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: Personal Contacts (08/13/20)

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 - stormbringer951

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1. Ignoring hull damage for purpose of estimating CR gain after winning battle.
You incentive very cautious gameplay by punishing hull damage. One can claim, that this is how highly skilled player would play, but one can also claim that such playstyle lacks tad bit of bravado. Swinging in, exchanging broadside fire with enemy? Nope, it's better to kite them to death... And you avoid this whole "is armour tank disadvantaged by this" debate.

The rating system doesn't primarily incentivize avoiding hull damage unless your ship also does very little damage. Doing lots of damage relative to how much your ship is worth is a lot more significant for rating contribution than the % of hull damage taken; in extreme cases I've personally gotten more than 10% rating gain in a battle where my ship was destroyed.

This isn't even necessarily a player-only thing; I have some recklessly-piloted AI ships that take large amounts of hull damage regularly, but stay at 100% rating because they kill very large numbers of enemy ships.

Suggestions / Re: Intel Screen Exploration Clutter
« on: July 26, 2019, 04:15:30 AM »
Hmm. Let me just add a "Delete log entry" button to fleet-log style intel. Not too hard to clean these up yourself when you want to, since, as you say, there's no obvious trigger in some of the planet cases.

That's great! (I have a mod I'm working on to enhance some intel related stuff, but one of the things I was struggling with was whether it would be appropriate to remove FleetLogIntel entries and replace them with my own version that has a "delete log entry" button, since it could interfere with things added by other mods.)

Suggestions / Re: The Bounty System Could Stand to be More Nuanced
« on: July 26, 2019, 12:59:33 AM »
I think it might flow better if pure bounty hunting dried up around mid-strength and players were expected to go do something else if they wanted challenge/profit. For example, mercenary missions like "stop the strike fleet" or "run the blockade" where the difficulty doesn't strictly come from the enemy fleet's strength. Then have a few very high end bounties for the late game (a la S&W Pack's IBB bounties).

Those other things are often far more tedious in terms of RL time I'm spending at the computer to actually get a fun and challenging gudfight though. Which is ultimately a lot of what I enjoy doing in Starsector. Of course, at worst, I'd personally mod something approaching the current scaling bounty fleets back in if nobody else wants it, but high end bounties are a pretty fun way of testing your fleet against a lot of varying lineups IMO.

Stormbringer you misunderstood me, or I did a bad job explaining.

I know; I was just expanding on your objection to basing it on [current fleet]. :)

But what I think would be best is making the scaling system more nuanced while also adding a few lower-than-the-player tier and higher-than-the-player bounties semi-randomly that have nothing to do with the scaling system.

Another note about why semi-random lower and higher tier bounties are good: this would also have the advantage of not having to start with chasing around level 0-3 bounties to farm bounty level if you already have a fairly stronger fleet for whatever reason. That is extremely tedious and fiddly, and to be honest at this point I'd much rather manually raise the BountyLevel variable rather than spend a bunch of in-game time farming tiny fleets until the game realizes that my fleet can do higher levels of bounties.

Suggestions / Re: The Bounty System Could Stand to be More Nuanced
« on: July 25, 2019, 03:33:41 PM »
I would prefer something approaching the current bounty experience to still be in the game; being able to race an increasing bounty power curve is fun, and fighting ever-more-powerful fleets of varied pirates and deserters even after you've reached the payout cap is probably the most fun/RL time in the game.

It just shouldn't be mandatory for everyone; it's not fun if you're a new player who suddenly meets the drastic escalation in the current power curve, if you suffered a fleetwipe without a large amount of spares to just refleet and keep going, and if you're not concentrating on fleetbuilding to keep doing bounty hunting.

More bounties and more variance, and a way to skew the difficulty of fleets the bounty manager generates to suit personal preferences would be good (especially if the distribution is more proportional to changing the maxBounty size).

Another issue with bounties: they often end up in the same systems too often because of the way weighting is done. Even on large maps, the same few systems are weighted too highly.

With a bounty setting even slightly higher than vanilla, you can easily end up with 2 bounties in the same system, sometimes orbiting the same planet. I think the most I've ended up with is 3 in the same system, 2 at 1 planet, 1 at another. You also constantly come back to hunt down bounties at the same few systems over and over (when there are multiple similar stars in a constellation, it's pretty easy to guess which one the bounty is probably at because it's probably the same one the bounty was at every single other time in that constellation) because the weighting for picking some systems are very low and for other systems are extremely high.

Would also need to factor in ships in storage, and while not sure of a good formula for this off the top of my head? In an ideal world also credits, and production capability if you have colonies. All this to prevent cheesing it by spoofing the rig into thinking you are weaker than you actually are.

Same problem from the opposite side, if I want high level bounties to do later (hard fights are fun), optimal play would be to waste fuel/supplies hauling an excessively large fleet around to prevent the game from generating easier bounties.

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] High Tech Armada
« on: July 14, 2019, 08:36:08 AM »
Vanilla bug caused per "armor" module,no? Have you the last version of starsector?
I think it's the module bug, and it's still present in 0.9.1 and the only solution is to not use module ships or to use consolecommands to endcombat?
if the bug affected ships with modules. wouldn't the cathedral ship from SWP be affected too? i've fought against it in combat and never got the bug, only with lodiums

In 0.9.1a (fixed in future versions), when a ship with modules retreats the modules are not removed from a list of deployed things, which prevents combat from ever ending.

