Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 117

Author Topic: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 494300 times)

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #135 on: December 09, 2016, 05:34:26 PM »

I never really thought of the wolf as being medusa or paragon level technology. There's at least 3 higher tech frigates after all.
Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 17240
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #136 on: December 09, 2016, 05:44:54 PM »

wolf is fine, it just has the problem that every other frigate also does wherein flanking with it is marginally impossible because of the turn speed of heavier ships.

Yeah, that's going to get dialed back.


Blue death!  Maybe Tempest-lite.  More seriously, something that can compete with Lasher much like Medusa competes with Enforcer, and Paragon with Onslaught.  (For cruisers, current Aurora is a joke ship while Dominator is top-tier.)  Since it costs as much CR to deploy as Tempest, I expect Wolf to outperform Lasher a bit, but it only shines when a group of them can surround a target and tear it apart.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. It's a good support ship, the question is whether multiple-ship-deployments will be efficient enough to make it shine. I think they will be, for REDACTED reasons.

At endgame, I use frigates (aside from Hyperion) as cheap pursuit/clean-up option.  Lasher has the best blend of low cost and high firepower.  Tempest, Scarab, and phase ships are more useful if the enemy is too fast or too numerous.  (If enemy is still capable of significant resistance, better to auto-resolve for the no-risk option.)

I think a UI Wolf would make a decent pursuit ship, certainly a lot faster than a UI Lasher for only 1 extra supply. Firepower's not the same, though.


a little concerned at the removal of carrier rally though. i know about the fighter changes and all...  i just like how carrier rally points create organic objectives in combat, as opposed to the artificial objectives of the beacons.

Yeah, but it just doesn't make sense anymore. You don't want to just park your carriers somewhere out of the way anymore.

I am curious @Alex if any inspiration has been taken from other recent work in the genre, like SPAZ 2 or Wayward Terran Frontier.

Well, I haven't played either one of those... :)


Devastator Cannon is HE, huh? Well geez, we've got 3 large mount ballistics all sporting HE damage now—Hellbore, Hephaestus Assault and now this! Wasn't the consensus saying the Hephaestus was kinda underpowered and could use some help?

I might look at it at some point, yeah. No comment until that point.


EDIT:  If Hellbore is meant to be the super-heavy version of Light and (new) Heavy Mortar, maybe its range could be downgraded to 800, since the other mortars have less range than more expensive assault weapons?

Hmm. Maybe, yeah. I've got a TODO item to look at it; iirc what I was considering is decreasing the rate of fire, so that it's still the king of 1-shot damage, but not so hot as far as the overall dps.


Do the shots fired by the Devastator have an AoE effect, is it still a burst fire weapon?

Yeah, they do. It's a large, rapid-fire burst of shells that both have a proximity fuse and a variable range, so firing it will cover a large swath in explosions. Mostly anti-frigate, fighter, and missile; can get around shields sometimes by flying by and exploding out of arc. Cheap in terms of flux for the dps that it does (and also lower flux per second than most alternatives), but it's virtually impossible to land all the damage on any one target.


The wolf, however, for me is almost equivalent to a lasher in combat considerations...

Well, it only costs 1 more unit of supplies to deploy, so it's definitely not Medusa-level. It's much more "workhorse" than "outlier", which, granted, the high-tech ships tend to be but they by no means have to be that.

Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8416
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #137 on: December 09, 2016, 06:02:38 PM »

@ gunnyfreak: Actually, I think Medusa and Enforcer, and Paragon and Onslaught, are roughly equal, just different.  Hammerhead is just an inferior Enforcer knock-off which, hopefully, the next release will fix (+5 OP and no additional flux cost for ammo feeder).  As for Wolf vs. Lasher, Wolf is a bit easier to use (as long as speed hullmods do not mess with shot range), but may not perform as efficiently as Lasher despite being more expensive.  Wolf used to have Omni shields and cost a bit less CR to deploy than Tempest.  Now, Wolf is a bit expensive to use.  Overall, I think Wolf is a bit inferior to Lasher overall, and is completely outclassed by Tempest except for cargo capacity.  I simply fear that if Wolf is forced to use new Unstable Injector to keep up with other frigates that use Unstable Injector (I will probably still use Unstable Injector for Lasher and other ballistic reliant frigates), then Wolf will have no better range than Safety Override builds, and (I guess) no frigate can beat a Lasher with an active ammo feeder.

