Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sendrien

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
I have seen so many people consistently trash the Scarab, but for me, it is one of my most consistent performers, especially in AI hands (balanced pilot). I place heavy priority in getting my hands on a few Scarabs as quickly as possible. They usually carry my fleet into the late game.

My build is ultra-simple: 5 front-facing IR Pulse Lasers with 4 hullmods - Hardened Shields, Front Conversion, Flux Coil Adjunct, Flux Distributor and then max capacitors and as many vents as I can fit.

One Scarab configured this way can *flawlessly* solo almost any Frigate or Destroyer. Some cruisers. Two can take down almost any cruiser without taking damage.

And because the only items you have to procure are the ultra-common IR Pulse Lasers, once you get your hands on the Scarab, you're good to go.

I acknowledge that there are far more experienced people on this forum, but for the life of me I cannot understand why the Scarab is trashed so heavily.

I totally agree with your conclusion here. I do believe that the salvaging playstyle should be more viable.

That said, here's how I'm fixing this situation currently.

1. All my fleets always travel at Burn 20. I always use Militarized Subsystems and Augmented Drive field on Prometheus and Atlas. I keep everything at Burn 9, and which gets boosted to 10 with my Navigation skill.
2. I try to use Solar Shielding wherever possible.
3. There are two skills which reduce supply and fuel consumption by 25% respectively. I always take those.
4. To make sure my missions are profitable, I will always take exploration missions in the same vicinity of the map I'm headed towards. If I can line up 3-6 missions in the same quadrant of the map, I can complete them all, while still having time to salvage.

General Discussion / Does anyone find Commerce worth it?
« on: January 08, 2019, 09:16:46 AM »
With such a limited number of building slots in your colony, do you find Commerce to be at all worth it? It grants you +1 Stability and the opportunity to buy from your own station with 30% tariffs.

That same slot could be used for another industry or one of the military buildings, both of which provide more economic gain or Stability, depending on which one you want. And I don't see the need to buy things from my own faction, seeing as I can just produce them.

What am I missing here?

Just found this thread while looking for something else. I hope Alex read this, because the points made by the OP are very good. The colony feature is absolutely brilliant, and adds so much to the rich universe of Starsector. But once you build out a colony, and it becomes self sustaining, it does feel like this should unlock the most advanced phase of gameplay (i.e. the True Endgame), or things that can only be done on a colony/faction-wide scale.

Perhaps this is to answer the question: why did you build a colony and found a faction? To what end have you achieved these things?

Knowing Alex, he already has something hidden up his sleeve. My hope is that these endgame goals somehow tie neatly with the lore/story of Starsector presented so far.

General Discussion / Re: Procedural Generation needs improvement
« on: January 05, 2019, 06:57:26 PM »
@Alex - By complete accident, one of the best constellations I've ever found was called Kardashev. By the very fact that this name is in your name generator, I know that you know its significance. So I needn't elaborate further.

But it got me thinking - here is humanity having spread its wings beyond our own solar system, perhaps even to a new galaxy, we're not sure. And yet none of the relics of a bygone era are a Dyson Sphere?

How awesome would that be for a point of interesting exploration!!

General Discussion / Re: Procedural Generation needs improvement
« on: January 04, 2019, 10:24:24 PM »
That is all I can ask for. Thank you!

By the way, I definitely am not suggesting that Terran worlds should somehow be handcrafted. Perhaps one possible approach would be to give systems containing a Terran planet a "minimum level" of detail, e.g. at least 15 features, 3-8 of which are planetary bodies. Or something similar.

Given how elegant and refined your solutions to the economy have been, I trust you will find something equally impressive to spruce up special star systems.  ;D

General Discussion / Re: Procedural Generation needs improvement
« on: January 04, 2019, 10:08:13 PM »

I guess I'm not seeing a fundamental difference. More planets potentially make the system more useful, but, I mean, it's already got a terran planet! Beyond that, just feel-wise, I think both are interesting, and I'm not really seeing "more planets" as a win in terms of feel or reward. I think maybe it is a subjective thing, since it seems like you are.

Is the goal to have balanced utility between systems? If yes, perhaps the current approach is the way to go.

However, if we acknowledge that blue star systems are mainly going to be used for exploration, whereas the player will likely jump at the opportunity to colonize a terran planet wherever practical and possible, then from a pure gameplay perspective, those systems in which the player invests the most time and resources building up should absolutely be more visually interesting, more expansive and content-rich.

It's the same reason the Core Worlds were hand-crafted. It's the same reason in some MMOs, player hubs and boss fights are extremely well fleshed out, whereas a random filler dungeon may be a rehash of an earlier dungeon.

To take an extreme example, imagine there was only 1 Terran world in a particular save. And the procgen made that Terran system literally 1 star + Terran planet + jump points. You could certainly argue that the mere existence of the Terran planet in that otherwise empty system is what makes that system special. But even the most novice Starsector player would know that such a system is seriously boring compared to the likes of Corvus or Askonia or even Canaan.

