Fractal Softworks Forum
July 19, 2018, 09:27:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: New blog post: Pirate Bases, Raids, and Objectives (06/12/18); In-dev patch notes for Starsector 0.9a (06/01/18);Starsector 0.8.1a is out!
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
1  Starsector / Suggestions / Re: Some small stuff on: June 01, 2018, 01:22:33 PM
Odyssey (D)
There are two ways of doing that come immediately to mind.

1. Salvage
Much like the derelicts around Petra in Galatia are always fixed, there could be a mothballed Ody sat around somewhere out of the way, but still somewhat near the core sectors. Bonus if this could be made semi-random - like here is a list of possible places to spawn this thing, now pick one for this game during inital gen.
Then it's up to the player to find it.

2. Continuation of Heg mission/story
When you deliver the message from Galatia to Corvus, the base commander on Jangala gives you a bit of a prompt when you ask what to do next.
Here is a good place to insert something about exploration, and how there's a) a dusty old ship just taking up space in the yard that would be really good at that, or b) some rumours of a large derelict near xyz, but we can't spare the ships etc etc.
But they can't just give this to anyone and the player is then prompted to do a few "good deeds", raise thier rep a bit and check back.

2  Starsector / Suggestions / Re: Some QoL suggestions on: May 24, 2018, 02:41:07 PM
Standardise the on-click behaviour for travelling.
In the normal game view, left-click is travel to place or object, and right-click is turn free look on/off.
In the map view, left-click is open a drop down list of things near here, and right-click is travel to place or object.

Could the map view on-click behaviours be swapped so left-click is always "move here" throughout the game?
3  Starsector / Suggestions / Re: Events with no soundtrack of their own shouldn't interrupt compaign music on: May 24, 2018, 02:33:54 PM
I would also prefer the soundtrack to continue if it's not going to be replaced with something else.
It would also be really nice if the soundtrack didn't continually swap between 2 or more tracks as you move around.
4  Starsector / Suggestions / Re: Sindria - and Askonias corona on: May 01, 2018, 01:26:32 PM
Askonia being a fiery hell of a place is not a problem in and of itself.
The problem is the weird interaction between the outward pressure form the corona, and sustained burn.

Like a lot of people, I run sustained burn almost constanly. Speed is too important, and time too precious to chug along.
The weirdness comes if you try to fly into a corona with s-burn on. Your fleet slows almost to a stop with engines still going a struggles to make any headway, and yet if you turn the burn off you'll take of again at slightly less than normal speed.
Taking the inner jump point in Askonia sometimes results in your fleet hovering just out of reach of the point shimmying back and forth as it tries in vain to reach the portal until you think "oh, this thing again..." and hit <5>.
It's not a common thing at all, but it happens in all systems with large stars and close orbit inner jump points.
5  Starsector / General Discussion / Re: Missile Behavior on: April 29, 2018, 12:26:06 PM
Missiles are one of my favourite weapons.
But the sad fact is, that as they are I just don't use them very often because I'd much rather use the OP to give my ships something that will help them forever, rather than be gone and left with potentially nothing. Much like I never used ballistic ships when they were ammo-limited.
The only exceptions are Pilums, which I still love to bits even despite thier nerf.

And as noted previously, the AI despite being generally awesome, has some very exploitable behaviour regarding missiles. Just think; every single ship in-sector except the one you are flying is subject to those behaviours.
I brushed over these problems by going through the weapons tables and adding an amount of regen to (almost) every missile weapon, and now it doesn't matter if an AI ship dumps an entire rack of harpoons on the tail of a fast ship they will never catch, or shoots all it's annihilators into empty space again. They'll get to have another go, and I don't get an easy ride once a notable fraction of thier weapons stop working.
The game seems to handle it fairly well, although it would be much better if the AI could decide to use missiles to pressure shields (a notable advantage the player has). But this isn't terribly likely unless vanilla's missiles get regen.

This has taught me that if nothing else, the prox. charge launcher absolutely requires regen to not only be useful, but shine as a PD weapon.
And I've actually started using large mount missiles now they're not dead OP.

What if a missile launcher had no flux when firing but had flux over time while reloading, a flux generated while building a missile sort of thing.
I could live with that.
Or maybe the reload time could depend on your flux level - higher flux = longer reload. Do you vent right now to reload quicker, or will you get your face pushed in if you drop shields?
6  Starsector / Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Disassemble Reassemble v0.10 - Another lovingly kitbashed ship pack! on: February 27, 2018, 10:52:56 AM
Tried the save again, and could not get the error to appear. Reloaded and doublechecked - Nothing.
Checked the sim again, and nothing.
Re-installed. No difference, seems to have no issues at all.

- What were you fighting against, what ships were in the battle?
A low level named bounty, mostly pirate junkers and a support carrier.

- Did it crash immediately on firing the missile or later?
It was long enough for 3 (maybe 4) missiles to clear the launcher before the error popped.