Quote from: Alex
I think a UI Wolf would make a decent pursuit ship, certainly a lot faster than a UI Lasher for only 1 extra supply. Firepower's not the same, though.
It's the firepower and flux usage.  Lasher can use ammo feeder and flux efficient LMGs (and more) to make shields disappear fast.  Annihilators and LAG break armor, then Vulcans and more LMGs tear through hull faster.  Lasher is a monster for its size at clean-up.  When I try Wolf, I vent-spam a heavy blaster for the most power, and the rest of the weapons have far less DPS than Vulcans.  It takes a while to chew through shields and the rest with just one heavy blaster, especially if I miss, with beams doing insignificant damage.  My Wolf needs to vent (no Safety Override) often due to flux-hungry weapons.  In short, Lasher has much more firepower than Wolf.  This is also why I use Lasher instead of a Hound or Kite, which are cheaper and have more top speed.

P.S.  With Lasher, Safety Override (plus engine hullmod) is great!  More speed, and among LMGs, LAG, Vulcans, and missiles, only LAG is affected, and the LAG is used as a backup when Annihilators are not enough.  For Wolf with Heavy Blaster, it needs to vent spam constantly, and Safety Override prevents venting!  SO also cuts Heavy Blaster range.  Wolf that relies on a medium energy weapon for most of its damage should not use Safety Override, especially if it can dissipate flux faster by venting than with Safety Override.  Lasher with Safety Override may have more top speed than Wolf without SO.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 06:24:48 PM by Megas »
Logged

Questionable

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #138 on: December 10, 2016, 07:27:22 AM »

    • Added new ability: "Sustained Burn"
      • Increases maximum burn by 10
      • Reduces acceleration and sensor range, increases range at which fleet is detected
      • Activation results in fleet slowing down and stopping before sustained drive mode is engaged
      • Intended for long-range travel while creating a vulnerability if hostile fleets are around
    This is something I am rather excited for since I always loved the feeling of "warp drive" powering up before moving through space at massive speed. Will it be something similar to this? https://youtu.be/2sCvIkNRV1o?t=7
    By that I mean that I just hope you give it some visual and possibly audio difference between normal traveling and normal burn drive, so it both looks, sounds and feels different "less burn and more warp" so to speak, which I imagine would both help with "why do the ships need to stop before using this system" question as the ships are using a different system to travel.
    Any comments on this Alex?
    From what I gather from the notes right now is that when engaging the "Sustained burn" that the fleet will slow down to a stop and then at a slower acceleration than normal will pick up speed up towards it's maximum plus 10. I also imagine this approach doesn't require a lot of additional work in terms visual differences and sound.

    My humble suggestion based purely on my tastes is that:
    • You make a fleet slow down and come to a full stop and then "charge up" the warp drive, after which the ships attain their maximum speed plus 10 additional burn speed.(Time spend charging up would be some what relative to the time spend accelerating)
      • Reason for this suggestion is that it feels both more punchy to go from fullstop to maximum speed so it might feel nicer.
      • Second reason is that players could experience "tight" moments where they are sitting at a fullstop looking at the charge up counting down as a fleet is engaging on them, only to blast away in the last second and nearly escape it. With the gradual slow acceleration you can also achieve a similar feeling but they have a different flavor to them.)

    Additionally:
    • Make it more clear it's two different travel systems
      • Rename "sustained burn" to something more warp drive themed.
      • Change the sound and visuals to make it clear that it's a different travel system used as mentioned before, less burn and more warp effect and sound. Makes it more enjoyable for the player and it's easier to differentiate other ships traveling in this mode.(This means more work, but also more interesting effects could be achieved on ships warp start up, travel, and slow down using distortion and such.
      • The downside is that this approach clearly takes more time and work to implement, but could be worth it at some point.


