Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Skills and Story Points (07/08/19)

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.

Topics - DeMatt

Pages: [1]
1
Suggestions / Faction control: commodity legality toggles!
« on: November 29, 2018, 09:49:26 AM »
I'd like to be able to toggle individual commodities to be "legal" or "illegal" (or if you prefer, "traded" versus "embargoed").  Want to starve out the Sector by only providing Food to your own faction?  Embargo it, then raid everybody else's farms!

Of course, toggling every commodity to be illegal comes with consequencesTM.  The more out-of-tune with another faction you are, the less they like you - say, a perfect match nets you +5/month in Attitude, while each differing legality is -5 to that.  So, theoretically Hegemony and Luddic Church would have a permanent -5/month to each other because of their disagreement over trading two commodities.

In combination with my tariff slider suggestion, this would obviate the utility of the "Free Port" button.

2
Suggestions / Colony control: tariff slider!
« on: November 29, 2018, 09:31:25 AM »
I would like to suggest a new colony control, the "tariff slider".  This would be a slider, spanning from -50% to +50% in 10% increments, and defaulting to zero.  Changing it would do three things:
  • Every +10% on the slider equates to -10% accessibility.
  • Every +10% on the slider equates to +1 stability.
  • The slider percentage acts as a multiplier on export value (after it's been adjusted for accessibility).
Want to secure your home?  Click it up.  Prefer to invite the world in?  Slide it down.  If it's too easy being able to move it from end to end at any time, maybe you can only adjust it by ±10% each month.

3
I run a light survey fleet - a couple combat frigates, a couple Shepherds, and a Phaeton/Buffalo/Valkyrie for storage.  Occasionally, the lack of combat vessels means some ill-intentioned idiot decides to take me on, and incautious immobility on my part allows him to engage, which in turn means I choose to "Attempt to Disengage", and immediately hit "Full Retreat!" in the resultant combat.

The storage ships and regular combatants are perfectly okay with retreating, though they may not make it unscathed due to flanking frigates.

The Shepherds are not.

Near as I can tell, the command to "Full Retreat!" causes the Shepherds to want to escort my flagship with their Borers, so they stick around.  It's worth noting that NOT hitting "Full Retreat!" means they retreat normally.  I suspect that if other ships had hangars with interceptors, they'd also want to play fighter escort.

4
While in hyperspace, "deep" hyperspace shows up on the radar as purple clouds.  Unfortunately, it doesn't update the clouds unless the radar is redrawn entirely by, say, pulling up the map (Tab).

The three attached screenshots are 1) start at the blue star on the radar, 2) move to the orange star (and the clouds don't move), 3) refresh the radar while staying at the orange star.

[attachment deleted by admin]

5
Suggestions / Some suggestions for Luddic Path variants
« on: December 30, 2015, 02:20:33 PM »
Just putting these out there, so as to not let them simply fester in the dank recesses of my mind.

-General Luddic Path hullmod:  increased armor and hull integrity; reduced crew capacity, flux capacity, and flux dispersion.  Need to debate whether LP ships should be variants of D-variants, or variants of the originals.

-Lasher-L Strike:  2x Hammers, 2x Standard Bomb Bays (fixed mounts), 1x Dual Autocannon (fore turret), 2x Vulcans (flank turrets);  SO, Expanded Magazines, Expanded Missile Racks, 2x vents.  It should come as no surprise that the stock AI is hilariously incompetent with this design, thanks to the Bomb Bays, but a player in the simulator can take down an Atlas in under ten seconds just by flying straight at it and unloading on the way.

-Lasher-L Assault:  2x Hammers, 2x Mortars (fixed mounts), 1x Single Autocannon (fore turret), 2x Single Machine Guns (flank turrets);  SO, Expanded Missile Racks, Unstable Injector, 2x vents, 2x capacitors.  This design is intended to use all the most primitive weaponry available, thus no dual-mounts and Mortars instead of LAGs.  It makes up for the crappy weapons by having a top speed of 260 before officer skills - something which the AI can quite happily use.

-Brawler-L Assault:  2x Thumpers, 2x Hammers;  SO, Unstable Injector.  I think the Brawler design is well-suited to the Luddic Path idea;  this design is just meant to be primitive as opposed to the stock ACG design (or an ACG/HMG mix, which I think would be best).

-Buffalo-II-L Strike:  3x Hammers, 1x Typhoon, 2x Vulcans (side turrets), 1x Dual Machine Gun (bow turret), 1x Dual Autocannon (fixed mount);  Expanded Missile Racks, Unstable Injector, 9x vents.  This one was hardest for me to test because of the change to the mount types, which meant I needed to create a new .skin, a new .variant, and then add that variant to the Random Battle mission.  The AI's no good with it, thanks to the broadside mounts, but it makes for a very amusing poor-man's Gryphon in player hands.  I'd have preferred to use the Proximity Charge Launcher instead, but it's too futuristic-looking for something lobbing big bombs around.  I couldn't justify SO here - it doesn't need the flux, it does poorly with the extra engines, and reducing its deployment time to all of 40 seconds just hurts it too much.

