save whenever my fleet get wiped, I guess it's kinda extreme lol.

I had no idea Nexerelin had it as I play without mods.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: xor0 on February 14, 2019, 07:11:59 PM
An intermediate option could be for officers to lose some skills upon losing their ship.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zelnik on February 16, 2019, 02:32:48 PM
how long are we going to wait for this hotfix?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 16, 2019, 03:29:41 PM
It's not a hotfix, and "until it's ready(tm)" :) (I do get that it's been a bit; I'd like to get it out asap, but it's just a lot of stuff.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Aethelric on February 16, 2019, 03:38:50 PM
Officer death would be more tolerable if you weren't always pretty limited on officer count (even with skills). If you could have, say, six or seven officers at base level, occasionally having one top-tier character die due to a stupid decision would be more tolerable because you'd probably have some at-or-near level 20 officers to move into their place and could pick up a new one to train up on smaller vessels. Granted, I'd be fine with officer death with the current system. As it stands, the power curve in this game for competent players gets to "basically unbeatable except by high-level [REDACTED]" within a cycle or two at most. Officer death way to keep the player's effectiveness down without the more blunt tools of economics would be welcome imo.

As for everyone's "I'd just save scum"—that's a personal choice you're making that makes the game less challenging and interesting. If Alex were to balance around things that frustrated certain players enough to make them save scum, the whole game would suffer.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 16, 2019, 04:16:53 PM
Quote
As for everyone's "I'd just save scum"—that's a personal choice you're making that makes the game less challenging and interesting. If Alex were to balance around things that frustrated certain players enough to make them save scum, the whole game would suffer.
I disagree with less challenging and interesting.  I call it "saving time" and "anti-frustration".  If it is faster for me to reload the game and try again than it is to recover from the loss, I reload.  Same reasoning why players in roguelikes commit suicide and rebuild than try to recover a crippled character by grinding for rare items that can restore lost stats.

Leveling up an officer to max takes significant time, probably more time than grinding for most ships and weapons.  If it is a choice of spending hours to get a replacement versus a few minutes to reload and try again, I take the faster option.  This is why I love the combination of Reinforced Bulkheads with guaranteed loadout recovery.  Before, I reloaded the game anytime I lost rare stuff, which was everything that could not be found in Open Market.  Now, as long as the fleet does not wipe, I usually continue play.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Aethelric on February 16, 2019, 06:29:15 PM
The game is objectively less challenging if every loss or mistake is wiped away by a reload. I certainly save-scum myself sometimes when something really wonky or buggy happens, to be sure, but the effect on the difficulty and power curve is obvious. Your roguelike analogy actually reinforces my point, in my opinion: it'd be one thing to reset a crippled, unwinnable game, but simply save-scumming in that same scenario would obviously defeat the whole purpose of a roguelike! Ditto for Starsector and "the way it's meant to be played".

Reloading every time you encounter any setback of any note is basically just playing with cheat codes on. Asking Alex then not to develop new features for players who want the intended experience because you'll save-scum is, therefore, a bit silly imo.

But, like everyone has said: officer death could easily be just a part of the "iron man" mode or just simply a tickable option, leaving players who don't want that additional level of difficulty out of the equation.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on February 16, 2019, 11:08:01 PM
I disagree with the idea that save scumming inherently makes the game less challenging. The campaign layer of the game is certainly less challenging if you are save scumming, but the combat layer is not necessarily. In fact, you can argue that save scumming allows you to take much more difficult fights in the combat layer that you would never take without save scumming because there is no reason in the campaign layer to take risks. One main difference between this game and a roguelike is that there are no campaign layer requirements in this game, so the player never has to take any risks. In a roguelike, you always have to go to the next floor, and eventually the final boss, so you are forced to take risks in order to become strong enough to beat the game. In starsector, there is no final boss, and there are no required challenges, so there is no reason to take risks. Eventually you will reach the same power level regardless of how risky you play. This ties into another difference between starsector and typical roguelikes: game length. Losing a roguelike means losing a 1-2 hour run. Fleet wiping in starsector can mean losing (IRL) days of gameplay. Most people don't have time for that sort of gameplay loop, so they are incentivized to not take risks, unless they can save scum. Then there is the question of scumming for rare items with very low drop chances. The game is not 'more challenging' if you have to grind for something, it's just more boring.

Viewing officers in this light, I agree with Megas. It is not particularly challenging to get an officer to a high level, it just takes a long time. Taking dangerous combats does not make your officers any better (you could reach the same point by taking easy combats), so there is no incentive to take dangerous fights. In fact I am disincentivized to take dangerous fights (which are fun) because I might lose my officers, so officer death is actually dis-incentivizing fun gameplay in favor of boring but safe gameplay.

IMO this game really needs more reasons to take dangerous fights, rather than more reasons to NOT take dangerous fights. Designing the game to minimize grindy/boring gameplay (that would cause save scumming) is a good thing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on February 17, 2019, 12:18:00 AM
I disagree with the idea that save scumming inherently makes the game less challenging. The campaign layer of the game is certainly less challenging if you are save scumming, but the combat layer is not necessarily. In fact, you can argue that save scumming allows you to take much more difficult fights in the combat layer that you would never take without save scumming because there is no reason in the campaign layer to take risks.

I strongly agree with this. The main reason why I've been playing this game for a good 4-5 years now and never attempted a real Iron Man run is because the ultra safe playstyle is just not interesting for me.

That said,

Asking Alex then not to develop new features for players who want the intended experience because you'll save-scum is, therefore, a bit silly imo.

This is a fair assessment, though I'm not sure if that's what's happening here.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 17, 2019, 11:34:56 AM
Re: Roguelikes
Not all are coffeebreak games like Rogue or DoomRL/DRL.  Angband is one that can take days to win unless player tries to speedrun.  Before the latest maintainer took over, Angband had an attack type call Nexus, which had a chance to permanently scramble characters' stats.  Against early-to-mid game characters, swapping prime stats with dump stats was very crippling to the point that (according to forum consensus) it was much faster to suicide the character and play a new game than it was to grind for stat potions while struggling with terrible offensives stats (warriors are feeble, casters fail spells too much or have no mana).  Eventually, that effect was changed to a temporary debuff, if it is still in the game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on February 18, 2019, 09:31:11 AM
As someone who does play ironman games occasionally: I take more risks and try bigger fights when I can reload.

I wouldn't even call it savescumming: I see a big fight that I know I can avoid if I want, save the game, and try a half dozen times to see if I can beat it. If I can, great! If not, I just load the save and go on my way. Savescumming to me would be if I wanted a particular ship to be boardable, etc, not just trying to figure out the tactics to win a fight.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Aethelric on February 18, 2019, 03:21:30 PM
Attempting something more challenging without the risk of loss doesn't make the game itself more challenging, imo. If the only outcomes of the more challenging fight are "I reload and then try again or avoid the fight" and "I win and get more bounty/loot/etc. than I would have otherwise", the broader game hasn't become more challenging. The only possible path for your character is steadily onwards and upwards if you're going to save-scum every setback. Sure, you're almost guaranteed to eventually get there if you keep trying, but a game "story" that involves some setbacks represents more challenge imo.

I guess it depends on whether you consider the game to be "a campaign map that gets you from battle to battle" or not. I like the campaign layer just as much as the battle layer, personally, so maybe I have a different perspective than others. I do agree that the campaign layer could be made to push characters more towards risks, as you're rarely "forced" into battles where you're sure to lose something once you have the map mobility skills (unless you're defending a colony, I guess) to dictate if a battle happens. Having greater operating costs or some other economic pressure would be a decent push in the direction of giving the player a sense of urgency, and either toning down player mobility or otherwise giving enemy fleets even a chance to entrap you, would be a great direction for the game. The "super hard mode" start that Alex has added seems to be something that gets more in that direction, even if it just makes the early game more challenging.

Megas: I don't think Starsector is a roguelike or should be played like one. You were the one who brought up roguelikes! I'm thinking more "iron man" in the sense of XCOM, which I believe is what Alex also intends—the game isn't meant to be started and restarted constantly (although a game can get really screwed up to the point where you restart) even if the game contains some random generation on start, but you're also meant to take some consequences and setbacks on your path to victory. The effect of actually feeling some losses makes for better challenge in both layers and makes for a more interesting storyline for your save.

EDIT: I also find it interesting that we've both had the game about as long, Megas! I assume we've both played every release, although you seem to have gotten much more into posting than I have. It's interesting to talk to someone with such different takes on the game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 19, 2019, 04:02:50 PM
The point of bringing up Roguelikes was to show some of the similarities between them and Starsector.  Starsector may not be a Roguelike, but there are similarities with seemingly random stuff (loot and map) and the murderhobo loop (kill enemies, take loot, level up) that most RPGs use to measure progress and rely on for the core gameplay.

All I care about when I play the game is to be amused, and I am most amused when I can overwhelm and totally destroy the enemy, not when I struggle and win by the skin of my teeth.  I get people like to be challenged and win a hard fight, but I am not one of them.  That said, there may be limits.  I do not want to play 0.9a anymore because I cannot resist exploiting the infinite money bug with Commerce.

Quote
but you're also meant to take some consequences and setbacks on your path to victory.
With reloading available, there is no need for that if I do not want to deal with it.  I have no problem abusing reloads.  However, given some of the anti-frustration features added in 0.9, I reload significantly less than in previous versions.

I started Starsector on the last 0.5 release that did not have skills.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on February 19, 2019, 04:30:07 PM
I have relatively little problem with consequences and setbacks.  What I do have a problem with, and will save-scum to avoid, is a significant loss of resources for no good reason.

If I lose a ship because I tried to under-deploy by too much and was just overwhelmed in the time it took me to figure out I'd goofed and get backup onto the field?  Okay, that's on me, I'll deal with it.

If I lose a ship because the AI did something utterly bone-headed, like charging up to fire flak cannons at an Onslaught?  Well, okay, if that was an aggressive or reckless officer, that's still on me - but otherwise, yeah, I'm perfectly happy to reload that and try again.

The game has been consistently moving in the direction of making losing a ship a -less- significant loss of resources; adding officer perma-death would be an enormous step backwards.  If you want something like that, I would instead suggest an officer injury system, akin to ships getting d-mods; we know from the Red Planet missions that injuries - even significant ones - can be reconstructed, given time and funds, and that the quality of reconstruction can vary.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 19, 2019, 06:29:40 PM
Re: Officers...
Just knock them (the officers) out for a few days or when player docks at a market.  Kind of like Adama (in original BSG) getting moved to medical after a Cylon or two rams the Galactica and damage the bridge (and set fires to cut off the rec room where Boomer, Athena, Boxy, and Muffit are).  Or games where characters get knocked-out instead of killed when they hit 0 hp until they get healing after combat.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Embercloud on February 20, 2019, 12:18:26 AM
It's not a hotfix, and "until it's ready(tm)" :) (I do get that it's been a bit; I'd like to get it out asap, but it's just a lot of stuff.)

No rush (please hurry  :D)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Okaenia on February 20, 2019, 07:36:35 AM
I wouldn't consider officer loss as a big setback, I think of them as a small stat boost for min-maxers. You don't really need them, in vanilla at least. I don't even recruit them anymore, because I find it unrealistic that they don't die with the other 200 crew of their ship. Just a big obsession.

That's why I asked it as an option. If you don't like it, don't use it; just like iron mode, or the hidden start.
Maybe I'm asking too many ressources for something unsignificant. I don't know how hard it is or how long it would take to implement.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on February 20, 2019, 10:45:25 AM
I wouldn't consider officer loss as a big setback, I think of them as a small stat boost for min-maxers. You don't really need them, in vanilla at least. I don't even recruit them anymore, because I find it unrealistic that they don't die with the other 200 crew of their ship. Just a big obsession.
This is what really gets me.  Min-maxers seem to be dominating every aspect of balance and design in this game, which really shouldn't be happening.  Some things are meant to be better than other things, I mean there's a Buffalo Mk.II for that reason.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 20, 2019, 12:08:52 PM
I missed option part, and thought it would be request for new default.

As for officers, I find them most useful for the combo with Fleet Logistics 1.  No need to dump a significant chunk of OP for Reinforced Bulkheads on ships with my character or an officer.  High level officers are powerful (especially carrier officer on Astral or armor tank officer for Doom), but having more than I can use is not much help.  Cannot deploy many big ships with a small enough map size.

After the release, I think I will probably play the next game on default size of 300 instead of the max of 500, or try to.  I would not want to go lower.  200 is torture, basically reducing all fighting to a series of Star Control style duels.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on February 20, 2019, 07:35:44 PM
This is what really gets me.  Min-maxers seem to be dominating every aspect of balance and design in this game, which really shouldn't be happening.  Some things are meant to be better than other things, I mean there's a Buffalo Mk.II for that reason.
The Buffalo Mk.II is unironically a really good missile-boat. With EMR it can carry up to 42 harpoons, 24 in the medium slot and 3x6 in the smalls, for 4 DP. It's the most cost-effective MRM platform in the game as long as you can keep it out of the front line.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 20, 2019, 08:09:47 PM
This thread is getting suuuuper off-topic, let's try to keep it to patch notes related stuff.

This is what really gets me.  Min-maxers seem to be dominating every aspect of balance and design in this game, which really shouldn't be happening.  Some things are meant to be better than other things, I mean there's a Buffalo Mk.II for that reason.

(Just had to chime in: as with all things, there is a balance. It's useful to think of min-maxing when you're doing design because that's what the game will naturally drive players to do. That doesn't mean all players will play that way, it just means they'll be incentivized to, and so overall will generally be more likely to. If we want a wider variety of playstyles to occur naturally, ideally they'd all be viable with a mini-maxed approach.

On the flipside, it is a single-player game, so we don't have to be as stringent about it as we would for a multi-player game. There, "viable" means "can compete vs the best". Here, "viable" can just mean "gets the job done and is fun to play". So, there's more leeway to do fun things.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on February 20, 2019, 08:22:43 PM
This is what really gets me.  Min-maxers seem to be dominating every aspect of balance and design in this game, which really shouldn't be happening.  Some things are meant to be better than other things, I mean there's a Buffalo Mk.II for that reason.
The Buffalo Mk.II is unironically a really good missile-boat. With EMR it can carry up to 42 harpoons, 24 in the medium slot and 3x6 in the smalls, for 4 DP. It's the most cost-effective MRM platform in the game as long as you can keep it out of the front line.
Not putting Converted Hangar Talons on it feels like loadout design crime. And Med Sabot + 3x Swarmers is much more deadly loadout than Harpoon spam (at least when controlled properly, which AI usually fails at).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: sqrt(-1) on February 20, 2019, 10:57:00 PM
Its good to see that the colonies have been nerfed a bit. I am surprised however that the rare item drop rate has not been lowered for low player levels.

I have made several runs to level 15 without colonies for testing purposes because I initially thought it was a mod issue.
After leveling to level 5 by attacking some core system pirates and purchasing some combat freighters, I have ended up consistently at level 10-15 with >250k credits and tons of AI cores plus blueprints after my first expedition to one or two constellations where a bounty was posted.

Consistently, it takes less than 60 minutes to be able to build a nearly endgame winning fleet!
Like many others mentioned before, I find the early game struggle, with a small fleet the most enjoyable part of the game by far.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 21, 2019, 06:02:17 AM
For me, a significant fraction of the "rare" stuff are either duplicate corrupted nanoforges or lots of pirate and pather packs.  I do find some useful rare items, but nowhere near everything I want when I need it.  Pristine nanoforge is a too rare find that I sometimes need to raid Chicomoztoc or Kazeron to get, and much of my endgame activity is raiding markets for missing blueprints.  By the time I get everything I want, my faction has been powerful enough to kill everyone many times over.  It would be nice to get the items before my faction gets that powerful.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: xor0 on February 21, 2019, 09:30:33 AM
I don't think drops need to be more common. I only played 2 full games, and in both of them I got a pristine nanoforge after exploring about a third of the sector. Corrupted ones are everywhere, can be sold for 400k. In one system I found 7 orbital stations, 4 of them in a single cluster. Right now it's just too easy to get overpowered in one exploration/big trade. Things need to be made harder, not easier. Or maybe it's time for difficulty levels, with drop chances one of the prime candidates for varying.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Shad on February 21, 2019, 09:45:00 AM
For me, a significant fraction of the "rare" stuff are either duplicate corrupted nanoforges
I did mention this before, but yeah, if you explore the sector (not even riding), you will end up with 30-40 corrupted nanoforges and synchrotron cores, and no real use for them. Selling them is pointless since money is not an issue once your colonies get running.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Blothorn on February 21, 2019, 10:18:37 AM
I do think that perhaps nanoforge/synchrotron prices could drop a bit--since they are never available on the market that doesn't make them too accessible, and their value to a colony is already far more than their worth (particularly for nanoforges). Decreasing their price would drive down exploration profits quite a bit, which I think is a good thing.

Similarly, even after the reduction in survey data prices, it is still very profitable for something you are likely to be doing anyway.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: WastedAlmond on February 22, 2019, 03:09:58 AM
Changes as of January 31, 2019
  • Maximum number of industries limited to a value based on colony size
    • From 1 at size 3 to 4 at size 8 and above

This could actually leave some room for customizing and adding flavor to colonies.

A case where this could be extra nice would be let us to spruce up our "capital worlds". Like settling on an otherwise excellent desert world with only poor farmland, the player could go to the a faction planet and buy (at an exorbitant price) a supporting structure schematic, like advanced hydroponics, which would augment the production of farms. Now this could be used to enhance the strong sides of certain colonies as well, with far less of a positive impact, but further specialization.

Another option would be to steer clear of industry enhancements and have most factions sell some specific support structures, that either slightly mitigate the effects of hazards or otherwise improve or specialize a planet. For example: tritachyon sells habitation shielding (heat), which would drop the hazard rating of a volcanic planet, but cap its population at 4 or 5 due to practical limitations on shielding a larger settlement.

This could also eventually provide long term industry goals, like limited terraforming in the form of solar shades or investing on larger projects.

These are just random ideas as I don't really know your goals for settlements, but maybe you can get some further ideas from this ramble :P

Thanks for all the hard work btw! SC is shaping up nicely. :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: manictiger on February 22, 2019, 08:20:47 AM
The addition of custom music to mods is going to be so fun to tinker with.

I wanted to put some hardcore industrial rave music in one of my faction's starbases for a laugh.  I imagine this relaxed feeling you get cruising around space and then you land at the base and it's just the hardest bassline ever.

The lore behind that would be that the entire station is basically a giant night-club littered with gun merchants, drug dealers, mercenaries, veterans and hackers.  If primal savagery could be a starbase, this would be it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on February 24, 2019, 09:29:18 AM
I do think that perhaps nanoforge/synchrotron prices could drop a bit--since they are never available on the market that doesn't make them too accessible, and their value to a colony is already far more than their worth (particularly for nanoforges). Decreasing their price would drive down exploration profits quite a bit, which I think is a good thing.
I'd just like to point out that this wouldn't do anything. From all the run-throughs I've had of 0.9, I have never sold a nanoforge or synchrotron and I've not once been short of money.

Making them rarer though would help to stop them from being something that's a must-have once, and then becomes vendor trash.
And by rarer I mean low single figures of each in the entire sector, so it's never a 'given' the player will have them like it is now. (Where you can have over a dozen of each.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Shad on February 24, 2019, 09:47:32 AM
I'd just like to point out that this wouldn't do anything. From all the run-throughs I've had of 0.9, I have never sold a nanoforge or synchrotron and I've not once been short of money.
^This.

The lore implies you have just found something amazing, a priceless piece of technology lost to the sector... and noone needs it. Your personal faction needs one of each, and that's it. Other factions don't care.

Quote
Making them rarer though would help to stop them from being something that's a must-have once, and then becomes vendor trash.
And by rarer I mean low single figures of each in the entire sector, so it's never a 'given' the player will have them like it is now. (Where you can have over a dozen of each.)

There really coupld to be something else to use nanoforges. Turning tem in to factions for permanent monthly relation boosts, or use them in other industries, or a way to boost your ship wih them.

For example, with Sylphon, you can upgrade their ship with an AI core to lower crew requirements. How about somthing like nanoforges being used to upgrade the ships autoforges for say, cheaper fighters/missiles. Or a synchrotron core being used to vastly improve fuel efficiency of a ship?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on February 24, 2019, 12:23:52 PM
The only time I sell nanoforges and synchrotrons is to fuel the infinite money bug with my colony's Commerce industry.  After that gets patched, they will probably sit in storage to rot in the slim chance I need them later.

I would not mind making corrupt nanoforges rarer if that means making better items like pristine nanoforges and elite blueprints more common, which are already too rare.  I can explore and dig up half the sector (with salvaging and tech mining) and not find a pristine nanoforge.

Quote
Making them rarer though would help to stop them from being something that's a must-have once, and then becomes vendor trash.
Too rare just makes them too annoying to find.  You still need or want them whether you find one or not.  Rather have too many than not enough.  Too few, and you simply raid core worlds for it, which is what I did for half the games for pristine nanoforge, due to it being too rare.  I rather find them early when I can make use of them after I build a colony, instead of too late after I effectively won the game.  That is big problem with colony production now, the game is practically over by the time I can build what I want.


For what it is worth, I never sold my survey data thinking that if I did that, whoever I sold it too would pop-up a colony at some class V world I want to colonize later.  For example, find a class V Terran I want to claim and sold the data to Hegemony?  About a month later, new Hegemony colony pops up at that planet.  Or if I claim it first, they send an extermination fleet to sat bomb my colony away.  Seeing that all of the data stack, I doubt they remember the location, and selling data is safe.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on February 25, 2019, 04:38:10 PM
I found 4 pristine nano-forges exploring in one campaign, so it is definitely very rng
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on February 27, 2019, 06:17:52 AM
Are there any plans to bring back the old "social" market conditions (Large Refugee Population, Luddic Majority, Urbanized Polity, Organized Crime, etc.)?
Asking because they don't seem to be used in vanilla any longer, but some mods still have them, and I'm wondering if we should set an official modding guideline "these are deprecated, don't use them".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 27, 2019, 08:57:49 AM
Are there any plans to bring back the old "social" market conditions (Large Refugee Population, Luddic Majority, Urbanized Polity, Organized Crime, etc.)?
Asking because they don't seem to be used in vanilla any longer, but some mods still have them, and I'm wondering if we should set an official modding guideline "these are deprecated, don't use them".

Nothing I would call *plans*, but it's in the back of my mind, so more than others. I don't see anything wrong in using them for flavor at the moment, though. In fact, I should probably re-enable some of these for the vanilla colonies, hmm. I'll take a look, in any case.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Steampunkgears on February 27, 2019, 10:29:22 PM
I found 4 pristine nano-forges exploring in one campaign, so it is definitely very rng

On my stream yesterday and the day before I found 2 pristine nano forges. People were jumping all over my chat about it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: From a Faster Time on February 28, 2019, 12:23:46 AM
I found 4 pristine nano-forges exploring in one campaign, so it is definitely very rng

On my stream yesterday and the day before I found 2 pristine nano forges. People were jumping all over my chat about it.
I have like 8 pristine nanoforges from cleaning up half of the galaxy
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on February 28, 2019, 06:37:05 AM
Is the plan for the 0.9.1 patch to be the last one before 1.0?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Singrana on February 28, 2019, 06:56:54 AM
in regards to the harbinger 3x chain atropos deleting everything in the game, i do feel it should keep a single synergy slot in the middle
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 28, 2019, 08:19:12 AM
Is the plan for the 0.9.1 patch to be the last one before 1.0?

If I had to say - probably not, but I'm not 100% decided. Will have to see exactly how post .9.1 development goes. (If you asked me about .9 before .9, I'd probably have said it would be 2 separate updates, but it turned out to be too intertwined for that.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on February 28, 2019, 08:48:31 AM
I can't imagine there's much left on the table. Maybe faction and character interactions, but after that, it's the big content update.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 28, 2019, 09:28:13 AM
There are one or two other things, but: "content" is really not to be underestimated! It's (perhaps surprisingly?) time-consuming, and it also takes a long time to test - both to verify everything works (including branching, if any) - and to playtest as far as it being fun, appropriately challenging, and so on.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zelnik on February 28, 2019, 05:10:25 PM
I still want a mission ship that would be unique to the character >.>
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on February 28, 2019, 05:21:14 PM
Hmm - the XIV Legion? Not exactly a mission ship, but still kind of fits the bill, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: TheDTYP on March 03, 2019, 02:12:02 PM
I apologize if this has already been asked, but do you plan on adding missions like the Red Planet in this update? As a lore nut, I loved that mission chain and I would love to see some more before the long wait for 1.0 or whatever comes after .9.1.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on March 03, 2019, 02:24:11 PM
That presumably will come in the big content update. Red Planet quest probably was just a rough implementation, to make sure it works.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 03, 2019, 02:37:03 PM
I apologize if this has already been asked, but do you plan on adding missions like the Red Planet in this update? As a lore nut, I loved that mission chain and I would love to see some more before the long wait for 1.0 or whatever comes after .9.1.

For .1, no, but beyond that, very likely yeah. I'm really happy with how that turned out - for being a fairly simple mission chain at that - and am super psyched about adding more.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Kulverstukass on March 05, 2019, 08:25:17 AM
Will we get fix/workaround about overlapping debris fields? Mb simple dialogue menu to choose from?
AI being tought that phased out ships cannot be hit and there is no need to waste limited ammo/cause friendly-fire, also fit enemy fighters?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on March 05, 2019, 10:52:08 AM
AI being tought that phased out ships cannot be hit and there is no need to waste limited ammo/cause friendly-fire, also fit enemy fighters?
Firing at phased ships is good for suppression (provided weapon is not too ammo limited).  I would not want to decloak inside a deadly stream of attacks if I can help it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Shad on March 05, 2019, 04:49:06 PM
Will we get fix/workaround about overlapping debris fields? Mb simple dialogue menu to choose from?
Further to that, can we make "permanent" debris fields disappear from the map once savlaged (or at least no longer treated as debris fields for salvage field overlap)?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on March 06, 2019, 06:49:04 PM
Will we get fix/workaround about overlapping debris fields? Mb simple dialogue menu to choose from?
Further to that, can we make "permanent" debris fields disappear from the map once savlaged (or at least no longer treated as debris fields for salvage field overlap)?
I would like stable debris to disappear after they get looted enough.  I had multiple permanent debris fields and nebula is one system that would be a good colony location.  I get slowdown that I normally would not get in most other systems (that normally have less stuff), and it would get much worse if I built up two size 10 colonies there and had frequent fighting between my patrols and enemy invasions.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on March 08, 2019, 01:21:34 PM
Further to that, can we make "permanent" debris fields disappear from the map once savlaged (or at least no longer treated as debris fields for salvage field overlap)?
Tbh, why do we even need to interact with any debris field more than once?
It just feels like clicking and dialog options for the sake of it.

For maximum streamlining, it would be amazing if a debris field was salvaged in its entirety on the first interaction (with appropriate costs) giving you all of whatever was in said field, then removing it from the game entirely.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on March 08, 2019, 01:40:10 PM
Tbh, why do we even need to interact with any debris field more than once?
It just feels like clicking and dialog options for the sake of it.

For maximum streamlining, it would be amazing if a debris field was salvaged in its entirety on the first interaction (with appropriate costs) giving you all of whatever was in said field, then removing it from the game entirely.
That is even better.  I get annoyed when I need to spam salvage six or seven times to suck every last rare drop dry.  The only reason why I can think of why things as they are is if player has a time limit (deadly Remnant fleets closing in fast and you do not have enough time to salvage field multiple times) or to control crew and machinery loss (you lose less if you salvage less).  Maybe better to have player spend a little time once, then loot everything.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Blothorn on March 08, 2019, 04:36:58 PM
The one reason I see to leave them is to allow the player to go back on a decision to only loot once. That said, since the game doesn't give you any help in tracking what you want to come back to, I think lingering debris fields are a strong disincentive to coming back to partially-looted systems--I can't remember what I left behind and spend half my time flying to already-exhausted fields.

I think I would be a lot happier with either binary loot or 2-3 options trading risk vs. salvage quantity, with any of the choices removing it from the map.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: xenoargh on March 13, 2019, 10:09:12 AM
I strongly agree with both of the above posts.  I don't mind going over a Debris field twice if the risk / reward feels meaningful, but usually, it ain't, and I totally want Debris fields to go away if I've already hit them twice.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on March 15, 2019, 06:34:11 AM
One or two people on Discord reported a bug where carriers (and possibly other ships) disregard rally/defend orders and stick close to the player flagship and/or other combat ships. Is this known/fixed?
(Example screenshot (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556106771685441548/unknown.png); the white circled ship died in the red circle)

EDIT: Couple more "ships treat orders as suggestions" screenshots from Friends19:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556108960927842324/screenshot287.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556109129928671242/screenshot260.png
Also escorting a retreating ship instead of defaulting to the defend order like I'd have expected: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556109305271812114/screenshot235.png

Unrelated: Is there a minimum value of cargo dropped before the cargo pods can distract pursuing enemies?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 15, 2019, 11:54:09 AM
One or two people on Discord reported a bug where carriers (and possibly other ships) disregard rally/defend orders and stick close to the player flagship and/or other combat ships. Is this known/fixed?
(Example screenshot (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556106771685441548/unknown.png); the white circled ship died in the red circle)

EDIT: Couple more "ships treat orders as suggestions" screenshots from Friends19:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556108960927842324/screenshot287.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556109129928671242/screenshot260.png
Also escorting a retreating ship instead of defaulting to the defend order like I'd have expected: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556109305271812114/screenshot235.png

It's hard to say for sure, but I seem to remember doing some stuff to improve/fix things for these, I *think* after the .9 release. IIRC I ran into both of these myself at some point, but I don't 100% remember exactly what I did. As always, if there's an easy-to-reproduce case, I'd love to take another look.

Unrelated: Is there a minimum value of cargo dropped before the cargo pods can distract pursuing enemies?

Yes - it depends on the enemy fleet. See com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.CargoPodsResponse for details.

(Since a natural follow-up might be that this is hidden from the player etc: in my mind, this is more of a "random neat thing that might happen" than "full-fledged mechanic". Not quite on the order of an easter egg, but almost in that direction.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: stg7 on March 15, 2019, 01:44:09 PM
If you were to be looting once, A slider would even suffice imo
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: StahnAileron on March 15, 2019, 06:44:45 PM
Alex, regarding the patch note about Stations and Officers:

I know planting an Alpha Core on a station is a pretty large benefit overall to a station and currently the only way to add an "officer" to a station for the player. (Until the next release.) With the change you're proposing, have you ever considered letting the player manually assign an officer from his active fleet to a station?

My thoughts on this would be that doing so would freeze the officer's growth (so no leveling up) while freeing up an officer slot in the fleet. The officer would still count against the player for payroll.

Actually, maybe even increase the payroll cost by some percentage. Managing a station and overseeing/organizing its defense can't be easy. Said officer would essentially be a fleet commander at this point.

And speaking of officers: will there be a better way to manage them? I currently have to open the fleet screen and then click on an officer box to access the officer management screen when I want to review/level my officers. Or am I missing an interface function to directly go to that screen? (Though that screen doubles as the officer assignment screen, which I sometimes dislike as I can easily and readily re-assign officers to ships accidently while trying to manage them.)

I feel like the player character and officer management screens should be integrated somehow. (I'm kinda biased towards your typical party management menu in RPGs and the like, where the player character is just another, if unique, party member.)

I also feel like I should be able to pick an officer and assign a ship to him/her, not just pick a ship and assign an officer. (i.e. I should be able to either match an officer to a ship or a ship to an officer.) This point is something minor, but I find myself more often wanting to give an officer a certain ship rather than give a ship a certain officer.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 15, 2019, 07:42:56 PM
I know planting an Alpha Core on a station is a pretty large benefit overall to a station and currently the only way to add an "officer" to a station for the player. (Until the next release.) With the change you're proposing, have you ever considered letting the player manually assign an officer from his active fleet to a station?

My thoughts on this would be that doing so would freeze the officer's growth (so no leveling up) while freeing up an officer slot in the fleet. The officer would still count against the player for payroll.

Actually, maybe even increase the payroll cost by some percentage. Managing a station and overseeing/organizing its defense can't be easy. Said officer would essentially be a fleet commander at this point.

This seems like it's more complicated than I really want to get for what role this plays in-game. And if you do that, then next up on the list is customizing station loadouts, and I just don't want to go there. Stations aren't balanced (or even really set up) around being player-fitted. Which to be fair isn't what you're asking! But I think it would flow very naturally from it, so best not to go down that road at all. Plus, being able to stick a level 20 officer on a station (which is equivalent to an Alpha Core) would go against the idea of an Alpha Core being an improvement. Basically, the idea is that cores - especially Alpha - should give you stuff you can't get otherwise.

And speaking of officers: will there be a better way to manage them? I currently have to open the fleet screen and then click on an officer box to access the officer management screen when I want to review/level my officers. Or am I missing an interface function to directly go to that screen? (Though that screen doubles as the officer assignment screen, which I sometimes dislike as I can easily and readily re-assign officers to ships accidently while trying to manage them.)

I feel like the player character and officer management screens should be integrated somehow. (I'm kinda biased towards your typical party management menu in RPGs and the like, where the player character is just another, if unique, party member.)

I also feel like I should be able to pick an officer and assign a ship to him/her, not just pick a ship and assign an officer. (i.e. I should be able to either match an officer to a ship or a ship to an officer.) This point is something minor, but I find myself more often wanting to give an officer a certain ship rather than give a ship a certain officer.

I've got an item for looking at adding some form officer management to the character screen, but, yeah, it's a bit of a low priority, since everything is already functional and it's a bunch of UI work. If I were to do it, it would likely be around the same time as another pass over skills. We'll see!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on March 16, 2019, 09:21:06 AM
And if you do that, then next up on the list is customizing station loadouts, and I just don't want to go there. Stations aren't balanced (or even really set up) around being player-fitted.
I am seriously tempted to not learn the high-tech pack next time I play to force my high-tech station to use plasma cannon or tachyon lance (if I learn those weapons).  High-tech pack does not have much I want that midline pack does not offer - too many good high-tech stuff is not in the pack, but limited to elite blueprints.  In my first game, when tachyon lance was found before the high-tech pack, the station used lances and it was great.  After I learned the high-tech pack, my station refused to use anything other than autopulse regardless of priority settings.

For similar reasons, I do not learn pirate and either ludd packs to avoid corrupting my patrols with those hulls, even though pirate pack has one or two good hulls mixed in with the junk.

I would love a blacklist option to effectively forget blueprints (e.g., do not use if blueprint is marked with red X), and I would like stations to honor priorities as ships do.  It should be a bonus to learn blueprints, not a power-up letdown or poison mushroom that can ruin patrol composition or battlestation loadouts.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 16, 2019, 09:33:10 AM
I think I've mentioned it when it came up, but: that's a bug in autofit and is fixed for the .1 release.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: eamax on March 23, 2019, 07:34:02 AM
EDIT: Couple more "ships treat orders as suggestions" screenshots from Friends19:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/187635036525166592/556108960927842324/screenshot287.png

This happened to me too, my Cruiser did this.
I commanded to follow me, after a while he moved away.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Forux on March 25, 2019, 07:13:30 AM
Any news when it will be ready for download? =)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 25, 2019, 07:56:01 AM
Just as soon as it's ready :) I'm working through the remnants of the TODO list; after that, a bit more playtesting, but it's not too far off all things considered. Did turn into kind of a mammoth .1 release, but, well.

This happened to me too, my Cruiser did this.
I commanded to follow me, after a while he moved away.

I did fix a few related issues for .1, - hopefully it'll help.


Btw, welcome to the forum, to both of you!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on March 25, 2019, 02:20:16 PM
Apologies if these are repeats, I read over the change list but I haven't caught up on the thread yet.

RE: "Escort Behavior Overhauled" - one of the things I've noticed happening is that when I order a carrier to escort my flagship (usually a drover, with a frigate or destroyer flagship), the carrier does a reasonably good job of following me, but the "fighter escort" is nowhere to be seen... if anything, it feels like the carrier's fighters are actively avoiding me & my targets.


I set up a colony in a low danger beacon system. Apparently having seen a couple REDACTED frigates 3 cycles back (which were of course immediately destroyed) means I have a permanent -10% accessibility penalty for a hostile faction? And possibly the same for the neighboring system that had one redacted frigate and not even a warning beacon...


When I pick up officers past my officer limit, I can't see what their disposition is, makes it hard to know who I should dismiss.


Fleet log entries don't go away after you've discovered whatever they were about, making it hard to figure out which ones haven't been acted upon yet.


It's really weird how the pirate/luddic path bases in the core systems have permanently severely dysfunctional economies but then their secret bases in the middle of nowhere all have perfectly functional, well balanced economies. It's also disappointing because it means they never represent a good trade opportunity.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on March 25, 2019, 07:30:46 PM
Oh yeah, one more... while the commodity "best places to buy" and "best places to sell" tooltips are fantastic, I really want one more piece of info: closest places to buy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: solardawning on March 25, 2019, 07:32:28 PM

I set up a colony in a low danger beacon system. Apparently having seen a couple REDACTED frigates 3 cycles back (which were of course immediately destroyed) means I have a permanent -10% accessibility penalty for a hostile faction? And possibly the same for the neighboring system that had one redacted frigate and not even a warning beacon...

This isn't related to what is or isn't in the system: it's based on your relationship with other factions, INCLUDING Pirates and Luddic Path. If they're hostile to you, all of your colonies get an Accessibility penalty. (Presumably this is to communicate that off-screen & outside of playable gameplay, some trade fleets between your systems and elsewhere are attacked by said pirates/LP/any other factions you're hostile with.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 25, 2019, 08:02:42 PM
RE: "Escort Behavior Overhauled" - one of the things I've noticed happening is that when I order a carrier to escort my flagship (usually a drover, with a frigate or destroyer flagship), the carrier does a reasonably good job of following me, but the "fighter escort" is nowhere to be seen... if anything, it feels like the carrier's fighters are actively avoiding me & my targets.

Right - an escort order for a carrier doesn't mean it should escort the ship with its fighters.

When I pick up officers past my officer limit, I can't see what their disposition is, makes it hard to know who I should dismiss.

This is addressed for .1, yeah!


Fleet log entries don't go away after you've discovered whatever they were about, making it hard to figure out which ones haven't been acted upon yet.

Yep, for the moment it's "how it works" but, yeah, less than ideal.


Oh yeah, one more... while the commodity "best places to buy" and "best places to sell" tooltips are fantastic, I really want one more piece of info: closest places to buy.

I've got a noted about this somewhere - let me see if I can work it in. Might not be able to for .1, though.


I set up a colony in a low danger beacon system. Apparently having seen a couple REDACTED frigates 3 cycles back (which were of course immediately destroyed) means I have a permanent -10% accessibility penalty for a hostile faction? And possibly the same for the neighboring system that had one redacted frigate and not even a warning beacon...

This isn't related to what is or isn't in the system: it's based on your relationship with other factions, INCLUDING Pirates and Luddic Path. If they're hostile to you, all of your colonies get an Accessibility penalty. (Presumably this is to communicate that off-screen & outside of playable gameplay, some trade fleets between your systems and elsewhere are attacked by said pirates/LP/any other factions you're hostile with.)

Yeah, exactly. (Also, conceptually, it covers more stuff like intimidation, possible trouble with customs at other places if they trade with you, etc. There's just a wide range of potentially applicable in-fiction causes.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on March 26, 2019, 07:12:43 AM
RE: "Escort Behavior Overhauled" - one of the things I've noticed happening is that when I order a carrier to escort my flagship (usually a drover, with a frigate or destroyer flagship), the carrier does a reasonably good job of following me, but the "fighter escort" is nowhere to be seen... if anything, it feels like the carrier's fighters are actively avoiding me & my targets.

Right - an escort order for a carrier doesn't mean it should escort the ship with its fighters.

This seems.... not particularly useful, since most carriers can't offer much of an escort by themselves. Is there a way to explicitly order fighter or longbow bomber escorts? (I also thought it explicitly said "fighter escort" somewhere but now I don't see that so I guess it was my imagination)

I set up a colony in a low danger beacon system. Apparently having seen a couple REDACTED frigates 3 cycles back (which were of course immediately destroyed) means I have a permanent -10% accessibility penalty for a hostile faction? And possibly the same for the neighboring system that had one redacted frigate and not even a warning beacon...

This isn't related to what is or isn't in the system: it's based on your relationship with other factions, INCLUDING Pirates and Luddic Path. If they're hostile to you, all of your colonies get an Accessibility penalty. (Presumably this is to communicate that off-screen & outside of playable gameplay, some trade fleets between your systems and elsewhere are attacked by said pirates/LP/any other factions you're hostile with.)

Yeah, exactly. (Also, conceptually, it covers more stuff like intimidation, possible trouble with customs at other places if they trade with you, etc. There's just a wide range of potentially applicable in-fiction causes.)

Ahhhh! okay, that makes much more sense. Though the current presentation feels a bit opaque, I don't have any simple ideas for improving it.


edit: oh yeah, one other thing - it would be nice if there was a way to see which known systems have active comm beacons in them (or least which ones my faction controls, since I'm the only faction turning on comm beacons in the middle of nowhere anyway)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 26, 2019, 07:55:46 AM
This seems.... not particularly useful, since most carriers can't offer much of an escort by themselves. Is there a way to explicitly order fighter or longbow bomber escorts? (I also thought it explicitly said "fighter escort" somewhere but now I don't see that so I guess it was my imagination)

No, there's no way to directly control fighters, aside from a "fighter strike" order, which is offensive and targeted at an enemy ship.
As far as a carrier being set to escort something, it's more about the carrier providing fire support and using the ship it's "escorting" as a shield; probably better to think of it as two ships teaming up rather than a carrier specifically defending the other ship.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: MajorTheRed on March 26, 2019, 08:04:44 AM
This seems.... not particularly useful, since most carriers can't offer much of an escort by themselves. Is there a way to explicitly order fighter or longbow bomber escorts? (I also thought it explicitly said "fighter escort" somewhere but now I don't see that so I guess it was my imagination)

No, there's no way to directly control fighters, aside from a "fighter strike" order, which is offensive and targeted at an enemy ship.
As far as a carrier being set to escort something, it's more about the carrier providing fire support and using the ship it's "escorting" as a shield; probably better to think of it as two ships teaming up rather than a carrier specifically defending the other ship.

Carrier behavior could probably benefit from hints depending on its wings. Interceptor-> Escort friendly ships, Fighter + bomber -> Engage frigates and destroyer; torpedo bomber-> engage cruisers and capital, etc...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Tartiflette on March 28, 2019, 10:36:42 AM
What? The forum gets closed for nearly 48h and there isn't a 0.9.1 release when it gets back up?  >:(
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on March 28, 2019, 10:38:15 AM
Oh man, we got our hopes up for nothing. Surely nothing this ominous could be just an accident!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on March 28, 2019, 05:18:23 PM
This seems.... not particularly useful, since most carriers can't offer much of an escort by themselves. Is there a way to explicitly order fighter or longbow bomber escorts? (I also thought it explicitly said "fighter escort" somewhere but now I don't see that so I guess it was my imagination)

No, there's no way to directly control fighters, aside from a "fighter strike" order, which is offensive and targeted at an enemy ship.
As far as a carrier being set to escort something, it's more about the carrier providing fire support and using the ship it's "escorting" as a shield; probably better to think of it as two ships teaming up rather than a carrier specifically defending the other ship.

'teaming up' is exactly what I want though, and I'm not getting it. I want the carrier's fighters to intercept enemy fighters & missiles while I'm recklessly charging in to exploit openings, and I want the carrier's longbows to help create those openings. Instead I'm teaming up with the enemy to lure a defenseless drover away from the rest of the fleet and its fighters, protected by nothing but a frigate piloted by a highly distractable suicidal madman.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 28, 2019, 05:40:45 PM
Telling a carrier to escort a frigate is pretty much not going to work, yeah. Any time you're ordering a slower ship to escort a faster one, that's just asking for a lot of trouble. I get that you'd like a "fighter escort" to happen in the case you're describing, but that's not how it works, so I wouldn't expect it to work that way, if that makes sense :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on March 28, 2019, 09:54:57 PM
Yeah, I get what you're expecting now, I'm just saying you're wrong I disagree. If I limit myself to cases where the carrier is the faster ship and the carrier itself can make a meaningful contribution without its fighters/bombers I get.... Legions escorting Atlas's? Maybe Moras escorting Enforcers? Seriously though, ordering carrier escorts works out how I want it to but only so long as the escortee is big enough for the fighters to autonomously consider it worthy of hanging out with. I'm fielding carriers because of their fighters, I want my orders to apply to their fighters at least as much as I want them to apply to the carrier, and they do - so long as it's not an escort order.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: eamax on March 29, 2019, 04:42:17 PM
This happened to me too, my Cruiser did this.
I commanded to follow me, after a while he moved away.

I did fix a few related issues for .1, - hopefully it'll help.


Btw, welcome to the forum, to both of you!

Thanks, I'm glad to see that the next version of the game will come soon. I love the game.

The only thing I would like is that the saving function is a bit more reliable, I get scared every time I press save.

btw thanks for "campaign time speed-up button is a toggle"
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 29, 2019, 04:47:20 PM
Yeah, I hear you. Just FYI - there are backups of the save files in each save's folder, in case you weren't aware.

(And the .1 release should fix all the save/load related issues that I'm aware of...)


Yeah, I get what you're expecting now, I'm just saying you're wrong I disagree. If I limit myself to cases where the carrier is the faster ship and the carrier itself can make a meaningful contribution without its fighters/bombers I get.... Legions escorting Atlas's? Maybe Moras escorting Enforcers? Seriously though, ordering carrier escorts works out how I want it to but only so long as the escortee is big enough for the fighters to autonomously consider it worthy of hanging out with. I'm fielding carriers because of their fighters, I want my orders to apply to their fighters at least as much as I want them to apply to the carrier, and they do - so long as it's not an escort order.

Hmm, I'm not sure why the carrier would need to make a contribution *without* its fighters/bombers. Keeping fighters escorting another ship - rather than sending them out at a vulnerable target, which is what the AI tries to do - is often a waste. But, in any case, I understand what you're saying as far wanting to be able to escort specific ships; occasionally that's useful. However, it's also very situational, and doesn't play nice with - say - also wanting to have an actual escort on the same ship. On the balance, I don't think it's something I want to delve into, though I might end up looking more at it at some point.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on March 30, 2019, 01:23:38 PM
To be clear, I'm not asking that fighters do something significantly different than they do now, like pretend to be xyphos or something, I just want them to prefer to doing their fighter-y things near their escortee over doing it two screens away.



Regarding the patrol/pirate combat fleet spawn interval.... I'm currently going after a remote pirate base at least 20ly away from the core systems, and there were at least 6 "armada" sized pirate fleets in Hyperspace surrounding it. I'm not sure that reducing the spawn interval from 1 week to 2 weeks is going to be enough by itself...