    Lastly: Have you though about ship mods that specifically increase "sustained burn" but don't effect in-combat or normal burn speed? So you could have a hullmod that only adds +2 or 3 to sustained burn but nothing else for instance?
    Or as suggested before making "sustained burn" into "warp" and thus being two different travel systems, thus letting ships have different burn and warp speeds. Some ships geared towards exploring having a better warp speed but poor burn/in-combat speed for instance.

    To me this seems like a cool thing to have, but I understand it's a luxury, not a priority. Still I would like to hear what people think about this, if this is a good thing to have at some point or if it's just me who thinks this way.
    [/list]
    « Last Edit: December 10, 2016, 07:52:54 AM by Questionable »
    Logged

    Megas

    • Admiral
    • *****
    • Posts: 8416
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #139 on: December 10, 2016, 09:20:45 AM »

    Question:  What is the order of operations when ship combines Safety Override and Unstable Injector?  Does Safety Override limit of 450 come before or after Unstable Injector's range cut?
    Logged

    Alex

    • Administrator
    • Admiral
    • *****
    • Posts: 17240
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #140 on: December 10, 2016, 10:15:41 AM »

    From what I gather from the notes right now is that when engaging the "Sustained burn" that the fleet will slow down to a stop and then at a slower acceleration than normal will pick up speed up towards it's maximum plus 10. I also imagine this approach doesn't require a lot of additional work in terms visual differences and sound.

    My humble suggestion based purely on my tastes is that:
    • You make a fleet slow down and come to a full stop and then "charge up" the warp drive, after which the ships attain their maximum speed plus 10 additional burn speed.(Time spend charging up would be some what relative to the time spend accelerating)
      • Reason for this suggestion is that it feels both more punchy to go from fullstop to maximum speed so it might feel nicer.
      • Second reason is that players could experience "tight" moments where they are sitting at a fullstop looking at the charge up counting down as a fleet is engaging on them, only to blast away in the last second and nearly escape it. With the gradual slow acceleration you can also achieve a similar feeling but they have a different flavor to them.)

    It would probably actually feel more unnatural to go from zero to full quickly. The kind of warp drive effect you're thinking about (going to assume Star Trek) takes a lot of smoke and mirrors to make feel "right". Plus it'd likely be more boring sitting there waiting for a timer than if you're slowly accelerating, even if the end result is the same. Finally, "low acceleration" is an important feature of making sustained burn work balance-wise.

    I mean, I get what you're saying, but it sounds like what you're suggesting is an entirely different mechanic that bears only surface similarities to this one.


    Lastly: Have you though about ship mods that specifically increase "sustained burn" but don't effect in-combat or normal burn speed? So you could have a hullmod that only adds +2 or 3 to sustained burn but nothing else for instance?

    Sustained burn applies fleet-wide, though. So it would be something like, "+2 to the burn level of *this ship* while sustained burn is active", which could be useful on slower ships, yeah. But with stuff like this, you always have to ask, "why?".

    Sure, it could be done, and it'd probably work. But there are literally millions of things like that. "Augmented Engines" already broadly covers "so, you want a hullmod that increases burn level" (and I'm not entirely sure it's a great idea to have in the first place, could go either way on that). Why add more customization detail specifically here, especially if it's something that can work to erase differences between ships? And is it important enough to clutter up the game with? Every piece of content you add has a price beyond the effort it takes to implement it.


    Question:  What is the order of operations when ship combines Safety Override and Unstable Injector?  Does Safety Override limit of 450 come before or after Unstable Injector's range cut?