- Do you remember what specific ship it was fired at, or which ship the second stage might have fired at?
I had intended to fire it at a frigate (decurion) directly in front of my flagship, but a broadsword wing 'overflew' it at the same time I clicked. So it could possibly have been targetted at them instead.
The swifts were grouped with a pair of small mounted BRDY rage srms, not that that should matter.

Mod Versions:
Audio+ 1.0.3
BRDY 0.9.0
Buffalo IIs 0.0.3
DARA 0.8
Dynasector 1.3.2
GraphicsLib 1.1.0
Hegemony Auxiliary 1.1
Imperium 1.17.2
Lightshow 1.32
A custom Portrait pack 1.0.0
SWP 1.3.0
Stop Gap 0.1
Underworld 1.1.2
Unknown Skies 0.21

I am aware that I need to update some most of these.
Time willing, I might even manage that someday.

Even weirder, why it would occur specifically for the medium version of the Swift launcher, is utterly bizarre.
I wouldn't read too much into that, as I have never seen either of the small mounted versions 'in the wild'.
This whole thing is weird as hell, and I feel like a bit of a heel for potentially wasting your time now I can't reproduce this even with the same battle in the same save.
7  Starsector / Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Disassemble Reassemble v0.10 - Another lovingly kitbashed ship pack! on: February 26, 2018, 12:47:51 PM
Been playing with this for a while, and have been enjoying it greatly.
Finally found some Swift missiles and had a bit of a problem.
This happens when I fire the medium mount version in a "live" battle. (Simulator seems to work fine, which is odd.  Huh)
4391993 [Thread-4] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain  - java.lang.ClassCastException: com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.Missile cannot be cast to com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.Ship
java.lang.ClassCastException: com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.Missile cannot be cast to com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.Ship
at<init>(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.loading.specs.d.o00000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.loading.specs.d.o00000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.ship.A.if.o00000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.ship.A.if.fireProjectile(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.ship.trackers.OoOO.String.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.ship.trackers.OoOO.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.ship.trackers.D.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.ship.trackers.D.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.ship.trackers.OoOO.String(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.ship.A.if.advance(Unknown Source)
at Source)
at Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.entities.Ship.advance(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatEngine.advanceInner(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatEngine.advance(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatState.traverse(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.state.AppDriver.begin(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain.main(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$ Source)
at Source)
Which causes a java popup repeating the first line of the exception to take focus, and boots you back to the desktop when cleared.
I would have picked this up sooner, but Swifts seem to be vanishingly rare.

Mod list for reference:
Buffalo IIs
GraphicsLib (comaptability only - no effects because toaster)
Hegemony Auxiliary
A custom Portrait pack
Stop Gap
Unknown Skies
8  Starsector / Suggestions / Re: Ill-Advised Modifications - Less Extreme on: February 25, 2018, 05:49:15 AM
Just dropping the "destroys weapon" attribute would make it not completely awful.
9  Starsector / Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Stop Gap Measure - Ships for Vanilla on: January 09, 2018, 09:40:41 AM
Do you have any feeedback about the Ballista? I think it could use some nerf somewhere as I feel it's a little bit too powerfull.
The Ballista is almost an exact mirror image of the Archer from Ship & Weapon Pack, only low-tech and with slightly worse stats and less OP. And I think that is why is doesn't "feel" right, it isn't it's own thing in it's own place. Yet.
You can make it more distinct by trimming it down so it's not quite so "jack of all trades".
If I were making that ship for myself I would be inclined to specialise it more towards missile support, by removing the medium energy slot and maybe 2 or 3 of the ballistic slots.
And in compensation give it a built-in mod to help with missles - I'd probably go for Missile Racks. And then reduce it's OP by 10 to 15 points.
Other than that, it's stats are not in a bad place.

One more thing to note: The missiles being turret mounts makes the Ballista quite powerful when fitted with multiple torpedoes, which is something you'd normally have to fly cruisers or capitals to experience. But also makes it fairly unique.

This is all just opinion, so feel free to ignore anything that doesn't seem "right" for your mod.
10  Starsector / Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Stop Gap Measure - Ships for Vanilla on: January 08, 2018, 12:30:17 PM
The Ballista has a problem.

"weaponSlots": [
      "angle": 0,
      "arc": 120,
      "id": "WS0001",
      "locations": [
      "mount": "HARDPOINT",
      "size": "SMALL",
      "type": "BALLISTIC"
      "angle": -0,
      "arc": 0,
      "id": "WS0002",
      "locations": [
      "mount": "TURRET",
      "size": "MEDIUM",
      "type": "ENERGY"

The front energy turret is defined as having an angle of 0 - ie: is a hardpoint.
And the front ballistic hardpoint is defined as having an angle of 120 - ie: is a turret.
Also, both share the same location 52, 0 with the effect that the medium energy slot is entirely inaccessible to the player.

Remove the medium energy mount as it doesn't fit too well (imo) with a missile support ship, and the ballista doesn't really have enough op to spare for secondary weapons anyway.
Keep the small ballistic mount on the nose but change to/keep it as a turret.
Separate the positions and keep them the way they are now. Small ballistic turret + Med. energy hardpoint.

