Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

16

Suggestions / Re: Add more rare loot to (red) Nexuses

« on: March 18, 2024, 05:29:30 AM »

Seconding this. Currently you are only incentivized to engage a Nexus if it is in a system you want to colonize. Otherwise even a one-time bounty payment is negligible compared to the opportunity cost of removing Remnant spawns as the loot you can gain (AI cores, weapons) is the same Remnant Ordos have, except Ordos spawn infinitely while the Nexus is a one-off.

Isn't that what the planets with the extensive ruins conditions are for in such systems?

Ruins, on the whole, may have some of the loot you want, but with their unreliable nature I doubt many people are going around the sector and colonising every planet with ruins. Also, it's way more time for ruins to even provide their initial payoff.

17

Suggestions / Allow gate deployment over existing structures

« on: March 15, 2024, 06:11:43 AM »

Just a minor annoyance I've found with the gate deployment. So once the Gate Hauler arrives in a system you've specified, it needs a stable location to deploy the gate carried. If the system you are deploying it in already has your colonies with patrols, they will set up Comms, Nav and Sensor Relays in every possible location. Now, if the Gate Hauler's location is sufficiently far away from the stable location, then by the time you arrive back one of your patrols will have constructed some kind of a relay there (if no targets are present, patrols will race to the recently emptied stable location). A small change and solution to this could be the option to deploy the gate on a Relay you already own (replacing it in the process).

18

General Discussion / Re: Officer Limit

« on: February 10, 2024, 03:09:40 PM »

It's good to know there is a mod solving an issue, which I believe this very much is. For there is a very real gap between Alex's and the community's vision, or even just between different parts of the community. Just look at the vast amount of mods and the changes they bring.

This is a general discussion thread about officer limit. Mentioning a mod exists for it is very much a relevant contribution here. Not everyone knows there is a mod for the actual thing. If you want a change in the base game, that would be a suggestion thread, don't you think?

19

General Discussion / Re: What does reputation with random NPCs do?

« on: February 10, 2024, 02:14:45 PM »

Comissions can provide some additional dialogue choices for story missions and unique encounters or just for some missions in general. Those however scale off faction rep. Im my experience there is little, if any, effect for reputation with single characters.

20

Suggestions / Combat Extraction timer to stop after successful extraction

« on: February 07, 2024, 12:10:56 PM »

I think it makes sense that you have to get the guy out of prison in a given time before he talks, gets transferred elsewhere, or possibly executed. But the mission expiring after successful extraction makes no sense. What are you going to do now with the extracted faction agent, criminal or whatever in your fleet? And why would their faction not want them back after a brief stay with your fleet?

In all its shameful seriousness though, there were too many times when I tried to chain missions together just to fail the extraction because I got distracted.

21

Suggestions / Re: Converted Fighter Bays to be made usable for any carriers

« on: February 06, 2024, 04:17:18 PM »

Plus, most carriers aren't really that obsolete. Even condor has a role tbh... The only one currently I would consider being kinda weird is the Drover... But I've not given it much of a chance tbh.

Valid points there, though I did not mean that Condors, Moras or other carriers would be obsolete in general. They are very detrimental to your fleet composition however when you want your carrier skills to focus on other carriers' fighter bays.

As it is you can use the skill for Shepherds, Tempests and base Ventures. If you go all the way in the tech skill tree to use an Apex with this hullmod then Ludd forgive you, because I most certainly won't. Same goes for Tempests, maybe even more so (the built-in wings being the same, but more essential for them I believe). That leaves a grand total of two ships which are both applicable and a good candidate for the hullmod. In contrast, Converted Hangar can be added to anything bigger than a frigate and not already having fighter bays. No restrictions. Additionally you can add Converted Hangar while on the move, not needing a station to dock at. If either of them should require a dock to build in, it should be the other way around! At least per my understanding it would require way more effort to fit an "improvised flight deck", than to simply not use an existing flight deck and store stuff in it instead.

To look at it from a narrative perspective Condor carriers are basically "sawn-off" Tarsuses (Tarsi?), which are freighters. Moras, as mentioned, were demilitarized and used for "surveying, mining, construction, drone handling, and used as mobile drydocks". Gemini are cargo haulers with a fighter bay used originally for mining pods. It would make sense for these ships to be re-purposed again as freighters when needed by the ragtag polities of the Sector.