And since building colonies seems to be the endgame up to now, wouldn't it make sense that the endgame content has a bit more sparkle than 1 star + 1 planet in some cases?

(To clarify, I'm not saying the procedural generator is bad. Far from it. It's one of the things that make Starsector fresh each time I play.)

General Discussion / Re: Procedural Generation needs improvement
« on: January 04, 2019, 06:05:27 PM »
I suppose this is a subjective judgement, but for me, one of the reasons I love Starsector is the thrill of finding something special. Finding a Terran planet from which you can build a large population center for your faction is one of those moments. You might be hunting and exploring the whole game for that Terran planet in the Sector.

Since this is one of the implicit payoffs for the amount of time and effort put into extensive exploration, I feel like it's a letdown when the Terran planet is alone in an empty system, just orbiting a star.

(It would be interesting if you did the same sampling test on the systems with Terran planets (or even habitable planets). I'd bet your numbers would be much lower, and you might find that Terran planets are often found in systems with 3 planetary bodies or fewer.

General Discussion / Re: Procedural Generation needs improvement
« on: January 04, 2019, 03:39:55 PM »

With the caveat that some of this is personal preference, I think it's actually quite important for a decent number of systems to be empty or relatively uninteresting. It establishes a baseline for something to be "interesting" in comparison to. If everything is "worth exploring", it'll take away a lot of the fun of exploration and make it feel more like a chore. Contrast that with finding a system that's actually worth exploring, after seeing a number that aren't.

I can see your point about interesting becoming normal. However, really special systems which contain habitable planets or other special features like Pulsars, perhaps could carry some kind of "Special" tag, so that the procedural generator gives them more substance.

Don't forget that the estimate of *average* number of planets per star in the Milky Way is around 8, with a low and high range of 2 and 80. (Source:

I consider myself very lucky if I find 1 procedurally generated system in a given save with at least 6 planetary bodies (including moons) in Starsector.

What about giving systems denoted with the "Special" tag a 40% chance to generate 6 planets or more?

Absolutely. I second this.

General Discussion / Procedural Generation needs improvement
« on: January 04, 2019, 01:51:38 PM »
In general, I have only praise for how Starsector has progressed through the versions. However, the recent additions in 0.9 have brought to light something that I didn't really notice earlier, but now is becoming painfully obvious.

Procedurally generated solar systems are somehow a) emptier; b) duller and/or c) less interesting than the hand-crafted ones in the Core Worlds.

For instance, the vast majority of habitable planets are found in simplistic systems which will include: 1 star, 1-3 stable points, 1-3 planets, 1 astronomical feature (ring system or magnetic field) and the accompanying jump points. In many cases, the system is completely empty! Just a star with no planets! I realize that this may be representative of the emptiness of space, but perhaps we should think of the sector map as a map of *interesting* systems? In terms of player experience, would it not be much more beneficial if each system were worth exploring?

Contrast this to the complex and extremely interesting features of practically every system in the Core Worlds! Some planets have multiple moons, asteroid belts, and a whole bunch of other quirky features that makes each location memorable.

It really kills the "Eureka moment" of finding a Terran planet when you realize that it is literally the only planet orbiting a completely empty system.

Is there some kind of memory limitation or limit on the number of planetary bodies that somehow requires the procedurally generated systems to be so simplistic? Otherwise, I would like to suggest that the parameters be tweaked so that most systems are more complex and contain between 3 and 18 planetary bodies, including moons.

Anecdotally, one of the most awesome moments of discovery I've encountered in Starsector was my first encounter with a Pulsar. Being pushed away by the Pulsar was wicked. Seeing the pulsar's beam of light be dissected by an orbiting planet...just awesome. You know what the big letdown of that system was? It was completely empty save for that one planet.

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Pirate Raiders Attacking the Sun
« on: December 28, 2018, 10:53:02 AM »
But I am using the latest version.

Bug Reports & Support / Pirate Raiders Attacking the Sun
« on: December 27, 2018, 08:06:08 PM »
I went to Magec almost immediately after an alert came up for a system bounty. Was surprised to get another alert saying that the raid had failed so fast. Was leaving the system when I saw the pirates attacking Magec, even though they were aggroed on Nova Maxios, which was nowhere near Magec.

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: December 25, 2018, 01:34:57 PM »
Alex, 0.9a is absolutely brilliant! This is really shaping up to the game I hoped it could be. After all the disappointments in the space genre, Starsector is a shining beacon.

I do have a question about exploration, though. What happens when all planets have been surveyed, and all probes/caches have been found? Does that spell the end of the exploration in the game? Or does the game spawn some points of interest to keep those types of missions going?

Happy holidays!

Blog Posts / Re: Minefields
« on: March 26, 2018, 04:39:13 PM »
Again you have outdone yourself, Alex. I rarely ever use phase ships because of how superior shielding is especially in relation to weapon uptime, but the utility of mines may change this once and for all. Looking forward to it! Hope we can test these changes out soon! :P

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6