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 - DeMatt

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
31
General Discussion / Re: Can't make any moolah?
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:57:03 PM »
Hello! I have been playing this game for a bit and I can't figure out why I can't make money.
...
Anybody able to help me figure out if my game has some sort of space famine or if it is just that I suck at the game lol
It's "you suck at the game".   :P  More generously, it's "you don't yet understand the underlying mechanics behind the game", added to "the start of Starsector is always the hardest part".

I try to buy low and sell high but that never works for me. I buy from a place that has 5000 food and sell to a place that has 10 food and I end up losing 28,000 credits.
The idea behind the market system is that most trade happens invisibly - there are megacorporations which have long-term contracts to handle trade, and the goods that end up on the Open Market are merely the leftovers.  Open Market trade, therefore, suffers from a 30% tariff - buy a good listed at 100 credits, pay 130;  sell a good listed at 100 credits, receive 70.  Similarly, that 5000 food, if on a highly-populated forgeworld like Chicomoztoc, might represent much less than a day's worth of rations for the populace, while the 10 food, on a small moon with a hydroponics plant, might be merely the hour's excess production.

Therefore, there's three things you should look for in trying to trade profitably:
  • Watch the prices, not the quantities.  This isn't the X-series, where stock = price.  Particularly watch out for exceeding local demand - any planet will buy any good, but unless there's official local demand, there's a steep dropoff in price as you sell goods.  And even with "official" local demand, there's limits on how much it demands.
  • Keep an eye out for trade disruptions in the news and on the Intel panel.  Just because those megacorps have the contracts, doesn't mean that they ignore piracy and open warfare.
  • The Black Market doesn't charge tariffs, so buying and selling on it can actually be profitable.  But the authorities get annoyed when you refuse to pay them.

Plus the costs for traveling usually end up too high. Though that may just be because I am using a modded faction(Or several ;))
Mods shouldn't affect travel costs;  if they are, I suggest you dump the mods and play "basic" Starsector.

I have tried killing pirates but that does not get me anywhere, the repairs usually end up costing me more than I make.
Unless you're a super-ace who can solo system defense fleets with a single frigate, combat is not intended to be profitable in and of itself.  Planetary governments sometimes offer bounties;  these can make combat profitable with some skill and luck.  It's worth noting that Corvus (the starting system in unmodified Starsector) starts off with an active bounty.

32
Fan Media & Fiction / Re: Starsector Streaming Channels
« on: December 31, 2015, 04:55:17 AM »
Ye gods, do any of these non-forumite streamers get past the single-frigate stage?

33
Suggestions / Re: Some suggestions for Luddic Path variants
« on: December 31, 2015, 04:52:38 AM »
My thought is that is not enough vents and capacitors for AIs. They are not players and plan their vents and capacitor usage, they are reactive users.

Having low venting meaning they often will end up not shooting and sitting there with shields up.
Having low capacitors means they will get easily overloaded by deciding to shield tank stuff like LMG and autocannon shots.


Atlest 7-8 capacitors are needed to prevent lashers from instea gibbed from getting hit by a kenitic volly from destoryers and above.
Atlest 5 vents are needed so they can shoot without baisically getting themself overloaded within a second and various disaters happening.
True enough, but the only design here that doesn't have passive dissipation exceed shield maintenance plus all weapons is the Buffalo-2.  And that one doesn't have a shield to worry about.

Putting the Lasher-L-Assault into the simulator, it won 2 out of 3 matches one-on-one against both the Lasher-CS and the Lasher-Standard.  A fourth match against the Lasher-Standard got aborted after the Lasher-L-Assault decided to reverse into a map corner... not because the enemy was pressing it, but just because.

To acoomadate for this I can say you can drop the missles and magazine mods.
If, as with the existing Luddic Path variants, SO gets moved to a permanent hullmod (and I thus didn't have to spend OP on it), then those 15 OP I assigned to SO can easily be reallocated to capacitors and vents.  But I think being able to easily overload a shielded Luddic Path ship is a good thing.

They are made for long engagements that 1. low tech ships are not made for, and 2. goes aginst the doctrine of ludd and hegenomy.
Given the low ammo counts and high refire rates on most small missiles, I disagree.  In these cases, it's less "long engagement" and more "bigger punch".

Your Bralwer-L assualt is a underuse of the Brawler class frigates. Brawlers are designed as fire support as they carry alot of weapon mounts with acclerated ammo, as the flaw is the terrible shield coverage. With an unstable injector its going to act as a comical relief ship as it will gurantee to be a spinning wreck flying off into space right at the start of the battle.

Also Brawlers themselves are expensive and rare enough that they should have better weaponry.
It's supposed to be "thematic", not necessarily "powerful".  I did start running it through simulations, and it seems that the Thumper underperforms even more than I thought it did, so I swapped out the Hammers for LMGs and lost the Unstable Injector to pay for it.  That got it winning, hopefully not by too much.

If you want a light assult Brawler capable in AI hands I suggest:

1x Heavy machine gun, 1x Chain assault gun. SO, Automated repair, and durable engine assembly.
That's too powerful, it'll eat players all day every day.