Thoughts, additional ideas?

6
Suggestions / Minor Broadsword flavor text tweak
« on: November 24, 2015, 01:53:17 PM »
It bothers me that the flavor text for Broadswords talks about their "dual Light Machine Guns", when they carry two LMGs and not one Light Dual Machine Gun.

Can we get that "dual" changed to "pair of"?

7
Suggestions / Sensor customizations
« on: November 21, 2015, 05:16:16 PM »
I would like to propose the following:

Hull Mods
  • Stealth Plating:  Reduces the sensor profile of the ship, reduces the ship's combat speed and armor.
  • Accelerated Astro Analyzer:  Increases the ship's sensor strength.

"Weapons"
  • Receiver Array (Small Ballistic, 4 OP):  Increases the ship's sensor strength by +1 (not cumulative with other sensor weapons).
  • Multiband Optics (Small Energy, 3 OP):  Increases the ship's sensor strength by +1 (not cumulative with other sensor weapons).
  • Active Phased Radar (Medium Ballistic, 8 OP):  Increases the ship's sensor strength by +2 (not cumulative with other sensor weapons).
  • Pulsed Lidar Emitter (Medium Energy, 7 OP):  Increases the ship's sensor strength by +2 (not cumulative with other sensor weapons).

Extra bonus points:  Sensor weapons get displayed during combat like regular weapons do.

8
Suggestions / Fighters should have Peak Performance Time
« on: November 21, 2015, 04:47:02 PM »
It annoys me that frigates, destroyers, and now even cruisers have a Peak Performance Time, while fighters - those tiny, underarmored, no-fuel-tank, two-man coffins - don't.

I think they should.  It should be shorter than even frigates, probably in the 60-120 second range.  Being as the Combat Readiness for fighters instead represents the number of replacement hulls available, however, I think what should happen (when it runs out) is that the squadron has to either A) queue up to land on a flight deck (and have its timer reset), or B) retreat.

9
Suggestions / Negative rep displays with minus sign
« on: November 13, 2014, 06:58:36 PM »
It annoys me that the only display difference between "Neutral (+5/100)" and "Neutral (-5/100)" is a very slight difference in the colour of the text.

Can we have negative reputation display with a negative sign?  I, personally, am not colourblind, but I imagine it would be very difficult for someone who is to realize what exactly is going on when they get a reputation loss... and the number increases rather than decreases.

10
Bug Reports & Support / "Food Shortage Averted" event does not expire
« on: November 05, 2014, 05:08:10 PM »
As per title.  Sell food somewhere and get the "shortage averted" event, it'll never drop out of your Intel screen.  Nor is it filtered away by any of the filter settings, or hidden by subsequent food shortages.

At the very least, "shortage averted" should be a finished event all by its lonesome.

[attachment deleted by admin]

11
Suggestions / Asteroid Mining
« on: November 04, 2014, 01:38:01 PM »
(because the latest thread I found on the subject was over two years old)
Now that we have ores and metals and all sorts of exciting new industries to sell them to... I'd like to suggest the introduction of a basic "asteroid mining" mechanic.  Get comfy, this is a multi-part suggestion.

1.  "Mineral" Damage Type
Add a new damage type to the game, I'm calling it "Mineral" because that's what it's for.  Mineral damage would be like EMP damage, in that it doesn't add to the rated DPS of the weapon, and in fact has no combat use (unless you wanted to make it better at blowing up asteroids in combat).  Mining Lasers and Mining Blasters would obviously have it in spades, there might be a couple other weapons which have a little... otherwise, no change.

2.  "Mining Scoop" Preinstalled Hull Mod
This would be a hull mod like "Shielded Cargo Holds", in that the player can't install it.  What it does, is it doubles (or triples or somesuch) the effectiveness of the ship in the mining calculation (see part 4).  It'd just be present on some hulls and some variations.  I'm thinking Mining Pods, Shepherd, and Venture are guaranteed;  Tarsus is a possibility... maybe the Hegemony puts it on their Buffalo variant?

3.  De- and Re-spawning Asteroids
Just a means of despawning the asteroid after the player's mined it, and then respawning it somewhere else randomly in the same belt.  I have to ask, does Starsector actually retain asteroids when you leave the star system?  Because I think that's a waste of memory.

