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: 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.

Messages - Serenitis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
Modding / Re: [0.9.1a] Langly's Terraforming
« on: September 18, 2019, 09:37:14 AM »
Having played with this a little bit I have some suggestions, which you may use/discard as you like.

Lore compatibility:
  • Disallow terraforming on gas giants
  • Don't remove gravity conditions

The Domain would probably struggle to build worlds from the core up, or manipulate gravity on a planetary scale. And we're just a forgotten backwater with barely any knowledge to start with, and most of that has been lost.
Imo if you do nothing else, not allowing gas giants to be redecorated would be the one thing I'd suggest as "do this!"

Gameplay considerations:
  • When a planet is terraformed, it might be worth seeing if you can also add resource conditions to match it's new habitability - addition of farmland / organics
  • Separate the mild weather condition from the final stage, so you have to really go all in to get the 'perfect' world
  • Possibly worth considering leaving the meteorites condition alone, as that's kind-of beyond the scope of a single planet, and also covered by the planetary shield mod (which is imo a more logical way of getting rid of that one)

I noticed the magnetic aura getting 'dropped' and laughed, as it behaves almost exactly like the "non-role construction ship" bug in Distant Worlds.
Also noted that decivilised doesn't get touched. Which is good. That's a social problem, not a terrforming one.
Might be worth seeing if you could randomise the barren textures you get, but it's not exactly a priority.
Overall: Impressed.
No crashes. The only weirdness is the magnetic field. Simple to use. Doesn't overface the player with "stuff".
Looks like the start of something p. neat. Looking forward to seeing how this takes shape.

Modding / Re: [0.9.1a] Langly's Terraforming
« on: September 17, 2019, 10:18:11 AM »
I have no idea what would be required for coding, but something that could take the hot/cold modifier of the starting planet and have the terraforming send it down a specific route.
This way you could keep the hot/cold modifiers in order to have separate projects for building mirrors/shades if you wanted to do that.

And you couldn't progress beyond a certain point until you build them, or those conditions are saved until last. So you might terraform a hot barren world as far as being arid or jungle, and then get stuck until you build a shade or terraform again to remove the hot condition.

It might also be worth considering a bit of randomness in the terraforming 'outputs'.
The type of a planet doesn't affect it's habitability ouside of the hab category it's assigned to, which is entirely invisible to the player.
You could use the original hot/cold condition to specifiy that a planet could eventually become A, B, C. Or X, Y, Z.

For example:

Your 'worst case' starting conditions would possibly be irradiated.
Terraforming might then change that to barren.
After that it might go to barren desert, and then on to desert.
There it could split depending on the hot/cold in to arid or jungle for hot. And tundra for cold. Terran Eccentric could be a 'wildcard' here.
After that you either get your shade/mirror building above, or just go straight to terran.

So basically: cat_irradiated -> cat_barren -> cat_hab1 -> cat_hab2 -> cat_hab3 -> cat_hab4
There exists a cat_hab5 for 'better than terran' worlds. Not sure if this is currently used or not, but it might be an idea to include it in the possible end results if you want the final output to be terran.

You could also slip in the various other planet types into branches leading in.
So a toxic, volcanic or cryo world might lead into barren, and then on down the chain.
While a frozen world might be a special case where you can't terraform it directly until you build some mirrors to melt all the ice etc. and turn it directly into a water world.

Another possibility to consider is to explicitly not have terran as the end result.
Instead having terran eccentric as the 'best' result to represent the imperfect technology of the sector.
Or even just stopping at the cat_3 worlds.
This would increase the variety of planet types instead of just having all terrans everywhere, and keep 'natural' terran worlds still being somewhat valuable.

This is all just text on the internet though. Hopefully some of it might even be useful to you.

Some candidates for the industry image pulled from GIS:


Modding / Re: Question about portraits
« on: September 13, 2019, 08:37:40 AM »
As for ensuring the game only uses those...I have no idea.

In the mod_info.json add the following new line:

This will overwrite the player.faction with whatever you create.
Note: You will need to define all the player flags and link to name lists plus a few other things as well, otherwise it may not work as intended (or at all).
The easiest way around this is to copy player.faction from core and alter that to suit, just to make sure anything you don't want/need to change is still being covered.