The unit card, or whatever it is called, says that the Tantive-Class has two medium energy slots, but I can only see the one.

I might be blind as I cannot seem to find a second medium energy slot.
This is the same issue. Two weapon mounts sharing identical locations.
11  Starsector / General Discussion / Re: 0.8 Exploration Gallery - Share your proc-gen screenshots! on: December 23, 2017, 04:13:07 AM
I think that's more of a "it's a gas giant with vast ruins which is decivilised, implying that there's a ton of floating platforms/habitats in the atmosphere with people still living on/in them" thing.
Which is not the sort of thing any old space faring dudes can do. Domain were serious biz, apparently.
12  Starsector / Suggestions / Re: Thicker high damage Beam weopons on: November 27, 2017, 12:09:50 PM
One of the main issues are the sounds honestly.
This. The HIL (if nothing else) could really use some audio affection.

In the meantime this helps quite a bit. Would recommend.

Also, Freespace is cool and good.
13  Starsector / Suggestions / Re: All missiles should cost 0 ordnance points. on: November 27, 2017, 12:00:35 PM
Is Pilum spam still viable? 
Not as good as they used to be, but still useful. Far more dependant on having numbers than previously as well - you need 6+ launchers deployed to see the effect now. It used to be 3-4. Quite a disincentive with a limited fleet really.
Seems to have changed roles from a carpet of making everything dead, to a carpet of making everything distracted and easier to kill.
If you're going to use them you need to go all in, otherwise you'll just be incredibly disappointed.

Against some missiles, especially MIRVs, sometimes Sabots, it makes sense to make the enemy waste them first, then fight when they are out.
This meta thing is something I loathe so much.
14  Starsector / Suggestions / Ships in Storage on: November 25, 2017, 04:51:21 AM
Not really a huge priority, just a bit of QoL for the future.

Would it be possible to be able to refit ships that are in storage?
I've found that it's mildly annoying to have to un-store a ship, refit, then re-store it in order to remove a single weapon that I want to use elsewhere.
15  Starsector / Suggestions / Re: All missiles should cost 0 ordnance points. on: November 25, 2017, 04:45:37 AM
Look, all of that effort just to make a certain weapon useful. And that's just one missile type - I don't think it would work with anything else than pilums, and maybe harpoons. Plus, that ball of Vigilances is still going to cost me deployment points which I could spend on some brawlers or close support ships and their effectiveness might be questionable, depending on how much PD the other side has.
It is merely a workaround using the game's mechanics that allows you to use multiple missile ships you want to keep out of harms way while using only a single timid officer. Because you might not have access to more than one, you might not have room for more than one, you might not want more than one.
You don't don't have to use it. You don't even have to agree with it. It still works just fine.

I disagree. Any ship with proper PD is instantly immune to Pilums, no matter how many you throw at it. I've actually did a test - using Console Commands mod, I gave my ship infinite ammo and instant reload, meaning it could puke hundreds of Pilums in an instant. I spawned a single enemy cruiser and kept spamming missiles at it. And as it turns out, even that wave of hundreds of Pilums (I've made sure to spread them around so as they are not packed together) hits a brick wall as soon as there's at least one ship with Flak cannons. Beam PD is less effective, but will still stop Pilums dead.

Now, such "lab tests" aren't usually a reliable source, but I'm observing similar results in the actual battle. Sure, once in a blue moon AI will turn its unshielded back at the incoming missiles and ignore them, but AI's stupidity is not something I'd like to rely on in a fight. At the very least, Pilum might have been at least remotely useful due to its regenerating ammo, but the weapon is so anemic that it almost doesn't matter. I don't know how many Pilum ships am I supposed to deploy for that tactic to actually work, half my fleet? In that case I prefer to deploy much more reliable brawlers and hit the targets directly.
Look at all that effort you've gone to, and yet you are still wrong. All the lab tests in the world won't prove a thing.
The only valid test is battle, and a carpet of missiles is an amazing thing. It's not just about hitting a target, it's about pressure, distraction, and denial of mobility. It doesn't matter if that cruiser shoots down all the Pilums because if it's doing that its not shooting down anything else. And while its doing that its constantly trying to move out of the way, which means it gets trapped between the missiles it doesn't want to be near and the ships which are closing in around it. And then it dies because it can't defend in multiple directions simultaneously.
You don't have to like them. But that doesn't mean they are useless.

I think we've derailed this thread enough now.

So the core problem here is that:
1) Their usage is replaced/Dominated by fighters
2) The OP cost is un-competitive compared with other weapons
3) They are incredibly unforgiving of mistakes
4) Limited ammo = wasted OP

4 is the biggie. Remember when ballistics had limited ammo, and everyone went to enormous lengths to use only energy equppied ships wherever possible because running out of ammo mid-fight is really as far from fun as you can get?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!