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.

31

Suggestions / Re: [0.9a RC10] Autofit doesn't consider SO when choosing weapon ranges

« on: May 06, 2019, 07:24:14 AM »

Oh, here's a thought: what if instead of

Code

level += random.nextInt(20);

it were something like

Code

level += random.nextInt(25*Math.max(0.35,faction.getDoctrine().getAutofitRandomizeProbability())

? That would leave pirates with just as wacky autofit choices while toning things down a lot for more resource-laden factions.

Also, noted re: subforum & separate thread critieria

32

Suggestions / Re: [0.9a RC10] Autofit doesn't consider SO when choosing weapon ranges

« on: May 05, 2019, 09:59:10 PM »

Oh, what the ... I merged the threads, and it looks like that ate the second thread somehow? Except when I went to reply to it, the 2nd post was there. You didn't delete it or something, did you?

ehehehe... I was trying to edit it but missed the touch target. I was intending to add:


I should note that percentage is assuming ties favor smaller weapons because they happen to get evaluated first.

This effect is largely a result of how large the random level adjustment is relative to the level difference between mount sizes; reducing the random range to 0..9 instead of 0..19 drops the chance of undersizing down to 24.5% which I think would have a much better feel to it.

33

Suggestions / [0.9a RC10] Autofit doesn't consider SO when choosing weapon ranges

« on: May 05, 2019, 09:06:24 PM »

Autofit doesn't consider short range weapons unless the variant template calls for one. Unfortunately, the inverse does not get applied for ships with Safety Overrides, causing long range weapons which are considered "better" because of their long range to be favored even though their better-ness can't actually be used. And since the short range heavy machine gun & assault chaingun are a major contributor to the strength of Safety Overrides, this can significantly harm their combat effectiveness.

34

Bug Reports & Support / [0.9a RC10] Autofit randomization re-rolls fighter alternate categories

« on: May 05, 2019, 08:23:19 PM »

Spotted while reading the autofit code:

Code: java

			FighterWingSpecAPI desired = Global.getSettings().getFighterWingSpec(desiredWingId);
			if (desired == null) continue;
			
			//List<String> categories = getCategoriesInPriorityOrder(desired.getTags()); 
			List<String> categories = desired.getAutofitCategoriesInPriorityOrder();
			
			List<String> alternate = altWeaponCats.get(desired);

I suspect that is intended to altFighterCats.

35

Mods / Re: Starship Legends - Personality for Your Ships and Crew

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:58:18 PM »

Do you guys think change 4 would do a good job of accomplishing the same goal?

There's a weakness with change 4: the order of traits is fixed, so even if it gives you good/bad traits to balance them out, the ones you got first will always be more significant than the ones trying to balance them out (until you push them all up to Legendary, I suppose)

36

Mods / Re: Starship Legends - Personality for Your Ships and Crew

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:34:24 PM »

Some trait balance notes:

* Agile is really insignificant relative to other traits. At Legendary, it's a 10% maneuverability bonus, making it 1/5th of Evasive Action level 1 (and actually not even that, because Evasive Action maneuverability applies double to turn acceleration), while many other traits are on par with level 2 or level 3 skills.
* Turret durability and turn rate also seem disproportionately low, thought I don't think the margin is as large as agile
* Logistics mods like fuel & cargo capacity range from completely irrelevant to make-or-break, depending on the ship's base capacity. This is particularly significant for tankers & freighters, since it can make them dramatically better/worse at their one & only job, and they are cheap to replace until you get the lucky trait draw. I think flat, ship class-scaled bonuses would work a lot better. (and perhaps non-zero minimum thresholds before they can be applied at all)


Aside from that, the trait chance for reserved civilian ships is waaaay too high. I've got a fleet full of Legendary tugs, and they're still pulling >100% new trait chance from some battles. I think the multiplier could stand to be dropped down to 15%-20%, and more importantly, I think the trait chance should be clamped to 100% before applying that multiplier.

37

Mods / Re: Starship Legends - Personality for Your Ships and Crew

« on: May 02, 2019, 08:51:38 PM »

with hull damage taken in battle being the primary factor.

Are you sure about the in battle part? Because my civilian vessels are rapidly accumulating traits while traveling through hyperspace storms... one of my Ox tugs has rickety hardpoints and a worn-out targeting computer now. I know the description says they can be superstitions but that's a bit extreme...