General Discussion / Re: level up administrators
« on: September 09, 2019, 09:52:05 AM »
They do not level up.
The less good ones are there as an option to expand your holdings 'on the cheap', or temporarily without commiting to paying a fairly large salary.

General Discussion / Re: How often do you undergun mounts?
« on: September 09, 2019, 09:48:06 AM »
Early / mid game this is by using 'cheaper' weapons due to lack of availability, and building for saturation rather than finesse.
Late game once blueprints have been found and caches recovered, ships will tend to become more specialised around a single weapon / role.

I generally don't downsize weapons if I can help it. But blanked mounts are not uncommon. Especially for assymetric builds.
Excepting some specialised loadouts missiles will always be fitted wherever possible because they are just too valuable a tool, and as pointed out above they (usually) don't generate flux. But they also allow ships to reach out and attack things from a distance.
Missiles are especially valuable for Safety Overrides ships due thier ignoring the range restriction.

Ships on the whole 'feel' like they just don't quite have enough OP to fit what you want on them. Even with loadout design. But iirc, sometime back it might have been mentioned that that was the intent behind the design - a perpetual feeling of "choose A or choose B, can't do both".

Suggestions / Re: Please allow the Dutch to buy your game.
« on: September 08, 2019, 02:55:00 AM »
So that's not an option for me.
Apologies, I had no idea such a requirement existed. I certainly doesn't here.
Curiosity spurred me to read about Dutch banking and payment options for overseas. It certainly seems like it could be easier....
The phone number could possibly be related to the SMS push notifications / 2factor validation things? But if you've been burned by something similar before I can understand your reaction.
I hope you can find a way around this.

Suggestions / Re: Please allow the Dutch to buy your game.
« on: September 08, 2019, 02:23:29 AM »
UK folk have the option to use a debit card.
Is there a reason this is not available to a wider range of places? It seems like by far the easiest and least circuitous method of purchasing things.

I don't know how much effort it would require to expand the availability of the debit option, but it will very likely not be zero.
Nor do I know how much return would be seen for doing so, and whether it would be 'worth' the effort.
All I can add is that if debit had not been an option, I would have never bought this game.

General Discussion / Re: Venture, why?
« on: September 05, 2019, 09:11:46 AM »
Id rather the removal of the fighter bay all together if it gives the Venture a Salvage Gantry

I'd prefer the greater flexibility of fighters, but the game really does need some more salvage oriented ships.
I could live with this tbh.

General Discussion / Re: Venture, why?
« on: September 04, 2019, 09:00:42 AM »
Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.

I think the salvage gantry might be a bridge too far considering this is the 'base' level cruiser in the game. It can already reduce survey costs.
But I very much agree that an unlocked fighter bay like versions past, would make the ship somewhat more attractive for general use.

One of the reasons the Venture exists in the fashion it does and is assigned to the default base_bp, is to give in-game factions without access to a heavy industry the ability to field at least something that does a passable job of being a fleet anchor.
With the limited ability act as a carrier, the Venture would be a little more effective in this role for the tradeoff that the OP cost of the fighters still has to come out of the ship's loadout thus reducing it's already limited combat potential. This incentivises the use of 'cheap' fighters, but still leaves the option to specialise in that direction if desired.

If this is still too unbalanced for your taste, you could also consider removing the fighter bay and giving the Venture a built-in converted hangar. This would effectively restrict it's use of bombers, and even further incentivise the use of the cheaper fighters.

General Discussion / Re: Overrated (overpriced) ships
« on: September 03, 2019, 09:53:19 AM »
A lot of these Oddy builds seem to rely on some kind of kinetic fighter support or missiles.

Which is tricky for me, personally, as in my current game my best weapons are the pulse laser and HE beam. So I can't really build a lot of these for my fleet.
Odyssey works reasonably well as a beam platform with HIL + Tac. But it really struggles against cruiser/capital shields without either Sabot pods or Longbows.
If you have them, Sabot pods are preferable since that allows you to fit 2x Xyphos for more beams and PD.
Without Sabot, you could use Salamander.
The AI loves protecting it's engines from heatseekers, which provides a convenient opportunity for shooting unshielded things. The Starsector equivalent of shouting "look! behind you!" at someone, and then hitting them when they turn round.