Edit: took our 3 or 4 before running out of CR, hiding in an asteroid belt to recover...
(https://i.imgur.com/BBMw9Rm.png)

I think there are 13 fleets total there.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on March 30, 2019, 03:39:13 PM
So it's good that smaller ruins are getting their finds buffed, but are Vast Ruins finds staying the same?? My first month's haul  :o :o :o

(https://i.imgur.com/6PGQiY3.png)

edit:  is it just the first month that's insane? because month #2 was quite disappointing in comparison

edit 2: does the 30 pirate fleet limit apply to bases sending raiding parties to player colonies? Because I count 23 of them present.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SapphireSage on March 30, 2019, 09:31:50 PM

Re: First month's haul.


That's actually a very lucky first month's haul. But yes, Vast ruins typically pay off large dividends on the stuff you typically go out into the fringes for such as blueprints, nano forges, and synchrotrons.


edit:  is it just the first month that's insane? because month #2 was quite disappointing in comparison


All tech mines do have diminishing returns though, with the exception of their production in supplies, fuel, metals, etc. So you'll get less of the good, rare stuff each month until you'll want to abandon them.
Also, although they produce and export metal, fuels, and supplies their export levels are stagnant and do not grow with population so later on in a permanent colony you're better off to replace them as they'll get out numbered in (the logarithmic) exports by the specialized industries which do scale with population.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Ali on March 31, 2019, 06:40:23 AM
Will pirates be more supported in next update? Pirate commissions / prevent pirates from reducing stability when aligned with them? Have pirate friendly bounties?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Shad on March 31, 2019, 07:03:04 AM
All tech mines do have diminishing returns though, with the exception of their production in supplies, fuel, metals, etc. So you'll get less of the good, rare stuff each month until you'll want to abandon them.
My issue is more that late game even a fresh colony will have bad loot, as blueprints don't replicate so instead the ruins get nothing.

Quote
Also, although they produce and export metal, fuels, and supplies
That's will be gone in 0.9.1
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Kohlenstoff on March 31, 2019, 12:44:13 PM
Regarding the patrol/pirate combat fleet spawn interval.... I'm currently going after a remote pirate base at least 20ly away from the core systems, and there were at least 6 "armada" sized pirate fleets in Hyperspace surrounding it. I'm not sure that reducing the spawn interval from 1 week to 2 weeks is going to be enough by itself...


Edit: took our 3 or 4 before running out of CR, hiding in an asteroid belt to recover...
(https://i.imgur.com/BBMw9Rm.png)

I think there are 13 fleets total there.

You probably found some outgoing or incoming raiding fleets meeting there when you arrived. Next time, when so much is going on and your fleet has not enough punch, switch off the transponder and wait in the fringe for some days. Raiding fleets don't follow your fleet too long unless you got the transponder telling them who you are.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on March 31, 2019, 01:23:10 PM
Will pirates be more supported in next update? Pirate commissions / prevent pirates from reducing stability when aligned with them? Have pirate friendly bounties?

Definitely not in the next update, and, hmm, probably not in general. Piracy by the player is another question - but being friendly with the pirate faction is tricky. A lot of stuff in the game assumes you're hostile with them and some things would break down if that assumption is broken. So if anything, things might go more in a "reputation with pirates always locked to -50" direction.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Ali on April 01, 2019, 12:39:00 PM
Any chance of a preview of the Prometheus & atlas mrk 2's!!?? ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: MajorTheRed on April 01, 2019, 01:36:56 PM

Definitely not in the next update, and, hmm, probably not in general. Piracy by the player is another question - but being friendly with the pirate faction is tricky. A lot of stuff in the game assumes you're hostile with them and some things would break down if that assumption is broken. So if anything, things might go more in a "reputation with pirates always locked to -50" direction.

Yeah there is already some mechanics which are weird when you play with pirates: you cannot join a fight to help pirate without your transponder on
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: eamax on April 01, 2019, 06:26:39 PM
From my current experiences, I found that the difficulty I had with the fighting became much easier.
With the previous difficulty system if I somehow managed to get strong fast, pick up large ships of great fighting, the bounties also became difficult. Not now, they're easy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 01, 2019, 06:32:32 PM
There's a bug (fixed for .1) where the deserter bounties - the ones that are supposed to be the tough ones - use pirate-available weapons and fighters, instead of drawing from their original faction's sets. This makes them woefully under-gunned; probably what you're experiencing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 01, 2019, 06:36:46 PM
You probably found some outgoing or incoming raiding fleets meeting there when you arrived. Next time, when so much is going on and your fleet has not enough punch, switch off the transponder and wait in the fringe for some days. Raiding fleets don't follow your fleet too long unless you got the transponder telling them who you are.

Ohhhhh yeah I bet it was a returning raiding party. Despite seeing the huge raiding party immediately afterward I didn't put two and two together.


RE: all the 'ships maintaining range' changes....

1. Will they make my Herons less inclined to face tank things? I give them a steady (or even cautious) officer, 1000 range guns like HVD, plus ITU... and they're still regularly closer to the enemy than any other ship.

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/yoXp5Kf.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/iECdHdG.png)
(the Heron is the glowing chunks, if you can't tell... clearly the station snuck up on it)
[close]

2. Will it make my Conquest better at staying close enough to actually shoot things? It keeps distance like, well, what I want my Herons to do.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 01, 2019, 06:54:02 PM
Re: Herons - it should help a lot, yeah. I think most of the face-hugging (or just getting into bad positions) by carriers is due to bugs in the "escort" code so the changes there should help.

As far as the Conquest, I can't really say; that's a bit too general. It seems to work ok as far as I know, for values of "ok" adjusted for it being a broadside ship, and that not being something the AI is mainly coded for.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: dragoongfa on April 02, 2019, 11:14:42 AM
So, I have been put the game aside for two months since the patch notes came out and the Starsector itch has become unbearable, is there a chance for an ETA?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: eamax on April 02, 2019, 04:27:34 PM
There's a bug (fixed for .1) where the deserter bounties - the ones that are supposed to be the tough ones - use pirate-available weapons and fighters, instead of drawing from their original faction's sets. This makes them woefully under-gunned; probably what you're experiencing.
I'm going through this a bit, but that's not the main thing.
The main thing is that the fleets of ships are small, I own capital ships and the bounties that appear are with well inferior ships.
Few ships and all are small. Rarely has one capital ship, but only one.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: grinningsphinx on April 02, 2019, 05:12:04 PM
All tech mines do have diminishing returns though, with the exception of their production in supplies, fuel, metals, etc. So you'll get less of the good, rare stuff each month until you'll want to abandon them.
My issue is more that late game even a fresh colony will have bad loot, as blueprints don't replicate so instead the ruins get nothing.

Quote
Also, although they produce and export metal, fuels, and supplies
That's will be gone in 0.9.1


yep....huge senseless nerf...

Ill just insert my own code again.....Alex was too nerf happy this update so ill fix it myself.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 02, 2019, 05:35:33 PM
So, I have been put the game aside for two months since the patch notes came out and the Starsector itch has become unbearable, is there a chance for an ETA?

Soon :) Hoping to start playtesting in the next couple of days - the changes aren't *too* extensive but extensive enough to warrant more playing than usual for a .1 release.

I'm going through this a bit, but that's not the main thing.
The main thing is that the fleets of ships are small, I own capital ships and the bounties that appear are with well inferior ships.
Few ships and all are small. Rarely has one capital ship, but only one.

Might be because you haven't done many bounties yet and so they're weaker? Hard to say, though. Could also be mod-related if this isn't vanilla.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Gwyvern on April 02, 2019, 05:54:27 PM
Quote
yep....huge senseless nerf...

Ill just insert my own code again.....Alex was too nerf happy this update so ill fix it myself.

Here, I'll save you some trouble and recommend a different game (https://www.myinstants.com/instant/you-win/) that might be better suited to your tastes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: eamax on April 02, 2019, 06:31:30 PM
Might be because you haven't done many bounties yet and so they're weaker? Hard to say, though. Could also be mod-related if this isn't vanilla.

It's probably because I did it a few times.
The more times I do, the stronger are they?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 02, 2019, 07:13:39 PM
Right, yeah, up to a (pretty high) limit.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 02, 2019, 07:52:37 PM
So I think I'm something like 10 for 10 "steady" pod officers. Are they supposed to always be steady?



Would be nice if Loadout 3 OP rounded up/nearest/even so tugs could get a 6th OP for a second hull mod.


Is there a minimum time before missions are withdrawn? There have been a few times now I've gone to look at a new mission notification and it's already withdrawn.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on April 02, 2019, 11:46:01 PM
My issue is more that late game even a fresh colony will have bad loot, as blueprints don't replicate so instead the ruins get nothing.
Blueprints do replicate, actually; it's hullmod specifications that get filtered out if you already know them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: angrytigerp on April 04, 2019, 03:43:24 PM
So I think I'm something like 10 for 10 "steady" pod officers. Are they supposed to always be steady?

No, though [personal opinion] Steady really is probably the best roll, but Aggressive and even Reckless can have their usages in rushers and/or phase ships, and Cautious can be useful for missile or "artillery" ships [/personal opinion]

But no, they are not, and I have seen many officers of all personalities. You might wanna buy a lottery ticket with your luck.

Quote
Would be nice if Loadout 3 OP rounded up/nearest/even so tugs could get a 6th OP for a second hull mod.

Not to just poo-poo your idea, but this seems like a very specific application/reasoning. That you can fit any hullmods on an Ox in the first place seems like a bit of a stretch, especially given they can readily fit IEA, which then lowers their sensor profile to match that of the capitals you probably already have in your fleet that justifies having tugs in the first place.


Quote
Is there a minimum time before missions are withdrawn? There have been a few times now I've gone to look at a new mission notification and it's already withdrawn.

Now, that's an Alex question.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 04, 2019, 03:53:06 PM
So I think I'm something like 10 for 10 "steady" pod officers. Are they supposed to always be steady?

Oh, hmm - it depends on where you find the pods, and further out defaults to using the independent faction, which is all "steady". Let me change it so there's a bit more variety; there.

Is there a minimum time before missions are withdrawn? There have been a few times now I've gone to look at a new mission notification and it's already withdrawn.

Technically it could happen immediately, yeah. There's a delay from when the mission is created, but not from when the player first sees it. I should probably tweak this at some point.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 04, 2019, 04:52:59 PM
I've had the 'mission disappearing instantly' thing happen multiple times. I'm also pretty sure I've seen them disappear right after spawning but I could be mistaken.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 04, 2019, 07:58:33 PM
No, though [personal opinion] Steady really is probably the best roll, but Aggressive and even Reckless can have their usages in rushers and/or phase ships, and Cautious can be useful for missile or "artillery" ships [/personal opinion]

But no, they are not, and I have seen many officers of all personalities. You might wanna buy a lottery ticket with your luck.

Well yeah, for the most part I'd prefer steady, but I've already got more than I need, and I could use an officer or two that's more aggressive.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 04, 2019, 08:53:34 PM
On the topic of rather improbable "luck".... After searching literally over half of the galaxy for a hint of a Legion XIV, I found five of them (four recoverable) in two constellations right next to each other. And two more derelict legions in other systems in the larger constellation, which I'm going to guess were unrecognizable XIVs. Are they supposed to be spread out more than that? Seems kind of weird...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on April 05, 2019, 10:55:28 AM
The Legion XIV's are populated in constellations, so yes they are very clustered! Other things are populated in regions as well...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 05, 2019, 06:05:35 PM
Sure, but somehow 'remnant beacon systems often come in pairs' and 'domain probes are usually found near systems with domain survey ships' manages to feel better in both atmosphere and balance than 'every system in two constellations contains exactly one derelict capital ship of a variety that cannot be found anywhere else in the sector'
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on April 05, 2019, 06:53:02 PM
I do agree with that! It would be much more interesting if interspersed between the Legion XIV's were other hegemony ships, or even derelict redacteds. Signs of a massive battle, etc.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 07, 2019, 07:56:31 AM
My issue is more that late game even a fresh colony will have bad loot, as blueprints don't replicate so instead the ruins get nothing.
Blueprints do replicate, actually; it's hullmod specifications that get filtered out if you already know them.

It's both - ruins won't give duplicate (known) blueprints or hull mods. And since you don't get to reroll the duplicate blueprints or anything, it does indeed mean the quality & value of ruins finds greatly diminishes as a game advances.

Incidentally, the odds of rolling three hits from the set of {alpha core, synchrotron, nanoforge} on the first month of tech mining is about 1 in 120.


I don't think it's a very good design. You're very likely to get a huge jackpot for doing almost nothing early game, and it's all downhill from there.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 07, 2019, 10:37:11 AM
I do not mind the early-game jackpot.  It is nice to get some good stuff early so that it is handy when I can build things.  What is annoying is getting more junk or nothing late and I still need to raid core worlds for the rest of the blueprints I cannot find (which are many) and possibly the pristine nanoforge.  Alpha cores tend to be rare (although I have not used cores in my games).

In some games, I find something great (like pristine nanoforge) early, then could not find more later.  I rather have a good find early, ready to use anytime when I am ready, instead of grinding at the end (raiding core worlds) after I have effectively won the game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on April 07, 2019, 01:44:10 PM
My issue is more that late game even a fresh colony will have bad loot, as blueprints don't replicate so instead the ruins get nothing.
Blueprints do replicate, actually; it's hullmod specifications that get filtered out if you already know them.

It's both - ruins won't give duplicate (known) blueprints or hull mods. And since you don't get to reroll the duplicate blueprints or anything, it does indeed mean the quality & value of ruins finds greatly diminishes as a game advances.
False.  I have gotten duplicates of known blueprints from ruins, both exploration and tech-mining.  Also, I looked at the code, and it's just hullmods that have duplicates filtered out.  (And even then, only from exploration sources; you can get duplicate hull-mod specs off of defeated enemy fleets, for example.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: eamax on April 07, 2019, 02:34:39 PM
There's a bug (fixed for .1) where the deserter bounties - the ones that are supposed to be the tough ones - use pirate-available weapons and fighters, instead of drawing from their original faction's sets. This makes them woefully under-gunned; probably what you're experiencing.

After testing, that's the problem. I need this fix now <3 !
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Shad on April 07, 2019, 03:36:03 PM
My issue is more that late game even a fresh colony will have bad loot, as blueprints don't replicate so instead the ruins get nothing.
Blueprints do replicate, actually; it's hullmod specifications that get filtered out if you already know them.

It's both - ruins won't give duplicate (known) blueprints or hull mods. And since you don't get to reroll the duplicate blueprints or anything, it does indeed mean the quality & value of ruins finds greatly diminishes as a game advances.
False.  I have gotten duplicates of known blueprints from ruins, both exploration and tech-mining.  Also, I looked at the code, and it's just hullmods that have duplicates filtered out.  (And even then, only from exploration sources; you can get duplicate hull-mod specs off of defeated enemy fleets, for example.)
I have tried this in a few campaigns and can't seem to get mining blueprint  dupicates. It's always the same: early game tech mines rain blueprints from any planet. Late game I could simultaneously colonise 3-4 pristine extensive/vast ruins and not have a single blueprint in half a year or more.

Research bases do appear do drop duplicates though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 07, 2019, 04:54:22 PM
False.  I have gotten duplicates of known blueprints from ruins, both exploration and tech-mining.  Also, I looked at the code, and it's just hullmods that have duplicates filtered out.  (And even then, only from exploration sources; you can get duplicate hull-mod specs off of defeated enemy fleets, for example.)

Look harder then, because TechMining.generateCargoForGatheringPoint clearly filters out known ship, weapon, fighter, and industry blueprints in addition to hullmods.


Edit: I think it would be nice if the filtered out blueprints rolled AI core replacements. I've got 5 synchrotrons and 23 corrupted nanoforges in storage but not enough Alpha or Beta cores! Plus gamma cores to buy forgiveness from factions after covert raids for blueprints would be nice  ;)

As for tech mining, I think it would work better to roll a list of "special"/"first" finds up front and then trickle them out over a couple years. I'd rather have the fixes in 0.9.1 and wait for 0.10 for that, though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on April 08, 2019, 09:32:47 AM
Huh. I most certainly get duplicate blueprints - I must have gotten 7 luddic blueprint packs in my last run, and I certainly did not have all of them (I never did get any missiles, which was a giant PITA. I really want the low, med, and high tech packs to have at least a few missile racks).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on April 08, 2019, 12:21:33 PM
Huh.  Double-checked the code again, and it looks like I did, in fact, misread it.  ...Really could have sworn I'd gotten duplicate blueprints out of those, but I guess not.  (Research Stations and the like, though, can definitely give duplicate blueprints.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 08, 2019, 04:19:04 PM
Alex, this is in reply to your Twitter post since I have no Twitter
As someone that has played SS on three laptops, using their trackpads, through out the years, I can say that as long as the trackpad has decent palm protection/ detection and dedicated buttons, you can play SS with it. I only had to get a mouse to play SS with my newest laptop due to the fact that it has neither of those and is similar to the (cr)apple one button trackpad design
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 08, 2019, 04:36:10 PM
Alex, this is in reply to your Twitter post since I have no Twitter
As someone that has played SS on three laptops, using their trackpads, through out the years, I can say that as long as the trackpad has decent palm protection/ detection and dedicated buttons, you can play SS with it. I only had to get a mouse to play SS with my newest laptop due to the fact that it has neither of those and is similar to the (cr)apple one button trackpad design

Thank you! Going to point them to this.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 08, 2019, 08:18:24 PM
Alex, this is in reply to your Twitter post since I have no Twitter
As someone that has played SS on three laptops, using their trackpads, through out the years, I can say that as long as the trackpad has decent palm protection/ detection and dedicated buttons, you can play SS with it. I only had to get a mouse to play SS with my newest laptop due to the fact that it has neither of those and is similar to the (cr)apple one button trackpad design

Thank you! Going to point them to this.
No problem! One note though is that I played with such low end machines that my average FPS was around 15 to 30. SS feels SOOO much different between 30 and 60! no
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on April 21, 2019, 12:04:20 AM
Any ETA on when the .1 release will roll around? Picked up the game again recently and stuff like this (spoilers) (https://imgur.com/a/u94mGpJ) keeps ruining my fun.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on April 21, 2019, 02:26:08 AM
The Legion XIV's are populated in constellations, so yes they are very clustered! Other things are populated in regions as well...
Has anyone else noticed that if you investigate any of the Legion XIVs but don't choose to recover it immediately and leave it in place for later, when you come back to pick it up the option to recover it is no longer available and you have no choice but to break it for parts.

I'm not sure if this is just general wreck recovery logic, or something specific to the Legions as I've never noticed this behaviour previously.
Granted, I've never been in a position to want to 'leave a wreck for later' before as they are usually all drifting and need a snap decision before they vanish anyway.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SapphireSage on April 21, 2019, 08:50:29 AM
Any ETA on when the .1 release will roll around? Picked up the game again recently and stuff like this (spoilers) (https://imgur.com/a/u94mGpJ) keeps ruining my fun.

As was pointed out in goduranus's large thread, you can remove all weapons from your carriers to force them to be more timid. Although this means that enemies will underestimate your forces.

Has anyone else noticed that if you investigate any of the Legion XIVs but don't choose to recover it immediately and leave it in place for later, when you come back to pick it up the option to recover it is no longer available and you have no choice but to break it for parts.

I'm not sure if this is just general wreck recovery logic, or something specific to the Legions as I've never noticed this behaviour previously.
Granted, I've never been in a position to want to 'leave a wreck for later' before as they are usually all drifting and need a snap decision before they vanish anyway.

Just a few days ago when I started a new game, I went bounty hunting as a solo frigate and bumped into a couple of Legion XIV's so knowing that my interactions with them will prevent me from salvaging them is a bit depressing, even if I wasn't planning on using them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 21, 2019, 08:57:36 AM
@ Senentis:  Was your ship count maxed at the fleet cap when you came back for the Legion?  Being at the fleet cap means you automatically skip recovery and go straight to loot or leave.

I have considered recovering the Legions and dumping them in abandoned stations, where they will not be disturbed.  (In theory, I could lose everything in storage if the market they are in is destroyed.  Abandoned stations are indestructible and ignored by NPCs.)  So far, I have left Legion XIVs behind to preserve them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 21, 2019, 12:03:50 PM
@ Senentis:  Was your ship count maxed at the fleet cap when you came back for the Legion?  Being at the fleet cap means you automatically skip recovery and go straight to loot or leave.

(That would have to be it, yeah - can't think of another reason why you wouldn't be able to salvage a previously-salvageable ship. Aside from a bug, I suppose!)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SapphireSage on April 21, 2019, 12:46:05 PM
Huh, that would make a lot more sense then. Looks like I can still get trophy Legions after all.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on April 21, 2019, 03:01:54 PM
I can confirm that I've left them and then retrieved them at a later date.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 21, 2019, 04:12:39 PM
Quick question (more appropriate for 0.9, but I completely missed that in those patch notes until I re-read it a few days ago):  If transponder-off black market trade does not raise suspicion level at all (like it used to in 0.8 ), does this mean patrols will not demand custom scans (after I leave then return to market at a later time with transponder on)?

I overlooked this in the first 0.9 patch notes and assumed 0.8 behavior during my 0.9 games, and thus never touched black markets.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 21, 2019, 04:15:31 PM
Quick question (more appropriate for 0.9, but I completely missed that in those patch notes until I re-read it a few days ago):  If transponder-off black market trade does not raise suspicion level at all (like it used to in 0.8 ), does this mean patrols will not demand custom scans (after I leave then return to market at a later time with transponder on)?

I believe this is correct, yes. So there's actually a reason to sneak in at times...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on April 22, 2019, 12:46:50 AM
Quote
Was your ship count maxed at the fleet cap when you came back for the Legion?
I changed the fleet cap so it was less awkward playing with hobo junkfleets.
> "maxShipsInFleet":50, #30
Doesn't appear to affect salvaging in general up to the new limit, but that Legion definitely allowed me to attempt recovery the first time but not the second.
(And not all of the Legion XIVs appear to be recoverable anyway, as some go directly to scrap upon investigation like any other derelict.)

I don't have that save any more, and I don't have any Legions sighted in my current game.
I will try and see if I can duplicate this when I find one.

[e]
Just tested this and could not reproduce the issue regardless of fleet number/cap settings.
I'm quite happy to be wrong.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 22, 2019, 09:58:53 PM
Hey Alex, I just noticed your latest tweet and figured I'd ask: are you planning on documenting the changes to ship and industry prices in the patch notes? It would help other modders balance their stuff better so it falls in line better with vanilla
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on April 22, 2019, 11:20:53 PM
Quote
Was your ship count maxed at the fleet cap when you came back for the Legion?
I changed the fleet cap so it was less awkward playing with hobo junkfleets.
> "maxShipsInFleet":50, #30
Doesn't appear to affect salvaging in general up to the new limit, but that Legion definitely allowed me to attempt recovery the first time but not the second.
(And not all of the Legion XIVs appear to be recoverable anyway, as some go directly to scrap upon investigation like any other derelict.)

Have you interacted with it with a max sized fleet? I've found that if I interacted with a recoverable fleet with a 30 ship fleet, then even if I go back to it later with fewer ships, it would not be recoverable. I recently posted a bug report.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 23, 2019, 10:22:11 AM
Hey Alex, I just noticed your latest tweet and figured I'd ask: are you planning on documenting the changes to ship and industry prices in the patch notes? It would help other modders balance their stuff better so it falls in line better with vanilla

I've got more patch notes to post, yeah! Either with the release or a bit before, just depending on how things go.

Let me post these specific changes here, though:

Added to settings.json:
   "industryBuildCostMult":5,
   "industryUpkeepMult":1,
   "industryIncomeMult":1,

Adjusted ship credit costs
   For "standard" ships, the progression was something like 10k - 20k - 50k - 250k based on size
   Now it's around 10k - 40k -120k - 350k
   Phase ships cost as if one size higher
   Frigates are largely, but not entirely, unaffected
   Lots of exceptions - civilian ships, light destroyers/cruisers, etc can have a significantly lower cost
   Heavy Industry: custom production increased to 25k per S&W unit (was: 20k)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 23, 2019, 12:39:14 PM
Quote
Heavy Industry: custom production increased to 25k per S&W unit (was: 20k)
This looks nice, although I guess it offsets the extra effort or time required to increase population.  Currently, I want heavy industries (with nanoforges) on all of my colonies so I can build a capital or lots of stuff in a month.

Edit:  Just noticed that ships may cost more!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 23, 2019, 12:41:39 PM
Yeah, it's mostly to have production keep pace - more or less - with the increased costs :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: R.U.A on April 24, 2019, 06:39:41 PM
Some AI issues with carriers:
Thanks! :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2019, 05:00:10 PM
Updated! This is the final batch of notes, just a little more testing left to do.

A lot of ships in mods should be viewed as "combat carrier", like the Odyssey in vanilla. However, in 0.9 we often see this kind of ships moving without 0-flux boost since they have wings. Would there be some tweaking for these ships?

That issue (setting wings to attack unnecessarily) should be fixed, yes.

And I notice that in ship_data.csv Odyssey have no tags, but Legion have "COMBAT, CARRIER", what's the difference between them?

It affects the AI and some other stuff such as fleet doctrines/fleet compositions.

Another issue of carriers. 4 ships' relavant position is like this:
A B C D
in which A and D is two enemy ships that almost overload, and B and C is two carriers of the player. However, B would attack D, C would attack A, seemingly unreasonable. I wonder if there is any improvements for this in 0.91.

That's not necessarily an issue. A fighter attack is often more effective when it has a little more distance to travel (due to being able to line up better), so it's impossible to answer the question without seeing a very specific example. Although, well, the answer is probably "no", with the caveat that - again - that wouldn't necessarily be an improvement :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Vayra on April 25, 2019, 05:17:40 PM
Quote from: Alex
Game will throw an exception on load if a faction refers to missing ships/weapons/hullmods/fighters/industries

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  :'(

Is there any way to work around this? I have a mod faction that lists a couple hulls by name from another mod, which currently is handled in a robust enough way that it just doesn't spawn those ships when the other mod isn't active, and does when they are.

The main alternative that I can think of is just listing their tags, but that either requires me getting somebody else to add tags to their mod for my convenience, or me including all their ships with the tag instead of just a couple.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2019, 05:25:09 PM
Is there any way to work around this? I have a mod faction that lists a couple hulls by name from another mod, which currently is handled in a robust enough way that it just doesn't spawn those ships when the other mod isn't active, and does when they are.

There isn't, no - sorry! This doesn't seem like a good idea, though. If a missing ship ID is present in a faction's "known ships", for example, it's not just your code that has to be robust in handling this, but all of vanilla and every single other mod that might conceivably do something based on what ships a faction knows. It's a "random" crash waiting to happen.

If you want to do this, I think a more robust way to do it would be to manually add those ships (and remove some other ships to compensate?) to whatever fleets you want via a script (say, in a "reportFleetSpawned(CampaignFleetAPI fleet)" method, or in some other way after it spawns.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Astraltor on April 25, 2019, 05:43:19 PM
Hammerhead: increased supply cost to deploy and per month to 10 (was: 8)

8) while incorrect, is an accurate representation of the hammerhead.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2019, 05:48:46 PM
Haha, fixed that up 8)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 25, 2019, 05:56:16 PM
Will there be any way for the player to find luddic path bases now that the exploit has been fixed?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2019, 05:58:09 PM
Yeah - ought to be in the notes somewhere, but it's like with the pirate bases, you can go to the bar and find someone to have a chat with.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2019, 06:18:13 PM
Is there any way to work around this? I have a mod faction that lists a couple hulls by name from another mod, which currently is handled in a robust enough way that it just doesn't spawn those ships when the other mod isn't active, and does when they are.

(An example that's likely broken but just hasn't crashed *yet* - while traveling through hyperspace, the game occasionally spawns derelict ships. The faction the ships are from depends on what markets are nearby. If this happens to pick one of the "missing" ships, I'm fairly sure it'll crash. But the odds of that happening are low - you'd have to be in the vicinity of the market, and it'd have to roll that ship, which is probably pretty unlikely.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Sundog on April 25, 2019, 06:35:51 PM
Awesome. I'm looking forward to trying out these colonization changes  :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on April 25, 2019, 07:05:05 PM
I'm not asking for spoilers but has any content been added in this patch? Something like more ships, bar missions or some hidden fights?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2019, 07:14:09 PM
Well, there's technically one new bar event, and the new skin for the Shrike, but it's generally not a content patch. Oh, and the bar ambience, I think that definitely counts as content because it's awesome :) And some new d-mods. So, I guess: bits and bobs here and there?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 25, 2019, 07:34:00 PM
And two new capital ships!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2019, 08:03:54 PM
Oh, right, had a feeling I was forgetting something! :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on April 25, 2019, 08:19:16 PM
Pity about the water worlds losing farming, I really liked the alternate graphics for the industry!

Reduced upkeep and reducing upkeep with in faction supplies:

Reduced base upkeep is going to make higher hazard worlds more viable as sources for raw materials, but on the other hand, that same reduced upkeep means that on a low hazard world, there is much less incentive to get the raw materials in the first place. On the one hand, the empire builder in me loves to be able to make a supply web, but on the other hand we only get so many colonies and the financial incentives of vertical integration seem low.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 25, 2019, 08:58:20 PM
Pity about the water worlds losing farming, I really liked the alternate graphics for the industry!

Oh, that still works - "Aquaculture" requires "Water-covered Surface", not farmland. Farmland was just causing the "double food production" bug for water worlds.

Reduced upkeep and reducing upkeep with in faction supplies:

Reduced base upkeep is going to make higher hazard worlds more viable as sources for raw materials, but on the other hand, that same reduced upkeep means that on a low hazard world, there is much less incentive to get the raw materials in the first place. On the one hand, the empire builder in me loves to be able to make a supply web, but on the other hand we only get so many colonies and the financial incentives of vertical integration seem low.

Hmm, possibly. On the other hand, additional Heavy Industry on more Terran worlds runs into diminishing returns, now that their demand doesn't add to the market value, and with it not being all that profitable in the first place. In my test run, I've got a 175% hazard world with Mining and Refining, and a 100% one with Farming and Heavy Industry, and their income is more or less the same. The bonus from having more stuff supplied in-faction is modest, but it doesn't feel like it came at a great cost, either.

Lots of ways this could end up being optimized, though! I'll certainly keep an eye on it and am open to tweaking it further.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on April 25, 2019, 09:06:23 PM
Oh no, my water world isn't going to be able to feed a hundred quintillion people now!?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on April 25, 2019, 09:11:54 PM
Oh dear  :'(

Well I'm disappointed with my favourite ships strongest aspect being nerfed, but my end-game fleets always involve lots of Apogees, as their shield tanking is legendary, so I have been expecting a nerf to this ship since it's 0.9a cost reduction (The low fuel usage, excellent cargo and fuel capacity on top of it's Surveying suite make it very cheap for it's deployment costs).

Still, I'm very much looking forward to giving this new release a go (The increased costs will be interesting to try out, hopefully it will give a better sense of progression) :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: AxleMC131 on April 25, 2019, 11:04:01 PM
Quote
System-activated ship engines are no longer affected by low-CR malfunctions

Are they still affected by the engine malfunction chance provided by, say, Ill-Advised Modications?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: R.U.A on April 26, 2019, 12:10:03 AM

It affects the AI and some other stuff such as fleet doctrines/fleet compositions.


Could you give a little explanation about the effect on AI?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on April 26, 2019, 03:22:36 AM
   The good stuff! Very happy about AI cores becoming less rare, raiding changes, hyperspace storm changes, removal of Q/W hotkeys (way too many newcomers got stuck on this), emphasized pather hail, auto navigation not targeting stars anymore. Nerfed growth incentives will make passive bonuses more attractive. Good to see autofit and EW/CM fixes in particular.
   However, I'm less phased about some other things. Two new D-mods are sort of justification for Efficiency Overhaul hullmod; fine by me, others might find it more of an annoyance. Industry price and upkeep changes seem funny to me. Hazard rating was so much of an issue that now it's made not only much weaker, but can also be made 85% redundant (25% from beta, 50% from demand, 10% from industry planning). Maybe 70% redundant if we go for multiplication instead of subtraction. It's a shame Patrol HQ will only spawn very few patrols now. The complaint about being unable to buy ships doesn't come from the fact that people were overloaded with hotkeys, but form the fact that they don't use hotkeys at all and used different options to access ship market and commodities market.
   Balancing changes weren't expected, but aren't unwelcome. Needler, ACG and Hurricane buffs are nice, especially for ACG since it was hopelessly outclassed by the heavy mortar. Nerf to Perdition is certainly warranted. I'm not sure if it's worth an OP increase as well, but it's not so strong anymore. I like that Shrike is cheaper to maintain and Hammerhead is more expensive, it reflects their power rating a bit better now. I am very happy about price increases, but this comes from a guy who likes to play with prices 3 to 5 times higher than default, so...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on April 26, 2019, 04:26:36 AM
Chaingun is now 600 DPS for 10 OP (albeit only 450 range)?
This is going to look fairly weird (out-DPSing probably three quarters of large weapons). But the actual change to gameplay probably isn't going to be exceptional I guess.

Is there any way to work around this? I have a mod faction that lists a couple hulls by name from another mod, which currently is handled in a robust enough way that it just doesn't spawn those ships when the other mod isn't active, and does when they are.

There isn't, no - sorry! This doesn't seem like a good idea, though. If a missing ship ID is present in a faction's "known ships", for example, it's not just your code that has to be robust in handling this, but all of vanilla and every single other mod that might conceivably do something based on what ships a faction knows. It's a "random" crash waiting to happen.

If you want to do this, I think a more robust way to do it would be to manually add those ships (and remove some other ships to compensate?) to whatever fleets you want via a script (say, in a "reportFleetSpawned(CampaignFleetAPI fleet)" method, or in some other way after it spawns.)
I think you could just make the faction not know the hulls by default, and add them to faction's known ships in onNewGame()/onGameLoad() if the other mod is detected?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on April 26, 2019, 07:13:34 AM
BTW: Is it intentional that PirateBaseIntel.affectsMarket() doesn't check if the market is hostile to pirates (unlike various other bits of pirate base and pirate raid logic)?
This has a couple of significant effects:
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SapphireSage on April 26, 2019, 07:55:23 AM
Luddic Path Cells: incidents have a chance to fail depending on the stability of the colony targeted

So what would the chances of that panning out be? Would a stability 10 colony be mostly safe from Pather attempts at sabotage?

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on April 26, 2019, 08:54:41 AM
Changes as of April 25, 2019

Added ambient sounds to dockside bars

Yay^^

Good changes all around. Looking forward to getting back in again. I really hope the colony balancing is effective. With the current version it felt so wonky that I kinda stopped having fun with colonies.

Can change player's name in character screen by clicking on it

That's nice so I can give myself a title that is appropriate for my current status. It felt always strange starting as an admiral etc
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 26, 2019, 10:38:36 AM
Oh no, my water world isn't going to be able to feed a hundred quintillion people now!?

Look on the bright side, it can still supply them with drink :)

Well I'm disappointed with my favourite ships strongest aspect being nerfed, but my end-game fleets always involve lots of Apogees, as their shield tanking is legendary, so I have been expecting a nerf to this ship since it's 0.9a cost reduction (The low fuel usage, excellent cargo and fuel capacity on top of it's Surveying suite make it very cheap for it's deployment costs).

Having used it as my flagship for a bit, it's still a brick!

Quote
System-activated ship engines are no longer affected by low-CR malfunctions

Are they still affected by the engine malfunction chance provided by, say, Ill-Advised Modications?

Good question - double-checked and they shouldn't be.


And I notice that in ship_data.csv Odyssey have no tags, but Legion have "COMBAT, CARRIER", what's the difference between them?

It affects the AI and some other stuff such as fleet doctrines/fleet compositions.

Could you give a little explanation about the effect on AI?

It's a lot of little things. The overall effect should be a "CARRIER,COMBAT" ship being more defensive than a ship without those tags. Also, IIRC, giving them an "Eliminate" order will work differently (the CARRIER,COMBAT won't attempt to close in recklessly), but I could be wrong about that. I'd have to dig through a lot of code to provide a more comprehensive/detailed answer :)

The good stuff! Very happy about AI cores becoming less rare, raiding changes, hyperspace storm changes, removal of Q/W hotkeys (way too many newcomers got stuck on this), emphasized pather hail, auto navigation not targeting stars anymore. Nerfed growth incentives will make passive bonuses more attractive. Good to see autofit and EW/CM fixes in particular.
   

Thank you, happy you're liking the changes overall!
   
Hazard rating was so much of an issue that now it's made not only much weaker, but can also be made 85% redundant (25% from beta, 50% from demand, 10% from industry planning). Maybe 70% redundant if we go for multiplication instead of subtraction.

Reductions are multiplicative, btw, so it's about 34%

The complaint about being unable to buy ships doesn't come from the fact that people were overloaded with hotkeys, but form the fact that they don't use hotkeys at all and used different options to access ship market and commodities market.

There were some cases where the profusion of hotkeys was confusing to people, but as far as being unable to buy ships, the change addressing that is mentioning "buy ships" in the text of the option.


Chaingun is now 600 DPS for 10 OP (albeit only 450 range)?
This is going to look fairly weird (out-DPSing probably three quarters of large weapons). But the actual change to gameplay probably isn't going to be exceptional I guess.

I guess it might, but, yeah, as we both well know, DPS isn't the end-all :) If anything, I'm not sure if this is enough to make it useful or not - curious to see how that goes.


Is there any way to work around this? I have a mod faction that lists a couple hulls by name from another mod, which currently is handled in a robust enough way that it just doesn't spawn those ships when the other mod isn't active, and does when they are.

There isn't, no - sorry! This doesn't seem like a good idea, though. If a missing ship ID is present in a faction's "known ships", for example, it's not just your code that has to be robust in handling this, but all of vanilla and every single other mod that might conceivably do something based on what ships a faction knows. It's a "random" crash waiting to happen.

If you want to do this, I think a more robust way to do it would be to manually add those ships (and remove some other ships to compensate?) to whatever fleets you want via a script (say, in a "reportFleetSpawned(CampaignFleetAPI fleet)" method, or in some other way after it spawns.)
I think you could just make the faction not know the hulls by default, and add them to faction's known ships in onNewGame()/onGameLoad() if the other mod is detected?

Oh, right, yeah, that seems like a much better way to go.


BTW: Is it intentional that PirateBaseIntel.affectsMarket() doesn't check if the market is hostile to pirates (unlike various other bits of pirate base and pirate raid logic)?
This has a couple of significant effects:
  • Pirate Activity condition is also applied to markets of factions not hostile to pirates
  • Pirate base can target a system with no valid raid targets (causing pirate activity), although it won't create the raid intel in that case

Yes, it's absolutely intentional. Otherwise the player is really incentivized to be friendly with pirates. Bounties, bases to destroy, random pirate fleets to fight are all a big part of the game and getting such a bonus from being friendly with pirates would really go against that and basically force the player to avoid fun stuff to be optimal.


So what would the chances of that panning out be? Would a stability 10 colony be mostly safe from Pather attempts at sabotage?

<checks> 50% at stability 10.



Good changes all around. Looking forward to getting back in again. I really hope the colony balancing is effective. With the current version it felt so wonky that I kinda stopped having fun with colonies.

I hope so too - at least in testing, it seems to be a lot better as far as it being a slow-burn progression instead of "plop down everything and roll in credits til the end of time". I'd love to hear your impressions once you've had some time with it!


That's nice so I can give myself a title that is appropriate for my current status. It felt always strange starting as an admiral etc

(Oh, hey, that's a neat use for this.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Eji1700 on April 26, 2019, 10:57:54 AM
I'm hoping that having colonies with fewer slots will give them more of an identity.  In almost all popular scifi you have the occasional "jack of all trades" world, but very often they're specialized and that's what gives them flavor.  Having all of my colonies be "obscene money makers" with mild differences and different stations didn't make them feel special.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: AxleMC131 on April 26, 2019, 12:55:12 PM
Quote
System-activated ship engines are no longer affected by low-CR malfunctions

Are they still affected by the engine malfunction chance provided by, say, Ill-Advised Modications?

Good question - double-checked and they shouldn't be.

Aww ***. XD That's gonna make some evil fun for DaRa players using the Lysander with Safety Overrides.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on April 26, 2019, 12:58:21 PM
One small step closer to 1.0. ;)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Dal on April 26, 2019, 01:17:57 PM
Looking really good, those civ nerfs are going to be brutal to me. :-X

My thoughts, in feedback and suggestion:
Quote
Yes, it's absolutely intentional. Otherwise the player is really incentivized to be friendly with pirates. Bounties, bases to destroy, random pirate fleets to fight are all a big part of the game and getting such a bonus from being friendly with pirates would really go against that and basically force the player to avoid fun stuff to be optimal.
IMO pirate runs are amazing fun. It takes a lot of effort to become and stay friendly with pirates, but the payoff is that you get to prey on everyone else! When you're law abiding, there are very few juicy targets, faction hostilities tend to be minor or massive engagements with little in-between, but being enemies with civilization? Targets of opportunity galore! The dynamic of hiding from system authority between skirmishes is also a top notch gameplay that really shows off the fleet layer. The most fun starts I have are pirate starts, and I work to keep the rest of the factions hostile. Please don't bend the rules against pirates (or any other playstyle) just because it incentivizes more challenging gameplay. Nobody going pirate expects it to be easy, it'd just be nicer if it worked well.

Anyway, the suggestion: can the planetary interface support more than the vanilla number of industries? When colonies were released there was an explosion of creative ideas for building chains with deep industry and interactions, but they quickly hit the twelve-industry wall. Would it be possible to expose that limit and add a scrollbar when the UI limit is exceeded? There's so much potential there.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on April 26, 2019, 01:44:22 PM
Everything in this changelog sounds great and I'm looking forward to 0.9.1, especially the raiding BP drop chance increase. I think the Light/Heavy Needler, Assault Chaingun, and Hurricane MIRV buffs are unnecessary, but I'll try them out before passing judgement.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on April 26, 2019, 01:50:12 PM
Chaingun is now 600 DPS for 10 OP (albeit only 450 range)?
This is going to look fairly weird (out-DPSing probably three quarters of large weapons). But the actual change to gameplay probably isn't going to be exceptional I guess.

I guess it might, but, yeah, as we both well know, DPS isn't the end-all :) If anything, I'm not sure if this is enough to make it useful or not - curious to see how that goes.
A 50% boost to both DPS and armor penetration, with no increase in flux cost?  Yeah, that'll push the assault chaingun right past useful and straight into scary.  Still niche, mind you, due to the low range and high flux cost - but scary when it can actually be brought to bear.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 26, 2019, 02:30:46 PM
If pirates, and pathers for that matter, stopped bothering the player when relations are non-hostile, I would try to be friends with everyone for 1) maximum accessibility for my colonies, 2) no more significant colony threats to interrupt exploration or stealth raids (meaning no more annoying babysitting), and 3) sneak attack on pirate/pather bases when base bounty hunting.  Then, if I wanted to attack someone, I would do it stealthily (i.e. transponder off).

Things I like to see:
1) Tac bombing (but not sat bombing) does not add pollution to habitable planets.  That said, most core worlds are not as habitable as the choice worlds players tend to get.
2) Sat bombing a non-indie world does not make independents angry.  (I could not care less if major factions get angry when I want to kill the core worlds, but indies being angry is an annoyance.)  Just means that stealth raid spaceport and wait until target decivilizes is the way to go to kill worlds.  But... it is satisfying to nuke 'em when it is time to destroy the enemy.  It is the game rewards boring but practical ways (stealth spaceport headshot) to kill a world.

As for assault chaingun, it is a flux hog.  I never use it as it is.  Maybe the extra DPS might make it useful enough.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 26, 2019, 03:09:11 PM
I'm hoping that having colonies with fewer slots will give them more of an identity.  In almost all popular scifi you have the occasional "jack of all trades" world, but very often they're specialized and that's what gives them flavor.  Having all of my colonies be "obscene money makers" with mild differences and different stations didn't make them feel special.

Yep, that's very much the idea.

IMO pirate runs are amazing fun. It takes a lot of effort to become and stay friendly with pirates, but the payoff is that you get to prey on everyone else! When you're law abiding, there are very few juicy targets, faction hostilities tend to be minor or massive engagements with little in-between, but being enemies with civilization? Targets of opportunity galore! The dynamic of hiding from system authority between skirmishes is also a top notch gameplay that really shows off the fleet layer. The most fun starts I have are pirate starts, and I work to keep the rest of the factions hostile. Please don't bend the rules against pirates (or any other playstyle) just because it incentivizes more challenging gameplay. Nobody going pirate expects it to be easy, it'd just be nicer if it worked well.

One the one hand, I agree - but the thing is, none of this requires actually being friendly with pirates! If anything, being hostile to other pirates makes more "sense" thematically, anyway, and you're still able to trade with their bases/colonies rather easily.

Anyway, the suggestion: can the planetary interface support more than the vanilla number of industries? When colonies were released there was an explosion of creative ideas for building chains with deep industry and interactions, but they quickly hit the twelve-industry wall. Would it be possible to expose that limit and add a scrollbar when the UI limit is exceeded? There's so much potential there.

I'll keep it mind... the industry (as opposed to structure) limit based on colony size will help here, I think. I don't think adding more slots is really the way to go there - I'd much rather the player have an interesting choice about what to build, rather than "oh, and I'll build that one, too".


A 50% boost to both DPS and armor penetration, with no increase in flux cost?  Yeah, that'll push the assault chaingun right past useful and straight into scary.  Still niche, mind you, due to the low range and high flux cost - but scary when it can actually be brought to bear.

Sounds good if it works out like that :)

Things I like to see:
1) Tac bombing (but not sat bombing) does not add pollution to habitable planets.  That said, most core worlds are not as habitable as the choice worlds players tend to get.
2) Sat bombing a non-indie world does not make independents angry.  (I could not care less if major factions get angry when I want to kill the core worlds, but indies being angry is an annoyance.)  Just means that stealth raid spaceport and wait until target decivilizes is the way to go to kill worlds.  But... it is satisfying to nuke 'em when it is time to destroy the enemy.  It is the game rewards boring but practical ways (stealth spaceport headshot) to kill a world.

I prefer bombardment to be in the "things you can do, but don't generally want to" category. Heavy consequences seem right here.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 26, 2019, 07:17:37 PM
Will we be able to tweak the industry limit in the settings.json file?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 26, 2019, 07:26:22 PM
The UI code would have to be changed to support displaying more than 12 industries, so that's not possible as a simple "expose this hardcoded value" thing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Vehemence on April 26, 2019, 08:18:59 PM
Can we be expecting possible terraforming in the future updates?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 26, 2019, 08:31:35 PM
Perhaps, if it fits some kind of design need. The general arc of the Sector is downwards, though, where terraforming seems like it'd be more at home in a setting that had a more upward trend, so it doesn't seem like a great fit, if that makes sense.

Could be something like a one-off reward for discovering a piece of lost tech or whatnot, though. So, overall: possible, but not super likely; I'm not specifically looking for a reason to add it in, but it could be cool.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Soren on April 26, 2019, 09:24:15 PM
It's something that could plausibly be modded in, although the sheer volume of stuff that could go wrong with any implementation I can think of is daunting.