From a gameplay perspective, even the tooltip suggests that the hullmod was created with all carriers in mind: 20% crew reduction per removed fighter bay, maximum capped at 80% (4 bays). From the 4 ships you can use this hullmod on only the Apex has more than 1 bays, and it doesn't use crew space anyway. Furthermore, as fleet skills have a soft/flexible cap, it is important to be able to regulate the actual number of fighter bays you have, so that you get the most out of the skills you build up.

To sum up: my preferred version of the skill would work on all carriers, use the same bonuses it currently has and would not require a dock to build in.
Another idea would be to make it more the opposite of CH, decreasing the DP costs by 2 per Fighter bay removed, but that may be stretching it a bit too far. Alternatively that could be a separate militarized version of the hullmod.

22

Suggestions / Converted Fighter Bays to be made usable for any carriers

« on: February 06, 2024, 09:03:52 AM »

Currently the hullnod can only be used for ships with fixed fighter bays, such as Shepherds or base Venture. However it would be rather welcome to be able to slap it on the occasional Gemini or Condor, so that they don't decrease the fighter skills' effectiveness once they have outlived their usefulness. Or possibly when I just want to use an Astral as a highly inefficient freighter .
Preferably removing the docking restriction for using it would also help in slapping on the hullmod on obsolete carriers while on the move.

23

Suggestions / Re: Skills that promote SP expenditure should help to that end

« on: February 05, 2024, 04:59:19 AM »

Building in S-Mods does give bonus XP, see image below. Making officer skills elite does not grant any, however mentoring them does give 100%. Recovering random hulls can also give XP. But if you need a SP for it already, then you're down a bit already.

That being said, the SP sink is real if you want to really push your endgame fleet to their limits. I do not really like that you use SPs to build in S-mods. I think it's a waste missing out on underlining the potential, or rather the importance of having good heavy industry. These are supposed to be extensive modifications, not something any spacer can just do while on the move. Even just having to be docked at any station would make more sense. Though I'd far better like a system where S-modding costs plain old credits, and the number of S-mods are dependent on either your or your commissioner's colonies' heavy industry capacity, for example you would require an Orbital Works with a nanoforge to S-mod at all. Say 1 with Corrupted Nanoforge, 2 with Pristine Nanoforge and +1 if the Orbital Works is upgraded via SP.

Even if one wants to be independent, military production contacts, or pirate production contacts could possibly offer to S-mod ships for a price, hence a colony would not be a necessity to have S-mods in your fleet.

Spoiler

0.97a unmodded

[close]

24

Bug Reports & Support / Release date is off by a year

« on: February 03, 2024, 01:02:52 PM »

So looking at the 0.97a release happening, something looked a bit off 

Spoiler

[close]

25

Suggestions / Re: Make the administrator of Ancyra a contact

« on: February 03, 2024, 02:23:54 AM »

You could even meet on Eventide. Or could be askes when on Ancyra whether you were anywhere near the Aztalan relay, you know, for reasons. So a bit of flavour would be nice. But just being a contact would suffice, if nothing else.

26

Suggestions / Make the administrator of Ancyra a contact

« on: February 02, 2024, 03:14:55 PM »

Replaying the tutorial for 0.97a got me thinking, the guy you meet trying to dock with the Academy becomes a contact when you visit him later, but the administrator who hires you to help save the whole Galatia system from being isolated does not? After so much you've been through together? I think there should be an option to make him a contact after the Stabilize the Jump-points tutorial mission.

27

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.97a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: February 02, 2024, 12:21:25 PM »

Boy oh boy, Escort Package here I come 

28

General Discussion / Re: What are the best ways to use Converted Hangar in 0.96/0.97

« on: February 02, 2024, 09:22:07 AM »

Hold on isn't spamming low DP fighters bad for fighter skills due to the softcaps?

Indeed it is, after 8 bays they get gradually worse. Looking at it in context however, I maintain that while you are in the early game and very unlikely to reach the DP limit in any deployment, there is no downside in slapping a CH on any ship on which you can spare the OP for it. It's a force multiplier that has basically no cost besides the LPC and the kamika... pilots.

I find that Carrier Group is especially useful in the early game, giving you access Converted Hangar, Expanded Deck Crew and also Converted Fighter Bay. Fighter Uplink can be picked instead as the starter if you don't expect to lose many fighters (most likely for bombers), but overall CG is better because the life expectancy of the average fighter jock is just about the same as that of the ordinary pirate attacking the player. I would venture so far to say that both skills are decent boosts early on until about ~50% base efficiency. Then it's time to remove the unnecessary CHs and rethink the fleet composition, maybe even reskill to more useful things.