    SO applies after. To be more precise, SO doesn't hard-limit the range to 450. It just reduces any range past that by 75%.
    Logged

    Megas

    • Admiral
    • *****
    • Posts: 8416
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #141 on: December 10, 2016, 10:22:34 AM »

    I would see Augmented Drive Field must-have for the slowest ship in the fleet, but aside from Atlas, who is/are the slowest varies by fleet.  Atlas the slowest thing in my fleet?  My battleships do not need it.  I have no atlas, but I have battleships?  Battleships get ADF.  My biggest ships in the fleet are cruisers?  They get the hullmod.  I have a frigate-only fleet with burn 10+ that has Hyperion?  I will probably squeeze ADF on Hyperion somehow to keep burn speed up and prevent Hyperion from dragging everyone else down (assuming the rest of my frigates have it too).

    P.S.  Augmented Engines giving both combat and burn speed is too much.  I literally slapped that hullmod on everything except Hyperion in fleet with slower ships.  (Hyperion got Augmented Engines too if the rest of the fleet has burn 11).  Current Augmented Engines is a god-tier hullmod, and a no-brainer to install.  If the only benefit Augmented Drive Field will give is burn speed, then not every ship will need it unless every ship has the same burn speed.  (Then either everyone or no one would get it).
    « Last Edit: December 10, 2016, 10:30:27 AM by Megas »
    Logged

    Megas

    • Admiral
    • *****
    • Posts: 8416
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #142 on: December 10, 2016, 11:23:00 AM »

    Just thought of something:  If the engine hullmods cost less OP, then ships that could not afford 8 OP for Augmented Engines might be able to afford Augmented Drive Field.  Ox has 5 OP, maybe 6 OP with max OP.  If Augmented Drive Field cost is cheap enough, then tugs can equip that to get burn 10, and such tugs may be used by any ship with burn 9 to get burn 10.
    Logged

    Questionable

    • Ensign
    • *
    • Posts: 18
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #143 on: December 10, 2016, 11:29:02 AM »


    It would probably actually feel more unnatural to go from zero to full quickly.
    First thank you for taking time to respond.
    I don't fully agree that it would feel unnatural, here are some examples of it and from my point of view it doesn't seem bad.
    http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/256666563/movie_max.webm?t=1467765984 Time at 4.27
    https://youtu.be/CbWmFv0yZ2E?t=7 Here is another example of more or less how it would feel if the charge up time was around 5-6 seconds

    The kind of warp drive effect you're thinking about (going to assume Star Trek) takes a lot of smoke and mirrors to make feel "right".
    I understand, as mentioned before it probably takes more tinkering, but I believe that simple effects such as distortion can be used to great effect here. All you would really need to do is 1. Give ships a slightly different engine burn that they leave behind. 2. Add a "start up" effect as the ships charge up(which could be something like the space in front of the ships being distorted and pulling the front of the ships into the "vortex" so to speak. Here is something similar https://youtu.be/LSRTn-BoFYE?t=315 Notice how the nose of the ship gets distorted during the charge up.

    Plus it'd likely be more boring sitting there waiting for a timer than if you're slowly accelerating, even if the end result is the same. Finally, "low acceleration" is an important feature of making sustained burn work balance-wise.
    It really depends on just how long the charge up phase is I imagine somewhere between 4-10seconds  to be my first bet.

    I mean, I get what you're saying, but it sounds like what you're suggesting is an entirely different mechanic that bears only surface similarities to this one.
    Oh I am just throwing ideas out there and trying to get a better feel for your mindset and the reason for your choices. I would certainly enjoy if there is some effect to simulate the warp feeling, but that is a luxury.
    I would certainly enjoy charge up from fullstop to full speed more than gradual (as long as the charge up isn't very long) but that's just my taste.
    Customization with added mods that effect only sustained burn, would be nice for me personally, but I don't know how it would effect the game balance over all since I haven't put a lot of time into considering that.


    Sustained burn applies fleet-wide, though. So it would be something like, "+2 to the burn level of *this ship* while sustained burn is active", which could be useful on slower ships, yeah. But with stuff like this, you always have to ask, "why?".

