Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Raiding for Fun and Profit (11/27/19)

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 - Serenitis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57
General Discussion / Re: Eagle vs Dominator
« on: January 25, 2020, 02:41:34 AM »
Meh, devastators suck unless you're literally kissing another ship in the ribs AND their shields are down.  That random detonation range wastes about 75% of their ordnance.  Flux friendly, but pretty garbage.
Hello Sir. Might you have a moment to consider accepting Safety Overrides as your lord and saviour?

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Boggled's Terraforming Mod (v3.0.3)
« on: January 24, 2020, 07:38:16 AM »
If procedurally generated terran worlds can have an inimical biosphere, please let me know and I will add a means of removing it. Thank you!
Terran planets (hab4) do not have anything in the vanilla procgen to give them the inimical condition.
They have literally nothing - blank entries, with no by-type overrides.
I'm fairly sure it's not possible in vanilla.
Unknown Skies doesn't alter the vanilla condition gens at all, so it's not that either.
No idea if Nexerelin does or not as I don't use it.

Interestingly inimical can appear almost anywhere else....

Hab3 worlds, Terran E, Ocean, Arid and Tundra theres a 1:10 chance of getting it.
Jungle is also a hab3, but is 'special' because it gets a 1:2 chance due to it's override.

Hab2 Desert worlds, and Hab1 Barren Deserts both get a 1:100 chance.
Frozen/Ice worlds also get 1:100, as do Cryovolcanics.

Gas giants get a 1:500 chance.
Volcanic, Barren and Toxic all get 1:1000.
Irradiated worlds get a 1:10000 chance of getting it.

Suggestions / Re: [LOG]
« on: January 24, 2020, 07:01:58 AM »
[LOG], [LOG]
It's big, it's heavy, it's wood!
[LOG], [LOG]
It's better than bad, it's good!

This is also a good suggestion.
With the addition of some mods it's impossible to see all the messages that can appear, as they bump the ones off the top of the list almost immediately.

General Discussion / Re: Creating Custom Player Flag/Emblem
« on: January 24, 2020, 06:53:19 AM »
I'm p. sure it won't actually be red.
I had the same issue when I made some Alpha Centauri stuff, and the Universty flag came out red like this.
Never did figure out what was causing it.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Boggled's Terraforming Mod (v3.0.3)
« on: January 22, 2020, 11:38:28 AM »
Not 100% sure, but I think you need to be terraforming a planet with mirrors or shades before the sling will have any effect. (aka the sling on it's own does nothing.)
So if you build the appropriate terraforming thing for your planet it might work.

General Discussion / Re: Do you care about storms?
« on: January 22, 2020, 11:30:59 AM »
Early game: "Oh no! A storm! Need to avoid it!"

Late game: "Oh yes! A storm! Engine room, more power!"

General Discussion / Re: How to outfit carriers?
« on: January 22, 2020, 11:22:45 AM »
There are combinations which work really really well. But everything is useful to some extent.
Just jam stuff in there and see how it performs and it won't take you long to develop a feel for how things work, and what you like.

The only 'rule' I really care about is not mixing support fighters with any other kind on the same carrier.

General Discussion / Re: Would you colonize this system?
« on: January 22, 2020, 11:15:32 AM »
You don't have to take anyone's advice really.
Spread across 3 planets
-1 food,
0 organics,
0 volatiles  (boost with Synchrotron Core?)
+3 rare ore on 2 separate planets if I want a 4th planet
+3 ore
2 stable points
Everything good except volatiles. You need +1 at a minimum if you have the industrial planning skill (or hire someone who does to manage the colony). +2 otherwise.
Synchrotron only increases the output of the fuel production, the input still needs to be the same.

Alternatively, just deal with less fuel production and less potential maintenance reduction.

The Volcanic world I was most worried about and it's going like gangbusters despite the fact that "all construction on this planet can only be considered semi-permanant at best." It's actually the site of my fleet HQ! I named it Crematoria after Chronicles of Riddick.
Hazard is a secondary concern at best.
Resources are the main thing which will make or break a colony site.

Star colours are a weird thing.
I seem to have the most luck finding 'good' systems around white dwarves.
The yellow and orange stars seem to get the really good habitable planets, but are almost always missing 1 or more resources.