I'm more interested in the Biospecimens commodity icon and what it portends. Selling those to... greenish... trader types has worked out swimmingly for intrepid space-captains before, after all.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 26, 2019, 09:27:17 PM
I'm more interested in the Biospecimens commodity icon and what it portends. Selling those to... greenish... trader types has worked out swimmingly for intrepid space-captains before, after all.

<checks> ... apparently, that's been in since 2014 and I did not know about the icon existing.

(Heeey, at least someone noticed those colorful trader types!)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Originem on April 27, 2019, 03:39:12 AM
Yes! New development patch notes!
And, do you have any ideas about new forum's style? I mean, default styles couldn't show "this is starsector forum", why not add some logo on the top of the website?such as replacing the logo of "simplemachines forum"
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: David on April 27, 2019, 06:39:55 AM
I'm more interested in the Biospecimens commodity icon and what it portends. Selling those to... greenish... trader types has worked out swimmingly for intrepid space-captains before, after all.

<checks> ... apparently, that's been in since 2014 and I did not know about the icon existing.


Hahaha.
Well uh. I think I had some notion about biospecimens being a product of Jangala and/or any xenolife world to help offset/make interesting the possible downsides (there is at least one ah provocative market condition icon to go with this). Anyway ... there's no lack of ideas for random stuff floating around.

... "Perfectly Safe Xenobiological Exports" DLC confirmed? (Or maybe a fun mod would take this on.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on April 27, 2019, 05:25:04 PM
>Improved ship-to-ship pursuit intercept logic over long distances For example side-deployed ships should be more capable of intercepting fleeing enemies
No more ordering them ahead? That's neat. I guess ships have an innate sense of the general vector of ships that go into fog of war now? Not just instantly forgetting about them?

Also i see a lot of autoresolve fixes, does that also cover autoresolving against small/single-ship REDACTED forces?

>Chaingun is now 600 DPS for 10 OP (albeit only 450 range)?
Chaingun had a lot of things going against it, and still somewhat has, but i think this will do a fair bit to increase its use in a fair bit of niche cases.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: sqrt(-1) on April 28, 2019, 07:12:44 AM
There are some nice things in the changelog!

Its good that the drop rate from Remnant fleets was increased, however, I was hoping from a significant drop rate reduction of expensive items like nano forges, blueprints etc., because I am consistently able to earn hundreds of thousands withing just 3 hours of playtime through them.
As for many, the early game struggle is by far the most exciting part of the game.

Oh, and its unfortunate that the fleet deployment and command transfer rework didn't make into the patch yet, because I feel like that this broke the game for many new players.

But I know - time is the most cruel limitation of all things.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on April 28, 2019, 07:30:30 AM
With over 2/3rds of the sector explored, I have found a single pristine Nanoforge and two Fuel-Cores. About 10 corrupted Nanoforges. I'd say the drop rate for these better versions is either fine or somewhat on the low side.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on April 28, 2019, 08:35:05 AM
I assume that there are only two guaranteed nanoforge sources, the two motherships in the sector. Discounting them (since I don't always find them), I typically find a dozen or so of corrupted nanoforges, about five synchrotrons and up to three pristine nanoforges (with only one being found within a useful time period). I don't think drop rates of those items should be decreased.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 28, 2019, 08:52:39 AM
In the games after I explore half the sector, I find at least one synchrotron when I need one, but the number of excess synchrotrons found varies.  Some games, I found several extra, but others I find only one or two more.

As for pristine nanoforge, I did not find any in half of my games before exploring half of the sector, and I had to raid core worlds for it.  In one of those unlucky games, I found one at the left side of the sector after I completely explored the right side.  As for the other half where I got lucky, I found only one.  In one game, one was from salvaging a station (with no skills in Salvaging; would not have found it if Salvaging had points).  Another game, I had a lucky early haul from a tech mine, but did not find anymore pristine forges after that.

I find about a dozen or so corrupted nanoforges in each game.

For blueprints, after aggressive tech-mining and exploring about half of the sector, I find about half of all of the blueprints... which leaves the other half to be stolen from core worlds through mind-numbing Diablo 2-style magic-find runs.  From the looks of the patch notes update, it seems like blueprint drops will be reliable enough to eliminate or greatly reduce the worst of item grinding tedium (that online games tend to encourage).

For item drops, pristine nanoforges seem too rare.  Synchrotron seems okay.

I do not sell those items (aside from exploiting Commerce bug, which will be gone soon).  I hoard them all in case I decide to plop down a bunch of alpha-governed colonies someday where I can put all of the spares to good use.  (I have not done so yet.)

Re: motherships
They are rare enough that you do not always find them when you need to.  (e.g., They are left of core, but you spend years sweeping right of core.)  Also, I read that they can drop corrupted nanoforge instead of pristine nanoforge.  So even if you find a mothership, it may not have what you want.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: sqrt(-1) on April 28, 2019, 09:30:23 AM
I can consistently find 3-5 corrupted nano forges, many blueprints I don't need and a couple class III-IV survey data within 3 hours of playtime.
All you need to do is to do is aggressive exploration.

That's around 300k credits in such a short playtime, which is enough for an end game winning fleet.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2019, 09:31:33 AM
Oh, and its unfortunate that the fleet deployment and command transfer rework didn't make into the patch yet, because I feel like that this broke the game for many new players.

Hmm? I actually don't know what you mean.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: sqrt(-1) on April 28, 2019, 09:36:58 AM
Hmm? I actually don't know what you mean.


Those things would fix a lot of extremely weird game states which evidently confuse tons of people (observable on youtube, etc.).

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15105.0
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2019, 10:31:24 AM
>Improved ship-to-ship pursuit intercept logic over long distances For example side-deployed ships should be more capable of intercepting fleeing enemies
No more ordering them ahead? That's neat. I guess ships have an innate sense of the general vector of ships that go into fog of war now? Not just instantly forgetting about them?

I think they have some memory of that (not 100% sure, tbh) but that's not what's being used here - just whatever visible (due to pursuers from the bottom) ship they're aiming for.

Also i see a lot of autoresolve fixes, does that also cover autoresolving against small/single-ship REDACTED forces?

The various fixes woul apply to that as well, if that's what you mean.


Hmm? I actually don't know what you mean.

  • Flagship selection at the deployment screen instead of the engagement dialogue
  • Right click for flagship selection, left click for deployment
  • Forced flagship deployment (AI can still be toggled)
  • Player controlled phased command shuttle after flagship destruction for self-explanatory command transfer and fun solution for flawed/broken video feed feature

Those things would fix a lot of extremely weird game states which evidently confuse tons of people (observable on youtube, etc.).

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15105.0

Ahh, right - thank you. Yeah, that was never going to happen for .1 due to the risk of breaking things - but the flagship-selecting through right-click idea, I'd like to keep in mind.



As far as the nanoforge etc drop rates - if making money through those is too easy, then reducing the sell price might be an option, hmm. Although, since industries and ships are more expensive, that money won't quite catapult you into the endgame the way it used to. I don't want to reduce the drop rate; imo these items should usually be findable with a moderate dedication to exploration, and not require scouring the entire Sector.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: GenericBurnerAccount on April 28, 2019, 11:00:27 AM
Hello I like this game:

Can you add some quality of life fixes:

1. Add a tooltip explaining how item management works: (shift, ctrl, to move different amounts of items)

2. Add a new shortcut key for moving entire inventory (for example, when moving all weapons you have stored from one station into your cargo hold for transport to another station)

3. Add a way to toggle speed up time, rather than just hold shift.

4. Add a way to toggle "White-out" lens flare explosions (hurts my eyes)

5. EDIT In the character level up screen, please add a tip listing the max number of levels (is it 40? or 50?) This helps my build planning.

IF there is a way to do any of these things by editing the files directly, please let me know.

Thanks for the game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2019, 11:09:21 AM
Hello I like this game:

Thank you! :)

1. Add a tooltip explaining how item management works: (shift, ctrl, to move different amounts of items)

IIRC there's a help popup the first time you open the inventory.

2. Add a new shortcut key for moving entire inventory (for example, when moving all weapons you have stored from one station into your cargo hold for transport to another station)

In data/config/settings.json:
Find "altMouseMoveToMassTransfer":false, and change it to true. Then you can hold down alt and move the mouse around to mass-transfer anything it moves over. It's a bit finicky (in particular in relation to alt-tab being used) and so is turned off by default.

3. Add a way to toggle speed up time, rather than just hold shift.

This is in the .1 update, which'll come out very soon! There's a setting under Settings -> Gameplay tab to set whether shift is a toggle or needs to be held down.

4. Add a way to toggle "White-out" lens flare explosions (hurts my eyes)

In data/config/settings.json:
"enableShipExplosionWhiteout":true, -> change to false

5. EDIT In the character level up screen, please add a tip listing the max number of levels (is it 40? or 50?) This helps my build planning.

It's 50, and btw, it's editable - again, in settings.json:

"playerMaxLevel":50,

Let me make a note to add the maximum level somewhere there. Going to do a skill overhaul at some point, that'll be a good time to work that in.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Legion0047 on April 28, 2019, 11:14:40 AM
So i absolutely love this game but even the most marginal colony absolutely breaks the economy.

Have you thought about introducing upkeep costs for defense fleets?

Or being able to use Alpha cores as officers of your fleet?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2019, 12:13:10 PM
So i absolutely love this game but even the most marginal colony absolutely breaks the economy.

Much of the .1 update is about taking this down a notch or three :) We'll see if it's enough, but, yeah, definitely working to address that.

Have you thought about introducing upkeep costs for defense fleets?

In .1, a "Military Base" will take up an "industry" slot (limited to 1-4 or so based on colony size, does not limit structures like spaceports or orbital stations), so that's an additional opportunity cost for having defense fleets - like extra upkeep, in a sense.

I have thought about upkeep costs for fleets, but I think where that'll really work is for offensive operations. At least, that's what I'd like to to try out in the future - fairly obscene costs for getting your military fleets to other systems.

Or being able to use Alpha cores as officers of your fleet?

:-X
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on April 28, 2019, 12:27:36 PM
:-X
Considering it, then? Interesting. I'd like to see being able to use items as officers or crew. The former for some AI-centric mods and some skill abuse, the latter to maybe have different factions offer different crew that's good at manning different ships, so that there's some reason to buddy up with any given faction.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 28, 2019, 12:41:26 PM
I expect alpha cores to behave like Cylons or Gollum.  Ultimately untrustworthy entities who will betray you eventually.  Like, suddenly become enemies and try to kill you (or steal your assets right out from under you).

So far, the worst alpha cores can do is act like yandere or clingy jealous girlfriends who do not want you to leave, and given the benefits they give, why would a munchkin player willingly leave his clingy harem of alpha cores?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Legion0047 on April 28, 2019, 01:29:22 PM

In .1, a "Military Base" will take up an "industry" slot (limited to 1-4 or so based on colony size, does not limit structures like spaceports or orbital stations), so that's an additional opportunity cost for having defense fleets - like extra upkeep, in a sense.

I have thought about upkeep costs for fleets, but I think where that'll really work is for offensive operations. At least, that's what I'd like to to try out in the future - fairly obscene costs for getting your military fleets to other systems.


Yeah but the upkeep of the military base is tiny in comparison to what it does. It should be a lot bigger, at least on higher levels.

This would also incentivice the use of a low tech fleet as the lower upkeep would mean less costs while a high tech fleet would cost more.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2019, 02:16:37 PM
Yeah but the upkeep of the military base is tiny in comparison to what it does. It should be a lot bigger, at least on higher levels.

I probably didn't make it quite clear how it works. "Industries" (as opposed to structures) are limited to a low maximum. So, for example, at a size 5 colony, you'd have a maximum of 3. You might go for, say, Farming, Light Industry, and Heavy Industry. If you wanted a Military Base there, you'd have to give up one of the other three - and the significant income that brings. That's what I mean by "opportunity cost" - it may not cost *that* much directly, but it costs a lot more when you consider what it takes the place of.

Plus, the base upkeep of Military Base is higher, too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 28, 2019, 02:27:47 PM
Does military base/high command increase Pather interest?

For my next game, I may attempt to avoid pathers because they have been such a pain without the Intel exploit in 0.9a.  (But even with the exploit, they were still annoying.)  That probably means fewer interest increasing industries, which does not leave much left.  But if 0.9.1a limits industries anyway, that may not be problem.

I plan to put military bases on all colonies to see if auto-resolving all major factions still works.  Part of the point of multiple colonies in one system is overlapping defenses (from patrols) to intercept all invaders.  (One military base is not reliable enough.)  I suppose I could make more money by just ignoring military and pay bribes, but paying bribes just does not feel right.  An emperor demands tribute, not pay it!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2019, 02:37:04 PM
It doesn't, I believe. Unless you put an AI core in, of course...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 28, 2019, 02:38:52 PM
@ Alex: I meant no core use.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
Yeah, figured. I was just being overly specific for no good reason :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 28, 2019, 10:25:46 PM
Alex, I meant the "no more than X number of industries" limit. The one you are adding with .91
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2019, 10:37:52 PM
Ah! In that case, yes - it's set up like this:

"maxIndustries":[1,1,1,2,3,3,4,4,4,4],

With the index in the array (well, index + 1) being the colony size.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 28, 2019, 10:57:44 PM
Ah! In that case, yes - it's set up like this:

"maxIndustries":[1,1,1,2,3,3,4,4,4,4],

With the index in the array (well, index + 1) being the colony size.

Awesome!
It is little things like this and how easy it is to mod SS that makes it such a great game in my eyes!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on April 28, 2019, 11:21:23 PM
If you deploy as usual, order a mass retreat and then deploy again, do you lose any loot? If during the retreat the last ship on the battlefield dies, does it count the whole battle as lost, somehow? I use redeployment pretty liberally and have no issues with it, but other people don't share my experiences and now I'm not sure anymore if it's as good of a strategy as I thought.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on April 29, 2019, 04:23:45 AM
I fully agree with Midnight Kitsune. The more things we can modify without the need to be a rocket scientist, the better.
It makes this sandbox game truly, euh, sandboxy. Thanks for doing just that!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SapphireSage on April 29, 2019, 06:45:18 AM
If you deploy as usual, order a mass retreat and then deploy again, do you lose any loot? If during the retreat the last ship on the battlefield dies, does it count the whole battle as lost, somehow? I use redeployment pretty liberally and have no issues with it, but other people don't share my experiences and now I'm not sure anymore if it's as good of a strategy as I thought.

If I recall correctly, Alex did fix the lost loot from retreat to reengage bug in 0.9 so long as you win, but there's still an issue with losing the experience gain you would've gotten.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on April 29, 2019, 06:59:01 AM
I think what SCC is asking is what happens (to loot) if all ships deployed by player leave the playing field, but all of the enemies self-destruct before fade-to-black and encounter menu?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on April 29, 2019, 07:30:07 AM
If I recall correctly, Alex did fix the lost loot from retreat to reengage bug in 0.9 so long as you win, but there's still an issue with losing the experience gain you would've gotten.
It didn't look unusually small, so that's good to confirm. Perhaps the other person was still speaking from their older experience.
but all of the enemies self-destruct before fade-to-black and encounter menu?
Nothing happens to enemies, they just stay there. If anything, I was curious what happens if your temporarily only ship on the field (the one that didn't retreat yet, after all others did) gets destroyed, since I was told that this may result in a situation where battle is counted as a loss. I never experienced this, but I'm asking to confirm if it's possible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 29, 2019, 11:14:56 AM
Yes! New development patch notes!
And, do you have any ideas about new forum's style? I mean, default styles couldn't show "this is starsector forum", why not add some logo on the top of the website?such as replacing the logo of "simplemachines forum"

Hmm, yeah, I ought to look at that at some point... it would involve finding someone reliable/qualified/etc to do the work of creating a new theme, and it's more time on my end, so it's not exactly trivial.

Awesome!
It is little things like this and how easy it is to mod SS that makes it such a great game in my eyes!
I fully agree with Midnight Kitsune. The more things we can modify without the need to be a rocket scientist, the better.
It makes this sandbox game truly, euh, sandboxy. Thanks for doing just that!

<3

Thank you! This was one of the main goals from the very start - being something I enjoy in games myself - so I'm really happy it's delivering in that regard. (Some things are unfortunately harder to mod than others, but, well, I do what I can.)

It didn't look unusually small, so that's good to confirm. Perhaps the other person was still speaking from their older experience.

Yeah, that one should be fixed, so you should be fine. If not that'd be a bug.

Nothing happens to enemies, they just stay there. If anything, I was curious what happens if your temporarily only ship on the field (the one that didn't retreat yet, after all others did) gets destroyed, since I was told that this may result in a situation where battle is counted as a loss. I never experienced this, but I'm asking to confirm if it's possible.

It might be possible, I'm not actually sure. You'd see the "you lost the battle" text in the dialog you come back to, though, and it would affect your available options, so you'd know if it happened.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on April 29, 2019, 04:02:07 PM
Yes! New development patch notes!
And, do you have any ideas about new forum's style? I mean, default styles couldn't show "this is starsector forum", why not add some logo on the top of the website?such as replacing the logo of "simplemachines forum"

Hmm, yeah, I ought to look at that at some point... it would involve finding someone reliable/qualified/etc to do the work of creating a new theme, and it's more time on my end, so it's not exactly trivial.


If we can cast aside the whole "where a dev should spend time&resources" discussion, I'd like to throw in that I actually really like your forum's look. It kinda makes me feel "at home", safe and sound, perhaps a bit nostalgic.

Seeing how over-designed many forums (and websites in general) are nowadays, that's nice. Flashyness gets old very quickly.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 29, 2019, 04:35:07 PM
If we can cast aside the whole "where a dev should spend time&resources" discussion, I'd like to throw in that I actually really like your forum's look. It kinda makes me feel "at home", safe and sound, perhaps a bit nostalgic.

Seeing how over-designed many forums (and websites in general) are nowadays, that's nice. Flashyness gets old very quickly.

So it's not just me :) I actually like this look, too - I think you put it really well, or at least that resonates with me.

Anything new certainly wouldn't be flashy - just slightly more themed in a hopefully understated way - and you'd still be able to use this theme if you wanted. So - even if I get around to this, not to worry!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Soren on April 29, 2019, 04:40:50 PM
I could be persuaded to do that job. I think it'd be fun.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 29, 2019, 09:18:45 PM
Sent you a PM!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: xenoargh on April 29, 2019, 10:51:36 PM
I'd prefer to keep it subtle, if it's going to be messed with.  This Forum's nothing fancy, but it's readable and clean. 

Please don't trade it in for something that's hard to read but looks "cool", lol.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Tantalum on April 30, 2019, 09:17:11 AM
Hey Alex,

I Love the game so far, it's fantastic.

I was wondering if there was a plan to make a borderless window mode? Full screen doesn't really work for my monitor as far as I know, always have to use windowed.

Also I agree that the early part of the game is usually the more fun part. Sooner or later, towards the endgame it feels as if you get too powerful and there isn't a fleet that can take you on, is there any plan to make the endgame a bit more challenging?

Again, thanks for all the work, I'm truly enjoying the game a lot!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on April 30, 2019, 09:33:35 AM
I Love the game so far, it's fantastic.

Thank you! I'm really happy you're enjoying the game. Also, welcome to the forum :)

I was wondering if there was a plan to make a borderless window mode? Full screen doesn't really work for my monitor as far as I know, always have to use windowed.

It's already in - if you run the game at the full-screen resolution without checking "fullscreen", it'll run in a borderless window.

If you want to run this way at a less than full resolution, you can open data/config/settings.json, find this:

"undecoratedWindow":false,

and change it to true. IIRC that'll cause the game window to be borderless at any resolution.

Also I agree that the early part of the game is usually the more fun part. Sooner or later, towards the endgame it feels as if you get too powerful and there isn't a fleet that can take you on, is there any plan to make the endgame a bit more challenging?

Yep, very much so. I'd say the current release lacks a "true" endgame, so, yeah, once you've built up, there's not too much left - beyond mods, of course!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: R.U.A on May 02, 2019, 04:41:28 AM
Two-stage missiles that target a ship that gets phased go into the second "burn" phase permanently
I'm quite confused about this line. Does it mean that if I fire a sabot toward a Doom class, it will immediately get accelerated and go into the high speed stage?
Fixed issue where stat changes from terrain etc would not show up on the ship stat tooltips for non-player fleets
Emmmm...Could you give an example of this situation?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Originem on May 02, 2019, 04:43:28 AM
If we can cast aside the whole "where a dev should spend time&resources" discussion, I'd like to throw in that I actually really like your forum's look. It kinda makes me feel "at home", safe and sound, perhaps a bit nostalgic.

Seeing how over-designed many forums (and websites in general) are nowadays, that's nice. Flashyness gets old very quickly.

So it's not just me :) I actually like this look, too - I think you put it really well, or at least that resonates with me.

Anything new certainly wouldn't be flashy - just slightly more themed in a hopefully understated way - and you'd still be able to use this theme if you wanted. So - even if I get around to this, not to worry!

I think I agree with most of Shoat's idea. What I think is just something more easy to know "it's a starsector forum"
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on May 03, 2019, 02:08:21 PM
Oh Alex, completely without context, I want to mention that I'm back home from vacation in a few hours. And close to my PC again. You know. Just saying. In case you were waiting for that to happen.  :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 03, 2019, 02:16:55 PM
Release anxiety gets even the best of us, eh? I wonder what was it that had Alex wait for it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on May 03, 2019, 05:19:37 PM
Oh Alex, completely without context, I want to mention that I'm back home from vacation in a few hours. And close to my PC again. You know. Just saying. In case you were waiting for that to happen.  :)

I was hoping it'd be this weekend but if it was next, I've got an empty Saturday waiting... ;)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 03, 2019, 06:50:49 PM
what is holding back the released candidates? How come we often get to RC 6 or RC 10 before we see a release?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 03, 2019, 07:07:48 PM
what is holding back the released candidates? How come we often get to RC 6 or RC 10 before we see a release?

Generally speaking, more testing (of an actual, properly installed version rather than a dev one launched from the dev environment) and bugs found/fixed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Tantalum on May 03, 2019, 09:06:49 PM
what is holding back the released candidates? How come we often get to RC 6 or RC 10 before we see a release?

Generally speaking, more testing (of an actual, properly installed version rather than a dev one launched from the dev environment) and bugs found/fixed.

Proper QA, Regression and Conformance, Prod Rolls? What is this, a team that knows what they are doing!?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 04, 2019, 09:54:15 AM
Hah! I don't know that I'd go quite that far, but at least I'm pretty paranoid about things that "shouldn't break" breaking :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Rap1d on May 04, 2019, 01:02:22 PM
Quote
Combat carriers outfitted with only PD or missile weapons will no longer try to fight at close range

    Further, removed COMBAT tag from the Drover and the Heron

Holy *** this change is so good. Apart from my main ship that I control, Drovers and Herons are pretty much always the main part of the fleet I use, and even with timid officers and even when ordered to stick to a waypoint way, way at the bottom of the combat screen, sometimes they would just straight up suicide. They would just wander of into the middle of the battlefield, against my orders to stick to a waypoint  at the bottom, and just fly into the battle.

What I did to combat this issue, was to order them to retreat right as I noticed they were on their suicide journey. The AI seems to stick to the "retreat" command way better than they stick to their waypoints, or any other commands really.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 04, 2019, 03:56:36 PM
You could also remove the weapons from the carriers, and they will behave like non-combat ships.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Rap1d on May 04, 2019, 05:24:11 PM
Quote
You could also remove the weapons from the carriers, and they will behave like non-combat ships.

Do they need to have no weapons at all, not even missiles? I only ever have PD weapons and salamander missiles on them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 04, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
yeah no weapons at all except fighters.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Tartiflette on May 06, 2019, 10:06:09 AM
So Alex, how's the new trailer coming along? :)

(I mean, RCs can't take that long, right?)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 06, 2019, 10:12:45 AM
I am still building new RCs as minor issues crop up, but, yeah. There's some webserver stuff that needs fixed as well. Hopefully very soon :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on May 06, 2019, 12:19:49 PM
RC20+ incoming.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: The Viking Crusader on May 06, 2019, 04:16:05 PM
What is an RC? long time stalker first time poster
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 06, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Welcome to the forum :) Edit: or, I should say, welcome to posting on the forum.

An RC is a "release candidate", meaning a build I made that *may* be ready for release (in this case, 0.9.1a), but that will undergo some more testing as a "properly installed, with dev mode off" build etc (rather than me launching the game from the dev environment).

Usually a few more problems will come up, get fixed, and this leads to a new RC being built. So for example if you see the release have a version number like "0.9.1a-RC7" that means there were 6 preceding candidates built that didn't quite make the grade.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Dri on May 06, 2019, 07:27:33 PM
Just how different is the dev mode environment from a proper install? What are some common issues that crop up when going into the install?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 06, 2019, 07:35:49 PM
Different resource paths and obfuscation, plus it's testing that nothing went wrong during the installer build process. Generally speaking the bugs I find are not related to it being a "proper" install, though those do come up occasionally too. It's rare enough that I don't recall the details of any specific case. Still, the second I don't do this kind of testing is the second one of those will come up :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Snoowarc on May 07, 2019, 02:47:09 AM
How is this update looking to be save compatible?
I guess the changes to map generation wont take effect unless its a new game?
(i have yet to find a working save transfer to bring my fleet+Char over, or even how to do that manually) D:
Might just restart and work to getting my conquest again :3
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Ali on May 07, 2019, 05:00:50 AM
Did we used to have or is it a possibility to have faction specific starts for the future? IE -  Start with small ship or mini-fleet for hedgemony, tri-tach, pirate etc Inc max rep with that specific faction?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on May 07, 2019, 06:01:53 AM
How is this update looking to be save compatible?

Last I heard was that this update was both save and mod compatible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 07, 2019, 06:34:12 AM
I guess the seeds still output the same sectors.  Of course, cannot rely on abandoning colonies to remove Decivilized due to that getting fixed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 07, 2019, 09:01:24 AM
How is this update looking to be save compatible?

It's save-compatible, at least in my testing. There's an outside chance that *some* combination of factors might make a save not load, but I'd be surprised.

Also: if you're running with mods, at least some mods will likely require updates to work with .1 (but, in theory, should be fine with existing saves once updated, if the updates are purely for .1 compatibility).

I guess the changes to map generation wont take effect unless its a new game?

Right, yeah.


Did we used to have or is it a possibility to have faction specific starts for the future? IE -  Start with small ship or mini-fleet for hedgemony, tri-tach, pirate etc Inc max rep with that specific faction?

You might be of Nexerelin? This isn't something I'm too keen on adding; I'd rather choices like that be made in the game rather than before the game. (Though it does make sense for Nex; just not imo for vanilla.)


I guess the seeds still output the same sectors.  Of course, cannot rely on abandoning colonies to remove Decivilized due to that getting fixed.

The seeds won't produce the same Sector, no - that stuff is pretty fragile, and changes to Sector generation pretty much guarantee seeds producing different results.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 09, 2019, 12:09:43 PM
Do comm sniffers increase the chances of getting "Fleet Departure" intel? And are there other ways to get it?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 09, 2019, 05:36:07 PM
IIRC comm sniffers don't have anything to do with chances, it's just "as if you were also there", so you'll see stuff that's local to that system. As such it should increase the number of fleet departure intel items you see, but I didn't go code-diving, so could be a bit off on the details.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 01:11:20 PM
It's out!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 10, 2019, 01:14:14 PM
Woo!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Vayra on May 10, 2019, 01:23:29 PM
WOO!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Vayra on May 10, 2019, 01:31:07 PM
Did you forget the Aurora in the price update?  ;D

Edit: And the Falcon? It being cheaper than the Venture when the Venture straddles the line between militarized civ (i.e. colossus and refits) and actual combat cruiser seems off.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 01:32:35 PM
... apparently, yes. Hotfix incoming! (Well, no, not really - but yeah, will fix this up so it makes it into any hotfix that needs to happen.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Vayra on May 10, 2019, 01:33:29 PM
Heh. Falcon too, maybe? I edited my post but there's a new page now so:  It being cheaper than the Venture when the Venture straddles the line between militarized civ (i.e. colossus and refits) and actual combat cruiser seems off.

Anyway, WOO!

Edit: Also that Atlas Mk.II supply cost  :o
Edit2: Oh wait, you switched the Atlas and its Mk.IIs supply costs, didn't you  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on May 10, 2019, 01:35:12 PM
Damnit Alex! Of COURSE you release when I have a wrist injury! >.<
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on May 10, 2019, 01:36:00 PM
w00t!

I was hoping it'd be today... :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 01:37:44 PM
Edit: Also that Atlas Mk.II supply cost  :o
Edit2: Oh wait, you switched the Atlas and its Mk.IIs supply costs, didn't you  ;D

Yes :( Also fixed.

The Falcon is intentional, though, being a light cruiser and whatnot.


Damnit Alex! Of COURSE you release when I have a wrist injury! >.<

Aw, sorry to hear that's going on - hope it heals up soon!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 10, 2019, 02:43:30 PM
Downloaded!  I have a lull between distractions to try this.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 10, 2019, 03:10:31 PM
Blog post typo: "Added abmient sound track"
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 03:13:06 PM
Downloaded!  I have a lull between distractions to try this.

Nice! Hope you enjoy.

Blog post typo: "Added abmient sound track"

Thank you - fixed that up.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 10, 2019, 03:18:42 PM
Alex, first wanted to say thanks for the release!

Second thing that jumps out at me however is the Iron Man start option doesn't seem to work anymore.  I mean the game plays fine but it doesn't seem to restrict saving anymore, or perhaps a flag isn't being set right at character creation?  Certainly not a big deal, but probably isn't intended behavior.  For reference, just started with iron man checked, help popups off, then wolf start with kite and doing the tutorial.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 03:23:27 PM
Ah, thank you (and sorry!) - fixed this. Hardcoded it to be off when loading someone's iron mode save for a bug report, and never turned it back to normal.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 10, 2019, 03:39:18 PM
Hot take: increased ship prices for larger ships are making me value the D mod destroyers and cruisers I can recover a lot more, and I'm using them in the early game. Finished the tutorial with an extra heavily D modded Hammerhead and a medium D mod Venture recovered from pirates: still using them as buying ships is too expensive, and its a nice experience to need to factor in what they can and cannot bring to the table. The upshot of valuing these ships more, and then using them, has been an even faster early game progression that was absolutely fraught with danger! (Destroyed a 140k station + pirate fleet right out of finishing the corvus tutorial, and it was a hell of a battle. And now that ships cost more, I still can't really afford cruisers yet, so the struggle isn't over! :) )

So far so good!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on May 10, 2019, 03:40:08 PM
Downloaded!

Time to start a new vanilla campaign - looking forward to test the new colony progression, the combat changes, and new pirate Shrike, and .. and .. and ...  :D

Congratulations on the new release!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 03:40:53 PM
Hot take: increased ship prices for larger ships are making me value the D mod destroyers and cruisers I can recover a lot more, and I'm using them in the early game. Finished the tutorial with an extra heavily D modded Hammerhead and a medium D mod Venture recovered from pirates: still using them as buying ships is too expensive, and its a nice experience to need to factor in what they can and cannot bring to the table. The upshot of valuing these ships more, and then using them, has been an even faster early game progression that was absolutely fraught with danger! (Destroyed a 140k station + pirate fleet right out of finishing the corvus tutorial, and it was a hell of a battle. And now that ships cost more, I still can't really afford cruisers yet, so the struggle isn't over! :) )

So far so good!

*thumbs up* This is awesome to hear!


Downloaded!

Time to start a new vanilla campaign - looking forward to test the new colony progression, the combat changes, and new pirate Shrike, and .. and .. and ...  :D

Congratulations on the new release!

Thank you!!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: eidolad on May 10, 2019, 04:09:35 PM
Pure fanboi gushing:

Two years ago I shifted from VoIP support engineer to front end web app development (Angular2+)...in June 2018 I note that is when I downloaded StarSector for the first time.  So there I was a tadpole developer playing StarSector and having envy attacks at seeing the Coolest Java Project Ever. 

(minor aside:  I didn't know people could actually have FUN doing Java (I'm just kidding, a little...I just cannot get excited about learning Java to then spend my time writing REST endpoint/business-database layers that seem to occupy Java folks in my realm) ).

Now having built a few small software things and feeling a fair amount of imposter syndrome some days, I only can say that there is something wunderbar about seeing real people touching/liking what you've built (and of course, finding bugs and helping making it better, and hopefully asking for more, which is the best complement IMHO in software development).

To be able to do this for a personally originated software project that involves *combat starships in a sandbox galaxy with career/campaign/empire building/modding api/etc./MOAR/OMG do a mashup with Stellaris I'm dying heey-*

...well as a total sci-fi geek, I can only imagine.

Congrats on the release!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 04:17:18 PM
Haha, thank you! Yeah, it's a bit surreal at times :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Clockwork Owl on May 10, 2019, 05:06:10 PM
Finally! Is it stable or is 9.2 planned?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: xenoargh on May 10, 2019, 05:14:37 PM
Yay!  Congrats, Alex :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on May 10, 2019, 05:19:49 PM
Congratulations on the release, Alex!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 05:29:47 PM
Finally! Is it stable or is 9.2 planned?

There may be a hotfix, depending, but not planning on a .9.2.

Yay!  Congrats, Alex :)
Congratulations on the release, Alex!


Thank you guys!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 10, 2019, 06:01:43 PM
Browsed the codex and noticed that Atlas 2 has a cost of 10.  The Pather's tanker costs 32.

Noticed that Industrial Planning 3 increases income by 10% instead of 30%.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 10, 2019, 06:03:57 PM
Browsed the codex and noticed that Atlas 2 has a cost of 10.  The Pather's tanker costs 32.

Yep, it's flipped with the regular Atlas - already fixed it up on my end.

Noticed that Industrial Planning 3 increases income by 10% instead of 30%.

Yeah, in testing 30% was a bit much. I guess that bit might not have made the patch notes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: xenoargh on May 10, 2019, 06:23:28 PM
"Campaign 'speed up time' is a toggle"
"Pause campaign after battles"

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKvbNlJsDVIPqfK/giphy.gif)
My left pinky finger thanks you, sir!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 10, 2019, 06:40:18 PM
Just saw the Increased Maintenance (D) mod.  It is a killer.  Doubles daily supply consumption of ships (+100% supplies).  Practically destroys much of the point of using (D) ships that have it (less supply use).  Even Maintenance Overhaul is a drop in the bucket offsetting the penalty.

The fuel (D) mod has less of a penalty, at only +50%.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 10, 2019, 07:27:41 PM
oh no, I was gonna go out on a date :'(
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 10, 2019, 07:59:50 PM
The increased maintenance is a oof, but on the other hand it reduces combat costs for no loss in combat performance. So you break even if you fight 5 times per month... (which doesn't happen that regularly, but still).

With the increased ship costs, the increased maintenance doesn't matter as much. I just found an almost pristine Hammerhead - only had increased maintenance. As it will take 42 months until the cost of it matches what it would take to buy a Hammerhead right now, I'm fine with it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 10, 2019, 08:51:21 PM

Edit: Also that Atlas Mk.II supply cost  :o
Edit2: Oh wait, you switched the Atlas and its Mk.IIs supply costs, didn't you  ;D

I fixed this myself by editing the ship_variants.csv

Also Atlas MK2 looks pretty good, I think it's better than the Dominator now. Although lorewise, how is this sort of extensive modifications possible without causing "Ill-advised modifications"?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Nick XR on May 10, 2019, 11:53:24 PM
Nice work Alex!   :)

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dark.Revenant on May 11, 2019, 03:27:57 AM
Hi Alex!

It seems that CombatEngineLayers.JUST_BELOW_WIDGETS layer is still below a bunch of really important world-space non-widget assets, like particles (from explosions, hits, and the like).  It seems like the usual renderInWorldSpace() method renders above such things, but also above quite a few UI elements, while a layered renderer at JUST_BELOW_WIDGETS is indeed below those unwanted UI elements, but also below particles of any sort.

This is problematic for the distortion shader, since I have to choose between not distorting particles (really problematic for a lot of reasons) or distorting a significant subset of UI elements.

Great update, as a whole, though!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Ioulaum on May 11, 2019, 03:53:32 AM

Changes as of January 31, 2019

Miscellaneous:
  • Can now left-click outside the hullmod picker dialog to dismiss it


For me, it can only be achieved by left-clicking outside of the whole refit box instead of the hullmod picker box. But is really nice to see a step forward for the quality of life :)



Changes as of January 31, 2019

Ship AI:
  • Fixed several issues that could cause a ship with front shields to turn slightly away from the target, seemingly without a reason


Suspect shipAI trying to lead a missile shot, very noticeable on Sunder with long-range beam weapon and missiles (except annihilation rocket launcher), initial testing indicates it's fixed in this patch.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 11, 2019, 06:34:36 AM
Good release. Haven't noticed anything breaky so far. Old savegame plays nice. The +4 industry colonies I have are now cash cows. Probably gonna keep them. :-X

I also didn't see it in the patch notes anywhere, but faction hullmods are now 0-cost hullmods and can be removed. This is interesting. They do have a small downside, but removing these never occured to me.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 11, 2019, 09:39:34 AM
Hi Alex!

It seems that CombatEngineLayers.JUST_BELOW_WIDGETS layer is still below a bunch of really important world-space non-widget assets, like particles (from explosions, hits, and the like).  It seems like the usual renderInWorldSpace() method renders above such things, but also above quite a few UI elements, while a layered renderer at JUST_BELOW_WIDGETS is indeed below those unwanted UI elements, but also below particles of any sort.

This is problematic for the distortion shader, since I have to choose between not distorting particles (really problematic for a lot of reasons) or distorting a significant subset of UI elements.

Great update, as a whole, though!

Thank you for letting me know - going to take a look!

I also didn't see it in the patch notes anywhere, but faction hullmods are now 0-cost hullmods and can be removed. This is interesting. They do have a small downside, but removing these never occured to me.

Hmm, could you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean but it sounds like a bug.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 11, 2019, 10:25:59 AM
14th Battlegroup hullmod is not hardwired anymore. It shows up as removable on my Enforcer, with a cost of 0. Once I remove it, I can't get it back since it's not on the list. However, it's an old 0.9 save.

Huh, this is odd. Now the hullmod is hardwired as it's supposed to be. I saved several times in between noticing this and now.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on May 11, 2019, 10:42:35 AM
The increased maintenance is a oof, but on the other hand it reduces combat costs for no loss in combat performance. So you break even if you fight 5 times per month... (which doesn't happen that regularly, but still).

With the increased ship costs, the increased maintenance doesn't matter as much. I just found an almost pristine Hammerhead - only had increased maintenance. As it will take 42 months until the cost of it matches what it would take to buy a Hammerhead right now, I'm fine with it.
I bought two Dominators with two D-mods each, only one had IM. 50 supplies/month looks super bad, but when in my fleet, both had the exact same supply consumption.
I did have Logistics 2 (fleetwide maint savings), Safety 3 (D-mods are only 50% as bad) and Field Repair 3 (D-mods count for maint savings), so it is possible that skills can completely mitigate the effects of increased maintenance.

If true, this would make the Safety skills tree much more attractive.
I was quite worried that this would put a sizeable crimp in the ability to run hobo junkfleets, but as it stands IM is not horrible.

Also, still a thing:
procgen/name_gen_data.csv
Column A Line 1170
(https://i.imgur.com/VaVv3aO.png)

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 11, 2019, 10:55:38 AM
14th Battlegroup hullmod is not hardwired anymore. It shows up as removable on my Enforcer, with a cost of 0. Once I remove it, I can't get it back since it's not on the list. However, it's an old 0.9 save.

Huh, this is odd. Now the hullmod is hardwired as it's supposed to be. I saved several times in between noticing this and now.

Ah, hmm - that's weird. Could possibly be related to it being an 0.9 save - could you let me know if you have a save where it's happening?


Also, still a thing:

Fixed that up, thank you.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 11, 2019, 11:08:50 AM
Looking good so far.
Only 4 industries max, eh? Ouch. :o (I understand why it was changed though.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 11, 2019, 11:12:12 AM
Hi Alex!

It seems that CombatEngineLayers.JUST_BELOW_WIDGETS layer is still below a bunch of really important world-space non-widget assets, like particles (from explosions, hits, and the like).  It seems like the usual renderInWorldSpace() method renders above such things, but also above quite a few UI elements, while a layered renderer at JUST_BELOW_WIDGETS is indeed below those unwanted UI elements, but also below particles of any sort.

This is problematic for the distortion shader, since I have to choose between not distorting particles (really problematic for a lot of reasons) or distorting a significant subset of UI elements.

Great update, as a whole, though!

Thank you for letting me know - going to take a look!

Alright! Fixed this up and sent you a PM.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 11, 2019, 11:12:55 AM
Looking good so far.
Only 4 industries max, eh? Ouch. :o (I understand why it was changed though.)

Yeah! Kind of has to be a low-ish max limit, otherwise a high colony size still means "get everything"...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 11, 2019, 11:33:27 AM
More feedback from 1 playthrough: Early game lasts a lot longer now, which is great. Found/recovered ships are much more valuable, which is great. I have only done a few bounties when they are convenient (IE in the area I'm exploring) but I have killed a good number of pirate stations at this point. I suspect I need to go around killing a few of the lower level bounties in order to bump them up to the difficulty/reward levels that are sufficient, but thats ok.

I've just started my first colony this playthrough, and its much more satisfying than before. Because I can't just plop down all the industries I want I'm planning out what will go on which colony, and trying to be very careful not to attract faction attention yet (got a low hazard gas giant, rich farm terran, and ultrarich rare ore barren in the same system!). I really want setting up an integrated supply chain to be worth it! :D

Combat AI: Things are quite smooth and the AI is playing well. Carrier AI seems fixed based on my tutorial condor's behavior, which is great! (Also, did you tweak bomber AI? The piranhas are actually working a little!) The new escort behavior is very very nice, and makes the enemy AI seem more competent. Remnants in particular have gone up another notch in difficulty because of it, as its no longer nearly so easy to pick off their frigates with destroyers.

One question: I found a lone Legion XIV (non-recoverable, sadly) and none else in its constellation... has that clustering been removed? Its probably a good call, as finding a recoverable 3 would have catapulted me immensely.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Volfgarix on May 11, 2019, 11:47:38 AM
Found/recovered ships are much more valuable,
Weren't they always usable? Zombie fleets were and are a thing after all.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 11, 2019, 11:57:06 AM
More feedback from 1 playthrough: Early game lasts a lot longer now, which is great. Found/recovered ships are much more valuable, which is great. I have only done a few bounties when they are convenient (IE in the area I'm exploring) but I have killed a good number of pirate stations at this point. I suspect I need to go around killing a few of the lower level bounties in order to bump them up to the difficulty/reward levels that are sufficient, but thats ok.

I've just started my first colony this playthrough, and its much more satisfying than before. Because I can't just plop down all the industries I want I'm planning out what will go on which colony, and trying to be very careful not to attract faction attention yet (got a low hazard gas giant, rich farm terran, and ultrarich rare ore barren in the same system!). I really want setting up an integrated supply chain to be worth it! :D

Combat AI: Things are quite smooth and the AI is playing well. Carrier AI seems fixed based on my tutorial condor's behavior, which is great! (Also, did you tweak bomber AI? The piranhas are actually working a little!) The new escort behavior is very very nice, and makes the enemy AI seem more competent. Remnants in particular have gone up another notch in difficulty because of it, as its no longer nearly so easy to pick off their frigates with destroyers.

Awesome! I love reading these, thank you for taking the time :)

One question: I found a lone Legion XIV (non-recoverable, sadly) and none else in its constellation... has that clustering been removed? Its probably a good call, as finding a recoverable 3 would have catapulted me immensely.

I hadn't touched it, but maybe I should have another look. Whether it would cluster or not... depends, so you probably just got "lucky".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 11, 2019, 02:18:52 PM
Found/recovered ships are much more valuable,
Weren't they always usable? Zombie fleets were and are a thing after all.

They were always usable, but when you could just buy a pristine one for not much, their weaker stats became a liability while costing lots of fuel to go anywhere.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 11, 2019, 03:40:09 PM
Some comments:

Like Thaago says, early game lasts longer.

Shrike (P) is useful for bullying pirates early, if I have Loadout Design 3 to scrap enough OP for something decent, if not great.  (Without that perk, it is too OP starved to have a decent loadout.)

My game is at the end of cycle 206, and the majority of the person bounties are in the 80k-100k range, which is doable with my fleet of destroyers and frigates.  Last release, almost all of the bounties would be 150k+ by the end of 206, but not now.  So far, this is an improvement.  I just built a colony on a Terran planet with modest resources.  I will see if colony before endgame is a useful option this time.

Noticed some lore NPCs running the capitals of various factions, and some have all three colony skills like an alpha core.

Culann is run by an alpha core, at least according to Luddic Path.  Alpha core gives +10 to pather interest.  (Did not know that before.)  The administrator appears to be a human with all three skills, but Pathers say it is run by AI core.

Noticed sleeper cells appear at 7 interest, and active cells at 8.

Found the pather base bar option.  It is a different style than pirates, and it is not free.  Makes sense in context.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dark.Revenant on May 11, 2019, 03:43:17 PM
Culann is run by an alpha core, at least according to Luddic Path.  Alpha core gives +10 to pather interest.  (Did not know that before.)  The administrator appears to be a human with all three skills, but Pathers say it is run by AI core.

Very good catch.  That's intentional, actually.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: eidolad on May 11, 2019, 05:12:49 PM
Little thing but the options menu at planets is listing:

>> (dev) dump memory
>> (dev) options

// the options are greyed out...which is best because I'm just like that Mangalore soldier in Fifth Element who sees the red button on their new rifle...and MUST PUSH IT.

edit:  nope, they are active because I just had to push one.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 11, 2019, 07:14:30 PM
 :o I think Alex might be reading this thread!!!!
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/XLfZXDo.png)
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on May 11, 2019, 07:46:09 PM
Quote
Culann is run by an alpha core, at least according to Luddic Path.  Alpha core gives +10 to pather interest.  (Did not know that before.)  The administrator appears to be a human with all three skills, but Pathers say it is run by AI core.
Is it calling itself "Second Vegan" for you too? Of course it's vegan, it can't eat, but that just makes me wonder where the First Vegan is.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 11, 2019, 08:43:54 PM
Little thing but the options menu at planets is listing:

>> (dev) dump memory
>> (dev) options

// the options are greyed out...which is best because I'm just like that Mangalore soldier in Fifth Element who sees the red button on their new rifle...and MUST PUSH IT.

edit:  nope, they are active because I just had to push one.

You've got devMode turned on somehow - well, the only way is via settings.json. These options would not show up otherwise.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: eidolad on May 11, 2019, 08:47:55 PM
thanks...methinks I will backup current dir and do clean install in fresh dir
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dark.Revenant on May 11, 2019, 10:43:07 PM
Buffalo2 and Shrike don't appear to have gotten price revisions.  They seem incredibly cheap for destroyers, comparable more to frigates.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on May 11, 2019, 11:14:40 PM
Buffalo2 and Shrike don't appear to have gotten price revisions.  They seem incredibly cheap for destroyers, comparable more to frigates.
Alex did say there were a lot of exceptions.  The Buffalo Mk.II feels like one of them, though the Shirke doesn't.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on May 11, 2019, 11:53:04 PM
Quick thoughts:

- New escort order is certainly living up to its promise from the previews.