Other things I've noticed:

• You can get the same trait twice
• You can get a trait and it's directly opposing trait at the same time
• Restoring at a shipyard wipes the reputation

38

General Discussion / Re: Memorable features from the past

« on: May 01, 2019, 09:18:10 PM »

All ballistics had ammo.  A later 0.6.5 release gave them charges like autopulse.  After that, ballistics became unlimited.

Ha, I'd forgotten that one! I remember thinking it was a disappointing change because I thought it would make weapons too same-y. Funny, in hindsight, because I find the trade-offs I have to weigh when choosing between weapon types now far more compelling than I did back then.

39

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes

« on: April 25, 2019, 09:06:23 PM »

Oh no, my water world isn't going to be able to feed a hundred quintillion people now!?

40

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes

« on: April 25, 2019, 07:34:00 PM »

And two new capital ships!

41

General Discussion / Re: It's time to do away with the smaller fleet deployment penalty

« on: April 23, 2019, 03:41:47 PM »

I have to agree with this: the deployment penalty is not a good game mechanic. It's a snowball mechanic - whichever party is in the better position to win, gets an extra bonus to make extra sure they do win.

The difference is that the enemy side doesn't have a player piloting one of their ships. Not to mention that the size of fleets is hardly the only factor that wins or loses the battle.

I don't disagree! If it were a flat 5:6 ratio, always outnumbering the player by a modest amount (perhaps only for a higher-than-normal difficulty), I'd be quite happy. A scaling ratio that largely serves to add an additional 2:3 ship penalty to only the hardest fights while making the easiest fights even easier makes me rather less happy.

42

General Discussion / Re: It's time to do away with the smaller fleet deployment penalty

« on: April 20, 2019, 07:32:09 PM »

I have to agree with this: the deployment penalty is not a good game mechanic. It's a snowball mechanic - whichever party is in the better position to win, gets an extra bonus to make extra sure they do win. Except that it's even worse than that, because it literally never benefits the player (when the player's fleet is the larger, the enemy probably doesn't have enough ships to hit the deployment limit regardless, and even if they do the supply cost severely deters the player from trying to levarage it) - so the only effect on the player is that you get punished for having a 30 ship hard cap that does not apply to your opponents at all.

43

General Discussion / Re: Colony economy

« on: April 14, 2019, 02:08:28 PM »

Pro-tip: The Hegemony & Tri-Tachyon colluded to plant warning beacons outside of many of the best systems to scare people away in a Scooby-Doo style real estate scam.

44

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes

« on: April 07, 2019, 04:54:22 PM »

False.  I have gotten duplicates of known blueprints from ruins, both exploration and tech-mining.  Also, I looked at the code, and it's just hullmods that have duplicates filtered out.  (And even then, only from exploration sources; you can get duplicate hull-mod specs off of defeated enemy fleets, for example.)

Look harder then, because TechMining.generateCargoForGatheringPoint clearly filters out known ship, weapon, fighter, and industry blueprints in addition to hullmods.


Edit: I think it would be nice if the filtered out blueprints rolled AI core replacements. I've got 5 synchrotrons and 23 corrupted nanoforges in storage but not enough Alpha or Beta cores! Plus gamma cores to buy forgiveness from factions after covert raids for blueprints would be nice 

As for tech mining, I think it would work better to roll a list of "special"/"first" finds up front and then trickle them out over a couple years. I'd rather have the fixes in 0.9.1 and wait for 0.10 for that, though.

45

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9.1a (In-Dev) Patch Notes

« on: April 07, 2019, 07:56:31 AM »

My issue is more that late game even a fresh colony will have bad loot, as blueprints don't replicate so instead the ruins get nothing.

Blueprints do replicate, actually; it's hullmod specifications that get filtered out if you already know them.

It's both - ruins won't give duplicate (known) blueprints or hull mods. And since you don't get to reroll the duplicate blueprints or anything, it does indeed mean the quality & value of ruins finds greatly diminishes as a game advances.

Incidentally, the odds of rolling three hits from the set of {alpha core, synchrotron, nanoforge} on the first month of tech mining is about 1 in 120.


I don't think it's a very good design. You're very likely to get a huge jackpot for doing almost nothing early game, and it's all downhill from there.