Another thing to keep an eye on when starting a new game is to take a look at Duzhak fairly early on.
Sometimes the RNG will bless you profoundly.
To my sorrow, I have never experienced this. But many have.

General Discussion / Re: Would you colonize this system?
« on: January 21, 2020, 11:11:50 AM »
If your goal is just to make money and/or have your own dedicated storage then the system in the OP would be fine.
The Terran world would make an excellent cash cow just with the food and organics alone, and any extra industries you put on it would only add to that.
The barren world with ultra rich rares would make a decent mining/refining colony.

The above mentioned planet with multiple decent resources is a great find if you just want a money fountain.

You should definitely always look to colonise at least 2 planets in any system you want to permanently inhabit though. It makes defending them noticably easier when you have a 2 military bases generating patrols, even if they're only dinky things from a size 3 or 4 colony.

Personally, I really dislike colonising in multiple systems. Each system you inhabit can generate 'pirate activity' events which requires interverntion to remove the accessiblity and stability penalty it imposes.
Doing it for more than 1 system is micromanagement I'm just not interested in subjecting myself to.
I won't make permanent bases in more than 1 system, but I will plant temporary tech mining colonies to extract loot from. Those are ignorable tbh.

If I were in your position, I would not colonise that first system.
Reason: It does not have all resources present in useable quantites.

I'm looking to colonise a system rather than a planet, and the criteria I have for selecting a system is:
System as a whole must contain

At least 1 stable location.

Minimum resources
Food:   -1
Ore:      +1
Rare Ore:   +1
Volatiles:   +1
Organics:   -1

Food will always be on a habitable planet - this will probably be my 'main' colony.
Organics will likely be on the same planet as the food.
It is possible, but very unlikely the ores will be on the same planet.
The volatiles will never be on the same planet as the food.

Above resources will be spread over multiple planets.
2 or 3 is preferable. 4 is acceptable, but I'd rather have less.

Moons of gas giants are particularly attractive as they are easy to get to from hyperspace, and easy to manage.
These are a preference.
Planet + Moon combos in general are nice.

Resources must be a certain level to fully supply the industries that depend on them. The reason why you want to do this is you get a reduction to your upkeep costs based on how much you can cover your own needs.
This can be as high as 50%.

I will be picking up the Industrial Planning skill, so I'll be getting +1 to the output of everything.
If you don't get this skill you'll need planets with the following:
Food:   -1
Ore:      +2
Rare Ore:   +2
Volatiles:   +2
Organics:   0
Which is a fair bit more time consuming/frustrating to find.

Hazard rating, not too concerned about.

How useful all that word salad is to you depends on what you want to do with your colony.
And with how much you care about avoiding events and giving yourself maximum upkeep discounts.

If you take away nothing else, just take these 2 things:
Don't get so hung up on the hazard ratings. It really doesn't matter all that much.
In any system you permanently colonise, always build at least 2 military bases.

General Discussion / Re: a good frigate / small ship
« on: January 18, 2020, 03:01:24 AM »
If you're going to be flying a frigate 'full time', it might be worth going into the menu settings and checking the invert turn to cursor box (if you haven't already).
So you don't have to give yourself cramp holding <shift> down all the time.
Highly agile ships (not just frigates) benefit quite a bit from being able to be controlled like this.

Wolf is a good starting point since it's trivial to acquire one, and is a good all-round ship.
It's fairly quick and performs well as a hit-and-run attacker. It's mobility system is very helpful for this.

Lasher is another easy to get hold of ship, which takes the opposite approach. It's slower, but has better armour so it can stay in the thick of things longer.
And it's ammo feeder system allows it to punch up very well.
It combines with the 'safety overrides' mod better (imo) than any other frigate. But maybe look into that after you're comfy flying 'normally'.

