Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

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 - Baxter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Bug Reports & Support / Re: "Ghost" pirate base
« on: May 17, 2019, 04:26:20 AM »
I opened up your game and it isn't bugged. A pirate base being "somewhere nearby" means that it's in the same cluster of stars, not the same system. I did manage to find it so if you don't wanna search for yourself it's in
Spoiler
Delta Thros
[close]
The pirates threatening your colony in Hera are going to be in another star in that cluster most likely.

2
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (Released) Patch Notes
« 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.

3
Domain-era space magic.

4
General Discussion / Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« on: January 10, 2019, 03:50:12 PM »
The prometheus and Atlas are absolutely inferior options, particularly because I can much more easily attain good d-mods for the colossus or phaeton due to its availability to bring down its supply cost to a fraction of base. The fact that I don't need to take militarized subsystems or augmented engines also means I can throw on things like expanded fuel/cargo, survey scanners, high resolution sensors, or whatever else that might be useful.
Currently in the game, taking the bigger+slower ships results in a compounding issue of higher fuel and supply consumption and slower speed, which means you'll probably want to take tug boats which also consume a fair amount of fuel and supplies, only the latter of which can be mitigated.

If the prometheus and atlas are going to be slow then they need some benefit other than just fleet size limit, particularly when that's an arbitrary limit I can just edit a text file to get past,

5
General Discussion / Re: My biggest problem with Officers
« on: January 09, 2019, 03:15:30 AM »
If you're willing to wait and save up enough EXP for multiple levelups you can savescum until you get the chain of skills you want, because while the first skill you pick is set, the subsequent ones aren't (until you reach being able to choose them that is). It's an imperfect solution for perfectionists I guess.

Really, it'd be nice if the officer skill only affected how many officers you can have manning ships at any one time. I'd like to be able to swap out decent but not quite perfect officers with new talent to see if I can't get better luck legitimately.

6
General Discussion / Re: Why can't I catch this fleet?
« on: January 06, 2019, 07:07:39 PM »
Yeah if the enemy has a higher burn rating than any of your ships you can't force a retreat engagement. If you have at least ONE ship with burn 11 you can however, and you can even include ships with lower burn rates on said retreat, either in manual battle or autoresolve.

7
You can just put in a rule that if every available hull/weapon for a role or slot is banned the game just defaults to its normal picking rules, as if you'd set no priorities.

8
General Discussion / Re: Do sold items ever disappear?
« on: January 04, 2019, 10:34:17 PM »
Just use up any blueprints you find to add them to your own collection. If it's a common one you'll find spares you can sell and if it's rare then it's usually a good ship so you'll want it. You'll make plenty of money from salvaging other crap or doing bounty missions.

In terms of rare-ish loot that's safe to sell, Gamma cores can be turned into the commander of military markets for money and a reputation reward.

9
General Discussion / Re: cautious AI in carriers
« on: January 02, 2019, 10:23:05 PM »
Carriers are just way too keen to float up towards the front lines no matter what kind of officer they have and it's incredibly frustrating. The enemy does it as well which tends to be bizarre.

10
General Discussion / Re: [Spoilers]Explorations thread
« on: December 30, 2018, 09:03:08 PM »
Inimical biosphere, it's on Jangala too. Basically there's hostile wildlife or dangerous bacteria or anything that makes things difficult to live.

11
General Discussion / Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« on: December 30, 2018, 05:42:15 PM »
The colonies I grabbed in my first save for this patch
Spoiler
[close]
Industrial planning 3 and I currently have 33 million credits saved up. Sivarsi has 75% hazard rating and all four colonies are slightly outside of the main cluster, which I figured would be convenient for getting supplies before going on long trips to the corners of the sector. Not as convenient as having a good colony in duzahk I found out.
the latter 4 colonies are just temporary techmining bases, to be abandoned when they stop producing potentially cool finds.