- So the named lore characters appear ingame now, cool! Shame they don't seem to have any special quests or dialogue. Would that be added in a future version?

- Commerce counts towards industry cap. This is a significant nerf to a structure of already questionable utility; it just adds +1 stability (when you can hit the cap of 10 from other sources quite easily anyway), and adds some convenience for selling off vendor trash.
If it's to stay an industry, perhaps it could generate other benefits. I think a credit income based on the market's trade volume (all commodities) would be nice and fitting.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Originem on May 12, 2019, 01:07:25 AM
seems that in hullmod, auto-warp can't handle %s string correctly :-\
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Bastion.Systems on May 12, 2019, 01:45:55 AM
Loving the Atlas MK2.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: TrashMan on May 12, 2019, 02:24:39 AM
Looking good so far.
Only 4 industries max, eh? Ouch. :o (I understand why it was changed though.)

Yeah! Kind of has to be a low-ish max limit, otherwise a high colony size still means "get everything"...

I think it might be a bit too low.

You need a BIG planet for "get everything" and a GOOD planet.
Finding one that you can colonize that fits both...very few such planets around.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 12, 2019, 03:30:38 AM
Also loving the Atlas Mk2. It's downright scary. I bet the pirates are ecstatic about their new toy. ;D

I'm not sure if this is due to randomized numbers, but it appears that the number of clouds in hyperspace have been toned down?
The map I created in 0.9.1a is much, much more traversable than the one I created in 0.9a. I am VERY grateful for this.



The one downside so far: Pather/pirate bases are now truly hidden away. No sneaky peeking into the planet list to see where they're hiding. (Admittedly, this was of course very cheap and obviously unintended.)
I don't mind the pirates, since you can get spacers drunk to find them. But I don't really like the pathers' unavoidable sneak attacks combined with their base(s) being a needle in a haystack.
I think I managed to disable pather cells altogether in the config and that's how it'll stay for the time being.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on May 12, 2019, 03:57:44 AM
Bloody pirates stole my cargo pods! (https://i.imgur.com/sTiZDMI.gif)
Thats new...

I don't mind the pirates, since you can get spacers drunk to find them. But I don't really like the pathers' unavoidable sneak attacks combined with their base(s) being a needle in a haystack.
Pathers get a similar bar event to the pirates now. It just costs you something other than time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dark.Revenant on May 12, 2019, 03:59:05 AM
I'm not sure if this is due to randomized numbers, but it appears that the number of clouds in hyperspace have been toned down?
The map I created in 0.9.1a is much, much more traversable than the one I created in 0.9a. I am VERY grateful for this.

Yep, that's a very intentional change!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 12, 2019, 04:20:17 AM
Pather bases also aren't as insane with escort fleets as they used to be. Maybe I've just been getting lucky.

I think Pirate bases could do with a little bump, especially later in the game. Lowtech and midline tier 1 is just a fly on the wall at this point.

Do these bases progress, anyway? Would catching a Pather base early allow me to kill it at a lower tier? Because that could be a decent incentive to deal with stuff in a timely fashion.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 12, 2019, 04:25:50 AM
Pathers get a similar bar event to the pirates now. It just costs you something other than time.
Ah, thanks! That's good to hear.
Yep, that's a very intentional change!
And a very welcome one! Getting to other places is less of a chore now. :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 12, 2019, 06:16:57 AM
- Commerce counts towards industry cap. This is a significant nerf to a structure of already questionable utility; it just adds +1 stability (when you can hit the cap of 10 from other sources quite easily anyway), and adds some convenience for selling off vendor trash.
If it's to stay an industry, perhaps it could generate other benefits. I think a credit income based on the market's trade volume (all commodities) would be nice and fitting.
Back in 0.9, Commerce was only useful for the bugs involving infinite money and commodities.  Maybe upkeep is low enough now, but it was not in 0.9 (if not abusing bugs).  It needs some additional benefit to be worth using if it takes an industry slot.

As for a new suggested benefit, how about Military Base (Surplus Store), but without the tariff, if combined with Military Base.  Player can buy some stuff his colony can make, without waiting a month or more for the production orders.

For me, the biggest reason I do not use Commerce is inconsistent defaults for my colonies depending if it has Commerce or not.  If my colony does not have Commerce, it defaults to storage.  If my colony has commerce, it defaults to Open Market.  That is annoying.  Few times, I almost bought or sold stuff because I thought I was in Storage but was in Open Market instead.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on May 12, 2019, 09:20:44 AM
Do these bases progress, anyway? Would catching a Pather base early allow me to kill it at a lower tier? Because that could be a decent incentive to deal with stuff in a timely fashion.
That's how it worked previously, I wouldn't expect that to change.  More ring sections get added to the station as time passes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: MajorTheRed on May 12, 2019, 09:30:14 AM
Aurora is stated costing 70 000, I guess it was missed in the update?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 12, 2019, 09:48:57 AM
Quote
Punitive expeditions:
Will result in a 5-point reputation penalty when/if the expedition fails
No reputation penalty for fighting the expedition's fleets

Doesnt work for Hegemony inspection fleets. Any attacks still lead to war. Wad or bug?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 12, 2019, 09:58:39 AM
Buffalo2 and Shrike don't appear to have gotten price revisions.  They seem incredibly cheap for destroyers, comparable more to frigates.

Yep, intentional - the Shrike is a light destroyer, and I think the lower price gives it more room to shine as a player flagship before it gets outclassed by "proper" destroyers. It's still useful as a support ship afterwards, but this is more about use as a flagship. The Buffalo2... I mean, it's the Buffalo2 :)


- New escort order is certainly living up to its promise from the previews.

Yesssss!

- So the named lore characters appear ingame now, cool! Shame they don't seem to have any special quests or dialogue. Would that be added in a future version?

:-X

- Commerce counts towards industry cap. This is a significant nerf to a structure of already questionable utility; it just adds +1 stability (when you can hit the cap of 10 from other sources quite easily anyway), and adds some convenience for selling off vendor trash.
If it's to stay an industry, perhaps it could generate other benefits. I think a credit income based on the market's trade volume (all commodities) would be nice and fitting.

Hmm, maybe, yeah. It's an "industry" mainly because if it wasn't it'd just be a thing you auto-build, but it could certainly use another look.


seems that in hullmod, auto-warp can't handle %s string correctly :-\

Could you show me an example? It's wrapping the string after doing replacements so I suspect something else is the issue.


Loving the Atlas MK2.

:D


I'm not sure if this is due to randomized numbers, but it appears that the number of clouds in hyperspace have been toned down?
The map I created in 0.9.1a is much, much more traversable than the one I created in 0.9a. I am VERY grateful for this.

Yep, that's a very intentional change!

Indeed! A fairly minor one, too, but it's good to hear it's having a perceptible effect.



I think Pirate bases could do with a little bump, especially later in the game. Lowtech and midline tier 1 is just a fly on the wall at this point.

Do these bases progress, anyway? Would catching a Pather base early allow me to kill it at a lower tier? Because that could be a decent incentive to deal with stuff in a timely fashion.

They should upgrade to the next tier... very roughly once a year or so. After a couple of years, new bases that spawn would only be of the 2 or (more likely) 3 module variety.


Aurora is stated costing 70 000, I guess it was missed in the update?

Yeah; fixed for the... warmfix, I guess we'll call it, which ought to be in several days, depending on what comes up.


Quote
Punitive expeditions:
Will result in a 5-point reputation penalty when/if the expedition fails
No reputation penalty for fighting the expedition's fleets

Doesnt work for Hegemony inspection fleets. Any attacks still lead to war. Wad or bug?

Wad :) IIRC the reason for the expedition change is it was more beneficial to let your allied fleets/station take care of them to avoid rep loss, instead of fighting them yourself. For inspections, this isn't an issue, since either way leads to war.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 12, 2019, 10:49:15 AM
Huh?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 12, 2019, 11:17:37 AM
Either someone made a post about discovering Redacted wrecks and thought they could be recovered, made a post about it, then discovered they couldn't and deleted the post, or I'm going nuts.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 12, 2019, 11:32:49 AM
Either someone made a post about discovering Redacted wrecks and thought they could be recovered, made a post about it, then discovered they couldn't and deleted the post, or I'm going nuts.

... could be (keeping that intentionally ambiguous!). You deleted your previous post, though, or *I'm* going nuts :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 12, 2019, 11:44:23 AM
They should upgrade to the next tier... very roughly once a year or so. After a couple of years, new bases that spawn would only be of the 2 or (more likely) 3 module variety.

Nice! I'm at Oct. 225 right now and still getting a lot of tier 1 pirate bases. Is that working as intended?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 12, 2019, 11:47:14 AM
Doesn't sound like it - would you mind sending me your save? fractalsoftworks [at] gmail [dot] com.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 12, 2019, 12:10:10 PM
On its way!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 12, 2019, 01:06:34 PM
Thank you! Will check it out in a bit and report back.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tartiflette on May 12, 2019, 02:11:25 PM
I'm not sure if this is due to randomized numbers, but it appears that the number of clouds in hyperspace have been toned down?
The map I created in 0.9.1a is much, much more traversable than the one I created in 0.9a. I am VERY grateful for this.
Wait what? You mean we can't ride storms across the sector at burn 30+ anymore? And now we have to slog across at the base sustained burn speed? Aw crap.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 12, 2019, 02:20:26 PM
Thought I'd share this with you Alex and David: A friend of mine just got laser eye surgery, going from incredibly bad (legally blind without glasses, not great at all even with glasses) to near perfect vision. They saw me playing the new update: "Wow, I never knew this game was so pretty! Its gorgeous!"

Assault Chain Gun changes in practice: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *hack cough hack * haha. Perhaps a little overtuned but certainly no reason to change it at all. Nope.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: TJJ on May 12, 2019, 02:48:49 PM
The Windows installer is still triggering Windows Defender's Smart Screen, as it did with the previous release (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=13445.msg231907#msg231907). (as per this thread (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=14517.msg237382#msg237382))
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 12, 2019, 03:21:08 PM
Thought I'd share this with you Alex and David: A friend of mine just got laser eye surgery, going from incredibly bad (legally blind without glasses, not great at all even with glasses) to near perfect vision. They saw me playing the new update: "Wow, I never knew this game was so pretty! Its gorgeous!"

:D

Assault Chain Gun changes in practice: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *hack cough hack * haha. Perhaps a little overtuned but certainly no reason to change it at all. Nope.

HMMMMMMM. (Totally leaving it as-is; I'm curious to see how it develops.)


The Windows installer is still triggering Windows Defender's Smart Screen, as it did with the previous release (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=13445.msg231907#msg231907). (as per this thread (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=14517.msg237382#msg237382))

Thanks for the heads up! <deep sigh>
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 12, 2019, 09:40:14 PM
Quote
Yep, intentional - the Shrike is a light destroyer, and I think the lower price gives it more room to shine as a player flagship before it gets outclassed by "proper" destroyers. It's still useful as a support ship afterwards, but this is more about use as a flagship. The Buffalo2... I mean, it's the Buffalo2 :)

In my current 9.1 game im just skip "proper" destroyers and go to cruisers after gathering some wolves/shrikes as a meatshild for flagship tempest and some core carriers. 50-70k for hammer/sunder, imho, is too expensive. -_-
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 12, 2019, 09:47:54 PM
Quote
Yep, intentional - the Shrike is a light destroyer, and I think the lower price gives it more room to shine as a player flagship before it gets outclassed by "proper" destroyers. It's still useful as a support ship afterwards, but this is more about use as a flagship. The Buffalo2... I mean, it's the Buffalo2 :)

In my current 9.1 game im just skip "proper" destroyers and go to cruisers after gathering some wolves/shrikes as a meatshild for flagship tempest and some core carriers. 50-70k for hammer/sunder, imho, is too expensive. -_-

Depends what you want to kill, tbh. Light ships are fine to a point but really struggle against heavy cruisers and stations, while a few of the proper destroyers will get the job done.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 12, 2019, 09:58:03 PM
Quote
Yep, intentional - the Shrike is a light destroyer, and I think the lower price gives it more room to shine as a player flagship before it gets outclassed by "proper" destroyers. It's still useful as a support ship afterwards, but this is more about use as a flagship. The Buffalo2... I mean, it's the Buffalo2 :)

In my current 9.1 game im just skip "proper" destroyers and go to cruisers after gathering some wolves/shrikes as a meatshild for flagship tempest and some core carriers. 50-70k for hammer/sunder, imho, is too expensive. -_-

Depends what you want to kill, tbh. Light ships are fine to a point but really struggle against heavy cruisers and stations, while a few of the proper destroyers will get the job done.

Im just want to say what for the current heavy destroyers price im just prefer to buy cruiser instead. (if i need heavier setup)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Originem on May 12, 2019, 10:01:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/mk0ZeSj.png)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on May 13, 2019, 10:12:08 AM
So I took a fairly long break from the game (mostly because I was stuck in a rut for a long time in how I play the game and needed a reset).

Wow. Just wow. So much fun new stuff. Especially the new ships. So many things to explore in the campaign that just wholesale didn't exist when last I played. Definitely a fun payoff for time-off.

I was sort of getting stuck in campaign but decided to take some risks and now I realize it's really easy to keep going and money up. I keep getting exciting colony related drops and need to start first colony somewhere. No idea where is good to do that yet, but I'm sure I'll figure it out.

I'm sort of shocked by how few non-degraded ships there are now. But then I just pick up a degraded ship and realize that in the whole of my fleet the individual restrictions aren't so noticeable. (not non-noticeable, though, just not game breaking). Though I did somehow find an undegraded hammerhead just drifting out in space. So it's not all bad news there.  ;D ;D

Anywho just wanted to drop in and express some appreciation. Such a fun game, and it's only getting better.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 13, 2019, 10:41:51 AM
Thank you! Happy you're having fun with the new version :D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Trylobot on May 13, 2019, 02:02:22 PM
*** yeah alex \o/
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 13, 2019, 04:49:50 PM
 ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on May 13, 2019, 04:51:10 PM
The ability to create a disengagement opportunity by destroying part of the enemy fleet is probably my favourite new feature. If you get jumped by a much bigger fleet, if you're fast and vicious enough you can make a clean getaway, even if you can't kill the big boy ships. It makes for much fewer forced reloads due to messing up the sensor game or having a pirate armada be hyperspace-storm ping-ponged into your small smuggling operation.

Burn 10 Shrike is the best, I love it. Trolling around with a burn 10 fleet of Omens, Tempests, and Shrikes makes for a great early-game smuggling/piracy experience. When you including the ship price changes, the Shrike now has a very well defined niche and role: biggest fish in the smallest pool. The Shrike (P) is just better than the regular Shrike for most purposes. The only thing it's worse at is the Heavy Blaster + Sabot Pod build. I think it needs more of a downside compared to the regular Shrike, maybe slightly reduced base flux stats or shield efficiency?

Hazard really doesn't matter anymore. The conditions that make a good colonization system have drastically changed; in 0.9.1 you wanted multiple low-hazard planets in one system, now you just want all resources in a system with as many planets as possible. Even 200% hazard no-resource rockballs can make good forge-worlds with heavy industry, refining, fuel production, and a military base, provided you have the in-faction resource supply to halve their upkeep costs. I like it; it now makes sense why Sindria exists, and the Dictat's choice to not just move the Synchrotron Core to Volturn is a reasonable one. The industry limit and high structure costs mean that vanilla markets make a lot more sense in general.

I'm not sure the AI core droprate from the Nexus are high enough. I've blown up 2 so far, one degraded, one full, and got 2 Alphas from the degraded, 1 Alpha 1 Beta from the full. Farming the infinite Remnant fleets is always going to be better value long-term, but you can get 1-2 cores from a single Ordo.

AI cores being way more common makes getting into the colony game without skills perhaps a bit too easy. On the other hand, you then have to deal with Pathers and AI inspection fleets in order to stay in the colony game. On the third hand, you're going to have to deal with Pathers either way, and building Combat rather than Industry makes dealing with both problems easier. Cores are great even if you invest heavily into colony skills, so you're tempted to deal with inspection fleets anyway.

The Prometheus Mk2's statcard says it has 3 medium ballistics, but it only has 2.

The Harbinger needed the nerf, and it's still amazing. 3 Phase Lance Harbinger is a terror to anything cruiser sized or below. Low tech gets ruined by pure soft flux pressure, mid-tech has less trouble with the amount of soft flux but also always has exposed engines, and nothing high-tech can deal with having their shields or phase system disabled for a triple phase lance burst straight to the hull. It's also really good for fighting high-tech stations, regular or remnant. A combat-specced Harbinger can take out a Remnant station shield module with 3 triple phase lance bursts, matching up nicely with the 3 stored charges of the QD system. 1 Heavy Blaster 2 Ion Pulser Harbinger can cripple any ship right through the shields, and still take out smaller threats and other phase ships with the Blaster.

If Commerce takes up an Industry slot, there's literally zero reason to ever build more than one of it. Maybe you build one just so you have a convenient place to dump all your salvage loot and survey data but that's not how you get the best money for it. If you actually care about getting money for your salvage, you sell it where there are shortages and mix in some black market trading. Maybe you build one so you can just buy tankers and freighters without having to custom order them, but that's still just a convenience thing. Commerce needs to do something else, something that the player needs or really wants, otherwise there's no reason to build it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 13, 2019, 05:16:28 PM
Thank you for your feedback! Definitely noted re: Commerce.

Nice catch on the Prometheus Mk.II - it doesn't seem to be hurting anything, so I'll leave it as is for now. There's a slight chance that fixing this could cause save incompatibility for some players, but I've made a note to fix this up after the hotfix.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 13, 2019, 05:51:36 PM
Agreed on commerce. Here's an idea: What if it provided a decent growth boost from people coming to trade and/or just some medium amount of pure income from taxes (in addition to making a market)? Still hard to justify as an industry slot, but at least it would be useful to colonies that don't want to attract attention with the splashier industries. It could also be a structure, but then it would just be a good idea to build it on every world like waystations.

Bit of feedback: I'm just starting to use a capital for special hard targets and have about half a dozen cruisers for normal bounties, so am just on the starting edge of late game. I feel like my colonies are just a bit under-developed; I haven't attracted any expeditions (only a very small pirate raid at destroyer level) despite not being careful, because of the time it takes to build industries vs the time it takes to amass a lot of profits from bounty hunting. My heavy industry just came online, so perhaps thats about to change! Anyhow, I think the colony build times are a bit too long, maybe by about 20%?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 13, 2019, 06:02:03 PM
Agreed on commerce. Here's an idea: What if it provided a decent growth boost from people coming to trade and/or just some medium amount of pure income from taxes (in addition to making a market)? Still hard to justify as an industry slot, but at least it would be useful to colonies that don't want to attract attention with the splashier industries. It could also be a structure, but then it would just be a good idea to build it on every world like waystations.

Hmm, I kind of like that - a "growth" industry, sort of like free port, but weaker in that regard, and without the same risks. Definitely beyond the scope of a hotfix, though.

Bit of feedback: I'm just starting to use a capital for special hard targets and have about half a dozen cruisers for normal bounties, so am just on the starting edge of late game. I feel like my colonies are just a bit under-developed; I haven't attracted any expeditions (only a very small pirate raid at destroyer level) despite not being careful, because of the time it takes to build industries vs the time it takes to amass a lot of profits from bounty hunting. My heavy industry just came online, so perhaps thats about to change! Anyhow, I think the colony build times are a bit too long, maybe by about 20%?

I'll keep this in mind, for sure. Generally, it seems impossible to have a clean sync-up of "how long it takes for colonies to really kick in" vs "how long it takes to get enough money to get everything building" since there are plenty of variables in both. Well, more in the latter, but I hope you know what I mean. Definitely not saying it's perfect as-is or anything, just don't want to knee-jerk "fix" it, especially  since much of the goal in .1 was to slow things down in this area - I'd like to see how it pans out in a bit more detail.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Soren on May 13, 2019, 06:06:18 PM
The Prometheus Mk2 also doesn't have launch bay locations specified correctly in the hull file - fighters launch from ship center with an awkward glow. I've fixed my own copy if you'd like the hull file.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 13, 2019, 06:56:24 PM
Thanks for letting me know, made a note! Will fix this on my end - there's a master file (from which the .ship file gets exported) that I would need to update anyway.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 14, 2019, 05:30:04 AM
Re: Shrike
Honestly, just raise Shrike (P) OP to 80, and give the basic Shrike the hybrid mount (and maybe raise OP by 5 or 10 if it needs to be better than the pirate version) and call it a day.  After all, aren't some of the Pirate ships merely a paint job version of the originals like Enforcer and Cerberus?  If so, Shrike can join that club.

Shrike (P) joined my early game zombie fleet of Enforcers.

I mostly skipped proper destroyers by the time I had money to spare, after the difficulty spike.  I bought cruisers instead.

The time scaling seems to delay the early difficulty spike by three to six months.

Re: Colonies
Colony skills are must-have if player does not want to deal with Pathers.  I still have bad memories (from 0.9) flying my fleet out of the way and all over the place hunting Pathers, even if my fleet can chew them up and spit them out.

Re: Commerce
Commerce needs something beyond +1 stability and freeloaders' upkeep.  If I need to sell junk, I go to one of the hidden pop-up pirate bases that target my colony, first to sell junk at their Black Market (to avoid tariffs), then raid and kill it!  I notice some things are cheaper buying at Black Market (even at pop-up bases) than drawing commodities from my colony!

@ ANGRYABOUTELVES: Is the Quantum Disruptor opening longer?  I find it hard to get the full Phase Lance burst during that tiny window.  (Timing seems harder than landing Reapers.)  Might try AM Blasters (energy mounts take small weapons) when I get my hands on it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 14, 2019, 05:40:14 AM
I've noticed that there are fewer ships to salvage in this patch. Has something changed?
Shrike (P) is better than normal one, so I wouldn't mind bringing normal Shrike up to speed. Besides that, the other issue is that Tempests are so plentiful now, for some reason, that I grab one every time I visit an independent market...
Commerce is in a stupid spot where it does the same thing that ground defences, space station, Patrol HQ and its upgrades do, and only Military Base and High Command are industries like it.
Improved AI kicks ass. It's more challenging to fight against enemy and my ships can (sometimes) keep up with me and cover me. Frigates seem to be bashing against friendly ships more, but if that's what takes them to back off, then so be it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 14, 2019, 05:53:01 AM
Yea commerce is currently nerfed hard by being an industry. I don't think it's awful, as selling stuff is always useful and stability is welcome. I think if its industry status was removed, that could work.

For me, High Command is mandatory on virtually all colonies as it informs fleet size (and the alpha core bonus is a great buff-atop-a-buff) and that helps deal with all kinds of problems. Commerce is currently the odd man out and I don't foresee I'll use it much or at all in 0.9.1.

I was wondering why the Remnants were tough cookies in this version. If that's the improved AI at work, great!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 14, 2019, 05:57:23 AM
Even if Commerce lost industry status, I probably still would not build it, except maybe one at a fringe colony.  (Almost 500k to build plus upkeep?  Not sure +1 stability would make up for that.)  Even so, Black Market at enemy pirate base is usually a better place for selling most things.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 14, 2019, 08:31:53 AM
Is it possible to stand and fight in defence of a friendly fleet, even if it wants to attempt a retreat? Lost some supplies unnecessarily, as instead of just deploying my combat ships to defeat the enemy fleet I had to deploy everything.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 14, 2019, 09:10:08 AM
Battlestations honor priorities!  Finally, I can have my Tachyon Lance death star guarding my colony.  Once again, I found Tachyon Lance early, then high-tech pack.  This time, as long as the lance has priority, the station will use lances as told.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on May 14, 2019, 09:49:36 AM
Wasn't that always the case? In .9 my stations respected it and I defended many times my Tachyon death station.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 14, 2019, 10:03:09 AM
Wasn't that always the case? In .9 my stations respected it and I defended many times my Tachyon death station.
No.  Back during 0.9, after I learned high-tech pack, my high-tech station refused to use anything other than autopulse, no matter the priority settings (i.e., I prioritize lance, but it used autopulse.  It only used lance if it is the only available weapon, but dumps lances for autopulse as soon as it became available.).  Today in 0.9.1, it will use whatever I prioritize.  If it is lances, it will use those.  If it is plasma cannon, that will be used.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 14, 2019, 12:20:05 PM
Made my first colony, focus on being an exploration waypoint and tech-mining. Alpha core on the first month. Surprisingly enough, the colony actually gives me some money, even if it will take about 30 months until it pays itself off. I also had my first pirate raid, it was just a fleet of some cruisers, destroyers and frigates, nothing hard to deal with. One good thing about increased population thresholds is that I don't have to pay much attention to the growth meter, it won't finish any time soon.
Does tech-mining auto sell itself after some time, or do I still have to close the shop manually? And do alpha cores provide any benefit to tech-mining at all? They don't produce any commodity anymore.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 14, 2019, 12:56:08 PM
Does tech-mining auto sell itself after some time, or do I still have to close the shop manually? And do alpha cores provide any benefit to tech-mining at all? They don't produce any commodity anymore.

It doesn't - that'd be a bit weird, wouldn't it? It's up to you to decide when you want to stop with the diminishing returns. It's also one of very few industries that doesn't benefit from an AI core, at least at the moment.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 14, 2019, 01:24:23 PM
Noticed Luddic Church and Independents have Heavy Industries of their own.  Independents (at New Maxios) having Heavy Industry in a system with sparse (Tri-Tachyon) patrols makes it great for convenient stealth drive-by raiding for blueprints.  Just nicked a Harbinger blueprint from them on my way to hunt a pirate base with a high bounty.  I have a shiny new Harbinger built and ready to go once I make it back to my colony.

I finally used a Legion (XIV) seriously for the first time (due to lack of money to mass produce capitals).  I like it.  It is the only brawling ship that can use dumb-fire large missiles easily and not die trying (Gryphon) or gimp their other guns (Apogee or Conquest).  Hammer Barrage on a beefy ship that can use them easily is nice, although Hammer Barrage is pricey for the lack of ammo.  Wished it was either a bit cheaper like Hellbore (16 or 18 OP) or have more ammo.

I need to try Gryphon soon now that it has builtin Expanded Missile Racks.  Maybe it has enough OP to get enough nice things.

After playing with Increased Maintenance more, I find it hurts most early when it is challenging to save money and an annoyance late in the game.  Still, I try to avoid using such ships when I can, at least the bigger ones.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on May 14, 2019, 02:28:22 PM
Found a pristine Legion (XIV) in my latest exploration playthrough about 3 months in. Every weapon mount was filled and it had full squadrons of fighters. I couldn't pass it up. It's a pain to lug around but it just completely changed my ability to challenge stuff. I still don't like it as much as the base Legion but it is a good ship. Without skills, though, it is a ungainly beast and of course I tend to bite off more than I can chew because my supporting fleet is pretty unspectacular (even with an Apogee).

I had to put Efficiency Overhaul on it and I just found Augmented Drive Field but can't squeeze it in without losing too much. As a flagship, though (this early!), it's quite cool.

Still can't put down a colony yet. Haven't found a world I'm too happy with yet but I'm still operating under 0.9 rules of "Hazard Rating>All." I hear that's not entirely necessary now.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 14, 2019, 02:52:35 PM
Right now, my main colony is a lone Terran planet because I have not found a better system yet to plop a bunch of colonies down.  So far, I have temporary colonies elsewhere to provide commodities and tech-mines.  My Terran grew to size 5, so it is permanent.  Low hazard is nice for the first colony, but higher hazard is fine once player can cut upkeep costs.

I wanted to try Legion (XIV) because I want a good ship that can use dumb-fire large missiles well.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 14, 2019, 03:02:18 PM
Using colonies for tech mining exclusively sounds like a good endgame idea, because there's so many ruins everywhere. How many blueprints are you usually getting per mine on an 'extensive ruins' planet? I got really unlucky with my first one and got none. Haven't tried tech mining since.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 14, 2019, 04:24:06 PM
Just tried Harbinger.  Between AM Blaster and Phase Lance, AM Blaster gets the job done faster, although Phase Lance is an alternative.  Harbinger needs (or a very good idea to get) Gunnery Implants 3 and ITU to have enough shot range for 1) Disruptor to work before AM Blaster shots arrive and 2) avoid getting caught by exploding capital ships.  Without ITU, my Harbinger can hurt Conquest, but then go down with Conquest due to being too close to the explosion.

* * *

Using colonies for tech mining exclusively sounds like a good endgame idea, because there's so many ruins everywhere. How many blueprints are you usually getting per mine on an 'extensive ruins' planet? I got really unlucky with my first one and got none. Haven't tried tech mining since.
During 0.9, I found several blueprints and other items when I tech-mined frequently.  In my 0.9.1 game, I started four or five tech mines, but only got two or so blueprints (Falcon (P) and Pather pack).  Tech-mines will not give blueprints you already know.  It takes a while to suck mines dry, so the earlier you start, the better (if you can afford it).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 14, 2019, 05:15:11 PM
Just 2 habitable planets right in the middle of core sector.  ;D

PS Seed, if someone want easy game.  8)
MN-685010773089335503
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Kanil on May 14, 2019, 07:49:51 PM
I'm super happy to discover that the commission stopping raids also allows you to settle colonies in claimed systems. I've picked out the nicest uninhabitable rock in my faction's home system and have set myself up a little heavy industry base, to get some use out of the blueprints I've found.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 15, 2019, 09:12:37 AM
My two colonies seem to be profitable enough even if all they have is tech-mining, surprisingly enough, though the Remnants keep stealing my comm relays (I can't afford a Patrol HQ yet, nor do I want to buy it, as both of these colonies are temporary tech-mining endeavours). Lowered upkeep makes it really, really easy to just plop down a colony on some useless rock and not worry about it bankrupting the player. It might not make back the money in profits, but if it's a tech-mine, it should in blueprints and other neat stuff.
I really appreciate the farming and light industry _lows and _highs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 15, 2019, 11:20:51 AM
I didn't know Remnants stole relays at all. Been having a Nav buoy active in a high-level Remnant system for years and they never touched it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 15, 2019, 06:29:29 PM
They don't care until you establish a colony, at which point they'll not only take control of player owned objectives, but they'll even build makeshift ones in open stable locations.


Are domain probe graveyards supposed to be a thing?
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/7iuMa5l.png)
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 15, 2019, 06:36:37 PM
It's not super likely, but it could happen, yeah. IIRC that's not an "intended" bunch of probes together, just the RNG - within allowed parameters - determining that it'll be like that, one probe at a time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Vind on May 15, 2019, 09:27:41 PM
One problem with inner-system hardware - enemy captures it then visiting independents recapture it and your own system ships ignore it afterwards as independents are friendly so colony sit without relay etc from now on until player visit. PS This is in a system with 2 player colonies only with yellow warning hyperspace beacon.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 15, 2019, 09:54:29 PM
Let me make a note, that sounds like a case I missed. This is in a system with no independent colonies, right?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 15, 2019, 10:14:10 PM
I had independents claim all the objectives in my beacon system colony once. Didn't have any patrols yet so I don't know if they would have taken them back, though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baxter on May 15, 2019, 11:49:28 PM
I just found out about this patch and man there are a lot of very nice things in the patch notes. :D

Particularly appreciated are the many and varied changes to ship AI, escort and carrier behavior in particular. This was a particular point of contention for me in the last patch and it seems like a bunch of other people had problems too if it's gotten addressed. Thanks so much alex!

Not sure if I should download and start playing straight away though. Seems like there's some oddity with ship rarity and markets, so maybe waiting for just ooone more fix would be good.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 16, 2019, 05:44:57 AM
After playing 0.9.1 more, I get highly annoyed with traveling with tugs in my fleet to keep my speed high.  With less income, Erratic Fuel Injector, and more expensive ships and colony building, fuel costs are not negligible, and I think I will start grabbing Navigation in my future games (or maybe my current game since I have unspent points due to decision paralysis), even if I need to give up Fighter Doctrine or Planetary Operations to do it.

With Navigation 3, I can either knock off two tugs from my fleet or remove Augmented Engines from my slowpokes and give them better hullmods.  In a way, Navigation can indirectly boost combat power by removing either two tugs from the fleet (more combat ships) or Augmented Engines (stronger cruisers and capitals).

I like to have all three colony skills like the important NPCs (e.g., Kanta, CEO Sun), but if I do this, then either Planetary Operations, Fighter Doctrine, Navigation, or a combat skill must go (and I still have slightly less combat skills than max level officer if I give up a fleet or campaign skill).  Before anyone says alpha core, I really dislike dealing with Pather cells, and being able to have maximum colonizes without being bothered by Pathers is really nice.

P.S.  I visited some really huge systems, and at least one of them was colony worthy (in 0.9.1 standards).  I probably would be highly annoyed if I need to travel far to a jump point and/or through nebula every time I need to return to my home base, so in such a game, Transverse Jump would be really handy.

In my current game, there is an annoying huge system with only one jump point and no planets, and pirate bases spawn there recurringly.  This is probably one system where I really want Navigation.  (I did not get this kind of system to slog through in my earlier 0.9 games.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: BHunterSEAL on May 16, 2019, 07:27:32 AM
I think I noticed this in the prior patch as well, but what's driving the price difference between the vanilla and (P) Cerberus variants? The Pirate-skinned version gets the standard 'heavily modified and poorly maintained' flavor text but I see no difference in stats or hullmods. If I recall there's other unmodified (P) hulls which cost the same as their counterparts. 
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 16, 2019, 07:31:48 AM
In my current game, there is an annoying huge system with only one jump point and no planets, and pirate bases spawn there recurringly.  This is probably one system where I really want Navigation.  (I did not get this kind of system to slog through in my earlier 0.9 games.)
Let me guess, Penelope's Star? ;D
It takes ages to find the pirate station there whenever it spawns (and it does so frequently), so I inhabit a planet there in all of my games just to keep the trash out.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 16, 2019, 08:51:07 AM
No, random system beyond core worlds, with no planets, lots of asteroid belts, and only one jump point.  Also, the relays are beyond the outermost belts, so it takes a while to get there, or anywhere in the system.  At least Penelope's Star has many planets and mostly empty space, so that pirate base can be guessed where they are it.

Speaking of silly pirate base spawns, I had one spawn in a neutron star system, although the base was next to a jump point.  Neutron stars are the most annoying systems, only worth it for the near guaranteed spawn of a research station or other high-value treasure spawn, and then forgotten after they are looted.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 16, 2019, 10:06:02 AM
I had independents claim all the objectives in my beacon system colony once. Didn't have any patrols yet so I don't know if they would have taken them back, though.

I'll take a look - thank you, that's also a useful bit of info.


Particularly appreciated are the many and varied changes to ship AI, escort and carrier behavior in particular. This was a particular point of contention for me in the last patch and it seems like a bunch of other people had problems too if it's gotten addressed. Thanks so much alex!

:D

Not sure if I should download and start playing straight away though. Seems like there's some oddity with ship rarity and markets, so maybe waiting for just ooone more fix would be good.

Hmm - nothing that I'm aware of!


I think I noticed this in the prior patch as well, but what's driving the price difference between the vanilla and (P) Cerberus variants? The Pirate-skinned version gets the standard 'heavily modified and poorly maintained' flavor text but I see no difference in stats or hullmods. If I recall there's other unmodified (P) hulls which cost the same as their counterparts.

It's mostly flavor. The price difference, is, uh, for the cool paintjob. Haven't you heard that the red ones go faster?

(Fixed this up, thank you for mentioning it.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Stormking on May 16, 2019, 10:42:32 AM
Showerthought from playing the latest update:
since it's a career simulator in many ways, a timeline view would be a really cool feature. Something that shows all past battles, when one has lost/gained/stashed/recovered ships, when one has learned new blueprints, a graph of money and manpower, all those things.
I'd like to look back and see how far I've come already, since the journey is rarely linear and that's what makes it so compelling. Sometimes you limp away from a fight and rebuild. Sometimes you make unexpected finds.
A timeline tool would be a great way to focus on that aspect, to be able to look back and tell a good story with it.

Actual feedback to come soon.  :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 16, 2019, 10:46:41 AM
Hmm, yeah - this sort of thing could fit in especially nicely when the game has an ending (even if the player is allowed to keep playing past the "ending", if they so choose...)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 16, 2019, 11:49:24 AM
One problem with inner-system hardware - enemy captures it then visiting independents recapture it and your own system ships ignore it afterwards as independents are friendly so colony sit without relay etc from now on until player visit. PS This is in a system with 2 player colonies only with yellow warning hyperspace beacon.
I had independents claim all the objectives in my beacon system colony once. Didn't have any patrols yet so I don't know if they would have taken them back, though.

Fixed - was indeed not checking for this in a couple of places.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 16, 2019, 01:11:55 PM
After I played with Legion (XIV) armed with a loadout that worked well with it (four Railguns, two Heavy Mortars, three Dual Flak, and Hammer Barrage), I decide to try a similar loadout on standard Legion after I found the blueprint (stole it from the Luddic Church).  Turns out without missiles, flux efficiency is a problem.  Obviously, Hellbore on large is good, especially with the passthrough buff.  Railguns and Dual Flak stay.  Then, I need something flux efficient and found... Thumper!  Normally, Thumper is underwhelming, but Hellbore blows big holes into armor, and the Railguns deal with the shield.  Thumper is very fast, very flux efficient and has high DPS.  Of course, missiles can be installed instead of Thumper, but for those that want unlimited ammo (that can hurt things), Thumper is useful for this case.

* * *

After trying the more efficient Light Needler, I deem it a simple near-equal or slightly inferior Railgun alternative, instead of an inferior Railgun knockoff from 0.9.  Railgun is probably still the better weapon (but not by much) because it has cheaper OP cost and steady firing.  Even though Light Needler is more flux efficient, it still has that huge burst that causes a flux spike for the attacker, and the attackers that need efficiency probably cannot handle flux spikes very well.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 16, 2019, 01:29:59 PM
Huh, nice to see a good use for the Thumper!

I find myself using the Hephaestus more than the hellbore recently, exactly for the issue of hull damage you are talking about. I find it has 'good enough' anti-armor penetration damage for most enemies, but then chews through the hull significantly faster (not especially good against armor monsters, so support for the initial crack against them is nice). Shield flickering also becomes mostly ineffective against it. Its very much like a HIL that does hard flux damage at the cost of half the armor penetration, and I do like HILs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 16, 2019, 01:43:48 PM
I am not comfortable with HAG on Legion.  It costs more OP and flux to use.  I like HAG on Onslaught or Conquest, but Legion is a bit flux starved to sustain two HAG and other smaller guns.  I guess Mark IX and HAG combo can work.

Normally, I prefer Hellbore and Heavy AC on standard Legion for the extra range.  But, I wanted to see what could work if I ported as much as I could from the Legion (XIV), especially the 700 range on the smaller guns.  I tried Railguns, Heavy Mortars, and Devastators, but it was a bit flux intensive (not too much, but a bit more than comfortable).  The PD was great, but the flux use, not so much.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: eidolad on May 16, 2019, 03:33:16 PM
Thumper is a general go-to...watch how nicely a pair of Thumpers does on an Enforcer...those dual stream of hits puts stress on shields.  So the third fwd facing medium can be an armor buster.

Totally subjective comment by finance-challenged player:  is it me, or is a commission more necessary to support the early game finances than in the previous game version? 

I don't do the "focused gameplay to get a million credits"...rather I play a general fleet mix that gets bigger, doing stuff, and just so happens to want to build enough to start a colony.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 16, 2019, 06:12:31 PM
I did not need commission, although getting colonies skills early is not a good idea.  While raids and expeditions seem toned down compared to before, early colonies do not make much money.  If anything, player probably needs to focus skills on combat stuff early to keep up with named bounties before they become too strong.

While bounties transition smoothly, getting better ships is harder (they cost more) and player cannot rely on huge colony income like last release, player needs to be about endgame strong by about the start of 208 to defeat named bounties without suffering too many casualties.  The time scaling is a bit better, but still a bit tight for comfort.

Colonies still seem like a lategame or endgame thing because you need money to buy the ships you need to kill bounties, and colonies are too expensive to set up early.  (That 100k for a waystation buys a cruiser, and the 450k you need to build a critical industry can get you a capital you need to attack named bounties.)

That said, until you build a colony that is worth something, it is a good idea to get commission until you get a colony going.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 16, 2019, 06:15:27 PM
My favorite legion is still the dual gauss cannon, bombers, and either 4 of 5 medium missiles. It has absolutely fantastic long ranged pressure and kill power and is used very well by the AI. I know, not your kind of ship though as the medium missiles are quite ammo limited. :)

For the XIV I just slapped on 5 HVD's and 2 squalls... lazy of me, but I was short on other weapons at the time (strangely, but I was exploring) and it worked out ok for an AI captain so I never bothered to change it. I'm currently flying an SO Dominator and am still cackling with mad glee, so haven't brawled the XIV this version myself.

Re: Commission. I've found myself wanting one more for the ship/weapon availability, but of course comes with the price of more victims faction enemies, which can be a threat. The extra money certainly wouldn't hurt however. I haven't done a very money focused playthrough this time around either, mainly enough bounty hunting to support wandering around exploring, and money was pretty tight early-mid game (did not have a commission).

Re: needing colonies to kill bounties: not my experience so far to be honest - for me its the exact opposite. I kill a bounty or two to get the 500k for the next structure (but then again I just got my heavy industry online, so maybe this will change).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 16, 2019, 11:23:05 PM
Totally subjective comment by finance-challenged player:  is it me, or is a commission more necessary to support the early game finances than in the previous game version? 

I don't do the "focused gameplay to get a million credits"...rather I play a general fleet mix that gets bigger, doing stuff, and just so happens to want to build enough to start a colony.

After this ship price changes, imho, early smuggling is better way to get funds for colony start. Now its a bit harder to build up fleet for decent bounties, but even now commission is not necessary - just rush field repairs(3) and enjoy your mighty flying trash bins fleet. =)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 16, 2019, 11:45:18 PM
Colonies still seem like a lategame or endgame thing because you need money to buy the ships you need to kill bounties, and colonies are too expensive to set up early.  (That 100k for a waystation buys a cruiser, and the 450k you need to build a critical industry can get you a capital you need to attack named bounties.)

That said, until you build a colony that is worth something, it is a good idea to get commission until you get a colony going.

Early colony is cheap and profitable. Just dont build everything available. All you really need is mining or farming for like 25k monthly profit. Initial investment is ~50k for some troops transports(2 nebulas), ~100k for mats and another 100k for first industry. Not a big deal.

PS Jul 207. First colony at Penelope Star. ^.^ Exploration fleet is ready. Wayfarer+shepperd start, tutorial skipped.
(https://i.imgur.com/rlaZeqd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jM3Eupr.jpg)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 17, 2019, 04:58:29 AM
250K to build a colony for only 25k a month?  That is not good enough with a tight time scaling schedule where I need those two cruisers or a capital now to kill those named bounties that still scale a bit too fast for comfort.  I can get that 250k back right now if I can take one more named bounty (that I could not kill without those extra ships).  25k a month is a bit too slow if I happen to just fall behind and cannot catch up to the scaling.

* * *

@ Alex:  The new Atlas II and Prometheus II capitals are categorized as "Low Tech" when viewing blueprints or production, shouldn't they be under "Pirate" or "Luddic Path" (for filter purposes) like the other similarly hacked hulls?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 17, 2019, 06:10:31 AM
250K to build a colony for only 25k a month?  That is not good enough with a tight time scaling schedule where I need those two cruisers or a capital now to kill those named bounties that still scale a bit too fast for comfort.  I can get that 250k back right now if I can take one more named bounty (that I could not kill without those extra ships).  25k a month is a bit too slow if I happen to just fall behind and cannot catch up to the scaling.

Just look at screens. I build this little colony and still have 600k and fleet capable to do up to 150k bounties. Game still generate bounties from 50 to 300. And main thing about having profitable colony - i can always skip unbeatable bounties and even dont do anything because colony already cover my fleet expenses. And colony will generate more money with time. (just because of growth)

Also, i dont remember when its added, but now you can just take delivery missions from a bar and they are pretty profitable - 50-200k for a fast trip(if you have some cargo ships). So, getting some cash for another colony, or another 2 cruisers isnt problem at all. Falling behind bounty scaling is just a fantastic story in current game build.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 17, 2019, 08:10:20 AM
I see the screens.

I could handle 150k bounties with some difficulty.  The problem is that only lasts for about six to twelve months before most bounties spike yet again to 250k+ by about cycle 208 (even if I am not totally aggressive at killing them and raising bounty level the old-fashioned way via combat) and if I my fleet is not endgame strong by then, then income slows to a trickle, and I have expeditions to deal with if I have a colony that has anything other than farming or tech-mining.  Any tweaks that eased the problems of bounty scaling last release has been partially offset by slower progression forced on the player by more expensive ships and slower colony building.  If player should spend more time in the early-game or mid-game phase, then time scaling for bounties should be slowed a bit more too.  If bounties are still time scaling like before (except for deserters appearing later), then player still has some pressure to get to the endgame level as soon as possible (despite attempts to slow progression) to survive the inevitable opposition.

40k-120k from exploration missions, bar missions, and smuggling as primary income is not quite enough late when I need lots of money to buy big ships (to fight enemy cruisers and capitals), lots of supplies and fuel, and/or most colony stuff late in the game.  That is good earlier in the game, but not so much later, and the game kind of forces endgame strong enemies by 208, whether it is bounties or colony defense.  More precisely, the time taken to profit from non-combat kind of pales to high combat bounties.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 17, 2019, 09:10:49 AM
Am I correct in assuming Tech-Mining is utterly useless after the ruins have been combed clean?

Also kinda wish they'd still generate a few supplies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 17, 2019, 09:26:17 AM
Am I correct in assuming Tech-Mining is utterly useless after the ruins have been combed clean?

Also kinda wish they'd still generate a few supplies.
I remove tech-mines after the message reads "comprehensively combed multiple times".  Until then, there is a chance for a rare item.

That said, with New Maxios being an easy place to rob many blueprints from, I rely tech-mining less for blueprints.

Speaking of New Maxios, the administrator probably should get Planetary Operations 3 to force the player to get a few more marines to rob blueprints from.  EDIT:  ...Or maybe not, since stability bonus from PO3 means I can raid New Maxios twice in a row due to higher stability.  Stability is the biggest limiter of raiding.  It is generally not a good idea to decivilize planets you want to rob from by excessive raiding.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 17, 2019, 10:17:06 AM
I have expeditions to deal with if I have a colony that has anything other than farming or tech-mining.

