16
Mods / Re: [0.97a] Hazard Mining Incorporated (Thumper Ed., 0.3.7b)
« on: March 12, 2024, 02:17:43 AM »
Ngl, putting out a hit on someone for "onlyfans drama" is a little bit amusing.
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 19, 2024, 07:01:39 PM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More (04/10/24)
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.
17
Suggestions / Re: Undercover colonies
« on: March 12, 2024, 02:06:44 AM »An “outpost” toggle optionThis. But make it a size 2 "colony" that doesn't count against the admin cap, and can't build anything except the spaceport (and maybe Waystation).
And can't grow into a normal colony until you add the normal startup costs to the resource storage and press a button to start it going - it's not instant so the player has enough time to have second thoughts etc.
Player storage bin / refit & resupply base, plus minor income from population.
Completely beneath the notice of anyone, except maybe the occaisional small pirate scout attracted by the few trade ships moving back and forth.
Remnants will still absolutely dunk on it if you put one in a beacon system tho. Machine don't care.
Unlikely to happen, but fun to think about.
Stealth colonies shouldn't exist.They already do. Hidden base missions have these as thier targets.
Temporary they may be, but they still exist.
18
Suggestions / Re: Officer promotions
« on: March 11, 2024, 12:40:39 PM »You could probably make that distinction if officer promotion candidates were something you saw frequently? But they're notThis is actually a good point - I found that promotion candidates felt far too rare and adjusted some numbers myself.
After a bit of trail-and-error (and prompting) I settled on:
"maxOfficerPromoteProb":0.5,
Which is a bit of a jump from the default of 0.1, but it seems to provide a decent chance of having a candidate turn up without saturating you with people all the time.
19
Suggestions / Resource Crises
« on: March 11, 2024, 12:13:39 PM »
A thought in two parts, prompted by:
First thought
The Resource Crises as they are now are triggered by your single highest export number, without any other qualifier.
What if they were instead triggered by your total market share for that resource?
Market share already takes into account all the various modifers that represent how much "stuff" you are selling to people at large in the sector.
And also accounts for you having both buffed outputs and multiple outputs, which would allow finer control of how fast these events progress.
Second thought
If we're using market share to run major events, we can also use them to run minor ones.
For instance a "trade dispute" or somesuch - where you have diminished income from a particular resource for a time, and if some form of deal is not made you get a fleet from the angry faction come and try to disrupt your industry like an expedition from previous versions.
There's not really any limit to how many of these can happen, but it's weighted towards factions that have not taken any form of action against you in a defined period of time, so you always get a bit of attention from everyone eventually.
Pirates and Pathers can be excluded becasue they already have thier own mechanics for hassling you, but everyone else can pull from a list of "reasons" as to why they're upset with you.
This could be a generic list that everyone can use, with added sub-lists for specific factions. So the Church can complain about "blasphemous packaging", and the Diktat can whine about "insulting GREAT LEADER" etc etc.
Every faction keeps a count of how many times it's been upset with you, and the higher the number the bigger the fleet/more fleets it sends.
It's a minor event so probably keep this to no-more than a decently large bounty level at max.
Some factions could also have a chance to go the opposite direction and try to mimic the Path with small sneaky fleets that creep about (Tri-Tach would absolutely try this...)
Technically you could still do all this by using the highest number, but (imo) it feels weird because you can have a massive output of <thing>, but because of poor accessiblity almost zero market share - so why would anyone else even care about this enough for it be a crisis at all?
Conversely you can have modest output with a hugely buffed accessibility that massively inflates your market share, so why isn't the bothered party any more bothered than adding +4 every month to a 600 long bar?
Using market share "solves" both issues.
More frequent minor crises that escalate each time one triggers would help immensely with this.
First thought
The Resource Crises as they are now are triggered by your single highest export number, without any other qualifier.
What if they were instead triggered by your total market share for that resource?
Market share already takes into account all the various modifers that represent how much "stuff" you are selling to people at large in the sector.
And also accounts for you having both buffed outputs and multiple outputs, which would allow finer control of how fast these events progress.
Second thought
If we're using market share to run major events, we can also use them to run minor ones.
For instance a "trade dispute" or somesuch - where you have diminished income from a particular resource for a time, and if some form of deal is not made you get a fleet from the angry faction come and try to disrupt your industry like an expedition from previous versions.
There's not really any limit to how many of these can happen, but it's weighted towards factions that have not taken any form of action against you in a defined period of time, so you always get a bit of attention from everyone eventually.
Pirates and Pathers can be excluded becasue they already have thier own mechanics for hassling you, but everyone else can pull from a list of "reasons" as to why they're upset with you.