12
Suggestions / Ship recovery and fleet limits
« on: December 30, 2018, 02:59:06 AM »
At the end of a battle, the game will only list as many ships as "recoverable" as there are remaining slots in your fleet, and it will select in order of ships being destroyed in battle. If I have a fleet with only 9 slots left then only the first 9 ships I destroy in a battle will be available for recovery. This can be a problem if you've got a big fleet and you're fighting another big fleet and you would like a chance to recover a particular ship.

It'd be ideal if the ship recovery dialogue listed every recoverable ship and instead greyed out the recover option if you selected ships above your fleet's capacity to take, or something along those lines.

13
General Discussion / Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« on: December 30, 2018, 01:21:26 AM »
Value lies, and is being removed from the planets column next build iirc, or at least replaced with class which is generally a better measure of usefulness.

Things to consider would be:

Firstly, Hazard rating MASSIVELY affects your colony's profitability. I made the mistake of settling a 250% volcanic world as a partner to a more reasonable terran planet in my first game of this patch and it generally was just an anchor on everything. It got a high value rating because of ultra rich ore and rare ore veins in addition to having vast ruins but the income from exporting ore wasn't that much higher than the cost of the mining facility itself. Another colony of mine with fairly meagre ore reserves generated about the same profit because the upkeep on the mines was much lower.

Secondly, know that for fulfilling industry/populace demands with in-faction supply, each colony only considers the LARGEST source of any resource. If said source can't meet a need then it's made up for by out of faction imports (if it can). You can have a single planet with a farm producing food for your entire faction, or a single source of rare ore. Doubling up on production is a good idea as if a colony can meet its own needs for something it can export it for profit but otherwise you can skip putting in multiple instances of low-profit industries. In my first game I settled a low hazard tundra world with trace volatiles, producing 8 units. All my other colonies have fuel production with synchrotrons requiring 6 units of volatiles and they both make a ton of money and ensure that there's large amounts of fuel to grab at those colonies when I visit while doing exploration runs to distant planets

Thirdly, planetary ruins are cool because you get access to tech mining, which can produce a lot of useful goods for very little upkeep. Going from the above point however, once you build an industry that produces a superior quantity of a resource that techmining provides (metal, machinery, fuel, supplies), then techmining's production of that good is stripped from consideration.

Given this I would consider that the first planet you colonize should be low hazard rating and has a wide variety of resources, even if they aren't super high ones (so poor ore/farmland/whatever is fine), with techmining being a very neat bonus as it will allow you some flexibility early on. For your subsequent colonies low hazard should still be the primary concern but you don't need to dismiss a planet because it can't farm or has no ore or whatever. You just want low hazard and for it to be the BEST at providing some resource, or for it to have a resource that usually isn't found on low-hazard worlds (Like volatiles, they don't show up on terran/arid or other "habitable" planet types). That way you can have a "main" colony which has the important industries and every other colony is just a boost to income or a safe port for exploration.


Location's also kind of handy because if you can get a planet close to the central cluster it's less travel to go back to home base after expeditions to the outer systems. Plus accessibility is higher.

14
Suggestions / Re: Cryosleeper inside trash system with barren planets
« on: December 29, 2018, 08:07:40 PM »
I was thinking something along the lines of a habitable planet being identified and a sleeper sent out, but something happens to the planet in the meantime (Asteroid strike, sun explodes, etc.) so the sleeper goes into standby mode. Or your standard malfunction/damage/got lost kind of scenario too.

At any rate the presence of cryosleepers in uninhabitable systems appeals to me because it could be justified as an example of a Survivorship Bias, and that makes it interesting to me. You'd have to add in a function to move them to another system though because in gameplay terms that's frustrating.

15
Suggestions / Re: Cryosleeper inside trash system with barren planets
« on: December 29, 2018, 06:12:29 AM »
I mean cryosleepers showing in systems with barren planets isn't necessarily a bug if you think about the potential logic behind it. The sleepers that arrived at habitable planets would have successfully deployed themselves, colonized the planet, and been dismantled afterwards. The only ones that would remain would be the ones that mistakenly ended up in an uninhabitable system, and been unable to journey to another one for whatever reason.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6