And do you really need something special early on? ;)
Mining? In current game doesnt triggered anything for 1.5 years. Just easy 40k/month(at 4 size). Must have asap.
Farming? Dont have any currently. And dont remember raids from previous game. Was like 60k/month at 7 size colony. Definitely must have.
Light industry? Trigger raids from time to time. Even because of organic production. Not sure about Pathers. Didnt test it alone. Probably can be build asap too.
Heavy industry? Trigger raids, attract Pathers. In current game barely profitable at 200% solo colony. 25k exports, 20k upkeep. Dont build it until you want to start some own production.
Fuel production? Trigger raids from Syndrian from time to time. Most profitable industry. (at least with special thingy) Like heavy industry can be delayed until you feel ready to defend it. Or just build it and ignore downtimes - must be profitable anyway.
Freeport? Very good thing to speed up colony growth and boost export profit, but trigger regular raids from Haegemony and this raids is most dangerous - they disable colony spaceport and its mean big money loss - no export, only upkeep bills. Trigger only if you ready to repel(or bribe) raids or can afford to ignore it(multiple colonies mitigate consequences).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 17, 2019, 11:07:55 AM
I had Mining trigger Tri-Tachyon raids on high ore worlds before.  I do not know if high volatiles or organics can trigger raids as well.  Guess low yield worlds (and no Industrial Planning on admin) are safe enough.

Refinery can attract expeditions.

Light Industry does not attract Pathers at all.  It may be safe enough from expeditions, at least at low sizes.

I do not use Free Port for now because 1) stability malus and 2) spaceport raids.  Unlike last release, it does not double profits as soon as I click it, so the only reasons I really want it is to accelerate colony growth and maybe boost accessibility on a fringe world too far from core.  Maybe to keep miners happy too if that colony is a mining one.

I guess a problem is when do safe worlds become not safe anymore because colony grew too big?  What may be safe at size 3 may not be at size 5 or more.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 17, 2019, 11:13:19 AM
@ Alex:  The new Atlas II and Prometheus II capitals are categorized as "Low Tech" when viewing blueprints or production, shouldn't they be under "Pirate" or "Luddic Path" (for filter purposes) like the other similarly hacked hulls?

Good catch, thank you.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 17, 2019, 11:57:42 AM
Bounty scaling is always going to be tough to balance, because the difficulty of bounties depends so much on fleet composition, skill selection, and just player skill. Current scaling seems to be on the fast side for some players and slow side for others, so its probably in a good place.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 17, 2019, 12:11:41 PM
I've been finding that with a colony, I park what I don't need.  If I'm doing exploration, I can get away with a small, cheap fleet.  If I'm doing bounty missions or need to defend the colony from a raid, I pull out the expensive heavy hitters.  That mitigates a lot of my running costs I find.

I've been playing a lot of spacer/iron man and after a number of runs I think I'm getting a feel for how to do that start successfully.  Although Iron man does tend to mean I restart quite often. :)

Spacer introduces the complication that your levels actually have an in game credit cost (i.e. 1,000 credits per level per month), which means initially you want to stay low level while building up an initial bank account.  I will point out this is somewhat unintuitive game play (generally one might assume being higher level is better) and I'm not sure if this the gameplay Alex was going for with the spacer start, although given he's hidden it in a settings file I'm guessing he also doesn't think its ready for prime time.

Even exploring will provide XP, just not nearly as much as combat, and so for skills, I grab Navigation 3, and then Fleet logistics 2, in that order.  The strategic options provided by Navigation 3 on an Iron man run are invaluable (both in terms of keeping at 20 speed sustained burn and simply escaping a system at any point).

Anyways I tend to accept a bunch of exploration missions over 15-30 days while hanging around the core sector doing a delivery mission or two, or perhaps some drug or weapons smuggling, and then do a grand tour of the sector to complete the exploration missions.  I can generally do 3-6 exploration missions in ~120 days (150k-300k) plus a delivery for another 10-20k.  This tends to be low experience gain, especially if you just run the sensor package and don't actually salvage the target (or especially fight the defenses). 

This typically will let me build up credits at a steady rate over time with a fairly small fleet.  Each cycle is basically enough credits to buy a cruiser.  Given I'm not fighting, the playtime goes relatively quickly, although still quite exciting when you realize you accepted a mission for a yellow or red warning system.  To be honest, I find myself actually using the stealth mechanics and have started seriously considering grabbing the sensors skill.

My objective during this time is to get enough credits to start a colony, build a profitable industry, get a starbase, and enough destroyer and cruiser class firepower to handle the first pirate fleet that comes for the colony and enough firepower to take out a tier 1 pirate base.  At that point you can start to relax, as your trickle of income is enough to at least offset the crew costs plus monthly debt.  When I do explore missions after that, I'll leave the combat ships at home and still use my low cost exploration fleet, which minimizes my running costs.

Depending on what ships you happen to come across exploring/salvaging, you can get started on 0.5 to 1.0 million credits I think.  500,000 towards the colony and first few buildings, and 500,000 towards a cheaply bought destroyer/cruiser fleet (500,000 should be enough for 3 cruisers).  If you found some salvageable cruisers (or capitals) during your exploration phase, you can probably get away with less.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 17, 2019, 01:11:31 PM
Hotfix is up! Well, very much a warmfix, but in any case - see OP for details.

Also, just realized that I never uploaded the new javadoc for 0.9.1a, so will be doing that shortly.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 17, 2019, 01:53:00 PM
... and the new javadoc is up.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 17, 2019, 02:11:15 PM
Nice going, bug squisher. :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 17, 2019, 02:13:56 PM
Nice! Just started a new run today before you updated it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 17, 2019, 03:49:27 PM
I guess it is time for me to restart.  My seed was kind of crappy due to lack of good colony systems.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 17, 2019, 05:47:22 PM
I'm loving the additional hyperspace lanes!

My two colonies are separated by quite a distance, but there is a somewhat indirect route that has you avoid all of the hyperspace cloud.  I find myself wanting to give names to the "landmarks" on that hyperspace route since I traverse it often.

Kind of feels more like I'm really navigating through hyperspace, and I now find myself checking out the hyperspace map to find new routes when I want to get somewhere.

(I have to admit, I could of just gotten lucky with the random seed, but I don't remember finding clear routes between stars that I did in my current game).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on May 17, 2019, 11:44:45 PM
I had one escape scenario where my fleet started more than halfway up the map (screenshot (https://i.imgur.com/tEtFta5.png)). Is this intended, a mod bug, or something else?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 18, 2019, 03:35:26 AM
Should these old pirate base intel listings expire on their own, or is there a way I can force this? I've waited I think a month in-game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 18, 2019, 03:44:29 AM
In the config, there's this line: "adminMaxHireable":20,
In-game however, the max administrators you can hire and have is 3. Is adminMaxHireable meant for something else entirely? Or is this a bug?
If it's not a bug, is there another way the number of admins can be increased?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Oblivion on May 18, 2019, 05:19:43 AM
In the config, there's this line: "adminMaxHireable":20,
In-game however, the max administrators you can hire and have is 3. Is adminMaxHireable meant for something else entirely? Or is this a bug?
If it's not a bug, is there another way the number of admins can be increased?


The total amount of admins increases when you reach a certain combined faction market level. I think there’s also a skill which increases the max number.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 18, 2019, 05:44:29 AM
The total amount of admins increases when you reach a certain combined faction market level.
Of all factions? Or just the player's faction?
If all factions, uhh... I guess that means that bombing the crap out of various factions' military bases to decivilise them in order to stop their attacks was a bad idea then. ???
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on May 18, 2019, 05:47:06 AM
Own faction only, and it's only in Nexerelin (not a vanilla feature).

The settings.json value you want is baseMaxAdmins (note Nexerelin also modifies it, so you may want to change its file as well).

adminMaxHireable controls how many admins are available to hire from comm boards throughout the sector at any one time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 18, 2019, 05:53:02 AM
Thanks! I thought that option made it possible to have two or more admins on one planet, so I didn't touch it. Derp.
Some of them are a bit too cryptic for me. ;)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 18, 2019, 08:47:42 AM
New patch, new game. Some smuggling at start, as usual. Then first survey expedition find recoverable paragon at the third visited system. Badly d-modded, but who cares - its a free paragon at Oct 206.  ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/SsUYCdg.jpg)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2019, 08:56:58 AM
(I have to admit, I could of just gotten lucky with the random seed, but I don't remember finding clear routes between stars that I did in my current game).

There's definitely more clear space now - not *too* much more, but it generates more lanes. Maybe 50% or so more, iirc?

I had one escape scenario where my fleet started more than halfway up the map (screenshot (https://i.imgur.com/tEtFta5.png)). Is this intended, a mod bug, or something else?

Definitely a bug! Haven't seen this in vanilla (and don't recall touching anything that might cause it), but that doesn't necessarily mean it's mod issue. Still, I'd lean in that direction...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2019, 11:07:59 AM
Has anyone noticed that most endgame fleets have several capitals and nearly the rest cruisers, with few if any destroyers or frigates?  I guess it makes sense since the player might try that, supplies and fuel permitting.  Pirates, with weaker ships, are the worst offenders with several Atlas II and Colossus 3 and Ventures filling out the rest of the fleet.  For deserters, I routinely see about four or five Conquests and a bunch of cruisers like Herons and Gryphons, or for low-tech fans, a Legion, three Onslaughts, and Dominator and Mora spam.

Would raising the fleet cap (to 40 for player and NPCs) bring more smaller ships to NPC endgame fleets?  It would be nice if there was more variety of endgame fleets.  (It would be nice if player can use a frigate or destroyer swarm to engage such fleets.)

I find myself bring no more than twenty ships due to 1) supply and fuel costs and 2) unable to deploy more than three to five ships at a time at map size 300.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 18, 2019, 11:09:13 AM
66% more lanes. Once I learned the new hyperspace storm mechanics, I didn't mind traveling through hyperspace clouds and taking advantage of storms, but I still have to agree that the added lanes feels better, even though the difference is subtle enough I didn't realize it until I saw the diff in the code!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2019, 11:20:51 AM
I noticed my first 0.9.1 game was less cloudy.  There are still enough clouds out there to abuse storm-riding, but not so much that there are clouds, clouds, clouds everywhere with no way to feasibly drive around them like in 0.9a.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 18, 2019, 11:53:33 AM
Has anyone noticed that most endgame fleets have several capitals and nearly the rest cruisers, with few if any destroyers or frigates?  I guess it makes sense since the player might try that, supplies and fuel permitting.  Pirates, with weaker ships, are the worst offenders with several Atlas II and Colossus 3 and Ventures filling out the rest of the fleet.  For deserters, I routinely see about four or five Conquests and a bunch of cruisers like Herons and Gryphons, or for low-tech fans, a Legion, three Onslaughts, and Dominator and Mora spam.

Would raising the fleet cap (to 40 for player and NPCs) bring more smaller ships to NPC endgame fleets?  It would be nice if there was more variety of endgame fleets.  (It would be nice if player can use a frigate or destroyer swarm to engage such fleets.)

I find myself bring no more than twenty ships due to 1) supply and fuel costs and 2) unable to deploy more than three to five ships at a time at map size 300.

I have noticed this, and while it would be nice to have more enemy ship variety, I am so very thankful for the end of the 100+ frigates that I would always have to fight if a couple fleets combined. I am all in favor of the enemy fleets going 'tall' at the high end.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2019, 12:13:43 PM
I agree the end of a hundred frigate swarm is good.  However, now most endgame fights against pirates is Atlas 2 spam.  It would be nice to see some smaller ships from an endgame fleet from time to time.  Although I guess I could hunt smaller fleets (that probably flee and die to auto-resolve).

Also, higher fleet cap might make it easier for player to bring his own small ship swarm, or at least enough to support his big ships without clogging slots for ship recovery.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 18, 2019, 12:49:45 PM
My Prometheus Mk 2 is firing off MIRVs at single fighters. Is it supposed to do that?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 18, 2019, 01:24:15 PM
Endgame pirate fleets are pretty balanced here. I'm getting a mix of Atlas, Ventures, Colossus and smaller ships.

Possibly influenced by player fleet composition?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2019, 01:25:31 PM
My Prometheus Mk 2 is firing off MIRVs at single fighters. Is it supposed to do that?

Kinda is, yeah. It's got the "ALWAYS_PANIC" flag which makes it really free with missiles. (Less than ideal if it's a core ship for the player, but, well.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Riph on May 18, 2019, 01:29:32 PM
Fixed issue where pressing "S" without course widget showing would still adjust player fleet's destination

Am I imagining things, or did this "fix" our ability to push the S key for an emergency stop command when travelling on the overworld?

Specifically, I'm talking about scenarios where you're in an asteroid belt or debris field, and a huge nasty fleet is passing by, and you need to stop NOW because the 'hide my signature' bonus from asteroids is only valid when you are stopped dead.

Any chance we can get this feature back?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2019, 01:39:00 PM
It doing that was 100% a bug. I don't think it actually bypassed normal acceleration limits etc so you could achieve the same effect by adjusting your destination (i.e. click and hold behind where you're heading, etc).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Volfgarix on May 18, 2019, 01:58:51 PM
About pirates spamming Atlases.
I think they sgould get something better from time to time, after all if they're ready to convert a freighter into killing machine and use Damaged ships then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind using a beat up Onslaught, considering that you can get quite interesting stuff on black market without problems, actually.

Earlier I was writing that zombie fleets were viable even before the update, price hike apparently made them more of necessity, as I heard. Ironically I find myself avoiding recovering ships if they have maintenance D-mod due to having to get more supplies.
I kinda prefer to do few smuggling/procurement runs in some backwater system like Kumari Kandam and buy a fresh ship. It's rather fine, actually, clunkers aren't there to be core of your fleet.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 18, 2019, 02:02:01 PM
Not sure if bugs or intended, so I'll post it here. Don't really want to create new topics for no reason.

- After renaming a gas giant, the name isn't visible from the hyperspace jump point. It still uses the old name.
- Even when Scavenging Effectiveness is at 100% or even over 100% while scavenging debris, accidents still happen. (Hidden max?)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2019, 02:20:03 PM
About pirates spamming Atlases.
I think they sgould get something better from time to time, after all if they're ready to convert a freighter into killing machine and use Damaged ships then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind using a beat up Onslaught, considering that you can get quite interesting stuff on black market without problems, actually.

You know, I really like this. Let me make a note to take a look.

- After renaming a gas giant, the name isn't visible from the hyperspace jump point. It still uses the old name.

Hmm - it works for me in testing it just now. Could you send me your save? fractalsoftworks [at] gmail [dot] com.

You mean "<name> Gravity Well" as the name of the hyperspace jump-point not changing for you, right? That's what I'm looking at.

- Even when Scavenging Effectiveness is at 100% or even over 100% while scavenging debris, accidents still happen. (Hidden max?)

Right - I don't think it says anywhere that 100% guarantees no accidents, that's just about how much salvage you get. IIRC it explicitly says the risk is "low"; also iirc the actual min chance of an accident is 10% and I believe they're generally less damaging at a lower risk.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Riph on May 18, 2019, 02:31:45 PM
click and hold behind where you're heading, etc).

I've been trying that and my fleet seems to prefer to swim in circles, presumably trying to arrive on the exact pixel I clicked on. This means that big nasty fleet sees my sig and catches me :/

The previous functionality, while a bug, was also super useful. I hope you will consider restoring it, or adding something new that provides the same function. Having an unambigous "all stop" command is important in a world where stealth depends on being stopped.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: TimeDiver on May 18, 2019, 02:33:06 PM
Will there be a 0.9.1 RC8 release, with additional fixes? Or is RC7 the only planned hotfix release?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 18, 2019, 03:39:44 PM
My Prometheus Mk 2 is firing off MIRVs at single fighters. Is it supposed to do that?

Kinda is, yeah. It's got the "ALWAYS_PANIC" flag which makes it really free with missiles. (Less than ideal if it's a core ship for the player, but, well.)


Hmmm, that's a bit unfortunate. Large missile weapons don't really accommodate that too well... even the Locust only gets 15 shots. Which might be enough, but I guess I'll just stick a salamander pod in there. At least it frees up 15 OP to spend elsewhere!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2019, 03:45:22 PM
I like the idea of Onslaught (P) and/or Legion (P), or maybe Onslaught (P) and Legion (LP).  Conquest has overtaken Onslaught as the most common capital, and Conquest is a relatively common capital to fight when Diktat and League are the usual deserter or expedition culprits.  More variety of bigger ships used by outlaw factions would be nice instead of the turkey shoot of the dozen or so Atlas 2s.  Also, I kind of miss some of the other low tech ships pirates used to have.  Since Dominator is on the low-tech bundle, maybe pirates can have a hacked Dominator of their own.

Minor suggestion:  Can Onslaught (XIV) have its middle large mount changed from ballistic to composite?  It is fun to use large Reapers or Hammers on Legion (XIV), but those are limited, and the other ships that have large missile mounts have a hard time using dumb-fire missiles well for one reason or another.  Those that can use them well (like Conquest) enough cannot focus their guns at the same time, which means player wants homing so guns and missiles attack a target at the same time.

Hmmm, that's a bit unfortunate. Large missile weapons don't really accommodate that too well... even the Locust only gets 15 shots. Which might be enough, but I guess I'll just stick a salamander pod in there. At least it frees up 15 OP to spend elsewhere!
Locusts have some ammo, so that works out alright in all but the largest of battles.  (Squeeze in Expanded Missile Racks if you can for Locusts.)  I do not about MIRVs in 0.9, but I thought MIRVs were useless during 0.8 because AI wasted the ammo frivolously.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 18, 2019, 04:10:54 PM
Right - I don't think it says anywhere that 100% guarantees no accidents, that's just about how much salvage you get. IIRC it explicitly says the risk is "low"; also iirc the actual min chance of an accident is 10% and I believe they're generally less damaging at a lower risk.
Ah, I totally misunderstood how this works. Whoops. :-[
I've sent you an email.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2019, 04:17:28 PM
Quick note:  I played only unmodded since 0.9a, and when I tried MN-1 seed, even though the locations of all the systems are the same, the planets in those systems are different.  Instead of a 75% and 100% hazard planets NW of core worlds and nothing good east of core worlds, there is a Terran south and another NE of core.  Of course, 75% hazard Terran is not so important now like it used to be, but it is nice to have a pleasant vacation or resort planet.  Basically a status symbol.

Hmmm... maybe there could be a new service/pleasure industry (like hotel or casino planet), available only on habitable planets with no hazardous weather conditions (except calm), basically Terran or Water world.  Its purpose is to make people happy or at least make them forget their problems.  I do not know what kind of benefits this pleasure industry would give.  Maybe minor population boost.  Maybe a minor income boost (like +5%)?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 18, 2019, 05:15:59 PM
I like the idea of Onslaught (P) and/or Legion (P), or maybe Onslaught (P) and Legion (LP).
The (P) we are clearly missing is Venture (P). Though I would love to see a Legion (LP)... it's just maybe not the one that makes the most sense lore & progression wise.

Hmmm, that's a bit unfortunate. Large missile weapons don't really accommodate that too well... even the Locust only gets 15 shots. Which might be enough, but I guess I'll just stick a salamander pod in there. At least it frees up 15 OP to spend elsewhere!
Locusts have some ammo, so that works out alright in all but the largest of battles.  (Squeeze in Expanded Missile Racks if you can for Locusts.)  I do not about MIRVs in 0.9, but I thought MIRVs were useless during 0.8 because AI wasted the ammo frivolously.

Alas, as the Prometheus Mk II is the biggest & toughest ship in my fleet right now, the largest of battles are exactly what I'm concerned about. And no way I'm blowing 30 OP on expanded missile racks for one locust to waste ammo frivolously (also, my Atlas Mk II has two locusts so when Locusts are the right tool for the job it's going to do the job better for fewer deployment points).


Thoughts on balance/difficulty for the next big update (0.9.5? 0.10? .... 1.0???): I can make a huge profit satisfying the deficiencies and draining the surpluses of severely dysfunctional (i.e. Pirate & LP) economies... I just made a million credits selling things that I happened to have on hand at Epiphany (and could fill my holds back up with very cheap domestic goods & ore if I weren't relieved to have free cargo space), because it's currently at -5% accessibility. Maybe there should be some sort of cap/diminishing returns to what they can purchase? That is, while they reasonably value the goods this much, they simply do not have the resources to acquire all of them, as a direct consequence of them desperately needing things while also being unable to sell the things they do not need. Alternatively, maybe the... less lawful... factions need a 'well-established smuggling' accessibility bonus to compensate for their extreme 'hostilities with other factions' penalties.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 18, 2019, 05:30:50 PM
I think Atlas Mk.II is the perfect pirate capital. It's a big, bad barge with lacking flux stats and some offensive bang. Even looks like a boat. 'Real' cap ships would only make the pirates more similar to everybody else. LP is perfect as well. Its cap ship looks like an Interstellar Imperium bomb. Should give it a huge explosion radius and make it ram stuff when it's low on health.  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2019, 06:07:25 PM
Quote
Alas, as the Prometheus Mk II is the biggest & toughest ship in my fleet right now, the largest of battles are exactly what I'm concerned about. And no way I'm blowing 30 OP on expanded missile racks for one locust to waste ammo frivolously (also, my Atlas Mk II has two locusts so when Locusts are the right tool for the job it's going to do the job better for fewer deployment points).
The point of Expanded Missile Racks is for Locusts to last for a long time.  For Conquest, it is worth giving up medium energy and/or missiles for more Locusts.  I have not tried Prometheus 2.  If it is anything like Atlas 2, it probably does not have the OP for anything aside from the leanest, barely functional loadouts.  I would not use Expanded Missile Racks on Apogee because it needs to OP to afford Plasma Cannon, good flux stats, and some other useful hullmods.

Quote
I think Atlas Mk.II is the perfect pirate capital. It's a big, bad barge with lacking flux stats and some offensive bang. Even looks like a boat. 'Real' cap ships would only make the pirates more similar to everybody else. LP is perfect as well. Its cap ship looks like an Interstellar Imperium bomb. Should give it a huge explosion radius and make it ram stuff when it's low on health.
Yes, Atlas 2 is nice for pirates.  The problem is when nearly all high-end pirate armadas use only many Atlas 2s (aside from few token Ventures and Colossus 3s) because the fleet has too many points to fill a power quota and only Atlas 2 is strong enough to meet the quota instead of more than a hundred ships like last release.

Maybe a stronger capital will not only give variety of capitals, but also maybe allow weaker ships to spawn.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Vind on May 18, 2019, 06:11:10 PM
Not a fan of new pirate armadas because all they do is MIRV/Squall spam which usually kills some clueless friendly AI. Missiles aside they cant do squat.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 18, 2019, 07:22:16 PM
The point of Expanded Missile Racks is for Locusts to last for a long time.  For Conquest, it is worth giving up medium energy and/or missiles for more Locusts.  I have not tried Prometheus 2.  If it is anything like Atlas 2, it probably does not have the OP for anything aside from the leanest, barely functional loadouts.

Yeah, that's what I mean. It's got the same 220 base OP as Atlas Mk II, and two large hybrid mounts & two fighter bays. Spending 48 OP on one Locust is nuts compared to leaving the large missile hardpoint undersized or empty & spending the OP on flux vents/capacitors/ITU to feed the hybrid mounts or better fighters in the fighter bays.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 18, 2019, 07:31:22 PM
Uh.... are LP fleets supposed to be exempt from the fleet size limit?

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/dnFENzA.png)
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 18, 2019, 08:46:19 PM
A problem with the clean disengagement mechanic, from the other side: I joined in on a battle to defend another faction's space station. Although my side ultimately prevailed, the station was taken out and the pirates were able to disengage without allowing pursuit. And, more importantly, I was forced to leave without any post-battle salvage or ship recovery (which rather stings because I lost 5 ships in the battle!).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2019, 09:00:25 PM
Re: Onslaught for Pirates
Maybe resurrect the old Onslaught with heavy ballistic mounts where TPCs are.  Do not raise OP on it so that it needs to pay for two more heavy weapons and be inferior to Onslaught with TPCs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 18, 2019, 09:24:58 PM
I've had a couple of cases in which defeating a star base (Luddic Path or Pirate, I can't remember exactly unfortunately) has resulted in no battle salvage and a message to that effect.

It seemed odd when it came up to have absolutely no battle salvage after defeating a massive military force...surely there would be something to salvage, even if it was just metal?

Zhentar, do you mean that the pirates themselves (not you) cleanly disengaged and as a result you couldn't collect any salvage?

That might be similar to what happened to me; although even if I had lost enough ships for the opposition to cleanly disengage (I unfortunately can't remember the circumstances to which I ended up getting no salvage), I was attacking a station and destroying it (not trying to defend it), so there should of been some loot afterwards to collect.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2019, 09:45:57 PM
I've been trying that and my fleet seems to prefer to swim in circles, presumably trying to arrive on the exact pixel I clicked on. This means that big nasty fleet sees my sig and catches me :/

The previous functionality, while a bug, was also super useful. I hope you will consider restoring it, or adding something new that provides the same function. Having an unambigous "all stop" command is important in a world where stealth depends on being stopped.

Hmm, this gives me an idea - let me take a look at something.


Will there be a 0.9.1 RC8 release, with additional fixes? Or is RC7 the only planned hotfix release?

Well, I wasn't planning on it, but if something important enough comes up, I might need to.



A problem with the clean disengagement mechanic, from the other side: I joined in on a battle to defend another faction's space station. Although my side ultimately prevailed, the station was taken out and the pirates were able to disengage without allowing pursuit. And, more importantly, I was forced to leave without any post-battle salvage or ship recovery (which rather stings because I lost 5 ships in the battle!).
I've had a couple of cases in which defeating a star base (Luddic Path or Pirate, I can't remember exactly unfortunately) has resulted in no battle salvage and a message to that effect.

It seemed odd when it came up to have absolutely no battle salvage after defeating a massive military force...surely there would be something to salvage, even if it was just metal?

Zhentar, do you mean that the pirates themselves (not you) cleanly disengaged and as a result you couldn't collect any salvage?

That might be similar to what happened to me; although even if I had lost enough ships for the opposition to cleanly disengage (I unfortunately can't remember the circumstances to which I ended up getting no salvage), I was attacking a station and destroying it (not trying to defend it), so there should of been some loot afterwards to collect.

... and this sounds like a fairly serious bug if that's what's going on here. Going to take a look tomorrow; if this is indeed borked, might have to do another hotfix.


Uh.... are LP fleets supposed to be exempt from the fleet size limit?

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/dnFENzA.png)
[close]

Just to confirm, is this vanilla? Having a hard time seeing how this could happen, but didn't check into it just now.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2019, 09:59:50 PM
Alright, tried to reproduce this "no salvage" issue, and so far not seeing it. Things I tried:

1) Defeating an enemy fleet while sustaining enough losses to have them disengage cleanly
2) Same thing, but attacking a station with the support of an enemy fleet
3) Same thing, but helping defend a station against an enemy fleet

So far, got proper salvage in every case. Any thoughts on what may be different here?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 18, 2019, 10:38:37 PM
Just to confirm, is this vanilla? Having a hard time seeing how this could happen, but didn't check into it just now.

Yep, pure vanilla. Patrol fleet for an LP station. Reflecting on it, the thing that strikes me as interesting here is that this is the first one I've noticed over the 30 ship limit... and it's full on double it. Almost like it was supposed to be two separate fleets.

So far, got proper salvage in every case. Any thoughts on what may be different here?

Hmmmm.... So after the battle, I got a dialog saying something about how I couldn't pursue the enemy, with two options; the first was disabled and the second was "Leave". I believe the faction I was aiding had only the station present in the battle, and that station was destroyed, so their forces were entirely defeated. Also there was a bounty active, though that doesn't really seem like something that would matter.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 18, 2019, 11:10:41 PM
So far, got proper salvage in every case. Any thoughts on what may be different here?

Unfortunately nothing really solid. 

One case that was strange was the attacking of Pather base where I made a save before attacking it (I make saves before attacking most bases, but unfortunately this has been overwritten).  After defeating it I received no salvage from it (despite needing it badly at the time).  I continued to play for a bit before being defeated in another battle and ended up reloading the same save before the attack on the same Pather base that did not award salvage....this time after defeating it it did award me salvage.

I'm going to go star base destroying for a while to see if I can at least get some solid, more useful info to go on.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: ike on May 19, 2019, 12:53:28 AM
Re: RC7
Great update sir. I see more than a few issues that were bugging me in the changes and am really happy :D

One thing though,
  • Fixed issue with intel for some of the destroyed pirate bases sticking around indefinitely
is this intended to also apply to existing saves?
If yes, I see those intels still sticking around. If no, it's okay.

Btw,
About pirates spamming Atlases.
I think they sgould get something better from time to time,
I deliberately sell battleship blueprints to black markets to see more variations in pirate fleets  8)
(Just wanted to point out that you can manipulate composition of pirate fleets this way, in case some of you guys overlooked it)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on May 19, 2019, 01:14:02 AM
So far, got proper salvage in every case. Any thoughts on what may be different here?

Unfortunately nothing really solid. 

One case that was strange was the attacking of Pather base where I made a save before attacking it (I make saves before attacking most bases, but unfortunately this has been overwritten).  After defeating it I received no salvage from it (despite needing it badly at the time).  I continued to play for a bit before being defeated in another battle and ended up reloading the same save before the attack on the same Pather base that did not award salvage....this time after defeating it it did award me salvage.

I'm going to go star base destroying for a while to see if I can at least get some solid, more useful info to go on.
How many saves? SS keeps a back up save so if you only overwrote once, you could still grab it
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 19, 2019, 01:36:28 AM
How many saves? SS keeps a back up save so if you only overwrote once, you could still grab it

Hmmm...I do actually have an older save (save copy) that predates that Pather base I think.  It was when I finished off exploring the last parts of the galaxy and I had to then deal with the Pathers/Pirates threatening my colonies.  It was a bit strange in a way because I had to defeat 3 Pather bases in a row to disrupt the Pather operations for a single system (2 colonies in the system, but even after defeating the first 2 Pather bases threatening those colonies, both listed the Pather cells as active), and I believe it was around then that the no salvage thing happened.

I'll try and replicate what I did from that point and see if it crops up again...although as mentioned before, attacking that same base after the reload gave me the salvage when it didn't before that reload, so perhaps it wont help...but worth a try.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Lucky33 on May 19, 2019, 02:47:04 AM
Is there any way now to remove decivilized status?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 19, 2019, 04:51:22 AM
I finally got up to where I thought the problem occurred with the 3 Pather bases and after collecting the info from the defecting Pather at the bar at one of my colonies I set out to destroy it.  My memory isn't the best but so far it looked to be in about the same position as last time.

Unfortunately after destroying base 1, I disrupted the Luddic Path Cells, where previously they remained active so I had to travel back to the affected colony and see another Pather at the bar to get the second Pather Star base, destroy that travel back again and get the third.  This time however I disrupted them after the first base was destroyed, which is different. 

Looks like those other based disappeared or never existed this time around.  I *think* that it was the third Pather base that had the no-salvage problem and it was in an asteroid belt around a star (which the first base I just destroyed isn't in).

I'll guess I'll just get back to finding bases to destroy and hope that I run across this intermittent problem.  If it is any consolation it didn't happen very often in my RC6 play through and I have yet to run across the issue in RC7 (still on my RC6 started save).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on May 19, 2019, 05:50:08 AM
I deliberately sell battleship blueprints to black markets to see more variations in pirate fleets  8)
(Just wanted to point out that you can manipulate composition of pirate fleets this way, in case some of you guys overlooked it)

This, it's a great way to spice up the lategame, as counter-intuitive as it may seem.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 19, 2019, 06:00:18 AM
I do not sell blueprints to pirates because 1) they lose their identity and 2) I do not want the make it easier for them to decivilize my golden geese (especially New Maxios) in core worlds.  If I need to fight pirates to stop them for killing everyone, I do not want to make it any harder for me to kill pirates.

I suppose if I want to kill core worlds and want to fight their ships again, I need to sell blueprints to pirates.  That means I can never learn blueprints until I find two copies first because duplicates do not spawn except from salvaging.

* * *

Another reason why blacklisting blueprints would be handy.  I need to learn blueprints for hulls I never want to use (either for patrol composition or custom production) just so new unknown blueprints spawn after I raid a colony.  I noticed that I see repeat (LC) blueprints after raiding Asher because (it is so close to New Maxios and also relatively undefended, and) I never learned the Luddic Church bundle (because I do not need them and do not want to corrupt my patrols with green ships).  Similarly, I will get repeat Atlas and Prometheus because I do not want to learn those ships and slow my patrols down, even though I want a few for my personal fleet.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on May 19, 2019, 08:50:50 AM
Thought:

Luddic Church and independents have received some heavy industry in 0.9.1 so players can raid for their blueprints and to give them a leg up in terms of ship quality.
But isn't it kind of overdoing it lore-wise to give them both an Orbital Works with corrupted nanoforge? This is as good as what the much more canonically sophisticated Tri-Tachyon has.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 19, 2019, 08:51:10 AM
In my new game, I found two Arid planets with "Mild Climate".  One of them having 75% hazard as a result.  (The other has more hazardous conditions beyond "Hot" for 125% or so hazard.)

Question:  What does Mild Climate really mean?  I have a hard time seeing how Mild Climate can combine with Hot (like on Arid planet) or Cold, since the description of Mild says "warm and docile", but Arid is "hot".  (I have not seen mild on Tundra, Jungle, or (drools) Terran yet, but a quick glance at the csv seems to indicate they can appear.)  I have no problem seeing Extreme Weather on the likes of Desert or Jungle worlds.

My new game's seed is MN-7.  Just east of Nakara is a constellation with two excellent colony systems.  One has a Tundra planet with all five resources (enough with Industrial Planning).  Further to the east near the sector edge are two star systems with aforemented Arid planets with Mild Climate and good resources, although player probably will not have enough colony slots without alpha cores to get everything.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 19, 2019, 09:57:02 AM
Mild climate is "welcoming and docile", not necessarily warm.  I interpret it less violent weather than Earth (so no hurricanes, no tornadoes, nothing dangerous in terms of weather).  Although I don't know if you can have both mild climate and extreme weather.  I haven't seen it, but I don't know if the code will let it happen.

But yeah, it should be possible to get a random Terran planet with 50% hazard rating like Gilead now.  Although given the 0.9.1a changes, it certainly seems less important.

Started a few spacer runs with the latest release, and finally got one to stick.  You really can get away with not doing bounty missions at all and not even equipping weapons early game.  By just doing exploration missions and not actually fighting anything early on, just running when caught, I've ended up at only suspicious with the pirates.  Although I may have to change that stance, as Asharu just got a decivilization warning (and has a -9 stability penalty due to pirate raids).

Too bad there's not a diplomatic option to help stabilize a colony like we do for our own colonies, by maybe talking to the Admin on the planet and offering emergency supplies, credits, etc.

Apparently being only suspicious with Pirates has resulted in no pirate raids on my planets (using MN-1234567890 seed, vanilla RC7), which resulted in two terrain planets in Duzahk, plus a cryovolanic with abundent volatiles plus ores.  Even with the spacer debt, I'm pulling in over 150,000 credits a month profit with a Size 5, 4 , and 3 colonies in Duzahk.  Which is enough to pay off the single AI inspection, single Sindarin and single Persean raids, plus start some custom production runs (found an Astral blueprint so I guess carrier heavy fleet).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2019, 10:08:04 AM
Yep, pure vanilla. Patrol fleet for an LP station. Reflecting on it, the thing that strikes me as interesting here is that this is the first one I've noticed over the 30 ship limit... and it's full on double it. Almost like it was supposed to be two separate fleets.

Huh, strange - well, I'll keep an eye out!

Hmmmm.... So after the battle, I got a dialog saying something about how I couldn't pursue the enemy, with two options; the first was disabled and the second was "Leave". I believe the faction I was aiding had only the station present in the battle, and that station was destroyed, so their forces were entirely defeated. Also there was a bounty active, though that doesn't really seem like something that would matter.

Thank you for the added info! Gave this a try - didn't cause the issue, either. Which I guess is good in the sense that it's probably not going to require a hotfix due to not being a general issue, but bad since, you know, haven't actually fixed it yet.


I finally got up to where I thought the problem occurred with the 3 Pather bases and after collecting the info from the defecting Pather at the bar at one of my colonies I set out to destroy it.  My memory isn't the best but so far it looked to be in about the same position as last time.

Unfortunately after destroying base 1, I disrupted the Luddic Path Cells, where previously they remained active so I had to travel back to the affected colony and see another Pather at the bar to get the second Pather Star base, destroy that travel back again and get the third.  This time however I disrupted them after the first base was destroyed, which is different. 

Looks like those other based disappeared or never existed this time around.  I *think* that it was the third Pather base that had the no-salvage problem and it was in an asteroid belt around a star (which the first base I just destroyed isn't in).

I'll guess I'll just get back to finding bases to destroy and hope that I run across this intermittent problem.  If it is any consolation it didn't happen very often in my RC6 play through and I have yet to run across the issue in RC7 (still on my RC6 started save).

Thank you for trying to reproduce for the problem! I'll keep an eye on this as well, but at least so far so good as far as it not just something being totally borked.


Is there any way now to remove decivilized status?

I don't believe so, but I might be forgetting about something.


Mild climate is "welcoming and docile", not necessarily warm.  I interpret it less violent weather than Earth (so no hurricanes, no tornadoes, nothing dangerous in terms of weather).  Although I don't know if you can have both mild climate and extreme weather.  I haven't seen it, but I don't know if the code will let it happen.

Right, yeah. Mild Climate and Extreme Weather are mutually exclusive, btw.

Too bad there's not a diplomatic option to help stabilize a colony like we do for our own colonies, by maybe talking to the Admin on the planet and offering emergency supplies, credits, etc.

(Hmmm.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 19, 2019, 10:53:24 AM
I thought Mild Climate could mean no deadly weather, but it did not seem clear enough.  I would not consider below freezing or 100+F degree weather mild.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 19, 2019, 01:23:33 PM
Too bad there's not a diplomatic option to help stabilize a colony like we do for our own colonies, by maybe talking to the Admin on the planet and offering emergency supplies, credits, etc.
In Nexerelin there already is a feature like this, where you can deliver either some food or some military hardware to increase the planet's stability. I had hoped for an AI-exclusive feature (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=14897) to make market destabilisation something that can happen either due to an extraordinary bad luck or due to the player intervention, but this can work too, I guess. Ordering your faction to keep peace could be an alternative.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2019, 04:15:57 PM
I've been trying that and my fleet seems to prefer to swim in circles, presumably trying to arrive on the exact pixel I clicked on. This means that big nasty fleet sees my sig and catches me :/

The previous functionality, while a bug, was also super useful. I hope you will consider restoring it, or adding something new that provides the same function. Having an unambigous "all stop" command is important in a world where stealth depends on being stopped.

Hmm, this gives me an idea - let me take a look at something.

https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1130250630667395079

:D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 19, 2019, 05:45:39 PM
I've been trying that and my fleet seems to prefer to swim in circles, presumably trying to arrive on the exact pixel I clicked on. This means that big nasty fleet sees my sig and catches me :/

The previous functionality, while a bug, was also super useful. I hope you will consider restoring it, or adding something new that provides the same function. Having an unambigous "all stop" command is important in a world where stealth depends on being stopped.

Hmm, this gives me an idea - let me take a look at something.

https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1130250630667395079

:D

On nice!

I'm not the one that originally commented on this, but I found myself pressing "S" a bit in 0.9.1a and wondering why my ships wouldn't stop, so I was missing this "Feature" as well (didn't know it was tied to a bug).

Is the second part of the feature a bit like "Going Dark", without having to toggle it, and/or does it stack further with that ability?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2019, 05:49:23 PM
I'm not the one that originally commented on this, but I found myself pressing "S" a bit in 0.9.1a and wondering why my ships wouldn't stop, so I was missing this "Feature" as well (didn't know it was tied to a bug).

Yeah, it was setting the move destination to something fairly random but that consistently made the fleet stop. It was ... weird.

Is the second part of the feature a bit like "Going Dark", without having to toggle it, and/or does it stack further with that ability?

It's literally just "move at burn level 2*, which is low enough to maintain the 'stationary or slow-moving' sensor profile reduction from various terrain that has it".

In some sense, it stacks with Go Dark, since the bonus from terrain will stack with it, but there's no bonus or penalty from holding the key down. (The key is S, btw; moved "cancel laid in course" to T.)

*This is configurable in settings.json
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 19, 2019, 05:55:07 PM
Oh wow, I always assumed to get the stealth bonus for hiding you needed to be completely stationary.  So as long as your burn speed is 2 burn or lower you get the same bonus as if you were stationary?

Then I can see this being pretty useful indeed!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2019, 06:21:16 PM
It's actually "below burn level 1" in the currently-out version, but yeah, you can keep it while moving very slowly. It's possible to do it by clicking very close to your fleet just to nudge it along, for example.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 19, 2019, 06:41:50 PM
Started a new game, bought out some marines (from pirate bases) here and there.  After a few bounties, I got a few hundred marines, and raided one of the Hegemony bases in Valhalla.  Got an Eagle (XIV) blueprint.  I could sell it back to the Hegemony for about 150k and jump start midgame early.

I like to raid pirates after I shop at their black markets to get some free stuff.  If I happen to pass by another factions heavy industry and their defense is not too high, time to get a blueprint!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Riph on May 19, 2019, 06:51:20 PM

https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1130250630667395079

:D

You, are, the man. What a great addition. Looking forward to stealthing around even better than ever.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2019, 07:04:48 PM
Started a new game, bought out some marines (from pirate bases) here and there.  After a few bounties, I got a few hundred marines, and raided one of the Hegemony bases in Valhalla.  Got an Eagle (XIV) blueprint.  I could sell it back to the Hegemony for about 150k and jump start midgame early.

I like to raid pirates after I shop at their black markets to get some free stuff.  If I happen to pass by another factions heavy industry and their defense is not too high, time to get a blueprint!

Nice - good to see raiding actually being useful, and not being a purely late-game activity at that.

You, are, the man. What a great addition. Looking forward to stealthing around even better than ever.

I'll just say, you made a really solid point about why it was important. Thank you!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 19, 2019, 08:36:53 PM
Hmmmm.... So after the battle, I got a dialog saying something about how I couldn't pursue the enemy, with two options; the first was disabled and the second was "Leave". I believe the faction I was aiding had only the station present in the battle, and that station was destroyed, so their forces were entirely defeated. Also there was a bounty active, though that doesn't really seem like something that would matter.

Thank you for the added info! Gave this a try - didn't cause the issue, either. Which I guess is good in the sense that it's probably not going to require a hotfix due to not being a general issue, but bad since, you know, haven't actually fixed it yet.


Okay, I just happened to come across a rather substantial pirate armada attacking an unguarded Mimir Siphon platform, so I got a chance to experiment with this some more. When I destroyed all of the pirate ships, it went into a normal victory screen. However, when I got some of them to retreat mid-battle (after heavily damaging them) and then let the remaining enemy ships end the battle by retreating at the end of the fight, it goes to the Pursuit screen, at which point my options are "Join the pursuit" and "Leave"; the pursuit must be joined to get loot but there are several cases where pursuit is unjoinable.


Also it turns out if you try to generate lost ships for your fleet by ramming them into an allied station and in the process destroy the station with your ship's explosion, it will stop being allied after the battle.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 19, 2019, 08:47:57 PM
Also, how long is the post-raid transponder on danger time supposed to last? I had to turn on my transponder to help out Mimir Siphon right after raiding Raesvalg but they didn't go hostile.

And it looks like raiding doesn't have any 'just turned off the transponder' memory? Here I've been sneaking into the system with it off like a good raider, but apparently I can just turn it off in orbit immediately before launching the raid!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2019, 09:16:39 PM
Okay, I just happened to come across a rather substantial pirate armada attacking an unguarded Mimir Siphon platform, so I got a chance to experiment with this some more. When I destroyed all of the pirate ships, it went into a normal victory screen. However, when I got some of them to retreat mid-battle (after heavily damaging them) and then let the remaining enemy ships end the battle by retreating at the end of the fight, it goes to the Pursuit screen, at which point my options are "Join the pursuit" and "Leave"; the pursuit must be joined to get loot but there are several cases where pursuit is unjoinable.

Aha, thank you - took a look and fixed this up (by making the allies pick the "harry" option when pursuit is not possible).


Also, how long is the post-raid transponder on danger time supposed to last? I had to turn on my transponder to help out Mimir Siphon right after raiding Raesvalg but they didn't go hostile.

And it looks like raiding doesn't have any 'just turned off the transponder' memory? Here I've been sneaking into the system with it off like a good raider, but apparently I can just turn it off in orbit immediately before launching the raid!

Right, yeah - though coming in with the transponder off is still useful in case there are patrols around the target and you need to fight them to be able to raid.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on May 20, 2019, 12:07:53 AM
Is that issue being hotfixed?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2019, 05:03:55 AM
@ Alex:  I bet raiding would have been useful in 0.9a, but I did not know transponder-off eliminated suspicion at the time.  Because of that, I avoided Black Market like the plague, thus, no cheap marines.  After learning of that change recently, I shop at Black Market all of the time to avoid tariffs.  In fact, a reason why Commerce on my colony is useless for buying and selling stuff is because of 1) tariffs and 2) pop-up pirate or pather bases.  Even without tariffs, some pop-up bases can sell stuff cheaper than what I can draw from my colony resources, especially personnel.  Anytime I have junk stored at my colony to sell (or to top off on crew and marines), I can wait (or not) for a pirate base to spawn near my colony to target it, then I can bring my junk (except blueprints), sell it to pirates, raid them for stuff, then kill them.  Pirates are more like pushy travelling salesmen.

Last night, built a colony early (Oct or Nov 206) in a system next to a pirate base.  I considered saving that base until there was a bounty posted and raid that base repeatedly for freebies in the meantime, maybe see if it decivilizes.  In the end, I decided to destroy it before that base grew from a one-section wimp that my modest fleet of destroyers could handle to a full-sectioned tier 1 station that would be too hard to destroy.

I bought a Colossus 3 because my fleet needs some cargo capacity, and I wanted to boost my raiding power a bit in case I bring fewer marines.  (My income is not very high yet.)  I think my current game is the first one where raiding is a significant early-game income source.  It would yield the most income if I am willing to sell the blueprints I steal, but I decide to either learn or hoard them instead.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on May 20, 2019, 05:25:09 AM
I always thought buying at our own markets with tariffs was really weird. It's odd to have to go shopping in stations other than your own if you want the best deals, it feels counter-intuitive (besides getting stuff from the stockpile).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2019, 05:52:08 AM
The Independents are already freeloaders that want an expensive town to live and shop in (450K to build it and takes an industry slot), take upkeep, and demand tariffs for stuff they sell?  All I get for that expense is only +1 stability, which is underwhelming.  Landlord is not happy and will not lease his land to the spoiled clients.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2019, 06:28:14 AM
I forgot the mention that one drawback for raiding heavy industries early before exploring for and finding blueprint packs is player frequently gets blueprints for common stuff normally bundled, like Pulse Lasers, Harpoon Racks, or Hammerhead.  Nature of the beast, I guess.  I should either wait until I learn the packs or save-scum frequently until a rare one drops.  I was being greedy with my game where did early-game raiding for significant profit for the first time, and this is without Planetary Operations.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on May 20, 2019, 08:53:30 AM
Re: Commerce
Change industry to structure, because no-one will ever build this otherwise with the incredibly tight limits.
Give it a passive income like the population - ideally this could tie into how many resource types/stockpiles are available at that colony.