<Endurance Odyssey>
This is a neat build. If you took this down the beam route and used Tachyons instead, that might make the flux a little easier to manage, and give you a few extra OP for use elsewhere. But you'd lose hard flux damage from your guns.
You'd also lose the weird interaction the plasma bolts have with the drive system that flings them really hard in the direction of travel. Whether this is a gain or a loss is down to your preference. I imagine someone somewhere will have perfected aiming these things like sniper bolts.
You could also swap the Pila for Salamanders for the same reason as above.

General Discussion / Re: Ship classes balance
« on: September 02, 2019, 09:46:10 AM »
I'd highly recommend giving a short range onslaught a go however, tons of fun!
For those using Ship & Weapon Pack, there's an IBB ship called Flamebreaker which I politely suggest you consider recovering and flying into battle at least once just for the novelty.

General Discussion / Re: Venture, why?
« on: September 02, 2019, 08:51:34 AM »
Venture in early releases was a super hybrid.  It functioned more like a bigger Gemini (back when fighters were ships and not fancy missiles), and it was a good ship.  Still annoyingly slow, but useful.

Now, it is just a meat shield that can pump out few missiles.
Yes! Super Gemini is the perfect description for what the Venture used to be.

You said "This looks like fun", did you put me in my place yet? I'm not feeling it.
Nice projection.
Have you considered that having different expectations and goals makes some mechanics less relevant regardless of thier existence, and vice-versa?

Finally got some time to do this adVenture. Took longer than I thought it would to put together.
This is the fleet I built:

Five Line Cruisers fitted for punching holes in things.
Ten Fire Support Cruisers for bombardment.
And one Flag Cruiser because GREEN.

I spent a while looking for an LP version (from Luddic Enhancement) but wasn't lucky.
Fleet also contains two Morae fitted for bombardment and kinetic support, six Pirate Falcons fitted as hybrid missile/carrier ships, one converted Colossus for bomb duty, a single Colossus with maximum cargo, a pair of salvage rigs for flavour, and two Blackrock Hawkmoths because cruiser tanker.
No officers were used.
None of this is 'optimal', but who cares? It's fun, effort is hard, and I spent way too much time doing this nonsense.
And without even trying I ran into these guys, who seemed to be quite well off but also very interested in recieving donations.
I only deployed the Ventures here and let them do whatever while I pondered how green my ship was.

Ventures are good boys. They know to eat the rich without being told.
You can just see I lost two ships at the top of that image. Not a bad result for bricks.
What's next? We need something big, something to prove how 'good' our good boys are....

That'll do.
I ended up deploying eveything here eventually, and got burnt spectacularly. I lost my flagship about 2/3 of the way through the battle due to a stunning display of mediocrity on my part, and everything fell to pieces shortly after, resulting in....

All the good boys went to a better place.
But how much damage did they do to a battleship Ordo?

They got six frigates, two destroyers, two cruisers, and the battleship.
I'm not hugely disappointed by that result.

Ventures are good. Not great, but good.


General Discussion / Re: Venture, why?
« on: September 01, 2019, 01:21:23 PM »
So, instead of killing them all you decended into paranoia?
I bet if you killed them all you'd feel lots better. And the best bit is, they always come back so you can kill them all again.
It's like therapy. Only with more blood and debris. That you also save the sector is just a convenient happenstance.

I wonder how well a fleet of Ventures could smack the Pirate PiƱata....
Might have to look at that tomorrow.

General Discussion / Re: Venture, why?
« on: September 01, 2019, 12:58:40 PM »
This looks like fun.

Their are several major logistical issues with low burn speeds that shouldn't be glossed over as "obsessed with speed".

- Your escape window if a fleet got close via asteroids/debris field/nebula/magnetic field/ect is tiny and nearly every pirate fleet has an equal or higher base burn. This forces more use of emergency burns to escape, wasting more fuel and supplies from CR loss.
Never seen this myself. I've always been able to scoot away with sustained burn @14 whenever I want. Sure there's times when you didn't see something and end up running into a huge wall of red.
But you did make sure you have a decent combat fleet to go with all those lovely burn 7 Colossi and Ventures. Didn't you?