    Sure, it could be done, and it'd probably work. But there are literally millions of things like that. "Augmented Engines" already broadly covers "so, you want a hullmod that increases burn level" (and I'm not entirely sure it's a great idea to have in the first place, could go either way on that). Why add more customization detail specifically here, especially if it's something that can work to erase differences between ships?
    Why add more customization detail specifically here? Customization in general is more pleasant for the player since it gives them more options but it makes it harder for the dev to balance everything out neatly.
    With customization to burn level for instance, some players might want to explore and travel quickly between systems, traders for example, or explorers. Having an extra variable between ships can add more depth and with mods in this specific field can either make already fast ships at sustained burn excel even better at it or perhaps a fleet has a ship that is relatively slow burn wise to everything else but can be brought up to speed with others just so your feelts minimum is bigger during sustained burn. Some players might not mind that and focus on other mods, it's about giving players choice in the end.

    Also you can notice the post above me already mention some other examples of why it might be nice to have.

    And is it important enough to clutter up the game with? Every piece of content you add has a price beyond the effort it takes to implement it.
    Again just throwing out ideas and wishes. I trust the game dev to know at the end of the day what is worth the time and effort to implement and what isn't.
    « Last Edit: December 10, 2016, 11:34:10 AM by Questionable »
    Logged

    ReverendSin

    • Ensign
    • *
    • Posts: 8
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #144 on: December 10, 2016, 11:54:08 AM »

    Super happy to hear some decent progress, i've had this since i think 2011 and i was beginning to wonder.....but these notes look like the meat is starting to be added to the bones
    Logged

    xenoargh

    • Admiral
    • *****
    • Posts: 4865
    • naively breaking things!
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #145 on: December 11, 2016, 10:21:25 AM »

    Looks really solid.  Can't wait to play SS again :)
    Logged
    Please check out my SS projects :)
    Xeno's Mod Pack

    Alex

    • Administrator
    • Admiral
    • *****
    • Posts: 17240
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #146 on: December 11, 2016, 10:36:50 AM »

    I don't fully agree that it would feel unnatural, here are some examples of it and from my point of view it doesn't seem bad.
    http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/256666563/movie_max.webm?t=1467765984 Time at 4.27
    https://youtu.be/CbWmFv0yZ2E?t=7 Here is another example of more or less how it would feel if the charge up time was around 5-6 seconds

    Hmm - there are a lot of visual effects going on to sell the transition, and it would require a lot more to sell it from the point of view of the moving ship. But, really, coming back to my prior point, "warp" and "sustained burn" are just fundamentally different, not one being a slight tweak of the other. It's totally fair if you prefer "warp", but it's just not on the table :)

    Customization in general is more pleasant for the player since it gives them more options but it makes it harder for the dev to balance everything out neatly.

    Just wanted to make a quick note here, because it's a pet peeve of mine :)

    Let's assume it was all perfectly balanced - which, as you note, is unlikely to be the case if there's a lot of it. Then an extra bit of customization is either an important decision or it's not. If it's not an important decision (and, ok, this is not a well-defined concept, but let's roll with it) then it's just adding noise, making it harder for the player to see what's actually important. This may be ok to some degree if it's also adding flavor or something else valuable.

    If it *is* an important decision, well, how many of those do you want the player to make before they get to stop customizing and play the rest of the game?

    Point is, even well-balanced customization options have downsides if there are too many of them. Basically, imagine if Starsector had ten times the number of hullmods, without UI improvements to help manage this information/decision overload.


    Again just throwing out ideas and wishes.

    Much appreciated, I certainly don't mind :)


    Super happy to hear some decent progress, i've had this since i think 2011 and i was beginning to wonder.....but these notes look like the meat is starting to be added to the bones

    You know, that's how I feel about it too - "finally, getting to all the good stuff".


    Looks really solid.  Can't wait to play SS again :)

    Thank you!
    Logged

    ChaseBears

    • Commander
    • ***
    • Posts: 202
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #147 on: December 11, 2016, 10:42:17 AM »

    Would just like to address the concept of linking combat speed and burn speed, or rather the principles of why these things are not linked.