At that point you have to use the EndCombat command from the beta version of Console Commands to end the combat.

I've now got some traits on some logistics ships which have never been in combat. This is probably a bug? I will say though that I now have 28 ships in my fleet (I increased max fleet size in the settings file).

Weirdly though the logistics ships which gained these traits were at the bottom of the list of ships, which to me means I think that ship 26,27,28 are the ones that got traits despite never having seen combat, being logistics ships.

Feature, not bug. Purely civilian ships passively get traits while not deployed. There are settings options in the mod .ini file to control whether they should get traits, and their chances of getting combat-relevant or logistics-relevant traits.

This should probably be mentioned more prominently on the first post.

Hyperion - phase teleport would be cooler if it used less flux but had charges

But that's the thing that differentiates the Hyperion's unique playstyle from just being a ship with a souped-up phase skimmer, and makes it actually good and fun to pilot. You could argue it's bad design that the AI doesn't fly it very well, but I think it's a worthwhile trade-off to let players play around with the Hyperion and its spiritual brethren, the rule-breaking mod superfrigates.

Scarab - not very good. it's classy to have a prototype design in your game that is actually not very good as opposed to a video game trope "prototype" that just means "excellent" though. That said, I don't know what it needs to make it better - a single medium? better stats? it needs something though, for sure.

The Starlight Scarab from Underworld lets you mount a ballistic small on the centre small turret, which gives it a bit of a nudge, I think.

Bug Reports & Support (modded) / Re: Apogee flaming out without cause
« on: June 24, 2019, 04:39:08 AM »
One of the mods I play with has a hull mod that deploys mines on the battlefield and is the cause of many of my flameouts.  Might be the same for you if you use any of the more popular shipsets.
And what mod was that?

Sounds like Arsenal Expansion's anti-ship mine bays.

Bug report: the Mandarine currently has zero cooldown on the ship system.

Having experimented further with this, I can say that Starsector does *not* like it if you have only the ID and the changes you want to "lock in" in a line in a csv.

IE, if you only want to make a ship which is unboardable boardable, you need that ship's entire stat-line in your CSV, otherwise Starsector throws an error and won't launch.

That's intended behaviour; according to the javadoc, it merges by rows, not by fields.

JSONArray getMergedSpreadsheetDataForMod(java.lang.String idColumn,
                                         java.lang.String path,
                                         java.lang.String masterMod)
Useful for building a mod that allows other mods to override some of its data. Merges on spreadsheet level only; rows with matching ids get replaced by non-master rows. If multiple non-master rows have the same id, one will be picked in an undefined manner.

Discussion with Alex about row replacement vs field merging in this thread makes it clear that it is intended that mods should be allowed to override data files by blanking out a field in the csv (otherwise you could not).

Hmm. I mean, it does merge, it just merges spreadsheets, not row contents. Clarified that in the comments.

I think the way you're expecting it to work would restrict a mod to a specific set of column changes, where when you're merging json, you'd really want it do be on a per-item basis.

E.G. a mod couldn't 1) add an "eggs" column but also 2) change any other data for an existing animal. Unless an empty cell didn't count as that row having that column but that would mean a mod couldn't blank out a cell. It just gets very hacky.

That ... is very cool.



The damages done by the Tactical Laser are definitively under-reported. This is systematic.

As mentioned in the OP, damage is raw damage, doesn't take reductions from armour/shield efficiency into account, which is why some weapon types report what seems to be much higher amounts of damage done compared to other weapons (very high dps, very low damage per shot frag is most conspicuous, although comparing how much similar KE and HE weapons have done to armour+hull/shield is also pretty noticeable).

Would that account for what you've seen?

I don't actually have strong feelings on a lot of GMDA colour boats because they're too rare early on and too fragile when I find them. I've bought the Green Lasher a few times because it's a pretty good shoot-and-scoot gunboat if I know dampened mounts, but most of the rest felt too OP-starved or fragile to do well in later game.

I was thinking of suggesting having them be more common and show up in more indie and pirate fleets, but making a line of powerful and desirable super/playerships might be a more interesting direction to take the mod.

How do I get bounties to spawn with large menacing fleets? I tried setting "maxShipsInAIFleet" to 100 but this seems to only result in a few more kites/shuttles/fluff.
My goal is to have a 50+ ship bounty fleet with, like, 5+ onslaughts or something. A big fleet vs big fleet challenge.

The major factor which affects bounty fleet size is how many bounties you've done before. To make the AI get more powerful fleets in general, you need to defeat bounty fleets, which slowly increases how many points are allocated to future bounties to generate their fleet with.

Increasing maxShipsInAIFleet generally makes the game easier because the AI will generate larger fleets of smaller ships. When the game goes over the AI's fleet size limit, it consolidates into larger ships. That said, it's nice to increase the fleet point limit when there are too many capital ships generated per fleet and battles turn into a slog.

So is there any reason why there are no mod stations?
Is it just that modders haven't had time to make new sprites and implement them or is there another reason?

Shadowyards and Blue have custom stations. They do seem like a lot of work though.

General Discussion / Re: War on Vanilla
« on: June 05, 2019, 05:21:54 AM »
Thunders and Claws could probably both stand to be more expensive. They're probably the most threatening fighter at their price point against most of the enemies in the game.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7