If you want a more "primitive design"

How about a Cerberus with a chain assult gun and a dual light autocannon in the front.
Feel free to spec it out.

Baisically, I want to warn you putting Unstable injector on AI ships, as they are nutoriously bad at keeping their engines out of harms way that once they burn out, they are dead, espechially friagates. (as they cannot keep formation and distance, allowing maximise shield arc protection and limiting firing options on them)
I wanted speed and more speed on them, so it's either Unstable Injector or Augmented Engines - and Augmented Engines would increase the burn speed and make the fleet harder to avoid.  If that makes their engines a weak spot, so much the better.

Also on your Luddic Path hullmods. The Ludds are well known to be food producers and supporting large populations, so people might be a cheaper resource then ships.

So how about we reverse that Reduce crew to something similar to :

Increase minimum crew required, increase hull and armor values (better maintain work cuz more people), also no flux increase as that is TECH STUFF, AND TECH STUFF IS BLASHPEMY. Also crew accomidation on ships are increased as you know, they might get along better with one and other and you can fit more people without problems arising. Also faster weapon and engine repairs, cuz also, more people.
Luddic CHURCH is about the rural, ascetic lifestyle.  Luddic PATH is the destroy-all-technology type.  I don't see Luddic Path fanatics as being interested in such fripperies as "showers", "medical stations", or "additional bunks", not when they can fill the space with more HOLY EXPLOSIVES.

34
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?

35
Suggestions / Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« on: December 15, 2015, 10:07:29 AM »
With the change to "Hybrid" small mounts, I think the Hammerhead is almost to the right power level, as that lets you slot in more ballistics to take advantage of your Ammo Feeder.  I think, if I was going to make any changes to it, it'd be to tweak up its Ordnance Points.  85, I think, would be about right.

The Venture needs more of a buff, I'd say, to make it stand out in the cruiser range.  In this case, I'd increase the size of the cargo hold - 750 would seem to be in the right range, and would make it more of the "mobile base" I think it's intended to be.  Bumping its burn speed would be too much of a buff.

36
Suggestions / Re: Civilian Hull Debuff: Why?
« on: December 15, 2015, 10:01:59 AM »
Quote
For some civilian ships you can get Skins that cancel out the civilian mod: 'hegemony militarized'.  I'm not sure it's available for the Venture, but I know it is for the Buffalo.
"Militarized Hegemony Auxiliary" doesn't "cancel out" or even "offset" the "Civilian-grade Hull" penalty.
Yes it does.  I mean, not directly, but it's consistent for the Auxiliary skin.  Here's the code.

Code
{
"baseHullId":"buffalo",
"skinHullId":"buffalo_hegemony",
"hullName":"Buffalo (A)",
"baseValueMult":1.5,
"ordnancePoints":22,
"descriptionId":"buffalo",  # optional
"spriteName":"graphics/ships/buffalo/buffalo_hegemony.png",
"removeWeaponSlots":[], # ids
"removeEngineSlots":[], # indices, as engine slots have no id in the .ship file
"removeBuiltInMods":["civilian_hull"], # hullmod ids
"removeBuiltInWeapons":[], # weapon slot ids
"builtInMods":["heg_militarized"],
"builtInWeapons":{
    },
}
A) my point stands - the "Militarized Hegemony Auxiliary" mod, on its own, does nothing to sensor functionality, while the "Civilian-grade Hull" mod does nothing else;
B) if the Buffalo-A is supposed to remove the base Buffalo's "Civilian-grade Hull", well it doesn't.  Buffalo-A's have both mods.

37
Suggestions / Re: Civilian Hull Debuff: Why?
« on: December 15, 2015, 09:18:48 AM »
I just don't get this debuff at all. I mean, civilian ships are common enough to be sold everywhere. If it's so common, why would it arouse MORE suspicion?

From a reasonable perspective it also makes no sense: a smuggler, spy, or other clandestine persons disguise themselves as civilians to stay hidden. Why does a peashooting paper-dingy arouse more suspicion than an armor-clad bristling-with-gunboat?

From a gameplay perspective, it means you can't use these ships because it's a giant "HERE I AM, COME KILL ME WHILE I'M TOO WEAK AND VULNERABLE TO USE ANYTHING BETTER.". Civilian ships WANT to get by unnoticed because they're being targeted by pirates.
Eh... the way I see it, "civilian" ships have less efficient scanners, which means A) they're less sensitive, thus the reduction in sensor range, and B) they put out more power to try and offset point A, thus the increase in sensor profile.  Add on less stealthy engines, reflective instead of absorbent hull plating (think the difference between radar-reflective steel and radar-absorbent carbon fiber), and you get the ingame penalty.

It's not so much that they're suspicious, it's that they're detectable.

For some civilian ships you can get Skins that cancel out the civilian mod: 'hegemony militarized'.  I'm not sure it's available for the Venture, but I know it is for the Buffalo.
"Militarized Hegemony Auxiliary" doesn't "cancel out" or even "offset" the "Civilian-grade Hull" penalty.