    For long distance travel, you want a reliable engine that can operate at high power with minimal fuel consumption for an arbitrarily long period of time.  But for combat, you want the maximum performance that can be achieved - it doesn't matter how fuel efficient you are if you are not fast enough to dodge, or if the enemy can dictate engagements to you.  These two considerations are directly in conflict with one another.  In Starsector lore, there is another consideration - power consumption.  A military vessel needs to reserve as much power as possible for shields and firing weapons.  Competitive military starships resolve these contradictions through hardware that can perform at a very high level for a short period of time - while commercial starships keep costs down by not installing secondary high performance thrusters or dual-mode engines.   Thus, there is a difference between a ship's combat speed and burn speed.

    Another way of thinking about is is the marathon runner versus the sprinter.  All ships in Starsector need to be capable of running marathons, but only military ships were designed for sprints - a commercial vessel may even be a better marathon runner than a given military vessel, but will never match a military vessel in a sprint. 

    There's a pen and paper 4x game called Starfire - iirc David Weber got his start in writing by essentially novelizing Starfire campaigns.  The game draws a distinction between 'commercial' and 'military' drives- military drives have a much higher performance in combat, and technically have a higher speed when traveling between systems as well - but they tend to break down when used at maximum power for any extended length of time. Over enough of a distance, the commercial drives are actually faster, since they can always be run at full power without issue.

    EDIT - Regarding customization.

    There's a lot of games out there that have had a lot of options but when you got down to it there wasn't a lot of *choice*.  Total Annihilation is my favorite example in this respect.  Incredible game for a lot of reasons, and it had a LOT of units.  But while many units had situational utility, it turned out that some units were just always the best choice in the 'what should I build?' decision loop.   The number of available choices doesn't actually depend on the number of available options, but rather on the number of distinct gameplay uses and situations that the player expects to encounter.  The player will always choose the best available option for a given gameplay niche, and so extra options are largely redundant, even if they are reasonably well balanced.
    « Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 10:58:59 AM by ChaseBears »
    Logged
    If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

    Megas

    • Admiral
    • *****
    • Posts: 8416
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #148 on: December 11, 2016, 11:52:06 AM »

    The number of available choices doesn't actually depend on the number of available options, but rather on the number of distinct gameplay uses and situations that the player expects to encounter.  The player will always choose the best available option for a given gameplay niche, and so extra options are largely redundant, even if they are reasonably well balanced.
    The only tier that matters is top-tier, and maybe lesser-tier anomalies that happen to be optimal counter-picks to otherwise god-tier options but get trashed by even mid-tier options.  The more viable options competing for the best there are, the better.  EDIT:  By this, I mean if you have several options, but one is much better than the rest that using it is a no-brainer, then you effectively only have one choice.  It would be nice to have at least a few options competing for the best.  If you could somehow add arbitrary large number (say a hundred) of options that are equally good, it could very well be too much for the player who does not have encyclopedic knowledge of the whole game, and possibly even for the player who knows what he wants if option bloat causes the UI to breakdown and be a pain to use.

    That said, if a game tries to be a sim, it may need suboptimal and redundant options to add immersion to the game, because every self-reliant faction wants their homemade toys, even if the result is all of the competitors' toys are mostly the same.  Starsector handwaves this by saying such minor variations of a given weapon is still this weapon, as seen in machinegun descriptions; such that this point is moot and unnecessary.

    Also, inferior hardware for NPC wimps like Thumper for pirates is a good way to make wimpy opponents, although frustrating to loot unless vendors pay much for such junk.

    Then there is progression and rarity that can skew things.  In Starsector, sometimes, I want a railgun, but they are rare enough that I sometimes settle for (the very common) Arbalest for ships that can use them, and save railguns for ships that cannot use Arbalest.
    « Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 12:02:47 PM by Megas »
    Logged

    Dri

    • Admiral
    • *****
    • Posts: 1215
      • View Profile
    Re: Starsector 0.8a (In Development) Patch Notes
    « Reply #149 on: December 11, 2016, 11:59:33 AM »

    Just don't go aRPG with the loot/mods/weapons—the moment I see a Thunderous Arbalest of the Techno-Gods, I'm out!
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 117