This could be a generic list that everyone can use, with added sub-lists for specific factions. So the Church can complain about "blasphemous packaging", and the Diktat can whine about "insulting GREAT LEADER" etc etc.
Every faction keeps a count of how many times it's been upset with you, and the higher the number the bigger the fleet/more fleets it sends.
It's a minor event so probably keep this to no-more than a decently large bounty level at max.
Some factions could also have a chance to go the opposite direction and try to mimic the Path with small sneaky fleets that creep about (Tri-Tach would absolutely try this...)
Technically you could still do all this by using the highest number, but (imo) it feels weird because you can have a massive output of <thing>, but because of poor accessiblity almost zero market share - so why would anyone else even care about this enough for it be a crisis at all?
Conversely you can have modest output with a hugely buffed accessibility that massively inflates your market share, so why isn't the bothered party any more bothered than adding +4 every month to a 600 long bar?
Using market share "solves" both issues.
20
Suggestions / Re: Officer promotions
« on: March 11, 2024, 04:47:39 AM »
I use the promotion mechanic frequently and consider it to be one of the best uses of a Story Point, as it returns 100% bonus xp and you gain a valuable character at the same time.
21
Suggestions / Re: Ship loadouts
« on: March 11, 2024, 02:20:08 AM »
It would be super nice if player defined loadouts were saved as seperate .variant files in a common area in the "saves" folder.
The major obstacle to doing this would be untangling that functionality from campaign.xml, which is likely a non-trivial exercise.
(Although, the setpiece missions already kind of do this...)
The major obstacle to doing this would be untangling that functionality from campaign.xml, which is likely a non-trivial exercise.
(Although, the setpiece missions already kind of do this...)
22
Suggestions / Re: Let your faction be able to claim uninhabited core systems
« on: March 11, 2024, 01:45:19 AM »
Use a notepad of some kind to open up \Starsector\starsector-core\data\config\settings.json
Search for the string "factionsClaimUnpopulatedCoreSystems".
Change the true at the end of the line to false, and save.
Wish granted (sort of).
Search for the string "factionsClaimUnpopulatedCoreSystems".
Change the true at the end of the line to false, and save.
Wish granted (sort of).
23
Mods / Re: [0.97a] Hazard Mining Incorporated (Thumper Ed., 0.3.7b)
« on: March 08, 2024, 04:59:39 AM »
Brighton question:
Are the DomRes variants of Centurion/Hammerhead/Mora/Eagle supposed to be recoverable by the player if they do not have the automated ships skill?
Because it seems like they all can be recovered without the automated skill, but cannot be used because of the -100% CR modifier.
The same issue applies to DomRes ships built from the "prize" blueprint - you can build them or buy them from your colony market, but can't use them for the same reason.
Not completely sure, but it feels like they were supposed to have the same exception applied to them that the "sentinel cache" ships have, but something has stopped it from working.
[edit]
Seems to be related to this: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=26888.0
Are the DomRes variants of Centurion/Hammerhead/Mora/Eagle supposed to be recoverable by the player if they do not have the automated ships skill?
Because it seems like they all can be recovered without the automated skill, but cannot be used because of the -100% CR modifier.
The same issue applies to DomRes ships built from the "prize" blueprint - you can build them or buy them from your colony market, but can't use them for the same reason.
Not completely sure, but it feels like they were supposed to have the same exception applied to them that the "sentinel cache" ships have, but something has stopped it from working.
[edit]
Seems to be related to this: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=26888.0
24
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.97a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: March 07, 2024, 12:53:39 AM »
Thematically, making Ill-Advised part of Safety Overrides does make sense.
But if that ever happened I would likely never use SO again - having things malfunction and not come back is an "absolutely not".
But if that ever happened I would likely never use SO again - having things malfunction and not come back is an "absolutely not".
25
General Discussion / Re: How would you build a Wolf in 0.97a?
« on: March 06, 2024, 10:19:35 AM »
Wolf really starts to struggle when battles get larger and busier, and that fixed shield doesn't help.
Putting the Omni Shield conversion on it will give it a bit of a longer useful lifespan.
Putting the Omni Shield conversion on it will give it a bit of a longer useful lifespan.
26
Suggestions / Re: More threats and rewards in the Orion-Persean Abyss
« on: March 05, 2024, 12:59:21 AM »
I wonder which of these blank lines handles the [SPICY BONUS] elements?
It is a mystery.
It is a mystery.
27
Suggestions / Re: make no atmosphere cancel temperature conditions
« on: March 05, 2024, 12:43:41 AM »
Average temperature.
In the vast majority of games with planets that care about temperature, you are only ever given a single figure (or similar) for the sake of brevity / simplicity.
It is impossible to express a range of values with a single figure, so an average or approximation thereof is used.