In the description, it is implied that during the time of the Domain, the Tarsus is a military supply ship that travels in convoys, making it odd that it wouldn't be built to the same stealthy standards as military ships. It wasn't intended to be used by civilians.
The Tarsus was built tough, not sneaky.  A freighter suitable for operations within e.g. a solar storm or an asteroid belt.  That it often expected to travel in convoys, rather than singly, would make it more likely to be LESS sneaky - why try and hide the convoy, when you can use it as bait for raiders?

38
General Discussion / Re: Trident and Longbow... EVER?
« on: December 11, 2015, 04:38:23 AM »
Had a look through the factions files... apparently not even the Tritach use Tridents at the moment.  So no, they don't spawn.

I suppose part of the reason the Longbow is inactive is because of the fighter AI's habit of spamming missiles immediately.  Thunders, for example, will promptly fling their Harpoons on sighting any non-fighter, heedless of such niceties as "point defense", "shields", "flares", or even "occluding rocks".  And while Thunders can continue to contribute with their Ion Cannon and Swarmers, Longbows are stuck with just a Burst PD Laser once their Sabot is fired.

39
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Dockyard captain switching repair cost.
« on: December 09, 2015, 03:34:06 PM »
My first post still seems like a bug though. But I guess that's for Alex to decide.
I'm afraid I'm not seeing it?  Let me run through an example:

  • Start a new game (Honest Trader, cargo shuttle, Normal, manual assignment (1 Combat Aptitude, everything else in Leadership)).
  • This character therefore has a Cerberus at 62% max CR and a Hermes at 60% max CR.
  • Go to the Abandoned Terraforming Platform - no repairs required.
  • While at the ATP, switch your captain to the Hermes.  The Cerberus's max CR drops to 60% while the Hermes's climbs to 62%.  Their current CRs are 62% and 60% respectively.
  • You now need repairs to fix the Hermes's current CR.  Do them - now both ships have 62% current CR.
  • Go fly around for a bit.  The Cerberus's current CR drops to its max of 60%, while the Hermes stays at 62%.

What about this sequence do you consider a bug?

40
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Dockyard captain switching repair cost.
« on: December 09, 2015, 03:16:29 PM »
Yah I think that's that the problem. I just messed with it some more and noticed that switching to a stored ship will also cause a varying repair cost (depending on the hull + ordnance it seems). So maybe this isn't really a bug? I do also have all ordnance and CR related skills at 10.
Stored ships have their CR gradually rot to zero.  They're not receiving maintenance.

41
Suggestions / Re: Divert current course with Ctrl+left click
« on: December 09, 2015, 03:13:18 PM »
I rather like this idea.

But before it gets added, I'd like to see a "destination marker" added to the map.  It annoys me when I click on bare space in the map to e.g. avoid a star, and then sometimes doesn't start moving when I leave the map.  A destination marker would tell me that my destination has been accepted;  it would also remind me where I'm auto-flying if my travel gets interrupted, whether by the Ctrl-click diversion or by foreign fleets.

42
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Dockyard captain switching repair cost.
« on: December 09, 2015, 03:04:27 PM »
D'you have any CR-increasing skills?  Like Combat Aptitude?

'Cuz that repair-and-refit option occurs even if all you need to "repair" is the change in maximum CR caused by changing your captaincy.

43
General Discussion / Re: Dedicated AA Frigates and Suicidal Wolves
« on: December 09, 2015, 02:50:28 PM »
1. Do you keep dedicated AA ships in your fleet to combat fighter spam? For example, in simulation I used a lasher with 2x swarmers and 3x vulcans and it solo'd 10 wings of various fighters at once no problem (under my control). Do you do this, if so what ships and configs do you use?
I don't, but then I tend to stall out of the game around the time I pick up cruisers.

2. Wolves in my fleet tend to run into giant groups of enemies, get flanked, and get smeared pretty predictably. I want them to chase down stragglers without pulling suicide missions. Note this even happens when I have them "escorting" other ships. Any thoughts/fixes for this?
As previously mentioned, Cautious officers.  You can try longer-ranged weaponry - Tac Lasers instead of IRPLs or Ions - to convince them to stay farther away.  Or you can try less flux-intensive weapons - Pulse Laser instead of Heavy Blaster - to give the AI more elbow room on its flux management.

The AI might also be taking clues from your choice of missile:  choosing a Strike missile might encourage the AI to try and get in for the kill shot, whereas a support missile like a Salamander might keep it at a safe distance.

Omen can be quite funny, too, as their EMP just deactivates any fighter which doesn't has a shield (so every non-hightech fighter + wasps)
I think the Shade's better than the Omen, because rather than having to shield against enemy capitals, it can phase.  Plus it's got more weapon mounts.

44
The base sensor strength of a destroyer-class ship (like the Tarsus) is 2.  The Tarsus takes a 50% penalty for its Civilian-grade Hull, then there's another 50% penalty for the Augmented Engines.  These two penalties are added together to make 100%, instead of multiplied to make 75%, thus your Tarsus drops to 0 sensor strength.

Whether they should be adding or multiplying is debatable.

45
I think it makes it clear it's an AND.

It displays "Required: *reputation*" on one line, and "Required: commission" on the next.  Get one of those fulfilled, that line goes away - but the other one stays until you fulfill it too.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7