- Low burn speed also wastes tons of supplies by costing you days of travel time.
When you're flying through the edges of the sector stripping everything that isn't nailed down and ripping up whatever is, supplies are functionally limitless. And time doesn't really matter.
The only real concerns you have are cargo space, and crew.

- You can't catch pirates or bounties easily or at all, costing you more supplies, forcing more emergency burns, costing more supplies from CR loss, costing more fuel.
Stop chasing small bounties and pick on someone your own size (or bigger) then.
I've never had a problem catching bounties because they all head right for me.

- Missions have timers and you might not be able to get that extra mission done if given the chance, costing you cash.
I honestly don't bother with missions past the early game. I've got more interesting things to do.

- Everything takes longer to do, so in addition to not being able to do extra mission in an area because of time restraints you are also spending more time getting every mission done. Costing you cash/supplies.
- Crew costs cash every month, you get less done in the same time frame inflating your costs. 14 burn vs 20 burn is 30% more crew costs to get the same thing done, works the same for supplies.
I generally don't care about missions, that's not what I'm going out to the fringe to do so it's not something I consider all that relevant. And neither cash nor supplies are limited resources.
So long as you enjoy what you do, it's never a waste. So time spent doing it is not a concern.
We could save some effort next time and just say we play in very different ways.

Most importantly, less than 20 burn means more time spent babysitting worlds (mine or core), or traveling to babysit, than doing fun stuff.  Even with burn 20, I still spend an unacceptably high amount of time babysitting or traveling to babysit.
One of the benefits of trawling the sector is that you sweep up all the pirate and pather bases. And when they resapwn they make convenient jumping off points once you turn them in to debris. They also frequently have large bounties on them.
I've played several runs though 0.9 now and have not once seen a core world decivilise.

Also, if player wants to sneak in a system, he really needs burn 20 to evade patrols.  Patrols seem to have at least burn 18 when they charge at your fleet.
Yeah. Never really cared about doing this. Just about the only sneaking I do is in red beacon systems, and that kind of requires cargo space to take advantage of all the 'free' supplies and fuel floating about in those charming pale blue containers.

Venture is fine as is. It could do with it's proper fighter bay back, but it's not an 'essential' change.
Don't agree that it needs all the speed frippery, but then again I'm obviously not a majority here.

General Discussion / Re: Noob Questions
« on: September 01, 2019, 11:57:27 AM »
Do civilian ships surve any purpose? Why should I bother with them.?
Civilian ships are largely 1 of 2 things:
  • Dedicated transport ships of some description
  • A conversion of the above into something that can kind of fight
There are a few exceptions, but generally thay fall into one of those two categories.

Transport ships are useful for carrying supplies and loot, fuel, and crew. You probably won't need one for every occaision, but it's usually a good idea to have some in your fleet. And once you pass a certain 'mass' of ships, it becomes really hard to do anything without them.
They all can also have mods installed on them which help you in some way.
You can also use transports to accept a large cargo mission, or found a colony and then once it's complete store them until needed again.

One thing to consider is having a few Shepherds in your fleet. They may not look all that impressive, but they can really help in the early game.

The converted ships are not supposed to be good. They're little more than a transport with a gun stuck on the front and some armour plate bolted onto the sides. They're the sort of thing you use when you have nothing else, and mostly exist for the pirates to use so the player can have some weak enemies to start off with.
However some conversions are really good at one thing, usually at the expense of everything else (including survival).

Are mining ships or slavaging ships usefull? What mor do I get from them?
Depends how you play.
If you spend a lot of time combing through debris fields and salvaging derelict ships and stations, then dedicated salvage ships can help noticeably by increasing the quantities of resources recovered. These tend to be specialised ships which cannot be modified out of thier role. Nor can you add this ability to a ship, so you have to use what's available with that ability.

If you like to scan planets then survey ships can reduce the costs to do so. Survey ships are sometimes specialised, but any ship can be modified with this ability (which fits really well with transports as you don't have to give up any combat ability, because they don't have any).

Both benefit from stacking multiples of each for a greater effect.

As far as I know, there are no mining ships. (This may be from a mod.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50