Personally, I've never cared about the tarrifs. The utility of having an extra pool of resources to draw from, and being able to convert loot into money without having to drag stuff into the core far outweighs a few credits. (Even if it is less efficient.)
I just think of it as paying for the convenience.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2019, 09:26:38 AM
Personally, I've never cared about the tarrifs. The utility of having an extra pool of resources to draw from, and being able to convert loot into money without having to drag stuff into the core far outweighs a few credits. (Even if it is less efficient.)
I just think of it as paying for the convenience.
For me, whenever I need that resource convenience, that pirate base that pops-up near my colony and targeting it serves my needs just as well.

As for convenience, Open Market messing with my Colony Resources and Storage is an annoying inconvenience.  Put of the reason why I like my colony storage is it is about as bare-bones as an abandoned station, and adding Open Market via Commerce screws it up.

EDIT:  I guess for size 10 colonies, having an extra place to buy your big ships without waiting a month or more may be handy in a pinch.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 20, 2019, 09:38:09 AM
Is that issue being hotfixed?

On the fence about it; leaning towards a hotfix, since I (fortunately) have mostly been bugfixing in the last couple of days anyway.


I always thought buying at our own markets with tariffs was really weird. It's odd to have to go shopping in stations other than your own if you want the best deals, it feels counter-intuitive (besides getting stuff from the stockpile).

The open one added by commerce is very explicitly not your market, but an independent one. I think in the latest release it's even got an independent flag? Not 100%, actually.

Re: Commerce
Change industry to structure, because no-one will ever build this otherwise with the incredibly tight limits.
Give it a passive income like the population - ideally this could tie into how many resource types/stockpiles are available at that colony.

Hmm - then it'd most likely go from "build very rarely" to "always build". I'd rather it be the former - or not exist at all - than the latter.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: MajorTheRed on May 20, 2019, 09:59:45 AM
Thanks for this update, I'm very fond of the new colony mechanics and its slow pacing. 
It's also really great to have carrier with a correct behavior, and escort order is more interesting now (not for giving firepower, but now they don't throw themselves in line of fire anymore).

IMHO, wings AI still have some progress to do. Even when ordering fighter strikes, if wing are already with a target in mind, they will keep flying to it. Further more, it would be nice if wings can get back to their carrier when it is in danger and without order. I had a Gemini destroyed because its wing was doing I-don't-know-what at the other side of the map.

One small detail immersion-wise: for me, uber-death pirate raiding fleet are a little bit over the top, especially when Factions fleet are unable to muster that many ships.

Thank you for all the efforts you put in this game!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 20, 2019, 10:18:57 AM
I forgot the mention that one drawback for raiding heavy industries early before exploring for and finding blueprint packs is player frequently gets blueprints for common stuff normally bundled, like Pulse Lasers, Harpoon Racks, or Hammerhead.  Nature of the beast, I guess.  I should either wait until I learn the packs or save-scum frequently until a rare one drops.  I was being greedy with my game where did early-game raiding for significant profit for the first time, and this is without Planetary Operations.

Hmm, yeah. I may end up looking at "only stuff you don't know drops" again...

Thanks for this update, I'm very fond of the new colony mechanics and its slow pacing. 
It's also really great to have carrier with a correct behavior, and escort order is more interesting now (not for giving firepower, but now they don't throw themselves in line of fire anymore).

IMHO, wings AI still have some progress to do. Even when ordering fighter strikes, if wing are already with a target in mind, they will keep flying to it. Further more, it would be nice if wings can get back to their carrier when it is in danger and without order. I had a Gemini destroyed because its wing was doing I-don't-know-what at the other side of the map.

...

Thank you for all the efforts you put in this game!

Thank you for your feedback!


One small detail immersion-wise: for me, uber-death pirate raiding fleet are a little bit over the top, especially when Factions fleet are unable to muster that many ships.

Right, yeah - I think what's likely missing is a mechanic where factions are capable of mustering more of a reactive defense, aside from just in-system patrols. Will certainly be looking at this; will have to see how it goes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 20, 2019, 10:27:33 AM
And to add to that point about the pirates... when you're super diligent about thwarting raids and/or destroying pirate stations outright, what the game does is just pop up station after station with no timeout in between. And a new station usually triggers a new raid, so.. it would be nice if the player or the factions could have an impact on this, since right now, if the player focuses his attention on pirates, it turns out to be real Sisyphus work with no end in sight and no ground to be gained.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 20, 2019, 10:39:42 AM
This is for pirate bases (generally) targeting non-player assets, right? For bases targeting player colonies (most of them, anyway) there is a timeout.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 20, 2019, 10:41:13 AM
Oh yeah, talking about the dangerous ones vs. NPC systems. The ones vs. the player always seem mild in comparison so I just do these whenever.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 20, 2019, 10:44:40 AM
Ok, gotcha. Once your colonies are size 7+ (which I'd guess yours are), the pirate raids and bases targeting the player should be max-tier, though.

One thing though,
  • Fixed issue with intel for some of the destroyed pirate bases sticking around indefinitely
is this intended to also apply to existing saves?
If yes, I see those intels still sticking around. If no, it's okay.

Realized I forgot to respond to this, sorry! The fix only applies to future base intel not sticking around forever, the existing ones will unfortunately stick around.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Kirschbra on May 20, 2019, 11:14:23 AM
not sure whats going on, but I can't get the new patch to either download or launch properly, any help?
I've never had any problems like this before
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 20, 2019, 11:34:51 AM
At a guess: can you try turning off SmartScreen? It's been causing these kinds of issues for the .9x releases.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 20, 2019, 11:46:05 AM
Alright, hotfix is out, mainly for the "no salvage" issue; other details in the OP. Hopefully that's the last one for the .1 release.

Edit: uploading the new Javadoc right now, since there were a few API additions.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 20, 2019, 12:22:19 PM
Re: Commerce
Change industry to structure, because no-one will ever build this otherwise with the incredibly tight limits.
Give it a passive income like the population - ideally this could tie into how many resource types/stockpiles are available at that colony.

Hmm - then it'd most likely go from "build very rarely" to "always build". I'd rather it be the former - or not exist at all - than the latter.

Currently all the industries in principle make you credits, except the HQ and Commerce.  HQ gets you defense fleets which are necessary late game to defend against raids.  So its a trade off of safety against best possible income which seems meaningful.

Commerce on the other hand is a trade off of credits against convenience .  You can already do the exact same thing by visiting any core world or pirate base.  And I suppose it has a +1 stability bonus, but you can already get stability bonuses from structures (starbase, ground defense, patrol base), so clearly those will be built first if you need stability.

When you build near the core, commerce isn't that useful since you can generally just hit the other core systems first to sell stuff, and then hit your colony to drop stuff off.  In fact, if you want to maximize credits you tend to look for a planet that is having a deficit and sell there, which hopefully your own planets don't have. 

In any case, I feel like credits from exploration, say picking up things like organics or metals, just pales in comparison to your colony income by late game.

Is there anything that would be problematic if you just had an independent trader buy/sell tab as soon as you colonized?  Perhaps empty for the 1st month, and limit weapons and starship selection to similar of that of a size 3 pirate base with no industry (so pretty bad).  Presumably where there are people, someone will show up to buy and sell stuff.  I mean if a size 3 pirate base that pops up instantly with no industry or anything can buy and sell stuff immediately, why not your own colony as soon as its founded?

You're not gaining access to ships or markets faster - you've had access to all the other markets since the beginning of the game.  Its literally only saving you the time of flying to another world that has that ability (and has that ability without needing a commerce industry).

I guess my question is, how does gating the ability to buy and sell stuff at your own colony but not other planets improve the game experience?  Perhaps removing the commerce building completely is the way to go?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on May 20, 2019, 01:41:29 PM
Perhaps removing the commerce building completely is the way to go?
This is also acceptable, with the caveat that all player owned colonies get a market.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2019, 02:05:57 PM
Maybe just automatically add Open Market once Spaceport is built.

It seems the main reason to have Commerce as an industry is the +1 stability.  That is not worth an Industry slot or the huge cost to build it.  If Commerce has to stay, then remove the stability bonus, lower the costs to run it, and make it a structure again.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on May 20, 2019, 02:15:32 PM
Re: Commerce

I'm with the others that suggest that Commerce, in and of itself, doesn't provide enough of a benefit to be intra-competitive with the other industries. Making it a structure, on the other hand, would make it an "always." Personally, I like the ability to sell to my own colonies and have a one-stop-shop for things. I don't want to lose that. On the other hand, I see the dilemma.

Suggestion:

A basic open market opens with the initial space port. It's extremely stripped down: basic fuel, supplies, and the odd low-tier, common weapons. You can sell to it with normal tariff markup. It is an independent market and nothing you sell to it will impact the colony itself.

"Commerce" (the industry) replaces the old basic market and has some positive market multiplier (TBD), adds the buying/selling of ship hulls, increases the availability/quality of weapons, and reduces tariffs from 30% down to 25%. In essence, it creates a slightly player-friendly market that is consistently better than standard markets but no so much that you wouldn't go out of your way to exploit supply overages/shortages. Selling on this market will impact local supply/demand. However, commerce doesn't generate any kind of production in and of itself so it only really benefits that colony and nothing else. The trade-off, I suppose, is quality of life (for the player) versus overall empire health. I can't think of many scenarios where I'd want Commerce ASAP but with a mature colony, it might be a boon.

If Commerce remains an Industry (and I think it should), it just needs to be competitive, though in its own way.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 20, 2019, 02:36:06 PM
Buff commerce. You get to sell. Traders come and bring goodies, weapons and the odd ship from other factions. You don't get a military market, you get a gamble on some commission-restricted stuff from the others. This would be a helping measure for players who don't have a great pool of blueprints available without making blueprints any easier to get.

It could also make all other industries slightly more profitable on that colony. So it's not just a choice between an empty planet for all 'leftover buildings' and a main planet with only producing industries. But it could actually be worth it to have commerce on an industrial planet.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 20, 2019, 02:55:11 PM
Making it a structure, on the other hand, would make it an "always."
So is waystation, but people aren't complaining about that. I mean, there are some situations where you wouldn't want it... Just like with commerce as a structure. I don't have an issue with Commerce, it's just that unless there's some substantial buff to it, the easiest way to make it better is to make it a structure.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: ike on May 20, 2019, 04:36:00 PM
re: commerce
IMHO just make it a default to every colony like you did with spaceport, because markets at the player's own colonies having tariffs is already working as a cost for the convenience they bring about. Also, where there's civilization, there's a market.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 20, 2019, 08:30:50 PM
AI fleets at sustain burn sometimes cant reach jump point inside star corona. Just wandering at circles. -_-

PS Fixed at save reload. But i watch for this like 2 minutes before. ^.^
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 21, 2019, 02:09:43 AM

Is it a guarantee to find sleeper ships? I've explored every system in two separate games, but never found one.

Also, in my first 0.9a game there were 6 high danger systems, started a new one with 0.9.1a and there's only 1. I take it this is greatly randomized?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 21, 2019, 02:22:17 AM
Lol. Poor lobsters. Need external help to repopulate.  ;D

PS QoL feature request - please, add to commodity info screen top 5 player stashes with requried item.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 21, 2019, 05:18:12 AM
@Volturn importing lobsters, you know that actually makes sense.
In China there’s this lake that produces flavorful fresh water crabs, the whole country is crazy about eating them, but the lake only has so much farm space, so what people often do is farm the crabs elsewhere and drop them into the lake for a while before selling. You might say those are fake crabs, but it only takes a week before the crabs absorb the lake’s algae flavor. So they are legit lake crabs with lake flavor.

So if the whole sector is crazy about eating Volturnian Lobsters, farming them elsewhere and then dropping them onto Volturn to pick up flavor is probably one of the reasonable thing people would do.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 21, 2019, 08:48:44 AM
AI fleets at sustain burn sometimes cant reach jump point inside star corona. Just wandering at circles. -_-

PS Fixed at save reload. But i watch for this like 2 minutes before. ^.^

Thank you, noted!


Is it a guarantee to find sleeper ships? I've explored every system in two separate games, but never found one.

Also, in my first 0.9a game there were 6 high danger systems, started a new one with 0.9.1a and there's only 1. I take it this is greatly randomized?

It's possible to end up with 0 (if there are no suitable systems), but it seems pretty unlikely. For remnant high-danger systems, are you sure you've explored everything? If you start the game in dev mode, press ctrl-z to turn off sensors, and go into hyperspace, you should get all the warning beacon intel right away and can check. Also, if you do this and look on the map, systems with a cryosleeper will have their name be green (as will systems with Pather bases, but those will have a "--LP" or some such appended to the name).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 21, 2019, 09:11:02 AM
Income at non-player-owned colonies no longer shown as it's no longer accurate

You can still see a non-player-owned colony's net income in the command>colonies screen, if you got items in storage there, not sure if that qualifies as a bug, so posting it here.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 21, 2019, 09:52:14 AM
Yep, that's a bug - thank you, made a note.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 21, 2019, 12:04:54 PM
It's possible to end up with 0 (if there are no suitable systems), but it seems pretty unlikely. For remnant high-danger systems, are you sure you've explored everything? If you start the game in dev mode, press ctrl-z to turn off sensors, and go into hyperspace, you should get all the warning beacon intel right away and can check. Also, if you do this and look on the map, systems with a cryosleeper will have their name be green (as will systems with Pather bases, but those will have a "--LP" or some such appended to the name).
Thanks! I did what you said and found 2 systems with said ship in it. Quite hard to find indeed. And one of them is in a black hole system.  ;D

I still have just one red beacon, so I guess I was a bit unlucky when the game generated this system.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tempest on May 21, 2019, 03:20:51 PM
I see the economy got rebalanced. You can no longer make millions in the first few months by selling stuff to Qaras  ::)

Also the comm sniffers get removed now after a while. That's a bummer.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2019, 03:54:26 PM
I found a pristine nanoforge, and after swiping the corrupted nanoforge from New Maxios, I had the silly idea of selling pristine nanoforge to their Open Market for 240K (not Black Market, must be sold to Open Market for market to install in their Heavy Industry) as much as possible.  However, turns out that swiping the nanoforge back was not so easy.  Save-scumming did not always work fast enough.  Took about two or three attempts of repeated raiding sessions to get my pristine nanoforge back.  While I still need money to buy capitals and/or some of the pricier industries, I do not have the patience to save-scum my nanoforge back if I sell it to New Maxios again.  In the end, I sold back their original corrupted nanoforge back, and I will continue to raid New Maxios from time to time for blueprints.

Because no one in Magec/Tibicena cares about transponders, that system is a great place to raid for stuff or otherwise move with transponder off without worrying about patrols.  (Tri-Tachyon base there is Free Port.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2019, 04:24:12 PM
I tried the improved Hurricane MIRV, and while it probably wants some speed boosts, they are not mandatory like it was in 0.9a, and the MIRV is decent out-of-the-box.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 21, 2019, 04:29:28 PM
Who can clarify how interaction with factions must work?
Im a bit confused. Im stealth raid few times Hegemony planets. Standing drop to -35. Game still give me procurement quests, i can accept them, but cant finish, even if i come to planet undetected and with turned off transponder. And more confusing, I take pirate quest to deliver stuff to Hegemony planet and cant finish it too. Pirate standing is -14, afaik npc must be interactable in both cases. -_-
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 21, 2019, 04:37:15 PM
I tried the improved Hurricane MIRV, and while it probably wants some speed boosts, they are not mandatory like it was in 0.9a, and the MIRV is decent out-of-the-box.

I tried them. Still bad in wingman hands. 25 op just to waste most of shots into frigates and wrecks. Personally just prefer to give AI Locusts - at least they are not missed against frigates and do decent damage to bigger ships.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2019, 04:50:48 PM
I prefer Locusts too, but if I have Hurricanes, but no Locusts, Hurricane is useful enough to use today, unlike in 0.9a, where they needed both MS1 and ECCM to be useful.  (Aside, once I found my second Locusts, I stripped the Hurricane off of my Conquest and mounted Locust #2.)

I might use Hurricane more if their OP cost matched Locusts.  Locusts is a good multi-purpose launcher that is cheap to use.  Currently, Hurricane feels like the starter homing missile and Locusts are the upgrade.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 21, 2019, 05:23:49 PM
Didn't MIRV also have way better tracking in its secondary stage? I remember the terror of earlier versions when that fork of projectiles homed in on me. Now they can barely turn to aim at the thing they're hitting.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 21, 2019, 05:30:16 PM
Who can clarify how interaction with factions must work?
Im a bit confused. Im stealth raid few times Hegemony planets. Standing drop to -35. Game still give me procurement quests, i can accept them, but cant finish, even if i come to planet undetected and with turned off transponder. And more confusing, I take pirate quest to deliver stuff to Hegemony planet and cant finish it too. Pirate standing is -14, afaik npc must be interactable in both cases. -_-

turn transponder off?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2019, 06:12:41 PM
Didn't MIRV also have way better tracking in its secondary stage? I remember the terror of earlier versions when that fork of projectiles homed in on me. Now they can barely turn to aim at the thing they're hitting.
Tracking was changed in 0.9a.  Today, you need both Missile Specialization 1 and ECCM Package to have good turning.  With the extra bombs in 0.9.1a, the aiming matters slightly less in getting some hits.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 21, 2019, 08:30:21 PM
Who can clarify how interaction with factions must work?
Im a bit confused. Im stealth raid few times Hegemony planets. Standing drop to -35. Game still give me procurement quests, i can accept them, but cant finish, even if i come to planet undetected and with turned off transponder. And more confusing, I take pirate quest to deliver stuff to Hegemony planet and cant finish it too. Pirate standing is -14, afaik npc must be interactable in both cases. -_-

Planets that you've raided, especially more than once, won't interact with you at all for months afterwards, regardless of standing. It does say this in the text when you dock, albeit without any color drawing attention to the different response.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: goduranus on May 21, 2019, 10:13:46 PM
Actually only characters of the offended faction wouldn’t interact with you, pirate and independent characters on the planet tou raided still would.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 22, 2019, 03:06:30 AM
Who can clarify how interaction with factions must work?
Im a bit confused. Im stealth raid few times Hegemony planets. Standing drop to -35. Game still give me procurement quests, i can accept them, but cant finish, even if i come to planet undetected and with turned off transponder. And more confusing, I take pirate quest to deliver stuff to Hegemony planet and cant finish it too. Pirate standing is -14, afaik npc must be interactable in both cases. -_-

Planets that you've raided, especially more than once, won't interact with you at all for months afterwards, regardless of standing. It does say this in the text when you dock, albeit without any color drawing attention to the different response.

Seems like global faction planets ignore. =) I didnt raid Jangala, but cant do quests for them too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 22, 2019, 03:09:41 AM
Actually only characters of the offended faction wouldn’t interact with you, pirate and independent characters on the planet tou raided still would.

Nope. A bit strange, but ok. Ill just wait.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 22, 2019, 08:02:59 AM
With Pather interest much more transparent and thresholds relaxed in 0.9.1a, one silly strategy I have considered to save most of the core worlds from Pathers is to raid and steal the synchrotrons and nanoforges from the afflicted markets so that the cells either go to sleep or dissolve.

Then again, it seems all of the worlds that have active Pather cells always avert sabotage, so far.  Must be that 10 stability.

Once I see Pathers wrecking markets, I will considering stealing items when I can to make the Pathers go away.  Except for Culann, thanks to that Alpha administrator.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 22, 2019, 08:35:03 AM
Actually only characters of the offended faction wouldn’t interact with you, pirate and independent characters on the planet tou raided still would.

Nope. A bit strange, but ok. Ill just wait.

If you could send me your save, I'd love to take a look! Could be a bug.

fractalsoftworks [at] gmail [dot] com
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 22, 2019, 11:10:57 AM
Just recently encountered a pirate fleet with 56 ships.  (Broke the fleet cap.)  It was the only one so far.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 22, 2019, 11:31:10 AM
Thank you - made a note, will check this out.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on May 22, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
Is, generally speaking, quality of systems (number of planets, quality of those planets, cryosleepers) influenced by distance from the core? One of the more annoying thing about colonies so far is how out of the way good places to colonise tend to be. I'm trading one kind of convenience (being close to everything) for another (no rent) and it's not especially engaging. I tend to get Safety Procedures 3 just so that I can alt-tab out during the journey. I preferred that way of travelling in 0.9 in all the cases, but thankfully trying to avoid hyperspace storms isn't a fool's errand anymore.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 22, 2019, 01:44:55 PM
Is, generally speaking, quality of systems (number of planets, quality of those planets, cryosleepers) influenced by distance from the core?

Could be forgetting something, but I don't believe so.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 22, 2019, 06:49:28 PM
Re: travelling to distant colonies - I think simulation speed in Hyperspace could stand to be increased at least 50% or so; right now we have two speeds: always too slow and usually too slow.

Re: distant colonies in general - last game I made a colony in a far corner of the map. It was... disappointing. It had none of the upsides I had hoped for (Pirates & Pathers don't consider 30+ LY travel to harass your colonies a bother at all), and the severe downside of unpleasant travel times was compounded by very nearly every Bar cargo mission encounter wanting to ship out to your remote colony.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 22, 2019, 07:13:12 PM
I picked up intel from salvaging a ship (in hyperspace near a core world) about a derelict in the Naraka system... I shouldn't have, right? Those derelicts don't persist, do they?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on May 22, 2019, 08:57:42 PM
Is, generally speaking, quality of systems (number of planets, quality of those planets, cryosleepers) influenced by distance from the core?

Could be forgetting something, but I don't believe so.

Well it does seem that "rare things"* are more often than not further away from core systems and they often contain high-quality worlds with good modifiers (or create valuable colonizable systems through means other than direct planet modifiers). Though of course my sample size is just a dozen or so campaigns, so a pattern I notice does not necessarily indicate the sector generation having any specific weights of that nature.



*referring to the uncommon system types (supergiants, nebulae, neutron stars, black holes) and rare finds ([REDACTED], [OTHER REDACTEDs], and systems with non-generic names that are filled to the brim with extensive ruins and abandoned space-stations)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 22, 2019, 09:07:30 PM
I picked up intel from salvaging a ship (in hyperspace near a core world) about a derelict in the Naraka system... I shouldn't have, right? Those derelicts don't persist, do they?

In theory it shouldn't do that - that is, that type of intel should not point to things that expire - but maybe there was a permanent derelict in that system for some reason?

Edit: made a note to double-check all temporary derelicts get the "expires" tag which prevents missions from targeting them. Ohh, wait, I was thinking missions for some reason, not the breadcrumb intel. Yep, checked and that was indeed not looking for that tag. Fixed!

Well it does seem that "rare things"* are more often than not further away from core systems and they often contain high-quality worlds with good modifiers (or create valuable colonizable systems through means other than direct planet modifiers). Though of course my sample size is just a dozen or so campaigns, so a pattern I notice does not necessarily indicate the sector generation having any specific weights of that nature.



*referring to the uncommon system types (supergiants, nebulae, neutron stars, black holes) and rare finds ([REDACTED], [OTHER REDACTEDs], and systems with non-generic names that are filled to the brim with extensive ruins and abandoned space-stations)

Some points of interest are indeed more likely to be farther out, but this doesn't apply to planet types etc. Also, something to consider: in any given Sector, more stars are going to be farther from core than not due to area increasing as the square of distance.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 23, 2019, 05:30:35 AM
Just noticed that some colony demand, namely Refinery and Fuel Production, is higher than what they used to be, even more than when taking changed Industrial Planning into account.  In 0.9a, Sparse ore and trace volatiles (-1) were enough to meat demand with Industrial Planning.  Now, player with Industrial Planning needs higher-than-moderate (abundant or rich) ores and volatiles (+1) to meet demand.  Even with changed Industrial Planning, I originally expected moderate (0) to be enough, but not anymore.

Curiously, player still only needs poor farmland and trace organics (-1) to meet demand if player has Industrial Planning.

This means mining on a low hazard, five resource planet is insufficient for meeting demand.  (Can be mined for income and organics, though.)

It seems I need at least three planets:
* Gas giant or cryovolcanic with +1 or +2 volatiles.
* Hostile rock or high-gravity habitable with both ores at +1 or more.
* Low hazard habitable with some farmland and organics, and a place to put an expensive industry that is also worth six Pather interest points.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 23, 2019, 09:23:27 AM
Watching a friend stream first Starsector adventures, I've noticed one thing that's a minor annoyance to me being a bit more of a usability issue for someone who doesn't know what's going on - right clicking stars on the map sets autopilot for the actual star. Setting autopilot to go to the inner system jump point instead of the star itself would be a much more useful behavior
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 23, 2019, 01:06:22 PM
Welcoming committee at high alert system with only one jump point. Almost 20 remnant battleships. -_-
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Recklessimpulse on May 23, 2019, 01:38:25 PM
Agreed that would be a great change.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 23, 2019, 03:51:58 PM
(Made a note re: where course is set.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 23, 2019, 06:17:36 PM
Just noticed that some colony demand, namely Refinery and Fuel Production, is higher than what they used to be, even more than when taking changed Industrial Planning into account.  In 0.9a, Sparse ore and trace volatiles (-1) were enough to meat demand with Industrial Planning.  Now, player with Industrial Planning needs higher-than-moderate (abundant or rich) ores and volatiles (+1) to meet demand.  Even with changed Industrial Planning, I originally expected moderate (0) to be enough, but not anymore.

Curiously, player still only needs poor farmland and trace organics (-1) to meet demand if player has Industrial Planning.

This means mining on a low hazard, five resource planet is insufficient for meeting demand.  (Can be mined for income and organics, though.)

It seems I need at least three planets:
* Gas giant or cryovolcanic with +1 or +2 volatiles.
* Hostile rock or high-gravity habitable with both ores at +1 or more.
* Low hazard habitable with some farmland and organics, and a place to put an expensive industry that is also worth six Pather interest points.

I noticed that there was a difference between the base output of Ore and Transplutonic Ore given the same Moderate rarity:
Mining Ore Units = Population
Mining Transplutonic Ore Units = Population-2

But it does seem pretty strange that Refining requires more than you can produce given the same population:
Refinery required Ore Units = Population+2
Refinery required Transplutonic Ore Units = Population

Seems Transplutonic Ore would run into the same problem as well since it's base output is lower given Moderate rarity.

*Goes to Eventide to check out Volatile base mining extraction*
Mining Volatile Units (at base rarity) = Population-2
Fuel Production Units = Population

Hmmm, so to make ends meet it does look like you need Industrial Planning 2 & at least a Gamma core for Fuel and Refining, with Moderate deposits of Volatiles/Ore/Transplutonic Ore
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 23, 2019, 06:56:52 PM
"Finished" another run. Mostly focused on colonies. Imho this part in a good shape. Colonies is useful - profitable, give you good resupply spot and ship building ability later. Also dont requires babysitting if you settle good system(4-5 planets). Cores is fully optional - just 1 skill in industry for 3 administrators is enough - with 5 planets you can build redundant facilities
 on different planets with just 5 size(3 industry slots) and dont pay attention to incoming raids.

Also, about exploration. Game lack of capital sized exploration vessel(or at least non civilian capital cargo ship). Atlas/prometheus cant support 250 scanner strenght while keeping 9 speed, because you must choose between militarised systems+drive field for speed, or militarised systems+high resolution scanners for maximum possible scanning range. 5 proper capitals is just too expensive for this role.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 24, 2019, 05:33:00 AM
Also, about exploration. Game lack of capital sized exploration vessel(or at least non civilian capital cargo ship). Atlas/prometheus cant support 250 scanner strenght while keeping 9 speed, because you must choose between militarised systems+drive field for speed, or militarised systems+high resolution scanners for maximum possible scanning range. 5 proper capitals is just too expensive for this role.
This is when Navigation 3 and/or tugs becomes useful.  No navigation and four tugs for 20 speed is a big drain on fuel, even during 0.9a.  I am seriously considering Navigation for my character, but that means I am one or two skill points shy of grabbing another skill I equally covet, like Planetary Operations to raise defenses enough to eliminate some babysitting, or more combat perks.  (Of course, if fleets will tac bomb defenses in a later version, that means I would need to babysit anyway to prevent them from inflicting "Pollution" on some of my colonies.)

Hmmm, so to make ends meet it does look like you need Industrial Planning 2 & at least a Gamma core for Fuel and Refining, with Moderate deposits of Volatiles/Ore/Transplutonic Ore
Yes.  That is why the planet needs Abundant or greater now, with Industrial Planning.

I guess for a player who wants to avoid colony skills, he probably wants at least Industry/Colony Management 1 for three administrators.  I personally would like 3/3/3 like lore NPCs, who probably were max level officers in their battlefield glory days, but so far, I am stuck with max Colony Management and Industrial Planning (and Fleet Logistics, the complete no-brainer skill).  Would like max Planetary Operations too, but cannot fit that in, not without sacrificing either Ordnance Expert, Fighter Doctrine, or Navigation.  (Currently, either Navigation or Planetary Operations is on the chopping block.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 24, 2019, 09:23:18 AM
Also, about exploration. Game lack of capital sized exploration vessel(or at least non civilian capital cargo ship). Atlas/prometheus cant support 250 scanner strenght while keeping 9 speed, because you must choose between militarised systems+drive field for speed, or militarised systems+high resolution scanners for maximum possible scanning range. 5 proper capitals is just too expensive for this role.
This is when Navigation 3 and/or tugs becomes useful.  No navigation and four tugs for 20 speed is a big drain on fuel, even during 0.9a.  I am seriously considering Navigation for my character, but that means I am one or two skill points shy of grabbing another skill I equally covet, like Planetary Operations to raise defenses enough to eliminate some babysitting, or more combat perks.  (Of course, if fleets will tac bomb defenses in a later version, that means I would need to babysit anyway to prevent them from inflicting "Pollution" on some of my colonies.)

Navigation 3 is obvious pick(no-brainer for me). 9 base speed + Nav3 mean 20 sustain burn(at least in clear space). I wish more base speed for exploration, but then you need to sacrifice other fleet aspects. Tugs definitely not for exploration.
Imho, exploration fleet must be:
1. Cheap in maintenance and fuel cosumption so you can just cover all fleet needs by loot from exploration sites and don't return to core worlds for resupply at all.
2. As fast as possible. Preferable at least 9 base speed.
3. With maximum possible scanning range.
And of course must bring enough surveying equipment to keep planet scanning at 5 supply cost.
So currently you can do 1 and 2, but cant do 3. Must trade for additional 500(625) scanning range either speed 7(16) vs 9(20), while keeping useful for exploration ships, or big fleet maintenance - even 5 cheapest capitals(Odysseys) is too costly and kinda useless for exploring just because you dont need so much firepower for this.
Having something like capital sized Mule in game would be nice. :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 24, 2019, 09:59:03 AM
Character build depends a lot on play style.  I'm personally willing to use alpha cores, and generally don't run d-mod ships mid to late game, so I've got a fairly different skill distribution.  I admit the alpha cores induce AI inspection fleets (but those can bribed) and Pather interest, but I consider both of those manageable and I figure I'm going to run into Pather interest with heavy industry + other stuff anyways.

Currently my level 50 character in a Nexerelin modded run has the following personal skills:
Combat Endurance 3, Ordnance Expertise 3, Target Analysis 3, Defense Systems 3, Advanced Countermeasures 3, Evasive Action 1, Helmsmanship 2, Gunnery Implants 3, Power Grid Modulation 3.

That still leaves enough for fleet skills of Officer Management 3, Fleet Logistics 3, Coordinated Maneuvers 3, Fighter Doctrine 3, Electronic Warfare 1, Loadout Design 3, and Navigation 3.

That makes my personal character better than an level 20 officer (equivalent to 8 skills at 3 instead of 7).  I don't run d-mods in my endgame fleet, so the Industry fleet skills aren't useful to me.  As far as I can tell, I'm really just missing EW 3 and Command and Control 3 as things which could boost my fleet as a whole.  50% more effective ground combat just means more credits spent on marines when I get around to that, so I skip planetary operations.  Mid-late thats not a problem I find.  I suppose if I were raiding early game planetary operations might make sense, but I tend to play nice early game.

My combat fleet is currently fast battlecruisers (Odysseys, Conquests) and cruisers (Herons, Apogees, Eagles), so between navigation and base speed I'm running at burn 9 (18 sustained) which feels fast enough for my purposes.  If I do exploring, I just run a few Apogees (say 3), maybe some Shepherds, and a Dram or two.  If I'm just looking for rare salvage (Nanoforges/Syncrotrons, blueprints), you don't need capital class cargo capacity.

If you're doing exploration for bulk goods to sell for credits, I guess I don't see that as particularly efficient?  I've generally made more profit by popping in and of the core worlds to get exploration missions for credits (or even bring along some transplutonics to build makeshift comm relays to pick up more missions while out in the black - gives me something to do with all the excess metal and machinery I pick up).

On my spacer iron man run that worked, I just did pure exploring early on, but was just running scans for the credits and opening up only the good stuff (Research stations, mining stations, caches, Survey ships, and looking for ruins on planets) when I saw them.  I basically did that with like a single combat fit Apogee, maybe 4 or 5 shepherds, and a dram.  I did take the sensors skill in that game.  +25% sensor range is good for searching, and neutrino detector is handy for the stuff out near the edges of the system, especially on Iron man when you're taking every explore mission.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 24, 2019, 10:59:59 AM
Raiding is good for extra credits and blueprints.

The main benefits of Planetary Operations is +50% ground defense (push it into absurd with other boosts) and +2 stability (one more colony).  The extra attack is convenient, but negligible.

As for Pathers and Heavy Industry.  Heavy Industry with nanoforge will not attact Pathers if there are no other Pather aggro Industries.  For secondary Heavy Industries (to boost production amount), those can have no nanoforge for only +2 interest instead of +6 with nanoforge.

I really dislike Pathers enough that I prefer to avoid them at all costs.  However, it seems worlds with 10 stability are immune to sabotage.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The2nd on May 24, 2019, 02:25:55 PM
Am I just extremely unlucky or has the Odyssey become extremely rare? I am approaching the end of my vanilla run and I have never even seen one. No blueprint either. I have a collection of all other capitals by now including several Paragons. And yet I dearly miss that ship.  :'(
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 24, 2019, 02:43:00 PM
Am I just extremely unlucky or has the Odyssey become extremely rare?
Probably a bit of both. ;)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 24, 2019, 03:11:49 PM
You're right, Odyssey is very rare in NPC fleets and as a blueprint. Aurora too, for me. I got lucky raiding Hybrasil for blueprints of each.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 24, 2019, 03:21:52 PM
I think I have gone 3 campaigns so far without seeing an odyssey or maybe one locked behind commission once. They are very rare because TT is carrier focused so they rarely use warships. I wish there was another high tech faction who used warships so I could see that content once in a while.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 24, 2019, 03:25:42 PM
I think I have gone 3 campaigns so far without seeing an odyssey or maybe one locked behind commission once. They are very rare because TT is carrier focused so they rarely use warships. I wish there was another high tech faction who used warships so I could see that content once in a while.
Independents have some high-tech, and New Maxios is easy to raid.  Swiped Doom and Harbinger blueprints from them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SapphireSage on May 24, 2019, 04:40:34 PM
@Megas Colonies with 10 stability are not immune to sabotage. Earlier in this topic Alex confirmed that the chance of countering sabotage was 10% for every stability point above 5, so at 10 stability its a 50% chance.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 24, 2019, 04:47:27 PM
@Megas Colonies with 10 stability are not immune to sabotage. Earlier in this topic Alex confirmed that the chance of countering sabotage was 10% for every stability point above 5, so at 10 stability its a 50% chance.
I thought I read that somewhere.  In practice, every time I see the Pathers try something (and I have seen at least a dozen tries over two games), they are foiled every time.  Maybe there is a bug somewhere that doubles the chances of (or sets it to 100%) failed sabotage?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on May 24, 2019, 05:18:06 PM
I'm sorry, don't have much indepth to contribute, but i do have a thing to say about Pather/Pirate bases in fringe systems. They're more useful alive than dead most times as they're a constant source of food/fuel and work as a forward operating base, even if they hate your guts. All the benefits of a why you'd want a colony without any of the hassle.

Any chance that maybe i could meet a stray or two independent rimworlds, or some Sindrian expedition that got a bit too populous and popular and is now acting as a waypoint for scavengers and explorers? They don't have to show up on the planet list for the factions, but they'd be cool finds for people that know where they are.

It'd help with a bit of variety from trekking always from the coreworlds or your own colony stations, and maybe lead to more active exploitation of deep space past just 'running through them once to get the stuff'. I had a Pirate base nearby a cluster that always got a lot of bounties and it was cool not having to 'return to base' after each one or two bounties.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 24, 2019, 06:08:57 PM
I'm sorry, don't have much indepth to contribute, but i do have a thing to say about Pather/Pirate bases in fringe systems. They're more useful alive than dead most times as they're a constant source of food/fuel and work as a forward operating base, even if they hate your guts. All the benefits of a why you'd want a colony without any of the hassle.

Any chance that maybe i could meet a stray or two independent rimworlds, or some Sindrian expedition that got a bit too populous and popular and is now acting as a waypoint for scavengers and explorers? They don't have to show up on the planet list for the factions, but they'd be cool finds for people that know where they are.

It'd help with a bit of variety from trekking always from the coreworlds or your own colony stations, and maybe lead to more active exploitation of deep space past just 'running through them once to get the stuff'. I had a Pirate base nearby a cluster that always got a lot of bounties and it was cool not having to 'return to base' after each one or two bounties.

This sounds neat, kind of reminds me of the distant way stations in Elite Dangerous on route to Colonia or the Core.

On a related note, any possibility that there might be some larger sector options?

Would also be interesting to come across more scripted exploration moments, I think Stellaris did a pretty good job there with the initial exploration phase of the game and all those anomaly scans.  No fancy graphics (well occasionally you got a unique picture), all text with the occasional decision to be made.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 24, 2019, 06:21:48 PM
If I'm just looking for rare salvage (Nanoforges/Syncrotrons, blueprints), you don't need capital class cargo capacity.

+25% sensor range is good for searching

I dont complain about cargo capacity - need more cargo space? just take more cargo ships and its ok. But sensors is based on hull size. So if i want(and i want) to have (250x5+300)x1.25=1937 scanners range i need to take 5 capitals with high resolution sensors mod into fleet. Just 1 apogee and a few smaller ships is usually have much smaller sensor strenght. Like 300+150+60+60+60+60=690 without 25% from skill, or close to 1k with. Pretty big and noticeable difference.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 24, 2019, 06:53:32 PM
If I'm just looking for rare salvage (Nanoforges/Syncrotrons, blueprints), you don't need capital class cargo capacity.

+25% sensor range is good for searching

I dont complain about cargo capacity - need more cargo space? just take more cargo ships and its ok. But sensors is based on hull size. So if i want(and i want) to have (250x5+300)x1.25=1937 scanners range i need to take 5 capitals with high resolution sensors mod into fleet. Just 1 apogee and a few smaller ships is usually have much smaller sensor strenght. Like 300+150+60+60+60+60=690 without 25% from skill, or close to 1k with. Pretty big and noticeable difference.
Yeah I wouldn't mind something like this, but the Odyssey-class does have the cheapest fuel usage of the capital ships (even if it is still 8 fuel/ly), and does come with High Resolution sensors built-in (So 250 sensor strength from the get-go).  It can do 8 burn (which is pretty good for capitals), but personally it just isn't economical enough after flying around the Apogee. 
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 25, 2019, 06:02:24 AM
I originally posted a long post about cheesing the enemy with my whole fleet hugging the wall here, but decided to remove it and re-post it separately in its own topic in General Discussions.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Awe on May 25, 2019, 10:09:09 AM
I dont complain about cargo capacity - need more cargo space? just take more cargo ships and its ok. But sensors is based on hull size. So if i want(and i want) to have (250x5+300)x1.25=1937 scanners range i need to take 5 capitals with high resolution sensors mod into fleet. Just 1 apogee and a few smaller ships is usually have much smaller sensor strenght. Like 300+150+60+60+60+60=690 without 25% from skill, or close to 1k with. Pretty big and noticeable difference.
Yeah I wouldn't mind something like this, but the Odyssey-class does have the cheapest fuel usage of the capital ships (even if it is still 8 fuel/ly), and does come with High Resolution sensors built-in (So 250 sensor strength from the get-go).  It can do 8 burn (which is pretty good for capitals), but personally it just isn't economical enough after flying around the Apogee.

Hard to afford early or midgame 40 fuel/ly just to have addditional 625 scanners. Its an also 200 supplies(20k credits) and 2k crew upkeep(another 20k) - 40k$ total per month. And Odysseys is kinda rare, so its really even not a midgame option.  :'(
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 25, 2019, 10:17:40 AM
I'm sorry, don't have much indepth to contribute, but i do have a thing to say about Pather/Pirate bases in fringe systems. They're more useful alive than dead most times as they're a constant source of food/fuel and work as a forward operating base, even if they hate your guts. All the benefits of a why you'd want a colony without any of the hassle.

Any chance that maybe i could meet a stray or two independent rimworlds, or some Sindrian expedition that got a bit too populous and popular and is now acting as a waypoint for scavengers and explorers? They don't have to show up on the planet list for the factions, but they'd be cool finds for people that know where they are.

It'd help with a bit of variety from trekking always from the coreworlds or your own colony stations, and maybe lead to more active exploitation of deep space past just 'running through them once to get the stuff'. I had a Pirate base nearby a cluster that always got a lot of bounties and it was cool not having to 'return to base' after each one or two bounties.

This sounds neat, kind of reminds me of the distant way stations in Elite Dangerous on route to Colonia or the Core.

On a related note, any possibility that there might be some larger sector options?

Would also be interesting to come across more scripted exploration moments, I think Stellaris did a pretty good job there with the initial exploration phase of the game and all those anomaly scans.  No fancy graphics (well occasionally you got a unique picture), all text with the occasional decision to be made.

(Just on a general note, yeah, this sort of stuff sounds like fun, and I'd love to add more things to discover while exploring the Sector.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on May 25, 2019, 03:10:40 PM
Perhaps it warrants a look at bounty fleets getting stuck when trying to get to the nearest planet (I assume it's the nearest) after the bounty's timer runs out.
This happens when there's a planet closely orbiting a super giant; the fleet refuses to enter the corona.
Maybe force them somehow?

I'm not sure if they'll eventually disappear. I'm keeping tabs on two of these fleets.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: 81643 on May 25, 2019, 05:11:21 PM
Out of curiosity, are there any plans for the player to acquire terraforming technology? It would make a much greater number of worlds viable for colonization. I imagine that it could work in a similar fashion to Fuel Production and Heavy Industry. That is, a two-part system. The first being a learnable tech (same as the reward from the Red Planet), with its own questline leading you to it. The second being an item (terraforming core) you find while exploring, which you can install into a completed terraformer. You could probably only find them in certain locations (cryosleeper, spore ships, ruins above a certain size, etc). Building the terraformer would add "Terraformed" to your colony's modifiers, which reduces hazard rating by 25%. Installing a terraforming core would change the modifier to "Heavily Terraformed," and would reduce hazard rating by 50%. The caveat to this whole thing would be that planets cannot have a hazard rating less that 50%.

Just an idea I had.  :P
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 25, 2019, 09:20:05 PM
Perhaps it warrants a look at bounty fleets getting stuck when trying to get to the nearest planet (I assume it's the nearest) after the bounty's timer runs out.
This happens when there's a planet closely orbiting a super giant; the fleet refuses to enter the corona.
Maybe force them somehow?

I'm not sure if they'll eventually disappear. I'm keeping tabs on two of these fleets.

I think they don't actually disappear, but that's been a low-priority item for me since it doesn't hurt anything and is fairly rare.

Out of curiosity, are there any plans for the player to acquire terraforming technology? It would make a much greater number of worlds viable for colonization. I imagine that it could work in a similar fashion to Fuel Production and Heavy Industry. That is, a two-part system. The first being a learnable tech (same as the reward from the Red Planet), with its own questline leading you to it. The second being an item (terraforming core) you find while exploring, which you can install into a completed terraformer. You could probably only find them in certain locations (cryosleeper, spore ships, ruins above a certain size, etc). Building the terraformer would add "Terraformed" to your colony's modifiers, which reduces hazard rating by 25%. Installing a terraforming core would change the modifier to "Heavily Terraformed," and would reduce hazard rating by 50%. The caveat to this whole thing would be that planets cannot have a hazard rating less that 50%.

Just an idea I had.  :P

Nothing I'd call a plan, but, hmm. What I really like here - and hadn't considered before - is the use of a special item. In particular if it was a single-use item, so it'd be an extremely limited thing. Let me add this to the list of "potential cool exploration-related things to add" - that's far from an "it'll be in the game", but there's a possibility :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on May 26, 2019, 03:21:40 AM
Possibility that some minor rewording is required:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/EEBpTj9.png)
The initial notification for a faction expedition states that
"Fighting the expeditionary force will not result in reputation changes"
But this happens when the expedition fails
(https://i.imgur.com/RsBpfp4.png)
Which may be a source of confusion.
Suggest adding the word "major" in front of reputation on the initial notice.
[close]

Re: Terraforming
Spoiler
This is the sort of thing that is very interesting, but simultaneously difficult to achieve in a way that doesn't feel like it's an afterthought, or a "press button to snowball player assets" deal.
Maybe this could be lead into in a similar way to the Red Planet, with a bit of a breadcrumb trail to follow ending in a unique item which has some significant time and resource (maybe also placement*) requirement attached.
This 'project' could then be used to spawn optional player missions to retrieve resources and/or perform anti-piracy actions to protect transport fleets. The reward for either being a progress boost for the project.

* I can't see terraforming a planet near a neutron star being a worthwhile endeavour for instance
[close]

Re: Exploring and Discoveries
Spoiler
Maybe something to look at would a wider variety, but lesser quantity of 'mundane' colony items.
Currently there are 2 flavours of nanoforge, and the synchrotron. All three of which are currently a little too easy to come by in numbers great enough that the player doensn't have to make any real choices about where to use them.
If these numbers were reduced somewhat, the value and utility of such finds would be much greater. As would the excitement of having found them.

Also, this presents an opportunity to introduce other similar items to enhance different industries. Both to 'dilute' the pool of items and spread thier occurance out a little. And to allow the player to at least partially mitigate the newfound resource restrictions with the new industry model (RNG allowing).
Possibility exists for:
  • Mining booster
  • Refinery booster
  • Farm/Food booster
  • Light Ind booster
  • Useable item/blueprint to build hydroponic farming industry on non food producing worlds
  • Useable item/blueprint to build above mentioned terraforming project
  • Useable item/blueprint to build 'Domain' structures/industries which may be more efficient than standard or do something else entirely
[close]

None of this is really nescessary. But it sure would be nice.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 26, 2019, 06:36:18 AM
What good is colonizing planets in a neutron system if your commerce traffic and patrols get blown away by pulsar beams?  Your fleet might handle them, but maybe not the important NPCs you want to have easy access to your colony.

Speaking of neutron stars, it is annoying when pirate bases spawn in those systems, but as a consolation prize, all patrols get blown away and the base is undefended, no need for special tricks to lure away guards because pulsar beams did the dirty work.