Tempest is possibly the safest frigate option. It's a bit more difficult to get hold of, but not supper hard.
It does however have a built-in safety net in the form of a pair of drones which enemies will often shoot at instead of you, which gives you a lot more breathing room.
Those drones are also your point defence coverage. Good in that you don't have to spend OP or flux, or worry about positioning to have PD shoot at things. Not so good in that they can be destroyed and leave you with nothing. You do get constant free replacements though.
Tempest also scales amazingly well:

Hyperion. Rare enough that you might not see one at all in any given game.
Personally I'm not a fan as the teleporting needs the mouse pointer for positioning but so does maneuvering, so there's a conflict between what you're trying to do with the ship. And since this often needs to be done in a hurry my old brain struggles a bit trying to deal with this.
Other people seem to do okay with it though, so if you get the chance give it a go - you might be one of them.

low tech super frigates pls
SO Lasher.
It's a disgusting little monster.

General Discussion / Re: Paying tariffs in my own market?
« on: January 14, 2020, 11:34:13 AM »
I changed commerce to a structure in my game files because it is not useful enough to be an industry.
This, right here, is supertruth.
Commerce is in no way worth an industry slot. It's useful, but it's not that useful.
It's a trash-to-money converter. And another source of supplies, fuel, and crew. The extra stability is incedental.

Also for those wondering, you pay a tariff when using the commerce market on your planet because it is not your market.
It belongs to the independants. And as such allows you to increase your indy reputation by buying/selling stuff there, if that's a thing you ever need.
And you don't get a black market because that would remove basically all the risk associated with getting to/dealing with one.

General Discussion / Re: Reduce Detection Range
« on: January 14, 2020, 11:21:15 AM »
If you have Transverse Jump, you can go dark and then jump in at any planet.
I'm fairly sure using transverse jump cancels any active engine modes, so this isn't really going to go as planned.

I always feel like leaving the large mounts empty or undersized as such a waste of potential. But whenever I put a large mount on it, I feel like it is such a waste of OP.
But the side larges are actually bad for frontal warfare, because they waste flux while nearly always missing the target! I've found dual flak to be the best compromise, but its annoying.

It might be worth giving the Onslaught a once over.
The side larges are currently set to an angle of 80°/-80° and have an arc of 150°. Each half of that arc is 75°, so the turrets are short of being able to point 'forwards' by 5° each.
Not a whole lot, but it's frustratingly noticeable.

Maybe it might be worth considering adjusting the arc/angle of these turrets?
Changing the angle to 70°/-70° would give 5° overlap at the front and allow for a tiny amount of leeway and/or convergence.
Changing the arc to 160° would allow pointing directly forward, but no further. 170° would give the same overlap as above.

But what do I know? I am just text.

Hahaha I want this. One of the mods (SWP?) adds an LP SO Onslaught I think, but it doesn't have the hammer barrages.
It's one of the IBB ships. It is both a joy and a pain to fly.
A joy because its a capital ship which can scoot around like a cruiser and never has to deal with sluggish turning because of flux use.
A pain because a capital being restricted to 450 range is.... Frustrating.

Suggestions / Re: Heavy Armour manoeuvrability penalty
« on: January 10, 2020, 12:40:13 AM »
The maneuver penalty does make it very unattractive, especially if the ship in question has any fixed mounts.
Maybe replacing it an acelleration penalty instead might change that?

Suggestions / Re: Neutron Star effects on bases/colonies
« on: January 10, 2020, 12:36:28 AM »
Also, all colonies in a Neutron star system should have increased hazard and reduced accessibilty.

Already present. Kind of.

All planets orbiting a neutron star get tagged with the 'radiation' condition during system gen. and thus have a higher hazard level by default.
However, this only applies if the neutron star is the primary star in the system (ie; <system name> A).
If the neutron star is the secondary or lower (B, C, D, etc.) then nothing happens, as the system is defined by the primary (A) star.

Logically the system gen. should be checking for the presence of a neutron star in every system and applying the radiation condition globally if it returns 1.
But there's a catch. The generation parameters for normal stars vs. neutron stars are a bit different. For example, all habitable planet types bar 1 are disallowed around neutron stars, but if that's not the primary which the system is built around and the primary is 'normal', then how do you reconcile that?
How do you have a secondary star override the established process and dictate system conditions, but only if it's <x>?

It's a bit of an inconsistenecy, but I can't see it ever being a priority over actual gameplay elements as it's essentially cosmetic.
It is one of the things about the procgen that annoys me, but I know it's not critical to the game itself.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57