4.  "Mine Asteroid" Conversation Event
Essentially, this would take the Customs Inspection conversation and have the player trigger it on an asteroid.  I figure it'd go like this:
  • Player clicks on asteroid and fleet flies onto it.
  • The fleet's mining capability is determined.  The thought I had was that each ship would add up the sustained DPS of all its weapons (firing at Armor, so Kinetic and Frag are both penalized), plus bonus Mineral damage, then multiplied by the existence of a Mining Scoop hullmod on that ship.  These are added together, then adjusted to make "given X composition and Y capability, get Z resources" easier to calculate.
  • Conversation window opens, giving a rough idea as to the asteroid's composition and listing the fleet's mining capability.  I assume composition would be determined by the belt - I'd put Ore, Rare Ore, and Volatiles as possible results.
  • The player can decline and try finding a new asteroid;  the first one despawns and respawns somewhere else.
  • Or the player can accept, in which case his fleet lingers around the asteroid while a timer-bar ticks up.  Once it finishes, he gets his resources and the asteroid spawns elsewhere.
  • Getting attacked aborts the process.  Don't try this with hostiles nearby!

...And that's the lot.  Thoughts?

12
Suggestions / Relationship Rot
« on: November 02, 2014, 02:54:53 AM »
I'd like to suggest that, if your relationship isn't at -100 or +100, then it should "rot" over time as factions forget over time what you've done for/against them, gradually dropping towards a resting point specific to each faction.

So Pirates would rot towards -50 (they'll rob anybody), while e.g. Independents would rot towards +10 (random trading schmoe, not part of the established factions?  Welcome!).

I imagine the entire process would take a substantial amount of time - it'd only knock off a point every month or two, so it'd take several cycles to rot from +99 down to 0.

13
Bug Reports & Support / Repeatable food shortage event
« on: November 02, 2014, 01:43:12 AM »
Title is not terribly descriptive, but here's the full problem:

A food shortage at a small planet (like Asharu or Maxios) is typically small - 100 units.  It is therefore easy to ship in substantially more food than demanded at such planets.  However, if you realize that you've carted in way too much, you can reduce the amount you're initially selling to the demanded amount - and trigger the "get credit for ending the shortage" event.

The problem is that you can do this several times in a row.  Shift-click a 100-stack and sell it, get kicked out into the planet menu, go back into the cargo menu, shift-click a second 100-stack and sell it, get kicked out into the planet menu again.  Repeat until bored or out of food.  Only the first such stack gets sold at the event price;  each subsequent stack is priced as though all the preceding stacks (save the first) is present - even though the event "eats" the stacks.

This further allows you to get multiple "Player sold into the shortage" results for reputation purposes... except that each result includes the previous result's food when determining if you oversold - so the fourth such result gives you both the "Player solved shortage" and "Player created glut" effects (even though all but the first stack were sold at the regular market price).

If you need it, I have a savegame with a fleet standing by such a shortage.

[attachment deleted by admin]

14
Bug Reports & Support / Advanced Combat Tutorial bypass glitches
« on: November 24, 2012, 01:38:16 PM »
A few bypass glitches that I triggered by playing the Advanced Combat Tutorial "wrong"...

1) Killing the Enforcer at the beginning, before clicking through any messages, causes a "Fatal:  null" crash when you do click your way up to the "knock down its shields" message.
Spoiler
99124 [Thread-6] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.String  - java.lang.NullPointerException
java.lang.NullPointerException
   at com.fs.starfarer.tutorial.OoOO$2.super(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.tutorial.D.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.title.C.float$Oo.o00000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.A.B.super(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatEngine.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.OOoO.???000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.super.A.new(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.String.o00000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$2.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)
[close]

2) Getting yourself killed during the first "kill the Enforcer using these weapons" segment ends the tutorial prematurely without a message.  Something about "use the weapons, pinhead, not ramming" might be appropriate before kicking the player back to the menu. :P

3) During the second "disable the Enforcer's systems" segment, if you're precise, you can complete it using the Assault Chainguns (which I consider to not be a glitch).  If you're not precise, you kill the Enforcer... and stop the tutorial from progressing.

4) The Wolf that provides beam fire doesn't despawn after its segment, and is close enough to the nebula to be detectable at the start of that segment.  Moving towards it allows it to shoot at you - and if you're extremely silly about it, get killed by it.

5) Instead of flying through the nebula, you can fly around it.  The next message will trigger as soon as you're level with the nebula's top edge.  I'd suggest simply making the test nebula wider - anybody who flies around it probably already understands nebula effects. :P

15
Suggestions / Cargo/Crew/Fuel Capacity Mods
« on: August 09, 2012, 01:45:40 AM »
I'd like to see hullmods that increase cargo, fuel, or crew capacity.

Not sure whether they should be percentage-based or flat.

These would give options for less-than-fully-combat-oriented ship variants, though I imagine fitting e.g. a Condor with a cargo hullmod shouldn't bring it that much closer to a Tarsus's cargo capacity.

Pages: [1]