Once you have a decent line-up you can use CFB to eliminate the fighter bays affecting the skill negatively. (Eg. From Shepherds you don't intend to deploy or Ventures  in general.) That being said, it's a bit gamey and I dislike having to micromanage to avoid the skill deteriorating (and I dislike dynamic skill effects in general and having to recalculate their effectiveness once I get a few new ships and the work around it, but that's a different matter).

29

General Discussion / Re: What are the best ways to use Converted Hangar in 0.96/0.97

« on: January 30, 2024, 03:24:02 AM »

Title. I like the idea of adding more sources of damage that fly over friendly ships as well as distracting the enemy. CH looks like it could be a good deal with the cheaper fighters. What are the best uses in the current patch, or theory for the next patch?

Generally speaking in the early game, while you don't usually max out the deployment limit, there are no downsides of running CH on all ships where you've got the OP to spare. Especially if you have the Carrier Group and Fighter Uplink skills. Talons and Wasps are fine as a distraction, but only do much after a critical mass is reached. Even then, decent PD will finish them off quickly. Nevertheless, Theory 1 works really fine up to a point (sometime around mid-game).

For Theory 2 I'd add some Cruisers into the mix. There are a few ships which absolutely give you some room to add CH onto them. A Xyphos wing is always a good idea if that given ship won't be in the thick of it. I usually run a Dominator as a flagship with a wing of those attached, so shield pressure is guaranteed. I have had some success with CH on Auroras as well and sometimes I tend to give Paragons and Conquests CH, however there I usually go with some bombers, Cobras, Daggers or sometimes Perdition. It's not the most optimal choice, you - the player - can make it work, but the AI tends to send them in alone way ahead of the capital causing dead bombers and no rockets.
So to sum up, Theory 2 kinda works, Xyphos is good with everything, but bombers are not something I'd give the AI.

Theory 3 is a bit tricky. Some ships I'd call "missile spam" already have conventional hangars, such as the Condor, the Mora or the Legion (both variants). So no real need (or actual possibility) for CH implementation there. Enforcers certainly have the missile slots to compete in this category as well, but I'd consider them early game acquisitions, so more of something relevant for Theory 1. With the upcoming Escort Package there may be some new uses for them though, such as escorting capitals with a wind of Xyphos, we'll see. For other expressly missile spam ships the Pegasus and Gryphon come immediately to mind, however I'm not sure for either of those. I did make use of Gryphons with CH in 0.91, but that was a bit different back then. Now I'd say giving it a wing of Flash or Piranha could be ok, but that's just about it. For the Pegasus I would say you can spend your OP better with other stuff, don't really think adding CH would be a decent use of OP (and DP) there.

All this said, everything can be decent, even good if you spam them enough. So using an unofficered Support Doctrine Gryphon fleet with Derelict Operations and CHs on all ships, then spamming whatever fighters you're more comfortable with would get you results, but on its lonesome on a more varied fleet I'd say stick a lot of missiles on it and bring a Mora or Legion and as mark.sucka wrote put Piranhas in every slot you can and watch the entire screen get carpet bombed during battles.

30

General Discussion / Re: Neutrino detector needs a rework or outright removal

« on: January 29, 2024, 08:01:19 AM »

a large part of granting Neutrino Detector as a quest reward is making sure players can go with either Navigation or Sensors and not worry about missing out on capabilities. (Or skip the Technology tree entirely.)

Welp, where's my Academy-provided Remote Survey ability then? It's a toolbar ability just like the previous two, but you need to get quite deep in Industry before you have it unlike the others for which you basically just have to start a new game to get immediately (and then get a single level to get the other, but you get my point). And I'd say it brings less value than Transverse Jump, but is arguably on a somewhat similar footing as Neutrino Detector, so I find there are no strong reasons why that ability does not have a skilless version unlike the other two. But I'm starting to go on a tangent here. Basically I'd like both the Navigation and Sensors skills' Transverse Jump and Neutrino Detector components to, well, have a reason to exist and actually add something even after having completed the Academy questline.

give Neutrino Detector bonuses based on your fleet's Sensor Strength

All of the above aside this could be a really good bonus. I'd be content with that.