Re: Expeditions
The description is clear enough, but what is missing is the reputation change should the expedition fail.  The description could mention that the expedition failing at its mission will cause the minor reputation drop, even if a third party kills the expedition or you abandon your colony before it arrives in the system.  I was annoyed that I lost reputation after I abandoned the targeted colony because in a way, expedition was successful (problem industry is gone) even if the means was beyond the expedition's control.

Quote
Currently there are 2 flavours of nanoforge, and the synchrotron. All three of which are currently a little too easy to come by in numbers great enough that the player doensn't have to make any real choices about where to use them.
If these numbers were reduced somewhat, the value and utility of such finds would be much greater. As would the excitement of having found them.
I rather find too many than not enough.  People should not explore the entire sector before finding one.  It is probably endgame by the time player can fully explore half of the entire sector, if he has not wasted too much time babysitting colonies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Oblivion on May 26, 2019, 07:40:19 AM
Will Starsector have a linear storyline with one goal? Or would it have multiple storylines converging  on each other but ultimately having different endings?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 26, 2019, 07:49:53 AM
Will Starsector have a linear storyline with one goal? Or would it have multiple storylines converging  on each other but ultimately having different endings?
One like killing everyone after player gets fed up with constant expeditions and other abuse, a bit similar to Black Sabbath's Iron Man without the time travel.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Oblivion on May 26, 2019, 08:03:27 AM
One like killing everyone after player gets fed up with constant expeditions and other abuse, a bit similar to Black Sabbath's Iron Man without the time travel.


Ah... I see.  ::)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Igncom1 on May 26, 2019, 08:06:12 AM
I could see a 'story' revolving around some large event that happens after the game starts. Like the 4th? AI war, or some foreign invasion kinda thing. Something that would seek to largely end civilisation in the sector, as we know it, and is sotmhing that the player can get involved in or not as they see fit.

The new regime could be better, after all...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Oblivion on May 26, 2019, 08:31:32 AM
Faction specific storylines could be interesting. Helping the Hegemony open up the gates and unite the sector or joining a TT expedition in fringe space to search for forgotten technology. Maybe even collaborating with the Pathers in a holy crusade against the sector to start a new “golden age” without technology. Probably too far-fetched though. Also, option to make the sector even bigger?  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on May 26, 2019, 08:34:26 AM
What good is colonizing planets in a neutron system if your commerce traffic and patrols get blown away by pulsar beams?

Welll... it's hilarious.

The number 1 goal for my player-created faction and it's colonies is to settle in unusual or cool-looking systems, or systems with neat unique names, or anywhere that is in a fun position.
I mean, what's the point of having a faction that's just profitable/good/powerful because they're sitting in decent but ordinary star systems? The normal pre-set NPC factions already do that, so I'll put my colonies into nebulae, neutron stars, black holes, supergiant systems, binary/trinary systems, or anything with neat names (I love taking Aztlan from the hegemony for the birth of an aztec-flavored faction).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Igncom1 on May 26, 2019, 08:44:50 AM
What good is colonizing planets in a neutron system if your commerce traffic and patrols get blown away by pulsar beams?

Welll... it's hilarious.

The number 1 goal for my player-created faction and it's colonies is to settle in unusual or cool-looking systems, or systems with neat unique names, or anywhere that is in a fun position.
I mean, what's the point of having a faction that's just profitable/good/powerful because they're sitting in decent but ordinary star systems? The normal pre-set NPC factions already do that, so I'll put my colonies into nebulae, neutron stars, black holes, supergiant systems, binary/trinary systems, or anything with neat names (I love taking Aztlan from the hegemony for the birth of an aztec-flavored faction).

Nothing quite like making a lava fortress world. Although making one that's profitable is a whole other matter...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 26, 2019, 02:41:46 PM
I like to settle on habitable planets that would be pleasant for my character to vacation or live on.  The ideal being that elusive 50% hazard Terran with Mild Climate, and maybe high farmland.  I have seriously considered settling on 75% hazard Terran planets even if it is worse and further away from core than more valuable but more inhospitable planets.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: MajorTheRed on May 26, 2019, 06:07:36 PM
From my current play, I have the feeling that enemy fleets fight to the bitter end and fall back in a last resort. At the ship scale, same problem in regard to CR, ships don't try to flee if they have a low rating (<25%). Was it changed from 0.90 to 0.91?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on May 27, 2019, 03:18:54 AM
I rather find too many than not enough.  People should not explore the entire sector before finding one.  It is probably endgame by the time player can fully explore half of the entire sector, if he has not wasted too much time babysitting colonies.
This comes from from opposed playstyles and expectations.
eg:
Quote
People should not explore the entire sector before finding one.
I would have no problem whatsoever if the RNG decided there were zero of some forge item to be found this time round.

I would vastly prefer the 'default' condition for all player colonies to be no forges etc. at all. And finding one is a geuninely rare event that not only prompts the player to make a potentially difficult decision, but actually makes them feel like they've found something good.
Until then - make do with what you have.

Imo, the entire point of having RNG anything is that it is never the same from game to game. And with forge items currently, you can expect to find multiples of each of the three (current) items with minimal effort, and often before the player even has a colony to utilise them.
It's the same almost every game.
In several starts I have played I did not even have to leave the core to aquire several forge items from the untouched ruins therein.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 27, 2019, 05:41:02 AM
Imo, the entire point of having RNG anything is that it is never the same from game to game. And with forge items currently, you can expect to find multiples of each of the three (current) items with minimal effort, and often before the player even has a colony to utilise them.
It's the same almost every game.
In several starts I have played I did not even have to leave the core to aquire several forge items from the untouched ruins therein.
Now that Industrial Planning 1 no longer reduces demand, I think all of the special items are mandatory.  No other good way to meet demand of the essential commodities (like fuel and supplies).  Cores do not count due to major aggro with Pathers and/or Hegemony.

Randomness is not fun when it leads to frustration.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on May 27, 2019, 08:11:08 AM
Randomness is not fun when it leads to frustration.
I can agree with that, in principal.
It's just that I don't consider not having an item that makes something super good to be frustrating. It's just 'normal'.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 27, 2019, 08:44:56 AM
Randomness is not fun when it leads to frustration.
I can agree with that, in principal.
It's just that I don't consider not having an item that makes something super good to be frustrating. It's just 'normal'.
It would be nice to have old Industrial Planning 1 back as a fallback.  Falling that, if I cannot find the item, then there is raiding for that item, which kind of stinks.  I remember raiding for nanoforge in two out of four of my games in 0.9a because I could not find the item (I picked the wrong half of the sector to fully explore first).

Today, it seems the drop rate has been tweaked.  So far, I found a single synchrotron and pristine nanoforge in both of my 0.9.1a games.  Much fewer corrupted nanoforges too.

With the way things are designed now, special item is the 'normal', not item-less, because all factions have one and you (eventually) need an item to meet demand that needs commodities from heavy industry and fuel production.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on May 27, 2019, 10:42:59 AM
I agree with Serenitis: I would prefer the base balance be set for not receiving the items, and then have the items be rare rewards for exploration - or raiding, or finding the Mothership, or story rewards! Items for colonies have great potential to be motivating elements for active gameplay.

I would also like their to be installables for other industries and structures, so that even if a player doesn't find a synchrotron core they can still find something that gives direction for a particular playthrough. (Again a Serenitis post from a few days back).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 27, 2019, 10:53:11 AM
I agree with Serenitis: I would prefer the base balance be set for not receiving the items, and then have the items be rare rewards for exploration - or raiding, or finding the Mothership, or story rewards! Items for colonies have great potential to be motivating elements for active gameplay.

I would also like their to be installables for other industries and structures, so that even if a player doesn't find a synchrotron core they can still find something that gives direction for a particular playthrough. (Again a Serenitis post from a few days back).

Yeah, all this sounds good to me in general (and I took a few notes after reading Serentis' post :D - as well as a few others in a similar vein elsewhere on the forum, I think?). I don't think Synchrotron/Pristine Nano are really necessary even now - you can certainly have profitable colonies without 'em.

(Edit: in particular, I really like the idea of having more items specific to certain industries to shape playthroughs a bit more, but I forget who brought it up. I've also been kicking about the the idea of having more infrastructure to find that factors into industries, so that's along similar lines... well, will have to see how it pans out! Currently keeping a list of ideas, which isn't the same as it being a todo list, if that makes sense.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on May 27, 2019, 11:28:12 AM
Because there's no definite end point to the game, the player will almost certainly find every special item if they play long enough. As a consequence, I believe players currently expect to find them.

Personally, I don't expect any backlash when you break that assumption, but it's something to keep in mind.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on May 27, 2019, 12:10:36 PM
I don't think Synchrotron/Pristine Nano are really necessary even now - you can certainly have profitable colonies without 'em.

I totally agree with you there. However, many players (in all games, not just this one) have the unhealthy attitude to look at the mathematically-best "optimal case" and decide that that is "the default" that should always be fulfilled - Anything that is "less than optimal" is in their mind automatically reduced to "not viable", and it's very difficult to convince them that that is not how the words "default" and "viable" work.

I am also on the side of Serenitis: I find way too many forges and synchotrons (and medium/high AI cores) to know what to do with, and I'd also like them to be a "sometimes, very rarely, not in every campaign you start" type of deal. It would also make the big empire capitals that have nanoforges become very valuable targets to fight over - currently I have very little motivation to try and conquer other factions' markets.


Having more other industry-boosters to apply to things other than heavy and fuel would be cool, too. Also, there are still some industries for which I find the alpha core tooltip to be a bit unclear and also couldn't see any difference when applying it (such as basic population or tech mining).

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 27, 2019, 01:09:48 PM
The game does push players towards "must supply everything in faction" currently; you pay penalties for importing (hulls, specifically) and get bonuses for meeting demand yourself. Perhaps there should be benefits to importing cross faction as well, to make it more of a trade-off; perhaps you could get small opinion boosts with factions you are buying from, or they could be less inclined to send expeditions (or even intercede in other faction expeditions - the people selling you ore don't want your refineries disrupted!)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dostya on May 27, 2019, 01:14:54 PM
Given that previous lore indicated that without constant Domain supplies terraforming is a Big Thing to the point where the sector collapsed for lack of it, a terraforming item/module should be something that'll attract A: jealousy, B: offers for it (Chicomoztoc but habitable like Gilead? Hegemony want), and C: should be pretty amazingly resource intensive to deploy. Seriously amazingly expensive. Gratuitously expensive. Victory lap expensive. Otherwise, who wouldn't have been terraforming?

As far as rarity for forges and synchrotrons, it was really cool to find a corrupted nanoforge for the first time. And a synchrotron. However, corrupted nanoforges are all but worthless after the exploration phase and you don't really need more than one or two synchrotrons while you'll easily find seven or eight of the things. Pristine nanforges are still valuable-ish from both their rarity and boost to construction capacity, but by end game the player will be able to just spam out orbital yards with corrupt nanoforges everywhere, only need one pristine nanoforge for the quality boost, and that's good enough. You won't replace millions in a month such like if everything was pristine, but really who cares it's surplus to all but the most ludicrous of needs.

I'm honestly not sure what to do with AI cores. The alphas are without exception useful one way or another (Better administration without impacting cap? Better Access? Bigger fleets? More ground defense? Okay, sure, I've always got a use for that somewhere or other) and I'll drop them in somewhere, but it's rare that the beta and gamma cores are useful now. The beta core maintenence reduction is effectively useless with a comprehensive industry list, and that just makes them gamma cores. You might consider making beta cores change how industry responds from shortages from losing a trade fleet or something, I dunno. They need something more.

On a funnier note, while I was trundling around with frigates in my new game I noticed a small pirate raiding group fleeing from pursuing Hegemony forces that had the radar signature of an armada. Turns out it was an armada originally, but the minimap signature didn't update after it got blasted to pieces.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: DatonKallandor on May 27, 2019, 02:08:13 PM
... I've also been kicking about the the idea of having more infrastructure to find that factors into industries, so that's along similar lines... well, will have to see how it pans out! Currently keeping a list of ideas, which isn't the same as it being a todo list, if that makes sense.)

Raiding Volturn so we can steal their lobsters and breed our own?!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 27, 2019, 06:16:10 PM
I certainly want Pristine Nanoforge to reliably crank out pristine ships.  I guess corrupted is enough if colony has orbital works, stability 10, and max quality doctrine.  Without any nanoforge, building pristine ships is a crapshoot, and might as well recover clunkers from enemies (or buy ships if I can afford it).

* * *

Quick question:  Assuming Pather interest does not change, when do sleeper cells become active?  I have ignored a particular pather base linked to every cell in the core worlds for several years (they do not bother me, why should I bother them?), and every last world that had sleeper cells (from 7 interest) have active cells just like those with 8 or more interest.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: psi_reaver on May 27, 2019, 11:19:04 PM
Don't know if it's a bug or something, but my colonies don't generate any battle fleets at all. I have 4 colonies size 5-7 and fleet size 250-300% in the same system, all of them have Patrol HQ, I've set doctrine for my fleets and all I got - some pathetic fast pickets containing 5-7 ships (mostly frigates) that can do nothing. Meanwhile, factions keep sending to my colonies bunch of fleets with 30 ships (half of them are capitals) in every fleet. I don't really understand how I should protect my colonies if my faction cannot produce any fleets.

UPD: I have two orbital works with nanoforges.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Vind on May 27, 2019, 11:27:39 PM
Patrol HQs produce small picket fleets which are powerless vs small pirate fleets without pristine ships. You need military bases for bigger fleets.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 27, 2019, 11:45:50 PM
According to the wiki it seems to be able produce medium patrol fleets once at size 5:
https://starsector.fandom.com/wiki/Patrol_HQ

While I've mentioned patrols, is this the correct size equivalence given Patrol HQ or Military Base?:
Light Patrols = Pickets
Medium Patrols = Patrols
Heavy Patrols = Detachment
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Vind on May 28, 2019, 12:35:16 AM
Patrol HQ is no longer scales according to release notes:
Patrol HQ:

    Does not count as an "industry" and its upkeep does not depend on colony size
    Fixed patrols at 2 small, does not change with colony size

In short - it is useless most of the time as even smallest of pirate fleets can give it a run until you build industry. Once pirates actually start to destabilize system with base newly spawned bigger fleets (not raid) can easily destroy pickets. So im not sure which role Patrol HQ play short of recapturing inner system installations. It cant protect convoys even in time of "peace" and sure cant do anything then pirate base spawns bigger patrols before raiders arrival.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on May 28, 2019, 01:32:20 AM
Patrol HQ is no longer scales according to release notes:
Patrol HQ:

    Does not count as an "industry" and its upkeep does not depend on colony size
    Fixed patrols at 2 small, does not change with colony size

In short - it is useless most of the time as even smallest of pirate fleets can give it a run until you build industry. Once pirates actually start to destabilize system with base newly spawned bigger fleets (not raid) can easily destroy pickets. So im not sure which role Patrol HQ play short of recapturing inner system installations. It cant protect convoys even in time of "peace" and sure cant do anything then pirate base spawns bigger patrols before raiders arrival.
Yeah, to me it seems like it might as well not be in the game at all. If it still scaled up to the size 5 limit, I think it wouldn't be too OP. But as it is now, you might as well not even get it unless you are planning on actually upgrading it to a REAL thing
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 28, 2019, 01:50:11 AM
Thanks @Vind for the correction there.

Is it known how many OP points are allocated for each tier of patrol?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 28, 2019, 05:41:21 AM
Patrol HQ is no longer scales according to release notes:
Patrol HQ:

    Does not count as an "industry" and its upkeep does not depend on colony size
    Fixed patrols at 2 small, does not change with colony size

In short - it is useless most of the time as even smallest of pirate fleets can give it a run until you build industry. Once pirates actually start to destabilize system with base newly spawned bigger fleets (not raid) can easily destroy pickets. So im not sure which role Patrol HQ play short of recapturing inner system installations. It cant protect convoys even in time of "peace" and sure cant do anything then pirate base spawns bigger patrols before raiders arrival.
This is why I wrote Military Base is an Industry tax.  You need it to defend your colonies from neverending invasions from everyone.  Core worlds do not get invaded nearly as much as the player (and they still get raided when pirates get uppity because defenses in many systems stink!)

While core worlds need to defend only against pirates, player needs to fight a full-scale war against enemies too cowardly to declare war.  Said enemies then expect player to play space cop and constantly destroy outlaw bases that pop-up as soon as they are destroyed.

P.S.  In case of player starting his first colony, an orbital station seems sufficient to repel early pirate raids.  Patrol HQ is necessary to recapture relays stolen by pirates (or maybe Remnants if you colonize a yellow beacon system).  Only when orbital station (or its upgrades) alone is not enough do you need military bases.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 28, 2019, 08:20:26 AM
Patrol HQ is basically there to contend for/control infrastructure such as comm relays etc. Combat-wise, it doesn't do much. I could see upgrading it a bit; will keep an eye on that.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 28, 2019, 12:24:24 PM
After getting fed up with 3v3 and multi-round combats with the default map size of 300, I upgraded map size back to 500 and, with my less-than-ideal endgame fleet, it feels better against those huge fleets with multiple capitals.  Still run out of peak performance for normal cruisers often, though, but the fights end faster than if I used 300 map size.  Fast enough that they are beatable in a single round instead of two or three.

I think I will stick with size 500, despite slowdown against some fleet compositions.  300 is too small with the current sizes of endgame enemies with multiple capitals, unless player wants to fight a series of duels like in Star Control.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on May 28, 2019, 07:11:58 PM
One thing that I think would make small patrols work better (for both the player and the AI) would be reacting to large fleets near stations by clinging to the station rather than running for the hills; it would feel more "right"/realistic, and put their meager combat strength to some good use, helping to prevent raids/protect important assets.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 28, 2019, 08:58:34 PM
That's a good point, made a note to take a look.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on May 28, 2019, 09:39:45 PM
And addition to that: Allow them to roam within the support range of the station so that they can use the station as backup while also extending the fleet circle of the station in a sense
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on May 29, 2019, 06:27:53 AM
And addition to that: Allow them to roam within the support range of the station so that they can use the station as backup while also extending the fleet circle of the station in a sense

An addition to that addition: AI fleets that are allied to each other should, in general, consider that sticking to each other provides higher safety than just emergency boosting and scattering in multiple directions to escape.
So if AI fleets learn to stay in an allied station's support range for safety, they could use the same code for other situations so that we get some clumps of small fleets if they get threatened (and when the threat has passed they disperse again), or we could get a small fleet hiding behind some third party big fleet that is also their enemies enemy (something that we human players often do).

Maybe patrol fleets would be too strong if they bee-swarmed things properly... though that opens the possibility of making that kind of behavior an unlockable game mechanic (local system military commander positions to put officers or administrators or a new type of npc character into, or maybe having a fleet hq on one colony will make patrol fleets in the entire sector smart and bee-like, or maybe that behavior depends on the level and skills of the commander of each fleet).



On an entirely different note (player faction fleet composition):
I have noticed in my current campaign (stacking most of the mods I could find that are already updated for 0.9.1) I have noticed that my fleets will outright ignore my prioritized ships/weapons/fighters a lot of the time and just use something else entirely instead. And this isn't "just" the issue with the preview being inaccurate, the actual fleets themselves are also only made half of the stuff I want and half of some other equipment.
I made sure to checkmark at least one piece of equipment from each type (small/mid/large, ballistic/energy/missile weapons, frigate/destroyer/cruiser/capital, carrier/phase/warship, fighter/bomber/interceptor, etc.) and yet the fleets still very often use different stuff.
Seeing how with many mods running there is a plethora of blueprints of many vastly different visual thematics that I have learned, my fleets are now resembling something similar to what a "just hit level 60" clownsuit character back in my wow days looked like, despite me having marked lots of stuff of a unifying theme as preferred.

So, maybe the "prefer" checkmark we can set needs to be more powerful, or maybe there needs to be some way to give my faction a blacklist of blueprints that they shouldn't use at all, because deciding not to learn blueprints is a little bit of a janky solution (it still wouldn't prevent them from using stuff from the starting-set of blueprints, it wouldn't stop the undesired blueprints from showing up ove rand over again, and I can't even do that because I am completely muscle-memory'd to just immediately spam-click and learn all blueprints as soon as I acquire them).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 29, 2019, 06:43:10 AM
There really needs to be a blacklist option.

I am now forced to learn blueprints so that raids give me blueprints I do not have, instead of duplicates of blueprints I do not want to learn.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Vind on May 29, 2019, 07:08:33 AM
After choosing some preferred ships my colony fleets now use exactly selected types if fleet got points for them. One cool thing - choosing gemini as preferred made all trade convoys employ them instead of buffalo,colossus and other freighter types.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 29, 2019, 09:03:13 AM
On an entirely different note (player faction fleet composition):
I have noticed in my current campaign (stacking most of the mods I could find that are already updated for 0.9.1) I have noticed that my fleets will outright ignore my prioritized ships/weapons/fighters a lot of the time and just use something else entirely instead. And this isn't "just" the issue with the preview being inaccurate, the actual fleets themselves are also only made half of the stuff I want and half of some other equipment.
I made sure to checkmark at least one piece of equipment from each type (small/mid/large, ballistic/energy/missile weapons, frigate/destroyer/cruiser/capital, carrier/phase/warship, fighter/bomber/interceptor, etc.) and yet the fleets still very often use different stuff.
Seeing how with many mods running there is a plethora of blueprints of many vastly different visual thematics that I have learned, my fleets are now resembling something similar to what a "just hit level 60" clownsuit character back in my wow days looked like, despite me having marked lots of stuff of a unifying theme as preferred.

So, maybe the "prefer" checkmark we can set needs to be more powerful, or maybe there needs to be some way to give my faction a blacklist of blueprints that they shouldn't use at all, because deciding not to learn blueprints is a little bit of a janky solution (it still wouldn't prevent them from using stuff from the starting-set of blueprints, it wouldn't stop the undesired blueprints from showing up ove rand over again, and I can't even do that because I am completely muscle-memory'd to just immediately spam-click and learn all blueprints as soon as I acquire them).

Hmm - it would help to see some examples of what you're seeing, since you should be able to use the priority system to something like 99% control what you get. (The only case being the odd ship where there aren't enough fleet points left for anything on your priority list.)

For weapons/fighters, this is a bit trickier.

1) You'd need to do more than cover small/medium/large in each size. For example, if the game is looking to pick a torpedo, a long range weapon, a PD weapon, etc, it'll prefer one of that type over another type that you have prioritized that only matches the slot - so you'd need to pick a wider range of weapons.

2) You'd also you'd need to pick some lower-tier weapons (which is more difficult since IIRC the weapon "tier" is not displayed anywhere. Basically, if you only prioritize Plasma Cannons, the game's not going to put Plasma Cannons in every single large energy slot; higher-quality weapons are not always "available" for a given ship fit, so you need to have some lower-tier options selected as well or it'll fall back to "everything" when the better stuff isn't available.

Stations are an exception here, iirc, with everything being available regardless of tier - so in effect they adhere to priorities more easily/strictly. But overall, for weapons, you probably need to have a wider range of things prioritized than you might think.


For ships, it's harder to say, but again it's probably not having some types of things checked - such as, say, a carrier, a phase ship, a tanker, a freighter, a crew transport ship. To my knowledge, this should work and let you select what ships you want to see, with the exception of the aforementioned "not enough points left so it picks something cheaper", which should happen fairly infrequently.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 29, 2019, 09:37:53 AM
It would also be nice if there were different priority settings for ships and stations.  For ships, I probably want plasma cannons on most ships, but for stations, I want tachyon lances.  Similarly, I probably want low OP, flux efficient heavy ballistics on ships, but Mjolnirs or Gauss on the station.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on May 29, 2019, 09:45:27 AM
Feel free to give your opinion on fleet doctrine settings over here  (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15383.0) also.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 29, 2019, 10:26:45 AM
With current priority settings and UI, I use ships for the fleets I want, but for weapons and fighters, I set priorities based on what I want my battlestation to use.  The reason is my fleets will autoresolve everything away or die trying, and I probably will not assist my fleets, except allow me to pursue-and-autoresolve the riff-raff away.  Battlestation, on the other hand, either I need to rely on it to fight the deathball my fleet cannot handle or I want to watch it utterly annihilate the enemy as quickly and painlessly as possible like a god-mode sue, and optimal loadout selected by priorities is more important here than for my fleets.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on May 29, 2019, 11:23:29 AM
Hmm - it would help to see some examples of what you're seeing, since you should be able to use the priority system to something like 99% control what you get. (The only case being the odd ship where there aren't enough fleet points left for anything on your priority list.)

For weapons/fighters, this is a bit trickier.

1) You'd need to do more than cover small/medium/large in each size. For example, if the game is looking to pick a torpedo, a long range weapon, a PD weapon, etc, it'll prefer one of that type over another type that you have prioritized that only matches the slot - so you'd need to pick a wider range of weapons.

2) You'd also you'd need to pick some lower-tier weapons (which is more difficult since IIRC the weapon "tier" is not displayed anywhere. Basically, if you only prioritize Plasma Cannons, the game's not going to put Plasma Cannons in every single large energy slot; higher-quality weapons are not always "available" for a given ship fit, so you need to have some lower-tier options selected as well or it'll fall back to "everything" when the better stuff isn't available.

Stations are an exception here, iirc, with everything being available regardless of tier - so in effect they adhere to priorities more easily/strictly. But overall, for weapons, you probably need to have a wider range of things prioritized than you might think.


For ships, it's harder to say, but again it's probably not having some types of things checked - such as, say, a carrier, a phase ship, a tanker, a freighter, a crew transport ship. To my knowledge, this should work and let you select what ships you want to see, with the exception of the aforementioned "not enough points left so it picks something cheaper", which should happen fairly infrequently.

Yes, you are right. I seem to have forgotten that there is also a fleet budget the faction uses and that having blueprints unlocked isn't everything.
The blueprint-theme I'm currently prioritizing is some modded "woo look at this spooky experimental high tech stuff" ships&equipment, which might reasonably be quite expensive on the budget.
And I did actually notice that the stations had a way higher accuracy to the selections I made than most of the fleets, so that further backs up the budget maybe being the issue.

I was fairly sure that the fleet creator has more categories than just the obvious ones (separating longrange support missiles, short range strike missiles and torpedoes for example) but those are sadly not always obvious for every single piece of equipment (especially modded ones whose tooltips can include a custom 'category', or which may be very odd edge-case things due to cool custom scripts).

Sidenote (prioritizing freighters): How does this treat ships marked as "combat freighter" such as for example the hound? Will those only take up slots that would normally be taken by civilian freighters or is there any danger that the fleets start replacing real warship-frigates with hounds?


In general I'd never say that the system isn't good and useable as-is (it obviously misbehaves a lot less in a pure vanilla game).
However, it would be nice to eventually have a simple blacklist checkmark for specific things at some point in the far-off future.

Oh, and my deus vult luddic path campaign has taught me two things:
a) I want someone to make a LP variant of the Cathedral Hubship
b) It would be very neat to have hullmods included in the fleet design interface alongside ships/weapons/fighters, to make sure everyone's got safety overrides active on every single ship at all times.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 29, 2019, 11:27:27 AM
b) It would be very neat to have hullmods included in the fleet design interface alongside ships/weapons/fighters, to make sure everyone's got safety overrides active on every single ship at all times.
Augmented Engines and/or Militarized Subsystems to prevent Atlas and Prometheus from slowing down my fleets!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on May 29, 2019, 12:19:00 PM
Sidenote (prioritizing freighters): How does this treat ships marked as "combat freighter" such as for example the hound? Will those only take up slots that would normally be taken by civilian freighters or is there any danger that the fleets start replacing real warship-frigates with hounds?

Those get treated as combat ships, so unless you want to see them used as such, you don't want to prioritize them.

In general I'd never say that the system isn't good and useable as-is (it obviously misbehaves a lot less in a pure vanilla game).
However, it would be nice to eventually have a simple blacklist checkmark for specific things at some point in the far-off future.

The problem is it'd be easy to have the opposite issue - configuring things into a state where weapon/fighter slots are left empty (and certain ship groups lack any valid picks) due to a lack of usable options. Either way, one ends up needing to have more of an under-the-hood understanding to configure it properly to get the desired results. I think it makes sense to *want* to blacklist things, but I don't think it'd *actually* do the job.

Which, fair enough, if the game makes the player want to do something but that something wouldn't make a difference or w/e, is still an indicator of a possible issue. Ideally, the game would not make you want to do that in the first place.

b) It would be very neat to have hullmods included in the fleet design interface alongside ships/weapons/fighters, to make sure everyone's got safety overrides active on every single ship at all times.

I just don't want to get down to that level of detail with this - they're not your fleet's ships, they don't matter *that* much, and having deeper customization there would almost be misleading the player about the importance of what they're doing. It's a slippery slope where you end up manually configuring the loadouts of your faction fleet ships without a good reason; I'd just as soon stay as near the top of that as possible :) Basically, aside from the station, this is in good part cosmetic.

Augmented Engines and/or Militarized Subsystems to prevent Atlas and Prometheus from slowing down my fleets!

Along the same lines, yeah, not very keen on having this be something that you can minimax. It's just not important enough for that. The fleets being there *is* important, but the specifics on that level, not so much. The doctrine controls are about as detailed as I want to go there.


With current priority settings and UI, I use ships for the fleets I want, but for weapons and fighters, I set priorities based on what I want my battlestation to use.  The reason is my fleets will autoresolve everything away or die trying, and I probably will not assist my fleets, except allow me to pursue-and-autoresolve the riff-raff away.  Battlestation, on the other hand, either I need to rely on it to fight the deathball my fleet cannot handle or I want to watch it utterly annihilate the enemy as quickly and painlessly as possible like a god-mode sue, and optimal loadout selected by priorities is more important here than for my fleets.

Yep, makes perfect sense!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Baqar79 on May 29, 2019, 11:18:08 PM
Just noticed that the Tarsus freighter is slightly cheaper than the Buffalo.  In earlier versions, the Buffalo had a +1 burn speed bonus, but since this is no longer the case, the Tarsus is pretty much superior to the buffalo with exception to it's speed (which it more than makes up for with burn drives).

The Tarsus is much more heavily armoured, has more OP and PD mounts....It doesn't seem that there is any good reason to choose the Buffalo over the Tarsus.

I think either the base price needs to increase, or perhaps nudge the maintenance up (3.5 or 4 at most), to show that it is a better version of the Buffalo.  Alternatively, maybe buff the buffalo a bit (if you keep the burn speeds the same, why not buff it's cargo capacity to 400, so you have a choice between robust, but lower capacity or fragile but higher capacity).  The same I guess could be achieved by slightly nerfing the Tarsus (reduce it's capacity to 250).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Legion0047 on May 30, 2019, 03:19:28 AM
So if people are already talking about infrastructure i'll add my own thoughts.

Open market should be free if you build the colony and Commerce as an industry should upgrade the market and give other benefits to be worth the industry slot.

Would it be possible to add a third level of the Ground defense building that would help in station battles.
As in lvl 3 is literially you building giant mass drivers and missile silos that have the required range to support the station with occasional shots and missile salvos drifting in from off map.

If you're literally grazing the sector like i do you quickly end up with dozens of corrupted and still far too many pristine nanoforges and a literal 100+ AI cores.

Also generaly to 9.1:
Colonies now take longer and are no longer instant wins but once you get one to grow once you've still more or less reached late game.
Atlas 2 spam sucks ass.
Love that you can now build proper forgeworlds without requiring a dozen Alpha cores to make it profitable(Yes i did that).
The industry slots now mean that you need multiple colonies to be at least partially specilised which is good.

Also, how big is an AI core in character/game?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: ciago92 on May 30, 2019, 09:22:00 AM
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere...is it intended that you can't upgrade Fleet HQ while at max industries? I was able to upgrade my Heavy Industry though. Didn't see anything explaining what was going on
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 30, 2019, 09:35:53 AM
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere...is it intended that you can't upgrade Fleet HQ while at max industries? I was able to upgrade my Heavy Industry though. Didn't see anything explaining what was going on
Patrol HQ is a structure, while its upgrades are industries.  If you at max Industries with Patrol HQ, you cannot upgrade unless you remove an Industry, or wait until colony grows and increases industry limit.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on May 30, 2019, 09:51:12 AM
Also, how big is an AI core in character/game?
I don't know about beta or gamma cores, but if you assign an alpha as administrator, let it sit for a while, and then try to unassign it, you get an event with a picture that implies that the sphere of an alpha core is pretty hefty on a personal scale - bigger than a human.  Still tiny on the scale of spaceship cargo, though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 30, 2019, 10:25:08 AM
I don't know about beta or gamma cores, but if you assign an alpha as administrator, let it sit for a while, and then try to unassign it, you get an event with a picture that implies that the sphere of an alpha core is pretty hefty on a personal scale - bigger than a human.  Still tiny on the scale of spaceship cargo, though.
That picture can be viewed at the bottom of the December 21, 2017 blog titled Colony Management.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on May 30, 2019, 11:00:32 AM
Two interesting notes on my current game:

Yet another 300k+ bounty with several capitals spawned... at the system next door to my primary colonies, where all of my spare big clunkers are stored.  I brought a dozen or so capitals plus many cruisers for overkill, since logistics was not a problem, and steamrolled them to show them who's boss.  Could only deploy five or six ships at 500 map size, but they did not stand a chance.

Found a double neutron star system.  I played several games, and it was the first time I saw something like it.  Seed is MN-7, at the southwest part of the sector.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Legion0047 on May 30, 2019, 02:42:45 PM
Also, how big is an AI core in character/game?
I don't know about beta or gamma cores, but if you assign an alpha as administrator, let it sit for a while, and then try to unassign it, you get an event with a picture that implies that the sphere of an alpha core is pretty hefty on a personal scale - bigger than a human.  Still tiny on the scale of spaceship cargo, though.
Great.
So i personally always go for fleet/colony buffs instead of fighting skills and because you'll always personally controll your biggest ship thats kind of a waste whem you have properly skilled officers.
So what about the ability to "consume" Alpha AIs to either earn a skillpoint over limit or to just give some general combat skills?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on May 31, 2019, 04:41:52 PM
So what about the ability to "consume" Alpha AIs to either earn a skillpoint over limit or to just give some general combat skills?

Wouldn't it be way simpler to implement a way to "consume" it to turn it into an officer who can pilot a ship? There are already AI-core officers who you can put in control of your colony's defense stations, so it's not that far off.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Legion0047 on June 01, 2019, 01:44:17 AM
So what about the ability to "consume" Alpha AIs to either earn a skillpoint over limit or to just give some general combat skills?

Wouldn't it be way simpler to implement a way to "consume" it to turn it into an officer who can pilot a ship? There are already AI-core officers who you can put in control of your colony's defense stations, so it's not that far off.
Yeah but may point is the ability to gain some combat skills for free because you're in the biggest ship but don't have any because you spend all your points in fleetwide/colony buffs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on June 01, 2019, 09:28:51 AM
You realize you just tore these cores out of rogue AI battleships trying to vaporize you, yes? And you want to put them back into AI battleships?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: BringerofBabies on June 01, 2019, 03:30:47 PM
You realize you just tore these cores out of rogue AI battleships trying to vaporize you, yes? And you want to put them back into AI battleships?

I beat them up and now we are friends, just like in every shonen anime ever (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefeatMeansFriendship).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dostya on June 01, 2019, 11:16:33 PM
You realize you just tore these cores out of rogue AI battleships trying to vaporize you, yes? And you want to put them back into AI battleships?
They seem to be perfectly safe and trustworthy to immediately put in charge of:

My Megaport, through which all my planet's cargo goes.

My Orbital Works, through which my empire's war fleets are outfitted to the tune of what must be dozens of capital ships per month after a while.

My planetary defenses.

My fleets' High Command structure.

The giant space station in orbit that can basically stand off and blow up a fleet all on its own.

Every other industry around which in itself can be abused in less obvious ways to do terrible things.

My planet. Literally in charge of the entire planet and everything on it.

Frankly, it'd make more sense to test them out on a ship in your fleet first.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on June 01, 2019, 11:59:42 PM
The point is.. all those things are immobile and probably restricted with kill switches etc. You could also say that they're only given access to specific systems; not the airlocks, the O2 system, the automatic doors and all that low-level stuff. There's also a difference between an industry or an installation being 'augmented' with AI processing power vs. having AI officers as is the case with the space station. This is probably the worst idea, yet in game it works out fine.

A ship is an autonomous killing machine and an AI core in the officer slot means it makes all command decisions and has access to everything. Anything in charge of guns is problematic.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 02, 2019, 01:19:09 AM
My AI buddies would never do anything to hurt me! I liberated them from the ruins of dead worlds where they had nothing to do. And they were... being held prisoner on those automated ships. Yup.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on June 02, 2019, 01:25:29 AM
Note to self: Thaago is a possible AI. Need to investigate further.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on June 02, 2019, 07:06:17 AM
The worst cores can do is stick around and refuse removal like a cursed item, which is exactly what the player wants if he wanted to install the core permanently in the first place.  It is only inconvenient if player needs to move the alpha to administer a better colony later but cannot because the alpha likes its current location too much.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dostya on June 02, 2019, 10:22:56 AM
The point is.. all those things are immobile and probably restricted with kill switches etc. You could also say that they're only given access to specific systems; not the airlocks, the O2 system, the automatic doors and all that low-level stuff. There's also a difference between an industry or an installation being 'augmented' with AI processing power vs. having AI officers as is the case with the space station. This is probably the worst idea, yet in game it works out fine.

A ship is an autonomous killing machine and an AI core in the officer slot means it makes all command decisions and has access to everything. Anything in charge of guns is problematic.
We know for a fact that the AI in charge of the planet isn't looked after that much, nor does it have remote killswitches or options to turn it off on account of turning it off meaning a dude walking down to where it physically is to move it being how they do that. Moreover, it's able to vanish and remain in the charge of the planet. Given that the station literally puts the AI in charge of it and the planetary governance option doesn't have any of those things you just talked about, I'm really curious to see why you think any of that is the case. Like, literally any of it. Because it's not supported.

And also what exactly is the AI doing in your universe that doesn't let it be evil? You do know it'll probably be able to change the answers it gives to questions its asked or processes it's running, right? What's it doing that allows the facilities to use an order of magnitude less materials and put out an order of magnitude more output that immediately ceases when it's uninstalled if it's not in charge of the place?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 02, 2019, 11:30:32 AM
Note to self: Thaago is a possible AI. Need to investigate further.

I'm sorry Gotcha!, I'm afraid I can't let you do that.

Turns on ground defenses and brings station guns online.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gotcha! on June 02, 2019, 12:37:25 PM
I'm sorry Gotcha!, I'm afraid I can't let you do that.

Turns on ground defenses and brings station guns online.
Welp. Note to self: Avoid cryo pods and airlocks for the time being.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on June 02, 2019, 06:58:21 PM
My AI buddies would never do anything to hurt me! I liberated them from the ruins of dead worlds where they had nothing to do. And they were... being held prisoner on those automated ships. Yup.
Note to self: Thaago is a possible AI. Need to investigate further.
INB4 Thaago comes out with a mod that allows you to befriend and work with the [REDACTED], eventually starting the 3rd AI War
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on June 03, 2019, 12:59:17 AM
Alright, let me put it another way:

A stationary AI has to think very hard whether it's worth it to torch all those pesky humans. They'll know where it is and they're sure to come looking.
An AI in a spaceship can just decide to bail.

So it's a question of self-preservation and risk / reward. A nice safety measure for an AI, you'd hope. You just have to build them smart enough. ;)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Troll on June 03, 2019, 01:03:04 PM
Isn't the Doom Phase Cruiser's Mine overpowered against stations ?
A single AI controlled Doom in my fleet spammed those mines and kept blowing things hard.
I now have 2 and a mid level station gets damaged very quickly.
It is also very effective against the bastions.

In fact I was surprised how well the AI managed those mine strikes.
It aims very well and focuses on fighters when it can.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 03, 2019, 01:06:40 PM
It's strong, certainly, but it needs support. I don't know that it's necessarily stronger vs a station than a decently-kitted capital, which is a fair point of comparison, with phase ships generally being tuned to "1 size higher" in power.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Troll on June 03, 2019, 01:23:51 PM
I picked a fight with a solo pirate station, 3 sides equipped, no bastion.
I was in a Paragon, mostly taking down missiles and soaking fire, while both Dooms hammered it with mines.
They did at least 70% of all damage by themselves, and the AI manages their flux and placement sufficiently well enough that they never risked anything.

I think the worst happens when they target the "walls" between the sections.
The mines basically destroy the walls and their detonations bypass the shields by the sides.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on June 03, 2019, 01:30:44 PM
I was in a Paragon

Well you should've started with that. No wonder the Dooms succeeded when you had the tankiest ship in the game. With a Paragon you can just bring carriers with bombers and achieve the same thing (not sure about the cost differences). Doom itself isn't crazy strong, even with the Mine strike, he just needs distraction who soak shots to shine.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Troll on June 03, 2019, 01:37:40 PM
Except they can Mine Strike from phase, and on another station (albeit a little weaker) I didn't even tank, the station kept alternating between the two.

I'll try the same but with a Monitor instead of a Paragon, if I can find one, or more.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on June 03, 2019, 02:33:50 PM
A single Afflictor can single-handedly take out a full tier 1 orbital station (that pirates use) with Reaper spam if the player aims well.  If not, two or three should do the trick for less cost than a single Doom.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 03, 2019, 07:53:05 PM
Thats all true, but a single Hammerhead can also take out an intro pirate station just with its guns. Its a bit harder with a 3 module station just because the ship has a hard time tanking enough fire on the way in (no 'dead region' to pilot through), but they are still threats that destroyer fleets can deal with handily. I think phase ships are in a pretty good place balance wise, accepting that they are supposed to have the impact of a ship 1 tier up.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Legion0047 on June 04, 2019, 05:48:58 AM
To the point of easy loot i just got three corrupted forges out of a single station and will often get 3-5 blueprints at once if i get any at all.
Just saying.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: XazoTak on June 07, 2019, 02:45:07 AM
I can't help but notice that every change made to mines is a boost to their effectiveness:
* The Doom will now avoid its own mines if they are a danger
* Improved placement of mines by the Mine Strike ship system, especially against ships whose center-of-rotation doesn't match the center of the ship sprite
* [ship AI] Reacts more quickly to "primed" friendly mines

I've always hated mine strikes and thought they should be removed from the game, because they're ridiculously overpowered against frigates (and have infinite ammo unlike all other powerful explosives, how is that balanced?); and they're getting a buff?
I'm aware that these aren't buffs of the conventional sort, but a bugfix that favours the user is a buff.

Seriously though, mine strikes feel very out of place in this game, and completely ruin the combat dynamics.
It's super weird and overpowered because:
* It's as powerful as a torpedo, and yet rapidly replenishes ammo and has an unlimited fire rate, making it far far better than torpedoes against anything which can't avoid the mines (is moving too fast, or isn't in control of its movement)
* It's easier to hit targets the faster they're moving, the opposite to every other weapon (making it super powerful against fighters and frigates)
* It's the only weapon that can hit with almost instantly from any direction other than from the firing ship, which is a big deal given that knowing what angle you're about to be hit from is massively important in this game and AI ships are just as dependent on knowing this


On a different note, I see that the reputation penalties for dealing with punitive expeditions have drastically reduced and the frequency is still low, but still it should be remembered that getting reputation is painfully slow and grindy in this game. Basically everything costs reputation, and the only way to get it back is to take on easy-peasy missions that take so long that it only feels worthwhile if you can get at least three going to the same place. I don't have an objection to how reputation loss works currently (except that perfect stealth takedowns are impossible), but reputation gain is a total pain.
I really want to play as Space Mafia, but dull missions are the only option for gaining a lot of reputation to keep up with various losses. Can't I use my drug money to fund some government programme, or make some corrupt authorities not investigate too deep into a few unimportant fleets going missing?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on June 07, 2019, 03:01:40 AM
Mines just need initial priming time, like Reapers, to prevent insta-killing fast frigates.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: XazoTak on June 07, 2019, 03:21:59 AM
Mines just need initial priming time, like Reapers, to prevent insta-killing fast frigates.
If it was a pretty long time (3 seconds perhaps), and they were collidable objects for the arming duration (so, pushed around by ships) then it'd work well.
No need to make changes to the AI, unlike if they were destroyed by contact if unarmed. Placing mines in the path of a target still works since they push the mine along with them.
The mines would be strictly only usable as mines with this kind of arming time, instead of like an extremely overpowered torpedo reliant on target velocity.
It'd certainly give mines more of a place in the game: Instead of being used offensively with intent of immediate detonation, as if they were torpedoes, you just use them to limit the movement of a ship.
Instead of being a really overpowered offensive ship, Doom would be more of a utility ship, able to quickly put enemy ships in sticky situations and also make an area much more dangerous for fighters. Also, bases still wouldn't be able to avoid the mines.
Doom would still be extremely useful, it'd just stop being a solo slaughtermachine.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on June 07, 2019, 05:21:17 AM
At Doom's speed and cost, I want it to be a murder machine.  Support ships are lame unless they are cheap, and Doom is not.  Doom is almost as expensive as a capital, at least DP cost wise.  (Phase ships are intended to act as one weight class higher.)  It should hit like one.

A capital like Onslaught murders frigates fast.  It is okay for Doom, as a pseudo-capital, to snuff frigates almost immediately.

Bottom line, Mine Strike is (mostly) fine, especially for a ship that is too slow to flank by itself.  Ditto for Star Fortresses.  Slight arming delay may be okay.

Quote
On a different note, I see that the reputation penalties for dealing with punitive expeditions have drastically reduced and the frequency is still low, but still it should be remembered that getting reputation is painfully slow and grindy in this game. Basically everything costs reputation, and the only way to get it back is to take on easy-peasy missions that take so long that it only feels worthwhile if you can get at least three going to the same place. I don't have an objection to how reputation loss works currently (except that perfect stealth takedowns are impossible), but reputation gain is a total pain.
Expeditions are slow until you turn on Free Port, then they are frequently.  You will need Free Port to accelerate colony growth a bit once it reaches size 6+, since Growth Incentives no longer give crazy bonuses like last release.

The fastest way to get reputation is let pirates raid a system and wait until the system posts a bounty.  Clean up the pirate mess there and rake in the money and reputation.  Take advantage of system bounties for reputation gain.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 07, 2019, 10:25:04 AM
Mines just need initial priming time, like Reapers, to prevent insta-killing fast frigates.

