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 - zaimoni

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
General Discussion / Re: Are 5 weapon groups enough?
« on: December 30, 2018, 10:28:50 AM »
Issues?  Just:
  • Putting weapons with mostly non-overlapping fire arcs into the same group (auto-assign's behavior) means they don't focus-fire appropriately because they don't actually have targets in their tiny common fire arc that much.  (Assuming the fire arcs actually overlap.)
  • Corollary to above: It's much harder to stall two threats of the same class until help arrives with auto-assign's unagile weapon grouping.  Case study: beam wolf (Tachyon lance, x weapon, x missiles, and two tactical lasers) with its proper four weapon groups (front-lock, missile, tac laser left, lac laser right) can stall three non-phase frigates until backup arrives, and has some chance of defeating two non-phase frigates without help (or officer!).  With auto-assign, two frigates will kill the wolf.
Autofit, in contrast, works phenomenally well in .9 RC 10 (much better than .8 ).

2
General Discussion / Re: Are 5 weapon groups enough?
« on: December 30, 2018, 09:49:09 AM »
Now that auto-assign is very liberal, five is no longer enough.  Now it feels like I need six or seven.
Auto-assign is still next to worthless for player fleets (first seen .8, equally useless .9 RC 10).  If you want decent auto-targeting, you need to manually assign all direct-fire weapons according to their fire arc.  For each and every ship that isn't a Kite or weaker.

Five manually assigned weapon groups is workable for a destroyer.  It's hard to say how many a capital really needs because five groups is so crippling for a capital.  Feels like something that should be tested out in a mod before mainlining, however.

3
Suggestions / Re: Aliens and constructions
« on: December 22, 2018, 10:43:32 AM »
We have mods for aliens beyond Remnant AI.  (Foundation of Borken has the best PR, but it's .81.)

It's next to impossible to do alien aliens without a massive backstory that just doesn't fit in StarSector.

4
General Discussion / Re: 0.9 Impressions, Commentary, & Rambling
« on: December 07, 2018, 03:23:13 PM »
[5] Starports: The issue is that there's an ideal build order, which trivializes the colony piece. If you stand up full defenses as soon as you can upon settling, then that colony's probably set. I'm hopeful that there will be more colony improvements. Or fewer slots, perhaps with the "mandatory" stuff being abstracted away as part of settling. Something to force more tradeoffs.
Why I'm expecting a StarSector 0.10 release series.  Between this and making the AI competent at using colony commands, I expect gameplay to change radically enough to warrant another pre-release version.

5
General Discussion / Re: Ship costs and bounties
« on: December 06, 2018, 12:57:58 AM »
Yes, I'm sure; I do this all the time in the early game.  Removing 2 dmods from a Kite is cheaper than buying new (breakpoint is 10k credits); removing 1 dmod from a wolf is cheaper than buying new (breakpoint is 20k credits).  It's only destroyers and higher that are more expensive to purge a single dmod, than to buy new.


6
General Discussion / Re: Ship costs and bounties
« on: December 05, 2018, 08:17:24 PM »
Yes.  Thus why I'm stuck with Wolves and Kites.  Nothing else can run away fast enough to recover and delete destroyers.

7
General Discussion / Re: Ship costs and bounties
« on: December 05, 2018, 04:55:17 PM »
Reinforced bulkheads are a thing.  Just use them on all ships to avoid losing them.  Frigates are unusual in that purging d-mods from them is significantly cheaper than buying new.

You basically are stuck with the highly survivable ones, however -- Kite (upgrade to railgun ASAP) and Wolf, basically.

8
I want to raid the colony, not bomb it. Hence, I cannot approach the colony with TP on, because I will still be recognized and the faction will turn hostile instantly after the first battle with a patrol, which might not necessarily be what I want.
This feels like a defect in the reputation representation.

"Ideally" (taking a simulationist view rather than a "what works" view), what would happen in the no-TP case is the faction won't turn immediately hostile, but the faction ships within the entire system will turn hostile against your current fleet.

9
Suggestions / Re: Just found this game
« on: December 03, 2018, 10:14:55 PM »
Not really...there's this middle ground where it's chasing you but you can take it down fine -- in isolation.

Beware sucking in their allies into the fight.

10
Suggestions / Re: Money should not be free
« on: December 02, 2018, 05:49:48 PM »
The current commissions are more like letters of marque.  An assigned district would have a very different feel; I could see it as an "alternate"/"upgrade" from the current commissions, but not a replacement.

11
A more realistic concern, is whether there is a blueprint in the game that would be a serious negative to learn, and if so which ones are those.

I think it would be boldly advertised...something like an alpha core blueprint, for instance.  The negative interactions with high-tech battlestations don't seem to be intentional.

12
"Save As" won't work since there's no actual choice of naming.

what "Save Copy" actually does is, create a new save slot, save to it, and then make the new save slot current  It's the last part that is omitted from the in-game description, making it critically misleading to new players (it took me like 3 iterations to notice what was really going on, when I started playing in .8)

13
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Swiching key binding on mouse
« on: March 27, 2018, 02:44:41 PM »
You may want to use vendor-specific software to bind useful macros to those buttons.  (I have one of those trackballs myself, configured to assist with work.)

14
Suggestions / Re: killable mec officer
« on: March 19, 2018, 12:56:37 PM »
I want "the same mec officers will follow you to the end of the save file."  Not losing officers is a good anti-frustration feature.  ....

Plus, if officers can be lost in combat, then losing your character in combat for permadeath should be on too.  That could be something for Ironman.
While I was very disappointed that losing in combat was not permadeath without savefile cheating, I'm also used to playing roguelikes.  Starsector is clearly not meant to be played as a roguelike, so I would be strongly inclined to "fix" the officer skill selection stiuation in the base game.

As for the OP: already implemented in Nexerelin.

15
Suggestions / Re: An idea for armor
« on: February 16, 2018, 09:43:56 PM »
Also what's the point of comparing trash/no officer Paragon to optimized L20 Onslaught?
That's how 30+ battles in Nexerillin+Dynasector played out (no extra factions, just a Sindrian Diktat commission start).  AI fleets almost always have trash L20 officer Paragons.

If the Onslaught starting the battle has the non-optimized L20 officer, Paragon owns the Onslaught.  If the Onslaught starting the battle has an optimized L20 officer, Paragon dies (along with the rest of the fleet!)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8