Starsector does this, just with descriptions rather than numbers.
Using Mercury as an example.
Dayside is 700K. Nightside is 100K. The average between them is 400K.
In Starsector planets can be Hot or Very Hot. (Also normal & cold but they are not relevant here.)
Hot planets can be habitable, wheras Very Hot ones cannot.
The highest temperature you could consider to be "habitable" for humans is around 320K (~50C).
So anything higher than that could be considered Very Hot.
The average temperature of Mercury is 400K, which is greater than 320 and so would make it Very Hot in Starsector terms, despite having no atmosphere and wild temperature swings because of it.
In the vast majority of games with planets that care about temperature, you are only ever given a single figure (or similar) for the sake of brevity / simplicity.
It is impossible to express a range of values with a single figure, so an average or approximation thereof is used.
Starsector does this, just with descriptions rather than numbers.
Using Mercury as an example.
Dayside is 700K. Nightside is 100K. The average between them is 400K.
In Starsector planets can be Hot or Very Hot. (Also normal & cold but they are not relevant here.)
Hot planets can be habitable, wheras Very Hot ones cannot.
The highest temperature you could consider to be "habitable" for humans is around 320K (~50C).
So anything higher than that could be considered Very Hot.
The average temperature of Mercury is 400K, which is greater than 320 and so would make it Very Hot in Starsector terms, despite having no atmosphere and wild temperature swings because of it.
28
Discussions / Re: Ur-Quan and Starsector
« on: March 04, 2024, 03:01:23 AM »
A top-down spaceship shooter, with an "overworld" for travel between points of interest that has you searching planets of varying kinds for potentially useful stuff while you get bounced around by various extant powers, and one of the kind of hidden things is very... Red.
It's all just a co-incidence I'm sure.
Now, didn't you mean to ask about flowers?
It's all just a co-incidence I'm sure.
Now, didn't you mean to ask about flowers?
29
General Discussion / Re: Persean League Crisis, and Crises in general, killed my desire to play more
« on: March 04, 2024, 02:33:59 AM »
Here's a rambling incoherant thought...
Spoiler
If you do absolutely nothing about the League trying to bully you, take no action whatsoever, the blockade lasts roughly a year.
So that's the timeframe this event runs on.
Why does it need to be front-loaded?
There's some scope with this crisis to pull off some "cold war" nonsense with slowly escalating tension, rising stakes, and the odd overzealous League commander that could be a nuisance. Or an opportunity.
And this could potentially be more narratively satisfying, and have a much lower risk of accidentally pushing away some players.
The blockade starts off with the enforcer fleets being given permission to act more aggressively - and gives a -10% accessibility.
Every month after that, if the player does not capitulate or make some kind of deal, the malus reduces accessibility by a further -5% and some additional fleets (of varying size) are sent to reinforce the blockade.
Any fleets that are destroyed are replaced by roughly equivalent ones, so there will always be a League presence of some level during the crisis.
If by month 10 the player has still not given in, the grand fleet gets sent, and accessibility is set to -60% for the remainder of the crisis.
In this context the grand fleet could be the the same main/command s-mod fleet from the current crisis, with a pair of smaller support fleets since it is no longer the whole event.
If the player beats the grand fleet - they win.
If the player never gives in and lasts the whole year - they win.
If the player reduces the crisis bar to zero at any point during the event - they win. (Caveat: Every time a League fleet successfully turns away a trader it adds to the bar.)
If the player gives in and joins the League - they win (but differently).
So that's the timeframe this event runs on.
Why does it need to be front-loaded?
There's some scope with this crisis to pull off some "cold war" nonsense with slowly escalating tension, rising stakes, and the odd overzealous League commander that could be a nuisance. Or an opportunity.
And this could potentially be more narratively satisfying, and have a much lower risk of accidentally pushing away some players.
The blockade starts off with the enforcer fleets being given permission to act more aggressively - and gives a -10% accessibility.
Every month after that, if the player does not capitulate or make some kind of deal, the malus reduces accessibility by a further -5% and some additional fleets (of varying size) are sent to reinforce the blockade.
Any fleets that are destroyed are replaced by roughly equivalent ones, so there will always be a League presence of some level during the crisis.
If by month 10 the player has still not given in, the grand fleet gets sent, and accessibility is set to -60% for the remainder of the crisis.
In this context the grand fleet could be the the same main/command s-mod fleet from the current crisis, with a pair of smaller support fleets since it is no longer the whole event.
If the player beats the grand fleet - they win.
If the player never gives in and lasts the whole year - they win.
If the player reduces the crisis bar to zero at any point during the event - they win. (Caveat: Every time a League fleet successfully turns away a trader it adds to the bar.)
If the player gives in and joins the League - they win (but differently).
[close]