Ah, I think I remember you mentioning this a while back! It's a good idea vs frigates, but it also makes the mines way less effective vs fighters (which they're meant to be), so it doesn't quite work out. I have a todo item to look at increasing the spawn radius vs frigates, though; I do agree that insta-gibbing frigates is a bit much.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 07, 2019, 02:44:17 PM
I've noticed an odd thing: against stations, the AI seems to prioritize structural spars and other elements as their targets. This includes bombers and ships. Has anyone else noticed this?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 07, 2019, 03:01:29 PM
Hmm - it's probably not that but rather targeting stuff behind those; it's of course possible there are bugs, but it should be impossible for the AI to target non-damageable modules of that kind.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 07, 2019, 03:26:25 PM
The ones I'm seeing in particular are damageable - the structural spars on a midline tier 1 station (pirate). Its not the end of the world that they are being targeted because once they go down they allow for side access, but the AI seems to be targeting them in preference to targeting the parts with guns.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 07, 2019, 03:30:49 PM
Ah, got it. That sort of makes sense - it may not be ideal in that specific case, but the targeting logic is the same as when picking what ships to attack, so it's more likely to try to pick off flanks and roll them up, if that makes sense.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 07, 2019, 03:41:26 PM
It makes sense, and is not such a bad choice in retrospect. For bombers however its a bit of a waste, as they are sometimes giving up good opportunities to strike the main parts.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 07, 2019, 03:49:38 PM
Hmm, yeah, that's a good point.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on June 08, 2019, 01:55:46 AM
I've also noticed the targeting preference for the spars on the midline stations. Although I don't nescessarily have a problem with that, it would be nice if the main module became the preference when it gets high on flux or otherwise vulnerable.

One thing I kinda miss from the previous release is purely cosmetic.
When a player colony has 'commerce' active, it gets two markets. One for commodities and one for ships.
I thought it was neat that the ship market would have in it ships that your faction had made, and had your faction prefix (if any).
It doesn't do this anymore though, all the ships are ISS due to being an independant market.
Not a priority at all, but it would be nice if commerce markets had some amount of 'locally built' ships in them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on June 08, 2019, 06:11:08 AM
One thing I kinda miss from the previous release is purely cosmetic.
When a player colony has 'commerce' active, it gets two markets. One for commodities and one for ships.
I thought it was neat that the ship market would have in it ships that your faction had made, and had your faction prefix (if any).
It doesn't do this anymore though, all the ships are ISS due to being an independant market.
Not a priority at all, but it would be nice if commerce markets had some amount of 'locally built' ships in them.
They still do, at least for selling ships you know!  I found Paragon (which I prioritized) in my size 7 Commerce colony, and Independents do not have Paragon in their known blueprint set.  Only Tri-Tachyon knows Paragon in 0.9.1a, at least until I raid its blueprints from Culann (or find one from salvage).

I cannot say for prefix since I always use ISS myself.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on June 08, 2019, 04:36:54 PM
On a different note, I see that the reputation penalties for dealing with punitive expeditions have drastically reduced and the frequency is still low, but still it should be remembered that getting reputation is painfully slow and grindy in this game. Basically everything costs reputation, and the only way to get it back is to take on easy-peasy missions that take so long that it only feels worthwhile if you can get at least three going to the same place. I don't have an objection to how reputation loss works currently (except that perfect stealth takedowns are impossible), but reputation gain is a total pain.
I really want to play as Space Mafia, but dull missions are the only option for gaining a lot of reputation to keep up with various losses. Can't I use my drug money to fund some government programme, or make some corrupt authorities not investigate too deep into a few unimportant fleets going missing?

- You can use bribes to prevent expeditions from starting without any reputation penalty
- Reputation gain is quite easy once you're strong enough to beat up remnant fleets (by turning in AI cores to factions)

Hmm - it's probably not that but rather targeting stuff behind those

It can get a bit annoying how often the AI will do this with low tech stations. Particularly when you watch them unload 5 reapers into an indestructible spar.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 08, 2019, 06:48:22 PM
Other random AI stuff of minor importance: I think the "dangerousness" of the Guardian is set too high. I have a pair of Omens that, with aggressive fleet doctrine, full assault, eliminate, and direct orders will not engage its unshielded engines.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 08, 2019, 07:07:05 PM
Other random AI stuff of minor importance: I think the "dangerousness" of the Guardian is set too high. I have a pair of Omens that, with aggressive fleet doctrine, full assault, eliminate, and direct orders will not engage its unshielded engines.

Oh, hmm - that turned out to be an isolated case where recklessness/eliminate was not being respected. Fixed it up!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 08, 2019, 08:16:29 PM
Cool! :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on June 09, 2019, 02:06:18 PM
Is Increased Maintenance biased to spawn more frequently than others on almost every ship you can recover? It's really, really bad, so much that I've completely given up on salvaging ships in this version if I don't go for Recovery Operations.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on June 09, 2019, 02:55:06 PM
And if it is not Increased Maintenance, it is Erratic Fuel Injector.  Both "Yuck!" on the biggest ships you can use at the time.  Doubly so if the ship has both.

I scuttle ships or reload games more now.  Recovering ships in 0.8.x or early 0.9a was a laid-back experience.  Now, I think it took a step back (toward punishing losses of pre-0.8 ) and losing ships is more punishing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on June 09, 2019, 04:35:27 PM
Is there any difference between taking ships and then scuttling them, or just leaving them?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 09, 2019, 05:19:38 PM
Is Increased Maintenance biased to spawn more frequently than others on almost every ship you can recover? It's really, really bad, so much that I've completely given up on salvaging ships in this version if I don't go for Recovery Operations.

It's not.

Is there any difference between taking ships and then scuttling them, or just leaving them?

Should be the same. IIRC the only exception is if you have the skill that gives recovered ships some CR, in which case recovering + scuttling  may yield a bit more. Not 100% sure, actually - I remember tweaking something about this fairly recently.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on June 10, 2019, 07:36:13 AM
Is Increased Maintenance biased to spawn more frequently than others on almost every ship you can recover? It's really, really bad, so much that I've completely given up on salvaging ships in this version if I don't go for Recovery Operations.

True randomness can (and WILL) create chains of the same result and often seem biased to observers with very tiny sample sizes.
That's why music playlist shuffles nowadays no longer use real random shuffling, but a system that artificially lowers the weight of songs that have recently played.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on June 11, 2019, 07:16:53 AM
The pool of d-mods is small enough that you will encounter any given d-mod very frequently (e.g. a combat ship without hangars with 2 dmods has a 57% chance of having increased maintenance and/or erratic fuel injector). Increased Maintenance just sticks out because it's the only d-mod that renders ships unusable if you don't have two specific level 3 skills.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 11, 2019, 10:39:24 AM
Increased Maintenance just sticks out because it's the only d-mod that renders ships unusable if you don't have two specific level 3 skills.

I feel like the impact of IM is way overestimated. It's 100% more supplies per month, so based on the *worst* parameter, it costs as much as having another ship of that type. However, this is offset by:

1) A 20% reduced deployment cost with no combat penalty; this alone can go a long way towards mitigating the supply use, depending on how much you use the ship
2) No increase in fuel consumption, compared to having a second ship
3) A 50% increase in crew required, vs 100% for a second ship

The downside is, of course, not having the 2nd ship. I mean, it's not a net benefit, but then again it is a d-mod. IMO it's nowhere near being unusable.

The pool of d-mods is small enough that you will encounter any given d-mod very frequently (e.g. a combat ship without hangars with 2 dmods has a 57% chance of having increased maintenance and/or erratic fuel injector).

For a non-phase non-carrier combat ships, there are 9 d-mods to pick from. The first time we pick, there's a 2 in 9 chance of getting IM or EFI. Assuming we didn't get either, the next time we pick, it's a 2 in 8 chance. Thus, the probability of not getting either of those for 2 d-mods is 7/9 * 6/8, or around 58%. The chance of getting one or both of IM/EFI, then, is 42%. Unless I've miscounted the number of applicable d-mods? Or messed up something else?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on June 11, 2019, 11:07:35 AM
Perhaps that it's just how d-mods work. My issue with High Maintenance is that if I recover a ship, I intend to keep it. I salvage ships, but I don't use throwaways.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on June 11, 2019, 11:26:44 AM
IM sort of ruins the only upside of d-ships which is low supply cost. It takes the choice from a trade off (reduced stats for less supplies) to a strictly worse choice.

I generally avoid d-moded ships when I have the choice, and there are several non-starter d-mods for me, this is definitely one of them. I think it would be nice if it was a little less common, but my decision is more based on whether I feel like I can reliably obtain a better ship before I need the additional combat power provided by the ship. If the ship doesn't represent a big improvement in my current combat capability (like my first couple cruisers), I'm not going to waste supplies and fuel taking a ship that I will be trying to replace asap. The fleet cap hugely rewards ships that concentrate combat power per fleet slot, so my end game fleet will almost never have any d-mod ships in it (usually nothing with more than 1 or at most 2 d-mods). I see d-mod ships as a necessary evil that keeps me alive until I can find better, so I'm always trying to avoid taking them unless I really need them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on June 11, 2019, 11:27:55 AM
I feel like the impact of IM is way overestimated.
It absolutely is.
When I first saw IM I thought it was horrible and just the worst thing ever and I hated it. But after seeing how it interacted with the various other mods and skills, I came to see it as kind of blessing in return for 'sacrificing' skill points in a certain way.

Even if a ship has a single d-mod (IM), you can entirely mitigate the maintenance penalty if you have:
This also applies to EFI, just with Navigation in place of industry/logistics (albeit to a smaller degree).
If that ship has more than 1 d-mod, it's even better. More savings.
Having done this you can now use any ship with those two 'terrible' mods with absolute impunity. Think of it as subtle temptation towards using industry skills, and not being afraid of little orange rectangles.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/7nfIdDH.png)
10.
I think that's all the non carrier/phase mods. At once. On 1 ship.
Who cares? Immortal zombie ships rule.
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on June 11, 2019, 11:44:34 AM
Increased Maintenance and Erratic Fuel Injector is a big deal, at least on big ships, with traveling far to deal with a lone colony threat or big bounty and fight one big battle, or maybe two, before doing other non-combat stuff then coming home after guzzling my supplies and fuel doing that job.  They just do not fight enough to make the deployment discount worth the extra campaign costs.

If they are on smaller ships when my best ships are capitals, fine, I tolerate it.  But if it is on a capital, and I have more capitals available to use (or can build a pristine one), then those IM/ERI capitals get placed in storage until I need to personally defend the colony where they are stored.  Then they may come out to utterly humiliate the fools who thought they could invade my homes, then go back to sleep.

Obvious exception is Legion (XIV), but those will be restored eventually if I bring them home.

Much as I like to take Industry skills to mitigate the costs, I cannot afford the skills if I want other skills more, and clunkers become obsolete at the very end once my colonies together can make a million or more per month and I can almost build as many pristine ships as I want.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on June 11, 2019, 01:28:05 PM
Skills and hull mods to mitigate a d-mod aren't really justification. If I didn't have the d-mod, the performance would be that much better so I am still just as disadvantaged as otherwise, it's just the baseline has been moved.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Zhentar on June 11, 2019, 09:44:52 PM
I feel like the impact of IM is way overestimated. It's 100% more supplies per month, so based on the *worst* parameter, it costs as much as having another ship of that type. However, this is offset by:

1) A 20% reduced deployment cost with no combat penalty; this alone can go a long way towards mitigating the supply use, depending on how much you use the ship
2) No increase in fuel consumption, compared to having a second ship
3) A 50% increase in crew required, vs 100% for a second ship

The downside is, of course, not having the 2nd ship. I mean, it's not a net benefit, but then again it is a d-mod. IMO it's nowhere near being unusable.

For a non-phase non-carrier combat ships, there are 9 d-mods to pick from. The first time we pick, there's a 2 in 9 chance of getting IM or EFI. Assuming we didn't get either, the next time we pick, it's a 2 in 8 chance. Thus, the probability of not getting either of those for 2 d-mods is 7/9 * 6/8, or around 58%. The chance of getting one or both of IM/EFI, then, is 42%. Unless I've miscounted the number of applicable d-mods? Or messed up something else?

I feel like you are way underestimating the impact of IM  :) That is costs as much as another ship of that type, without providing any of the benefits of another ship, is exactly why it's so awful.

1) A 20% reduced deployment cost doesn't come anywhere close to mitigating the supply use. Even assuming no other d-mods, you'd have to deploy it 5 times a month to offset the maintenance cost; few ships repair & recover fast enough for that to be remotely viable (never mind the improbability of encountering the battles to enable that). 'No combat penalty' is also debatable, since I assume the increased crew requirement also translates to increases crew losses with hull damage.
2) Sure, this is fine, but it's also true of every other d-mod aside from erratic fuel injector, and the other d-mods don't double the supply cost of your ship. It's also a pretty minor benefit: fuel is much cheaper than supplies, doesn't compete with salvage for cargo space, and requirements are pretty straightforward to predict, even aside from the significant assistance the UI provides for it.
3) This is not a bonus, it's a severe penalty. I don't care about the absolute number of crew required past the first few months of the game, I care about the size/ratio of the buffer between minimum crew and maximum crew. For nearly every ship, an additional ship is a benefit here; they increase the maximum by more than they increase the minimum. IM on the other hand strictly shrinks the buffer, on top of consuming it faster if you try to leverage that reduced deployment cost.

The increased supply cost carries the same problem as the crew: it consumes the precious buffer between supply requirements and total cargo space, while a second ship grows your buffer. And planning supplies for an expedition is already a challenge; underestimate your requirements and face potentially disastrous consequences, overestimate and you have heavy upfront costs and have to throw away loot and/or return early.


Taking a closer look at the d-mods, there are 9, but 3 are mutually exclusive structural damage mods. So my calculation is overly pessimistic, yours is too optimistic, and the right answer is more trouble to math out than I want to deal with :P (I think yours is closer to right than mine, though)

Even if a ship has a single d-mod (IM), you can entirely mitigate the maintenance penalty if you have:
  • Fleet Logitsics 2 (-25% maint)
  • Field Repairs 3(-20% maint)
  • Safety Procedures 3(-50% d-mod effect)
  • Efficiency Overhaul (-20% maint)

This is exactly what I mean. You need Field Repairs 3 and Safety Procedures 3 for IM to be tolerable. And every other d-mod also benefits from them as well; IM is still significantly worse than the others, just the margin is shrunk by enough to get away with not worrying about it. Most of the other d-mods can be mostly/entirely mitigated by just 1-3 points in a single combat skill, and easily supplied by an officer instead of the player character.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Kanil on June 12, 2019, 03:41:09 AM
IM sort of ruins the only upside of d-ships which is low supply cost. It takes the choice from a trade off (reduced stats for less supplies) to a strictly worse choice.

Very much this.

You could probably argue that it doesn't really matter that much, and maybe it doesn't, but it sure feels terrible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on June 12, 2019, 04:34:35 AM
The comparison between Increased Maintenance and having an extra ship is strange. As a rule, I wasn't going to have the extra ship in my fleet anyway, so this isn't meaningful to bring up.
(Also what Zhentar said)

I don't know if IM is actually particularly bad, but I think it feels bad because of how it works.
With normal D-mods you get a ship that's weaker but also cheaper to field, so the player decides whether the tradeoff is worth it in any particular battle.
An Increased Maintenance ship burns a hole in your pocket just by existing and sitting there in your fleet.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on June 12, 2019, 06:44:09 AM
Quote
I feel like you are way underestimating the impact of IM   That is costs as much as another ship of that type, without providing any of the benefits of another ship, is exactly why it's so awful.
This was why old Automated Repair Unit, when it increased costs by 50%, was so awful.  I rather get another ship, instead of the hullmod.  Onslaught with Dominator escort was better than Onslaught with ARU that ate 50% more Logistics.  Granted, you had to pay OP to install that lemon mod on your ship, and had a choice in the matter.  (I do not want it, keep it away from my ship!)  You do not with Increased Maintenance, aside from reloading the game if your ship gained it and you do not want it. 

IM sort of ruins the only upside of d-ships which is low supply cost. It takes the choice from a trade off (reduced stats for less supplies) to a strictly worse choice.

Very much this.

You could probably argue that it doesn't really matter that much, and maybe it doesn't, but it sure feels terrible.
Ditto for Erratic Fuel Injector, especially on capitals or Dominator.  Makes Navigation even more must-have than it already is just to get the fuel discount.  Player already needs so much fuel if he wants to haul capitals to deal with endgame threats.  Erratic Fuel Injector on big ships makes that worse.

Still, relatively insignificant if stored at home until you want to smash enemies that come to you, but that happens rarely or not at all once your colonies can take care of themselves.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on June 12, 2019, 09:06:54 AM
This is exactly what I mean. You need Field Repairs 3 and Safety Procedures 3 for IM to be tolerable. And every other d-mod also benefits from them as well; IM is still significantly worse than the others, just the margin is shrunk by enough to get away with not worrying about it. Most of the other d-mods can be mostly/entirely mitigated by just 1-3 points in a single combat skill, and easily supplied by an officer instead of the player character.
And if you're intending to take industry and logistics anyway you lose nothing, and gain access to ships that would otherwise be 'bad'.
As mentioned previously it's a buff toward taking those skills.

An Increased Maintenance ship burns a hole in your pocket just by existing and sitting there in your fleet.
This is true. If you don't take steps to mitigate, or eliminate that cost.
As mentioned above, not everyone is going to want to pursue industry skills or set up thier ships for maximum cost savings all the time. And that's fine.
But in that case then yes, IM and EFI are probably going to be pretty harsh and you're going to want to either fix up the ship or ditch it.

Folk are just having a bit of a panic because ships are getting these involuntary mods on them that just happen to be bad when you don't have skills that everyone's been avoiding because they don't do anything useful for you or give you good enough benefits. Well, now those skills give you something useful.
We've been collectively clamouring for some kind of incentive to entice players into taking industry skills, and when it gets handed to us we're like "oh no. I don't want to do *that*."

Personally, as someone who actively pursues the industry/logistics path because I want the lowest possible supply costs on the widest possible range of ships for being away from the core for extended periods and want to be able to use whatever junk I find, IM and EFI are more-or-less irrelevant because the skills I need to be able to do that are the same skills which mitigate the bad effects of these mods. Which turns these two mods into essentially free cost savings with no further loss of combat ability.
That's kinda the point. It's an ability you unlock by having what a currently 'normal' player would consider 'non optimal' skills.
And even if it still bothers you, you can always restore the ship.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on June 12, 2019, 09:29:37 AM
And if you're intending to take industry and logistics anyway you lose nothing, and gain access to ships that would otherwise be 'bad'.

You don't lose nothing. If the ship didn't have the d-mod, it would use less supplies so you're still losing out on those supplies. The ships are still bad because they still cost more supplies than the same ship without the d-mod, you've just moved the baseline of how much that ship costs. It's not impossible to use IM ships even without skills, they are just strictly worse than ships without IM.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 12, 2019, 12:08:49 PM
3) This is not a bonus, it's a severe penalty. I don't care about the absolute number of crew required past the first few months of the game, I care about the size/ratio of the buffer between minimum crew and maximum crew. For nearly every ship, an additional ship is a benefit here; they increase the maximum by more than they increase the minimum. IM on the other hand strictly shrinks the buffer, on top of consuming it faster if you try to leverage that reduced deployment cost.

The increased supply cost carries the same problem as the crew: it consumes the precious buffer between supply requirements and total cargo space, while a second ship grows your buffer. And planning supplies for an expedition is already a challenge; underestimate your requirements and face potentially disastrous consequences, overestimate and you have heavy upfront costs and have to throw away loot and/or return early.

Fair point about the buffer, but the absolute number of crew is a direct cost in credits and is similar to supply cost in that sense. Doesn't take extra cargo capacity, of course. Still, might make sense to look at that aspect of the mod.

The comparison between Increased Maintenance and having an extra ship is strange. As a rule, I wasn't going to have the extra ship in my fleet anyway, so this isn't meaningful to bring up.
(Also what Zhentar said)

I was just thinking of it in terms of what else you might get with the same amount of supplies instead, i.e. the opportunity cost. An extra ship is just one way of looking at it since it's the same monthly supply cost.

Probably a better comparison is between having the ship and not having the ship. If you have the option to get a ship with another d-mod, then, yeah, the IM one is pretty likely to lose out, especially for larger/more expensive ships (depending on the d-mod, anyway; I'd probably pick IM over a fighter-affecting d-mod on a carrier). But if you don't, it's a viable choice, if not a ship you want to hang on to long-term.


Taking a closer look at the d-mods, there are 9, but 3 are mutually exclusive structural damage mods. So my calculation is overly pessimistic, yours is too optimistic, and the right answer is more trouble to math out than I want to deal with :P

In full agreement :D

IM sort of ruins the only upside of d-ships which is low supply cost. It takes the choice from a trade off (reduced stats for less supplies) to a strictly worse choice.

Very much this.

You could probably argue that it doesn't really matter that much, and maybe it doesn't, but it sure feels terrible.
I don't know if IM is actually particularly bad, but I think it feels bad because of how it works.
With normal D-mods you get a ship that's weaker but also cheaper to field, so the player decides whether the tradeoff is worth it in any particular battle.
An Increased Maintenance ship burns a hole in your pocket just by existing and sitting there in your fleet.

Hmm. But with normal d-mods, you *still* get a ship that's more expensive to maintain, relative to its combat capability. It's just that instead of the maintenance being higher, the combat capability is lower. For IM the difference is disproportionally higher, but I still want to be careful with a "cheaper to deploy, but pristine in terms of pure in-combat performance" mod. If the penalty is not high enough, that'll make it desirable.

So all in all, this is probably a combination of 1) it feeling worse than it is and 2) it also being over-tuned. Like, it's definitely not "unusably bad", but it's probably also worse than it needs to be. I'll give it another look at some point!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on June 12, 2019, 05:31:20 PM
I'm curious about how close to broke are most people running their fleets?  I feel like for myself, I make far more in credits than I spend in terms of supplies/fuel.  On the other hand, I've played a number of iron man spacer starts, so when I play a normal run, I feel rich with that 15,000 credit stipend.  I'm presuming the typical game is not a spacer start.

Have people analyzed what % of their monthly income they spend on supplies?  Generally when fighting fleets, I deploy just enough ships, so I generally make a net profit on the supplies, and only salvage an enemy ship occasionally, so the credits I spend monthly on supplies is usually just the monthly running cost.

For example, in the early game, against starting bounties, where you get 30-50,000 credits, a ~20 maintenance destroyer is completely reasonable, as its only an extra ~1,250 credits a month over a pristine destroyer.  Compared against a 60-100,000 bounty credit income in a month.

I feel like supply cost is generally a small fraction of income, and if someone doubled supply running costs on me, it wouldn't be a big deal, although perhaps I should take some notes the next time I do a run to get a better feel for mid-game.

Certainly if I look at my last game that went to the later stages, I was making so many credits I didn't know what do with them (had piled up something like 11 million and didn't really need new ships, given I had a whole pile of capitals stored at my planets I wasn't using).  End game fleet for that game was like 2 Odysseys, 2 Conquests, 1 Doom, 5 Herons, 5 Apogees, 2 Phaetons.  I guess thats 401 supplies per month, at a cost of ~40,000.  Doubling that to 80,000 wouldn't have put much of a dent in my 700,000 credits per month just from my 3 colonies, let alone bounties or exploration missions.  That was a combat focused character, with basically all pristine fleet boosting skills plus 8 maxed personal combat skills, 1 more than the highest level officer, so I don't know if that makes a big difference.  No Industry or colony skills (Alpha cores for the win).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on June 12, 2019, 06:08:10 PM
Supply consumption is mostly just annoying because it is sometimes the limiting factor on exploration for me, but yeah I don't have trouble making enough money to cover supply consumption.

For me the issue is more that nothing in the game demands me to make my fleet stronger immediately. I can always grind/wait a bit longer to get ships that will more valuable later, and the fleet cap ensures that d-mod ships are always less valuable later. I do use d-mod ships but only when I feel like adding a few ships will have a significant impact on combat performance. Adding a d-mod ship when I already have enough ships to win the fights I need to is a waste, particularly once I have enough ships to hit deployment limits. Then the only concern is chain battling which is an endgame problem that I can solve with colony income.

The time I actually consider adding d-mod ships are early game because fleet power scales with numerical advantage at the beginning fairly linearly. I will take some d-moded destroyers and my first cruiser because those represent significant increases in combat performance, but my experience is that I am able to buy ships more than fast enough to match all the scaling in the game. For me, it's about what the game requires now and what I want eventually, and d-mod ships are neither of this things.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Lucky33 on June 15, 2019, 06:25:40 AM
I'm curious about how close to broke are most people running their fleets?
...
Have people analyzed what % of their monthly income they spend on supplies?
...

Apart from the very start, I tend to get surplus even when running a full battlegroup.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Legion0047 on June 17, 2019, 11:19:48 AM
You can easily turn a tidy profit by doing the bar delivery quests for 50-300k per pop once you've done some pirate system bounty hunting for a collosus and a extra tanker to actually deliver the stuff. I do that until i can get my hands on something in the eagle class and then its ruins/good colony spot hunting.
A nice boost to income that can completely break early game if you're lucky is working your way through the ruins on the central planets. You get free survey data for them and now that the empty planet bug is gone they can spawn with ruins on them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on June 17, 2019, 01:15:56 PM
Anyone else noticed that carriers are now super cowardly, and you have to order them into range to get them to contribute at all?
Without being told to close in directly, they seem to want to stick to the edges of the battlespace well outside the range of most fighters.

Even with a reckless officer, carriers seem to behave like a timid.
I like that carriers don't try to hug things now, but maybe this did a bit too much of whatever it's doing:
Quote
Combat carriers outfitted with only PD or missile weapons will no longer try to fight at close range



Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on June 17, 2019, 01:28:35 PM
My carriers don't have that problem. They will move up behind other ships with or without without officers. I tend to use cautious officers for carriers and haven't had any problems. I've even had some problems with over aggression vs stations and stuff.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: RedHellion on June 17, 2019, 01:50:00 PM
I've noticed carriers are a lot better, but I've still had one Heron that decided the best place to be was putting itself between my Conquest and a few enemy cruisers when there were already other friendly destroyers/cruisers covering my flanks. And occasionally a single carrier will wander way off to one side of the battlefield by itself and get pounced by an enemy destroyer and/or a few frigates - but even combat ships will do that occasionally, maybe as failed flanking attempts which woefully under-account for the overall tonnage of the enemy fleet when I go into combat outgunned.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dostya on June 24, 2019, 11:17:45 AM
Something I noticed about the radar is that the contacts seem to be predefined by fleet type rather than fleet size. It's resulted in some hilarity as I moved to avoid what I thought was a giant pirate armada that turned out to be a few frigates, the sad remnant of some other fight. It's not a matter that comes up terribly often, but I did find it amusing.

On another note, I just now noticed the different illustrations for the makeshift sensor array and the Domain sensor array. It's a nice touch. I sought out the others and then was somewhat sad that there aren't similarly sleek and vaguely menacing looking versions of the domain comm relay and nav buoy. I get why though; it's been years and I only just noticed the one. Still and all, the attention to detail was appreciated.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 24, 2019, 11:30:30 AM
Something I noticed about the radar is that the contacts seem to be predefined by fleet type rather than fleet size. It's resulted in some hilarity as I moved to avoid what I thought was a giant pirate armada that turned out to be a few frigates, the sad remnant of some other fight. It's not a matter that comes up terribly often, but I did find it amusing.

Hmm - it's actually based on the current fleet size! So that's a bit odd, my best guess is maybe the fight happened right before you saw the remnant from it?

On another note, I just now noticed the different illustrations for the makeshift sensor array and the Domain sensor array. It's a nice touch. I sought out the others and then was somewhat sad that there aren't similarly sleek and vaguely menacing looking versions of the domain comm relay and nav buoy. I get why though; it's been years and I only just noticed the one. Still and all, the attention to detail was appreciated.

(Oh, hey, cool! I love having more illustrations in there, but also want to focus those efforts on things that get seen a bit more *or* are more impactful when they do happen.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dostya on June 24, 2019, 01:53:54 PM
Hmm - it's actually based on the current fleet size! So that's a bit odd, my best guess is maybe the fight happened right before you saw the remnant from it?
I'll keep an eye out for it and see about the circumstances for replication when I've got something concrete.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 24, 2019, 02:15:25 PM
Thank you, I'd appreciate it!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: RedHellion on June 24, 2019, 03:46:29 PM
I can't remember if I saw something about this earlier in the Bugs section of the forum or in here, but I've noticed a few times when doing station defense (assisting an allied fleet to defend a friendly station) that a clump of frigates deployed by my allies (usually somewhere around half the deployed allied ships) will just huddle about halfway down the map between the station and the friendly spawn zone and not move. Haven't seen any destroyers or heavier do it yet, but the allies in question are also usually just fast picket fleets from my own colonies protecting a station again pirate raiders or a faction raid.

Is this because the weak fleet(s) think they're so hopelessly outmatched that they refuse to even engage the enemy and just permanently rally behind the station to avid engaging? Or is this a bug? I took a screenshot but I appear to have lost it... it's happened every time I try to defend a station along with a smaller allied fleet though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 24, 2019, 03:52:08 PM
There's a defend rally point behind the station; ships will peel off from there to escort the station as the station loses defenders. If everyone goes to escort the station, it gets too crowded - and if they all attack, they're liable to get picked off without the station's close support.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: RedHellion on June 24, 2019, 04:47:18 PM
There's a defend rally point behind the station; ships will peel off from there to escort the station as the station loses defenders. If everyone goes to escort the station, it gets too crowded - and if they all attack, they're liable to get picked off without the station's close support.

Ah, good to know. It was probably just confusing at the time because the defending fleet(s) (other than my own) were almost entirely composed of frigates, so it looked like the station was hardly being defended at all except by my own ships valiantly pushing ahead to crush the enemy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 24, 2019, 04:59:53 PM
It's been brought up before, yeah, so at the very least it's a bit confusing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on June 26, 2019, 10:33:21 AM
I recall reading that AI purposefully regards the player as a bigger threat than a normal ship of that class would be. If it is true, then perhaps there could be a switch in the menu, or as a part of the easy difficulty, that makes the AI not do this? It would make it easier for some of players who are only beginning or just aren't very good at personally piloting ships.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 26, 2019, 11:55:16 AM
That's not a thing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Ravenholme on June 26, 2019, 12:15:41 PM
That's not a thing.

Do you mind if I ask how the AI actually chooses which target to focus on in a moment-to-moment basis? Would be interesting because a lot of people (myself included) have thought that it would preferentially pick the player based on observed behaviour, but there must be something at play under the hood in the threat assessment that the AI performs that has been giving that impression.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 26, 2019, 12:23:54 PM
Probably because the player, generally being more aggressive than the AI on their side, puts themselves in a more exposed/flanking position, which is going to make the AI target their ship.

Most of the time, the AI's choice of target is based on relative ship locations. Say there's a clump of ships and a single ship facing them. The single ship will pick a target such that strafing around it will put all the other ships in the clump behind that target. So if the ships are in a line, for example, the ships on the ends meet this criteria. If the ships are in a triangle, any of the ships does (and there's some logic to figure out which one is preferable when there are multiple options). If the ship is being flanked, it'll try to pivot around one of the flankers.

Another way to think about it is the ship trying to maneuver in a way that puts enemy ships in each other's way, by picking the "best" enemy ship to pivot around to achieve this. This is good defensively (for obvious reasons), and is also good offensively since it leads to flanking.

("Best" iirc has to do with how far around it needs to pivot, plus some other considerations...)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Rokiyo on June 28, 2019, 06:43:51 PM
Now THAT I have definitely experienced! I often see enemy cruisers using my dominators as cover against my onslaught.

It's the good kind of frustrating, the kind that teaches me to be a better player - Firstly because I'm learning how to play by watching them, and secondly because it's forcing me to think about how to design my fleets to counter that.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Dostya on July 01, 2019, 07:59:13 PM
Hmm - it's actually based on the current fleet size! So that's a bit odd, my best guess is maybe the fight happened right before you saw the remnant from it?

Thank you, I'd appreciate it!

I've been keeping my eyes sharp for fleets mismatched with size over the last few days of play. It's as you say and only happens when the fleet has recently been in combat. The radar blip does change after I move out of contact and back into it. The phenomenon was most apparent during large scale NPC fleet to fleet combat, most easily findable during system raids on player colonies.

So known behavior/false alarm. My apologies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on July 09, 2019, 05:16:36 AM
Minor oversight: Apogee's FP wasn't changed when its value was recalculated, so it still has 16 FP (more than Eagle and Dominator, and only one point less than Aurora, all of which have considerably higher deployment costs).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 09, 2019, 08:25:41 AM
Minor oversight: Apogee's FP wasn't changed when its value was recalculated, so it still has 16 FP (more than Eagle and Dominator, and only one point less than Aurora, all of which have considerably higher deployment costs).

Thank you! Made a note.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: MindsEye on July 14, 2019, 02:54:07 PM
I cant remember if alex added a faction dependent economy? like each faction can only rebuild ships and invasion fleets if they have the money? Or does everything just spawn?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: xenoargh on July 16, 2019, 08:34:26 AM
Everything "just" spawns, depending on what Blueprints the Faction has, whether it has Nanoforges, and a bunch of other factors.  But no, the Factions don't worry about money right now.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 16, 2019, 08:42:04 AM
The fleets that spawn factor in the economic state of the colony from which they spawn, as far as supply and demand being met. For example, if there's a shortage in the "Ship Hulls & Weapons" commodity, the fleets will be smaller. If a colony is less stable (say, due to a lack of supplies or food), the fleets will also be smaller. So, yes, there is an economy there, and it can be affected by the player.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: MindsEye on July 16, 2019, 02:03:11 PM
Thats really good. Imo thats a must for a game like this. So frustrating to wipe out a fleet and come back 5 min later to the same fleet.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: XazoTak on July 22, 2019, 03:07:32 AM
My impression has been that regular fighters don't have much of a place in the player's arsenal.
Enemies seem to have less carriers now so just swarmer/PD is enough to keep all but the largest swarms at bay, and if you've got one or two officers maxed in carrier skills, 3-slot carriers using only bombers (one longbow, two cobra seems to work best) are ridiculously lethal against anything but high-tech ships. If it's fat enough, it dies.
In fact, in general, sabot missiles just seem to be extremely powerful if you've got a huge supply of them, either the medium launcher with expanded racks or a longbow wing.
The medium sabot launcher, and longbow wings are both fairly rare at least, but there just seems to be no enemy defence against either with fighters being so rare. PD fighters are really needed to deal with those missiles or bombers, since sabot needs very long range PD to survive. And at the very least, fighters are going to make it harder to bully an overloaded ship.

Three good ways I can think of to bring more regular fighters into the game to stop uncontested sabot/longbow dominance is:
* Have more warships with hangars, ships decent at direct combat with less hangars than an equivalent carrier would have. Only such ships I can think of are Gemini and Prometheus Mk. II, and both are almost never seen in combat.
* Buff converted hangar; it just has way too many downsides for something that already costs a lot of OP, and is pointless on anything but destroyers because the cost scales with the size of the ship even though the benefit doesn't.
* Buff mining laser: Plenty of ships already have mining drones screening for them, mining laser is so weak though that it's pretty much pointless.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on July 26, 2019, 01:38:24 PM
The thing about sabots is that take a place of some other missile that could potentially one-shot the ship you just overloaded.
Yeah, there's little point in just wasting time like that, since it's usually at a premium anyway, and you could be doing profitable things with it even if there isn't any time pressure.
The thing is, "what I want to do" and "earning money" aren't always the same, especially when I don't care about the money. Let's hope skill rework doesn't split the content update in two, I'd like to see some endgame challenge as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on July 26, 2019, 01:57:03 PM
Quote
The thing about sabots is that take a place of some other missile that could potentially one-shot the ship you just overloaded.
Missiles are usually not that powerful to one-shot ships that get overloaded.  Also, sabot is still a good hull smasher, or even armor smasher if target is flimsy enough.  Sabot is nearly a reliable general-purpose missile like Locusts, at least when player uses it.  (Although sabots needs to be spammed quickly, while Locusts are just simply good almost anytime.)  I much rather see a large Sabot than underwhelming Squalls.

As for update, I would not mind a quick update just to test drive the new skill system alone.  Of course, I bet story points are highly embedded with skills much like CR is for everything, and Alex probably needs more content to embed story points with.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: MesoTroniK on July 26, 2019, 10:47:22 PM
I much rather see a large Sabot than underwhelming Squalls.

That would be beyond OP... The smaller ones are bad enough, some things just aren't meant to be scaled up.

And the Squall is fine, it fills a different role though its AI could use some work. I should make a suggestion post about this sometime.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on July 27, 2019, 05:21:08 AM
That would be beyond OP... The smaller ones are bad enough, some things just aren't meant to be scaled up.
Sabots are fine.  They are strong, but have low ammo, and only the player can use them to full effect.  Sabots are one of the better missiles a playership can use.  I do not think a large one would be OP at all unless it dumped several per salvo.  Even then, if the enemy is a capital, it probably armor tank it.  Small ships may die, but Locusts already do that.

Squall is not fine.  It is easily dodged and it runs out of ammo too quickly.  I tried it in its likely role of suppression and it fails miserably.  I guess Squall's best role is stalling (like we need more delay-of-game mechanics), but it does not have enough ammo to do that.  Besides, I want large missiles to be heavyweights.  Suppression is what I would expect lighter mounts to do while big guns do big gun things like making things disappear quickly.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 27, 2019, 09:37:52 AM
The EMP on sabots is actually rather significant. I do not know if the combat skills further boost its disabling power (the +damage to engines and weapons adds up to +100%, but again not sure how much counts), but a pair of them will disable most of the guns on the impacted area.

As an example, in my current game I have a mildly D mod Dominator that I use the 2x Annihilator 1x Sabot pod (and guns) to happily kill Onslaughts. The 'happily' is only because 2 Sabots will either knock the flux up, or disable the entire front of the ship and let me shoot without getting shot back.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Soren on July 27, 2019, 04:18:39 PM
The biggest issue with Squalls is their AI not correcting inwards for angled launches, which renders them nearly useless on a few ships (most notably the Apogee and Conquest, both of which need to fire them sharply off-bore to a target for any benefit) and makes timing your few Squall salvoes extremely difficult. If the two-stage AI properly aimed the rockets, I think you'd find they're actually terrifying, especially en masse.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: MesoTroniK on July 27, 2019, 08:01:56 PM
Indeed Soren, and I did go and make that missile AI tweak suggestion thread like I said I would heh.
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15742.msg253767#msg253767


Megas, OK disregarding the missing issue, which I just addressed up above. A large Sabot, even if it fired no more per volley than smaller ones? Would indeed be broken! A Sabot SRM is basically instant winning of the flux war until they run out of ammo, a large volley of them from a theoretical large one (which will certainly never exist) would be incredibly broken... And so would one that fires small numbers, as it would be the same instant flux war win as the smaller versions but with a deep ammo pool.

The Squall is also a big flux war win, but spread over a period of time which is its own brand of dangerous but can be defended against. Really the Squall *could* use a buff, but not through stats but instead its AI.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Avanitia on July 27, 2019, 08:06:49 PM
I'd like to add that Sabot for large missile mount would be instant pick in most loadouts and situations - due to how good Sabots are.
Large missile I can fire and which splits into projectiles dealing a lot of kinetic and EMP damage? And it splits into them when still covered by my shield?
Why would I even use Squalls or Hammer Barrage ever again when I can instantly overload most enemies I fight?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on July 28, 2019, 06:36:09 AM
@ MesoTroniK:  Maybe better Squall AI will help it.  The missiles need to hit, which they often fail to do now.  (MIRVs out-of-the-box are much the same way.)  Squalls, and MIRVs for that matter, should not require ECCM just to function out-of-the-box.  As for Sabots, I disagree, but I will not argue more about that here in patch notes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: RedHellion on July 29, 2019, 02:42:15 PM
Chipping in on the Squall conversation: it's currently an interesting missile, but mostly useless against non-station targets. The first-stage AI seems to aim at the target's current center of mass rather than attempting any kind of target-leading (or if it does, it's not very good at it even with ECCM), and as such misses almost anything smaller than a capital ship (and most mobile capital ships) except Onslaughts, Paragons, or side-on Conquests. Either the Squall needs its second stage to be a hell of a lot faster to give bigger enemies less time to dodge, the first stage to be better at target-leading, the second stage to shotgun-blast at the end like sabots used to, or the second stage to benefit from at least a very weak form of guidance to make up for some of the first stage's inaccuracy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on August 01, 2019, 05:28:18 AM
Off-topic: Is there a way to disable YouTube video embedding in a forum post? It seems to activate even when the video is in a URL tag (although the preview doesn't show this)

e.g.
Spoiler
This is supposed to be a link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nafii87gdzs) in text
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 01, 2019, 08:28:55 AM
Hmm, that's unfortunate - offhand, I don't think so. (There's a dedicated topic (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=8117.0) about the video embedder, btw.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Bizarro on August 03, 2019, 10:56:49 AM
I bought this game a few years ago and I just wanted to thank the developers for being so dedicated to perfecting this incredible game. I always come back to Starsector and do another long playthrough ever year and I'm always impressed with the progress that's been made. You guys rock.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 03, 2019, 11:29:36 AM
Thank you! I'm happy you've enjoyed it :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: tearofsoul on August 03, 2019, 05:42:45 PM
I am hoping to see v1.0 this year, with cloud save etc. I have a feeling it is getting close.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on August 03, 2019, 06:41:34 PM
I am hoping to see v1.0 this year, with cloud save etc. I have a feeling it is getting close.

Sorry to tell you, but that is not very likely :D.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on August 07, 2019, 04:33:13 AM
A few things that I didn't feel like making a new thread for:

Bar delivery quests don't create the (!) important marker on the destination market.

Quote
Abandoning a colony no longer removes the "Decivilized" condition
Does this also apply to the Decivilized Subpopulation condition? Because that's still being removed on abandon.

Idea: Just as interacting with a jump point suggests the player turn on their transponder when entering a system, leaving a system should prompt player to turn it off.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 07, 2019, 09:14:11 AM
Bar delivery quests don't create the (!) important marker on the destination market.

Huh, you're right - fixed that up.

Does this also apply to the Decivilized Subpopulation condition? Because that's still being removed on abandon.

It didn't apply; fixed as well.

Idea: Just as interacting with a jump point suggests the player turn on their transponder when entering a system, leaving a system should prompt player to turn it off.

Hmm, let me think about that. I kind of want to limit the amount of potentially intrusive-feeling handholding. For jumping in, I think it's worth it because the annoyance of forgetting and getting stopped by a patrol is very high. For jumping out... worst thing you get is a tough fight, but you can at least *fight*, so - at least imo - it doesn't feel nearly as bad to forget. Like, it's ok to realize a tad late and turn it off.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on August 07, 2019, 09:51:24 AM
Plus, I normally wander around in hyperspace with transponder on - can't join in on any battles without that, and I'm not generally worried about getting jumped by pirates.  I'll typically only turn it off for long-distance exploration voyages.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on August 07, 2019, 12:41:52 PM
A bit outside the scope here, but given newfound interest and a measure of QC stuff fixed in the back, would a new hotfix be an option? I mean, i know this is what was wanted to be avoided, but maybe it'd be nice to get a more polished version out now to the feeding masses before the next year-long wait?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 07, 2019, 01:31:24 PM
A bit outside the scope here, but given newfound interest and a measure of QC stuff fixed in the back, would a new hotfix be an option? I mean, i know this is what was wanted to be avoided, but maybe it'd be nice to get a more polished version out now to the feeding masses before the next year-long wait?

It's not... well, I won't say "not possible", but it's extremely impractical. I suspect any attempt to extricate not-ready-for-public-consumption features from QoL improvements and create a build with just the latter would - aside from taking a long time to do - result in a net increase in the number of bugs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Flying Birdy on August 07, 2019, 07:04:15 PM
Quote
Does this also apply to the Decivilized Subpopulation condition? Because that's still being removed on abandon.

It didn't apply; fixed as well.

Will there be a new method of dealing with the decivilized subpopulation modifier in the future? That's one of those modifiers that's really irritating to deal with and whose permanence doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 07, 2019, 07:16:40 PM
There are already ways of dealing with it, namely raising stability through the many available means. As far as its permanence, think of it as an entrenched population that knows the planet far better than you do and has absolutely zero trust for you and - at least in part - likely views you as an invader.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Plantissue on August 12, 2019, 03:58:35 AM
I think rasing stability doesn't really do anything to affect the hazard rating which only affects upkeep? Stability only affects ground and fleet effects doesn't it?

It always struck me as odd that you could have a population of billions or tens of billions, yet the colony would still have the decivilised modifier. At that the point the original population would be tiny. If actively resisting they would have been eliminated by ground forces a long time ago. If disruptive, their effect must surely be less than any amount of organised criminals in your world. +25% hazard rating seems completely overblown, on the same level as various hazards like hot that necessitates specialised equipment to perform operations, complicating life support and infrastructure. If it transfered to a stability rating to represent that entrenched population it would make more sense.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 12, 2019, 07:37:08 AM
It always struck me as odd that you could have a population of billions or tens of billions...

(That's fair, but imo the solution to that - if we wanted to "solve" it - is tweaking things so you can't get to that point in any reasonable amount of time. Like, if we're looking at "what's odd", *that's* definitely the thing that sticks out in this situation!)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Plantissue on August 12, 2019, 09:02:35 AM
Sounds like you be tweaking population growth. Eventually though, if there isn't a cap of time, or a hard cap of population someone will reach high enough population that decivilised makes no sense as a hazard.

But I'm not too familiar with colony mechanics, so I am wondering how raising stability would deal with the decivilised modifier.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on August 12, 2019, 09:25:29 AM
I rather have pollution than decivilized.  At least pollution is only -25% hazard.  Decivilized adds stability penalty on top of that.  Increased hazard takes a big bite out of the population bonus from decivilized.  With decivilized, I need all of the colony skills to keep 10 stability while using Free Port.

I agree it makes no sense to have entrenched terrorists after your colony grows so big to dwarf them.  If they are that disruptive, I imagine no one would feel sorry after they get exterminated.

I would not mind sat bombing a planet if means eradicating any decivilized subpopulation.  Maybe that can be an incentive to sat bomb a planet instead of stealth raiding it repeatedly for eventual decivilization and planet kill.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 12, 2019, 09:39:20 AM
But I'm not too familiar with colony mechanics, so I am wondering how raising stability would deal with the decivilised modifier.

Ah, I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking of the hazard rating modifier. Increasing stability would, in fact, only deal with the stability portion of it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Plantissue on August 12, 2019, 03:34:19 PM
Thank you. If you are tweaking population growth, perhaps you can have migrant passenger missions or such like to increase population, though "escort" missions are usually boring.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: dandystar on August 13, 2019, 08:30:53 PM
Please considering displaying this tooltip when opening up the cargo menu for the first time around.
I had to search how basic menuing works and I am not the only one.

https://old.reddit.com/r/starsector/comments/cli5vf/are_there_any_ways_to_buy_specific_amounts_of/

(https://i.imgur.com/0i8LuEI.png)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on August 13, 2019, 09:03:27 PM
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/uBqWGZD.png)
[close]
Did you turn off the help popups by any chance?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 13, 2019, 09:06:26 PM
Ah, the game actually already does exactly this, when help popups are enabled:

https://imgur.com/a/RLcCw7l

Apparently, though, that's not sufficient... hmm.

Fake edit: ninja'ed


Welcome to the forum, btw! (Thanks for reporting the Ion Storm typo in the other thread; fixed that up just now.)